Monday, March 18, 2024
spot_imgspot_img
Monday, March 18, 2024

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

State Rep. David Bowen: The Making of a ‘Lie’

spot_img

One of a Seven Chapter Series

According to reports, while referring to a bullhorn that was cracked over Mensah’s head, Bowen told protesters, “It was good that we got at him, and now Alvin Cole’s mom has a souvenir.”

Read Chapter One Here

Read Chapter Two Here

Read Chapter Three Here

Read Chapter Four Here

Read Chapter Five Here

State Rep. David Bowen, D-Milwaukee, lied to the public about the violent attack on then Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah, according to newly released statements from two members of the People’s Revolution.

The police reports, obtained by Wisconsin Right Now through an open records request, reveal for the first time that two of Bowen’s own associates essentially turned on him. One member of the protest/riot group called Bowen’s statement to the public “BS.” Another member laughed when part of Bowen’s press release was read to him and said, “that was a lie,” the police reports say.

[Coming up in part 2: Learn what state legislative leaders did when Chief Barry Weber told them Bowen lied.]

Witness interviews also allege for the first time that Bowen called the officer a “piece of sh*t” during the People’s Revolution attack and “encouraged” the accused shooter to not turn himself in to police. The People’s Revolution members admitted to police that the protest was not “peaceful.” One member gave conflicting accounts about whether Bowen was throwing toilet paper.

David bowen lied

Ronald Bell, a People’s Revolution member who is accused of a felony for discharging a gun toward the officer, also admitted to police that he punched Mensah multiple times, injuring him, in the violent mob attack at Mensah’s girlfriend’s house in August, the reports, obtained by Wisconsin Right Now through open records laws, say. Both Mensah and his police officer girlfriend were left with physical injuries after being punched and scratched during the attack, which occurred as multiple People’s Revolution members swarmed his girlfriend’s Wauwatosa lawn. Bowen was present during the incident, the newly released police reports say. Mensah, who is no longer on the force due to a settlement agreement, was cleared in three fatal on-duty police shootings, sparking the People’s Revolution’s ire. We reached out to Bowen for comment, but we didn’t hear back.

The state rep’s press release, issued shortly after the attack, raised questions from the start because of the way it tried to pin all of the blame on the injured officer; Bowen never agreed to sit down with police despite being at a scene where authorities say a felony occurred.

Bowen’s press release came at a critical time, when police were investigating the incident, and the DA was contemplating charges he would eventually issue against Bell and others. However, the newly released police reports show that even Bowen’s own compatriots didn’t think he told the truth. Bowen hasn’t been arrested or charged in connection with the high-profile attack. The DA put the blame squarely on the side of the People’s Revolution when issuing charges, and Mensah and his girlfriend were not accused by authorities of any wrongdoing.

David bowen lied
Niles mckee mugshot

Bowen, whose district encompasses a swath of the northwest side of Milwaukee and parts of Glendale and Shorewood, has served on legislative committees dealing with Corrections, Community Development, Children and Families and Education. His website says he’s been a member of the Milwaukee County Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative Advisory Committee.

In his press release last August, Bowen tried to blame Mensah for the violence that erupted. “No one tried to kill him or his girlfriend. That’s a lie. No one tried to enter his home. That’s a lie. There weren’t several shots fired. Another lie. No protestor shot at the back door. That’s the biggest lie,” he wrote.

Not according to the People’s Revolution members who talked to the police and admitted that Mensah was the victim.

Bell
Ronald bell facebook photo

Niles John McKee, who worked for the Milwaukee Public Schools Recreation Department in a job on hold due to COVID-19, was the People’s Revolution member who told police that part of Bowen’s statement was “B.S.,” and responded in the affirmative when asked if the statement contained “lies,” the police reports say.

According to McKee, who had a handgun at the scene, Bowen said things to the public that he couldn’t have seen, the reports say. Asked why Bowen would lie, McKee said, “I guess to make Mensah look like the bad guy.” At another point, he called it a “potential lie.”

Asked about Bowen’s statement to the public, McKee responded, “That’s not true,” according to the police reports. Asked why Bowen would intentionally lie, despite swearing an oath to the Constitution of the U.S. and the State of Wisconsin, McKee stated, “That’s ass backwards.” He also offered, “to protect his people, I don’t know.”

Bell told police that Bowen, despite being at the scene and in the Target parking lot when People’s Revolution members were buying toilet paper before the attack, “never tried stopping the protesters.”

Joseph mensah girlfriend
Mensah’s girlfriend’s injuries

At one point, when a detective read him part of Bowen’s statement blaming Mensah for the violence, Bell laughed and said, “that was a lie,” the reports say.

“Bowen encouraged him not to turn himself in. Bowen and (Tiffany) Henry told Bell they had a lawyer for him and they would pay his cash bail,” the police reports say Bell told a detective. Tiffany Henry has worked as a top staffer for U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, running her Milwaukee office.

David bowen lied

The reports also claim that, according to Bell, the People’s Revolution’s leader, Khalil Coleman, used a blow horn to tell everyone to “delete the videos” of the incident. Bowen and Henry were still with the group at this time, he said. Bowen and Henry knew Bell was the one who shot the weapon because they were asking around, Bell told police. Bell stated that Bowen and Henry did not tell him to turn himself in. Bell stated he told Bowen he just wanted to turn himself in. Bowen told Bell to see what the “aftermath” is. Bell stated Bowen knew Bell was the individual with the shotgun and that Bell wanted to turn himself in, the reports allege. Neither Henry nor Coleman has been arrested or charged in connection with the attack.

Police reports describe the chaos. Vehicles were “driving at a high rate of speed through the neighborhood and all over the roads.” The “’protesters’ were yelling and screaming from the vehicles and beeping their horns continuously causing a loud disturbance.” They cursed things like “Fck 12” and “Fck the police.

