The A.M. Dispatch
Edition For - January 14th, 2024: Iowa Caucuses, The Border Crisis, Fani's Lover, and Trump's NY Trial Ends
Welcome to the America Mission Dispatch.
Our Digital Newspaper.
We welcome any feedback to make your experience more enjoyable.
Send any feedback to Editor@WCdispatch.com
Iowa Caucus Frenzy: Trump Leads, Loomer Confronts, and Ramaswamy's Relentless Campaign
January 14th, 2024: by, Walter Curt
In the final stretch of the Iowa Republican primary caucus, the political temperature is as heated as the weather is frigid. With Trump maintaining a commanding lead in the polls, the race has witnessed its share of drama, intrigue, and relentless campaigning. Most notably, firebrand journalist Laura Loomer has been stirring the pot, fearlessly confronting candidates with the hard-hitting questions Americans crave answers to.
Loomer's pursuit of the truth has not been without its hurdles. Both the Haley and DeSantis campaigns called the police on her as she attempted to enter their events. The most sensational moment came when she tracked down Ron DeSantis at his hotel, resulting in a video of DeSantis seemingly fleeing from her questioning. This incident has sparked discussions about the transparency and accessibility of candidates.
Meanwhile, in the political battlefield, Vivek Ramaswamy's efforts stand out for their sheer tenacity. Despite trailing in the polls with only 8% support, Ramaswamy's ground campaign has been nothing short of remarkable. In defiance of blizzards and sub-zero temperatures, he has held a staggering 294 campaign events across 94 counties, demonstrating an unmatched dedication to reaching voters. His extraordinary efforts raise the question: Could he indeed "shock the world" in these caucuses?
President Trump, still leading with a robust 48% in the latest poll, seems to be taking Ramaswamy's challenge seriously. His recent attack on Ramaswamy, dismissing him as "not MAGA" despite Ramaswamy's support for Trump, suggests an acknowledgement of the threat posed by Ramaswamy's vigorous campaign. This move by Trump might be a reaction to internal polling data indicating a shift in voter sentiment.
On the other hand, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis are not to be underestimated. Haley's campaign is leveraging polls showing her strong position against Biden in the 2024 general election, while DeSantis is rallying supporters to brave the brutal weather and show up in force. The Republican officials and activists' view that DeSantis has the most extensive campaign organization in Iowa this year cannot be ignored.
As the caucuses approach, with temperatures predicted to hit record lows of -20F, the determination of candidates and supporters alike will be put to the test. The Iowa caucuses have historically been full of surprises, and this year seems poised to live up to that tradition. Whether Trump maintains his lead, Loomer's confrontations bear fruit, or Ramaswamy's relentless efforts pay off remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the Iowa caucus is shaping up to be a defining moment in the 2024 Republican race.
→Update: Trump Wins the Iowa Caucuses by a huge margin, taking the Iowa primary with 56,260—more votes than DeSantis, Haley, and Vivek combined. This resulted in Vivek Ramaswamy dropping out of the race, and questions of whether DeSantis will follow suit in the coming days.
Hunter's Absurd Oversight Committee Escapade: A Study in Cowardice and Contempt
January 13th, 2024: by, Walter Curt
In what can only be described as a comical yet troubling episode, Hunter Biden, in a brazen act of grandstanding, made a surprise appearance at a House Oversight Committee hearing only to beat a hasty retreat approximately 30 minutes in, just as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene took the floor. This spectacle, which occurred as the committee was poised to vote on holding Biden in contempt of Congress, is a stark contrast to Donald Trump Jr.'s endurance through eight hours of questioning, highlighting Hunter Biden's apparent lack of fortitude and respect for the legal process.
Hunter Biden's ludicrous insistence on testifying publicly, while simultaneously defying valid subpoenas, is nothing short of contemptuous. His conduct, as highlighted by the House committees' letter, underscores not only his disregard for lawful proceedings but also his detachment from reality. The committees, maintaining the lawfulness and enforceability of their subpoenas, have rightly rejected the farcical arguments presented by Biden's lawyer.
The seriousness of this incident cannot be overstated, particularly for President Joe Biden. Hunter's antics are not merely a personal embarrassment; they significantly tarnish the image of the presidency. As the committees prepare to issue new subpoenas for Biden's deposition testimony, accommodating his newfound willingness to appear under subpoena, one can't help but wonder about the potential repercussions for the elder Biden.
