2024 Presidential Election

Marjorie Taylor Greene: 'Don't Think Republicans Deserve To Be Re-Elected' For House Majority


Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) beat down on her own party on Thursday when she declared that — in her own opinion — Republicans don’t deserve to control the House.

The conspiracy theory-peddling Donald Trump acolyte — appearing via phone on the Real America’s Voice show “War Room” — renewed her monthslong attacks on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), this time for his work to avert a federal government shutdown. Trump had reportedly favored a shutdown in a bid to make the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris White House look bad.


“I share the anger and frustration, and I don’t think Republicans deserve to be re-elected to hold the majority,” said Greene. “And it’s a double-edged sword, and here it is.”

Greene urged voters “to elect President Trump in order to control the federal government, in order to take back all of these huge agencies and departments and set the course right.”

“We also have to control the House because if we don’t control the House, the Democrats are going to rewrite the tax code. That happens in Jan. 2025, so it’s a nasty double-edged sword,” she added.

“Look, vote for President Trump like your life depends on it, and then hold your nose and vote for that RINO that you absolutely hate, because we need a good tax code in place,” said Greene.

Those so-called RINOs could then be defeated in future primary elections and replaced by MAGA Republicans, Greene explained. “Everybody in their district needs to pick one woman or man that they’re going to get behind, and that’s how you primary these RINOs.”

Well, I agree with her on the headline. What I'm not impressed with though is that in 2003 she auditioned for America Idol under a fake name.

 

JD Vance dossier hacked and stolen by Iran from Trump campaign published by investigative reporter on X. Elon Musk Blocks and removes reporter's account


An investigative journalist has published what he claims is the vetting dossier on Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) compiled by former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, which was hacked by Iran and subsequently leaked.

The dossier, which compiles a list of the Ohio senator's "vulnerabilities," was initially sent to the likes of Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, all of whom declined to publish its contents, instead writing stories about who was believed to be behind the leak.


The Trump campaign said at the time it had been "obtained illegally from foreign sources hostile to the United States."

But on Thursday, Ken Klippenstein, who formerly worked for the left-leaning outlet the Intercept, published what he said was the dossier on his Substack, saying he was doing so "because it’s of keen public interest in an election season."

In his Substack post, he noted that the dossier highlights perceived weaknesses of Vance, including his opposition to providing assistance to Ukraine in its war with Russia. Vance was picked as Trump's running mate in July, on the first day of the Republican National Convention.

Social media website X suspended Klippenstien's account shortly after he posted a link to the published dossier and joked about never being able to work in media again.

The Trump campaign did not outright confirm the veracity of the document published by Klippenstein and said in a statement to the Washington Examiner that he was working to advance Iran's interests.


"The terror regime in Iran loves the weakness and stupidity of Kamala Harris, and is terrified of the strength and resolve of President Donald J. Trump," wrote Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign's communications director. "It's sad some reporters and media outlets have decided to do Iran's bidding."

Jeffrey McCall, a professor of communication specializing in political media studies at DePauw University, told the Washington Examiner that publishing hacked materials can be "very murky water for a journalist to navigate."

"Although the documents might well be authentic, Klippenstein can't be absolutely sure, and even if they are authentic, there is the matter of publishing information hacked by miscreants and basically doing the bidding of the miscreants who want to disrupt the rhetorical sphere," he wrote. "It appears the documents don't really have that much juicy stuff in them, which could well be why other media outlets have taken a pass on publication."


Furthermore, McCall said he found Klippenstein's explanation for publication "a bit thin," as opposed to summarizing the documents "for their news value."

"Klippenstein has now set an expectation or precedent for himself with regard to publishing hacked documents. He might have found the decision easy in this case because the documents involved Vance," McCall continued. "But should he receive unverified material regarding the Harris-Walz campaign, it will be interesting to see if he is so eager to disseminate it."

Journalists publishing stolen materials has been a source of contention in modern politics. During the 2016 presidential election, a Russian hack of Democrats' emails was released in troves by WikiLeaks, with major outlets such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reporting on Hillary Clinton's private conversations.


In 2017, BuzzFeed published a discredited opposition dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele alleging Trump's ties to Russia. In the 2020 election cycle, the New York Post revealed the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop. The story was throttled by social media companies and downplayed by Joe Biden as the product of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Thursday's release of the Vance dossier set off another social media firestorm.

Ali Breland, a writer for the Atlantic, claimed to have been temporarily locked out of his X account for posting a screenshot of the published dossier.

got temporarily locked out of twitter for posting about the jd vance dossier with a screenshot from his investments portion. it's not "private information" anymore pic.twitter.com/WWasZhlvRU

— Ali Breland (@alibreland) September 26, 2024
"Notable how quickly they started enforcing the Vance dossier given how diminished the moderation team is and how they often don't bother to handle a lot of things that otherwise violate the rules, or at least handle them quickly," Breland added in a subsequent post on X.


X's safety account confirmed that Klippenstein was temporarily suspended from the platform, "for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance’s physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number."

Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance’s physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number.

— Safety (@Safety) September 26, 2024
Elon Musk, X's owner, frequently defends the platform as a harbor for free speech and was quickly criticized for suppressing Klippenstein's report despite the website's stated policy on the publication of hacked materials.


"Elon Musk, 'free speech absolutist', just suspended progressive journalist Ken Klippenstein after he reported on the JD Vance Dossier," one self-identified "socialist and progressive" content creator wrote.


"If anybody still believes the delusional notion that Elon is some sort of free speech champion and not a total partisan hack, he suspended Ken for leaking the JD Vance dossier. Shameful and cowardly behavior," added user "BirdRespecter."