An officer said that a group of 7-10 males surrounded the U-haul truck parked near Mensah’s home, climbing on the hood and opening the read door. He observed other individuals shouting, throwing toilet paper and other objects into the trees and at his house. The officer heard fireworks, car horns, and the chant, “Murderer, murderer.” A neighbor said he heard a gunshot and the group chanting phrases such as “murderer” and “fck ‘em, fck ‘em all.”

Another neighbor told police he saw some of the incident and at “no time did Mensah get into a physical confrontation with any of the protesters.” Another neighbor heard someone say “we will shoot the dog.” Another neighbor saw Mensah being attacked by six to eight protesters who were hitting him repeatedly.

Corey Kirkwood, a protester, said that Bowen approached another protester at the Target store where people were buying toilet paper and asked “where the group was going with the toilet paper.” Kirkwood asked Bowen a short time later if he knew where they were headed. Bowen replied something similar to, “I can’t tell you but you’re going to like where we’re going.”


Rep. Bowen Called it a Prank

According to an interview with WTMJ4, conducted after Mayor Dennis McBride canceled a meeting with Bowen on advice from the City Attorney, Rep. Bowen said:

“The idea was to make sure the Mayor is hearing directly, more than one side of the narrative being shared by Officer Joseph Mensah, who has no credibility and the Wauwatosa Police Department has cosigned his lies he’s pushing.” 

He also told the television station:

“I definitely had my presumptions about if this could be done fairly but this is clearly showing, especially with pressure from right-wing Republican groups and figureheads, to create this into a bigger issue. From the time protesters got to his home, he (Mensah) was irate. He was out of control. He was provoking people to engage in violence. That doesn’t sound like the character of someone who is an upstanding citizen, let alone to display the conduct as an officer to uphold the law.”

Bowen continued: “I’d say, none of the actions the protesters displayed that day deserve the vitriol and aggressive behavior Joseph Mensah displayed that day,”

He added: “Honestly, it’s childish. Kids will do pranks and TP someone’s house or tree and it’s cleaned up and everyone moves on. Joseph Mensah made the decision to come outside, provoke and antagonize protesters, spray with pepper spray, use his dog and threaten to sic his dog onto protesters. He displayed behavior that I believe is beneath what was called for a member who is supposed to represent the police department.”

But his own associates contradicted his narrative.


Who Provoked the Violence?

Bowen’s statement is a clear attempt to paint the police officer as the provocateur. However, Bell and McKee told police that is false; Mensah was not responsible for the violence that occurred.

In fact, McKee told police that Bowen was wrong when he said no one tried to kill Mensah or his girlfriend. Bell said Mensah was willing to talk to the group and the protesters escalated this. McKee, whose lawyer is challenging his competency in court, was charged with a felony:

Harboring/Aiding a Felon (E/F/G/H/I or unclassified felony/not life) Felony I
Modifier: 939.05 PTAC, as a Party to a Crime

Bell said Mensah was trying to get away from the crowd and from Bell. Mensah was trying to get away from them because they had firearms and were attacking Mensah, the reports say. Bell was charged with felonies – 2nd-degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon, battery or threat to a law enforcement officer, party to a crime.

Officer joseph mensah
Joseph mensah. Credit: gofundme

Bell said, “I apologize. I’m sorry for bringing the firearm to his house. I’m sorry for putting my hands on him.”

“Bell stated it would be more appropriate for Mensah to feel threatened by the crowd than for Bowen to be threatened by Mensah,” the reports say.

McKee told police that he felt Mensah would have been justified if he shot Bell, which he didn’t do, due to Bell’s actions. He said Mensah did “nothing” to the people at his house. He said at least six People’s Revolution members were throwing punches at Mensah.

The detective read McKee parts of Bowen’s statement, including a line that read, “None of them displayed any behavior to welcome provoking threats of violence by Joseph Mensah. When investigators read Bell that part of Bowen’s statement, Bell laughed. “Bell said that was a lie,” the police reports say. Bell stated the group did not do that; he described Mensah and his girlfriend as the victims.

Here’s that line in Bowen’s press release:

David bowen lied

Here’s that passage in the police reports:

David bowen lied

David bowen lied


Shotgun Blast to Back Door

Police reports clearly indicate the shotgun discharged and struck the back door as Mensah and his girlfriend fled into the house and that Bell was holding the shotgun when it fired. Bowen’s statement however says, “No protester shot at the back door. That’s the biggest lie.”

Bell stated Bowen and Tiffany Henry called Bell and asked if Bell had “any felonies on his name.” They told Bell they were trying to figure out who shot the shotgun at Mensah’s back door.

Bell told police he informed Bowen that “Bell and Mensah were fighting at the back door and the shotgun went off.” Bowen asked Bell if he was sure of that. Bell told him he was sure and asked Bowen what the outcome would be from the incident. Bowen told Bell he did not know and that Bowen had to see what the deal was and that Bowen would get back to Bell.

After the shooting, Bowen and Bell had a private discussion, and Bowen was telling Bell to chill out and calm down, according to McKee’s statement to police. This was at a point when everyone knew that Bell had the shotgun when it went off.

Here’s the pertinent passage from Bowen’s statement:

David bowen lied

Here’s Bell’s statements to police in the reports:

David bowen lied

David bowen lied

McKee later said:

David bowen lied


The Bullhorn

In a discussion later at a park, Bowen told the group something to the effect of, “It was good that we got at him and now Alvin Cole’s mom has a souvenir,” referring to a bullhorn that was cracked over Mensah’s head during the mob attack, according to McKee. Cole was the armed teenager who Mensah shot and killed outside Mayfair Mall, in a shooting ruled justified self defense by the district attorney (Cole discharged a gun in the area of officers).

