Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, a key figure in a December 2020 White House meeting seeking to encourage then President Donald Trump to investigate allegations of election fraud, has filed a motion in the Department of Justice’s investigation of Trump, calling for the release of the key document justifying the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.

Agents on Aug. 8 seized more than two dozen boxes of records from Trump’s Florida resort, which contained 11 sets of documents with classified markings, according to an FBI property receipt made public on Aug. 12.

Trump has said that he had declassified all the confiscated records before leaving office and demanded the immediate release of unredacted affidavit behind the FBI warrant.

Byrne, who recently testified before the House Jan. 6 Committee, argued in his Aug. 18 motion that Trump had such powers to declassify as president, citing a meeting in the Oval Office in December 2020 where he said the former president twice exercised the same presidential authority.

The affidavit should be unsealed along with other records shedding light on the raid to promote transparency and accountability in government, Byrne argued in the court filing.

“Trump’s position was that … if this was not just some police state raid but there was a good reason for this raid, then, let’s see it,” Byrne told The Epoch Times.

“If Trump was telling the truth” and he in fact declassified all the documents, and the FBI submitted an affidavit accusing Trump of mishandling classified documents, “that means they were lying to the court,” he said.

“Trump was only mishandling classified documents if those documents were in fact, classified, but if he declassified then he was not mishandling classified documents.”

Byrne during the closed door meeting at the White House on Dec. 18, 2020, urged the former president to launch a probe into the election fraud allegations.

Related Coverage

EXCLUSIVE: Patrick Byrne on His December 2020 White House Meeting With Trump

Frustrated with the suggestion of having former Trump attorney Sidney Powell appointed special counsel to spearhead a limited investigation into alleged fraud, then White House Counsel Pat Cipollone allegedly told Trump: “Hey if you want to do this you don’t need my permission. You don’t even need a pen or a piece of paper. You can just say, ‘I hire Sidney Powell as White House Special Counsel,’ and it’s done,” Byrne wrote in the filing.

Later, responding to questions about Powell’s lack of a security clearance, General Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser who was present at the meeting, allegedly told Trump that he could “ do the same thing with a clearance.”

“You can grant any clearance you want, on the spot, verbally,” according to a sworn affidavit by Byrne filed with the court.

According to him, Trump acted on the suggestions, verbally appointing Powell a White House special counsel and granting her top secret security clearance. He says after that the White House attorneys angrily left the room but didn’t dispute Trump’s actions.

Trump ultimately rescinded the decision upon the persuasion of his then-personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, according to Byrne.

“He doesn’t have to sign anything, if he gives an order, that makes it legally effective,” Byrne told the court, describing it as “the Trump White House standard operating procedure.”

Backing Trump’s Claims

Mike Davis, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, has also backed Trump’s claims.

Trump “has the constitutional authority to declassify anything he wants,” he told NTD, a sister media of The Epoch Times, in a recent interview. “And so, when he sent boxes out of the White House, he declassified them.”

Davis said the Justice Department should have released the affidavit but would likely try to “hide it as much as they can.”

A federal judge on Friday signaled a willingness to release a redacted version of the affidavit despite opposition from the government lawyers, who argued that doing so could undermine ongoing investigations and imperil the safety of witnesses involved.

Byrne saw the judge’s move as a “judicious decision.”

“The FBI should not have to reveal whoever was their sources, they should protect their sources,” he said. “But beyond that, they shouldn’t be able to keep this affidavit a secret.

“I think the country needs to know what the FBI is saying that caused the attorney general to sign off on this extraordinary application. Unprecedented.”

Because of the raid and activities of the kind, the FBI has become “so delegitimized now in the eyes of so much of the public,” Byrne said. “It’s creating a terrible fear and oppression in the minds of the American public.”

“I talked to a lot of non-Republicans and they’re all starting to sound like Republicans. They see this as police state tactics.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray has come out in defense of his agency, saying agents have received “deplorable and dangerous” online threats in the wake of the raid.

“I like Christopher Wray,” said Byrne. “But I think he’s got a very narrow window to save his organization. And I hope he does.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former Vice President Mike Pence broke with former President Donald Trump and other Republicans and said Wednesday they should stop criticizing the FBI following the bureau’s raid targeting the former president’s home.

“I also want to remind my fellow Republicans, we can hold the attorney general accountable for the decision he made without attacking the rank-and-file law enforcement personnel at the FBI,” said Pence during an event at St. Anselm College.

“The Republican Party is the party of law and order,” Pence stated, according to The Associated Press. “Our party stands with the men and women who stand on the thin blue line at the federal and state and local level, and these attacks on the FBI must stop. Calls to defund the FBI are just as wrong as calls to defund the police.”

Pence also told a crowd he would give “due consideration” if he is asked to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee.

Trump and some Republicans say the FBI has unfairly targeted conservatives and has not done enough to curb left-wing extremists, including those who threatened pro-life groups and pregnancy centers this summer after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Some have also pointed to how some Jan. 6 detainees have been treated while under federal custody.

Two-Tiered System?

Former Trump administration official Kash Patel told The Epoch Times last week, that after the raid, the United States is descending toward the third world and that Americans are suffering under a two-tier system that treats Republicans and Trump less favorably than Democrats.

Examples he gave include the FBI’s apparent hesitance to investigate Hunter Biden’s laptop and overseas business deals as well as the bureau illegally spying on Trump’s former aide, Carter Page.

With his comment on Wednesday, Pence appears to be strategically distancing himself from his former boss. Observers say Pence, with recent speeches and events, is trying to gear up for a 2024 presidential run.

Last month, Pence and Trump appeared at separate rallies in Arizona, with Pence backing GOP gubernatorial candidate Karrin Taylor Robson, who was ultimately defeated by Trump-backed Kari Lake.

Their paths diverged on Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump criticized the former vice president for not objecting to or delaying the certification of the election.  Earlier this year, in February, Pence again claimed that he had no power during the Jan. 6 certification process.

“If the Vice President [Mike Pence] had ‘absolutely no right’ to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans … are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?” Trump said in a statement in February after Pence’s comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump suggested that the Jan. 6 committee should be dissolved, following the defeat of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) in a GOP primary on Aug. 16, calling the vote a “referendum” and that “the people have spoken.”

“Congratulations to Harriet Hageman on her great and very decisive WIN in Wyoming. This is a wonderful result for America, and a complete rebuke of the Unselect Committee of political Hacks and Thugs,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Aug. 16.

“Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself, the way she acted, and her spiteful, sanctimonious words and actions towards others,” Trump continued. “Now she can finally disappear into the depths of political oblivion where, I am sure, she will be much happier than she is right now.”

“Thank you WYOMING!” Trump added.

Cheney was defeated by Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman, a natural resources attorney from Fort Laramie. As of early Wednesday morning, the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office reported (pdf) that Hageman garnered 113,025 votes, compared to Cheney’s 49,316.

The result was not unexpected, considering that nearly 70 percent of Wyoming residents voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Cheney is one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump and serves as the co-chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

The third-term incumbent from Wyoming is the fourth Republican who voted for Trump’s impeachment to be defeated by candidates endorsed by the former president. The other three are Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), and Tom Rice (R-S.C.).

“I assume that with the very big Liz Cheney loss, far bigger than had ever been anticipated, the January 6th Committee of political Hacks and Thugs will quickly begin the beautiful process of DISSOLUTION?” Trump wrote in another Truth Social post on Tuesday.

“This was a referendum on the never ending Witch Hunt. The people have spoken!” Trump added.

During her concession speech on Tuesday, Cheney called out Trump directly.

“I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Donald Trump is never anywhere near the Oval Office and I mean it. I love my country more,” she said. “This primary election is over. But now the real work begins.”

Writing on Truth Social, Trump said Cheney’s speech was “uninspiring.”

“Liz Cheney’s uninspiring concession speech, in front of a ‘tiny’ crowd in the Great State of Wyoming, focused on her belief that the 2020 Presidential Election was not, despite massive and conclusive evidence to the contrary, Rigged & Stolen,” Trump wrote. “It was, and that’s not even counting the fact that many election changes, in numerous States, were not approved by State Legislatures, an absolute must.”

Hageman will now face Democratic nominee Lynnette Grey Bull in the Nov. 8 general election, in the fight for Wyoming’s lone seat in the House of Representatives.

Several GOP lawmakers have welcomed Hageman’s victory on Tuesday.

“Congratulations to Harriet Hageman on her massive Republican primary victory in Wyoming over Nancy Pelosi’s puppet Liz Cheney. I was proud to join President Trump and Leader Kevin McCarthy in endorsing Harriet,” House GOP Conference Chairwoman Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a statement.

“Harriet is a true America First patriot who will restore the people of Wyoming’s voice, which Liz Cheney had long forgotten,” Stefanik continued. “I cannot wait for Harriet to join Republicans in Congress so that we can stay laser-focused on our work to save America. ”

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, echoed Trump’s comment about the Jan. 6 committee.

“Tonight was not just a defeat for Liz Cheney, but a massive rejection of the sham ‘Jan 6’ witch hunt Committee and the authoritarian politics of the DC establishment,” Miller wrote on Twitter. “Congrats to my friend Harriet Hageman, President Trump & the MAGA movement!”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Epps admitted to trespassing, directing protesters to go into the Capitol. ‘I wish I could take that back,’ he told agents.

When James Ray Epps Sr. first called the FBI regarding his January 2021 activities in Washington D.C., he didn’t mention how he implored protesters in several locations to go inside the Capitol, but he later told an agent that he expected a bomb would detonate on a side street near the Capitol.

Those are just two of the revelations in a collection of Epps-related material obtained by The Epoch Times, including FBI interview summaries, FBI audio recordings, transcripts, videos, and photographs.

In two interviews with the FBI in 2021, Epps explained his actions on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6. He admitted he was guilty of trespassing on restricted Capitol grounds and confessed to urging protesters to go to—and into—the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Despite the admissions, the FBI never arrested Epps and he was not charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with any Jan. 6 crimes. The non-action has fueled a crop of theories that he might have been working for the FBI or another agency.

Epps, 61, has repeatedly denied those suggestions through his attorney.

Epps recently sold his house and land in Queen Creek, Arizona, because of threats and harassment and moved to Colorado, he told the New York Times in July. According to online records, the Arizona property sold for $2.2 million on April 28, 2022.

Epps at one time was No. 16 on the FBI’s Jan. 6 most-wanted page. His entry was later scrubbed from the list without explanation. He is among a handful of persons of interest to have their photos deleted from the FBI site.

‘Like a Terrorist Act’

In an interview with FBI agents on March 3, 2021, Epps said he brought a first-aid kit in his backpack to Washington because he expected a terror attack.

“Yeah, I thought there might be a problem. That’s why I was there,” Epps told an FBI agent and an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force officer in a meeting at the Phoenix office of Epps’s attorney, John Blischak.

Blischak told The Epoch Times he would comment after reviewing the FBI interview summary, but had not done so by press time.

“I was afraid they were going to set off an explosion on one of the side streets,” Epps said, according to a recording of the interview obtained by The Epoch Times. “So we tried to stay in the middle, tried to get there early, tried to stay away from the sides. And if something like that happened, I had a first-aid kit. I could help out.”

Epps told the agents the possibility of violence weighed heavily on his mind and he originally did not plan to travel to Washington. It was only when learning that his son, James Epps Jr., was going to the Trump rally that the senior Epps decided to go and keep an eye on his son, he said.

“As time went on, I started getting a bad feeling like something’s gonna happen,” said Epps, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and former Oath Keepers leader in Arizona. “There’s a lot of wackies out there. I thought something would happen in D.C. I thought there might be, what do they call them, EOD, something like that?”

Epps might have been referring to an improvised explosive device (IED), which is a homemade bomb that was a favorite weapon of insurgents in Afghanistan during the United States’ long war there. In military parlance, an EOD refers to an explosive ordnance disposal specialist—someone who defuses and destroys explosives.

An agent asked for clarification: “Oh, you mean like a terrorist act?”

“Right, like a terrorist act,” Epps said.

The agents did not press Epps on what led him to believe there would be an explosion, nor did they ask about the two alleged pipe bombs found outside the Republican and Democrat party headquarters, each just blocks from the Capitol. The RNC pipe bomb was placed near the corner of the Capitol Hill Club facing a side street, similar to the description Epps offered.

The devices did not detonate and the FBI has not arrested anyone in those cases.

Epps told the FBI he regretted the things he said in downtown Washington the night of Jan. 5, 2021. He spoke to internet personality Baked Alaska and video podcaster Villain Report, both of whom recorded their exchanges.

“In fact tomorrow, I don’t even like to say it because I’ll be arrested. …I’ll say it. We need to go into the Capitol,” Epps told Baked Alaska, whose legal name is Anthime Gionet.

Epps shouted a similar theme to the crowd at large: “Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol. Peacefully,” he said. The crowd then started chanting, “Fed! Fed! Fed! Fed!”

The FBI agents told Epps that his statements on Jan. 5 were problematic. They said they found him often on video and in photographs from Jan. 5 and 6.

Epps replied: “I’m the tallest guy in the crowd, and I stick out, man. They followed me.” Then he joked, “I could never be a bank robber.”

“We said that the same way,” one of the agents said. “We said, ‘It’s a big guy and every photo we find, he’s in it.’ The night before, that video didn’t help.

“…And the video the night before, what you said basically predicted what happened,” the agent said.

“I wish I could take that back,” Epps replied. He called the statements “really stupid.”

On Jan. 6, Epps was filmed near the Washington Monument imploring the crowd, “We are going to the Capitol, where our problems are. It’s that direction. Please spread the word.”

When speaking to a young man in a red and black mackinaw jacket, Epps said, “When we go in, leave this here [pointing to something]. You don’t need to get shot,” according to a video of the exchange.

First Call to FBI on Jan. 8

Epps first called the FBI on Jan. 8, 2021, after his brother-in-law notified Epps’s wife that a photograph of Epps was on the FBI website. That call to the National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) lasted about 27 minutes, according to an audio file of the call obtained by The Epoch Times.

In describing his activities, Epps never mentioned that he urged the crowds on Jan. 5 to go into the Capitol the next day. He said he went down to Black Lives Matter plaza to try to calm things down after people he suspected were Antifa activists were harassing police.

“I tried to calm them down,” Epps told the FBI operator. “I tried to let them know that, you know, that this is not what we’re here for. We’re here because of the Constitution, not the police. Police are on our side.”

Nor did Epps mention getting on a bullhorn on Jan. 6 and encouraging people to go to the Capitol as soon as President Donald Trump was finished speaking. He would comment on those topics nearly two months later when interviewed by FBI agents.

On the January call, Epps insisted his presence on Capitol grounds was to de-escalate when things got violent.

“I am guilty of being there and probably trespassing,” he said. “But I had a reason. I was trying to calm ’em down. I wanted to be there, but I’m trying to calm ’em down. Anything I can do to help. There’s no call for that kind of behavior. I will be your witness.”

Epps told the agents he came to Washington to express his concerns about the 2020 presidential election. He said he received five ballots at his Queen Creek address: one each for him and his wife, and three with names he did not recognize.

“We’ve owned the property for 11 years now. I’ve never heard of those three people that came there. I didn’t recognize the names,” he said. “And then when the election went the way it did, I was a little concerned. I mean, how many apartments are there in Arizona, 3 million? And if they’re sending all these ballots to these different apartments. I mean, you know, that’s a concern.”

Epps said he also went to support Trump, although he did not stay at the Ellipse for all of  Trump’s speech. He said he followed crowds that left the speech early and walked toward the Capitol.

“People started leaving early after President Trump started speaking. So they were running and it was the same people that was, ‘F Antifa,’ and this and that and the other,” Epps said.

“I believe, just my belief, they were Antifa, the ones that were saying that stuff,” he said. “And they were like running that way and I’m like, ‘Maybe I can calm this down.’ So I went with them.”

Epps said it was his original intention to stay for all of the speeches at the Ellipse.

“I planned on being and word was being passed around that right after he gets done speaking, we’re gonna go to the Capitol. And it was a given,” Epps said. “So spread the word spread the word. So I started spreading the word and I said that to a lot of people there: ‘We’re going to the Capitol right after the president speaks.’”

Perhaps the scene that drew the most attention and speculation about Epps on January 6 was when he appeared at the first breach point of police lines. Some 20 minutes before Trump finished speaking at the Ellipse, an aggressive crowd gathered at a lightly defended barrier on a sidewalk not far from the Peace Monument.

As rioters began yanking at the bicycle-rack barriers, Epps pulled Ryan Samsel back from the front line and spoke in his ear. Seconds after that exchange, Samsel and others knocked down the barrier, causing one officer to fall back and hit her head on the concrete.

“I walked up to him, and I put my arm on him and said, ‘Hey, that’s not why we’re here. Don’t be doing that,’ you know.

“I don’t know who he was. No clue,” Epps said. “I just tried to talk him out of doing what he was doing. And then all of a sudden, it blew up.”

When interviewed by an FBI special agent and a detective on Jan. 30, 2021, Samsel corroborated Epps’s description of their brief verbal exchange, according to a transcript of the session obtained by The Epoch Times. Samsel faces nearly a dozen January 6-related charges in U.S. District Court in Washington.

“Now that guy I talked to,” Samsel said, pointing to a photograph of Epps. “He came up to me and he says, ‘Dude,’ his exact words were, ‘Relax,’ he says, ‘The cops are doing their job.’ That’s exactly what he says to me right there in that picture.”

Inconsistencies in Interviews

Epps’s two interviews with the FBI included some inconsistencies and changed details, according to the recordings and FBI summary documents.

Epps told the FBI on Jan. 8 that his brother-in-law called him to notify him his picture was on the FBI’s January 6 website. During his March 3 interview with FBI agents, Epps said, “Someone contacted me and said, ‘Hey, your picture’s up.’”

When asked about his brother-in-law later in the interview, Epps said, “He didn’t call me, he called my sister.” Then his wife interjected, “That was me. And I can tell you exactly because he sent me a text, actually.”

When asked about who was with him on Jan. 5 and 6, Epps replied, “My son.” A short while later he said, “I think he had a friend there. He did have a friend there. I don’t know his name.”

One of the agents said he recalled that on the Jan. 8 phone call with the FBI, Epps said he went sightseeing on Jan. 7. “No, we did that the day before,” he told the agent. A few minutes later, however, this detail changed. “Oh, you know what? The next day we did, no, we got up that morning and we went to the Vietnam Memorial.”

In both contacts with the FBI, Epps asked if his photo could be removed from the FBI’s Jan. 6 page. In the Jan. 8 call, the FBI operator said she had nothing to do with FBI web content. In the March 3 interview, he was given a more discouraging take.

“That picture is probably still out there, will probably be there forever now,” one of the agents told him.

Epps said the notoriety of being publicly listed as a person of interest had caused problems.

“Well, we’ve felt the repercussions. I mean, we’ve had people come on our business site and try to destroy us,” he said. “I’m an insurrectionist, I’m a traitor. I’ve been called everything in the book, but it’s dying down now—I hope.”

The agents asked Epps if his views had changed since Jan. 6.

“I still have concerns about the election. I do. I mean, I think everybody does,” Epps said. “I think our politicians, some of them need to be in jail. I think you guys need to investigate them. I don’t know. How much of what we get is the truth? I don’t know. Not even worth watching the news anymore. Because they just make it up as they go.”

Epps met twice with the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 Select Committee, including a transcribed interview in January 2022. Committee members seemed satisfied with what Epps told them. No transcript of the session has been released.

“Mr. Epps informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency,” a spokesman said in January.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled top FBI officials about Epps in a January hearing, but received a repeated refrain: “I can’t answer that.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Fourteen FBI whistleblowers have come forward to provide information to Republican congressional investigations, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said on Aug. 14, about a week after the FBI raided former President Donald Trump’s Florida home.

“Fourteen FBI agents have come to our office as whistleblowers, and they are good people,” Jordan told Fox News. “There are lots of good people in the FBI. It’s the top that is the problem.”

“Some of these good agents are coming to us, telling us … what’s going on—the political nature now of the Justice Department … talking about the school board issue, about a whole host of issues,” he added.

Two months ago, Jordan said that six FBI whistleblowers approached the committee. Two came forward about a memo related to alleged violence and intimidation at school board meetings and four in connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. In the Senate, meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in July that whistleblowers had come to his office to provide information, including disclosures relating to investigations into Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings.

“It’s becoming a well-worn trail of agents who say this has got to stop, and thank goodness for them and that American people recognize it, and I believe they’re going to make a big change on Nov. 8,” Jordan said, referring to the midterm elections.

In June, Jordan sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray warning that several former FBI officials were coming forward, while alleging the agency is “purging” employees who have conservative views.

“In one such example, the FBI targeted and suspended the security clearance of a retired war servicemember who had disclosed personal views that the FBI was not being entirely forthcoming about the events of January 6,” Jordan wrote in a statement. “The FBI questioned the whistleblower’s allegiance to the United States despite the fact that the whistleblower honorably served in the United States military for several years—including deployments in Kuwait and Iraq—valiantly earning multiple military commendation medals.”

It comes as Republicans stepped up calls on Aug. 14 for the release of an FBI affidavit showing the justification for its seizure of documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.

A search warrant released on Aug. 12 after the unprecedented raid on Aug. 8 showed that Trump allegedly had 11 sets of classified documents at his home. The Justice Department also claimed to have had probable cause to conduct the search based on possible Espionage Act and obstruction of justice violations.

Republicans are calling for the disclosure of more detailed information that persuaded a federal judge to issue the search warrant, which may show sources of information and details about the nature of the documents and other classified information.

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he intends to investigate the FBI’s raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort if Republicans take back the Senate during the 2022 midterms.

In an interview on Saturday, Grassley said that with Trump, “the FBI over a long period of time has kind of a double standard. You know, you can go back to the Steele Dossier.”

“And it just seems to me like they there’s political bias in the FBI,” he told Breitbart News. “And then I have recently—you’ve heard me give evidence of political bias of starting a Trump investigation and then quitting a Hunter Biden investigation. So it’s legitimate to raise the question about the extent to which there’s still political bias and what we’re doing now.”

Grassley then took issue with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s comments on transparency, saying that “he should make sure that the affidavits follow up on the warrant.”

So far, the Department of Justice has not released the affidavit that would explain why the FBI needed to obtain a warrant to search Trump’s property. Garland and the FBI have remained mostly silent on the raid, with Garland issuing a brief statement during a news conference on Aug. 11.

On Aug. 12, a judge in the case unsealed part of the warrant the FBI used to search Trump’s property. A property receipt said the FBI seized classified documents, although it’s not clear what they were.

The search and seizure warrant shows FBI agents targeted “the ’45 Office,’ all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS (former president of the United States) and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate.”

Agents were granted authority to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed,” according to the warrant. That includes documents with classification markings and presidential records that were drafted between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021—the entire time Trump was in office.

On Truth Social, Trump argued that those documents were declassified and termed the FBI’s latest actions as a “witch hunt.” Trump on Sunday wrote that FBI agents obtained “boxes of privileged ‘attorney-client’ material, and also ‘executive’ privileged material” and demanded their return.

“By copy of this TRUTH (post), I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!” he wrote.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A former Democratic senator who made headlines in a 2017 sexual harassment scandal that forced his resignation has sparked ridicule after endorsing Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming in her upcoming Republican primary.

Wyoming Republicans go to the polls Tuesday to decide between Cheney, who has been an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump, and challenger Harriet Hageman, who has Trump’s support.

One poll released last week gave Hageman a 29-point lead over Cheney.

Former U.S. Sen. Al Franken, who stepped down from the Senate in early 2018, tweeted his endorsement on Saturday.

“I’ve decided to endorse @RepLizCheney for the Republican nomination for the House seat In Wyoming it’s my first time endorsing in a GOP primary. But I think Al Franken’s support will carry a lot of weight with WY Republicans,” he wrote, with obvious sarcasm.

Sarcastic or not, in a Republican primary in a state as conservative as Wyoming, where Trump won almost 70 percent of the votes in 2020, the endorsement could be an anchor dragging Cheney even further down.

Twitter came alive with negative responses, with one noting the endorsement would be a “weight around Liz’s neck.”

Maybe she can hit the road with you on your comedy tour when she gets voted out, because she sure as hell isn’t getting re-elected.

— Lavern Spicer 🇺🇸 (@lavern_spicer) August 13, 2022

Noted sexual harasser makes his choice https://t.co/UYQ02Xf8u0

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) August 13, 2022

The Wyoming Chapter of Cowboys for Al Franken will be voting Cheney.

— Nathan Thurm (@JimmysUpset) August 13, 2022

I see that Al Franken has endorsed Liz Cheney. He says it will carry weight in Wyoming. Yea, like a 250 weight around Liz’s neck. 🙄🙃😜😁😆😅😂🤣

— Bob White (@TruthFreedomA1) August 14, 2022

Related:

Bleak Outlook for Liz Cheney’s Primary – Polling Suggests Her Days Are Numbered

Cheney was among the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion and has continued to attack Trump as a member of the House select committee investigating the event.

Wyoming Republican Darin Smith said Cheney’s hatred of Trump is “a vendetta,” according to the U.K. Guardian.

Trump publicly criticizes the foreign policy of former President George W. Bush’s administration, in which Cheney’s father, Dick Cheney, served as vice president.

“She’s mad at Trump because Trump pointed out the truth of the Cheney foreign policy. Her dad is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide and trillions of dollars in spending from the US government,” said Smith, who was outside the Capitol on the day of the incursion, according to The Guardian.

“She’s pissed about it and she’s a narcissist and she saw her opportunity to go for Trump’s throat and she did,” he said.

“But it’s bigger than that. She wants to be the first woman president. We all know that. We’re not stupid. She’s going to ‘educate’ us in the Constitution and how ‘we’re wrong and she’s right.’ Well, she’s got news and she’s got something coming for her on Tuesday of next week. She’s gonna find out if she educated us or not,” he said.

Laura Harnish, 53, a Wyoming resident interviewed by The Guardian, was blunt:  “I wouldn’t vote for Liz Cheney if she was the last person on the ballot.”

“The Jan. 6 committee was very badly done. She wasn’t representing Wyoming at that point. I vote for you. That’s who you represent: Wyoming. If you’re not going to do that then you don’t need to be in office. You need to find something else to do,” she said.

Others said Cheney made the decisions that led to her likely defeat.

“I do think it’s debatable whether she should have gone out and blown herself up this way, because it’s obviously going to cost her her seat and her platform, but she chose a different path. And I think everybody’s got to make their own decisions in life,” said Scott Jennings, a GOP strategist and ex-special assistant to former President George W. Bush, said, according to The Hill.

The Hill article was headlined: “Cheney looks to cling on in Wyoming despite polls.”

The protocols require ‘mind-blowing cognitive dissonance’

Nurses who witnessed “brutal” hospital COVID-19 treatment protocols kill patients paint a bleak picture of what is taking place in state and federally funded health care systems.

“They’re horrific, and they’re all in lockstep,” Staci Kay, a nurse practitioner with the North Carolina Physicians for Freedom who left the hospital system to start her own early treatment private practice, told The Epoch Times. “They will not consider protocols outside of what’s given to them by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the NIH (National Institute of Health). And nobody is asking why.”

Fueled by cognitive dissonance amid an array of red flags, Kay said hospital staff is ignoring blatantly problematic treatments that performed poorly in clinical trials, such as remdesivir, and protocols such as keeping the patient isolated, just to adhere to the federal canon.

“I’ve seen people die with their family watching via iPad on Facetime,” Kay said. “It was brutal.”

As a former nurse in intensive care, Kay said she had seen her share of tragedy, but how she saw COVID patients being treated “had me waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat with chest pains.”

“I hated my job,” Kay said. “I hated going to work. I was stressed in a way I’ve never been before in my entire life.”

Keeping families isolated was especially difficult, she said, because people couldn’t come to say goodbye to their loved ones.

‘We Can Do Better’

Kay was looking for other options when she found an inpatient protocol designed Dr. Paul Marik, founding member of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which purported to have a 94 percent success rate.

However, after Kay pitched it to the head of the pulmonary critical care department, she was dismissed, and the physician boasted that the hospital had a 66 percent survival rate at the time.

“I told him, ‘I feel like we can do better,’ but I was very quickly shut down,” Kay said. “I became very angry because I’m watching people die and I knew we could have been doing better.”

It was as if formerly smart people had become brainwashed, “and then just dumb,” Kay said, lacking the mental wherewithal to discern true from false.

This led Kay to begin treating patients in the outpatient setting to prevent their admission into the hospital system, which is now her full-time job after being fired for not submitting to what she described as illogical testing requirements for those who weren’t vaccinated.

At her telemedicine business, Kay said she’s seeing multiple cases of people suffering from COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

“I saw things on the inpatient side, too, that I suspected were vaccine injuries that went unacknowledged by our physicians,” Kay said. “I saw brain bleeds, seizures out of nowhere, cancer that just spread like wildfire, ischemic strokes, and I saw one person die horrifically from myocarditis.”

On the outpatient side, she said she’s seen conditions resulting from the COVID-19 vaccine such as brain fog, cognitive decline, joint pain, gastrointestinal dysfunctions, and neuropathy, which is numbness and tingling in hands, feet, and extremities.

‘The Old School Becomes The New School’

Kay’s business, Sophelina Counseling, provides telemedicine, mobile urgent care, and mobile IV therapies. It’s independent of corporate, federal, and state control, which she said is a solution to a health care system paralyzed with oppressive requirements.

“As long as there’s corporate control over medicine, whether it’s Medicare or private insurance companies, you’re always going to have providers who are forced, pressured, and coerced to do things that they wouldn’t normally do,” she said. “Physicians don’t have the treatment they used to have.”

Because of this corporate control, Kay said the list of boxes they must check takes time away from the actual patient.

“Getting away from this corporate structure is going to be a game changer,” she said.

Kay advocated for returning to the “old school” way, which is the direct, primary care model, in which the patient pays a monthly or annual fee to have access to the provider without the interference of a traditional insurance company that requires “too many hoops to jump through, headaches, and checkboxes.”

Kay points to a health care model called GoldCare, designed by Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America’s Frontline Doctors.

Gold, who was sentenced to two months in prison for her alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol, created GoldCare as a private membership association (PMA).

Because much of what insurance companies do revolves around potential lawsuits, to be a member of the PMA, one must sign a clause, agreeing that they won’t sue.

“What that does for us is we don’t have to order unnecessary testing or consults just to cover our back end because that’s most of what corporate medicine does,” she said.

As a result, Kay said, both the patient and the physician are happier because the treatment process hasn’t been weighted down with bloated insurance requirements.

For Kay, this model—an evocation of a simpler time in medical care when doctors were more connected with their patients—is key.

“The old school is going to have to become the new school,” Kay said.

NIH and the CDC did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment on COVID-19 treatment protocols.

Boycotting the System

Having taken salmon, eggs, and honey for payment, a nurse in Washington state who wished to remain anonymous shares Kay’s more traditional vision for the future of health care.

She told The Epoch Times that people “need to boycott their health insurance.”

“I think people who don’t need surgery to save their life should not go to the hospital,” the nurse said. “I think people need to find doctors who are private pay and pay for only what they need to be done.”

The federal government must be removed from the health care equation, she added.

“I especially don’t think any children should be going to these practitioners who are accepting state funding or Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements,” the nurse said

The nurse requested anonymity because—in addition to being unvaccinated—in Washington and Oregon state, she said the government has made it possible for the public to submit anonymous complaints, “devoid of evidence,” against health care workers who promote treatments that deviate from the official protocols.

After the nurse was fired for not complying with the vaccine mandate, she started her own private care business that offers monoclonal antibodies, L-lysine and vitamin C infusions, infrared red light therapy, and nebulizer machines as treatments as needed and when indicated.

‘Widespread Data Suppression’

With her newly launched business, she performed the early interventions that she said hospitals should be doing, “but refuse to do because they say there’s no evidence for it.”

The nurse works with a growing network of physicians and providers that function as a “total parallel society” existing in the shadows beside the “crooked” health care system, she said.

In the aftermath of the public vaccine campaign in her community, the nurse said she saw an increase in strokes and embolization procedures as doctors engaged in “widespread data suppression,” such as not reporting to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System what she saw as vaccine injuries and deaths and recording non-COVID deaths to be caused by COVID.

Even before the CDC had modified its definition of the unvaccinated, the hospital system was reclassifying patients who had only received one vaccine as unvaccinated, she said.

“The worst part of it was when the pulmonologists decided that unvaccinated patients would get seven days on the ventilator, then they would tell the families that nothing more could be done,” she said. “They would then terminally extubate these patients even when more could have been done.”

The nurse personally witnessed this, she said, with a 33-year-old mother of two children.

“She had been on ivermectin at home and was viewed as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist,” the nurse said.

Before the mother was terminally extubated and her status changed to “comfort care,” the nurse said she argued with hospital administrators for 12 hours.

She had asked the pulmonologist to consider running more tests, she said.

