The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on keeping in place Texas and Florida laws designed to prevent viewpoint-based censorship on social media platforms.

Florida’s law prevents companies from “deplatforming U.S. political candidates or journalistic enterprises” or censoring posts in a way that is “inconsistent and unfair.” Texas’ law prohibits platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring content or users based on viewpoint.

NetChoice, the internet trade group that sued the states, argued the laws violate platforms’ First Amendment rights by preventing them from exercising editorial discretion and compelling their speech by requiring them to host content. The states argued platforms are closer to common carriers like cell phone companies that transmit messages without respect to content.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with NetChoice and blocked Florida’s law, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas’ law, arguing corporations do not “have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

Though multiple justices appeared skeptical the government can compel Twitter and Facebook to host content that violates their terms of service, most seemed to agree there were some applications of the law that could be permissible, like preventing viewpoint-discrimination in Gmail or direct messaging functions on various platforms.

“Does Gmail have a First Amendment right to delete, let’s say, Tucker Carlson’s or Rachel Maddow’s Gmail accounts if they don’t agree with his or her viewpoints?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.

“They might be able to do that, your honor,” Paul Clement, the attorney arguing for NetChoice, said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out it was an “odd case” as Florida’s law covers “almost everything.”

“It seems like your law is covering just about every social media platform on the Internet, and we have amici who are not traditional social media platforms, like smartphones and others who have submitted amici brief, telling them that readings of this law could cover them,” she said, pointing to potential applications on Etsy.

Other justices brought up situations where the law could apply to Uber and WhatsApp.

NetChoice maintained the position that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications, forcing the justices unclear on how they should address these various scenarios.

But on the central issue — censorship on big platforms like Facebook and Twitter — the justices seemed split.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about “government-mandated” fairness.

“In your opening remarks, you said the design of the First Amendment is to prevent ‘suppression of speech,’” he told Whitaker. “And you left out what I understand to be three key words in the First Amendment, or to describe the First Amendment — ‘by the government.’”

The argument is now over in the social media case. It was fascinating and the justices were outstanding. The problem for the company is that it went forward on a facial challenge alone. That allows for an exit option since justices on the left and the right felt that there were…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 26, 2024

Alito pressed on the definition of “content moderation” that platforms argue is their right.

“Is it anything more than a euphemism for censorship?” he asked.

“If the government is doing it, then content moderation might be a euphemism for censorship,” Clement said. “If a private party is doing it, content moderation is a euphemism for editorial discretion. There is a fundamental difference between the two.”

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Clement to provide “one example of a case in which we have said the First Amendment protects the right to censor.”

He later pressed whether the same conduct, if done by the government, would be considered government speech. In March, the Supreme Court will hear a separate First Amendment case considering the Biden administration’s coordinating with social media companies to remove content.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also questioned NetChoice’s “private versus public distinction.”

“But what do you do with the fact that now, today, the Internet is the public square?” she asked. “And I appreciate that these companies are private companies, but if the speech now is occurring in this environment, why wouldn’t the same concerns about censorship apply?”

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

Jack Smith Defends Biden’s Mishandling Of Classified Docs, Levels Attack Against Donald Trump

Special counsel Jack Smith argued Monday that President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents was worse than President Joe Biden’s own retention of classified documents.

In response to Trump’s motion to dismiss his case based on “selective and vindictive prosecution,” Smith argued there are no examples of anyone engaging in “remotely similar” conduct as Trump, pointing to a line in special counsel Robert K. Hur’s recent report that concluded “the evidence falls short of establishing Mr. Biden’s willful retention of the classified Afghanistan documents beyond a reasonable doubt.”

However, he did not mention that the report did find evidence of willful retention but declined prosecution because a jury would be unlikely to convict Biden if he presented himself “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, P… by Kyle Becker

During his interview with Hur, Biden did not recall the years he was vice president and could not remember the year when his son Beau died, according to the report. Hur wrote that it would be “difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Smith still argued Monday that Trump has “not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted.”

“Most notably, Trump, unlike Biden, is alleged to have engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings,” Smith wrote.