Rep. Nancy Mace's fiery reaction, calling for Hunter Biden to be "immediately sent to jail" for "spitting in our face" by ignoring the subpoena, captures the sentiment of frustration and outrage that many feel towards this blatant display of disregard for the rule of law. The contrast between Hunter Biden's actions and the conduct expected of someone in his position couldn't be starker. His exit from the hearing, timed to avoid tough questioning, is not just a display of cowardice but also a slap in the face to the legal and legislative processes.
The letter from the House committees, citing court precedent and historical examples, further invalidates any claims by Biden's team that a formal House impeachment inquiry resolution was required before issuing subpoenas. It's clear that the committees are on firm legal ground, and Hunter Biden's antics do nothing but undermine his own credibility and that of his father's administration.
If held in contempt by the full House, the ball will be in the Justice Department's court to decide whether to pursue charges against Biden. This situation leaves the American public with a sense of unease and skepticism about the fairness and impartiality of the justice system, particularly when dealing with individuals connected to high political figures.
In summary, Hunter Biden's brief and farcical appearance at the Oversight Committee hearing, followed by his swift departure, is a microcosm of his approach to the legal challenges he faces. It’s a blend of evasion, defiance, and sheer audacity. His behavior not only reflects poorly on him but also casts a long shadow over the integrity of the Biden presidency. As the saga unfolds, it's increasingly clear that Hunter Biden's actions are more than just personal missteps; they're a matter of national concern, raising serious questions about accountability, transparency, and justice in the corridors of power.
Biden's Constitutional Overreach: Challenging Texas' Sovereignty
January 12th, 2024: by, Walter Curt
In a flagrant display of constitutional overreach, the Biden administration has filed an emergency motion to thwart the State of Texas from exercising its sovereign right to secure its border. This move epitomizes the Biden administration's relentless commitment to keep the United States' southern border alarmingly porous, regardless of the cost to state rights and national security. This crisis, escalated by the administration's insistence on opposing Texas' efforts, is a stark illustration of the federal government's brazen disregard for state sovereignty and its constitutional obligations.
Under Operation Lonestar, Texas state officials have taken decisive action by assuming control of a public park in Eagle Pass, a critical point in the battle against illegal immigration. By barring federal officials from this site, Texas stands firm in its resolve to address the border chaos that the federal government has so conspicuously failed to manage. The Texas Military Department's maintenance of a presence in the park since 2021 underscores the state's proactive stance against the surges of illegal crossings – a sharp contrast to the Biden administration's lax border policies.
The Biden administration's emergency motion is not merely a challenge to Texas' border control measures; it is an affront to the principles of federalism enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Article IV, Section 4, unequivocally states that the United States shall guarantee every state protection against invasion – a mandate the Biden administration seems intent on flouting. By blocking Border Patrol access to crucial areas along the border, including the strategic boat ramp and surveillance sites, Texas is effectively stripped of its ability to monitor and respond to illegal crossings. The resulting 90% reduction in Border Patrol visibility in these areas is not just a logistical setback; it is a dangerous capitulation in the face of relentless illegal immigration.
Governor Greg Abbott's spokesperson has rightly asserted that Texas will continue to deploy necessary resources to combat the Biden administration's ongoing border crisis. This standoff is more than a policy dispute; it is a constitutional crisis of the Biden administration's making. As the state and federal governments find themselves in active conflict, the situation teeters on the brink of rapid deterioration – a direct consequence of the Biden administration's abject failure to uphold its duty to secure the nation's borders.
The legal battle unfolding is a critical test of American federalism and the resilience of state sovereignty against federal encroachment. The outcome of this confrontation will set a precedent for the balance of power between states and the federal government. As Texas stands its ground against the Biden administration's constitutional overreach, the nation watches, witnessing a pivotal moment in the defense of state rights and the integrity of the nation's borders.
Willis' Web of Deceit: Corruption at the Core of Trump Prosecution in Georgia
January 12th, 2024: by, Walter Curt
In what can only be described as a scandal of epic proportions, the House Judiciary Committee's recent probe into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' prosecution of former President Trump exposes a sordid tale of political machinations, corruption, and betrayal of public trust. This investigation is poised to reveal the disturbing reality that Willis is not just a political hack, but a puppet in a broader scheme orchestrated by the Biden administration.
The bombshell revelations emerging from the Atlanta Journal Constitution have ripped the mask off Willis' facade of impartiality. The reports of her intimate involvement with Nathan Wade, the prosecutor she appointed to pursue Trump, and their lavish vacations funded by taxpayer money, are nothing short of scandalous. This is not just about unprofessional conduct; it's a brazen display of corruption and misuse of public funds.