“It had been over a week since the last D-dimer, and this would have indicated whether fibrin in the bloodstream was increasing or decreasing,” the nurse explained. “The usual process with a known pulmonary embolism was to check every three days. There were more anticoagulant drugs and routes of administration that could have been utilized. Intravenous heparin is reversible. If they were willing to withdraw life support, why were they not willing to try something that could clear a circulatory impairment?”

In the end, the hospital won, she said.

“The mother died gasping for air while my hand was on her back,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it. I went to my manager and asked for an audit to be done on our coagulation times and pulmonary embolism treatment protocols. That got me booted from the ICU until I was fired.”

The nurse said she observed administrators repeatedly promoting the safety of the vaccine, though these claims weren’t reflecting what they were seeing with the growing cases of vaccine injuries.

Though there was some staff who saw the truth but ignored it to keep their jobs, there were many whom she observed—just as Kay reported—who exhibited “mind-blowing cognitive dissonance.”

“They received the vaccines themselves, and if they were to ever confront the possibility that they willingly became the hands of a truly evil agenda, I don’t think they could live with themselves,” the nurse said. “I used to consider my co-workers as people with whom I’d trust my life, but after they got that second dose of the vaccine, it was like they had a hive mind bent on hatred. It’s very eerie to say that out loud.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Democrats have one priority, and it’s not the United States, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) says. Instead, Democrats want to destroy former President Donald Trump, and they’ll do “everything they can” to accomplish that goal.

Nehls, along with the Republican Study Committee, spent three hours with Trump after the raid and said the former president not only firmly grasps the situation but also fully understands that Democrats are out to “get him.”

“They’ve been out to get him with one impeachment, two impeachments, the Russia hoax. … Democrats will do everything they can to keep him off the ballot in 2024,” Nehls told The Epoch Times and NTD as part of a special EpochTV report on the raid.

Nehls, who has a law enforcement background and was a sheriff for several years, said that to obtain a search warrant, you first have to obtain a “probable cause” affidavit. Once you have a signed affidavit, you can get a search warrant to look for specific items in a person’s home.

Unfortunately, according to Nehls, probable cause affidavits can be “very, very weak,” but if you find a “friendly judge” to sign it, it doesn’t matter; you can search a person’s home for whatever is on the warrant.

Furthermore, Nehls said everyone in law enforcement knows a judge who will rubber stamp affidavits and search warrants and said that’s what happened to Trump and the “raid” on Mar-a-Lago.

“They found the friendly judge there, with Reinhardt in the Southern District. … These guys are big Obama supporters, … and they got the judge to sign the warrant.”

Garland Approves Unsealing of Warrant

Concerning Attorney General Merrick Garland stating he approves unsealing the warrant, Nehls said that’s only part of what needs to be released.

Specifically, Nehls said he wants to know if the person who tipped off the Department of Justice (DOJ) is an FBI informant.

“Who is the individual that said … the former president has a bunch of these documents inside … the basement of Mar-a-Lago and … they’re classified or not classified, and we need to do something?”

Nehls said seeing the affidavit and the warrant would let people know what the FBI was “really looking for.”

Indeed, Nehls is skeptical about the FBI’s stated reason for raiding Trump. Instead, he thinks it’s likely that the FBI is creating a false pretext to destroy Trump.

Nehls pointed out that Democrats, the DOJ, and the FBI have targeted Trump and his family for the past few years, claiming they colluded with Russia. In the end, however, the evidence exonerated the past president.

Now, the DOJ and Democrats are up to the same old tricks. But instead of “Russia Collusion,” it’s “Jan. 6.”

Nehls argued that the FBI has lowered its standards and is now going after political adversaries at the behest of former President Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Nehls concluded that he expects Biden and his lackeys to go after Trump “until they can find a way to destroy him.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Unions guarantee work for those who don’t want to… They are another example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is a perfect fit for the democrats. [US Patriot]

ROCK SPRINGS, Wyo.—There’s no secret cabal of Democrats working with Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) campaign to reelect the most ardent Republican critic of former President Donald Trump.

Many Wyoming Democrats will tell you openly that they’re switching parties on Aug. 16 to cast their ballots for Cheney in her GOP U.S. House primary against Fort Laramie land use-water rights attorney Harriet Hageman. 

But few think it will matter. 

Hageman, who has been endorsed by Trump, leads Cheney by nearly 30 percentage points—57 percent to 28 percent—with 41 percent saying that they’re voting more against Cheney than for Hageman, according to a University of Wyoming survey released on Aug. 11. The poll of 562 likely primary voters was taken July 25 to Aug. 6.

Unless Cheney has a stealth reservoir of support—“quiet Republicans,” she called them recently—within the GOP, there aren’t enough Democrats or, for that matter, enough non-Republicans, to have much efficacy in the state.

Math confirms the veracity of polls that show a very narrow path to a third term for Cheney, who enraged many Wyoming Republicans for voting to impeach Trump, serving as co-chair of the House’s Jan. 6 House committee, and being among Trump’s most severe, unrelenting critics.

Of 284,557 registered voters on Aug. 1, 207,674 were enrolled as Republicans, according to the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office. There were 39,753 registered Democrats and 33,769 registered as unaffiliated, with about 4,000 registered with third parties.

In January, the Secretary of State’s Office documented that there were 280,741 registered voters with 196,179 signed on to the Republican Party, 45,822 registered as Democrats, and 35,344 registered as unaffiliated.

Earlier polls indicate about 70 percent of the state’s Republicans support Hageman over Cheney. According to some estimates, the embattled incumbent would need at least 40,000 votes from non-Republicans to make up that interparty difference.

“We see some movement from registered Democrat to registered Republican,” Wyoming Democratic Party communications director David Martin told The Epoch Times regarding the past few months. “But we don’t believe it will influence the GOP (primary) as much as people think it will.”

At a weekly gathering of about a dozen Sweetwater County Democratic Party committee members at Los Cabos restaurant in Rock Springs on Aug. 12, there was no cabal or orchestrated plan to vote for Cheney—just people who say they want their vote to count in a state that’s overwhelmingly dominated by the Republican Party.

Carolyn Molson says that instead of asking for a Democratic ballot on primary day, she’ll request a Republican one “because we have no voice as Democrats and no power” in the state.

Wyoming is one of six states where primaries are “partially open,” meaning that voters in one party can vote in another party’s primary if they register with the party before casting a ballot.

Therefore, under Wyoming law, voters can change parties on primary day by registering with the party they want a ballot for. If the state’s GOP-dominated legislature wanted to change that law, it would. But it shot down a proposal to close the primaries during its 2022 session so, obviously, a majority of lawmakers see “crossover” voting as a benefit to them.

“There are a lot of people trending in this direction,” Molson said. “I’m not going to be [a Republican] in the general election.”

Tom Gagnon, a writer whose opinion columns are published locally and across the state, has already done the deed by voting early.

“I voted for Liz,” he said. “This is the first time in my life that I’ve voted as a Republican. Unless things change, I’m going to stay a Republican” because, in Wyoming now, the state’s battles are being fought within the Republican Party.

Leesa Kuhlmann is running for the state senate as a Democrat. But on Aug. 16, she’s registering as a Republican and getting a Republican ballot.

“The people of Wyoming should be proud [of Cheney],” Kuhlmann said. “I don’t agree with her politically but at least I have respect for her. She has a conscience. You have to be proud of her.”

Why Crossover Voting?

But they were the outliers in the group. Most were sticking with Democratic candidates, regardless of their chances to win in a general election.

“Crossover? Hell no,” said Norma Prevedel, who, along with her husband Frank Prevedel, who served as a Democratic state senator representing Sweetwater County for 14 years, has already voted.

Barbara Smith and Mark Kot are also sticking with the Democratic Party when they vote on Aug. 16. As nominated Democratic precinct committee members, they can’t register outside the party.

Smith, a career educator and poet, said Wyoming crossover voting has gained a lot of national attention, but it’s the only way for Democrats to appeal to Republicans during elections.

“It’s not just about Cheney,” she said. “All these people in Sweetwater County” who are Democrats want Republicans to recognize they exist.

“If you want your vote to count,” crossover voting is a wedge that can help make that happen, according to Kot, a retired Sweetwater County planner who serves as the chair of the Wyoming Water Development Commission, despite being a Democrat. 

Martin said as Republicans rip into each other in primary battles between Trump-endorsed or Trump-supporting candidates and “RINOs”—Republicans in Name Only who seek to shift the party’s core values to accommodate more of the left—the Democratic Party will remain “a big tent” that, in Wyoming, has a lot of available seats.

Disappearing Democrats

Democrats in Wyoming have traditionally been associated with unions, stemming from the Union Pacific railroad and coal mining industries in Sweetwater and Campbell counties.

Now, the only places in the state where Democrats are competitive are Teton County, with its resort town of Jackson, and Albany County, which includes the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Martin said.

Wyoming’s Democrats still represent “the blue-collar values” of the state’s workers and are as conservative on many issues as Republicans, he said.

“You got to go to Laramie to find the ‘woke,’” Martin said.

And that’s another evolution in the disappearing Democrats of Wyoming.

Before the turn of the 21st century, there were two Democratic bastions in Wyoming—Rock Springs and Green River in Sweetwater County, and Gillette in Campbell County, where unionized railroad workers and miners were aligned with the Democratic Party.

Wyoming lawmakers adopted a “Right To Work” law in 1963. But a series of 1990s amendments by the Republican-controlled legislature turned the state into one of the most hostile in the nation to organized labor. 

“The unions are gone,” Frank Prevedel said. “The ‘Right To Work State’ killed the Democrats in Wyoming.”

Even with unions no longer being a factor, Sweetwater County remained a Democratic stronghold until about a decade ago, Prevedel said. He noted that 10 years ago, there were about 7,500 registered Democrats and about 4,500 registered Republicans in the county. 

Now, the county is home to about 8,000 registered Republicans and 4,500 registered Democrats, he said. 

The already outmatched party began losing members not in response to issues within the state, but because of the Democrats’ national platforms that grew too liberal for many in Wyoming, according to Prevedel.

“I think two issues have converged to really hurt Democrats in Wyoming—gun control and the fight about coal,” he said, noting that he knows many who left over the gun issue, which was never the view of Wyoming Democrats—many being gun-owners themselves in a state of gun-owners.

But shifts come and go over time, and if the Democratic Party swung too far to the left for many Democrats, then the Republican Party appears to now be swinging far to the right, Kuhlmann said.

Read More

Elon Musk Says Democratic Party Has Been ‘Hijacked by Extremists’

Democrats ‘Would Rather Tesla Was Dead Than Be Alive and Non-Unionized’: Elon Musk

And many Republicans she knows are growing uncomfortable with the party. She said she believes that Democrats will become a force in Wyoming and in other red states

“I’m very optimistic,” she said. “I think there is lots of room here for the Democratic Party. Right now, it’s not jelling.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

On Tuesday, only one day after the FBI’s controversial raid of Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump’s Florida resort, federal agents seized the cellphone of Republican Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

Perry revealed as much via a statement Tuesday.

The congressman had been traveling with his family at the time. Then, federal agents approached him, issued a warrant and requested he turn over his phone.

“This morning, while traveling with my family, three FBI agents visited me and seized my cellphone. They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish,” Perry said via his statement, according to Fox News.

“I’m outraged — though not surprised — that the FBI under the direction of Merrick Garland’s DOJ, would seize the phone of a sitting Member of Congress.”

“My phone contains info about my legislative and political activities, and personal/private discussions with my wife, family, constituents and friends. None of this is the government’s business.”

Perry went on to connect his encounter with the FBI to Trump’s on Monday.

“As with President Trump last night, DOJ chose this unnecessary and aggressive action instead of simply contacting my attorneys. These kinds of banana republic tactics should concern every Citizen — especially considering the decision before Congress this week to hire 87,000 new IRS agents to further persecute law-abiding Citizens,” Perry said.

Although it remains unclear if the seizure is at all connected to the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago, Fox News noted that both Trump and Perry have both been targetted by the Democrat-led Jan. 6 House select committee.

The Department of Justice has yet to release a statement regarding either the seizure of Perry’s phone or the raid of Mar-a-Lago.

Regarding the raid, it is believed that FBI agents were looking for classified documents that Trump had taken with him after leaving the White House.

After news of the raid broke, conservatives and Republicans took to social media to voice their outrage.

Some supporters even went to Mar-a-Lago to support the former president.

Trump released a statement on Monday responding to the raid.

Related:

Trump Hits Biden with Major Accusation in Wake of Mar-a-Lago Raid

pic.twitter.com/1SqRDsVKLL

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 8, 2022

“These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump wrote in a statement on Monday.

“Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before. After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.”

“It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024, especially based on recent polls, and who will likewise do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming Midterm Elections.”

Former President Donald Trump said his Florida Mar-a-Lago home is “under siege” and “occupied by a group of FBI agents” in a statement late Aug. 8.

“These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” Trump said.

The FBI declined to comment on a press inquiry from The Epoch Times. Its parent agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ), did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s lawyer Christina Bobb confirmed with CNN on Monday night that the FBI seized documents from Mar-a-Lago.

“President Trump and his legal team have been cooperative with FBI and DOJ officials every step of the way. The FBI did conduct an unannounced raid and seized paper,” Bobb said.

The alleged raid by the FBI came two days after Trump’s latest hint at a 2024 run, in which he stopped short of giving an official announcement.

“Well, it’s not a long period, regardless, whether you go before or after, certainly not a very long period of time,” the former president said when responding to questions from the press before he took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Dallas, Texas, on Saturday.

“It’s coming,” Trump said, “and I think people are going to be very happy.”

“Our country has never been in a position like this. We lost everything. We’ve lost energy independence. We’ve lost our prestige. We’ve lost every single thing you can lose,” Trump said during the event, noting the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he previously called “the greatest tactical mistake in history,” and the border crisis.

Lawmakers React

‘Weaponized’ Justice System

The 45th president said during his speech that he may be the “most persecuted” person in the history of America.

“A friend of mine recently said that I was the most persecuted person in the history of our country,” Trump said during his speech at CPAC. “And then I thought about it, because I didn’t have time to think much because I’m always being persecuted, and I felt he may very well be right.”

Trump called the raid “prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want [him] to run for President in 2024, especially based on recent polls,” adding that Democrats “will likewise do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming Midterm Elections.”

“Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before,” Trump said.

During an America First Policy Institute event in July, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was part of Trump’s legal defense team during the Democrats’ 2019 attempted impeachment of Trump, told The Epoch Times in an interview that the Biden administration has completely “weaponized” the Department of Justice (DOJ).

By design, the American justice system “is a bulwark against tyranny,” Johnson said. “But if the Department of Justice, for example, is weaponized for political purposes—which is what we’re seeing right now in the Biden ministration—that jeopardizes that foundational pillar itself.”

“Today’s raid on the former President’s home in the middle of an election season looks like another egregious & unprecedented abuse of power,” Johnson said in a statement on Monday.

“We will restore order & accountability as soon as we regain the gavels for a Republican majority in November. It can’t happen soon enough!” Johnson added.

‘Third-World Marxist Dictatorship’

“Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries,” Trump said in his Monday statement. “Sadly, America has now become one of those Countries, corrupt at a level not seen before.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) echoed Trump’s comment.

“Using government power to persecute political opponents is something we have seen many times from 3rd world Marxist dictatorships,” Rubio said in a statement on Twitter late Monday. “But never before in America.

“After today[‘]s raid on Mar A Lago what do you think the left plans to use those 87,000 new IRS agents for?

“The FBI isn’t doing anything about the groups vandalizing Catholic Churches, firebombing Pro-Life groups or threatening Supreme Court justices. But they find time to raid Mar A Lago,” Rubio said.

Outcry from Republicans

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said in a statement on Monday: “The FBI raid on President Trump’s home is an unprecedented political weaponization of the Justice Department. They’ve been after President Trump as a candidate, as President, and now as a former President. Using the criminal justice system in this manner is un-American.”

“The DOJ & FBI are being weaponized like never before to target political opponents. This Admin has thrown the rule of law and faith in our democratic institutions out the door,” said Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) in a Monday Twitter post. “Joe Biden and Merrick Garland must answer immediately for today’s raid against an American president.”

“The inconsistent and partisan application of the law by the FBI has gone too far,” Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) said on Monday. “The Democrats, for too long, have used our government agencies from the FBI to the IRS to target their political opponents. This inconceivable raid is an attack on our Republic.”

“This action, a raid on a former President and political rival, is something we would expect from Putin on his rivals… not here, not in the USA,” Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) said.

“The weaponization and politicalization of federal agencies is egregious and scary. These are Gestapo-like tactics. If the FBI can do this to President Trump, what do you think 87,000 new IRS agents will do to the American people?” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said. “Did Biden sign off on this raid? The American people deserve answers.”

“I stood up to America’s bureaucratic corruption, I restored power to the people, and truly delivered for our Country, like we have never seen before. The establishment hated it,” Trump said in his Monday statement.

“Now, as they watch my endorsed candidates win big victories, and see my dominance in all polls, they are trying to stop me, and the Republican Party, once more. The lawlessness, political persecution, and Witch Hunt must be exposed and stopped,” Trump said.

“I will continue to fight for the Great American People!”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

THE CANDIDATE’S OWN BALLOT BEING RETURNED WILL SET ALARM BELLS RINGING.

Joe Kent, candidate for Washington’s 3rd Congressional district, has had his own ballot rejected by the state, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.

Kent, who is endorsed by President Trump, submitted his ballot to the county auditor’s office himself, on August 2nd 2022. It was originally sent to him on July 17th.

The National Pulse has obtained an image of the notification of Kent’s rejected ballot:

Kent told The National Pulse that he had to go into the offices of the election administrators on Monday, August 8th, in order to verify his own signature – a process that many older voters may be unable to attend to so easily – so that his vote would count.

“It’s a mess of a system,” Kent told The National Pulse.

The primary election in WA-3 is curious enough by itself, using a non-partisan, top-two system, “in which all candidates appear on the same ballot, for congressional and state-level elections. The top two vote-getters move on to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.”

But Kent’s primary appears to have had especially strange problems, with the count still not concluded almost a week since election day. At the time of writing, around 81 percent of ballots (183,000) have been counted. Another twenty-odd thousand remain.

Kent is currently running 0.1 percent behind establishment Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler, who voted to impeach President Trump. Critics wrote off Kent’s chances on election day, but the former Green Beret who served 11 combat tours and won six bronze stars has clawed his way back as the votes have trickled in.

Now, critics suspect there could be foul play in certain counties, where votes for Kent are being rejected, including his own.

This is a developing story.

As the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol continues its effort to prove allegations of insurrection against former President Donald Trump and his supporters, Capitol Police and House Democrats continue to block all efforts to force the release of all surveillance video footage and emails, which could possibly exonerate those being accused of wrongdoing. Now, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) is citing a United States Code that could legally force the release of that evidence.

In a July, 29, 2022 letter to Capitol Police Board Chair William J. Walker, obtained by The Epoch Times, Gohmert—backed by the signatures of 23 additional GOP lawmakers—demanded the release of footage captured on Capitol Hill security cameras on Jan. 6, 2021, currently being withheld under “sovereign immunity.”

“As you must be aware,” Gohmert wrote, “2 U.S.C. § 1979 states that ‘any Member … of either House of Congress’ can ‘obtain information from the Capitol Police regarding the operations and activities of the Capitol Police that affect the Senate and House of Representatives.’ Subsection (c) makes clear that nothing in that law may be construed to prevent us, as Members of the House of Representatives from our ability to obtain those videos.”

Gohmert concluded that “Releasing this information is absolutely essential to proper governance and truth to protect and perpetuate this self, governing nation.”

‘It’s About Revenge’

As The Epoch Times reported July 5, attorneys of Jan. 6 prisoners and defendants have provided evidence in several cases that indicate the government is manufacturing evidence to arrest and incarcerate people who attended the protest at the Capitol. In the meantime, Gohmert insists the government is also hiding evidence that could be used in the defense of these people.

“That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Gohmert reiterated, noting how he himself has been a victim of the Jan. 6 Committee’s “Soviet-style propaganda.”

Reports disclose how Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to the then-Whitehouse Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, told the Committee during her June deposition that Gohmert asked then-President Donald Trump for a pardon.

Gohmert demanded a release of the full, unedited video and transcript of Hutchinson’s deposition, saying the way the video was presented erased the fact that he was actually seeking pardons for “very deserving military members, former military, and one civilian servant.”

“I’ve been personally affected by the lies created by using tape,” Gohmert told The Epoch Times. “They had Cassidy Hutchinson saying I requested a pardon without getting the full context. I have never asked for a pardon for myself. I’ve never done anything that needed a pardon. But I was requesting pardons for a number of people that have been screwed over by the justice system.”

While a spokesperson for the Capitol Police declined to comment on the letter to The Washington Times, they did push back on allegations that Jan. 6 prisoners and defendants were not provided full access to video that has been provided to the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO).

“Every January 6th defendant has access to the same footage, which is everything the USAO is releasing,” the spokesperson told The Washington Times. “They do not just get what is relevant to them.”

The Road to 2 U.S.C. § 1979

In a May 19, 2022 letter (pdf) to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), Select Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) wrote that the Board was seeking the Congressman’s “voluntary cooperation” in advancing their investigation.

“Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession,” Thompson said, “we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021.”

“The American people deserve a full and accurate accounting of what happened on January 6th,” Thompson’s two-page letter concluded. “We aim to make informed legislative recommendations taking account of all relevant facts. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.”

The letter was also signed by the Committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).

In an immediate same-day response, Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and Committee Member Loudermilk issued a joint press release, calling out the Select Committee for its false accusations.

“A constituent family with young children meeting with their Member of Congress in the House Office Buildings is not a suspicious group or ‘reconnaissance tour,’” the letter states. “The family never entered the Capitol building.”

“The 1/6 political circus released the letter to the press before even notifying Mr. Loudermilk, who has still not received a copy,” the letter accuses. “The Select Committee is once again pushing a verifiably false narrative that Republicans conducted ‘reconnaissance tours’ on January 5th. The facts speak for themselves; no place that the family went on the 5th was breached on the 6th, the family did not enter the Capitol grounds on the 6th, and no one in that family has been investigated or charged in connection to January 6th.”

In a letter dated May 20, 2022, addressed to Capitol Police Board Chair William Walker and members Karen Gibson and J. Brett Blanton, Davis demanded the release of “all January 5th Capitol Tapes.”

“If the Board does not release the relevant footage in a timely manner, I will have no choice but to exercise my authority under 2 U.S.C. § 1979 to release the footage myself.”

On June 15, 2022, Thompson sent another letter (pdf) to Loudermilk, again accusing him of personally escorting individuals through the Capitol Building for the purposes of conducting reconnaissance ahead of the rallies on Jan. 6. Thompson also reminded Loudermilk that the Committee had “invited” him to meet with them on May 19, 2022, about the “evidence,” which consisted of surveillance footage of Loudermilk leading a “tour of approximately ten individuals” through areas that are “not typically of interest to tourists, including hallways, staircases and security checkpoints.”

“Surveillance footage shows a tour of approximately ten individuals led by you to areas in the Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon House Office Buildings, as well as the entrances to tunnels leading to the U.S. Capitol,” Thompson said in his letter. “The below image shows you leading individuals on the tour:”

Two additional images in the letter show “an individual appearing to photograph a staircase in the basement of the Longworth House Office Building” while Loudermilk speaks “with others nearby,” and of people from Loudermilk’s tour “taking photographs of the tunnel leading from the Rayburn House Office Building to the Capitol.”

Loudermilk did not comply with the interview request.

On June 16, 2022, the Committee released surveillance footage of Loudermilk’s “tour,” overlayed with graphics and preceded by selected footage from other videos that add to their narrative of Loudermilk’s supposed guilt.

The Problems with Pick-and-Choose

For Mike Howell, senior advisor for Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation, the threat by Davis to release the Jan. 5 footage of Loudermilk, if the Capitol Police do not, raises a serious question.

Howell noted how Davis only threatened to release video footage that pertained to the Loudermilk incident and insisted he had the authority to do so.

“The question that’s been percolating is, ‘If you have the authority to release the tape from January fifth, why are you not releasing all of the tapes?’ That would be of major importance because there are a lot of major criminal cases coming down and defense attorneys have had problems trying to get access to these tapes themselves,” he told The Epoch Times.

Gohmert agreed the Committee should not be allowed “to just pick-and-choose which sections they show.”

“Yes, they should be able to show the defense what they’re going to use in prosecution. But they are also required to show the things that were more exonerating and exculpatory and that does not appear to have happened at all,” he said.

Howell sees at least two problems with this game of pick-and-choose.

First, the request by Davis only to release a segment of video he believes will prove his point is no different than the Jan. 6 Committee “selectively releasing portions they think show the best side of their version of events.”

Second: “If the authority exists, and Davis has the power through this statute to release the footage from Jan. 5,” Howell surmised, “why haven’t the tapes already been released in full?”

While Howell did remark that some will cite security issues as the reason for withholding most of the footage captured by cameras at the Capitol, he said he’s “got news for them.”

“There are cameras all over the Capitol,” Howell countered. “So it’s not a matter of special camera angles. I think the real reason why they’re not being released is because it can potentially show information and video footage that could be helpful to people being charged by the Department of Justice as well as damaging to the narrative that the January 6 Committee is trying to establish.”

According to a sworn affidavit from Capitol Police General Counsel Thomas DiBiase, surveillance camera footage from the U.S. Capitol Police’s extensive system of cameras on U.S. Capitol grounds states “disclosure of any footage from these cameras is strictly limited and subject to a policy that regulates the release of footage.”

“Per Department 1000.002, Retrieval of Archived Video (see attachment 1), the release of any footage from the Department’s CCV system must be approved by the Assistant Chief of Police for Operations.”

Howell said the tapes need to be released to give people a “full accounting” of what happened on Jan. 2, 2021 and allow attorneys to go through the footage to find out if there is anything in there that may be helpful to their clients.

“In the minds of many Americans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, this event has been made out to be akin to 9/11.” Howell said. “So, the question is, why can’t the American people see what actually happened that day. I think there’s massive public interest in this, and that outweighs any other concerns, so the tapes belong in the public.”

‘Why Are You Only Threatening’

While Howell finds Davis’s threat to release the Loudermilk video a bit curious, he isn’t surprised. At the time, when Davis made the threat, he was struggling through a primary challenge against fellow Republican and Trump-endorsed candidate Mary Miller after redistricting pitted the two incumbent Republicans against each other.

“So he, in an effort to shore up some bona fides on the right, basically threatened to release these tapes,” Howell surmised. “Now he’s lost his primary and nothing has happened. He hasn’t released the tapes and he hasn’t said anything else since.”

Still, Howell believes the House Administration Committee—to which the Capitol Police reports and of which Davis still serves as ranking member—does have the power and authority to demand the release of the surveillance footage.

“They aren’t an independent police agency,” Howell noted of the Capitol Police. “They report to Congress. So Congress can tell Capitol Police what to do. I’m surprised more people haven’t picked up on it. You have the tapes and you can release them? Why are you only threatening to release them?”

Gohmert said “these tactics are things that were supposed to be left behind 70 or more years ago. We had evolved to a justice system that was the fairest in the history of the world. Now, this Justice Department and the majority in the House are taking us back six or seven decades and they’ve gone beyond how bad it used to be and they’re approaching a Soviet-style justice system. Stalin would be proud of what they’re doing. It’s grossly unfair, grossly unjust. It doesn’t resemble the justice system at all.”

Like Howell, Gohmert also wants to know why Davis only demanded the release of surveillance footage that might prove the innocence of his colleague, just as the members of the Select Committee are selecting bits and pieces they think will prove the guilt of their political enemies.

The Next Step

Asked for the next step, Gohmert said he is going to give the Capitol Police a chance to respond to his letter.

“It they don’t respond quickly, I think we do need to take legal action,” he said. “If they respond and say, ‘you’re not entitled to it, we’ve ignored lots of laws already and this is just one more law we’ll ignore,’ then we have got to—for the sake of the country, for the sake of our justice system and for the sake of truth—stand up and hold the Justice Department accountable for their violations of the law.”

Another thing bothering Gohmert is what he is learning through talking to Jan. 6 prisoners “en mass at the D.C. Jail.”

“I have been deeply concerned and a lot of us have been demanding that all of the video be released for months,” Gohmert explained. “The Supreme Court made clear that the Department of Justice has to release any potentially exonerating or exculpatory evidence to the defense. They put so much pressure on defendants and kept many of them in jail so that they just agree to plea guilty without ever seeing the exculpatory evidence, which is absolutely outrageous because that lets the DOJ off the hook.”

Gohmert said it was the moment he learned that 2 U.S.C. § 1979 isn’t a House rule, but that it’s actually a law, that he knew he had to take a stand, and while he knows that there are still some members of the Capitol Police who “want to see right prevail and truth and justice prevail” he said he “can only hope they will do the right thing” and release the surveillance footage.

“If they’re not willing to do it,” Gohmert vowed, “we’ve got to go to court as quickly as possible and require them to produce [the video]. This is a law. This is not a suggestion. It is absolutely imperative that Congress have access to all of that. So, that’s why we made the request and then sent the letter out so we could get it out as quickly as possible.”

“It will be interesting to know who’s been holding up the video,” Gohmert speculated, “because some of the people who have refused to answer questions” may soon “have to respond after their subpoenaed and drug into court.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Davis, the Capitol Police, and the Office of the Inspector General.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

President Donald Trump said on Aug. 7 that if he returns to the White House in 2025 he’ll rehire the service members who lost their jobs by refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think it’s a disgrace what happened to them,” Trump said, answering a reporter’s question.

Trump was responding to questions from the press before he took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Dallas on Saturday.

“I’d let them back. I’d give back pay,” Trump said. “So I would give them their back pay and I would let them back, and they understand that. They know it.”

Back pay is “a common remedy for wage violations” where “the employer makes up the difference between what the employee was paid and the amount he or she should have been paid,” according to the Department of Labor.

Trump’s comments came weeks after the U.S. army announced plans to cut more than 60,000 guards and reserve soldiers for refusing COVID-19 vaccines.

“Soldiers who refuse the vaccination order without an approved or pending exemption request are subject to adverse administrative actions, including flags, bars to service, and official reprimands,” a July 1 statement on the U.S. Army’s website reads.

More than 19,000 U.S. Army personnel have refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine, as of July 14, 2022, according to U.S. Army data. The Army approved a total of 24 medical and 19 religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine.

Jan. 6 Pardons

In response to another question, Trump said he’ll “very strongly” consider pardoning nonviolent political prisoners who have been indicted as a result of participating in the January 6 Capitol breach.

“We’ll certainly be looking at it, and very strongly,” Trump said, adding that he has made previous statements about potentially pardoning January 6 political prisoners.

“I think many people are being treated very unfair … having to do with that. And we will be looking at that very strongly,” Trump said. “I think you know the answer.”

The president hinted strongly at but stopped short of announcing a 2024 run.

“Well, it’s not a long period, regardless, whether you go before or after, certainly not a very long period of time,” the former president said. He raised the same point in an interview with the New Yorker earlier this year, when he said he’s undecided on whether to announce his decision on a 2024 run before or after the midterms.

“It’s coming,” Trump said, “and I think people are going to be very happy.”

“Our country has never been in a position like this. We lost everything. We’ve lost energy independence. We’ve lost our prestige. We’ve lost every single thing you can lose,” Trump said, noting the withdrawal from Afghanistan—which he previously called “the greatest tactical mistake in history“—and the border crisis.

“So we’ll be making an announcement in the not-too-distance future.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Won’t allow recording of meeting with Mastriano

Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, is scheduled to meet on Aug. 9 with the House’s Jan. 6 committee. While it was to be a voluntary interview, the committee is now demanding a compelled deposition.

“Your committee is not legally able to conduct compelled depositions, which is why all of my clients have all offered to participate in voluntary interviews,” Mastriano’s attorney, Timothy C. Parlatore, wrote in an Aug. 5 letter to the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol breach.

“Although Senator Mastriano is happy to cooperate with your committee, as he has nothing to hide, I do have concerns that are particular to him, given the conduct of the committee up to this point.”

Parlatore believes the Jan. 6 committee may try to influence Pennsylvania’s election.

“Given the committee’s demonstrated propensity for releasing edited clips of interviews without the requisite context to support a false partisan narrative,” Parlatore wrote, “I am concerned that there is a risk that your committee will do the same to Senator Mastriano.

“Members of your party like Sean Patrick Maloney, Democratic Campaign Chair, have openly admitted that the goal of the hearings you are conducting is intended to paint the Republican party as irresponsible and power hungry ahead of the midterms.

“For this reason, my client has legitimate concerns that your committee may attempt to influence the outcome of the Pennsylvania state elections through the dissemination of disinformation.”

A spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

Parlatore’s letter indicates that he’s willing to allow the meeting if he can make his own recording of the interview, which could be released if the committee releases edited recordings of Mastriano that need more context.

“I was informed by your staffer that you rejected this proposal and refused to make any counterproposals because you wish to retain sole dominion over the public narrative,” the letter says.