He argued that Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on selective prosecution should be “denied on this basis alone.”

“[Trump] intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents—documents so sensitive that they were presented to the President—and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club,” Smith wrote. “When the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) initially sought their return (before learning that they contained classified national defense information), Trump delayed, obfuscated, and dissembled.”

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

‘The Fraud is On the Court, Not On Me’: Donald Trump Appeals New York’s Civil Trial Verdict

Former President Donald Trump has appealed a verdict by the New York Supreme Court that found him guilty of civil fraud and fined hundreds of millions of dollars.

Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, was ordered to pay the State of New York approximately $355 million on Feb. 16, a figure that was revised to $454 million, according to Democratic Attorney General Letitia James of New York, whose office sued Trump in the case. On Monday, Trump filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, seeking to overturn the verdict.

“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT…Defendants President Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the Trump Organization, Inc….hereby appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, from the Decision,” wrote Trump’s attorneys in the notice of appeal. The trial verdict was issued by Justice Arthur F. Engoron of the New York Supreme Court’s Trial Decision, who had been previously criticized by Trump while presiding over the case.

The verdict in the case was handed down after a trial beginning on Oct. 2 that was attended several times by Trump. He later testified in the trial in a chaotic session that saw Engoron chide him multiple times to conform to the court’s rules, though was later allowed to deliver his testimony without interruption.

“The fraud is on the court, not on me,” Trump said, according to CNN. “This is not a political rally,” Engoron responded to Trump’s attacks while on the stand.

Notice of Appeal by Donald … by Daily Caller News Foundation

The verdict and subsequent appeal is one of many civil and criminal proceedings that implicate Trump. He is presently under indictment on dozens of state felony charges in New York City and Miami — regarding allegedly falsified business records and his possession of highly classified documents after leaving office — as well as in Washington, D.C., and Fulton County, Georgia, which concern his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Additionally, Trump is currently involved in litigation at the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the decisions of state authorities in Colorado and Maine to disqualify him from the ballot in the 2024 presidential election, based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, and is petitioning the court for a writ of certiorari regarding his Washington, D.C. indictment to claim constitutional immunity from prosecution.

Furthermore, Trump was ordered to pay $83 million to E. Jean Carroll as damages for defamation following his criticism of her after she successfully sued him for an alleged sexual assault in the 1990s, where he was ordered to pay her $5 million.

The New York Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

California’s ‘Golden Boy’ Gavin Newsom is Facing Another Recall Effort

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom could face another recall election in November if an effort to remove him gains enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, Politico reported Monday.

Rescue California, the group leading the recall effort over the state’s budget deficit and the governor’s national political ambitions, will serve Newsom with the paperwork Monday morning, according to Politico. Some of the same conservative activists organized a similar recall effort in 2021, when Newsom overcame his former presidential candidate and radio host Larry Elder by roughly 30 points.

“Gavin Newsom has abandoned the state to advance his presidential ambitions, leaving behind a $73 billion budget deficit and a public safety, immigration and education crisis,” Orange County fundraiser Anne Dunsmore, who is the campaign director for Rescue California, told Politico.

Newsom has long been the subject of speculation regarding his presidential ambitions as concerns over President Joe Biden’s age and electability have mounted. The governor participated in a debate with Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida when the latter was a presidential candidate in late November.

“California needs a full-time governor who is fully focused on the serious problems the state and its citizens are facing,” Dunsmore continued. “This may be our last opportunity to rescue and restore our state, while we highlight for the rest of the country the destruction Newsom has left in his wake.”

The recall organizers, whom Dunsmore told Politico comprise largely of over 400 Californians across the political spectrum, would need to garner enough signatures to equal 12% of the turnout from the previous gubernatorial election.

The effort has a May deadline to shore up the approximate 1.6 million signatures to get the initiative on the ballot in November, according to the outlet. If the effort fails to do so in time, it can still continue gathering signatures for an election at a later date.

“We are taking it seriously,” Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Newsom, told Politico. “These Trump Republicans are targeting Gov. Newsom because he is out there defending democracy and fighting for the reelection of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. He’s not going to be distracted from that fight. Democracy’s on the ballot, and he’s going to keep fighting.”

