C-SPAN: Representative George Santos: 'If I Leave, They Win, This is bullying'

Source:C-SPAN covering soon to be ex-U.S. Representative George Santos (Republican, New York)

"Rep. George Santos (R-NY) holds a news conference on Capitol Hill the morning of an expected U.S. House debate on a resolution to expel him from Congress. He says he plans to file a privileged motion to expel Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who plead guilty for pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote in September. Full video here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN

"The House of Representatives—in the same manner as the United States Senate—is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or “punish” its own Members. This authority of the House to discipline a Member for “disorderly Behaviour” is in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, and is used not merely to punish an individual Member, but to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings, and its reputation.

The House may discipline its Members without the necessity of Senate concurrence. The most common forms of discipline in the House are now “expulsion,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” although the House may also discipline its Members in other ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges. In addition to such sanctions imposed by the full House of Representatives, the standing committee in the House which deals with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Ethics—formerly called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct—is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal “Letter of Reproval” for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives. Additionally, the Committee on Ethics has also expressed its disapproval of certain conduct in informal letters and communications to Members.

The House may generally discipline its Members for violations of statutory law, including crimes; for violations of internal congressional rules; or for any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. Each house of Congress has disciplined its own Members for conduct which has not necessarily violated any specific rule or law, but which was found to breach its privileges, demonstrate contempt for the institution, or reflect discredit on the House or Senate.

When the most severe sanction of expulsion has been employed in the House, the underlying conduct deemed to have merited removal from office has historically involved either disloyalty to the United States, or the violation of a criminal law involving the abuse of one’s official position, such as bribery. The House of Representatives has actually expelled only five Members in its history, but a number of Members, facing likely congressional discipline for misconduct, have resigned from Congress or have been defeated in an election prior to any formal House action... 

From the Congressional Research Service

I posted the quote and link from the CRS because in Representative George Santos's statement, he said this process is illegal and only the voters get to decide who represents them in Congress. (That's a very close paraphrase) But the fact is, any competent, honest, and responsible, U.S. Representative, would know that George Santos is wrong here. 

If the House didn't do an ethics investigation and give a final report on Representative George Santos, then maybe Santos would have an argument here. But everything that he did to further his personal life, including paying his own personal rent, while running for the House last year, where he used his campaign funds to pay for all of his personal expenses, is in the House Ethics Committee final report. A committee that's led and chaired by a Republican.  

"Pursuant to House Rule XI Clause 3(q)(1), today the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, Representative Michael Guest, and the Ranking Member, Representative Susan Wild, submitted a report to the House of Representatives in the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative George Santos. The full Committee report includes the report of the Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) in this matter. 

At the completion of its investigation, the ISC unanimously concluded that there was substantial evidence that Representative George Santos: knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission; used campaign funds for personal purposes; engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with RedStone Strategies LLC; and engaged in knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial Disclosure (FD) Statements filed with the House.  In light of the ongoing criminal investigation into Representative Santos, and the ISC’s findings of additional uncharged and unlawful conduct by Representative Santos, the ISC recommended that the Committee immediately refer these allegations to the Department of Justice.

The Committee has unanimously voted to adopt the ISC’s report, and with it, refer the substantial evidence of potential violations of federal criminal law to the Department of Justice for such further action as it deems appropriate.  The Committee concurs with the ISC’s determination that Representative Santos’ conduct warrants public condemnation, is beneath the dignity of the office, and has brought severe discredit upon the House. 

The Committee thanks the Committee staff and the Members of the Investigative Subcommittee for their hard work, dedication, and service to the Committee and to the House.  Representative David P. Joyce served as Chair of the Investigative Subcommittee.  Representative Susan Wild served as Ranking Democratic Member.  Representative John H. Rutherford and Representative Glenn F. Ivey also served on the Subcommittee." 

From the Congressional Research Service 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Amanpour & Company: 'Tom Nichols On Donald Trump’s Recent Rhetoric: 'An Actual Fascist Has Shown Up'

Source:Amanpour & Company talking to the editor of The Atlantic Magazine editor Tom Nichols.

"In a new article for The Atlantic, staff writer Tom Nichols sounds the alarm on former President Trump’s fascist rhetoric. In his article “Trump Crosses a Crucial Line," Nichols lays out his increasing concern about the language showing up in Trump's speeches -- language which Nichols argues is aligning more and more with the history and methods of fascism. He joins Michel Martin to discuss the threat this poses to American democracy." 

From Amanpour & Company 

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." 

From Wikipedia

The guess the only thing I would add the Wikipedia definition of fascism, is that Communists, or at least Communists leaders at least practice fascism as well. They go by the policy that you either agree with the Communist State on everything, or they'll lock you up, or perhaps just murder you before they lock you up. The People's Republic of China, the Communist Republic of Korea, are excellent examples of that. The Communist Republic of Cuba, still has a lot of political prisoners as well. 

I disagree with Tom Nichols, at least a little bit on this. I agree with him that political labels like liberal, which is now used by the mainstream media, at least, to describe every radical movement on the Left, when actual Liberals believe in liberal democracy, which is a center-right form of government, fascist gets thrown around too much as well. Tom Nichols, who was a longtime Republican, is basically a Liberal or Classical Liberal Republican, at least ideologically.

But I'm not sure there's any real political ideology that defines Mr. Trump individually. He governed as a right-wing, alt-right, Northern European, Nationalist in America, who wanted to return America to the people that this movement believes are the real Americans, which are Northern European-Americans, especially Anglo-Saxons and other Northern-European Protestants. But that's how he got elected in 2016 and the philosophy that he stuck with as President. 