“Obviously, your refusal to even discuss this is concerning, as there is no downside to me holding a second recording of the interview, unless the committee does, in fact, intend to engage in disinformation with Senator Mastriano’s interview and is afraid of any accountability for that disinformation.”

The lack of a truly bipartisan committee infringes on the rights of the witnesses and serves no legitimate investigative purpose, Parlatore said.

“My client has significant concerns that he is being set up for sanctions due to the Committee’s refusal to respect the bounds of privilege and lack of any opposing viewpoints to act as a counterbalance,” the letter states.

Parlatore said Mastriano would appear for a deposition if the committee gets a ranking minority member designation from the Republican steering committee.

But before Mastriano would testify in that scenario, Parlatore said he would review the Regulations for Use of Deposition Authority to determine if all provisions had been met. If not, he and Mastriano would leave the session and return only in the event that all provisions in the rules are met the by committee, a judge rules that the committee doesn’t need to comply with the rules, or they agree to a voluntary interview.

Mastriano attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington with numerous other people. He has cooperated with the committee so far, providing documents that have been requested.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Democrats continue to say that “democracy is in danger” if voters don’t give liberals the majority in November, but violence by the left has defined the summer politically so far, conservative observers have told The Epoch Times.

As Democrats continue to use the Jan. 6 Committee hearings over the summer to make a special case that somehow conservatives pose a danger to the country, the violence from the left has been ongoing, one victim told The Epoch Times.

The issues affronting progressives are numerous, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade, non-action on a climate change scheme, and the lack of momentum of progressive policies under Joe Biden, which stand out as sources of anger and mounting frustration for leftist activists.

In June, a pro-life pregnancy center in Buffalo, New York, was burned out, allegedly by the radical leftwing, pro-abortion, militant group Jane’s Revenge, said the health pregnancy center called CompassCare, which helps women keep their babies rather than abort them.

“We actually saw the type of [violent] Jane’s Revenge activity happening around our Buffalo location that they were fomenting with their followers” prior to the firebombing of the clinic Rev. James Harden, CEO of CompassCare, told The Epoch Times.

“So we reported it to local law enforcement as well as the FBI two weeks in advance of the firebombing,” added Harden, who said Molotov cocktails were used to set the blaze to the CompassCare clinic.

Harden blames local and national progressive politicians for the violence, calling measures that the state of New York have taken under Democratic Gov. Kathleen Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James to investigate crisis pregnancy centers like CompassCare as “essentially joining Jane’s Revenge in attacking pro-life pregnancy centers.”

Jane’s Revenge

The Jane’s group said that they were also responsible for attacks on pro-family clinics in Dearborn, Michigan, Asheville, North Carolina, and more than a dozen other sites around the country in response to the Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade.

“You have seen us in Madison WI, Ft. Collins CO, Reisertown MA, Olympia WA, Des Moines IA, Lynwood WA, Washington DC, Ashville NC, Buffalo NY, Hollywood FL, Vancouver WA, Frederick MA, Denton TX, Gresham OR, Eugene OR, Portland OR, among others, and we work in countless locations invisibly,” said the group in a manifesto published on Abolition Media, an anarchist website.

So far, no arrests have been made in connection with any of the acts claimed by Jane’s Revenge manifesto, although the Catholic News Agency has reported that some youths have been arrested in acts of vandalism not associated with Jane’s Revenge.

Jason Rantz, a conservative talk show host in Seattle, told The Epoch Times that several churches and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers have been attacked in Washington state as well, with no arrests other than one that doesn’t seem to be connected to the abortion issue.

Like CompassCare’s Harden, Rantz makes no bones about pointing the finger for the violence at some progressive politicians, but not all.

“We had a story that I broke several weeks ago where a Democrat state Senator up for reelection … she produced a video that was celebrating the vandalism” against a pro-life billboard in Gorst, Washington.

The video was subsequently posted on Instagram.

“They don’t really hide their intent to promote this kind of violent response when they don’t get their way politically,” said Rantz.

2020 Redux?

Seattle was the scene of some of the worst violence during the Black Lives Matter protest and riots of the summer of 2020, with sections of the downtown area made unhabitable and unpoliceable for over a month.

While stopping short of calling the 2020 riots a dress rehearsal for today’s more targeted and politically-motivated violence, Rantz does think the violence in 2020 and today are connected in that Democrats think they are best served by allowing the violence to continue.

“I also think that as with the case in 2020, that a lot of the Democrats thought that they would benefit politically from the violence so they don’t want to get too involved” in calling for more rational means of political opposition.

Targeted Assassination Attempt

The Buffalo center of CompassCare was burned out just days after a California man was arrested near the house of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an alleged aborted effort to kill the conservative jurist.

Nicholas John Roske was arrested with a black tactical chest rig, and a tactical knife, along with a Glock 17, clips, ammunitions, and zip ties, according to the probable cause statement filed with the court.

The FBI said that Roske traveled cross-country in what they are now saying was an attempt to kill as many as three Supreme Court Justices.

Roske, 26, said that he was upset over the Supreme Court decision that reversed Roe v. Wade which returned the question of abortion back to individual states.

Roske also expressed concern that upcoming decisions by the nation’s highest court would tend to favor conservative views on the Constitution, said an FBI warrant obtained by Fox News.

‘Democracy in Danger’

According to talk show host Rantz, Democrats have become obsessed with the idea that merely having differing views on political issues of the day from those of Democrats somehow threatens the fabric of democracy.

That message was conveyed by Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.), whose re-election campaign sent a handwritten postcard to at least one constituent warning that “Democracy is at stake this election day. Republicans are the problem.”

The postcard, obtained by The Epoch Times, appeared to have no identification, such as a signature, but just referred to the need to re-elect Wexton or democracy will be in danger. The flip side of the postcard was marked as having been sent by “Jennifer Wexton for Congress.”

Wexton is being opposed by GOP nominee and Vietnamese refugee, Hung Cao.

Cao, a retired special forces operator who left the Navy as a captain—one rank below the flag rank of admiral—took umbrage at the apparent suggestion by Wexton’s campaign that he would endanger democracy.

“Jennifer Wexton should immediately apologize for her campaign’s claims,” said a Cao campaign spokesman in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“Hung Cao has fought for our country honorably for 25 years. He’s put his life on the line for his fellow Americans to protect our constitution. Wexton ought to be ashamed of her campaign slandering an immigrant to this country who wore our uniform in combat,” added the campaign.

Congress Targeted

The Capitol Police stepped up security for this year’s Congressional Charity baseball game, citing threats by leftist climate activists who have threatened to disrupt the game if climate bills aren’t passed by Congress, or at least are on the verge of passing.

“The real violence being committed at this baseball game is by Congress, by Manchin, by his Republican allies and by everybody in Congress who’s failing to take action on climate change, therefore consigning millions of people to die and millions more livelihoods to be destroyed,” said Dan Sherrell, an organizer for the protest at the baseball game.

The threats came years after the game was targeted by a left-wing gunman in 2017, who opened fire on a practice field for the Congressional baseball game, critically wounding then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others before being killed by Capitol Police.

The 66-year-old former construction worker and Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, attempted to kill Scalise and others because he “hated Republicans,” according to a report by the Los Angeles Times.

Accepting Political Violence?

A pre-print of a study published in July, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, found that “[s]ubstantial minorities of the [US] population endorse violence, including lethal violence, to obtain political objectives,” with nearly 8 million people in the United States at least “somewhat willing” to kill others to advance their political goals.

Published at MedRxiv, the paper concentrated on concepts like QAnon, Donald Trump, stolen elections, and Western European traditions as justifications by conservatives who find political violence acceptable.

Yet the paper also found that the largest minority of people who feel political violence is justified are those who find race-based violence justifiable.

“More than a third of respondents (36.2%) reported that violence was at least sometimes justified ‘to prevent discrimination based on race or ethnicity,’” with nearly 10 million Americans saying that violence was always justified to prevent racial discrimination.

With the contemporary expansion of the meaning of words like “discrimination,” to encompass concepts such as “microaggressions,” it’s much easier to see how violence is becoming more commonplace in a future that appears bleak, observers say, even as progressive seek to further expand definitions to widen their dispute on conservatives.

“When you have Joe Biden, two weeks ago, asking Merrick Garland to investigate crisis pregnancy centers for fraud, it’s an all-out war on these pregnancy centers,” said Harden, who points out that they provide their services for free so fraud would be impossible—unless you redefine the meaning of the word fraud.

Harden was referring to a provision in a July 8 executive order “to protect people seeking reproductive health services from fraudulent schemes or deceptive practices.” Biden has appointed Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta to head up the Department of Justice’s task force on abortion. Gupta has been accused in the past of calling crisis pregnancy centers like the one Harden runs “fake clinics,” raising worries that the DOJ will try to shut down pro-life clinics under an expanded definition of fraud.

“It’s like a dystopian novel,” said Harden.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House and Hochul, James, and Wextons’ offices for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

As an independent news organization dedicated to reporting the truth, The Epoch Times has been subjected to excessive censorship by Big Tech. 

In the latest such incident, Twitter on July 28 censored all of our content by putting up a blockade to our website, describing it as “unsafe,” and encouraging users not to proceed. 

Twitter’s actions—just like those by other tech giants such as Facebook and YouTube—specifically targeted the reach of our independent news and video content.

Twitter hasn’t responded to multiple requests for comment and appeal, nor has the company explained what led it to censor our content or what caused it to lift its blockage two days later following a public outcry.

The move by the social media giant came less than a week after we published our new documentary “The Real Story of January 6” and on the same day posted an interview with sex trafficking survivor Eliza Bleu, on our program “American Thought Leaders.”

While it remains unclear why Twitter targeted us, what is clear is that The Epoch Times is different from most other major news organizations, in that we dare to follow the stories where the facts lead.

In our Jan. 6 documentary, our reporters take an unvarnished look at the events of that day and present new witnesses and evidence that challenge the prevailing narratives. It provides extensive evidence of excessive use of force by police that broke protocol and policy, and raises questions on the lack of security that day. So far, the documentary has received more than half a million views on our EpochTV platform.

In recent years, there have been other major stories on which The Epoch Times, because of our independence and adherence to traditional journalism, has differed from other major news organizations, only to be proven right.

For example, The Epoch Times reported accurately on events surrounding allegations that then-candidate and later President Donald Trump had colluded with Russia. From day one, The Epoch Times reported on the facts and through our reporting uncovered significant problems with the FBI’s probe of Trump’s campaign, which included problematic conduct involving surveillance. 

While other news organizations won Pulitzers for their articles suggesting collusion between the president and Russia, The Epoch Times was, in fact, correct in reporting that the allegations had no support—as confirmed through investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice inspector general, as well as the ongoing probe of the origins of the FBI’s investigation by special counsel John Durham.

The Epoch Times was also among the first to report on the possibility that the novel coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Our April 2020 documentary on the subject was censored by Facebook. Today, a lab leak is now held as the most likely explanation for the spread of the virus, by both media organizations and many government officials. 

The dangers of allowing platforms such as Twitter to take on the role of arbiter of the truth is that they, in many cases, are plainly wrong. The most prominent example was Twitter’s suppression of the New York Post over its reporting on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

This censorship behavior, which is antithetical to the protections Big Tech receives under Section 230, has also raised concerns about social media platforms censoring content on behalf of the government. Most recently, a federal judge ordered the government to cooperate in a lawsuit that alleges behind-the-scenes efforts to target the dissemination of information of stories related to COVID-19—including its possible origins and alternative treatments—that didn’t fit the government’s narrative.

“Government can’t outsource its censorship to Big Tech,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said.

Public Outcry

The public outcry against Twitter’s censorship of The Epoch Times was swift, with three U.S. senators publicly questioning the platform—which in recent years has repeatedly found itself in hot water for acts of censorship—over its targeting of the news organization. 

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) demanded that Twitter “explain itself for this outrageous act of censorship.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) asked, “Where’s the respect for free speech and freedom of press, Twitter?”

“We all remember your biased censorship of [the New York Post] and how that ended for you,” Scott said.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) described the action by Twitter as “alarming.”

“Twitter is censoring [The Epoch Times] under the guise of ‘unsafe’ speech. Remember what happened the last time corporate media and big tech tried to censor my investigation on Hunter Biden corruption?” he wrote. “The truth always prevails.”

Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, described Twitter’s action as “an outrageous act of censorship.”

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya called out Twitter’s suppression, writing: “It is perfectly safe to click through to the [Epoch Times] site in the quote tweet. For some reason, Twitter decided that today was a good day to suppress access to Epoch Times.”

Sex trafficking survivor Bleu, who was among the first to notice the censorship by Twitter due to its blockage of her interview with EpochTV’s program “American Thought Leaders,” posted a video condemning the platform’s actions that went viral. 

It also created a stir among Twitter users, with many condemning the platform’s actions. 

The Epoch Times wants to thank everyone who spoke out against this latest instance of censorship.

We will keep reporting the only way we know how, rooted in our tagline Truth & Tradition, without favor or fear. The fight for truth is one that has no shore and that is as old as the ages. We believe that only with brave individuals going the distance and striving to record the truth of what happens, can the world have an accurate picture of events and history.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

WILL REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS INSIST DAN PRZYGODA IS ALLOWED NOWHERE NEAR THE CAPITOL, AFTER THESE REVELATIONS?

A producer working for the Congressional January 6th Committee posted violent threats towards President Trump supporters and Republican politicians, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.

The unearthed posts from Twitter are the latest piece of evidence undercutting the alleged independent, nonpartisan efforts of the committee, as well as the hypocrisy of those now claiming to be working to expose violence towards elected officials or law enforcement. The news comes after the committee’s own chairman, Bennie Thompson, was exposed for his links to violent, secessionist movements in the 1960s and 70s.

But producer Dan Przygoda’s threats aren’t 50 or 60 years old. In fact, they appear to have been posted on the day of President Trump’s inauguration, on January 20th, 2017. On the same day, violent left-wing activists descended on Washington, D.C., burning cars, assaulting people, and smashing windows. On that day, at least 217 people were arrested. It is unclear if any of them were incited by Przygoda’s Twitter feed.

The House Select Committee on January 6th hired Przygoda in June 2022 to assist the staging of a series of hearings televised to the American public, many in prime time. Przygoda previously worked for ABC News, Bloomberg, and Good Morning America.

On the afternoon Trump’s inauguration – as AntiFa activists rampaged through the nation’s capital – Przygoda tweeted that he would be “getting this new attachment for my car when I drive around Trump country…” Included in the tweet was a short, black-and-white animation, or “gif,” of a car punching pedestrians as it passes with an automatic, metal arm.

Similarly, in November of 2016, while appearing to reference a variety of movies including Men in Black, he created a scenario whereby then Vice President-elect Mike Pence gets punched in the head.

””welcome to Miami!” *punches Pence in the head as he climbs out of his spacecraft*,” he wrote to his Twitter followers.

The January 6th committee’s recent production staff hire is also an Emmy-nominated news producer whose résumé includes stints as a producer and editor at outlets including Bloomberg and ABC News.

Akin to Przygoda, Congressional members of the committee have also made controversial remarks in the past, including its Chairman Bennie Thompson, who praised radical secessionist groups attempting to overtake states within the U.S. and organizations with deep ties to the the Nation of Islam.

Left-wing activists have also routinely attacked federal buildings, escaping any punishment or inquiry as rigorous as the ongoing efforts surrounding January 6th.

Conflicting timeline reports and identical language used by numerous officers in separate reports raise questions

A 104-page report issued three months after the events at the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021, said the Capitol Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) was ordered by supervisors not to use “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” like flash bangs. However, video evidence—along with Capitol Police Use of Force Reports obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—exposes conflicts in timelines, the brutality of the unprovoked attacks against Jan. 6 protesters, and how leadership ordered the deployment of munitions on a peaceful crowd.

The Video Evidence

Victoria White

According to Police1, the “#1 resource for law enforcement online,” which promotes “the highest standards of business ethics,” police are trained to target large muscle groups like legs, chest, abdomen, and arms with batons. Intentionally striking areas like the head, sternum, and spine are considered to be the same act of deadly force as firing a gun.

However, a video shows Jan. 6 defendant Victoria White being beaten over the head 35 times with a metal baton and punched in the face by an officer of the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia. White, seen wearing a Trump hat, is unarmed and posed no threat to the officer. She raises her hands in defense during the brutal attack, collapsing more than once, only to be stood up by other officers to be maced and beaten again.

According to a Use of Force report filed 1/7/21 by Officer Dante Price, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times, “approved strike areas” for use of a baton “include arms, legs and large muscle groups.” Injuries suffered by Dante’s victim required hospital transport. Another report of an injury caused by use of a baton, filed 1/8/21 by Officer Ryan Kendall, states “approved target areas” include the “upper abdomen.”

“To add insult to injury,” her legal team said at a Jan. 6, 2022 press conference, “she was indicted for being pushed into the tunnel entrance and for daring to put her hands up in a defensive posture while getting beaten by the police.”

White has filed a $1 million lawsuit against D.C. Police Chief Robert Contree and seven unnamed officers, including one known as “Officer Whiteshirt,” given the moniker as it is believed his clothing identified him as an officer in a position of authority.

Roseanne Boyland

Another video obtained by The Epoch Times shows D.C. Metro Police Officer Lila Morris beating an unconscious 34-year-old Roseanne Boyland of Kennesaw, Georgia with a steel baton and then with a large wooden walking stick. According to witnesses, Boyland lost consciousness and stopped breathing after being crushed beneath the weight of other fallen protesters. Being unconscious, Boyland was no threat to the officer.

A DC medical examiner claims Boyland died of an accidental overdose of Adderall, a suspicious ruling that sparked outrage from Boyland’s friends and family. Her father, Bret Boyland, said his daughter had been taking Adderall for about 10 years to treat an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The Epoch Times reported on Feb. 10, an investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau cleared Morris of any wrongdoing and deemed her beating of the unconscious Boyland as “objectively reasonable.”

A separate report describes how Morris first used the wooden stick while beating Boyland to strike 41-year-old filmmaker Luke Coffee on the left elbow. A second swing missed before she sprayed him in the face with pepper gel. “Morris then inexplicably turned her fury on the motionless Boyland, striking her in the ribs once and twice in the head,” the report said.

Ashli Babbitt

Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old unarmed Air Force veteran and ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump was shot and killed by U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd. While news media has labeled Babbitt as a violent “insurrectionist” who was trying to breach the Speaker’s Lobby, a frame-by-frame analysis of the video from The Epoch Times shows Babbitt tried to stop the violence against the Speaker’s Lobby at least four times before she was fatally shot.

Two reports, filed by two officers who were with Byrd at the moment he shot Babbitt, were also obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times.

According to a report by Paul McKenna of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) Uniformed Service Bureau, as protesters “began pounding” on the “East door of the lobby” and breaking the glass, he drew his weapon along with Byrd and Officer Reggie Tyson. He “yelled ‘stay back’ ‘get back’ several times during the incident.”

“A woman climbed through the far left window pane, which had been broken out by the group,” McKenna attested. “Lt. Byrd fired one shot hitting the woman. She fell back out of the window and I continued yelling at the group to get back and away from the doors.”

McKenna claims the incident happened between 1430 and 1500 hours (2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.). The report was signed by McKenna on June 9, 2021. It was signed by his supervisor five months earlier, on Jan. 7, 2021.

In the second report, filed Jan. 7, 2021, Tyson said he heard “shots fired” over his radio some time after 1440 (2:40 p.m.). In an attempt to protect himself, Tyson said he withdrew his weapon and made his way to the lobby east side of the capitol along with Byrd and McKenna. “A protester tried to climb through the broken window where she was shot one time as she fell back.” Tyson claims the time of the incident was around 1500 hours (3:00 p.m.).

In another report, USCP Officer Tyler Stoyle claims he responded to “a shots fired” call over their his radio at “1400 hours” (2:00 p.m.), 40 minutes earlier than Tyson claimed to have heard the call of “shots fired.”

A separate report filed by USCP Officer Jason McGinnis, said he “responded to the North side of Crypt” at “approximately 1400 hours” and drew his baton to “hold the line of unscreened individuals that were trespassing.”

However, it wasn’t until “after the initial surge had ended” and McGinnis “was moving trespassers out of the South Door” that he claimed “there were reports of shots fired in the Speaker’s Lobby Stairs to the second floor.”

During an interview with NBC, Byrd also claimed to hear “shots fired.”

However, Byrd was the only one to fire a weapon on Jan. 6, 2021. This, and the conflicts in times reported by police regarding when they heard “shots fired,” raises questions.

According to a July 25 report by The Epoch Times, Stan Kephart—a 42-year law enforcement veteran and former director of security for the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics who has testified in court more than 350 times as an expert witness on policing issues—said Babbitt was “murdered … under the color of authority.”

However, a review of the reports filed by Tyson and McKenna, the Bureau Commander found “the circumstances support the Use of Force” and did not recommend any further investigation.

Byrd also told NBC he yelled verbal warnings so hard that his throat hurt for days after. Neither of the reports filed by Tyson or McKenna corroborate his claim. Byrd cannot be heard shouting anything on the video either.

Byrd insisted he opened fire on an unarmed Babbitt only as a “last resort.”

“I know that day I saved countless lives,” Byrd said.

In August 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police investigation cleared Byrd of any wrongdoing.

Use of Force Reports

According to a report released March 7 by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), “the January 6th attack on the Capitol raised concerns” about the preparedness of USCP “to respond to violent demonstrations.”

Key findings from the report:

• Eighty officers “identified concerns related to use of force, including that they felt discouraged or hesitant to use force because of a fear of disciplinary actions.”
• Approximately 150 Capitol Police officers reported 293 use of force incidents on Jan. 6. All were deemed justified by the department.
• These incidents involved pushing (91), batons (83), withdrawing a firearm from its holster (37), chemical spray (34), other physical tactics (22), pointing a firearm at a person (17), less-lethal munitions (7), a diversionary device (1) and firing a firearm (1).

Of the 293 Use of Force (UOF) reports filed, The Epoch Times has obtained 161 of them, including the ones filed by Tyson and McKenna regarding the shooting of Babbitt by Byrd.

‘Less Than Lethal Munitions’ UOF Reports

According to one UOF report, dated 1/7/21, Officer Adam Descamp said he was ordered by Deputy Chief Eric Waldow “to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol.

“I deployed multiple FN303 projectiles from the FN303 launcher, administered strikes with the PR-24 baton and utilized the Sabre red pepper spray to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex,” Descamp wrote of his actions at “approximately 1215 hours” (12:15 p.m.).

Waldow was incident commander of the Civil Disturbance Unit on Jan. 6, which was reported to be highly disorganized and woefully unprepared.

At “approximately 1215 hours,” Officer Melissa Lee also reported on 1/7/21 that she “was ordered to the scene by Deputy Chief Waldow to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol Building,” using nearly the same, identical verbiage as Descamp.

“I deployed multiple FN303 projectiles from the FN303 launcher to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex,” she wrote.

A report filed by Officer Matthew Flood, also “at approximately 1215 hours,” also states he was ordered by Deputy Chief Waldow “to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol.”

“I deployed multiple projectiles from the FN303 launcher, and chemical agent spray,” he wrote, using language remarkably similar to that of Descamp and Lee, “to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex,” he wrote on his report, also date 1/7/21.

“At approximately 1215 hours,” Officer Tina Cobert also reported on 1/7/21 that she “was ordered to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol by Deputy Chief Waldow.

“I deployed multiple projectiles from the FN 303 Launcher to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex,” she also wrote.

Also “at approximately 1215 hours,” Officer Christopher Sprifke reported he “was ordered to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol by Deputy Chief Waldow.

“I deployed multiple PepperBall projectiles to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol building,” he wrote in his 1/7/21 report.

“At approximately 1215 hours,” Officer Shauni Kerkhoff said she was also “ordered by Deputy Chief Waldow, Eric to deploy less than lethal munitions on an overwhelming number of rioters at the U.S. Capitol.

“I deployed multiple projectiles from the PepperBall launcher to gain compliance from the rioters that were aggressively attacking officers on the police line and throughout the Capitol complex,” she wrote in his report, also dated 1/7/21.

In February 2021, the U.S. Capitol police union issued an overwhelming no-confidence vote for a half-dozen of the force’s top leaders, including Waldow.

Instead of leading his team of officers, Waldow chose to physically engage rioters, a move many of his fellow officers saw as wrong. In October 2021, Waldow submitted paperwork for his resignation.

At “approximately 1400hrs,” Officer Patrick Kahl reported that he “discharged multiple 40mm baton rounds after individuals began and continued fighting with USP Officers while trying to gain unlawful access to the United States Capitol Building through the Rotunda Door.”

At 1500 hours, Officer Justin Green reported launching a flash bang “to disperse the crowd” in an effort to “rescue” one of the department’s sergeants who was “pinned in the center of the crowd.” He fired a second flash bang as demonstrators were “breaching the Rotunda door.”

Conflicting Reports

These UOF reports contradict the report issued by then-Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton, who said the CDU was ordered by supervisors not to use less than lethal munitions and that “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including flash bangs, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”

In addition, every report filed by police regarding the deployment of munitions claims there were no injuries. However, a witness said 55-year-old Kevin Greeson, an unarmed pro-Trump protester who died of a heart attack on Jan. 6, was struck by a projectile fired by Capitol Hill police just prior to his death.

Despite claims that munitions were launched to “gain compliance from rioters that were aggressively attacking officers,” numerous videos show tear gas and flash bangs were launched into a peaceful crowd, even into an area where women, children, and elderly people were standing behind police barriers. Several reports, including one by The Epoch Times, suggested the use of munitions was an intentional effort to incite violence, not to “gain compliance.”

Video footage, analyzed by Ray Dietrich of Red Voice Media, shows the violence began on Jan. 6, 2021 “the moment either stun grenades or tear gas canisters were deployed into the crowd of protestors.”

“The question I have, after a 20-year career in law enforcement, is why were these munitions deployed?” Dietrich asked rhetorically, saying he had “picked this video apart” and “cannot see why the USCP used this force against the crowd.”

“There is no fighting and no violence, so why did they target these people with less-lethal weapons?” He asked, noting that “what happened next” was “chaos” and “violence” as “the crowd fought back” and “the Capitol was breached.”

EpochTV’s documentary “The Real Story of Jan. 6” contains a number of new videos showing that munitions were used on a primarily peaceful crowd, injuring many people.

Contradictions between videos and police UOF reports regarding munitions also raise questions.

None of the officers involved in these UOF attacks, some of which resulted in hospital transport or death, faced any charges.

Considering the evidence, The Epoch Times reached out to the GAO, asking how the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) could determine that every use of force was justified.

Gretta Goodwin, a director in GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team, told The Epoch Times they “reviewed Capitol Police use of force and crowd control policies, procedures, and training materials,” and “analyzed officer use of force reports for January 6, 2021, which describe the types of force used, as well as supervisors’ determinations on whether the force was justified.”

“As you noted, and as we reported, Capitol Police determined that each the 293 use of force incidents reported from January 6, 2021 were justified,” Goodwin explained. “According to Capitol Police policy, officers are required to complete a use of force report for any incident that meets one or more of three criteria: (1) unintentional firearm discharge; (2) the withdrawal of a weapon from its holster or pointing a weapon, including a firearm, at an individual or animal; or (3) any use of force greater than, and including, empty hand control techniques. Further, its policy requires officers to complete the use of force report, if possible, prior to the end of the officer’s tour of duty (i.e., the day of the incident).”

None of the reports were completed and submitted on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Capitol Police policy calls for use of force reports to be reviewed by the reporting officer’s supervisor for accuracy and completeness,” Goodwin stated further. “The supervisor is required to indicate whether the use of force was supported by the circumstances, or whether more investigation is needed. For either designation, the supervisor is to forward the report to the Office of Professional Responsibility for final investigative review. According to the Capitol Police, Office of Professional Responsibility investigations that identify wrongdoing can result in disciplinary actions and criminal investigations. Of the 293 use of force incidents reported, one incident required more investigation by the supervisor. This incident was the sole use of force incident involving the firing of a firearm, which the Capitol Police determined to be justified after additional investigation.”

This was the shooting of an unarmed Babbitt by Byrd. No explanation was provided for why the actions of Officer Morris and “Officer Whiteshirt” were deemed justified.

“We made five recommendations in our report,” Goodwin said, “some of which focus on ensuring that the Capitol Police take actions to better understand officers’ comprehension of the department’s expectations and policies related to the use of force, and as appropriate, make changes to policy, guidance, and training. Capitol Police agreed with all five of our recommendations, and when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to our recommendations, we will provide updated information on our website.”

The Epoch Times also reached out to the USCP’s OPR but received no response.

Joe Hanneman contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

House lawmakers will be offered up to $10,000 to strengthen their home security amid increasing threats of violence against lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The stipend, announced by House Sergeant-at-Arms William Walker, would offer to cover up to $10,000 worth of expenses for upgrading home security systems, cameras and video recorders, locks, and motion sensors at the homes of lawmakers.

In addition to the stipend, Walker announced that the program, set to begin on Aug. 15, would furnish up to $150 per month to helping lawmakers pay fees and maintain the new equipment.

“The Sergeant at Arms (SAA) will assume the cost of and oversee certain future residential security upgrades, maintenance, and monthly monitoring fees. This program will strengthen the security of Members of the House of Representatives and their families,” Walker wrote in a letter to lawmakers announcing the stipend.

Increasing Threats

The move comes as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle face increasing threats. In recent months, members of the controversial Jan. 6 Committee have been increasingly targeted, leading many to strengthen their security details on their own dime.

However, lawmakers who do not plan to seek reelection or who do not win their congressional race in November will not be eligible for the program. This means that several members on the Jan. 6 Committee, including Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), who have both announced that they will not seek reelection, will not be eligible to receive the stipend.

Kinzinger, one of only two Republicans on the Jan. 6 panel, shared images last month showing a threat that he had received, in which the congressman’s wife and son were threatened with death.

“Adam’s activities have not only hurt this country, but countless patriotic and God-fearing families,” the note said. “Therefore, although it might take time, he will be executed. But don’t worry! You and Christian will be joining Adam in hell too!”

Other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have faced similar threats.

In one instance, an anonymous video was sent to Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) showing her vehicle being followed. A 9-millimeter handgun is shown in the video, with the perpetrator saying, “I see you. I got something for you.”

In June 2022, another man was charged with “terroristic threats” against Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.). The suspect left a dead rat with a noose around its neck on the congressman’s doorstep, in addition to a brick with one of Reed’s family member’s names scrawled across it.

Threats More Than Doubled: USCP

In May 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) said in a report that threats against lawmakers had more than doubled that year, and were on track to rise even further.

“The number of threats made against Congress has increased significantly,” the report said. “This year alone, there has been a 107% increase in threats against Members compared to 2020. Provided the unique threat environment we currently live in, the Department is confident the number of cases will continue to increase.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), by contrast, derided the stipend initiative in a July 25 tweet.

“It’s being reported that the House Sergeant at Arms is creating a new residential security program where Members of Congress will receive $10k to secure their residences,” Boebert wrote. “So, can I buy more AR-15s to secure my residence with this?”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Under the law, a president can’t order domestic deployment of Guard; local officials must request it

A claim by the vice chair of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee that President Donald Trump didn’t order the use of National Guard troops in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, is true because that would have been a violation of the law, former Pentagon chief of staff Kash Patel says.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) told Fox News’ Bret Baier that Trump “never issued any order to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol.”

Patel said that Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops for use in D.C. or elsewhere on Jan. 6, 2021, but the use of those troops was later rejected by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the U.S. Capitol Police.

Under the law, the president can’t order the deployment of the military for use inside the United States, Patel said. At the time of the Jan. 6, 2021, unrest, Patel was chief of staff for Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller.

“She knows the truth—45 [Trump] authorized the National Guard days before Jan. 6, and Pelosi and Bowser rejected it,” Patel told The Epoch Times. “Cheney knows it’s unconstitutional for any president to ever order the military to deploy domestically. He may only authorize their use, then there must be a request.

Read More

The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary

“By her own quote, she has cleared Trump of the very thing she has accused him of from Day 1—an insurrection,” Patel said. “So, yes, Trump never made that illegal order. He followed the law.”

Authorized 20,000 Guard Troops

As Patel explains in the new EpochTV documentary, “The Real Story of Jan. 6,” Trump authorized as many as 20,000 Guard troops for use on Jan. 6, 2021, during a meeting several days earlier. The offer of troops was rejected by Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he said.

Under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. military can’t be used domestically for enforcing laws or keeping order. Part-time citizen-soldiers can only be used under certain conditions.

“The Supreme Court said two things must happen,” said Patel, the host of “Kash’s Corner” on EpochTV. “One: the President of the United States has to authorize, not order, the use of the National Guard.

“Once that happens, step two has to happen as well before they can be deployed,” he said, “and that is a request from the head of state, the governor, or in this case, Mayor Bowser because it’s Washington, D.C. Or federal law enforcement needs to request the National Guard to be deployed.

