Following the 2020 presidential election, Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, urged White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in frantic text conversations during the crucial weeks following the vote to continue unrelenting efforts to reverse the result, according to copies of the texts obtained by CBS News top election and campaign reporter Robert Costa and Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.
This is what happens when individuals have a hidden agenda. Mrs. Thomas has not only gotten her husband into a pickle; she has gotten herself into one as well. Why would she jeopardize her status by doing such acts?
Sen. Mike Braun, a Republican from Indiana, told reporters in his state on Tuesday that states should determine whether interracial marriage is allowed before claiming he misunderstood the questions and condemning “racism in any form.”
Mike Braun is interviewed in Bekah’s Westside Cafe in Lebanon, Ind., in April 2018.
Inquired as to whether or not he thought “interracial marriage should be left to the states, Braun said, “Yes, I believe that’s something — if you don’t want the Supreme Court to weigh in on matters like that, you’re not going to be able to have both your cake and eat it.” But, honestly, I don’t believe that’s right.” In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, allowing interracial marriage in the United States. Afterward, Braun was quizzed on his thoughts on the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to sexual privacy and made the use of contraception for married couples permissible under federal law. The states, according to Braun, should be the ones to decide. It’s possible to mention a wide range of difficulties, Braun said. But, as far as what they’re going to be, I’m going to suggest that they aren’t going to be all going to make you happy in a particular state but that we’re better off letting forms express their points of view rather than homogenizing it throughout the nation, as Roe v. Wade did.”
“Initially limiting” Braun’s contention that the Supreme Court had seized states’ powers in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, the Times of Northwest Indiana reports. However, he maintained his position when asked about other decisions, such as the Loving v. Virginia case. Braun afterward issued a statement indicating that he had “misunderstood” the questions asked. “I misread a line of inquiry earlier at a virtual news conference that turned out to be about interracial marriage. To be quite clear, the Constitution forbids all forms of discrimination based on race. So the issue of racism isn’t even up for question, and I firmly oppose it at every level, from the state to the person. It was Braun’s opinion. In a short interview on Wednesday, Braun told CNN that he doesn’t think states should decide on interracial marriage. That’s not the case, Braun said. Even though one may be forgivable, he exposed his true identity. We learn a lot about him through his reaction. When a racist is apprehended, they immediately attempt to paint themselves as victims of their own ignorance since it would be so handy.
Brown, Ketanji Jackson vehemently defended her record as a judge Tuesday, rebutting Republican charges that she was soft on crime and stating that if confirmed as the first black woman on the Supreme Court, she would rule as an “independent jurist.”
Republicans aggressively questioned Jackson during a marathon hearing that lasted into the night about the sentences she handed down to sex offenders during her nine years as a federal judge, her advocacy on behalf of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, her views on critical race theory, and even her religious beliefs. In February, President Joe Biden appointed Jackson to the Supreme Court, completing a campaign commitment to nominate a black woman to the court for the first time in American history. Cruz pressed Jackson on her sentencing for child pornographers, bringing up a giant poster board and marking passages he believed were heinous.
The White House has rejected the criticism as “toxic and weakly presented misinformation.” And sentencing expert Douglas Berman, an Ohio State law professor, noted on his blog that although Jackson’s record indicates she is suspicious of the range of prison sentences proposed in child pornography cases, “so were prosecutors in the majority of her cases and district judges nationally.” Jackson said that the notion does not arise in her job as a judge and “would not be anything I would depend on” if approved. Jackson’s answers bypassed a key point: the court weighs whether to overrule those cases that affirm a nationwide right to abortion.
Several officials of the Orthodox Church have expressed their opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. With the noteworthy exception of the Orthodox patriarch of Moscow, the military intervention has been rejected by the majority of people.