The court motion filed by defendant Michael Roman brings to light alarming accusations against Willis and Wade. The allegations of their "improper, clandestine personal relationship" and misuse of county funds for personal indulgence paint a picture of deep-rooted corruption. The dubious nature of Wade's appointment as special prosecutor, without approval from the Fulton County commissioners, only adds fuel to the fire of this legal debacle.
The involvement of the Jan 6 committee in guiding the early probe against Trump, as revealed by the committee, raises serious questions about the political motivations behind this prosecution. The committee's concern about the potential misuse of federal funds to finance the prosecution underlines the extent of the rot within the FCDAO. The claim that Wade received nearly $654,000 in legal fees from Fulton County to work on the Trump case, coupled with the allegations of his inappropriate relationship with Willis, suggests a grotesque abuse of power and public resources.
The implications of this investigation are profound. If the allegations hold true, Willis could find herself facing federal Racketeering charges (RICO) – the very charges she has been pursuing against Trump. The motion's revelation of her lengthy conversations with the White House prior to the lawsuit is a damning indication of her complicity in a politically motivated witch hunt.
This entire saga points to a clear conclusion: the charges against Trump in Georgia are on the verge of collapse, and rightfully so. The disgraceful conduct of Willis, characterized by ethical bankruptcy and political subservience, has turned the legal process into a farcical spectacle. Her actions not only undermine the integrity of the judicial system but also erode public confidence in the rule of law.
As the Judiciary Committee continues its investigation, the extent of Willis' corruption and the political agenda driving her actions become increasingly evident. This case is not just about the prosecution of a former President; it's a stark reminder of how political interests can corrupt the pillars of justice and democracy. The unraveling of this case will likely be a watershed moment, exposing the depths of political corruption and the urgent need for accountability and reform in our judicial system.
Speaker Mike Johnson's Faltering Leadership: Discontent Brews Among Conservatives
January 13th, 2024: by, Walter Curt
In the wake of House Speaker Mike Johnson's recent actions, or lack thereof, a wave of discontent is sweeping through conservative ranks. Initially greeted with cautious optimism, Johnson's tenure as Speaker is now marred by a series of perceived missteps and failures to address America's pressing issues. Most notably, his handling of the border crisis and the controversial Ukraine funding deal has sparked fierce opposition within his own party, with prominent figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene leading the charge against his leadership.
Greene's bold stance, articulated on the "War Room" program of the Real America's Voice Network, signals a deepening rift within the Republican Party. Her unequivocal rejection of any continuing resolution (CR) that perpetuates the fiscal status quo set by Nancy Pelosi is a testament to the growing frustration among conservatives. This frustration stems from a perception that Speaker Johnson, despite his initial promise, has failed to usher in the much-needed change in addressing critical issues such as border security and unchecked government spending.
Greene's position is clear and resolute: she finds it "absolutely unacceptable" for Johnson to negotiate a deal that compromises border security for additional funding towards Ukraine, a move she views as a betrayal of conservative principles. Her threat to "vacate the chair" – to initiate a motion to remove Johnson as Speaker – is not just a political maneuver; it is a stark indicator of the disenchantment brewing within conservative circles.
Johnson's struggle to consolidate Republican support since assuming the Speaker's chair has been palpable. His recent announcement of a spending agreement with Democrats, which the conservative House Freedom Caucus lambasted as a "total failure," only exacerbated the situation. This deal, perceived as a capitulation to Democratic demands, has deepened the divide within the Republican Party and raised questions about Johnson's ability to effectively lead and rally his caucus around a unified conservative agenda.
The crux of the discontent lies in Johnson's perceived leniency and lack of a firm stance on critical issues. His statements about cutting spending and securing the border, while rhetorically aligning with conservative priorities, have fallen short in the eyes of many conservatives who demand more concrete and decisive action. The proposal to link border security legislation (H.R. 2) with the Biden administration's request for over $100 billion in Ukraine military aid is seen as another instance where Johnson's leadership is failing to reflect the urgent priorities of his conservative base.
In light of these developments, Greene's adamant stance and her willingness to confront Johnson head-on epitomize the growing impatience and dissatisfaction among conservatives. They demand a leadership that not only talks the talk but walks the walk when it comes to core conservative values and policies. Johnson's balancing act, amidst a slim majority and divergent views within his party, is proving to be increasingly precarious.