But Donald Trump is so narcissistic, that he only cares about himself and sees himself as a king or some other type of dictator, who shouldn't be held accountable to anyone but himself. Which is the only reason why he's running for President again, which is to stay out of prison and keep his allies out of prison. So with his background as both a businesses (and soon to be bankrupt businessman) and now political activist/politician, I think again if there's any real political philosophy that could be used to define Donald Trump's political philosophy, Oligarch might be the best: 

"Oligarchy (from Ancient Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía) 'rule by few'; from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few', and ἄρχω (árkhō) 'to rule, command')[1][2][3] is a conceptual form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control.

Throughout history, power structures considered to be oligarchies have often been viewed as coercive, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich, contrasting it with aristocracy, arguing that oligarchy was the perverted form of aristocracy."

From Wikipedia 

Or corporatocracy: 

"Corporatocracy (/ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, from corporate and Greek: -κρατία, romanized: -kratía, lit. 'domination by'; short form corpocracy[1]) is an economic, political and judicial system controlled by business corporations or corporate interests.[2]

The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.[3] It has been used by critics of globalization,[4] sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank[5] or unfair lending practices,[3] as well as criticism of free trade agreements.[4] Corporate rule is also a common theme in dystopian science-fiction media."

From Wikipedia 

But again, I'm not sure there's any real political ideology that I believe could be used to define Donald Trump's politics. If he thought socialism was the best way to give him absolute power as an individual, he would be a Socialist. Or the same thing with liberalism, or conservatism in its real forms, not how liberalism and conservatism are misdefined today. 

Donald Trump believes in Donald Trump and no one, or anything else. As long as you are on Team Trump, he's loyal to you. But when you do or say anything that goes against him, regardless of whatever your previous relationship was with him, he throws you out like a bag of garbage. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: 'Donald Trump’s REJECTION of Constitutional Oath BACKFIRES in His FACE'

Source:Meidas Touch talking about Lyin Don Trump.

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how Republican Chris Christie predicted that Donald Trump will be convicted, ineligible to vote, and how Trump’s rejection of the of the oath to “support the Constitution” will backfire in his face." 

From the Meidas Touch

I'm just going to respond to a few key points that Ben Meiselas and Chris Christie made about Donald Trump and I'll leave it at that. 

1. I know Donald Trump must believe that everyone else in the country lives in Fantasy Land and he's the only one who lives in the real world and therefor Americans aren't even capable of believing what they see and hear in front of their own eyes and ears. But the man was inaugurated as President of the United States back in January, 2017 and took the oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. If he doesn't believe the oath that he took, then he was lying under oath.  

2. After Donald Trump is convicted perhaps by April or May of 2024 in Federal Court in Washington, Judge Tanya Chutkan will remand Donald Trump to the custody of the U.S. Marshals. I haven't heard that before. I guess I assumed that Mr. Trump would then be allowed to continue to be free on bail, as long as he meets his conditions of bail, while waiting sentencing. But that would make sense that he would at least be remanded to house arrest and not be allowed to leave his home, even, without permission, because now he's not just a convicted felon, but an official threat to American democracy because of his role in the January 6, 2021 attempted insurrection. 

3. Assuming Donald Trump is convicted next spring, but let's also assume that he's remanded into Federal custody, he can not only not vote for himself next year as a convicted felon, but he wouldn't even be eligible to campaign for himself for President. If he doesn't have the Republican nomination for President wrapped up by the time he's convicted, that would be huge problem for him in seeking that nomination.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'LOOMING DEADLINES Mark KEY MOMENT in Fulton County Case'

Source:Harry Litman- Fulton County, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee.

"Judge McAfee set a hearing date, this Friday, for motions by Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows on motions to extend discovery and extend pretrial deadlines." 

From Harry Litman

As my colleague Kire Schneider pointed out a couple about 3 weeks ago on The New Democrat: 

"I don't want to make light of Judge Aileen Cannon or the case that she's presiding over, because we're talking about what could possibly be a treason case against The Donald J. Trump. But of the 3 felony cases against Donald Trump, this is 3rd most important. 

We know that Judge Cannon is friendly towards Donald Trump. We know of all the 3rd judicial districts that Trump is being tried in, Miami, Florida and Dade County, is the most friendly to him, of that 3. The other two cases against him, are in Washington and Atlanta, which are both, big cities, in big metro areas, that are overwhelmingly Democratic and anti-Donald Trump. 

So unless Judge Cannon holds to her May 2024 deadline for her trial to begin, even with all the discovery, motions, and appeals that will be brought in her trial, the Washington case and the Atlanta case, might already be underway. And her case might have to be the 3rd one anyway, because of all the classified material and security clearances that will have to be made in her trial. 

And Donald Trump could already be headed for conviction both in Washington and Atlanta, by the time Judge Cannon's Miami case is underway. Or perhaps because she gets removed from her case because of how friendly she is to Donald Trump and his lawyer and how bias she is towards Jack Smith's Special Counsel lawyers in this case." 

We're not even lawyers here at The New Democrat, but we called this almost 3 weeks ago. 

Now, I'm going off of what Harry Litman is saying here, but he's a career lawyer and Federal prosecutor. If it's August that Judge Scott McAfee wants his trial to be held and gives that order, it will be early 2025 at the earliest, probably middle 2025 (and this is based on whether Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election) before Judge Aileen Cannon gets her cased tried in her Federal court, in Miami, Florida. Because her case has the most evidence, especially classified evidence, and all the security clearances that people involved in the case are going to have to go through and get approved, before that trial can happen. 

The Federal case in Washington and the Fulton County case in Atlanta, are lot more simpler, at least in sense there's not a tone of classified information and security clearances that are going to have to be processed, before those trials can happen. So Judge Cannon can try to cover Donald Trump's tail (to put it mildly) all she wants. But he'll probably be a two-time convicted felon and bankrupt man, before she gets to see him. Assuming he doesn't win the presidency next year.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Michael Popok: 'Judge Green-Lights DEVASTATING Testimony Against Donald Trump'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: Fulton County, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee, Ken Chesebro & the one and thank God only, Donald J. Trump.