“If those two things don’t happen, then any issuance of the National Guard would be literally unconstitutional.”

According to the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General’s report regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the use of National Guard troops was discussed during a White House meeting on Jan. 3, 2021.

In attendance were Miller, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley, presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Patel.

“The President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event.”

Patel said at the end of the meeting that Trump brought up Jan. 6, 2021.

“President Trump pivoted and said, basically, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing for security’—I’m paraphrasing here—‘for anything that might happen on Jan. 6?’

“He said, ‘If you need up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women, not just in Washington, D.C., but anywhere in the country, you have my authorization,’” Patel recalled.

The Defense Department then took the presidential authorization to the U.S. Capitol Police and Bowser.

“Mayor Bowser, in writing, pursuant to her own letter that we released from her, sent to the Department of Defense, declined to issue any more National Guardsmen and women,” Patel said.

The same authorization was taken to the Capitol Police, which declined additional National Guard personnel, Patel said.

Official Jan. 6 Timeline

According to the Capitol Police’s official Jan. 6, 2021, timeline, the Pentagon contacted USCP on Jan. 2, 2021, to “determine whether USCP is considering a request for National Guard soldiers for Jan. 6, 2021, event.”

A day later, Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher responded that “a request for National Guard support is not forthcoming at this time after consultation with COP [chief of police] Sund.”

During a June appearance on the Fox News program “Hannity,” Miller recalled the meeting in which the use of the National Guard was discussed.

“The president said while we’re leaving, ‘Hey, one more thing,’ and we all sat back down and discussed what was going on on Jan. 6th,” Miller said.

“The president was doing just what I expect the commander in chief to do, any commander in chief to do. He was looking at the broad threats against the United States and he brought this up on his own. We did not bring it up.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Ashli Babbitt, the 35-year-old Air Force veteran who was fatally shot outside the U.S. Capitol Speaker’s Lobby by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on Jan. 6, 2021, was “murdered … under the color of authority,” a use-of-force expert has concluded after reviewing video footage of the incident.

Just before 2:45 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021, Babbitt began climbing through a side window leading into the Speaker’s Lobby and was shot in the left anterior shoulder by Byrd. She was pronounced dead a half-hour later at MedStar Washington Hospital Center.

Stan Kephart, who has testified in court more than 350 times as an expert witness on policing issues, reviewed the shooting in the new Epoch TV documentary, “The Real Story of Jan. 6,” which is streaming on Epoch TV.

“My conclusion … based on what I saw and observed in the video clips is that Ashli Babbitt was murdered,” said Kephart, a 42-year veteran of law enforcement and former director of security for the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. He has testified on topics that include excessive force, police discipline, officer safety, and crowd control.

“She was shot and killed under color of authority by an officer who violated not only the law but his oath and committed an arrestable offense.”

Kephart said he saw nothing in the video evidence to indicate that Byrd should have felt his life was in danger or that he was at risk of serious harm from the 5-foot-2, 110-pound San Diego woman wrapped in a Trump flag.

“In order for lethal force to be authorized, the officer has to be able to articulate that he or she was in fear of losing his life, was about to be killed, or grievously injured,” Kephart said in the documentary. “There is nothing I saw in that film that would indicate that was possible or probable from what unfolded.”

Byrd’s attorney, Mark Schamel, in a statement to The Epoch Times, called Kephart’s conclusion “unsupported and erroneous” and said the lieutenant was justified in the use of force.

“When Ms. Babbitt entered through the broken window and entered the inner protected area, wearing a backpack and refusing the verbal commands of multiple armed federal officers with weapons drawn, the threat she posed was clear and Lt. Byrd, as the first officer in the final line of defense, was absolutely justified in his use of force.”

Aaron Babbitt, Ashli’s husband, said Kephart reached the same conclusion as other law enforcement experts, including former New York City police commissioners Bernard Kerik and Ray Kelly.

“I loved hearing that from him. He’s obviously well-versed in the use of force,” Babbitt told The Epoch Times, referring to Kephart. “He’s clearly a very smart man who has been in that business for a long time. He should be listened to.”

Babbitt disputed Schamel’s claim that his wife “refused” verbal commands from Byrd or anyone else. He questioned why Byrd was wearing a COVID face covering if he hoped to be heard shouting instructions.

“Witness testimony I’ve read, police included, said they heard no warning,” Babbitt said, adding that if they thought the situation was serious enough for deadly force, “the mask should probably come off your face. Complete disregard for human life and not following the use-of-force continuum.”

Video shot by political activist John “Jayden X” Sullivan through the Speaker’s Lobby windows shows Byrd had his finger on the trigger of his Glock pistol before Babbitt ever appeared in the window. He then removed his finger from the trigger for a short time before advancing on the open window and firing as Babbitt began to lean through.

Babbitt’s killing still hangs like a dark cloud over the events of that day. Questions remain about her death, even after the June release of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report that concluded there was insufficient evidence that Byrd used excessive force when he shot the unarmed Babbitt as she attempted to climb through the broken window.

Kephart said Byrd should have written a firearms discharge report immediately after the incident. Byrd declined to give a statement to Internal Affairs detectives and was never formally interviewed before eventually being cleared of wrongdoing.

According to the June DOJ report, Byrd agreed to a “voluntary debrief and walk-through of the scene” with his attorney in late January 2021, in which he stated if the “mob of rioters” outside the Speaker’s Lobby gained entry, “it wasn’t going to go well.”

‘I Had No Clue’

In a 2021 interview with Lester Holt on NBC, Byrd said he couldn’t see into the Speaker’s Lobby hallway through the glass, didn’t know if the person climbing into the window was male or female, and couldn’t tell if the person had anything in their hands.

“It’s impossible for me to see what’s on the other side because we had created such a barricade, and it was high enough that the visibility was impossible,” Byrd said. He said he didn’t know there were three Capitol Police officers standing with their backs to the entry doors.

Byrd said police “were essentially trapped” in the lobby, and “there was nowhere to retreat” because entrances were barricaded.

“It sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door,” he said.

Byrd said he repeatedly shouted for people to get back—”I was yelling at the top of my lungs”—but added it was possible that he couldn’t be heard in the hallway.

When Holt asked Byrd if he knew whom he had shot, Byrd replied: “I had no clue. I didn’t even know it was a female until hours way later, sometime later on that night.”

He said he only found out later that Babbitt had no weapon.

“There was no way to know that at that time,” Byrd said. “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions of—

“I know, based on my training and my policy, what I did was appropriate.”

Kephart said the shooting should have been evaluated using a litmus test from the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor: whether force was ever needed and appropriate in the situation, the extent of the injury, and “whether the force was applied in a good-faith manner to maintain and restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically.”

The DOJ report on the shooting was released in June by Judicial Watch, which sued the DOJ for Jan. 6, 2021, case records.

“After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lt. Byrd violated Ms. McEntee’s [sic] civil rights by willfully using more force than was reasonably necessary, or was not acting in self-defense or the defense of others,” the undated 14-page document reads. The report referred to Babbitt by her previous married name. She married Aaron Babbitt in 2019.

Kephart said the standard set by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor doesn’t refer to “willfully” using more force than necessary.

“They inserted willfully above knowingly, which is at best contradictory, and worst, disingenuous,” Kephart told The Epoch Times in an email.

Although Byrd refused to give a formal statement to investigators, the DOJ concluded that his apparent belief that Babbitt posed an imminent, potentially deadly threat was “reasonable.”

About five hours after the shooting, Byrd met with Internal Affairs detectives from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, which investigated the shooting on behalf of the U.S. Capitol Police; he said he wanted to consult an attorney first. Byrd never made a formal statement to Internal Affairs investigators.

In his statement to The Epoch Times, Schamel, Byrd’s attorney, said that “actual experts who train federal agents and officers in the use of force have described Lt. Byrd’s conduct as exemplary.”

Investigative Reports

A Metropolitan Police Department Internal Affairs investigator who reviewed video footage from Capitol security cameras from just before Babbitt was shot reported, “Ms. Babbitt does not appear to be carrying anything in her hands,” according to an internal police report released by Judicial Watch.

One U.S. Capitol Police sergeant who was in the Speaker’s Lobby when Babbitt was shot told Internal Affairs investigators at the time of the shooting “there was a lot of screaming” and “I heard somebody screaming, ‘Get back, get back,’” an Internal Affairs report said.

A Capitol Police officer who was in the Speaker’s Lobby with Byrd said before Babbitt appeared in the window, various officers were shouting for the crowd to get back. After Byrd fired his weapon, the officer said, Byrd was “shaky” and “teary-eyed.”

“You know, you can just tell, like, I ain’t gonna say when somebody regrets to do something, when somebody just is just nervous, you know, they’ll rub their head, their [sic] pace back and forth,” the officer told an Internal Affairs agent.

However, one of the three officers stationed on the outside of the Speaker’s Lobby doors, where Ashli Babbitt and other protesters were gathered, told an investigator “he did not recall hearing any verbal commands being given from inside the Speaker’s Lobby,” according to a Jan. 6, 2021, police report.

One of the other two officers stationed outside the doors and facing the angry crowd also was asked if he heard anyone inside the Speaker’s Lobby saying anything.

“No, sir,” he replied. When asked if he considered using his firearm on rioters, he said, “So, you’re accountable for every round in, in your service weapon; obviously, you can’t shoot into an empty crowd. That’s so wrong.”

The third officer stationed at the doors also told investigators he didn’t hear any communications from police inside the Speaker’s Lobby, according to a Jan. 6, 2021, Internal Affairs report.

A Metropolitan Police Department Internal Affairs Division summary from Babbitt’s Jan. 7, 2021, autopsy said the medical examiner determined “the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the left anterior shoulder and the manner of death was ruled a homicide.”

Kephart said he was shocked at a photograph from the House floor earlier on Jan. 6, 2021, showing Byrd with his gun drawn and aimed in the direction of Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) and two other men.

“This man [Byrd] should be directed to submit to a fitness-for-duty examination immediately by his chief of police,” Kephart said. “Based on this photo alone, he is not qualified to possess a firearm. He is clearly demonstrating a conscious disregard for where he is. His firearm should be at a ‘low ready’ position until target acquisition.

“Any qualified firearms instructor would be horrified at this photo in view of what transpired after the picture was taken, where he shot and killed Ashli Babbitt, disregarding officers in the backdrop, and did not advance and assess the shot or provide first aid and take control of the crime scene—all of which he has been taught, trained, and certified to do.”

Nehls has spoken repeatedly of his belief that the shooting was murder. Nehls served as sheriff of Fort Bend County, Texas, from 2012 until 2020.

“The video was quite clear,” Nehls told Newsmax in 2021. “It was murder.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former First Lady Melania Trump said Thursday that she was not aware of the events taking place during the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021.

“On January 6, 2021, I was fulfilling one of my duties as First Lady of the United States of America, and accordingly, I was unaware of what was simultaneously transpiring at the U.S. Capitol Building,” Trump told Fox News.

She added that “it was my obligation to record the contents of the White House’s historic rooms, including taking archival photographs of all the renovations.”

“Several months in advance, I organized a qualified team of photographers, archivists, and designers to work with me in the White House to ensure perfect execution,” she continued. “As required, we scheduled January 6, 2021, to complete the work on behalf of our Nation.”

Trump also cast doubt on claims made by her former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, who has often criticized former President Donald Trump and the former first lady after they left office.

“Ms. Grisham was not in the White House on January 6, and her behavior in her role as Chief of Staff ultimately amounts to dereliction of duty,” Trump said, while adding that normally, the first lady’s chief of staff “provides detailed briefings surrounding our Nation’s important issues.”

“In fact, Ms. Grisham failed to provide insight and information into the events surrounding January 6 as she had abandoned her post in Washington, D.C.,” she said. “Shamefully, this behavior has only partially become public knowledge; yet was consistent for Ms. Grisham.”

Trump added: “It is evident that Grisham’s recent betrayals are a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate her ruined career and reputation.”

Text Message

Grisham responded to Trump’s statement Thursday with a cryptic Twitter message that read: “Lol. That’s truly all I’ve got.” The Epoch Times has contacted her for comment.

Last month, she posted on Twitter a screenshot of a conversation she allegedly had with Trump on Jan. 6.

“Do you want to tweet that peaceful protests are the right of every American, but there is no place for lawlessness & violence?” Grisham allegedly texted Trump, who was listed as “MT,” with the response in the conversation being simply “No.”

The screenshot text message that was posted by Grisham, who also served as the White House press secretary, has not been confirmed by Trump or an official source.

Grisham also issued a response Thursday speculation she doctored the screenshot, writing: “I’m actually not smart enough to do that.”

Adding to Fox News, Trump said that if she was “fully informed of all the details … I would have immediately denounced the violence that occurred at the Capitol Building.”

“And while Ms. Grisham’s behavior is disappointing, it is not surprising or an isolated incident,” she continued.

Her statement comes as the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 incident is continuing to hold public hearings on the Jan. 6 breach. Some Republicans and former President Trump say the panel is an attempt to distract Americans from more pressing issues such as the economy, inflation, gas prices, and illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland weighed in the Jan. 6 hearing, saying that “no person is above the law.” That comment came in response to a question about a memo the Justice Department reportedly sent out noting a longstanding agency practice of not making politically contentious prosecutions in the lead-up to federal elections.

“I can’t say it any more clearly than that. There is nothing in the principles of prosecution, in any other factors, which prevent us from investigating anyone who is criminally responsible for an attempt to undo a democratic election,” Garland told reporters at the Department of Justice headquarters in Washington.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

WASHINGTON—The contempt of Congress charge levied against former White House aide Steve Bannon cannot be proven, lawyers for the defendant told a federal jury on July 19.

He is on trial for allegedly defying subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives committee that’s investigating the breach of the U.S. Capitol, which occurred on Jan. 6, 2021.

Bannon ignored warnings that he could face criminal prosecution if he did not comply with the subpoena, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said.

“When you ignore a subpoena, that’s a crime,” she said. “That is why we are here today.”

But Evan Corcoran, a lawyer for Bannon, challenged that narrative, saying that the subpoena was not ignored.

The evidence will show there was “direct engagement” and prolonged negotiations between lawyers for Bannon and the government because of questions about what materials and testimony Bannon could give, Corcoran said.

There will also be no evidence that shows Bannon “willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear in a congressional office on Oct. 14,” Corcoran said. “The date was the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation, so the government can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steve Bannon committed a crime.”

After Bannon didn’t appear before Congress in October 2021, the House voted to hold him in contempt, and a grand jury indicted him several weeks later on two counts of contempt of Congress.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the panel, said a day after the failure to appear that Bannon had “willfully failed to both produce a single document and to appear for his scheduled deposition.”

Bannon has said he couldn’t hand over materials or testify because the subpoena sought records protected by executive privilege, which had been asserted by former President Donald Trump. His lawyers said that Bannon wouldn’t testify until the panel reached an agreement with Trump, or a court ruling settled the matter. Thompson said that Bannon, who was a Trump aide in 2017, could still testify about and produce documents relating to matters outside of the privilege.

Vaughn, the prosecutor, said that the case “is about a guy who refused to show up.”

“Yes, it’s that simple,” she said.

Rare Prosecution

While others have been held in contempt of Congress over the years, the choice to prosecute Bannon on the matter is unusual. The last criminal contempt case took place in 1983, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Bannon, who the committee believes has information about efforts to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election, is being targeted by the Democrat-dominated panel because of politics, Corcoran said.

“Politics is the lifeblood of the U.S. House of Representatives,” he told the jury. “They stand for reelection every two years.”

Members “are perpetual candidates for Congress and politics pervades everything they do,” he added later.

Bannon faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000 if convicted.

Corcoran noted that the vote in Congress to hold Bannon in contempt was close, and told jurors to think about the political aspect when weighing evidence.

“Ask yourself: Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?” he said.

1st Witness

Following the opening arguments, Jan. 6 committee chief lawyer Kristin Amerling took the stand.

Amerling, the first witness, said that the committee’s authority ends when the next Congress is seated in January 2023, making it important for people who are asked to provide information to comply with deadlines.

In the view of committee members and staff, Bannon played multiple roles related to the events on Jan. 6, including his attempts to persuade the public that the election wasn’t legitimate, Amerling said.

“Trump won,” Bannon told reporters outside the courthouse. “[resident] Joe Biden is illegitimate.”

The subpoena required him to provide documents by Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear before the committee a week later, and he did neither, Amerling testified.

Bannon told reporters that Thompson “didn’t have the guts to show up here and he sent a staffer.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The House Jan. 6 Committee on July 15 issued a subpoena to the Secret Service after it was informed about some text messages that were erased under the agency.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the committee, said in a letter (pdf) that it is seeking “relevant text messages, as well as any after action reports that have been issued in any and all divisions of the [U.S. Secret Service] pertaining or relating in any way to the events of January 6, 2021.”

Thompson’s subpoena letter is addressed to the director of the Secret Service, James Murray.

The Jan. 6 subpoena comes after the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Joseph Cuffari, told lawmakers in a letter on July 13 that “many” text messages by the Secret Service sent on Jan. 5–6, 2021 “were erased as part of a device-replacement program.” The DHS oversees the Secret Service.

The messages were deleted after Cuffari’s office, the DHS Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG), requested records from the Secret Service as part of its probe into events surrounding the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol, the July 13 letter said.

It was unclear what messages the DHS OIG believed had been deleted or what evidence they might contain.

In a statement issued on July 14, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said that the agency has been fully cooperative with the inspector general’s probe. He said that the Secret Service “began to reset its mobile phones to factory settings as part of a pre-planned, three-month system migration” but in the process, “data resident on some phones was lost.” Guglielmi noted that the DHS OIG was notified about the data loss and “that none of the texts it was seeking had been lost in the migration.”

Thompson said in this subpoena letter on July 15 that the Jan. 6 Committee is aware of the July 14 statement.

“A ‘routine’ cleaning of files will require a process, so we want to see what that process is,” Thompson said on July 15.

Meanwhile, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Jan. 6 Committee member, told reporters on July 15 that the panel was keen to retrieve the allegedly deleted text messages.

The Jan. 6 Committee originally sought electronic records in January. In March, the committee officially requested all communications received or sent from DHS employees on Jan. 5–7, 2021.

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has declined a plea offer to plead guilty to a contempt of Congress charge, the lead federal prosecutor in the case told a judge on Friday.

Navarro had pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress on June 17 after he refused to cooperate with the House January 6 committee’s probe into the breach of the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.

He cited executive privilege due to his former position at the White House under the Trump administration. But Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Jan. 6 committee, rejected his claims of executive privilege, and the committee voted in late March to advance criminal charges against Navarro.

A grand jury indicted Navarro on June 3 on two counts: one for his refusal to produce the documents the committee requested, and the other for his refusal to comply with the committee’s subpoena to show up and testify. Each count carries a maximum of one-year imprisonment.

At a status hearing on July 15, federal prosecutor Elizabeth Aloi told U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that the Justice Department had offered to let Navarro plead guilty to a single count instead of the two he was indicted with.

Prosecutors also said the deal would mean they would not have sought more than the minimum 30-day jail time.

But the deal would have required Navarro to “comply with the January 6 committee subpoena to the satisfaction of the Justice Department,” Aloi said.

Navarro attended the hearing with two defense attorneys. He had been representing himself before he was indicted on the criminal charges.

“It’s a complicated constitutional case involving separation of powers,” John Irving, one of the defense attorneys, told reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing.

“It involves not only the President of the United States asserting his executive privilege, but [also] over 50 years of DOJ opinions that make it clear that top presidential aides are able to assert absolute immunity and not testify before Congress. Not only that, but also the Justice Department has longstanding policies about not prosecuting someone criminally for this kind of situation,” he added. “So I wonder what changed.”

John Rowley, another defense attorney, told reporters: “This is the first time in our nation’s 250-year history that a senior adviser to a president has been criminally charged for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.

“In essence, this is a dispute between the Office of the President and Congress, and Mr. Navarro was placed on the horn of the dilemma—either to follow the executive direction or risk prosecution.”

Trump’s attorneys have previously argued that former White House officials shouldn’t comply with congressional subpoenas because the requested information is protected by Trump’s executive privilege.

Navarro’s trial is set for Nov. 17.

Judge Expresses Concern Over Treatment of Navarro

Mehta, an Obama appointee, said at the hearing that he was concerned about how Navarro was treated by the government.

Navarro was arrested on June 3 at Reagan National Airport by the FBI as he prepared to board a flight to Nashville, and was hand-cuffed even though he had been in touch with the FBI previously and lives across the street from the FBI’s office in Washington, D.C. He was later taken into custody by agents from the U.S. Marshals service.

At the time, Navarro said that he was denied a call to a lawyer, which prosecutors have denied. The former White House adviser also said he wasn’t informed that he needed to turn himself in before he was arrested.

“It is curious to me, at a minimum, why the government treated Mr. Navarro’s arrest the way it did,” Mehta said on July 15. “It is a federal crime, but it is not a violent crime.”

“It’s surprising that self-surrender was not offered as an opportunity,” he added.

Navarro is the second former Trump adviser charged for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee. The first was Steve Bannon, who faces a similar set of two contempt charges. Bannon’s case goes to trial on July 18.

Navarro in December 2020 released a report that alleged widespread election irregularities. At the time, he said the findings of the report suggest there was “a coordinated strategy” to “strategically game the election process” against Trump. Navarro released the report in his capacity as a private citizen, and had called on journalists and U.S. politicians to acknowledge the irregularities in the 2020 election and carry out investigations. Trump later praised the report.

Thompson had cited the report among other references in announcing in February the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena to Navarro.

“Mr. Navarro appears to have information directly relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation into the causes of the January 6th attack on the Capitol,” Thompson said at the time, alleging that Navarro “hasn’t been shy about his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has even discussed the former President’s support for those plans.”

Joseph Lord and Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Patrick Byrne met with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Dec. 18, 2020, to urge him to investigate allegations of election fraud. Byrne, the founder and former CEO of online retailer Overstock, is set to testify before the Jan. 6 House Select Committee on July 15.

In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, Byrne recounted his meeting with Trump, which included former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell, former attorney to Trump’s campaign and former federal prosecutor, along with a number of White House officials.

The roughly 4.5-hour meeting was “nothing like it has been reported,” Byrne said in an interview with EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” program on July 14.

Byrne said he used a prior invitation from a White House staffer for a tour of the building as a way to gain entry with Flynn and Powell, with the hope of getting to talk to the president about his plan to investigate the widespread allegations of voter fraud.

“We were always after the most minimal on that range of options, which was to do a quick investigation that we said could be done in a few days,” Byrne said of the plan.

‘Perfectly Reasonable Conversation’

Byrne describes a chance encounter with the president as he walked by that enabled the group to meet in the Oval Office. The trio presented to Trump two executive orders—one signed by former President Barack Obama in 2015 and one by Trump in 2018—which, they said, gave Trump the authority to launch an investigation in the event of foreign interference in the election.

“It has nothing to do with the theories of vote flipping from space. It has nothing to do with the alleged South Korean jets, or Germany this, or Italy that, or any of that,” Byrne said.

Instead, Byrne said, “the argument that was made to the president was that under two executive orders … that say if a foreign nation interferes in one of our elections, disrupts an election, the president really gets a range of options.”

According to Byrne, these options ranged from “something very light-handed, like, ‘let’s have a quick investigation’ to something more substantial, like, ‘let’s have a serious investigation.’”

Much of the conversation prior to the arrival of White House attorneys in the room, according to Byrne, centered on the question of whether multiple government documents constituted enough justification to launch an investigation based on the authority given in the executive orders.

The documents included an Oct. 30, 2020, pre-election warning by the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) that Iranian state actors were targeting U.S. state websites to obtain voter registration data, as well as an Oct. 22 warning; an updated notice on Nov. 3 that said the foreign actor was successful in at least one state; and an FBI, CISA, and DNI statement on the SolarWinds Orion vulnerability.

“That was a perfectly reasonable conversation to have,” Byrne said. “Everybody was acutely aware that every word we were saying was historic, could be judged by history, should be judged by history.”

Byrne, who said he didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and hadn’t ever voted Republican, said he was impressed at “how smart he [Trump] is,” which never came across “from the way he was portrayed in the media.”

‘No Uniforms’

Trump studied the documents in silence as he received them and then made precise comments, Byrne said.

“So what is it you folks are asking me to do?” Trump eventually asked, leaning back, according to Byrne.

Byrne said he laid out several choices that Trump could make to pursue a “very quick and dirty investigation.”

“That’s why I think that if there’s any charges for them, they should come after me” rather than Trump.

The first option Byrne laid out was to investigate “the obvious six counties where the voting record was stopped,” he said.

Or, a more “heavy-handed option,” he added, would be to target 31 counties previously selected by a political scientist.

“He [Trump] said immediately: ‘just go with the six.’”

Byrne then suggested a cyber team could make copies of hard drives to conduct forensic analysis. Alternatively, investigators could travel to the counties and remain on site for several days to count the ballots and livestream the forensic checks.

To lead the investigation, Byrne proposed a joint team composed of cyber analysts from the United States Marshals Service under the Justice Department and the National Guard.

At that point, Pat Cipollone, then-White House counsel—who had joined the meeting at some point and was sitting behind Byrne—stepped forward to raise objections, according to Byrne.

“Mr. President, the nation will go nuts if they see even one uniform around this,” he said, according to Byrne’s recollection. Others, including Flynn, also opposed the idea.

“The DHS [Department of Homeland Security] has teams that are perfectly adequate for this,” Bryne recalled Flynn saying after a second or two of silence.

Byrne made his case again.

“Sir, just to be clear, obviously, it’s your choice, not my choice,” he said. “I think that we’re in this national crisis because we’ve had a complete breakdown of trust, and I’m not sure that doesn’t extend to the FBI and the DHS.”

“If this is all about reinvigorating the system of trust, the U.S. courts are very trusted and the military is very trusted,” and the National Guard, while in uniform, consists of citizen soldiers, making their presence more acceptable, he said he argued.

Trump let him finish “that whole spiel” before voting him down.

“He said, ‘Pat, no uniforms.’ I said, ‘Yes, sir,’” Byrne recalled.

Byrne insists that he’s the only one who ever put the idea of “uniforms” on the table. “It was not Donald Trump, not anyone else.”

“It was on the table for about 28 seconds. And everybody in the room said no. And Donald Trump said no,” he said. “It was robustly put down.”

‘Obstructionists’

Byrne said Trump that evening hinted at least twice that the idea of leaving the White House held an appeal.

“I’ll never spend a night in this town again. I’ve got my golf courses, I’ve got my friends. Trust me Pat, my life’s going to get a lot better,” he said, according to Byrne. “But how can I do that? If I think that this election was stolen and there might be a foreign element involved, how can I really do that?”

“He was anything but some crazed tyrant clutching to power,” Byrne said.

What also became clear, he said, was that Trump “was being completely undermined by everyone around him.”

Trump, at one moment, turned to Cipollone to express his disappointment that he hadn’t been alerted to the executive powers.

“Why didn’t you even tell me about these orders, Pat? … Why did I have to hear it from them? At least they want to fight for me.”

“Mr. President, I’m not your campaign lawyer. I’m your White House lawyer,” Cipollone answered, according to Byrne.

“This man [Cipollone] has been telling staffers systematically … that we have to get you out of here, [that] we have to get the president in the transition mode, just get him to concede,” Byrne said he told Trump, adding that he could get White House staffers to back up his statements within half an hour.

Cipollone’s response according to Byrne was: “Mr. President, you know how hard I’ve been working for you?” according to Byrne, who then watched as Cipollone and several other officials “stormed out.”

“​​They stormed out three different times,” he said. “I was shocked at how they treated the president. I didn’t even vote for the guy. I didn’t even really like him until this meeting, frankly.”

“They were just so clearly being obstructionists,” Byrne said. “I was hearing that they were being told, if you get the president out the door, there’ll be a million dollar job for you in such-and-such lobbying firm. But if you don’t, your kids aren’t getting into Yale and your kids are getting thrown out of the school they’re in.

“This was going on up and down the DOJ and up and down the administration.”

According to Byrne, one of the White House lawyers told Trump that he had the authority to appoint Powell as special counsel if he chose to do so.

“Finally the lawyer said, ‘Mr. President, you don’t have to fight with us. You can just make Sidney Powell that special counsel just by saying it. You don’t have to sign anything,’” Byrne recalled.

About 30 minutes later, Trump was so fed up with his White House attorneys, Byrne said that’s what he did.

“I’m saying it, Sidney Powell is now a special counsel,” Byrne recalled the president saying.

“Another lawyer spoke up and said, ‘you can’t do that, she needs security clearance. It is going to take months to get a security clearance,’” Byrne said. He then said Flynn told the president he had the same authority to grant her a top secret clearance verbally, which he said the president gave.

“It was left sort of with a rough understanding this was going to happen,” Byrne said. The three—Byrne, Powell, and Flynn—left somewhere past midnight with a sense of excitement that they were “clearing up the mystery.”

Over the weekend, though, when Powell tried to get a White House ID and desk, they discovered the arrangement “had all fallen through.”

Byrne said he was later told that lawyer and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani had convinced the president to back out of the plan.

Giuliani on his radio program on July 14 recalled the events at the White House during the meeting.

He said he was called over to the White House by the president and reviewed the documents “purporting to show foreign involvement in the election.”

“I read through them carefully, I came back, and I said it’s clear to me that there’s not enough here,” Giuliani said.

He said the president “didn’t disagree at all” with him and Giuliani thought “it was his sense anyway.”

“Well, then that’s it,” Giuliani said the president said. He added that “at some point, the president made it very clear he wanted them out of the White House, and they were escorted out of the White House, one of them by me.”

Questioning election results and calling for an investigation hadn’t been viewed as controversial until that November, Byrne said.

“I didn’t see that as a huge deal between being in a constitutional crisis that could end the nation—which I knew where we’d be if we tried to choke down the election that nobody had any real confidence in—or getting an answer like that.”

But “it’s different being an entrepreneur than lawyer,” he noted. “I’m just thinking, gee, our country is going to enter this nebulous, awful space or we can in seven days, whatever, we’ll have a total answer to this. That’s how an entrepreneur thinks.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Trump, Powell, Flynn, Cipollone, and Giuliani for comments.

Click here to watch the full interview.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

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

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

“It takes a lot of work”

John Bolton delivered an epic humble brag during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday.

The former adviser to Greatest Living President George W. Bush cited his expertise “as someone who has helped plan coups d’état” abroad to dispel the journalist’s uniformed opinion that “one doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup,” in reference to the January 6 uprising.

“I disagree with that,” Bolton said. “As somebody who has helped plan coups d’état—not here but, you know, other places—it takes a lot of work.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Aspen Institute asks, ‘(How) should ESG leaders support democracy?’

The Aspen Institute is holding an invitation-only event, the “Aspen ESG Summit,” at a time when rising energy prices, novel climate mandates, and growing global instability have made environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) a subject of controversy.

Speakers on the three-day summit’s agenda include Securities and Exchange Commissioner Allison Herren Lee, who recently voted for sweeping new climate disclosure requirements for public companies.

Headquartered in the upscale mountain resort town of Aspen, Colorado, the Aspen Institute aims to “turn ideas into action and impact for individuals and society,” according to its mission statement.

In 2020 alone, the Aspen Institute received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, BlackRock, the Crown family, the Ford Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and the Bloomberg Family Foundation, among other billionaires and billionaire-founded non-profits.

It also received at least a million or more dollars from the U.S. Department of State and Walmart, respectively.

The Aspen Institute describes itself as values-based but non-partisan. It does not fund political candidates or parties.

“We do not engage in electoral politics or any activity that would require registration under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and do not engage staff or contractors as ‘lobbyists’ as defined by the Act,” it states on its website.

Some sources have characterized the organization as left-leaning. In 2019, The Economist described it as “the mountain retreat for the liberal elite.”

Data from Open Secrets show that individuals employed by or closely connected with the Aspen Institute have donated overwhelmingly to Democrats in recent election cycles.

During the 2022 cycle, for example, 98.26 percent of the money that those individuals donated to federal candidates went to Democrats. During the 2018 cycle, all of their money went to Democrats.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson has also taken aim at the Aspen Institute. In his current Twitter bio, he sarcastically calls himself a “frequent visitor to the Aspen Inst.”

In an April monologue, Carlson alluded to its influence when criticizing former President Barack Obama’s Stanford University speech on disinformation.

“So me and my friends at the Aspen Institute need to be in complete control of every word uttered, or else it’s not democracy,” he opined.

Team Aspen Rules on What’s ‘Valuable’ for Democracy

ESG was recently slammed by Elon Musk, who described it as a “scam” after the S&P Global Index removed his pioneering electric car company, Tesla Motors, from its ESG Index.

In addition, the treasurers of many energy-producing states in the United States believe they have been unfairly penalized by new ESG ratings.

Representatives of the United States’ largest banks and other companies are also slated to talk at the Aspen Institute’s summit, which lasts from July 11 until July 14.

