Trump Wins One in the Fourth Circuit


The District of Columbia and the State of Maryland filed a LOLsuit against Donald Trump in both his official and personal capacities claiming that Trump was violating the Emoluments Clause of Article II of the Constitution. The U. S. District Court of Maryland ruled against the President’s official and personal motions to dismiss, and the judge refused to certify an interlocutory appeal of his rulings. Trump took the unusual steps (official and personal) of seeking writs of mandamus from the Fourth Circuit ordering the certification of the appeal. Yesterday, the Court of Appeals took the even more unusual action of granting the writs of mandamus Trump sought.

The TL:DR is this: The Court of Appeals ruled that the district judge was wrong on the law, so the case has been remanded with instructions that it be dismissed with prejudice.

Money quote—

The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties. In any event, for the reasons given, we grant the President’s petition for a writ of mandamus and, taking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), hold that the District and Maryland do not have Article III standing to pursue their claims against the President. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s orders denying the President’s motion to dismiss filed in his official capacity, and, in light of our related decision in No. 18-2488, we remand with instructions that the court dismiss the District and Maryland’s complaint with prejudice.

Trump Derangement Syndrome doesn’t seem to be a valid cause of action.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


In many ways, we are known by the company we keep. The TKPOTD for six years ago today dealt with some of the people and organizations The Dread Deadbeat Protestor/Protector Kimberlin was working with.

* * * * *

One of the subsidiary operations of Brett Kimberlin’s 501(c)4 Velvet Revolution US is called Chamber Watch. On Chamber Watch’s Action Items web page (No, I won’t link to it.), there’s a description of an alliance of organizations and individuals engaged in attacking the U. S. Chamber of Commerce.

Velvet Revolution and it [sic] staff, including journalist Brad Friedman, along with SEIU, reporter Glenn Greenwald, Change to Win and ChamberWatch

That’s an interesting bunch.

Brad Friedman is the co-founder with Brett Kimberlin of VRUS. He is the left coast anchor of the group and a “respectable” public face.

The SEIU is the Service Employees International Union which enhanced its reputation for violence by sending purple-shirted thugs to confront tea party rallies. SEIU founder Wade Rathke was a cofounder of ACORN.

Glenn Greenwald? Yep, that Glenn Greenwald. The one who writes for The Guardian.

Change to Win is a coalition of labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO; it consists The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, United Farm Workers, and United Food and Commercial Workers. All of these unions have a history of violence and/or corruption.

Thugs partnering with left-wing “journalists” to attack big business, but to what purpose? Did I mention that there’s a Donate button on each webpage?

* * * * *

More recently, TDPK has been focusing on election integrity. That change in interest may have some connection the The Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin losing a couple of LOLsuits related to his tiff with the Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, his work during the 2016 elections with Ukrainian interests connected to the Democrats’ National Committee appear to have been so … um … rewarding that in 2017 he changed the corporate name of VelvetRevolution US to Protect Our Elections/EMPR Inc. (empr dot media is an English-language Ukrainian news site hosted on the same server as the now-seemingly-abandoned Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Unread.)

My Face, Unshocked


I’ve let the Google story broken by Project Veritas percolated through the Interwebz for a day before commenting. I wanted to see how some of the usual suspects reacted. There’s only been one real surprise so far, and that was how long it took YouTube, a sister company to Google, to send the Project Veritas video down the memory hole. (BTW, if you haven’t seen the video, it’s available here. Go watch it, and come back. I’ll wait …)

Today’s TKPOTD deals with an effort back in 2015 to silence me. As part of that effort, my business and personal Twitter accounts were shut down. Twitter claimed that it was because of “targeted abuse” but could not cite a single example. I believe I was being punished for not following their approved narrative. However, I was one of the earliest victims of Twitter’s “safety” system, and my permanent suspension was only temporary. When the false criminal charge failed for lack of evidence, Twitter seemed to realize their potential liability. My business account was reinstated, but the lessons learned from that failure were used to refine their tactics.

Facebook, Google, YouTube, Pinterest, … the list goes on. They all seem to have the same sort of definition of fairness, one that wouldn’t survive the old Fairness Doctrine I worked under as a broadcaster in the ’60s and ’70s. These companies’ users aren’t customers. The users are the product being sold to advertisers, and as product, they are something to be moulded and controlled.

So why am I still on Twitter if I view it as an unfair platform and untrustworthy business partner? I can use it to promote blog posts at no real cost to me. Beyond that, it has no real appeal. I got on Gab when it was brand new, and I’ve made a small investment in the company because it really seems dedicated to free speech.

