[Breitbart] A Haitian migrant accused of raping a 15-year-old girl months ago has since been released from jail on $500 bail in the sanctuary state of Massachusetts.
Cory Alvarez, a 26-year-old migrant from Haiti, was arrested and charged in March and indicted with aggravated rape of a child under 16 years old in Rockland, Massachusetts.
According to police, Alvarez was living at a taxpayer-funded migrant shelter when he invited the 15-year-old girl over to his room. The girl told police Alvarez promised to help her open apps on her tablet but instead, he allegedly raped her as she tried to get him to stop.
Alvarez was being held without bail in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents requested custody of him if he were released at any time.
Last week, Alvarez was released from jail on a $500 bail after the Plymouth County Superior Court refused to set bail at $25,000 as requested by prosecutors.
The ICE detainer against Alvarez was ignored and even though the migrant is being monitored by law enforcement with an ankle monitor, his whereabouts are not being shared with federal immigration authorities thanks to Massachusetts’s sanctuary state policy.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) has long defended sanctuary jurisdictions. As attorney general, for example, she ridiculed former President Donald Trump’s initiative to strip federal funds from cities and towns that protected criminal illegal aliens from federal immigration enforcement.
#1
The ICE detainer against Alvarez was ignored and even though the migrant is being monitored by law enforcement with an ankle monitor, his whereabouts are not being shared with federal immigration authorities thanks to Massachusetts’s sanctuary state policy.
[NYPOST] FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh wants to “fix” the behavior of her department’s predominately male workforce — but can’t figure out how to extinguish their flames of discontent. She's black and she's female, who knows, maybe even a lesbian? I didn't ask but I'm sure she'd tell if she is. Who better to run fire services in a major city?
Kavanagh — who’s butted heads with plenty of male underlings since being named the city’s first female fire commissioner in 2022 — made the blunt admission while apologizing to New York Attorney General Letitia James during a March 8 text exchange, a day after pro-Donald Trump firefighters and other attendees mercilessly booed the Democratic pol during a department promotion ceremony.
“I should have called you last night, but I’ve been trying to find a way to say I’m sorry that doesn’t involve me apologizing for men who don’t deserve such grace,” texted Kavanagh, according to records The Post obtained from the AG’s office through a Freedom of Information Law request.
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] Joe Biden is 'humiliated' and 'painfully aware' of his image following his calamitous debate performance, as he is set to discuss the future of his re-election campaign.
The president has retreated to Camp David with is wife, children and grandchildren to take a break from the campaign trial and weigh his options, NBC News first reported.
Insiders described Biden's mood as 'humiliated and devoid of confidence' following his face off with Donald Trump that saw him stumbling over his words and losing his train of thought multiple times.
Biden is said to be 'painfully aware that the physical images of him at the debate — eyes staring into the distance, mouth agape — will live beyond his presidency.'
The retreat comes as his team keeps insisting that the idea of him dropping out of the race would only 'lead to weeks of chaos,' calling the concern of several Democrats the work of 'bedwetting brigade.'
#5
/\ Morgan called out whom he felt were 'grifters' like former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, White House senior adviser Anita Dunn and Biden's personal attorney, Bob Bauer, who is Dunn's husband.
'Biden's advisers failed him,' he wrote on social media, referring to how Team Biden picked the debate format.
'Format was a disaster for him and a plus for Trump. He over practiced and was drained… who wouldn't be,' he added."
He then specifically called out Dunn and Bauer for leading the president astray.
'Biden has for too long been fooled by the value of Anita Dunn and her husband. They need to go… TODAY. The grifting is gross. It was political malpractice.'
In an interview with the New York Times asking him for clarification, Morgan did not mince words.
'It would be like if you took a prizefighter who was going to have a title fight and put him in a sauna for 15 hours then said, 'Go fight,' he said.
'I believe that the debate is solely on Ron Klain, Bob Bauer and Anita Dunn.'
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2024 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Biden advisors said anonymously that between 9am-4pm he was sharp. If that is true why did they have the debate at 9pm? Was the week of training designed to shift his hours of sleep and get him to 9pm? Were the advisors speaking anonymously just preparing their defense for when the knives come for them.
[CBS] The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official actions he took while in office, a landmark decision in the height of an election season that could further delay the start of his criminal trial in Washington, D.C.
The 6-3 decision tosses out a ruling from the federal appeals court in Washington that concluded Trump is not entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges stemming from an alleged scheme to hold on to power after the 2020 election.
The ruling from the nation's highest court is an expansion of presidential power, since it extends immunity to criminal prosecutions of former presidents for their official conduct. Never before had the Supreme Court considered whether a former commander in chief could face criminal charges as a result of conduct that occurred while in the Oval Office.
Trump is the first to have held the presidency and faced prosecution. He has pleaded not guilty to four charges stemming from an alleged effort to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election.