Bell told police the bullhorn went to Taleavia Cole, Cole’s sister. The reports allege that Bell said Taleavia hit Mensah and Mensah’s girlfriend. (She also was not charged or arrested in connection with the attack.)

The police reports say:

David bowen lied

David bowen lied


Was Bowen Throwing Toilet Paper?

Bell initially told investigators that Bowen threw toilet paper at the scene, but later stated in an interview that Bowen didn’t throw toilet paper “at the house.” Bowen was “not fighting Mensah but was throwing toilet paper,” Bell told a Wauwatosa detective, the reports say.

Bell stated that Bowen was at Target when the toilet paper was purchased but was in the parking lot. Bell did not know what was communicated to Bowen at Target about the plans. Bowen was in Tiffany Henry’s car. He thought maybe her license plate was covered but wasn’t sure.

The police reports say:

David bowen lied


‘Peaceful’ Protests?

Bell admitted that a Peoples Revolution member slashed tires at Mensah’s home and said it was “not an example of peaceful protesting.”

“Bell stated none of the protests they have been doing lately have been peaceful. He stated the group marches around the city and researches who was killed.”

McKee told police that he owned and got rid of the shotgun used by Bell in the incident, police reports say. They say he also acknowledged that the behavior of the People’s Revolution was not peaceful.

McKee said Bowen didn’t throw any punches. Bowen was situated in the street and calling out to Mensah, “you’re wrong” and “now you’re not going to face the people” and called him a “piece of sh*t,” the police reports allege. McKee acknowledged that the things Bowen was saying were not peaceful protesting.

Bowen’s statement said:

David bowen lied

From the police reports:

David bowen lied


A text conversation on 8/11/20 at 6:45PM on the phone of Niles J. McKee with “Protesting Kim Form”:

David bowen lied


Rep. Bowen Never Met with Investigators

A Wauwatosa Investigator asked Bowen on several occasions to meet with them to give a witness statement. The investigator received an email from Bowen’s attorney, Kimberley Motley. The email called the investigation tainted and biased. Motley stated she would cooperate with the Milwaukee County Districts Attorney’s Office. Bowen never gave a statement to police.

We reached out to Rep. Bowen for comment regarding the statments made by Bell and McKee, he did not respond.

Disclosure: WRN contributor Jessica McBride is the niece of Dennis McBride. Jim Piwowarcyzk, the owner of WRN, is the author of this story.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case Alleging Government Censorship of Social Media

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday about whether the government can persuade social media companies to remove content from platforms.

The Biden administration appealed to the nation's highest court after a ruling by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last September that stated Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the White House, the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention violated the First Amendment by influencing social media companies in moderating content on COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

More than 50 individuals and organizations filed legal briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. The case was originally known as Missouri v. Biden.

Last July, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty ruled against the Biden administration and issued an injunction requested by Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to stop nine government agencies and their leaders and employees from specific actions and interactions with social media companies. The case was originally filed by then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a U.S. Senator. Bailey, the former chief counsel for Republican Gov. Mike Parson, was appointed by Parson after Schmitt's election in 2022.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal on the question of whether the “government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action” and violated the First Amendment, according to the document granting the case.

In the government’s brief, it disagreed with arguments "government officials transformed private platforms into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints merely by speaking to the public on matters of public concern or seeking to influence or inform the platforms’ editorial decisions. The Court should reject that radical expansion of the state-action doctrine, which would ‘eviscerate certain private entities’ rights to exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their properties or platforms.’”

Missouri’s brief highlights “103 pages of factual findings, supported by 591 footnotes” compiled in the district court’s ruling against the government.

“These unrebutted findings demonstrate ‘a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government,’” the brief states.

Eight of the briefs weren’t in support of either side, including one jointly filed from Netchoice, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress and the Cato Institute. It highlighted the concept of “jawboning,” defined by the Cato Institute as “when a government official threatens to use his or her power – be it the power to prosecute, regulate, or legislate – to compel someone to take actions that the state official cannot.”

“The Court should ensure that its decision does not permit the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly – undermine digital services’ rights to curate and disseminate content,” the brief stated. “And the Court should clarify that there is no requirement of a predicate showing of state action for a jawboning claim against the government.”

The brief also asked the court to explain that any lawsuits from “jawboning” must be filed against the government and not the social media entity to be consistent with legal precedent.

Rep. Barbara Dittrich Endorses Jim Piwowarczyk for Assembly

Rep. Barbara Dittrich of Wisconsin’s 38th Assembly has endorsed Jim Piwowarczyk for Assembly. Piwowarczyk, 53, the...

On April 2, Voters Have a Chance to Delete Zuckerbucks for Good

On April 2, Wisconsin voters have the opportunity to put an end to billionaires trying...
Justice Jill Karofsky

In Unhinged Partisan Rant, Wisconsin Justice Jill Karofsky Says Talking to the Press Is Threat to Democracy

In an extraordinary partisan-tinged rant to a legal publication, liberal Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky...
Buses Carrying Migrants Northern Border Illegal Border Crossers Immigration Parole Illegal Immigrant Convicts Biden’s Immigration Policies

Analysts: Policymakers Must Confront Weaponized Migration to Address Border Crisis

Unless Congress and policymakers understand how weaponized migration is being used against the U.S., they won’t be able to solve the problem, foreign policy analysts warn.

More than 11 million foreign nationals, including gotaways, illegally entering the U.S. from all over the world is not an accident, military and foreign policy experts have warned. It’s called migrant warfare, The Center Square first reported. The European Commission, United Nations, NATO, and foreign policy institutes have identified hybrid warfare being used in Europe, including migrant warfare, to shape national and international policies.

