Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Error in Census Gives Democrats Major Edge in Elections

Error in Census Gives Democrats Major Edge in Elections

The U.S. Census Bureau admitted it overcounted or undercounted populations of 14 states during its 2020 constitutionally required decennial count.

The federal agency’s report indicates that overcounts occurred in Democratic-dominated states while population undercounts affected Republican-dominated states.

The Census Bureau conducts the census every 10 years. At the conclusion of each census, the results are used to calculate the number of House memberships to which each state is entitled. The 435 House seats are divided among the 50 states based on population.

Breitbart News further reported:

With the 2022 elections roughly 50 days away and the Supreme Court about to take up major election cases, conservatives are crying foul and demanding answers.

The Census Clause of the Constitution requires a census to count the United States population every 10 years. Those totals determine how many seats in Congress each state has, what the lines of every federal and state legislative district is in each of those states, and how many votes each state has in the Electoral College to elect the president every four years.

An official survey shows that census workers undercounted people in Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. The same survey shows workers overcounted people in Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah.

Every single undercounted state is a reliable Republican state in presidential elections, including Florida, which is the home state of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. By contrast, all of the overcounted states except two – Ohio and Utah – have reliably voted for Democrats in recent elections.

As a result, Florida will lack two U.S. House seats it should have gained and Texas is deprived of one House seat, numbers that also impact how many votes those two states have in the Electoral College.

“If a politician from Florida decides to run for president in 2024, his (or her) home state will be short two votes in the Electoral College,” wrote Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation and the American Constitutional Rights Union, “and when the new session of the U.S. House of Representatives convenes in January 2023, Florida will be missing two congressional seats to which it is entitled.”

Von Spakovsky also noted that the 5.05 percent overcount in Rhode Island allowed that state to keep a congressional seat to which the Constitution does not entitle it, and the same can be said of Minnesota, which was overcounted by 3.84 percent.

In contrast to these 2020 failures, the 2010 census had an error rate of only 0.01 percent. No one has explained these explosions in the failure rate for 2020, or why they benefit the Democrat Party.

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

How Much Profit Are Businesses Making? The Answer Is More Complicated Than You Might Think

How Much Profit Are Businesses Making? The Answer Is More Complicated Than You Might Think

We need more than basic accounting to get to the bottom of this question

Recent headlines claim corporate profits are at a 70 year high in the United States.

The claim isn’t unambiguously true. While some indicators, like total gross profit after tax are reaching new highs, it’s important to note that this number is driven somewhat by inflation and is merely an aggregate and therefore not indicative of the performance of a particular industry or business.

But regardless of the truth of the matter, this claim paired with the inflation of the last year has led many to suggest corporate greed has caused higher inflation.

Many, including FEE’s own Brad Polumbo, have explained why greed doesn’t make sense as an inflation driver.

But this still leaves an important question. What then do we make of apparently record-high profits? While answers on this may differ, we should be careful not to make too much of the data on corporate profits because it is, at best, incomplete.

The truth of the matter is we don’t really know how much profit businesses make.

There are two types of profit that economists talk about. The type most people think of when they hear the word is what you see on a modern corporate profit statement. Those numbers reflect what economists call accounting profit. To understand accounting profit, consider an example: you start a lawn mowing business and spend $100 on a mower and $50 on gas.

If you make $200 in revenue mowing lawns and you paid $150 for inputs (the mower and gas), the leftover $50 is your accounting profit.

Total Revenue

Explicit Costs

Accounting Profit

$200

$150

$50

Lawn Revenue

Mower + Gas

$200-150

Table 1: Accounting profit from mowing

Accounting profit is total revenue minus the dollars spent on inputs (e.g. land, labor, and capital). Economists call this spending on the mower and gas explicit costs.

But the explicit costs don’t tell the full story, and this is where the other kind of profit comes in.

Imagine that, instead of starting a lawn-mowing business, you had the option of starting a painting business. In the same time it takes you to make $200 in revenue from lawn mowing, you could make $600 painting while spending $200 on equipment.

In the case of the painting business, your accounting profit would be $400.

Total Revenue

Explicit Costs

Accounting Profit

$600

$200

$400

Painting Revenue

Equipment

$600-$200

Table 2: Accounting profit from painting

When we compare these two alternatives, we can begin to see what’s missing if we just look at accounting profit. If you mow lawns over the summer you pay $150 for your gas and mower, but that doesn’t represent the full cost of mowing lawns.

