Thursday, April 25, 2024
spot_imgspot_img
Thursday, April 25, 2024

Milwaukee Press Club 'Excellence in Wisconsin Journalism' 2020 & 2021 Award Winners

State Law: Why the Jury MUST Acquit Kyle Rittenhouse of Firearm Charge

spot_img

State law on when minors can carry guns is extremely confusing, but a careful reading of the wording shows it exonerates Kyle Rittenhouse on the gun charge. He was carrying the gun legally. The Legislature should clean up the law.

Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying the rifle LEGALLY on the night of the Kenosha shootings, despite the fact he was 17. That’s because of the complicated language in Wisconsin statutes.

Prosecutors charged him with illegal use of a firearm, but the statute’s wording exonerates him. In court on Nov. 12, the judge agreed with that reading of the statutes, and said he will instruct jurors on it, meaning jurors can ONLY acquit him if they follow the law.

A careful reading of state law says that minors can carry rifles at age 16 and 17 as long as they are not short-barreled. The jury will be instructed on this, Judge Bruce Schroeder said in court. No one has argued in court that Rittenhouse’s gun was short-barreled. The state did not introduce any evidence documenting barrel length at the trial. Evidence from the manufacturer shows that Rittenhouse’s gun was not short-barreled under the statutes.

Thus, the jury must acquit. We think Schroeder is exactly right. We think you will too when you read the statutes later in this story.

We’ve lost count of how many people on social media and in the media believe the firearm charge is the only slam dunk count against Rittenhouse, repeating endlessly that he “shouldn’t have had the gun that night.” It’s not true. A careful reading of state law shows he could legally carry the gun that night.

Kyle rittenhouse acted in self defense
Kyle rittenhouse

To be clear, the law is confusing. The law has confounded even lawyers because of its convoluted wording. We would encourage legislators to clarify and clean up the misdemeanor illegal firearm possession statute. It’s so confusing that even Judge Bruce Schroeder, who is the longest current serving circuit judge in Wisconsin, said, “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He questions how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.

On Nov. 12, though, Schroeder, the judge overseeing the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, took an action that means the jury, if they are following the jury instructions, will HAVE TO acquit Rittenhouse on the illegal gun charge.

The prosecutor, Jim Kraus, argued in court on Friday, Nov. 12, that Rittenhouse’s lawyers didn’t measure the length of Rittenhouse’s gun’s barrel in court. But the judge retorted, “You have the burden of proof.”

Schroeder said that, unless the state proved the rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used had an unlawfully short barrel, he will instruct the jury that Rittenhouse can’t be convicted of being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. And again the state did not introduce evidence on barrel length. It’s called an affirmative defense. He is giving final jury instructions to the lawyers today, but that’s what he indicated in court.

It all comes down to the word “AND” in the statutes, which we explain below.

Rittenhouse of gun charge

The defense also has cited a legislative history by the Legislative Reference Bureau. The law dates to 1991. They believe it also shows that the legislature did not intend for 16 and 17-year-olds to be part of the prohibition. But Schroeder focused on the plain letter of the law as written.

Let’s unpack the statute.

Kyle rittenhouse gun charge

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c)
(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Let’s stop there for a second. The prosecution is fixating on the above (2) (a) to argue that Rittenhouse illegally carried the rifle. He was 17 at the time. He clearly possessed it; he’s on video doing it. The problem for the state is that the statute continues beyond the above, limiting who it can be applied to…We bolded the key parts:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. 

Let’s unpack it further. It’s the “and” that makes Rittenhouse’s carrying of the rifle legal.

Rittenhouse is not in violation of s.941.28 because that’s the statute that explains that the rifle must be short-barreled to be illegal, and no one presented evidence to the jury that his gun was short-barreled, not even prosecutors. Moving on, then, the “and” means the state must show he was in violation of BOTH 29.304 and 29.593. That’s how we, the defense, and the judge read it. 29.304 makes it illegal for anyone under 16 to carry a gun. In fact, that statute is headlined, “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

But Rittenhouse was 17. The last part, 29.593, relates to not having a hunter’s safety certificate. Rittenhouse concedes he did not.

Thus, he does not meet 2 of the 3 violation requirements, but because of the way the law is worded (“and”), the state needed to show he was either in violation of the short-barreled provision OR both the age and hunter’s safety certificate elements. They have not, and can not, do so because he’s not under 16. This is what the jury will be instructed, the judge indicated in court.