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient."
While concluding that former presidents have sweeping legal protections from charges for alleged acts that fell within their official duties, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's claims that he is entitled to sweeping, absolute immunity from prosecution that encompasses unofficial acts. Such a decision would've brought the federal prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith to an end.
The ruling makes it highly unlikely that a trial will happen before the November presidential election.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has sought to delay proceedings in the case related to the 2020 election, as well as two other prosecutions, until after the upcoming presidential contest. If Trump defeats President Biden in November, he could order the Justice Department to seek to drop the federal charges against him or issue a pardon for himself, though the constitutionality of that maneuver has not been tested.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2024 11:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11140 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
Thomas's opinion -
"None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose."
..."Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”
..."By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist".
Hit the road Jack and don't you come back
No more, no more, no more, no more .
#3
All presidents should. The only way to remove that immunity is a successful impeachment with both houses of congress and removal from office. Just as the constitution states.
#7
One term for all. No lifetime civil service jobs. No "wise men."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/01/2024 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think the entire thing was a big setup to play liberals and get them all upset.
Seriously. Was there any doubt that the President has immunity for acts associated with the office? Prosecutors have it. Judges have it. Even Senators have it for their official capacity. Mayors have it. Governors have it.
[HILL] Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker (R) said the Supreme Court was "absolutely right" in blocking the Department of Justice (DOJ) from charging Jan. 6 rioters with obstruction.
Whitaker, who served as former President Trump’s acting attorney general for three months in 2018 after Jeff Sessions vacated the role at the president’s request, said he viewed the Jan. 6 obstruction charges as an overstep from the DOJ.
"I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right and that the Department of Justice has really been overly aggressive trying to get every possible charge stacked on in those cases," he said during a Saturday appearance on Fox News.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that the DOJ could no longer use a gap left by an Enron-era law to charge Jan. 6 rioters with obstruction. The law made it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress.
The justices did not rule on ideological lines, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining conservatives in the assent and Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissenting with the two remaining liberal justices.
In her dissent, Barrett took a jab at the fact that Congress likely did not have a riot in mind when writing the obstruction law.
"Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?" she said.
The ruling’s effects will vary, but for defendants who have yet to be convicted under an obstruction charge, the DOJ will be unable to make the case.
#6
/\ During the trial, the prosecution sought the maximum sentence of 12 years for money laundering for both Mr Mossack and Mr Fonseca, who died in hospital in May.
Special acknowledgement to Intelligent Design - Longevity Division.
[NYP] More questions about President Biden’s cognitive state are emerging as a new poll showed a jaw-dropping 72% of registered voters do not believe he is mentally fit for the job.
While many Democrats were left flabbergasted and sent into a tailspin by Biden’s debate debacle last week, the 81-year-old president’s cognitive slips have been nothing new to his inner circle.
White House aides have been meticulously working behind the scenes throughout his presidency to minimize his exposure to situations where his cognitive slip-ups could flare up in public and to adapt the day-to-day of the presidency to the needs of an octogenarian.
The commander-in-chief is seen as prone to absent-minded gaffes and fatigue outside of six hours a day — between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. — and while traveling abroad, Axios said in a new report.
#4
"We just need to make sure all world events and crises happen between 10-4PM. Easy peasy!"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2024 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Another NYT lie! Joe is usually on the beach in Delaware.
Posted by: Whavick Scourge of the Apes9857 ||
07/01/2024 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
IMO, Mr. Bidens family will veto any action removing JB from the election. "Dr." Jill is absolutely evil and Hunter, the unemployable bagman, will plead with his Dad to not rock the boat any more than it already has been.
This will leave the alternative of a tragic death, probably with a MAGA hat involved somewhere, that will take Mr. Biden out of the running with no downside to the Dems. The great Ice Cream shop in the sky awaits its Presidential customer.
Jill's tears at the official funeral will, however, be for herself. And Hunter will be so coked up that, well, I don't know how coked up people act, but doubt it is good.
And "Big Mike" Obama will "reluctantly" accept the call of her country. And lose...bigly.
[Washington Examiner] President Joe Biden’s family is united in urging the president to stay in the 2024 race, a source familiar told the Washington Examiner.
The show of support from Biden’s family came during a family gathering at Camp David on Sunday for a trip that was announced before the president’s widely criticized debate performance against former President Donald Trump on Thursday. Earlier reports indicated that while conversations about the future of Biden’s campaign were expected, they were not part of a formal meeting between the Biden family.
Biden’s debate performance exacerbated concerns about his cognitive ability and age, and sent Democrats into a frenzy about whether or not Biden should be the party’s nominee in 2024.
#5
They are going to milk that cow till it dies...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/01/2024 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This decision moves them into a new category of trash, they have now earned the sobriquet of "squatters", as in people who have no right to be in a residence, and refuse to leave!