"A Georgia criminal judge just signed an order permitting former Trump attorney, felon and architect of the Trump fake elector scheme Ken Chesebro to head to DC to cooperate with Special Counsel Jack Smith in his federal case against Trump. Michael Popok of Legal AF breaks down what the new order means for Trump, with Chesebro cooperating with Attorneys General around the country against Trump." 

From the Meidas Touch

As my colleague  Fred Schneider mentioned on The New Democrat back in October: 

"4-5 years ago, longtime Republican strategist and now political filmmaker Mark McKinnon, who served for both President George W. Bush and then Senator John McCain, was on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon. And they were talking about the current investigations into Donald Trump dealing with the 2016 presidential campaign and potential investigations that could be facing then President Trump, once he's no longer President, whether he's not reelected in 2020, or leaves office after his 2nd term would've been over in 2025. 

Mark McKinnon told Don Lemon that the biggest personal mistake that Donald Trump ever made in his life, was getting elected President of the United States. The 2nd biggest mistake that he made, according to Mark McKinnon, was running for President of the United States. Why? Because now that Mr. Trump is in the public eye full-time, all these new investigations not just about his presidency, his business career, or personal life, but how his business and personal affairs affect his presidency, will be under public scrutiny." 

Michael Popok didn't quote Fred as well, but he's talking about the same thing. Now that Donald Trump's career and personal life is out in the open, all of America gets to see how much of a career conman and crook that The Donald really is and how much legal jeopardy that he's in, simply for literally going public with his career and personal life. 

As Mr. Popok mentioned, it's not just the State of New York, or the U.S. Department of Justice, or Fulton County, Georgia, where Donald Trump is in current legal jeopardy, but the other states where he and his wannabe Keystone Cops crew tried to interfere in their 2020 presidential elections, simply to declare Donald Trump the winner, instead of Joe Biden, who democratically and legally won the 2020 presidential election, not Donald Trump.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

CNN: 'Comma Placement in Mike Pence Book Draws Attention of Jan. 6 Investigators'

Source:CNN- then Vice President Mike Pence, talking to then President Donald Trump, perhaps in late 2020.

"ABC News reports that in conversations with special counsel Jack Smith's team earlier this year, former Vice President Mike Pence was asked about personal notes he took after meetings with then-President Donald Trump, with one line of questioning dealing with the placement of a comma in a quote from Pence's book. CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig joins "CNN This Morning" to discuss." 

From CNN

Whether then Vice President Mike Pence told then President Donald Trump that either he (meaning Mike Pence) didn't believe that he had the authority as Vice President of the United States to either throw out the 2020 presidential election results and just declare Donald Trump the winner of that election, or that he (meaning Donald Trump) knew that the Vice President of the United States doesn't have that authority, it's clear that the Vice President was simply doing his job and trying to do it the best that he can. And that Donald Trump simply wanted to take an extra legal, as well as an extra constitutional move, to simply rewrite at least part of the U.S. Constitution, to save President Trump from losing the presidency. 

But not only are commas important, but so are trials, as well as witnesses, and testimony. And early next year, Mr. Pence will have the opportunity to clear this up for the American people under oath whether he was saying that he as Vice President, didn't have the authority to just automatically declare Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Or, he was saying that Mr. Trump knew that his Vice President didn't have that authority. Perhaps he was saying that they both knew that the Vice President doesn't have that authority, regardless of what party that they're a member of. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: 'GOP Leader Accidentally GIVES AWAY The End Game For their Donald Trump 2024 Plan'

Source:Meidas Touch- U.S. Representative James Comer (Republican, Kentucky)

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the latest interview by MAGA Republican leader James Comer who admits his focus is on manipulating public perception instead of the facts and evidence to undermine President Biden." 

From the Meidas Touch

To be completely accurate and honest here: I don't agree with 1 part of the title from my own post here. Representative James Comer (Republican, Kentucky) is not a GOP leader.  

This is the real Grand Ole Party: 

"The initials synonymous with the Republican Party—“GOP”—stand for “grand old party.” As early as the 1870s, politicians and newspapers began to refer to the Republican Party as both the “grand old party” and the “gallant old party” to emphasize its role in preserving the Union during the Civil War. The Republican Party of Minnesota, for instance, adopted a platform in 1874 that it said “guarantees that the grand old party that saved the country is still true to the principles that gave it birth.” 

In spite of its nickname, though, the “grand old party” was only a mere teenager in the early 1870s since the Republican Party had been formed in 1854 by former Whig Party members to oppose the expansion of slavery into western territories." 

From History

What James Comer and the rest of the MAGA wing of today's Republican Party (which doesn't even believe in Republicanism, as a party) represents the confederate wing of the 19th Century Democratic Party, as well as the early and middle 20th Century Democratic Party. But they're now Republicans. And if you are familiar with your American political history, you already know the story there. 

As far as what House Republicans are doing here, they privately know that Donald Trump is very unpopular. That perhaps as many 3-5 American voters don't want him to be President of the United States again. But he's still very popular in their party and the likely Republican nominee for President again. So what they're trying to do here, is the get the focus off of Donald Trump and back on President Joe Biden, whose also pretty unpopular today.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

News Nation: 'Director Rob Reiner Says He Has Proof Four Men Killed JFK'

Source:News Nation- Hollywood actor, director, and comedian Rob Reiner. Not investigative reporter, documentarian, or detective Rob Reiner. Unless he played those roles on TV, in his films.

