Biden May Take A Swing At Trump In 2020 But The Liberals Think Joe Should Call It Quits

There is an underlying disease in both of our political parties. Democrats don’t like other Democrats who like to jive with the beat of the people. And Republicans don’t like other Republicans who think building a wall is probably the dumbest political strategy in history.

Some of the old school Democrats and Republicans did their best to throw their desires in front of the desires of the voters. The people were a distraction, and those sneaky old lawmakers conquered that challenge by establishing the Electoral College. There’s been a lot of talk about throwing that vote-cheating scheme out with the Trump gang.

The gang of elected misfits devised an aggressive “all for them scheme” through the years. Lawmakers liked to feather their own nest on the down-low. The Trump gang has a bad case of personal feather grooming. But Congress thinks they have the cure.

Voters don’t want the old capitalistic captains of Congress to plan and implement the techno advancements of a new generation. The old faithful government officials like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are dinosaurs in the political age of Trump, according to a couple of Trump tweets. This new group of super-civil workers will introduce an age where’s there’s more than a two-party system. They say Washington is a four-party system right now. There are liberal Democrats who lean toward a democratic socialist approach to the future, and they are middle of the road Democrats who want to shake things up a little, but they don’t have the genes to make that happen.

The Republicans have two groups The first group would love to spend two more years listening to Trump embarrass himself. And there’s another Republican Party that wants to send Trump to the nearest psychiatric ward.

There’s constant fighting within each party. They can’t agree so they come up with lists of frivolous ideas, and they throw them into a bill so all four parties can claim a victory of some kind.

According to Trump-loving Republicans, Trump will win in 2020. The Democrats have to pick a side, according to a recent NBC News article. Do they choose a Democrat who wants to implement a socialistic approach? Or, do they choose a Democrat who maintains the status quo and calls it change?

Group Legally Disputes Label From Southern Poverty Law Center

A recent article on the National Public Radio website details the lawsuit by the right-wing, male-only group Proud Boys against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) after the latter organization labelled the former a hate group. Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes says that he is not running a hate group, and, therefore, the SPLC designation defames him.

McInnes says that Proud Boys is a harmless fraternal group, and that, while they may not be politically correct, they are far from a hate group. SPLC, by contrast, say that the group in general and McInnes in particular have a documented history of making racist, homophobic and xenophobic remarks.

Issues of reputation

McInnes says that the classification of Proud Boys as a hate group by SPLC forced him to leave the group he created because its and his own reputation had been destroyed. He noted that PayPal, Twitter and other online entities dropped Proud Boys after the classification, and he says that isn’t fair. His lawyers go on to question the amount of power SPLC center has in shaping public perception of fringe groups with strong views.

SPLC Response

SPLC have responded to the effect that they do not feel that McInnes has a legal case against them. For starters, they say his group is, in fact a hate group, and that they are merely voicing their own opinions as protected by the First Amendment. They also say that having earned the enmity of a person such as McInnes, who they characterize as bigoted, proves that they are doing their job.

SPLC was formed in 1971, and their mission is to advocate for the civil rights movement. Their hate group list is meant to put down in one place organizations they feel discriminate against others based on race, religion, sexual identity, gender orientation or ethnicity.

Read the full article:

Family Alleged To Have Built Huge Fortune Off OxyContin

In a recent lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General, the Sackler family is alleged to have built a huge fortune off of the production of OxyContin. This opiate drug is known to be highly addictive within a short amount of using the prescription painkiller. OxyContin addiction has often lead to people buying similar drugs off the street, some of which have been contaminated by the animal tranquilizer fentanyl, which is deadly in minute doses. Overdoses and deaths related to Oxycontin and fentanyl have skyrocketed over the past six years.

In the Massachusetts lawsuit, Attorney General Maura Healey found that in 2013, Purdue Pharma paid the Sackler family $400 million from its profits of selling OxyContin. Those profits were from the first three quarters of the calendar year. During the fourth quarter, profits from OxyContin decreased. At this time, the Sackler family is alleged to have pushed Purdue Pharma to increase the pressure of its sales representatives on doctors and hospitals to prescribe more of the addictive drug.