If you choose to mow lawns, you also give up the opportunity to paint and the $400 accounting profit that comes with it.

In other words, the full cost of mowing lawns is spending $100 on a mower, $50 on gas, and losing $400 of accounting profit you could have received from painting. Economists call this type of cost an implicit cost.

So your revenue is $200, but your total opportunity cost (explicit + implicit) is $550 ($100+$50+$400). This loss of $350 represents a negative economic profit, and it comes from the fact that a painting business makes you $350 more than the lawn mowing business.

But now say you pursued the painting business. Then your economic profit is $350 ($600-$200-$50). Thus, you make an economic loss by mowing lawns, but you make an economic profit by painting.

A person armed with this information will choose to open a painting business, all else equal.

Total Revenue

Explicit Costs

Lost Accounting Profit from Painting Business

Economic Profit

$200

$150

$400

-$350

Lawn Revenue

Mower + Gas

Table 2 Accounting Profit

$200-$150-$400

Table 3: Economic Profit from Lawn mowing

As we can see, economic profit is different from accounting profit because it includes the cost of your highest valued alternative. In other words, economic profit is total revenue minus the entire opportunity cost (not just explicit costs).

So what’s the purpose of economic profit? Why do we care? Well, the reason it matters is businesses make decisions based on economic profit, not accounting profit.

So long as economic profit from a particular business activity is more than $0, individuals will continue to pursue that activity. But this isn’t true for accounting profit.

Returning to our above example, let’s say instead that painting made you a revenue of $251 and the cost of equipment was $200. In this case, your accounting profit from painting would be $51. This $51 is still greater than the $50 available for lawn mowing. If you take into account the opportunity cost of mowing lawns, your economic profit would be $1 ($251-$200-$50).

Total Revenue

Explicit Cost

Lost Accounting Profit from Lawn Mowing Business

Economic Profit

$251

$200

$50

$1

Lawn Revenue

Equipment

Accounting Profit Table 1

$251-$200-$50

Table 4: Economic Profit from Painting Business

In other words, $1 in economic profit means you’ll be $1 better off than the next-best opportunity.

Why does this matter? Well, it shows that no matter how high your accounting profits are, you could be just a few dollars away from shutting down your business, because other lucrative opportunities always beacon, and the cost of pursuing your current path includes foregoing those opportunities.

Imagine an oil company which is making a new record accounting profit of $1,000,000 (oil company profits are larger in the real world, but the number makes the example easier). Now imagine that this same oil company could use its property to become a shipping business which would earn it $995,000 in accounting profit.

You might think that a $6,000 tax on oil companies wouldn’t be enough to close them down if they’re making record accounting profits, but the logic of economic profit shows otherwise.

If you tax the oil company that amount, the accounting profit falls to $994,000. When we subtract the forgone revenue from not being a shipping business, the oil company is making an economic loss of $1,000. If such conditions persist, they may very well transition away from oil altogether. Oil is “highly profitable” for them in a sense, but not in the sense that ultimately matters for future decisions.

So while “record profits” may sound nice, the data can be deceptive. Businesses make their decisions based on economic profit rather than accounting profit, and economic profit requires us to consider the whole opportunity cost, not just easily visible costs.

Thus, policy makers must contend with the fact that economic profits are based on the subjective evaluations entrepreneurs make with respect to their alternate possibilities. This imposes strong limits on any policy-maker trying to use profit data to regulate businesses— record breaking profits or not.

Wednesday, August 31, 2022

TAKE BACK THE CAMPUS

 

TAKE BACK THE CAMPUS

 

Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology?

Have you had your fill of feminist "Ms./Information"?

Have you been misled by factually challenged professors?

 

TAKE THIS TEST:

 

Campus feminism is a kind of cult: as early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under "patriarchy." Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming.

 

THE TEN MOST COMMON FEMINIST MYTHS:

 

1. Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.

 

Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their "attacker" again.

 

Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.

 

(Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, "The Making of an Epidemic," Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993; and Neil Gilbert, "Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape," Current Controversies in Family Violence eds. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132; and Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. *According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.)

 

2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.

 

Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

 

(Essential reading: Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women's Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)

 

3. Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.

 

Fact: This incendiary statistic is promoted by gender feminists whose primary goal seems to be to impugn men. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.