Thus, if they are following the law, they must acquit.

In court on Friday, prosecutors did not argue that Rittenhouse’s rifle was short-barreled under the law; rather, they tried to argue that they don’t need to show BOTH that Rittenhouse was under age 16 and that he did not have a hunter’s safety certification. The judge disagreed and is allowing the jury to hear the defense argument on that point.

The gun Rittenhouse used was a Smith & Wesson MP-15. According to Smith & Wesson website, the barrel length is 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches.

Kyle rittenhouse gun charge

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said in court on Nov. 12, “The exception says it’s a violation if he’s under 18 and possesses a short-barrelled shotgun or rifle, that’s one way (to convict). OR, if you are in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304, which only applies to people 16 of age and under. There’s testimony he’s 17. He has to be in violation of both 29.304 and 29.593. I concede violation 29.593 but 29.304, he’s 17. It doesn’t apply to him.”

So the law actually allows 16 and 17-year-olds to carry guns in Wisconsin as long as the barrels are of legal length, which applies to EVERYONE, not just 16 and 17-year-olds.

There was no evidence shown in court regarding the entire length of the MP-15 nor its barrel. There was no evidence given in court that the rifle and barrel had been altered.

The judge said the defense did need to raise the issue for it to be considered by the jury; defense attorney Corey Chiarifisi said in court that he asked a detective on the witness stand about the legality of the gun’s barrel, which Schroeder believes sufficed.

Schroeder told Kraus, “The defendant has not put in issue the certificate of accomplishment; the defendant has put into issue the length of the barrel.”

He added, “You need to prove he was under 18, and that’s not in dispute, and that the barrel length was less than allowed by law, was not in range allowed by law.” The judge previously denied the defense motion to dismiss the charge, but he said that wasn’t an endorsement of the state’s position; it was, at the time, based on the criminal complaint.

Kraus said considering the AND to require both would “swallow the statute and make no sense.” He claimed the age portion is addressing hunting.

When Kraus argued that the Legislature meant to ban 16 and 17-year-olds from possessing weapons if they aren’t hunting, the judge said, “The penal laws are construed strictly.” He used an anecdote of an “emperor from way back in history who posted the laws on pillars so high that the people couldn’t read them, that’s been used by lawyers and judges for centuries. There is a requirement that people be given knowledge about what the law applies…the basic rule is ordinary people should be able to understand what their laws are.”

941.28 Possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle

In this section: (1) “Rifle” means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger. “Short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches. (2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

There was no evidence shown in court regarding the entire length of the AR15 nor its barrel. The gun Rittenhouse used was a Smith and Wesson MP-15. According to Smith & Wesson website, the barrel length is 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. There was no evidence presented at trial that indicated the MP-15’s barrel or length had been altered.

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

trump waukesha

President Trump Will Hold Rally in Waukesha on May 1; How to Get Tickets

President Donald J. Trump will travel to Waukesha, Wisconsin, on May 1 "to contrast the...
barry braatz

Washington County DA Candidate Barry Braatz Promises to ‘Hold Criminals Accountable,’ Gets Big Endorsement

"I will work side-by-side with law enforcement to hold criminals accountable" - Barry Braatz. Barry Braatz,...
Evers Vetoes

Senator Dan Knodl: Evers Vetoes Cast Shadow Over End of Tax Season

For taxpayers, it has been a symbolically momentous week. Tax Day arrived as usual on...
Trump Holds Cash Special Counsel Jack Smith Iowa Victory for Trump Remove Trump From Primary Ballot

Prosecutors Begin Laying Out Case Against Trump to Jury

Federal prosecutors on Monday began laying out what they say is election fraud in 2016 by former President Donald Trump.

Trump, 77, is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a felony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their opening statements to the jury of five women and seven men.

Prosecutors said Trump corrupted the 2016 election, The Hill reported on Monday.

"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up," Manhattan prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. "The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up."

Trump will spend four days a week in court in New York for the next six to eight weeks on state charges that he disguised hush money payments to two women as legal expenses during the 2016 election. Judge Juan Merchan has not scheduled trial days on Wednesdays.

On Monday, his defense attorneys said he had done nothing wrong.

"President Trump is innocent," Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury. "He did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney's office should never have brought this case."

Trump pleaded not guilty in April 2023 to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Merchan's gag order remains in place, ordered last month before the trial began. Trump, the nation's 45th president, is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case or about court staff, district attorney staff or family members of staff.