The United States is also being targeted by foreign adversaries through “weaponized migration,” Kelly Greenhill, a senior research scholar at MIT Center for International Studies and author of “Weapons of Mass Migration,” wrote in an analysis.

“The United States has been an especially frequent target, with the tactic used against nearly every U.S. administration from Dwight Eisenhower’s in the 1950s through George W Bush’s in the first decade of this century,” she wrote. Western governments do not appear to understand how migrant warfare is used to exploit “political divisions that exist within the targeted states.” Engineering the movement of people across international borders “has long been a distressingly effective policy instrument, and it is unlikely to go away anytime soon,” she said. “Unless policymakers begin to confront the forces that enable weaponized migration, the favored policy responses seem destined to increase, rather than curtail.”

She highlighted examples of how weaponized migration has been used to achieve desired outcomes in multiple countries, noting that Cuba and Haiti have used the tactic against the U.S. for decades.

“When weaponized migration is used, it is often successful,” she wrote. Of the 81 cases she identified worldwide since 1951, the tactic achieved the anticipated objective. Targets are disproportionately liberal democracies, she noted, and the effectiveness of weaponized migration “as a method of coercive statecraft depends on the attitude and politics of the targeted country.”

The policies of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have been made clear in three key documents: the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America, the Collaborative Migration Management Strategy, and the Los Angeles Declaration of Migration and Protection, which 21 countries endorsed in June 2022. The Los Angeles Declaration “specifically lays out the goal of collectively expanding access to regular pathways for migrants and refugees into the United States,” the Department of Justice states in a February 2023 “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule published in the Federal Register.

Through the Los Angeles Declaration, in June 2022, the U.S. committed to resettle 20,000 “refugees” from the Americas during fiscal years 2023 and 2024. In fiscal 2022, the federal government issued more than 19,000 H-2 visas to Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans, a 94% increase from the previous fiscal year.

The rule explains how more Cubans and Nicaraguans were arriving at the southwest border in the fall of 2022 “because neither country accepts removals of their nationals at the rate that the United States seeks to remove them.” As a result, “these challenges” prompted Mayorkas in January 2023 to adopt new parole processes for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans to process them into, not remove from, the United States.

Twenty states sued over Mayorkas’ “lawful pathways” parole programs and lost their first round in court. The U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security identified over a dozen parole programs as illegal and as part of its evidence to impeach Mayorkas.

The DOJ rule also states that “applicants who do not qualify for asylum in Mexico are automatically considered for complementary protection in the United States,” and describes how the State Department is partnering with Guatemala and other countries to move foreign nationals into the United States. On March 15, 2022, the U.S. and the government of Costa Rica signed a migration arrangement to “collaboratively manage migration and expand legal pathways and access to protection,” for example.

Mayorkas created “refugee processing centers” in other countries for the first time in U.S. history, The Center Square first reported. He also expanded processing facilities along the southwest border. In January 2021, DHS allocated $669 million to build and operate 10 soft-sided processing facilities and transferred 10,000 federal personnel from other agencies to them to help move more foreign nationals into the country.

With unprecedented numbers of people from all over the world arriving at U.S. borders in response to Mayorkas’ policies, U.S. Border Patrol chiefs have explained how transnational criminal organizations facilitate illegal activity and pull agents from their primary mission of border security. As a result, retired FBI counterintelligence and the FBI director have repeatedly warned a terrorist attack is more likely to occur.

House Republicans argue Mayorkas has created the border crisis and his recent funding request and the Senate border bill will only facilitate these policies, The Center Square has reported.

By contrast, Texas counties that have declared an invasion, argued safeguarding the constitutional sovereign authority of states must be prioritized to protect citizens.

Social Media Free Speech

School Districts Under the Spotlight for How They Handle Their Social Media Accounts

School districts around the country are facing issues with how they handle their social media accounts, and the debate has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Denver Public Schools recently reviewed its social media policy that doesn’t allow employees to restrict comments on social media or limit who can see them.

The Denver school district's policy was reviewed earlier this month by the school board and states that neither the school, school board members, nor district employees can restrict a person’s ability to view, post, comment, restrict, or delete comments from any public social media pages that are maintained or operated by the district.

The document further states that doing so goes against a person’s speech protected by the First Amendment or the Colorado Constitution.

In Oregon, a school district is being accused of unconstitutionally violating a mother’s First Amendment rights by suppressing her speech online and at public meetings.

The Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the freedom of speech, has released a letter sent to the Gladstone School District, demanding it make its social media and public comment policies compliant with the First Amendment by removing any restrictions on Glenda Scherer, and allow her to speak openly about the district and the policies.

“The First Amendment protects Americans’ vital right to publicly voice their concerns and prohibits government officials from censoring speech they disagree with,” said Educational Freedom Attorney Dean McGee in the press release. “The district cannot silence parents for its own convenience—public comment is essential to the betterment of public schools.”

Scherer, a mother of two and an education advocate, is arguing that the Gladstone School District is continuously blocking her ability to post on a publicly accessible Facebook group provided for communication between parents and the school.

Scherer is claiming that her posts are only allowed to be posted after administrators have approved them.

“The Liberty Justice Center’s letter to the school district raises alarming allegations that the district repeatedly went out of its way to suppress a parent’s constitutionally protected speech," FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr said in an email to The Center Square. "The First Amendment requires government officials to tolerate criticism of their policies and performance. Instead of muzzling critics, school officials should welcome candid feedback from parents and community members, which could ultimately improve students’ educational experience.”

Scherer also claims that the district requires her to submit any comments and questions to be pre-screened by the board before any open meetings. The press release also states that the district has attempted to ban her from attending any school board meetings in person without prior approval from the superintendent.

