U.S. Secret Service text messages sent on the day the U.S. Capitol was breached were deleted, a watchdog said this week.

A number of texts from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021, “were erased as part of a device-replacement program,” Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, told lawmakers in a July 13 letter was obtained by The Epoch Times.

The department, or DHS, is the Secret Service’s parent agency.

The deletions were done after Cuffari’s office (OIG) requested the records as part of its evaluation of the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Cufarri, a Trump appointee.

Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the Secret Service, said in a statement that “the insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false.”

The service in January 2021 started resetting mobile phones to factory settings as part of a pre-planned system migration, according to Guglielmi. In the process, data on some phones was lost.

“DHS OIG requested electronic communications for the first time on Feb. 26, 2021, after the migration was well under way. The Secret Service notified DHS OIG of the loss of certain phones’ data, but confirmed to OIG that none of the texts it was seeking had been lost in the migration,” the spokesman said.

Cuffari said that personnel from across DHS told inspectors from his office that they could not provide records directly to OIG without a review by government attorneys. That has led to a weeks-long delay in the watchdog obtaining records “and created confusion over whether all records had been produced,” he said.

Guglielmi challenged that allegation, saying the Secret Service has been fully cooperating.

The DHS did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Deeply Concerned’

Cuffari’s letter went to the chairmen and ranking members of the House of Representatives and Senate committees for homeland security.

“I am deeply concerned by the letter I received from the DHS Inspector General documenting the Department’s delays in producing materials to the Inspector General and its deletion of records following requests by the Inspector General. It is essential that the Department be transparent with its inspector general, Congress, and the American public,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who chairs the panel, and Rep. John Katko (D-N.Y.), the top Republican on the House committee, did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the House panel, and chair of the special committee investigating the Jan. 6 breach, declined to immediately comment.

Hutchinson

The revelation about the deleted messages comes after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, testified to Thompson and others on the special committee.

Hutchinson said that, according to a Secret Service agent she spoke to, then-President Donald Trump lunged at an agent and then the wheel in the car an agent was driving on Jan. 6.

The effort came because Trump was frustrated that the Secret Service refused to allow him to join supporters at the Capitol protest because the area had not been secured, the former Mark Meadows aide alleged.

Former Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who preceded Meadows, said he believed Hutchinson, but others cast doubt on the claim.

The story “is ‘sick’ and fraudulent, very much like the Unselect Committee itself,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

The Secret Service has not yet publicly commented on the claims.

The secondhand story, among others Hutchinson told, would not have been allowed in a real court, attorney Wally Zimolong told The Epoch Times.

“It’s classic hearsay,” he said.

Joseph Lord and Beth Brelje contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Temporary restraining order on vaccine mandate

A federal district court in Ohio has temporarily blocked the Biden administration from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on thousands of U.S. Air Force service members who remain unvaccinated after having opposed the shot on religious grounds but have had their religious exemption applications denied.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew McFarland, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump in late 2019, issued a temporary restraining order filed on Thursday preventing the Biden administration from taking any action for at least 14 days against any Air Force member who opted not to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The judge’s ruling also grants the case “class status,” which means the temporary restraining order will grant relief to all members of the Air Force who submitted a religious accommodation request from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate from Sept. 1, 2021, to the present, and were confirmed via the Air Force Chaplains as having a sincerely held religious belief, but had their requests denied or not yet acted upon. Plaintiffs had contended that such a class would include over 12,000 airmen.

The action stems from a case filed in February 2022 challenging the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs comprise 18 active-duty members of the Air Force serving at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio; Hurlburt Field in Florida; Randolph Air Force Base in Texas; and Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Georgia, plus all similarly affected members.

“The court has already granted a preliminary injunction to our 18 original plaintiffs,” an attorney in the case, Tom Bruns of Siri & Glimstad law firm, told The Epoch Times. “The court has now granted a class certification—and that’s kind of the historic moment—Air Force-wide, service-wide, it covers every member of the Air Force. And now he’s saying, ‘Why shouldn’t I grant the preliminary injunction to all those folks?’”

McFarland wrote in his order (pdf) in granting the class status: “They face separation from the Air Force and other disciplinary measures. A single injunction would provide relief to the entire class. Indeed, the main purpose of a [lawsuit class] is to provide relief through a single injunction or declaratory judgment. Because Defendants have uniformly maintained a policy of overriding Airmen’s religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine, they have acted ‘on grounds that apply generally to the class.’

“Moreover, the class definition requires that a Chaplain certify that the airman’s religious beliefs are sincerely held. Finally, a single injunction would provide the proposed class with the relief they seek from the harm they stand to suffer.”

McFarland gave Air Force officials until July 21 to file a response “identifying why this Court should not grant a class-wide preliminary injunction.” He also gave plaintiffs an opportunity to then file a response by July 25.

According to data from the Air Force, as of July 11, over 6,800 service members have been denied religious accommodation requests. Only 104 have had their applications approved. Meanwhile, 834 members have been “administratively separated” by the force. According to the figures, 97.1 percent of the Air Force has been fully vaccinated, and 0.1 percent has been partially vaccinated.

Painful Consequences

McFarland’s order came in the nick of time for some airmen. Many have received notices in the last week, with a date of their final day, an airman at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska told The Epoch Times.

One client was in the middle of a board hearing determining his future with the service, Attorney Wendy Cox of Siri & Glimstad law firm, told The Epoch Times. Objecting to the COVID-19 shot put airmen at risk of job loss and disciplinary measures.

“One of the officers we were representing was facing $1,000 a month pay reduction for two months as well as an official letter of reprimand,” Cox said. “We’ve had people removed from positions of commands because of their alleged violation of this order to get a vaccination, of which they are unable to get because it violates their religious beliefs.”

“Some were stranded in foreign countries after refusing the shot, and missed weddings. There’s some pretty tragic stories about what has happened,” Cox said.

The Air Force officials told the court that they had every consequence still on the table for service members who refused to get the shot, and those consequences included everything up to court martial and two years incarceration at Leavenworth, the attorneys said.

“The proof in the case was very clear. The Air Force tried to pretend that they did individualized analysis of each service member’s religious objection, and, and that did occur in terms of the service member proving they had a sincerely held religious belief,” Bruns said. “But then the Air Force, in its affidavits, proved that when it came to accommodating that belief, they took the position we can’t grant religious exemptions, because we have to save these slots for administrative and medical exemptions. So their own proof was ‘We didn’t do the individualized analysis on the back end, because we weren’t granting any religious exemptions.’ And it was only once the lawsuits got filed, that they granted a few religious exemptions. And all of those folks were near the end of their career.”

The Air Force wanted the airmen’s cases heard individually, but in his decision allowing class status, McFarland noted how the Air Force did not consider each case individually when denying religious accommodation requests.

“Defendants appear to again argue that the court must individually analyze each airmen’s claims on the one hand, while systematically denying all religious accommodation requests despite the factual differences defendants claim the court should consider on the other,” McFarland wrote.

“The Court appreciates there may be minor factual differences between the members of the class, including roles, responsibilities, levels of proximity, likelihood of deployment or travel, and ability to telework, as well as different religious beliefs and reasons for objecting to the COVID-19 vaccine.

“However, these minor differences do not outweigh that defendants’ typical response when receiving a religious accommodation request is to deny it. The typicality of the putative class is reflected in the fact that defendants have indiscriminately denied almost all religious accommodation requests, and their use of form letters to deny the accommodation requests. Such facts suggest that defendants do not individually weigh each applicant’s belief or circumstances in issuing their response, further cementing the typicality of the class.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Rep. Lauren Boebert’s gun-themed restaurant in downtown Rifle, Colorado, was a key element in her 2020 congressional campaign.

However, it appears that Shooter’s Grill is no more — at least for now.

According to Colorado’s Post Independent, Boebert indicated that the building’s new landlord is refusing to renew the restaurant’s lease.

However, a sign in front of the restaurant’s front door says, “Thanks for the support. Stay tuned. #covfefe“

“We were like a family,” Boebert said of her restaurant when she closed its doors on Sunday.

The restaurant came about after Boebert spent time ministering to female inmates in the Garfield County Jail; she wanted to help them and give them a place to “trade their shame for glory.”

“I would say Shooters, for any employee, was their life. We lived and breathed it every single day,” Boebert said.

“They were a part of this culture and brand that we created in Rifle, and there was a lot of pride with that.”

Boebert’s nod to a viral typo in one of former President Trump’s tweets suggests that Shooter’s Grill could soon become Shooter’s Covfefe.

In a statement provided to the Post Independent, Boebert indicated that her business would possibly reopen as a bakery. “It may look like a Shooter’s coffee shop with pastries and some easy breakfast sandwiches and merchandise,” the conservative firebrand said.

“We would just dramatically scale it back because, obviously, we’re not in our building.”

Shooter’s Grill was known for its pro-Second Amendment theme. Staff and management, such as Boebert, frequently open carried weapons on the premises.

Boebert rose to local prominence when she confronted Beto O’Rourke in a town hall, blasting him for his plan to forcibly confiscate legal firearms from American gun owners.

The conservative congresswoman is frequently a target of the progressive left, having shown herself willing to trade rhetorical barbs with resident Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Related:

John Kerry Put on Notice, New Legislation Targets His Spending of Taxpayer Money

Boebert won renomination in her district late last month despite liberals and some Republicans flocking to support her primary challenger.

Milken Enterprises is responsible for declining to renew the restaurant’s lease.

“It’s been an amazing journey. I don’t regret anything. It’s always sad to close a chapter. But this is where we’re at,” Boebert said.

Television, movies, news media, universities, sports, nonprofits and even major corporations are increasingly controlled by leftists.

One island of conservative sanity is talk radio, a medium in which leftists have been unable to succeed despite their best efforts and the government funding of NPR, which even some liberals are finding to be too much.

The Hispanic community in South Florida, with its large Cuban-American population, has been right-leaning and pointedly anti-communist. That has made a success of Radio Mambi — WAQI-AM — in Miami, with its conservative Spanish-language programming.

But not for long, if a George Soros-backed sale of the station and others is completed.

The leftist billionaire is a “lender,” as opposed to an investor, in the development of the Latino Radio Network, which will be made up of WAQI and 17 other Hispanic radio stations, Fox News reported.

The purchase of the stations from Univision would include some financing by Lakestar Finance, which is affiliated with a Soros fund management firm.

The Latino Radio Network’s founders both worked for former President Barack Obama.

Stephanie Valencia was deputy director of the Latino Vote Program for Obama’s 2008 campaign and went on to have several positions in the Obama White House’s Office of Public Engagement, according to her LinkedIn page.

Meanwhile, Jess Morales Rocketto, a former senior new media strategist for the AFL-CIO who also worked on Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was the engagement program manager for Obama’s 2012 re-election bid.

Valencia is the executive chairwoman of the board for the Latino Radio Network, while Rocketto is a board member.

Neither woman sounds like a good match for Radio Marti. Neither does the inflow of Soros money.

Some on-air personalities have broadcast they will not accept retention bonuses to stay with Radio Mambi.

Lourdes Ubieta announced earlier this month that she’s moving to Americano Media, a SiriusXM radio network that features a conservative Spanish-language perspective.

This week, Dania Alexandrino and Nelson Rubio said they too were leaving WAQI for that venture, Fox News reported.

En vivo a las 11:00 am hora del este, con los tres que presentadores que hacían parte de @radiomambi710 y rechazaron la oferta para continuar, después de la oferta de compra por parte de Latin Network, financiado por el extremista de izquierda George Soros. pic.twitter.com/QB6f4ujKdG

— Americano Media (@AmericanoMedia) July 12, 2022

Soros Gets a Shock When He Tries to Buy Local Radio Station with Conservative Latina Behind the Mic

“They don’t want a dime of Soros money,” said Jorge Bonilla of the Media Research Center.

Some advertisers are planning to leave, too, he said.

Bonilla said the planned purchase “is about controlling the flow of information to a specific community for political purposes.”

“You’re looking at the shutdown or the radical restructuring or the reformatting … of an iconic radio station, a station that for decades has been a beacon to Miami’s Cuban-American community,” he said.

Radio Mambi, according to Bonilla, “has been really the community’s voice politically and culturally. It’s a beacon of anti-communism, and so these are the concerns that emerged as a result of this transaction.”

He said a parallel would have been for Rush Limbaugh to be removed from WABC-AM, his flagship station in New York, in the 1990s and replaced with Air America, the left’s unsuccessful talk radio effort.

Bonilla called the Radio Mambi situation “unprecedented.”

A long-forgotten mandate of the Federal Communications Commission — which must approve the sale of the stations to the Latino Radio Network — is that, according to the Communications Act of 1934 — stations should operate “in the public interest, convenience and necessity.”

Were the FCC operating along those lines, a serious case could be made that Radio Mambi was fulfilling its public mission by its focused service to a specific ethnic community.

But if its past behavior is any indication, it’s unlikely the FCC — its board made up of two Democrats and two Republicans, with one vacancy — will oppose the sale.

There have been some demonstrations against the proposed sale, and Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has been critical of it.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, tweeted, “The Soros-funded radical Left is running a scheme to manipulate local media in Florida to push their Marxist agenda on voters.”

The Soros-funded radical Left is running a scheme to manipulate local media in Florida to push their Marxist agenda on voters.

In Florida, we reject the professional Left & their attempt to infiltrate our state & will always stand for truth and freedom.https://t.co/OeLbSDpJVh

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantisFL) June 6, 2022

His campaign has run ads in Spanish that said, “Warning, voters! The left is taking control of our local media. Billionaire George Soros, known for financing extreme leftist causes, is now financing the purchase of Hispanic radio stations right here in Miami,” Fox News reported last month.

And there was an event at Radio Mambi that has a kind of precedent.

Veteran broadcasters know the first two things new owners do when they take over a radio station: First, they say there will be no changes in personnel. Second, they fire everybody.

The loss of current staffers might reduce the value of the station. That may be one reason Valencia went to Miami on July 7 to attempt to calm angry Radio Mambi staffers, according to Fox News.

Under new ownership, she told them, “Nothing will change.”

“Nobody believes her,” an individual at the station told Fox News. “Honestly, they really believe we are that stupid.”

Now more personalities have left WAQI, and Americano Media is poised to carry on the tradition of conservative Hispanic talk radio.

Founder Ivan Garcia-Hidalgo, a supporter of former President Donald Trump, told NBC News the venture, which launched in March, was coming at just the right time.

“Democrats took Hispanics for granted for too long, and no one thought to create a home for us in conservative media,” Garcia-Hidalgo said.

“There is an appetite for this,” he said. “You see it on social media. You see it in elections.”

And that, Comrades Soros, Rocketto and Valencia, is one way we do capitalism.

Arizona Republican attorney general candidate Abraham Hamadeh called for the “mules” who allegedly illegally delivered ballots to drop boxes during the 2020 general election to be prosecuted.

Hamadeh, whom former President Donald Trump endorsed last month, referenced the popular Dinesh D’Souza documentary film “2000 Mules” at a candidate meet-and-greet Monday in Anthem, just outside of Phoenix.

The candidate told The Western Journal in a Thursday interview, “I think it’s sad that it required a documentary filmmaker to expose the crimes of 2020. And Maricopa County and Yuma County was particularly highlighted in Arizona.”

“And if you look, just from that just from that documentary, but also from whatever the evidence that True the Vote has, and clearly, there are bad faith actors who are going to the ballot drop boxes multiple times with dozens of ballots in hand. So obviously, there’s ballot trafficking going on,” he added.

True the Vote is a vote integrity group that worked with D’Souza on “2000 Mules.”

Biden Makes Waves by Rejecting Israeli President’s Handshake Attempt, White House Cites New COVID Policy

Great to end the evening in Anthem tonight! pic.twitter.com/AvLzZRkTk6

— Abe Hamadeh for Arizona AG (@AbrahamHamadeh) July 12, 2022

A whistleblower appearing in the film from Yuma County said she delivered hundreds of ballots to a drop box over the course of the general election voting period.

True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht said in “2000 Mules” the whistleblower is working with authorities.

anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Hamadeh, who is currently an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, was on a 14-month long deployment in Saudi Arabia during the 2020 election.

He recounted that he voted absentee via an emailed military ballot, but he told the Anthem meeting when he returned home last September he found multiple ballots addressed to other people had been sent to his Arizona home address.

I still remember coming back from my Army tour overseas in September last year and getting two extra ballots at my house.

The 2020 election was corrupt and rotten.

Judges extending voting registration deadlines.

And media and big tech burying Hunter Biden story.#neveragain pic.twitter.com/W6BMDoca9Q

— Abe Hamadeh for Arizona AG (@AbrahamHamadeh) March 26, 2022

The 31-year-old is the son of Syrian immigrants. Hamadeh was born in Chicago and moved to Arizona when he was five.

Video: Grandmother, 69, with Cancer Reports to Prison for Jan. 6 Charges, Has Message for Americans

He joked that as soon as his parents got off the plane in Phoenix during a trip they had won, they exclaimed they had discovered the Middle East of America and decided to move to the Grand Canyon State right away.

In an interview last month with Prescott eNews, Hamadeh argued that crimes that took place during the 2020 election must be prosecuted or wrongdoers will be emboldened in upcoming elections.

“When you see the ‘2000 Mules’ documentary … it’s horrible what you watch. Clearly, there was fraud in the election, and what has been done about it?” he asked.

“I think this is where you have a strong attorney general who’s going to actually prosecute crimes. And prosecute not just the low hanging fruit, but actually go all the way to the top,” Hamadeh added.

“I keep getting told, ‘Abe you’ve got to move on from 2020.’ I tell folks, ‘No.’ I mean I’m a former prosecutor. You prosecute crimes that were committed in the past. So I’m not going to move on from 2020,” he said.

Hamadeh told The Western Journal, a focus of his investigation would be going after those directing the mules.

“There [are] orders that are being given to the mules, and as attorney general that’s going to focus the investigation on. It’s actually going after, going after the enterprise,” he said.

In his statement announcing his endorsement of Hamadeh, Trump said, “Abe Hamadeh knows what happened in the 2020 election, and will enforce voting laws so that our Elections are Free and Fair again.”

Thank you President Trump! On his own birthday he gives me the greatest gift!

We will make Arizona SAFE, SECURE, and FREE again! #45 #47 pic.twitter.com/rCsaG3MnEd

— Abe Hamadeh for Arizona AG (@AbrahamHamadeh) June 14, 2022

In April, Trump accused current Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, now running for U.S. Senate, of not doing enough to address the alleged fraud in the 2020 election.

The 45th president acknowledged Brnovich’s office did issue an interim report that month concluding that fraud did occur and that the AG’s office had uncovered serious issues concerning the handling of over 100,000 mail-in ballots.

Democrat Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes, the narrowest margin of any of the swing states he carried.

Trump said Brnovich’s report “recites some of the many horrible things that happened in that very dark period of American history but, rather than go after the people that committed these election crimes, it looks like he is just going to ‘kick the can down the road’ and stay in that middle path of non-controversy.”

NEW: Trump says @brnoforaz didn’t “give the answers” in his report on 2020 and that “people are upset.”

He adds: “The good news is Arizona has some very good people running for election to the U.S. Senate. I will be making an Endorsement in the not too distant future!” #azsen pic.twitter.com/U0oHyYbSOv

— Zachery Henry (@zhenryaz) April 18, 2022

Last month, the Democratic former mayor of San Luis pleaded guilty to engaging in illegal ballot harvesting during the 2020 primary election, adding credence to claims the same conduct occurred during the general election.

Brnovich’s office prosecuted the case and garnered another guilty plea stemming from it, but his investigators believe the harvesting scheme is much more widespread.

San Luis is a border city in Yuma County, which is featured in “2000 Mules.”

“There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”

Oh, yeah? pic.twitter.com/Zurq2hSO0P

— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) January 30, 2022

Engelbrecht testified before a group of Republican Arizona state senators in May at the capitol in Phoenix that her organization’s investigation identified 41 likely mules in Yuma County and 202 in Maricopa County.

Happy warrior. 🇺🇸💪 pic.twitter.com/6mNUUWEegL

— Abe Hamadeh for Arizona AG (@AbrahamHamadeh) June 23, 2022

Trump will be holding a rally in Prescott Valley on Saturday where his slate of “America First” endorsed candidates will be featured, including Hamadeh, gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters and secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem.

Update: Trump announced Friday via TruthSocial the rally will be postponed until Friday, July 22 “out of love of respect for Ivana” Trump, his first wife and mother of Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka Trump. Ivana died unexpectedly Thursday at her apartment in New York City.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on July 13 said he’d favor former President Donald Trump over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis if both run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

“I like Ron DeSantis, but I know what I’m getting with Trump. The good and the bad and everything in between,” Graham said on Fox News.

“Trump sounds pretty good to me right now,” he added.

No candidates have formally announced bids for the next presidential race but Trump, 76, has repeatedly hinted he will be running for a third time, but will not make an announcement until after the upcoming midterm elections.

Trump won the 2016 election and lost the 2020 election. In both races, he earned the Republican nomination.

DeSantis, 43, a former U.S. congressman who is up for reelection this year, has said he’s focused on Florida, but some Republicans hope he’ll launch a presidential campaign.

Trump supporters like Graham point to his accomplishments during his one term, including securing deals in the Middle East, cutting down on illegal immigration, and getting a slew of originalist judges on federal courts.

Many DeSantis supporters say Trump’s actions leading up to, on, and after Jan. 6 showed he shouldn’t be president again. Some take issue with Trump’s continued promotion of COVID-19 vaccines and other stances. A number still support Trump but would prefer DeSantis over him.

Graham said little about DeSantis while comparing Trump to resident Joe Biden, 79, who took office in January 2021 and who has said he will run for a second term despite questions about his fitness.

Graham knocked Biden for the surge in illegal immigration that has occurred during his administration, joking that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a rumored Democrat presidential candidate, “may be the only guy” Biden “is willing to deport.”

“Compare Biden to Trump when it comes to the mid-East. Biden’s begging the Iranians to get back in a deal that’s terrible for the Israelis and the Arabs. Biden is going to go to East Jerusalem to undercut the Trump policy of making Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel. I’ve never seen a president tour the mid-East in a more weakened condition than resident Biden, and I say that with sadness,” Graham said. “Trump looks pretty damn good to me when you look at the issues we’re facing as a nation and as a world.”

Biden, meanwhile, while in Israel, was asked about potentially facing Trump again in 2024.

“I’m not predicting it, but I would not be disappointed,” he told Israeli broadcaster N12.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The January 6 hearings just keep grabbing headlines across the nation. Democrats are hoping to prove former President Donald Trump had a hand in the J6 uprisings in Washington D.C.

However, one of their key witnesses has run into several roadblocks recently. Cassidy Hutchinson made some bold claims about Trump’s actions on that day, but her reliability is now in question.

It doesn’t help that she apparently asked Trump senior officials for assistance after getting subpoenaed by the committee.

This is one of several new pieces of information that the prosecution doesn’t want to see. In this case, it appears that Hutchinson sent an email to one former Trump official saying she needed some legal help.

This email, revealed by The Daily Caller, explains that she was unemployed at the time and living with her aunt and uncle.

Because money was tight, she wanted the Trump official to put her in contact with fundraising organizations or lawyers who might be able to lend a hand. She added that she was “primarily seeking financial assistance.”

Here’s part of the letter:

I was subpoenaed by the 1/6 Committee on November 9, 2020 [sic 2021], but was not formally served until Wednesday, January 26, 2021 [sic 2022].

I’ve had difficulty securing a legal team, and was hoping you may be able to put me in contact with any fundraising organizations and/or attorneys that are involved in this process.

Afterward, numerous senior Trump officials said that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows refused to answer Hutchinson’s calls after she’d been summoned by the committee.

Apparently, he didn’t want to seem as if he was influencing her testimony in any way.

Then, a person with “first-hand knowledge” of the matter clarified that Hutchinson was begging “people in the Trump world” for financial aid, claiming her family couldn’t even afford food at the time.

The interesting part about this is that a few of those Trump officials were sympathetic and offered to help.

Trump’s PAC agreed to help her out financially and even gave her a few names of attorneys that she could speak to. Additionally, Hutchinson allegedly “made derogatory comments about the Jan. 6 committee.”

And as the world knows now, Hutchinson then went in front of the committee and testified that Trump had tried to wrench the steering wheel away from a Secret Service agent on Jan. 6.

That was just one of several eye-opening claims she made — and all this after getting assistance from Trump’s people.

This is likely to cast another shadow on Hutchinson’s testimony and many people will start wondering about her true motives. Trump himself has denied all of Hutchinsons claims and allegations.

The former President also released a 12-page document defending his actions on Jan. 6.

But right now, the spotlight is back on Cassidy Hutchinson, and whether or not she really told “the whole truth” on the stand.

Key Takeaways:

• J6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson reportedly begged senior Trump officials for help before testifying.
• She claimed to need financial and legal assistance, and Trump’s PAC gave her that help.
• They also say Hutchinson “made derogatory comments about the committee,” which seems to clash with her testimony on the stand.

Source: The Daily Caller

SOURCE: The Patriot Journal

Resident Joe Biden is losing support from some of his biggest backers.

Bill Kristol, who founded and edited the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, became a fierce critic of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and led the NeverTrump movement.

In 2018, Kristol co-founded The Bulwark, whose coverage is largely centered around criticism of Trump.

Two years later, he endorsed Biden in the Democratic primary, calling it a “simple choice,” and in the general election.

On Wednesday, however, Kristol argued that Biden should announce he won’t run for re-election.

He said on Twitter that a retirement announcement by Biden would bolster the Democrats’ chances in the 2022 midterm elections and lead to a Democratic victory in the 2024 presidential race.

Straightforward from here:

1. Biden announces not running again.

2. 2022 focus turns to R extremism, Ds do well in Nov.

3. Inflation subsides, Ukraine defeats Russia, Biden is successful 1-term president.

4. Younger moderate D defeats Trump or Trumpist in ’24.

Pourquoi pas?

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 13, 2022

As the president’s popularity drops further and further amid historic inflation and other crises, even liberals are increasingly giving him the cold shoulder.

A recent New York Times/Siena College poll indicated that 64 percent of Democratic voters want someone else than the incumbent as their nominee for president in 2024.

Biden snapped at a reporter who asked him about the poll at a White House event Tuesday.

“Read the polls, jack! You guys are all the same,” he said.

“What’s your message to Democrats who don’t want you to run again?”

BIDEN: “Read the polls! Read the polls, Jack! You guys are all the same.” pic.twitter.com/e0G3Sfufwm

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 12, 2022

Related:

Conservative Anti-Trump Magazine The Weekly Standard Announces Closure

If Biden were to run for re-election in 2024, he’d start his second term at the age of 82, smashing presidential age records.

Democrats have quietly circulated concerns about his age and unpopularity.

Kristol repeated his desire for Biden to eschew a 2024 re-election campaign in a subsequent tweet.

A lively (I thought!) podcast with @SykesCharlie.

We discuss just how (predictably) dangerous Trump proved to be, and the failure of Republicans and conservatives to come to grips with this.

Bonus: I make the case for Biden announcing he’s one and done.https://t.co/Ux5LubuqpN

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 13, 2022

At the now-defunct Weekly Standard, the neoconservative ideologue became a crucial proponent of President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The invasion has since become regarded as one of the worst foreign policy disasters in U.S. history.

Kristol reinvented himself by aligning with progressive Democrats as a Trump critic after the 2016 GOP primary, establishing himself as a mainstay on liberal cable channels such as CNN and MSNBC.

Vicente Gonzalez’s South Texas district has long history of cartel activity

Before joining Congress, Vicente Gonzalez agreed to legally represent drug smugglers and gang leaders who flooded his border community with illegal drugs. Now, the Texas Democrat stresses the need to stop the flow of drugs and maintain “law and order.”

In 1997, Gonzalez founded his law firm, V. Gonzalez and Associates, through which the multimillionaire Democrat still earns tens of thousands of dollars a year. One year later, Gonzalez was retained to represent Richard Contreras, who pleaded guilty to federal charges after he conspired to import more than 2,200 pounds of marijuana from Mexico, court documents show.

In 1999, meanwhile, Gonzalez was retained to defend Frank Tijerina, the leader of a Texas street gang called the “Corrupt Criminal Mob.” Tijerina was sentenced to 30 months in prison on federal drug charges after conspiring to distribute nearly $420,000 worth of marijuana. Tijerina later pleaded guilty to selling large quantities of meth in a scheme that also started in the late 1990s. In total, Gonzalez agreed to represent an array of felony drug dealers who conspired to distribute eight pounds of MDMA, nearly half a pound of cocaine, and more than 4,000 pounds of marijuana, easily worth millions of dollars.

Gonzalez’s decision to represent high-level drug dealers in his South Texas border community—long a hotspot for Mexican cartels working to traffic narcotics into the United States—is at odds with the Democrat’s rhetoric as a member of Congress. In June 2018, Gonzalez called himself a “law and order member” who “believe[s] in strict border security.” Two months later, the Democrat said he was working to “bring security to our border” and ensure “drugs are not coming across as freely as they are now.” The issue could haunt his campaign as voters sour on resident Joe Biden’s border policies amid record-high illegal immigrant encounters—according to a February Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, just 32 percent of voters approve of Biden’s handling of immigration.

A former Border Patrol agent who served in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, which Gonzalez represents, criticized the Democrat for the “stark inconsistencies” between “where he’s at today versus what he did before.” “Most South Texas Democrats act as if they’re not threatened to lose their jobs,” the former agent told the Washington Free Beacon. “[Gonzalez] is on that list—he’s been very comfortable, at least until now.”

Gonzalez’s campaign, which touts his record as an attorney, did not return a request for comment. 

McAllen, Texas, where Gonzalez lives, is no stranger to cartel activity. The city borders the Mexican city of Reynosa, which is known as a “key trafficking point” for “cartel violence.” As a result, the New York Post reported in 2019, McAllen is “‘ground zero’ in the border crisis between the U.S. and Mexico” and even features “a new Maserati dealership and ads for Rolex and Cartier watches” as cartel traffickers look to launder their cash. Roughly two decades earlier—as Gonzalez defended drug dealers in the area—federal agents arrested individuals in McAllen and nearby Brownsville who were implicated in a Mexican trafficking ring that held more than 5,200 kilograms of cocaine, nearly 10,000 pounds of marijuana, and roughly $11 million in cash, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration press release.

Despite the long-standing flow of cartel drugs into McAllen, Gonzalez has criticized former president Donald Trump’s border wall, which he called “useless” and “wasteful.” Instead of funding the wall, the Democrat argued, Congress should send billions of dollars to Central American countries to slow illegal immigration. Gonzalez also said the idea that the wall would “stop illegal drugs from coming to our country” is a “myth.” Former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Ronald Vitiello disputed that claim, calling the wall an “important” tool that “makes the work of agents safer.”

“It provides an anchor for the operation, it provides an anchor for technology, and it makes the agents safer, because they have the ability to slow people down and have this base of operations,” Vitiello told the Free Beacon. “So saying that doesn’t work is not an informed opinion. It doesn’t comport with my experience and wisdom.”

Gonzalez made big money from his legal career, his financial disclosures show. The Democrat owns an array of rental properties—his latest disclosure lists eight in McAllen, two in Washington, D.C., one in Monterrey, Mexico, and one in Madrid, Spain. Those properties earned Gonzalez at least $235,000 in 2020. Gonzalez also earned a combined $280,000 in “attorney fees” income from his law firm in 2019 and 2020, according to his disclosures.

Gonzalez in 2020 narrowly defeated Republican challenger Monica De La Cruz in Texas’s 15th Congressional District. One year later, he announced his decision to run in the 34th Congressional District in 2022, as the state’s redistricting process made that area considerably more blue. Still, Republicans are hopeful that Republican congresswoman Mayra Flores can give Gonzalez a run for his money in November. 

Flores in June became both the first Mexican-born woman elected to Congress and the first Republican to represent parts of the 34th Congressional District since 1870 after she won a special election against Democrat Dan Sanchez. That race saw Flores best Sanchez in historical Democratic strongholds—the Republican, for example, won in Cameron County, which is 90 percent Hispanic and voted for Biden by double digits less than two years ago. After her win, the New York Times said Flores’s win marked “the rise of the far-right Latina,” citing the Republican’s support for religiosity, strong borders, and traditional values.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Taxes will go up for millions of lower- and middle-income taxpayers under the House Democrats’ version of resident Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, according to two new analyses by the non-partisan professional staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

“While Republican tax reform in 2017 cut taxes for all Americans, and increased the progressivity of the tax code, the Democrats’ approach to tax reform does not cut taxes for anyone, but it would raise taxes on millions of lower- and middle-income Americans at a time when they can least afford it,” U.S. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said in a statement issued late Monday.

“The economy is already reeling from Democrats’ bad policies and people are struggling to make ends meet. The last thing they need are higher taxes, especially in light of rising odds of a recession and stagflation,” the Idaho Republican continued.

Crapo was referring to the June 23 (pdf) and June 27 (pdf) analyses by the 10-member panel, which made the studies available to Members of Congress and their staff, but did not publicly issue news releases describing the results. Both analyses focused on H.R. 5376, as amended.

The JCT includes five members from the Senate and five from the House of Representatives. Six of the 10 are presently Democrats, with the other four being Republicans.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is the JCT chairman in 2022, while Crapo is the top Republican. Wyden and Crapo are also chairman and ranking member, respectively, on the Senate Finance Committee.

Last year, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) was chairman and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) was vice-chairman. The Senate and House members exchange the leadership positions from one session of Congress to the next.

The JCT’s 65-member staff is entirely non-partisan, and includes 25 economists.

According to the findings of the two JCT analyses, taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 annually will increase by $33 billion in 2023, while levies on those making more than that level will receive a net decrease of $1.5 billion.

Over a 10-year-projection, more than 30 percent of the new revenues raised for spending offsets and deficit reduction would come from taxpayers making less than $400,000 annually.

Overall, the income tax rate for every category of taxpayer would go up, not down, according to the JCT.

Promises During Campaign

Biden promised throughout his 2020 president campaign and since being inaugurated in January 2021 as chief executive that his tax plan would only increase levies on those making $400,000 or more in a year.

The JCT analyses also found that if Congress enacts the House Democratic tax proposal this year, more than a fourth of all Americans making between $75,000 and $100,000 annually will pay more in taxes next year. More than half of those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will also see their taxes increase in 2023.

The vast majority of Americans making between $200,000 and $400,000 will experience higher levies in 2023, and by 2029 nearly one of every five Americans earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will get a tax increase, while none will receive any tax relief.

The JCT analyses did not account for the impact of the House Democratic proposal’s repeal of the cap on the deductibility of state taxes that was included in President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax reform.

But Crapo pointed to independent studies by the Tax Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) that “have shown that the net effect would essentially wipe out any tax hit on the wealthy, leaving the middle class to shoulder even more of the brunt of the tax burden in their bill.”

The cap limited the amount taxpayers in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, and California could deduct from their federal taxes to $10,000. Prior to Trump’s reform, the unlimited deductibility served as an incentive for state lawmakers to raise levies. The House version of Biden’s proposal restores the deduction up to $80,000.

In an Oct. 4, 2021 study, the Tax Foundation’s Garrett Watson concluded that “our analysis illustrates how restoring the SALT deduction now would be more regressive than under prior law, strengthening the case for keeping the cap in place.”

In a Nov. 8, 2021 analysis, the CRFB concluded that “we estimate extending the $80,000 SALT deduction cap beyond the current cap expirations in 2026, and reducing it to $10,000 in 2031, would technically raise around $300 billion. In reality, we view this revenue as highly questionable and more of a gimmick.”

A spokesman for Wyden could not be reached for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio) calls himself a “relentless advocate for Ohio’s working families,” but his nearly two-decade stretch in Washington, D.C., has resulted in passing just four bills, according to a Washington Free Beacon review of his sponsored legislation.

Of those laws, three of them were to rename federal buildings, including a post office in Tallmadge, Ohio. The fourth bill transferred the ownership of a Ravenna, Ohio, building from the federal government to the Ohio government.

Ryan, who is running for Ohio’s open Senate seat in November, first entered Congress in 2003 after serving a half term in the Ohio Senate. He claims on his campaign website that he has spent his time in Washington, D.C., working on, among other things, bipartisan legislation to solve the opioid crisis, strengthen entitlements, and bring jobs back from overseas. “Tim has spent his career fighting for Ohio workers,” Ryan’s campaign website reads.

But none of that rhetoric has translated into bills signed into law and raises questions about Ryan’s central campaign pitch: That he’s a bipartisan dealmaker looking to overcome partisan divides. Generally, incumbents try to sell voters on their record. In Ryan’s case, he speaks about what is possible if Democrats maintain control of the Senate—rather than what he has accomplished.

“So we have to invest into our people. Into child care. Into our families. Into our kids. Into shop class,” Ryan said at a recent campaign stop. “Into building resiliency for our kids, so that they have the grit and the determination to go out in this world that’s crazy as can be.”

Ryan’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The last bill that Ryan sponsored that was signed into law was in January 2021. That law renamed a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic. Before then, Ryan had not seen any of his bills signed into law since 2014.

“Career politician Tim Ryan has cheated Mahoning Valley working families,” said Ohio Republican Party chairman Bob Paduchik. “Ryan’s record of failure is obvious, but if you want a post office named then he is your man.”

Despite his odes to bipartisanship, Ryan has a voting record in Congress indistinguishable from the most partisan Democrats. According to a “Biden Score” tracker from FiveThirtyEight, Ryan votes with resident Joe Biden 100 percent of the time—more than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.).

Ryan’s attempt to overcome the perception that he is another vote for Biden—who has the lowest job approval rating of any president in the history of modern polling—in a state former president Donald Trump won by 8 points in 2020 has resulted in some awkwardness. 

Earlier this month, he was one of the only major Ohio Democrats who did not attend Biden’s speech in Cleveland. Ryan’s campaign said his absence was due to a scheduling conflict. 

On the campaign trail, Ryan steers away from the Democratic Party label as much as possible. In one instance, Ryan seemingly lifted his anti-opioid proposal from a bill by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R., Colo.).

Ryan will face off against Republican J.D. Vance for the Senate seat held by retiring Republican senator Rob Portman. Vance is a heavy favorite in the race. A June poll conducted by USA Today/Suffolk University found Ryan trailing Vance by 3 points.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Aspen Times publisher decries brazen use of power and influence to ‘control a community newspaper’

Pot and kettle? [US Patriot]

Eighteen Colorado politicians are threatening to use their power and influence to compel a small local newspaper to hire their preferred editor, to republish a column the paper pulled from its website, and to disclose the terms of a settlement the paper reached in a defamation lawsuit in June.

Failure to acquiesce to their demands, the politicians are warning, will cause them to use power to “pull advertisements and notices from the paper,” to encourage local businesses to divest from the paper, and to refuse the paper access to local officials. The publisher of the paper, the Aspen Times, is pushing back, arguing that it is “shocking to see elected officials so brazenly threaten to use their positions of power to control a community newspaper.”

The fracas comes in the wake of legal settlement between the paper and Russian-born billionaire Vladislav Doronin. Doronin sued the Times over its coverage of his purchase of a prime piece of land at the base of Aspen Mountain, which referred to him as an “oligarch” and suggested he is an ally of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

The Times settled the dispute with Doronin out of court, agreeing to issue a correction to its coverage of the billionaire. Many defamation cases are settled out of court, and it’s not uncommon for settlements to be kept private.

The lawmakers, however, say the newspaper’s actions cast doubt over its “ability to freely achieve the high journalistic standards which you purportedly profess and which our community has come to expect of this local institution.”

“We would like to see clear action,” the lawmakers wrote in a June letter, including the “reinstatement of Andrew Travers as the editor in chief; republication of [Roger] Marolt’s June 10 column … and public clarity about the settlement that was reached in Doronin’s lawsuit.” The signatories also accused the paper of censoring stories about Doronin’s real estate acquisitions, which have been covered by other papers, including the Aspen Daily News.

The situation in Aspen is rare in the United States, where politicians generally avoid making explicit demands about the staffing and editorial decisions of media organizations. Polling has shown that Americans overwhelmingly support press freedom, despite their distrust of the media.

Of the people who signed the letter, at least 12 are Democrats, 3 are Republicans, and 3 appear to be unaffiliated.

Allison Pattillo, the publisher of the Times, rebuked attempts from government officials to control the press in the name of preserving freedom. “This chilling precedent is certainly not representative of our democracy nor the Aspen Idea our community touts,” she wrote.

The letter’s signatories include some ambitious Colorado politicians. Adam Frisch, a former Aspen city councilman, secured the Democratic nomination to run against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R., Colo.) in the 2022 midterm elections. “Protecting our Democracy” is one of the top priorities listed on Frisch’s campaign website.

Democrats in recent years have condemned Republicans for allegedly eroding freedom of the press. The American Civil Liberties Union painted former president Donald Trump as the enemy of the free press. Several left-leaning publications said Trump was engaging in a prolonged assault on press freedom.

The letter’s signatories did not respond to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Elon Musk has taken to Twitter after former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the Tesla CEO at a rally over the weekend.

Trump called Musk “another bull [expletive] artist,” saying that Musk had once told him privately he had won Musk’s vote in 2016, which would conflict with Musk’s public statement in mid-June about having just voted Republican for the first time in the midterm primaries.

“You know what he said the other day? ‘Oh, I’ve never voted for a Republican,’” Trump said to a full house at the Alaska Airlines Center on Saturday. “I said, ‘I didn’t know that.’ He told me he voted for me. So he’s another bull [expletive] artist.”

Trump made the comments as a side note while talking about Musk’s recent decision to not acquire Twitter.

“I don’t hate the man, but it’s time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset,” Musk wrote on Monday night in response to a video of Trump’s comments. “[Democrats] should also call off the attack—don’t make it so that Trump’s only way to survive is to regain the Presidency.”

Trump–DeSantis Ticket

On the same night, Musk shared his thoughts about a potential Trump–DeSantis ticket in 2024.

“Trump would be 82 at end of term, which is too old to be chief executive of anything, let alone the United States of America,” Musk wrote in another post, replying to a suggestion from another Twitter user about a potential Trump-DeSantis run in 2024 and two terms of DeSantis presidency in 2028 and 2032.

But on a potential DeSantis 2024 run, Musk echoed his earlier comments that he would lean towards supporting the Florida governor.

“If DeSantis runs against Biden in 2024, then DeSantis will easily win—he doesn’t even need to campaign.” the billionaire said.

Musk’s Monday comments continue a series of high-profile political statements the billionaire has made in 2022, which included describing the Democratic Party as the party of “division & hate” and identifying himself as a part of a “massive red wave in 2022” by revealing his vote for Republican candidate Mayra Flores (R-Texas).

Trump: ‘I Think I Would Win’

While Trump has not explicitly announced his intention to run for commander-in-chief in 2024, he has teased it enough for spectators—including Musk—to consider it a serious prospect.

“I ran twice, I won twice … And now with the approval of the great people of Alaska, we may have to do it again,” Trump said over the weekend in Alaska, claiming that he received “many millions more votes” in 2020 than he did in 2016 when he defeated Hillary Clinton.

When asked about how well he would perform against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a presidential race, the former president was confident.

“I don’t know if Ron is running, and I don’t ask him. It’s his prerogative … I think I would win.” Trump told The New Yorker in June. He told Newsmax later in the month that he would not rule out DeSantis as a running mate while saying that he “was very responsible for [DeSantis’s] success.”

Meanwhile, Republican figures have been positive that Trump’s political influence in the GOP is nothing close to insignificant.

“I don’t delude myself into thinking I have a big swath of the Republican Party,” Trump critic Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told Politico in May about his thoughts on Trump. “It’s hard to imagine anything that would derail his support.”

“So if he wants to become the nominee in [2024], I think he’s very likely to achieve that,” Romney said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Best-selling horror novelist Stephen King was forced to apologize to his 6.7 million followers on Twitter over a false story he had posted on Wednesday about Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The following day, a left-leaning fact-check site judged King’s post to be false.

In a now-deleted tweet, King wrote that DeSantis had signed a bill “requiring Florida students, professors to register political views with [the] state,” according to PolitiFact. The fact-check found that King’s claim “copied the headline of a June 2021 article published by Salon.” They noted that the headline has now been changed.

This misinformation related to Florida House Bill 233 which “requires the states’ public colleges and universities to ‘conduct an annual assessment of the intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity,’ using a survey developed by the State Board of Education or the Board of Governors.”

Following a lengthy explanation, PolitiFact wrote: “We rate King’s statement False.”

The Daily Wire reported that the caption on King’s original tweet, which included a link to the Salon article, read: “I. Can’t. Even.”

Frankly, I. Can’t. Even. believe King was taken in by such a spurious story. I suppose he trusted Salon to give him a fair and accurate account of what happened. Still, I would expect King, who is 74 and a highly acclaimed writer, to be more discerning than this.

At any rate, he apologized to his followers in the tweet below.

I deleted a tweet about Ron DeSantis requiring notice of political views of students and teachers. That really was fake news. Sorry.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) July 9, 2022

PolitiFact later posted an update to reflect a statement King had given to CNN. It read: “I regret having posted the headline without being more confident the story was correct. Salon is usually more reliable. Twitter is a constant learning experience, and I will try to do better.”

Actually, Salon is not usually more reliable and the reality is that the far-left novelist wanted the story to be true.

To show you just how out of touch King is, he posted the following tweet on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Mr. Putin has made a serious miscalculation.
He forgot he’s no longer dealing with Trump.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) February 23, 2022

Related:

Florida Deputies in Big Trouble After Investigation Reveals What They Did After Bob Saget Was Found Dead

His wildly inaccurate portrayal of resident Joe Biden as being more formidable than former President Donald Trump is laughable. Yet the post received over 151,000 likes.

King is able to influence public opinion because of his celebrity. His followers look up to him and believe what he says.

Likewise, the leftist media is able to influence public opinion because of their authority.

Unfortunately, the media has abandoned their responsibility to report the news truthfully and we are living with the consequences. Political divisions among Americans have rarely been greater and emotions have reached a fever pitch. This is a terrible time to be whipping up the left with irresponsible stories and tweets.

The chasm between today’s legacy media and their role as envisioned by our founders has never been greater. Those tasked with holding the government accountable and keeping voters informed are now working in cahoots with the government to deceive the people.

Will Stephen King “try to do better” as he promised his followers? No, he’ll seize upon the next piece of red meat held before him by the charlatans pretending to be journalists.