Purdue Pharma followed up on this by hiring a consulting firm. The consultants targeted doctors who wrote the highest numbers of prescriptions for OxyContin. Many of those physicians were located in the state of Massachusetts. After getting more visits from the pharmaceutical sales representatives, one doctor wrote 167 more OxyContin prescriptions.

Between 2008 and 2016, the Sackler family was paid more than $4 billion by Purdue Pharma. The lawsuit charges that the Sackler family has profited from the injury, addiction and death of people who were prescribed OxyContin by their doctors. Eight members of the Sackler family who have served on the board of Purdue Pharma as well as other members of the company’s board have been specifically named in the lawsuit. A judge on the case demanded that Purdue Pharma release its sales records. Purdue Pharma requested that its release be allowed to include redactions. The judge declined that appeal, forcing Purdue Pharma to release its records in full.

The lawsuit is ongoing in the Suffolk County Superior Court, which is located in Boston, Massachusetts. It is just one lawsuit of several hundred filed against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family by state attorneys general from across the United States. The states are attempting to recover some of the funds they have spent on emergency care, police response and addiction treatment for people who have taken or been harmed by OxyContin.

Former Manafort Associate Sam Patten May Be A Key Figure In Mueller’s Investigation

One thing is clear. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the investigators who work for Robert Mueller still have work to do. Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign is just the tip of the legal iceberg surrounding the Trump campaign, according to some recent reports. Russia and other foreign agents built a clandestine network in the United States. And that network conspired to infiltrate and allegedly control the government of the United States, according to recent comments by the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard M Burr.

Senator Burr comments were a wake-up call for people who thought Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was the only group looking into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. According to Burr, his investigating team found evidence that Russian President Putin started a culvert war with the United States by allegedly infiltrating the U.S. government. But how Putin did that is a mystery that Burr isn’t willing to share with the public. Senator Burr said what his committee found goes deeper than the Trump Organizations contacts with Russian operatives. There is, according to Burr, a reason to worry about Russia’s quest to compromise U.S. power on the world stage.

What Burr and his committee find may never be public information. That fact came to the surface when GOP consultant, Sam Patten, pleaded guilty to being a foreign agent but he didn’t register as one. Patten’s attorneys and the U.S. district attorney in Washington D.C. were in court recently to file a status report on the Patten case. Patten pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation because of his close association with Paul Manafort. The U.S. district attorney asked the court to keep his updated status report sealed. Mr. Mueller referred Patten case to the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for prosecution.

Mr. Patten won’t receive a hefty sentence for not registering as a foreign agent. But the request to keep his filing status sealed gave the press a bone to feed on as Mueller continues to turn over Russian and Trump rocks to find what really happened during the 2016 campaign.

Mr. Patten has a connection with Russian oligarch, Konstantin Kilimnik who has some sort of relationship with Russian intelligence. Patten admitted he got tickets to Trump’s Inauguration Party, and he gave them to a Ukrainian oligarch who wanted Trump to lift the sanctions against Russia. Patten’s relationship with Manafort and his efforts to help a Ukrainian political group with ties to Russia seems to be one a major focus in the Mueller investigation.

Amazon vs Enquirer: Jeff Bezos Claims National Enquirer Guilty of “Extortion And Blackmail”

Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon and the worlds’ wealthiest man has put forward a theory combining Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump, the National Enquirer, and his affair with one Lauren Sanchez. Expounding his observations in a post, he made his charges against the National Enquirer public.

While somewhat crude, he went on to claim that David J. Pecker demanded that he publically state American Media, the company behind National Enquirer, had no political motivation in their coverage on his affair. The rub was that if he didn’t, David J. Pecker would allegedly publish various graphic pictures of Jeff Bezos.