The debate about whether blocking individuals from private accounts does, in fact, suppress one's First Amendment is also being heard in San Diego County, California, according to documents.

Two members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees used personal Facebook and X accounts to communicate with the community and parents of children attending the district and blocked those who repeatedly criticized them.

The U.S. Supreme Court cases of O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed question whether someone has First Amendment free speech rights involving a public official using their personal social media account.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lindke v. Freed that public officials can block critics on their personal social media accounts.

“The distinction between private conduct and state action turns on substance, not labels: Private parties can act with the authority of the State, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights,” the court stated in its opinion.

The court gave an example as to the difference between a public official acting in the role of his duty and that of a private citizen.

“Consider a hypothetical from the offline world,” the court wrote. “A school board president announces at a school board meeting that the board has lifted pandemic-era restrictions on public schools. The next evening, at a backyard barbecue with friends whose children attend public schools, he shares that the board has lifted the pandemic-era restrictions. The former is state action taken in his official capacity as school board president; the latter is private action taken in his personal capacity as a friend and neighbor. While the substance of the announcement is the same, the context—an official meeting versus a private event—differs. He invoked his official authority only when he acted as school board president.”

The Gladstone School District and Denver Public schools did not respond to emails or phone call seeking comment.

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

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Alleging Government Censorship of Social Media

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday about whether the government can persuade social media companies to remove content from platforms.

The Biden administration appealed to the nation's highest court after a ruling by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last September that stated Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the White House, the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention violated the First Amendment by influencing social media companies in moderating content on COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

More than 50 individuals and organizations filed legal briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. The case was originally known as Missouri v. Biden.

Last July, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty ruled against the Biden administration and issued an injunction requested by Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to stop nine government agencies and their leaders and employees from specific actions and interactions with social media companies. The case was originally filed by then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a U.S. Senator. Bailey, the former chief counsel for Republican Gov. Mike Parson, was appointed by Parson after Schmitt's election in 2022.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal on the question of whether the “government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action” and violated the First Amendment, according to the document granting the case.

In the government’s brief, it disagreed with arguments "government officials transformed private platforms into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints merely by speaking to the public on matters of public concern or seeking to influence or inform the platforms’ editorial decisions. The Court should reject that radical expansion of the state-action doctrine, which would ‘eviscerate certain private entities’ rights to exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their properties or platforms.’”

Missouri’s brief highlights “103 pages of factual findings, supported by 591 footnotes” compiled in the district court’s ruling against the government.

“These unrebutted findings demonstrate ‘a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government,’” the brief states.

Eight of the briefs weren’t in support of either side, including one jointly filed from Netchoice, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress and the Cato Institute. It highlighted the concept of “jawboning,” defined by the Cato Institute as “when a government official threatens to use his or her power – be it the power to prosecute, regulate, or legislate – to compel someone to take actions that the state official cannot.”

“The Court should ensure that its decision does not permit the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly – undermine digital services’ rights to curate and disseminate content,” the brief stated. “And the Court should clarify that there is no requirement of a predicate showing of state action for a jawboning claim against the government.”

The brief also asked the court to explain that any lawsuits from “jawboning” must be filed against the government and not the social media entity to be consistent with legal precedent.

Barb Dittrich

Barbara Dittrich Announces Re-election Bid for 99th Assembly District

State Rep. Barbara Dittrich, R-Oconomowoc, has announced that she is running for reelection to the...
Fani Willis Ruling fani willis and nathan wade

Trump Lawyer Blasts Judge’s Fani Willis Ruling

Judge Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference racketeering case, ruled Friday that despite allegations of misconduct, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat, can remain on Trump’s case.

McAfee ruled, however, that Willis must remove legal counsel Nathan Wade, with whom she had an affair and allegedly misused taxpayer dollars for, from the case. Willis could also withdraw from the case, and Wade would then be allowed to remain.

Willis has been accused of overpaying Wade, whom she has had a romantic relationship with, using taxpayer dollars. Willis hired Wade to work on the Trump case, but the allegations fueled a push to have her removed from the case.

One of Trump’s lawyers blasted the decision.

“While respecting the Court’s decision, we believe that the Court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis’ extrajudicial MLK ‘church speech,’ where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism,” top Trump lawyer Steve Sadow said in a statement, according to The Hill.

“We will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place,” he added.

McAfee earlier this week threw out a few of the charges against Trump and some of his alleged co-conspirators, but dozens still remain. Overall, Trump faces nearly 90 criminal charges across several states.

“Whether this case ends in convictions, acquittals, or something in between, the result should be one that instills confidence in the process,” McAfee said in the ruling. “A reasonable observer unburdened by partisan blinders should believe the law was impartially applied, that those accused of crimes had a fair opportunity to present their defenses, and that any verdict was based on our criminal justice system’s best efforts at ascertaining the truth.”

McAfee did say there is not enough evidence to prove a conflict of interest.

“After consideration of the record established on these motions, the Court finds the allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest,” McAfee said in the ruling. “However, the appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed. The Defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part and denied in part.”

Trump has repeatedly attacked Willis and the other cases against him.

“The things that took place at the Manhattan D.A.’s office, in conjunction with people from the DOJ put in charge of ‘getting TRUMP,’ are truly a sight to behold,” Trump wrote on TruthSocial Thursday. “They illegally withheld thousands of pages of documents. Then you have the really shady ‘Pomerantz’ issue, and wow, people have never seen anything like this one. This will make Fani and her ‘lover’ look like small potatoes!!!”

Eric Hovde Promises No PAC Money, No Salary in latest U.S. Senate Ad

(The Center Square) – Money is becoming an issue in Wisconsin’s race for the U.S. Senate.

Republican Eric Hovde is launching a new ad today where he promises not to accept money from political action committees and promises to not take a Senate salary if elected.