The Army suspended a decorated general for criticizing a tweet by first lady Jill Biden, USA Today reported.

The branch released retired three-star lieutenant general Gary Volesky, a veteran of the wars in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan, from advising senior officers because of his June 25 response to a Jill Biden tweet about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe v. Wade.

“For nearly 50 years, women have had the right to make our own decisions about our bodies,” the first lady tweeted. “Today, that right was stolen from us.”

“Glad to see you finally know what a woman is,” Volesky replied.

Volesky’s tweet has since been taken down.

Volesky was likely talking about Biden’s support for transgender rights, a cause the military has also embraced. As Russia this year began its bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. Army was training officers on “gender pronouns” and “when to offer soldiers gender transition surgery,” the Washington Free Beacon reported. Top-ranking General Mark Milley, who secretly promised to warn the Chinese People’s Liberation Army about U.S. military actions, has in recent years embraced left-wing causes, saying he wants to “understand white rage” and apologizing for appearing with former president Donald Trump.

This is the second time this month that the Army has punished service members for disagreeing with someone in the Biden White House. The Army announced July 1 that it will deprive soldiers of pay and benefits if they do not comply with the administration’s vaccine mandate.

Volesky, who retired in 2020, received the Silver Star, the military’s third-highest decoration for valor, the New York Post reported. He served as the Army’s chief of public affairs from 2012 to 2014 and commanded the 101st Airborne Division.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III is challenging the House Jan. 6 Select Committee to let him testify on a live broadcast so he can pit the truth as he sees it against the committee’s “pack of lies.”

“Public televised testimony, that’s the only condition,” Rhodes said.

“If I were given a chance to give an opening statement, I’m writing up what I would give them,” Rhodes told The Epoch Times on July 10. “If they decline to accept my offer, I’m going to go ahead and publish my opening statement.”

Rhodes said he does not expect the committee to accept his offer because his appearance would be a free-wheeling discussion, not a scripted presentation.

“They should jump at the opportunity, but they won’t because they don’t want that,” he said. “What they want is what you’ve seen, which is just a scripted, controlled, pre-screened show trial. They’re only going to put people in front of the public that they know are going to say what they want them to say.”

“I want to push back,” Rhodes said. “I want to cut back against this false narrative. They don’t want the truth. That’s why they won’t let me just get up there, unscreened, uncoached, and just answer[ing] questions because they don’t want the truth out.

“If they were concerned with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they would welcome the opportunity to talk to me because I pled the Fifth on everything from election time on back in February. I answered no questions about anything after election night.”

‘Waive My Fifth Amendment Rights’

The Select Committee next meets on July 12 in Washington D.C.

The panel might hold a prime-time hearing on July 14. It plans to cover the issue of domestic extremism and the roles allegedly played by the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys on Jan. 6, 2021.

Unlike his previous appearance before the committee, Rhodes said he would drop his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and answer questions, but only if the hearing is on a live broadcast.

“So I’m going to do it now and waive my Fifth Amendment rights and do that in front of the public,” Rhodes said in a call from the Alexandria City Detention Center in Virginia, where he is being held pending trial. He is charged with seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, among other counts.

Rhodes was first charged in a superseding indictment on Jan. 12, more than a year after the unrest at the Capitol. He, six other Oath Keepers, and one associate were charged in a new superseding indictment (pdf) on June 22.

Prosecutors say the Oath Keepers conspired to “oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force” by “breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building” to prevent, hinder or delay certification of Electoral College votes by a joint session of Congress.

Oath Keepers and their attorneys say the seditious conspiracy charge was concocted out of whole cloth by misreading and twisting messenger chats, phone calls, and online meetings. They say the Oath Keepers were in Washington D.C. that day to provide security for conservative VIPs speakers at events supporting President Donald Trump.

Their transportation of weapons to nearby Virginia was part of the group’s preparations for what they believed could be the situation where the president invoked the Insurrection Act due to an Antifa attack on the White House, Rhodes said.

Incomplete Narratives

Rhodes said the committee has already shown deception when discussing the Oath Keepers. He pointed to a hearing when a still image of him was shown in a Washington, D.C., parking garage with former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio on Jan. 5, 2021. Had the committee shown the full video of the event, it would have been clear that the so-called meeting between the men was a mere handshake with no discussion, Rhodes said.

“They showed a still photo of me talking to Enrique Tarrio instead of the video, which has me walking up and saying hello and walking away because it wasn’t my meeting; it was somebody else’s meeting,” Rhodes said.

The video shows that the contact between Tarrio and Rhodes lasted less than 30 seconds, although it has been described in prosecution documents as a 30-minute meeting.

Rhodes said Tarrio was in the garage to speak with Bianca Gracia of Latinos for Trump and attorney Kellye SoRelle. They wanted to ensure he had legal representation after his arrest for setting fire to a Black Lives Matter banner in Washington D.C. in December 2020.

Rhodes said he was part of SoRelle’s three-man security detail. SoRelle, who also serves as general counsel for the Oath Keepers and Latinos for Trump, had received death threats, Rhodes said.

“It was their conversation, so I stepped down,” Rhodes said. “I was there for security only for Kellye SoRelle.”

Rhodes said part of his motivation to speak out publicly was the recent indictment of Michael Greene, a friend who ran security operations for the Oath Keepers in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6. Greene, 39, of Indianapolis, was charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and three other counts.

According to FBI summaries of those meetings, Greene’s interviews with FBI agents in May 2021 contradict many of the accusations against the Oath Keepers.

“He is a totally innocent man who was operations lead that day; a friend of mine, straight up, excellent, awesome Army veteran and ex-cop,” Rhodes said. “A totally innocent man. They’re just persecuting him.”

Greene had every right to be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because the Oath Keepers were providing security for a “Stop the Steal” rally in Area 8 on the Capitol lawn and for a Latinos for Trump event two blocks away. Stop the Steal founder Ali Alexander had a permit for the Capitol rally and for the erection of a stage.

“He (Greene) was supposed to be on Capitol grounds. He’s supposed to be right there in Area 8, which is on Capitol grounds,” Rhodes said. “That’s where he was supposed to be, to go and protect the venue that Ali Alexander had reserved there. So he was supposed to be on Capitol grounds. And now they’re indicting him for trespass. It’s just ridiculous.”

Event Security, Not Conspiracy

Rhodes said the Oath Keepers presence in Washington D.C. that day was no different than for what they had done for pro-Trump rallies in November and December 2020.

“Our guys dressed the same and did the same thing,” he said. “The difference is that two of our team leaders decided to take their people inside the Capitol of their own volition. That’s the only difference. Their behavior and ambition was the same, to protect people at events in Washington D.C., which they did.”

Oath Keepers provided security in the VIP area at the Ellipse where Trump spoke on Jan. 6. They were then tasked with escorting Alexander and speakers, including Roger Stone, from the Ellipse to the Capitol for an event that was on the calendar well before the president’s speech was booked, Rhodes said.

Two groups of Oath Keepers did enter the Capitol.

Prosecutors claim they were searching for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Rhodes said there was no plan for anyone to go into the Capitol. One of the groups intervened between an armed U.S. Capitol Police officer and an angry crowd, de-escalating the situation, he said.

Rhodes ridiculed the charge by prosecutors that the Oath Keepers used a military “stack formation” to ascend the east steps of the Capitol. Oath Keepers have been shown on video walking with hands on each other’s shoulders in a line.

“That formation going up the steps is not a military formation. I was an infantry man, airborne infantry,” Rhodes said. “That’s not a military formation. That’s a PSD (personal security detail) technique to get through a crowd.”

The Oath Keepers have used the technique at other crowded venues to move their protectees through masses of people, he said, including an event in Atlanta in 2020.

“They use the loaded term of ‘military stack.’ No, it’s a PSD detail. You don’t go through a crowd like that if you’re in the military.”

Preparations Were for Antifa, Not to ‘Attack the Capitol’

The Oath Keepers did have weapons and ammunition stockpiled in Virginia and had “Quick Reaction Forces” (QRF) on standby. Prosecutors claim the QRFs were to attack the Capitol. Rhodes said the Oath Keepers in the QRFs were available to extract other Oath Keepers or protectees from Washington if there was a large attack by Antifa.

The weapons were there only if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act and called up militias to defend the White House, Rhodes said. Antifa had made threats to assault the White House and eject Trump by force, he said.

“We’re gonna have well-trained Oath Keeper combat vets with their weapons outside D.C. but ready in case the President invokes the Insurrection Act and calls us up as the militia, which completely lawful,” Rhodes said.

Plea Deals and Coercion

The three Oath Keepers who took plea deals and are cooperating with prosecutors were coerced with threats of long prison sentences, he said.

A letter sent to defendants and their attorneys in May by prosecutors Kathryn Rakoczy and Justin Sher said that if Oath Keepers defendants are convicted at trial, they could face life in prison under sentencing guidelines related to terrorism. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Epoch Times. The letter also set the deadline for accepting plea-agreement offers.

Noted defense attorney and Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said the attempt to link seditious conspiracy to sentencing guidelines for treason “is absurd.”

Rhodes said in at least one of the three plea deals, the defendant had told family members he was terrified of the prospect of life in prison. The seditious conspiracy charge includes a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.

“They scared the [expletive] out of these guys and coerced them into pleading for something they didn’t do,” Rhodes said. “There’s no [expletive] conspiracy. Did he go into the Capitol? Yes, like a dumb ass, he went into the Capitol. But there was no conspiracy.”

Rhodes said the Select Committee is making it nearly impossible for any of the Oath Keepers to get a fair trial. Recently U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected a motion by Oath Keepers defendants to move their trials from D.C. to Virginia.

“The only way we can get any possibility of a fair trial in this country is if we are out of D.C.,” Rhodes said. “I think it’s a foregone conclusion.

“A D.C. jury is going to vote along political lines,” he said. “We walk in there, we’ve got horns, demon tails, already, the ‘evil Oath Keepers.’ They’ve been conditioned over 13 years in the leftist media to hate us. And these are all inside-the-beltway Democrats.”

Overtly Anti-Racist

Rhodes said he would like to address what he called the defamatory smear of the Oath Keepers by Select Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who called the group “white supremacists.” Rhodes said that the Oath Keepers’ rules ban any racial discrimination and that he does not tolerate such attitudes in the group.

On Jan. 6, 2021, the Oath Keepers vice president was a black police officer, he said. Greene, the former police officer who ran Oath Keepers security in D.C. on Jan. 6, is also black.

“We’re overtly anti-racist, and they have to know that. They’ve defamed us on purpose,” Rhodes said. “So since that moment on, there has just been a relentless campaign of defamation, mischaracterization of Oath Keepers—even demonization.”

Rhodes said that he believes the Select Committee’s true goal is to see former President Trump indicted for Jan. 6. The committee and the Department of Justice will work on that goal together, he said.

“They work hand in glove like two different fingers on the same iron fist,” he said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

After the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a screenshot purporting to show a tweet from Abe before his death began circulating online.

According to the Associated Press, the tweet showed Japanese characters with a supposed translation in English underneath.

“I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton,” the translation read.

However, the AP determined claims that Abe tweeted this were false.

“Abe’s verified Twitter account uses a different username and profile picture than the ones shown in the altered image,” the outlet reported.

“The Japanese text in the altered image does not mention Clinton, either.”

Instead, the AP found the Japanese characters loosely translated to, “to repeat, I.”

Abe was shot Friday while giving a speech endorsing a candidate in Nara, Japan, NPR reported. He died of his injuries shortly after.

This is not the first time a hoax regarding Hillary Clinton circulated following the death of a high-profile figure. In an article from 2020, the Associated Press reported a similar incident after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.

anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Just like the fabricated tweet from Abe, a fake tweet from Ginsberg promised incriminating information about Clinton.

The AP reported Ginsberg did not use a personal Twitter account, and the account from which the tweet was allegedly sent had no connection to her.

While neither of these tweets turned out to be real, the virality of this trend gives an insight into Americans’ feelings about Clinton.

Clinton has not been politically relevant since she lost to former President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Nonetheless, many people are still discussing her shady behavior.

If social media users wanted to create a hoax that would sully the name of a political figure, one would think they would choose a politician with potential power, such as Trump or resident Joe Biden.

Related:

Please Don’t Watch This: Hillary Sex Scene Read Aloud on CBS in Front of Her – Viewers Horrified

Instead, these hoaxes have revolved around Clinton, who has been out of the political spotlight for six years now.

False as these tweets are, they are based on a kernel of truth: Clinton has lived her life in a shady manner. From her infamous emails to her alleged spying on Trump and his campaign, she has been riddled with scandals throughout her career.

Americans do not trust Clinton, and they have made this fact clear by bringing up doubts about her following high-profile deaths.

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon agreed on July 10 to testify in front of the House Jan. 6 Committee after he received a letter from former President Donald Trump telling him that Trump will waive executive privilege.

Bannon, who’s slated to go on trial for criminal contempt charges in July for defying a previous subpoena by the panel, said he wanted to testify in public, according to a letter from his lawyer, Bob Costello.

“While Mr. Bannon has been steadfast in his convictions, circumstances have now changed,” Costello wrote in the letter, according to numerous media outlets. “Mr. Bannon is willing to, and indeed prefers, to testify at your public hearing.”

Trump told Bannon that he would waive his executive privilege. Previously, Bannon’s lawyers have said that he wouldn’t respond to the panel’s subpoenas because of the privilege.

“When you first received the Subpoena to testify and provide documents, I invoked Executive Privilege. However, I watched how unfairly you and others have been treated, having to spend vast amounts of money on legal fees, and all of the trauma you must be going through for the love of your Country, and out of respect for the Office of the President,” Trump wrote in his letter.

“Therefore, if you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive Executive Privilege for you, which allows you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly.”

A member of the House panel, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), told CNN on July 10 that the committee received Bannon’s letter. But Lofgren suggested that the panel won’t have Bannon testify in public.

“Ordinarily, we do depositions. This goes on for hour after hour after hour. We want to get all our questions answered. And you can’t do that in a live format,” Lofgren said.

For not complying with Congress’s subpoenas, Bannon—the former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News—faced two contempt charges. Federal prosecutors have denied his argument that he has executive privilege and said Bannon wasn’t working for the White House during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach.

Both counts are misdemeanors and carry a minimum of 30 days to a maximum of 1 year in jail, as well as fines of $100 to $1,000, according to the Department of Justice.

In November, Bannon surrendered to the FBI and told reporters at the scene: “We’re taking down the Biden regime. … I want you guys to stay focused, stay on message. Remember signal, not noise.”

His trial is scheduled to start on July 18.

Representatives from Bannon’s team didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Texas Republican Party delegates—who last month approved a resolution rejecting Joe Biden as a legitimately elected president—adopted a sweeping new platform with a big focus on election integrity.

The state’s GOP released the results of its 2022 platform vote this week. Two of the measures seek fair elections free of illegal voting practices and updated voter registration rolls to combat fraud.

Among provisions for fair elections, Republicans want to limit mail-in ballots to those who can’t physically appear in person, and prohibit internet voting for public office, mandate full signature verification for mail-in ballots, require voter photo ID, and deter counterfeiting by using sequential ballots.

On voter rolls, Republicans want voters to re-register if they haven’t voted in five years. Voter requirements include proof of residency, citizenship, and a photo ID. They also approved compiling a list of certified deaths so the Texas secretary of state’s office can remove deceased persons from voter rolls. They also want to repeal all motor voter laws.

The platform reflects concerns raised in the resolution rejecting the certified results of the 2020 presidential election. In June, nearly 5,000 delegates at the Texas Republican Convention voted on the resolution and platform.

The resolution declared that the 2020 election violated the Constitution by allowing secretaries of state to circumvent their state legislatures illegally. It asserted that “substantial election fraud” had occurred in key metropolitan areas, affecting the results in five states to Biden’s favor.

Matt Rinaldi, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, said in a statement that the Texas GOP was raising funds for election integrity, which is a top priority to ensure that Texas never goes down the same path as Pennsylvania, Georgia, or Arizona.

“Texas Republicans rightly have no faith in the 2020 election results, and we don’t care how many times the elites tell us we have to. We refuse to let Democrats rig the elections in 2022 or 2024,” he said.

Democrats have long dismissed the idea of significant voter fraud swaying the outcome of the 2020 election, calling it misinformation perpetuated by former President Donald Trump in his effort to overturn a legitimate election.

Texas Republicans also made election integrity a top legislative priority for the 2023 session. Delegates want to restore felony penalties and enact civil penalties for election code violations. They want to restrict the distribution of mail-in ballots, limit early voting, and close Republican primaries.

The Republicans also called for legislation allowing the state’s attorney general to have the authority to prosecute election fraud, after the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled the state’s attorney general couldn’t unilaterally do so in December 2021.

James Wesolek, a media spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas, told The Epoch Times that the vast majority of the 274 planks of the platform passed with 80 percent or more support. Five items had less than 80 percent, but none came in less than 70 percent of the vote. The platform covers a wide range of topics, including border security, medical freedom, pro-life issues, constitutional rights, and even Texas secession.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Biden administration spent nearly $1.5 million to produce a “transgender programming curriculum” for inmates held in the nation’s 122 federal prisons.

The Justice Department disbursed the funds for a consulting firm to develop a program to help transgender inmates “manage identity concerns during incarceration” and advocate for their “sexual health and safety,” according to a government summary of the contract. The contract also asks the firm to develop a program to help transgender inmates access hormone treatment after they are released.

There are only about 1,200 transgender individuals serving sentences in federal prisons, according to a 2021 Department of Justice estimate, meaning the Biden administration spent roughly $1,250 per transgender prisoner. That is more than the $1,200 checks Americans received during the first round of COVID-19 stimulus payments.

The Justice Department’s $1,496,500 contract is part of resident Joe Biden’s larger, controversial effort to promote transgenderism—even among minors. The Justice Department in March sent a letter to all state attorneys general warning them against restricting transgender hormone treatment for children. That same month, Biden’s State Department announced it would allow individuals to select “X” as their gender when completing passport applications. The administration also released updated guidelines in January that make it easier for transgender inmates to be placed in facilities that match their “gender identity.”

Following a district court ruling last month, a convicted terrorist is set to become the first transgender inmate to receive federally funded sex-reassignment surgery, the Washington Free Beacon reported. The American Civil Liberties Union, a Biden administration ally, waged the successful legal battle on behalf of Cristina Iglesias, who in 2005 mailed fake anthrax to British government office buildings.

The Biden administration’s push for transgender accommodations in federal prisons comes amid a spike in sexual assaults committed by biologically male inmates in women’s prisons. Female prisoners have sued state governments, citing sexual assault concerns, in an attempt to keep male-to-female transgender inmates in men’s prisons.

The funds were first disbursed in 2021 to Nevada-based consulting firm Change Companies, and the contract runs through September of this year. The firm, which creates educational materials for correctional facilities, did not respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department told the Free Beacon it “recognizes the importance of appropriate gender-affirming management and treatment of transgender individuals in its custody.” The department did not respond to a request for comment on whether any of the programs have been implemented in federal prisons.

Justice Department officials recommended that the firm draw on research from left-wing advocacy groups, such as the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), to guide its work. The NCTE dubbed former president Donald Trump’s White House the “Discrimination Administration” and supports Democrats’ Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” The organization also launched a politically oriented “action fund” in 2017, which has exclusively endorsed Democratic candidates.

The Justice Department programs appear to align with the agency’s most recent guidelines on transgender prisoners. The guidelines, released earlier this year, prohibit prison staff from referring to inmates by biologically accurate pronouns if they identify as transgender. The document defines gender as “a construct” based on “social identity, psychological identity, and human behavior.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

THE NEW DATA WILL SEND SHIVERS UP THE SPINES OF ELECTION FRAUDSTERS.

plurality of Americans believe the upcoming midterm elections will experience fraud, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports sponsored by The National Pulse. The poll also revealed the stunning evidence that a clear majority of Americans believe the result of the 2020 election was blighted by cheating.

Fifty percent of likely U.S. voters feel that there will be “widespread cheating that will affect the outcome of this fall’s congressional elections,” including 24 percent of people who believe the prospect is very likely. Just 22 percent of voters think cheating is not at all likely to affect the November midterms, the poll reveals.

Asked, “Which is more important – Making it easier for everybody to vote, or making sure there is no cheating in elections?” just 38 percent answered they prefer to make it easier for everyone to vote, with an overwhelming 59 percent saying they would prefer to focus on no cheating in elections.

The news comes as Democrats attempt to make universal, unverified voting a key part of their platform, while Republicans urge more safety measures. The 2020 election results continue to be hotly disputed after the injection of private, corporate cash and the introduction of unsecured and unmanned mail-in “drop boxes”.

Rasmussen data shows 52 percent of likely U.S. voters maintain that it is at least somewhat likely cheating influenced the 2020 presidential election, with 36 percent of people polled believing it is very likely. Much of the distrust in elections appears to stem from concerns surrounding the integrity of the aforementioned mail-in ballots, with 58 percent of voters believing it is at least somewhat likely that broadening the use of mail-in ballots will result in more cheating in elections. Thirty-nine percent of voters felt that this was very likely.

Just 16 percent – or fewer than one in five voters – believe that mail-in voting will not lead to more cheating.

The figures, which reveal a sizable distrust in America’s election systems, follow substantial evidence from the 2020 election that mail-in ballots and far-left activist groups were used to secure a victory for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In addition to a host of mysterious, late-night ballot dumps, left-wing groups associated with individuals including George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg influenced election rules and officials to boost turnout in Democratic districts. Many of these groups have rebranded following intense scrutiny in the aftermath of the 2020 election but appear to be engaging in similar efforts.

Establishment media outlets, social media platforms, and Democratic politicians have set out to silence individuals discussing voter fraud, despite peddling similar claims about Russian election influence throughout 2016 and the entirety of Donald Trump’s presidency. Under resident Biden, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has also targeted officials and activists fighting for election integrity by threatening criminal prosecution.

Law enforcement aware large crowds would be travelling to Capitol from the Ellipse, documents show

The man whose posting on social media warned authorities that agent provocateurs from Antifa and Black Lives Matter would be at the U.S. Capitol dressed as Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, is a self-described government informant tied to former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.

Rosenstein warned about a “soft coup” against then-President Donald Trump in fall 2020.

On Jan. 4, 2021, an account under the name @JohnHereToHelp posted on Twitter that Antifa and BLM agitators were being bussed from Baltimore to Washington to cause trouble at the Capitol on the day of Trump’s speech at the Ellipse.

“Pantifa/BLM, Balt./DC branches, are already bussing people in to disturb Jan. 6,” the post read. “Orders [were] given to dress like ‘MAGA,’ blend in [and] cause trouble, especially around cameras. At night, arson has been ordered. All to be blamed on Trump supporters attending. Please be careful.”

The post caught the attention of an assistant commander in the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Branch of the United States Park Police, who forwarded it to officials at the U.S. Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies.

The now-suspended Twitter account belonged to Ryan Dark White, also known as Jon McGreevey.

McGreevey has described himself in court papers and interviews as a former Department of Justice informant who supplied information on corruption in the federal government, law enforcement, and the Trump administration.

He once used the name Ryan White as a cover but now identifies as McGreevey. He is running for federal office in Maryland.

JohnHereToHelp’s original post was shared more than 6,000 times before it hit the radar of the Park Police.

At the time, McGreevey had more than 120,000 followers on Twitter, according to an archived version of his page stored at the Wayback Machine.

Twitter later suspended his account.

“There are multiple replies to this comment that says BLM/Antifa will wear MAGA hats backwards, wear camo, and attempt to blend in with MAGA crowd,” the Park Police official wrote to his colleagues on January 5, 2021.

The Wayback Machine archive of White’s post shows nearly 600 replies, but the replies are not visible from links on the website.

Infiltrator Warning

The emails, part of a trove of documents obtained in 2021 through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, show that federal law enforcement knew that infiltrators could be among the crowds at the Capitol.

They also back up anecdotal reports of BLM and Antifa activists from Oregon, Maryland, and other states causing disruption and committing vandalism on Jan. 6.

Trump supporters tangled with alleged Antifa provocateurs in several spots on Jan. 6, including the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol.

Victoria White of Rochester, Minnesota, scuffled with a man attempting to break an arched window adjacent to the Capitol’s tunnel entrance.

As the tightly-packed crowd chanted “[expletive] Antifa,” White wrestled for control of the red wooden club wielded by the man, who wore a green helmet with Trump stickers.

“I’m like, ‘We don’t do that. We don’t do that. Trump supporters, we don’t do that,’” White told The Epoch Times in an interview for an upcoming documentary, “The Real Story of January 6,” on Epoch TV.

“And then there’s other people [who said] ‘No, we’re all on the same team.’ I’m like, ‘No. No, we’re not.’

“Who brings something like that to a Trump rally, let alone to break out the Capitol windows?” White said. “That’s not us. That’s not what patriot Americans do. We don’t do that stuff.”

After another man got control of the club and began smashing the window, White helped pull him down before she was pulled away by other bystanders.

Members of the crowd vented anger at the vandals. “We are not Antifa!” one protester shouted. A man with a green stocking cap pulled over his MAGA hat pulled what appeared to be a stereo speaker from a backpack, spurring more howls of protest from the crowd.

At the same window, the crowd shouted at a man dressed all in black. “No, no, Antifa!” a woman yelled from the crowd. “Antifa’s breaking the windows! Antifa’s breaking the windows!”

While conducting a live stream on January 6, independent journalist Tayler Hansen recognized a protester in a gas mask from her appearance at riots in Portland, Oregon.

“I recognize you from Portland,” Hansen told the woman as she quickly turned away from the camera.

“So you’ve got Antifa here, too. You have Antifa and Trump supporters within the same vicinity here for the same thing. This is absolutely [expletive] crazy.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch include other disclosures that run counter to the prevailing Jan. 6 narrative that a mob incited by Trump rampaged to the Capitol to storm the building and upend the counting of Electoral College votes.

A “Daily Operational Snapshot” circulated by U.S. Park Police on Jan. 5 noted multiple events planned for the area around the Capitol.

“Large crowds expected to gather at and travel between the Ellipse and the U.S. Capitol,” the document said.

Other scheduled events included a Freedom Rally, Jericho March, the March for Trump, and the “Wild Protest.”

A MAGA Rally Map Guide said of the Wild Protest: “We the people must take to the U.S. Capitol lawn and steps and tell Congress #DoNot Certify on #Jan6!” U.S. Park Police circulated a copy of the map to other agencies.

The WildProtest.com website said, “The Congress cannot certify this fraudulent Electoral College. Our presence in Washington D.C. will let Members of Congress know that we stand with Rep. Mo Brooks and his colleagues in the House of Representatives who will bravely object to the certification of the Electoral College.”

The activist group ShutDownDC circulated a statement asking people to call hotels and demand they cancel reservations of “people coming to town to undermine democracy on Jan. 6.”

Whistleblower Role?

McGreevey posted on social media and his own website that he was a longtime informant for the Department of Justice.

He said he worked under Rosenstein, who became a central figure in the Trump Russiagate scandal.

According to McGreevey, Rosenstein ran what was nicknamed the “Dirty Tricks Squad” out of the Baltimore office of the U.S. Attorney.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington did not respond to a request from The Epoch Times for comment on McGreevey’s warning about Antifa or his allegations about Rosenstein and the Department of Justice.

McGreevey accused the federal government of conducting illegal surveillance on journalists, federal judges, political rivals, and other Americans, planting evidence in criminal cases, and other criminal acts.

In August 2020, he warned of a “covert coup” to be carried out by Democrats via the forthcoming presidential election.

McGreevey also made other explosive allegations in 2021 court papers, accusing Vice President Mike Pence, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and others of sexual impropriety.

McGreevey said the DOJ had scrubbed online and offline records of his academic achievements and military service.

He is one of 10 Republicans on the ballot in the primary for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. The primary will be July 19.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A key lawyer for President Donald Trump who helped draft memos that sought to investigate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election told The Epoch Times that he backs the charges by a recent committee witness that the January 6 committee lied to the American people.

Witness and former Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Ken Klukowski, who testified before the committee last week, said in a statement provided to The Federalist over the July 4 weekend, “The January 6 Committee falsely accused me on Thursday of being a go-between in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. That accusation is false both in its broad outlines and its details.”

In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, former Trump lawyer John Eastman said he supports Klukowski’s claims.

Trump critic and committee member Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) said that the testimony only shows that Klukowski was appointed to his DOJ position under the influence of Eastman—a claim that both deny.

Cheney’s Claims

Cheney claimed that together, they proposed to “overturn the election”—failing to mention this was only possible if they could prove any significant allegations of elections fraud—with the cooperation of Jeff Clark, a former assistant attorney general at the DOJ.

While it’s true that Clark drafted a letter that his bosses felt was inappropriate for the DOJ to present to the states over the election, according to the testimony presented in The Federalist, the connection between Clark, Eastman, and Klukowski to that letter is tenuous, according to Klukowski’s statement in the Federalist and Eastman’s account of his relationship with Klukowski.

According to Eastman, while Klukowski had worked with him on a memo that asked the state of Pennsylvania to grant the Trump campaign time to investigate claims of election fraud, he was also in quarantine for three weeks after catching COVID-19.

“At some point, Ken stopped working on this stuff because he had a government job and got appointed [to the DOJ position],” Eastman told The Epoch Times of their collaboration.

“The notion that I somehow placed him in the Department of Justice is just laughable,” he said.

Klukowski explained in his statement to the Federalist that he provided to the committee the September 2020 date he requested the transfer from the Office of Management and Budget to the DOJ.

“I also suggested the committee review our email exchanges confirming my testimony, since they clearly had access to that information,” Klukowski said.

A former White House staffer who coordinated DOJ appointments previously confirmed to the Federalist that the Klukowski move to the DOJ had started months before any calls to independently investigate allegations of election fraud and had nothing to do with the election.

“Ken’s transfer had nothing to do with the election,” said White House staffing coordinator Andrew Kloster.

‘Dishonest’ Narrative

The statement is part of a “dishonest … narrative that there was no basis for [these memos calling for independent investigations that we wrote] and that therefore, we knew what we were doing was illegal,” Eastman told The Epoch Times. “That’s just false.”

Eastman said that the committee is specifically lying in three different ways to advance the notion that what they did was illegal.

“Every time they use the word ‘baseless’ as describing our allegations of illegality and or fraud, that’s a lie,” Eastman said.

In fact, even before the election was held, some media outlets were claiming that any allegations of voter fraud were “baseless.”

An NPR news story published nearly a month before Election Day claimed, “In reality, voter fraud is extremely rare, though President Trump has repeated baseless claims about it being widespread.”

Eastman said that his legal argument to allow states to send alternate electors if voter fraud is proven isn’t novel, nor is his argument that there is ambiguity on the question of whether the vice president may delay the appointment of electors.

The idea that the vice president had the authority to nullify state electors had been out there “for decades, including by a lot of leftist professors, after the Bush versus Gore campaign,” he said.

Eastman pointed to an article in The Atlantic in September 2020 where legal scholars, including a group convened by UC Irvine, made the point that there is still a lot of legal ambiguity surrounding the vice president’s authority over accepting electors.

At the time, The Atlantic seemed to be worried that Vice President Pence could use his authority to slow down the counting of the electoral vote.

In reality, what the Trump campaign was trying to do was gain time for there to be a legitimate investigation of the vote totals in places like Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, Eastman said.

“We were seeking to have an investigation to see if the illegality affected the outcome of the election,” Eastman told The Epoch Times, stressing that there was no intention to illegally keep Trump in office.

Eastman also rejected the notion he said has been put forth by the January 6 committee that he ever asked Vice President Michael Pence to reject the electors outright and just declare Trump president.

“That’s not true,” he told The Epoch Times. “There are numerous examples of me saying exactly the opposite. There were others that urged that that be the outcome, but it wasn’t me.”

Presidential Pardon

The media has used Eastman’s request for a presidential pardon as an admission of guilt, saying that he knew his legal representation of Trump was advancing a crime. He said that such logic is a fallacy.

Eastman said he only sought to be on a potential presidential pardon list after Jan. 6, 2021, because of commentary that his speech had been an incitement for the crowd to riot.

On that day, Eastman appeared at the Trump rally and told the crowd that they should demand Vice President Pence delay the acceptance of electors and investigate claims of election fraud.

“All we are demanding of Vice President Pence is this afternoon at 1 o’clock, he let the legislatures of the state look into this [allegations of fraud] so that we get to the bottom of it, and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government,” he said in his speech.

When jokingly approached initially by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani about appearing on a pardon list, Eastman at first refused.

But then, after “five days of lies that my short, 3-minute speech had incited the violence,” and that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection,” he understood that whatever played out in the investigation wouldn’t be controlled by legalities, but politics.

“It was explicitly tied to the lies about my speech, and had absolutely nothing to do with my legal representation of President Trump or the efforts regarding state legislative authority,” he said of the potential presidential pardon.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Trump, Giuliani, Cheney, the January 6 committee, Clark, and Klukowski for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Elon Musk has called on an independent journalist to provide information on how the U.S. government is allegedly pressuring Twitter to suspend the journalist’s account for posting anti-vaccination content.

Musk asked Substack writer, Alex Berenson, in a July 6 post on Twitter, about Berenson’s allegation that the U.S. government had pressured Twitter to censor him for posting his opinion questioning the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

“Can you say more about this: ‘… pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter …’,” Musk said, referencing Berenson’s blog post about being suspended by Twitter.

Can you say more about this: “… pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter …”

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 6, 2022

“I wish I could,” Berenson said minutes later, responding to Musk, “but the settlement with [Twitter] prevents me from doing so. However, in the near future I hope and expect to have more to report.”

Berenson’s Twitter account was reinstated on July 6 after the social media platform “permanently” banned him over purportedly violating its COVID “misinformation” policy. This follows Berenson filing a lawsuit against Twitter in April.

In a blog post published July 6, Berenson elaborated that despite his inability to discuss his case now, he will be able to disclose further “in the near future.”

“You know what it took Twitter to admit it shouldn’t have done what it did? You do not, and I can’t tell you, because the statement is all I can say about the settlement,” Berenson wrote.

“The settlement does not end my investigation into the pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter to suspend my account. I will have more to say on that issue in the near future,” he wrote.

“I made a promise to readers last month, and I take my promises to readers seriously.”

‘Close Nexus’

What attracted Musk’s attention was Berenson’s claim that government entities were pressuring Twitter to suspend Berenson over vaccine claims.

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it—at best—as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity,” Berenson wrote in a Twitter post in August last year, hours before Twitter suspended his account.

In Berenson’s  lawsuit against Twitter, he alleges that the social media platform “acted on behalf of the federal government in censoring and barring him from to its platform.”

The lawsuit also cited the “extraordinarily close nexus” between government officials’ call for censorship and Twitter’s corresponding immediate actions.

“Mr. Berenson’s relationship with Twitter changed dramatically over the course of one week in July 2021,” read Berensen’s complaint, filed on Dec. 20, 2021.

“On Sunday, July 11, Dr. Anthony Fauci, resident Joe Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor, called Mr. Berenson’s comments about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy  ‘horrifying,’” the complaint said.

“By Friday, resident Biden himself piled on, blaming social media companies for ‘killing people’ on account of their failure to adequately censor content. Hours after resident Biden’s comment, Twitter locked Mr. Berenson out of his account for the first time,” it said.

“On August 28, in the wake of even more calls for censorship from government officials, Twitter permanently suspended Mr. Berenson from its platform, citing ‘repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.’ Mr. Berenson did not violate those rules. Twitter, on the other hand, broke its promises to Mr. Berenson as well as its policies, and violated his rights as it served the federal government’s censorship demands,” the court filing continued.

“This case raises significant questions about private power and the state of free speech in America.”

‘Troubling’

Later on July 6, Musk commented on another post by author Glenn Greenwald that alleges officials in the Biden administration “pressure or coerce private actors to censor” free speech.

“Troubling …,” wrote Musk.

Troubling …

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 6, 2022

Musk, who is still finalizing a multi-billion dollar deal with Twitter, said in May that the platform has a “strong left-wing bias”.

The billionaire also called censorship on Twitter a “civilization risk” in April and suggested in May that he will lift the ban imposed on former President Donald Trump after he takes over.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a Nobel prize-nominated physician who famously discovered and distributed an early treatment protocol for COVID, dubbed the “Zelenko Protocol,” passed away from cancer on June 30, 2022.

The next day, some Twitter users started taking note of the suspension of the account of the Zelenko Freedom Foundation, a group dedicated “to provide funding to social entities and social activities surrounding education, leadership development, health literacy, advocacy, public policy, social, health and community development,” according to their website.

UPDATE on why the account was banned: pic.twitter.com/cTl4F1IHbC

— TexasLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay) July 1, 2022

“It is no secret that big tech abhors free speech and instead worships at the altar of Marxist collectivism and group-think. The Silicon Valley speech cartel has sunk to new lows when twitter suspended the Zelenko Freedom Foundation account less than 24 hours after the passing of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko,” co-chair of the Zelenko Freedom Foundation, Ann Vandersteel, told The Epoch Times.

She maintains that no one from Twitter reached out to verify who was managing the account.

“If they had bothered to do even the most basic of inquiries they would have learned that the account was run by the foundation, not by Dr. Zelenko. The account wasn’t established for some end around their ridiculous ban of Dr. Zelekno, the account was established to represent the interests of the Foundation, which is committed to investing in individuals and technologies that will save and extend the lives of people all across the globe,” she said.

Vandersteel thinks that the suspension of the foundation’s account was done for “no reason other than petty vindictiveness.”

“The question is, what does Elon Musk think? Does he believe in saving lives or does he want those lifesaving technologies silenced?”

Zelenko had been practicing in Monroe, New York, in 2020 during the outbreak of COVID-19, and is credited with having treated about 7,500 patients with his method.

Zelenko could not sit back and wait for politicians and health officials to agree on prescribed treatments, so he came up with the “Zelenko Protocol”—a combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), zinc, azithromycin, and other drugs, including steroids, and later informed then-President Donald Trump about it via a letter.

The other co-chair of the foundation, Kevin Jenkins, told The Epoch Times that the suspension reminded him of a Martin Luther King quote:

“All we say to America is ‘be true to what’s on paper.’ If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privilege, because they haven’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so, just as I say, we aren’t going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around; we aren’t going to let any injunction turn us around.”

“When Ann and I spoke with Dr. Zelenko, regarding the mission of this Foundation he said, ‘I want the truth to spread like a mantra!’” Jenkins said.

“Our team at the Zelenko Freedom Foundation will stay true to Dr. Zelenko and Dr. King! We will fight to the end to save humanity! Come join us Zfreedomfoundation.com. Dr. Zelenko’s dream will not be deferred!” he added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

More than $77 billion of the unemployment insurance (UI) program’s total of $413 billion in payments in 2021 were made improperly, according to a report from the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (IG).

The Labor Department (DOL) “published an improper payment rate of 18.71 percent for the UI program, which resulted in an estimated $77.2 billion in reported gross improper payments,” the IG reported. The improper payment rate for the previous year was 9.17 percent, equal to about $37.8 billion.

“Additionally, DOL published an unknown payment rate of 0.21 percent, which resulted in estimated unknown payments of $865 million. These estimates were based on a statistical estimation approach that met a 95 percent confidence level, plus or minus 3 percent,” the report said.

The IG report was prompted by requirements of the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, which requires federal departments and agencies to establish and report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) improper payment rates in government benefit programs, as well as annual targets for reducing those rates.

The 18.71 percent rate of improper UI payments in 2021 represents a significant increase for the program, which saw a steadily improving trend during the previous four years of President Donald Trump’s administration.

The rate at the end of the first year of Trump’s tenure was 12.11 percent. The rate increased to 12.63 percent the following year, but then plunged to 10.21 percent in 2019, and to 2020’s 9.17 percent, according to data provided by paymentaccuracy.gov.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, told The Epoch Times on July 6 that he’s co-sponsoring legislation to address examples of wasteful federal spending like that highlighted by the IG report.

“It’s unacceptable that criminals utilized a global health crisis to defraud the United States government’s unemployment programs. Even worse, the misguided Biden administration policies, which discouraged people from going back to work, incentivized scammers to steal more money from the American taxpayer,” he said.

“Congress must now fulfill its oversight duties and help hold these criminals accountable. I am a proud co-sponsor of [Texas Republican] Rep. Kevin Brady’s Chase COVID Unemployment Fraud Act, which would empower the states to recover the money lost to fraud.”

Brady is the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee that oversees unemployment insurance.

Other Republicans on the Ways and Means panel also blasted the improper payments and lauded the measure originally introduced by Brady.

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) told The Epoch Times that “it is painfully obvious that brazen criminals capitalized on pandemic relief programs and stole billions from hardworking American taxpayers,” and she urged Biden and congressional Democrats “to work with us to take this crisis seriously, expose fraud, and hold criminals accountable. We must send a clear signal that fraud will not be tolerated.”

Similarly, Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.) said, “House Democrats refused to hold a single Ways and Means oversight hearing to address the growing problem of unchecked improper payments,” adding that “it shouldn’t surprise folks that a new, big-government program that incentivizes folks to not return to work—and had zero oversight—is ripe for fraud.”

And Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) told The Epoch Times that “the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress have shown no interest in holding these fraudulent actors accountable. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of the Chase COVID Unemployment Fraud Act, a bill to protect taxpayers by clawing back funds and recovering these improper payments. This is a priority for me now, and it will certainly remain a priority when Republicans control the House.”

On the other side of Capitol Hill, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the Senate’s most visible foe of waste, fraud, and abuse in the government, told The Epoch Times, “It’s no surprise that we are seeing a record level of fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars being reported in the wake of wasteful and unsupervised government  spending under the guise of COVID,” said Ernst. “The federal government needs to take every step possible to recover fraudulent payment and put safeguards in place to stop future abuses like this from happening again.”

The IG didn’t offer an analysis to account for the doubling of the improper payment rate in only the first year of resident Joe Biden’s administration, except to note that DOL included within the UI program expenditures made under the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) program and the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) program.

Both the FPUC and PEUC programs were included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020, the $2.2 trillion emergency legislation approved by Congress and signed into law by Trump in March 2020.

The purpose of the CARES legislation was to provide a massive economic stimulus to offset the slowdown in the national economy that resulted from the emergency measures enacted by the government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that has to date killed more than 1 million Americans.

Under the CARES Act, the FPUC and PEUC provided $600 per week in additional federally funded unemployment benefits through July 2020. The program was extended but with a reduced weekly benefit of $300, which expired on Sept. 6, 2021.

The IG report was prepared by KMPG LLP, under contract to the government.

In response to the report, DOL acknowledged that the inclusion of the CARES Act programs makes it difficult to measure improper payments. The department insisted that the figures it provided to OMB were accurate as presented, but could include an overestimate of the improper payments under the regular unemployment insurance program.

The department said it will revise its calculations in preparation for the next assessment and pledged to “take the IG’s concern, which we share, in this [revised] methodology to ensure transparent, accurate and cost-effective reporting of this expired program.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Paging Elon Musk! Wishful thinking and a proposed $44 billion buyout won’t fix Twitter’s extreme bias against conservatives. The corrupt social media platform continues to suppress conservative thought and opinion — big time — and I have the screenshots to prove it.

After quitting the social media platform in January 2021 in protest of its rampant censorship of conservatives, myself included, I decided to give it another try this week to see if the billionaire entrepreneur’s laudable support for free speech and moves to acquire the network have improved its liberal bias. Not a chance! It turns out the far-left activists that run Twitter and its secretive algorithms are still rigging the platform in the Democratic Party’s favor — in plain view — by pushing users to follow liberal lawmakers, media outlets and other lefty accounts versus conservative ones.

When rejoining Twitter this week, it asked me to select topics I’m interested in. I chose “outdoors” and “business/finance.” Then it made suggestions of who to follow. Get ready to cringe …

One of its recommendations was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a “Russia Hoax” conspiracy theorist and known misinformation peddler who led the charge on former President Donald Trump’s impeachment and currently sits on the slanted Jan. 6 House Committee trying to drum up evidence to indict the 45th president to stop him from running again in 2024.

What the heck does that liberal lawmaker — and rabid Trump hater — have to do with my preferred topics of interest? Zero.

Twitter also suggested I follow dozens of other liberal lawmakers, including resident Joe Biden’s two accounts, first lady Jill Biden, the White House, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a radical left-wing socialist who supports abolishing police despite New York’s high crime rate — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke, who’s running against Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. Of course, Twitter didn’t suggest I also follow Abbott, the elected incumbent, as that would be fair and balanced, something the “woke” activists at Twitter care little about.

The platform also encouraged me to follow Alexander Vindman, the former director of European Affairs at the National Security Council, whose 2019 Congressional testimony contributed to Trump’s impeachment. Again, what on earth does that Trump hater have to do with my interests in finance and the great outdoors?

Twitter also recommended I follow Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who never met a tax hike he didn’t like, Democrat Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Ed Markey, Chris Murphy and Cory Booker, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his spouse, Chasten. Add Reps. Ted Lieu and Katie Porter, Hillary Clinton, far-left “Squad” member Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Stacey Abrams and former Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy III.

But that’s not all. It also suggested I follow Bill Clinton, his daughter Chelsea and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, currently running for governor, who, in response to the riots and nationwide destruction following the death of George Floyd in 2020, told attendees at a Boston Chamber of Commerce event, “Yes, America is burning, but that’s how forests grow.”

Twitter didn’t suggest I follow any Republican lawmakers in Washington. Not one!

Talk about rigged! The shocking reality is Twitter may be steering potentially millions of users, otherwise known as voters, to follow influential liberal lawmakers and others in media and beyond to sway public opinion and control the political narrative to tilt elections in Democrats’ favor.

Paging the U.S. Department of Justice; that’s what real collusion and election-meddling look like.

The only Republican official Twitter did recommend I follow was Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a known RINO (Republican In Name Only) who never missed an opportunity to bash Trump while in office.

But wait, there’s more. Here’s a snippet of media outlets and so-called journalists Twitter suggested I follow. You’ll notice the vast majority have one thing in common; they all loathe Trump and his “deplorable” supporters.

The New York Times, The Washington Post, Boston Globe, Associated Press, The New Yorker, CNN’s Jake Tapper, Jim Acosta, David Axelrod, Maggie Haberman, Kaitlan Collins, Paul Krugman, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell, Ari Melber, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid and Nicole Wallace.