The governor currently has a 46% approval rating among Californians, according to a Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted in early January.

Newsom’s campaign did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

New Witness Reports Accuse Nathan Wade of Being Fani Willis’ ‘Backdoor Operator’

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis gave her “Special Prosecutor” Nathan Wade more authority behind-the-scenes in the run-up and during the Trump case in Georgia than previously known, a new report indicates.

According to multiple people who spoke exclusively to Breitbart News, after Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis was elected in November 2020, Nathan Wade “made the decisions to hire or fire” staff in the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.

“Wade is a prosecutor on the Trump case and he selected the office employees,” one source said.

The inside sources, who were familiar with the “corrupt” district attorney’s office, said that Wade oversaw a transition team of ten to twelve individuals who conducted interviews and evaluations of employees to vet them for loyalty and reliability after Willis’ election in November 2020.

According to a second unnamed source, Wade was the one responsible for choosing which ones of 250 office workers would stay on. Insiders said that Willis and Wade met privately for one-on-one interviews; Wade was “too invested to be just a friend” of Willis to have such a prominent job, according to the sources.

“Willis said everyone in the office was essentially all terminated, and that essentially we had to reapply for our jobs and must submit an application and schedule a time to appear for an interview,” a source said. “We had to reapply and came back in so they could interview everyone — from lawyers to paralegals to assistants to investigators.”

“And in that room, in my interview, there were a lot of people other than Fani Willis. And that was her transition team. I definitely know that Nathan Wade was in that room because he was taking the lead role,” the source stated. “And I was a little confused because I had never seen him before.”

“I had about maybe ten people in the interview,” another source described the reinterview process with Wade. “Nathan definitely was up moving around and taking charge in the room. Wade hired the entire office of 250 employees,” the person said. “I was just telling him my employment background, and they just sit there and looked at me and they said well, ‘you’ll get an email on our decision.’ And that’s what Wade said. And he looked at Willis. They looked at each other. And there was just something so weird going on.”

According to Wade, their romance began in 2022, the same year that Willis began investigating Trump for president. However, the testimony of former staff in the Fulton County D.A.’s office contradicts these claims.

“Robin Yeartie’s testimony directly contradicts statements from Willis and Wade that their personal relationship didn’t begin until after Wade was hired in November 2021,” PBS reported. “Yeartie was called to testify in a hearing to determine whether Willis should be removed from the case accusing Trump and others of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.”

“Yeartie, who previously worked in the district attorney’s office, testified that she saw Wade and Willis hugging and kissing prior to November 2021,” the report added.

Furthermore, Wade’s and Willis’ denials of a running romantic relationship prior to the Trump investigation opening have been contradicted by cellphone data obtained and analyzed by the Trump legal team.

On Friday, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on the Trump legal team obtaining cellphone data that deal a tremendous blow to Willis’ and Wade’s narrative about when their romantic relationship began.

Nathan Wade appeared to make at least 35 visits to the Hapeville neighborhood where Fani Willis was living before the district attorney hired him to lead Fulton County’s election interference prosecution, according to cellphone data included in a court submission filed Friday.

The filing, by attorneys for Donald Trump, raises fresh questions about the relationship between the two prosecutors, which the former president and other defendants argue has tainted the case against them and should result in Willis and her office being disqualified.

Trump’s lawyers relied on data collected from Wade’s cellphone and cellphone tower transmissions to track his movements. It seems to contradict Wade’s testimony last week in which he said he had visited Willis at her condo in Hapeville no more than 10 times before he was hired in November 2021. It also indicates Wade twice arrived late at night at the condo and left early the next morning in the months before Willis and Wade said their relationship became romantic early in 2022.

Both Wade and Willis testified last week that they did not spend the night together at the Hapeville condo.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution explains why this is important context for the filing of the Trump racketeering case in the State of Georgia.

The timeline is important for two reasons. If Willis and Wade were a couple before she hired him it raises the prospect that she may have violated at least the spirit of anti-nepotism rules, though Fulton’s policy specifically focuses on family members. More importantly, both Willis and Wade have testified under oath that the relationship began in 2022. If defense attorneys can prove that they lied under oath it could constitute perjury.

