Did Kamala Harris Just Violate Federal Law To Boost Terry McAuliffe In Virginia?

Democratic leaders have pulled out the stops to try to help Terry McAuliffe in his struggling campaign for governor in Virginia. Figures from Barack Obama to Stacey Abrams have stumped for McAuliffe  who is in a tight race with businessman Glenn Youngkin. The key for McAuliffe is black voters, and to spur turnout Vice President Kamala Harris has taped an endorsement of McAuliffe that is reportedly being played at hundreds of African American churches around the state. The problem is the “Johnson Amendment” makes such political pitches in churches a violation of federal law. Making matters worse, this knowing violation occurred just days after the filing of a complaint against White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki for clearly violating the Hatch Act in using the White House press room to support McAuliffe.

The video was aired last Sunday and will air again next Sunday. It was also quoted and aired by CNN. As Harris said in her much maligned “space video,” you can see the violation of federal law “with your own eyes.

It is part of McAuliffe’s push called “Souls to the Polls” and is a full-throated endorsement of McAuliffe that calls on black churches to turn out for his election. Harris declares “I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment.”

 

The problem is that such direct politicking in tax-exempt churches has been unlawful for decades. Section 501(c)3 states:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

That bolded language is the “Johnson Amendment” prohibition and expressly includes “the publishing or distributing of statements.

The IRS makes clear that such violations will not be tolerated. The agency warns that tax-exempt groups “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” It further stresses:

“Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.”

This was a direct political pitch reportedly played in hundreds of churches. Of course, the White House could claim that any violation was committed by the churches if they played the video in prohibited areas. The churches not the White House would be the 501(c)3 entities subject to any enforcement. That assumes that this was not created for that purpose, but it would effectively throw the churches under the bus. The ultimate penalty is the loss of their tax exempt status, though that is unlikely given the lax enforcement in past cases. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate interest in whether the White House knowingly participated in an effort to campaign in churches in violation of their federal obligations.

What is most hypocritical is that the Democrats used the opposition to the Johnson Amendment by former President Donald Trump as a rallying cry in the last election. Trump boasted that he got rid of the Johnson Amendment. That was not true. Here is the critical language in the Trump executive order:

In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.

The order expressly requires adherence to federal law and only states that “moral or political issues” may be discussed “from a religious perspective.” Harris is calling souls to the polls in a straight political speech. So even under Trump’s order, this would be a violation.

Putting aside any federal violation in such pitches, Trump’s desire to get the vote out through evangelical churches was widely denounced as an attack on the separation of Church and State. That was before McAuliffe ran into trouble in what was viewed as a reliably blue state that Biden won by a wide margin. Now the same media and legal figures are silent.

If this is indeed played in churches (as opposed to simply posted on Internet sites), it does appear a premeditated and unambiguous violation of the federal law governing churches as non-for-profit institutions.

168 thoughts on “Did Kamala Harris Just Violate Federal Law To Boost Terry McAuliffe In Virginia?”

  1. Well then why hasn’t Harris been arrested for violating the Constitutional Law of Separation of Church and State???!!! If that was Trump or a Republican doing that, there would be all kinds of static and Hullabaloo raised by the democrats and the radical leftists for sure!! Unbelievable!!!

    1. She didn’t break the law. If anyone broke the law here, it was the churches, not Harris, and the churches only broke the law if they’d previously chosen to be 501(c)3 organizations and try to continue filing as 501(c)3 organizations.

      1. You don’t know whether she broke the law or not. To prove she broke the law would be difficult, but you obscure the truth with your lies.

  2. I thought Feminazis hated women who slept their way up and into a raise and a promotion by sleeping with political benefactors like Willy.

    Dang!

    Somebody’ lyin’ ’round hea!

  3. Funny, when a leftist breaks the law in support of a leftist cause, the first response is to sputter: But . . . but . . . Trump!

    My mother was not an educated woman. In her day, people in her social class were expected to graduate from high school. The thought of college was beyond the pale. Still, even though my mother wasn’t educated, she was a brilliant woman.

    One of the earliest lessons my mother taught me as a small child was one morning when caught me red-handed doing something wrong. My youthful retort? “But Mom, Billy did it too.” Mom’s response: “Epstein, this isn’t about Billy, and whatever he did is not an excuse. If you ever say that to me again, your punishment will be worse.”

