Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) issued an apology Friday after new surveillance video was posted online Thursday night that showed Boebert vaping and engaging in heavy petting with her date, reportedly a Democrat man, before the couple was kicked out of a Denver theater on Sunday after several complaints from audience members during a performance of the Beetlejuice musical regarding alleged vaping, singing, taking pictures and “causing a disturbance.” Boebert cited her “public and difficult divorce.”

Lauren Boebert is seen exhaling vapor (center) in screen image via KUSA/YouTube.

In a previous statement, Boebert admitted enjoying the show, “It’s true, I did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theatre and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud! Everyone should go see it if you get the chance this week and please let me know how it ends!”

It's true, I did thoroughly enjoy the AMAZING Beetlejuice at the Buell Theatre and I plead guilty to laughing and singing too loud!

Everyone should go see it if you get the chance this week and please let me know how it ends! https://t.co/8JHypcCKsP

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) September 12, 2023

Earlier this week Boebert’s campaign told the Denver Post that Boebert denied vaping in the theater:

Drew Sexton, the campaign manager for Boebert, told The Post that the second-term congresswoman denied vaping during the show. She did use her cellphone to take a picture of the performance, unaware that photos weren’t allowed.

“I can confirm the stunning and salacious rumors: in her personal time, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is indeed a supporter of the performing arts (gasp!) and, to the dismay of a select few, enthusiastically enjoyed a weekend performance of ‘Beetlejuice,’ ” Sexton wrote in a statement. He noted that The Post’s review of the show last week described it as “zany,” “outrageous,” and a ‘lusty riot.”

Boebert, he wrote, encourages everyone to see the play and its “fantastic cast, tremendous visuals and plenty of loud laughs” — but, he added, “with a gentle reminder to leave their phones outside of the venue.”

Boebert’s new statement was posted to Facebook:

“The past few days have been difficult and humbling, and I’m truly sorry for the unwanted attention my Sunday evening in Denver has brought to the community. While none of my actions or words as a private citizen that night were intended to be malicious or meant to cause harm, the reality is they did and I regret that.

“There’s no perfect blueprint for going through a public and difficult divorce, which over the past few months has made for a challenging personal time for me and my entire family. I’ve tried to handle it with strength and grace as best I can, but I simply fell short of my values on Sunday. That’s unacceptable and I’m sorry.

“Whether it was the excitement of seeing a much-anticipated production or the natural anxiety of being in a new environment, I genuinely did not recall vaping that evening when I discussed the night’s events with my campaign team while confirming my enthusiasm for the musical. Regardless of my belief, it’s clear now that was not accurate; it was not my or my campaign’s intention to mislead, but we do understand the nature of how this looks. We know we will have to work to earn your trust back and it may not happen overnight, but we will do it.

I’m deeply thankful to those in the 3rd District who have defended me and reached out this week and offered grace and support when I needed it the most. I’ve learned some humbling lessons these past few days but I vow moving forward, I will make you proud.

Video of Boebert and her date’s frisky behavior posted by KUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark:

NEW: GOP Rep Lauren Boebert denied vaping during a Denver Center for the Performing Arts musical before being kicked out Sunday. @Marshall9News got the video. Take a look. #copolitics pic.twitter.com/VtT67Vn4L9

— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) September 15, 2023

Longer video:

Video of Boebert and her date being escorted out of the Buell Theater:

Boebert’s apology also came after a pregnant woman seated behind her went public (NY Post excerpt):

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert called a pregnant woman “a sad and miserable person” after she asked the Republican lawmaker to stop vaping during the “Beetlejuice” performance that she and her date were later kicked out of on Sunday, according to a report.

The firebrand’s foul remark came after she had told the mom-to-be “no” when the fellow Denver theatergoer asked her to put her vaping pen down, the Denver Post reported Thursday.

“These people in front of us were outrageous,” the woman, who requested anonymity, told the newspaper.

“I’ve never seen anyone act like that before.”

The behavior of Boebert, 36, and her date — Democratic Aspen bar owner Quinn Gallagher, 46 — eventually led to their ejection from the Buell Theatre after fellow audience members complained the two were being loud.

…The lawmaker, a mother of four boys and grandmother of one, filed for divorce from Jayson, her husband of 18 years, in May, citing “irreconcilable differences.”

As she and Gallagher were being booted, Boebert allegedly said, “‘Do you know who I am,’ ‘I am on the board’ (and) ‘I will be contacting the mayor,’” according to an incident report.

Boebert, 36, is in her second term in Congress, having first won election in 2020.

The post Lauren Boebert Apologizes After Theater Surveillance Video Shows Her Vaping and Getting Frisky With Her Date Before Being Kicked Out of Beetlejuice Performance appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump scorched Special Counsel “Deranged Jack Smith” in responses online and in speeches given Friday night to Smith’s proposed gag order over his federal election case in Washington, D.C.

Trump posted to Truth Social, “Biden Prosecutor, Deranged Jack Smith, has asked the Court to limit 45th President, and leading Republican Nominee (by more than 50 points, & beating Dems!) DONALD J. TRUMP’S, PUBLIC STATEMENTS. So, I’m campaigning for President against an incompetent person who has WEAPONIZED the DOJ & FBI to go after his Political Opponent, & I am not allowed to COMMENT? They Leak, Lie, & Sue, & they won’t allow me to SPEAK? How else would I explain that Jack Smith is DERANGED, or Crooked Joe is INCOMPETENT?”