As reported, earlier many legal analysts believe that Wade and Willis are now “toast.”

Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis denies that the cellphone data are a reliable indication of Mr. Wade’s or her own whereabouts during the time frame in question.

The records do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed in Supplemental Exhibit 38.

However, the statement doesn’t refute that Wade was at Willis’ home on two occasions in question, Sept. 11 and Nov. 29.

Nathan Wade’s involvement in the Fulton County D.A.’s office ran deeper than previously believed. Thus, instead of merely being her “Special Prosecutor,” Wade was actually more like Fani Willis’ backdoor operator.

NOW READ:

Fani Willis and Nathan Wade’s Testimony is Contradicted by Cellphone Data

Nikki Haley may not realize it yet, but her fledgling presidential campaign is effectively over.

Despite losing the GOP presidential primary in her home state of South Carolina, former governor Haley has insisted that she will remain in the campaign.

“I’m a woman of my word. I’m not giving up this fight when a majority of Americans disapprove of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden,” she told supporters.

But she is going to be persisting in her fight without the help of powerful financial backing from billionaires who have thus far bankrolled her longshot campaign.

That is because the Koch brothers are all-but-done with Haley’s 2024 bid.

“Americans for Prosperity Action, the network backed by billionaire Charles Koch, is pausing its financial support of GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s campaign a day after she lost to former President Donald Trump in her home-state primary in South Carolina,” CNBC reported.

“AFP Action said it still endorses Haley for president but now its support will only come in the form of words — not cash,” the report added.

“Given the challenges in the primary states ahead, we don’t believe any outside group can make a material difference to widen her path to victory,” AFP Action CEO Emily Seidel wrote in an email to staff reported by Politico. “And so while we will continue to endorse her, we will focus our resources where we can make the difference.”

As conservative pundit Benny Johnson put it on X, it’s “over” for Nikki (Haley.)

It’s over for Nikki pic.twitter.com/7zBALvpXKM

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 26, 2024

In spite of the primary defeats and the AFP funding pause setback, Haley has promised to continue running through Super Tuesday on March 5.

“AFP is a great organization and ally in the fight for freedom and conservative government. We thank them for their tremendous help in this race,” Haley’s campaign said in a statement on Sunday. “Our fight continues, and with more than $1 million coming in from grassroots conservatives in just the last 24 hours, we have plenty of fuel to keep going. We have a country to save.”

AFP will instead throw its support behind Congressional Republican races. The establishment Republican organization has thus far endorsed five Senate candidates and 19 House candidates.

NOW READ:

Nikki Haley in Denial After Her Stinging Defeat in South Carolina: ‘I’m Not Giving Up This Fight’

President Joe Biden’s appearance before the nation’s governors at a black tie event on Sunday was an unmitigated disaster from start to finish.

At the National Governors Association Winter Meeting, Biden humiliated himself — and by extension, the office the presidency — by constantly botching historical quotes and being unable to correctly identify some of the most powerful world leaders.

One of the most embarrassing moments came when the hyper-partisan Biden complained about “bitter” politics and then invoked Lincoln’s “better angels of our nature” quote.

POTUS: "I wanna make sure I get the quote exactly right, 'He said, slekjnrvzldkfljknvsjsfnsnbs;krmvsioera.' pic.twitter.com/kwhoxDU7Uk

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 25, 2024

As Biden told it: “And, you know, standing here in front of this portrait of the man behind me here, he — he said — and I want to make sure I get the quote exactly right. He said, ‘The better angels –‘ he said, ‘We must address counsel — and adjust the better angels of our nature.’ And we do the — and we do well to remember what else he said. He said, ‘We’re not enemies, but we’re friends.” This is in the middle of — this is in the — in the part of the Civil War. He said, ‘We’re not enemies, but we’re friends. We must not be enemies’.”

Let’s compare the actual Lincoln quote: 

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

But Joe was just getting warmed up. The president mixed up the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin (he then corrects himself) before spinning a yarn about traveling 17,000 miles with the Chinese dictator.