Those speakers include individuals affiliated with Citi, Microsoft, Starbucks, Putnam Investments, Prudential, GE, and Danone.

One “dialogue stream” at the event is titled, “(How) Should ESG Leaders Support Democracy?”

“Threats to democracy have upended business as usual domestically and abroad. Why should ESG leaders care? Are ESG leaders playing a role in operationalizing the pro-democracy commitments their firms have made—or how might they, while still doing their day job?” the agenda states.

In a 2021 set of “Predictions for Business and Society in 2022,” the Aspen Institute’s Judy Samuelson gave praise to employees who, “in the wake of January 6th” were the ones to connect their “company’s PAC [political action committee] to support of elected officials engaged in anti-democratic behavior.”

“As we move toward midterms, concern for our democracy will only grow—and businesses, particularly those that are active in the pay-to-[play] system that dominates our political system—will again be under the microscope of employees,” she wrote at the time.

The Aspen Institute did not respond to The Epoch Times’ requests for comment or footage of the event.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

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

WNBA star Brittney Griner is still imprisoned in Russia, and political leaders in America have begun speaking out about efforts to bring her back.

At the same time, Hollywood star Nick Searcy said there are more important priorities.

“Tell you what: when the @joebiden Occupation releases the Jan. 6th political prisoners who have been held in a DC gulag for 18 months without bail, maybe then I’ll give a damn about some basketball player who hates America who is in jail in Russia because of her drug habit,” Searcy wrote on Twitter.

Tell you what: when the @joebiden Occupation releases the Jan. 6th political prisoners who have been held in a DC gulag for 18 months without bail, maybe then I’ll give a damn about some basketball player who hates America who is in jail in Russia because of her drug habit.

— Nick Searcy, INSURRECTIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR (@yesnicksearcy) July 10, 2022

Harsh as his statement was, Searcy was correct that Americans should not have their constitutional rights stripped in this country.

Last year, Searcy teamed up with filmmaker Chris Burgard for a documentary called “Capitol Punishment.”

In the documentary, Cowboys for Trump founder Couy Griffin detailed the treatment he received following the Capitol incursion on Jan. 6, 2021.

“They put me in a cell by myself, total solitary confinement, in a cell not much bigger than a walk-in closet,” Griffin said in the film. He remembered being called an “effing white cracker” on multiple occasions.

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

In December, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar further detailed the alleged rights violations the prisoners had to endure.

“They have been beaten by the guards. They are called white supremacist,” Greene said, according to the Post Millennial. “They are denied religious services, haircuts, shaving, the ability to trim their fingernails.

“There’s more outrageous things happening there. They’re denied time with their attorneys. They are denied the ability to even see their families and have their families visit there. They are denied bail and being held there without bail.”

While Biden has yet to address these allegations, he said on Friday that he replied to a letter from Griner, The Guardian reported. Griner wrote to Biden about her fear of being stuck in Russia long term, but he reportedly assured her of his efforts to bring her home.

“I was able to read [Biden’s] letter, and it brought [me] so much joy, as well as BG,” said Griner’s wife, Cherelle Griner.

Related:

Top Dem Admits Brutal Truth Behind AOC’s Effort to Impeach Clarence Thomas

“I believe every word that she said to [Biden] he understood, and he sees her as a person, and he has not forgotten her, which was her biggest cry in her letter.”

She said Biden promised he is “exhausting all efforts” to get Griner home.

While there is nothing wrong with Biden trying to get Griner home, he should be making the same or more effort to ensure prisoners in the United States are not being mistreated.

By focusing efforts on Griner instead of major issues occurring in America, Biden is showing just how powerful his political bias truly is.

Jan. 6 prisoner’s fiancé recalls: ‘We were covered head to toe from all directions with red laser dots from their assault rifles’

At a June 15 press conference in Washington, three GOP representatives joined forces with the Patriot Freedom Project and family members of Jan. 6 prisoners to call out the injustice and denial of due process rights for those incarcerated. According to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), the “violations of American rights” is “mind-blowing.”

“We are extremely concerned to see a Department of Justice, not about justice,” Gohmert said at the press conference. “It’s about vengeance. It’s about intimidation and the tactics that we’ve been seeing from this DOJ and the disregard for rights coming out of investigations showing the FBI lied, intel lied. The DOJ lies. It ought to concern every single American.”

“As a former felony judge and chief justice, it’s particularly mind-blowing for me during a time when we should have the most fair courts in our history. We have more violations of American’s rights than even under the Hoover FBI,” Gohmert told The Epoch Times in a June 22 interview. “It’s just incredible. People that have been nominated and confirmed by the Senate as federal judges, granting warrants that don’t specify with any particularity—as the Constitution requires—what they’re for. What’s worse, when they find out they were lied to under oath by DOJ. But they’re not really bothered. They don’t do anything about it. For heaven’s sake. Have respect for your position if you have no respect for yourself.”

Also in attendance were Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).

According to Cynthia Hughes, founder of the Patriot Freedom Project, the press conference was “a great day.”

“We finally got some support from people in congress, which we needed,” Hughes told The Epoch Times. “We are feeling powerful and strong.”

Hughes also said she was glad to finally have the opportunity to “personally call out [Rep.] Liz Cheney and know that she could possibly hear about that.”

“Things are finally moving,” Hughes said. “I think we moved the needle. I just looked at representatives and the incredible women around me and I think we felt more hope than we ever have in almost 18 months now. It was a good thing.”

Family Members Speak

Following the press conference, The Epoch Times was able to speak with each of the family members to learn the stories of their loved ones they say the rest of the media refuses to tell. They want the American people to learn about the citizens their government has locked away in prison.

Thomas Caldwell

Sharon Caldwell of Berry Hill, Virginia, said she is grateful for Cynthia Hughes and the Patriot Freedom Project for the opportunity to have a press conference where she and the wives, mothers, and family members of Jan. 6 prisoners could speak about what they are going through.

“Some of us have done interviews on the news but we never really had the support of Congress people,” Caldwell told The Epoch Times. “I felt like we had that [at the press conference] with three GOP representatives. It was awesome.”

Sharon’s husband, Thomas Caldwell, has been charged with “Seditious Conspiracy Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting Conspiracy to Prevent an Officer From Discharging Any Duties Tampering with Documents or Proceedings and Aiding and Abetting” (pdf).

According to the Save Our Farm website, “the DOJ has falsely claimed that [Thomas] commanded a group called the ‘Oath Keepers’ to overthrow the U.S. government.  The allegations are ridiculous and outrageous.”

According to Save Our Farm, the government has already been forced to admit several mistakes in its investigation:

• Tom was NEVER “Commander” of a group called the “Oath Keepers”, nor was he ever a “Leader” or a “member” of this group.
• Tom did NOT enter the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
• Tom did NOT commit any acts of violence, damage any property, or threaten anyone, including law enforcement.
• Tom did NOT participate in a plan to enter the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

But since his incarceration, he has been “subjected to solitary confinement, physical and mental abuse, and denial of medical care, including life-sustaining prescription medications.”

The cost of his defense is about to cost the family the historic family farm he has lived on since he was a child. They have a donation website for those who want to help.

“I think that’s something the American people need to hear because I think they’re not hearing it,” Sharon said. “Our loved ones are not being viewed as human beings. I think I can safely say this for most of us, I feel we and our loved ones are being treated like political pawns and not as actual people. They’re undergoing character assassination and there is so much good in these people who are rotting in these jails who have no criminal history, not even a traffic ticket in many cases and they’re being held in pre-trial detention for over a year, 17 months in some cases. It’s crazy.”

Ryan Nichols

Bonnie Nichols said her husband Ryan has been “incarcerated in the D.C. gulag” for 514 days, “in prolonged solitary confinement under torturous conditions.” From his four years as a Marine, Bonnie said Ryan suffers from PTSD and the prolonged solitary confinement only exacerbates his condition. Ryan faces 11 charges, including multiple infractions with the words “Deadly or Dangerous Weapon,” attached. Lesser charges include “Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.”

“He has been denied access to due process rights, access to his discovery to defend his case, and he has been denied access to nutritional food and sunlight for months,” she asserted. “The narrative they are painting of my husband isn’t accurate. He’s not an insurrectionist.”

According to Bonnie, Ryan owns a nonprofit called Rescue The Universe. He goes around the country rescuing people and animals during natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and tornados. In 2018, Ryan was seen on multiple news outlets rescuing six dogs abandoned by their owner in a locked chain-link cage in Leland, North Carolina.

“He’s a hero in his community,” Bonnie said. “He just went to the Capitol to peacefully protest. I never thought in a million years this would be happening to our family.”

Bonnie and Ryan have two children, ages five and eight. A few months ago, she said the youngest told his dad he didn’t think he was ever going to see his daddy again. He doesn’t even remember what daddy looks like.

“It was heartbreaking,” Bonnie said. “My family is suffering. He was the breadwinner in the family and I just can’t believe that a Marine who served his country would be treated this way in America. It’s unjust. It’s unconstitutional. It’s wrong.”

Like many other Jan. 6 prisoners, defendants, and their family members, Bonnie is convinced “there’s no way we’re going to get a fair trial in D.C. with the narrative the January 6 Committee and the DOJ are painting in the media. The committee and the media have edited video footage and shared it with the public, specific parts have been cropped out of that footage. It was done to strategically push a one-sided narrative. America deserves the truth.

“So I have decided to stand up and share my story to awaken America to the truth about what’s happening in our country so people can do their research and realize there’s more than one side to the story. Our Constitutional Rights, our freedom of speech is under attack. We need to come together and agree that this justice system is abusing their powers. Families have been tortured over this.”

As Bonnie explained, they have received hate mail. They had to shut down their business for several months due to hate mail, harassment, and attacks from news media stations like CNN and other people on the left just because of what they’ve heard on the news.

“Something needs to be done about it,” Bonnie demanded. “For those in Congress, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, it’s time for them to do their jobs and to fight for these families. No American should be treated this way. Death row inmates, prisoners at Guantanamo Bay get treated better. They have rights. We are supposed to have rights here in America and were aren’t getting them an no one is doing a damn thing about it.” They have a GiveSendGo account established for those who want to help with Ryan’s ongoing legal expenses.

Robert Morss: AKA ‘Lego Man’

Angela Morss said her son, Robert, is a good man. He is a former Army Ranger who loves his country. He has no criminal history and he “treats others with respect.” He is also known as “Lego Man.”

“He has loved Legos since he was a little boy,” Angela reminisced. “He has thousands and thousands of them and he always had these massive containers of Legos, which I had to move.”

In fact, Angela said her son has so many giant containers of Legos, she had to move them to a storage unit.

“When he was arrested they said he had a Capitol Building in his home built out of Legos,” Angela noted. “He did not. The FBI is trying to make this huge deal out of him having a Capitol Building built out of Legos but they just had the box and that’s what they have a picture of. But it did get him the nickname of Lego Man, which he’s actually proud of.”

“Robert wants people to know he is political prisoner,” Angela said, ” and he doesn’t want people to forget about him or the other political prisoners, because if we forget about them it would be a devastating thing for our country.”

When Robert was arrested on July 11 at his home in Pennsylvania, Angela was at her home in Nevada. He has now been incarcerated for over a year. His attorney has made several unsuccessful efforts to have him released on bond. She said one of the main reasons why they have refused to allow him bond “is because of his elite soldier status. The government recruited him and trained him and now they are using that against him. He spent the first several months of his incarceration at the D.C. gulag where the conditions are just horrifying. He’s no longer in D.C. because he was assaulted by five guards. It was in retaliation for a meeting he had with his attorney. It was after the meeting with his attorney, as Robert was strip-searched, that the assault took place. There were sexual components to it,” Angela added.

After that, they went to court and Robert was immediately transferred to Northern Neck Regional Jail, which is “dorm style.”

When Robert gets out, Angela said they both want to do something “that would make life in prison not so horrible.” The idea came to him when he received a birthday card that prison officials destroyed. “The googly eyes had been ripped off and the little noise things that were in it had been ripped out, too.” She and Robert want to work with someone like the online card company Day Spring, in order “to make cards that speak to people who are incarcerated” and reflect themes only they would find the humor in.

“For example, they eat a lot of sardines,” Angela said. “There are so many funny things you say about sardines and being in prison that other people wouldn’t understand. To find a birthday card for someone who is in prison is very difficult. I just want to make some communication that would be positive and I hope someone will reach out and want to do that with me.” Angela has set up a GiveSendGo account to help cover her son’s ongoing legal expenses.

Jack Wade Whitton

Haley McLean said the “shock and awe campaign” the government is conducting against Jan. 6 protesters and their families “is totally unnecessary.”

Her fiancé, Jack Wade Whitton, is faced with 22 charges (pdf), including multiple counts of violent entry with a deadly or dangerous weapon, those being “a baton, a flag pole, and crutch.”

“I would say it’s a form of bullying,” Haley told The Epoch Times. “When they arrested my husband it was two months after they first called him. The FBI called him in February of 2021 and he had a lawyer call to speak to them on his behalf. At the time he didn’t have charges against him but they advised that if they file charges he would be able to turn himself in. We never heard back from them until they showed up at their house just before 7 a.m.”

According to Haley, a flood of people came into their driveway and surrounded their home. There was a Humvee there with a battering ram. There were men in paramilitary gear surrounding the house. Conservatively, she said Jack estimated there to be around 40 agents.

“We were covered head to toe from all directions with red laser dots from their assault rifles,” Haley reflected. “I felt that would be the last day I ever saw Jack. I thought they were going to kill him. When he went outside, they screamed for him to put his hands up. They kept screaming for him to freeze and put his hands up but he was doing that. He did exactly what they said but they acted like he wasn’t doing it. He was cooperating. It kept escalating and they kept repeating themselves and I thought they were going to kill him. But they didn’t, and when they took him away it was the last time I saw him.”

“My home hasn’t been the same,” Haley said, crying. “They just took away any sense of peace, any sense of hope. He’s been denied bond. He has no criminal history. He owned and operated a fencing company that has folded in his absence. We’ve lost everything.”

For those who want to help, Bonnie has set up a GiveSendGo account.

Matthew Perna

Geri Perna of Port Charlotte, Florida, is the aunt of Matthew Perna.

“My nephew walked through the Capitol on January 6 and he went through an open door, ushered in by Capitol Police, took pictures with his cell phone, and chanted, ‘USA, USA,”‘ Geri told The Epoch Times. “He later found out that his picture was on the FBI’s website and he turned himself in immediately. He was never jailed. He was released and he obtained a lawyer.”

According to the Criminal Complaint (pdf), Matthew was charged with “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, Aiding and Abetting, Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds, Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building.”

Initially, Geri said Matthew was charged with misdemeanors. But later they added the felony charges of obstruction of Congress.

“It became a nightmare for Matt,” Geri recalled. “It was a year of constant delays and postponements for his hearings and he got to the point where it was mentally exhausting.”

In order for the ordeal to end sooner, Geri said Matthew’s attorney advised him to plead guilty. So he plead guilty. About a week before his sentencing Matthew found out the government was planning to add a terrorist enhancement, which would have increased his sentence drastically from six to 12 months to five to six years.

“That Friday night [on Feb. 25] at 5:30, he went into his garage and he hung himself,” Geri said tearfully. “He could not handle this anymore. He was a wonderful man, 37 years old. He had a great living. He traveled world wide. He didn’t have a hateful bone in his body.”

While on a mission trip to Haiti, Geri said Matthew met a little boy who “wouldn’t smile or talk” when they first met. “He bonded with this boy, and by the end of the week he was attached to Matt.”

He didn’t commit any acts of violence while in the Capitol. He didn’t touch anything. He didn’t break anything, steal anything, or have any altercations with anybody at all. He simply exercised his freedom of speech.”

Multiple social media posts linking to Matthew’s obituary have been scrubbed from the internet. Many of the accounts have been suspended.

Like the others, Geri said the whole ordeal has been a nightmare. In the wake of Matthew’s suicide, family and friends were forced to pick up the pieces and move on.

“So many people have no clue of how January Sixers are being treated,” she said. “They have no clue that they are sitting in jails and haven’t been convicted of a crime. They are clueless because of the media and our government and I am fighting for the justice Matthew did not receive while he was alive.”

To retain an attorney to fight for what happened to her nephew and to provide assistance to other Jan. 6 prisoner families, Geri has set up a website called Justice For Matthew.

The press conference proved to be a bittersweet day for Geri. While she is grateful they all had an opportunity to tell their stories, she said they all have one thing she doesn’t have.

“Hope,” she said, her voice breaking with emotion. “They still have hope. I have no hope left. My nephew is gone. There is no hope of him ever coming back. Unless people wake up and unless there are more than three Republican Congress people speaking out for these J-6ers, there will be more death. There will be more people who do what Matt did because they are tormenting them mentally. The human spirit can only take so much. I miss my nephew terribly and the world lost a wonderful human being. They are all human beings but our Department of Justice is not treating them as such and it’s a shame. It’s a tragedy of epic proportions. Never had a speeding ticket. Never had a parking ticket or a DUI. Now suddenly he was facing a lengthy prison term and he was terrified, and rightfully so, because the way these J-Sixers are being treated in prison is unconstitutional. It’s inhumane, and my nephew was terrified to be in that position and he took his own life. Not because he was a coward, but because they broke him.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

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

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

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

…that the government is hiding from you?

-Help Our Patriots-

We are currently in an information war with the mainstream media. In order for the truth to come to light, we the people must be the voice for all J6ers who are being silenced and slandered. We want to appeal to Big conservative media hosts and journalists to report and help bring awareness to this cause. Fill out the form below to receive more information on how you can help get the truth out!

January 6th Truth & Light Freedom Festival

America has forgotten what Independence Day is all about! Unbeknownst to many, we have political prisoners in the United States and their constitutional rights are being severely violated! We truly have a two-tiered justice system where American citizens are being persecuted based on their political beliefs. Some are still unjustly and cruelly incarcerated, on home arrest awaiting trial, pushed to take an unfair plea deal, subjected to a sham of a trial in the DC swamp. The families and loved ones of these politically persecuted patriots are suffering after losing, in many cases their primary source of income. Many of those who are not incarcerated, have nevertheless lost their jobs or businesses. YOU cannot let these wonderful American patriots be forgotten! We are holding a festival/retreat in Missouri July 2-3, 2022 to raise awareness for the January 6th Political Prisoners as well as provide a retreat for January 6th Patriots and their loved ones.

https://www.j6truth.org/

‘This is what you have when vindictive leftists get in charge of major parts of the government’: Rep. Gohmert

Just when the wife of one incarcerated Jan. 6 prisoner believed things couldn’t get worse, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) informed her they are going to suspend all of her husband’s benefits. According to United States Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), “this is what you have when vindictive leftists get in charge of major parts of the government.”

In an unsigned letter from the VA—dated June 13 and appearing to originate from the “Director Regional Office,”—Angel and Kenneth Harrelson were notified that the administration “received information from the United States Department of Justice” that Kenneth had been “indicted and charged with Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C 2384).”

The letter further noted that: “Pursuant to 38 U.S. Code § 6105(a)”—Forfeiture for subversive activities—”after receiving notice of an indictment for the above offense” the “VA must suspend payment of gratuitous benefits pending disposition of the criminal proceedings. If convicted, gratuitous benefits are forfeited, automatically, from and after the date of the offense.”

The “date of the offense” is Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the information above,” the VA further informed the Harrelsons that they “propose to suspend” their “compensation benefit payments effective September 1, 2022, which is the first day of the month following a 60-day due process period.”

“If you are subsequently acquitted of this charge, payments can be resumed from the date of suspension, if otherwise in order. If you are convicted, benefits will be retroactively terminated effective January 5, 2021, the date proceeding the offense, or from the date your award commenced, whichever is later.”

According to 38 U.S. Code § 6105:

“Any individual who is CONVICTED after September 1, 1959, of any offense listed in subsection (b) of this section shall, from and after the date of commission of such offense, have no right to gratuitous benefits (including the right to burial in a national cemetery) under laws administered by the Secretary based on periods of military, naval, air, or space service commencing before the date of the commission of such offense and no other person shall be entitled to such benefits on account of such individual.”

According to the 18-page criminal complaint (pdf), Kenneth Harrelson was charged with Conspiracy (1) Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting (2) Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting (3) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds (4) Tampering with Documents or Proceedings (5). According to the Arrest Warrant (pdf), Kenneth was arrested at his home in Titusville, Florida, on March 10, 2021. According to the Criminal Docket, the seditious conspiracy charge was added with several others on Jan. 12, 2022.

Kenneth is currently being held in the Correctional Treatment Facility in southeast Washington and has been incarcerated, without a trial and without being convicted of any crime, for over 475 days.

Page two of the letter explains that: “if convicted,” the change in his benefits “may mean” the VA had paid “too much,” in which case they will send another letter letting them “know if the changes go through.” If so, the “VA’s Debt Management Center will send a letter explaining how much” they’ve “been overpaid, as well as how to repay this debt.”

Page three of the letter advises the Harrelsons how to obtain representation.

Page four provides clarification of what VA.gov is and provides information on how “enrolling in VA.gov is easy.”

“This is what you have when vindictive leftists get in charge of major parts of the government,” Gohmert told The Epoch Times. “What we’re seeing is when immoral, mean-spirited, leftist people take over the government, they use every aspect of the government in order to try to inflict their hatred on people with whom they disagree. Even after most of the Democrats in the House of Representatives obstructed an official session of Congress back in June 2016, at that time, none of us were saying these people have got to be put in jail. We just wanted to be able to go back into session as the majority. But when they have power, obstructing an official session of Congress—which is the worst charge many of the January Sixers were charged with—we see the left wanting to bury them, take away any benefit, destroy their lives and not only their lives they want to destroy their homes, destroy their children’s lives. This is an evil, toxic atmosphere when these types of people are in control of so much of the federal government.”

Following the June 12 shooting at Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida, members of the House Democratic Caucus staged a pre-planned and well-organized protest sit-in on the House floor just after the House convened on June 22, 2016. They demanded that then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) allow a vote on gun control. Through the day and into the next morning, they obstructed proceedings, chanted “no bill, no break,” and sang “We shall overcome.”

According to The Guardian, Gohmert “stood toe to toe” with then United States Representative Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) “in a confrontation that looked set to spiral out of control” until Rep. John Lewis (D-Pa.) and others intervened. Gohmert said he was angered by the disrespect shown by Democrats for the sanctity of the House chamber, which he called a “last bastion of civility.” He was also angered by the disrespect shown to the 49 victims of the shooting. “I’m amazed here on the House floor that to them [Democrats] it’s all about guns,” he said. On May 19, the Internal Revenue Service announced Brown “pleaded guilty to engaging in a corrupt endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws” and was “ordered to pay $62,650.99 in restitution.”

“I do not, will not, and have not advocated for violence,” Gohmert said. “But we do need to stand up for our rights and we do need to call this what it is. It’s evil. It’s abuse of the federal government and its an effort to hurt people and their children simply because of political disagreements. Hopefully we can, by example, show how this is not the way to go. But we’ve been using that example for 60 years. If these leftists have not figured that out and still think that abusing their positions in the federal government, so they appear like the Ministry of Love in Orwell’s 1984 which used torture and horrific conditions like we’ve seen in the D.C. jail, then we have got to have people peacefully rise up and make clear that we need to change the law so we can find people who are abusing their positions in the government.”

As Gohmert explained, laws were changed that allowed for the firing of people within the VA who were abusing their positions. The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 makes it easier to demote, suspend and even fire senior executives and other employees for misconduct or poor performance.

Likewise, Gohmert said, “we’re seeing a need to do that in other federal places as well so we can get rid of the mean, evil vindictive people who are abusing their federal employment.”

The envelope shows the letter originated from the “Evidence Intake Center” (EIC) at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

According to the VA website, “The Department of Veterans Affairs has implemented centralized mail processing (CM) for compensation claims to reduce incoming paper handling and shipping requirements.”

According to Hill & Ponton Disability Attorneys, “The EIC only handles compensation related claims.” However, this is not regarding a claim. It’s a notice that Harrelsons’ benefits are being suspended entirely and that, if convicted, the Harrelsons will be expected to reimburse the VA for the amount they deem as “overpaid.”

In stark contradiction to the notice of benefits suspension and the threat of having to repay everything Kenneth has received, a May 2021 email from Jeremy Van Cleave, Veterans’ Services Counselor at the Brevard County Government Center in Viera, Florida to Angel Harrelson, Van Cleave said he “wanted to clarify something.”

“As long as your husband is not convicted, your benefits will continue to be paid. If your husband is convicted, and he has to serve greater than 60 days, then his benefit will be reduced to 10%. I am sorry if I did not communicate that correctly. So, right now you will continue to receive funds pending the outcome of the trial.”

Van Cleave included a link in his correspondence for further reassurance that her husband’s benefits were not lost. The link took her to a page on the VA website that explained what happens when a veteran is incarcerated.

“VA disability compensation payments are reduced if a Veteran is convicted of a felony and imprisoned for more than 60 days. Veterans rated 20 percent or more are limited to the 10 percent disability rate. For a Veteran whose disability rating is 10 percent, the payment is reduced by one-half. Once a Veteran is released from prison, compensation payments may be reinstated based upon the severity of the service connected disability(ies) at that time.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Van Cleave for clarification of the glaring contradictions in his email and the unsigned June 13 letter.

“Right now it’s a lot of emailing,” Angel told The Epoch Times. “Me trying to get someone at the VA to give me that letter that DOJ sent them.”

So far, she has received no response. The next step is a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request. If that fails, she plans to sue for the information.

“I have asked so many of the other veterans who are in prison from January 6 and no one else has received this, not even the others on the Oath Keepers case,” Angel revealed. “Ken is the only one. That’s why I want this to go public because we are being targeted. Probably because I won’t shut up.”

According to court documents (pdf), there are 10 individuals cited in the Oath Keepers case, including Kenneth Harrelson.

As The Epoch Times reported on March 11, Angel is convinced that the Democrats in power are intentionally targeting Jan. 6 participants just because they are Trump supporters. She also believes it’s all about “revenge.”

“That’s how I feel,” she reiterated Tuesday. “We are being targeted because I am going out there in public and I won’t shut up about any of this, and what’s the one way to get someone to shut up? Take everything from them.”

Asked what she was going to do now, Angel didn’t hesitate.

“Be louder,” she said.

In the meantime, she has less than 60 days to make a plan.

“I’m going to call the real estate agent. I have no choice I have to put this house up for sale,” she lamented. “We don’t want it to go into foreclosure because that will ruin our credit. We’ll be able to do something later. I’m going to have to pay for another storage unit because the one I have isn’t going to be big enough. I will probably lose his truck. There’s nothing I can do about that, because if I don’t sell it, we’ll end up being homeless.”

Angel said moving in with family isn’t an option. She has three children as well. The homes family members live in are already filled to capacity as all of them have children as well. Due to “Biden’s inflation,” Angel said families are already consolidating, moving in together to get by. With parents on both sides deceased, there is just no place else to go.

“I have friends,” Angel said. “But going to my friends, I would feel like a big burden.”

She has set up a GiveSendGo account and she prays.

Joseph McBride, an attorney for several other Jan. 6 prisoners and defendants, says this latest effort to punish the “political prisoners” and their families is “disgusting.”

“I heard about this. That’s a big story,” McBride told The Epoch Times. “This is disgusting. It’s completely [expletive] up. Kenny Harrelson is entitled to his benefits. He’s merely been accused of a crime and the idea he is going to be stripped of his military medical benefits is without question a violation of his due process rights. That’s crazy. It’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace. He’s accused and presumed innocent until proven guilty and his family is certainly innocent. All of this is absolutely horrific.”

Cynthia Hughes of the Patriot Freedom Project agrees.

“This is a woman who has three children. Her husband is medically disabled and she relies on that,” Hughes told The Epoch Times. “Her husband is in jail. The government refuses to let him have a bond. He can’t be home preparing for his trial with his wife. He can’t meet with his own attorney and this is all she has to keep her family in that house. What is she supposed to do now? Some people will say she needs to run out and get a job but it’s just not that simple. I think the government is doing everything it can to a Trump supporter that is going to create the most hardship … and here it is. Here’s the harm. They don’t care about the collateral damage and the collateral damage in this are women and children. It’s truly disgusting. This government should be ashamed of themselves. I can tell you this, we will make sure the Patriot Freedom Project helps the Harrelson family as much as it can.”

In closing the interview, Gohmert made note of how the letter from the VA was unsigned.

“Somebody knew what they were doing when they sent that letter without a signature, without a name,” Gohmert posited. “That’s the kind of hiding behind a federal position you get when you have evil, abusive, vindictive people in federal employment. They knew what they were doing when they sent that without a signature and without their name on it. That should make them feel a little more Kafkaesque, just anonymously charging people. Hopefully, we can clean up the government and get rid of people who are abusing their positions and doing so vindictively, like whoever sent this letter. They weren’t even following the law. They’re abusing the law, abusing their position, and hiding behind anonymity. These are the kinds of people who need to be gone from the federal employment.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the DOJ, the VA, and specifically to Jeremy Van Cleave but received no response.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-doj-has-va-suspend-all-benefits-of-jan-6-prisoner_4561858.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-30-1&utm_medium=email&est=tEfSuTzfyT73ug2vYeWoJAEi1kEvg9rVSt5MgyBHzYBcs%2BHlppmEvrjsg8lH9uFyDA%3D%3D

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a debilitating disease that disconnects the afflicted from reality. Although most are either born with or have developed a natural immunity to this sickness, there are still those who attempt to spread the infection.

It now appears that Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the Trump administration, has come down with an acute case of TDS. The only cure might just be some time in jail.

Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a handwritten note at Tuesday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing that Hutchinson testified she wrote after Mark Meadows handed her a note card and pen to take his dictation, according to ABC News. Eric Herschmann, a former Trump White House lawyer, claims the note was written by him.

Hutchinson, testifying about the note, said, “That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff on Jan. 6, likely around 3 o’clock.”

“And it’s written on the chief of staff note card, but that’s your handwriting, Ms. Hutchinson?” Rep. Liz Cheney then asked.

“That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson answered.

A spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News on Tuesday evening, “The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on Jan. 6, 2021. All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann,” the representative said.

Hmmm. Who to believe?

Hutchinson also testified that Tony Ornato, former Trump Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, told her that former President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded that the Secret Service take him to the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to FOX News.

Hutchinson also said that Ornato told her that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent and tried to grab the wheel of the presidential SUV.

Ornato, on the other hand, says he did not brief Hutchinson. A source close to Ornato told Fox News that Ornato watched the hearing and was distraught when Hutchinson made the allegation about the steering wheel. To top it off, Ornato wasn’t even in the presidential SUV when the alleged incident was supposed to have happened.

Both Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump’s Secret Service detail — who was in the SUV — and Ornato testified to the Jan. 6 Committee in private over the past year, according to Fox.

Neither Engel nor Ornato brought up anything about a steering wheel. Both are willing to testify that Trump did not grab or try to grab the wheel. The unnamed driver of the SUV will also cooperate with the committee if asked.

Related:

Desperate Liz Cheney’s New Re-Election Strategy Has Both Parties Confused

Judging by the Jan. 6 Committee’s refusal to have witnesses cross-examined by reputable Republicans like Jim Jordan and Jim Banks — who were not allowed on the committee — it’s doubtful that Ornato and others who dispute Hutchinson’s claims will be called by the committee. It wouldn’t suit their tendentious tactics.

It’s also doubtful that Hutchinson will be charged with lying to Congress under oath. Her testimony is, at best, hearsay. She claims that she was relating what she had heard from someone else. In other words, she didn’t actually witness anything at all.

Nevertheless, U.S. Code sections 1621 of Title 18 stipulate that anyone who “willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true” is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.

Section 1001 stipulated that “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully” falsifies or conceals information before a congressional committee may be fined or imprisoned up to five years.

Why would Hutchinson lie and in doing so risk jail time? Who knows? TDS comes with strange symptoms.

Take Liz Cheney for example. She recently reached out to Democratic voters in Wyoming asking them to register as Republicans to vote for her in the upcoming primary election.  Surely some Dems in Wyoming have TDS, but not enough to stop Republican Harriet Hageman from handily winning the election.

Why would Cheney bother with such a futile move? It’s embarrassing.

Why would the Jan. 6 Committee commit to humiliating itself time and again on national television? Due process has been blatantly thrown out the door. Propping up young witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson to be chopped down by the facts and witnesses waiting just outside the committee doors disintegrates any inkling of legitimacy the committee crazily believes they possess.

TDS can’t run its course soon enough. Some, like Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, will probably never recover from it. But they, too, must pass. It’s actually sad to watch.

It’s almost as if the Jan. 6 Committee is chock-full of masochists.

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.”

‘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

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), a lawmaker who voted in favor of forming the Jan. 6 Committee, has entered the final stretch before a June 28 runoff election against U.S. Navy veteran Michael Cassidy.

The congressman from Mississippi’s 3rd District actually lost the initial June 7 primary election to Cassidy, receiving just 46.9 percent of the vote to Cassidy’s 47.5 percent.

