Attorney Mehek Cooke, a Republican attorney who served as a political and legal surrogate for Trump in 2024, has emerged as a candidate in the crowded field, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News. Cooke has garnered a reputation as a formidable GOP fundraiser in Ohio and has defended the former president against politically motivated prosecutions in numerous network segments.

Under Ohio law, Governor DeWine will be tasked with selecting a replacement for Vance until 2026. At that point, a special election will be held to determine who will serve out the remainder of Vance’s term, which ends in 2028. The winner of the special election will then have to run again in 2028 in order to secure a full, six-year term.

Trump recently carried the state — which was considered a battleground before the president-elect carried it in 2016 — by 11 percentage points.

Trump’s popularity in the state reportedly bodes well for Cooke, who previously ran for Ohio House of Representatives in 2020. She also spent time in the as the assistant chief counsel in the Ohio governor’s office from 2012 to 2014 and in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio, where she worked on a number of serious criminal cases. […]

— Read More: trendingpoliticsnews.com

Maher didn’t mince words when he outlined the disconnect between the Democratic Party elite and the average American voter. He took the left to task for pushing divisive and impractical ideas that make them completely out of touch with the people they claim to represent. I disagree with Maher on so many things, but what’s really refreshing about Maher’s commentary—especially when you overlook his anti-conservative rhetoric—is that he’s willing to call out his own party for the mess they’ve made and challenge them to rethink their strategies.

He began by mocking the left’s inability to learn from their mistakes, saying, “when you’re in a hole, stop digging, not keep digging.” As Maher sees it, their refusal to adjust has resulted in a disconnect from the very voters they need to win over.

“You wear Queers for Palestine T-shirts and masks two years after the pandemic ended, and you can’t define woman—I mean, person who menstruates. You’re the Teachers Union Education Party, and you’ve turned schools and colleges into a joke.”

He added, “You love to speak truth to power, and we always should, but you have completely lost the ability to speak truth to bulls**t.” […]

— Read More: pjmedia.com

According to Adam Glapiński, the esteemed governor of the National Bank of Poland (NBP), the central bank currently holds an impressive total of 420 tons of gold, thereby officially securing Poland’s position among nations with some of the largest gold reserves worldwide.

“Poland has entered the club of the world’s largest gold reserve holders,” Glapiński announced, emphasizing that this achievement surpasses that which is held by the United Kingdom.

Strategic Goals for Poland’s Gold Reserves

The governor confirmed that one primary objective for NBP is to elevate gold holdings to comprise 20% of its total foreign exchange reserves.

“This move will align us with the world’s leading economies,” Glapiński noted. At present, approximately 15% of Poland’s reserve assets are constituted by gold—a reflection that signifies substantial progress toward achieving this ambitious target.

In recent months, specifically over a period spanning five months, Poland has expeditiously intensified its efforts in acquiring additional quantities of gold—adding an impressive 39 tons—to bolster its already considerable reserves. Such strategic buildup serves as a testament to Poland’s proactive stance against potential global financial disruptions.

The Case for Gold: A Financial Shield

Glapiński has been an unwavering advocate for utilizing gold as a safeguard against financial crises and market volatility. He reiterated its unique qualities when he stated,

“Gold retains its value even in the event of a systemic collapse in the global financial network, where digital assets may fail.”

He further emphasized that this enduring asset remains impervious to credit risks and devaluation wrought by monetary policies—making it not merely valuable but remarkably durable as well.

Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that Poland’s renewed focus on accumulating wealth through golden assets is deeply entrenched within historical contexts and national experiences; memories etched into collective consciousness regarding German occupation during World War II and subsequent Soviet-era dominance remind citizens alike about both tangible security measures and their undeniable importance amidst turbulent times ahead.

Cultural Significance and Economic Resilience

This profound sentiment resonates deeply within many Polish hearts; Marta Bassani-Prusik—the head expert overseeing precious metals trade at Mint Polska—highlighted such cultural significance succinctly:

“For many families, gold has been a lifeline through turbulent times, a tradition passed down for survival and security.”