The day after Jeff Bezos and his wife of twenty-five years announced their divorce, the National Enquirer article on his affair went public. The tabloid article boasted of doggedly investigating Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, following them to five-star hotels and documenting their activities. Additionally, text messages of a sexual nature were published therein.

Given the zeal with which National Enquirer covered Bezos, questions were raised about their motivations. Mr. Pecker and President Trump have been known to be friends, and the National Enquirer was implicated in hush money dealt during the 2016 election.

In response, Bezos has ordered friends and associates to launch an investigation of Mr. Pecker. While Jeff Bezos generally evades media attention, he’s given his staff the promise of supplying ‘whatever budget they need’ in their investigation as to how the Enquirer obtained his texts to Ms. Sanchez.

While Mr. Pecker and American Media allegedly threatened to release graphic pictures in retaliation, Bezos claims to have met the threat head-on instead. Additionally, he used his long blog post on medium to connect various dots in the political drama of recent years. The inquiry into the Stormy Daniels affair resulted in a guilty plea from Michael D. Cohen, who implicated American Media in the backchannel deals to protect Donald Trump.

It was found by Federal prosecutors that American Media effectively made an illegal, corporate contribution to the Trump campaign by its actions. While the authorities declined to press charges, American Media was to admit guilt and that it had intended to influence the election. Additionally, American Media would be required to commit ‘no crimes whatsoever’ for three years. If found guilty of blackmail in the Bezos case, the non-prosecution agreement would have been violated on their part. If Jeff Bezos’ allegations prove true, the tabloid giant could find itself facing multiple legal battles.

Lawyer Says It Is Impossible For Man To Sue His Parents

A 27-year-old man from India recently went viral after he stated that he was going to sue his parents for giving birth to him. He stated that he did not give his parents consent to have him. The man, whose name is Raphael Samuel, stated that his parents should pay him for life. He also said that anyone who is born without their consent should be paid for life.

Raphael stated that he wants everyone to know that they do not owe their parents anything. He also said that parents should maintain their children for the rest of their lives. He said that he wishes he had not been born. Raphael stated that his life is not bad, but he wishes was he was not here.

Viva Frei is an attorney who has commented on this issue. He stated that this lawsuit is the stupidest thing that he has ever heard. He said that it is obvious that the man is doing this for publicity. He also stated that this can possibly be a social experiment.

Viva said that even though this lawsuit is stupid, he said that there is something that people can learn from it. You have to be able to prove fault, damages and a link between the two. Viva said that this lawsuit is not going to go anywhere.

Visa also stated that the man admitted that his life has been wonderful, so he has no reason to sue his parents. Additionally, he said that newborns do not require their parents’ consent. A newborn is not capable of giving consent by law.

Raphael is being slammed by people on social media. One person said that Raphael’s parents should counter-sue him for housing, food and educational costs. Another person stated that the man is ashamed of his actions, which is why he is disguising his looks.

State of the Union Address

The State of the Union is an annual speech given by the President of the United States. During the government shutdown, political leaders decided to delay the speech. The State of the Union is a controversial event for opposing political leaders. In this year’s address, President Trump talked about his success from the previous two years.


Immigration is one of the most controversial topics in the United States. There are millions of people on both sides of the argument who are passionate about this issue. President Trump promised his supporters that he would build a wall along the border with Mexico. However, he has not been able to accomplish his goal so far in his term. Many political leaders do not think a wall is a viable solution. Instead, these people want to spend the money on other priorities. During his speech last night, President Trump called for a new dialogue concerning the border wall.

Economic Growth

President Trump repeatedly talked about positive economic growth in the United States. He discussed how the unemployment rate is at the lowest point in over five decades. He also credited the recent tax cuts for boosting economic growth.

Although economic growth is strong, some people feel like only wealthy individuals are benefiting from the growth. Many opposing political leaders have called for higher tax rates on business owners.


President Trump called for unity from both political parties during his speech. Over the past few months, many individuals have become dismayed about the lack of cooperation between political parties. Although the vast majority of people are skeptical about the political parties working together, President Trump sounded confident about working with opposing political leaders.