Runoffs are triggered in Mississippi primary elections if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote.

In addition to warring over Guest’s support for the Jan. 6 Committee, the two candidates have sparred over Cassidy’s alleged economic views.

An attack ad against Cassidy accused him of backing an “extreme socialist agenda” that would have added $48 trillion in social spending, as reported by Mississippi Today. That ad was funded by the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a national super PAC supported by current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.),

Mississippi Today based the $48 trillion figure on proposals from the candidate’s website, including one that appeared to mirror some Democrats’ vision of “Medicare for All.” Those policy ideas were subsequently taken down.

In a June 24 interview with The Epoch Times, Cassidy acknowledged the proposals were on his website, but claims the assertion that he supports broad new health care spending for Americans is “a complete lie and misrepresentation.”

“The truth is, before I began campaigning, I did a stupid thing,” he said. “And that was to brainstorm policy ideas on my website.”

Cassidy claimed that while he initially hoped that more Americans could access the caliber of health plan that he has through the U.S. Navy, he quickly realized that such a vision was too expensive.

He took issue with the CLF’s efforts to defeat him. OpenSecrets shows that it has spent $448,783 to oppose Cassidy’s candidacy.

According to that same website, top donors to the CLF in the 2022 cycle include Koch Industries and Dan Crenshaw for Congress.

“[CLF] spent half a million dollars in money that should be spent to get Democrats out of office and Republicans in,” he said, stressing his opposition to red flag laws and funding for Planned Parenthood.

The Epoch Times has reached out to CLF for comment, using an email address found in a Federal Election Commission filing.

Cassidy praised the Supreme Court’s June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion law-making to the states.

Pro-abortion protests in Washington and elsewhere in the country followed the decision’s release, continuing a pattern that started when a draft of the decision was leaked through Politico in May.

The leaker of that draft hasn’t yet been identified.

When asked what he would do to address what he sees as overreach by the Department of Justice and other agencies, Cassidy cited Congress’s power of the purse.

Republicans will have more leverage over spending if they take the House, Senate, or both in November’s midterm election.

“In the military and so much government, if you don’t fund something, it can’t be done,” he said.

Cassidy said fighting federal abuses of power would take effective organization—a perennial challenge for many Republicans.

“Republicans have got to be energetic about it. They have to do the hard work,” he said.

Guest declined an interview opportunity with The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mississippi-republican-who-supported-jan-6-commission-faces-june-28-runoff_4560656.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-27-3&utm_medium=email&est=EMRtkVW8%2FpXrRXl2peSGjIFPjGok%2B6IT05qUJHNGcHXX%2By2zi7VbKKaWAG5BFYa7hA%3D%3D

May 2021 interviews with Indiana leader say there was no plan to attack U.S. Capitol or interfere with transfer of power

An Indiana Oath Keepers leader who was in charge of security operations for the group in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, was indicted by a federal grand jury on June 24 on five counts related to violence at the U.S. Capitol.

Michael Greene, 39, of Indianapolis, was arrested in Indiana on a warrant from Washington. An indictment unsealed June 24 charges Greene with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding (aiding and abetting), conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and tampering with documents or proceedings (aiding and abetting).

Greene was added to a superseding indictment against seven other Oath Keepers, including Donovan Crowl, Sandra Parker, Bennie Parker, Laura Steele, Connie Meggs, William Isaacs, and James Beeks.

Greene, who also goes by the name Michael Simmons, is not accused of seditious conspiracy, a charge leveled in a different indictment against nine Oath Keepers, including the group’s founder, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III.

Rhodes and his eight co-defendants were named in the latest 13-count superseding indictment unsealed in Washington, also on June 24. The other defendants in the seditious conspiracy case include Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Joseph Hackett, David Moerschel, Thomas Caldwell, and Edward Vallejo.

The overarching cases against the Oath Keepers allege the group conspired to prevent the counting of Electoral College votes by a joint session of the U.S. Congress at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The goal, according to federal prosecutors, was to keep then-President Donald J. Trump in office and prevent Joseph R. Biden Jr. from assuming the presidency.

All of the current 17 Oath Keepers defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges. Defense attorneys say the indictments are a vast misreading and twisting of communications between group members who came to Washington to do nothing more than keep event participants safe from attacks by Antifa radicals.

“At 1:42 p.m. on January 6, Greene sent a text message to an acquaintance stating, ‘Storming the capital’ (sic) along with a photograph that depicted the advancing mob on the west side of the Capitol grounds,” the Department of Justice stated in a news release. “Greene communicated with Rhodes and others during the afternoon. At about 3:09 p.m., Greene texted an acquaintance, ‘Congress evacuated.’”

FBI Notes Contradict Indictments

Greene’s indictment surprised some case observers, coming nearly 13 months after he was interviewed by FBI agents regarding his participation with the Oath Keepers at events in various cities. As a key leader at the D.C. events on Jan. 6, his input cited in the FBI reports contradicts much of what is alleged against Rhodes and other Oath Keepers defendants.

According to the FBI’s case notes from interviews with Greene on May 4 and May 25, 2021, he told agents there was no Oath Keepers plan to attack the U.S. Capitol. His role on Jan. 6 was to oversee security for speakers at various events at or near the Capitol, he said. Oath Keepers who entered the Capitol building did not do so at his instruction or that of Rhodes, he told agents.

Greene, who was identified in the redacted FBI notes as “Person 10,” told agents his job “was providing VIP security at select stages … where ‘protectees’ would be giving speeches.”

“The security detail encompassed stage security and the protection of those individuals as they returned to their vehicles,” the FBI report said. “Person 10 cited the need for this protection after the Trump rally in December [2020] when individuals had been attacked by Antifa as they were leaving the rally.”

Greene was standing with Rhodes near a downed fence on the northeast side of the Capitol during part of the afternoon of Jan. 6, the report said. “Person 10 learned afterwards OKs had entered the U.S. Capitol, however, advised no plan by the OKs included anyone going inside the U.S. Capitol.”

In his FBI interviews, Greene said the message he sent out stating “they have taken ground at the capital (sic)” was an effort to get the Oath Keepers to regroup and leave the area of the Capitol building.

Greene also told FBI agents that no Oath Keepers assaulted any law enforcement personnel or forced their way into the Capitol. “Person 10 heard the door was open and the group walked in,” the FBI report said.

One group of Oath Keepers climbed the east steps of the Capitol below the historic Columbus Doors and went inside the Rotunda. Some of those Oath Keepers intervened in a potentially deadly standoff between a U.S. Capitol Police officer and a group of angry protesters inside the Small House Rotunda, witnesses reported.

Oath Keepers Prevent Shooting?

“Meggs allegedly told Person 10 that Meggs entered the U.S. Capitol to assist police, and those OKs who went inside assisted a police officer who was being surrounded by the crowd,” the FBI report said.

Video shot by independent journalist Stephen Horn shows Oath Keepers standing between the police officer and protesters. During the chaotic scene, a man was heard saying, “Kill everybody, right?” A female voice responded shortly after, “We don’t want to kill anybody. We want answers. We don’t want to kill anybody. We just want answers.”

In an interview with The Epoch Times in March, Rhodes said Meggs reported the Capitol Police officer was in a shooting stance and likely mere seconds away from firing on protesters in the small rotunda.

Another group of Oath Keepers ascended the east Capitol steps on Jan. 6 at the request of U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Tarik Johnson, who asked them to help rescue a group of officers trapped in the Capitol. The Oath Keepers later emerged and escorted 16 officers in riot gear out of the Capitol. The rescue operation was documented by amateur filmmaker Rico La Starza.

Prosecutors allege in the Oath Keepers indictments that a group of Oath Keepers remained on standby in Virginia as a “Quick Reaction Force” (QRF) to assist with an attack on the Capitol. Greene told FBI agents, however, that was not the purpose of the QRF.

“Person 10 advised if utilized, the purpose of the QRF would have been to evacuate ‘protectees,’ the injured and/or assist in the extraction of OKs if attacked by Antifa or others,” the report said.

Greene said neither he nor Rhodes mentioned bringing weapons into Washington or using boats in a Quick Reaction Force operation. No Oath Keepers are charged with possessing firearms at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

According to the report, Greene told FBI agents there was never an Oath Keepers discussion to take violent action on Jan. 6 or later if the presidential election “did not produce the desired result.”

Greene said there was no planning for Oath Keepers to incite rioting or forcibly enter the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. There was also no planning to disrupt the transition of the presidency from Trump to Biden, Greene said, according to the report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/oath-keepers-fbi-interviews-contradict-indictment-charges_4557284.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-25-3&utm_medium=email&est=IBf%2B7sheBcyCG43MbDGhMtTdRFRE6TlzDZS0wH03dK2uD0sk1CQngEclW0vxb9Xitg%3D%3D

Couple denies any wrongdoing

A retired Texas couple said FBI agents busted through the gate of their rural home, threw flashbangs, handcuffed them, and trained lasers on them before searching their home for evidence connected to the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol.

Lora DeWolfe and Darrel Kennemer, who live on seven acres near San Marcos, Texas, told The Epoch Times they attended the Jan. 6 rally at the Capitol but did nothing wrong. They believe the FBI mistakenly identified Kennemer as someone else.

The FBI didn’t arrest them, they said. Agents eventually produced a search warrant saying Kennemer was suspected of “assaulting, resisting or impeding” officers and “entering restricted building or grounds.”

Both said they went no further than the Capitol steps on Jan. 6 and did not harm anyone or damage anything. They said the allegation of assault was false, and the FBI kept showing Kennemer a blurry photo of a man who looked similar but wasn’t Kennemer.

“I vacillate between feeling mad and helpless,” DeWolfe said. “I was really sad. We just wanted an honest election.”

“They’re corrupt, and they’re trying to scare us,” Kennemer said, adding he feels the FBI targeted him for just being at the rally.

Raid Before Dawn

Their ordeal began when their gate alarm woke them up in the pre-dawn hours of June 22, DeWolfe said. At first, they thought a deer had tripped the alarm, but DeWolfe got up and saw a white car. Kennemer got his AR-15 rifle and went outside, not knowing what to expect, she said.

“I’m seeing one single white vehicle moving pretty fast, and I was thinking someone’s going to die,” Kennemer said.

FBI officers got out of the white vehicle and told Kennemer, who had his rifle up in the air, to drop his weapon. He kept his rifle and asked the FBI to show him a warrant. Kennemer said someone threw a flash-bang at him repeatedly because he wouldn’t drop his weapon at first.

DeWolfe said he put the gun down when she came out of the house. She noticed red laser sights trained on both of them.

“There was a drone flying around and an aircraft,” she said. “They never showed a warrant until the end.”

DeWolfe then tried calling a neighbor before the FBI told them to drop their phones, which ended up recording the first few minutes of the raid.

Agents entered the house and threw a flash-bang that frightened their dogs, causing one to run away, DeWolfe said.

Agents split them up and began questioning them. They showed Kennemer a blurry photo of a man at the Capitol with facial hair similar to his, according to Kennemer. They asked him about breaking a window, which he denied as well.

Hours later, the agents came out with a black coat, a dark Trump beanie, and a scarf. They also took the couple’s phones, which had photos from Jan. 6. Luckily, DeWolf said she had some of them printed.

Daughter’s Response

Later that day, DeWolf was able to call her daughter, Ricci Bratton, to tell her what happened. Bratton, who served in the U.S. Airforce, said her mom called her around 1 p.m

“You want to talk about surreal—my first instinct was you’re kidding. There’s no way,” Bratton told The Epoch Times.

Bratton said she thought her mother was in shock but was trying to remain calm.

“It wasn’t a knock at the door. That’s for sure,” Bratton said. “I can’t believe this is happening. You don’t believe it’s happening to your family.”

The FBI did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-raids-home-of-retired-texas-couple-who-attended-jan-6-capitol-rally_4557650.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-25-2&utm_medium=email&est=EQVE0e5foBbMaXxIYxooZns%2Fwk2FOPzG3oDkVcqpE8yE%2BHy1fHKWzUxFZMD56Iuzkg%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.’”

Princeton University ignored evidence that cut against its conclusion that the tenured professor had committed fire-able offenses.

Princeton University ignored extensive exculpatory evidence in its investigation of Joshua Katz, the tenured classics professor axed last month over alleged actions related to his consensual relationship with a former student.

Announcing the unceremonious dismissal, Princeton said Katz had dissuaded the former student from participating in a 2018 probe into the affair and discouraged her from “seeking mental health care” while she was an undergraduate. Both findings were based on excerpts of a voluminous email correspondence between Katz and the alumna, exchanged over 13 years, in which she sent him professions of love, allegations of “abuse,” and threats of suicide.

This report is based on a review of all the materials Katz provided to the university, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation, including more than 3,000 emails between Katz and his former student. That broader correspondence suggests that Princeton seized on unrepresentative exchanges to make its determinations, cherry-picking Katz’s messages and ignoring inconsistencies in the alumna’s story.

In fact, their exchanges show the alumna declined to participate in the 2018 inquiry of her own volition and that Katz went out of his way to avoid pressuring her into that decision. “I honestly don’t want to put any pressure on you whatsoever to do or not do anything,” he wrote on April 11, 2018, as Princeton was investigating the affair. “The decision here has to be yours.”

Katz did admit in three 2018 emails to dissuading the former student from seeking therapy her senior year. But the emails show Katz admitted to many things he did not do when the alumna accused him of wrongdoing, casting doubt on the veracity of that admission. The emails also show that, at other times, Katz told the alumna to seek psychiatric care. “Please remember that the most important thing is that you take care of yourself,” he told her in March 2008. “I’m counting on you to do this—and if you feel you can’t, then you *must* get help immediately.”

The university’s investigative report, which formed the basis for Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber’s recommendation to dismiss Katz, ignored those emails, according to four sources who reviewed the report, one of whom provided the Washington Free Beacon with a list of the emails cited in its appendix. It also ignored a forensic evaluation of Katz by one of the most distinguished psychiatrists in the country, Frank Dattilio, who concluded that the beleaguered professor would admit to “behaviors that he never engaged in for the sake of placating” the alumna.

Katz retained Dattilio, a household name among forensic psychiatrists who has provided hundreds of psychological evaluations to federal courts and law enforcement agencies, to shed light on why he “might admit to doing things he has not done,” according to a copy of the evaluation Katz shared with the Free Beacon. That evaluation offered critical context for Katz’s apparent admission, in his email exchanges with his former student, that he had discouraged her from going to therapy.

Katz was “genuinely concerned” the alumna would harm herself, Dattilio, who holds joint appointments with Harvard Medical School and the University of Pennsylvania, told Princeton. He “does not handle intense, volatile emotions very well” and will admit “to doing or saying things he has never done in order to quell emotional upheaval.”

Princeton’s investigative report, according to the sources who reviewed it, dismissed Dattilio’s conclusions in a couple sentences, describing them as a “post-hoc, self-serving interpretation” of Katz’s emails.

The report’s omissions bolster the argument, made by liberals and conservatives alike, that Princeton’s investigation was a pretext to fire a tenured professor for political speech. The university disciplined Katz for the relationship in 2018 as a result of a third-party complaint, but decided to reopen an investigation after Katz panned the school’s racial politics in 2020, incurring the wrath of Eisgruber.

The second time around, his former student—a seasoned Democratic operative who worked for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and her local party chapter—participated in the proceedings, supplying Princeton with a handful of incriminating emails.

In response, Katz turned over every exchange he could find between himself and his former student. “Anyone who reads through all of them,” he wrote in a statement to the university in October 2021, “will see two deeply troubled people, not a saint and a psychopath.”

The emails tell a tragic tale of unrequited love and unintended consequences, sparked by Katz’s relationship with the student in 2007. The fallout of that relationship would upend her life and haunt his own, driving them both to say they were on the brink of suicide, their emails show. Then an activist bureaucracy used Katz’s decades-old mistake to push him out of his job.

The alumna did not respond to a request for comment. Instead, the Free Beacon received a veiled legal threat from her lawyer, Jennifer Salvatore, warning: “To the extent that media outlets are participating in efforts to rehabilitate [Katz’s] reputation by violating my client’s privacy and/or defaming her, she reserves all rights and will take appropriate legal action to defend herself.”

Princeton University did not respond to a request for comment.

The affair began in June 2006 and lasted until the alumna’s graduation in 2007. It was dysfunctional but unremarkable, filled with petty resentments and jejune fights: Katz did not take the alumna out for Valentine’s Day in 2007, she complained in a 2018 email. He would ignore her at events and “talk exclusively to other people.”

These slights nonetheless appear to have had a profound effect on the alumna, who said in her emails that she fantasized about killing herself during the course of the affair. “A few times I went to the CVS and stood in front of the sleeping pills for a while trying to figure out how much I’d need to buy,” she recalled in one April 2018 email. “I got really, really close.”

She would later conclude that Katz had abused her, though Princeton’s Title IX office dismissed that charge in April 2021.

During her senior year, the alumna stopped going to therapy—but her emails offer inconsistent explanations as to why. In one message, she claims Katz discouraged her from seeing a therapist because he was afraid the university would discover the affair. But in another, she indicates she stopped going of her own volition in order to protect Katz. In a third, she suggests she became so depressed that “I couldn’t even go to therapy anymore.”

Katz pointed out these inconsistencies in an April 2021 statement to the university reviewed by the Free Beacon. Princeton ignored them, according to the sources who reviewed the university’s report.

The report also ignored Katz’s persistent and passionate pleas for the alumna to see a therapist, which came in response to what Dattilio described as a “deluge” of emails that, per his evaluation, revealed “emotional volatility.” The affair ended when the alumna graduated in 2007, but her correspondence with Katz did not: She would accuse him of giving her “PTSD,” then say she missed him. She would call him a “monster,” then beg him to marry her. She would apologize for how “worthless” and “repulsive” she was, blame him for “wrecking” her life, and then ask if he was “doing OK,” sometimes within hours.

The alumna would also say she was suicidal—at times implying she was moments away from killing herself—and would grow agitated if Katz didn’t respond within minutes.

With her life seemingly on the line, Katz bent over backwards to calm her down. He would apologize profusely for his “monstrous” conduct—”I’m sorry for being a monster,” he wrote in November 2010—and beg the alumna to seek help.

Sometimes the alumna would accuse Katz of things he had not done, only for him to apologize anyway. In April 2018, for example, the alumna berated Katz for refusing to leave Princeton during class reunions, which she wanted to attend without running into him. Katz apologized immediately—even though dozens of emails show him coordinating with the alumna to ensure they were never on campus at the same time.

The alumna’s volatility reached a fever pitch when an anonymous third party reported the decades-old affair to Princeton in February 2018—the height of the MeToo movement.

The investigation came as an unwelcome surprise to the former student, who for months railed against the university for prying open a chapter in her life that she’d tried desperately to close.

“I didn’t want this,” she wrote on March 12, 2018. “I was doing better at pushing it all down and I am so angry at whoever made this complaint.”

When Princeton’s deputy dean of faculty, Toni Turano, asked the alumna if she wanted to participate in the investigation, she refused and contacted Katz to warn him it was coming. She even offered to intercede on his behalf, either by asking Princeton to call off the probe or by expressing support for “the most lenient possible penalty.”

Katz said it was up to her. “Thank you for protecting me,” he wrote on April 10, 2018. “I can’t ask you to do it, though, especially if it’s making things worse for you.” The next day, he told her that he didn’t want to say anything that might pressure her one way or the other.

The alumna ultimately decided against contacting the university. When Katz told her on April 23 he would be suspended for a year without pay, she replied: “I’m sorry I couldn’t fix it.”

At the same time she was offering to intercede on his behalf, the alumna was sending Katz messages that oscillated between pleas for love and weekly threats of suicide. Katz himself said he contemplated “jumping” after receiving dozens of emails from her in the course of a few hours.

It was during these weeks that the alumna accused Katz of talking her out of therapy, extracting several apologies from him. The investigative report described those apologies as “clear and persuasive evidence” that Katz “acted to dissuade” the alumna “from seeing a therapist,” according to Katz’s October 2021 statement. It did not address the alumna’s threats of self-harm or Katz’s pattern of false admissions.

When the alumna learned on April 30, 2018, that Katz had once attended an academic conference in the city where she lived without telling her, she changed her mind about participating in the investigation and began threatening to get him fired.

“If I can’t trust you to respect my boundaries, I’ll have to enforce them,” the alumna wrote. In another email, she told Katz she would give him “a chance” to “convince me I shouldn’t.”

“Please, please don’t,” Katz responded—a plea the university would seize on to argue he tried to discourage the former student from coming forward. Princeton ignored the context of that plea, as well as the alumna’s consistent opposition to the investigation over the preceding two months.

After the 2018 investigation, the alumna continued writing to Katz. Now, with MeToo in full swing—and with Katz becoming more vocally critical of campus progressivism—the alumna, a longtime Democratic operative, began to articulate her grievances in political terms. During the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, for example, she repeatedly likened Katz to the embattled judicial nominee. A few months later, she likened him to a Republican state defending itself against charges of racism.

“When Texas comes to you and says, of course this law that happens to disenfranchise tons of black people wasn’t *intended* to be racially discriminatory, you don’t just *believe* them,” she wrote in January 2019. “Do you understand the analogy here?”

In 2020, Katz wrote a controversial essay that attacked the notion that Princeton was systemically racist. Then in February 2021, the Daily Princetonian published a story about his decades-old affair. The story also reported, based on anonymous allegations, that Katz had “behaved inappropriately” with two other former female students.

As part of his evaluation, Dattilio administered a test to gauge Katz’s propensity for predatory behavior. Katz scored in the lowest possible percentile, Dattilio said, suggesting that “he has no antisocial traits or propensities toward sexually violent or exploitative behaviors.”

The alumna submitted her complaint on February 26, 2021, less than a month after the student newspaper painted Katz as a predator.

The resulting investigation had few due process protections for the accused. The university did not share the full complaint with Katz until it had already completed its report, sources involved in the process said, nor did it give his legal team a chance to cross-examine the alumna, as would have been required by Princeton’s Title IX procedures. Because the Title IX office dismissed the complaint, however, the investigation fell to the office of the dean of faculty, whose disciplinary process has fewer due process protections.

That lack of due process meant that investigators could introduce a new allegation whenever Katz provided evidence against an old one. An initial hearing, held in early April 2021, focused on the alumna’s claims that Katz discouraged her from seeing a therapist and dissuaded her from coming forward in 2018, Katz’s statements to the university show. But in a second hearing—held just weeks after Dattilio submitted his forensic evaluation—investigators took Katz to task for not being “forthcoming” during the 2018 inquiry.

By the final hearing, Katz said in his October 2021 statement, “I no longer had confidence that the investigators were being objective. They seemed to want me gone from the University.”

https://freebeacon.com/campus/inside-the-investigation-of-joshua-katz/

Embedded ESU members wore a specific ‘bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel’

While there is growing speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 protests and recording responses for the purposes of entrapment, evidence now proves that “plainclothes” members of a special Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) were embedded among the protesters for the purposes of conducting video surveillance. Evidence also points to a day of security deficiencies and police provocation for the purpose of entrapment.

According to a report—First Amendment Demonstrations, issued Jan. 3, 2021, by Chief of Police Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—the MPD began to activate Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) platoons on Jan. 4, 2021. Full activation of 28 platoons was scheduled to occur on the following two days.

According to the Department of Justice website, “A CDU is composed of law enforcement officers who are trained to respond to protests, demonstrations, and civil disturbances for the purpose of preventing violence, destruction of property, and unlawful interference with persons exercising their rights under law.”

The objective of MPD was “to assist with the safe execution of any First Amendment demonstration and ensure the safety of the participants, public, and the officers.” CDU personnel and Special Operations Division  (SOD) members were to “monitor for any demonstration and/or violent activity and respond accordingly,” according to the report.

There has been speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the protests for the purposes of entrapment. As Red State reported in October 2021, “multiple surveillance videos show masked men opening up the doors to the U.S. Capitol Building to allow protesters to enter. In fact, one video shows them entering while Capitol Police officers simply stand around. Yet, we have no idea who those men are.”

The ‘Covert Cadre’ of ‘Provocateurs’

On a Dec.  7, 2021, episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the attorney for several Jan. 6 prisoners, Joseph McBride, identified a man tagged on the internet by so-called “Sedition Hunters” as “Red-Faced 45.” The man, dressed in red from head to toe—with even his face painted red—appears in a video engaging in continuous dialogue with uniformed personnel and others whom McBride insists are agents embedded in the crowd. McBride said the man is “clearly a law enforcement officer.”

“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.”

On Jan. 13, 2021, J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy, published a first-hand account of his observations. Waller is also President of Georgetown Research, a political risk and private intelligence company in Washington, D.C.; and was founding editorial board member of NATO’s peer-reviewed Defence Strategic Communications journal (2015–2018), and a senior analyst with Wikistrat. He is convinced people were embedded in the crowd to execute “an organized operation planned well in advance of the January 6 joint session of Congress.”

According to Waller, a “covert cadre” of people were scattered throughout the crowd to encourage people toward the Capitol, including “fake Trump protesters” he suspected were ANTIFA “wearing Trump or MAGA hats backwards.”

The Epoch Times reported on Jan. 1 that senior federal law enforcement officials refused to answer questions about an Arizona man named Ray Epps, captured on video the day before the rally wearing a Trump hat repeatedly encouraging protesters to “go into the Capitol” the next day. Many were suspicious of him. Chants of “fed, fed, fed” drown him out. On Jan. 6, he is seen telling the crowd “we are going to the Capitol, where all of our problems are.”

Epps is also seen standing before a bike rack barricade, whispering into the ear of a protester wearing his Trump hat backwards. Moments later, that man is joined by others in tearing down the barricade. Epps is then seen running with the crowd toward the Capitol Building. Despite the evidence, Epps has not had any charges filed against him and his photo has been removed from the government’s list of most-wanted people from the event.

Bobby Powell host of “The Truth is Viral” podcast, has several videos exposing two men, clad all in black, whom he believes are FBI informants. They are seen breaking windows, attacking the Capitol building, and even pushing people inside.

McBride finds it strange that these “provocateurs,” as he calls them, have yet to be charged, despite their having a much more active role in the Capitol incident than some who were charged, including some individuals who never even set foot on Capitol grounds.

The Proof

Unknown to the public until now, the First Amendment Demonstrations report also reveals that an undisclosed number of “plainclothes” MPD ESU “members” were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”

In 2016, the MPD purchased 2,800 body-worn cameras.

It is unclear who the MPD ESU “members” were. However, they are never referred to as “officers” or “police.” Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the MPD, an ESU is not among them. In order for other security personnel to recognize embedded ESU members among the protesters, they wore a specific “bracelet on their left wrist identifying them as MPD personnel,” the report stated.

Because he didn’t assume the job as police chief until Jan. 2, 2021, Waller believes Contee inherited rather than set up the ESU. However, Waller is confident “this report raises a lot of questions.”

“While it is admittedly an important type of unit to have in the nation’s capital, electronic surveillance requires warrants,” Waller told The Epoch Times. “The word surveillance itself implies intrusive rather than passive monitoring of people, in which case it would be required for the police to get warrants to conduct electronic surveillance on people. What kind of warrants were asked for and under which jurisdiction? Were they issued? If not, why? Are such warrants necessary for the type of surveillance this unit was doing and how does it work? This raises a huge amount of questions about an entirely new kind of surveillance unit by the police chief of the nation’s capital.”

Waller also said the reference to “members” of the unit, as opposed to “officers” or “agents,” is also very disturbing. While he said “the rest of the memorandum sounds very disciplined in it’s language and specific,” that it doesn’t identify “officers” as members of the Electronic Surveillance Unit “is very troubling.”

“Are they using private contractors? Are they using political volunteers?” Waller posed. “Are using paid agents of different types? We don’t know. This is something the public has a right to know and we need to get to the bottom of it. If the D.C Police is running electronic surveillance on American citizens without warrants, this could be a very serious breach of our civil liberties.”

Intentional Security Deficiencies

An Oct. 29, 2021 report by Politico exposed that a 17-page strategy report called “The Civil Disturbance Unit Operational Plan,” showed that police made plans for plainclothes “officers” to monitor protesters and carry out five objectives:

1. To provide an environment in which lawful First Amendment activity can be safely demonstrated.
2. To prevent any adverse impact to the legislative process associated with unlawful demonstration activity.
3. To effectively mitigate actions associated with civil disorder; safely respond to crimes of violence and destruction/defacing of property.
4. To safeguard and prevent any property damage directed at the US Capitol, West Front Inaugural Platform, and all Congressional buildings.
5. Establish and maintain a fixed march route while excluding access to counter-protestors to minimize potential for violent interactions.”

However, because the CDU was understaffed and unprepared, it failed in all its objectives.

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 CDU was ordered by supervisors not to use the department’s most powerful tools, like stun guns. Bolton’s report, which has not yet been widely released to the public, also contends “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership.”

The CDU was given riot shields, many locked in a bus some distance away, that “shattered upon impact.” They had expired weapons that didn’t work and inadequate training.

Bolton’s report also noted that officials were warned in an intelligence assessment three days before the protest that “Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike” and that “Congress itself is the target.”

However, reports surfaced that then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett sent a memo to lawmakers informing them that security officials found that “there does not exist a known, credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex that warrants the temporary security fencing.”

Some Capitol Police officers were reportedly told to go home amid staffing shortages, reported Business Insider.

According to the “UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR JANUARY 6, 2021 ATTACK,” also obtained by The Epoch Times, “USCP Deputy Chief Gallagher replies” to the Department of Defense (DOD) “via text” on January 3, 2021, “that a request for National Guard support is not forthcoming at this time after consultation” with Chief of Police (COP) Steven Sund.

On Jan. 4, 2021, “COP Sund asked Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefings with law enforcement partners and revised intelligence assessment.”

• COP Sund’s request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tells COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard’s ability to support a request if needed.
• COP Sund notifies General Walker of DC National Guard, indicating that the USCP may need DC National Guard support for Jan. 6, 2021, but does not have the authority to request at this time.
• General Walker advises COP Sund that in the event of an authorized request, DC National Guard could quickly repurpose 125 troops helping to provide DC with COVID-related assistance. Troops would need to be sworn in as USCP.

However, the timeline shows it took over three hours and five frantic requests before the National Guard was deployed.

During his opening remarks before two Senate committees on March 3, 2021, Walker told members of Congress he received a “frantic call” from Sund in the early afternoon advising that the security perimeter of the Capitol was being breached. However, military leaders informed him that deploying troops would not be “good optics.”

During testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Piatt and Flynn denied making such comments.

At the hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene informed the committee three people were involved in turning down repeated requests for the deployment of the National Guard. “Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Mayor Muriel Bowser. Also involved, are the SSAA Stenger, who answers directly to Schumer, and HSAA Irving, who answers directly to Pelosi.

On Jan. 22, 2021, reports began to surface with images of National Guard members who were forced to stay in nearby parking garages in near-freezing temperatures sparking outrage among lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.

In stark contradiction to then acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett’s assessment that no “credible threat against Congress or the Capitol Complex” existed to warrant “temporary security fencing,” there are multiple admonishments in the First Amendment Demonstrations report of the importance “for the members to monitor the fence line” and orders that “all members” were to “monitor 16th Street and the surrounding area for any potential issues or demonstrations.”

“Members assigned to the bicycle rack” were ordered to “restrict pedestrian and vehicle movement upon making the closure of the police lines.”

“The bicycle rack, in conjunction with police cars and blocking vehicles will create a barrier in which no person or vehicle will be allowed to pass,” the report said.

However, video evidence shows police waving protesters past bike racks and even removing them to open a path into the restricted areas to encourage people to move toward the Capitol Building.

A March 2, 2021, USCP Report of Investigation regarding the incident, also obtained by The Epoch Times, confirms that on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, “an Unknown Officer violated USCP Directive 2053.013, Rules of Conduct, when they allegedly waived unauthorized persons into a restricted area secured by bike racks toward the US Capitol during an insurrection.” Evidence in the case included the “video posted to twitter, dated 01/06/21 ” and “CCTV of the East Front of the US Capitol, dated 01/06/21.”

On Monday, Feb. 1, 2021, then Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Commander of the United States Capitol Police, Inspector Michael Shaffer, sent an email with the Twitter video of the unidentified officer (UO) to Inspectors Amy Hyman (Senate Division), Thomas Loyd (Capitol Division), Kimberley Bolinger (House Division) and Acting Inspector Jessica Baboulis (Library Division) requesting assistance in identifying the UO. All parties responded to Shaffer that they were unable to identify the UO.

The recommendation was that the report “be APPROVED and the case CLOSED.”

On Feb. 4, 2021, this case was put on hold pending a review by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Public Corruption. No further information is available.

Provocation and Entrapment

In a June 10 interview with EpochTV’s “Facts Matter,” 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 President Donald Trump’s speech. She 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.

The Department of Justice still won’t answer questions about Ray Epps, an Arizona resident captured on video encouraging protesters to breach the Capitol Building.