"Reiner claims he can name the four men who shot JFK

The official narrative says JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald

Over the decades, many have questioned if Oswald acted alone

(NewsNation) — In a gripping exploration of what he calls “America’s great murder mystery,” renowned actor and director Rob Reiner has launched a 10-part podcast series titled “Who Killed JFK,” aiming to unravel the truth behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In an interview on “NewsNation Prime,” Reiner claims he has proof that four men were involved in Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

Many have speculated about the number of shooters involved in the JFK assassination. Official investigations determined Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman on Nov. 22, 1963. The president was riding in an open-top motorcade in Dallas when he was shot from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. 

Unsolved: The JFK Assassination | A NewsNation Special Report 

Reiner claims not only does he know there was more than one shooter, but he is prepared to identify the shooters and their locations.

The podcast, hosted by journalist Soledad O’Brien, promises to shed light on the enigmatic event that has lingered in the American psyche for over six decades.

Reiner, famous for directing classics such as “When Harry Met Sally” and “The Princess Bride,” shared his personal connection to the tragedy during the interview.

“I was 16 years old when it happened, and it never left me,” he revealed, emphasizing the lasting impact the assassination had on the nation. 

He said the key to his theory is a first shot that missed the motorcade.

Reiner claims JFK’s death was part of a conspiracy that included the CIA and government officials including then Vice President Lyndon Johnson. After the shooting, Oswald claimed to be a patsy and his assassination by Jack Ruby led many people to question the official findings. 

The podcast is framed as a comprehensive effort to compile 60 years’ worth of information, presenting a cohesive narrative of the events leading up to Kennedy’s death in Dallas. Reiner expressed his motivation for the deep dive, stating, “If a loved one of yours was murdered, you’d want to know who did it and why. 

Despite acknowledging that a definitive smoking gun may never surface, Reiner asserted that the podcast aims to name the multiple shooters involved in the assassination. Drawing on years of research, interviews with forensic experts, and visits to key locations, the podcast seeks to provide a clearer picture of the events of that fateful day. 

“Over the course of 60 years, you start putting a picture together. You start getting a full picture of what actually happened that day,” he said.

What a former CIA employee’s memo reveals about Lee Harvey Oswald 

Reiner also delved into his collaboration with O’Brien, highlighting the significance of partnering with someone who experienced the aftermath of the assassination in a different context. O’Brien, born three years after the event, provided a fresh perspective, having grown up with the prevailing narrative that Oswald acted alone.

NewsNation recently presented accounts from firsthand witnesses and investigators who have questioned the official narrative. Among those was Paul Landis, a Secret Service agent at the time who told NewsNation he picked up a bullet from the car and took it into the trauma room. That bullet was not the one found in Connelly’s thigh. 

In statements in the 1960s, Landis had said he did not go into the trauma room with First Lady Jackie Kennedy.

Sixty years after the fact, people are still seeking clarity and the release of information related to JFK’s death. An estimated 320,000 documents related to the assassination have been released to the public, with just over 4,600 remaining classified.

JFK assassination remembered 60 years later by surviving witnesses 

Reiner stressed the need for the American people to uncover the truth, suggesting that understanding the events of that day could contribute to rebuilding trust in the government.

Many of the questions center around footage captured by Abraham Zapruder, which was unavailable to the public until 1975. Based on the footage, Reiner rejects the narrative that the same bullet that struck Kennedy also hit Texas Governor John Connelly, who was in the front of the car. 

Connelly, who survived the attack, said it was not the same bullet that struck him and continued to maintain there was more than one bullet until his death in the 1990s.

Another film shot by Orville Nix Sr. also captured the assassination and stills from that footage have circulated but the location of the original is unknown. Nix’s grandaughter, Gail Nix Jackson, is suing the National Archives on the grounds they mishanled the film.

Reiner is not naming the shooters until the final episodes of the 10-part podcast."

From News Nation 

"Rob Reiner, the legendary actor and director known for beloved movies like "When Harry Met Sally?" and "The Princess Bride," is now addressing the JFK assassination. He joins “NewsNation Prime,” to talk about his new podcast, "Who Killed J.F.K.?" with journalist Soledad O'Brien, which aims to reveal the truth surrounding the death of Kennedy. The 10-part series is currently underway, and according to Reiner, it will eventually identify the multiple shooters involved in the assassination." 

From News Nation

Talk about your slow news days: here I'm writing about the latest Hollywood conspiracy theory about "who really assassinated President John F. Kennedy". 

I want to be careful here, because similar to Rob Reiner's father Carl Reiner, I have a lot of respect for him as an actor, comedian, director. I think he's one of the best entertainers of his generation, similar to how his father was one of the best entertainers of his generation. But that pretty much ends my level of respect for him.

In this so-called interview that didn't even last 5 minutes, where the supposed interviewer just let Rob Reiner talk and didn't ask him any followup questions, where Mr. Reiner spent maybe half that time just talking about where he was on that horrible, November day, in 1963 and what he was doing etc, Mr. Reiner doesn't bother to offer any evidence for why he believes someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. 

But, if you go to the News Nation article about this story, (which is linked on this post) you'll see them suggesting that then Vice President Lyndon Johnson and the CIA, were involved in taking out the President. 

So we're just back to one of those left-wing conspiracy theories about who really assassinated President John F. Kennedy, because Socialists still can't live with the fact that one of their own took out one of the most personally popular, and perhaps most pop culture relevant President that we've ever had in America. 

Mr. Reiner did say that 4 men supposedly assassinated President Kennedy. But where's the beef on that? And then he admitted that we'll never have the smoking gun on who really assassinated John F. Kennedy. The only accurate statement that he's made about this story. So admitting that there's no smoking gun on who really murdered John F. Kennedy, Mr. Reiner is admitting that he has no proof on really assassinated JFK. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Forbes Magazine: 'There's These Homeless Encampments Everywhere': RFK Jr. Complains About State Of San Francisco'

Source:Forbes Magazine- Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy JR. Except for the striking resemblance, it's hard to believe that this is Robert F. Kennedy's on. But that's a different story.