Another issue that President Trump discussed was national defense. He is a staunch proponent of a robust military. After taking office, he drastically increased the money spent on defense. He also pulled troops of Syria recently. He feels like the United States should not be responsible for problems around the world.

Rudy Giuliani Goes Underground After Trump Bashes His Trump Tower Moscow Comments

Trump likes a good legal fight. He finds lawyers who want to jump into his chaotic world for one reason or another. Lawsuits and Donald Trump are comfortable bedfellows. Win or lose, Trump gets the attention he needs to help satisfy his insatiable ego. But most attorneys who brave the turbulent waters of Trump’s presidency know it’s not a long-term legal gig. Some legal experts say, Rudy Giuliani, Trump most recent personal lawyer, may be on the Trump chopping block soon.

Rudy and the Trumpster share New York History together. While Rudy tried to clean up New York City, Mr. Trump did his best to siphon millions of dollars from unsuspecting New Yorkers. New York federal prosecutors seem to think Trump and his three oldest children started a company that fleeced New Yorkers out of millions of dollars. Those New Yorkers thought the Trump phone idea would revolutionize how people use the telephone. But while Trump’s Skype-type phone system tried to gain enough traction to make people want to buy it, smartphones came along, and Trump’s phone became a dinosaur before Trump could market it.

Giuliani didn’t press the Trump organization when he was a prosecutor or the mayor of New York City. Instead, he got close to Trump. After all, Trump was a celebrity, and Rudy is a sucker for celebrities, according to his foes. Rudy and Trump stayed friends when Rudy went to Florida to practice law. Rudy developed an interesting law practice in the sunshine state. He helped foreign companies get around American laws, according to a Washington Post op-ed. So when Mr. Trump needed a lawyer who knew how things worked on the international legal stage, he called Rudy.

Mr. Giuliani is a master of the lawyer’s bait and switch. He’ll say one thing on Sunday morning news shows and then change what he said the next day. The press calls Rudy a master of disguise because they never know what Giuliani means when he tries to defend the president. But the press knew his comment about the president knowing negotiations for his Moscow Trump Tower project continued through the 2016 campaign would hit one of Trump’s exposed legal nerves.

The president gave Rudy a Trump-type slap down in private after Giuliani let the truth out of the bag. And Rudy’s been undercover since he got a piece of Trump’s bad side. But Rudy won’t stay hidden for long. More Mueller information will surface this week, and Rudy will be the guy that tries to discredit that information. But Giuliani may not stay around much longer. Rudy doesn’t like cold weather or that cold shoulder treatment he gets when he gets the call to sit in Trump’s White House hot seat.

Voter Rights Reversals Prompt Inquiry By Democratic House

On Friday, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives began an inquiry into several Trump administration decisions. Among these decisions is the attempt to present questions on citizenship on the 2020 census, and the rollback of decisions made in multiple, key voter rights lawsuits.

Representative Jerrod Nadler heads the committee, and in his communication with U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, demanded that the Justice Department publicize all internal records relating to a few specific voting rights issues. Some would claim that these and other voter rights laws are rarely enforced, and Jerrod Nadler expressed this concern to the Attorney General as well.

The intention of his contact with U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is to uncover records relating to two reversals in Justice Department policy. The Justice Department was previously opposed to the policy enacted by Ohio state to purge voters from the rolls if they don’t vote often enough, and the Texas policy of requiring voter identification. It’s often stated that these laws discriminate against those who lack the resources to easily commute and obtain the necessary ID or vote as often as they would like to. For these reasons, they were opposed under the Obama administration. Under the new administration, however, the opposition has come to an end.

Additionally, the plan to add a citizenship question to the census is highly contentious. Recently, a federal judge ruled against the addition of such a question to the census, which is thus far the highest ruling on the issue. The inquiry seeks access to the communications that led the administration to decide to add such a question and to gain insight into the motives behind it.