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, shown leading a service with at the Patriarchal Church of St. George in Istanbul on March 6, has said that Russia’s attack on Ukraine is a ‘violation of human rights.’ (photo: YASIN AKGUL / AFP via Getty Images)
The leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has urged Russian President Vladimir Putin for an “early cessation of the fratricidal conflict.” According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the greatest conventional military operation in Europe since World War II. With staunch defiance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has resisted Russian military intervention in his nation since 2014. As a result, the death toll has risen to tens of thousands, with 2.5 million people fleeing to neighboring nations like Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, and Romania.
Theodore II, the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria and all of Africa, has said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “drunk on power” and “the emperor of our times.” Patriarch Daniel of Romania, the patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, has called for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” in Ukraine. On February 24, Georgian Patriarch Illia II issued a dire warning about a “global calamity” and remembered Russia’s invasion of his nation in 2008. In early March, more than 275 Russian Orthodox priests and deacons from all across the globe signed an open letter. The Russian Orthodox Church has produced a series of remarks in which it expresses implicit support for the Ukrainian invasion while refraining from condemning the Russian government in any manner.
After giving an anti-war sermon in Moscow, Father Ioann Burdin, a Russian Orthodox priest, was detained. He appealed for the restoration of peace and unity with Metropolitan Onufry in a sermon delivered on February 27. He did not mention the separatist Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which he described as “a schism.” Many of Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine, particularly those related to NATO expansion, received backing from the Russian patriarch. According to reliable sources, Orthodox clergy and faithful in Ukraine have voiced their displeasure of Patriarch Kirill’s stance on the issue. Father Stefano Caprio said that the Ukrainian conflict generates a “deep divide” in the Orthodox Church in the United States.
Patriarch Kirill cannot break away from Putin because “he would bring the whole palace crashing down,” as he puts it. Some other autocephalous Orthodox churches, particularly those politically and ecclesiastically aligned with the patriarch, support the patriarch.
Three Russian billionaires have resigned from the board of directors of a $22-billion investment company during their country’s escalating invasion of Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin. MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images
This follows LetterOne’s decision last week to freeze out Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, who are subject to Western-imposed sanctions, by barring access to their premises and prohibiting them from communicating with workers. German Khan, Alexei Kuzmichev, and Andrei Kosogov — none of whom are sanctioned – all resigned from their jobs at the business on Monday. “While none of these three people have been sanctioned, they think that taking this action is in the long-term best interests of LetterOne, its workers, and the many jobs supported by its portfolio firms,” the company stated in a statement to Insider. Khan, 60, a cofounder of LetterOne and a partner in Alpha Group, said in a statement that he backed the board’s decisions and urged an end to the fight. “The bulk of LetterOne’s founders have strong roots in Ukraine, and the devastation of the places where I spent my youth and which are now home to our forefathers’ graves is sad,” added Khan, who has a net worth of almost $6.9 billion, according to Bloomberg. Kuzmichev, 59, is a cofounder of Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest private bank, and has an estimated net worth of around $5.2 billion, according to Bloomberg. Kosogov, 60, is a member of the Alpha Group’s board of directors and is worth $1.2 billion, according to Forbes.
Additionally, LetterOne said in Monday’s statement that Fridman and Aven, who stepped down from the company’s board of directors last Wednesday, had their shares “frozen permanently” and are no longer eligible to receive dividends or other financial funds from LetterOne. Mervyn Davies, the former chairman now CEO of LetterOne, told the Financial Times that they were shut out of offices, denied access to records, and prohibited from communicating with staff. LetterOne gives $150 million to aid those devastated by Ukraine’s conflict, and shareholders have decided that all dividends would go toward relief efforts, according to a corporate statement.
US authorities have made it plain that American soldiers would avoid confrontation with Russian forces, and NATO countries have resisted requests to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying that it might result in a “full-fledged war in Europe.”
If Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine crossed into a NATO member state, the situation could quickly deteriorate, triggering a response following NATO’s Article 5 policy. What is Article 5, and how does it pertain to Ukraine’s continuing conflict? What you need to know is as follows: What is the purpose of Article 5? Article 5 states that an assault on one NATO member constitutes an attack on all NATO members. The idea serves as a deterrent to prospective enemies targeting NATO countries.