"At a recent campaign rally, independent 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bemoaned the homeless encampments in San Francisco, California." 

From Forbes Magazine

Last time I checked, Robert F. Kennedy JR. is running for President, not the Mayor of San Francisco, or to be a member of the SF Board of Supervisors. But he's talking about the cost of housing and the rising cost of housing in San Francisco, one of the biggest cities in America, (as far as population) and one of the wealthiest, as far as per-capita-income, but also one of the best educated in America. 

Housing really is a local and state issue. The Federal Government can do things to address rising prices in general, like with inflation and interest rates, empowering more people to be able to further and continue their education, so they can get better jobs and earn more money, which would help them afford better housing. But for the most part, housing really is a local and perhaps state issue. 

Uncle Sam can't just come in to any city, let alone San Francisco and say: "This is how much housing you are allowed to build and this is how much you can charge for it." That is an issue for local government's, not the President of the United States. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: Upfront With Erin Burnett: 'Legal Analyst Breaks Down Significance of Donald Trump Co-Defendant Ruling'

Source:CNN- the one & thank God only, Donald J. Trump.

"CNN’s team of reporters and experts break down the decision by a Georgia judge who opted not to jail a co-defendant in former President Donald Trump’s election interference trial." 

From CNN

As my colleague Kire Schneider said on The New Democrat said last week: 

"As far as Donald Trump co-defendant Harrison Floyd: not claiming I'm the first person to give him the Dirty Harry nickname, but he's classic mob thug, that the boss (in case Donald Trump) uses to do his dirty work so the boss can stay out of trouble. 

At least Dirty Harry in the movies (played by Clint Eastwood) got that nickname, for being a hard-ass cop, who took the toughest cases as a San Francisco police inspector. But in Dirty Harry Floyd's case, he's just a wannabe mob thug whose going to pay a helluva price in Dixie Georgia, for being a dirtbag. Or in his case, a Dirty Harry Bag." 

So this is who Harrison Floyd is, Donald Trump's social medial enforcer and henchman. 

As far as this ruling, as a Liberal, I'm as strong as a proponent for free speech in America and the First Amendment, as anyone you'll ever meet, short of Anarchists and Libertarians. The First Amendment, as much as leftists hate this, even protect dirtbags (to be frank) like Dirty Harry Floyd, just as long as they're not promoting violence against other people, or inciting violence against other people. And apparently Judge Scott McAfee believes the same thing. But perhaps would use different language. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: Alina Habba: 'FINANCIAL DISASTER Unearthed, MILLION DOLLAR Liens'

Source:Meidas Touch- Yes, this is Donald J. Trump's civil lawyer Alina Habba.

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on an exclusive by InTouch on how Donald Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba and her husband owe over $1 million in liens." 

From Meidas Touch 

If you followed Donald Trump's presidency, I have some therapy that I could recommend that could help you get through that experience. Actually, that's just a joke, since no such therapy has been invented yet. But if you survived the experience of the Donald Trump presidency and so far his post-presidency, you are getting an excellent legal education of the differences between being President and Ex-President, when it comes to your own lawyers. 

When you are the President of the United States, regardless of the POTUS, you have access to be the best of legal profession in this country. Any lawyer just about would be honored to either work in your White House, or work as your personal attorney to address any personal legal issues that you might have when you are President. At least access to the best lawyers in your own party. 

But when you leave The White House, especially in disgrace, when you've just lost reelection and only managed 46% of the popular vote and 232 out of 574 electoral votes, in a two-way race, you've been impeached twice in just 4 years, you have all the legal issues that are now in front of you because of your illegal conduct as President of the United States, you are very unpopular, at least outside of your own party, you have mounting financial debt in front of you because of all the money that you lost when you were President, you have access to whatever is left. 

Alina Habba is not really a trial lawyer. She can barely afford to do whatever she does as a lawyer right now. She's more of a public relations lawyer, if anything at all, who makes her living trying her client's cases on TV and on social media. But she's officially Donald Trump's civil lawyer right now because she's about the best of what's left to try to defend him, because of his own financial situation and all the evidence that's against him right now, in multiple cases. 

Perhaps one of the reasons right now that Alina Habba owes millions of dollars, is because her own client is not paying her. But she's trying to work for him anyway, perhaps banking on the fact that defending a former President of the United States, would lead to clients who can and would pay her very well for her legal advice and actions in the future. But that career strategy is obviously not working out for her right now.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: Upfront With Erin Burnett: 'Ty Cobb Predicts Donald Trump Would Defy Gag Order & Go To Jail'

Source:CNN- former Donald J. Trump personal lawyer Ty Cobb.

"Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb tells CNN’s Erin Burnett he thinks former President Donald Trump will spend time in jail for violating a limited gag order if it is restored by a federal appeals court." 

From CNN 

Assuming that Judge Tanya Churkan's gag order is reinstated (and I'm not a lawyer) Donald Trump will not only violate it, but then be fined and probably violate it multiple times and be fined multiple times and perhaps his lawyers will be fined as well for not being able to control their own client. And yes, if the fines don't work, I believe Judge Chutkan will send Donald J. Trump to jail for contempt of court. Talk about real reality TV: who would miss seeing Donald J. Trump being sent to a real jail to serve time there? 

Ty Cobb obviously knows Donald Trump better than me, as well as Erin Burnett and knows what it's like to try to work for that man and he's saying that his former client when DJT was President, will not only lose this appeal, but then violate the gag order. 

I don't get any pleasure in comparing a former President of the United States, even a failed and bad President, a President that only managed to get 46% of the vote in two, two-way-races in 2016 and 2020, to a mobster. But I think you have to look at Donald Trump with all the cases and all the evidence that's against him, a man who views himself as unaccountable and above the law, in that way. 