 

(National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary , Hyattsville, Maryland, March 1997; and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments: Washington, D.C., August 1997.)

 

4. Myth: The phrase "rule of thumb" originated in a man's right to beat his wife provided the stick was no wider than his thumb.

 

Fact: This is an urban legend that is still taken seriously by activist law professors and harassment workshoppers. The Oxford English Dictionary has more than twenty citations for phrase "rule of thumb" (the earliest from 1692), but not a single mention of beatings, sticks, or husbands and wives.

 

(For a definitive debunking of the hoax see Henry Ansgar Kelly, "Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick," The Journal of Legal Education, September 1994.)

 

5. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research.

 

Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH's National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trials.

 

(Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, "The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine," Washington, D.C.: The Women's Freedom Network, 1997.)

 

6. Myth: Girls have been shortchanged in our gender-biased schools

 

Fact: No fair-minded person can review the education data and conclude that girls are the have-nots in our schools. Boys are slightly ahead of girls in math and science; girls are dramatically ahead in reading and writing. (The writing skills of 17-year-old boys are at the same level as 14-year- old girls.) Girls get better grades, they have higher aspirations, and they are more likely to go to college.

 

(See: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000.)

 

7. Myth: "Our schools are training grounds for sexual harassment... boys are rarely punished, while girls are taught that it is their role to tolerate this humiliating conduct."

 

(National Organization of Women, "Issue Report: Sexual Harassment," April 1998.)

 

Fact: "Hostile Hallways," is the best-known study of harassment in grades 8-11. It was commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1993, and is a favorite of many harassment experts. But this survey revealed that girls are doing almost as much harassing as the boys. According to the study, "85 percent of girls and 76 percent of boys surveyed say they have experienced unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with their lives."

 

(Four scholars at the University of Michigan did a careful follow-up study of the AAUW data and concluded: "The majority of both genders (53%) described themselves as having been both victim and perpetrator of harassment -- that is most students had been harassed and had harassed others." And these researchers draw the right conclusion: "Our results led us to question the simple perpetrator-victim model...".) (See: American Education Research Journal, Summer 1996.)

 

8. Myth: Girls suffer a dramatic loss of self-esteem during adolescence.

 

Fact: This myth of the incredible shrinking girls was started by Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Gilligan has always enjoyed higher standing among feminist activists and journalists than among academic research psychologists. Scholars who follow the protocols of social science do not accept the reality of an adolescent "crisis" of confidence and "loss of voice." In 1993, American Psychologist reported the new consensus among researchers in adolescent development: "It is now known that the majority of adolescents of both genders successfully negotiate this developmental period without any major psychological or emotional disorder [and] develop a positive sense of personal identity. …"

 

(Anne C. Petersen et al. "Depression in Adolescence," American Psychologist February 1993; see also, Daniel Offer, and Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, "Debunking the Myths of Adolescence: Findings from Recent Research," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, November 1992.)

 

9. Myth: Gender is a social construction.

 

Fact: While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.

 

Of course, this does not mean that women should be prevented from pursuing their goals in any field they choose; what it does suggest is that we should not expect parity in all fields. More women than men will continue to want to stay at home with small children and pursue careers in fields like early childhood education or psychology; men will continue to be over-represented in fields like helicopter mechanics and hydraulic engineering.

 

Warning: Most gender scholars in our universities have degrees in fields like English or comparative literature--not biology or neuroscience. These self-appointed experts on sexuality are scientifically illiterate. They substitute dogma and propaganda for reasoned scholarship.

 

(For a review of recent findings on sex differences see a special issue of The Scientific American [Special Quarterly Issue] "Men: The Scientific Truth," Summer 1999.)

 

10. Myth: Women's Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy.

 

Fact: Women's Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.

 

(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge--Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers--Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women.)

 

**Should you encounter an item of Ms/information in one of your classes, in a textbook, or a women's center "fact" sheet, let us know. We will print it on our campus website, SheThinks.org, correct it with accurate information, and politely inform the source of the mistake.

 

We are a women's group dedicated to restoring reason, common sense and open discussion to the campus.

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

You can’t make this stuff up!