Except for Maps and Scholar, I’ll pretty much given up on Google. DuckDuckGo has been my default search engine for over a year. I’ll still link to YouTube content, put if I wanted to post a video, I’d use BitChute. I’ve deleted my Pinterest account. I no longer post to Facebook.

And I’m not the only person who has grown tired of online services who despise me.

Twenty years ago, as the Internet Bubble was bursting, Google survived because it was a robust company infrastructure with a viable business model. Coincidentally twenty years ago, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in the Western Hemisphere with thriving petroleum industry. While I’m saddened, I’m not shocked by what Marxism has done to Venezuela. If I’m still around in 2039, I suspect that I’ll feel more schadenfreude than sadness for what a post-modern, neo-Marxist business model is likely to do for Google. Or Twitter. Or the rest of ’em. I certainly don’t expect to have use my shocked face.

Scorched Earth


RealClearInvestigations has a long post up titled ‘Scorched Earth’: Mueller’s Targets Speak Out. Witnesses and targets of the Special Counsel’s investigation agreed to speak with RealClearInvestigations because they are no longer in legal jeopardy. One was Art Moore, an editor for WND dot com. Moore describes being interview by a pair of FBI agents—

“They were clearly on a fishing expedition,” Moore said, recounting the incident to RealClearInvestigations publicly for the first time.

“They seemed desperate to find something to hang onto the narrative” of Russian collusion, he said.

The RCI piece presents details from interviews with Moore, Jerome Corsi, Jason Fishbein, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Sam Patten, Michale Ledeen, and Joseph Schmitz. These witnesses find it beyond ironic that some Democrats are now complaining that Mueller didn’t do enough to find incriminating evidence against Trump. They’ve spoken out because they want the public to understand the toll Mueller’s probe has taken on their lives.

It’s a long post. Read the whole thing.

Another One Bites the Dust


Theresa May has tendered her resignation as Prime Minister effective 7 June. Her announcement came after the Conservative Party was thoroughly trounced in elections for British local councils. The UK also held its election for the European Union Parliament yesterday, and it’s believed that the Conservative took less than 10 percent of the that vote. (Different EU countries are voting on different days through Sunday. Results are not released in any country until the polls have closed in all.)

The Brits started the current worldwide rebellion of the Deplorables against their Betters with the Brexit vote in 2016. We Americans piled on by electing Donald Trump. The response of the Deep State here in America was the failed coup d’etat against the democratic choice of the voters centered on the Russian Collusion myth. In the UK the coup against the voters’ choice of Brexit has taken the form of negotiating a non-exit Brexit and pushing for a re-do referendum. May’s failure to deliver what the voters chose has destroyed her party’s effectiveness and is bringing an end to her career.

Polling suggests that Nigel Farage has led the Brexit Party to first place in the EU parliamentary election. We’ll know if that’s true by Monday morning. Might he do the same for that party in the UK parliamentary elections expected to occur later this year?

* * * * *

President Trump has published a memorandum directing the intelligence agency to fully cooperate with Attorney General Barr’s investigation of possible interference with our electoral process and giving the Attorney General to declassify whatever secrets need to be made public.

Who’s next?

First Amendment News


Congratulations to Project Veritas on its victory in court yesterday. They were being sued for defamation in a federal court in North Carolina, and Judge Martin K. Reidinger granted them a directed verdict when the plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence for the case to go to the jury. The judge said this in his ruling (beginning at the bottom of page 14 of the transcript below):

The law requires, and the Supreme Court has made clear under the Liberty Lobby case, that I not only have to look at this from the standpoint of whether or not there is the thinnest of thin reeds, that scintilla of evidence, but rather whether a jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that there was actual malice. And these very thin reeds, which I believe as to several of these are really no evidence of malice at all, are insufficient to meet that standard. Therefore, for that reason, the defendant’s motion — defendant’s motions pursuant to Rule 50 will be granted.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 deals with ruling on matters of law during a jury trial. Judge Reidinger continued:

Whenever I have something that is of particular difficulty, such as this case, it is my ordinary, knee-jerk reaction to tell the party that I’ve ruled against that I urge you to have the court of appeals go grade my paper. To that end, I will say that I will follow this up with a written order before I enter a judgment in this matter that will further elucidate what I’m talking about.

And I do have an inclination to say exactly that. I think that if I got this wrong I’d certainly like for somebody to tell me that I got it wrong. I have a little bit of hesitation in saying that this time. Because if I’ve gotten this wrong, and the Fourth Circuit says that this is not what the law is, I hesitate to think where the First Amendment is going in this country.

It’s always good First Amendment news when a frivolous defamation LOLsuit fails, and I have to admit that seeing one fail because the plaintiff couldn’t come up with a “scintilla” of evidence at trial has a certain resonance for me.