By placing paramount importance upon acquiring more extensive stocks related directly back towards physical manifestations like golden bullion bars or coins themselves rather than relying solely upon fluctuating currencies alone ensures ultimately greater preparedness while simultaneously conveying determination towards enhancing national economic resilience moving forward into uncertain future landscapes ahead filled with challenges yet unseen across our globe today!

Undoubtedly then—we see here indeed how these achievements undeniably underscore wider commitments made toward attaining newfound autonomy concerning fiscal independence alongside ambitions directed solely aimed at long-term stability.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Casey has called for the counting of provisional ballots, including those with invalid dates or incorrect voter information. The race is currently in the midst of a recount, which is required under Pennsylvania election law if any given race is decided by less than half of a percentage point.

In Bucks County — a crucial swing county that Republicans appeared to have secured — Democrat election commissioners have openly defied the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling on undated and incorrect mail-in ballots. The court ruled that they cannot be counted in a high-profile pre-election case, though Bucks County Commissioner Diane Marseglia has openly stated that the county intends to defy the court.

“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Marseglia said when voting to defy the state’s highest court on Thursday.

“People violate laws anytime they want,” she continued. “So, for me, if I violate this law it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes.” […]

— Read More: trendingpoliticsnews.com

Lucroy made headlines recently by revealing that he has been inundated with hate mail following his outspoken posts on social media about the political climate and sports. In one notable incident, he defiantly refused to kneel during the national anthem while playing for one particular team.

“I gave them the finger,” he boldly declared on X.

Now, let’s take a moment to unpack this situation. Lucroy implores Americans to exercise their right to vote—an act so fundamental that it ought not be politicized at all. Yet here we are; people like him face vitriol simply for daring to challenge the status quo.

“God forbid a pro athlete stand up for what they believe,” Lucroy wrote in response to his critics.

This sentiment resonates deeply when juxtaposed against today’s culture of outrage and cancelation—a culture that seems more intent on silencing dissenting voices than fostering genuine dialogue.

He elaborates further. “That’s part of the problem. Some people are too sensitive, emotional, and weak to hear the opinion of people that reached the athletic pinnacle of the craft or any other top level. See [Elon Musk] and how much hate from the other side he’s getting.”

It is alarming how many athletes remain silent out of fear—fear not just from fans but also from organizations that prioritize image over integrity. According to Lucroy’s observations,

“I am not politically correct.”

His candidness shines through as he expresses unwavering conviction about what many don’t dare voice: “When I say that 90+% of American-born MLB players are conservative, you can take that to the bank.”

He continued, “We just don’t speak up as much because we are told to be neutral. I will not remain neutral anymore.”

This isn’t merely an isolated case; it’s indicative of a broader issue where those who achieve greatness feel pressured into silence regarding their beliefs due solely because they might upset someone else’s sensibilities.

Lucroy further emphasizes his stance by saying, “I’m stubborn and hardheaded.”

He understands fully well what it took him years on end in Major League Baseball—a journey fraught with challenges—to reach this point where he’s willing risk everything rather than compromise his values:

“I also know what it took for me…as well as witnessing character attributes defined by greatness among my peers…I care about my children, family, God, and country.”

The significance behind this is monumental—it speaks volumes about personal accountability versus being shackled by societal expectations fueled largely by political agendas masquerading under “neutrality.” In an appearance on “OutKick The Morning,” Lucroy explained why speaking out was vital:

“I don’t want to get specific,” but even without naming names directly, “…these teams they come down…they don’t want you politically polarizing…”

His story reveals how players were coerced into submission regarding both taking knees during national anthems or receiving vaccines under duress—actions dictated more so out fear rather than freedom or choice!

“But you know,” he admits candidly, “they just want you stay neutral…keep your mouth shut.”

And therein lies our quandary! These circumstances compel us all toward self-examination concerning our own willingness—or unwillingness—to stand firm amidst increasingly authoritarian pressures within society at large!