Kelly also noted how Capitol Police used flash bangs, teargas, and rubber bullets “to inflame the crowd and provoke a lot of the confrontations” seen in videos now being used as evidence to arrest, charge and incarcerate those who attended the rally.

More specifically, she accused Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and Democrat Majority Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of “intentionally” leaving Capitol grounds unsecured.” She further alleged it was a “setup” designed specifically to cripple the MAGA movement.

While Bolton’s report said “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership,” the Capitol Police timeline says United States Capitol Police (USCP) personnel “deploy[ed] munitions at the Rotunda door” at 1645 hours (4:45 p.m.) where protesters were alleged to be “pushing in doors and breaking windows.” Three minutes later, USCP deployed “chemical munitions on Lower West Terrace to disperse insurrectionists.”

Video footage found at Gateway Pundit shows flash grenades being launched by Capitol Police 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. However, the USCP Timeline does not mention the deployment of these flash grenades.

Another video, which still exists on TeaParty.org, was filmed by Kash Kelly from ground level where the flash grenades went off. Kelly, who is now himself in prison regarding pretrial release violations regarding a previous charge and the subsequent charges related to his presence in Washington, is shown ensuring the evacuation of women in the area where the flash grenades exploded.

“The police started shooting at people,” Kelly says. “There were kids in the crowd.”

More extensive video footage, analyzed by Ray Dietrich of Red Voice Media, shows “the beginning of violence on January 6.”

An unidentified USCP officer is seen repeatedly yelling down to the crowd, assembled peacefully below his position, advising that if they “want to get a good picture” they should “go up into the bleachers.”

“The video shows the moment either stun grenades or tear gas canisters were deployed into the crowd of protestors,” Dietrich says as the video plays out. “The question I have, after a 20-year career in law enforcement, is why were these munitions deployed? I have picked this video apart and many more, and cannot see why the USCP used this force against the crowd. There is no fighting and no violence, so why did they target these people with less-lethal weapons?”

“What happened next?” Dietrich asks rhetorically. “Chaos. Violence. The crowd fought back. The Capitol was breached.”

As the stunned crowd scurries in the attack, police can be seen spraying people in the face with pepper spray. In another segment, three police officers are beating a protester who is being held on the ground. In a measure that further escalates the tension, police begin deploying tear gas into the already frantic crowd. In a course of 20 minutes, a once peaceful scene descends into total chaos.

In June 2021, reports surfaced that the Justice Department had begun to release its own video footage, including footage from body-worn cameras that allegedly show assaults against police officers defending the U.S. Capitol.

A summary of findings shows that:

• Evidence shows that until the deployment of munitions, the crowds were peaceful.
• MPD Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) members were embedded into the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.”
• Of the 37 “Specialized Units” listed as part of the Metropolitan Police Department, an ESU is not among them.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Metropolitan Police Department and Capitol Police for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-police-report-proves-plainclothes-electronic-surveillance-unit-members-were-embedded-among-jan-6-protesters_4527036.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-20-2&utm_medium=email&est=wOapxnKBH%2BBhjhafmqNDRlxq0lFeDEehyULGIqVoCZcO42w38fkxY0utwlLtwm%2B0vQ%3D%3D

Peter Navarro, a White House adviser during the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty on June 17 to contempt of Congress charges.

Navarro was hit with the misdemeanor charges earlier in June, after declining to cooperate with the House of Representatives panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, citing executive privilege due to his former position at the White House.

Navarro had been representing himself before the issue turned into a criminal one.

“Obviously being put in leg irons and having people want to put me in prison have changed matters,” Navarro told reporters outside the federal courthouse in Washington.

Navarro has also said he was denied a call to a lawyer after being arrested, which prosecutors have denied.

During Friday’s hearing, Navarro’s attorneys asked for the trial to take place in 2023 so that constitutional questions surrounding the privilege invocation could be resolved, WUSA-TV reported.

They also said Navarro plans to go on a tour beginning in September promoting his new book, “Taking Back Trump’s America: Why We Lost the White House and How We’ll Win it Back.”

Prosecutors said the government was ready to start the trial sooner.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta set the start of the trial for Nov. 17, but indicated that might not be the final trial date.

Navarro is the second former Trump adviser charged for refusing to cooperate with the House Jan. 6 panel.

Steve Bannon, who has also cited privilege, was the first.

Bannon’s motion to dismiss the charges was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, this week.

Bannon’s attempts to subpoena House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—who appointed every member of the panel—and members of the panel, have not yet been ruled upon.

Two other former Trump aides who have resisted working with the panel have not been charged.

The Department of Justice reportedly made the decision not to prosecute the former White House employees, Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows, despite exhortations from the panel that the men be prosecuted.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the panel, and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), chairwoman of the panel, said in a recent joint statement that they were puzzled by the move.

Thompson has said that Navarro’s testimony was being sought, as well as records he possessed, because he appeared to have information “directly relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation into the causes of the January 6th attack on the Capitol.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ex-trump-adviser-peter-navarro-pleads-not-guilty-to-contempt-of-congress-charges_4540644.html?utm_source=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2022-06-17&utm_medium=email&est=AMzThpEQ844ZrXEqHPOpzFknyMGb4ySTKczKOsjsUhbsCjpQhHuQUfipAhYWrl0Hbg%3D%3D

A California doctor has been sentenced to two months in prison for being involved in the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol and stepping inside the restricted premises along with her co-defendant John Strand.

Dr. Simone Melissa Gold was initially charged with entering a restricted building or grounds, violent entry, and disorderly conduct, and arrested on Jan. 18, 2021. She spent two days in custody. On March 3, 2022, she pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of illegally entering the restricted building. Gold was sentenced June 16 to serve 60 days in jail, one year of supervised release, pay a $9,500 fine, and $500 restitution.

Gold is the founder of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), a nonprofit that has spoken out against the emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccines and promoted the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the initial days of the pandemic.

While inside the building, Gold delivered a speech through a megaphone to a crowd gathered in Statuary Hall, where she stated her opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates and government-imposed lockdowns.

Gold expressed regret for entry into the Capitol building in a Jan. 12 interview with The Washington Post. “During the same interview Strand stated that he was also inside the U.S. Capitol with Gold and was there to protect Gold,” according to an official statement.

“I was misguided. I should not have entered,” Gold said. “Everything I did on January 6, misguided or not, was consistent with my effort to do my best for people.” She sounded emotional when she told Cooper that she was “shocked” the prosecutors believed she was not remorseful and did not intend to take part “in a situation that was so destructive to our nation.”

Strand—the communication director at AFLDS and Gold’s boyfriend—has been charged along with Gold. He has pleaded not guilty and rejected an offer for a plea agreement. Strand’s trial is scheduled for July 18.

Regarding Gold’s sentencing, an AFLDS press release on Thursday said, “Like most January 6 defendants, she is a victim of selective prosecution—the defining feature of corrupted governments.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to AFLDS for comment.

However, district Judge Christopher Cooper, a Barack Obama appointee, said that AFLDS was “leaving people with the misimpression that this is a political prosecution or that it’s about free speech,” as he delivered the sentence.

“January 6 was about a lot of things, but it wasn’t about the First Amendment or COVID vaccinations … the only reason you are here is where and when and how you chose to express your view,” Cooper said.

Gold had raised over $400,000 for her and the organization’s legal issues. Cooper said that the funds were a “disservice to the true victims that day.”

Gold’s attorney Dickson Young asked for a sentence of community medical service, stating that his client did not commit or incite violence.

“The loss of our country’s freedoms,” said Gold in a tweet on Friday regarding the sentencing.

Over 800 people have been charged with federal crimes over the breach on Jan. 6, with 300 pleading guilty and nearly 200 sentenced.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-simone-gold-sentenced-to-two-months-in-prison-and-fines-for-capitol-breach_4540013.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-17-3&utm_medium=email&est=2Rtmaolo%2BAwYeLV%2BmB4EdNin2%2FQG%2BjF4%2FLcnba57jAMyC5kkrKBl87DuoAlO0JwTgw%3D%3D

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

‘Not only were these conditions sub-human in the Jan. 6 pods but they were equally and even more so in other parts of the jail.’

A Jan. 6 prisoner who was released by a federal judge after being denied cancer treatment for eight months is now “in dire straights,” according to his girlfriend.

On March 10, 2021, Chris Worrell was arrested and charged with alleged offenses related to his presence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

According to the March 10, 2021, criminal complaint, Worrell is charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

According to the statement of facts (pdf), the FBI received a tip alleging that Worrell had participated in the breach at the Capitol, but there is no evidence that Worrell entered the Capitol building.

The statement includes photos of Worrell spraying pepper gel while standing in a crowd outside the Capitol, with police nearby.

An arrest warrant (pdf) was issued for Worrell on March 10, 2021, charging him with the aforementioned alleged offenses, as well as charges for allegedly engaging in acts of physical violence in a restricted building or grounds and obstruction of Congress.

Priller’s Story

Worrell’s girlfriend, Trish Priller, was also in Washington that day. In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, Priller shared her story of what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, and the disturbing events that have transpired over the subsequent 17 months.

“We were just there,” Priller insisted. “We were there with family members and friends. We had some ladies in their 70s that were with us. The ladies wanted to go down and hear President Trump speak at the ellipse and I had never been to anything like that so I went with them.”

As Priller explained, there was a large crowd there that day and once you were in a spot at the ellipse, you could not move out of it—even to go to the restroom—because you would never find your people again or be allowed back in through the crowd. They stood there for several hours, waiting to hear President Donald Trump speak.

“I was at the ellipse with Chris and we were separated for seven and a half hours because the crowd was so enormous we couldn’t meet up with each other,” Priller recalled, adding that while the cell towers weren’t working and they couldn’t communicate by phone, they could get the occasional text “here and there.”

“I don’t know what he did during that time because we weren’t in the same area,” she said.

Two months later, on March 11, Worrell and some of his friends headed off for a weekend canoeing trip in northern Florida. It was a Friday, and Priller was home alone when the FBI raided the house.

“They flash banged me and held me at gunpoint,” Priller recalled. “When I went outside,CC I had all of the lasers on me. They held me in my home for seven and a half hours. During that time they were rifling through everything in the house and I had to sit in a chair and watch them. I couldn’t go anywhere. If I wanted something to drink, they would bring it to me. When I had to go to the restroom I had to go with two agents with me into the bathroom. I was held prisoner in my home for all that time.”

Five hours into the ordeal, Priller said she was allowed to call Worrell and give the phone to the FBI. The agents agreed that Worrell could come home. During the 3-hour drive back home, Worrell checked in about every 30 minutes to let the FBI know where he was, Priller said. When Worrell arrived, he was immediately handcuffed, searched, and brought into the house. Documents (pdf) show Worrell was taken to Fort Meyers, Florida.

He was originally granted pretrial release on bond, but a second judge ordered a stay on Worrell’s release, and Worrell was instead transferred to Charlotte County, Florida, where he was held for three weeks.

Worrell has a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer, and had been managing the illness since he was diagnosed in 2007. He remained at stage one of the illness for several years.

But Priller said that when Worrell was being held in Charlotte County, he didn’t have access to his medications during that time.

“They wouldn’t allow the doctor to bring them in,” Priller asserted. “They said I should go get them, but you can’t do that. You can’t bring medicines into a prison. They won’t let you do that. So our doctor wrote a prescription and sent it to them and they didn’t process it. It took almost the whole three weeks. At that point he was transferred to Oklahoma by Con-Air, I guess, where he stayed for another couple of days, still with no meds.”

As Priller explained, Worrell was then transferred to Northern Neck, Virginia, where he stayed for another couple of days. It was there that Worrell contracted the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus. At the time, it was already known the facility had many COVID cases.

Then he was transported to the Correctional Treatment Facility in Washington (pdf), referred to by Priller and many Jan. 6 prisoners as “the gulag.” At that point, Worrell had gone 75 days without his medications.

“They basically said his physician wasn’t qualified, even though he had been in the practice and treated cancer patients,” Priller charged. “They didn’t feel like he was qualified so he continued on with no meds. They would send him to doctors for visits but they falsified that.”

As Priller explained, Worrell would be taken from the prison and taken to the university hospital where he would see a doctor. The guards who went with him had paperwork they needed to have filled out, so the doctor would fill out the paperwork and hand it to the guards to return it to the prison where it was given to their medical team, she said.

“The notes from the doctor were then transcribed by jail personnel, who fabricated things, changed notes switched it up and then gave it to the medical facility in the jail,” Priller asserted. “They kept using the word ‘treatment.’ But the word ‘treatment’ means you’re actually receiving some sort of medicine. He didn’t have any ‘treatment.’ He had a consultation, not a ‘treatment’ for his cancer.”

Priller said Worrell filed hundreds of grievances through the jail, not just for the lack of medical care for his cancer and broken hand but for the deplorable conditions he and other Jan. 6 prisoners were forced to live under.

“They told him if he keeps putting in grievances they were going to put him in the hole,” Priller said. “and they did. They kept him there for 16 days.”

As described by Liberty Nation, “the hole”—solitary confinement—is where detainees are allegedly sent to be punished for daring to talk to the media about what is really going on inside the prison. Lawyers John Pierce and Steven Metcalf II, who represent several of the defendants, told EpochTV’s “The Nation Speaks” that among the nearly people 500 arrested so far in connection with Jan. 6, more than 50 are being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, in conditions that are “unconstitutional” and violate “every single basic human right.”

“Anything that they do, or if anybody speaks up on their behalf, all of a sudden, they get targeted even further and then get put into a dangerous, unsanitary condition,” Metcalf said.

The Epoch Times has reached out to corrections officials in Charlotte County, Florida, and in Washington, requesting comment about these allegations.

The Legal Fight

On May 26, 2021, Worrell’s attorney filed a reply to the government’s supplemental brief pursuant to the district court’s order (pdf), stating that “the essential undisputed fact of this case is that Mr. Worrell has cutaneous follicular b-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and has been held by the Government without treatment for his white blood cell cancer for seventy-five days.” It further asserted that the government was intentionally refusing “to issue the prescription authorized by Dr. Rucker, a licensed medical doctor in the state of Florida” and has “failed to issue an alternative medication.”

On Sept. 24, 2021, Worrell’s attorney John Pierce was replaced by Alex Stavrou.

As the second attorney, Stavrou noted the numerous prior steps taken to seek conditions of release for Worrell.

“Of course, from a legal perspective,” Stavrou told The Epoch Times in an exclusive interview, “the government and the courts were extremely reluctant to grant any of those conditions and I think that’s pretty evident by the fact you can see the number of individuals who are still incarcerated in various jails across the country waiting to be sent to the Northern Neck Regional Jail in Virginia or the Washington D.C. jail. Mr. Worrell, of course, received what could be argued as horrendous medical care while at the jail, and there were numerous attempts to thwart that medical care or to thwart the physicians of Mr. Worrell in regards to what treatment was needed.”

Aside from the cancer, one of the biggest issues Stavrou cited in Worrell’s case was the fact that his hand was broken while in jail and there was a surgical recommendation in writing. While jail officials tried to argue that they never recommended surgery, it had been in writing and the doctor changed his original position, saying he never recommended surgery.

“Of course, there was no follow-up care for several months,” Stavrou said (pdf). “And at the end of the day, the judge was not overly impressed with the overall care that Mr. Worrell was not receiving and then started to force the issue, which culminated with Chris receiving conditions of release.”

More importantly, Stavrou said what came out of Worrell’s plight was the exposure of “borderline medical malpractice” and caused the judge to order an inspection regarding the conditions inside the jail.

“The long and short of it was, not only were these conditions subhuman in the Jan. 6 pods but they were equally and even more so in other parts of the jail,” Stavrou asserted.

Stavrou described how there was rampant availability of drugs, primarily marijuana. While they knew inmates were buying drugs, they could only be coming in through staff. Jail staff would also allegedly turn off the water in the Jan. 6 pods for days at a time.

“Without water, you can’t flush a toilet,” Stavrou noted. “You can’t have drinking water. You can’t bathe. So you can imagine the beyond-subhuman conditions when in an 8-by-10 or a 6-by-6 [foot] cell. The smell of unflushed, clogged toilets and the smell of marijuana, fecal matter, urine and unbathed, unshaved gentlemen. These are completely atrocious conditions, especially in a country that supposedly prides itself on human rights.”

In response to the repeated complaints and reports regarding the deplorable “subhuman” conditions at the Washington jail, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “directed the Clerk of the Court to transmit the civil contempt order to the Attorney General for appropriate inquiry into potential civil rights violations of January 6 defendants, as exemplified in this case.” (pdf)

The judge also held the prison warden and the director of the D.C. Department of Corrections in contempt for failure to promptly produce Worrell’s medical records

On Nov. 3, a statement by the U.S. Marshals Service (pdf) said that their inspection of the Central Treatment Facility (CTF)—where some of the Jan. 6 prisoners are being held—”did not identify conditions that would necessitate the transfer of inmates from that facility.” However, the U.S. Marshals did admit that “based on the results of the unannounced inspection” of the Central Detention Facility, where an additional 400 detainees were held in the custody of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), it was determined “that conditions there do not meet the minimum standards of confinement as prescribed by the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards. Therefore, working with the Lewisburg Bureau of Prisons, the USMS agreed to transfer those detainees to United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.”

Stavrou said he would argue that the conditions and treatment of inmates was being swept under the rug and that the “same kind of nonsense” was still taking place. “While they may have cleaned up the deplorable conditions, now they will do things like claim the internet is down for two to five days so the inmates can’t communicate with loved ones through email messages or there is something wrong with the phones. So now there are gentlemen in the prison who haven’t received release who can’t get in touch with their families.”

It was further noted in the U.S. Marshals’ statement that “the Lewisburg Bureau of Prisons facility provides attorney and visitor areas, medical care, and video teleconferencing capabilities.”

When Worrel was released from prison, he hadn’t had any medications for eight months. At that point, he had gone from stage one cancer to stage three.

The Fight for His Life

“Chris just finished five rounds of chemotherapy and has a follow-up appointment in July for further diagnostic tests,” Priller said, noting that some of his symptoms are already returning. “His medical condition has deteriorated dramatically. His teeth, his skin, so many issues that could have been prevented. Chris is in dire straights.”

As Priller explained, Worrell now needs multiple surgeries on his mouth and teeth due to radiation treatments “and further complications due to the fact he was using a very specific type of toothpaste that he could not get while incarcerated.” The cost is estimated at about $30,000. Then there is the additional chemotherapy to treat the returning symptoms. For that, he will need at least another $50,000. There is a GiveSendGo account to raise money for Worrell’s treatment.

In the meantime, Priller said their daily lives are stressed with the constant threat of another visit from the government.

“The marshals and pretrial services can just show up any time they want and do a search,” Priller said, “and they do, and you have to let them in. They’re looking to violate you, to see what you’ve done wrong. We have parameters, we have to call in every single day. There’s a lot of rules we have to follow. We have to submit a weekly schedule and call in every Tuesday.”

She described how there was one instance where she was on the phone with the pretrial officer trying to get their schedule filed on time. Shortly after, the pretrial service officer filed an order (pdf) claiming Worrell violated the conditions of his conditions of release “because he heard keystrokes,” Priller said.

Stavrou filed a response (pdf) explaining that it was Priller typing in an effort to submit the weekly schedule on time while “on the phone simultaneously with Pre-trial services Officer Tad Parks.” Judge Royce Lamberth accepted the explanation (pdf).

“I’m being watched and monitored and I wasn’t even the one arrested,” Priller said. “So I am basically imprisoned also.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-prisoner-who-was-denied-cancer-treatment-now-in-dire-straits_4502438.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-14&utm_medium=email&est=Ou9sgQXy5j0zTTKi8nuLuHPztdZsNlyVumgBvu4aIFWb8UhxPAJne22tVShqs8Xe6g%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

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

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

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

A group of House Republicans on Wednesday requested confirmation that the former president of ABC News, James Goldston, is working for the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol, and questioned whether his alleged hiring violated House rules.

In a letter (pdf) to the Jan. 6 Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Committee on House Administration Chairperson Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), GOP lawmakers asked for confirmation that Goldston has been hired as an employee of the committee, and not as a consultant or in an “unofficial capacity.”

The letter was signed by Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), and others.

It comes after Axios first reported Monday that the former network news executive had joined the committee as an “unannounced adviser” and is “busily producing Thursday’s 8 p.m. ET hearing as if it were a blockbuster investigative special.”

Goldston has previously served as a producer for some of the network’s biggest news programs like “20/20,” “Nightline,” and “Good Morning America.” He left ABC in March.

Citing congressional laws pertaining to committee staff, the lawmakers noted that a letter is required requesting approval of the Committee on House Administration regarding Goldston’s hiring, along with a signed contract agreement and resume.

Under that same law, Goldston would be unable to commence work for the committee until the contract has been approved by the Committee on House Administration.

“To our knowledge, the Committee has not received or considered such a request,” wrote the representatives.

The GOP lawmakers also cited reports from CNN that Goldston is working with the select committee “to help produce their upcoming hearings” and “helping the committee with the planning of the hearings and their presentation.”

They noted that the committees are allowed to “obtain temporary or intermittent services of individual consultants or organizations, to advise the Committee with respect to matters within its jurisdiction,” but that Goldston would not be able to act as an employee of the committee.

“The Committee on House Administration will not approve a contract if the services to be provided by the consultant are the regular duties of Committee staff,” lawmakers wrote. “Planning, preparation, and production of hearings are unquestionably the ‘regular duties of Committee staff’.”

Republican lawmakers also noted in their letter that Goldston would be barred from working for the Jan. 6 Committee free of charge, noting that such an arrangement would “violate House Rules and the House Ethics Manual regulations which clearly states that no logical distinction can be drawn between the private contribution of in-kind services and the private contribution of money.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the offices of Jan. 6 Committee Chair Bennie Thompson and Committee on House Administration Chairperson Zoe Lofgren for comment.

Last week, the nine-member panel investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach promised it would reveal new and previously unseen material in the first of a series of public hearings, including witness testimony.

It will also “provide the American people a summary of its findings about the coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power,” the committee said in a statement to news outlets.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-committees-alleged-hiring-of-former-abc-news-president-may-violate-rules-house-gop_4521993.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-09-1&utm_medium=email&est=uCoM46WGc9hCxnBN4FxMrFOUNaXNsNTZ%2Fp6CL5YT65Y0xvOxJaYoOYtLIAYSicqnwA%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

Biden DOJ asks judge to go easy on Ivy League firebombers

On the cusp of nonstop, around-the-clock (primetime!) coverage of the Jan. 6 committee hearings, a couple of domestic terrorists are actually getting their day in court, and it is informative to see how Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is handling their prosecution.

Recall Garland’s breathless declaration, during his confirmation hearings, that “150 years after the Department’s founding, battling extremist attacks on our democratic institutions also remains central to its mission.”

Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman were arrested in the “mostly peaceful” protests following George Floyd’s murder. The two lawyers handed out Molotov cocktails to the crowd, and Rahman tossed one into a police car before fleeing the scene in Mattis’s van. They reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors in October 2020 that wiped out six of the seven charges against them. Those prosecutors, nonetheless, sought a maximum 10-year sentence and argued that the incident qualified for a so-called terrorism enhancement that would turbocharge sentencing—a determination with which the U.S. Probation Office concurred.

Ginning herself up to distribute explosives to the crowd, Rahman gave a video interview in which she declared, “This shit won’t ever stop until we fuckin’ take it all down,” adding that “the only way [the police] hear us is through violence.”

Then, Garland and the U.S. attorney for New York’s Eastern District, Breon Peace, who’s handling the prosecution, took office, and you won’t believe what happened next!

In mid-May, the same career DOJ prosecutors who argued for that 10-year sentence were back in court withdrawing their plea deal and entering a new one that allowed the defendants to cop to the lesser charge of conspiracy. It tosses out the terrorism enhancement entirely.

The new charge carries a five-year maximum sentence, but the prosecutors are urging the judge to go below that, asking for just 18 to 24 months on account of the “history and personal characteristics of the defendants” and the “aberrational nature of the defendants’ conduct.” Because, you know, Mattis graduated from Princeton and New York University Law School and was an attorney at the white-shoe law firm Pryor Cashman, and Rahman was a public-interest lawyer whose “best friend,” Obama administration intelligence official Salmah Rizvi, guaranteed the $250,000 required to release her on bail.

Law360, which reported on the events, calls the new deal an “unusual step.” James Trusty, a former prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s criminal division, broke it down for us this way: “Swapping in a softer plea agreement after having gone through the plea hearing is an exceedingly rare event in federal court.” It can happen, he said, if there is “truly some new development or understanding about the defendants that merits a fresh look.”

In this case, the new development is the political persuasion of the folks running the Justice Department, and for them, Mattis and Rahman are the right kind of domestic terrorists—the ones whose cases and conduct will never be the subject of a congressional hearing or plastered from wall to wall on cable television.

Remember their names, and the special treatment they received at the hands of the Biden Justice Department, when the broadcasts begin on Thursday and when Garland next has the gall to feign concern about political violence directed at our democratic institutions.

Mattis and Rahman Change of Plea Hearing by Washington Free Beacon on Scribd

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/how-the-left-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-domestic-terrorism/

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

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

Military service demands sacrifice. Members must accept time away from family, discomfort during training and active duty, and they must have a willingness to give their all; lay down their life.

But since 2021, military members who refused to take the COVID-19 shot for religious reasons have been told that they must also sacrifice either their faith or their career, discharge reputation, and any future benefits they may have been banking on.

In the waning days of the pandemic, all branches of the U.S. military are still denying religious exemptions that would allow those who object to the shots for religious reasons to continue to serve. More than 24,000 service members have filed a Religious Accommodation Request and have been denied, according to the Liberty Counsel, which is pushing forward with a class certification for a lawsuit that will include members of all six military branches, including the Space Force.

There are at least nine suits across the nation attempting to help the unvaccinated faithful keep their jobs.

“It is abusive. It is inhumane. It is an intentional purge of people of faith from the military by the Biden administration,” Mat Staver, attorney and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, told The Epoch Times. He notes numerous ways the military has relaxed its COVID mitigation, such as housing Marines at the Parris Island barracks who are COVID negative and COVID positive together. “We know across the board that you’re having various platoons that are being dismantled and are not being rebuilt because they don’t have people to staff. We know that recruitment is down. People are not coming into the military because the morale is at an all-time low. So that’s why I say in light of all of this, why are [there] still mandates?”

In response to the Jan. 6, 2021 rally at the U.S. Capitol that has been characterized as an insurrection of extremists, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in February 2021, directed military leaders to address extremism within the troops. Austin’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

“He wanted to purge the military. He was referring to people like those coming out of Jan. 6, but I think his definition is broader than that,” Staver said. He believes people of faith are also being targeted.

It has caused some military members to reevaluate who the enemy is.

“We’ve had high ranking people tell us, ‘We were prepared to fight the enemy. We were not prepared to fight our own government over this issue of religious exemptions.’”

Staver says those seeking religious exemption from the shot are facing immense pressure.

One client, a one-star brigadier general who has served more than 20 years, wasn’t ready to retire, but she could. She doesn’t want the shot for religious reasons. Instead of letting her retire with honor now, she must first take the shot. No shot would mean dishonorable discharge and a loss of benefits.

“We have people that are deployed in Korea or Japan,” Staver said. “We have many of these stories. One was sent to Korea for a year on a company deployment. He was supposed to come home in December of 2021. But because he asked for a religious exemption, they’ve frozen him in Korea. They won’t let him come back to see his wife and his 10-month-old son.” He’s never seen his son who was born while he served far from home. “His wife is very distraught. He tells us there’s no end in sight for him to be able to come home. They’re saying, ‘You’re not going to be able to leave and go home until you take the shot.’ And they’re doing that all over the world. I can tell you story after story after story.”

Staver knows of unvaccinated people who are kicked out of the barracks. They are not getting reimbursed for housing. Some are living in their cars.

And he tells of the military moving people’s belongings to the opposite coast as they were being redeployed to a different part of the country. Their furniture and other belongings end up frozen in the wrong place.

“This is the kind of pressure that they’re applying,” Staver said. “What the chaplains continue to say is they’ve never seen this kind of abuse and mistreatment of service members.”

He says morale is at an all-time low, and many who have spent their life serving have told him they would no longer recommend a military career to young people.

“At a time when we need the military at its strongest, Biden has weakened it. People who have been around for 18, 20, 25 years—you can’t replace those people very easily. Some of them are just irreplaceable. And they’re willing to kick them out.”

While the decision to decline the shot is personal, those who are asking for exemptions from the shot want Americans to understand their fight is a matter of liberty for all.

“These guys are metaphorically in a trench fighting to preserve the freedoms of being able to live out our convictions,” Megan, an Air Force wife at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, told The Epoch Times. Her last name is being withheld as they are trying to keep her husband’s job. “These guys want to live out their convictions and still be able to do their job. Why is it a mutually exclusive thing? You can no longer serve God and your country? How did this happen? How did we get here?”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-military-intentionally-purging-people-of-faith-via-covid-shot-liberty-counsel_4496238.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-28-4&utm_medium=email&est=oRaRDZPZJfstZmB2JdwJBMKqbJJfNwBoeg7e3RNHGT3IDbEix4vsuMWdPaO3Gx5Rsw%3D%3D

Bobby Powell thought someone would be interested in his video evidence showing two “suspicious actors” taking part in events on the east side of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

He was in for the surprise of his life.

The semiretired Michigan radio journalist and podcaster has spent the past 16 months trying to get politicians, media personalities, pundits, and the FBI to view his video footage and identify the two “suspicious actors.”

He wants to see those men charged with the destruction of government property and assault.

Almost no one, it seems, wants to listen.

Powell has learned that his video isn’t welcome in many places; some people view it as a threat. In Michigan, he said a politician friend suggested he take a six-figure bribe to keep quiet. When he flatly refused, he says his life was threatened.

The 29 minutes of high-definition video have turned Powell’s life upside down.

In Search of an Audience

As the smoke at the Capitol cleared from the Jan. 6 unrest, Powell began his long quest to find an audience for his video evidence. He was in Washington that day as a credentialed reporter representing his news podcast “The Truth is Viral” and radio station WCHY in Cheboygan, Michigan.

After he called the FBI on Jan. 15, 2021, an agent from the bureau’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) called him back and took his information. He also contacted the U.S. Secret Service and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).

Powell provided the address to his website where agents could view his Jan. 6 videos, and offered to come in for an interview. Even after nearly a half-dozen follow-ups with the FBI and other agencies, there has been no reply from any law enforcement officer.

He also thought photos of the men would eventually appear among the 1,558 individuals on the FBI’s Jan. 6 most-wanted page. That never happened, nor have they been arrested or charged.

“These are two men that are pulling windows out of the Capitol and pushing people inside the doors,” Powell told The Epoch Times. “Okay, so why isn’t the FBI interested? That is the key question.”

“The FBI has no comment on the ongoing Jan. 6 investigation,” the agency’s national press office said in an email in response to an inquiry by The Epoch Times about the video and Powell’s claims.

Meanwhile, Powell has posted a video link to the Twitter page of the U.S. Capitol Police with the question, “Who are these men?”

About five minutes later, his Twitter account was permanently suspended. Twitter didn’t respond by press time to a request for comment about the action.

Google, meanwhile, demonetized his “The Truth is Viral” YouTube page and Facebook took down his live streams and drastically cut the reach of his videos. Powell had been broadcasting on the internet since 2008.

Based on what he says he witnessed on Jan. 6, the grizzled radio veteran and honorably discharged Marine believes the men in the video are FBI or other government agents who were assigned to draw then-President Donald Trump supporters into the Capitol building so they could be arrested.

If proven true, Powell’s allegation would be the latest explosive evidence suggesting that federal agencies played a role in the Capitol riots.

“I’ve been giving speeches in New York, North Carolina, Florida, for the January 6 defendants,” Powell said. “And you know, I flat out come out and say it:

“The FBI led the insurrection of the Capitol.

“I have proof, and, you know, the FBI didn’t want to hear anything about it.”

Defense attorney Brad Geyer sees great value in Powell’s video and its potential exculpatory role for defendants charged with myriad crimes for being at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“Bobby Powell presents important visual evidence suggesting facts and context that fall outside the accepted narrative,” Geyer told The Epoch Times, “a narrative upon which seemingly every Washington D.C. constituency seems unanimous: it was 100 percent the fault of the person attending a rally who engaged in a criminal act by entering the Capitol.”

Geyer, who represents Oath Keepers defendant Ken Harrelson, filed a motion on May 6 to compel prosecutors to help him identify 80 “suspicious actors” and “material witnesses.” Most of those on Geyer’s list were located at or near the Columbus Doors on the east side of the Capitol.

Geyer’s motion documents criminal behavior by some of the suspicious actors, such as removing security fencing and signage, breaching police lines, attacking officers, and inciting crowds to storm into the Capitol. Powell’s video is more evidence that adds weight to the argument, he said.

“Let’s forget about the rally being overrun by people who look like inauthentic rally attendees at best who also seem to be ghosts as far as investigative agencies are concerned,” Geyer said.