    What Mom understood intuitively was once a tenet of the common law. Maybe it still is. But its application now depends on the political affiliation of the wrongdoer and the end achieved by their misconduct. This is just one of the myriad ways, large and small, that today’s leftists are destroying their credibility and, more importantly, confidence in American systems of governance among those subject to their rule.

    I never pieced it together before now, but the early lesson from Mom likely played an important role in the development of the second D in Epstein’s First Rule of Democrat Behavior:

    When everything else fails, fall back on the four D’s: Deny, Deflect, Dissemble, Democrat.

  4. Well the good news is though that at least now we have proof that there was no election fraud in 2020. Nobody who perpetrates the constant and blatant lawless behavior we’ve seen to the point of nausea from Biden and Co. would ever think of stealing an election. Obviously.

    1. Jail her for this and the many illegal acts that she has committed. May God forbid that she ever becomes President.

      1. Could not agree more. But alas, we are headed for this cackling idiot actually being installed as the first woman president by default.

        It’s gonna be one of the grossest days in Washington DC history because of what a God-awful incompetent she actually is.

        She possess zero charisma and zero leadership capabilities. She is an inauthentic, phony, entitled, authoritarian idiot who prostituted her way to political power. What a role model. Not.

      2. Harris didn’t do anything illegal here.

        The churches, not Harris, are the ones who may have broken the law, and they only broke the law if they claim tax exempt status; otherwise, they’re free to advocate for whatever candidates they want.

          1. Again: *she* did not do anything illegal.

            The law in question refers to “Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

            It is a law that prohibits a 501(c)3 entity from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.

            Harris is not a 501(c)3 entity. If the *churches* have applied for tax exempt status, then the *churches* are 501(c)3 entities, and it is *their* choice to show the video that is proscribed. It is legal for Harris to make the video, and it is legal for non-tax-exempt entities to show the video.

        1. “the churches, not Harris”

          You do not know whether or not she broke the law. You don’t have all the information.

        1. There is a difference between politicking and stating facts. Maybe you should start parsing your own words.

      1. I have not seen the speech by Pence, but like Youngkin, if Pence spoke at a church, he spoke about the very subject Democrats detest: Jesus Christ, salvation from sin, the promise of God’s grace and redemption, so as to be received into Heaven. Now watch the leftwing trolls on here do a full Linda Blair: 5-4-3-2-1…

        On the race-baiting news front, there is this oh so predictable “news” item.

        Virginia Attorney General’s Office files housing discrimination lawsuits against 29 Richmond-area companies
        https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/virginia-attorney-generals-office-files-housing-discrimination-lawsuits-against-29-richmond-area-companies/article_d1768268-a2c8-5aef-9a6e-1ade547eb8ed.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

        pandering at its finest. LBJ would be proud

        “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again. [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957]”

    1. I didn’t hear his speech. Is he on record telling people to vote for Trump and other GOP candidates? I ask because that would seem to be an unnecessary statement for him to make. I doubt anyone in attendance thought he was there campaigning for Biden or Democrat candidates.

      1. The legal question is whether the church “participate[d] in, or intervene[d] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” when it hosted Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.

        1. I read the full transcript. This was a speech on Celebrate Freedom Sunday. I read a speech that certainly identified various ways ways the President, the administration, the armed forces and others were doing their part to stand up for our freedoms. What I didn’t read in the transcript was any reference to the upcoming election and certainly not recommending anyone vote for particular candidates. It was a speech about policies that aligned with Christian values.

          1. This was an unfair debate. OLLY is using facts and that is giving him an unfair advantage. If OLLY were requried to only use leftist-approved talking points in his debate, I don’t think he’d be nearly as effective with his arguments.

            1. Yes, obviously quoting from the law and from Pastor Jeffress’s introduction doesn’t constitute “using facts.” (sarc)

          2. Did you also read the rest of the remarks that day and pay attention to the fact that all of the politicians who spoke or who were acknowledged as guests were Republican?

            Jeffress lauded Gov. Abbott and then said hello to Trump watching online, describing him as “the most resilient, the most courageous, the most faith-friendly President in the history of America: President Donald Trump. President Trump, we love you.” He spoke of “the genius of Donald Trump,” adding that Trump and Pence had “enacted the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, pro-Israel, pro-conservative judiciary in the history of America.” He lauded the confirmation of conservative judges, describing this as “talk about a promise made and a promise kept [by Trump].” Then he introduced Pence, noting that Pence described himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,” and adding “Mr. Vice President, I know I probably shouldn’t say this — but my congregation knows that has never stopped me — there are millions of Christians in this country just like me who are hoping and we are praying that when you have finished your term of Vice President in 2024 [applause] that you don’t move [applause]. We’re praying that when you finish your term in 2024, we don’t want you moving out of the West Wing. We just want you to move down the hall a few doors and continue to build on the legacy of the most faith-friendly President in history!”