Ultimately it’s crystal clear: Jonathan Lucroy is calling upon fellow Americans—including athletes across every profession—to reclaim their voices against rampant hypocrisy! We need more individuals willing enough share authentic perspectives regardless potential fallout—even if requires giving “them” (whoever they may be) The Finger.

Article generated from corporate media reports with assistance from conservative artificial intelligence..

This was back when pollster Ann Selzer was declaring Kamala Harris as holding a 3 percentage point advantage in Iowa and was on a momentum streak that looked to sway the election her way. She, and the energetic pundits who touted her outlier result, saw shame as she was only off by 16% as Trump took the state handily.

Others were offering their wise prognosticating, including a few seers who speculated that the state of Florida could be flipped. Such was the enthusiasm and positive thinking that some believed Harris could see the Republican stronghold, that it is no longer considered to be a swing state, altered to a blue paradise.

The Florida Republican Party has come out with a post that is a head-turner for political wonks. The Sunshine State GOP has lent its endorsement to, of all things, a Democrat!

https://twitter.com/FloridaGOP/status/1857415116754423918

Call it what you will; epic trolling, spiking the football, taunting the afflicted…any and all may apply. Nikki Fried is someone who has long operated with a dense cloud of delusion. When she served in the state capitol as the Agriculture commissioner she would boast how Democrats were growing in nature when she was – literally – the only elected party member in a power role in the state legislature. She even touted being the only elected Dem in Tallahassee in her social media bio. […]

— Read More: redstate.com

It came down to half of America living in reality of consequences of Democrat leadership and policies versus the other half of America living in delusion that their rights were going to be taken away.

It was reality versus delusion.

It really was that simple and not the deluded Democrats are furious that Republican voters did not put the left’s delusions before their needs to eat and find affordable housing.

It’s really that simple. […]

— Read More: www.thegatewaypundit.com

All four men were in their 30s. Two were white, one was Black and the other Hispanic. As I traditionally do, I asked them how they voted, and they all answered with President-elect Donald Trump.

The conservative populist coalition was always right in front of reporters and experts in working-class neighborhoods, suburbs and cities. If only they had not treated those voters as either racists, fascists, misogynists, garbage, stupid or outliers to their narrative of what Americans should look like.

These voters were directly observable. I saw them, heard them and reported that welders, cosmetologists, barbers and mechanics, as well as doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects of all shapes, sizes and colors, would be voting for their communities to thrive and for prosperity, safety and more money in their pocketbooks.

These voters were much more concerned that they would be able not to go into debt if their “check engine” lights went on in their cars than if there was access to abortion. They were more concerned that the school districts in their communities had enough funding, weren’t overcrowded and were serving the future’s potential than if fossil fuels were causing the climate to burn. They were more concerned about the cost of butter than the insane notion that Trump is a fascist. […]

— Read More: hotair.com

The article below from The Epoch Times represents an analysis of the facts and does not necessarily reflect the perspectives of this publication.

(The Epoch Times)—After President-elect Donald Trump won a second term, multiple defendants charged for their roles in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, asked to delay their cases because they anticipate pardons from Trump.

Many were denied, but each nonetheless raised questions about how Trump will handle the cases.

According to data collected by NPR, more than 1,500 people have been charged in relation to Jan. 6, with nearly 1,000 pleading guilty.

At least a dozen cases have been dismissed, while plenty remain with changes following Trump’s election. At the beginning of November, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia announced multiple sentences and guilty verdicts.

Various factors could determine whether these individuals end up avoiding jail time, but perhaps the most important is Trump’s eventual control of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and who will lead that department.

On Nov. 13, Trump announced Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as his pick for attorney general. Gaetz has been critical of the prosecutions and introduced a bill in July that was intended to prevent prosecutors from retaliating against Jan. 6 defendants for seeking resentencing. Gaetz has also questioned federal involvement, stating that Jan. 6 “wasn’t an insurrection” but that it “very well may have been a fedsurrection.”

Assuming the presidency also grants Trump substantial pardon power under the Constitution: Trump has indicated that he’s open to pardoning those charged but left open the possibility that some would face punishment.