Prosecutors said Trump's $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was falsely covered up as a business expense, that the money was to help keep her quiet. Prosecutors say they had a sexual encounter.

Prosecutors also said Trump paid Karen McDougal, a Playboy magazine "Playmate," and reimbursed then attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to cover it up.

"This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior," Colangelo said. "It was election fraud, pure and simple."

Reuters reported that Blanche countered that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should have never brought the case to trial.

"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election" Blanche said. "It's called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it's a crime."

Prosecutors say Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors say the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. In a reversal of past close relationships now pivotal to the prosecution against him, both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.

Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to return to the White House. He's facing the Democratic incumbent who ousted him in 2020, 81-year-old President Joe Biden.

Trump faces 88 felony charges spread across four cases in Florida, Georgia, New York and Washington.Trump has said the criminal and civil trials he faces are designed to keep him from winning the 2024 rematch versus Biden.

Waukesha County DA Declines Charges in Brandtjen Campaign Finance Case

(The Center Square) – Another local prosecutor declined to bring charges against a Republican state lawmaker in a campaign funding raising case.

Waukesha County’s District Attorney Sue Opper said she would not file charges against state Rep. Janel Brandtjen. But Opper said she is not clearing Brandtjen in the case.

“I am simply concluding that I cannot prove charges against her. While the intercepted communications, such as audio recordings may be compelling in the court of public opinion, they are not in a court of law,” Opper said.

Wisconsin’s Ethics Commission suggested charges against Brandtjen and a handful of others in a case that investigators say saw them move money around to allegedly skirt Wisconsin’s limits on campaign donations.

Opper said the Ethics Commission investigation was based on “reasonable suspicion and then probable cause.” But she added that those “burdens are substantially lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is necessary for a criminal conviction.”

Opper said the Ethic Commission could pursue a civil case against Brandtjen and the others. She also opened the door to other investigations.

“This decision does not clear Rep. Brandtjen of any wrongdoing, there is just not enough evidence to move forward to let a factfinder decide,” Opper said.

She’s the fourth local prosecutor in the state to decide against filing charges.

Jack Smith Enticing Illegal Immigration Overturns Gov Evers Legislative Maps Arizona Elections Cases

Some Good News Out of Court Lately [Up Against the Wall]

Finally, a few correct court decisions. It’s about time. First, out of the U.S. Supreme Court,...
Speaker Johnson

As Threat to Remove Speaker Johnson Looms, Cooler Heads Should Prevail [WRN VOICES]

Trump gets it. We all need to get it. We currently find ourselves in the...
Brad Schimel

Brad Schimel Says He Won’t Repeat Mistakes of Last Supreme Court Race

(The Center Square) – Judge Brad Schmiel says he’s not going to repeat the mistakes of the last supreme court race in Wisconsin.

Schimel told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber he isn’t going to politicize the race like liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz, and he’s not going to ignore his campaign like former conservative Justice Dan Kelly.

Schimel said he can run for the court next year without injecting Republican politics into the court.

“I've had plenty of people on our side that suggested ‘Brad, you just got to do the same.’ No. I cannot do that,” Schimel said. “We still have to respect the rule of law. We still have to respect the Constitution. We still have to respect judicial ethics. I'm not going to go out and promise people what I'm going to do. But I will promise people that they can look at my record, and they know that I've done the right thing. That I have put the law above politics. I put the law above my own personal opinions.”

Republicans roundly criticized Protasiewicz for her comments about abortion and Wisconsin’s state legislative maps during the 2023 campaign.

Republicans also roundly criticized former Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz, for his perceived lack of campaigning.

“We couldn’t have put a brighter, more reliable conservative on the Wisconsin Supreme Court than Dan Kelly,” Schmiel added. “But, with the campaign there were some mistakes that were made.”

Chief among them, Schimel said, was Kelly’s decision to reject money from the Wisconsin Republican Party that could have gone toward TV ads.

Schimel said that left Kelly at a huge disadvantage.

“Janet Protasiewicz took almost $10 million from the state [Democratic] Party. Dan took the money too late. He realized ‘Oh my gosh, I'm going to get burned on this.’ By the time he took it the best ad buys were gone, and he wasn't able to spend the money effectively,” Schimel said. “He spent $585,000 on TV. That was what his campaign spent. Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign spent $10.5 million. When you are out-spent 20-to-one on TV, you better just start writing your concession speech.”

Schmiel vowed not to be outspent this time around.