            Is that a sufficiently explicit reference to the upcoming election for you?

            1. “Did you also read the rest of the remarks that day “

              Anonymous the Stupid, your statement had to do with what Pence said, not what anyone else said. You continue to (in your words) move the goal posts. This was your comment.

              “Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.”

              You continue to (in your words) move the goal posts.

              It is so difficult to listen to you since nothing you say can be trusted. One always has to assume you will change what you say or what others say. You have no problems with lying.

              1. Allan the Abusive, I’m not barry321, the person who focused on Pence.

                I said “The legal question is whether the church “participate[d] in, or intervene[d] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” when it hosted Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.”

                To address that question, everything that was said at the church matters, not just what Pence said. Which is why the church (not Pence) is the subject of the clause.

                “your statement had to do with what Pence said, not what anyone else said. You continue to (in your words) move the goal posts. ‘Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.’”

                No, Allan, my statement was “The legal question is whether the church “participate[d] in, or intervene[d] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” when it hosted Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.” That statement has to do with the church.

                You omitted the part in italics, doing what your pal Young accused me of the other day: deceitfuly leaving out part of the statement, changing the meaning. The statements made by Pastor Jeffress are absolutely relevant to the question of whether the church “participate[d] in, or intervene[d] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

                Nothing I said was a lie, Allan. You once again project your own behavior onto others.

                1. I stated, “Anonymous the Stupid, your statement had to do with what Pence said,”

                  You responded, “Allan the Abusive, I’m not barry321”

                  Anonymous the Stupid, my remark wasn’t to barry321. It was to you. Take note of the indentations that tell one who the response is for. Alternatively, please take note of the email that informs us who one will be responding to. Also, take note of my opening quote that shows what post I was responding to.

                  Then take a look at the Anonymous, not barry comment that said, “Pence certainly lauded Republicans, including Trump and Abbott, in his church visit:” You were trying to augment barry’s argument.

                  Look at some of your statements elsewhere. What did I quote from Barry? Nothing that I see.

                  I note you add a lot of what you said or would have wanted to say along with accusations, but what I said was an accurate interpretation of where you were going with your first entry into this mini thread and your entries elsewhere.

                  If you can show me where I quoted barry, not you, I will explain or apologize. If you show me why I could not possibly interpret your words in the fashion I did, I will apologize.

                  Your problem is that you use the anonymous label that confuses and then you complain about it. You also attempt to use words that you can later twist if you start to appear foolish. That is your problem, no one else’s. But you have an opportunity to correct a misimpression. However, that is not what you want. You want to call me a liar when I didn’t lie because you know how much you lie and deceive. You wish to paint others the same so you can hide, just like you do under an anonymous name and icon.

                  You are a trickster and a liar.

                  1. You are the “trickster and liar” here, Allan, not me.

                    Apparently your English skills are too weak to distinguish the main clause from the subordinate clause and the subject of a clause from the object.

                    Your 8:15pm comment was posted as a reply to my 7:46pm comment about Jeffress, with quotes from Jeffress, not Pence. But you ignored Jeffress in your response. And in your 8:15pm reply, you pulled a phrase out of my 6:32pm comment, where the subject of the clause was the church, not Pence. You keep focusing on Pence, but he is not MY focus.

                    If you are unwilling to look at what Jeffress said and whether the church complied with the law, OK, but you cannot force me to wear your blinders.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, all you can do is take what I say and reverse the names. Then you provide lessons in grammar a la Anonymous the Stupid.

                      As far as your argument, you use many wasted words and times, not dealing with the essence of the problem. I am not concerned about the parts of the discussion where we might have an agreement. If you think someone misinterprets what you believe, then say so and correct the misinterpretation.

                      I’ll help you: Do you agree with the following words of barry: It is a yes or no answer. “Mike Pence appeared at First Baptist Dallas and openly advocated for members to support GOP ”

                      If you agree, then my impression is correct.
                      If you disagree, then I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

                      If you can’t provide a yes or no, then you are trying to cloud the issue.