Add NPR, Yamiche Alcindor, “The View’s” Ana Navarro-Cardenas, former CIA spook John O. Brennan, Lincoln Project loons George Conway and Rick Wilson, Laurence Tribe, Dan Rather, Biden White House press secretaries Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre, NBC’s Katy Tur and Chuck Todd, The Atlantic writer Molly Jong-Fast, “The Daily Show,” Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and countless Hollywood leftists, including Stephen King and Rob Reiner — just to name a few.

Twitter didn’t recommend I follow top-rated Fox News or any of its hosts, despite the outlet consistently crushing its cable news rivals for decades. Nor did it suggest I follow the highly respected New York Post — founded by Alexander Hamilton — or any other right-leaning news outlets or conservative voices across the media spectrum. After scores of liberal accounts Twitter wanted me to follow, Donald Trump Jr.’s name appeared far down the list.

Gee, thanks!

As you can see, Twitter is stacked against conservatives and, with few exceptions, is acting as the de facto publicity arm of the Democratic National Committee. The powerful social media behemoth is effectively making undeclared in-kind donations to the DNC by actively directing its users — including voters — to follow liberal accounts so Democrats can spread their political ideology and narrative du jour while simultaneously suppressing conservative viewpoints, including elected GOP lawmakers who represent millions of citizens.

If that isn’t interfering in U.S. elections, what is exactly?

SOURCE: Right and Free

THE NEW DATA WILL SEND SHIVERS UP THE SPINES OF ELECTION FRAUDSTERS.

A plurality of Americans believe the upcoming midterm elections will experience fraud, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports sponsored by The National Pulse. The poll also revealed the stunning evidence that a clear majority of Americans believe the result of the 2020 election was blighted by cheating.

Fifty percent of likely U.S. voters feel that there will be “widespread cheating that will affect the outcome of this fall’s congressional elections,” including 24 percent of people who believe the prospect is very likely. Just 22 percent of voters think cheating is not at all likely to affect the November midterms, the poll reveals.

Asked, “Which is more important – Making it easier for everybody to vote, or making sure there is no cheating in elections?” just 38 percent answered they prefer to make it easier for everyone to vote, with an overwhelming 59 percent saying they would prefer to focus on no cheating in elections.

The news comes as Democrats attempt to make universal, unverified voting a key part of their platform, while Republicans urge more safety measures. The 2020 election results continue to be hotly disputed after the injection of private, corporate cash and the introduction of unsecured and unmanned mail-in “drop boxes”.

Rasmussen data shows 52 percent of likely U.S. voters maintain that it is at least somewhat likely cheating influenced the 2020 presidential election, with 36 percent of people polled believing it is very likely. Much of the distrust in elections appears to stem from concerns surrounding the integrity of the aforementioned mail-in ballots, with 58 percent of voters believing it is at least somewhat likely that broadening the use of mail-in ballots will result in more cheating in elections. Thirty-nine percent of voters felt that this was very likely.

Just 16 percent – or fewer than one in five voters – believe that mail-in voting will not lead to more cheating.

The figures, which reveal a sizable distrust in America’s election systems, follow substantial evidence from the 2020 election that mail-in ballots and far-left activist groups were used to secure a victory for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In addition to a host of mysterious, late-night ballot dumps, left-wing groups associated with individuals including George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg influenced election rules and officials to boost turnout in Democratic districts. Many of these groups have rebranded following intense scrutiny in the aftermath of the 2020 election but appear to be engaging in similar efforts.

Establishment media outlets, social media platforms, and Democratic politicians have set out to silence individuals discussing voter fraud, despite peddling similar claims about Russian election influence throughout 2016 and the entirety of Donald Trump’s presidency. Under resident Biden, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has also targeted officials and activists fighting for election integrity by threatening criminal prosecution.

Conservative leaders in Georgia and Ohio are spearheading calls for Republicans to close their state primaries and allow only voters registered with their parties to participate in inter-party preliminary elections.

Atlanta Tea Party co-founder and President Debbie Dooley and Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Renacci both told The Epoch Times that Democrats are “weaponizing” crossover voting to skew outcomes in key GOP primaries across the country either to ensure the election of moderates or to nominate candidates unlikely to be successful in a general election.

Dooley, Renacci, and other conservatives are calling on Republican lawmakers in their states to close primaries to only those registered with parties.

They join the leaders of conservative groups and GOP legislators in at least seven other states—including Alabama, Montana, Missouri, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Texas—who are lobbying for more restrictive primary elections before the 2024 election cycle.

Tide of ‘Crossovers’

“Democrats did mischief” in Georgia, Dooley said, citing analyses from The Associated Press and Landmark Communications that estimate anywhere from 67,000 to 85,000 voters who cast ballots in the state’s 2020 Democratic primaries voted in Republican primaries on May 24, 2022.

The analyses confirmed conservatives’ contention that a Democrat-orchestrated tide of “crossover” votes proved decisive as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger garnered the required 50 percent in the GOP primary to avoid a runoff against Trump-backed challenger Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.).

Dooley, the national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, said that unless Georgia tightens its primary rules, Democrats will continue to meddle in GOP primaries, especially to undermine candidates backed by former President Donald Trump.

“In 2024, if he is on the ballot, [Democrats] could use this as a weapon to stop Trump in the GOP primary,” she said.

Dooley said she has drafted a petition that calls for the state to revise its primary rules to require participants be registered with a party for 60 days prior to participating in a primary.

The petition alleges: “There were a minimum of 300,000 Democrats that crossed over and voted in the Republican Primary. Just in South Cobb, DeKalb, and South Fulton [counties], there were 118,000 reliable Democrat voters identified that voted in the Republican primary.”

Dooley’s proposed change is simple.

“Whatever primary you vote in, you are going to need to be a registered voter in that party,” she said. Such legislation “is sorely needed” to ensure voters don’t cast primary ballots for candidates “they have no plans to vote for in the general election.”

While Dooley has drafted the petition, she hasn’t aggressively circulated it because two state lawmakers have said they will sponsor 2023 bills essentially calling for the same revisions.

State Rep. David Clark (R-Buford) and Sen. Colton Moore (R-Trenton) in a June 6 press conference said they would introduce legislation “in the name of election integrity” to close the state’s primaries.

Freedom to Associate

“So all we’re asking is that the parties have the freedom to associate with their base, with their voters who are interested in their morals and their principles,” Moore said. “We’re trying to make the primary pure, and that’s election integrity.”

Georgia is one of 15 states with open primaries. In these states, registered voters of any affiliation may vote in any party primary they choose. Voters can’t vote in the primary election of more than one party each election, but open primaries are most likely to induce “crossover” voting.

Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) has already said he wouldn’t support such legislation, saying in a statement that there’s “no need to change” the state’s open primary system.

That isn’t surprising, Dooley said.

“The establishment” of both parties doesn’t want to change Georgia’s primary system because “that way, it can be used as a weapon against us,” that is, against conservatives demanding a change from the status quo, Dooley said.

Renacci agrees, noting Democrats and independent voters essentiality took over the May 3 Ohio Republican gubernatorial contest, collectively casting 56 percent of 1.08 million ballots cast.

Unless the state legislature closes primaries to only voters registered with the party, “it always guarantees that conservative candidates have a hard time winning because you are always going to get the liberals, the Democrats, to cross over,” Renacci said.

Ohio is one of six states that has a partially open primary system where voters can cross party lines and request either a Republican or Democratic primary ballot if they do so within deadlines that vary by state.

Democrats Respond

Renacci cited two 2022 Ohio GOP races influenced by crossover Democrats—J.D. Vance’s victory in the Republican U.S. Senate primary and his own defeat in the party’s gubernatorial primary.

“There wasn’t even a majority of Republicans” voting in those two Republican primaries and others on the May 3 slate, he said.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine won the party’s gubernatorial nod with 48 percent, or nearly 519,600 votes. Renacci finished second at 28 percent, nearly 302,500 votes, and fellow conservative Joe Blystone was third with 21.8 percent, or nearly 235,600 ballots.

Renacci said that during the spring Democratic groups sent emails “that said to ‘stop the radical right from taking the governor seat, the Senate seat,’ to go to the polls to vote for DeWine and [Matt] Dolan” in the GOP U.S. Senate primary.

And Democrats responded.

Of ballots cast in Ohio’s Republican primaries, only “44 percent were actual Republicans” with more than 233,000 of the 1 million votes coming from unaffiliated voters and at least 160,000 “pure” Democrats crossing over to disrupt the parties’ elections, Renacci said.

As a result, Vance, with just 32 percent of the tally, emerged from a crowded field to win the party’s nod and in November will take on U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who easily won his party’s contest.

In the GOP primary, Vance topped Josh Mandel, a former state treasurer who was supported by most conservative groups, investment banker Mike Gibbons, former state Republican Party Chair Jane Timken, and state Sen. Matt Dolan.

Talk With Legislators

Renacci said Democrats joined the race on behalf of Dolan, “a moderate at best” who had been consistently polling in surveys of “likely Republican voters” at less than 8 percent but scored more than 23 percent in the primary, only 6,000 votes behind Mandel.

With more than 230,000 non-Republicans casting ballots in the Republican gubernatorial election, Renacci said those votes were essentially the difference in ensuring DeWine would be on the ballot in November.

“If you would have removed the Democrats and independents, these votes would have all changed,” he said.

Renacci said he expects a bill seeking to close the state’s primaries to be introduced for Ohio’s 2023 legislative session.

“We are starting to talk with legislators,” he said.

Renacci also expects resistance from “establishment Republicans” and “moderate Democrats,” who “like the way” the state’s primary system is currently.

When asked if he includes DeWine among those “moderate Democrats” who like the state’s primary system the way it is, he chuckled, “You said that. I didn’t.”

Renacci’s campaign website has posted a poll that asks: “In Ohio’s primaries, should pre-registered Republicans vote on Republican Candidates and should pre-registered Democrats vote on Democrat Candidates in a closed primary system, similar to Florida and other states?”

“When you ask Republicans, should only Republicans be voting in Republican primaries, 96 percent say Republicans should be voting for Republicans, Democrats for Democrats, and independents should be registered prior to primary with either party if they want to vote in the party election,” he said.

That poll will be cited when 2023 bills seeking to close primaries are introduced, Renacci said. “Conservative legislators believe it should be done. We’re going to continue to push this.”

Cheney in Wyoming

Similar proposals to close primaries are being discussed in other open-primary states like Georgia, such as Alabama, Montana, Missouri, Texas, and New Hampshire, as well as in states with partially open primaries like Ohio’s, such as Tennessee and Wyoming.

The potential impact of crossover voting in Wyoming’s Aug. 16 Republican primary, where Trump-backed attorney Harriet Hageman is challenging Trump critic and three-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), is of particular concern.

“Don’t let the Democrats do what they did in another state last week,” Trump told Hageman supporters in Casper, Wyoming, on May 28, days after the Georgia primary, calling on Republicans to not “allow Democrats to vote in a Republican primary.”

How much influence Wyoming’s Democrats can have in a deep red state where they’re outnumbered 4-to-1 is debatable, but some analyses suggest crossover voters benefited Gov. Mark Gordon in his 2018 GOP primary victory over a field of Republican rivals which included Hageman.

Cheney, who trails Hageman by as much as 28 to 30 percent in various polls, had claimed in interviews through winter and spring with various media that she wouldn’t solicit Democrats to cross party lines and vote for her on Aug. 16.

That assurance ended in June when registered Democrats across the state began receiving direct mail from Cheney’s campaign with instructions on how to switch parties to vote for her in the GOP primary.

Cheney’s campaign website, which touts her as the best candidate to “represent all Wyomingites,” also includes “learn how to vote for Liz” with instructions for Democrats and independents to cast ballots in the Republican primary.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump said it would be a “terrible mistake” if the Biden administration decided to combat inflation by lifting tariffs on Chinese goods. Moreover, Trump said such a decision would make the United States look “weak.”

“Believe it or not, it is looking more and more like the United States is getting ready to remove the tariffs on China. This would be a terrible mistake,” Trump said in a statement released on his Truth Social account on July 5.

“Doing this would be the greatest gift that China could ever receive,” he continued. “Taking these tariffs off would be a clear signal that the United States is weak, ineffective, and doing business as usual.”

Trump began hitting China with tariffs after a U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) investigation in 2018 found that the communist regime was engaging in illegal practices, including excessive government subsidies and intellectual property theft.

Beijing retaliated by slapping tariffs on U.S. goods, bringing the two nations into a trade war.

The two countries signed a trade deal in January 2020, requiring China to buy an additional $200 billion in U.S. goods and services during 2020 and 2021, compared to 2017 levels.

However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hasn’t fulfilled its promises under the deal. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), China bought only 57 percent of the U.S. exports it had promised to buy. In other words, the Chinese regime “bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump’s deal had promised,” PIIE’s senior fellow Chad Bown stated.

Inflation

It has been more than a month since the Biden administration revealed that it was considering removing the Trump-era China tariffs. In June, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told a House hearing that “some reductions may be warranted and could help to bring down the prices of things that people buy that are burdensome.”

U.S. inflation jumped to 8.6 percent in May, the highest level in 40 years.

However, the suggestion that cutting tariffs would ease inflation is disputed by two PIIE researchers. According to their report released last month, removing tariffs on Chinese imports “could lower consumer price index (PCI) inflation by 0.26 percent point—only marginally reducing inflation.”

Citing PIIE data, the industry group Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) took to Twitter to urge resident Joe Biden to “keep the tariffs in place.”

“So… revoking tariffs won’t do anything about inflation,” AAM wrote. “But… doing so will hand the CCP a big win and undermine America’s manufacturers and factory workers.”

Read More

Ending China Tariffs Will Worsen America’s Economy

Will Chinese Tariffs Be Sacrificed on the Altar of High Inflation?

Trump praised what his tariffs on China have accomplished.

“These tariffs have brought many billions of dollars to our country, and made affected businesses, such as steel, viable again in the United States,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

“Our farmers alone got $28 billion as a gift from me, that came directly out of the tariffs because of the way they were abused by China.”

Lawmakers

Trump concluded his statement by criticizing U.S. lawmakers who wanted to remove the tariffs on China.

“Certain senators are fighting hard to get this done, even saying such ridiculous things as it ’causes inflation,’” Trump wrote, without naming a lawmaker. “Those senators should be questioned as to their real motives!”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), in his op-ed published by Daily Press on July 3, denounced the Trump-era tariffs as “direct taxes on American families and importers.” He added that removing “these tax hikes would reduce costs for consumers and allow manufacturers that rely on imported components to be more competitive in the global marketplace.”

The CCP also believes that removing the China tariffs would help ease U.S. inflation. On July 5, Zhao Lijian, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, said during a daily briefing that removing the tariffs “will strip 1% off inflation” in the United States, citing unnamed U.S. think tanks.

“Given the high inflation in the U.S., the sooner these tariffs on China are removed, the sooner it will benefit American consumers and businesses,” Zhao said.

However, two GOP senators recently said that the Biden administration is going about the wrong way to fight inflation.

“Biden’s plan to roll back the Trump administration’s tariffs on Communist China would be a step in the wrong direction, and it’s not a real solution to Biden’s inflation problem,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wrote on Twitter on July 5.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), in an interview with Fox News on July 5, said the Biden administration’s plan to roll back the China tariffs “is just another example of Joe Biden blaming inflation on anyone but himself.”

“We have had these tariffs in place for three or even four years, and we didn’t have inflation when it started,” he said. “The problem here is Joe Biden’s policies and especially his energy policy because the price of gasoline and electricity drives the cost of everything else.

“Joe Biden needs to look in the mirror at the White House if he wants to find the problem and perhaps the solution for inflation.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

‘Jacksonian Zion’

Strength is the foundation of the Jacksonian affinity for Israel. Jacksonians admire strength. They can be romantic retrospectively about past heroes and they admire courage against the odds and last stands. But they prefer winners to the “beautiful losers” favored by more sentimental observers of international politics. Israel’s triumph in the Six-Day War while the United States was struggling in the quagmires of Vietnam first drew the attention of Jacksonian America to the Jewish state. The refusal of the Arabs to make peace afterward, and the adoption of terrorist tactics by some Palestinians, heightened what Jacksonians saw as a contrast between a strong and upstanding nation and, again from their particular and partial point of view, what they saw as its cowardly, incompetent, and treacherous opponents.

It is not just Israeli strength that appeals to Jacksonian America. It is Israel’s approach to power. This can be hard for people not raised in a Jacksonian milieu to understand: some of the very things that make Israel most unpopular around the world actually make Jacksonians respect Israel more.

Jacksonian beliefs about war, for example, mesh well with some of Israel’s more controversial policies. When Hamas or Islamic Jihad fighters send a few rockets from Gaza into Israel, and Israel occasionally retaliates with its air force and tanks, much of the world is appalled by what it sees as a “disproportionate” Israeli response. Overreacting to a provocation is, many feel, as bad as launching the original attack. This is not how many Israelis feel, and American Jacksonians agree.

For Jacksonian America, the most logical and appropriate response to a terrorist attack is a massive response that breaks the will and the ability of the enemy to resume hostilities. While one should try to avoid civilian casualties if possible, the original aggressor bears all the guilt for all the deaths caused in the ensuing conflict. When American Jacksonians see Israelis launching massive attacks on Gaza and talking about trying to break Hamas in response to rocket attacks, the Jacksonians support the effort and wish Israel well. Far from agreeing with European and other critics of Israel’s response, Jacksonians wish that more of the NATO allies shared what they see as the refreshingly honest and realistic approach to war that the Israelis have. They believe that if more countries had the courage and determination of the Israelis, there would be many fewer terrorists and the world would have more peace.

Jacksonians see no problems with the controversial American prison for captured enemy combatants established at Guantánamo during the Bush administration. Similarly, they are comfortable with Israeli actions on the West Bank that many find unacceptable. Jacksonians tend to support strong and even harsh measures against terrorists, and they think the job of American presidents is to protect the American people regardless of what squeamish human rights lawyers think about the methods employed. While Israel’s actual policies are often more restrained than Jacksonians would like, and its military is far more concerned about legality than the average American Jacksonian would be in a similar situation, nevertheless Israel’s clear determination to defend its people and its military resonates deeply with Jacksonian ideas about how a country should defend itself.

A strong U.S.-Israel alliance appeals to most Jacksonians in part because they like Israel and admire its approach to world politics, but Jacksonians instinctively think in “America First” terms and their support for an alliance ultimately depends on their views of whether they think an alliance with Israel is good for the United States. Where Wilsonians look for common values in choosing allies, Jacksonians look for allies with similar interests, and by interests Jacksonians mean primarily enemies. Believing as they do that fear is the most important factor in international relations, Jacksonians look for allies who can help the United States overcome the enemies it fears. Believing as they do that nations do not act altruistically, Jacksonians look for countries who fear the same enemies that the United States fears and, ideally, fear them more than we do. That fear, and their eagerness to win American help against their enemies, will keep allies helpful and loyal. Jacksonians also look for evidence that an ally or potential ally is committed to its own security. They do not think it is America’s place to provide free guarantees to foreign countries that refuse to invest in their own defense. America’s help should go to those who are prepared to earn it.

From this standpoint, Israel appears to be an exemplary ally. The United States and Israel share so many enemies that anti-U.S. signs can often be found at anti-Israel rallies and that those most prominently associated with the cry of “Death to America!” will often also be found shouting “Death to Israel!”

Ever since the oil embargos and the seizure of American diplomatic hostages during the Iranian Revolution, Jacksonian America has mostly seen the Muslim Middle East as dominated by the hatred of America and everything it stands for. The wars in the Gulf, the long-standing hostility of the Iranian regime, and the attacks of 9/11 further strengthened this impression.

The rise of the threat of Middle East terrorism has made Israel’s position seem even more sympathetic to Jacksonians. To Jacksonians deeply concerned about what they believe to be serious and long-term threats from the Middle East, Israel looks like a good ally to have, if only because Israel’s geographical position and relations with militant Islam put it even more firmly in the crosshairs than the United States. Israel needs American help in what is ultimately a war of survival, and so Americans can count on Israel being there through thick and thin. Rather than wanting to distance themselves from Israel in the hope that this will deflect the terrorists’ wrath from the United States, Jacksonians see Israel’s regional unpopularity as an asset because it ensures that Israel is fully committed to the common cause. Beyond that, Jacksonians do not believe that it is either prudent or wise to let fear of your enemies make you abandon your friends. This, in their view, is cowardly and dishonorable behavior that signals weakness and invites attack.

Israel’s enemies have always, despite their best efforts, been Israel’s most helpful friends. It may not be rational in the sense that non-Jacksonians understand the meaning of the word, but every time a violent mob burns American and Israeli flags side by side in the Islamic world, every time a United Nations office issues what to Jacksonian ears sounds like a grotesquely one-sided condemnation of Israel for behaving exactly as Jacksonians under enemy fire would behave, every time a suicide bomber kills innocent people out of a twisted and fanatical belief, every time a village of Christians flees their ancestral homes in terror, American Jacksonians become less interested in the case against the Jewish state and more eager to deepen our alliance with it.

Finally, Israel holds up its end of the bargain when it comes to defending itself. While rich countries like Germany reject any and all American requests to pay an appropriate share of NATO’s costs, Israel invests in excellent military forces and is not afraid to use them. In 2020, Israel spent 5.6 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in Britain, 2.1 percent in France, 1.4 percent in Germany, and 3.7 percent in the United States. For many Jacksonians, Israel is a better, more trustworthy, and more useful ally than most of the NATO countries. While both Germany and Japan have had major American bases on their soil since World War II, the American military presence in Israel is minimal. Israel does more, many Jacksonians feel, and asks less, than many of the American allies that coast on American security guarantees while criticizing both Israel and the United States nonstop.

The alliance with Israel, far from looking like a strategic liability to Jacksonians, looks like a source of strength and prestige. One advantage, in the Jacksonian mind, is the signal Israel’s success sends about the wisdom of alliances with America. Israel is a small country that (until recent oil and gas discoveries changed the picture somewhat) had few natural resources and a much smaller population than many of its enemies. Criticized by Europe, ostracized by the Muslim world, Israel has only one true friend in the world—and look at how well Israel is doing. It is prosperous, extremely well armed and well integrated into global financial markets. The message to other countries: there is only one country in the world whose friendship you need. If the United States is your ally, even if everyone else turns against you, life will go well. Jacksonians believe that this perception around the world will help keep America safe.

Similarly, ever since the United States became Israel’s principal arms supplier during the Cold War, Israel’s wars and confrontations with its neighbors have served to showcase the superiority of American technology and weapons. When Israel’s American-supplied arsenal overmasters its rivals in conventional warfare, governments all over the world get two messages. First, you want to have the kind of relationship with the Americans in which you can buy their top-shelf hardware, and second, you do not want the Americans so annoyed with you that they sell the really powerful gear to your opponents.

Finally, Jacksonians have come to see Israel as a kind of symbolic surrogate of the United States. Their view of Israeli Jews—as a Chosen People with a unique message, embattled in a hostile world by the enemies of God, united against hostile outsiders in an unbreakable unity of kith and kin—applies the ideas that Bible-reading Protestant Christians in the British Isles and the American colonies once held about the ancient Hebrews to the Jews of today. It is easy for scholars and skeptics to take issue with this vision, but its roots are deeply implanted in American culture.

As Israel has gone from strength to strength it has become a kind of talisman for many American Jacksonians. Recent generations have seen Jacksonian America undergo a series of shocks and challenges. The civil rights movement undermined long-held ideas about the nature of American society and forced Jacksonians to confront some of its historical demons. A culture and belief system shaped in a rural, ethnically homogeneous America had to adapt to life in multiethnic suburbs. Feminism and the gay rights movement forced Jacksonians to take another look at the relationship of their traditional social values and assumptions to the individualism that Jacksonian culture cherishes. As Jacksonian America struggles to make its peace with a host of new forces and new ideas, signs of continuity with the past are welcome. The modern Israeli success story appears to vindicate both Jacksonian principles and biblical religion; there is a balm in Gilead that soothes the wounded soul.

Walter Russell Mead is James Clark Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute, and the Global View columnist at the Wall Street Journal. This essay is adapted from his new book, The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People, which will be published by Knopf on July 5.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The ‘independent state legislature doctrine’ is a longtime favorite of conservative legal thinkers and Republicans

The Supreme Court decided on June 30 to hear an important new case that Republicans hope will re-empower state legislatures to make rules for redistricting and governing congressional and presidential elections.

Republicans say the U.S. Constitution has always directly authorized state legislatures to make rules for the conduct of elections, including presidential elections. Democrats say this idea, encompassed by the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, is a fringe conservative legal theory that could endanger voting rights. The Supreme Court has reportedly never ruled on the doctrine.

The doctrine, if endorsed by the high court, could allow state legislatures to select presidential electors in disputed elections, something critics decry as a threat to democracy.

Election law expert J. Christian Adams, a former U.S. Department of Justice civil rights attorney who now heads the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group, praised the Supreme Court for granting the case, which he said was “very important.”

“It means that the Court may take up all the nonsense that has been occurring over the last 10 years,” Adams told The Epoch Times by email.

In a series of Twitter posts, Democratic Party attorney and election law activist Marc Elias denounced the court’s decision to hear the case.

“The Supreme Court will hear a case next term that may validate the dangerous independent state legislature theory,” Elias wrote.

“Congress must enact comprehensive voting rights and anti-subversion legislation before it’s too late,” he wrote, adding “the future of our democracy is on the docket.”

The doctrine has been in the news because conservative Republican activist Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent emails to 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona urging them to choose the state’s presidential electors despite the disputed popular vote tallies showing Democrat Joe Biden had won the state, The Washington Post reported June 10.

The emails were sent Nov. 9, 2020, after media outlets had called the Arizona race for Biden. The efforts by Republicans to change the result in Arizona were unsuccessful and ultimately the state’s 11 votes in the Electoral College were awarded to Biden.

In her emails, Ginni Thomas, a supporter of then-President Donald Trump, asked Arizona legislators to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and asserted that the responsibility to select electors was “yours and yours alone.” Lawmakers, she wrote, had the “power to fight back against fraud” and “ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen.”

The emails attracted the attention of the U.S. House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, security breach at the U.S. Capitol that delayed official congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election by several hours. Democrats also say there is a conflict of interest because Justice Thomas will participate in the court case about the independent state legislature doctrine. Through her lawyers, Ginni Thomas is resisting committee demands that she testify in the ongoing probe that many Republicans, including Trump, say is a sham.

Tim Moore, a Republican who is the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, explained why he supports the doctrine.

“The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: state legislatures are responsible for drawing congressional maps, not state court judges, and certainly not with the aid of partisan political operatives,” Moore said in March when he launched an appeal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s order redrawing the state’s electoral map against the wishes of the state’s GOP-majority legislature.

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reaffirm this basic principle and will throw out the illegal map imposed on the people of North Carolina by its highest court. It is time to settle the elections clause question once and for all.”

The elections clause in Article 1 states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

The presidential electors clause in Article 2 states gives each state the power to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Three Supreme Court justices have said the doctrine applied in the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election.

In an unsigned order issued on June 30, in Moore v. Harper, court file 21-1271, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The justices did not explain why they decided to hear the case, which is their usual practice when deciding which appeals to take on. For such a petition to be granted, at least four of the nine justices must agree. The case is expected to proceed to oral argument in the court’s upcoming term that begins in October.

Moore filed his petition (pdf) with the court on March 17.

It was preceded by an emergency application seeking to stay a Feb. 14 ruling by the Supreme Court of North Carolina that required the state to modify its existing congressional election districts for the 2022 primary and general elections. Respondent Rebecca Harper is one member of a group of 25 individual North Carolina voters.

On March 7, the Supreme Court turned away (pdf) the stay application. In an opinion concurring in the denial of the stay, Justice Brett Kavanaugh invoked the so-called Purcell principle, writing that the high court “has repeatedly ruled that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A recovered voicemail reveals resident Joe Biden called his son, Hunter Biden, in late 2018 to discuss a New York Times report on the latter’s dealings with a Chinese oil tycoon who had been charged with financial crimes.

The leaked voicemail contradicts Biden’s claims that he never spoke with Hunter about his overseas business transactions.

“I think you’re clear,” Biden said to Hunter in the audio, first released by Daily Mail on June 27. “And anyway if you get a chance, give me a call, I love you.”

The voicemail, dating back to Dec. 12, 2018, came from Hunter’s old iPhone backup on his abandoned laptop. It came after the NY Times published an article detailing Hunter’s ties with Chinese oil giant CEFC’s former chairman, Ye Jianming, who was arrested in China on bribery charges in 2018.

“Hey pal, it’s Dad,” Biden began with his message. “It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance, just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you.”

“I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good,” he said.

NEW: In 2018, Joe Biden left a voicemail for Hunter saying he wanted to talk to him about a New York Times report on Hunter’s business deals in China.

Biden repeatedly said he “never discussed” business with Hunter. pic.twitter.com/7r9VatHUoH

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 27, 2022

Hunter Biden’s Chinese Business Dealings

The NY Times reported on a private meeting between Ye and Hunter in Miami in May 2017.

Moreover, when a top aide of Ye, Patrick Ho, was arrested by the FBI for corruption and bribery in 2017, Ho reportedly called Biden’s brother, James Biden. The latter later told the NY Times that he believed the call was intended for his nephew Hunter.

According to a disclosed letter, CEFC China Energy also paid Hunter $1 million to find a U.S.-based attorney for Ho, whom Hunter once called “the spy chief of China.”

Throughout his presidential campaign, Biden repeatedly denied any knowledge of his son’s overseas business dealings.

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa in 2019, accusing then-President Donald Trump of trying “to smear” him.

During the second presidential debate in 2020, Biden went further, claiming that stories about his son’s laptop were “a Russian plant.”

Since taking office, Biden has denied such allegations on several occasions, both in person or via his press spokespersons.

The White House didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

“SMOKING GUN!” Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) wrote on Twitter upon the release of the voicemail message. “Even Big Tech can’t ignore [resident Biden’s] Hunter problem anymore,” he said in another post.

“It’s time for a hearing,” the GOP lawmaker concluded.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-spoke-to-hunter-about-china-business-deals-voicemail-reveals_4565987.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-30&utm_medium=email&est=qRQ5%2B7UaFS1SJjHNRYCj1PSv8I2DL2V%2Bcjanp64Y%2BjMc50JVlkpdhy6fln8FQxsBsg%3D%3D

Newt talks with former Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, about her new book, “Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child.”  

Audio Conversation

From coronavirus lockdowns to critical race theory in the classroom, it has become clear that America’s schools aren’t working for America’s students and parents. Newt’s guest has been fighting to improve education for every American student for nearly 40 years. Betsy DeVos spent four years serving as Secretary of Education under President Donald Trump.  Her new book, “Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child” is out now.

https://www.gingrich360.com/2022/06/28/newts-world-episode-427-betsy-devos-on-hostages-no-more/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=June%2027%20-%20Newt%20Hero%20%20General&utm_content=June%2027%20-%20Newt%20Hero%20%20General+CID_385012a4b008206fe666746640e5d362&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=Click%20Here

The U.S. Senate sergeant-at-arms who oversaw Senate security during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion died Monday at 71.

News of former U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger’s death was first reported by Politico.

Stenger, a veteran of the Marine corps, had served for 35 years in the Secret Service before joining the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms team in 2011, according to Politico.

During his time with the SAA team, Stenger had worked on matters related to security and continuity before his promotion as former Sergeant-at-Arms Drew Willison’s deputy. In 2018, Stenger became Sergeant-at-Arms.

Stenger helped ensure the smooth functioning of the Senate during the last three years of former President Donald Trump’s administration.

His responsibilities ranged from overseeing the technological needs of the upper chamber of Congress and also serving as its chief law enforcement officer tasked with managing its security.

Stenger resigned from his duties as Sergeant-at-Arms a day after Jan. 6, 2021,  Daily Mail reported.

During the time of his resignation, Stenger faced criticism over how he managed the situation during the time of the incursion, according to the outlet.

When the New York Post had reached out to Stenger’s home in Falls Church, Virginia, on Tuesday morning, a woman answered the call.

“The family is not here, it’s nobody’s business,” the lady said, refusing the Post’s request for comment on Stenger’s death. “It has nothing to do with Jan. 6 at all.”

Stenger’s death came a day before the Jan. 6 Committee’s Tuesday surprise witness hearing, where the committee heard Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testify.

During the hearing, Hutchinson, among her other claims, alleged that Trump knew that some among the crowd at the Capitol were calling for former Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged, according to reporting from NPR.

Hutchinson claimed that she heard Meadows respond to reports of the crowd calling for violence against Pence by saying that Trump thought Pence deserved it.

Other allegations Hutchinson made included claims that Trump grabbed the steering vehicle of the presidential limousine and demanded that he be taken to the Capitol when the incursion was occurring, NPR reported.

Related:

After Jan. 6 Committee Witness Accuses Trump of Assault, Secret Service Source Issues a Denial

Stenger had also testified before Congress on the events that transpired on Jan. 6, 2021.

During a February 2021 hearing with the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Stenger had called for the investigation of the role of “professional agitators” during the incursion, Daily Mail reported.

“There is an opportunity to learn lessons from the events of Jan. 6,” Stenger told the committee, according to the outlet.

“Investigations should be considered as to funding and travel of what appears to be professional agitators,” Stenger said.

“First Amendment rights should always be considered in conjunction with professional investigations.”

Experts warn unregulated abortion pills put women at risk

CNN on Tuesday promoted an illegal abortion scheme that experts say could boost a dangerous black market for abortion pills.

CNN host Poppy Harlow interviewed the head of Plan C, a group that connects women with unregulated overseas pharmacies that mail chemical abortion pills to the United States—an illegal practice that skirts federal regulations. Elisa Wells, the cofounder of the group, encouraged women to obtain the pills without medical supervision or follow-up visit, even though chemical abortion pills have roughly four times the complication rate of surgical abortions.

“What I’m saying is in common practice, that most people are not doing the follow-up visit,” Wells told Harlow. “They don’t need them.”

The group’s website, however, admits it “cannot guarantee” the illegal pharmacies it refers “will be reliable.”

Plan C’s black-market network operates alongside the thriving FDA-regulated chemical abortion pill industry. Chemical abortions outpaced surgical abortions for the first time in 2020, two decades after the pill was first approved. Still, women turn to unregulated pharmacies like those promoted by Plan C to avoid doctor visits or obtain the pills in advance of a pregnancy. Many states require women to take FDA-approved pills in the presence of a doctor and return for a visit after a designated time period.

Resident Joe Biden directed his agencies to increase access to chemical abortion pills in response to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday outlined a plan to explore how federal law can maximize access to these pills and ensure federal programs will cover them.

Wells said there is no reason for women to inform doctors that they took abortion pills when they seek medical care for side effects such as intense bleeding or lingering fetal remains.

“There’s no information that the clinician needs to have,” Wells said on CNN. “They do not need to know that you’ve taken abortion pills in order to provide safe follow-up treatment.”

But a recent Charlotte Lozier Institute study showed that women who failed to disclose they took abortion pills during an emergency room visit averaged more than three in-patient hospital admissions to treat subsequent complications—a 78 percent higher rate than women who did disclose. Tessa Longbons, a senior research associate at the institute, said groups such as Plan C overlook this data because they value advocacy over science.

“Women deserve to know the facts about the abortion pill, and unfortunately, they won’t find them in this CNN interview,” Longbons told the Washington Free Beacon. “Mailing women abortion pills with no medical oversight is literally playing games with a woman’s health.”

CNN is not the only media outlet to promote the chemical abortion pill industry in recent weeks. New York magazine published a piece in June that encouraged women to take abortion pills and lie to doctors. Several mainstream outlets have featured Aid Access, another abortion pill network, as the model group on how to provide unregulated abortion pills in areas with limited abortion access.

The FDA in December made permanent its pandemic-era decision to allow mail-in orders of abortion pills. The agency justified the decision by citing its adverse event database, which does not require reports from emergency rooms, where women often go to seek care after complications from the drugs.

Federal agencies under former president Donald Trump attempted to crack down on the abortion pill black market. The FDA in 2019 sent Aid Access a cease-and-desist letter in an attempt to counter the illegal scheme. These efforts stalled after the group filed a lawsuit.

https://freebeacon.com/media/watch-cnn-promotes-illegal-abortion-scheme/

A New York Supreme Court judge ruled on June 27 that a recently passed New York City law that extends voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizens is unconstitutional.

In December 2021, the New York City Council passed the “Our City, Our Vote” measure in a 33–14 vote. It was signed into law by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio and took effect in January, allowing foreign nationals who legally reside and work in the city to register to vote at the municipal level. The law doesn’t apply to state or federal elections.

The measure effectively created more than 800,000 new voters who would have been able to cast ballots in next year’s city council election.

A coalition of mostly Republican voters and elected officials challenged the law in court shortly after its enactment. Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, a Republican endorsed by former President Donald Trump, argued in the complaint that the law is in conflict with New York state’s own constitution.

The case was heard earlier this month by state Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio. In his June 27 ruling, Porzio sided with the plaintiffs, stressing that U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite to being able to vote in New York.

“The New York State Constitution expressly states that citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections,” Porzio wrote, emphasizing the word “citizens.”

“Though voting is a right so many citizens take for granted, the City of New York cannot obviate the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.”

In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the law would “dilute” the power of citizens’ votes and force elected officials to change the way they campaign and could possibly hurt their chances of winning future elections. Porzio found these arguments plausible.

“The weight of the citizens’ vote will be diluted by municipal voters and candidates and political parties alike will need to reconfigure their campaigns,” the justice wrote. “Though Plaintiffs have not suffered harm today, the harm they will suffer is imminent.”

New York City Council Minority Leader Joseph Borelli, a Republican representing Staten Island’s South Shore, applauded the ruling.

“Today’s decision validates those of us who can read the plain English words of our state constitution and state statutes: Noncitizen voting in New York is illegal, and shame on those who thought they could skirt the law for political gain,” he said in a statement.

“Opposition to this measure was bipartisan and cut across countless neighborhood and ethnic lines, yet progressives chose to ignore both our constitution and public sentiment in order to suit their aims. I commend the court in recognizing reality and reminding New York’s professional protestor class that the rule of law matters.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-court-rules-unconstitutional-law-allowing-non-citizens-to-vote-in-local-elections_4561501.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-28&utm_medium=email&est=dlAmQc9%2FFx4OhrJnJUiaAv3r4b5MFn0AaRV16yY8HeYqhClKCtyJeha4twU5eLFWXw%3D%3D

‘We can’t have secret units doing secret surveillance of people that have committed no crime, no probable cause of a crime. Just getting blanket surveillance.’

As previously reported in an exclusive June 20 report, evidence proves that “plainclothes” members of a special Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) were embedded among Jan. 6, 2021, protesters for the purposes of conducting video surveillance. According to experts, one believes the activity itself may have been against the law. The other contends it was done for the purpose of entrapment.

Against the Law?

Speaking as a former prosecutor and three-term District Judge, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times, “if you’re going to have electronic surveillance of people there has to be warrants.”

As Gohmert explained, “FISA courts have granted warrants,” with “no particular clarity” and “no probable cause that a crime’s been committed or that this person engaged in a crime.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). “Pursuant to FISA,” the FISC website explains, “the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.”

Regarding domestic electronic surveillance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) website, “Because of the well-recognized intrusive nature of many types of electronic surveillance, especially wiretaps and ‘bugs,’ and the Fourth Amendment implications of the government’s use of these devices in the course of its investigations, the relevant statutes (and related Department of Justice guidelines) provide restrictions on the use of most electronic surveillance, including the requirement that a high-level Department official specifically approve the use of many of these types of electronic surveillance prior to an Assistant United States Attorney obtaining a court order authorizing interception.”

Furthermore, “when court authorization for video surveillance is deemed necessary, it should be obtained by way of an application and order predicated on Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b) and the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651). The application and order should be based on an affidavit that establishes probable cause to believe that evidence of a Federal crime will be obtained by the surveillance. In addition, the affidavit should comply with certain provisions of the Federal electronic surveillance statutes.”

Gohmert surmised: “When you see confirmed judges are just willing to completely abrogate the U.S. Constitution because they’re the star chamber of the secret court, and they figure nobody will ever find out what they’re doing, then you know when you see there’s an Electronic Surveillance Unit, well, something’s not right.”

Gohmert’s concerns with the ESU surveillance are two-fold:

1. Were the legally required warrants obtained?
2. If so, how could a judge approve a warrant for surveillance before a crime has been committed and with no probable cause?

“We can’t have secret units doing secret surveillance of people that have committed no crime, no probable cause of a crime. Just getting blanket surveillance,” Gohmert asserted. “We don’t know what kind of warrant they had or even if they had warrants. But to deploy Electronic Surveillance Units tells us there’s a lot more here that we need to find out about and obviously it’s not going to be uncovered at least for another six months.”

But Gohmert added that “there is also more information we haven’t gotten and information that continues to leak out drip by drip.”

“Like this in [article] The Epoch Times,” Gohmert noted, “pointing out how until the deployment of munitions, the crowd was peaceful. I had heard from people and seen people interviewed saying there wasn’t any violence out there. ‘We were just mulling around, chanting stuff from time to time, then they started firing on us with tear gas and provoked the crowd.’ They created chaos, and you just wonder what was going on.”

The Evidence

Evidence of the embedded ESU members was discovered in a Jan. 3, 2021, First Amendment Demonstrations report, issued by Chief of Police Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times. While it is unclear who the MPD ESU “members” were, the report stated they wore a specific “bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel” among the protesters. Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the MPD, an ESU is not among them.

Also in the report, revealed now for the first time, was the advisory that the Special Operations Division “will have personnel to assist with this detail and will assist with any demonstration.” Among them were Domestic Security Officers, or DSOs.

The Special Operations Division is part of the United States Secret Service, which is part of Homeland Security.

Under the heading of “Special Operations Division — Deployment Requirements,” the report said “the Incident Commander” shall ensure that specific objectives were “adhered to.” Among those is the order that “Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) – The LRAD along with the warning sheets shall be deployed by the DSO members along with the munitions load out and arrest kits.”

Domestic Security Officers (pdf) are also part of Homeland Security’s Special Operations Division.

According to The Focus, the DSO “can be heard shouted on audio recordings of the Capitol siege, when law enforcement officers needed additional support against the oncoming masses.”

“DSOs are primarily used as riot police, to dole out such crowd control measures as tear gas, pepper spray, batons and rubber bullets intended to disperse rioters. Their weapons can be lethal and are only to be used in the most extreme circumstances.”

Video evidence shows an unidentified individual handing weapons to people through a window from inside the Capitol building.

Joseph McBride, an attorney for multiple January 6 prisoners and defendants identified a man tagged by “Sedition Hunters” as “Red-Faced 45.” The man McBride says is “clearly law enforcement,” was dressed in red from head to toe—with even his face painted red. He appears in a video engaging in continuous dialogue with others whom McBride also insists are agents embedded in the crowd.

“He passes out weapons, sledgehammers, poles, mace. Some of those things come in contact with some of the other protesters who have subsequently been charged with possessing dangerous weapons and are using dangerous weapons at the Capitol. That is clearly entrapment.

That is clearly the government creating conditions of dangerousness and entrapping members of the crowd to possess weapons and possibly use them for reasons that we cannot comprehend.”

According to a 140-page report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton—”Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol”—Capitol Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit was ordered by supervisors not to use the department’s most powerful tools, like stun guns. Also, “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”

However, the “UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK,” also obtained by The Epoch Times, says “Less lethal munitions” were “deployed to Center Steps” at 1:59 p.m. after “Insurrectionists breach Inauguration Stage and begin tearing things down” and “breach barrier at the north side of the plaza.”

It does not specify if these munitions were “flash bangs” or “tear gas.”

Prior to the deployment of munitions, a video shown on Red Voice Media shows that at 1:05 p.m., an unnamed officer is repeatedly encouraging people to climb onto the bleachers of the inaugural stage.

From multiple eyewitness accounts and video evidence, the crowds were relatively peaceful and calm until after munitions were launched and rubber bullets were fired into the crowd.

Video footage shows flash grenades being launched into a group of protesters, consisting of women, children, and elderly people, who were standing peacefully behind barriers. According to American Greatness, Capitol Police were also firing on the crowd with rubber bullets. The approximate time of the confrontation was around 1:36 p.m.

A gallery slideshow from TMZ, reporting damage “after Capitol riots” shows damage only to the fabric, not the bleachers themselves.

The evidence raises the questions:

1. Are the DSOs, rather than Capitol Hill police or the MPD, the ones who launched flash bangs into the crowd?
2. Are DSOs the ones seen in videos doling out weapons to people in the crowd?
3. What about the LRAD?

According to Acentech, a company with 70 years of acoustic expertise, “LRAD systems are a type of Acoustic Hailing Device (AHD), used to send messages over long distances. LRAD systems produce much higher sound levels (volume) than normal loudspeakers or megaphones.”

Over shorter distances, LRAD signals are loud enough to cause pain in the ears of people in their path. LRAD systems have recently been used by police as “sonic weapons” to break up crowds. At first blush, the use of noise rather than physical force might seem like a safe, non-lethal way to move and direct crowds, but if used improperly they can cause permanent hearing damage.

There does not appear to be any evidence that the LRAD was deployed.

Outrageous Government Conduct

According to Joseph McBride, the attorney for several Jan. 6 prisoners and defendants, “if they had memos that preexisted January 6, that the D.C. Police and/or the FBI or the CIA or anybody else had the time to organize and send operatives or undercovers into the crowd whether it was to collect evidence or to videotape or for any other legitimate or illegitimate purpose, this, by definition would be they had foreknowledge of what was going to happen.”

McBride added that “they could have and should have and most likely didn’t, share that information with the relative authorities.”

By comparison to the ill-prepared CDU and unused National Guard during Jan. 6, in anticipation of violent protests regarding the leaked Supreme revealing the likely overturn of Roe v. Wade, McBride noted how security was heightened and law enforcement was quick to fortify the Supreme Court building with tall fencing.

“They did not do that on January 6,” Mc Bride said.” The question is—Why?”

To McBride, Jan. 6 easily clears the high bar set to prove the rare defense known as “outrageous government conduct.”

“In most cases,” Doug Murphy Law explains on its website, “the courts presume that the government is acting reasonably when they pursue criminal charges against an individual.”