“We will treat them fairly,” he said in January 2022. “And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly.”

More recently, during an event in July, he was asked about individuals who assaulted officers. He said he would “absolutely” pardon the defendants “if they’re innocent” and added that “they were convicted by a very tough system.”

More than 70 defendants have received a mixed verdict, and so far, more than 1,000 people have been sentenced, with 64 percent receiving prison time, according to NPR data. Some defendants have also taken plea deals.

“I think there’s going to be a complete second look at all of the prosecutions,” Robert Ray, a former Trump impeachment attorney, told The Epoch Times, while noting the large number of cases brought. He added that a second look wouldn’t “necessarily yield a favorable result with regard to each and every defendant, but I think there’s going to be a pretty strenuous exercise of the pardon and commutation power to deal with overreaching [by prosecutors].”

John Pierce, an attorney who has represented Jan. 6 defendants, told The Epoch Times he expects a “blanket pardon,” while Trump–Vance transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the president-elect “will make pardon decisions on a case-by-case basis.”

Politics of Pardons

It’s unclear which individuals Trump will consider for pardon.

“That’s the million-dollar question,” Lori Ulrich, an attorney with the public defender’s office, told The Epoch Times. She is currently representing Joseph Fischer, whose case made it to the Supreme Court this year.

Fischer and other defendants face a myriad of charges, including an obstruction charge the Supreme Court addressed this summer in Fischer v. United States. It’s unclear how Trump’s DOJ will apply that ruling, but the president-elect’s pardons could be influenced by factors such as the politics surrounding his pardons.

“If President Biden either pardons or commutes the sentences for Hunter Biden, that gives President Trump political cover to either pardon or commute the non-violent J6 offenders, [as well as] Peter Navarro, and Steve Bannon, if he chooses to,” John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times.

Shu was referring to President Joe Biden’s son, who was convicted in September of various tax offenses. Both of Trump’s former White House advisers, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, could be pardoned after each served a four month sentences for defying subpoenas from the House committee that investigated Jan. 6.

A CBS poll found that three years after the events of Jan. 6, 78 percent of Americans expressed disapproval toward “actions of those who forced their way into the Capitol.”

William Shipley, an attorney for one of the defendants, suggested in a motion on Nov. 10 that the election didn’t reflect well on the DOJ’s efforts.

“Defendant Baker would point out that the ‘people’ on behalf of whom the Government purports to speak made themselves heard clearly on November 5, and that should mean something to the Department of Justice without regard to what Administration is now in charge,” Shipley said in a motion for defendant Stephen Michael Baker.

That motion, which asked for a delay in proceedings, was quickly rejected by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper this month.

Upon entering office, Trump’s pardon power would allow him to commute sentences and pardon convicts who have already served time, such as Ulrich’s client, Riley Williams. Williams was accused of helping to steal then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s laptop. She was found guilty on two felony counts, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on two other counts, including aiding and abetting theft of government property.

Non-Violent Offenders

Shu told The Epoch Times that pardons for non-violent offenders were more politically palatable.

In August, the DOJ said that approximately 140 police officers were assaulted on Jan. 6, while more than 500 people have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. It added that “approximately 163 individuals … have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.”

Among those are Daniel Ball, who pleaded not guilty but whom the DOJ accused of, among other things, “throwing an explosive device that detonated upon at least 25 officers.” Others included a father-son pair who pleaded guilty in January, and Zachary Alam, who was found guilty last year.

David Gelman, an attorney and former Trump campaign surrogate, told The Epoch Times that re-examining the Jan. 6 prosecutions would have to occur on a “case-by-case basis” but indicated that Trump could consider violence in choosing how to exercise his pardon power.

Trump said at a town hall in 2023 that he was “inclined to pardon many of” the defendants who had been convicted. “I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably, they got out of control,” he said.

Earlier this year, he started one of his rallies with a recording of the national anthem sung by Jan. 6 prisoners. He also vowed in March that his “first acts” as president would be to “Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned,” he wrote on his Truth Social account.