                      I think you have the ability to state the truth, yes or no. I will accept that as your viewpoint until you say something that contradicts it.

                      SM

                    2. Again, Allan: If you are unwilling to look at what Jeffress said and whether the church complied with the law, OK, but you cannot force me to wear your blinders.

                    3. “If you are unwilling to look at what Jeffress said and whether the church complied with the law,”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, I see, you want to change the subject. Elsewhere I replied to Oralloy that his claim of violations by the church was “an excellent point.” You are unable to integrate the multiple comments made. It was easy to use as I signed my name as S. Meyer, so you don’t have to look through the many anonymous comments trying to figure out who is who.

                      The problem you face is your embarrassment and your use of an anonymous icon. Keep it up. You look like a jerk, sound like a jerk, so you must be a jerk. Do yourself a favor. Try to be honest and perhaps take a specific icon and name. Then you won’t run into so much trouble trying to remember all the contradictory things you say.

                      SM

          3. Olly, it appears that a lot of people recognize Anonymous the Stupid cannot be trusted. Too much of what he says are mere attempts to deceive or lie. One can’t deal with a person of that nature.

        2. ” when it hosted Pence giving a political speech”

          What you define as political speech is acceptable unless you can provide the words that are violating the law.

          You are known for being a dishonest poster, so one has to be careful in the way you hide the meanings behind what you say.

          1. Allan, did your HS English teacher ever teach you to parse sentences? Do you still remember the parts of speech?

            Again, the entire sentence is: “The legal question is whether the church “participate[d] in, or intervene[d] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” when it hosted Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.”

            You just quoted a subordinate clause from that sentence: “when it hosted Pence giving a political speech.” Do you see that the subject of that clause is “it”? Do you understand that the pronoun “it” refers to “the church,” which appears earlier in the sentence?

            “Pence” is not the subject of the clause you quoted. “It [the church]” is the subject of the clause.

            I alreadyquoted statements made by Jeffress — the pastor of the church — when the church hosted Pence. I know of at least one complaint that was filed with the IRS because of what Jeffress said.

            As for “You are known for being a dishonest poster,” no, that would be you, not me.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have just told all of us you have lost the debate. How? Instead of providing evidence you provided an English lesson a la Anonymous the Stupid.

              The rest of your comments are a cover-up for your Stupidity.

              You are a trickster and a liar.

              SM

              1. You are the “trickster and liar” Allan.

                If you are unwilling to look at what Jeffress said and whether the church complied with the law, OK, but you cannot force me to wear your blinders.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are changing the subject. I took no position on Jeffress, but you want to change the subject to him.

                  SM

                  1. Allan, the subject has always been whether the church broke the law. Jeffress’s comments are part of that subject, and if you didn’t want to discuss Jeffress’s comments, then you shouldn’t have replied to my 7:46pm comment that focused on what he said.

                    If you are unwilling to look at what Jeffress said and whether the church complied with the law, OK, but you cannot force me to wear your blinders.

                    1. “the subject has always been whether the church broke the law.”

                      No. The beginning of this mini-thread was as follows: “when Mike Pence appeared at First Baptist Dallas and openly advocated for members to support GOP candidates.”

                      Mike Pence was the issue. I provided my reasoning before with that quote, but you wanted to change the subject so you did. More recently I pointed to a statement about the church written by Oralloy that I replied to.

                      You are confused about this and many other things. You wear too many hats under anonymous and your pretend friends. That makes you act in a Stupid fashion..

                      SM

                    2. That was barry321’s topic.

                      It was not my topic. My topic was pointing out to Olly that Olly was asking the wrong question, and “The legal question is whether the church “participate[d] in, or intervene[d] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” when it hosted Pence giving a political speech, given that he and Trump were candidates for reelection.”

                      If you don’t want to discuss the entirety of the evidence relevant to that legal question — if you only want to discuss barry321’s topic — then you should respond to barry321 and not me.

                      If you are unwilling to look at what Jeffress said and whether the church complied with the law, OK, but you cannot force me to wear your blinders.

                    3. “That was barry321’s topic. It was not my topic.”

                      You commented under barry’s mini-thread. I provided a response explaining my reasoning, but you decided not to deal with that. Instead you dealt with complaining, grammar and a different subject. That is typical for you.

                      I provided an opportunity for you to answer yes or no so it would be clear what you were trying to say. That email you didn’t answer. I will repeat it. All you need to do is answer yes or no.

                      If you think someone misinterprets what you believe, then say so and correct the misinterpretation.