Given that the US is NATO’s most prominent and most powerful member, every state inside the alliance is essentially protected by the US. Article 5: How does Russia’s aggression on Ukraine apply? Because Ukraine is not a NATO member, the US is not obligated to defend it in the same manner that it would if a NATO member nation were attacked. However, many of Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members, and if a Russian invasion extends into one of them, Article 5 may spark direct US and NATO member intervention. What is the definition of an attack against a NATO member state? Article 5 wording stipulates that collective action is triggered by an “armed assault” against a member country. NATO members choose what constitutes an “armed assault,” and Russia’s hostile stance has already raised concerns about the country’s propensity to provoke a NATO reaction. Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, recently warned The Washington Post that a Russian assault on Ukraine might have ramifications that extend beyond the intended “geographical limits” and threaten NATO nations. While local officials have said that “no change in radiation levels” has occurred in the region, what if there had been a radioactive leak that spread to a NATO member nation? “That is a decision for the alliance to make,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby previously told CNN.
As Vice President Mike Pence watches, President Trump, delivered a speech at the White House Rose Garden on April 27, 2020.
President Donald Trump speaks as Vice President Mike Pence looks on during a news conference on April 27, 2020, in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Mike Pence, the former vice president of the United States, stated Friday night that there is no place in the Republican Party for “apologists for Putin.” Pence spoke to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in an address to Republican fundraisers in New Orleans. Despite the sanctions imposed by the United States and the rest of the world, Vice President Mike Pence said it was time for conservatives not to back Vladimir Putin. What state would our Eastern European allies be now if they were not a part of NATO? “If NATO had not enlarged the bounds of freedom, where would Russia’s tanks be today?” he asked. A Putin apologist will not be welcome at this party. However, despite Pence’s lack of reference to Trump, he has been one of the most outspoken Republican voices favoring Vladimir Putin. Despite Trump’s insistence that the assault on Ukraine would never have occurred under his watch, Putin has been praised as “clever,” “intelligent,” and “a genius.” While Putin is brilliant, Trump remarked last week, “the issue is not that Putin is smart — because of course he is smart — but rather that our politicians are foolish.” Dumb. “It is ridiculous,” he said. Barr claims that Trump was responsible in the broad sense for the disturbance on January 6, 2017. Pence’s remarks come at a time when violence continues in Ukraine. On Saturday, after halting evacuation attempts in Mariupol due to continuous Russian bombardment, Putin again lambasted the wide-ranging sanctions slapped against Russia by the global community. If Ukrainian and global leaders continue to fight back against the invasion, it will jeopardize “the survival of Ukrainian sovereignty,” he added of the sanctions. According to UN agencies, three hundred and thirty-one civilians have been killed in clashes between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists. Researchers, however, advise that the actual death toll is likely far higher due to the difficulty and risk of counting the dead in battle. In the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Republicans like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have characterized the Russian president as a competent statesman who has “a lot of talents” to offer. In the wake of Lindsey O. Graham’s (R-S.C.) assertion that the “only option” to settle the conflict in Ukraine is for Putin’s assassination, politicians on both sides of the aisle lashed out at the Republican senator. While there is much unrest in the world right now, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Graham’s statements show a “hysterical, acute pressure of a Russian eruption.” The White House likewise rejected Graham’s assassination call.
“That is not the perspective of the United States government and not a statement you would hear from the lips of anyone working in this administration,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Friday during a daily briefing. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Texas, and Sen. Ted Cruz called Graham’s remarks “reckless” (Ga.).