As Speaker Johnson grapples with these challenges, the future of his leadership hangs in the balance. The growing discontent among conservatives, spearheaded by influential voices like Greene, signals a critical juncture for the Republican Party. It is a moment that calls for decisive leadership and bold action, qualities that many within the party are now questioning in their current Speaker. As this political drama unfolds, it underscores the deepening fissures within the party and the urgent need for a unified conservative strategy in addressing America's most pressing issues.
Trump NY Trial: A Sham Cloaked in Justice
January 10th, 2024: By, Walter Curt
In a theatrical climax to the Trump civil fraud trial, the curtain fell on closing arguments that encapsulated a spectacle of injustice and political witch-hunt. The trial, masquerading as a pursuit of truth, was marred by blatant disregard for former President Donald Trump’s constitutional rights, revealing the deeply entrenched corruption within the New York judicial system.
Trump’s attorney, standing against a tidal wave of bias, underscored a crucial point: not a single witness could testify to any fraud committed by Trump. Yet, the Attorney General's crusade seems hellbent on crushing Trump’s business empire, a maneuver transparent in its intent to persecute rather than prosecute.
Judge Arthur Engoron, presiding over this farce, displayed a jaw-dropping bias in valuing Mar-a-Lago, a property with an estimated worth nearing a billion dollars, at a paltry $18 million. This absurdity not only undermines judicial credibility but also exposes a preconceived agenda against Trump.
The prosecution, with an air of vindictiveness, is pushing for a staggering $370 million penalty. Trump’s defense rightfully contested this figure, highlighting the dangerous precedent such a punitive measure would set. It transforms the Attorney General’s office into an omnipotent entity, wielding unchecked power that poses a direct threat to the business community.
The notion of this being a "victimless" offense was scoffed at by the state, yet the defense compellingly argued the absence of tangible harm to banks or insurers. This trial isn’t about protecting victims; it's about political vendettas.
Amidst this judicial theater, the judge received a bomb threat, yet the proceedings plowed on with no significant delay, underscoring the urgency to conclude this political charade.
Adding insult to injury, Judge Engoron callously denied Trump’s request to reschedule the hearing due to a personal family tragedy, further solidifying the prejudicial nature of this trial.
Trump, in a dramatic turn, took the stand for closing arguments, delivering a scathing critique of Judge Engoron and Attorney General. He lambasted the trial as nothing short of "election interference," a sentiment echoing in the minds of many observers.
The state painted Trump as the mastermind of an elaborate fraud scheme, but this narrative crumbles under scrutiny. Trump's defense argued that the colossal penalty proposed is not only excessive but unconstitutional.
Despite Trump's fervent defense, Judge Engoron's previous rulings cast a foreboding shadow, indicating an unfavorable outcome. The trial’s prejudicial undertone was further highlighted when Engoron suggested Trump’s sons, co-defendants, might fare better than their father.
The verdict, expected by January 31st, is likely to be challenged, paving the way for a series of appeals. Trump has consistently condemned the trial both in and out of the courtroom, highlighting its farcical nature.
In essence, this trial is a disturbing manifestation of a judicial system weaponized for political gain. It stands as a stark reminder of the perilous path our justice system treads when it becomes a tool in the hands of those seeking to settle political scores. The ramifications of this trial extend beyond Trump himself, signaling a dangerous precedent where legal processes are distorted to suppress dissenting political voices.
As the trial concludes, it's not just about the verdict for Donald Trump; it's a litmus test for the integrity of our legal institutions. Will they uphold the tenets of justice, or will they crumble under the weight of political manipulation? The world watches, waiting to see if justice or political vendetta will prevail in the courtrooms of New York.
As we await the ruling, one thing is clear: this trial will be remembered not for its pursuit of justice, but as a somber chapter in the annals of American jurisprudence, where political bias overshadowed the scales of justice.
Unraveling the Legal Tangle: The January 6th Narrative and Trump's Eligibility
January 10th, 2024: by, Chris Filby
In the tangled web of the January 6 Capitol Complex events, the charge of Seditious Conspiracy under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 stands out. But intriguingly, the term 'Insurrection', often bandied about in media narratives, is absent from the legal lexicon applied. What unfolds is a complex interplay of law, politics, and perception, scrutinizing the roles of those in power and the legal boundaries they navigate.
→So, the question is then raised, what exactly is an insurrection?
The legal definition, as found in U.S. Code § 2384 from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, states that if two or more persons conspire to forcibly overthrow, put down, or destroy the Government of the United States, or to levy war against it, oppose its authority, prevent the execution of any law, or seize U.S. property, they shall be fined or imprisoned for up to twenty years, or both.