While Representative Nadler’s letter poses that the public has many unanswered questions about the purportedly lackadaisical enforcement of voter protections, and requests a full response by the middle of February, the Justice Department has largely declined to comment.

The Supreme Court recently struck down provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, to which Democrats recently responded to with a new bill, the “For The People Act of 2019,”, aimed at reestablishing the provisions in question. States with a history of voter suppression and racial discrimination would be required to obtain federal approval to alter their laws surrounding voting, and it would make Voting Day a federal holiday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed his opinion that the bill would create the opportunity for rampant voter fraud.

Read More:

Yahoo Data Breach Settlement Rejected

In the largest data breach in U.S. History, with millions of people’s accounts compromised, Yahoo’s proposed settlement has been rejected by a District Judge. Yahoo has proposed to pay $50 million dollars, plus two years of free credit monitoring for the affected 200 million users, reported by Reuters on Tuesday “source: “.

U.S. District Judge, Lucy Koh has cited multiple issues with the proposed settlement. The plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested a maximum of $35 million dollars in fees, which Judge Koh has determined is far too high. Koh asserted that the legal theories in this case were ‘not particularly novel’, which do not warrant fees at this level.

Secondly, Judge Koh has taken issue with Yahoo’s reluctance to report multiple breaches between 2013 and 2016 in a timely manner. Judge Koh presided over the Anthem Inc. settlement last year, $115 million paid to 79 million victims, which she compared to the actions of Yahoo in this case. Anthem responded quickly with credit monitoring for the victims of their data breach along with timely disclosure of the incident. Furthermore, in the Anthem case, the company committed itself to upgrading its internal security. Yahoo has demonstrated a lack of transparency with multiple incidents and is responding to the need for credit monitoring for its users too late.

Technically, Judge Koh took issue with the unclear terms of the settlement. The proposed settlement did not outline the costs of credit monitoring, or the actual size of the fund to be paid to the victims. There is also a discrepancy between large proposed class and the number of ‘active’ users privately relayed to the Judge.

This data breach has been attributed to two Russian intelligence officers and two hackers, who U.S. prosecutors charged in 2017. The data breaches covered in this proposed settlement have negatively impacted the price of Yahoo when Verizon acquired the internet business portion of the company in July 2016. The final price from the sell was $4.48 billion, dropping from the initial price of $4.83 billion, after the disclosure of the extent of the breaches.

Yahoo remains confident that an adequate settlement can be decided upon in the near future.


Judge Awards Senator Rand Paul $580,000 In Civil Judgment

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky received a favorable judgment in a civil court decision on Wednesday. The case stemmed from a dispute between Rand and a neighbor which resulted in the neighbor tackling Rand from behind. The Senator suffered six broken ribs as a result of the tackle, twice developed pneumonia, and suffered a hernia from the coughing. A civil court award Rand $580,000.

The judgment against neighbor Rene Boucher, a retired anesthesiologist, includes punitive damages of $375,000.

Boucher admitted to tackling Paul while the Senator placed a pile of brush somewhere near the line which divided the properties of the two men. Boucher’s explanation for the November 2017 incident was he felt Paul was attempting to get back at him because he once trimmed trees located on Paul’s property. Boucher explained he trimmed the trees because they grew over onto his property.

Boucher said he removed a brush pile left by Paul the day before the incident. He explains he burned himself while setting the pile on fire with gasoline. Boucher says he was experiencing severe pain when the altercation took place with Senator Paul.

Boucher was arrested after the incident and charged with an attack against a member of the United States Congress. He served 30 days in jail for the offense and was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine as part of a sentence.

A lawyer for Boucher said he would appeal the civil decision against his client.

Paul said during an interview with Bowling Green Daily News the verdict reflects the type of society in which Americans want to live. He says the verdict also speaks to the need for individuals to develop conflict resolution skills. Paul said conflicts can be resolved without violence. The Senator applauded the jury for helping to get this message out to Americans.