[PJMedia] Mere days after his disastrous (crashed and burned)
debate performance sent Democrats into a widespread panic, it is now being reported that Joe Biden plans to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with his family on Sunday.
According to a report from NBC News, Biden and First Lady Jill Biden are scheduled to meet their children and grandchildren at Camp David late Saturday. Allegedly, this trip was planned before the debate. He will spend more time with Family.
#3
It is really not my business to give advice to the Dems regarding how to extricate themselves from the escape room of their own making, but did any of you consider trying to bribe the Bidens to leave office? All in all, that strategy has seemed to work well with them in other situations in the past.
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] We will undoubtedly ask, in years to come, how the issue of defence played no part in the 2024 General Election.
That is Britain’s general election, not America’s.
There was just a momentary spat when the Conservatives boasted that they would increase defence spending from its current level of 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP ‘by 2030’, while Labour said they would reach 2.5 per cent ‘when conditions allow’.
The latter is a meaningless statement, but the Conservatives’ claim is hardly a triumph of resolve.
And it is extraordinary that the greatly increased likelihood of Donald Trump being (re)elected President, following the cruelly public exposure of Joe Biden’s incapacity in their so-called debate last week, has still not caused the issue of defence to be raised in our own election.
It could hardly be clearer that Donald Trump, returned to the White House, will not just demand that we and other European countries pay much, much more of the costs of defence against the depredations of the insatiable warmonger in the Kremlin: he actually has no intention of assisting us.
Last month, it was revealed that Trump had told the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen: ‘We will leave, we will quit Nato. And by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defence.’
It is said this was some sort of bluff; Trump’s negotiating tactic to get Europeans to cough up more.
Not according to John Bolton, who was his National Security Advisor: ‘I was there when he almost withdrew [from Nato], and he’s not negotiating. His goal here is not to strengthen Nato, it’s to lay the groundwork to get out.
A fortnight ago, I was at a lunch the leading Westminster think-tank Policy Exchange held for the man whom many tip to be National Security Advisor in Trump 2.0: Elbridge Colby.
The formidably articulate Colby, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence during the first Trump administration, shocked the British military panjandrums present with his strong intimation that he did not necessarily see a Russian attack on a European Nato member as a reason for the U.S. to send its forces into action.
He was unmoved as one of the guests pointed out that when the U.S., after 9/11, sought backing for its invasion of Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden lurked), all its Nato allies sent troops in support, too.
Colby, like Trump, regards China as the only serious threat to U.S. interests, and believes all Washington’s military strategy should be directed against Xi Jinping’s plans for ‘Asian hegemony’: Beijing taking control of the archipelago of islands that runs from Japan, via Taiwan, to the southern edge of the South China Sea.
So, Colby told us, Europe must be ‘de-prioritised’, ridiculing what he called ‘the idea we should break our spear in Europe, which is much less important to the American people’.
Afterwards, when I spoke to him, Colby said: ‘You need to realise I’m moderate on this, compared with many in the Republican Party.’
He added: ‘Your Prime Minister says he will put 2.5 per cent of the UK’s GDP into defence. Why not 3.5 per cent? That’s what America spends.’
Fair point. Half a century ago, when there was no war in Europe, 5 per cent of our GDP was spent on defence.
#1
I agree with some of what Colby says, but in other cases he falls short of what I am looking for. NATO has become one vehicle for the NEICONs to herd us into one conflict after another; I am for withdrawal of the US from NATO for that reason. I don’t think that withdrawal from NATO requires us to leave the Poles out to dry because China is the only enemy. Globalists are the chief enemy. I use Poland for my example, because while I have a great love for countries for the 5 Is countries, they are not getting a pass from me on Russiagate. Finally, don’t try to distract me by mentioning John Bolton, Walrus of Death, in news articles. I don’t bark at squirrels.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/01/2024 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
NATO is useful for keeping the Europeans from going to war against each other. No longer is it necessary to keep the Russians out. The Russians are NOT coming. If they can't even take Kiev, how are they going to take Warsaw? They can't. No, I'm not concerned about German reluctance to increase defense spending. The new rationale for NATO's continued existence is to make sure they don't.
I believe it is correct that the biggest threat to America is China.
But the problem is that globalists see NATO as a vehicle for expanding their empire into places like Georgia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan and even Russia itself. These mad men are willing to go to war for their pipe dream and we can only hope that Trump can put a damper on them.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/01/2024 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
NATOs original mission ended when the Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. Should have issued a 'mission accomplished' letter and packed. Our presence there only fed historical Russian paranoia.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[CBS] The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official actions he took while in office, a landmark decision in the height of an election season that could further delay the start of his criminal trial in Washington, D.C.
"squatters", as in people who have no right to be in a residence, and refuse to leave! 