“As long as the federal government’s intentions are good, the courts will not prevent a case from moving forward. However, some conduct by the federal government is so outrageous that moving forward with a criminal prosecution violates a defendant’s due process rights. This is a high bar to prove, as it must involve acts so fundamentally unfair that justice would prevent a criminal prosecution.”

“In layman’s terms,” McBride said “it has to do with when the government behaves in a way that’s so outrageous and so out of bounds of what is decent and normal that, but for their participation, things would have happened differently that day.”

Considering the mounting evidence from eyewitness accounts that law enforcement was directly involved in encouraging, inviting, provoking, instigating, participating, and trying to cover up the truth about the origins of the violence on Jan. 6, it becomes a legitimate defense to anyone who may be charged with crimes related to Jan. 6 “because the government was engaged in a bunch of things that rose to the level of being outrageous,” McBride asserted.

“Their job is to prevent things from happening. What happened was they participated in making things happen, with advanced knowledge, and therefore, they themselves are on the hook. You can’t say John Doe and Jane Doe are going to be charged with January 6-related crimes But officer X and Officer Y, who did the same thing, are going to get a pass because they are with the government. That [expletive] doesn’t fly.”

Entrapment

“My Spidey senses tell me they used the documentation of things through surveillance was for the purposes of entrapment. The idea of an Electronic Surveillance Unit roaming through a crown is highly dubious. The only time I have ever seen law enforcement do this, they have almost always been accused of doing this to rile up the crowd,” said McBride.

Julie Kelly—a political consultant in Illinois and senior contributor for American Greatness—described Jan. 6, 2021, as “an inside job” and “something Democrats and some Republicans and federal agencies put together to entice” and “entrap” people who went to hear former President Donald Trump’s speech. She further noted that the FBI used agents to try to infiltrate the so-called militia groups. Jeremy Brown exposed a video of FBI Terrorist Task Force agents attempting to recruit him to spy on fellow Oath Keepers.

McBride described first-hand how he saw people in the crowd “at the tunnel entrance” on Jan. 6 “videotaping all over the place.”

“They were cops, clearly,” he insisted.” They were working in concert with other people in the crowd who were causing discord, using hand signals. There were people there causing the fights and there were people videoing it. The job of a police officer is to prevent crime. It’s not to record it. If something is happening, you prevent it from happening. The fact that they let it happen and sowed up only to record it, it has entrapment written all over it.”

2022 Elections

Despite what Gohmert sees as lies, injustice, and mounting unanswered questions surrounding Jan. 6, he believes the turning of the tide is dependent upon who comes out of the 2022 primary elections with control of the House and Senate, and until Congress can “properly addresses the unconstitutionality of federal judges granting warrants that never should have been granted,” Gohmert said, “this kind of stuff is going to go on.”

“If Republicans get the majority back we have got to get to the bottom of these matters,” Gohmert vowed. “There won’t be any way to undo the jail sentences of these people who were illegally entrapped. But there will be a way to put people in jail that committed crimes in order to create the chaos.”

Still, there is one of the questions that nags Gohmert.

“Since we know there were provocations on January 6 and we know that there were people that were provided weapons from people that may have been planted by the federal government, you can’t help but wonder, how many Democrats if any, who are making the most noise now about the horrors of January 6, knew that this was a setup?”

The Epoch Times reached out to the MPD for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-electronic-surveillance-unit-was-illegal-says-rep-gohmert-attorney-suggests-entrapment_4544981.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-27-3&utm_medium=email&est=coY6N%2BjpXD0bM3Krng1c%2BJIVxu4G9lIEZKJFiTQjoszX5tXp3yGfvfTP6Kz5BJSGRw%3D%3D

Gretchen Whitmer says the state has added 25,000 auto jobs since she took office. It has actually lost thousands.

Michigan Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer says she’s added 25,000 “good-paying auto jobs” during her tenure. The state has actually lost thousands of auto jobs on her watch, labor statistics show.

In a June 2 press release, Whitmer said she was “proud” to announce Michigan has “added nearly 25,000 auto jobs since I took office.” The Democrat roughly three weeks later repeated the claim, writing in a “mobility and electrification” fact sheet that she “is ensuring Michigan lives up to its legacy as the place that put the world on wheels by creating nearly 25,000 good-paying auto jobs.”

Bureau of Labor Statistics data, however, contradict that claim. Whitmer inherited 169,500 auto jobs when she became governor in January 2019, according to the agency. As of May 2022, that number is 166,700—a decrease of nearly 3,000 jobs.

Whitmer’s deceptive declaration shows how the Democrat is attempting to rebound on economic issues following her stringent stay-at-home orders, which shuttered local stores but deemed marijuana dispensaries, lottery ticket vendors, and big-box retailers “essential.” While Whitmer has touted leading the “best economic recovery in Michigan history,” a June WalletHub report ranked Michigan 46th in unemployment claim recovery.

Michigan Rising Action communications director Mary Drabik said Whitmer’s “gaslighting” on auto jobs is “not surprising.”

“When Gov. Whitmer’s claims are this far detached from reality, it becomes difficult to believe anything she says,” Drabik told the Washington Free Beacon. “But coming from the governor who claims her nursing-home policies saved lives and vacationed in Florida while telling Michiganders to avoid flying south, the gaslighting is not surprising.”

Whitmer’s office acknowledged that the governor’s claim stems from “the number of jobs announced since January 2019,” some of which are not yet actualized. Still, Whitmer communications director Bobby Leddy said the governor “is proud of her record of job creation, particularly in the auto industry, as we move to cement Michigan’s legacy of manufacturing.” Leddy did not address why Whitmer’s statistic does not account for jobs that have left the state since 2019.

This is far from the first time Whitmer has faced criticism for failing to deliver on a claim. In April 2020, the Democrat pledged to give back a portion of her salary for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic. But Whitmer ended the pledge just five months later in September, even as her indoor gathering restrictions and public face mask requirements lasted for 15 months.

Whitmer, who implemented a policy that required nursing homes to accept positive coronavirus patients who were discharged from hospitals, is up for reelection in November after a roller coaster of a first term. Whitmer’s national profile exploded during the beginning of the pandemic thanks to her harsh restrictions and public feud with then-president Donald Trump. Whitmer went on to ramp up those restrictions, which sparked large protests, particularly as the Democrat defied her own rules.

Whitmer’s potential Republican opponents include political commentator Tudor Dixon, chiropractor Garrett Soldano, and businessman Kevin Rinke. Republican voters will choose their nominee during Michigan’s August 2 primary.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/michigan-governor-wont-stop-lying-to-voters-about-job-gains/

A cheat sheet giving U.S. resident Joe Biden specific instructions on how to behave was captured on camera during a June 23 conference.

The 79-year-old president unintentionally held up the pre-written staff notes, titled “Offshore Wind Drop-By Sequence of Events” at a White House meeting with wind-industry executives. The snapped sheet contains a list of bullet points, which begin by telling Biden to “enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants.”

Next, the instruction reads “YOU take YOUR seat.”

The president should also give two-minute comments after reporters arrive, as the paper instructs, and ask AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, joining virtually, one question after the press departs. Ignoring the guidance, Biden spoke for over seven minutes at the event.

The notes end with “YOU thank participants” and “YOU depart.”

This is not the first time the 46th president inadvertently flashed his note card to reporters and photographers. Last July, Biden was seen alerted by an aide to remove a speck from his chin via a handwritten message during a live-streamed event at the White House.

The president was spotted in March carrying a cheat sheet containing possible tough questions with potential responses on Vladimir Putin, after he previously stated in Poland that the Russian leader “cannot remain in power,” causing confusion as to whether the United States was seeking to topple the Russian regime. He also confused Iran with Ukraine in his first State of the Union speech amid the Russian invasion.

A host of Biden’s so-called gaffes since he took office have also drawn fire from Republicans and raised further suspicions over his mental well-being. Almost 40 Republican lawmakers requested in a February letter that the president take a cognitive test, which is beyond “a partisan issue,” following the example set by former President Donald Trump.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, however, laughed off a question in an interview with CNN earlier this month, when asked about Biden’s physical and mental capabilities.

“You’re asking me this question? Oh my gosh,” Jean-Pierre said in response. “He’s the president of the United States. … That is not a question that we should be even asking.”

Last November, after Biden underwent a physical examination and colonoscopy, his doctor Kevin O’Connor said the president “remains fit for duty. ” He did not specify whether Biden took a cognitive exam.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-cheat-sheet-shows-a-reminder-to-take-your-seat_4555323.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-25-3&utm_medium=email&est=opeS1nyNKQXqyfnOaytyKXCmuOXOsOul%2F2FSs3fN%2FBxcv7kUGe59eKP2R0Q7BkQUbA%3D%3D

Federal agents raided the home of former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark on Wednesday morning, sources familiar said.

While it was not clear which agency the agents belonged to, a neighbor spotted officials entering and leaving Clark’s Lorton, Virginia, home, according to ABC News.

From 2018 to 2021, Clark served under the Trump administration as Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

After the 2020 presidential elections, Clark actively supported former President Donald Trump’s voter fraud claims.

Clark had been accused of being part of a plot to remove then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen from his position.

As per the plot, once Rosen was out, Clark would replace him and then force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn the results of the presidential elections, the New York Times reported.

Former DOJ officials, including Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue, had testified that Trump indeed sought to replace Rosen with Clark during the twilight days of his term as president, Politico reported.

Clark, however, denied involvement in such a plot, according to the Times.

ABC News reported that a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., confirmed “there was law enforcement activity in that area” on Wednesday.

The spokesperson, however, refused to specify who that “law enforcement activity” targeted, according to the outlet.

Clark’s employer, The Center for Renewing America, confirmed the news of the raid, CNN reported.

“The new era of criminalizing politics is worsening in the U.S. Yesterday more than a dozen DOJ law enforcement officials searched Jeff Clark’s house in a pre-dawn raid, put him in the streets in his pajamas and took his electronic devices,” Center President Russ Vought said.

All because Jeff saw fit to investigate voter fraud. This is not America, folks. The weaponization of govt must end. Let me be very clear. We stand by Jeff and so must all patriots in this country. 2/2

— Russ Vought (@russvought) June 23, 2022

“All because Jeff saw fit to investigate voter fraud. This is not America, folks. The weaponization of government must end. Let me be very clear. We stand by Jeff, and so must all patriots in this country,” Vought added.

Related:

Ted Cruz Makes Bold Prediction on Potential SCOTUS End to Roe v. Wade

“Absolutely disgusting. And it is even worse that they’re clearly working in conjunction with the Stalinist J6 Committee for maximum public relations,” Editor-in-Chief for the Federalist Mollie Hemmingway said of the Wednesday raid.

Absolutely disgusting. And it is even worse that they’re clearly working in conjunction with the Stalinist J6 Committee for maximum public relations. Just awful. Horrifying that this Soviet-style approach is happening here. https://t.co/61zA9VawY0

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 23, 2022

“Just awful. Horrifying that this Soviet-style approach is happening here,” Hemmingway added.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton slammed the raid as a political attack.

UPDATE: Rule of law at Biden DOJ has completely collapsed — mass targeting and abuse of political opponents for daring to question his controversial election. This is KGB-style “justice.” https://t.co/L1SEOutcky

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) June 23, 2022

“Rule of law at Biden DOJ has completely collapsed — mass targeting and abuse of political opponents for daring to question his controversial election,” Fitton wrote on Twitter. “This is KGB-style ‘justice.’”

President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court should keep an eye on the reporter who unveiled the potential ruling that it would criminalize abortion in the United States.

A leak to the press in early May appeared to show the Supreme Court’s draft majority opinion striking down Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that made abortion a constitutional right nationwide in 1973.

Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the leak shortly after and directed the court marshal to investigate the rare breach.

“The U.S. Supreme Court must find reveal and punish the leaker,” Trump wrote in a June 22 post via his social media site Truth Social. “Go to the reporter who received the leak,” he said, calling it “a tremendously serious matter that has never happened, to anywhere near this extent, before.”

The former president appointed three conservative justices to the high court during his presidency.

Although a final opinion from the Supreme Court is expected soon, the scoop, co-written by Politico reporters Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, set off a political earthquake across the nation.

Congressional Republicans have decried the unknown leaker and demanded that they are found and punished, while resident Joe Biden and Democrat leaders blasted the attempt to overturn legal protections for abortion.

Pro-abortion activists have since rallied at the court’s doorstep, Catholic churches, and judges’ home addresses. A recent report reveals more than 40 attacks against pro-life individuals and organizations have been recorded since the leak of the draft opinion.

Trump previously denied the revelation, which he said “cheapens the court,” will have a major impact on the 2022 midterm elections.

And despite his assertion that authorities should “go to the reporter,” disclosing the identity of a confidential source without his or her consent can subject a journalist to civil liability. Most states also have shield laws in place to protect journalists against the compelled disclosure of confidential information, including anonymous sources and unpublished notes.

The draft opinion almost runs to 100 pages, including 67-page opinion along with a 31-page appendix.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-suggests-go-to-the-reporter-to-find-roe-v-wade-leak-source_4552835.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-23-1&utm_medium=email&est=ddvdnaqzNt84NdEUkpZz2Of8ZW0b9M%2FQyuifFko9xGmwHKMYHwosvD%2FcewieWDTgHQ%3D%3D

Marc Elias is a glutton for punishment.

Fresh off a string of embarrassing defeats in court, the Democrat superlawyer revealed Wednesday that he is representing Andrew Gillum, the Democratic Florida gubernatorial nominee who lost to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R.) in 2018. Gillum faces a 21-count indictment for conspiracy, fraud, and making false statements, supported by detailed financial records and testimony from undercover agents.

Gillum withdrew from politics after police found him intoxicated in a hotel room full of drugs.

Like other Democrats Elias represents, Gillum is accused of shameless and long-running corruption. The disgraced ex-pol allegedly siphoned political contributions into his personal accounts, accepted unreported gifts, and worked with donors to conceal top-dollar contributions. Gillum may have defrauded liberal moneyman George Soros of up to $137,000. Nonprofit organizations also number among Gillum’s supposed victims.

Elias is a strange choice for Gillum’s legal team. Unless being friends with the Clintons counts, Elias has little apparent experience with federal criminal defense. Authorities unsealed the indictment on Wednesday, which is supported by reams of bank records and informant testimony.

The indictment generally paints a picture of a political circle built on looting and fraud. In a particularly jarring accusation, prosecutors accused Gillum and a top aide, Sharon Lettman-Hicks, of ransacking Gillum’s gubernatorial campaign for cash after DeSantis won the 2018 race. Gillum and Lettman-Hicks allegedly funneled $60,000 from the campaign to an entity they controlled, “P&P,” as “reimbursement” for a fake get-out-the-vote effort. The pair are accused of splitting that money between themselves.

It’s the same tactic the two allegedly deployed against an unnamed donor, who appears to be George Soros. The donor gave $250,000 to Gillum’s campaign, according to the indictment. Soros contributed exactly that sum to Gillum in spring 2018. Lettman-Hicks put $100,000 from that contribution toward Forward Florida, a pro-Gillum super PAC. The remaining funds were directed to P&P and allegedly disbursed to Gillum and Lettman-Hicks.

That accusation is especially awkward for Elias, because Soros is a longtime ally. The reclusive billionaire funded a multi-state challenge to voter ID laws in 2016 which Elias oversaw as general counsel for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. After former president Donald Trump beat Clinton, Elias joined the board of a powerful, Soros-funded super PAC.

Apart from allegedly bilking his own campaign for cash, Gillum is accused of pocketing a portion of $200,000 in contributions he finagled out of two nonprofits. The nonprofits are not named in the indictment. The donations were supposed to support the Gillum-backed Campaign to Defend Local Solutions. Lettman-Hicks is accused of ripping $50,000 from that contribution and paying it out to Gillum as a salary from P&P.

The National Black Justice Coalition acted as fiscal sponsor for the Campaign to Defend Local Solutions.

Other allegations detail alleged favor-trading and attempts to hide massive campaign contributions. Gillum and his aides allegedly talked with undercover federal agents for months about a six-figure donation to Forward Florida, the pro-Gillum PAC. The agents posed as developers interested in purchasing property in the Tallahassee area. The group discussed how they might conceal the source of the donations. And Gillum promised to look favorably on their development proposals, the indictment alleges.

Those same undercover agents hosted Gillum in New York City in 2016, where they provided accommodations, a private boat tour of the city harbor, and tickets to the Broadway musical Hamilton. And on a separate occasion, one of the agents picked up a $4,000 dinner tab for the mayor and his supporters. None of those gifts were disclosed on ethics forms or campaign reports.

The indictment further claims that Gillum lied about his conversations with the undercover agents when questioned by federal authorities.

After losing to DeSantis, Gillum joined CNN as a paid contributor. He is the latest ex-CNN fixture to wind up in a federal courtroom. Anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti, who appeared on the little-watched network over 120 times according to a Fox News tally, is serving a five-year prison sentence for convictions in New York State court and is awaiting sentencing on federal convictions for embezzlement, fraud, and obstructing investigations.

Notwithstanding detailed evidence from financial records and testimony from undercover agents, Elias is sure the government’s indictment is all wrong.

“The government got it wrong today. The evidence in this case is clear and will show that Mr. Gillum is innocent of all charges. We look forward to putting this case to rest and giving Andrew and his family peace of mind once and for all,” Elias said in a statement.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/dem-superlawyer-marc-elias-adds-corrupt-florida-pol-to-loser-client-list/

Ohio Democrat takes page from GOP firebrand Lauren Boebert in attempt to distance himself from party

What do you do when running for office as a Democrat in resident Joe Biden’s America? Talk like a Republican—at least if you’re one Ohio Senate candidate.

From praising former president Donald Trump on trade to sounding the alarm about the southern border, Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio) is trying his hardest to avoid being lumped in with the rest of the Democratic Party. Earlier this month, Ryan proposed a House resolution that would designate fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.” That resolution appears to be lifted from a bill proposed the day before by one of the most right-wing members of the House, Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert (Colo.), who also called fentanyl “a weapon of mass destruction that is destroying our nation.”

Ryan, who will face against Republican nominee J.D. Vance in November, is considered a long shot by political analysts. Trump won Ohio by more than 8 points in 2020 and the seat Ryan is running for is occupied by a Republican, the retiring Sen. Rob Portman.

His strategy highlights the difficulty for Democratic candidates trying to pitch themselves as moderates in the current political environment. Biden is the most unpopular president at this point in his term in almost a century, according to the polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight, a fact largely driven by skyrocketing inflation. For Ryan, executing this strategy could prove difficult: FiveThirtyEight also found that Ryan votes in line with Biden’s position 100 percent of the time. 

“Any Democrat running this November is gonna have a tough time running with Biden as president,” said Democratic political consultant Dick Harpootlian, a longtime friend of Biden, when asked about Ryan’s conservative messaging. “Biden is beset by huge issues and problems that are not playing well in America right now. I mean, we saw it in 1994 after [former president Bill] Clinton did well in 1992.”  

At campaign stops around Ohio, Ryan seeks to distance himself from the Democratic Party by offering a moderate and pragmatic message. In May, Ryan was conspicuously absent from a Cincinnati event where Biden spoke about the necessity of passing a domestic manufacturing bill. The White House later said Biden and Ryan were “in close touch.”

“We’ve got to get away from the Democrat-Republican thing, all these stupid fights,” Ryan said at a campaign event last month. “And we can only do that by being Americans first. China and Russia, they want us to keep fighting with each other. And to me, it’s playing right into their hands.” 

Ryan’s rebrand attempt began in April when he released an ad claiming he has spent his entire political life “sounding the alarm on China” and voting “against bad trade deals.” That ad backfired after left-wing Democrats accused him of xenophobia against Chinese Americans. 

Following the Biden administration’s announcement that it would end Title 42 restrictions on the southern border—a federal power first used by Trump that gives law enforcement the ability to rapidly deport migrants—Ryan called the decision “wrong and reckless,” breaking with top Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).

“Prematurely ending this policy without a path forward does nothing to keep Americans safe, support our Border Patrol agents, protect asylum-seekers, or bring about the comprehensive fix our immigration system needs,” Ryan said at the time. He has also called a “strong border” a “basic American value,” a stark contrast to his rhetoric in 2018 when he said Trump’s “zero-tolerance immigration policy” showed he didn’t have an “ounce of humanity.”

His change of heart could be a product of problems on the minds of Ohio voters. As one of the states hardest hit by the opioid crisis, many voters in Ohio blame the Biden administration’s lax border policies for the influx of fentanyl there. Ryan’s rhetoric on the issues, however, hasn’t been followed by action in the House. Although Ryan introduced a fentanyl resolution nearly identical to Boebert’s Republican proposal, for example, he has yet to cosponsor her bill—a move that would increase its likelihood of passing.

Ryan’s office did not respond to a request for comment asking whether he plans on cosponsoring the Republican bill.

Shortly after Vance clinched the Ohio Republican Senate nomination in May, Ryan offered praise for Trump—who endorsed Vance in the Republican primary.

“I agreed with Trump on trade,” Ryan says in an ad that debuted earlier this month. “I voted against outsourcing every single time. We’ve gotta get tough on China. Let’s make things in Ohio again.”

Ryan sent a letter on June 10 to Biden demanding the White House not lift any tariffs against China, alleging that such a move would “strip the U.S. of leverage in negotiations” and “inundate American companies with a slew of imports they may not be able to withstand.” He implored Biden to “prioritize American workers and American manufacturing companies.” The letter came after reports that Biden was considering lifting many of the tariffs in an effort to lower inflation.

As the midterms approach, Ryan seems to have pivoted on trade issues as well. During the Trump administration, Ryan called the China tariffs just a way for Trump to “look tough.” In an interview with the Washington Post, he called Trump’s actions “abominable and must be revised immediately.”

“[Trump’s tariffs are] designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal gain,” Ryan tweeted in July 2018.

Vance has labeled Ryan an opportunist and dishonest. Ryan has responded by saying he is happy to talk about his past comments on a variety of issues, including trade.

“My record is very, very clear,” Ryan said last week. “We can squabble about some of the details of it, how things are implemented and all the Washington stuff in the details we have to deal with. But my record is very, very clear on this.”

Update, June 21, 11:15 a.m.: This piece was updated with additional information on Ryan’s voting record.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/tim-ryans-master-plan-for-midterms-run-like-a-republican/

NEWT:

They are not just desperate. Remember from, their standpoint, all the issues that really matter doesn’t matter what Biden is doing. They are desperate to guarantee the right to have a tax paid abortion on the last day of the birth. They’re desperate to impose radical values in second and 3rd grade. They are desperate to keep the border open. I mean, this is a very issue oriented rather than personality oriented movement. And they look at the Republican’ potential victory and it scares them. Because the Republicans are going to stand for less government. Less inflation. Controlling the border. Locking up criminals, a tragic story we just heard a few minutes ago. I think on the left, there is a sense that this could be the moment they really do start getting defeated as a force in America.

NEWT:

Politics is a tough business. People are allowed to do anything they can to win. Within the law. And, if you figure out that you can help nominate somebody that’s easier to beat, that’s, you know, that’s your right. But it’s very dangerous. Because, in fact, in a lot of these cases, they are going to nominate people who they really deeply dislike but who are going to win. And they are going to govern based on their values not based on money from the democratic party. So, I have a hunch that whether it’s Dr. Oz winning in Pennsylvania or J.D. Vance winning in Ohio, there are a whole number of places people who are really populist and really against socialist big government are going to come out on top this fall. And the left sitting there thinking what happened? How can could this have happened?

NEWT:

Well, I think they are in a different position. Every week that goes by, Donald Trump’s presidency looks better. Look at his inflation rate, look at the price of gasoline when Trump was president. People find his I think his personality too aggressive and at times too annoying. But his policies certainly had turned America around. And in Biden’s case, he doesn’t just fall off his bicycle, he takes the country him with him. And you look at Biden’s inflation record which is worse than Jimmy Carter. Look at Biden’s open door policy in the southern border. Biden’s allies releasing murderers. A lot of reasons why the country on policy grounds would favor Trump over Biden and the latest poll I link was like 6 or 8 points.

AFTER YEARS OF HIDING IT, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IS APPARENTLY ADMITTING THE TRUTH BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

The director of the World Health Organization privately believes the COVID-19 pandemic resulted from a leak from a Chinese laboratory, according to a new report which undermines the publicly stated position of the global health chief.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus – the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) – had previously stressed how unlikely the long-derided “lab leak” theory was, despite evidence to the contrary. Now, according to a report from the Daily Mail, Dr. Tedros “confided to a senior European politician that the most likely explanation was a catastrophic accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

The quiet admission in support of the “lab leak” theory is especially at odds with the public position of his WHO, whose affiliated scientists have often branded the hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory” and sought to silence the voices of those who claims otherwise.

The admission also follows the WHO launching a COVID-19 origins investigation that ultimately discredited the “lab leak” theory in favor of a “natural origins” theory. At the time, The National Pulse exclusively revealed that several researchers included on the team retained compromising links to the Chinese Communist Party, most notably EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak. Advisors to the Chinese Communist Party also served on the team.

Daszak and his partners conducted research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology using funds from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci. Using this million-dollar grant, the lab has worked on isolating bat coronavirus strains capable of “direct human infection” and is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.

MUST READ: MSN Quietly Deleted a Story Revealing That Severe COVID-19 is Rarely Found in the Unvaccinated.

The lab also appears to have engaged in gain-of-function research, which manipulates pathogens to become more lethal and transmissible to humans. The lab has done similar research on other viruses including influenza and monkeypox.

The WHO sponsored a second COVID-19 origins investigation following its botched first attempt, leading Dr. Tedros to publicly admit that “we do not yet have the answers as to where it came from or how it entered the human population” this month.

Tedros himself has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, helping the regime expand its financial and political control over his home country of Ethiopia while serving in government.

Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempted to shift away from relying on Tedros, the World Health Organization, and even Anthony Fauci. He was widely ridiculed and maligned at the time, despite the mounting evidence that most of the above actors are now either totally discredited, or have rowed back from their original COVID-19 claims.

Strong, virtuous fathers are the foundations of close-knit families and a better world. While households the world over are preparing to celebrate Father’s Day, honoring their share of the protective fatherly love in their lives, let’s not forget the brave dads who are being persecuted in communist China, either for their faith or for defending human rights.

Here are some of these soul-stirring life stories—which will forever be listed in the darkest chapters of human history—revealing how communist ideologies are anti-divine, and a threat to humanity and world peace.

‘My Father Believes This Is God’s Message, and I Believe My Father’

It has been almost 1,770 days since the prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng went missing on Aug. 13, 2017. Gao has been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

A devoted Christian and known as the “Conscience of China,” Gao was on good terms with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) until he stood up to defend members of persecuted faith groups: Christian family churches and Falun Gong practitioners. He had been repeatedly arrested and tortured over the years and was formally arrested in 2006 after he wrote open letters to the top Chinese leadership condemning the suppression of faith.

When in prison, Gao was subjected to brutal torture, such as being shocked with electric batons, having his teeth knocked loose, and even having toothpicks stabbed into his genitals. Gao was under house arrest for years before suddenly disappearing on Aug. 13, 2017; the family hasn’t heard anything about him since.

Gao’s wife, Geng He, and his two children, who had faced constant harassment from the police, escaped to the United States in 2009 with the help of underground faith groups. Residing in a free country this past decade, Gao’s family has never stopped speaking out and worrying about his whereabouts.

His daughter, Grace Geng, believes that her dad’s book, the Chinese title of which translates to “Year 2017: Stand Up China,” has an unwavering message for the world—that the CCP will soon collapse. “My father believes this is God’s message, and I believe my father,” Grace said during the launch ceremony of the book in Hong Kong on June 16, 2016.

‘My Family is Just One Example Out of Thousands’

A 22-year-old student at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, has been advocating for his parents’ release. His father—a “rare talent” and renowned professional in the petroleum industry—was accused of sending informational text messages about the persecuted spiritual practice of Falun Gong via Bluetooth at a subway in Beijing.

Jack Zhiyuan Liu’s parents, both former engineers at the China National Petroleum Corporation, had faced imprisonment and persecution for their faith years ago. And on Nov. 19, 2021, they were arrested once again, according to Minghui.org—a U.S.-based website dedicated to reporting on the persecution of Falun Gong in China. His mother, Cao Wenbei, was released a month later, but his father, Liu Zhoubo, is still detained at Beijing No. 3 Detention Center.

“The CCP’s persecution of Falun Gong is destroying lives and families,” Jack told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times. “What had happened to my family is just one example out of thousands.”

Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa) is an ancient self-cultivation discipline based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. The atheistic communist regime has been violently persecuting the spiritual practice since July 1999. The CCP-led campaign of persecution that ensued 23 years ago has left numerous adherents detained, arrested, and subjected to extreme torture, including having their organs forcibly harvested for profit.

In the past, Jack’s parents, grandmother, and uncle had been imprisoned for 1 1/2 years for practicing Falun Gong. His father had also been sentenced to 9 years in prison before being released in 2010—a period that Jack described as “hell” for his father, as the elderly man was subjected to torture, starvation, and death threats in prison.

‘I Have Been Trying to Do Anything That Could Possibly Help My Father’

On Feb. 2, 2013, Jewher Ilham was supposed to accompany her father, Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur economics professor in China, to Indiana University for a month as a visiting scholar. However, when the Chinese authorities restricted her dad from leaving the country, she ended up taking a flight alone from Beijing to the United States.

That fateful day at the airport would become the last time she’d see her dad, to this day. Jewher’s father was arrested and later sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of inciting separatism—a charge that she said was unfounded. “He had never mentioned a word about separating the country,” Jewher told China Uncensored.

Jewher has been increasingly worrying about her dad since 2017—the year when the world came to know about the Xinjiang re-education and internment camps; her family in China had lost contact with her father that same year.

To seek her father’s release, the young daughter has been advocating for him.

“I have been trying to do anything that could possibly help my father and my community. I don’t know if it’s helping, I don’t know if anything would help. I just don’t want to regret,” she said.

Jewher had also met the then-President Donald Trump at the White House in July 2019, together with other survivors of religious persecution, and spoke at the UN General Assembly. In December 2019, she accepted the 2019 Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament on her father’s behalf for the defense of human rights.

‘I Dream One Day We Can Be Together Again’

A young Chinese refugee, Eric Jia, had a happy family, which became nonexistent the day his dad was arrested; he was only 3 years old at that time.

Eric’s father, Ye Jia, was also arrested for practicing Falun Gong. Like his father, Eric’s close relatives, including his grandmother and aunties, had also been arrested several times for the same reason and had been subjected to different forms of torture while imprisoned.

For instance, in April 2013, when Eric’s father was in jail for an eight-year sentence, guards tortured him by pouring pungent liquid into his nose while hanging him upside down; the guards refused to allow him to seek treatment when he vomited blood for months later.

“He was locked in a small room for six years, with two to three prison guards watching him every day,” he told The Epoch Times in a previous interview.

Eric’s father was last arrested in September 2017 and released three months later in December after Australian Greens Senator for Victoria Janet Rice sent a letter to the mayor of Xi’an, China, in November 2017, urging him to release Ye Jia “immediately and unconditionally.” Eric’s story mirrors that of many other overseas Chinese Falun Gong practitioners whose families are still being persecuted by the CCP in mainland China. Eric fled to Australia with his mother in 2012 and has been raising awareness of the persecution.

“There is nothing wrong to have faith in Falun Dafa. The CCP used all kinds of means to make us give up our beliefs,” Eric said to a crowd that had gathered at Martin Place in Sydney in 2018 to commemorate the lives lost at the hands of the CCP.

“I dream one day that they can be free and we can be together again.”

No Hope for Reunion

While many families are waiting anxiously for the day they can reunite with their fathers, for countless others, this reunion day would never arrive.

For instance, 20-year-old Xu Xinyang lost her dad in the brutal persecution.

“In my memory, most of my childhood was spent in fear and horror,” said Xu Xinyang at a forum on Dec. 4, 2018, on Capitol Hill to highlight the deteriorating human rights situation in China.

Xinyang’s parents, both Falun Gong practitioners, were arrested by the Chinese regime for printing materials to expose the persecution of their faith. Her father was sentenced to eight years in prison when her mother was pregnant with her. Xinyang’s father died 13 days after he was released.

Due to the brutality of the persecution, Xinyang never saw her dad until she was 8 years old, she told the audience at the forum.

“He wanted to hold me, but I was scared and hid behind my mom. I refused to let him hold me because I never had a chance to know him,” she said. “This became my lifelong regret.”

Even after her father was persecuted to death, Xinyang and her mother were not spared. The police even arrested her school principal and some of her teachers, all of whom were Falun Gong practitioners. Xinyang was wanted by the police. Fortunately, she managed to flee to Thailand with her mother when she was 12 and arrived in the United States in 2017.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/this-fathers-day-dont-forget-the-dads-unlawfully-jailed-in-chinas-dark-prisons_3389947.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-19-3&utm_medium=email&est=oXKjxYSEE0%2F69Uw9leqbNoZ8g9GyWWWZCo%2F52pvw5TmVRzbfWu0YunrwWcSXbNuBZw%3D%3D

Four key House Republicans are questioning a $500 million earmark sought by resident Joe Biden for an international group headquartered in Oslo, Norway, and led in the United States by political appointees of former President Barack Obama.

The $500 million would go to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI), a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), which was formed in 2017 by the governments of Norway and India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and the World Economic Forum (WEF), according to the group’s website.

The website claims that “CEPI’s early coronavirus investments combined with its global focus, multi-sectoral partnerships, and ability to move quickly resulted in 20+ vaccines against COVID-19 and its variants.” The website also quotes Microsoft founder Bill Gates as crediting CEPI with helping “develop COVID-19 vaccines in less than a year.”

It’s not clear how CEPI can claim credit for vaccines that were prompted and overseen by the Operation Warp Speed program initiated at the outset of the virus in the United States by then-President Donald Trump in 2020.

Shortly after leaving the Obama administration, Dawn O’Connell, former Counsel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Obama, became CEPI’s Washington, D.C. Executive Director, according to the House GOPers in a June 16 letter. O’Connell is now back at HHS as Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), a position in which she could be helpful to CEPI.

The signers are Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), the Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

All four of the GOP signers could become chairs of their respective committees if Republicans retake the House majority in the November congressional elections. Their letter was addressed to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young, and Samantha Power, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Acting Administrator.

“President Biden’s FY23 budget calls for a specific allocation to CEPI through no evident bidding process. In addition to the creation of a $4.5 billion Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness Fund to contract with international health organizations, the budget request includes a separate $500 million line item for CEPI,” the GOP letter signers wrote.

“This $500 million request for CEPI is significantly larger than the federal government’s previous five-year distribution of $20 million, making the United States the single largest contributor to CEPI,” the letter continued.

“The lack of transparency and justification for this funding increase raises concerns. Furthermore, CEPI’s close ties to the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administrations, suggest a revolving door of politically-connected personnel where Administration friends are rewarded with federal dollars,” the letter said.

In addition to moving from HHS to CEPI and then back to HHS, O’Connell, during her four years running the NGO’s Washington office, “lobbied the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in ‘support of appropriations from USAID to CEPI… [and an] Unsolicited Proposal Concept Note… for possible cooperative agreement funding relationship,’” according to the letter, citing federal lobbying records.

The letter further notes that O’Connell has never registered as a foreign lobbyist and that “CEPI’s current Director of the U.S. office is Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served as ASPR under the Obama Administration.”

A spokesman for CEPI did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment. A spokesman for O’Connell did not reply after asking The Epoch Times for written questions and being given these queries:

Why did she not register as a foreign agent during her tenure in CEPI’s Washington, D.C. office as required by the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) statute, given her employment and lobbying activities targeting USAID?

Has she recused herself as ASPR from any decision-making process, both formally and informally, at HHS that potentially could result in federal dollars or other resources being directed to CEPI?

With whom at OMB or elsewhere in the White House has she discussed the proposed $500 million grant to CEPI prior to today?

The four GOP letter signers want to know how the Biden administration can justify a 2,400 percent increase in funding from the federal government’s current $20 million annual contribution to CEPI.

The signers also want to know if any other NGOs were invited to be considered as alternative grant recipients and which federal agencies, offices and individuals were consulted about CEPI during development of the $500 million grant proposal.

In addition, the signers want to know why has “no lobbyist for CEPI ever registered under [FARA], given the primary beneficiaries of such a large infusion of taxpayer dollars will be the foreign governments funding the group’s operations?”

On its website, CEPI describes the CCP Virus that is also known as the COVID-19 as the main reason for its formation for the development and implementation of the NGO’s proposal of a plan it claims can eliminate the prospect of any similar pandemics in the future.

“As COVID-19 has so amply demonstrated, emerging infectious diseases represent an existential threat to our way of life. It was not the first and, unless we take dramatic action, will not be the last pandemic of the 21st century,” according to the CEPI website.

“But unlike some of the other big threats that humanity faces, we have the tools to substantially reduce and even to eliminate the risk of future pandemics. A decade ago such an ambition would have seemed utopian; now, having compressed a decade of technology development into less than 12 months, it is well within our grasp—if we take action,” according to the site.

The site claims that “CEPI has secured financial support from Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Canada, Denmark, the European Commission, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, The Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, USAID, and Wellcome.”

Top Department of Justice (DOJ) officials have chastised the House of Representatives committee investigating the U.S. Capitol breach that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, for not handing over transcripts of interviews they’ve conducted.

“It is now readily apparent that the interviews the Select Committee conducted are not just potentially relevant to our overall criminal investigations, but are likely relevant to specific prosecutions that have already commenced,” Assistant Attorney Generals Kenneth Polite Jr. and Matthew Olsen wrote to the panel in a letter dated June 15 that was docketed in a federal court on Thursday.

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” they added later, urging the panel to reverse its position.

Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, also signed the missive.

The office of Graves submitted the letter in a case against members of the Proud Boys who are charged with crimes in relation to Jan. 6.

Prosecutors said the DOJ “has neither access to the transcripts, nor the ability to compel Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to provide copies of the transcripts.” They also said they do not oppose pushing back the trial of the defendants due to the transcripts not being available.

“We got the letter yesterday, we are reviewing it, we will respond to it, but we are in the midst of conducting our hearings,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House panel on Thursday.

We have a program to get over, we have to get the facts and circumstances behind Jan. 6. We will work with them, but we have a report to do. We are not going to stop what we are doing to share the information that we have gotten so far with the Department of Justice. We have to do our work,” he added.

Thompson told reporters in May that he rebuffed a request from DOJ officials to turn over transcripts, describing them at the time as “the committee’s work product.”

The transcripts would be shared after the panel’s work is done, Thompson added.

Lawmakers on the panel cannot bring criminal charges, but they can make criminal referrals. Thompson said recently that the panel wouldn’t make any referrals; some members said that decision has not been made yet.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, head of the DOJ, told reporters this week that he is watching the hearings the panel is holding. “And I can assure you that the January 6 prosecutors are watching all of the hearings as well,” he said at an unrelated briefing in Washington.

Garland said the DOJ is working to “hold all perpetrators who are criminally responsible for Jan. 6 accountable, regardless of their level, their position, and regardless of whether they were present for the events of Jan. 6.”

The Jan. 6 House panel has interviewed over 1,000 people in its probe, including many who have not been charged with a crime. The list includes former President Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump; former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and Bill Stepien, who managed Trump’s 2020 campaign.

The panel is holding hearings in June, with the third one of the month completed Thursday. Leaders have said they plan to issue a report by the end of the year.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/department-of-justice-criticizes-jan-6-committee-for-not-turning-over-interview-transcripts_4538552.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-17-2&utm_medium=email&est=9rZsiqB042CRTvCG5vIJtr%2F11tisORDXdfj3fmWFmsHKM15Oi4XjQ6tG0dV4b025vg%3D%3D

Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr bolstered the Jan. 6 House committee’s case that the 2020 presidential election was the “most secure in history.”

He also did his best to debunk former President Donald Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him, the Trump-appointed Republican testified in a recorded deposition that aired nationwide on June 13.

He told the committee he hadn’t seen any evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could have affected the outcome of the presidential election.

Documentary filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza couldn’t disagree more.

D’Souza’s latest movie, “2000 Mules,” contains detailed evidence of an organized illegal vote-harvesting scheme operated in Democratic-dominated cities in key swing states in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election—a crime that many voters and the Trump campaign want independently investigated to determine if it could have altered the result.

Teaming with True the Vote, a public interest election watchdog organization, D’Souza and a squad of investigators purchased 10 trillion cellphone pings (unique identity signals) to reconstruct the movements of suspected ballot traffickers.

The states included in the study were Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Texas.

The group also obtained and reviewed thousands of hours of government surveillance tape of the drop boxes where the alleged traffickers, whom they called “mules,” could be seen depositing multiple ballots on multiple occasions.

Four million minutes of drop box video were reviewed in Georgia alone.

The painstaking and costly 15-month study was funded by donations from the human rights organization First Freedoms.

The video review was part of the process the group used—along with personal interviews with traffickers and information from tipsters—to estimate the number of fraudulent absentee ballots that were likely deposited in the drop boxes.

True the Vote cyber-expert Gregg Phillips estimates that 4.8 million votes were trafficked nationally in 2020.

During his deposition, Barr laughed as he mentioned “2000 Mules.” He said the film’s cellphone tracking investigation and photographic evidence were “unimpressive,” and that its conclusions were “indefensible.”

According to Barr, the documentary “didn’t establish widespread illegal harvesting.”

True the Vote spokesperson Catherine Engelbrecht told The Epoch Times, “Over 80 percent of Americans are concerned about election integrity.

“Bill Barr took some cheap shots with his fellow Beltway buddies, but America isn’t laughing.”

Engelbrecht said the Department of Justice under Barr did very little to investigate the 2020 election.

“Instead, he mocked President Trump and disregarded nationwide entreaties for help.

“Now, he’s supporting the January 6 Committee and their use of cellphone data—so reliable they rush to jail Americans without trial.

“Yet, when the same data is used to expose patterns of drop box abuse and election fraud, he is totally disinterested,” Engelbrecht said.

On Twitter, D’Souza challenged Barr to a public debate on election fraud, writing, “What do you say, Barr? Do you dare back up your belly laughs with arguments that can withstand rebuttal and cross-examination?”

Engelbrecht told The Epoch Times: “We have not been asked to present our findings to the committee, nor will we be. They will never risk giving us that platform.

“Their interest is not in getting to the truth. Never has been.”

D’Souza told The Epoch Times, “The hearings are one-sided propaganda, not an attempt to get to the truth.”

He has repeatedly said that the evidence presented in “2000 Mules” is “indisputable,” and invites people to judge for themselves.

Trump responded quickly to the June 13 hearing, firing off a 12-page rebuttal.

He wrote that the Democrats “are desperate to change the narrative of a failing nation. … They own this disaster. They are hoping that these hearings will somehow alter their failing prospects.”

Michigan grassroots conservative activist Robert Gelt told The Epoch Times, “Jan. 6 would never have taken place if it wasn’t for the adamant refusal of the primary law enforcement officer of our federal government, Bill Barr, to get the Department of Justice involved in investigating the Nov. 3, 2020, election.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/barrs-jan-6-committee-testimony-provokes-push-back-from-election-watchdog-group_4536667.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-16-2&utm_medium=email&est=WwJ7RxOBaJ4Gshxyl%2BfjO%2F%2BnTs07TXAQuBNm6wEMGs2kzuwVGDciYQilMk%2BOsj2kuQ%3D%3D

The FBI’s top national security official had dozens of improper meetings with journalists and accepted tickets from one journalist to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, interactions that FBI officials said were a “no-no” and “dangerous.”

Michael Steinbach, who served as an FBI executive assistant director, failed to report the gifts on his federal financial disclosures, according to an inspector general report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. He met regularly from 2014 until his abrupt retirement in February 2017 with 7 reporters and had contact with 21 others. His interactions with journalists overlapped with his work on major counterterrorism cases and Crossfire Hurricane, the ill-fated investigation into collusion between the 2016 Donald Trump campaign and Russia.

The report, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, is the latest example of a top FBI official accepting gifts from journalists. The former head of FBI public affairs, Michael Kortan, received baseball game tickets and other gifts from CNN and New York Times reporters. Journalists also plied Steinbach’s former deputy, Bryan Paarmann, with a variety of gifts.

The FBI prohibits employees from accepting gifts from a “prohibited source”—a category that includes journalists—without prior authorization. FBI officials told the inspector general that off-the-books meetings like Steinbach’s could “lead to a lot of problems” within the bureau.

“You never know what can be said. You don’t know under what conditions it can be said. So it can lead to a lot of problems,” an FBI official told the inspector general’s office.

Steinbach is not accused of leaking classified or sensitive information, but the inspector general’s report details numerous conversations he had with journalists about breaking news stories. The watchdog also determined that reporters gave gifts to Steinbach “because of his official positions with the FBI.”

Steinbach eagerly sought invitations to swanky media industry parties, such as the Radio-Television Correspondents’ Dinner and the White House Correspondents’ Association’s annual gala. According to text messages and emails in the watchdog report, Steinbach on March 25, 2015, began soliciting an unnamed reporter for tickets to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Steinbach attended the next year’s event and an afterparty, according to the report. Steinbach did not disclose the gift, which was valued at $300.

Steinbach’s host is not identified, but text messages show him joking with a journalist from a different outlet about attending the gala.

“I put you on the map and now you’re cheating on me with [reporter’s first and last name]?” a CNN reporter wrote Steinbach in April 2016.

“I kept waiting for my invite from you,” Steinbach replied.

The CNN reporter is not identified, but Steinbach in February 2015 conducted one of his only television interviews, with CNN’s Pamela Brown.

Steinbach in an email after the dinner thanked his host. “Thanks for hanging out with us last night,” Steinbach wrote in an email titled “Great Night.” He told the reporter he “would love to grab … drinks” at some point in the future.

It is unclear where the reporter worked, but some news organizations have policies against reporters giving gifts to sources. The Los Angeles Times, for example, prohibits staff members “from accepting gifts from or giving gifts to news sources, potential news sources, or those who seek to influence coverage.”

Steinbach is one of several officials who worked under ex-FBI director James Comey to run afoul of FBI guidelines. Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was fired in 2018 after the inspector general found he lied in October 2016 to internal investigators about authorizing leaks to the media regarding an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Peter Strzok, who oversaw the Crossfire Hurricane probe, was fired after the discovery of anti-Trump text messages on his FBI cell phones.