Guidelines for California Sexual Harassment Law Raises Some Confusion

Me Too and other associated movements have brought significant light to instances of sexual abuse in the entertainment industry. Substantive charges like those levied against producer Harvey Weinstein and actor Kevin Spacey have turned a scrutinizing eye towards the protection of entertainment workers. Given how centralized the film industry is in Los Angeles, it may come as no surprising that departing Governor Jerry Brown of California has taken measures to protect younger entertainers working in film, TV, and other associated industries.

A law signed by Governor Brown, identified as AB 2338, includes provisions that require all minors – aged between 14 and 17 years of age – to receive sexual harassment prevention training before being provided with an entertainment work permit. The work permits, which are issued by the California Labor Commissioner, will also be denied if the parents or guardians of minors can’t demonstrate they’ve received the proper training as well. The Department of Labor Standards Enforcement has released parameters for enforcing the new law, but some feel that there are ambiguities that need addressing.

Three points of contention have been identified as requiring clarity or revision. The first is that minor workers are exempt from training if they’re only applying for ten day work permits. The second concern is the guidance for 13 year olds scheduled for their next birthday while they’re covered by an existing work permit. They may either apply for a permit that expires on their 14th birthday rather than extends for the full six months, or they may preemptively provide proof of sexual harassment training as long as they’re older than 13 years and six months in age. Both of these concerns raise questions about the effectiveness of the law in regards to these issues, since it could leave youth in these two groups vulnerable to sexual harassment. The complexity of the rules for applicants on the cusp of age could also make the standards of the law more complex to enforce than necessary.

The final point of contention is in regards to a lack of resources to properly enforce the new restrictions. The DSLE requires that all training meet the minimum requirements outlined by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. in DFEH Form 185. Such training can only be provided by third-party vendors, but there appears to be a shortage of such vendors, and there is still a lack of clarity regarding what vendors are approved and what the designated length of such trainings be.

There’s time to resolve the issue. Despite being put into effect at the beginning of the year, the Commissioner will not begin enforcement of the law until June 30. Regardless, some measures may have to be taken to ensure that the law can be properly implemented.

Fans Take NFL to Court After Saints Loss

Many fans looked on in disbelief as the referees missed a major call that may have changed the outcome of the New Orleans Saints vs. Los Angeles Ram game. During the game played on January 20, 2019, the Saints had the ball on the 13-yard line. They had a third-and-10. A first down would have left them the option of going for a touchdown or kicking a field goal.

New Orleans’ quarterback Brees threw the ball to Tommylee Lewis. Seconds before the ball arrived Ram’s player Nickell Robey-Coleman knocked Tommylee Lewis down. Almost everyone in the stadium could not believe that the officials were not quick to throw a flag. According to disgusted fans, referees should have called pass interference or helmet-to-helmet contact.

The Rams took advantage of the lack of a call to regain control of the ball and score sending the game into overtime. The Rams went on to win the game 26 to 23 in overtime.

Some Saints’ fans, however, are not quick to accept that their team lost the game. Instead, they have taken the National Football League to court claiming that the league is not abiding by their own rules.

One of the suits was filed by attorney Frank D’Amico Jr. with the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish. The lawyer asked the court to rule that Commissioner Roger Goodell follow NFL Rule 17 Section 2 Article 1 that states “The commissioner has the sole authority to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary and/or corrective measures if any club actions, non-participant interference, or calamity occurs in an NFL game which the commissioner deems so extraordinary unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of the game.”

The lawyer says that the game should be replayed starting at the point that fans claim that the referee missed the call. At least two other layers have sent letters to the NFL commissioner asking him to invoke NFL Rule 17 Section 2 Article 1.

Another lawsuit has also been filed by Darrell Guillory against the individual referees and the league. In it, Darrell Guillory says that the league broke promises to ticket holders that an ethical game would be played. He claims that officials favored the team that was likely to give the league the biggest payout at the Super Bowl.