                      I’ll help you: Do you agree with the following words of barry: It is a yes or no answer. “Mike Pence appeared at First Baptist Dallas and openly advocated for members to support GOP ”

                      If you agree, then my impression is correct.
                      If you disagree, then I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

                      If you can’t provide a yes or no, then you are trying to cloud the issue.

                      I think you have the ability to state the truth, yes or no. I will accept that as your viewpoint until you say something that contradicts it.

                      SM

      2. I have not seen the speech by Pence, but like Youngkin, if Pence spoke at a church, he spoke about the very subject Democrats detest: Jesus Christ, salvation from sin, the promise of God’s grace and redemption, so as to be received into Heaven.

        On the race-baiting news front, there is this oh so predictable “news” item.

        Virginia Attorney General’s Office files housing discrimination lawsuits against 29 Richmond-area companies
        https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/virginia-attorney-generals-office-files-housing-discrimination-lawsuits-against-29-richmond-area-companies/article_d1768268-a2c8-5aef-9a6e-1ade547eb8ed.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

        Democrats pandering at their finest. LBJ would be proud

        “These N****, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again. [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957]”

      1. I think it’s barry321’s way of saying that Turley is biased.

        If organizations — both those that lean liberal/Democrat and those that lean conservative/Republican — break the same law, Turley is much more likely to criticize only the ones than lean liberal/Democrat than to criticize both. He’s an intelligent enough lawyer to discuss the topic and choose examples on both the right and left, but he generally panders to conservatives.

    2. A friendly amendment: Turley had no issue when Mike Pence appeared at First Baptist Dallas and Pastor Jeffress openly advocated for members to support Trump and Pence.

      1. It’s about time that Anonymous the Stupid told Barry he was wrong. It was very difficult for ATS to actually state the truth.

  5. Manychurches seek 501(c)(3) status BUT many do not. Churches are constitutionally tax exempt without seeking IRS exemption. There is no constitutional requirement to avoid politics, as there is with (c)(3) classification. So while I find her behavior abhorrent, legally its a biggy.
    AND perhaps the Prof. should have pointed this out.

  6. Yes, Kamala Harris violated the Hatch Act. However, even if the proper legal action would be taken against her, which is highly unlikely given our double-standard of justice, the Hatch Act has no teeth. Although its penalties look meaningful if you only scan over them, when actually read, the penalty could be as little as a “reprimand” or what is I’d call “a tap on the wrist.” Here’s the law to prove my point: “The penalty structure for violations of the Hatch Act by federal employees includes removal from federal service, reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.” 5 U.S.C. § 7326(2). Note that Congress inserted the weasel word “reprimand” among some meaningful penalties. Congress wrote the law that way to give the false impression that the Hatch Act actually has some meaning. It doesn’t. And this case again proves that to be true.

    1. “Yes, Kamala Harris violated the Hatch Act.”

      No she didn’t. The Hatch Act doesn’t apply to the President and VP.

      1. That’s right. That’s yet another reason that the Hatch Act is one of the most hypocritical laws ever written. There is many an escape hatch to the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act has more holes in it than a colander.

        1. Turley didn’t say that Harris violated the Hatch Act.

          He said a complaint had been filed about Jen Psaki — who is neither President nor VP — violating it.

          Details, details.

  7. OT, but significant given the revelation China recently tested a nuclear missile that reported caught US intel agencies by surprise.</I.

    Starting in May 2010, The Washington Examiner reported, drawing on emails obtained by Citizens United, “Clinton Foundation staff pushed Hillary Clinton’s State Department to approve a meeting between Bill Clinton and a powerful Russian oligarch as her agency lined up investors for a project under his purview.”

    His name was Viktor Vekselberg of Renova (a Clinton Foundation donor) and the project under his purview was the Skolkovo Innovation Center, which is being built near Moscow. The following month, Bill Clinton would receive $500,000 for a speech in Moscow from a Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin, a Clinton Foundation donor, a Skolkovo executive, and which talked up Uranium One, whose sale the Clinton State Department would approve, and whose executives together contributed $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    This shocking set of emails that the Examiner reported on shows the nexus of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s foundation, Hillary Clinton’s State Department, Bill Clinton, Russian oligarch Vekselberg, and Skolkovo, “Russia’s Silicon Valley,” the Putin project to transfer Western technology to Russia that was championed and driven by Mrs. Clinton — and, what do you know, 17 out of 28 tech companies that hitched up with Skolkovo also contributed to the Clinton Foundation? What a coincidence. Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s support for Russian WTO membership made the whole global flow so much easier.
    https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/hillarys-hypersonic-missile-gap/

    1. There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns.

      And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians.