“Washington has become corrupt career politicians sell themselves to special interest and end up working for them and not you I've worked hard been fortunate I don't need their special interest money and I won't take it if you decide to like me is your next senator I'll donate my entire salary to Wisconsin charity every year,” Hovde said in the new 30 second ad.

Hovde’s campaign is making it clear that Hovde’s own charity, The Hovde Foundation, will not get any of those salary donations.

Hovde’s new ad comes as Democrats in Wisconsin are blasting him as a millionaire and continue to hammer that he owns a home in California.

“Senate candidate Eric Hovde *said* he supported Dem proposals to put a minimum global tax on corporations, [but] *did* invest tens of millions of $$ in insurance companies HQ’d in Bermuda to avoid US taxes,” Wisconsin Democratic chair Ben Wikler said on social media Thursday.

A report in Politico noted Hovde’s asset management firm, Hovde Capital, reported non-controlling investments in up to $74 million in Bermuda-based insurance companies between 2003 and 2013.

Non-controlling investments mean essentially a minority ownership stake and mean Hovde would not have had a vote or any say on corporate decisions in those companies.

Hovde has promised he will self-fund most of his campaign but has been clear he will accept donations from Wisconsin voters.

Democrats in Wisconsin have also tried to make that an issue, saying Hovde will likely have to spend $20 million of his own money in the contest.

Hovde’s campaign is not saying how much money they are putting behind the new ad or where in Wisconsin it will run.

Senate Seats Most Likely to Flip

Analysis: The 10 U.S. Senate Seats Most Likely to Flip

The 2024 presidential election has grabbed most of the headlines recently, but the U.S. Senate races are taking shape under the radar. Here is a preview of the 10 most likely to flip.

West Virginia – Open (D): It’s not that often that every elections analyst in the country concurs on something, but I suspect you will get unanimous agreement that this seat is far and away the most likely Senate seat to flip. Joe Manchin is a Democrat who has basically been swimming against a Republican tide since he won the seat in a 2010 special election. Two years prior, John McCain carried the state by 12 points over Barack Obama. Donald Trump won it by almost 40 points in 2020. It’s unlikely that even the popular Manchin, who won narrowly in the good Democratic year of 2018, could emerge victorious, but with his retirement, the seat is just gone.

Montana – Jon Tester (D): Reasonable minds can disagree about whether Montana or Ohio is the more vulnerable seat. Tester is probably a better ideological match for his state than Sen. Sherrod Brown is for Ohio, but Montana will probably go for Donald Trump by 20 points rather than the 10 or so points by which he seems likely to carry Ohio. Tester’s preferred opponent, Matt Rosendale, dropped out of the race, giving Tester a more mainstream opponent. Even Rosendale had made a race out of it in the bad GOP year of 2018, but this time, Tester will likely have to convince one out of every six Trump voters to cross over for him. That’s no easy task.

Ohio – Sherrod Brown (D): Brown is probably too liberal for the modern Buckeye State, and he’ll have to convince around one in 10 Trump voters to split their tickets. This is within tolerance – Susan Collins pulled this off in reverse in 2020 – but it is still rare. Brown only won by seven points against an underfunded opponent in 2018, but whoever the GOP candidate is will probably not have to worry about money. Trump endorsed businessman Bernie Moreno, much to the state GOP’s dismay, but this is a state that voted for a similarly untested, controversial candidate in 2022 over Brown’s political heir. Brown can win, but he’s in trouble.

Michigan – Open (D): I have to make at least one controversial call, so why not here? To be clear, all of the remaining races at least lean toward the party that currently holds them. Why put this above more popular picks like Nevada, Arizona, or Wisconsin? The reason has less to do with this race than with the dynamics of the other races (discussed below). The Democratic Party has coalesced around Rep. Elissa Slotkin, which is good for the party. But there is a bit of schism within the Democratic Party right now over the Biden administration’s support of Israel in its war in Gaza. Trump has also been polling well in the state. A lot will depend on who emerges from the state’s crowded GOP primary, but remember, Trump nearly pulled now-Rep. John James across the finish line in 2020.

Texas – Ted Cruz (R): Another controversial call, I suspect. I’ve gone into this in greater detail elsewhere, but this is a state that is swinging leftward, and it wouldn’t take a particularly bad showing by Donald Trump nationally for it to flip. Not only that, but Cruz is, well, Cruz, and is not particularly well-liked. He almost lost in 2018, and while the environment is better for him this year, the state is worse. Again, this isn’t a tossup, but his edge is less pronounced than the remaining Democrats on this list.

Arizona – Open (D): Given Kari Lake’s post-election behavior and the presence of an abortion-rights referendum on the ballot, I’m skeptical that she is well-positioned to make this race competitive. It’s also why I’m somewhat skeptical about Donald Trump’s current polling lead against President Biden.

Nevada – Jacky Rosen (D): It’s not that the incumbent is particularly weak. Nor is the GOP field particularly strong. And the presence of an abortion-rights referendum will probably help Rosen. We’re starting to get into genuine long-shot territory here, but this is a state Donald Trump really might carry handily. We’ll see what comes out of the GOP primary.

Wisconsin – Baldwin (D): I don’t really think Tammy Baldwin is likely to lose. The danger to her comes if Donald Trump breaks out in the state and turns out to have coattails. But I promised 10 seats, and I aim to deliver 10.

Pennsylvania – Bob Casey (D): The GOP has its preferred candidate here, Dave McCormick (which it didn’t in 2022 when Oz Mehmet edged McCormick out in the primary), and Casey has never really had a tough challenge before. But he’s got a famous last name, and I think Trump has less chance of winning here than in Wisconsin. If Trump does pull ahead strongly, however, he probably has a better chance of bringing McCormick with him than he does in Wisconsin – whomever Republicans nominate in the Badger State.

