Wait, what???? – During his revived COVID-19 press briefing on Tuesday, the President of the United States of America had this to say about accused pedophile madam Ghislaine Maxwell:
JUST IN: Pres. Trump on Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime companion of infamous sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: "I just wish her well, frankly."
— ABC News (@ABC) July 21, 2020
Here is the full answer:
Reporter: Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison, and so a lot of people want to know if she’s going to turn in powerful people. I know you’ve talked in the past about Prince Andrew, and you’ve criticized Bill Clinton’s behavior. I wonder: Do you feel she’s going to turn in powerful men? how do you see that working out?
President Trump: I don’t know, I haven’t really been following it too much. I just wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is. I don’t know the situation with Prince Andrew, just don’t know. Not aware of it.
My goodness. The reporter is correct in that the President has indeed commented numerous times on his Twitter feed about both Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. This is also the first time he has publicly admitted to meeting Maxwell more than once when they both lived in Palm Beach.
Understanding how communications operations in the political world work, this answer most likely means a couple of things:
– The White House has been made aware that Maxwell has presented the DOJ with evidence that she interacted with Trump on numerous occasions while she lived in Palm Beach, and the White House is trying to get ahead of any leaks of that information that will almost inevitably take place prior to Election Day, and
– The President does not want to make any inflammatory remarks that might negatively impact coming prosecutions against Prince Andrew and Clinton.
Again, knowing how these things work, it is very likely that that reporter was asked by the White House to ask that specific question.
The information that Trump met Maxwell on numerous occasions is not at all surprising given that she spent years living near Mar a Lago and that she, Trump and Jeffrey Epstein for years were all invited to parties and events involving the elite members of U.S. society. We should also remember that Trump famously banned Epstein and Maxwell from Mar a Lago after Epstein was seen behaving inappropriately with a teenage girl on the property.
But still, this statement is disturbing and disappointing in many ways. The only really positive thing about it is that the President did not display any of the body language typical of a nervous or guilty person while making it.
Don’t expect this story just to go away.
The McCloskeys will have their case dismissed. – But the goal of corrupt, Soros-funded St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner has already been achieved.
The McCloskeys, if you remember, are the St. Louis couple who wielded firearms in front of their home, on their own private property, as a gang of Antifa/BLM thugs invaded their gate neighborhood. Given that that entire neighborhood, including the streets, is private property owned by the residents, and that the gang of thugs broke down the gate in order to enter it, the action by the McCloskeys was perfectly and unambiguously legal under Missouri law. They literally did nothing wrong.
But instead of arresting and indicting the criminal thugs, Ms. Gardner arrested and booked the McCloskeys, ordering police to invade their home and seize their legally-owned weapons in the process. On Tuesday, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley called the actions by the prosecutor a “miscarriage of justice,” and urged the DOJ to “open a civil rights investigation into the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s office.”
Hawley’s demand came a day after Missouri’s Attorney General, Eric Schmitt, intervened in the case with a filing demanding its dismissal.
From a piece at the Daily Caller:
St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner is engaged in a political prosecution.
I entered the case seeking a dismissal.
As AG I have a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all Missourians including the right to keep & bear arms in self-defense of one's person & home.
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 21, 2020
In subsequent tweets, the AG went on to say the following:
The right to defend one’s person, family, home and property has deep roots in Missouri law. Self-defense is the central component of the right to keep & bear arms, which receives the highest protection from the MO Constitution. #2AMO statutes specifically authorize citizens to use firearms to deter assailants & protect themselves, their families & homes from threatening or violent intruders. #2AA highly publicized criminal prosecution of citizens for exercising these fundamental freedoms threatens to intimidate & deter law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right of self defense.My job as AG is to protect the fundamental rights of all Missourians, including the right to keep & bear arm in self defense of one’s person and home. This case casts an ominous shadow over those fundamental rights.#2AThe prosecution sends a powerful message to all Missourians that they exercise their fundamental right to self defense at their peril. Missourians should not fear exposure to criminal prosecution, even prison time, when they use firearms to defend themselves and their homes.As AG I am vested with authority to enter this case for several reasons: 27.060 grants the AG authority to intervene in actions that threaten the interests of all Missourians.I have a duty to protect & defend the const & statutory rights of Missourians including the Constitutional right to keep & bear arms & the right to self-defense by way of our Constitution & Missouri’s Castle Doctrine.I have entered the case and filed a brief seeking a dismissal of the case to ensure ALL Missourians who wish to exercise their fundamental right to defend themselves, their families & their homes without fear of criminal prosecution. #2AThis case is extraordinary. Based on widely reported facts, this prosecution targets conduct explicitly protected both by the MO Constitution & statutes setting forth the “Castle Doctrine” of self-defense. #2AIn other words this is not just a case of the gov’t retaliating against a citizen for exercising a fundamental right – which is bad enough – its also a case where the local prosecutor believes that exercising that fundamental right is – itself – a crime.This political prosecution is not based in law and as long as it continues it will send a public message to ALL Missourians: If you dare to exercise the fundamental right to keep & bear arms in defense of family and home, you may be prosecuted and sent to prison. #2AThe Right to Keep & Bear Arms in Self-Defense of One’s Person & Home Receives the MO Constitution’s Highest Level of Protection. Self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” & the “central component” of the right to keep & bear arms in both the #2A & MO Const. See Heller decision.This “core and lawful purpose” includes “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth & home.” See Heller.