 

You can’t make this stuff up!
Mesa County Republican Chair Kevin McCarney went on an emotional public tirade about duly elected Clerk Tina Peters. This comes off the heels of the people of Colorado breaking fund-raising records to ensure the SOS primary election is legally recounted and accurate.
Included in his outburst and attack of Clerk Peters on social media where he’s appealing to “good Christians”, he said he’s “mad as hell” and he just “can’t take it anymore!” In his “mad as hell” tirade he personally slanders the Goldstar Mom, saying she should “shack up” with her “sugar daddy in Minnesota.” Not only are his remarks confusing and ignorant, but they are also far and away from his self-purported “Christian” appeal. It would appear that the Republican Chairman has joined forces with those who are attempting to berate the Goldstar mom publicly in order to sway public opinion and cowardly attempt to wear her out with these attacks.
It’s one thing to disagree with a person’s politics. It’s a whole different level to personally attack, make fun of, and publicly harangue a woman who, whether you agree with her or not, has been through “hell” because of her passion and stance she has taken to ensure elections are secure. This seems very uncouth for a sitting Republican Chair, doesn’t it?
The Chairman goes on to say that “70% of Republican voters rejected [Clerk Peters] as the Republican Candidate for Secretary of State.” Let me rephrase what the Republican Chair is actually saying: PER THE MACHINES, 70% of Republican voters rejected Clerk Peters.
Hold on just a second. Isn’t this the same Chairman who has publicly stated that he does NOT trust the results of the 2020 election nor those of the local city council election? Isn’t this the same Republican Chair who spoke in public support of duly elected Clerk Tina Peters just after she returned from the Cyber Symposium in 2021? What has changed? Why the public, personal attacks? Why not just state your opinion and leave the emotional berating and assumptions out of it?
In his “mad as hell” tirade, Mr. McCarney goes on to personally try and convict Clerk Peters. I thought this was up to a jury or a judge in our judicial system, but I guess as corrupt as things have become in Colorado, even Republican Chairs now have the authority to find a person guilty without due process. He goes on to say Clerk Peters owes the Woods an apology (Jerry and Wendy Woods, who went on CNN declaring themselves victims without letting the public know Mr. Woods received conditional immunity… for what? Why did he need immunity if he’s the victim of identity theft? Is he hiding something? Hmmm).
I worked in the Judicial system for years, and if I remember correctly, we have this little thing called “innocent until proven guilty.” The good Christian Republican Chairman may want to take a Judicial 101 class where he would learn that a person charged with a crime is, by law, INNOCENT. I’m wondering if Mr. McCarney will recant his disturbing guilty finding and wait for due process to take effect. The Mesa County citizens should not hold their breath waiting for this. But who knows, maybe he’ll surprise us all by doing the “good Christian” thing.
Mr. McCarney, “in what universe is it acceptable” (to use his own wording) to publicly try and convict a sitting Clerk before she is given due process and before the facts of ALL SIDES come out? The Mesa County citizens deserve better. And oh yes, Mr. McCarney, you owe the Goldstar Mom Tina Peters “an abject and immediate apology” (using his own wording) as you do the citizens of Mesa County and of Colorado for your un-Christian, judgmental and biased outburst on social media and to the Daily Senile.
I personally reached out to Mr. McCarney and encouraged him to take down his outburst from social media, as it proves his own internal bias and is extremely unprofessional, to say the least. Not to mention there is an ongoing criminal investigation, and knowing this, the Republican Chair attempted to get me to discuss specific details publicly with him, in what seemed to be a cowardly attempt to make a further case against Clerk Peters. I wonder if he’s attempting to influence public opinion on this matter? I wonder if his public statements could influence potential and future jurors in this matter? I wonder if the Republican Chairman cares about having unbiased jurors who will look objectively at the FACTS? I wonder if Mr. McCarney cares about the FACTS of both sides? I also wonder what his motivation with this might be? Seems sketchy, to say the least.
He then further insulted Clerk Peter’s by saying she’s unintelligent and that she will “bear the brunt of the punishment that is coming.” Wow. Does the Republican Chair also want to be the executioner for this Goldstar mom? Not only has he already tried and convicted Clerk Peters publicly, but now he’s anxiously awaiting her “punishment.” Again, “in what universe is it acceptable” (his own wording) for a Republican Chair to behave in this manner? And to use his own self-proclaimed “Christian” values, in what universe is it “Christian” behavior to judge this matter publicly in an attempt to sway public opinion before it goes through due process? The Mesa County citizens deserve better.
And to further show his lack of Christian or professional character, Mr. McCarney goes on to accuse me personally of gaining “fame and fortune based on lies and false witness”. I personally reached out to the Republican Chairman regarding this comment, as I was so taken aback that he would “bear false witness” (his words) in such a way about me and my family personally. Does he know what kind of vehicles my wife and I drive? What kind of house we live in? What our bank account looks like? I wonder who has been whispering lies in his ear? Why is he so quick to judge a matter before hearing it?
The Republican Chairman went on to slander both me and my wife (America’s Mom Sherronna Bishop) and said that we “deserve” his attacks because my wife had previously disrespected his job as Chairman. Ahhh, I see, so it’s “eye for an eye” is it Mr. Chairman? Let me guess, you’re just following your Christian values by publicly slandering a Goldstar Mom and lying about those who support her, and doing so because you feel personally “disrespected” as Chairman. I think the citizens can see through this. And if recent happenings are any indicator, citizens of Colorado do NOT believe the machines can be trusted (unlike the Chairman who all-the-sudden seems to have much faith in these machines). Certainly most citizens are at the very least willing to give Clerk Peters her day in Court before trying and convicting her, and calling for her to “bear her punishment.” In what universe is this behavior acceptable?
C’mon man! The Mesa County citizens deserve better!
PS: Mr. Chairman, rather than Clerk Peters resigning, maybe it’s time for YOU to go! And sir, if you’re interested in my and my wife’s “fame and fortune” of which you ignorantly allege, please call me directly and I’d be happy to tell you what we’ve “gained” through all this. And I’d be happy to tell you about the sacrifices my wife has made for local candidates and for the State of Colorado, and how she has funded much of her efforts by her part-time hair and makeup business she runs on the side, while still taking care of her four children. Oh yeah, I’d also be happy to tell you about how I recently quit my career after all the stress this has brought on my job and family, how it’s impacted our four children, and details about our recent move that you seem to know so much about. Call me anytime, sir. 970-201-7071.
Oh yeah, one more thing. You included in your recent Facebook rant that you “know more” about this whole issue than I think you do. So I ask you, how do you KNOW what happened, sir? What FACTS can you fill in for the public? Were you there? You know more than what the affidavit alleges? Were you involved in some sort of top-secret meeting? How do you KNOW more? Could there be facts that are NOT in the affidavit that you may NOT know? Or do you KNOW, and you’re withholding these things for some reason? The citizens deserve to know! C’mon man!