Maryland – Open (D): I had to pick a race here. It was either this or New Jersey or Florida. I chose this one because GOP candidate Larry Hogan was a popular governor, is still well regarded in the state, and is probably the strongest challenger in the bunch. But Maryland is exceedingly blue and is really, really unlikely to flip.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump’s Triumph Trump to Remain on Illinois Ballot trump vs. biden 2020

The Seven Keys to President Trump’s Triumph

President Donald Trump had a remarkable showing on Super Tuesday. He won 11 of the...
NCAA to Reconsider Transgender Athlete Riley Gaines in Milwaukee

Former N.C. State swimmer Alons, Kentucky’s Riley Gaines, 14 Others Sue NCAA

A swimmer who competed at N.C. State is among 16 collegiate athletes, including 12-time All-American Riley Gaines, suing the NCAA for letting men who say they are women compete against them and use the same locker rooms.

Kylee Alons, a two-time national champion and 31-time All-American for the Wolfpack, in the summer of 2023 told her story of being forced to share a locker room and “compete against a male athlete” at the NCAA championships. In a social media post last September, she wrote, “I’ll be the first to admit that speaking up about this issue is hard, but it is essential to protect women’s privacy, safety, and integrity of competition.”

Gaines, who competed at Kentucky, and Pennsylvania swimmer Paula Scanlan have led the effort nationally to save women’s sports. Gaines was at the North Carolina General Assembly last summer as lawmakers passed Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, legislation initially vetoed by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper but later put into law by a veto override.

The litigation, a 156-page filing on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, says the NCAA and event host Georgia Tech knew they were in violation of Title IX. That’s the 1972 landmark statute guaranteeing equal opportunities for men and women in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.

The suit includes four unnamed athletes, two who competed in Division I swimming, the others in Division II volleyball and Division III track. Also in the suit with Alons and Gaines are Olympian swimmer Reka Gyorgy of Virginia Tech; Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler and tennis schoolmate Ellie Eades; soccer and track athlete Ainsley Erzen of Arkansas; and six swimmers from Virginia’s Division III Roanoke College – Lily Mullens, Kate Pearson, Susanna Price, Carter Satterfield, Katie Blakenship and Julianna Morrow.

Alons is from Raleigh, Satterfield from Cary and Morrow from Mooresville.

Bill Bock, who resigned from the NCAA Committee on Infractions last month, is lead attorney in the class-action suit. He’s a former U.S. Anti-Doping Agency general counsel. The Independent Council on Women’s Sports, commonly known as ICONS, is providing funding.

In a release, ICONS co-founder Marshi Smith said, “This lawsuit against the NCAA isn’t just about competition; it’s a fight for the very essence of women’s sports. We’re standing up for justice and the rights of female athletes to compete on a level playing field. It’s about preserving the legacy of Title IX and ensuring that the future of women’s sports is as bright as its past.”

“We’re sending a clear message,” said ICONS co-founder Kim Jones. “The integrity of women’s sports is nonnegotiable.”

Alons gave insight to what happened at the 2022 NCAA championships in an interview with Outkick, and later met with U.S. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. Lia Thomas, previously a swimmer for the Penn men’s team three years, was using the same locker room as the women and Alons opted to change in a storage closet instead of the same locker room with Thomas.

Her Wolfpack teammates did likewise.

Alons, in the release, said she doesn’t want another woman to be exposed to the same situation she faced.

“The NCAA has put women in an impossible situation both in competition and in the locker room,” she said.

In a U.S. Senate hearing in June, Gaines at one point countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., saying, “Senator Durbin, in your opening statement you had mentioned this rhetoric, you mentioned ‘what message does it send to trans individuals?’ and my combat to that is what message does it send to women, to young girls who are denied these opportunities? So easily their rights to privacy and safety thrown out the window to protect a small population, to protect one group as long as they’re happy. What about us? That is the overall consensus of how we all felt inside that locker room.”

Wisconsin Right Now Wins 3 Milwaukee Press Club Awards for DeSantis Podcast, Kaul Open Records Battle, Review

Wisconsin Right Now has won three prestigious Milwaukee Press Club awards for our investigative reporting...

Florida Criminal Submitted Recall Vos Page With 4 Alleged Forgeries [EXCLUSIVE]

One of the recall Vos circulators is a convicted criminal from Florida named Carlo Green...

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reopens Ballot Drop Box Ban Decision

(The Center Square) – The Wisconsin Supreme Court is reopening the debate over ballot drop boxes.

The liberal-majority court accepted a case that looks to overturn Wisconsin’s current ban on ballot drop boxes.

The former conservative-majority court, ruled Wisconsin law does not allow for ballot drop boxes at any place except the election clerk’s office.

"[The Wisconsin Elections Commission] staff may have been trying to make voting as easy as possible during the pandemic,” conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in 2022. “But whatever their motivations, WEC must follow Wisconsin statutes. Good intentions never override the law."

But Democrats and activists argued state law didn’t specifically ban them, and Wisconsin’s liberal justices argued that a ban on drop boxes was tantamount to voter suppression.

"Although it pays lip service to the import of the right to vote, the majority/lead opinion has the practical effect of making it more difficult to exercise it. Such a result, although lamentable, is not a surprise from this court," Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in her dissent.

The court’s new case argues ballot drop boxes are “critical for voters … who are unable to vote in person because of disability, scheduling conflicts, lack of transportation, or other hardship."

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote Tuesday the liberal-majority court is, once again, trying to play political games.