Also: Did Joe Biden forget that he was vice president under President Barack Obama? You make the call.

Biden again claims he "traveled 17,000 miles" with China's Xi Jinping, who he calls the "head of Russia."

"This has been documented and it's real!"

(It isn't — the story has been repeatedly debunked) pic.twitter.com/jZs07iC4hv

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 25, 2024

“I’ve spent a lot of time with Xi Jinping — someone whom I have a great deal of difference with,” he boasted. “And I was — when I was vice president, President — my — my president was — told me that he wanted me to get to know Xi Jinping because it was clear he was going to be the head of Russia — of — of China and that he — we had a — we were having problems with Russia at the time and other countries as well. And so, what he said was, ‘Get to know him. He’s going to be there.”  I — and he couldn’t because he was the president, and he couldn’t travel. So, I traveled 17,000 miles with him throughout the country — our country and — and in — in China, as well’.”

The Washington Post, however, has debunked this tall tale and has even given him three Pinocchios for it.

Joe Biden then wrapped up his remarks and asked his handlers: “I’m right here?”

Biden wraps up his remarks and immediately gets confused as he asks his handlers: "I'm right here?" pic.twitter.com/PMFCVHH2yr

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 25, 2024

While Biden looks around the room aimlessly, the audience turns away from him and completely ignores him as they commence with their dinner.

It’s a sad but fitting scene for a president that Americans have entirely tuned out.

NOW READ:

One of Biggest Protests in Brazil’s History Calls for Impeachment of Socialist President Lula de Silva

Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians turned out in one of the biggest protests in the nation’s history in the capital of São Paulo on Sunday to demand the impeachment of socialist president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Lula has become the subject of formal calls for impeachment in the wake of his comparisons of Israel’s policy to the holocaust.

“What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has no parallel in other historical moments,” Lula told reporters during the 37th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. “It did exist when Hitler decided to kill the Jews,” he added.

As reported by Merco Press, Brazilian lawmakers submitted a resolution for Lula’s impeachment last week.

If you’re wondering if Republican voters who voted for Nikki Haley in the South Carolina primary are going to support Donald Trump in the general election, then worry no more.

Nikki Haley got virtually no Republican support in the South Carolina primary, but got the majority of her votes from self-described Independents, moderates, and Democrats.

Kelli Poindexter, a Democrat voter, told Forsige Breaking News that she voted in the Republican primary with the aim of cancelling out a Trump voter.

“I voted for Nikki Haing simply to maybe cancel out one of the Donald Trump votes, and that is because this is heavy Donald Trump support in our state,” Poindexter said. “I don’t understand it.”

Other voters contacted by Forsige Breaking News about their selections had a much different tune.

“Well, I voted for Trump because I trust him more than I do Haley,” an unidentified voter said.

“I voted for Donald Trump,” said Republican voter Mary Ring. “I think he’s the only one that’s capable of being in the White House.”

South Carolina has an open primary system.

That means Democratic Party voters (and Independent voters) can cross party lines and vote against Donald Trump in the Republican primaries.

That’s exactly what they did, just like Democratic and Independent voters did even in hybrid primaries like in New Hampshire.

NBC News reported on the exit polls, which showed exactly what you would expect.

“Trump overwhelmingly won the support of men and women (68% and 62%, respectively), voters under 45 and those over 45 (64% and 65%), voters with and without college degrees (51% and 75%), and self-identified Republicans (73%),” NBC News noted.

“Trump also continued his primary season streak of garnering majority support across traditional Republican voting blocs: 86% of very conservative voters, 75% of white evangelicals, 68% of veterans and 89% of the almost half of voters who say they are part of the MAGA movement,” the media outlet continued.

“Haley’s support today came from independents, where she beat Trump 54% to 43%, and moderates, where she beat Trump 67% to 32%,” NBC News added.

In addition, Haley obviously got support from Democrats looking to play spoiler, as illustrated by the woman mentioned above.

NOW READ:

Fox News Calls South Carolina for Donald Trump — But Mislead Viewers by Leaving Out Important Fact