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment. Steinbach, who is now head of fraud prevention at Citi, did not respond to a request for comment.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/dangerous-top-fbi-official-had-close-relationship-with-dozens-of-journos-accepted-tickets-to-white-house-correspondents-dinner/

The world’s richest person is slamming Twitter’s “bias against half the country” and demanding answers after Twitter allegedly did not remove accounts of users who made death threats against a conservative user.

“A platform cannot be considered inclusive or fair if it is biased against half the country,” Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wrote on June 13, in response to another Twitter user’s post on the same day saying, “On a just platform, everyone would be treated equally. As it is, you can be banned [on Twitter] for merely criticizing (not even threatening) woke progressives, but they can send conservatives death threats without any repercussions.”

A platform cannot be considered inclusive or fair if it is biased against half the country

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 14, 2022

Musk’s comments came after a dozen Twitter users allegedly directed death threats against Twitter user Libs of TikTok—short for Liberals of TikTok.

“I have now received about a dozen death threats after radical leftists accused me of being a domestic terrorist extremist,” Twitter user Libs of TikTok wrote. “Twitter has not removed any of the accounts of those who sent the threats.”

In reply to the post, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tagged Twitter and asked, “Why?”

Why? @Twitter

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 14, 2022

Libs of Tiktok, a Twitter page with more than 1.2 million followers and operated by Chaya Raichik, regularly posts content criticizing liberal, left-wing, and LGBTQ events and ideas.

For example, Libs of Tiktok wrote in a post on June 13, “A children’s hospital in Nebraska is co-hosting a children’s pride event. They advertise there will be a booth where attendees can make an appointment for ‘gender affirming care’ such as puberty blockers.@ChildrensOmaha receives millions in funding.”

A children’s hospital in Nebraska is co-hosting a children’s pride event. They advertise there will be a booth where attendees can make an appointment for “gender affirming care” such as puberty blockers. @ChildrensOmaha receives millions in funding. https://t.co/LKrKHkArpR pic.twitter.com/nvp1j9ZCvb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 13, 2022

Raichik’s stance has drawn hostility from some on the left, including a Twitter user with the handle “@thisisironicfr” who claimed to have sent her a pipe bomb on June 13.

Hi @FBI, I’m being threatened with a pipe bomb. Can you please look into this? pic.twitter.com/u9Vu2QT9Yp

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 13, 2022

In response to Musk’s post, Raichik posted on June 13 “receipts” of Twitter users who sent death threats against her.

Receipts! pic.twitter.com/txvVu7XVos

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 14, 2022

Elon Musk, who is negotiating a multi-billion dollar deal with Twitter, said Twitter has a “strong left-wing bias” in May. The billionaire also called censorship on Twitter a “civilization risk” in April and suggested in May that he will lift the ban imposed on former U.S. President Donald Trump after he takes ago.

According to conservative commentator Jack Posobiec, the exchange between Musk and Raichik will be “interesting” considering Raichik is one of the first people who obtained internal discussions of Twitter employees about banning her page.

As far as I know @libsoftiktok is one of the first people to ever leak actual internal comms from within Twitter

And now she is talking to @ElonMusk

Things just got a whole lot more interesting

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 14, 2022

“We received our third Twitter suspension just last week for posting fliers of pride events,” wrote Libs of Tiktok in a June 14 article on its website, within an hour of Musk’s reply to the post about death threats. “I had created a ‘mega drag thread’ which documented the sharp rise in drag events for kids. It’s a disturbing trend; the Left has become obsessed with ensuring your 4-year-old has access to men dressed as women while dancing provocatively for cash.”

“The fact that I was noticing—and drawing attention to how widespread this trend really is—seemed to trigger the Left.” the article reads. “The below Slack conversation between Twitter employees occurred today against this backdrop, and echoes some of the charges leveled at us by far left activists.”

“As you can see, they’re weighing the pros and cons of banning us,” the article added. “But again, you don’t need leaked messages to know just how biased and agenda-driven these people are.”

“It only confirms what we already see with our own eyes every day.”

Correction: This article previously misstated the full name of Libs of TikTok. Libs is short for Liberals. The Epoch Times regrets the error.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musks-slams-twitters-bias-against-half-the-country-and-inaction-on-death-threats-to-conservative-user_4531637.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-14-2&utm_medium=email&est=q2fb4kjNIAIiyrHskFCLXec0D2Kp8CmDJ3l0LJGdEu8SUSN0f2O7bVC2H%2FezDHUFbQ%3D%3D

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach altered a text message exchange between him and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“We also know that this committee has altered evidence and lied to the American people about it, so much so that they had to issue a statement which says, ‘We regret the error,’ which is government-speak for, ‘We got caught lying,’” Jordan told Fox News on Monday. “So, that’s what this committee is about. I think the country sees it for what it is—a partisan, political activity.”

The GOP lawmaker was referring to the Jan. 6 committee having acknowledged in December 2021 that it doctored a text message between Jordan and Meadows and also excluded content about how they had wanted former Vice President Mike Pence to handle electoral votes during the Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 6.

Late last year, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the head of the House Intelligence Committee, showed an image during a hearing about communications between Meadows and others, including Jordan. It was displayed as the House committee was discussing whether to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress.

The message was presented as follows, “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”

Schiff at the time described the message as an attempt by Jordan to suggest that “the former vice president simply throw out votes that he unilaterally deems unconstitutional.”

However, it turned out the text message was a direct quote from Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, according to The Federalist, and not from Jordan himself. The message was also edited to cut off the rest of the sentence, which read in full: “… in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.”

A spokesman for the House Jan. 6 committed told The Epoch Times in December that the message was doctored.

On Monday, Jordan, who is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox that last Thursday’s televised hearings on the Jan. 6 committee’s findings presented no new information.

“I still don’t think there was anything new there,” Jordan remarked. “It’s kind of like the home team playing at home, and the ref’s on their side and they still can’t win the game.”

Panel members last week and on Monday claimed that former President Donald Trump orchestrated a scheme to overturn the election and suggested that he directed protesters to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

“Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the committee, during the broadcast last week.  “A brazen attempt … to overthrow the government. Violence was no accident.”

The House committee, which consists of seven Democrats and two Republicans, held another hearing Monday. Another one is scheduled for Wednesday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/rep-jordan-says-house-jan-6-committee-altered-evidence-showing-nothing-new_4530723.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-14&utm_medium=email&est=rdiB4%2FhzgD6YHoFlELOkJ0LRdUTzBGpxOylwIFIlbttQrqcsPm61BzcCsDhUEXZb8Q%3D%3D

Members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol say they have enough evidence to indict former President Donald Trump.

“I would like to see the Justice Department investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump,” said committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

The Hill has more on Schiff’s remarks:

“The evidence is very powerful that Donald Trump … began telling this big lie even before the elections, that he was saying that any ballots counted after Election Day were going to be inherently suspect,” Schiff told moderator Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week.”

Since its first public hearing last week, the committee has argued that Trump fueled the anger that day that resulted in violence, threats to lawmakers, the injury of dozens of police officers and the death of Ashli Babbitt.

Schiff also said that there is enough evidence that links Trump with white nationalist groups before the riot, adding that the connection will be a clear focus of their investigation.

“Let me ask you, is there an actual conversation between people in Trump’s orbit and Proud Boys, Oathkeepers?” Raddatz asked Schiff. 

“Well, you know, as I think the committee already disclosed and has been publicly reported, of course, there are connections between these white nationalist groups and some in Trump’s orbit,” Schiff exclaimed, although he added that he wouldn’t get into specifics until the hearings got to that point.

Committee members were tight-lipped on other Sunday news shows about what viewers can expect at this week’s hearings. However, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) agreed with Schiff that there is “overwhelming” evidence Trump participated in a “criminal conspiracy.”

The announcements have prompted speculation that the Jan. 6 committee is paving the way for U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict Trump on criminal conspiracy charges.

Others were decidedly more skeptical.

Anyone expecting Merrick Garland to indict Donald Trump for felony sedition or conspiracy might consider that he was unwilling to charge either Mark Meadows or Dan Scavino with misdemeanor contempt.June 4, 2022

The first hearing claimed that multiple congressmen asked for pardons following the Capitol riot, but only named one, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.).

Members of the committee, including Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said they believed the request for pardons showed Perry and others knew they had done something illegal.

Perry has vigorously denied ever asking Trump for a pardon.

Three days of hearings have been scheduled for the coming week, on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday.

CNBC adds:

Monday’s hearing is slated to begin at 10 a.m. ET. The committee is expected to focus on Trump’s misinformation campaign and the lack of evidence supporting allegations of election fraud.

https://www.americanliberty.news/capitol-hill/jan-6-committee-says-it-has-enough-evidence-to-indict-trump/phouck/2022/06/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ae01&seyid=6225

FBI agents, just weeks before the 2016 election, opened an investigation into allegations of a secret communication channel between Donald Trump and Russia. The bureau closed the probe after several months but did not make public that it had dismissed the claims, which came from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and a group of researchers.

Details of the FBI’s analyses, and CIA treatment of the claims, emerged during the trial of ex-Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann.

‘Jumped to Conclusions’

The white paper and data handed over to the FBI by Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016, asserted there was a “secret email server” used by the Trump Organization that was communicating with Alfa Bank in Moscow through “another unusually-configured server” at Spectrum Health in Michigan.

“These servers are configured for direct communications between the Trump organization and Alfa Bank to the exclusion of all other systems,” researchers wrote. “The only plausible reason,” they claimed, “is to hide the considerably recent email traffic occurring between the Trump organization and Alfa Bank.”

Scott Hellman, an agent who specializes in investigating cyber crimes, took the first crack at the allegations with Nathan Batty, a colleague. The pair spent inside of a day examining the data, and quickly concluded that whoever penned the white paper “had jumped to some conclusions that were not supported by the technical data,” Hellman testified.

The allegations were based on purported “look-ups,” or Domain Name System requests, between mail1.trump-email.com, the server allegedly controlled by Trump’s business, and servers belonging to the Russian bank. DNS lookups are a way for a computer to find another computer’s Internet Protocol address (IP address), a unique number needed for communication between computers.

The researchers said they tried to connect with the Trump server and that the server would not accept mail from their IP address, or returned what was essentially an error message, Hellman said. The researchers used that, among other data, to suggest the Trump server would only communicate with certain devices, such as those linked to Alfa Bank.

“That didn’t make sense to me. It was sort of like if I knocked on your door, and you told me to go away—I don’t want to talk to you—I’m then going to assume that you’re only willing to talk to other people. I can’t make that assumption. I don’t know if you’re willing to talk to anybody. But that’s what they had done,” he said. “When they received an error message, they assumed that that computer wasn’t willing to talk to them, but it was willing to talk to others, and there was no evidence to suggest that. So assumptions like that is what I was referring to.”

Hellman and Batty wrote in their assessment that they found it suspicious that the activity the researchers highlighted began just three weeks before the researchers began their investigation. They called it “abnormal” that Trump would name the supposed secret server a name that included his name, use a domain registered to his own business, and communicate directly to Alfa Bank’s IP address as opposed to masking the communications.

They also said that Russia’s state-sponsored technical abilities “exceed the [operations] of that suggested in the report.”

Hellman, who is still with the FBI, said in a chat message at the time that the paper “feels a little 5150ish.” He said he meant that “perhaps the person who had drafted this document was suffering from some mental disability.”

Batty wrote that the data was “intended to overwhelm and confuse the reader.” “We think it’s a setup,” he later told Dan Wierzbicki, an FBI supervisor.

‘No Evidence’

Under pressure from then-FBI Director James Comey and other senior officials, a hybrid cyber-counterintelligence team based in Chicago took control of the data and opened a full investigation, the most serious step the FBI could have taken.

Thumb drives containing the white paper and the underlying data outlined the conclusions reached by the researchers and some of the data they used, but that was just a “snapshot,” forcing FBI investigators to “create the whole picture from scratch,” Allison Sands, the agent who led the investigation, said on the stand.

Sands, now with Roku, compared it to trying to assemble a puzzle without the benefit of having a box at which to look.

The Trump domain was on a server in Pennsylvania owned by a company named Listrak, an internet server provider. The domain was registered to a company named Central Dynamics, which is based in Florida. The domain was being leased from GoDaddy.

Agents reached out to the companies for data and answers. Listrak confirmed that the server was only configured to send emails, not receive any. It also provided some 135,000 records. Central Dynamics provided closer to 500,000 records and GoDaddy handed over a similar amount.

The Chicago team determined that the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank servers “almost certainly did not communicate intentionally or covertly,” according to a heavily redacted assessment dated Oct. 3, 2016.

The determination was based on an examination of the allegations conducted on behalf of Alfa Bank. The examination concluded the Alfa Bank servers may have conducted the DNS lookups in response to spam emails sent by Listrak or Central Dynamics.

“Alfa Bank’s conclusions corroborate current FBI investigative activity, which has not identified any evidence to support the whitepaper’s hypothesis that Alfa-Bank and Trump Organization servers intentionally, covertly communicated via DNS channels,” the document stated.

It was learned that Central Dynamics established the domain in partnership with the Trump Organization in 2009 but the company never used the domain, which had only received about 14 emails, all of which were blocked as spam or malware.

“It was largely dormant for the lifespan of its life, was currently inactive, and that it was entirely a ‘from’ email address, so it only sent outbound messages,” Sands explained.

Additionally, the FBI saw that in logs from Listrak, the server had sent emails to over 30,000 domains in 107 countries, none of which were affiliated with Alfa Bank, according to the document on the closing of the investigation.

“From all of the U.S. companies we had spoken to, of the logs that we had looked at, as well as the Mandiant report from the Alfa Bank servers, there was no evidence that this covert communication channel existed,” Sands said.

“Our investigation was unable to substantiate any of the allegations in the white paper,” said Curtis Heide, another FBI agent involved in the probe.

Listrak and Central Dynamics did not respond to requests for comment. Rodney Joffe, another client of Sussmann; his business associate April Lorenzen; and Georgia Institute of Technology professors David Dagon and Manos Antonakikis, who created the white paper and compiled the data, did not respond to inquiries. Several of the researchers were poised to testify, but were not called after they said they would plead the Fifth Amendment.

‘Did Not Pass Analytical Muster’

The other piece of the allegations involved Spectrum. Researchers said the nonprofit healthcare company was essentially being utilized as an intermediary between Trump’s business and Alfa Bank, through a The Onion Router (TOR) node, a technology designed by the U.S. government that enables anonymity.

FBI investigators went to a website, TORproject.org, to see if any of Spectrum’s servers were or had ever been used as a TOR node, and found that they had not.

The agents also received logs and records from Spectrum, and “did not see any unusual activity,” Sands said.

That part of the allegations “did not pass analytical muster,” Ryan Gaynor, an agent monitoring the investigation for senior leaders from the Washington area, testified. “It didn’t have merit.”

“In 2016, media coverage alleged internet traffic between a computer server affiliated with the Trump organization and the computer servers of Alfa Bank (a Russian bank) and Spectrum Health. Spectrum Health does not and never has had any relationship with Alfa Bank or any of the Trump organizations,” a Spectrum spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.

“As we have previously stated, we concluded a rigorous review with both our internal IT security specialists and expert cyber security firms. That review’s detailed analysis of the alleged internet traffic did not find any evidence of any actual communications (no emails, chat, text, etc.) between Spectrum Health and Alfa Bank or any of the Trump organizations. While we did find a small number of incoming spam marketing emails, they originated from a third party,” the spokesperson added.

CIA Conclusions

According to special counsel John Durham’s team, which prosecuted Sussmann—the lawyer who was acquitted—the CIA also analyzed the allegations, and concluded they were not only not true, but were not plausible.

Sussmann went to the CIA in early 2017, apparently frustrated by the FBI’s investigation. He met with a retired agent first, then with two agents on Feb. 9, 2017.

Sussmann handed over white papers and underlying data purportedly supporting documents, which included allegations involving Trump’s business and Alfa Bank and allegations concerning Russian-made phones, according to a memorandum of the meeting and testimony by one of the agents.

In court papers, prosecutors referred to the CIA as “Agency-2.” They said that CIA analysts believed the data from the researchers was fabricated.

“While the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not ‘technically plausible,’ did not ‘withstand technical scrutiny,’ ‘contained gaps,’ ‘conflicted with [itself],’ and was ‘user created and not machine/tool generated.’” prosecutors said in a filing before the trial.

Little was said on the subject during the trial because U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, ruled that prosecutors could not broach the possibility of the data being spoofed unless the defense did. Defense lawyers did not bring it up.

There were several moments, however, when statements slipped through.

When presented with an email Joffe sent to his group just five days before Sussmann gave the data to the FBI, Heide said that “it appears, from this email, that this report may have been fabricated.”

The statement was later struck from the record, as was the email.

Cooper also ordered redacted a portion of the report authored by Hellman and Batty that said the data “might have been intentionally generated and might have been fabricated,” according to Andrew DeFilippis, one of the prosecutors.

“I will not allow [Hellman] to talk about whether it’s fabricated or spoofed,” Cooper said, adding that doing so would encroach on his order.

Ankura, a Washington-based consultancy hired by Alfa Bank, said in a previous report (pdf) obtained by Just the News that its analysis of records and the timing of the allegations suggested that somebody mimicked the Central Dynamic servers to send fabricated emails, or “inauthentic DNS queries, ” to Alfa Bank “to create a connection between Alfa-Bank and the Trump Organization.”

The CIA didn’t respond to an inquiry. The Epoch Times has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the CIA documents.

Years of Speculation

Speculation about the nefarious activity alleged in the white paper continued for years as the FBI and CIA remained silent about their findings.

The first stories about a possible secret link between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank ran in Slate and the New York Times on Oct. 31, 2016—just one week before the presidential election.

The logs the researchers studied “suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence,” Slate reporter Franklin Foer wrote in his article. “We don’t yet know what this server was for, but it deserves further explanation,” he added later.

Foer was one of multiple reporters in communication with Fusion GPS, the firm hired by the Clinton campaign that conducted opposition research on Trump, before his article was published.

The New York Times said the FBI was investigating the purported link but “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”

In March 2017, CNN reported, citing anonymous sources, that the FBI investigation into the matter was still ongoing. That was false, according to the trial documents and testimony.

The New Yorker, in late 2018, published a lengthy article suggesting there was a secret channel between Trump’s business and the Russian bank.

Only Slate’s article has been corrected, and not since a day after publication. Some of the stories still contain false information; all have outdated details. Spokespersons for the publications did not respond to requests for comment.

The allegations divided technology experts when first promoted, but reporters found a number willing to make comments supporting the researchers’ theories.

“The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project,” Paul Vixie, the CEO of Farsight Security, told Slate. Richard Clayton, of the University of Cambridge, told the New Yorker he believed the server connections signaled times when Trump Organization and Alfa Bank officials wanted to talk.

Of the eight researchers mentioned or quoted in the pieces as suggesting the allegations made sense, none were willing to talk on the record about what they think now based on the newly emerged information.

“Thanks for reaching out, but I’m not interested,” Vixie, now with Amazon Web Services, told The Epoch Times in a LinkedIn message. “I know nothing of how they came to their conclusions,” Clayton added via email, referring to the FBI and the CIA. Of the Sussmann trial, he said, “I haven’t been following that.”

Steven Bellovin, a professor at Columbia University, referred a request for comment to his lawyer. “We are not going to comment on the matter,” the lawyer said.

Some outlets did publish articles portraying the allegations as unreliable, including The Intercept and the Washington Post. And some experts cast doubt on the claims, including Robert Graham, a cybersecurity specialist, who wrote that the allegations were “nonsense.”

“While I of course think the DNS logs were nonsense, I’m still not sure how [t]he FBI came to that conclusion,” Graham told The Epoch Times in a Twitter message. “I think the basic issue is that it looks like an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and that this is why they didn’t do more.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-the-fbi-dismissed-claims-of-secret-trump-russia-link_4524152.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-12&utm_medium=email&est=pAxBEt9Aj0BKpPQBYlDcVPPMRDrGQ%2FbpCkGOU6MP6X9I%2FRmGR9zHxycrK4fFUXEYEw%3D%3D

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) lied when she claimed during a June 9 House of Representatives panel hearing that Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) sought a presidential pardon after the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, Perry says.

“The notion that I ever sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress is an absolute, shameless, and soulless lie,” Perry said on Twitter on June 10, a day after the hearing held by the House panel investigating Jan. 6.

During the hearing, Cheney alleged that Perry “contacted the White House in the weeks after Jan. 6 to seek a presidential pardon.”

“Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election,” she added.

She provided no evidence for the claims, and did not identify any other members of Congress other than Perry, who was one of the members who voted against the certification of electoral results from Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Perry said on a podcast that he did not do anything wrong on Jan. 6.

“No, of course not. I was in the Capitol doing my legislative duties,” he said.

Perry also said that the Jan. 6 panel was a “sham committee,” referring to how the panel only has members picked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) because Pelosi rejected choices put forth by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Cheney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The fervent critic of former President Donald Trump is the vice chair of the House panel, which has tried to compel Perry and four other Republicans to appear to testify, but all five have so far refused, calling the attempts unconstitutional.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the committee, told CNN that “we have documentation” of Republicans who asked Trump for pardons.

“That will come out in our hearings,” Thompson said.

The panel, which showed edited social media posts and videos during its hearing, plans to hold additional hearings this month.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the panel, said of the purported pardon requests that “It’s hard to find a more explicit statement of consciousness of guilt than looking for a pardon for actions you’ve just taken, assisting in a plan to overthrow the results of a presidential election.”

No Republican members of Congress have been charged with crimes related to Jan. 6.

The votes against certifying electoral results from several states were legal under congressional rules.

Raskin voted in January 2017 to object to electoral results from Florida, which had voted for Trump.

Unlike in 2021, the effort received no support from a senator, so it did not move forward.

The votes in 2021 failed because a majority in each chamber rejected the effort.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/rep-perry-says-rep-cheney-lied-about-claim-he-sought-presidential-pardon_4527135.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-11-4&utm_medium=email&est=A3WmHxeSXuSBQHXodpKcAK2akjTnenzzSZ5ZkRMBZ6ndyug7rVJRRO54upSefpZCOA%3D%3D

Five-term Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) insists there is one way he would consider voting for Donald Trump if the former president runs in 2024.

“If he came out and said, ‘I’m sorry I made a huge mistake on Jan. 6,’ then I might consider it,” Rice said in an interview with ABC News “This Week” on June 5.

The June 14 primary for South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District is a few days away, and Rice is doubling down on his criticism of Trump in a district that backed the former president with 58 percent of the vote in 2016 and 58.8 percent in 2020.

Rice was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 incident at the U.S. Capitol.

In the interview on “This Week,” Rice called his decision “the conservative vote” and said, “I did it then. And I would do it again tomorrow.”

Trump opened himself to impeachment for possibly endangering former vice president Mike Pence and his family, and not being responsive enough to stop the riot, Rice explained.

“When he watched the Capitol, the ‘People’s House,’ being sacked, when he watched the Capitol Police officers being beaten for three or four hours and lifted not one thing … to stop it—I was livid then and I’m livid today about it,” Rice said. “And it was very clear to me I took an oath to protect the Constitution.”

South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District includes the Grand Strand tourist area that surrounds Myrtle Beach and stretches inland northwest, containing a vast portion of the impoverished Pee Dee region.

Rice was first elected in 2012 and faces a crowded field of six challengers, including Trump-endorsed state Rep. Russell Fry, who has led in multiple polls.

According to two internal polls from Fry’s campaign in May, and a Trafalgar Group survey conducted between May 26 and May 29, Fry occupies the top spot with Rice in second.

The Trafalgar Group poll, which included 572 responses from likely GOP primary voters, asked, “If the Republican primary for Congress were held today, for whom would you most likely vote?”

Fry was first with 42.2 percent followed by Rice (24.9 percent), Barbara Arthur (9.8 percent), Ken Richardson (9.6 percent), Garrett Barton (2.9 percent), Spencer Morris (2.1 percent), and Mark McBride (1.5 percent) with 7 percent undecided.

An internal survey conducted by Rice’s polling team between May 25 and May 26 found that Rice has 38 percent support from likely Republican primary voters followed by Fry (21 percent) and Arthur (19 percent).

Rice’s internal study featured 400 respondents and had a margin of effort of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

In South Carolina, the top two candidates meet in a head-to-head runoff if the leading candidate does not get more than 50 percent of the primary votes. If the polls are accurate, Fry and Rice will appear in a runoff on June 28.

Rice has criticized Fry for voting for the gas tax in South Carolina and has accused the state’s Chief Majority Whip of frequently missing votes on the House floor.

During a debate and in a television ad, Rice targeted Fry about those claims.

“There are no excused absences in Congress,” Rice said in a statement about the ad. “My opponents want a full-time job that requires you to make sacrifices. Russell Fry missed the vote for the largest tax cut in South Carolina history because he decided a trip to Florida was more important.

“The irony is, he managed to be present the day he voted to raise our gas taxes,” Rice added. “I take my job serving the 7th District seriously and will always put the best interests of my constituents first.”

Fry defended himself by calling Rice a liar and presenting a document from South Carolina House Clerk Charles Reid that shows he has been absent six days over the seven years he has held office.

Some of Fry’s critics have said that, according to legislative records, he has missed 640 votes during his time as a state representative.

State Rep. Heather Ammons Crawford (R) told the Palmetto Post, a conservative blog based in Myrtle Beach, that the attacks about Fry’s attendance and voting records are “baseless.”

“I sit next to Russell Fry in the S.C. House and he doesn’t miss work,” Crawford said. “I know when he gets to Washington, he will display a strong work ethic and defend our conservative values just as he has done in Columbia.”

Audrey Hudson, who covered Congress as a former national desk reporter for the Washington Times, is the founder of the Palmetto Post and closely follows GOP politics in the 7th Congressional District.

“Fry didn’t miss all these votes, he recused himself from those votes and Rice knew that when he launched his debate attack and began flooding the airwaves across the Grand Strand and Pee Dee region in an expensive TV ad buy that only Rice could afford,” Hudson wrote.

“South Carolina requires state elected officials to recuse themselves from voting on any spending bills or legislation that does, or could pose, a conflict of interest with the lawmaker’s job or business, or any member of their family’s business,” Hudson continued.

“He did not miss more than 600 votes. Fry, like every member of the General Assembly, recuses himself from numerous votes a year because he was advised by the Ethics Committee to avoid those votes out of an abundance of caution that it might constitute a conflict of interest.”

At a recent luncheon attended by Rice supporters, former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R) pointed to Georgia, where Trump-endorsed candidates David Perdue (governor) and U.S. Rep. Jody Hice (secretary of state) lost their respective Republican primaries to incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp and incumbent Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

“The Georgia voters just told us they want honest conservatives who are focused on their problems, not someone’s vendetta,” Ryan said, indicating that same story could unfold with Rice winning in South Carolina.

“The more he keeps endorsing people, and those other people don’t win, the faster our party gets back to being a party based on policies and principles and not a person.”

Rice told reporters at the luncheon he is “pleased” that Kemp and Raffensperger prevailed last month.

“Gov. Kemp has delivered for the voters of Georgia, and they repaid him. I think Raffensperger delivered for the voters of Georgia, and they repaid him for that,” Rice said. “I’m hopeful that the people in this district feel the same.”

Trump has a different opinion, and he is determined to see that Rice is defeated.

“Right here, in the 7th District, Tom Rice, a disaster,” Trump said at a rally in March. “He’s respected by no one, he’s laughed at in Washington.”

In response to that comment, Rice said, “If I am a ‘disaster’ and a ‘total fool,’ and I voted with him 169 times out of 184, what does that make him? I was following his lead.”

Trump’s 76th birthday is on June 14, the same date as South Carolina’s primary.

Earlier this week, he asked South Carolina voters to give him “a beautiful, beautiful birthday present” of defeats for Rice in the 7th Congressional District and Rep. Nancy Mace in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.

Mace voted to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election and has frequently blamed Trump for the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol events.

Horry County is part of the 7th Congressional District. The county seat is Conway, which is located around 14 miles northwest of Myrtle Beach. County Republican Party chairman Roger Slagle told reporters that Trump’s endorsement is impactful and that voters in the region respect him.

“Donald Trump is very much alive, well, and very much controlling the narrative of the Republican Party in the United States. That is a no-brainer to me,” Slagle said.

That won’t automatically translate to a victory for Fry on June 14, Slagle added.

“They [voters] look at it and say, ‘Well, that’s great. Does Donald Trump really know all the nuances of what’s going on here in Horry County, South Carolina, or District 7?’” Slagle said. “I think you will see people that will still be as loyal to Donald Trump who end up rejecting his endorsed candidate.”

Conway, S.C. native Daryl Scott is unopposed in the Democratic primary. Libertarian candidates Keenan Dunham and Larry Guy Hammond are also on the Nov. 8 general election ballot.

Whether Rice, Fry or another candidate wins the June 14 primary, chances are a Republican will occupy the 7th Congressional District seat in January, 2023.

The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales, and Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rate the district as “Solid Republican” or “Safe Republican.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/rice-refuses-to-bow-down-to-pressure-of-trumps-electoral-influence_4526499.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-11-4&utm_medium=email&est=hfzMw9WRZBFRggSSQBmechkoXpuQClslcyYmZH%2Buw7wK4gHBpCo%2B2f5PP46W1gJaAg%3D%3D

During a June 9 primetime hearing disclosing its findings after a nearly yearlong investigation, the Democrat-dominated panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol showed a series of videos and tweets that had been selectively trimmed or edited to bolster their claims that President Donald Trump was responsible for the breach.

During the hearing, the January 6 panel claimed that Trump orchestrated the violence at the Capitol in early 2021 as part of a “coup” to remain in power and nullify the 2020 election results.

“Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the committee, during the hearing in Washington. “A brazen attempt … to overthrow the government. Violence was no accident.”

Those “who stormed the Capitol and occupied the Capitol,” Thompson said later, were “domestic enemies of the Constitution.”

The commission’s decision to selectively edit an array of videos and tweets to back up the claims, however, has drawn criticism.

Edited Video Implies Trump Applauded Violence at the Capitol

In one example, the commission placed comments made by Trump in an interview over video showing the Capitol breach, edited in such a way as to make it appear that Trump was applauding the genuine acts of violence that unfolded at the Capitol.

“They were peaceful people. These were great people,” Trump said in a July 11, 2021 interview with Fox News. “The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word love. The love—the love in the air, I have never seen anything like it.”

While Trump was in fact referring to the vast majority of protestors who gathered peacefully to hear him speak on Jan. 6, 2021, the commission video leaves the impression that Trump is referencing those who became violent.

On Jan. 6, Trump spoke before a massive crowd that had come to Washington to peacefully encourage Congress to hold off on certification of the electoral slates in states with major concerns of voter fraud.

It was this crowd that Trump was referring to in the out-of-context comments presented by the January 6 panel.

In the full, uncut version of the statement during an interview with Fox New’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” Trump said: “So, there was a big rally called. And, actually, when I say big, who knew? But there was a rally called.

“And a tremendous number of people, the largest [rally] I have ever spoken [at] before, is called by people, by patriots. And they asked me if I’d speak. And I did. And it was a very mild-mannered speech, as I think has been—in fact, they just came out with a report in Congress, and they didn’t mention my name, literally.

“But what they were complaining about and the reason, in my opinion, you had over a million people there, which the press doesn’t like to report at all, because it shows too much—too much activity, too much—too much spirit and faith and love. There was such love at that rally.

“You had over a million people there. They were there for one reason, the rigged election. They felt the election was rigged. That’s why they were there. And they were peaceful people. These were great people.

“The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word love. The love—the love in the air, I have never seen anything like it.

“And that’s why they went to Washington.”

Bodies of Ashli Babbitt, Roseanne Boyland Left Out of Public Footage

In another instance, British filmmaker Nick Quested, who was present at the Capitol that day, presented video that he shot of the Jan. 6 rally.

However, selectively left out of the video was footage Quested shot showing the dead bodies of two Trump supporters—Ashli Babbitt and Roseanne Boyland.

Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force Veteran, was shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd; Boyland was killed after being crushed under a sea of protesters retreating from police who had fired tear gas and was then brutally beaten by a DC Metropolitan police officer while she was still unconscious.

Quested’s graphic footage shows Capitol Police, moments after shooting Babbitt point-blank and killing her, carrying her body down a flight of stairs.

It also shows Boyland unconscious, her face swollen and bruised, receiving desperate attention from other Trump supporters at the rally that day. Boyland was eventually brought into the Capitol, where police began to attempt to revive her using CPR and, videos indicate, a defibrillator. Boyland finally arrived at a hospital nearly two hours later, where she was pronounced dead.

In a past statement to the Epoch Times, Boyland’s father said that while Boyland’s exact time of death is uncertain, they suspect it happened in the timeframe that Quested’s video captured.

Joseph McBride, a top attorney for Jan. 6 defendants, blasted the commission’s selective editing of the video in a June 10 tweet.

“The @January6thCmte edited @nickquested’s footage deliberately to deceive the American public,” McBride wrote. “Footage of protestors trying to save Roseanne Boyland’s life and of their scolding the police for murdering Ashli Babbitt was removed because it doesn’t support the official narrative.”

Cheney Presents Incomplete Trump Text, Says He ‘Did Not Condemn the Attack’

On another occasion, Ranking Member Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)—one of only two Republicans on the committee who are both virulent Trump critics—referenced a tweet Trump made on Jan. 6.

“[Trump] did not condemn the attack,” Cheney claimed before reading the tweet. “Instead, he justified it.”

Cheney proceeded to read the tweet aloud.

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so viciously and unceremoniously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” Cheney read.

However, she omitted the crucial end of the tweet, when Trump told his supporters, “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

Key Exchange Cut from Recorded Testimony, Former Trump Aide Says

Cheney also misrepresented video testimony from GETTER CEO and former Trump adviser Jason Miller, according to Miller.

“In this clip, Miller describes a call between the Trump campaign’s internal data expert and President Trump a few days after the 2020 election,” Cheney said shortly before playing a video clip showing Miller’s testimony before the panel.

“I was in the Oval Office,” Miller said. “And at some point in the conversation, Matt Oczkowski, who was the lead data person, was brought on, and I remember he delivered to the president in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.”

“And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of the sort of county by county state by state results as reported?” investigators asked Miller.

“Correct,” Miller said.

However, Miller said, the video is cut early before Miller begins to explain his reasons for disagreeing with Oczkowski.

In a June 9 Twitter thread, Miller revealed the next moments of the video that were not presented to the public.

“Here’s what came next in my testimony, which Liz Cheney failed to play,” Miller wrote.

“Q: Okay. And what was the President’s reaction then when Matt said to him, ‘Hey, we’ve looked at the numbers, you’re going to lose’?
A: I think it’s safe to say he disagreed with Matt’s analysis.”

“2/ Q: On what basis? Did he give a basis?
A: He believed that Matt was not looking at the prospect of legal challenges going our way and that Matt was looking at purely from what those numbers were showing as opposed to broader things to include legality and election integrity … issues which, as a data guy, he may not have been monitoring.”

These instances are not the first time that the controversial January 6 panel—which, aside from Cheney has only one other Republican, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)—has been caught misrepresenting, cutting, or even doctoring evidence to bolster its claims.

In one of the boldest examples of misrepresentation, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—who in the past has “leaked” faked emails by Donald Trump, Jr. and fabricated a 2019 transcript between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—was caught presenting doctored text messages.

The messages, exchanged between Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, were shortened and had context cut out to make it appear as if Jordan had tersely instructed Meadows to ask Vice President Mike Pence not to certify electoral slates from states thought to have had potential voter fraud.

Because of its track record of misrepresenting data, its tendency to target Trump allies, and the lack of any real opposition on the committee, Republicans have long accused the commission of being little more than a “partisan witch hunt.”

The January 6 commission is expected to have several more public hearings moving forward as it continues to try to make the case that Trump indeed attempted to mount an insurrection against the U.S. government.

Joseph M. Hanneman contributed to this report. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/4-edited-tweets-videos-shown-by-jan-6-panel-during-primetime-hearing_4525224.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-11-2&utm_medium=email&est=OVt7VjM%2FpYFKxyF3kHY5LOUxzPuEq%2BnxyaaNejZnknhF1Xgjywdhb%2BiHKen4YDBtTg%3D%3D

The Jan. 6 select committee launched a full-frontal assault on former President Donald J. Trump and his “riotous mob” of supporters on June 9, claiming Trump orchestrated the violence at the Capitol in early 2021 as part of a “coup” to remain in power and nullify the 2020 election results.

The two top officials on the nine-member panel described Trump as so unstable after Jan. 6 that staff openly discussed the possibility of him being removed from office using the 25th Amendment.

In the first of a series of public hearings to detail findings from its nearly year-long investigation, the committee issued blistering statements and accusations that sounded like the foundation for possible criminal charges against the 45th president of the United States.

“Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the committee, during a livestream broadcast from Washington D.C. “A brazen attempt … to overthrow the government. Violence was no accident.”

The first 60 minutes of the hearing was everything expected: hyper-partisan, with strong anti-Trump rhetoric, accented by video clips that were short on context and long on emotion. A Capitol police officer and a filmmaker testified in the second hour of the hearing.

If anyone expected a detached, academic review of alleged evidence to support what appears to be the committee’s foregone conclusion, they were left in shock.

Anyone who looked for acknowledgment of the killing of Ashli Babbitt by Capitol Police, the police beating and death of Rosanne Boyland, or any of the myriad examples of excessive force by police, was sorely disappointed.

There was no balance on this night.

Repeats False Claim that Police Were Killed

Testimony from Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards gave the appearance of linking the Jan. 7 death of police officer Brian Sicknick to her colleague being sprayed with mace at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ruled Sicknick’s death was from natural causes, caused by a stroke. Sicknick was hospitalized the night of Jan. 6 after witnesses at the Capitol noticed him exhibiting possible signs of a stroke.

Thompson reinforced the point after a break in testimony, saying the audience included “some of the family members, friends, and widows of the officers who lost their lives as the result of the attack.”

Four people died at the Capitol on Jan. 6. All were Trump supporters. Babbitt, 35, an Air Force veteran, was shot to death by Lt. Michael Byrd. Boyland, 34, was crushed in a stampede after police unleashed gas in the Lower West Terrace tunnel.

Kevin Greeson, 55, died of a heart attack, although a witness said he was struck by a projectile when a police grenade or other munition exploded near him. Benjamin Phillips, 50, had a stroke. None of those names was mentioned at the hearing.

The Democrat-heavy committee wrapped its work in patriotic language and spoke of its support for the Constitution against the domestic enemies of America.

Comments from Thompson and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) ridiculed the notion of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. They quoted former Republican Attorney Gen. William Barr, who called the idea “[expletive].”

Thompson referred to the nation as a “shining city on a hill,” borrowing language and sentiments from former Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1988 State of the Union address.

It was not the America that came to Washington to protest on Jan. 6 that was being spoken of, but the nation that is prosecuting those whom they claim tried to overthrow the government and quash the 2020 election results.

“It was domestic enemies of the Constitution who stormed the Capitol and occupied the Capitol,” Thompson declared.

Blame on Proud Boys, Oath Keepers

The hearing made clear the committee lays blame for the alleged “insurrection” at the feet of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, two pro-Trump groups charged by federal prosecutors with seditious conspiracy to obstruct the counting of Electoral College votes by a joint session of Congress. Thompson referred to the groups as racist, anti-government militias—terms the groups reject.

“This was like in the Soviet Union: show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes told The Epoch Times from the Virginia City Jail, where he is being held without bond. “Now they’re going to gather what they think is going to be damning evidence.”

Rhodes said the “big tell” from the hearing came when they showed a still image of him with former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio in a D.C. parking garage on Jan. 5, 2021. The inference was that the men were having a meeting. “That’s an absolute lie,” Rhodes said.

The committee presentation did not include full video evidence showing that the “meeting” lasted fewer than 10 seconds and consisted of a handshake and brief pleasantries.

Video distributed by criminal defense attorneys shows that Rhodes made no reference to the Capitol or events happening in Washington. Chairman Thompson referred to a Department of Justice claim that “someone” in the parking garage made reference to the word “Capitol.” Whomever that was, it was not spoken between Rhodes and Tarrio, the video shows.

The committee showed a video clip of a group of Oath Keepers walking in a military-style “stack formation” up the east steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6. Prosecutors have said one of the Oath Keepers’s goals was to search for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.). Oath Keepers have said that is not true.

What was not shown is how the Oath Keepers a short time later intervened in a volatile standoff between a Capitol Police officer armed with a rifle and angry protesters in the Small House Rotunda.

According to several Oath Keepers and video evidence from journalist Stephen Horn and other sources, the group got in between the potential combatants and calmed the situation. Rhodes said one of the Oath Keepers on scene told him the situation was about to go critical, given the officer’s demeanor.

Trump Tweet Started it All?

Meanwhile, Cheney said the upcoming committee hearings will detail a “sophisticated seven-part plan” that Trump devised to keep himself in power. Part of the effort involved a “massive effort to spread false information” about the 2020 election.

She said that a post Trump made on Twitter asking people to come to Washington for a rally that’s “gonna be wild” was the catalyst for the Proud Boys to allegedly plan an “invasion of the Capitol.”

One of the hearings will feature former White House aides, one of whom resigned due to Trump refusing to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, Cheney said. The White House chief counsel threatened to quit several times, she said.

After lashing out at Trump for most of her speech, Cheney warned her colleagues of lasting damage to those who supported the 45th president.

“There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain,” she said.

Rhodes has predicted for months that the Jan. 6 committee’s top goal is to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 by criminalizing free speech, concocting alleged conspiracies, and tying him to everything bad that happened that day.

“They’re just strapping all of it together as though Trump planned it from the very beginning,” Rhodes said.

Anyone wanting to understand the effort to oust Trump from the public square should read Rep. Thompson’s February 2021 federal civil lawsuit against Trump, his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, Rhodes said. It contains the blueprint for the actions and strategy that the Jan. 6 Select Committee is now using against Trump and his supporters, he said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-committee-takes-aim-at-trump-alleging-a-coup-carried-out-with-proud-boys-oath-keepers_4524218.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-11&utm_medium=email&est=OxcmhDJ073w6LLVqFGZCiSmxbkisBp5nLhJ49gZTIMEzfYhzOjFUkZ0S0V5RKiAbFA%3D%3D

The June 14 Republican primary in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District pits incumbent Rep. Nancy Mace, a candidate Donald Trump supported in 2020, against former state Rep. Katie Arrington, who has the former president’s endorsement.

Republicans are focused on regaining control of the House by flipping seats, but the party’s faction that embraces Trump’s “America First” platform is committed to replacing representatives whose track record is not friendly to the former president.

From 2016 to 2018, Arrington represented South Carolina’s 94th House District.

In 2018, she defeated sitting congressman and former governor Mark Sanford in the Republican primary before losing in the general election to Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham. It was the first time a Democratic U.S. House candidate prevailed in the district since 1978.

Bolstered by Trump’s support, Mace unseated Cunningham in 2020. Mace voted to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election and has frequently blamed Trump for the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol events.

This led Trump to give Arrington his stamp of approval to unseat Mace.

“She turned her back on [former] president Trump, and that is not what a conservative does,” Arrington said at a May 23 debate. “She read the room wrong. She thought this district was a moderate district, and we are not.”

Through May 25, which was the deadline to submit pre-primary fundraising reports, Mace raised more than $4.1 million in contributions and had $1.4 million cash on hand.

Federal filings showed Arrington with more than $909,000, including a personal loan of $525,000. As of May 25, she had $607,000 cash on hand.

Mace served as a state representative in South Carolina’s House of Representatives from 2018 to 2020 before earning her current seat in the 1st Congressional District. She is endorsed by former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, U.S. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) along with the National Rifle Association, and Club for Growth.

Mace claims that Arrington is not electable. She points to 2018, when Arrington upset Sanford in the Republican primary but lost to Cunningham.

“I’m the only candidate up here who knows how to beat a Democrat in this day and age in this district,” Mace said in a statement. “I promised that I would work hard, I promised to be an independent voice, and I promised not to tow the party line when they taxed too much and spent too much in this country.”

The 1st Congressional District Republican primary featured three candidates until the debate on May 23.

While answering the opening question, Lynz Piper-Loomis expressed her support for Arrington, removed her microphone, and exited the stage and the race.

Arrington is a cybersecurity expert who served as the Pentagon’s chief information security officer in the acquisition and sustainment office during the Trump administration.

Through comments and the ad, Mace has hammered Arrington about the Pentagon suspending her security clearance in 2021 because of accusations that she disclosed classified information.

“If our military doesn’t trust Katie Arrington, neither can we,” the narrator says in Mace’s attack ad.

Arrington defended herself against the allegations.

“Ladies and gentlemen, just shows you how low Nancy Mace will go,” she said during the debate. “I was a victim of a political hit job, point blank. I proudly serve my nation.”

During campaign stops, Arrington talks about her opposition to critical race theory being taught in classrooms and calls out schools “indoctrinating” children with a transgender agenda. She supports eliminating the U.S. Department of Education.

Mace has “flip-flopped” on multiple issues since taking office, Arrington contends, including transgender advocacy in the military.

The 1st Congressional District is home to Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, and the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort.

“In 2020, Nancy Mace released an ad attacking Joe Cunningham over his support for transgender advocacy in the military,” Arrington said in a statement.

“Interestingly enough, she co-sponsored with a progressive Democrat from Hawaii to create with our tax dollars a special office for transgenders in the VA (Veterans Affairs).

“This is just one of many flip-flops Nancy has made throughout her short time in D.C.,” Arrington added. “Nancy Mace is not a conservative. Since day one, she has compromised our values to advance her own career. We cannot afford another term of her self-serving agenda.”

Arrington is confident that redistricting adjustments will help her in the primary and, if she wins on June 14, the general election.

The 1st Congressional District’s new map now extends further inland to the north, which has created a district where Republicans have a 17-point advantage, up from a 14-point advantage on the old map, according to FiveThirtyEight.

A Trafalgar Group poll conducted from May 26 to May 29 and released on June 2 showed that Mace led with 46.4 percent while Arrington received 40.5 percent with 13.1 percent undecided.  The survey included 556 likely Republican primary voters and had a margin of error of four percentage points.

Arrington believes her campaign is gaining momentum at the right time, pointing to a Charleston County GOP straw poll that showed her with 86 percent support compared to Mace’s 14 percent. Arrington reported similar lopsided results in straw polls conducted in Berkeley and Beaufort counties.

