Examples of GOP Leadership
- Thread starter injinji
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I've been hearing about Trump populist vs Conservative on right wing radio lately. The Heritage Foundation is the one that Trump's fascists seem to prefer. They are going hard after America First online. I don't think America First will have a place at the table if Trump wins.
Rival Republican Groups Clash Over Future Trump Administration Staffing
The tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other.
In the ever-evolving landscape of American politics, an internal struggle has erupted within the Republican party over the potential staffing of a hypothetical second Trump administration. This tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other in a race to shape the future government workforce should the GOP triumph in the 2024 election.
www.republicworld.com
Rival Republican Groups Clash Over Future Trump Administration Staffing
The tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other.
In the ever-evolving landscape of American politics, an internal struggle has erupted within the Republican party over the potential staffing of a hypothetical second Trump administration. This tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other in a race to shape the future government workforce should the GOP triumph in the 2024 election.
Rival Republican groups clash over future Trump administration staffing
The tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other.
www.republicworld.com
Last edited:
topcat
Well-Known Member
topcat
Well-Known Member
MAGASTAN media latches onto relics like Newt Gingrich, quitters and losers like Sarah Palin that are no longer relevant.
edit; Bill Maher, too. An unfunny former comedian that somehow people want to know his opinions. Bizarre.
Last edited:
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Uck uck uck uck uck
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It reminds me to the movie Downfall, the Nazis are arguing over who would be governor of Moscow, as the Russian tanks and guns pound Berlin while they quarrel in the bunker.I've been hearing about Trump populist vs Conservative on right wing radio lately. The Heritage Foundation is the one that Trump's fascists seem to prefer. They are going hard after America First online. I don't think America First will have a place at the table if Trump wins.
Rival Republican Groups Clash Over Future Trump Administration Staffing
The tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other.
In the ever-evolving landscape of American politics, an internal struggle has erupted within the Republican party over the potential staffing of a hypothetical second Trump administration. This tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other in a race to shape the future government workforce should the GOP triumph in the 2024 election.
Rival Republican groups clash over future Trump administration staffing
The tug-of-war has pitted two influential right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), against each other.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Poll shows Republican indifference to Trump’s criminal charges
Roughly two-thirds of GOP voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty, it’s “not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
Poll shows Republican indifference to Trump’s criminal charges
Roughly two-thirds of GOP voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty, it’s “not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
The latest national CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, covered quite a bit of ground, though there was one line of questioning that struck me as especially notable.
“As you may have heard, Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in four separate cases. For each of these cases, please indicate whether you think, if true, those charges should disqualify Trump from the presidency, cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but are not disqualifying, are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
On the former president’s classified documents scandal:
- Disqualify him from presidency: 12%
- Cast doubts: 20%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 68%
- Disqualify him from presidency: 13%
- Cast doubts: 19%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 68%
- Disqualify him from presidency: 16%
- Cast doubts: 17%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 67%
The degree to which these voters take that principle seriously remains to be seen, but if this contingent of Republicans is serious, and the former president is convicted, it raises the prospect of a chunk of the GOP electorate balking at Trump’s candidacy. In a competitive general election, this has the potential to matter quite a bit.
The second is that roughly two-thirds of Republican voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty — of mishandling highly sensitive national security secrets, of trying to overturn an election he lost, of helping instigate an attack on his own country’s capitol — such misdeeds simply “are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
The next time someone suggests that the Republican Party champions “law and order,” keep these poll results in mind.
The first is there’s a small-but-significant percentage of GOP voters who apparently believe that the charges against Trump, if true, have the potential to be disqualifying.
printer
Well-Known Member
"It does not matter as long as we win."Poll shows Republican indifference to Trump’s criminal charges
Roughly two-thirds of GOP voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty, it’s “not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”www.msnbc.com
Poll shows Republican indifference to Trump’s criminal charges
Roughly two-thirds of GOP voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty, it’s “not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
The latest national CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, covered quite a bit of ground, though there was one line of questioning that struck me as especially notable.