Donald Trump knows what happened as well, if not better on January 6th, 2021, better than everyone else. Or at least no one knows that day better than him. He knows about his own activity today, he knows what the people around him know about that day. He knows what he told them and what he told them to do. And now most if not all those people, including his own Vice President Mike Pence, his own Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, will be testifying against him. 

When you are a mobster and you know your guilty, at least under law and you know what's against you as far as the evidence and the witnesses against you, but you still don't want to go to prison anyway, your only real play here is to try to make the case against the prosecutors, instead of the case against you and try to prove your innocence. As well as try to intimidate witnesses who will testify against you. Perhaps try to incite violence against the witnesses against you, since there's no evidence that Donald Trump has ever personally directed someone to take out or beat up a witness against him. 

That's why this gag order will be imposed against him because that's how DJT will try to win the case, by trying to poison the jury pool so the jury simply won't believe their own ears and eyes in this case and ignore all the evidence and witnesses against the former President of the United States.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Forbes Magazine: RFK Jr: 'Democratic & Republican Parties Are Going To Try To Prevent Me From Getting On The Ballot'

Source:Forbes Magazine- for people who are just waking up from a coma: left to right: President Joe Biden, professional conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy JR, and the one and only (thank God only) Donald J. Trump.

"At a campaign rally last week, independent 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked for grassroots support to get on the ballot." 

From Forbes Magazine

I'm paraphrasing here, but RFK JR. said: "If you only listened to MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times, if you only got your news from those news sources and not from Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, etc, I would have  low approval rating of myself." 

This RFK JR. partial quote goes to my two points, about his campaign for President. 

1. Robert F. Kennedy JR. is a bigger threat to Donald Trump, then Joe Biden. 

2. Robert F. Kennedy's main goal here is to see that Joe Biden isn't reelected President. I think that's why he originally ran for President as a Democrat (even though ideologically neither a Democrat or Republican) was to somehow, try to defeat Joe Biden. But when you run as a MAGA conspiracy theorist, most if not all of your interviews are done with MAGA news sources, Democratic voters can see that you really aren't one of them and will just ignore you.

Just watching that 5 minute clip of RFK JR., suggests to me that he has no business talking about how old either Joe Biden or Donald Trump are, but he has no business even visiting The White House, let alone running for it, or getting elected. 

RFK JR.  struggles just to put words together, let alone sentences. Or to stay on one topic after making one point. He sounds like he's been speaking on the Senate floor for a weeks' straight, delivering a real filibuster, without even taking a water break. Perhaps he graduated from the Donald Trump School of Public Speaking (not saying one exists) and perhaps is running for President to get his damn money back. 

Whatever the case, Bob Kennedy is not even close to being a serious politician. Which is a damn shame, because 5-10 years ago, he was one of the sharpest environmental lawyers around. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Overtime: Donna Brazile & Adam Kinzinger

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- left to right for people who are hard of seeing: Donna Brazile & Adam Kinzinger.

"Bill and his guests continue their conversation after the show." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

There's not much here to go with, but there are a few points that were made in this segment that might keep people awake long enough to read this, which is what I'll talk about. 

Adam Kinziner, whose one of the last of the true Conservative Republicans, (which is why I guess he's no longer in the U.S. House of Representatives) made an excellent point about Governor Ron DeSantis and predicting that Governor DeSanitis would be the next Republican to drop out of the Republican presidential race. 

Kinzinger's argument is that Ron DeSantis's play was that Donald Trump would fall because of all the legal baggage and that even some MAGA Republicans (who aren't really Republicans, but that's a different story) would think that Trump can't win the general election, because of all the legal cases, the baggage, and evidence against DJT and that DeSantis would inherit those voters from Trump. 

But as Kinzinger said (and they served in the House together in the 2010s) Ron DeSanitis is like the most boring person that you could possibly ever dream of meeting. No personality, not likable, etc. You can't win in Iowa, New Hampshire, probably South Carolina as well, which isn't as rural as the other states, but you can't win in those states if you are boring and unlikable. 

The main problem that Ron DeSantis seems to have is that his message is basically: "I'm as interesting as a phonebook, I'm also an asshole, but I would make a good President." Which seems to be Ron DeSantis's message to the early Republican voters right now. Along with since Donald Trump has taken over the Republican Party, they've been losing, which is why they need a change. He's right about that, but he hasn't made the case for why he should be the next leader of that party. 

Bill Maher's point about Joe Biden being that he's not too old to be President. He's just too old to get reelected President and its perception that voters care about and not reality. As I said on The New Democrat back in October: 

"It's one thing to say that Joe Biden shouldn't run for reelection. But I didn't hear Bill Maher mention anyone who should run for President as the Democrat in the President's place. You can quote James Carville all you want, but Carville doesn't have a Democratic alternative to Trump either." 

The only thing that I have to add to what I said back in October about Joe Biden's reelection possibilities is, to beat somebody, you have to have somebody or be somebody yourself. 

If the Democratic Party really believed that Joe Biden is either too old to get reelected or too old to beat Donald Trump again, (even though he's still the only person whose ever beaten Donald Trump in any election) you would see a boatload of mainstream Democrats running against the the President right now. 

What we have instead are just these boring, middle of the road Democrats, who don't really believe in anything, who are probably just trying to get more attention for themselves, raise more money for a future campaign, or just perhaps just secretly trying to sabotage the President because they don't like him. Or, professional conspiracy theorists, who aren't really Democrats or Republicans ideologically and don't know what else to do with their time right now.

I think people like David Axelrod, who really does believe that Joe Biden is a in political trouble right now, with concerns about his age and how low approval rating, really believe that Joe Biden could definitely lose right now and perhaps is even the underdog going in 2024. 