      It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.
      https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats

    2. When the US has no idea how the Chinese are doing something militarily, that’s probably not a good sign for the former’s long-term dominance. It’s also not a good sign when US generals are obsessed with racial and identity politics instead of readiness. China is taking this new cold war seriously, while US military leaders tweet about gay pride and the power of diversity.

      The CCP has already unleashed a deadly virus that’s crippled the US economy and is about to lead to the firing of government scientists at Los Alamos due to nonsensical vaccine mandates. And while the communists have long had more manpower militarily, they are now beginning to pass us technologically as well. What’s been our military’s response? To complain about nail polish.
      https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/10/16/chinese-military-operation-leaves-us-officials-dumbfounded-n457981

  8. Ah, yes, the black vote.

    Blacks love and demand the enjoyment of unconstitutional affirmative action, welfare, Obamacare, “non-discrimination” and “fair housing” laws but they hate and deny immigration law – specifically the Naturalization Act of 1802.

    America is a society of laws, it has been said.
    ___________________________________

    “Trouble, oh we got trouble,”

    “Right here in River City”

    – Ya Got Trouble, The Music Man
    __________________________

    FUNFACT:

    Blacks must have been deported in 1863 upon the issuance of the emancipation proclamation as the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)….”

    There is not supposed to be a black vote in America. The black vote is vote tampering and election corruption. Johnson recognized the anomaly and capitalized on it when he said:

    “I’ll have those ——s voting democrat for the next 200 years.”

    – Lyndon Baines Johnson

  9. OT.

    NBC: “NEW: Former president Donald Trump’s deposition for a 2015 lawsuit filed by several protesters who allege they were assaulted by Trump’s guards has concluded. Ben Dictor, one of the attorneys who represents those protesters says Trump took questions for several hours under oath.”

    This is the first of several depositions he must sit for in civil suits that are proceeding now that he’s out of office. A rundown of those suits: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-faces-pile-civil-lawsuits-depositions-begin-n1281612

  10. Kamala Harris didn’t violate the Internal Revenue Code (except perhaps by conspiracy), but every church in which that video is played on Sunday morning does. However, the IRS rarely audits churches for such violations. The last time the IRS was known to have revoked a church’s exemption for endorsing or opposing a candidate was in 1993.

    1. OMG! Did you mention “rules” in the same sentence with Kamala Harris?

      “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”

      Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

      Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

      – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

      – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

      – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

      – “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political
      economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.” – Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

      – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

      – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

      – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases, such as “natural born citizen,” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.

      – The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”

      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

      Book 1, Ch. 19

      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

      “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

      From John Jay

      New York 25 July 1787

      Dear Sir

      I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

      Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

      Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

      which sailed Yesterday.

      Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

      provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

      administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

      of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

      Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

      Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

      I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

      John Jay

  11. “The problem is the Johnson Amendment’ makes such political pitches [i.e., Harris’s video] in churches a violation of federal law.” An easy one! Harris will simply deny she knew how the video she recorded would be distributed. Her ignorance will be her umbrella.

  12. The Hatch Act and/or the Internal Revenue Code — Ds can violate both with impunity. C’mon man: it’s a pitch to “black” voters and that content and tone excuse any and all violations of federal laws. She’s a VP of the USA turned Sunday preacher educating members of “black” churches that they will be victims of systemic racism if a Republican is elected governor of VA; the Ds will see nothing unlawful or racist about that.

  13. Folks, this is the Biden Administration that we are talking about. They don’t care about violations of the Johnson Amendment or the Hatch Act. And no one in the DoJ is going to go after them…

    1. So Mike Pence making the rounds at churches like First Baptist Dallas last year and telling people to vote for Trump and other GOP caidiates was fine?

      Turley didn’t care.

      1. I didn’t hear his speech. Is he on record telling people to vote for Trump and other GOP candidates? I ask because that would seem to be an unnecessary statement for him to make. I doubt anyone in attendance thought he was there campaigning for Biden or Democrat candidates.

      2. “telling people to vote for Trump and other GOP caidiates was fine?”

        Do you have a quote? If not, you are likely making things up and then blaming Turley. What is wrong with you?

Leave a Reply