“As you may have heard, Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in four separate cases. For each of these cases, please indicate whether you think, if true, those charges should disqualify Trump from the presidency, cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but are not disqualifying, are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
On the former president’s classified documents scandal:
On charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election:
- Disqualify him from presidency: 12%
- Cast doubts: 20%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 68%
On charges related to Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack:
- Disqualify him from presidency: 13%
- Cast doubts: 19%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 68%
Broadly speaking, I think there are a couple of angles that are worth keeping in mind as the 2024 race and the former president’s criminal cases advance in the coming weeks and months.
- Disqualify him from presidency: 16%
- Cast doubts: 17%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 67%
The degree to which these voters take that principle seriously remains to be seen, but if this contingent of Republicans is serious, and the former president is convicted, it raises the prospect of a chunk of the GOP electorate balking at Trump’s candidacy. In a competitive general election, this has the potential to matter quite a bit.
The second is that roughly two-thirds of Republican voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty — of mishandling highly sensitive national security secrets, of trying to overturn an election he lost, of helping instigate an attack on his own country’s capitol — such misdeeds simply “are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
The next time someone suggests that the Republican Party champions “law and order,” keep these poll results in mind.
The first is there’s a small-but-significant percentage of GOP voters who apparently believe that the charges against Trump, if true, have the potential to be disqualifying.
topcat
Well-Known Member
He's a criminal, but he's are criminal, an' ah axept that.Poll shows Republican indifference to Trump’s criminal charges
Roughly two-thirds of GOP voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty, it’s “not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
Poll shows Republican indifference to Trump’s criminal charges
Roughly two-thirds of GOP voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty, it’s “not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
The latest national CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, covered quite a bit of ground, though there was one line of questioning that struck me as especially notable.
“As you may have heard, Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in four separate cases. For each of these cases, please indicate whether you think, if true, those charges should disqualify Trump from the presidency, cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but are not disqualifying, are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
On the former president’s classified documents scandal:
On charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election:
- Disqualify him from presidency: 12%
- Cast doubts: 20%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 68%
On charges related to Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack:
- Disqualify him from presidency: 13%
- Cast doubts: 19%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 68%
Broadly speaking, I think there are a couple of angles that are worth keeping in mind as the 2024 race and the former president’s criminal cases advance in the coming weeks and months.
- Disqualify him from presidency: 16%
- Cast doubts: 17%
- Aren’t relevant to his fitness for the presidency: 67%
The degree to which these voters take that principle seriously remains to be seen, but if this contingent of Republicans is serious, and the former president is convicted, it raises the prospect of a chunk of the GOP electorate balking at Trump’s candidacy. In a competitive general election, this has the potential to matter quite a bit.
The second is that roughly two-thirds of Republican voters have apparently convinced themselves that even if Trump is guilty — of mishandling highly sensitive national security secrets, of trying to overturn an election he lost, of helping instigate an attack on his own country’s capitol — such misdeeds simply “are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.”
The next time someone suggests that the Republican Party champions “law and order,” keep these poll results in mind.
The first is there’s a small-but-significant percentage of GOP voters who apparently believe that the charges against Trump, if true, have the potential to be disqualifying.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
As I said before, Trump stripped them naked and led them out onto open ground in broad daylight while making them rub shit all over their faces...
Budzbuddha
Well-Known Member
Vivek gets grilled nasty 
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
topcat
Well-Known Member
Holy Vishnu! Who put the ram in the ramalamadingdong?Vivek gets grilled nasty
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Steve Schmidt reacts to Vivek Ramaswamy's embarrassing interview on MSNBC | The Warning
65,296 views Sep 7, 2023 The Warning
Steve Schmidt reacts to Vivek Ramaswamy's embarrassing interview with Medhi Hasan. Steve explains why holding Donald Trump imitators like Ramaswamy to account is essential to saving our democracy.
printer
Well-Known Member
Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro convicted of contempt of Congress
Former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for not complying to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Navarro is the second ex-aide to former President Donald Trump to be prosecuted for his lack of cooperation with the committee. Steve Bannon was convicted last year on two contempt counts. Bannon’s case is currently on appeal.