Volodymyr Nezhenets, a 54-year-old volunteer warrior, was killed in a gun battle in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv on February 27. It was decided that his wishes would bury him. Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has similarly shifted his tone toward Putin after first downplaying the crisis and asked Americans why they despised him. The conservative pivot on Russia has also come from Fox News. Although Pence made a veiled reference to Trump in his Friday address, the vice president echoed the former president and blamed the Biden administration’s handling of the Ukraine conflict on the Trump administration. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was “no accident,” Vice President Mike Pence stated. “Weakness arouses evil, and the enormity of evil pouring over Ukraine speaks volumes about this president,” he says. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was lauded for his bravery, and Zelensky said that Putin “only knows strength.” Additionally, Vice President Pence called on Republicans to support humanitarian and refugee help initiatives.
If Trump had won reelection, Bolton claims Trump would have withdrawn the United States from the NATO alliance. When asked about future elections, Vice President Pence said Republicans needed to move on from their defeat in the 2020 presidential race. During the tallying of the electoral college ballots by Congress, Trump continued to erroneously imply that Vice President Pence had the right to reverse the 2020 election. The “Hang Mike Pence!” scream that arose among the pro-Trump crowd during the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, fueled such bogus accusations. This election will be won if the Republican Party stands unified behind a vision of the future based on its most dear principles. “We can’t win by re-fighting the past or re-opening old wounds.”
The Kremlin has dispatched two distinct groups of mercenaries to Kyiv to assassinate the Ukrainian President. According to The Times of London, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has survived at least three targeted assassination attempts in the last week.
Since Russia’s unprovoked war on its western neighbor began last week, Zelenskyy has conducted business from a handful of bunkers scattered throughout the nation’s capital, having declined an offer from the United States to evacuate him. As a result, he is vulnerable to assassination attempts by teams of Kremlin-backed assassins. Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told a Ukrainian television network that anti-war elements within Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) were instrumental in foiling several plots. Zelenskyy acknowledged in a defiant speech last week that he is “target No. 1” to “damage Ukraine politically by assassinating the head of state.” “However, we are not afraid of anything,” he stated. “We have no qualms about defending our country. We have no apprehensions about Russia.”
Last month, US officials warned that Russian forces had compiled a hit list of Ukrainian citizens murdered or detained in detention camps. According to reports, the Kremlin has dispatched two distinct groups of mercenaries to Kyiv in an attempt to carry out that directive. One is being organized by the Wagner Group, a private military contractor headed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, dubbed “Putin’s Chef.” The other is a group of elite Chechen fighters that Ramzan Akhmadovich Kadyrov’s Chechen Republic controls. Danilov stated on Tuesday that a Chechen assassination attempt over the weekend failed and that the group responsible had been “destroyed.” Among those killed by Ukrainian forces was Chechen-Russian Gen. Magomed Tushayev, who faces charges of torturing and murdering LGBTQ+ people in Chechnya. “As we have seen in the past, we anticipate Russia will attempt to coerce cooperation through intimidation and repression,” a US official told Foreign Policy on condition of anonymity. “These acts, which have included targeted killings, kidnappings/forced disappearances, detentions, and the use of torture in previous Russian operations, would almost certainly target those who oppose Russian actions, including Russian and Belarusian dissidents in exile in Ukraine, journalists and anti-corruption activists, as well as vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ individuals.”