“I have made it clear. I will take all legal, ethical contributions to my campaign because we have to win,” Schimel said. “Because we have to stop standing on this hill of principle that we end up dying on.”

Defund NPR

Multiple Bills Introduced in Congress to Defund NPR

Several U.S. House Republicans introduced multiple pieces of legislation to defund National Public Radio following new allegations of “leftist propaganda” from the taxpayer-funded news source.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., introduced similar legislation to prohibit federal funding for NPR, including barring local public radio stations from utilizing money from federal grants to “purchase content or pay dues to NPR.”

Over the years, Republicans have made multiple attempts to defund NPR, citing similar complaints. The latest outrage follows an editorial from former NPR Editor Uri Berliner, who criticized the news source claiming it had "lost America's trust."

Berliner criticized NPR’s coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the COVID-19 lab leak theory and of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop as examples of the outlet’s left-leaning bias. He described “the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.”

Banks took aim at NPR’s new Chief Executive Officer Katherine Maher, who has expressed criticism of the First Amendment in efforts to combat “misinformation.”

“NPR’s new CEO is a radical, left-wing activist who doesn’t believe in free speech or objective journalism. Hoosiers shouldn’t be writing her paychecks. Katherine Maher isn’t qualified to teach an introductory journalism class, much less capable of responsibly spending millions of American tax dollars,” said Banks.

The Indiana congressman continued by describing the news outlet as a “liberal looney bin” under prior leadership, drawing attention to a systemic problem.

“It’s time to pull the plug on this national embarrassment. Congress must stop spending other people’s hard-earned money on low grade propaganda,” Banks lamented.

Good was a bit more reserved in his take-down of the news outlet.

“It is bad enough that so many media outlets push their slanted views instead of reporting the news, but it is even more egregious for hardworking taxpayers to be forced to pay for it. National Public Radio has a track record of promoting anti-American narratives on the taxpayer dime,” Good said in a news release. “My legislation would ensure no taxpayer dollars are used to fund the woke, leftist propaganda of National Public Radio.”

Tenney, a former newspaper owner and publisher, accused NPR of using taxpayer funds to “manipulate” and promote a political agenda controlled by “left-wing activists.”

"I understand the importance of non-partisan, balanced media coverage, and have seen first-hand the left-wing bias in our news media. These disturbing reports out of NPR confirm what many have known for a long time: NPR is using American taxpayer dollars to manipulate the news and lie to the American people on behalf of a political agenda. It’s past time the American people stop footing the bill for NPR, and the partisan, left-wing activists that control it," Tenney said in a news release.

The lawmakers cited the political make-up of the NPR’s D.C. news team, which they say includes 87 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans.

The Center Square uncovered records showing that Maher exclusively donated to Democratic political candidates before her role at NPR. Her largest donation of $1,500 was given to Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello in 2017, and most frequently donated to Virginia state Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy, in the amounts of $25 over nine times.

Good underscored the original purpose for the publicly funded news outlet, which he says was “created to be an educational news source and to ‘speak with many voices.’” He added that NPR has now become “a primary outlet for advancing biased and radical media coverage of political and social issues.”

Eric Hovde TIES Wisconsin Senate Race Against Sen. Tammy Baldwin With Likely Voters

It all adds up to one thing: Tammy Baldwin and Joe Biden are in trouble...

Fond du Lac County DA Eric Toney Endorses Jim Piwowarczyk for Assembly

Former Republican Attorney General Candidate and Fond du Lac County DA Eric Toney has endorsed...

Senator Ron Johnson to Speak at Concordia University [Canceled]

Update: This event has been canceled. Ron Johnson was held up in Washington DC. The Young...

Israel & Iran – The War Escalates | Up Against the Wall

Well, like I said, the war would escalate so long as Biden shows a lack...
trump, derrick van orden

We Asked a Wisconsin U.S. Rep., ‘What Is Donald Trump Really Like?’ The Answer Will Make You Tear Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0YE9DQNL8 "What is Donald Trump really like?" we asked Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Republican...
derrick van orden

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden: FISA Amendment Would Have Given Protections to 9/11 Terrorists

https://youtu.be/bzqQ7sgQLec?si=96g0cUP5vc64jCQX Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Republican who served as a Navy SEAL, says he...

The COVID Generation: Let’s Stop Scaring Our Kids [WRN Voices]

As a local school board member, I have witnessed firsthand many of the issues of...

