Category: Judicial Watch
Log into this Gmail clone to read all the Jeffrey Epstein emails as if you were Epstein himself
A programmer has made it possible to read Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous emails from his point of view.
The computer whiz, going by the name Riley Walz, has a history of creating unique webpages and even created a fake 2020 Republican candidate.
‘You’re logged in as Epstein and can see his emails.’
Walz is assumed to be in his early 20s given that he was described by CNN as a high school student from Upstate New York in February 2020.
The youngster’s website features several links to obscure but clever programs he has created, like a fast-food price comparison index and a random video viewer that shuffles between YouTube videos uploaded between 2009 and 2012 from iPhones using their default file names.
For his latest endeavor, Walz, along with another young man named Luke Igel, created Jmail.world. While it is not clear what the “J” stands for in this case, the website is a Gmail inbox clone that lets users operate a replica version of Epstein’s Gmail account.
“We cloned Gmail, except you’re logged in as Epstein and can see his emails,” Walz plainly wrote on X.
RELATED: Epstein files backfire as Democrats get pulled into their own trap
The inbox includes the last message Epstein received at his “jeevacation@gmail.com” address, which was a July 14, 2019, note from Quora Digest.
Interestingly enough, the email included popular stories at the time, like “Why do you think the reason behind Trump abruptly canceling Pence’s New Hampshire trip?” and “Why is Trump’s trade war the wrong way to compete with China?”
Under a list of sidebar contacts, names like Ghislaine Maxwell, his confidant, activist Noam Chomsky, and attorney Alan Dershowitz are listed.
The emails also include numerous exchanges of articles and news clippings between Epstein and longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon. The dates range between February 2018 and April 2019.
RELATED: How GOP leadership can turn a midterm gift into a total disaster
Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
Emails between Epstein and Maxwell — who went by “Gxax” at times — ranged in nature, but included parody emails with Maxwell pretending to pen a message from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking President Obama to rescind his citizenship.
“Dear President Obama:
I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request. First and foremost, I am asking that you return America to its August 20th, 1959 borders so that Hawaii is no longer a state and you are no longer a citizen,” the email read.
Others showed Maxwell telling Epstein she would “have to distance myself from you in [a] statement.”
“And they need me to say I was not aware of massage w/andrew in my house,” it added.
Finally, readers can also view the emails that Democrats have widely circulated in an attempt to implicate President Trump, including a message where Epstein tells Maxwell that Trump “spent hours” at his house. Democrats redacted Virginia Giuffre’s name, a victim of Epstein’s that had previously noted that she never witnessed Trump do anything inappropriate.
In other emails to author Michael Wolff, Epstein said Trump “never got a massage.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
It gets worse for Nashville Democrat who ‘hates’ her own city: ‘Burning down a police station is justified’
Democratic congressional candidate Aftyn Behn’s political past has once again come back to haunt her.
Behn, who currently serves in the Tennessee state legislature, has failed to navigate her on-the-record remarks ahead of the December 2 special election to replace former Republican Rep. Mark Green. Despite running to represent Tennessee’s 7th congressional district, Behn has expressed disdain for the district and critical resources that assist constituents.
‘I don’t remember these tweets.’
Behn was confronted on MS NOW about a series of now-deleted tweets where she apparently advocated to dissolve the police department in 2020, the same summer as the George Floyd riots.
One of these tweets read, “Good morning, especially to the 54% of Americans that believe burning down a police station is justified.”
RELATED: Trump cracks jokes with Mamdani in cordial Oval Office meeting: ‘I’ve been called much worse’
Photo by SAMUEL CORUM/AFP via Getty Images
“Yeah, I’m not going to engage in cable news talking points,” Behn said. “But what I will say is that, you know, our communities need solutions. We need local people deciding … solving local problems with local solutions … and that’s not the overreach of a federal government or a state government of which we are dealing with in Nashville and our cities across the state.”
The MS NOW anchor pressed Behn to clarify her comments repeatedly, but she failed to do so.
“Once again, I don’t remember these tweets,” Behn said.
RELATED: ‘You’re a piece of s**t’: Nancy Mace and Cory Mills clash in heated exchange after failed censure
This is not the first time Behn’s past remarks have landed the Democrat in an uncomfortable situation. She previously expressed severe disdain for Nashville, the very city she is running to represent.
“I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville, apparently,” Behn said.
“I hate it.”
In a video posted to X on Thursday, Behn seemed to deny that she hates Nashville, admitting that she takes issue with “the bachelorettes” and “pedal taverns” but ultimately blames Republicans for her comments.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Cold War Interlude
Is there a more purely entertaining British novelist writing today than William Boyd? I doubt it, and I would even go a step further than that. Since his crowning achievement with 2002’s whole-life novel Any Human Heart, Boyd has pivoted from the witty, Evelyn Waugh-ish literary books with which he began his career to a series of period-set spy novels that focus on what it’s like to be an innocent caught up in events beyond their comprehension. From 2006’s mega-bestseller Restless to 2012’s Waiting for Sunrise, Boyd has consistently proved himself the purveyor of high-class, page-turning espionage fiction. Warmer and funnier than le Carré, less jaded than Mick Herron, his novels are page-turners par excellence.
The post Cold War Interlude appeared first on .
Six Democrats and One Trump Equal Trump Exhaustion Syndrome
WASHINGTON — Six elected beltway Democrats with backgrounds in the military or intelligence are stirring the pot with a video…
Maine’s Platner Calls To Abolish ICE, Drag Agents Before Congress: ‘People Need to Go to Prison’
WINDHAM, Maine—Senate candidate Graham Platner (D., Maine) called to abolish ICE and force agents to testify before Congress—his most aggressive comments on the agency to date.
The post Maine’s Platner Calls To Abolish ICE, Drag Agents Before Congress: ‘People Need to Go to Prison’ appeared first on .
Is a tariff a tax?
Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.
Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.
The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.
In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.
Townshend’s overreach
The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.
The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.
The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.
There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.
The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all …
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. … The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. … Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. …
Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.
This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.
That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.
This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.
Delegation’s limits
The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.
There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.
RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.
In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.
King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.
Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
The imperial judiciary strikes back
So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.
While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it.
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.
Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.
Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.
To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.
Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.
Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”
Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.
There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.
RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.
Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images
Just a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:
In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.
Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.
Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.
In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.
An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