“Voters are tired of swamp sellout Nancy Mace, and despite her lies, her campaign is in a downward spiral,” Arrington said in a statement. “The people of SC-1 want a pro-Trump America First conservative, not a RINO [Republican in Name Only] who votes with AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] 45 percent of the time.”

Mace or Arrington will face Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, in the general election. Andrews is unopposed in the Democrat primary.

The Cook Political Report, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, and Inside Elections have rated South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District as a solid/safe Republican seat, so the winner of the GOP primary will be heavily favored in November.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/south-carolina-primary-clash-is-another-test-of-trumps-endorsement-influence_4524819.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-10-3&utm_medium=email&est=Myy2RR4UhmT5LEdp76DbqeV3b5Kk17PRbyNVFyidPI9koUea9aeUl7DA50vngVbHRQ%3D%3D

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), who is likely to become chairman of the House Administration Committee in 2023 if Republicans regain the majority in the chamber in November, demanded in a letter on June 9 to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th breach of the U.S. Capitol, that the panel preserve all its records.

The letter from Davis, the current ranking GOP member of the Administration Committee, came just hours before the Jan. 6 panel’s first primetime hearing. An unnamed aide reportedly told journalists earlier in the day that evidence would be presented showing that then-President Donald Trump was “at the center” of an effort to prevent the transfer of power from him to incoming President Joe Biden.

In an unusually detailed and lengthy preservation demand, Davis told Thompson: “I write today to demand your cooperation in preserving all records produced by or in the possession of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Select Committee).

“Given the on-going questions concerning the Select Committee’s compliance with federal law and House Rules, it is vital that the Select Committee preserve these records so that effective oversight may be undertaken.

“Please preserve in complete, un-redacted form all information in possession of the Select Committee or reasonably available to the Select Committee, including, but not limited to, all written correspondence and memoranda; emails; calendar entries; to-do list entries; telephone system records, logs, and transcripts, including for all cell phones, pagers, landlines, and other electronic devices; voicemails; text messages; instant messages; postings on social media, blogs, and other Internet sites; message board and chat room transcripts …”

Davis continued, demanding that Thompson also preserve “audio recordings, including, but not limited to, radio transmissions; video recordings, including, but not limited to, security camera footage; captured still images; electronically accessible or stored files, documents, or other papers containing such information; presentations; such information stored on any and all media or storage devices, including, but not limited to, optical discs, hard drives, solid state drives, portable storage, and remote or ‘cloud’ storage; all versions or copies of any record; and any other information relating to the Select Committee’s activities, no matter how stored.”

The Jan. 6 panel has been a center of controversy almost to the day it was announced in 2021 by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who appointed all of its current members after unilaterally barring two Republicans—Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana—from serving on it, despite their having been named for the appointment by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Banks told reporters during a Jan. 6, 2022, House GOP news conference that the Democrats who control the Jan. 6 panel “aren’t investigating January 6, that is already abundantly clear … they are trying to use this select committee as a Trojan Horse to abolish the Electoral College, to intimidate President Trump’s aides, to block him from ever appearing on the ballot again, and to prevent his supporters from participating in American democracy.”

Banks also declared that Pelosi has yet to explain why she didn’t request the National Guard troops made available by Trump two days prior to the protest at the U.S. Capitol that resulted in one death and hundreds of injuries to law enforcement officers and protesters.

The Jan. 6 panel has issued hundreds of subpoenas and interviewed nearly 1,000 individuals in connection with the Capitol breach. Republicans question the panel’s legitimacy because it was authorized in a House vote to five GOP members appointed by McCarthy.

But after rejecting Banks and Jordan, Pelosi selected Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who both voted to impeach Trump. Long-established congressional procedures require the leader of the minority party to determine which members of his or her caucus serve on committees.

Davis’s preservation demand letter also directed Thompson to preserve a lengthy list of other documents, including draft and final versions of all committee memoranda, whether completed or not, all threat assessments or other intelligence reports given to the committee, all social media posts made by members and staff through the committee’s servers and network and those made through other servers and networks, memoranda of agreement with all witnesses, and a complete list of all committee staffers, detailees, interns, contractors and consultants “as of July 1, 2021, and as of June 8, 2022.”

Copies of the letter were delivered to Pelosi, all other members of the Jan. 6 panel, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the current head of the House Administration Committee.

A spokesman for the select committee couldn’t be reached by press time for comment on Davis’s letter.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/likely-next-house-admin-panel-chair-delivers-j6-committee-document-preservation-demand_4523786.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-10-1&utm_medium=email&est=0mtba%2FGjpzs%2BWOfOAG%2FpRBZ5kFbNJvhzCRebbmp0hI4dZ68bmEJohZQ9WDP%2BCJS6Fg%3D%3D

‘Tonight, they’re going to scream their lie loudly and often with much Hollywood drama. They hope you will buy it as truth. Do not be deceived.’

Ahead of the first of six televised House committee hearings related to the protests that took place at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, a Jan. 6 prisoner has issued a warning to the American people regarding the “farce” they are about to witness.

On the evening of June 8, The Epoch Times received an audio recording from Jeremy Brown, which he addresses to the American people. The transcript of the recording can be found here.

“I am coming to you today on the 253rd day of my illegal, unconstitutional imprisonment to advise and warn the American people that what you are about to see is part of this compromised government’s well-orchestrated, highly-produced lie, meant to target the minds and perception of the uninformed and misinformed masses with the intent to demonize and dehumanize their opposition,” Brown begins.

He also advises that “their opponents are anyone who disagrees or even asks questions about their false authority and their anti-American and anti-liberty agenda.” He says “their goal is to take down America and ‘Build Back Better’ in a form suitable to their authoritarian utopia dreamland, also known as the Great Reset.”

Brown is a 20-year United States Special Services Master Sergeant and combat veteran. Brown is also a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, District 62. As a self-described “January 6 political prisoner of war,” Brown is currently being held in the Pinellas County Jail in Clearwater, Florida, where he is awaiting trial for two misdemeanor charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021 protest in Washington: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds.

However, Brown contends he is being held, not because of what the government claims he did, but because the FBI and Department of Justice are aware that he knows “the truth” about what they did. In an alleged effort to keep him from exposing that truth, they have denied him access to any evidence in his case for over eight months. He also reminds Americans that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force already attempted to recruit him “to be part of their fraud.”

“But I turned them down,” he said, noting that he even recorded the encounter in order to expose them, and it was after that recording got out that they had him arrested “and planted evidence” in order to keep him incarcerated.

In an open letter titled, ‘”Don’t Do Nothing,” exposed in an exclusive story by The Epoch Times on April 13, Brown outlined how the government is trying to take control over the American people through intimidation and fear and to silence those who dare to take a stand. The entire letter is available here. The actual recording of the agents attempting to recruit Brown is available at the Gateway Pundit and at JeremyBrownDefense.com.

“They’ve had me locked away for 253 days in hopes of shutting me up,” Brown insisted, saying that will never happen “because they are sloppy.”

He predicts he will soon be free. But after that, “they will manufacture a new reason” to put him back in jail or to silence him “in other ways.”

“But even in death,” he vowed, “I have a plan to expose the truth.”

“Just look round,” Brown challenged, noting how “bodies of unelected, global elites like the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and many others” are simultaneously and systematically destroying every aspect of what has made America “the most free and powerful nation on earth.”

“Their goal is to convince us that we are global citizens, not Americans,” Brown said, suggesting they are using a strategy of chaos in an effort to divide Americans by race, gender, medical mandates, the education of America’s children, “and even the weather” in order to turn them against each other.

“They need us to blame each other so we don’t blame and hold them accountable,” He asserted, adding that “their gloves are off and they’ve crossed the Rubicon.”

“Their fake cultural revolution has been building for decades,” Brown said, with the caveat that it is now “out in the open for all to see and that those who seek to rule over [Americans] must seize total control before [Americans] recognize what is going on.

“But will you recognize it?” he asks rhetorically, and he dares Americans to look at the condition of their country, at what is going on with their children, in their workplace, in their communities, and in their culture. He challenges them to look at the empty supermarket shelves, the cost of gas, and the evaporation of their life’s savings. “Do you see it?” he asks, inquiring further that with all of the current problems, why are gun control and domestic terrorism “the D.C. topics of the day?”

“At a time when violent crime and property crime are skyrocketing faster than inflation and gas prices, your government wants you disarmed,” he noted.

In the wake of the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, House Democrats passed the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act to enact Red flag laws, which will ultimately enable the government, through law enforcement and the courts, to target law-abiding gun owners by stripping away their Second Amendment rights based on allegations that lack due process, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause.

Brown further notes that while the government is using American tax dollars to arm Ukraine, they are actively seeking to take away guns from the American people. Why?

“Think about this statement,” Brown challenged. “When politicians want to take away your guns, that is exactly when you need your guns, and the Founding Fathers knew and lived through this. These criminals know the people are waking up to their corruption and when the lights come on they’ll be the rats and roaches running to hide. What you’re going to see tonight is their attempt to fortify their false narrative and they hope to see this as their final justification to pass laws making all of us domestic terrorists.”

After the National School Board Association sent a now-scrubbed letter (pdf) to President Joe Biden asking him to label parents who showed up to school board meetings to express their anger over mask mandates and critical race theory as a form of “domestic terrorism” and to use the Patriot Act against them, an Oct. 4, 2021 memorandum from United States Attorney General Merrick Garland to the FBI says the bureau was using a “threat tag” system to track and access those “threats” and that “the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.”

“Tonight, they’re going to scream their lie loudly and often with much Hollywood drama,” Brown predicted. “They hope you will buy it as truth. Do not be deceived.”

He said the American people must watch the investigative hearings and realize that what they are watching “is a farce.”

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, also recorded a message to the American people, which was also obtained by The Epoch Times. The transcript of the recording can be found here. Rhodes, charged with seditious conspiracy and “other charges,” is being held in a jail in Virginia. Like many other Jan. 6 defendants, Rhodes is being held without a trial.

Rhodes also contends the hearings are nothing more than “a war against the entire MAGA movement” and an effort to destroy it. He said they are using the manufactured narrative created by “someone who rolled over and agreed to test a lie, to falsely testify, bear false witness” and they are trying to use “this grand lie” that Jan. 6 was a “planned conspiracy” in order to “stick that to President Trump” and to destroy “the two groups they hate the most, the Oath Keepers and everyone who is part of the MAGA movement.

“So just understand that,” Rhodes warned. “God bless everybody, take care.”

Brown tells the American people to learn his story. Then compare his account of what happened on Jan. 6 “to what you hear and see from the politicians that are responsible for most of the problems in this county and lie to your face for a living.”

“Judge for yourself what rings true to you,” he said, adding that he isn’t running for office from jail “to win.” He’s “running to warn.”

“Tonight, gather your family and friends and watch what is going on,” he admonished, advising them to “watch with a discerning eye and listen closely to their words.”

Ask yourself tough questions and then seek the truth on your own. Once you find the truth, don’t do nothing because today America needs us to be Americans. Today, it’s time for patriots not politicians, warriors not wimps, leaders not leaches, champions not cowards. It is time for winter soldiers to defend our republic, not sunshine patriots who profit from its destruction. Evil tells you who they are and we must believe them. My name is Jeremy Brown, imamate 1875858, and this is my warning to America.

“God bless your families and the truth seekers,” Brown concluded. “May God hear our prayers and cries for liberty and justice to be restored. De oppresso liber. Liberty or death.”

Joe Hanneman and Joseph Lord contributed to this report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-ahead-of-televised-investigative-hearing-farce-jan-6-prisoner-issues-warning-to-americans_4522315.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-09-4&utm_medium=email&est=GbUf4hz%2Fu8hSxf0EHOdL1T%2BUz76NLOiXRFSxOuyxclWOSrm83Un1lQZQD0RUt3Kguw%3D%3D

Steve Bannon’s legal team has issued subpoenas to top Democrats and members of the controversial Jan. 6 House of Representatives panel in a development in Bannon’s ongoing contempt of Congress case.

In October, the Democrat-led House voted to certify a contempt of Congress charge against Bannon, who had refused a subpoena from the Jan. 6 panel, asserting a right to executive privilege as a former White House staff member.

Despite legal questions over the validity of the panel’s subpoenas, the Department of Justice decided to pursue a criminal case against Bannon.

Now, Bannon’s lawyers have issued 16 subpoenas to top members of the committee, as well as other Democrats.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who chose the panel’s members; Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the panel’s chairman; and the only two Republicans on the committee, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), were among those subpoenaed.

The subpoenas, which were obtained by The Epoch Times, demand that members turn over documents touching on an array of issues relevant to the case against Bannon.

In one section, Bannon’s lawyers ask for, “All documents … regarding the establishment of the January 6th Select Committee (‘Select Committee’), its membership, its staffing, its budget, its authority and functioning, and the authority of the Select Committee to issue subpoenas.”

The circumstances surrounding the establishment of the January 6 commission, which was created in a mostly party-line vote, have been a rallying point for critics of the panel.

Despite a longstanding House tradition of allowing minority leaders to choose their party’s members on committees, Pelosi refused efforts by House GOP Leader McCarthy (R-Calif.) to name Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) ranking member of the committee. Instead, Pelosi appointed Kinzinger and Cheney to the commission in an unprecedented breach of House tradition. McCarthy withdrew his picks in protest.

The subpoenas also demand all documents “regarding President Donald J. Trump’s assertion of executive privilege in response to any request of the Select Committee.”

Since the establishment of the January 6 panel, many former Trump officials have refused to testify or hand over documents, asserting a right to executive privilege.

Legal scholars are divided on the validity of these claims. However, some GOP critics of the commission have in the past argued that because the issue is so uncertain, federal courts should be consulted before moving ahead.

The subpoenas also request all documents “that reference making an example of Mr. Bannon, punishing him, hoping to influence or affect the conduct of other potential witnesses before the Select Committee, or words or similar meaning and effect.”

Many critics have accused the Jan. 6 commission of partisanship due to the Democrat-dominated commission almost exclusively targeting Republicans.

By the same token, another request in the subpoenas suggests that Bannon’s legal team suspects bias toward Bannon by some members of the panel.

Specifically, it requests “All documents … which tend to show the bias of any Select Committee member or staff (including animosity toward Mr. Bannon, or animosity toward a group with which Mr. Bannon is affiliated).”

The documents were delivered to targeted members electronically “to avoid the spectacle of approaching individual Representatives and staff members to personally serve them,” said David Schoen, an attorney for Bannon, in a letter affixed to the subpoenas.

It is not clear whether the subpoenas have yet been accepted. A lawyer for the House did not respond to a request for comment.

Bannon was for a long time the only person to face criminal charges for refusing a January 6 commission subpoena.

On June 3, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro—who also refused the subpoena on grounds of executive privilege—was indicted by a grand jury for contempt of Congress.

The commission has not restricted itself to only former Trump officials, going so far as to target sitting members of Congress like Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), and even House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

McCarthy called the efforts to subpoena sitting members of Congress an “abuse of power,” and all three House Republicans refused to testify before the committee.

The panel also set its sights recently on Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, over claims that she texted Meadows during the Jan. 6 rally.

In view of the partisan nature of the summons and charges advanced by the commission some Republicans, including Trump, have accused it of a “witch hunt” exclusively targeting Democrats’ GOP enemies.

Others, like McCarthy, have been more ambiguous in their critiques of the committee. When the commission sent out its subpoena to Bannon, McCarthy argued that the ongoing legal disputes made the subpoena’s legitimacy unknown.

“They’re issuing an invalid subpoena,” McCarthy said. “Issuing an invalid subpoena weakens our power. He has the right to go to the court to see if he has executive privilege or not. I don’t know if he does or not, but neither does the committee. So they’re weakening the power of Congress itself by issuing an invalid subpoena.”

Following the commission’s recent decision to subpoena several prominent Republicans—marking the first time in U.S. history that sitting members of Congress have been subpoenaed by a congressional body—McCarthy further expanded on his argument that the subpoenas are potentially invalid.

“All valid and lawfully issued subpoenas must be respected and honored,” wrote Elliot S. Berke, McCarthy’s attorney, in a lengthy May 27 letter (pdf). “Unfortunately, the words and actions of the Select Committee and its members have made it clear that it is not exercising a valid or lawful use of Congress’ subpoena power.

“In fact,” Berke continued, citing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) refusal to place minority-selected members on the commission, “the Select Committee is not even operating in compliance with the rules its own members voted to put in place.”

Jordan, another Republican who received a subpoena from the commission, has also refused to comply with what he called a “political vendetta.”

If convicted of contempt of Congress, Bannon faces a minimum sentence of one month in jail or a maximum sentence of 12 months in jail, in addition to a fine ranging from $100 to $100,000.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/steve-bannon-subpoenas-pelosi-jan-6-panel-members-in-contempt-of-congress-case_4520148.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-08-3&utm_medium=email&est=1krAPnItVm0xSSR5L%2Baq2Ck%2FyL024L9CNkfNHxcywPWYo5TPtatISO9adHr1vN3cbw%3D%3D

President Barack Obama approved a statement by the U.S. intelligence community in October 2016 accusing Russia of stealing emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), despite the U.S. government not having obtained the DNC server images crucial to ascertaining whether Moscow was involved in the theft.

FBI emails recently made public during the trial against now-acquitted DNC attorney Michael Sussmann show the bureau was still in the process of requesting images of the DNC servers on Oct. 13, 2016. The server images, which are equivalent to a virtual copy of the alleged crime scene, were taken by private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.

On Oct. 7, six days before CrowdStrike agreed to mail the server images to the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a statement accusing Russia of hacking U.S. political organizations and disseminating emails allegedly stolen through the hack. The statement was approved and encouraged by Obama, according to then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.

“The president approved the statement. I know he wanted us to make the statement. So that was very definitely a statement by the United States government, not just Jim Clapper and me,” Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee in June 2017, referring to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

The DHS, ODNI, and the office of Barack Obama didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The Oct. 7, 2016, statement said that the U.S. intelligence community, which is composed of more than a dozen agencies including the FBI, was “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

“The recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the statement said.

The lack of server images at the time the statement was released highlights the question of what the intelligence community used to establish Russia’s involvement.

On Aug. 31, 2016, CrowdStrike provided a report on the DNC hack to the FBI. The FBI special agent who reviewed the report called it “heavily redacted,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the Russia investigation. FBI Assistant Director James Trainor was so frustrated with the redactions that “he doubted its completeness because he knew that outside counsel had reviewed it.”

The “outside counsel” the report referred to was all but certainly Sussmann, who served as the DNC’s point of contact for all intrusion-related matters. He was acquitted last month of one charge of lying to the FBI about whether he was representing the DNC when he took a white paper to the FBI that alleged a connection between then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russia. The FBI agents who reviewed the paper found the claims in it unfounded within 24 hours.

On Sept. 30, 2016, one week before the release of the statement accusing Russia of the hack, the FBI was still seeking copies of the CrowdStrike reports without the redactions. That day, FBI agent Adrian Hawkins listed copies of the unredacted CrowdStrike reports as the No. 1 priority request to the DNC, according to another email made public as a trial exhibit in the Sussman case.

The FBI never received the unredacted reports, according to a government court filing in the case against Roger Stone. According to the filing, lawyers for the DNC told prosecutors that “no redacted information” in the CrowdStrike reports “concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller alleged that the hack of the DNC during which emails were stolen took place on or around May 25 to June 1, 2016. That time frame is significant because CrowdStrike has since told The Epoch Times that the DNC systems were not hacked during that time frame. Crowdstrike had deployed 200 sensors and other counter-intrusion technologies on the committee’s network within the first week of its engagement, which began on May 1, 2016.

“There is no indication of any subsequent breaches taking place on the DNC’s corporate network or any machines protected by CrowdStrike Falcon,” the company told The Epoch Times in August 2020.

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry, who was in charge of the firm’s work on the DNC intrusion, has told congressional investigators that his company didn’t have concrete evidence that emails had been stolen from the DNC.

“We have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated,” Henry told lawmakers on Dec. 5, 2017.

The alleged hacking of the DNC along with the subsequent release of the committee’s emails was the nexus of allegations of collusion with Russia that plagued the administration of President Donald Trump.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/obama-approved-accusing-russia-of-dnc-hack-before-fbi-received-dnc-server-images_4514033.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-07-1&utm_medium=email&est=9uk9hx3CsXkb1WDuum7fD2tOgZuRkLCnL0Ntm4k1InsMks36hdGGKbPNHeLox6pnYA%3D%3D

Citizens argue federal law doesn’t allow government to punish people for refusing to answer 100-question American Community Survey

Two U.S. citizens have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Census Bureau, claiming the long, detailed American Community Survey the agency requires millions to complete each year is illegal.

The lawsuit comes as the U.S. Census Bureau comes under fire for significant miscounts in the 2020 census, with population numbers in six states being undercounted, while eight states saw an overcount in population. Republicans say the botched census count unfairly prevented Florida and Texas from each gaining a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

President Donald Trump tried to prevent the counting of illegal aliens so they wouldn’t have an effect on the apportionment of political power among the states. The Supreme Court sided with him on Dec. 28, 2020, allowing the Trump administration to attempt to carry out its policy as the deadline for census figures was approaching. But on the day he was inaugurated, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13986, which reversed the Trump policy.

The 22-page legal complaint (pdf) in the new case, Murphy v. Raimondo, 3:22-cv-5377, was filed on May 24 in Tacoma in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo, who was appointed in September of last year by Biden.

The plaintiffs are U.S. citizens Maureen Murphy and John Huddleston. Murphy lives in Gig Harbor, Washington; Huddleston resides in Susanville, California.

The defendants are U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and Director of the Bureau of the Census Robert Santos. Both are being sued in their official capacities. The U.S. Department of Commerce and the Bureau also are named as defendants.

Murphy and Huddleston don’t object to the normal census carried out nationwide every 10 years, which is fairly simple and designed to count people for congressional redistricting; they object to the much more detailed American Community Survey (ACS), which gathers information they say isn’t necessary for the census.

The enumeration clause in the U.S. Constitution states that an “Enumeration shall be made” every 10 years “in such Manner” as Congress “shall by Law direct.” Congress authorized the Census to be carried out in Title 13 of the United States Code.

The Census Bureau’s website states that it’s against the law to disclose or publish any private information that identifies an individual or business and that the personal information collected “cannot be used against respondents by any government agency or court.” Bureau employees are “sworn for life” to protect the information gathered. Violating the law can lead to as many as five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000, or both.

Unlike the once-a-decade census, the ACS is conducted every year and “asks detailed and personal questions such as the person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, fertility history, marital status, and divorce history,” according to the legal complaint.

Other questions posed in the survey concern whether the household has internet access, how many cars the inhabitants own, whether the occupants receive food stamps, how many and which languages the occupants speak, and “details of the occupants’ physical, mental, or emotional conditions such as deafness or blindness, and any difficulty concentrating, remembering, making decisions, walking or climbing, dressing or bathing, or running errands.”

The ACS queries respondents about private health information, including whether the occupants have health insurance, and the effect of medical and psychological conditions on the individual’s daily activities. It also asks how much households pay in taxes and for utilities. “It even asks how many beds, cars, and washing machines the household has … [and] contains about 100 such questions.”

Unlike the 10-year census, which everyone has to answer, the Census Bureau chooses a sample of a few million households each year to answer the ACS. Individuals who decline to answer this detailed questionnaire face fines of up to $5,000 per question, the complaint states.

Murphy and Huddleston were selected to complete the ACS.

“They understand the importance of the decennial Census. They have in the past and will continue in the future to answer the ten-year Census. But they oppose the highly detailed and personal information demanded in the American Community Survey and have refused to answer it,” the complaint reads.

“As a result, they are subject to monetary fines for doing nothing more than keeping the private details of their lives private.”

Murphy and Huddleston argue that the Census Bureau doesn’t have the statutory or constitutional authority to compel them to answer the “detailed, intrusive questions” of the ACS, the complaint states.

“The Census Bureau does not have the authority to compel Americans to divulge any information it sees fit, beyond what’s needed for the 10-year census,” said attorney Adi Dynar of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a national public interest law firm headquartered in Sacramento, California, that is representing the plaintiffs.

“Congress has not authorized the Census Bureau to impose criminal penalties and fines for refusing to answer their intrusive, deeply personal questions,” Dynar said in a statement.

Officials at the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/census-bureau-sued-over-intrusive-annual-survey-questions_4513009.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-05-4&utm_medium=email&est=Ubug7LzgeNEuOw0pq6go00VKBluHYNCatMxEWd%2BPsB%2FlUh3T3ymfGPjsmRIQWogOEQ%3D%3D

A former top adviser to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach admitted Sunday there was no “smoking gun” that suggested President Donald Trump planned the breach.

Denver Riggleman, a former Republican House representative, had recently been a senior adviser to the panel. He told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday that there was no direct evidence that suggested the breach and protests outside the Capitol were premeditated.

CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the former lawmaker whether there is a “smoking gun” that “proves that Donald Trump or somebody around him knew that what happened January 6 was not a spontaneous outcry by his supporters, but was a planned attempt to get them to stop counting the electoral votes?”

“That probably [was] going to be very difficult to even find based on the limited authorities of Congress as far as getting data and things like that,” Riggleman ultimately conceded to CNN. However, he claimed later in the interview that the panel will reveal alleged nefarious actions carried out by Trump, although he didn’t make any specific claims.

There are “multiple groups involved,” he alleged. “And I think that’s what’s exciting about the hearings, is, they’re going to be able to put the multiple groups together. Remember, there’s different investigative teams that were looking at different parts of this the whole time.”

Riggleman on Sunday also appeared to declare his support for Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), one of the leaders on the House Jan. 6 panel and who has become more and more unpopular among members of her own party amid her outspoken opposition to Trump. Riggleman also told CNN Sunday he is no longer a member of the Republican Party.

Late last week, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro was charged with contempt of Congress after he refused to cooperate with the panel. Months before that, former Trump campaign chief and former White House adviser Steve Bannon was charged by the Department of Justice with contempt of Congress charges.

While speaking to reporters on Friday, Navarro said that the FBI placed him in “leg irons” and said he was put in a jail cell that held would-be Ronald Reagan assassin John Hinckley Jr.

“Who are these people? This is not America,” Navarro said outside a federal court in Washington, D.C. “I was a distinguished public servant for four years.”

“They put me in leg irons, they stuck me in a cell, by the way—just a historical note—I was in John Hinckley’s cell,” Navarro said. “They seemed to think that that was like an important historical note. That’s punitive. What they did to me today violated the Constitution.”

He continued: “On Wednesday, I reached out to the Justice Department. I offered them a possible way forward. They responded with effectively the same kind of thing as you see in Stalin’s Russia or the Chinese Communist Party.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-committee-adviser-no-smoking-gun-showing-trump-planned-us-capitol-breach_4513415.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-05-4&utm_medium=email&est=2WWC3ygPbBvZGcjwKup9Yjt7sVRWlEstnSJpKN4gITK2XlGfzZi2lY0JZf8ZoWpjug%3D%3D

Former Attorney General William Barr called the Russiagate “a dirty political trick” against former President Donald Trump and criticized the justice system as “rigged” to target Republicans.

“I thought we were heading into a constitutional crisis,” Barr told conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck in a recent episode, after being asked about his return to politics between 2019 and 2020. Barr then brought up the Russia probe against Donald Trump, the second president he served as the attorney general after George H.W. Bush.

“Whatever you think of Trump,” he explained, “the fact is that the whole Russiagate thing was a grave injustice. It appears to be a dirty political trick that was used first to hobble him and then potentially to drive him from office.”

He said he believes Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate scandal was “seditious,” referencing the scheme that began in early 2016 to vilify Trump as an agent of the Kremlin.

Such remarks, however, were soon followed by the acquittal of Michael Sussmann as a jury on May 31 found him not guilty of lying to the FBI. Prosecutors accused the former Clinton campaign cybersecurity lawyer of not disclosing who he worked for to a top FBI official ahead of the 2016 election.

His tip—an alleged link between then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russia—also failed to prove any Russian collusion.

The jury, from a largely Democrat-leaning pool of the nation’s capital, ultimately rejected the prosecution’s claims. Defense Attorney Sean Berkowitz accused Durham, who was appointed by Barr during the Trump Administration to probe the origins of the now disproven Russiagate, of picking evidence to fit a narrative.

“I do think there is a degree to which the system had a double standard, and still has a double standard, and is rigged against Republicans,” Barr said on the podcast. “For an example, while I was Attorney General, no case that was embarrassing to the Democrats was leaked. However, cases that hurt Republicans were leaked.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.

Barr has praised special counsel Durham and his team for doing an “exceptionally able job” although failing in getting a conviction. “I think he accomplished something far more important,” he told Fox News, given that Durham had “crystallized the central role” that Clinton’s campaign played in “fanning the flames” of the narrative against Trump’s campaign.

He added that Durham had also “exposed really dreadful behavior” by the senior ranks in the FBI, who “knowingly use this information to start an investigation of Trump and then dupe their own agents by lying to them and refusing to tell them what the real source of that information was.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/barr-us-legal-system-is-rigged-against-republicans_4510206.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-03-1&utm_medium=email&est=gyeC85NQm6Sa%2FGWdXRIj1lmOyw%2Fkjss1ByBBODYN3DxLKSJyi79PcC5iSTZ2xFZXYQ%3D%3D

A lawyer representing Democrats proposed alterations to an FBI statement on the hacking of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to avoid undermining the narrative from his clients, according to emails released as part of the trial of former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann.

FBI officials in mid-2016 were drafting a statement regarding an alleged intrusion into the DCCC network and sent the draft to Sussmann, a lawyer representing the DCCC, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and other Democrats.

Jim Trainor, assistant director for the FBI Cyber Division, wrote to Sussmann on July 29, 2016: “Michael—our press office is once again getting a ton of calls on the DCCC matter. A draft response is provided below. Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out.”

Sussmann zeroed in on the first sentence, which he said seemed to undermine what the DCCC was saying about the reported intrusion.

“The draft you sent says only that the FBI is aware of media reports; it does not say that the FBI is aware of the intrusion that the DCCC reported. Indeed, it refers only to a ‘possible’ cyber intrusion and in that way undermines what the DCCC said in its statement (or at least calls into question what the DCCC said),’” Sussmann said.

Sussmann proposed changing the press release from saying the FBI is aware of reporting on “a possible cyber instruction involving the DCCC” to saying the bureau “is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media and the FBI has been working to determine the nature and scope of the matter.”

Trainor said the proposed alterations were fine.

“We try to really limit what we see and not acknowledging too much but the below edits are fine and we will send out,” Trainor said.

The bureau ended up using language similar to that offered by Sussmann, telling news outlets that it was “aware of media reporting on cyber intrusions involving multiple political entities, and is working to determine the accuracy, nature, and scope of these matters.”

The emails were introduced as exhibits during Sussmann’s trial and obtained by The Epoch Times. Sussmann was acquitted on May 31 of lying to the FBI.

According to notes taken by then-CIA Director John Brennan, President Barack Obama received a briefing on July 28, 2016—one day before Sussmann’s email to Trainor. Brennan told Obama of an intelligence intercept showing that Russia was aware of a plan approved by Clinton to “vilify” her rival, Donald Trump, by “stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

Days later, the CIA informed the FBI of intelligence suggesting that Clinton’s plan was meant “as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

According to the indictment of several Russian nationals brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, the alleged Russian conspirators gained access to the DCCC network on April 12, 2016. That same day, then-FBI Director James Comey held a meeting with senior FBI officials to discuss how to execute a “credible … conclusion” of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to conduct government business.

The DCCC and the DNC hired CrowdStrike, a private cybersecurity firm, to investigate and remediate the network intrusions. The FBI conducted its own investigation, relying on server images and reports produced by CrowdStrike, with Sussmann playing as the singular point of contact representing the DNC and the DCCC, according to another email introduced during the trial.

The CrowdStrike reports sent to the FBI were partly redacted. An email addressed to Sussmann by an FBI agent indicated that receiving the nonredacted versions of the reports was the top priority for the bureau. According to a previous filing by the Department of Justice in the case against Trump associate Roger Stone, the bureau never received the unredacted reports. The FBI has rejected Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents.

Other missives entered during Sussmann’s trial showed the lawyer becoming upset after the bureau announced that it was investigating the reported intrusion into the DNC network.

Sussmann messaged Trainor, questioning the “significance of this announcement” and requesting the bureau consult with him before making public statements about the DNC case.

Trainor apologized, agreeing that when the FBI makes statements “we need to be in lock step with victims and partners.”

Trainor said the statement was an attempt to “respond in a more authentic way” and that the bureau intended to “be equally cooperative partners as we navigate this matter.”

“Thank you for that explanation. You can understand how the statement was confusing to us,” Sussmann said. “Please try to keep us informed if the FBI says anything else publicly about its investigation.”

Sussmann was the FBI’s point of contact on the investigations into the intrusions into the DCCC and DNC network, according to an email that FBI agent Jennifer Frasch sent in August 2016.

Sussmann was close to the FBI for years and had a badge that allowed him access to the bureau’s headquarters. Sussmann used the badge to gain entry on Sept. 19, 2016, when he handed over sketchy allegations against Trump to FBI lawyer James Baker.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-altered-statement-on-intrusion-into-democrat-network-based-on-input-from-lawyer_4505749.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-02-2&utm_medium=email&est=i74gktmQj7QZ4Mu2w67mrrCjl%2Bfor8dC62ve7v4XlhAUKU1X%2FnIzJsBZfD%2FxbEesfg%3D%3D

Brandon Straka, a conservative activist, was confronted with a choice between pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit and facing serious charges with a long prison term related to the Jan. 6 Capitol rally. He chose to accept the plea deal because he felt he would not get a fair trial.

On Jan. 6, 2021, after then-President Donald Trump addressed the rally at the Ellipse, a park near the White House, Straka walked to U.S. Capitol where he was supposed to give a speech at an event planned to take place on the east side of the building, Straka recollected of that day.

While walking, he received messages from people watching the news at their homes saying that some people went inside the Capitol building, Straka told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.Play Video

He thought that something unusual might be happening, so when he was about three blocks away from the Capitol, he started shooting a video to record everything that happened from that point on, Straka said.

The breach of the Capitol occurred on the west side of the building, but he was heading to the east side where his speaking engagement was going to take place, said Straka, founder of the WalkAway Campaign. “There were people on all four sides of the Capitol.”

“As I’m entering the grounds [on the east side of the Capitol], there are no police officers present that can be visible anywhere in the video. People on the grounds are very, very calm.

“There’s a man on the top of the steps on the east side, sort of motioning down and hollering out. ‘They’ve opened the doors, they’re letting us in.’”

Straka said he walked to the top of the stairs and began filming while holding his camera fully above his head, as there were hundreds of people standing outside. Most people did not enter the Capitol, but some did, he added.

“The doors were wide open. … I never went inside the building, I just stood outside of the building, filming.”

After about eight minutes, a man with a bullhorn came outside of the Capitol, Straka continued. “He said into the bullhorn: ‘They’ve cleared Congress. Everybody’s left the building. Clear out, clear out.’”

“At that moment, I immediately turned around, I left,“ Straka said.

Straka then came to his hotel room, uploaded the video he shot to Twitter, and posted it with a comment similar to “This is what I witnessed today at the Capitol,” he said.

However, after seeing on TV the footage of what had occurred on the west side of the Capitol, he took his video down. “It was really shocking to me because I didn’t see anything like that with my own eyes…. I took my video down when I saw that because I didn’t want anybody to think that I was there or a part of it or somehow condoning whatever that was.”

“But for that hour or two that my video had lived on Twitter, Twitter trolls had copied my video, and they began mass posting it for the next several weeks and tagging the FBI.

“On Monday, January 25, I woke up to an FBI squad on my door. They came in and raided my apartment and put me in handcuffs. [They] presented me with a search warrant and they took me to jail.”

The FBI took his computer, iPad, phone, hard drives, thumb drives, camera, and clothing, Straka said.

Facing Charges

Straka said that being in jail really terrified him because it was just five days after the President Joe Biden’s inauguration when the Democrats had taken full control of the federal government, and he thought he could “be spending decades in prison for spending eight minutes outside of the Capitol on January 6.”

After two and a half days, he was released from the prison on a judge’s order, Straka said. He was charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor. The first felony was for occupying restricted grounds.

On the east side of the Capitol, where Straka was, there were no police and no barricades, he said. “There’s a very large sidewalk [there], very, very wide, so you could drive a truck down the sidewalk, and on both sides of it, there was bike rack in the grass, … but the sidewalk was wide open.”

“I think any logical person would not think that they weren’t allowed to be on that sidewalk, not to mention the fact that there were thousands of people everywhere. So I don’t know how on earth anyone would get the indication that they should not be there.”

Straka said he believed that the charges against him were not fair: “A lot of people, even people who went inside the Capitol, even people who crawled through a broken window and went inside the Capitol, are getting misdemeanor charges of being on restricted grounds or parading inside the Capitol. I was charged with a felony for that.”

He was also charged with a felony for “impeding an officer in the line of duty.”

“I was standing there with my arms above my head, my camera pointed toward the open doors of the Capitol and filming. And there’s a moment in my video … where a police officer comes to the doorframe of the east side Capitol doors … somebody grabs his shield out of his hand and they begin passing it back through the crowd. And as that’s happening, a few people in the crowd are shouting, ‘take it, take it, and take the shield, take the shield.’”

This happened about 35 feet in front of him with hundreds of people in between him and the Capitol doors, Straka explained.

The FBI said they “knew conclusively” that it was his voice, Straka said. “First, they said it was me shouting ‘take the shield, take the shield.’ And then they changed it to me shouting ‘take it, take it,’” he said.

Straka said he “vehemently denied” the charges. The government later offered him a plea deal that dropped the two felony charges but charged him with “a misdemeanor of disorderly conduct,” Straka said. However, there was a condition attached to the plea deal: “They put in my plea deal that I witnessed this police officer having his shield taken away and that I shouted ‘take it, take it’ to encourage the crowd to take the shield away.”

He was told that if he objected to the deal, he could go to trial facing the two felonies and the misdemeanor that he had already been charged with, and possibly an additional felony charge of “obstruction of Congress,” which carries a sentence of 20 years,” Straka said.

Facing such pressure, Straka signed the plea deal, which means he confessed to a crime he didn’t commit only to avoid facing charges with long prison terms that he believed would not be heard before a fair trial, Straka explained.

Trials of Jan. 6 defendants are held in Washington, D.C., and these judges do not release jurisdiction to somewhere else, Straka said.

“Every jury trial that has taken place so far on January 6 cases has resulted in the juries deliberating for a matter of two hours or less and coming back with guilty on all counts verdicts.

“I don’t believe that my case would have been any different. My opinion is that it does not matter if you’re innocent, and it does not matter if the evidence shows that you’re innocent. If you are a vocal Trump supporter who questioned the 2020 election and you’re going before a D.C. judge and jury, you’re going to be punished for making the decision to support Donald Trump and question the election.

“A lot of the judges in Washington, D.C., are liberal-appointed activist judges who also hate Donald Trump,” Straka said.

“I struggle every day—probably until the day I die, I’ll struggle with [this]: Did I make the right decision? But ultimately I have to believe that I did.”

Aftermath of Confession

 Straka said he has been “paying dearly” for signing the plea deal, as his reputation was destroyed.

He has been portrayed by media as an “insurrectionist” who “encouraged an attack on a police officer,” he said. He believes, however, that “nobody should ever take a shield from a police officer, and nobody should ever encourage anybody to take a shield from a police officer.”

In 2020, at the time when the BLM movement promoted defunding the police, Straka, a Democrat-turned-Republican, and his WalkAway Campaign organized “Rescue America” rallies across the country during which they raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support police officers, the activist said.

In December last year, WalkAway held a fundraising event to “refund the police” and “raised $30,000 to give to defunded police departments to help restore training and equipment,” Straka said.

The funds were raised through a limited email campaign aimed at his followers, Straka said. His audience supports the police, and they would have never supported Straka and his campaign if they had believed that he participated in or encouraged an attack on a police officer, Straka said.

The WalkAway Campaign “encourages and supports those on the Left to walk away from the divisive tenets endorsed and mandated by the Democratic Party of today,” the WalkAway website reads. Its mission is to bring Americans together to walk towards unity, civility, respect, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, the website says.

Straka said that he and his organization have been permanently banned from online-donor and popular payment services.

“My name has been destroyed in the media. I am now synonymous with being an insurrectionist and a terrorist who went to D.C. on January 6 to try to overthrow the government and encourage an attack on a police officer, when in fact, I thought I was going to be speaking at a First Amendment-protected event,” Straka said.

“It’s been catastrophically destructive to my name and the name of my organization,” Straka said, but he added: “I’m a fighter, I’m going to fight my way back, I’m going to keep going, I’m not going to back down. … This is an uphill battle, but we’re going to win.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/brandon-straka-jan-6-confession-was-made-under-pressure-of-facing-charges-with-long-prison-term_4503300.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-01-4&utm_medium=email&est=TyNmerJodWiUcBZlbLbEmTm3qkjK9x41CXwA936vdF9Ga1vFR7ifjvlkKrCa29E9BA%3D%3D

President Donald Trump on May 31 said the legal system isn’t working properly after a jury in Washington acquitted a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who had been charged with lying to the FBI.

“Our Legal System is CORRUPT,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, adding that “our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised, or just plain scared” before lamenting that Michael Sussmann, the lawyer, was found not guilty.

Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign aide, also reacted to the verdict, writing on Gettr that Sussmann admitted to giving opposition research to the FBI and not telling the bureau that the research was conducted for Clinton.

“How did Sussmann get off??? RIGGED SYSTEM!!!” Miller wrote.

Sussmann was accused of lying to the FBI because he said in writing that he wanted to meet with a bureau official to deliver information but that he was not acting on behalf of a client.

Prosecutors said Sussmann was acting on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and a client named Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who has said he was promised a position in the government if Clinton won the 2016 election.

The defense said Sussmann was not acting on behalf of a client, even though Sussmann previously told members of the House of Representatives under oath that he was. The defense also said that even if Sussmann was representing a client when he met with the bureau official, the statement was not material because the bureau was aware Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee and other Democrat persons and entities.

Federal law prohibits making a false statement or representation to the government. The charge carries up to five years in jail, or up to eight years if the lie is related to international or domestic terrorism.

The jury unanimously found Sussmann not guilty.

“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” one juror told reporters. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”

Trump has regularly posted on Truth Social, a social media platform he started, since earlier this year. The former president was removed from Twitter and Facebook in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Executives at the companies accused Trump of inciting violence, while he argued that he was not doing so.

Trump told a rally in Wyoming over the weekend that he would not return to Twitter, even if he is allowed to if Elon Musk’s purchase plans come to fruition.

“Get off Twitter and go Truth Social,” Trump said. “We have truth on our side.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-responds-after-former-clinton-lawyer-is-acquitted_4502955.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-31-3&utm_medium=email&est=YynB3FTGN16PBQMSBfXztVz7glYNZO7CUWo2XW%2FdtqsqnFICMDKY3n7V0APkq1tPaQ%3D%3D

An interesting pattern emerged at the trial of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. While we may have expected special counsel John Durham to challenge the official media and establishment narrative that the Trump-Russia investigation was properly predicated and carried out, it is Sussmann who is now challenging that narrative, not Durham.

In fact, Durham made it clear from day one of the trial that he is running with the opposite narrative, that the FBI was a victim. In essence, Durham has forced Sussmann’s team to attack the FBI in order to exonerate their client—and Sussmann’s team has embraced the challenge.

In possibly the biggest bombshell admission of the past year, Sussmann’s team revealed an internal FBI text message that proves that FBI leadership was vigorously pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax despite the flimsiness of the evidence.

It is the first public acknowledgment backed by documentary evidence that FBI leadership was focused on taking out Trump.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-internal-fbi-text-message-reveals-fbi-leaderships-desire-to-get-trump-truth-over-news_4492007.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-26-4&utm_medium=email&est=%2BOQFe%2Fs2necxfrFHAy1h0iHK1d46sV8dNBC%2Ft43HqGhrUVYpR5OgnuRp8JVOXBQadw%3D%3D

When Jennifer-Ruth Green, a black woman, won an overwhelming victory in Indiana’s 1^st Congressional District Republican primary this month, she helped improve the chances that the GOP would take the once-reliable Democrat district in the general election.

Not only did Green, a political newcomer, beat an accomplished politician, Blair Milo, who served as mayor of LaPorte Indiana and is currently in the administration of Indiana’s Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb, she also won by a comfortable margin.

In a race that included Green, Milo, and another conservative campaigner who got 15 percent of the vote, Green very nearly go a majority of the vote, winning 49.2 percent of the Republican primary voters, according to the final vote totals at Ballotopedia. Milo won 18 percent of the vote.

Such a blowout win against an establishment candidate may have embarrassed big wigs in Indiana like former vice president and former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, his brother Rep. Greg Pence (R-Ind.), and Holcomb.

The state GOP, however, seems solidly behind her candidacy.

“Jennifer-Ruth Green is an incredible candidate who will motivate and inspire not only Republicans, but northwest Indiana voters across the political spectrum,” Luke Thomas, press secretary and digital director at the Indiana GOP, told The Epoch Times in an email.

With the support of the GOP in the most important race in the state, Green could upset incumbent Democrat Frank Mrvan, who is running for re-election for the first time, just as she surprised insiders in the GOP.

“She’s a newcomer, but she’s a polished campaigner,” Adam Wren, publisher of Importantville, a subscription newsletter that covers Indiana politics at the micro-level, told The Epoch Times, while refusing to handicap the race for any candidate.

Back to Importantville

“Importantville,” many might remember, is how then-candidate for president Donald Trump described Indiana, as he campaigned in the state for the final 57 GOP delegates he needed to clinch the nomination

“Now Indiana is becoming very important … you folks belong where you belong; it’s called Importantville right? I love it,” Trump said about Indiana while campaigning there in 2016, according to ABCNews.

It’s appropriate because Green campaigned as a strong supporter of Trump, releasing a 30- second ad that attacked her GOP opponent as a “Never Trump Republican.”

“Don’t be fooled. Milo refused to support Trump,” said the Green ad, claiming that Milo wouldn’t support Trump’s nomination or his immigration policies.