Thursday, August 11, 2022

Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation

Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation | Just The News

 

Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation

Trump got spring grand jury subpoena, gathered documents, turned them over and allowed agents to search storage locker the FBI later raided.

Two months before his Florida home was raided by the FBI, former President Donald Trump secretly received a grand jury subpoena for classified documents belonging to the National Archives, and voluntarily cooperated by turning over responsive evidence, surrendering security surveillance footage and allowing federal agents and a senior Justice Department lawyer to tour his private storage locker, according to a half dozen people familiar with the incident.

While the cooperation was mostly arranged by his lawyers, Trump personally surprised the DOJ National Security Division prosecutor and three FBI agents who came to his Mar-a-Lago compound on June 3, greeting them as they came to pick up a small number of documents compliant with the subpoena, the sources told Just the News, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the visit was covered by grand jury secrecy.

The subpoena requested any remaining documents Trump possessed with any classification markings, even if they involved photos of foreign leaders, correspondence or mementos from his presidency.

Secret Service agents were also present and facilitated the visit, officials said.

Trump signaled his full cooperation, telling the agents and prosecutor, "Look, whatever you need let us know," according to two eyewitnesses. The federal team was surprised by the president's invitation and asked for an immediate favor: to see the 6-foot-by-10-foot storage locker where his clothes, shoes, documents and mementos from his presidency were stored at the compound. 

Given Trump's instruction, the president's lawyers complied and allowed the search by the FBI before the entourage left cordially. Five days later, DOJ officials sent a letter to Trump's lawyers asking them to secure the storage locker with more than the lock they had seen. The Secret Service installed a more robust security lock to comply.

Around the same time, the Trump Organization, which owns Mar-a-Lago, received a request for surveillance video footage covering the locker and volunteered the footage to federal authorities, sources disclosed.