After the verdict was read, Navarro’s lawyers sought a mistrial, raising concerns about any influence alleged protestors may have had when jurors took a break outdoors Thursday afternoon. US District Judge Amit Mehta did not immediately rule on the motion.
The judge scheduled Navarro’s sentencing for January 12, 2024.
Prosecutors told the jury during closing arguments Thursday that Navarro “made a choice” not to comply with a February 2022 subpoena.
Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Aloi said that government only works if people play by the rules and are held accountable if they don’t.
“The subpoena – it is not hard to understand,” she said, adding that Navarro knew “what he was required to do and when he was required to do it.”
Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward contested the idea that the subpoena was simple, staying that the subpoena did not specify where in the Capitol complex Navarro was supposed to show up for his deposition.
He also said that prosecutors failed to prove that Navarro was willful in his failure to comply with the subpoena, arguing that prosecutors hadn’t established that his non-compliance with the demand for testimony was not the result of a mistake or accident.
“Why didn’t the government present evidence to you about where Dr. Navarro was or what he was doing” on the day of the scheduled deposition, Woodward asked the jury. “Something stinks.”
Prosecutor John Crabb responded: “Who cares where he was. What matters is where he wasn’t.”
Crabb repeatedly referred to Navarro as “that man’ while pointing to him, telling the jury at one point, “that man thinks he is above the law.”
The gestures elicited strong reactions from Navarro, who at times threw up his hand, shook his head or laughed. Woodward eventually jumped up and whispered to his client, and the two stood quietly together for the remainder of the proceeding.
The jury was attentive during closing arguments, watching carefully as lawyers presented their final case. Navarro stood directly across the room with his hands clasped and stared at jurors intently.
Former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for not complying to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Navarro is the second ex-aide to former President Donald Trump to be prosecuted for his lack of cooperation with the committee. Steve Bannon was convicted last year on two contempt counts. Bannon’s case is currently on appeal.
After the verdict was read, Navarro’s lawyers sought a mistrial, raising concerns about any influence alleged protestors may have had when jurors took a break outdoors Thursday afternoon. US District Judge Amit Mehta did not immediately rule on the motion.
The judge scheduled Navarro’s sentencing for January 12, 2024.
Prosecutors told the jury during closing arguments Thursday that Navarro “made a choice” not to comply with a February 2022 subpoena.
Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Aloi said that government only works if people play by the rules and are held accountable if they don’t.
“The subpoena – it is not hard to understand,” she said, adding that Navarro knew “what he was required to do and when he was required to do it.”
Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward contested the idea that the subpoena was simple, staying that the subpoena did not specify where in the Capitol complex Navarro was supposed to show up for his deposition.
He also said that prosecutors failed to prove that Navarro was willful in his failure to comply with the subpoena, arguing that prosecutors hadn’t established that his non-compliance with the demand for testimony was not the result of a mistake or accident.
“Why didn’t the government present evidence to you about where Dr. Navarro was or what he was doing” on the day of the scheduled deposition, Woodward asked the jury. “Something stinks.”
Prosecutor John Crabb responded: “Who cares where he was. What matters is where he wasn’t.”
Crabb repeatedly referred to Navarro as “that man’ while pointing to him, telling the jury at one point, “that man thinks he is above the law.”
The gestures elicited strong reactions from Navarro, who at times threw up his hand, shook his head or laughed. Woodward eventually jumped up and whispered to his client, and the two stood quietly together for the remainder of the proceeding.
The jury was attentive during closing arguments, watching carefully as lawyers presented their final case. Navarro stood directly across the room with his hands clasped and stared at jurors intently.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
BREAKING: Former Trump aide Peter Navarro found guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress
7,455 views Sep 7, 2023 #BreakingNews #Trump #PeterNavarro
Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal joins Nicolle Wallace to discuss the breaking news that former Trump aide Peter Navarro was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress after failing to comply with a subpoena from the January 6th Committee last year requesting documents and testimony.
printer
Well-Known Member
Jim Jordan seeks docs from Jack Smith’s dealings with attorney in Trump classified records fight
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday asked special counsel Jack Smith to turn over information relating to attorney Stanley Woodward, who has represented numerous Mar-a-Lago employees in dealings with prosecutors.