The founder of a right-wing organization whose members have been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the assault on the United States Capitol spent around six hours on Wednesday, January 6, talking to the committee by Zoom from a prison in Oklahoma to the committee.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes during an interview session in Eureka, Mont., on June 20, 2016.Jim Urquhart / Reuters file
According to one of his attorneys, the United States Marshals Service holds Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, who is now in custody in the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing. Rhodes appeared virtually before the House committee on the Cimarron Correctional Facility. The detention institution is under contract with the United States Marshals Service, transferring Rhodes to the Federal Detention Center in Washington, D.C. According to his attorney, Jonathan Moseley, Rhodes claimed his Fifth Amendment rights between 20 and 30 times but ended up talking for an extended period about the history of the Oath Keepers instead. Moseley, a Virginia-based attorney whose other clients have included Kelly Meggs, Zach Rehl, a member of the Proud Boys, and other January 6 defendants, said the committee allowed Rhodes to “talk very freely” about the history of the organization. However, his attorneys prevented him from answering questions that could affect his criminal case. Rhodes is charged with conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes. As long as they weren’t particular to November, December 2020, or January 2021, Moseley stated, “A lot of things about what they do and how they do it were discussed, as long as they weren’t specific to November, December 2020, or January 2021,” “He gave examples of how they operate and what they do,” said the author. The ex-wife of the commander of the Oath Keepers claimed that he was “fulfilling his own narrative.” Initially, the committee asked a series of “test questions” to determine what Rhodes would and would not share, according to Moseley. Still, it ended up asking “a lot of questions about the Oath Keepers that he was able to answer,” which Rhodes was able to answer, according to Moseley. Additionally, Kellye SoRelle, who took over as interim leader of the Oath Keepers when Rhodes was jailed last month, appeared before the committee on January 6. According to Moseley, “I’m sure they were most interested in the stuff that criminal lawyers wouldn’t let him answer,” including communications with other groups such as the Proud Boys, contacts with key figures in former President Donald Trump’s orbit, and fundraising for events scheduled for January 6, among other things. A request for comment from a committee representative did not respond instantly. One of the committee’s aides recently said that the panel had heard testimony from more than 475 witnesses and had acquired more than 60,000 pages of documents as part of its probe. Moseley said that Rhodes had previously promised to assist the committee to the extent that he was able before he was indicted by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia. Additionally, he claimed that Rhodes talked about his previous work with the Oath Keepers during the interview and that Rhodes became emotional when he told him about how members of the organization helped to secure a shop in Ferguson, Missouri, amid unrest after the killing of Michael Brown in 2014. Federal prosecutors allege that Rhodes is the mastermind of a criminal conspiracy aimed at maintaining Trump in power despite the election of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States. In his statement to the other defendants, prosecutors claim, Rhodes said that there was “no standard political or legal way out of this,” and that they should be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The United States Marshals Service is now in the custody of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III. According to his attorney, Jonathan Moseley, he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights between 20 and 30 times. Rhodes was stopped from answering questions that may have impacted his criminal prosecution by his counsel. They questioned him about contact with other organizations, such as the Proud Boys, and funding for the activities on January 6, among other things. In its inquiry, the panel heard testimony from more than 475 witnesses and acquired more than 60,000 pages of documents. Individuals should be aware that everything we do or say on the internet leaves a technical imprint on the world.
Amy and David Carson desired that their daughter Olivia attend Bangor Christian Schools, a private religious elementary through secondary school. Maine has said that it would not subsidize religious education. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the state violated the Carsons’ constitutional rights. Carson v. Makin is the most recent in a series of lawsuits petitioning the Supreme Court for a ruling on religious liberty. If the court decides widely, it might have a profound effect on the ability of religious organizations to receive public financing.
Getty Images (2); TIME
It has the potential to “eviscerate” rules prohibiting public sponsorship of religious education. Maine parents have filed a lawsuit against the state for failing to include their favorite schools in a tuition aid program. Plaintiffs and supporters contend that the state discriminates against religious individuals. The case follows a series of previous judgments on public support for religious organizations. The case sets the free exercise provision of the First Amendment against the establishment clause. According to some legal experts, Carson v. Makin is likely to become an extension of Espinoza. Officials in Maine assert that religious schools do not give an education “equivalent to a public education.” Carson v. Maine calls into question the relationship between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. Maine contends that Bangor Christian and Temple Academy in Maine discriminate against members of other faiths and instructors and students who identify as LGBTQ. Advocates fear that government money may flow to discriminatory schools if the plaintiffs win. Maine is just a few states that give this kind of tuition assistance to pupils who live in areas without public school choice. However, experts are concerned that other states may experience similar pressure from religious groups to implement similar schemes. This possibility concerns Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
The Dantzler Report! 