Such an ad could have rankled the Pence brothers, one of whom has feuded with Trump since the 2020 election was final, but those close to the campaign say no.

“Jennifer-Ruth is a battle-proven leader and she has just the skillset to turn Indiana’s 1st District red and defeat Rep. Frank Mrvan and his 100 percent support for the failed Biden-Pelosi agenda,” said GOP state party press secretary Thomas.

Democrats’ Sagging Hopes

Indiana’s 1^st Congressional District, which used to reliably give Democrats 60 percent or more of the vote in general elections, is only leaning Democrat by 4 percent, according to a 2021 analysis by the Cook Political Report.

But that was before the tough year Democrats have had under President Joe Biden.

Inflation, a struggling economy and a Democrat Party that seems out of touch with voters has the GOP poised for some upsets, according to the latest AP polls, which show Biden under a 40 percent approval rating nationwide.

Most alarming for liberals is the sagging approval rating Biden has been given by Democrats.

After enjoying a positive bounce subsequent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden’s approval rating has plunged nearly ten points among Democrats, according to the AP poll, to a lowest-ever for his presidency, at 73 percent.

It’s an ominous sign for Democrats in competitive House districts, such as Indiana’s 1^st, “with deepening pessimism emerging among members of his own Democratic Party,” said the AP.

And that gives Green a legitimate shot to be the only black woman to represent the GOP in the House next year, and wrestle one of two congressional districts out of seven away from the Democrats in Indiana.

This is especially true when one reckons that Indiana, as a whole, is one of the more reliable partisan Republican states in the country, according to FiveThirtyEight.

Incumbent Democrat Frank Mrvan has all but tied his fate to that of Biden’s after waiting around to shake the president’s hand at the conclusion of the State of the Union speech this year.

It wasn’t just a photo-op for Mrvan either. He stopped to thank Biden for signing a massive spending bill that critics say may have helped lead to the worst inflation in 40 years.

“I’m Frank Mrvan, I represent Gary, Indiana, I’m co-chair of the Steel Caucus, and I want to thank you for the infrastructure bill for our district and also for the steel industry, and what that will do for Northwest Indiana’s economy,” Mrvan told Biden, according to Mrvan’s campaign Facebook site.

Green: ‘Mrvan Owns Biden’s Failures’

Green countered by telling The Epoch Times that Mrvan voted with “Biden and Pelosi” 100 percent of the time.

“Frank Mrvan owns all of Biden’s failures from inflation to gas prices to food prices to the baby formula shortage to surging crime, border chaos and woke attacks on Hoosier families,” Green told The Epoch Times, while emphasizing that she’s pro-America and pro-military.

Despite coming from the same congressional district where Biden’s Secretary of Transportation, progressive Pete Buttigieg, was mayor, Green refused to be labeled the ‘anti-Buttigieg’ candidate, pushing back against contrasting her conservative credentials to former Mayor Buttigieg’s progressive stances.

“I’m pro-America, pro-family, pro-national defense. I’m not anti-anybody. I wish that Biden was pro-economy,” Green said.

When asked if the racial diversity training pushed in the U.S. military under Biden had affected the readiness of the armed services, Green, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, who still serves as a reservist, was direct.

Green said that, of course, historically there have been some real injustices racially and that some of the discrimination issues “are worth fighting for.”

“But there’s been an overreach,” on this subject by the Biden administration that “could impact our readiness.”

A Serious Campaign

Green served as a mission commander for counterintelligence activities in Baghdad and later as a deputy chief for a nuclear command post, according to her campaign biography.

But she’s not running on her military laurels, but as an unapologetic conservative backed up by political savvy.

“She has one of the best political operatives in the state working for her, so the campaign is very serious,” Wren, the political analyst, said.

Wren is referring to Tim Edison at FP1 Strategies who helped Josh Hawley win his Senate race in Missouri in 2018, and who, according to The New York Times, is promoting a more diverse GOP, one that seeks to make black men and black women more welcome.

Green emphasized that seeing more people like themselves in positions of leadership means that more black people will vote for the GOP and more black people will run for office as conservatives.

She said that meeting one of the Tuskegee airmen—a famed group of African American pilots and support staff who fought in WWII—for example, gave her the courage to become a pilot for the Air Force.

Mrvan won the district in 2020 with 57 percent of the vote. But more Democrats showed up in the 2022 primary than did Republicans, which could be problematic.

Still, if given the funding and whole-hearted party support in one of the legitimate places that the GOP is competitive, Green has a chance to take a House seat from the Democrats.

And that victory could bring Republicans a black woman and veteran to the House, willing to battle for the constituencies that the GOP claims are the key to the party’s future.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House and Mvran’s office for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/veteran-mounts-challenge-against-democrats-in-midterms-could-become-only-black-republican-woman-in-house_4488186.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-26&utm_medium=email&est=EW1J7QZEaF%2Bu%2FI6JFlGgY5EH2lcgJvd6CnEak%2BEn9DVwoFbQlmDd4FVMsadSwO%2Br3g%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—Then-FBI Director James Comey and other bureau leaders were “fired up” in 2016 about allegations that Donald Trump’s business was secretly communicating with a Russian bank, according to internal FBI messages revealed in court on May 23.

“People on the 7th floor to include director are fired up about this server,” Joseph Pientka, an agent based in Washington, told Curtis Heide, a colleague working from the bureau’s Chicago office, in a message dated Sept. 21, 2016.

“Reachout [sic] and put tools on,” Pientka added. “Its [sic] not an option—we must do it.”

The message was sent just days after Michael Sussmann, a lawyer representing the campaign of Hillary Clinton—Trump’s rival for the presidency—met with an FBI lawyer and passed along information that he alleged showed a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

Even as FBI cyber experts deemed the allegations false within a day—and the CIA would later do the same—the bureau’s counterintelligence arm continued to probe the claims, a move backed by senior bureau officials such as Comey.

James Baker, the former FBI general counsel who met with Sussmann in 2016, quickly handed the information to higher-ups and personally briefed Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, both of whom were eventually fired by Trump’s Justice Department.

“It seemed to me of great urgency and seriousness that I would want to make my bosses aware of this information,” Baker said.

He recounted that both men were “quite concerned” about the allegations.

Pientka’s message was made public for the first time in federal court during the trial of Sussmann, who is charged with lying to the FBI for saying he wasn’t bringing the allegations on behalf of a client. Prosecutors say he was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign in a bid to influence the 2016 presidential election. Clinton campaign officials have testified that they didn’t approve Sussmann taking the allegations to the bureau; they preferred to have them promoted in media reports.

Bill Priestap, who was on the stand when the message was read, said he hadn’t seen it before.

Priestap was the FBI’s assistant counterintelligence director in 2016. He retired in 2019 and founded Trenchcoat Providers, which bills itself as helping safeguard businesses against cyber intrusions.

Priestap testified that he “does not recall” why there was “no choice” but to begin an investigation, and was unsure whether the bureau did open a probe. The only reason he knows they did is that there was an official file opened. The file said the probe was approved by four officials, including Daniel Wierzbicki, an official at the FBI’s Chicago office.

Priestap was the first person Baker spoke with after meeting with Sussmann and receiving the Trump–Russia allegations. Priestap claimed not to remember taking notes of the conversation, but, while on the stand, he was presented with notes he had taken.

The notes show that Priestap wrote that he was told that Sussmann wasn’t representing any clients in bringing the information to the FBI, bolstering special counsel John Durham’s case.

The motivation of the person bringing allegations is of interest, but isn’t the only factor the FBI uses to assess what steps to take regarding information, Priestap said. The bureau would want to know if a political campaign was behind any allegations, and if a confidential FBI source was behind them.

Rodney Joffe, another Sussmann client, was a confidential source but, according to prosecutors, utilized Sussmann to convey the information to the FBI, as opposed to taking it himself to his handler.

Joffe was terminated “for cause” in 2021 as a source, prosecutors have revealed.

“It was not something that I was regularly briefed on, and if I recall correctly, at end of the day, it didn’t amount to much,” Priestap said regarding the allegations.

The probe of the allegations primarily took place at the FBI’s Chicago office. Ryan Gaynor, an FBI agent there, recounted on May 23 how he volunteered to track the progress of the probe for the bureau’s headquarters in Washington.

Gaynor learned that Sussmann was representing Democrats but chose to withhold that information from agents performing the analysis of the data. However, he also said that knowing Sussmann brought the data on behalf of a confidential FBI source would have likely led him not to volunteer.

Allison Sands, one of the agents who performed the analysis, determined that the data, which was contained on thumb drives that Sussmann dropped off with Baker along with several white papers, didn’t support the allegations.

Sands said she was prevented from knowing the source of the data because of Gaynor’s decision to keep it shielded. She would have wanted to speak to the source’s handlers if she knew. The team did figure out that David Dagon, a researcher with the Georgia Institute of Technology, authored one of the papers, but the team didn’t interview Dagon.

Sands said she was “either told not to, or to focus on the logs” on the thumb drives.

She said she knew only that the probe was ordered by officials from “someplace in headquarters land.”

Heide testified that the team had to open a full investigation because of demands from FBI leadership. He also said that the bureau headquarters rebuffed requests to interview the original source during the investigation. That led to frustration, and the feeling that the probe was incomplete even after being closed.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-leaders-including-comey-were-fired-up-about-trump-alfa-bank-claims-agent_4486824.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-24-2&utm_medium=email&est=th86%2F4L7GC4bzml2itPYQxTfVgz0DC9MNEFQEJKR9Q%2BRsmDVOVGkrg8fa9D6MobTPA%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton greenlighted the plan to give allegations against Donald Trump to a reporter ahead of the 2016 election, Clinton’s campaign manager testified in federal court on May 20.

“We told her we have this and we want to share it with a reporter. She agreed to that,” said Robby Mook, the campaign manager.

The allegations purportedly showed a secret back channel between Trump’s business and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Several stories were published about the claims on Oct. 31, 2016. Hours later, Clinton herself promoted them.

“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,” Clinton wrote in a Twitter post.

Neither she nor Jake Sullivan, a top campaign official, mentioned that the allegations were passed to the media by the campaign.

The allegations stemmed from Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who hoped to score a position in the government if Clinton won the election, researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the campaign who is on trial for allegedly lying to the FBI.

Sussmann informed his colleague Marc Elias of the allegations in the summer of 2016, who passed them on to the campaign in August of that year, Elias told the court this week.

“I thought that if there was a news account of the allegations,” it would “benefit the campaign,” Elias said.

Both Sussmann and operatives with Fusion GPS, a firm tapped by the campaign, worked to seed stories about Trump and Alfa Bank in media outlets, succeeding when Slate and the New York Times published stories that remain largely uncorrected to this day.

Mook says he was briefed by Elias on the claims, which he was told came from people with expertise in cyber matters. He does not recall being told any names and said campaign officials did not have the subject matter expertise to judge the claims themselves. He spoke with Sullivan and John Podesta, another campaign official, about spreading the allegations to media outlets.

Mook said the campaign didn’t immediately act on the allegations because of worries they weren’t credible. Officials ultimately decided, despite not being “totally confident” in the allegations, to give them to a reporter so the reporter could “run it down.”

“Our hope was they were going to run it down, that it would be substantive, and accurate,” he said.

A campaign staffer whose name Mook could not recall, with the campaign’s press department, conveyed the allegations to the press.

Mook said he couldn’t recall exactly when Clinton approved the move.

“All I can remember is she agreed with the decision. She thought we made the right decision,” he said.

According to previously disclosed declassified information, Clinton allegedly approved a campaign plan in late July 2016 to “stir up a scandal” against Trump by tying him to Russia.

Separately, in late September 2021, Sussmann handed over white papers outlining the allegations regarding Trump and the Russian bank and thumb drives with data purportedly supporting them to the FBI, a move that Elias and Mook both say was not cleared by the campaign.

Mook said he was “not aware” if Clinton approved Sussmann’s meeting. “I don’t know why” she would do so, he said.

Sussmann is on trial because he told FBI lawyer James Baker he was not bringing the information on behalf of any client.

Both the FBI and CIA determined the allegations were unsupported by the data, though that fact was not made public until this year through filings by Durham’s team.

Mooks said he was “not aware” if Clinton approved Sussmann going to FBI. “I don’t know why” she would do so, he said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/hillary-clinton-approved-giving-trump-russia-allegations-to-reporter-testimony_4479740.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-20-3&utm_medium=email&est=jC1DzD2JoiKQc58tFA2HyuRv0%2Fs8mpfyM4PfROi4Owz3VjEOlZlY%2FqTU7qajhGd5lA%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—The FBI lawyer who served as a conduit for flimsy allegations against Donald Trump said May 19 he would have acted differently if he knew Trump’s rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, was behind the claims.

James Baker, who now works for Twitter, said that he likely would not have have met with Michael Sussmann, who is accused of passing on data that allegedly linked Trump’s business to a Russian bank, if he knew Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

“I don’t think I would have,” Baker said on the stand in federal court in Washington.

Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “would have raised very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the source” and the “veracity of the information,” Baker said. It would also have heightened “a substantial concern in my mind about whether we were going to be played.”

The testimony bolsters a key piece of special counsel John Durham’s case against Sussmann—that knowing the sources propelling Sussmann to meet with Baker would have altered how the FBI analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately found did not substantiate the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

“Absent Sussmann’s false statement, the FBI might have taken additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing an investigation,” prosecutors said in Sussmann’s indictment, which charged him with lying to the FBI.

Defense lawyers have argued that the impact of Sussmann’s alleged lie was “trivial or negligible.”

Sussmann met Baker in the FBI lawyer’s office on Sept. 19, 2016, just weeks before the presidential election. No other persons were present.

Baker said Thursday that would not have been the case if he knew the Clinton campaign’s involvement. He said he likely would have directed Sussmann to other FBI personnel—bureau lawyers don’t typically receive information—or would have still met with Sussmann, but made sure other personnel were present.

“I was willing to meet with Michael alone because I had high confidence in him and trust,” said Baker, who has described Sussmann as a friend. “I think I would have made a different assessment if he said he had been appearing on behalf of a client.”

Sussmann told Baker in a text message the night before the meeting that he had sensitive information he wanted to pass on but that he was doing so on his own accord, not on behalf of any clients. Baker testified that Sussmann repeated the lie during the meeting. Sussmann later told a congressional panel that the information was given to him by a client.

“I think it’s most accurate to say it was done on behalf of my client,” Sussmann said, apparently referring to Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who has said he was promised a position in the government if Clinton won the election.

While Sussmann, Joffe, and others worked on the white papers that he ultimately passed to Baker, the lawyer was billing the Clinton campaign, according to billing records. Sussmann also told the campaign about the allegations before he met with Baker, though the campaign allegedly did not approve the meeting.

Sussmann was well-known to the FBI, having worked with the bureau on multiple cases, including the alleged hack of Democratic National Committee servers. Sussmann “had a vibrant national security practice that had contact with the FBI a lot,” Baker said. Sussmann worked for Perkins Coie, which was the Clinton campaign’s law firm during the 2016 election, and has a long history of working with Democrats.

On cross-examination, Sean Berkowitz, representing Sussmann, hammered Baker over inconsistencies in his testimony and what he’s said before.

Baker, for instance, told the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General in 2019 that Sussmann said he had information stemming from “people that were his clients.” Baker said he was using a “shorthand way” of describing the cyberexperts with whom Sussman was working.

In 2018, testifying to a House of Representatives panel behind closed doors, Baker said he couldn’t remember whether he knew at the time that Baker was representing the Clinton campaign. “I don’t know that I had that in my head when he showed up in my office,” Baker said at the time.

“I just find that unbelievable that the guy representing the Clinton campaign, the Democrat National Committee, shows up with information that says we got this, and you don’t ask where he got it, you didn’t know how he got it,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) responded.

“I was uncomfortable with being in the position of having too much factual information conveyed to me, because I’m not an agent. And so I wanted to get the information into the hands of the agents as quickly as possible and let them deal with it. If they wanted to go interview Sussmann and ask him all those kinds of questions, fine with me,” Baker said.

According to Baker’s testimony and previous remarks from Sussmann, no agents ended up asking those kinds of questions.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-lawyer-knowing-clinton-was-behind-trump-allegations-would-have-changed-things_4478501.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-20-1&utm_medium=email&est=ArKq6sff9EIj3uA1BKp27aswgTL%2FO5yK8%2B9vEmjKaqzIeBuGliayP5PZlRd8WP4Tug%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—Former FBI Director James Comey and his top deputy were briefed on claims against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump brought to the FBI by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the bureau’s former general counsel testified in court on May 19.

James Baker, who was the bureau’s top lawyer at the time, met with Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign lawyer, on Sept. 19, 2016.

During the meeting, which took place in Baker’s office, Sussmann handed over white papers and thumb drives that allegedly contained data proving a secret back channel between Trump’s business and a Russian bank—claims that were later deemed false by the FBI and CIA.

Baker, testifying during Sussmann’s trial on a charge of lying to the FBI, said Sussmann repeated what he had told his friend the night prior—that he was bringing the information on his own accord, not on behalf of any clients.

“It was part of his introduction to the meeting, ‘I’m not here on behalf of any particular client.’ I’m 100 percent confident that he said that,” Baker said.

Sussmann told Baker that media outlets were preparing to publish stories on the claims. Within minutes of getting the data, Baker picked up the phone and called Bill Priestap, a top FBI official.

“It involved Russia, and this bank had links to the Kremlin. That seemed to me, on its face, to be a potential national security threat,” Baker said, noting that the bureau was already investigating alleged connections between the Trump Organization and Russia. “It was a very high priority for me.”

During a meeting with Priestap, Baker vouched for Sussmann, who he has described as a friend. The pair met while working in the same Department of Justice division.

Baker repeated Sussmann’s claim—which led to a criminal charge against Sussmann and the trial—that he wasn’t bringing the information on behalf of a client, but noted that Sussmann had represented the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

Baker said he gave the data the next day to Peter Strzok, another top FBI official.

“I wanted to get rid of this material as quickly as possible. I hated having it on my desk. I didn’t want to have this material any longer than I needed to,” Baker said.

The FBI lawyer soon spoke to Comey, the bureau’s director at the time, and Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s deputy director, about the allegations.

“It seemed to me of great urgency and seriousness that I would want to make my bosses aware of this information,” Baker said.

He recounted both men being “quite concerned” about the allegations.

FBI experts who analyzed the data found that it didn’t support the claims, FBI agent Scott Hellman testified earlier this week. The CIA in early 2017 determined that the allegations weren’t only “untrue and unsupported,” but that the data was “user created” and “contained gaps.”

It became clear “that there was nothing there,” Baker said.

Priestap came back to Baker, who was thinking of publishing an article, to inquire about the report and Baker reached out to Sussmann to get the identity, which turned out to be Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times.

Baker met twice with Lichtblau. During the first meeting, the reporter agreed to delay the story. In the other, FBI officials conveyed that the bureau had concluded the materials didn’t substantiate that there was a surreptitious connection between Trump’s business and the Russian bank.

“We concluded there was no substance,” Baker said.

The New York Times, in an article published on Oct. 31, 2016, said the FBI “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation” for the purported link. It hasn’t been updated to include information that has entered into the public sphere since its publishing, such as the CIA’s conclusion.

Defense lawyers after a lunch break tried to portray Baker as an unreliable witness, as they have in hearings and filings entered before the trial began.

Sean Berkowitz, one of the lawyers, pointed out that  Baker told the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General in mid-2019 that Sussmann told Baker in the meeting that he had information “that he said related to strange interactions that some number of people that were his clients, who were, he described as I recall it, sort of cyber-security experts, had found.”

Baker also told prosecutors with special counsel John Durham’s team in 2020 that the topic of Sussmann’s clients didn’t come up during the meeting.

On the stand, Baker said his statement to the inspector general’s office was mistaken and that the truth is that Sussmann told him in person that he wasn’t bringing the information on behalf of a client. He said he didn’t consult his texts or otherwise prepare before speaking to the DOJ watchdog or prosecutors.

“Did it ever occur to you … to look at your phone for any text messages?” Berkowitz wondered.

“For better or worse, it did not occur to me,” Baker said.

Prior to the trial, Durham’s team revealed that it had obtained a text that Sussmann sent Baker asking him to meet, in which Sussmann stated that he had “time-sensitive (and sensitive)” information and that he was “coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau.”

Baker also challenged notes taken of a DOJ meeting involving him and high-ranking officials in 2017, during which the Alfa Bank allegations were raised. According to the notes, said to have been taken by a DOJ lawyer, McCabe said that the allegations were sourced from an “attorney” who “brought [them] to [the] FBI on behalf of his client.”

Baker said he did not recall that moment during the meeting.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-lawyer-says-he-briefed-mccabe-comey-on-sketchy-trump-russia-claims_4477481.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-20&utm_medium=email&est=M299vLir3hQZiNeN3sklragZbFIc45LrmZGMqcXOBFUrxySxWOEjEXXh8m%2BhQxi3fg%3D%3D

Former President Donald Trump told supporters on May 14 that he’s writing a book on alleged voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, titled “The Crime of the Century.”

“I don’t think you’ll enjoy it. You’ll be very depressed when you read it, but we want to have it down for historic reasons,” Trump said during his one-hour speech at the Austin Convention Center in Texas, as part of the larger American Freedom Tour which gathers conservatives in various cities across the country.

Addressing a crowd of thousands on Saturday as the last speaker, following former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump railed against mail-in ballots and alluded that votes were falsified during storage.

“It starts so early, and then they want to finish late, right?” Trump said during his speech. “This is the greatest hoax, heist. This is one of the greatest crimes in the history of our country. And sadly, the prosecutors don’t want to do anything about it.

”This is the crime of the century. I’m actually writing a book about it called ‘The Crime of the Century,’” Trump said, who has also authored about 20 other books, including his best-known “The Art of the Deal” from 1987 and “Our Journey Together”—his first book since leaving office, featuring over 300 official White House photographs.

The announcement mentioned no release date.

Trump also encouraged rallygoers to watch “2000 Mules,” a new documentary by Dinesh D’Souza, described as an expose of “widespread, coordinated voter fraud in the 2020 election.

“It is the greatest documentary I’ve ever seen,” said the former president. “It is so impactful, and it’s determinative.”

The movie analyzes cellphone records paired with ballot drop box surveillance footage. Filmmakers said that the volume of ballots inserted into the boxes and the fact that the people—described as mules—went to multiple boxes to drop ballots off shows what happened was illegal, although some states allow people to gather ballots from certain people and drop them off.

Trump asserted reforms such as new voter identification requirements and outlawing drop boxes and private funding would help ensure election security and justice for the future, according to his May 14 remarks.

Besides touching on national issues including inflation, public education, and border security, Trump also highlighted several GOP candidates he endorsed at the event as midterms loom. It came 10 days before the Texas primary runoffs on May 24, when the candidates will face off with rivals running for state and local office positions.

Saturday’s feature speakers also include Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump adviser Kimberly Guilfoyle. The tour with the former president will make the next stop in Memphis, Tennessee, on June 18.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-announces-forthcoming-book-about-the-2020-election_4471686.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-17-3&utm_medium=email&est=kCgrCJ2JCgM9tvXOvNMgS7ki2sPwcB5vwCDUUHVzPc0FPE%2FCx0kcn5FhSMW5u8m9%2Bg%3D%3D

Former First Lady Melania Trump gave her first interview since leaving the White House, providing a hint that her husband may be seeking another term in office and saying “it’s sad to see” the state of the country under the current administration.

“I think we achieved a lot in four years of the Trump administration,” Melania told Fox News in a Sunday interview, adding that “never say never” when asked about whether she could be again living inside the White House.

“I like Washington, D.C. I know it operates completely different than any other city, but I really like it there. And I enjoyed living in the White House. To be first lady of the United States was my greatest honor. I think we achieved a lot in the four years of Trump administration. I enjoyed taking care of the White House. It was my home for a while. I understood it is people’s house. And it was, it was a privilege to live there,” she continued to say.

When asked by Fox host Pete Hegseth about former first ladies Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton appearing on the cover of Vogue, Melania, a former model, criticized the magazine. Melania appeared on the cover of Vogue in 2005 when she was photographed alongside former President Donald Trump in her wedding dress.

“They’re biased and they have likes and dislikes, and it’s so obvious. And I think American people and everyone sees it. It was their decision, and I have much more important things to do—and I did in the White House—than being on the cover of Vogue,” Melania told the broadcaster.

The former first lady, a native of Slovenia, weighed in on the state of the United States under the Biden administration.

“I think it’s sad to see what’s going on, if you really look deeply into it,” Melania said, adding: “I think a lot of people are struggling and suffering and what is going on around the world as well. So it’s very sad to see and I hope it changes fast,” Melania added.

Donald Trump has not definitively said whether he will run for reelection, although he has suggested in interviews that he might.

Last month, Trump, 75, told the Washington Post that his health could play a role in whether he decides to run or not. In 2024, Trump will turn 78, and should he run—and win—the presidency, he’ll be 82 when he departs. President Joe Biden is slated to turn 80 this November.

“You always have to talk about health. You look like you’re in good health, but tomorrow, you get a letter from a doctor saying come see me again,” he told the outlet in April. ‘That’s not good when they use the word ‘again,’” Trump added, saying he is currently in good health.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sad-to-see-whats-going-on-melania-trump-gives-first-interview-since-leaving-white-house_4468110.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-15-4&utm_medium=email&est=GTLeLRU4gRxAcdUeKZ%2BdqIq2O0hQAhD266NgIAko1W9GdZpDQmSFzKDDolIUmPA7JQ%3D%3D

The other day, I received the following email from Lisa Murkowski, currently Republican senator from Alaska:

“Fellow Conservative,

“Today I announced my campaign for re-election to continue representing the great state of Alaska. You’ve been there from the beginning, Fellow Conservative, and I wanted you to hear the news directly from me.

“As a born and raised Alaskan, serving my state has been the honor of a lifetime. This privilege is only possible because of fantastic supporters like you!

“This will be my toughest fight yet and it is critical that we get this campaign off to a strong start. That’s where you come in, Fellow Conservative.”

Fellow Conservative? (How many questions marks can I put after that without seeming illiterate?) Murkowski is about as conservative as Nancy Pelosi on one of her middling days. I was going to write AOC, but that would have been unfair—a tad anyway.

In 2013 the National Journal ranked Murkowski the 56th most liberal and 44th most conservative member of the Senate and it has only gotten worse since.

More recently, among many more liberal-friendly acts, the Alaska senator waffled forever on the Kavanaugh nomination, even after the most despicable smears, and then, of all things, voted to convict Donald Trump during that fiesta of the most overt leftwing partisan hackery, the second impeachment trial.

At the moment, three other candidates, all decidedly more conservative than Murkowski, have declared against her in the primary with two more, one of them being Sarah Palin, having expressed interest.

But… lest we the great unwashed forget where Lisa really stands… “Fellow Conservative” [caps. hers] appears not just the quoted three times, but five times in the brief solicitation email I received, which closes in the following manner (resist the gag reflex, please):

“I can’t thank you enough, Fellow Conservative. This will be a long and difficult road but with you by my side I know we will prevail.”

If you click on that email, it takes you directly to the familiar WinRed site that almost all conservative causes and politicians use for donations. By law the site is required to pass the money on to the individual candidate’s campaign within ten days.

You could call what Murkowski is doing attempted robbery through misrepresentation, but the larger, and more important question, is how this was allowed to happen.

According to the Washington Post, the following transpired when Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)—chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee—appeared on “Meet the Press” Nov. 7:

“Scott reaffirmed his support for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), defying the attacks that Trump has levied against both. Trump has endorsed Murkowski’s primary challenger, Kelly Tshibaka, saying in June that Tshibaka is ‘MAGA all the way.’”

When asked if the NRSC would back Murkowski financially, Scott said “Absolutely.”

What kind of game is the Florida senator playing here? Arguments exist pro and con McConnell, who has done some things well, notably judicial nominations, but Murkowski?

Nothing is discernible for her and, as noted above, several good Republicans are running against her in the primary. Moreover, Alaska is a reliable GOP state. Trump won it comfortably in 2020.

I can only speculate what’s behind Scott’s support, but it couldn’t be more obvious that he is betraying, disdaining, alienating, ignoring—choose the word you wish—the Republican rank-and-file, who are finished with Murkowski. Ask virtually anyone. (It’s worth remembering Murkowski initially became senator through being appointed by her father, then state governor.)

This is a foolish thing to do on many levels, so the conclusion must be there is money involved for someone (or some candidate or candidates). Otherwise it makes little sense unless it’s part of a covert plot by so-called “moderate” (read: RINO) Republicans to subvert Trump. Possibly both are involved.

That this was done at a moment of maximum Republican enthusiasm after the victory in Virginia and the near-victory in Democrat stronghold New Jersey makes it all the more disturbing.

Many people wonder why Republicans lose when they are able to outdraw the Democrats on the ground, and not just at Trump rallies, in large numbers.

Perhaps it is that some of them, the leadership in particular, secretly want to lose—or to win only when their candidates are part of the Deep State/Uniparty.

That would appear to apply to Scott who should be removed from his position forthwith.

As for Murkowski, she’s probably toast anyway. The NRSC is wasting their… excuse me, your… money. I would advise you not to give them any. Pick your candidates individually and carefully.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-leaders-betray-their-voters-over-murkowski_4103600.html

Media organizations are taking aim at each other over the fake news reporting surrounding the Trump Russia dossier.

Axios, one of the leading D.C.-based corporate media outlets, has admitted that reporting surrounding the now infamous Trump-Steele dossier was “one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history,” in an article slamming news-media colleagues for the years of fake news reporting.

“…the media’s response to its own mistakes has so far been tepid,” wrote Sara Fischer on Sunday morning, as it becomes increasingly clear to the nation’s journalistic class that not only were they willingly duped for years, but that they have made almost no efforts to correct their outright falsehoods.

Axios also reports:

Outsized coverage of the unvetted document drove a media frenzy at the start of Donald Trump’s presidency that helped drive a narrative of collusion between former President Trump and Russia.

• It also helped drive an even bigger wedge between former President Trump and the press at the very beginning of his presidency.

Driving the news: In wake of the key source’s arrest and further reporting on the situation, The Washington Post on Friday corrected and removed large portions of two articles.

The article also takes aim at CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and others:

• CNN and MSNBC did not respond to requests for comment about whether they planned to revisit or correct any of their coverage around the dossier
• Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn began reporting about the dossier prior to the 2016 election. Asked by Wemple whether he planned to correct the record, Corn said,” My priority has been to deal with the much larger topic of Russia’s undisputed attack and Trump’s undisputed collaboration with Moscow’s cover-up.”
• Corn did not respond to a request to speak on the record with Axios.
• The Wall Street Journal told Axios, “We’re aware of the serious questions raised by the allegations and continue to report and to follow the investigation closely.”

The Russia Lie… And How We Told You So

On Friday, The Washington Post removed massive portions of two articles published in March 2017 and February 2019.

The paper’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, said the outlet could no longer stand by those elements of the story.

More corrections and retractions are expected.

The National Pulse was one of the very few news outlets to outright challenge ‘The Russia Lie’. 

At a meeting of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), a GOP fundraising organization, President Donald Trump outlined a strategy Wednesday for the party moving into the 2022 midterm elections.

After unexpectedly good returns in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, Republicans are optimistic about their prospect in next year’s midterms. In his speech to the NRCC, Trump emphasized this optimism, expressing his belief that Republicans will win big in 2022.

Republican victories on Nov. 2, Trump said, are “just the beginning.”

“If we do our jobs and stick together, then exactly one year from today we are going to be watching a massive red wave sweep across our entire country and we are going to be celebrating the election of the largest house republican majority in American history,” Trump told the audience.

“The Democratic Party,” he added, “is a house of cards ready to come tumbling down.”

“Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire radical Democrat Party are headed for a political meltdown of unprecedented proportions,” Trump said. “If Republicans can stick together, we can beat them in deep blue cities and states, and we can beat them anywhere—but we must stay unified. If we are united, we will end Nancy Pelosi’s political career once and for all.”

After giving these predictions, Trump turned to a discussion of the Republican Party itself, touching on how the party should evolve moving into the 2022 elections and on which policies Republicans should run. Fundamentally, Trump proposed a party of populism with a focus on the economic wellbeing and cultural values of middle-class Americans.

Trump said, “To save our country, the Republican Party must be the party that fights fiercely for the economic interests of American workers—the party that speaks boldly for the social interests of American families—and the party that stands proudly for the cultural values of God-fearing American patriots.”

He continued: “Some call this American populism, some call it national conservatism, I call it putting America first. But whatever you call it, it is here to stay—and it is not just the best way to win, it is the only way to win.”

Trump compared his vision for the party moving forward to the old Republican Party.

The old GOP, Trump said, was a party of “endless wars, nation-building, loose immigration policies, idiotic trade deals, and surrendering our culture to left-wing arsonists.” That Republican Party, Trump said, “is gone forever.”

“We are now the working people’s party,” Trump said. “We will be tough on crime, strong on borders, strong on trade, proud of our heritage, and proud of our American values. We will defend our citizens’ jobs and wages. We will protect our people’s homes and communities. And we will defeat the woke zealots trying to destroy our country.”

Trump’s comments, more akin to his 2016 campaign than to his 2020 campaign, come in the midst of an ongoing intra-party struggle within the GOP.

Some in the party, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) have called for the party to move on from Trump’s brand of populism.

Speaking in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell gave a very different take on GOP goals in the 2022 elections.

“I think the key to ’22 is to have a discussion with the American people about the new administration, the Democratic Congress, and what they’re doing,” McConnell said.

“I think the election will be about the future and not the past,” McConnell added in an opaque reference to the former president.

Both McConnell and Cheney have blamed Trump for the events of Jan. 6, and have demanded that the party move past Trump.

But Trump maintains massive influence in the GOP nonetheless.

Across the country, many Republicans in tight primaries hope for Trump’s weighty endorsement. According to the results of a January 2021 survey conducted by Northeastern, Harvard, Northwestern, and Rutgers, 45 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by Trump (pdf).

On Tuesday, for example, Trump endorsed Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, who is seeking to beat out the sitting governor in a primary.

Looking ahead to 2022, Trump has already thrown his high-value endorsement behind 45 candidates, including an endorsement of his former Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for Arkansas governor, an endorsement for 2016 primary challengers in the Senate like Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and a slew of other candidates vying for both state and federal level offices.

Despite the efforts of some in the party to move ahead without Trump, much of the GOP still looks to the former president as a leader in the party. His views on what the Republican Party should become moving forward are sure to influence the platforms of several Republicans hoping for his endorsement ahead of 2022’s elections.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-outlines-gop-strategy-for-2022_4101191.html

Each year we tell the world of our gratitude for the sacrifices of those who keep us free. But our gratitude is not enough.

In America, it’s Veteran’s Day. Across the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, it is Remembrance Day. In New Zealand, France, and Belgium it is Armistice Day, and in Poland, it is National Independence Day.

And it is an especially hard day in 2021, considering the sacrifices made by those who came before us, and the circumstances we have allowed to develop in their absence.

The fourth verse of For the Fallen by Laurence Binyon is the traditional Remembrance Day poem in the United Kingdom. Few have not heard it, even of younger generations:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

But the first verse perhaps should give us more pause, this year:

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,

England mourns for her dead across the sea.

Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,

Fallen in the cause of the free.

And whether you are from England, American, Australia, Canada, France, Belgium, Poland, New Zealand, or otherwise, those final words should resonate.

“Fallen in the cause of the free.”

The people the world remembers today were not fighting for a political party, nor for an oligarchy. They were fighting for something we have let too easily slip through our fingers. Basic freedoms. Freedoms, in fact, from oppressive, overbearing governments with little regard for life, and only regard for ideological or partisan compliance.

And today’s services of remembrance sting that little bit more knowing what hell the West hath wrought in our decades-long foreign wars that have left so many without full lives or full families.

The draw down in Afghanistan just three months ago served as a reminder – which of course most have now already forgotten – of the fragility of Western military might. And indeed the futility of our abilities to project values in places where they bear no weight.

That very point separates the hills of Kandahar from the Flanders Fields, not that the sharpest minds in foreign policy and military strategy seem to recognize it.

But then again, they’ve been very wrong, for so very long. As Peter Hitchens noted in pre-COVID 2018:

It has also struck me, since I am so often told that those who fought in 1914 did so for our freedom, that we are far less free as a people, from all kinds of government interference, than we were before that war. It was 1914 that began the era of heavy taxation, surveillance, regulation and general snooping and bureaucracy which now stifle us.

It was also 1914 that swept away the restrained and quiet world of yesterday, and the great, stuffy cumbersome empires of Austria, Germany and Russia, replacing them with the slick murderous modern empires of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. Was this progress?

It wasn’t progress. And no “progress” has been made since the world removed those evils it installed in place of the empires that came before them. In reality, all we’ve achieved in 100+ years besides the good technological advancements that came from some relatively free enterprises using capital to lift people from poverty is cementing the dark specter of centralization as a means of governance. Today, we reap what has been sown.

“Fallen in the cause of the free”?

We do little to prove we ever deserved their sacrifices.

A federal appeals court on Thursday halted the scheduled transfer of records of President Donald Trump’s time in office from the National Archives to Congress, ruling that Congress cannot access the files for now.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overruled a federal judge, who had opined earlier this week that a House of Representatives panel investigating the Jan. 6 of the U.S. Capitol had a legitimate legislative purpose in seeking the records.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama nominee, said the transfer could proceed as planned on Friday.

Trump appealed. Jesse Binnall, a Trump lawyer, said the former president is likely to prevail as he tried to convince the higher court to enter an injunction against Chutkan’s order.

“The alleged legislative purpose underpinning the overbroad request at issue here clearly does not merit involving the President and his records,” Binnall said. “The Committee has failed to identify anything in the broad swath of requested materials that would inform proposed legislation.”

The panel agreed to stop the transfer, pending a further order from the court.

The court will hear the case in the coming days before making a more permanent ruling.

Trump’s team was ordered to file a brief by Nov. 16 at noon, with a brief due from the House panel six days later. Trump’s team can respond in a second filing due by Nov. 24 at noon. Oral argument is slated to take place on Nov. 30.

The panel consisted of Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama nominee; Robert Wilkins, an Obama nominee; and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden nominee.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the head of the Jan. 6 House panel, did not immediately react to the order.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/appeals-court-blocks-house-jan-6-panel-from-accessing-trumps-white-house-records_4099574.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-12&mktids=24ab40685045db9190eb15406814df98&est=3uIz%2BR8ZC9y%2BTS6zrTb9kn215ovzC2eODLHV5r4Z0rQy3gkc0h5%2FEJvGvdJBf7IxYA%3D%3D

Danchenko pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making false statements about the source of information that he provided to Steele for the dossier

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, had a message for those who pushed and believed the anti-Trump dossier amid recent indictments out of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe: “We told you so.”

Last week, Durham indicted the Russian national, Igor Danchenko, who is believed to be the sub-source for former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016. 

The dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie. 

Danchenko pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making false statements about the source of information that he provided to Steele for the dossier.

BROADCAST NETWORKS LOST INTEREST IN ANTI-TRUMP STEELE DOSSIER ONCE IT WAS DEBUNKED, STUDY SAYS

In an interview with Fox News, Jordan, who was heavily involved in GOP congressional investigations into the origins of the Russia probe, reacted to the developments.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, during a Justice Department oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 21, 2021.  (Greg Nash/Pool via REUTERS)

“Those of us who were in this, you know, back when no one else was, it’s sort of like, we told you so,” Jordan said. “That sounds arrogant, and I don’t mean to be, but this is what we said. This is what they were doing – what they were accusing President Trump of doing, they were actually doing – they were working with the Russians and it goes right to the Clinton campaign.” 

Former Attorney General William Barr last year revealed that the sub-source, now known to be Danchenko, was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 for suspected contact with Russian intelligence officers.

Jordan, citing Danchenko’s indictment, said he was “bragging that if Clinton won he was going to get a job in the State Department.”

“This is the Clinton campaign – they orchestrated this whole thing,” Jordan said.

SCHIFF: ‘WE COULDN’T HAVE KNOWN’ ABOUT LIES BEHIND STEELE DOSSIER

Jordan also pointed out that both Danchenko and Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann were charged with making false statements to the FBI – not as part of Durham’s probe, but rather, during interviews with the FBI in 2016 and 2017.

“They are being indicted for the original lies that they told back in 2016 and 2017 to the FBI,” Jordan said.    

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the 2016 election.       

At the conclusion of Mueller’s probe in 2019, Barr appointed Durham, who at the time served as the U.S. attorney from Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the FBI’s original Russia probe, also known as Crossfire Hurricane, which began in July 2016. Durham was instructed to review that probe through the appointment of Mueller in May 2017.

Barr, before leaving the Trump administration in December 2020, tapped Durham as special counsel to continue his investigation through the Biden administration.

In the scope order, Barr stated that Durham “is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.”

DURHAM INDICTMENT OF DANCHENKO CASTS NEW SCRUTINY ON DEMOCRATS WHO HYPED STEELE DOSSIER

Jordan, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, served as ranking member on the House Oversight Committee until March 2020, and now serves as the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. 

Jordan has led the charge on a number of high-profile congressional investigations – ranging from the Benghazi probe during the Obama administration, to the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, the first impeachment of former President Trump, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more.

Jordan shares an “inside look” at those investigations and more in his new book, “Do What You Said You Would Do: Fighting for Freedom in the Swamp,” set to be released Nov. 23.

“I spent a lot of time writing about investigations,” Jordan told Fox News. “That’s by the nature of my committees – I just always seemed to be involved in all of this.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He added: “I really do think that people who read this will enjoy it,” Jordan said, noting that it’s a “fun read,” and adding that the book also focuses on his interactions with Trump.

“You know, the title, no one, no one did the title more than President Trump,” he said. “No one did more of what they said they would do than he did.”  

“We walked through all the important investigations and some fun stories are in there as well, that, like I said, I think readers are going to like,” Jordan added. “So I’m excited.” 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jordan-durham-indictments-we-told-you-so

Former President Donald Trump on Monday praised special counsel John Durham’s work, calling it “amazing” following the indictment last week of Igor Danchenko, who is believed to be a primary source of information contained in the infamous anti-Trump Steele dossier.

Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberly Strassel argued following Danchenko’s indictment that a more accurate description of that document should be the “Clinton dossier,” since it was Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign that, in part, funded it and people affiliated with the campaign allegedly fed false information used in it.

“It really has come out,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News. “In all fairness, while it has taken a long time, hats off to John Durham.”

“Hats off, because, it’s coming out, and it is coming out at a level — Durham has come out with things that are absolutely amazing,” the 45th president added.

“We all sort of knew that happened, and now we have facts, and I think they’re only going to get deeper and deeper — and it all leads back to the Democrats, Hillary and the dirty lawyers,” he said.

Seconds After Being Shot by Alec Baldwin, Here’s What Halyna Hutchins Told Someone Nearby

Trump said Clinton’s lawyers were always after him and the entire effort was a “disgrace.”

“What they did was so illegal, at a level that you’ve rarely seen before,” he said. “Now, in all fairness, it looks to me like this is just the early building blocks.”

Danchenko — a Russian national who worked at the liberal Brookings Institute in D.C. — was arrested on Thursday and charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI regarding information he compiled and gave to former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who used it in writing the dossier.

#Durham: 39-page indictment Igor Danchenko stands out because it makes the linkage between Clinton campaign/lawyer, opposition research known as “Steele Dossier” used by FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for Trump campaign aide @carterwpage + then Special Counsel Mueller probe. pic.twitter.com/XVGvUpfYnL

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) November 4, 2021

Steele had been hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which had been hired by the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Perkins Coie, paid directly by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

In September, Durham indicted attorney Michael Sussman for allegedly making false statements to the FBI. Sussman was a partner at Perkins Coie during the 2016 presidential race but resigned in September after the DOJ’s indictment.

In addition to Danchenko and Sussman, Durham charged former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith for changing the information on a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant application to surveil 2016 Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Clinesmith pleaded guilty in August 2020.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board contended the case Durham seems to be building is that the FBI was “duped” by the Steele dossier.

Obama Just Couldn’t Resist the Chance to Take Credit for a Trump Administration Accomplishment During the UN Conference

“The purpose was to present the FBI with oppo-research that masqueraded as ‘intelligence,’ and it worked. Mrs. Clinton lost the election, but the Russia tale sabotaged an incoming President with relentless media assaults and a special counsel investigation. The country spent years obsessing over the Trump conspiracy that didn’t exist—rather than the Clinton conspiracy that did,” it argued.

“The Durham indictments treat the FBI as the duped party, but the record shows former FBI director James Comey and his investigators knew from the summer of 2016 that Clinton campaign fingerprints were all over the dossier,” the board said.

“A transcript in the Danchenko indictment suggests that FBI officials knew Mr. Danchenko was lying in the 2017 interviews. But they did nothing to blow the whistle, nor to tell the public or Congress everything they had learned about the origins of the Russia collusion tale.”

Do you think more people connected with the Clinton campaign will be indicted?

Strassel, who carefully covered the DOJ’s Russia probe and its aftermath, contended on the Fox News program “The Journal Editorial Report” over the weekend that in light of Durham’s discoveries, former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report “is looking more and more like a coverup.”

She shares Trump’s assessment that Durham is laying the building blocks for further charges.

“From what has been laid out in these indictments so far,” Strassel said, “there is a big cast of characters and plenty to choose from. And given, again, the way these indictments have been written, it certainly leads one to believe that there is yet more to come.”

In a Saturday opinion piece for The Hill, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley suggested that the cast could go all the way up to Clinton herself.

“Steele also has testified that it was his understanding that Clinton was aware of his work and the development of the dossier,” Turley wrote. “Yet during the campaign and long afterward, Clinton never admitted that her campaign funded the dossier, despite media and congressional inquiries about that fact.”

…The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the tail if he can get the whole dog — a question which now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures, just as it did following Durham’s indictment in September of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 6, 2021

The professor also tweeted, “The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the tail if he can get the whole dog — a question which now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures.”

More than a year ago, then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe made a stunning series of declassifications—the full implication of which many in the legacy media either ignored or never fully grasped.

I believe this was due to mainstream media being handcuffed by many of the false narratives they had been peddling to the American public for a number of years about the Spygate scandal.

One of the explosive declassifications involved handwritten notes by then-CIA Director John Brennan, who had personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and several members of his national security council at the White House about intercepted Russian intelligence analysis.