Woodward is in the midst of a battle with the Justice Department as it seeks a so-called Garcia hearing to review potential conflicts as Woodward represents Walt Nauta, former President Trump’s co-defendant in the classified records case.
The letter comes the day after Woodward noted in court filings that another prior client, Mar-a-Lago IT worker Yuscil Taveras, has signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors.
Taveras flipped in the case after a Garcia hearing prompted a chance for him to speak with outside counsel, a public defender, after prosecutors raised concerns that he was representing clients whose interests were at odds.
In doing so, Taveras appears to have avoided perjury charges for statements he made under oath.
His testimony also led to a superseding indictment of Trump, Nauta and a third co-defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, alleging they attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security camera footage showing them moving boxes.
Woodward railed against prosecutors in a late Tuesday filing, complaining the cooperation agreement was only offered to Taveras once he spoke with outside counsel.
The letter from Jordan is one of several he’s sent to various prosecutors pursuing cases against Trump.
Earlier Thursday, Jordan was reprimanded by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) for interfering with ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
“Your attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution,” she wrote.
“There is absolutely no support for Congress purporting to second guess or somehow supervise an ongoing Georgia criminal investigation and prosecution.”
thehill.com
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday asked special counsel Jack Smith to turn over information relating to attorney Stanley Woodward, who has represented numerous Mar-a-Lago employees in dealings with prosecutors.
Woodward is in the midst of a battle with the Justice Department as it seeks a so-called Garcia hearing to review potential conflicts as Woodward represents Walt Nauta, former President Trump’s co-defendant in the classified records case.
The letter comes the day after Woodward noted in court filings that another prior client, Mar-a-Lago IT worker Yuscil Taveras, has signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors.
Taveras flipped in the case after a Garcia hearing prompted a chance for him to speak with outside counsel, a public defender, after prosecutors raised concerns that he was representing clients whose interests were at odds.
In doing so, Taveras appears to have avoided perjury charges for statements he made under oath.
His testimony also led to a superseding indictment of Trump, Nauta and a third co-defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, alleging they attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security camera footage showing them moving boxes.
Woodward railed against prosecutors in a late Tuesday filing, complaining the cooperation agreement was only offered to Taveras once he spoke with outside counsel.
The letter from Jordan is one of several he’s sent to various prosecutors pursuing cases against Trump.
Earlier Thursday, Jordan was reprimanded by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) for interfering with ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
“Your attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution,” she wrote.
“There is absolutely no support for Congress purporting to second guess or somehow supervise an ongoing Georgia criminal investigation and prosecution.”
Jim Jordan seeks docs from Jack Smith’s dealings with attorney in Trump classified records fight
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday asked special counsel Jack Smith to turn over information relating to attorney Stanley Woodward, who has represented numerous Mar-a-Lago emp…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Florida’s abortion rights on the line in state supreme court arguments
Abortion access will be on the line Friday when Florida’s highest court considers a challenge to the state’s 15-week abortion ban.
A group of abortion providers challenged the law after it passed in 2022, arguing it violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy, which the Florida Supreme Court in 1989 said provides a fundamental right to an abortion.
The state is arguing the nearly 35-year-old ruling was wrong and are banking on a much more conservative court to agree. Five of the seven justices were appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who is running for president.
In a court filing, the state said the right to privacy “has nothing to do with abortion” and doesn’t extend to a person’s “decisional autonomy.”
Instead, Attorney General Ashley Moody’s (R) office said the law protects “informational privacy, like the disclosure of private facts.”
Abortion rights advocates say the outcome will determine not only the future of abortion in Florida but also across much of the South.
If the justices uphold the existing law and say there is no right to an abortion, the decision would automatically trigger an even stricter law that will ban abortions after six weeks.