It's important to note that the language of this law does not include the word "Insurrection." The reason? The crime charged is not defined as insurrection. Prosecutors opted for charges other than insurrection, despite the existence of a law that specifically addresses it: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection.
This law clearly mentions "insurrection" and "rebellion," stating that whoever incites, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. authority or laws, or supports such acts, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.
President Donald Trump has not been convicted of Insurrection. However, media pundits and legal experts have suggested that a charge or conviction of Insurrection is not necessary. They argue that it only needs to be acknowledged that an insurrection occurred and that Trump was somehow complicit. This narrative influenced the Secretary of State of Maine's decision, who, citing a Colorado Supreme Court ruling, determined that the former President was ineligible to hold office. This ruling, currently appealed by both the Colorado GOP and Trump to the Federal Court System, has been stayed by the Colorado court pending the outcome of a timely filed appeal. In essence, the Secretary of State acted on a partial interpretation of the ruling and, arguably, disregarded the full context of the U.S. Constitution, aiming to protect Maine's citizens.
Other courts examining former President Trump's case have deemed efforts to disqualify him from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment's third clause as ranging from dubious to outright unconstitutional. A review is in order:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person shall hold office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S., or given aid to its enemies, after having sworn an oath to support the Constitution. However, Congress can remove this disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each House:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Equally important is Section 5, which grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment through appropriate legislation:
“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
In 1909, Congress enacted legislation to this effect, with subsequent amendments, the latest in 1994. A search for convictions under this statute yields few results, suggesting its infrequent use.
The federal government's decision to potentially charge Trump with insurrection seems unprecedented. However, rather than delve into all the intricacies here, consider the analysis by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman. They explore whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 would bar Trump from presidential office. Historically, "office under the United States" has excluded elected positions like the President. Supreme Court rulings and legal precedents suggest Congress can't impose additional qualifications for federal elected offices beyond what the Constitution stipulates. The authors also examine the Fourteenth Amendment's Section 3, noting its unclear application to the presidency. Their conclusion: even a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 likely wouldn't disqualify Trump from running or serving as President again, given the legal nuances and historical interpretations of statutory and constitutional texts.
The narrative surrounding President Trump's involvement in the January 6, 2021, events is steeped in falsehoods and innuendo. The mainstream portrayal suggests that Trump orchestrated the Capitol breach as a deliberate act, driven by his supposedly dangerous character and controversial social media presence.
However, this narrative is a distortion aimed to mislead and sway public opinion into believing that Trump is permanently barred from holding office. The truth is far more nuanced and less sensational than these claims.
To navigate through this maze of misinformation, consider turning away from mainstream TV news. Instead, seek alternative sources that offer a clearer, unbiased perspective. A good starting point is subscribing to America Mission. These platforms provide insights from like-minded individuals committed to preserving the Constitution and protecting the nation from internal and external threats, including those posed by globalists and other malign forces. Engaging with these communities can enlighten and connect you with fellow patriots equally dedicated to safeguarding the values and integrity of our nation.
X-SPACE OF THE WEEK
The Border Crisis Reaches the Breaking Point
January 12th, 2024: By, America Mission Inc.
In this week's X-Space feature, America Mission shines a spotlight on the escalating border crisis, highlighting the Biden administration's desperate efforts to maintain open borders. Contrasting starkly, we delve into the resolute actions of the Texas National Guard, standing as the last line of defense in the face of federal inaction.
The space explores the intense legal battle, with the Biden administration resorting to emergency motions to the Supreme Court in a bid to keep the border porous. Meanwhile, the citizens of Texas, driven by a sense of duty and urgency, are taking matters into their own hands. Groups of determined Texans are forming, committed to halting the influx of illegal immigrants, empowered by Governor Greg Abbott's recent legislation authorizing the arrest of those entering Texas unlawfully.
Our discussion doesn’t just stop at policy and politics; it delves into the human element. The grassroots mobilization of Texans showcases a community pushed to the brink, taking a stand to protect their homes, families, and the rule of law.
This week's X-Space is more than a conversation; it's a clarion call to action and awareness. Listen to firsthand accounts, expert analysis, and the voices of those on the frontline of America's border crisis. Join us as we unravel the complexities of this unfolding situation and explore the implications of the Biden administration's policies on the ground.
In a time of unprecedented challenges at our borders, understanding the dynamics of this crisis is more crucial than ever. Be part of this crucial discussion. Stay informed. Stay engaged. And most importantly, make your voice heard.