"By granting this petition to bypass, the majority again aims to increase the electoral prospects of its preferred political party," Bradley wrote. "Finding the decision politically inconvenient, and emboldened by a new makeup of the court, this new majority embraces the opportunity to overturn (the 2022 ruling in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission). The majority's decision to do so will upset the status quo of election administration mere months before a presidential election and lead to chaos and confusion for Wisconsin voters and election officials."

The court will hear oral arguments in the new challenge in May.

Republican lawmakers have tried to ban the use of ballot drop boxes in Wisconsin, but Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed those attempts.

preston kite

Preston Kite: Incarcerated Sheriff’s Deputy Name Appears on Vos Recall Petition

The name of Preston Kite, the Racine County Sheriff's Deputy accused of exposing himself on...
Special Counsel Jack Smith Iowa Victory for Trump Remove Trump From Primary Ballot

Judge Dismisses Counts Against Trump in Georgia Election Interference Case

A state judge on Wednesday dismissed some of the charges against former President Donald Trump in the Georgia case that accuses the former president of trying to interfere with the 2020 election.

Judge Scott McAfee dismissed six charges in the indictment, including three against Trump due to a lack of detail that he said was "fatal." But the ruling doesn't end the case against Trump. Trump still faces criminal charges, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act charges that underpin the prosecution's case.

"The Court's concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance," McAfee wrote. "However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned's opinion, fatal."

However, the judge wrote that the case was far from over.

"This does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed," he wrote in a footnote. "The State may also seek a re-indictment supplementing these six counts. Even if the statute of limitations has expired, the State receives a six-month extension from the date of this Order to resubmit the case to a grand jury."

McAfee's latest ruling did not address the potential disqualification brought against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade by the defendants. The judge said he would rule on that issue by the end of the week.

Defense attorneys have argued that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had an improper relationship with an attorney she hired to prosecute the state's election interference case against Trump and should be disqualified. Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade said they had a personal relationship that started after Willis hired Wade to prosecute the case.

One witness told the judge the relationship began in 2019 after the pair met at a judicial conference and long before Willis hired Wade in 2021.

The allegations about the prosecutors have at times eclipsed the matter that preceded it: The allegations that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election.

In August 2023, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump and 18 others, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former state Republican Party Chair David Shafer, on charges they tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

Report Clearing Biden Biden Approval Rating Americore Biden Acknowledge Hamas Biden Tells Israel Not to Occupy Gaza Biden impeachment Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan Cancellation

Biden Budget Seeks to Spend Hundreds of Millions to Train School Teachers in DEI

President Joe Biden's budget proposal seeks to set aside billions of dollars to push progressive gender, sexuality and race ideology at home and around the globe.

Released this week, the $7.3 trillion budget also proposes spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to train school teachers in diversity, equity, and inclusion dogma.

The White House touted the spending in its announcement of Biden’s budget, which includes $3 billion to “advance gender equity and equality worldwide.”

That $3 billion figure is several hundred million dollars higher than the 2023 budget request.

Funding for domestic projects of the same kind are robust as well though, including for public education to "improve the diversity of the teacher pipeline."

In fact, Biden’s budget prioritizes training a new generation of teachers who embrace progressive ideology on race, gender, and sexuality.

For example, the budget includes $30 million to increase the number of teachers who go through the Hawkins Centers of Excellence, a federal effort that sets up programs to trains teachers in inclusivity on race, gender and sexuality.

Those training programs must be set up at minority-focused colleges such as historically black colleges and universities or colleges focused on serving Native Americans or Hispanics.

Once established, the taxpayer-funded program must “examine the sources of inequity and inadequacy in resources and opportunity and implement pedagogical practices in teacher preparation programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status and that prepare teachers to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.”

In another similar funding item, the budget sets aside $95 million for the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, another federal effort that administers grants for training teachers.

According to the Federal Register, this grant program prioritizes teachers of color over white teachers in order to “create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.”

“The Department recognizes that diverse educators will play a critical role in ensuring equity in our education system,” the agency said.

The program also prioritizes grant applicants who can help create a “positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate” for gay, lesbian, transgender and minority students.

In response to The Center Square’s reporting, Republicans took aim at Biden’s budget.

“President Biden's reckless and radical budget adds $18 trillion dollars to the debt including billions of dollars for divisive DEI programs,” U.S. Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., who leads the House Freedom Caucus, told The Center Square. “As his partisan State of the Union speech previewed, President Biden is borrowing more money we don't have to pay for things we don't need in order to pander to the Democrat base."

In yet another similar funding item, the budget puts $90 million toward the “Supporting Effective Education Development Program,” which has given away tens of millions of dollars in recent years for similar efforts.

In one example, the program awarded $662,744 to the University of North Georgia to train teachers in “social and emotional wellbeing; trauma-informed pedagogies; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

“Our expected outcomes are that 30 new teachers will be certified, and 84 induction-level teachers will add two endorsements to their certifications,” the group said in its research abstract.

The funding proposals for teachers are relevant because critics of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Critical Race Theory teachings and trainings in public education have been brushed off by defenders, who say it is not present in K-12 schools.

“President Biden has his priorities completely backward, and hardworking Tennesseans will not stand for another tax-and-spend boondoggle,” U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told The Center Square. “This unserious budget – the largest proposed in U.S. history – includes $3 billion for the Green Climate Fund to help ‘prioritize climate change’ and millions for programs that promote DEI."

The national debt is currently over $34 trillion and would rise to $45 billion by 2034 under Biden’s budget.

As The Center Square previously reported, the budget includes several tax increases, including a 25% minimum tax on billionaires, as well as ramping up audits on Americans to increase IRS collection.

Robin Vos Recall Petition recall vos petition

Robin Vos Recall Petition FAILS to Get Enough Valid Signatures as Questions Grow [EXCLUSIVE]

An initial review by the Wisconsin Election Commission into the Recall Robin Vos petition shows...