The court could also uphold the 15-week ban without changing its interpretation of Florida’s constitution.
DeSantis signed the six-week ban into law in April, and it is set to take effect 30 days after the Supreme Court issues a decision. If that happens, Virginia would be the only state in the South to allow abortion beyond the first trimester.
Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions, as have Tennessee and Kentucky. Georgia and South Carolina ban abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” has been detected, which is usually around six weeks. Abortion is banned in North Carolina at 12 weeks and later.
DeSantis, like many of the other GOP presidential candidates, has not made abortion a centerpiece of his campaign. He has dodged questions about whether he would implement a six-week ban nationally, but has defended the state law.
Abortion rights activists said they are hoping the conservative court rules in their favor, but they’re not optimistic.
“Basically, we’re in a situation where the governor and elected officials are putting politics over the health and safety of pregnant Floridians,” said Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel of the ACLU of Florida, which is representing the abortion clinics.
“Decades of Florida state precedent have all held that the government should not be interfering in personal private medical decisions, including the decisions of whether and when to have a child. And we hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the will of the people,” Gross said.
While many abortions occur within the 15-week period, abortion providers are seeing an influx of patients, which creates longer waiting times for patients to schedule appointments.
Florida law requires anyone seeking an abortion to have two in-person doctors’ visits, as well as a 24-hour waiting period.
Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliate, said clinics are preparing for the possibility of a six-week ban.
“People who get pregnant in Florida will have to find out that they’re pregnant before six weeks, make two visits to a doctor — if they can find one — and terminate a pregnancy before most people even know that they’re pregnant,” Goodhue said. “It’s a terrible way to provide health care.”
Florida voters enshrined a right to privacy in the state constitution in 1980. The language is broad, saying that a person “has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion in the person’s private life.”
In its court filing, the state said voters never considered that the amendment would apply to abortion. They understood it was meant to “protect only informational privacy, not decisional rights like abortion.”
If the court rules that there is no right to an abortion, advocates said they would pin their hopes on a ballot measure effort. If it passes, that measure would overturn both the six-week and 15-week ban.
“We’re going to get more aggressive, hopefully, in our campaign to put it on the ballot. If it gets in the ballot for November of next year, it will pass,” said Cecilia Grande, a Miami-based OB-GYN who serves on the national Committee to Protect Health Care’s Reproductive Freedom Taskforce.
Supporters have already collected about 300,000 verified signatures to trigger a state supreme court review.
Proponents need to gather about 900,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and then it will need at least 60 percent approval to pass.
thehill.com
Abortion access will be on the line Friday when Florida’s highest court considers a challenge to the state’s 15-week abortion ban.
A group of abortion providers challenged the law after it passed in 2022, arguing it violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy, which the Florida Supreme Court in 1989 said provides a fundamental right to an abortion.
The state is arguing the nearly 35-year-old ruling was wrong and are banking on a much more conservative court to agree. Five of the seven justices were appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who is running for president.
In a court filing, the state said the right to privacy “has nothing to do with abortion” and doesn’t extend to a person’s “decisional autonomy.”
Instead, Attorney General Ashley Moody’s (R) office said the law protects “informational privacy, like the disclosure of private facts.”
Abortion rights advocates say the outcome will determine not only the future of abortion in Florida but also across much of the South.
If the justices uphold the existing law and say there is no right to an abortion, the decision would automatically trigger an even stricter law that will ban abortions after six weeks.
The court could also uphold the 15-week ban without changing its interpretation of Florida’s constitution.
DeSantis signed the six-week ban into law in April, and it is set to take effect 30 days after the Supreme Court issues a decision. If that happens, Virginia would be the only state in the South to allow abortion beyond the first trimester.
Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions, as have Tennessee and Kentucky. Georgia and South Carolina ban abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” has been detected, which is usually around six weeks. Abortion is banned in North Carolina at 12 weeks and later.
DeSantis, like many of the other GOP presidential candidates, has not made abortion a centerpiece of his campaign. He has dodged questions about whether he would implement a six-week ban nationally, but has defended the state law.