But who beats the President a year from now? Some might say Nikki Haley, but she has to defeat Donald Trump 1st and get his voters behind her. Some might say Donald Trump, but he'll be a convicted a felon a year from now and probably bankrupt as well. 

Are American voters (and I'm talking about Democrats, Independents, and center-right Republicans) who truly believe that Donald Trump, who a year from now will be a bankrupt, convicted felon, who  is a real threat to American democracy, freedom, and the republic, really want for President again, especially over someone who believes in those values that Donald Trump would try to destroy, if given the chance? I seriously doubt that because there's no evidence of that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

C-SPAN: Author Discussion On 'The Crisis of Masculinity'

Source:C-SPAN Nancy Pearcey talking about her book.

"Authors Nancy Pearcey ("The Toxic War on Masculinity") and Christina Hoff Sommers ("The War Against Boys") argue that males are falling behind in American society and discuss why this is happening." 

From C-SPAN

If only Phyllis Schlafy was alive and well to hear Nancy Pearcey talk about her book: "The Toxic War On Masculinity" she would probably walk up to author Pearcey and give her the hug of her lifetime and author to buy 100,000 copies of her book. 

Having said all of that, I think Nancy Pearcey has one good point. If militant feminists had their way, there wouldn't be any more straight, masculine men. The ideal man of the militant feminist, (if there is such a thing) is essentially a queen. A man who only seems like a man as far as physical appearance, meaning their body, not so much how they dress.

But, if the Nancy Pearcey's/Phyllis Schlafly's of the world had their way, America would probably lose the last 60 plus years of its history. Time would just stop and it would be 1954 or 55 everyday in America, every year. 

If Nancy Pearcey and Phyllis Schlafly had their way: 

women would just be servants of men 

gays would be locked in the closet, (but only after the mental institutions, jails, and prisons, are all filled up) 

every American would be forced to go to an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant church, every Sunday, by law 

the only music that would be available to listen to in America, would either be easy listening, country, or classic 

we would have 1000 different Hallmark Channels. 

America would be the West's version of Saudi Arabia or Iran. But again, only if the Nancy Pearcey's and Phyllis Schlafly's had their way. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Smerconish: Representative George Santos Gets Hit Hard With House Ethics Report

Source:Michael Smerconish- talking about soon to be former U.S. Representative George Santos (Republican, New York)

"Subscribe for daily news live streams every day at 8:00am ET.  If you're enjoying our content, please share our channel on social media!

Listen daily on SiriusXM POTUS Channel 124 9am-12 ET daily, Encore 9pm-12 ET" 

From Michael Smerconish 

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”

― George Carlin" 

From Good Reads 

George Carlin really makes my whole point about Representative George Santos and I could rest my case here, but I'll explain anyway how the Carlin point about politicians, makes my point about George Santos.

We get the government that we deserve, we get the politicians that we deserve, democracy has consequences, etc. But what does that mean? What we're now learning about George Santos in 2023, was available more than a year ago. His own people were resigning from his campaign and trying to get him to drop out of his U.S. House race because they saw him as a fraud. 

George Santos makes the whole case about the importance not just of opposition research, but political self-examination, doing an intelligence report about yourself and seeing how the other side and media are going to try to hit you. Then seeing if there is anything in your background that can hurt you. As well as is there too much that can hurt you and is it even worth running for office at all. 

The opposition research is your own campaign doing an intelligence report on your opponent and seeing if there are any real ethical problems with your opponent and not just the partisan attacks that campaigns throw back at each other, but real ethical problems with your opponent that could make that person really unfit for elected office.

Robert Zimmernan who was George Santos opponent in that 2022 New York House race, was on CNN last night pretty much blaming everyone else for why we didn't know about George Santos before he was elected to the House last year. He said it was the job if the Democratic Campaign Committee and the media to get and report all the information about Santos that he was a fraud, and conman, crook, and even criminal. 

Robert Zimmernan also said that his campaign did do some opposition research on Santos and got a lot of it right. Well, if that's the case, how come the Zimmerman Campaign didn't bother to report any of that information? Maybe they actually didn't want to win, or something, I don't know. Just because someone runs for office, doesn't prove that they actually want to win. 

Everything that we know about George Santos today, was available 13 months ago. But the media and and the Zimmernan Campaign didn't bother to report it. Or, the voters in that House district simply didn't care. Maybe their attitude was, George Santos can't be any more crooked than the average politician. Maybe they decided they don't like Robert Zimmerman. Maybe their attitude was: "George Santos is a lying sleazebag and conman. But at least he's not Robert Zimmerman." 

Or, to go by the George Carlin rule, they decided that they get the politicians that they deserve and decided that they deserve a man who lives off the backs of others, including people who work hard for a living and struggle just to get by, even in an era of high inflation and interest rates. Why not vote for someone who lives off of them not just for the luxuries in life, but to pay for their own rent, food, the basic necessities in life.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Popok: 'Prosecutors FINALLY DROP THE HAMMER On Donald Trump Co-Defendant'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: Raven Symone, I mean Fulton Country, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, Dirty Harry Floyd, and Biggest Loser Donald Trump.

"Harrison Floyd a Trump conspiracy co defendant in Georgia is about to go back to jail for violating the conditions of his release by mercilessly attacking likely witnesses in the case on social media, including a person he already got criminally charged for victimizing in the indictment. Michael Popok of Legal AF, analyzes the likelihood of Mr. Floyd being sent to jail, and how the judge will use this decision as a template on how to handle Donald Trump in the future." 

From Meidas Touch

Just on a personal note first and at risk of being called a sexist and perhaps racist by a bus load of far-leftists: I'm finally glad I have a good image on The New Democrat of Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis. I mean what a pussy cat. She's classic example of how looks, especially baby face looks and little girly voices, can be deceiving. She's one of the toughest prosecutors in the country and perhaps one of the best and smartest as well. 