Rep. Janel Brandtjen: Threats to WEC Chief Don’t Help

(The Center Square) – One of the biggest critics of Wisconsin’s election administrator says no one should be threatening her and says threats don’t help fix election integrity issues.

State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, on Tuesday offered her thoughts after the Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed elections administrator Meagan Wolfe is receiving extra security protection.

"Threatening Administrator Meagan Wolfe, or any election official, is unacceptable and counterproductive. Venting frustrations on individuals like Wolfe, clerks, or poll workers is not only illegal but also harmful to rebuilding trust in our elections,” Brandtjen said. “Threats only undermine our republic and empower the courts and media. It's essential to address any concerns about election processes through legal channels. Threats have no place in our democracy.”

Brandtjen has been one of Wisconsin’s loudest critics of Wolfe. She led hearings as far back as 2021 into Wolfe’s role in the 2020 election. Brandtjen also led the push to get Wolfe removed from the Elections Commission.

“Wolfe’s term has indeed expired, and according to Wisconsin Statutes 15.61(1)(b)1, she should be removed, but Republicans are too worried about the press or too compromised to follow existing law.” Brandtjen said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Monday clarified that Wolfe is receiving extra security but refused to offer any details.

“The Wisconsin Elections Commission has had productive conversations about safety and security with state leadership, including the governor’s office, which is tasked with approving security measures for state government officials,” WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind said in a statement. “Those conversations have resulted in additional security measures being approved for Administrator Wolfe and the WEC when the need arises.”

Brandtjen on Tuesday blamed Wisconsin Republicans, and once again blamed Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, for Wolfe’s continued time on the Elections Commission.

“It's disappointing that Sen. Dan Knodl and Rep. Scott Krug, chairs of the election committees, have not exercised their investigative and subpoena powers. This inaction has allowed the neglect of essential laws, such as providing ballots to individuals declared incompetent, lack of checks in military ballot requests, an insecure online system, and improper guidance on voting for homeless individuals without proper documentation,” she said. “The Legislature, particularly Speaker Vos' control, is responsible for the frustration caused by election irregularities due to their inaction.”

Wisconsin’s local election managers have reported an uptick in threats and angry rhetoric since the 2020 election, and some local election offices have taken extra precautions. But there haven’t been any cases in Wisconsin where someone has acted on an election threat.

Wisconsin’s Largest Business Group Sues Over Evers’ 400-year School Funding Veto

(The Center Square) – There is now a legal challenge to Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding veto.

The WMC Litigation Center on Monday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up their challenge to the governor’s summer veto that increased per-pupil funding for the next four centuries.

“At issue is Gov. Evers’ use of the so-called ‘Vanna White’ or ‘pick-a-letter’ veto,” the group said in a statement. “The governor creatively eliminated specific numbers in a portion of the budget bill that was meant to increase the property tax levy limit for school districts in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. By striking individual digits, the levy limit would instead be increased from the years 2023 to 2425 – or four centuries into the future.”

The WMC Litigation Center is an affiliate of Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce (WMC), the combined state chamber and manufacturers’ association.

Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow said while Wisconsin’s governor has an incredibly powerful veto pen, there are limits.

“No Wisconsin governor has the authority to strike individual letters or digits to form a new word or number, except when reducing appropriations,” Rosenow said. “This action is not only unconstitutional on its face, but it is undemocratic because this specific partial veto allows school districts to raise property taxes for the next 400 years without voter approval.”

Wisconsin lawmakers and voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1990 that put limits on the governor’s veto power.

Rosenow and the WMC Litigation Center say the governor’s veto goes beyond those limits.

The legal challenge also raises the constitutional issue that all state spending has to originate with, and be approved by, the legislature.

“In no uncertain terms, 402 years is not less than or part of the two-year duration approved by the Legislature – it is far more,” concluded Rosenow. “The governor overstepped his authority with this partial veto, at the expense of taxpayers, and we believe oversight by the Court is necessary.”

The WMC Litigation Center is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case as quickly as possible.

Let’s Thank Rep. August, Sen. Wimberger, & WI Voters For Ending Zuckerbucks

Remember when Elon Musk challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a cage match? That fight between Twitter/Threads billionaires...
Trump Holds Cash Special Counsel Jack Smith Iowa Victory for Trump Remove Trump From Primary Ballot

‘Scam Trial’: Trump Slams Judge, Says He May Not Let Him Go to Son’s Graduation, Campaign

"This is about election interference; that’s all it’s about" - former President Donald Trump. Former President...