Abortion rights activists said they are hoping the conservative court rules in their favor, but they’re not optimistic.
“Basically, we’re in a situation where the governor and elected officials are putting politics over the health and safety of pregnant Floridians,” said Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel of the ACLU of Florida, which is representing the abortion clinics.
“Decades of Florida state precedent have all held that the government should not be interfering in personal private medical decisions, including the decisions of whether and when to have a child. And we hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the will of the people,” Gross said.
While many abortions occur within the 15-week period, abortion providers are seeing an influx of patients, which creates longer waiting times for patients to schedule appointments.
Florida law requires anyone seeking an abortion to have two in-person doctors’ visits, as well as a 24-hour waiting period.
Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliate, said clinics are preparing for the possibility of a six-week ban.
“People who get pregnant in Florida will have to find out that they’re pregnant before six weeks, make two visits to a doctor — if they can find one — and terminate a pregnancy before most people even know that they’re pregnant,” Goodhue said. “It’s a terrible way to provide health care.”
Florida voters enshrined a right to privacy in the state constitution in 1980. The language is broad, saying that a person “has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion in the person’s private life.”
In its court filing, the state said voters never considered that the amendment would apply to abortion. They understood it was meant to “protect only informational privacy, not decisional rights like abortion.”
If the court rules that there is no right to an abortion, advocates said they would pin their hopes on a ballot measure effort. If it passes, that measure would overturn both the six-week and 15-week ban.
“We’re going to get more aggressive, hopefully, in our campaign to put it on the ballot. If it gets in the ballot for November of next year, it will pass,” said Cecilia Grande, a Miami-based OB-GYN who serves on the national Committee to Protect Health Care’s Reproductive Freedom Taskforce.
Supporters have already collected about 300,000 verified signatures to trigger a state supreme court review.
Proponents need to gather about 900,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and then it will need at least 60 percent approval to pass.
Florida’s abortion rights on the line in state supreme court arguments
Abortion access will be on the line Friday when Florida’s highest court considers a challenge to the state’s 15-week abortion ban. A group of abortion providers challenged the law after…
thehill.com
Budzbuddha
Well-Known Member
From the Desk of Jack E. Smith - Special ProsecutorJim Jordan seeks docs from Jack Smith’s dealings with attorney in Trump classified records fight
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday asked special counsel Jack Smith to turn over information relating to attorney Stanley Woodward, who has represented numerous Mar-a-Lago employees in dealings with prosecutors.
Woodward is in the midst of a battle with the Justice Department as it seeks a so-called Garcia hearing to review potential conflicts as Woodward represents Walt Nauta, former President Trump’s co-defendant in the classified records case.
The letter comes the day after Woodward noted in court filings that another prior client, Mar-a-Lago IT worker Yuscil Taveras, has signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors.
Taveras flipped in the case after a Garcia hearing prompted a chance for him to speak with outside counsel, a public defender, after prosecutors raised concerns that he was representing clients whose interests were at odds.
In doing so, Taveras appears to have avoided perjury charges for statements he made under oath.
His testimony also led to a superseding indictment of Trump, Nauta and a third co-defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, alleging they attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security camera footage showing them moving boxes.
Woodward railed against prosecutors in a late Tuesday filing, complaining the cooperation agreement was only offered to Taveras once he spoke with outside counsel.
The letter from Jordan is one of several he’s sent to various prosecutors pursuing cases against Trump.
Earlier Thursday, Jordan was reprimanded by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) for interfering with ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
“Your attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution,” she wrote.
“There is absolutely no support for Congress purporting to second guess or somehow supervise an ongoing Georgia criminal investigation and prosecution.”
Jim Jordan seeks docs from Jack Smith’s dealings with attorney in Trump classified records fight
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday asked special counsel Jack Smith to turn over information relating to attorney Stanley Woodward, who has represented numerous Mar-a-Lago emp…
To Jim Jones :
~Fuck You~
Best regards , Jack