Read More:

95,000 Non-citizens Said to be Registered to Vote in Texas

The Texas Secretary of State has discovered that about 95,000 people who were are not United States citizens are registered to vote in the state. The Texas Department of Public Safety reports that about 58,000 of those people have voted at least once. That’s 61 percent of the 95,000. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “Every single instance of illegal voting threatens democracy in our state and deprives individual Texans of their voice.” His election fraud unit has already prosecuted highly publicized cases against the democratic process.

Attorney General Paxton emphasized that his office has obtained numerous voter fraud convictions against Tarrant, Montgomery and Navarro County women who are not U.S. citizens. One of those women had voted in elections for over 10 years. She falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, but she was only a U.S. permanent resident who was not permitted to vote under Texas law. As per Breitbart, the woman voted as a Republican. A second woman assumed the identity of another woman after stealing her U.S. passport and social security number. She had voted in three elections cycles. The woman was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and after that, she will be deported. A third female is under indictment after illegally voting in the 2016 election. To date the Texas Attorney General’s Office has prosecuted 33 voter fraud defendants.

Harris County is the largest county in Texas. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has now sued Harris County in seeking noncitizen voting records for inspection. The group brought a complaint in connection with the local Democratic Party allegedly mailing voter registration applications to noncitizens that had already been filled out. The applications were said to have had the U.S. citizen box already checked.

Texas law allows noncitizens who live in the state to obtain driver’s licenses, but only United States Citizens are allowed to vote. What comes to issue is that Texas law does not require verification of citizenship. Amy person who pleads guilty or is found guilty of voter fraud in the state can be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison along with a fine of up to $10,000.

Jared Kushner’s Security Clearance Is Still An Issue And The Democrats Want To Put That Issue To Bed

Being Donald Trump’s son-in-law opened a lot of doors for power-hungry Jared Kushner. Jared comes from the same real estate development swamp Trump dominated in the New York City and New Jersey. Kushner’s family business took a nosedive when Jared orchestrated a deal to buy a Fifth Ave office building. Jared paid too much to own a property so close to Trump’s backyard. Rumors of a Kushner bankruptcy were in the wind before Trump became president.

Kushner exhausted all his banking lifelines before jumping into Trumponomics with both feet. Even the mobsters that did business with Kushner thought he was part of the developer’s walking-dead club. But then something happened after Kushner made a couple of trips to the Middle East to promote peace. A group of wealthy Middle East businessmen bought Kushner’s Fifth Ave building, and Jared escaped bankruptcy hell.

According to NBC News, Mr. Trump gave Jared full reign in the White House. When the Trump’s took over Washington, Jared and Ivanka Trump ruled the White House until Kushner’s security clearance became an issue. Two White House security specialists thought Jared was a little too shady to read top-secret material. The specialists thought Kushner would fold under foreign influence, and they were right. Jared and the Saudi prince became besties. The prince stroked Jared’s ego and picked his brain while he plotted to commit an unthinkable crime.

The FBI didn’t like what they found in Jared’s past, but Carl Kline a former Pentagon employee overruled the FBI. Kline gave Jared the clearance he needed to continue reading classified documents. Kushner and 30 other people in the Trump administration got security clearances that didn’t deserve them thanks to Carl Kline. Trump seemed to reward Kline on the down-low for his loyalty. Mr. Kline is now the director of the personnel security office in the president’s executive office.

But now that the Democrats control the House, Kushner’s security clearance is on the line again. The CIA never gave Kushner the clearance he needed to read “sensitive compartmented information.” The CIA saw things in Kushner’s background that made him a poor candidate for such high-security clearance. The CIA couldn’t believe Kushner got any kind of security clearance let alone clearance to read top-secret material.

The Chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings told NBC News he wants to get to the bottom of the Kushner security clearance debacle. He wants to know if Trump pulled a few strings, and offered a few perks, in order to get the security clearance Kushner needed without passing the normal security clearance litmus test. Cummings wants to put an end to Trump’s nepotism before Kushner pulls off shadier international stunts.