The content of that intercepted analysis claimed that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to smear the Trump campaign with a fake Russian collusion hoax that would be created by private operatives. (My earlier column about this can be found here.)

The Brennan notes, coupled with an investigative referral sent to the FBI, make clear that all the top DOJ and FBI officials involved in accepting fake evidence from private operatives during the course of the 2016 Presidential campaign knew they were being approached by people associated with the Clinton campaign.

These federal officials then started investigations of the Trump campaign and applied for federal surveillance warrants on Trump associates based on this fake information anyway.

The documentary evidence speaks very loudly and very clearly: none of these people at the federal agencies were fooled by either the fake Steele Dossier or the fake Alfa-Bank documents.

Not one of them.

James Comey, Peter Strzok, and Andrew McCabe, to just name three of the top people involved, knew all along who these operatives approaching them with these fake hoaxes were really working for.

They had been alerted in July 2016 about what Clinton’s campaign was preparing to do. And then both Comey and Strzok were alerted again in September of 2016 when they received the investigative referral from the CIA.

Yet despite this, Comey and Strzok nevertheless went ahead and took the Steele Dossier from the Clinton campaign’s operatives and made use of it for a federal surveillance warrant in late October of 2016.

Despite detailed rules and regulations mandating that all material facts in such a warrant be verified and that the documented evidence of that verification is placed in what’s called the Woods File, no effort appears to have been made to authenticate the key allegations used in the warrant against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

In fact, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz extensively documented in a December 2019 report how the FBI didn’t even interview the man Steele named to the agency as his primary sub source until January 2017, when the warrant was up for the first of what turned out to be three renewals.

That’s always been the major scandal here, as far as the FBI is concerned. That somehow every single rule, regulation, and procedure about opening an investigation, filing a surveillance warrant, and then getting it renewed was deliberately subverted and bypassed.

In September 2020, when Comey was directly asked about that September 2016 investigative referral from the CIA alerting him to the fact the Clinton campaign planned to launch a series of fake Russia hoaxes targeting Trump and his campaign associates, Comey played dumb, insisting the memo didn’t ring any bells.

Of course, Comey cannot admit that almost two months before the Crossfire Hurricane team filed its FISA surveillance warrant with the court, both he and Strzok had been asked by the intelligence agencies to conduct an investigation on a rumored dirty tricks operation making use of private firms.

While the recent leaks to the mainstream news media by the targets of the Durham Special Counsel’s probe show he is presently focused on gathering more documentation about the crimes related to the Alfa Bank hoax, Alfa-Bank was always a minor act in the massive Spygate scandal.

The real heart of the scandal has always been the creation of the Steele Dossier, the FBI accepting it while knowing it was a hoax, and then FBI officials using the dossier as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign.

As I have been saying for several years now, Carter Page was far from the only person who had his civil rights violated by this surveillance warrant that was granted on the basis of fraud. That warrant on Page gave the FBI a window into spying on an as of yet undetermined number of people in the Trump campaign, and then the Trump transition team following Trump’s election win.

Since the warrant was renewed three times and was only allowed to expire in September of 2017, the spying continued right on into most of the Trump administration’s first year in office—a relevant fact that very few people in the mainstream news media want to dwell on.

How many people ultimately ended up being surveilled based on that illegitimate warrant? I’ve been researching Spygate for five years now, and I can’t tell you that yet. The Durham Special Counsel’s Office likely could come up with a good estimate, but they’re not talking yet.

What we do know is that all these officials at the FBI who were involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation have a lot to answer for.

One thing is for sure, I don’t think any subsequent developments in the Durham investigation are going to be boring.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nobody-at-the-fbi-was-fooled-by-clinton-campaigns-private-operatives_4080673.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

Over the weekend, longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone published a blistering op-ed threatening to run for Governor of Florida against Ron DeSantis if he didn’t reform the voters rolls of phantom voters ahead of the 2022 and 2024 elections, and take election fraud more seriously. 

By Jacob Engels 

Within days of veteran political operative Roger Stone teasing a potential run for Governor in Florida on the Libertarian ticket in the 2022 election, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is signaling to the Trump faithful that he wants to create an “Office of Election Integrity”, an agency with law enforcement power that would monitor election fraud in future elections. 

DESANTIS CONTINUES TO INSIST THAT THE 2020 ELECTION IN FLORIDA WAS THE MOST HONEST ELECTION IN HISTORY. IN FACT, THERE ARE AS MANY AS ONE MILLION PHANTOM VOTERS CURRENTLY STILL ON THE FLORIDA VOTER ROLLS. GOVERNOR DESANTIS HAS FAILED TO ACT DECISIVELY  TO REMOVE THESE NONEXISTENT OR UNQUALIFIED “VOTERS” FROM THE ROLLS. POLITIFACTS, A CRAZY LEFT WING FAKE NEWS OPERATION, SAYS I AM WRONG ABOUT THIS. ACTUALLY THEY ARE WRONG. 

Stone went on to praise DeSantis for his stance against lawless school board members who are imposing illegal mask mandates and gun confiscating “red-flag” laws, but notes the actual inaction from the DeSantis administration. 

DESANTIS TALKS THE TALK, BUT HE DOESN’T WALK THE WALK. WHILE I APPLAUD HIS MUCH HYPED BANNING OF MASK MANDATES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIS FAILURE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS IN LARGE RED COUNTIES WHO ILLEGALLY FLOUT THIS BAN ON MASKS IS UNACCEPTABLE. FLORIDA SCHOOL CHILDREN IN MANY BIG COUNTIES ARE STILL FORCED TO WEAR MASKS WHEN THEY ARE MEDICALLY USELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC AND ILLEGAL AS WELL. THE GOVERNOR HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REMOVE ANY STATE OR COUNTY OFFICIAL WHO IS VIOLATING THE LAW. SADLY, RON DESANTIS DOES NOTHING…

BOTH DESANTIS AND FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHLEY MOODY PLEDGED TO OPPOSE “RED FLAG LAWS” WHICH WOULD DENY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FLORIDIANS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, BUT NEITHER HAS TAKEN DECISIVE ACTION TO DO SO. SUPPORTING FINES FOR COUNTIES THAT ENACT SUCH ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS IS A HEAD FAKE. THE FAILURE OF DESANTIS TO PUT FORWARD “OPEN-CARRY” PROPOSALS LIKE LAWS  IN PLACE IN TEXAS AND TENNESSEE, IS AN AFFRONT TO ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

While many might think that Stone’s announcement that he might have to run for Governor of Florida to hold DeSantis accountable is just performance art, the lightning response from DeSantis following Stone’s campaign tease, shows that DeSantis understands how election integrity and other issues referenced by the political operative could create trouble for his re-election campaign if voters don’t see tangible action in the coming months. 

Ron DeSantis proposes law enforcement office in ‘election integrity’ follow-up

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/470407-ron-desantis-proposes-law-enforcement-office-in-election-integrity-follow-up/embed/#?secret=Is7ick47UE

Among Stone’s other demands of DeSantis? That the Governor pledge to serve his full four-year term if re-elected. 

ASSUMING THAT GOVERNOR DESANTIS IS GOING TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2022, I BELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT HE PLEDGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE THAT HE WILL SERVE ALL FOUR YEARS OF HIS NEXT TERM, AND THAT HE WON’T ABANDON FLORIDA BY RUNNING OFF TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FOR THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION IN 2024.FLORIDA IS NOT A STEPPING STONE FOR RON’S PRESIDENTIAL DREAMS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO LIVE HERE.

Jacob Engels is an Orlando based journalist whose work has been featured and republished in news outlets around the globe including Politico, Infowars, MSNBC, Orlando Sentinel, New York Times, Daily Mail UK, Associated Press, People Magazine, ABC, Fox News, and Australia’s New Dawn Magazine, LauraLoomer.US, and The Gateway Pundit. 

Mr. Engels focuses on stories that other news outlets neglect or willingly hide to curry favor among the political and special interests in the state of Florida and beyond.

https://www.centralfloridapost.com/2021/11/04/following-roger-stones-call-for-election-integrity-reform-desantis-pushes-office-of-election-integrity/

One of the contributors to a since-discredited dossier of claims concerning former President Donald Trump has been charged as part of special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Igor Danchenko, a researcher for the document, was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI, according to The New York Times.

The indictment is the second brought by Durham’s investigation. A Justice Department release noted that the “Special Counsel’s investigation is ongoing” but provided few details.

In addition to wild claims about Trump’s behavior that grabbed headlines when the Democrat-funded dossier was leaked, some of its information was used by the FBI in opening its investigation into former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016.

The indictment said Danchenko “stated falsely that he had never communicated with a particular U.S.-based individual — who was a long-time participant in Democratic Party politics and was then an executive at a U.S. public relations firm (‘PR Executive-I’) — about any allegations contained in the Company Reports.

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Is Worse Than We Thought: Look How He’s Punishing Unvaxxed Employees

“In truth and in fact, and as Danchenko well knew, Danchenko sourced one or more specific allegations in the Company Reports anonymously to PR Executive-I.”

The Times said that the indictment appeared to describe Charles Dolan Jr., who chaired the Clinton-Gore campaigns in Virginia in 1992 and 1996 and worked in the State Department during the Clinton administration.

Dolan’s lawyer, Ralph Martin, said Dolan was the individual named, but that he would have no comment.

The indictment, which did not use Dolan’s name, said “PR Executive- I maintained historical and ongoing involvement in Democratic politics, which bore upon PR Executive-I’s reliability, motivations, and potential bias as a source of information.”

…Danchenko is not someone who immediately comes across as an apex defendant — the highest target in an investigation. He is the type of defendant that prosecutors pressure to flip against those who retained him or used him in this effort…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 4, 2021

Here is the indictment: https://t.co/sbSrKsksj6

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 4, 2021

The indictment said Danchenko gathered information during “events in Moscow organized by PR Executive-I and others that Danchenko attended at PR Executive-1 ‘s invitation. “

The indictment said Danchenko’s “subsequent lie” about Dolan’s connection to his information “was highly material to the FBI’s investigation of these matters.”

Relatives of American Hostages Question Biden Admin’s Commitment to Bringing Them Home

Other parts of the indictment include the allegation that although Danchenko told the FBI he received a call from a source that led to claim there was a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, he had in fact received no such call.

The Times reported that Danchenko in a 2020 interview said his job was to get “raw intelligence” and pass that along to former British spy Christopher Steele. He also denied any espionage connection.

“I’ve never been a Russian agent,” Danchenko said. “It is ridiculous to suggest that. This, I think, it’s slander.”

Will this probe eventually lead to Hillary Clinton?

In September, Durham secured the indictment of Michael Sussman, who has been accused of lying to the FBI.

Durham was appointed during the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the FBI probe into Trump’s 2016 campaign. Investigations into connections between the Trump campaign and Russia blossomed into the long-running investigation of Robert Mueller, which in the end ruled there never had been any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Republican Glenn Youngkin appears to have defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe to become Virginia’s 74th governor.

With 94 percent of precincts reporting, initial results show Youngkin winning by roughly two points over his rival according to The New York Times.

Both Decision Desk HQ and Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report have called the race for Youngkin.

pic.twitter.com/tjDmvpnva0

— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) November 3, 2021

Biden Rambles for 37 Seconds, Apologizes for Repeating Himself, Loses Where He Is, Repeats Himself Again

I’ve seen enough: Glenn Youngkin (R) defeats Terry McAuliffe (D) in the Virginia governor’s race. #VAGOV

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) November 3, 2021

McAuliffe, who had served as the commonwealth’s governor from 2014 to 2018, was the favorite to win back the position.

Virginia law prohibits governors from serving back-to-back terms. Do you think the Virginia governor’s race is a bellwether for the 2022 midterms?

McAuliffe held the advantage in polling throughout much of the campaign; however, by mid-October, the race tightened with multiple surveys showing the two candidates neck-and-neck.

A Fox News poll released Thursday showed Youngkin taking his biggest lead over McAuliffe, 53 to 45 percent.

The Real Clear Politics Average on election eve also gave Youngkin a slightly less than 2 percent edge.

A turning point in the race appears to have been when McAuliffe declared during a Sept. 28 debate, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Terry McAuliffe: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” pic.twitter.com/rs6pSWZw79

— Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) October 30, 2021

VA Election Night Chaos: Fairfax County Announces It Needs to ‘Rescan’ Ballots, Won’t Report on Time

Youngkin released an ad the next day featuring McAuliffe’s statement.

Education soon became a leading issue in the race.

A Washington Post-Schar School poll released last week found 24 percent of those surveyed listed education as the top issue in the race, up from 15 percent in September.

The next highest polling issue was the economy at 23 percent.

The Post pointed out that prior to the debate, McAuliffe held a 33-point lead among the so-called education voters, but in the most recent survey, that lead had slipped to 1 percent (47 to 46 percent).

In the handling of the economy, Youngkin held a 4-point lead over McAuliffe.

Throughout the campaign, McAuliffe sought to link Youngkin to former President Donald Trump, who lost Virginia to President Joe Biden by 10 percentage points.

In a “Meet The Press” interview Sunday, the Democrat said Youngkin “created hatred and division just like Donald Trump, and that’s why Donald Trump, his final campaign is going to be for Glenn Younkin here in Virginia. We don’t want Trump. We don’t want Youngkin. We don’t want the hatred and division.”

Youngkin appeared to recognize during the campaign that he obviously needed Trump’s base to win the election and gladly accepted his endorsement in May.

On election eve, Trump urged his supporters via a TeleRally and through public statements to get out and vote for Youngkin, who, like the former president, had gone directly from the business world to run for office.

However, Trump did not campaign in Virginia.

NEW!

“Hopefully everyone will get out and VOTE tomorrow for Glenn Youngkin, who will be a fantastic Governor for the Great State of Virginia. Glenn is a very successful businessman who knows how to make Virginia’s economy (which is doing poorly!), great—and he has had my pic.twitter.com/qKqI1q4iXr

— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) November 1, 2021

Washington Examiner correspondent David Drucker tweeted Monday, “I’ve talked to Virginia Republicans & other Rs working VA races — they can live with Trump saying nice things about @GlennYoungkin from afar. What they absolutely didn’t want was a pre-#VAGOV Election Day visit and/or rally in commonwealth. Appears wish was granted.”

I’ve talked to Virginia Republicans & other Rs working VA races — they can live with Trump saying nice things about @GlennYoungkin from afar. What they absolutely didn’t want was a pre-#VAGOV Election Day visit and/or rally in commonwealth. Appears wish was granted

— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) November 1, 2021

Political watchers have noted the Virginia governor’s race can be a bellwether for how the federal midterm elections will play out the following year.

This was definitely true in 2009, when Republican Bob McDonnell defeated Democrat Creigh Deeds to become Virginia’s 71st governor, with 58.6 percent of the vote.

He was the last Republican elected to lead the commonwealth.

The win came after Democratic then-presidential candidate Barack Obama carried Virginia by a little over 6 percentage points in 2008.

In the 2010 midterms, the GOP retook the House of Representatives in a Tea Party-fueled rout, picking up a net 63 seats.

Former President Donald Trump, who earlier this year foretold of the gas price increases that have rocked Americans, now says $10 a gallon gas could be coming to Joe Biden’s America.

Trump was interviewed Saturday by Fox News host Jeanine Pirro.

During the wide-ranging interview, Pirro noted President Joe Biden’s comment in a recent town hall event that there was little he could or would do concerning rising gasoline prices.

“No, he doesn’t have any idea. Look, one of the things I was most proud of, our country became energy independent. We didn’t need the Middle East. We didn’t need Russia. We didn’t need anybody. We had our own — we had more than them,” Trump said.

Trump said his administration intentionally made energy independence a goal.

Conservatives Furious: Kavanaugh, Barrett Side with Liberal Judges on Major SCOTUS Decision

“We were number one by far over Saudi Arabia and, you know this, and Russia. Number one by far. I had the pipelines going, Keystone XL pipeline. Amazingly, I ended the Russian pipeline. I was not good to Russia. I got along well with Russia. I got along well with Putin, but they weren’t happy with Trump. I can tell you that,” he said.

“But Biden opened up this big massive pipeline all over Europe, but he closed down the XL, and I have to say, because you heard it a thousand times, more importantly, we’re energy independent no longer. I was so proud of that,” Trump continued.

Do Americans need the power to have a recall vote for the presidency?

Trump said that gas prices on his watch hit $1.87 a gallon.

“And now, yesterday, they had in a certain section of California $7.70,” Trump said.

“It’s always the lead. It’s going to follow, and it’s going to go a lot higher than that, and Biden sent people to go see Russia, Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC that we need help, because we don’t have enough.”

“Now when you talk about inflation, the biggest factor in my opinion is no energy. The trucks, the factories, everything, the deliveries, the planes, everything — it is so energy-based that the energy now is so expensive to get. We don’t have enough oil,” he said.

Trump said he used the time when the nation’s Strategic Reserves of oil had been depleted to buy oil while the price was low.

“I never got credit. I don’t think anybody has ever mentioned it, but I bought 75 million barrels, I believe it was. Seventy-five million barrels, which is a massive order. It was good for two things. The prices got so low that it was hurting our energy jobs, and we bought it cheap as hell,” he said.

Lawsuit: Texas Cops Refused to Escort Biden Bus, Told Hysterical Staffers to ‘Call Back’ Later

Although Biden says the most he could do would be to trim prices by a few cents, Trump said that if he was in the White House, he could do a lot more.

“I could get that down within six months. I’ll bet you I could get it down to $2, $2.50,” he said.

But Trump said with Biden at the helm, the price of gas is only going to rise.

“It’s going to be over $10,” Trump said, indicating the Biden does not know how to lower prices.

Trump in March had predicted gas prices would soar. During an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox News, Trump said then that the price of gas could hit $5.

“Gas prices are going up at a far more rapid rate than anybody’s seen in a long time. We had gas prices very low, and yet we had more energy jobs than we’ve ever had,” said Trump, speaking at a time when the average price of gas was $2.879 per gallon.

“[T]hey will be going up by $1, $2, $3, if you look at that, and it’s bigger than a tax increase to the consumer,” he said

“You get a dollar increase in gasoline, that is bigger than a tax hike — than a big tax hike. So, it’s a terrible thing that is happening,” Trump said then.

Activists that drive turnout in Republican primary contests are signaling that Laura Loomer is the kind of candidate they want in Florida’s 11th congressional district. 

Just months after announcing her candidacy for congress in Florida’s 11th congressional district, investigative journalist and author Laura Loomer appears to have a lock on key grassroots leaders across the district. Loomer, who recently mounted a primary challenge against career politician Dan Webster, also nearly doubled the incumbent in donations collected last quarter, according to The Floridian Press. 

Laura Loomer Outraises Rep. Webster in 2022 Primary Race

Facebook Twitter With the 2022 midterm elections coming up, fundraising has been the focus of all the candidates running for office.  Now, firebrand Laura Loomer (R-FL), who is once again running for Congress, has out-raised incumbent US Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) ahead of their hotly contested primary. Loomer, who is recognized as one of the … Laura Loomer Outraises Rep. Webster in 2022 Primary RaceThe Floridian

Webster has served in elected office since 1980, making him the quintessential career politician who is more concerned about cocktail parties than his constituents. 

Now, activists in the district, some of whom currently or previously held leadership roles with the Lake County Republican Executive Committee and influential conservative political groups are telling the Central Florida Post that Loomer is their choice in next summer’s August primary election for the GOP nomination in Florida’s 11th district. Considered one of the most conservative districts in the state of Florida, the person who emerges victorious from the primary will head to the nation’s capitol in January of 2023. 

Sue Parent, a board member of the Lake County Voting and Election Integrity Project, which is pushing for a full-scale audit of the 2020 election in Lake County, called Loomer a go-getter who will fight for the needs of the local community. 

“FOR ME, GRASSROOTS MEANS THAT ORDINARY, AVERAGE CITIZENS GET TOGETHER, IN PART, TO IMPROVE THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL NEEDS OF THEIR COMMUNITY. LAURA LOOMER IS A GO-GETTER AND IS WILLING TO STEP UP FOR LAKE COUNTY CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION. SHE IS SEEKING TRUTH IN GOVERNMENT AND I AM ALL FOR THAT,” PARENT EXPLAINED. 

To understand the future, we must look to the past. And Loomer’s track record on accountability in her capacity as a journalist paints a very scary picture for the establishment on both sides in Washington, DC. She birthed a form of guerrilla journalism, where she calls out elected leaders, political candidates and the powers-that-be in real-time, recording the whole thing and streaming to her millions of followers on social media.

Over the years she has confronted former FBI Director James Comey for his many lies and misdeeds. She caught Hillary Clinton at a Costco book signing with some very uncomfortable questions. Both Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi are also on the list. Loomer was even arrested and thrown out of the trial for the wife of the Pulse shooter for highlighting the role radical Islam played in motivating the shooter in carrying out the attacks and his wife in assisting his efforts. 

Often referred to as “the most banned woman in the world”, Loomer is no stranger to deplatforming and censorship, she’s been banned on every major digital platform that most of us consider an integral part of our lives. This lead her to “Loomer” Jack Dorsey during a congressional hearing, where members of the establishment GOP targeted her instead of standing up for free speech and against the tyranny of big tech. 

Tom Vail, the President of the Lake County Patriot Club and Treasurer of the Lake County Republican Executive Committee, pointed to Loomer’s “fighting spirit” as a reason to elect her to congress. 

Last night at the Lake County REC following the Lake County Schools superintendent’s presentation, meeting Laura Loomer spoke out about teachers who are illegally teaching CRT in FL, which is now BANNED in FL! #LauraLoomerForCongress pic.twitter.com/J64iOYcR4O— DataBattlesZ (@DataBattlesZ) October 20, 2021

“I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING LAURA FOR YEARS AND AM SO IMPRESSED WITH HER ABILITY TO HOLD THE POWERFUL ACCOUNTABLE. BEFORE SHE ANNOUNCED HER CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS, SHE SPOKE TO ONE OF THE LARGEST CROWDS WE’VE EVER GOTTEN. THE FIGHTING SPIRIT SHE HAS MAINTAINED OVER THE YEARS WAS PRESENT THAT DAY AND REMAINS SO. WE NEED THAT KIND OF ENERGY IN WASHINGTON TO PROTECT OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES,” SAID VAIL. 

Over the years Loomer has become a fixture across Florida, drawing hundreds of people to hear her speak, hitting nearly every part of the Sunshine State to attend rallies or confronting rotten politicians. During the 2018 campaign and recount efforts in the Ron DeSantis vs. Andrew Gillum race, I remember Loomer traversing the state with me as we relentlessly exposed Andrew Gillum, a months-long effort that Big League Politics said was crucial in stopping Florida from becoming a socialist state. 

Jim Volpe, who served as President Trump’s campaign Chairman for Lake County 2016, was also the Vice President of Villagers for Trump from 2017 to 2019. Volpe helped organize the Trump Day Dinner in October of 2018, which was attended by President Trump. 

“I HAVE 15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN LAKE AND SUMTER COUNTY POLITICS. OTHER THAN IN MY CAMPAIGN FOR DONALD TRUMP, I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED THIS LEVEL OF  ENTHUSIASM FOR A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE IN OUR AREA AS I HAVE FOR LAURA. I VISUALIZE HER POPULARITY GROWING SIMILAR TO WHAT I EXPERIENCED IN 2016 WITH THEN BUSINESSMAN DONALD J. TRUMP,” VOLPE TOLD THE CENTRAL FLORIDA POST. 

Even Michael Levine, who was the Chairman of the Lake County GOP in a pre-Trump era, is pushing for Loomer to defeat incumbent Congressman Daniel Webster in the 2022 primary. Levine thinks Webster is part of the problem in DC and must be removed from office. 

“WE NEED SOMEONE WHO WILL TRULY FIGHT FOR THE CORE AMERICAN VALUES THAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY GREAT. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO ALLOW PEOPLE LIKE DAN WEBSTER TO CONTINUE TO WASTE HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS BEING TORN APART FROM WITHIN BY ANTI-AMERICAN FORCES THAT DC-INSIDERS LIKE WEBSTER REFUSE TO STOP. AT THIS POINT, HE IS JUST A PLACEHOLDER FOR HIS FRIENDS IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY,” CONCLUDED LEVINE, WHO ALSO SAID THAT WEBSTER’S REFUSAL TO RAISE HIS HAND IN RECOGNITION OF THE 2020 ELECTION BEING STOLEN DURING LAKE COUNTY GOP’S RECENT LINCOLN DAY DINNER WAS “OUTRAGEOUS.” 

Dan Webster Balks At 2020 Election Fraud During GOP Dinner

The congressman for Florida’s 11th district, who has held elected office since 1980, refused to acknowledge the widespread voter fraud that allowed the election to be stolen from President Donald J. Trump in 2020.  By Jacob Engels In what is sure to become a flashpoint in Central Florida politics during the August primaries of the 2022 … Dan Webster Balks At 2020 Election Fraud During GOP Dinner

Central Florida Post

With Loomer quickly rounding up a rolodex like this for her campaign and no signs of her campaign slowing down in sight, one has to wonder if Congressman Webster will ever wake up or fight back. 

If his lackluster fundraising performance and increasing reclusiveness are any indications, the answer is a resounding no. And that’s good news for the citizens of Florida’s 11th congressional district. 

#LauraLoomer #LauraLoomerForCongress pic.twitter.com/sTHBq0dbQ0— DataBattlesZ (@DataBattlesZ) October 17, 2021

Love her or hate her, Loomer’s track record proves she has the willingness to put in the work that people should expect from their elected representatives.  

Jacob Engels is an Orlando based journalist whose work has been featured and republished in news outlets around the globe including Politico, Infowars, MSNBC, Orlando Sentinel, New York Times, Daily Mail UK, Associated Press, People Magazine, ABC, Fox News, and Australia’s New Dawn Magazine, LauraLoomer.US, and The Gateway Pundit. 

Mr. Engels focuses on stories that other news outlets neglect or willingly hide to curry favor among the political and special interests in the state of Florida and beyond.

U.S. Marine veteran James Kilcer, who thwarted an attempted robbery in an Arizona convenience store last week, received an award Tuesday from the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office while wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt.

He was also sporting a red “Make America Great Again” hat, apparently in support of former President Donald Trump.

Sheriff Leon Wilmot presented Kilcer with the YCSO Citizen’s Valor Award, “For extraordinary heroism and exceptional courage while voluntarily coming to the aid of another citizen during an incident involving criminal activity at extreme, life threatening, personal risk in an attempt to save or protect human life,” the sheriff’s office said in a news release.

“The YCSO Citizen’s Valor Award is the highest award for citizens whose actions warrant recognition.”

Surveillance video of Kilcer stopping the robbery at the Chevron convenience store early in the morning on Oct. 20 went viral.

The now-U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground employee had just purchased some Gatorades and other items and was talking to the clerk when the suspects came in, Kilcer told the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service.

“I heard the door start opening forcefully and my ‘Spidey senses’ or whatever kind of tingling, and I turn around and saw they were coming in real quick,” he said.

The veteran turned around and his military training kicked in as he sought to disarm the robber.

“I was ready: I saw it coming,” Kilcer said. “The minute my hands closed around it, I never lost contact with the gun. And I pulled him down.”

ZERO FEAR:
When this Yuma, AZ veteran saw some criminals pop in guns high — he didn’t wait for things to potentially go south.

“The Marine Corp taught me not to [mess] around,” he later said.

‘The few, the proud’ for a reason.
More on the story on @ABC15 at 10. pic.twitter.com/fGjKthcXvO

— Zach Crenshaw (@ZachCrenshaw) October 21, 2021

He held the suspect down until law enforcement arrived.

The person arrested was a 14-year-old juvenile who has now been charged with one count of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault.

Arizona AG Seeks Temporary Restraining Order to Stop Biden’s ‘Unconstitutional’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

“Kilcer served as a tactical air operations technician in the Marine Corps and was deployed to Afghanistan during his time in the military. He credits his actions to his Marine Corps basic training and mindset,” DVIDS reported.

“I guess I was just in the right place at the right time,’’ Kilcer said. “I was doing what needed to be done.”

While appearing on Fox News on Friday, the Arizonan also waded into the political when he ended the segment, saying with a smile to host Dana Perino, “And remember, [Jeffrey] Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

The Marine who stopped the corner store robbery in the viral video was just on Fox News.

He ended his interview saying “Epstein didn’t kill himself” haha. pic.twitter.com/NUkZaow09j

— Kassy Dillon (@KassyDillon) October 22, 2021

“OK, got it,” said Perino, who laughed and added, “Very clever.”

As Republican Glenn Youngkin insists that the election for governor of Virginia is all about parents and their children, to President Joe Biden, it’s seemingly all about Donald Trump.

Biden name-dropped the former president 24 times in 17 minutes Tuesday during a campaign stop to help Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia, according to the New York Post.

Youngkin has made the race a dead heat, leading to an onslaught of big-name Democrats coming to Virginia in hopes of energizing their voters in the Nov. 2 election.

Biden’s jabs at Trump were part of a Democratic strategy to paint Youngkin as a wild-eyed Trumpist who would bring the kind of chaos witnessed in the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion to the sedate liberal mainstream of Virginia voters.

Biden said “extremism can come in many forms,” including “the rage of a mob” and “a smile and a fleece vest,” according to Yahoo.

‘Identifiable Harm’: Biden Kills JFK File Release, Issues Baffling Statement

One of Youngkin’s campaign trademarks is a fleece vest.

Youngkin has Trump’s support, but given the highly divided nature of the state from its liberal enclaves around Washington, D.C., to its more conservative counties, Youngkin has decided on a campaign strategy that does not include using Trump as an in-person speaker to rally the Republican vote.

However, Biden pictures Youngkin as a Trump loyalist.

“I ran against Donald Trump. Terry is running against an acolyte of Donald Trump,” Biden said.

Will Democratic scare tactics work this time around?

“He (Youngkin) won’t allow Donald Trump to campaign for him in this state. He’s willing to pledge his loyalty to Trump in private; why not in public? What’s he trying to hide? Is there a problem with Trump being here? Is he embarrassed?”

During his speech, Biden was heckled by protesters concerning the Line 3 pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Wisconsin.

“This is not a Trump rally; we let them holler,” Biden said

Biden, along with former President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, are trying to energized Democrats.

Youngkin has turned away from the traditional political name game and has been strong in his focus on recent in-state controversies, including sexual assault accusations at Loudoun County Public Schools.

Report: Trump’s New Social Media Platform to Have Feature That Will Make It Immune to Cancel Culture

He also has backed parents who oppose certain books in schools that discuss sex in explicit detail. That has pitted him against McAuliffe, who has backed schools against parents.

What’s it like to have Terry McAuliffe block you from having a say in your child’s education?

This mom knows – she lived through it. Watch her powerful story. #VAgov pic.twitter.com/u8EjmMQX0n

— Glenn Youngkin (@GlennYoungkin) October 25, 2021

“I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision,” McAuliffe said in a debate against Youngkin, according to the New York Post.

“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Youngkin, however, said the upcoming election will define if parents will be relegated to second-class status.

“Virginians have a moment to stand up, not just for the future of Virginia’s kids, but for America’s kids. And that’s why this race is so important to everyone right now,” he said, according to Fox News.

“The nation is watching because they recognize that when Virginians stand up and take a state that has been blue and elect a Republican governor, it’s going to make a statement that’s going to be (heard) not just around the country, but around the world.”

Time for a FACT CHECK!

Usually that means insertion of huge left-wing bias and lying about a story to fit some propaganda narrative.

But this is a true fact check.

Did Joe Biden just say in a speech:

“I am not your President….Donald Trump is your President”?

Well, yes.

But that wasn’t the full context.

But oh how beautiful this clip is.

Watch it here (I love how they call him Resident Biden):

Resident Biden at a speech today, “…I am not your President. Donald Trump is still your President.” pic.twitter.com/ZtmbLER3pk

— Brick Suit (@Brick_Suit) October 21, 2021

Biden speaks at 10th anniversary of MLK memorial where he mocks Republicans who believe ‘I am not your president’ https://t.co/DGkf2gbHGW

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) October 21, 2021

And this is so right….someone has to remix this into a clip:

Someone needs to add a beat and remix this https://t.co/cu200Iwl0X

— BISHCOIN (@OGBISHCOIN) October 23, 2021

And now for the full context.

As you may have guessed, even Senile Biden didn’t just come out and say this.

Here was the full context:

In remarks from the MLK Memorial in DC, Pres. Joe Biden says his DOJ has doubled voting rights enforcement staff, musing, “to something like…half the Republicans, or registered Republicans, I am not your president,” adding, with the sign of the cross, “Oh my God.” pic.twitter.com/smZafv7yqk

— DJ Judd (@DJJudd) October 21, 2021

But now, can we talk about what I think is the most under-rated part of the clip?

How clueless is this guy?

What does “as we Catholics say” mean and then following that up with “oh my God”?

Isn’t that actually violating the Second Commandment?

Now I get that the Catholics don’t have the best track record when it comes to the Communist Pope and the Child Molester Priests, but don’t they at least claim to follow the Second Commandment?

Man, this guy is trying to break as many Commandments from God and Amendments to the Constitution as possible, huh?

Going for the world record?

What a clown!

When the January 6th defendants sought to move their trial from the highly politicized D.C. circuit, prosecutors insisted that the Defendants would get a fair trial, and actually cited my trial as an example.

The government pointed out that the judge ruled in my case that even though it was likely that a majority – if not all – the Jurors in D.C. would be anti-Trump, there was no reason to believe that the Jurors knew that I was a longtime associate of Trump and therefore, I was given a fair trial.

This would assume that the jurors had not seen anything of the avalanche of pretrial publicity, and were living under a rock. It also ignored the clear political nature of the charges against me.

The truth is, I was subjected to a Soviet-style show trial in which my first, fourth, and fifth amendments were violated. The notion that my trial was fair is ludicrous on its face. The sham of a trial featured bias from Judge Amy Berman Jackson, federal prosecutors, and flagrant misconduct from both the Jury and Jury forewoman.

These were among the reasons President Donald J. Trump ultimately issued my unconditional Presidential Pardon. 

Prosecutors were allowed to pick the judge most favorable to their case by insisting that my case was related to their indictment of 17 alleged Russian Intelligence Officers who they claimed gave stolen data to Wiki-leaks at the DNC.

In fact, the Prosecutors in my case promised the Judge that they would produce evidence against me at trial that was collected with search warrants from the Russian hacker’s case.  They produced no such thing at trial – defrauding the court and violating my Due Process rights. 

My constitutional rights were also violated by the Judge in a series of pre-trial rulings. The fact that the first 5 pages of my indictment clearly state that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the stolen data to Wikileaks. However, the FBI was forced by my lawyers to admit, before the trial even began, that they never inspected the DNC computer servers.

Amazingly, the Judge refused to allow me to use expert testimony or forensic evidence to prove that the DNC was not hacked, or that it was far more likely any stolen data was downloaded to a portable drive and taken out the back door. 

The Judge also ruled that I could not raise misconduct by the Special Counsel’s Office, the FBI, The Department of Justice, or any individual member of Congress.  Why would the government make such a motion unless there was misconduct?

We already knew there was during Lt. Gen Flynn’s prosecution, which was conducted by the same office. This ruling was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court decision of Kyles v. Whitley held that the integrity of the investigation is always legitimate grounds for defense.

There is also the makeup of the Jury itself.  It is statistically impossible to select a jury in which every Juror was a Democrat and numerous Jurors had served as political appointees in the Clinton or Obama Administrations. 

The Jurors in my case included individuals who had direct relationships with the FBI or in some cases, the Special Counsel’s Office. The Judge refused to dismiss any juror for political bias.

Most shocking was the conduct of the Jury forewoman. The Jury forewoman attacked me by name regarding the very case in which she was selected as a juror on Facebook and Twitter in 2019.  The Jury Forewoman kept these accounts private during jury selection and the trial and only deleted them after the verdict in my case.

The Judge insisted that this did not constitute any evidence of bias and refused a request by my Attorney to subpoena the deleted material despite the fact that we had screenshots proving the Jury forewoman’s offenses.  In any other courtroom, outside the District of Columbia, the jury forewoman would have been prosecuted. 

The Judge also imposed an unconstitutional gag on me insisting that any public comment or defense of myself had the potential to influence the pool of jurors.  The judge offered no empirical evidence that my then dissipated social media presence would affect the jury pool and had no problem with the Washington Post and CNN, two dominant media voices in the District of Columbia, attacking me on a mere daily basis in the run-up to the trial. 

When I appealed this unconstitutional gag, which the Judge left in place after my conviction and prior to my sentencing, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sat on my motion for months while I sustained damage and ultimately ruled that I had to first ask Judge Jackson to remove the gag – an obvious waste of time.  It didn’t matter, the Appeals court ran out the clock and my trial were imminent. 

Overseeing the case against me for the Office of Special Counsel was Jeannie Rhee, who represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the email case and who gave the maximum contribution to Hillary’s campaigns in 2008 and 2016 as well as Obama in 2008.

The reason Jeannie got this assignment is that she was a partner at Robert Mueller’s law firm, which had represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the “Illegal Server/missing Email” case. Judge Jackson, in her tongue lashing of about me at sentencing, said my case was” really about the search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.” If so, then both Rhee and Mueller had a conflict of interest and should never have been allowed to investigate the President or myself.

Despite the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons regulations on COVID-19, which held that individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes over the age of 65 be sent to serve their sentence in home confinement, Judge Jackson sentenced me to a 4-year prison term in a rural Georgia prison where the government insisted there were no known COVID-19 cases. 

In fact, the head of the Prison Guard Union stated that the government was hiding over 219 positive cases in that facility, and none of the CDC guidelines regarding masks or isolation were being followed in the correctional facility. Only days after the date I was to report to this hellhole, the US Bureau of Prisons website showed over 200 cases at the facility. At 68 years old, and with a lifetime history of asthma, mine was a death sentence.  

Most outrageous about my trial was the deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence by both the Prosecutors and the Judge.  On Nov. 3, 2020, by Court Order, the DOJ in a rare midnight press release, published the last remaining, and long-hidden, sections of the Special Counsel’s final report which sought to obfuscate the fact that Mueller could find no “factual evidence of Russian Collusion, Wikileaks collaboration or involvement of the alleged heist of John Podesta’s embarrassing emails.”

It also concluded that even if such evidence had been discovered, which it was not, such activities would not have been illegal.  Had this been turned over to my defense attorneys as required by Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, decision, it would have undermined the government’s contorted and fabricated case against me.  How does one lie to Congress about events that one is not involved in and knows nothing about? 

Prosecutors ignored over 30 pages of exculpatory evidence of text messages by government witness Randy Credico, which indisputably proved that Credico was in fact, the source who told me that the Wikileaks material would be released in October.

They also disregarded the first-hand testimony of at least 3 Grand Jury witnesses who told the Grand Jury that Credico had confided in them directly that he was my source. Mueller’s thugs ignored a written threat by Credico to “put a hole in the head” of another witness who went to the Grand Jury if he contradicted Credico. Yet they charged me with one count of Witness Tampering for ‘threatening to steal Credico’s dog” – a charge even Credico said he never took seriously.

Steve Bannon, who was Mueller’s surprise lead witness, said under oath that he had discussed Wikileaks disclosures with me in virtually every phone conversation we had in 2016, directly contradicting his sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

After reviewing both transcripts Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School told the New York Post, “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry. He has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance.”

Turley told The Post Prosecutors surely knew of these discrepancies and therefore they suborned perjury on the stand by Sloppy Steve. Bannon also said I was the Trump campaign’s “access point” with Wikileaks. This came as news to me because I had no role in the Trump campaign, and my one on-line attempt to email the Wikileaks flack on Twitter DMs resulted in a brush-off. Prosecutors also had an obligation to tell my defense attorneys that Bannon was under criminal investigation at the time of my trial as the text of his subsequent indictment showed.  They failed to do so.  

Prosecutors then proposed a 7-9 year prison sentence for me, in which they repeatedly “enhanced” the length of my sentence based on crimes I had been neither charged with nor convicted of.  Mueller prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he was subjected to political pressure by Senior Officials at the Justice Department to “go easy on Stone” in sentencing.  

According to the Washington Post, the three top career non-political Prosecutors at the Justice Department have all testified under oath to the  DOJ Inspector General, denying that any such pressure was exerted on the Prosecutors in my case.  In view of the fact that I was prosecuted for allegedly “lying to congress,” one wonders when Mr. Zelinsky will be prosecuted. 

The conduct of the Prosecutors, Judge, and Jury in all of the Mueller-related cases demonstrates precisely that no supporter of Donald Trump and no Republican can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia. The January 6th defendants are no exception.

• MTG: Biden Administration Is Trying To ‘Disappear’ Jan. 6 Defendants

Support journalism by clicking here to our gofundme or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here

Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. It’s Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.

Shares of former President Donald Trump’s Digital World Acquisition Corp., a blank-check firm that is taking his proposed social media platform public, spiked on Friday after a huge rally the day before.

Trading in Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC) was halted on Friday due to volatility several times during Friday morning trading after it skyrocketed 216 percent at one point. On Thursday, the stock surged over 300 percent to close at $35.54 with significant trading volume and volatility.

There is speculation that small retail investors may be behind DWAC’s surge, as the stock trended all day on Twitter and was heavily referenced on the WallStreetBets sub-Reddit, the same forum that was mostly behind the meteoric spike in so-called “meme stocks” including GameStop and AMC earlier this year.

On Friday morning, several top posts on the WallStreetBets referenced DWAC, Trump, and the former president’s border wall.

“Thank you Donald Trump, [DWAC] 17k profit yerterday [sic],” one user wrote.

DWAC was the most actively traded stock Thursday on the Fidelity platform and continued to be the top-traded stock on Friday. More than 11 million shares were traded on Thursday, up from about 3,800 trades on Wednesday.

The new firm has stated that its “mission is to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight back against the ‘Big Tech’ companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.”

The former president also announced he would launch a social media platform, known as Truth Social, coming after Facebook, Twitter, and Google suspended Trump’s accounts in early January. The company is also going public via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) merger with DWAC.

“In the year 2021, the media pendulum has swung dangerously far to the left,” Truth Social’s About page reads. “Silicon Valley, the mainstream media, and Big Tech have begun to forcibly silence voices that do not align with their woke ideology.”

It adds: “They control the future. They control you. To counter this dangerous exercise of Big Tech monopoly power.”

Former close Trump adviser Jason Miller has started his own social media platform, GETTR. In response to Trump’s announcement, Miller said Wednesday that they couldn’t come to an agreement.

“Trump has always been a great deal-maker, but we just couldn’t come to terms on a deal,” he told several media outlets in a statement, congratulating Trump on the launch of the platform.

The former commander-in-chief, meanwhile, has often blamed Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for what he said has given social media companies the ability to regulate content posted on their platforms. Those firms, he and others have argued, are biased against conservatives and others with viewpoints outside the mainstream.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/trading-in-trump-social-media-stock-surges-200-percent-is-halted-several-times_4063310.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-23&mktids=e583a94a1d6b08faf26ad49157baae5e&est=P0HOtRpsd95X3k5udOtwT1EOtDJ6CUjOST3CiABTGXmtSeNl7j22k4KedasK%2Bhsqxg%3D%3D

Former President Donald Trump on Oct. 20 unveiled the upcoming launch of his own social media platform.

The beta version of the app, called TRUTH Social, will be available to invited guests in November this year, according to a statement from the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). A nationwide debut is expected to follow in the first quarter of 2022.

“I created TRUTH Social and TMTG to stand up to the tyranny of Big Tech,” Trump said in a statement released by TMTG. “We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter, yet your favorite American President has been silenced. This is unacceptable. I am excited to send out my first TRUTH on TRUTH Social very soon.”

The announcement was timed together with a merger announcement between Digital World Acquisition Corp. and TMTG, which will result in TMTG becoming a publicly listed company with a cumulative valuation of $1.7 billion.

According to a company news release, TMTG’s “mission is to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight against the ‘Big Tech’ companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.”

Twitter and Facebook permanently banned Trump in the wake of Jan. 6. The former president earlier this month sued Twitter seeking to force the reinstatement of his account. In July, he filed class-action lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, and Google, alleging his rights were violated when he was banned.

Donald Trump Jr. posted a link to TRUTH Social on Twitter. The website currently features a waiting list sign up for and a link to the Apple App Store where the app can be preordered for free.

“For so long, Big Tech has suppressed conservative voices,” the president’s son said on Sean Hannity. “If you’re pro-Second-Amendment, if you’re pro-life, if you’re religious, if you’re just a conservative; you have been in Facebook jail, you have been de-platformed, you have been demonetized.”

“What we’re trying to do is create a big tent, an open and Free Network for people to be able to communicate, to exercise your First Amendment rights.”

The former president’s son said Trump signed the former merger agreement on the night of Oct. 20.

According to Bloomberg, Digital World Acquisition Corp. is a blank check company created for the purpose of acquiring one or more companies.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-announces-launch-of-social-media-app_4060417.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

The Norwegian Nobel Committee last week awarded Maria Ressa of the Philippines and Dmitry Muratov of Russia this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

While Ressa and Muratov’s work exposing their respective oppressive regimes should be applauded, there was a better choice for this year’s prize. Namely, the parties behind the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords, where Israel normalized ties with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.

The prize should have been shared between former President Donald Trump, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Emirati President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Sudanese Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and Moroccan King Mohammed VI.

The accords were the first nation-to-nation Middle East peace deals in 25 years. Moreover, they mark an evolving Middle East. One that recognizes Iran, not Israel, as the greatest threat in the region. One that pursues a better, common future above the animosity and blood of the past. Other countries, including Saudi Arabia, have hinted at joining the accords.

The historic scale of the accords should not be underestimated.

Sudan was the home of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which included the three no’s: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with it. Well, today, the three no’s have become three yeses. They have unlocked countless economic, religious , security, social, and other opportunities between Israel and Muslim countries.

The outside-in approach of having Mideast countries normalize ties with Israel, as opposed to Mideast peace being contingent on Israeli-Palestinian peace, is a playbook that will be used in the future even if the Palestinians refuse to make peace with Israel.

Middle East peace should have been rewarded this year. Otherwise, why name it a peace prize?

Jackson Richman is a journalist in Washington, D.C. Follow him @jacksonrichman.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-didnt-the-abraham-accords-win-the-nobel-peace-prize