The disclosure Wednesday to Just the News raised immediate new questions in legal and congressional circles about the necessity for the subsequent raid, including whether the judge who approved the warrant knew of the earlier cooperation.

“The more we learn, the more confusing this gets,” George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News program Hannity. “….Did they relay this history to the magistrate? That, according to these sources, that the president had cooperated.

”I mean, the idea that he was subject to a subpoena, complied with a subpoena, didn't challenge it, voluntarily showed the storage room to the agents, followed their advice, secured it to meet their demands. All of that is hardly a basis for saying now we need to send in 40 FBI agents on a on a raid,” he added. “I mean, if the subpoena worked the first time, then presumably a second subpoena would work the second time if there were remaining documents.”

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., told Just the News that Trump mentioned to her Tuesday night the prior cooperation, and that she viewed the raid as an effort at nullifying his future run for the presidency in 2024 if he chooses.

“Look, this is exactly what people, the public is seeing: a two-tiered justice system. This is impeachment 4,” she said, citing Trump‘s prior two impeachments and the January 6 hearings that preceded the raid.

The flurry of cooperation in June came months after Trump had already returned about 15 boxes of documents, many of them classified, at the request of the National Archives. Government officials have said the documents were mistakenly boxed up by the General Services Administration along with Trump's personal possessions from the White House and shipped to Mar-a -Lago.

After the subpoena was delivered in late May, federal authorities said they suspected there were more classified materials still left at Mar-a-Lago, and arranged the June 3 visit.

After mid-June, the government had no other official contacts with the president's lawyers until agents showed up unannounced on Monday and executed the search warrant, ousting the president's lawyers and staff and spending nine hours collecting evidence. Sources told Just the News they collected about 12 boxes of evidence.

U.S. officials who confirmed the June 3 voluntary visit and subpoena compliance, refused to say whether U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart was apprised of the full extent of Trump's compliance when he was asked to sign the unprecedented search warrant last Friday.

The FBI then waited three days after getting the judge's approval before executing the warrant, one of many oddities in the timetable.

Some officials said the extra time was used to assemble a team to raid Mar-a-Lago in the most incognito manner so the public wouldn't be alerted and while the former president was out of town. 

The officials told Just the News the search warrant was sought after the FBI obtained some witness information and other evidence suggesting some classified documents may have still remained on the property after June, stored in locations such as a private safe Trump had in his residence, and that some of the storage locations may have been accessed in 2022.

The new revelations came the same day that new questions arose about Reinhart, the judge in the case.

Just the News obtained a court document showing that Reinhart — just six weeks before signing the warrant — recused himself from Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the Russia collusion scandal, citing concerns he couldn't be impartial.

Reinhart, appointed in 2018 as a federal magistrate in West Palm Beach, Fla., filed the recusal document on June 22, a few weeks after presiding over the start of the civil litigation. 

"The undersigned Magistrate Judge, to whom the above-styled cause has been assigned, hereby recuses himself and refers the case to the Clerk of Court for reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455," Reinhart wrote in his order of recusal in the Trump v. Clinton case.

You can read the document here:

The statute that the magistrate cited for his recusal states in part that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" and then describes the various circumstances that could trigger such concerns.

They include "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts" or prior work as a lawyer for a party involved in the case. 

Reinhart's order did not specify the conflict or source of the concern prompting his recusal.

Trump's lawsuit accuses Clinton, Democrat allies and current and former government officials of engaging in a racketeering conspiracy to falsely portray Trump as colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. The sweeping nature of the suit involves numerous parties and public figures.

The recusal filing emerges as numerous media reports have surfaced about the magistrate's prior work, including donations before he was judge to President Barack Obama and Jeb Bush and work for figures associated with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Daily Wire also raised questions about Reinhart's impartiality toward Trump, reporting that in a 2017 Facebook social post — a year before he was named a magistrate — he challenged the 45th president's moral character after Trump attacked the late Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon.

"I generally ignore the President-elect's tweets, but not this one," Reinhart posted, according to the Daily Wire. "John Lewis arguably has done more to 'make America great' than any living citizen. Last August, I took my son to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma so he could understand the kind of courage and sacrifice required to live in a democratic society. John Lewis embodies that spirit. Although I've never met him, he is one of my heroes.

"Thank you, Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel, 'John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet.'

"Or, as Joseph Welch said to Joseph McCarthy, 'At long last, have you left no sense of decency?'"