As far as Donald Trump co-defendant Harrison Floyd: not claiming I'm the first person to give him the Dirty Harry nickname, but he's classic mob thug, that the boss (in case Donald Trump) uses to do his dirty work so the boss can stay out of trouble. 

At least Dirty Harry in the movies (played by Clint Eastwood) got that nickname, for being a hard-ass cop, who took the toughest cases as a San Francisco police inspector. But in Dirty Harry Floyd's case, he's just a wannabe mob thug whose going to pay a helluva price in Dixie Georgia, for being a dirtbag. Or in his case, a Dirty Harry Bag. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Fulton County DA's STRATEGIC MOVE Reveals LIKELY FATE For Top Donald Trump Allies'

Source:Harry Litman- left to right: former Donald Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows & and his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Dumb & Dumber might be too harsh (key word being might) but these are perhaps the two main architects of Donald Trump's scheme to throw out the 2020 presidential election and just automatically declare Biggest Loser Don the winner of the presidential election.

"Several co-defendants in the Fulton County case such as Donald Trump, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and Mark Meadows have not been offered plea deals. The news has led some prosecutors in the group to reconsider their legal strategy going forward." 

From CNN

I don't have much to add here. (Which might be relief to some people) I guess this is just a slow news day. But I can't see Mark Meadows making it through a trial. He'll be 65 next year, he's guilty of clear Georgia state felonies, as well as Federal felonies. 

The Meadows book deal where he wrote a book that he now admits is bullshit (to call it like it is) is probably the only thing that he has to finance his defense here. So he really needs to be thinking about whether he wants to go to prison and be in there well into his 70s. Even if somehow Donald Trump wins the presidential election next year, (and stranger things have happened in America) Mark Meadows would still have to go to trial in Atlanta in 2025, if not before that. With no one waiting around to pardon him. If he went to trial, he would get convicted, especially with all the evidence that's now against him, plus more that will come out against him before the trial, and of course during the trial. 

As far as Rudy Giuliani: even if he does have something that District Attorney Fani Willis doesn't have against Donald Trump and his co-defendants, as Harry Litman and other had said, he's a horrible witness because he's a compulsive liar. Which can happen to you when you spend a lot of time with Donald Trump, Trump infects you with his bullshit. So Rudy might be in a situation where he would have to just plead guilty and allocute to his crimes and hope for a lighter prison sentence in exchange. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas & Michael Popok: 'SHOCKING Moment Lawyer CONFESSES in Donald Trump RICO Case to LEAKING Videos'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: Fulton County, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee & Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis.

"Legal AF hosts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok cover the surprising moment during the protective order hearing where a lawyer for Donald Trump’s co-defendant confessed to providing the proffer session video confessions of Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis to the media." 

From the Meidas Touch

Both Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok could explain this better to you since they're both lawyers: under the 6th Amendment, we all have a right to a trial in America. Anyone whose inducted for anything, regardless of the evidence against them, has a constitutional right to be tried in a public court. Instead of just pleading guilty, or immediately being sent to prison upon being indicted. 

There is a big but here: we don't have a constitutional right to try our cases in public. We don't have a constitutional right to leak to the media protected and classified evidence against or for us. Whatever evidence that the prosecution has against us, or could be used to help us, if we're a defendant in a felony case, has to be presented in court and then approved by the judge, whether or not it's allowed to be presented in the case at all. 

If Donald Trump and his lawyers, as well as his co-defendants lawyers don't want to be convicted of a felony and end up in prison themselves, along with their clients, and worry about having to share a cell with a serial murder, or being poisoned in the chow hall, when they're trying to eat their meals, (if you want to call prison food meals) or getting stabbed in the chow hall, they need to play by the rules of the court. Anytime they believe that the judge is being unfair to them and their clients and rules against them unfairly, they can always appeal the judge's decisions against them. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'BOMBSHELL VIDEOS LEAKED Revealing SHOCKING Election Fraud Details'

Source:Harry Litman- anytime you are actually guilty, but you don't want to plead guilty or give up your co-conspirators, make sure you are not drunk or high when you are hiring your lawyers, because you might hire Sidney Power and Jenna Ellis by accident and end up doing 20 to life for speeding.

"Videos of former Trump allies leaked yesterday revealing interesting details about the events leading up to Janurary 6th. In a video of Jenna Ellis, who took a guilty plea in the Fulton County case, she explains that a Trump aide told her, "We're not going to leave" referring to Trump's insistence on staying in power. Following the leak, D.A. Fani Willis asked for an emergency seal of evidence." 

From Harry Litman 

Imagine being a member of a frat house in college and one of the conditions of being a member of that house, is that you have to drink alcohol all day, or smoke pot all day. So now you've been a member of this frat house for a month, drinking nothing but alcohol, at every meal, smoking pot all day, perhaps eating marijuana brownies when you are actually hungry. 

Or, you are just a confined mental patient who sees flying tomatoes with wings and killer ants killing bears while you are awake. I think this is what your mental state would have to be for you to actually believe that you can just stay in office after your administration just lost an election and nothing would happen to you as a result for trying to just stay in office after your term expired. 

I just don't see how an intelligent, moral, sane, sober, person, could actually believe what the Trump White House was contemplating after they lost all of their 2020 election cases in December that year. What would they have done on January 21, 2021, after Joe Biden has just been sworn in as President and now is the President and Kamala Harris has just been sworn in as Vice President? 

Now on January 21, 2021, the Biden's with their staffs are headed to The White House and arrive at The White House, but the Trump team is still there like it's just another day. 

I know what would've happened . The Secret Service or FBI would've stepped in, knowing that the Trump people are still there and haven't even started packing up and getting ready to go home and enter the private sector. They would've been kicked out and escorted off The White House property and perhaps even arrested for literally overstaying their welcome at The People's House. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.