Later on Friday Trump commented on the gag order in remarks to the Concerned Women for America Summit in Washington, D.C.

President Donald Trump: "Deranged Jack Smith, he's the prosecutor, wants to take away my rights under the First Amendment, wants to take away my right to speak freely and openly. Never forget our enemies want to stop us because we are the only ones who can stop them." pic.twitter.com/EkHNHpuyGx

— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) September 16, 2023

Longer clip:

Trump also spoke about the proposed gag order at the Pray Vote Stand Summit by FRC Action in D.C.

President Trump hits "deranged" Jack Smith's request for gag order pic.twitter.com/xBxavjvNId

— RSBN (@RSBNetwork) September 16, 2023

Smith’s proposed gag order was filed September 15: “Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 19”

The 19 page filing can be read at this link.

Excerpts:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.

CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS

Since the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, the defendant has repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Through his statements, the defendant threatens to undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool, in contravention of the “undeviating rule” that in our justice system a jury’s verdict is to “be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351 (1966) (quotations omitted). In accordance with the Court’s duty to “protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” id. at 363, the Government requests that the Court take the following immediate measures to ensure the due administration of justice and a fair and impartial jury: (1) enter a narrowly tailored order pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) that restricts certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements; and (2) enter an order through which the Court can ensure that if either party conducts a jury study involving contact with the citizens of this District, the jury study is conducted in a way that will not prejudice the venire. The Government obtained the defendant’s position from counsel for the defendant, and he opposes this motion.

I. Background
As set forth in the indictment, after election day in 2020, the defendant launched a disinformation campaign in which he publicly and widely broadcast knowingly false claims that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the presidential election, and that he had actually won. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 4. In service of his criminal conspiracies, through false public statements, the defendant sought to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate individuals who refuted his lies. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 28, 31-32, 42, 44, 74, 97, 100, 104, 111. The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case—to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. The defendant’s conduct presents a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” to these proceedings, and the Court can and should take steps to restrict such harmful extrajudicial statements. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 (1991).

(SKIP)

B. Since the Indictment, the Defendant Has Deployed Misleading and Inflammatory Statements About this Case to Undermine Confidence in the Justice System and Prejudice the Jury Pool

The defendant made clear his intent to issue public attacks related to this case when, the day after his arraignment, he posted a threatening message on Truth Social: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” August 4, 2023.

And he has made good on his threat. Since the indictment in this case, the defendant has spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Like his previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election, the defendant’s recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution—the judicial system—and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals—the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors. Below are select examples of the defendant’s disparaging and
inflammatory Truth Social posts.

i. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate the Court and the Jury Pool

The defendant has posted repeated, inflammatory attacks on the judicial system, the Court, and the citizens of the District of Columbia who comprise the jury pool in this case. The defendant has made baseless claims—cited or inserted below—that the justice system is “rigged”12 against him; that the Court is “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama hack” or is a “biased, Trump-hating judge”;13 and that he cannot get a fair trial from the residents of this “filthy and crime ridden” District that “is over 95% anti-Trump.”14

ii. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate Prosecutors

Similarly, the defendant has posted false and disparaging claims regarding the Department of Justice and prosecutors in the Special Counsel’s Office in an attempt to undermine confidence in the justice system and prejudice the jury pool against the Government in advance of trial. In a video posted to Truth Social, the defendant called the Special Counsel’s Office a “team of thugs.”15

(SKIP)

III. Conclusion

Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public
statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake. Respectfully submitted,

JACK SMITH
Special Counsel

Independent investigative reporter Julie Kelly observes, “Despite Jack Smith’s claims he wants a “narrow” gag order, this would prevent Trump from posting/saying anything about Smith, Chutkan, DC jury pool, the FBI, the DOJ in general, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, and a host of other figures/agencies.”

Despite Jack Smith's claims he wants a "narrow" gag order, this would prevent Trump from posting/saying anything about Smith, Chutkan, DC jury pool, the FBI, the DOJ in general, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, and a host of other figures/agencies. https://t.co/ff9mKJpY0z

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) September 15, 2023

Kelly notes Smith want to gag Trump’s lawyers also:

Sheesh pic.twitter.com/J6vN9RmDkI

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) September 15, 2023

Mike Davis commented, “A criminal defendant–more than anyone–must have the First Amendment right to criticize a prosecutor, judge, and process. Especially when he believes he’s the subject of an unjust political prosecution. Gagging a defendant is a clear constitutional violation. And un-American.”

A criminal defendant–more than anyone–must have the First Amendment right to criticize a prosecutor, judge, and process.

Especially when he believes he's the subject of an unjust political prosecution.

Gagging a defendant is a clear constitutional violation.

And un-American. https://t.co/JD1KXqzm3c

— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) September 16, 2023

The post Trump Scorches “Deranged Jack Smith” in Response to Proposed Gag Order appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.