Elon Musk, "free speech absolutist", just suspended progressive journalist Ken Klippenstein after he reported on the JD Vance Dossier: pic.twitter.com/rKMZK8ubDl
 
Well, I agree with her on the headline. What I'm not impressed with though is that in 2003 she auditioned for America Idol under a fake name.

unfortunately this has been debunked:
the good news is that there are still an infinite number of reasons to mock her!
 
unfortunately this has been debunked:
the good news is that there are still an infinite number of reasons to mock her!

Jimmy Fallon Wow GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
‘I’M NOT CRAZY!’ Roseanne Screams ‘They’ Are Drinking Blood and Eating Human Flesh while appearing at a Tucker Carlson Event
 
‘I’M NOT CRAZY!’ Roseanne Screams ‘They’ Are Drinking Blood and Eating Human Flesh while appearing at a Tucker Carlson Event
Any time you have to say "I'm not crazy"... you are probably REALLY crazy
 
‘I’M NOT CRAZY!’ Roseanne Screams ‘They’ Are Drinking Blood and Eating Human Flesh while appearing at a Tucker Carlson Event

Morgan Freeman voice: She was, in fact crazy.
 
GOP candidate Derrick Anderson's campaign is exposed for using a fake family to appear more relatable, posing with a friend's wife and kids as if they were his own. Desperation and deceit define this move, attempting to sell voters a false narrative. When you've got to rent a family for political gain, you've lost any claim to authenticity.

 

Republicans already filing lawsuits claiming fraud in the election. Can't win with votes so try to win through crazy lawsuits

Now they'll claim it was stolen again and we get a repeat of 2020
 
Democrats are being targeted by vandals and hostile neighbors in deeply red Washington County.

“This is Trump country... You should be grateful for the privilege of being allowed to live here," one woman said a man told her after seeing her Kamala Harris shirt at a concert in St. George.

 

Texas AG’s Voter Fraud Probes Are 'Unconstitutional' And Must Stop, Judge Rules


Part of the state law Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton invoked to defend raids on Democrats and activists in the state is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

The legal provision struck down Saturday by U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez is contained in S.B. 1, a controversial and sprawling Texas Senate omnibus bill first enacted in 2021. Among a variety of the bill’s features, it imposed restrictions and criminal penalties for canvassing methods used commonly by outreach groups and volunteers alike trying to assist voters with the completion or submission of their ballots, including absentee or mail-in ballots.


Paxton did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.

When Texas enacted S.B. 1, the state deemed that “vote harvesting” methods would be considered a third-degree felony going forward and that convicted violators could face up to 10 years in prison and be forced to pay a fine of up to $10,000.

The notion of “vote harvesting,” however, was ill-defined in the legislation.

Paxton and Republicans in Texas championed the canvassing restrictions as a tool to fight voter fraud. In recent weeks, Texas law enforcement has raided the homes of a Democratic candidate for the Texas state house, a local mayor and Latino voting rights activists.

But Rodriguez said the canvassing language was confusing and overly vague, and that enforcement of the provision could infringe on the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights of people and entities who — long before S.B. 1 was ever enacted — engaged in common practices like hosting in-person candidate forums, giving voting machine demonstrations or providing language assistance to voters on how to complete ballots.


The judge noted, for example, that it was commonplace for bilingual volunteers to knock on doors in Texas and find that the person at home may need help translating something.

Canvassers for groups such as plaintiff OCA-Houston, for example, a network representing Asian American and Pacific Islanders in Texas, may also provide prospective voters with things like Gatorade or water if they are out in the elements.

This, according to Paxton, is an illicit “benefit.”

S.B. 1 as a whole was challenged in court for the first time in September 2021 when voting rights group La Union del Pueblo Entero brought a lawsuit on behalf of numerous voting and civil rights groups, Texas election officials and individual voters.

The group’s lawsuit was consolidated with a series of other similarly situated claims, including those from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. A bench trial was held over several weeks and ended in October 2023. The court weighed allegations that S.B. 1 chilled the plaintiff’s rights and imposed hurdles on groups that have already experienced disproportionate discrimination in Texas.


Notably, S.B. 1 banned 24-hour drive-thru voting in Texas, something made popular after the COVID-19 pandemic. S.B. 1 also made it a crime for poll workers to “take any action” that may make a poll watcher’s observation “not reasonably effective,” one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Leah Tulin, said during closing arguments, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

During the state’s last election, this factor alone, Tulin said, led several county election officials in Texas to report that they “witnessed poll watchers behave in ways that made both election workers and voters feel uncomfortable, harassed, and intimidated.”

Even poll watchers who acted in good faith now feel intimidated by the threat of criminal liability for merely doing their jobs, Tulin argued.

Rodriguez’s order only addresses the canvassing restrictions. The decision means that Paxton is now stopped from conducting probes into alleged “vote harvesting.”


“The County DAs are permanently enjoined from deputizing the Attorney General, appointing him pro tem, or seeking his appointment pro tem from or by a district judge to prosecute alleged violations of TEC § 276.015 that occur within their jurisdictions,” the 78-page order states.

As HuffPost previously reported, an 87-year-old volunteer for the League of United Latin American Citizens said she was questioned for hours by armed police officers gripping riot shields. She wasn’t the only one. Dozens of volunteers were confronted by authorities, and some said they had guns pointed in their faces and their phones seized. Two of the volunteers allegedly targeted by Paxton’s investigators for so-called “vote harvesting” were a 73-year-old and 80-year-old LULAC member. A Texas state director for LULAC said the raids were an “intimidation tactic” used on Texas’s Latino community.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas celebrated Rodriguez’s ruling, saying on X, formerly Twitter, that it was a “win for voting rights in the state and the organizations that help keep elections accessible.”
 
Back
Top