The right to keep & bear arms is a “fundamental right” that is “necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” See McDonald case. #2AThe Founders viewed the right to keep & bear arms in self-defense as a natural right that was inalienable.This recognition predated the adoption of the US Constitution & had deep roots in English concepts of liberty forged in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. #2AThus under principles of English law that the Founders viewed as fundamental, the right to keep & bear arms was “a recognition of the natural right of defense of one’s person or house as part of the law of self preservation & central to the #2A.”The Founders knew the right to keep & bear arms, not the gov’t. is the citizens first line of defense against physical attack. Thus, this right received its greatest emphasis during times when gov’t could not not trusted to protect citizens’ personal security. #2AThe landmark Heller decision mentions its importance for anti-slavery advocates & post-civil war firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence.If anything, this right is even more deeply rooted in Missouri’s unique history & tradition. The right was explicitly in Missouri’s first Const of 1820 stating; the “right to bear arms in defence of themselves & of the state cannot be questioned.” #2AMo has even expanded this language over the years including in 2014 when the overwhelming majority of MO voters including the language “home, person family & property” subject to “strict scrutiny.” #2AIt goes on, “The state of MO shall be obligated to uphold these rights & shall under NO circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.” #2ABy Enacting the Castle Doctrine of Self-Defense, MO Statutes Explicitly Authorize the Use of Firearms to Defend One’s Person, Family, Home, and Property From Threatening and Violent Intruders.Missouri has adopted one of the strongest versions of the Castle Doctrine in the country. This Doctrine is not merely a creature of statute, but deeply rooted in the Constitutional right to keep & bear arms. #2ASection 563.031 specifically authorizes MO citizens & homeowner to protect themselves from illegal invasions & intrusions into their homes & private property. It establishes 3 principles: #2A1. Missourians may defend themselves & others using physical force (including firearm)to deter the imminent use of unlawful force by another person;2. MOs may use deadly force against a person who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter private property owned by another & threatens to use unlawful force against another; 3. MOs have no duty to retreat from their own residence or property when threatened by an unlawful intruderFurther, the Castle Doctrine specifically shields Missourians who act in valid self-defense from prosecution for unlawful use of a weapon by exhibiting a weapon in an angry or threatening manner under 571.030.1(4). #2AIn fact 571.030.5 states: it SHALL NOT APPLY TO PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL ACT OF DEFENSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 563.031. #2AThus, this is not a case where the Ds must raise a self-defense as an affirmative defense or assert the exercise of a const right as a defense to justify conduct that otherwise would constitute a crime. Exhibiting a weapon in an act of valid self-defense IS NOT A CRIME AT ALL.The law is clear and unambiguous, if an intruder invades private property & threatens to harm the homeowner or another person, a citizen may defend him or herself. To display firearms in self-defense as in 563.031 is not a crime & it should not be charged as a crime at all. #2AThe Highly Politicized Prosecution of Missouri Citizens For Exercising Their Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense May Intimidate & Deter Other Missourians From Exercising Their Fundamental Right of Self-Defense.This case reflects the opposite of the state’s constitutional obligation under Art. I sec 23 to “uphold these rights” to keep & bear arms self-defense & “protect against infringement.” #2AShallNotBeInfringedIn fact this political prosecution sends a powerful & dangerous message: You exercise you right to keep & bear arms at your own peril. If you do you may find yourself in prison. #2AThis case has significance that extends well beyond the parties. The pendency of this case chills & deters all citizens from exercising one of our most fundamental right, which receives the highest level of protection in Missouri’s Constitution & laws. #2AOn behalf of all Missourians who wish to exercise their right to keep & bear arms in self-defense of their persons, homes families & property & as AG of the great state of MO I’m seeking a dismissal of this politically motivated case at the earliest opportunity. #2AEND THREAD
That’s very long, but well worth reading in full.
The McCloskeys will see ultimately their case dismissed, but Ms. Gardner’s evil goal has already been fulfilled: She knew going in she would never get a guilty verdict under the law. Her goal is the goal of all of the hundreds of Soros-funded local prosecutors who have been elected in recent years around the country: Intimidation.
The goal of Marxist thugs like Gardner is never to uphold the laws, but to destroy them, in the process intimidating their opponents into compliant submission. By abusing the rights of the McCloskeys in such a brutal way, Gardner was using them as an example of what can happen to any other law-abiding citizens under her jurisdiction should they exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in opposition to the Democrat Party-sponsored thugs in Antifa and BLM.
George Soros and his hundreds of front groups have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade to put prosecutors, mayors, city council members and elected judges just like Gardner into office. Ms. Gardner is just one of thousands of such thugs now in positions of power in Democrat-controlled cities all over America.
It’s a civil war, folks. It isn’t a shooting civil war yet, but don’t think they won’t go there to achieve their ultimate goal of destroying our Republic.
That is all.
Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.