In a motion filed just after the election, one of the Jan. 6 defendants, Anna Lichnowski, asked her judge to postpone sentencing partly on the basis that her offenses were non-violent, making her “a good candidate for a pardon,” according to her attorney.

Lichnowski was one of a series of defendants who filed motions for some kind of delay in their cases after Trump’s victory. Many of them have been denied, including by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who said that Trump’s potential pardon was “irrelevant” to Lichnowski’s case.

“The potential future exercise of the discretionary pardon power, an Executive Branch authority, is irrelevant to the Court’s obligation to carry out the legal responsibilities of the Judicial Branch,” Walton said in a Nov. 7 court order.

Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, similarly resisted the motions while arguing that the public is interested in a quick administration of justice.

Graves will likely exit the DOJ in Trump’s second term, experts speculated—something that is expected for many prosecutors at the beginning of a new administration. During Trump’s and Biden’s first terms, dozens of prosecutors were asked to leave.

The vast majority of defendants have been charged with a trespassing offense, the use of which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld in October. Defendant Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump and a former county commissioner from New Mexico, had asked the court to review the DOJ’s use of this charge against him.

In a 2–1 decision, the court held that the DOJ could apply the trespassing law without proving that he was aware that former Vice President Mike Pence’s presence on the Capitol grounds was the reason for restricting that area.

Obstruction Charge

In June, the Supreme Court held in a 6–3 decision that the DOJ had misinterpreted a financial reform law in attempting to accuse the Jan. 6 defendants of obstructing an official proceeding.

The majority opinion in that case, Fischer v. United States, held that the DOJ erred in its attempt to disentangle two portions of the Sarbanes–Oxley financial reform law (Section 1512(c)(1) and (c)(2)).

The DOJ had argued that the law allowed prosecutions that targeted obstructive conduct in a catch-all way that included methods other than those mentioned at the beginning of the section.

A majority of the Supreme Court, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed and held: “To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

It’s unclear how Trump and his DOJ will apply the Fischer decision to the defendants’ unique circumstances. It carries a 20-year maximum sentence.

In November, the DOJ said that “approximately 259 defendants who, at the time Fischer was decided, were charged with or convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512 to determine whether the charge should continue to be prosecuted.”

The DOJ said that after Fischer, the government “decided to forgo the Section 1512(c)(2) charge for approximately 96 defendants, will continue to pursue the charge for approximately 13 defendants, and continues to assess the remaining defendants.”

Approximately 133 were sentenced, and more than half were convicted of that offense and other felonies, according to DOJ data from August.

Austin Alonzo contributed to this report.

As we highlighted yesterday, all the right people are pissed off about it.

Rachel Maddow, who is still adamant Trump is going to put her in a concentration camp, claimed that he is intentionally destroying the government with his cabinet nominations.

Now here’s a quick reminder that the media said nothing when Joe Biden made some truly incomprehensible nominations.

As the media and Democrats attack Trump’s nominees—RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz etc—let’s take a look at how unqualified Biden’s nominees are for their jobs –

Xavier Becerra, HHS – not a doctor, he’s a lawyer, ex-attorney general of California

Jared Bernstein, Chair of…

— Elizabeth MacDonald (@LizMacDonaldFOX) November 15, 2024

The post continues:

• Jared Bernstein, Chair of Council of Economic Advisors – not an economist, Bachelor’s degree in music, masters in sociology
• Pete Buttigieg, Transportation Secretary – no transportation background, Mayor of Indiana, “pothole Pete”
• Mayorkas, DHS Secretary – no security background, lawyer, Asst U.S. attorney, Obama transition team
• Jennifer Granholm, Energy Secy – no energy background, Michigan Governor
• Gina Raimondo, Commerce Secretary – No trade background, Gov of Rhode Island
• Deb Haaland, Interior Secy – New Mexico Congressman
• And just for kicks…Bill Nye, the environmentalist “Science Guy” — no background in environmentalism or science, he’s a mechanical engineer and comedy writer. […]

— Read More: modernity.news