A Day That Changed Everything

Powell was supposed to retire after his assignment on Jan. 6. He went to Washington to cover then-President Trump’s rally and ended up at the Capitol, documenting the unrest and rioting.

He was on the terrace on the east side of the Capitol, when a 20-year-old California man ran into his field of view. Dressed mostly in black, Hunter Allen Ehmke jumped up on a window sill and started kicking in the glass in the multi-pane window.

After smashing several of the lower panes, Ehmke made a fist and punched the upper glass. Police officers who sprinted into view knocked Ehmke off his perch and swarmed over him on the ground. As Ehmke was placed into handcuffs, a hostile crowd started to gather.

The eight police officers involved in Ehmke’s capture left as quickly as they had arrived. Powell was surprised to find himself guarding the broken window. The scene didn’t sit well with some of the bystanders.

“Does this make any [expletive] sense to y’all? a man with a red beard asked bystanders. “I’m like, this is a [expletive] trap,” the man added in reference to the window.

A man off-camera said, “That is definitely a trap.”

As he picked up glass shards that littered the window sill, Powell heard a voice from behind.

“Why don’t you guys open up the rest of it?”

Powell replied, “Because I think that would probably be illegal.”

The stranger’s dress and demeanor stood out among the protesters passing by the window; he was wearing a black ball cap with an American flag patch. His face was covered with a black and gray striped neck gaiter. He walked onto the east terrace carrying a large white stick. It’s not clear what became of the stick.

He had a radio attached to a strap on the left-center of his chest. On his left chest was a bite valve attached to a hydration pack on his back.

As he pondered what the man was up to, Powell finished toying with the splintered glass.

“I’m just picking up garbage,” he told the man.

To Powell, the man was out of place.

“I knew he was an operator of some kind right away,” he said. “He was no protester. He was there on a mission.”

Powell took a few steps to his left and turned around with his camera rolling, just in time to see the man pull out one of the lower glass panes and drop it on the ground. After the glass came loose, it appears the man realized he was being filmed. He unceremoniously dropped the glass and stepped away, the video shows.

Gavin Crowl ran into the scene and shoved the man in black away from the window. Powell gave Crowl a stern warning to stay away from the window: “Do not go in there!”

As Crowl attempted to walk away, the man in black pursued him and gave him a shove that almost knocked him off his feet. It can’t be heard on the video, but Crowl later said the man shouted at him, “Why are you breaking that window? Who do you think you are? Get out of here!”

Crowl seemed incredulous at being accused of what the man in black had just done. The man shoved Crowl again, then made a fist as if to strike him. Crowl put up his hands in surrender and walked away.

“Obviously, the guy in black was trying to cover his own [expletive] because he had seen my press helmet and the fact that I was pointing the camera right at him,” Powell said.

“So he didn’t know how long I had been recording,” Powell said. “He was just trying to cover his own butt. And then the guy leaves. He just leaves. Never to be seen again.

“I’ve watched surveillance footage; he just melts off into the crowd and I can’t see him anymore.”

Second Suspicious Actor Acted as Doorman

Powell moved over to the nearby Columbus Doors, where a large, rambunctious crowd was trying to get into the Capitol Rotunda. He saw about a dozen men come running out or being shoved out of the entrance by police.

Some of the men had been maced. Clouds of tear gas streamed out of the entry.

As Powell moved to the front line, a man who was holding the doors open used his right arm to shove Powell toward the entrance.

“Hold the line!” the man shouted. Someone else screamed, “Hold the line!”

Like the first suspicious actor, this man had a calm demeanor and a military efficiency about him, according to Powell. He wore a green fleece zip-up jacket, a brown checkered neck gaiter, a camo-pattern cap, and dark sunglasses. His gloves had bright lime-green tape on them. To Powell, he looked out of place.

Powell apparently didn’t notice, but the first suspicious actor who broke the glass was directly in front of him, crouched down behind another man. To his right was Matthew Perna of Sharon, Pennsylvania, who—after becoming distraught over being threatened with years in prison for being at the Capitol on Jan. 6—committed suicide nearly 14 months later.

An Uphill Battle

Powell estimates he has spent more than $20,000 over 16 months trying to get his story out. He spoke to producers of some of the biggest names in broadcast news, including one who told him flat-out they weren’t interested in a story about alleged government agents attacking the Capitol.

Powell has a podcast and publishes news on Substack, but the loss of revenue from YouTube struck a heavy blow. Days after he appeared on a Newsmax program, PayPal shut down his donation account. Since then, he has turned to GiveSendGo to help support his efforts.

“I called PayPal and spoke to a supervisor who told me they could find no policy I had violated, just that my account was marked, ‘Do Not Reinstate,’” he said.

Due to the loss of income, Powell sold his home to avoid foreclosure.

“So they’ve taken away all my sources of income except for my social security disability,” he said. “So I had to sell my house.”

He feels the weight and stress of Jan. 6.

“I was gonna pack in my microphone and go fishing. Boy, here it is 16 months later, and I am still going,” Powell said. “I’ve had four heart attacks in 16 months, the last one damn near killed me. If I hadn’t been in the ER when it happened, it would have.”

In early May, Powell hand-delivered a memory stick with his videos to Trump attorney Peter Ticktin. The attorney had put out a statement asking the public to submit January 6 video footage.

“I’m gonna see—I guess the entire country is going to see—how well they will be able to ignore it, now that I’ve given a video to [former] President Trump.”

A video widely circulated in 2021 that showed a Capitol Police lieutenant asking members of the Oath Keepers for rescue help at the U.S. Capitol blows a hole in the seditious conspiracy charges brought against the group by federal prosecutors, two defense attorneys say.

In the video, Lt. Tarik Khalid Johnson asks a group of men to help him get more than a dozen trapped Capitol Police officers out of the Capitol and through a tightly packed crowd of protesters on the building’s east steps.

It was widely reported in January 2021 that Johnson wore a red Make America Great Again cap on Jan. 6 as a ruse to “trick” supporters of President Donald J. Trump into helping him rescue fellow officers from the Capitol. He was later suspended for wearing the MAGA cap. Johnson is a registered Democrat, according to online records.

The men who answered the call to help were members of the Oath Keepers, a nationwide group of current and former military, law enforcement, and first responders who have been targeted by federal prosecutors for allegedly conspiring to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The video is at least the second example showing the Oath Keepers coming to the aid of Capitol Police inside the building on that day.

Would a group of men seditiously plotting an attack on the Capitol, allegedly to prevent certification of Electoral College votes, rush into the building to extract police trapped inside—all while being followed by a filmmaker?

‘More Holes Than Swiss Cheese’

“The prosecutors’ narrative has more holes than Swiss cheese, but it [the video] does directly refute their claim,” said Jonathon Moseley, who previously represented Florida Oath Keepers leader Kelly Meggs.

Prosecutors “just keep ignoring the self-contradictions in their stories,” Moseley said.

The video was shot by part-time filmmaker Rico La Starza. One of several versions of the video posted online includes an introduction by La Starza. He said the video shows “me helping a group of Oath Keepers help Capitol Police get out. They looked scared and tired.”

Attorney Brad Geyer said the video should open a lot of eyes about the Oath Keepers.

“America would probably find it surprising, based on how the Oath Keepers had been framed in these now seven superseding indictments,” said Geyer, who represents Oath Keepers member Kenneth Harrelson. “But as far as reality is concerned, this is just another day at doing security details.”

In the middle of the afternoon on Jan. 6, Lt. Johnson appeared on a terrace area near the bottom of the east stairs at the U.S. Capitol. He approached a group of Oath Keepers for help.

“If you guys can help me save some of the guys,” Johnson said to two Oath Keepers. “If you can help me get aside these people, I’d appreciate it. I just need to get these other officers out. They’re scared.

“We’re getting beat up, but the people who didn’t go for help are laughing at us,” Johnson said.

“I can do that. I can help,” said one Oath Keepers member named Michael. Turning around to face Johnson, Michael appeared to flash a badge and again said, “I can help.” Johnson handed Michael a megaphone and they went to the east stairs leading up to the Columbus Doors.

‘We’re Here. We’ve Got You’

“Just let me hold onto you,” Johnson said as they started ascending the steps.

“We’re here. We’ve got you,” Michael said.

The two Oath Keepers shielded Lt. Johnson and walked in a “stack formation” up the steps on the east side of the Capitol. Johnson radioed ahead to say some of the demonstrators were walking him through the crowd toward the entrance.

Some people in the crowd expressed support for the trio. “I’m with you brother,” one said. “Thank you, sir!” replied another.

“We’re Oath Keepers,” the second Oath Keepers member said. He has not been identified.

“Stand aside, make a hole. We’re Oath Keepers, stand aside!” he said as the group reached the historic Columbus Doors.

Two other groups of Oath Keepers that used the same stack formation to navigate the dense crowds and enter the Capitol were accused by prosecutors of using this military tactic as part of their alleged plan to attack the building and stop the certification of Electoral College votes.

“Watch out, man. They’re trying to get the cops out,” a nearby protester said.

They worked their way through a tightly packed crowd of protesters inside the Columbus Doors and through the interior double doors.

A short time later, Michael appeared at the doors with a megaphone. He advised the crowd—along with some angry agitators near the doors— to back up and let them through.

“We don’t do this (expletive). We don’t do this (expletive)! he said over the megaphone. “Back up and make a hole!”

“(Expletive) you!” one agitator shouted.

“Back up and make a (expletive) hole!” the Oath Keeper retorted.

Michael stretched his arms out and blocked the crowd, pushing backward.

As Capitol Police started to exit the Columbus Doors, they received pats on the back, hugs, and comments such as, “Thank you, sir!” and “Good job!”

‘Anti-Government Militia Group?’

In all, 16 Capitol Police officers were brought out of the Capitol by the Oath Keepers. All but one of the officers were wearing heavy riot gear.

The Wall Street Journal posted the rescue video with a story about Johnson on Jan. 15, 2021. The Journal referred to the Oath Keepers as an “anti-government militia group,” a term the group flatly rejects.

“We were there as a force of good,” Oath Keepers member Roberto Minuta, who was also part of the rescue operation, told The Epoch Times. “I was with the Oath Keepers, and we’ve always done positive work, disaster relief, protecting businesses, aiding people that need help.

“We have no history of violence and no intention of violence,” said Minuta, one of nine Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy on January 6. “We are strictly there to protect the First Amendment because we can’t have one side that’s permitted to have free speech and the other that’s not. That’s not America. That’s not what this country was founded on and when that’s gone, my children’s future looks grim.”

Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III told The Epoch Times his group is hated because it reminds those who took an oath of their duty to disobey unlawful orders.

“And so, out of the gate, the left just hated us because of that,” Rhodes said. “Of course, the big smear is that we’re somehow anti-government, even though we’re defending the Constitution. We’re all about defending the Constitution, which established the federal government.”

Geyer said the rescue of the Capitol Police officers was no surprise to him.

“The Oath Keepers have been working as a volunteer auxiliary police force around the country now for well over a decade,” Geyer said. “It’s what one might expect that the police would seek Oath Keepers assistance if there’s a crowd-control issue or an issue related to police movements, or if the police needed assistance for whatever reason.

“They were there to support law enforcement,” Geyer said. “And so when their assistance is requested by law enforcement, just like every other time, they’re happy to respond. It’s what they view their role to be.”

In another Jan. 6 incident, a group of Oath Keepers reported that they intervened in a potential conflict between an angry crowd of protesters and Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn.

Dunn “was armed with an M4/AR-15 and was very agitated, scared-looking and was surrounded by a bunch of yelling Trump supporters,” Rhodes said. “The Oath Keepers jumped in between and dialed it all back, calmed him down, calmed the Trump supporters down, and escorted that black police officer to other Capitol police officers and hooked him up with his buddies. So that he wasn’t by himself.”

Rhodes said he mentioned the race of the officer because his group is often falsely maligned as racist and composed of white supremacists.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/video-of-oath-keepers-rescuing-16-police-officers-deflates-jan-6-sedition-narrative-attorneys-say_4456393.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-10-3&utm_medium=email&est=Gq7gYVrXWZEjs0jIED5Q38cniIlQ7FjD3bIJiMW4AFWof6mUQeC%2Bh1eL0pY7z9Sy4A%3D%3D

House Republican lawmakers say that whistleblowers have come forward to allege that the FBI is trying to terminate bureau employees who were present at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.

“The employees did not enter the United States Capitol and have not been charged with any crime,” but are allegedly still being fired, the House Judiciary GOP wrote in a Twitter post on May 6, citing unnamed whistleblowers at the bureau.

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Republicans confirmed reports that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office is considering investigating whether the FBI revoked the security clearances of agents who attended the rally last year. Republicans in previous letters had argued that revoking their security passes essentially forces them out of a job because clearance is needed to work at the FBI.

“FBI employees do not give up their rights to engage in political speech activity,” reads the May 6 letter, which was signed by House Judiciary Committee ranking GOP member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “We have serious concerns that the FBI appears to be retaliating against employees for engaging in political speech disfavored by FBI leadership.”

An example cited in the letter was an employee who had worked for the FBI for more than a decade and had previously served in the U.S. military for 20 years. While on leave, this unnamed employee and others attended public events in Washington, and they didn’t enter the Capitol building, nor have they been charged with any crime, according to the whistleblowers.

With the latest actions that are allegedly being taken against those employees, Republicans believe that it creates “the appearance that the FBI may be retaliating” against them, the letter reads.

According to a Fox News report published on May 5, Inspector General Michael Horowitz told House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Jordan in a letter issued recently that his office “will ask the FBI to provide the bases for the security clearance and personnel actions taken against the employees you reference in your letter.”

“In making such an assessment, we will also consider information about other employees who believe the FBI has taken administrative actions against them for engaging in protected activities on January 6, 2021,” Horowitz wrote.

Jordan had reportedly written to Horowitz in April that those employees were suspended, even though they “did not enter the United States Capitol, have not been charged with any crime, and have not been contacted by law enforcement about their actions.”

Department of Justice officials didn’t respond by press time to a request for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-allegedly-trying-to-fire-agents-who-attended-jan-6-rally-whistleblowers_4450549.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-06-3&utm_medium=email&est=rlS%2BMpubjZ%2FllfIbs73TxXjpXtIb5GzpUB9%2BDKM4yeOSfWcG3vsugNKCb2ZDEN%2B4Nw%3D%3D

The Chairman of the House Committee on January 6th has numerous ties to extremist groups in America.

Rep. Bennie Thompson – chairman of the Congressional January 6th Commission – praised a program sponsored by a separatist Nation of Islam faction as “absolutely important,” The National Pulse can reveal.

Thompson, who has also supported the extremist secessionist group the Republic of New Afrika (RNA), joined the New Nation of Islam’s (NNOI) radio program in April 2014.

Ahead of Thompson’s hour-long long discussion with the “Son of Man,” the leader of the NNOI, he praised the radio program as “absolutely important”:

“Your program is absolutely important to people in southwest Mississippi that’s why I think it’s so good [unclear] and I appreciate the opportunity of being on it.”

“There’s no substitute for accurate information, and that’s why your show is so important because what you’re saying is what’s already out here. You can put opinions on it, but nobody can ever say that the facts you present were anything other than the facts,” Thompson reiterates roughly one hour into the program.

The NNOI website reveals that the “Son of Man” is a follower of the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, who led the Nation of Islam (NOI) from 1934 to 1975 and counted Malcolm X and anti-semite Louis Farrakhan as mentees:

“In 1973, the Son of Man visited Muhammad’s Temple where he heard and accepted the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He attended Temple #27 in Los Angeles, California. After the Honorable Elijah Muhammad passed in 1975, the Son of Man realized, thanks to the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, that he is the Son of Man whom that teaching was designed to raise from a dead level to a living perpendicular.”

Among the demands called for by the NNOI are a “separate state or territory of our own”:

“WE WANT our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of our own – either on this continent or elsewhere.”

“Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 or more years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced. We believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America more than justifies our demands; and our complete separation in a state or territory of our own,” adds the NNOI before insisting:

“We know that the above plan for the solution of the black and white conflict is the best and only answer to the problems between the two peoples.”

Another January 6th Commission member is compromised by the CCP

Rep. Elaine Luria – a member of the Congressional January 6th Commission – has six-figure investments in a Chinese Communist Party-linked tech firm flagged by the U.S. State Department for aiding the regime’s military and espionage capabilities, The National Pulse can reveal.

The Virginia Congresswoman‘s most recent financial disclosure reveals an investment worth $250,000 to $500,000 in Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce giant whose executives include powerful members of the Chinese Communist Party.

Alibaba has also been involved in the “research, production, and repair of weapons and equipment for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)” and has a “deep record of cooperation and collaboration” with China’s “state security bureaucracy,” former Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Christopher Ford revealed.

The State Department has also flagged the company as a “tool” of the Chinese Communist Party, aiding in its build-up of “technology-facilitated surveillance and social control.”

The report states:

Significantly, the modern “China Model” is built upon a foundation of technology-facilitated surveillance and social control.  These techniques for ruling China have been – and continue to be – in critical ways developed, built, and maintained on behalf of the Party-State by technology firms such as Huawei, Tencent, ZTE, Alibaba, and Baidu.  As these companies export their products and services to the rest of the world, the security and human rights problems associated with this “China Model” are progressively exported with them.

Companies including Alibaba “have no meaningful ability to tell the Chinese Communist Party “no” if officials decide to ask for their assistance – e.g., in the form of access to foreign technologies, access to foreign networks, useful information about foreign commercial counterparties, insight into patterns of foreign commerce, or specific information about the profiles, activity, or locations of foreign users of Chinese-hosted or -facilitated social media, computer or smartphone applications, or telecommunications,” the report adds.

Biden Climate Advisor Lauded ‘Global Benefit’ Of China’s Exploitative Belt And Road Initiative In Unearthed Op-Ed.

Yesterday, The National Pulse revealed how Rep. Adam Schiff, another Jan 6th commission member met with a Chinese Communist Party official previously responsible for spearheading the regime’s foreign influence operations on a visit to Washington, D.C. sponsored by the China-United States Exchange Foundation.

Furthermore, the Chairman of the Commission, Bennie Thompson, has a history of backing extremist guerilla warfare groups in America. Read more here.

Judicial Watch has received first-hand evidence from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department that the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt was “unjustified,” the conservative activist group announced on Nov.10.

The organization said in a statement that it has received new audio, video footage and photo records pertaining to the shooting death of Babbitt, including a cellphone video of the shooting itself, as well as a short police interview of the shooter, U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) officer, Lt. Michael Byrd.

Babbitt, 35, was among the crowd that breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, interrupting a joint session of Congress convened to certify the presidential election’s electoral votes. As she attempted to climb through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby, adjacent to the House chamber, she was shot by Byrd.

Babbitt, who was unarmed, was soon declared dead.

Judicial Watch obtained the material through a May 2021 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Records include a new cellphone video, which has been edited by the D.C. Police and shows officers reacting to the shooting. The footage, which is 1.27 minutes long, depicts a chaotic scene as dozens of officers walk up a stairwell and approach a group of protesters inside the building before attempting to pull some of them away. The faces of those in the video have been blurred out however their voices can be heard.

The documents also include photos of the area where Babbitt died, which show broken glass and chairs piled up in the speaker’s lobby. There are also D.C. Police photographs of Byrd, his hands, and his gun, as well as pictures of a folding knife, which was allegedly found in Babbitt’s pocket.

There is also a 16 minute 40 second audio recording of police interviewing Byrd on the day of the incident. The voices in that interview and others have been digitally altered to try to hide the identities of those involved.

Byrd had defended shooting Babbitt and claimed that he issued verbal warnings before opening fire but admitted that he did not know Babbitt was unarmed.

“She was posing a threat to the United States House of Representatives,” Byrd said on NBC in August.

“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point,” he added.

Terrell Roberts, who is representing the Babbitt family, has told The Epoch Times that the killing was “a pretty clear case of shooting an unarmed person without any legal justification.”

Last month, Judicial Watch released records from the D.C. Police showing that multiple police officers claimed they did not see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd fired at Babbitt.

Byrd was cleared in April this year by both the Department of Justice and the agency he works for following a “thorough investigation.”

“Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy,” the DOJ said in a statement.

“Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”

Two police officers and four protesters died during and following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

“These recordings and photos provide dramatic, first-hand evidence that the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt was unjustified,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing that neither the Pelosi Congress nor the Biden/Garland DOJ took no action over this needless death.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judicial-watch-receives-says-it-has-first-hand-evidence-from-dc-police-that-shooting-death-of-ashli-babbitt-was-unjustified_4104242.html

Multiple Jan. 6 defendants were taken out of their cells on stretchers on Thursday, according to a court filing.

The situation started when one of the defendants refused to wear a mask, family members of Kelly Meggs, who is being held in the D.C. Jail, told Meggs lawyer.

Prison guards began spraying a chemical substance described as “some kind of mace or pepper spray, according to a filing in federal court.

“They sprayed mace or some type of gas at an inmate and kept missing so it went into an intake that fed into other cells and the lady with the key left because she didn’t like the gas, so the inmates in the cells who were being fed the gas from that intake were locked in for like 15 minutes while it was going into their rooms and they couldn’t see/breathe,” the family told Jonathon Moseley, the lawyer.

More than one of the defendants was taken out on stretchers to medical bays.

Julie Kelly, a writer for the American Greatness, reported on Wednesday that prison guards filled an area of the jail with chemical spray and three detainees had to be taken out on stretchers.

Moseley and the D.C. Department of Corrections did not respond to requests for comment.

The lawyer said his client was not in one of the cells that the gas was cycled into by the ventilation system. He urged the court to explore with the Bureau of Prisons and Congress whether any federal funds are already or can be allocated to repair and upgrade the D.C. Jail facilities.

Neither prosecutors nor the judge has yet responded to the filing.

The jail has been under heightened scrutiny in recent months due to its holding of dozens of people accused of participating in the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

One defendant, Christopher Worrell, was released from pretrial custody last week because U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth became troubled by the lack of proper medical care he received from the jail.

The U.S. Marshals Service showed up unannounced at the facilities in mid-October. Officials deemed the part holding Jan. 6 detainees suitable but found conditions in another part that “do not meet the minimum standards of confinement,” the agency said in a recent statement.

Lamont Ruffin, the acting U.S. Marshal for Washington, told Quincy Booth, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, in a letter that he personally went to the jail and saw “evidence of systemic failures.”

Prison guards routinely shut off water to cells as punishment and multiple cells had “large amounts of standing human sewage (urine and feces) in the toilets,” inspectors found. Additionally, guards were observed antagonizing detainees and hot meals were observed being served “cold and congealed.”

Jail officials were ordered to transfer around 400 detainees, or 36 percent of the inmates in the Central Treatment Facility, one of the facilities that makes up the D.C. Jail, to a prison in another state.

Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), after months of attempts, were able to tour the facilities last week. Greene said she witnessed terrible conditions, including Jan. 6 detainees receiving “very poor food” and “virtually no medical care.”

“I want to be very clear that we will deal with those deficiencies so that we have a safe jail until such time that the District is able to build a new one,” Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat who helped the members secure access, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Avis Buchanan, director of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, said in a statement it has called out the treatment of detainees at the D.C. Jail for years.

“The inhumane conditions have included long-term solitary confinement for people with no disciplinary issues, lack of running water, full illumination of cells for 24-hours per day resulting in sleep deprivation, cells soiled with feces and blood, lack of air conditioning during the summer, and heat during the winter, lack of proper medical care, failure to provide mental health treatment, and physical and mental abuse by correctional officers of people in their custody,” Buchanan said.

Councilman Charles Allen, the Democrat chairman of the D.C. City Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, described the situation as “a crisis” during a remote hearing this week.

“I do not use that term lightly. The District of Columbia has a moral and constitutional duty to provide humane and dignified conditions of confinement and to do so immediately. And that’s not happening here,” he added.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, a Democrat, acknowledged during the hearing that concerns about the conditions in the jail “received little attention until they were raised, of course, by mostly white defendants accused of perpetrating the Jan. 6” breach, adding, “That’s not because people weren’t complaining.”

Chris Geldart, a deputy mayor, told councilmembers that there are “systemic issues” at the jail and the issues raised by U.S. Marshals were being addressed, but also claimed that the problems were “not so pervasive that [the jail] has become uninhabitable.”

Geldart also confirmed that Marshals were blocked from re-entering the facilities about a week after the inspection, pinning the decision on the warden.

The D.C. Department of Corrections and the U.S. Marshals Service on Nov. 10 entered into a memorandum of understanding that outlines plans to improve conditions at the jail. Each party is forbidden from issuing press releases or speaking to the media about the agreement without consent from the other party.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/jan-6-defendants-taken-out-of-cells-on-stretchers-court-filing_4102264.html

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

The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach announced Tuesday it issued subpoenas to aides to former President Donald Trump, including Kayleigh McEnany and Stephen Miller.

McEnany, who currently works for Fox News and co-hosts “Outnumbered,” had served as the White House press secretary, while Miller was a senior Trump adviser. Miller earlier this year launched a legal group to fight Democratic lawsuits.

On Tuesday, the panel also subpoenaed Nicholas Luna, who served as the former President’s personal assistant, and who was reportedly in the Oval Office on Jan. 6. Subpoenas were also issued to Molly Michael, who served as a special assistant to the president; Benjamin Williamson, who served as an assistant to former chief of staff Mark Meadows; Christopher Liddell, and the former White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

Subpoenas were also issued by the committee to former Gen. Keith Kellogg, who was then-Vice President Mike Pence’s national security advisor; former White House personnel director John McEntee; Cassidy Hutchinson, a special assistant to the president on legislative affairs; and Kenneth Klukowski, the former senior counsel to former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark.

“The Select Committee wants to learn every detail of what went on in the White House on January 6th and in the days beforehand,” said the panel’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), in a statement.

Thompson added that his office believes “the witnesses subpoenaed today have relevant information and we expect them to comply fully with the Select Committee’s investigation.”

The announcement comes a day after the committee said it issued subpoenas to several other Trump associates, including former advisor Michael Flynn, Bernard Kerik, Jason Miller, Angela McCallum, Bill Stepien, and John Eastman.

And previously, after the panel sent a subpoena to former Trump advisor and campaign strategist Steve Bannon, the House of Representatives voted along partisan lines to hold him in contempt. But it’s not yet clear if the Department of Justice will enforce the subpoena.

When asked about Bannon’s subpoena during an unrelated news conference Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said that “there is an ongoing examination of the referral, and as you know the Justice Department doesn’t comment on those.”

“We evaluate these in the normal way we do, looking at the facts and the law and applying the principles of prosecution,” he continued.

Trump in October filed a lawsuit seeking to block the House committee from obtaining White House documents and records in connection to the Jan. 6 incident.

The former president on Monday filed an emergency motion asking Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, an Obama appointee, to grant a stay. She declined the request on Tuesday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-jan-6-committee-subpoenas-kayleigh-mcenany-stephen-miller_4095420.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

Call me unsurprised if FBI informants urged people to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6, as Fox News host Tucker Carlson apparently has been uncovering.

I witnessed similar shenanigans by an FBI informant while working on Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller’s campaign in Alaska in 2010, and his actions in all likelihood cost our candidate the race against incumbent RINO Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Reuters reported on March 3 that U.S. Army Iraq War veteran Mark Ibrahim was fired from his job with the Drug Enforcement Administration and faces up to 15 years in prison for allegedly entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 and carrying a firearm.

Ibrahim denied entering the building and said the gun was his DEA service weapon, which he had with him though he was off duty at the time, according to the report.

Episode 2 of Carlson’s Fox Nation three-part series “Patriot Purge” featured Ibrahim, who recounted that he was invited to attend the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally by a person he knew from his military service who is allegedly an FBI informant.

NJ Senate Pres Won’t Concede to Conservative Truck Driver Who Beat Him: ‘12,000 Ballots Recently Found’

Carlson said in the program that the man confirmed he has been an FBI informant and that the bureau knew he was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and that he invited Ibrahim to the protest.

This same person urged Ibrahim to enter the Capitol building, but the Army veteran knew it was illegal and refused to do so, Carlson said.

Last week on his Fox News program, Carlson also waded into the prospect that an Arizona man named Ray Epps, who reportedly was captured on film on Jan. 6 urging people to break into the Capitol, is likely an FBI informant.

The ongoing mystery of Ray Epps, who repeatedly appears in videos encouraging and inciting an invasion of the Capitol on 1/6 yet, for some reason, has not yet been indicted or charged, even as people with far less involvement have been: https://t.co/hzGZCo9MKe

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 26, 2021

Darren Beattie, who wrote a piece about Epps for Revolver News on Oct. 25, told Carlson, “He is calling for going into the Capitol the evening before Jan. 6, and this isn’t just a one-off, someone, some crazy who comes and goes.

“He goes repeatedly to group after group, redirecting them saying we need to go into the Capitol. … He is everywhere, he’s all around the Capitol shepherding people to go to the Capitol, where ‘our problems are.’”

“Very curiously, Ray Epps is not indicted. It doesn’t seem like the feds want him or have any interest in him — although they did,” Beattie said. “They had him for a while on their most-wanted page, until Revolver News did a report.”

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky showed a video of a man reported to be Epps to Attorney General Merrick Garland during a House oversight hearing last month. In the video, bystanders could be heard yelling, “Fed, fed, fed,” when Epps called for going into the Capitol.

The January 6th video I showed AG Garland, which he refused to comment on, now has 2.7 million views. The article linked here might explain why he won’t tell us if assets of the federal government were present and encouraging others to enter the Capitol: https://t.co/57L1X0VDyz https://t.co/KIrnI4NTzv

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) October 25, 2021

Sheriff Gives Update on Brian Laundrie Death, Reveals How He ‘Probably’ Died

The Arizona Republic reported last month that Epps “may have longtime ties to the Oath Keepers,” a group that describes itself as “a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’”

Beattie said that Stewart Rhodes, whom Revolver described in a June piece as “the founder, boss and kingpin of the Oath Keepers,” is also unindicted.

Revolver said the Oath Keepers are “the most extensively prosecuted paramilitary group alleged to be involved in 1/6.”

The USA Today list of those arrested in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion does not include either Epps or Rhodes, though it specifically notes that “Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes … has not been arrested or charged in relation to the riot.”

A search of the list includes more than 50 mentions of the Oath Keepers.

It’s odd that the leader of the group would escape any indictments while so many alleged members did not.

“So there is just a cast of curious characters unindicted,” Beattie told Carlson.

The Capitol incursion on Jan. 6 is not the only time that FBI informants were allegedly involved in a political operation.

BuzzFeed News reported in July that prosecutors revealed that there were a dozen informants working on a case involving the alleged 2020 plot by Michigan militia members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer over her refusal to loosen COVID restrictions.

“Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them,” the report said.

Then, of course, there was the FBI’s use of an informant to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 in an effort to find connections to Russia.

The New York Times reported in May 2019 that FBI informant Stefan Halper met with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in London in September of that year.

His bureau handlers instructed Halper to make the connection with Papadopoulos, who was put up in a five-star hotel and lured to London by the offer of $3,000 to write a policy paper on a Mediterranean natural gas pipeline project in which he was an expert, according to the report.

When they met, Halper immediately questioned him — in a “very belligerent” fashion, Papadopoulos recalled — about whether Russia was helping the Trump campaign.Are you concerned about the role the FBI informants are playing in U.S. politics?Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Papadopoulos told The Western Journal in June 2019 that he believed special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators “were simply looking to cover up surveillance abuse of the Obama administration upon the Trump team.”

Which takes me to my own campaign experience in 2010 when FBI informant Bill Fulton offered his security services to Miller’s campaign team and ended up arresting a reporter.

Miller shocked political watchers when he defeated Murkowski in the Alaska Republican primary in August of that year. He had been down more than 20 points just over a month before pulling off the upset win.

Murkowski responded by recanting on a pledge both candidates had made to honor the election results and ran in the general election as an independent.

Early polling in the contest gave Miller the edge, but the race deadlocked by mid-October thanks, in part, to Fulton’s decision to handcuff then-Alaska Dispatch editor Tony Hopfinger at a town hall event.

Fulton first showed up on primary election night in Anchorage, unsolicited, volunteering to provide security.

Miller did not use security during the campaign, with the exception of the town hall at an Anchorage middle school, where, according to the terms of the venue contract, it was required. A member of the campaign staff contacted Fulton.

I was at the town hall where the informant took it upon himself to handcuff Hopfinger after the event.

Miller had told the journalist he would not give him an interview that day and left the room where the town hall had taken place.

Hopfinger followed him out into the hallway and ended up pushing an attendee into a set of lockers (the attendee told me), apparently trying to catch up with the candidate. Miller left the building, and not long thereafter Hopfinger got into a scuffle with the security team headed by Fulton, who ordered the reporter to be detained.

I came out into the hallway in time to find Hopfinger in handcuffs, which I questioned Fulton about.

He insisted Hopfinger needed to be detained until the police arrived.

In a January 2013 Huffington Post article titled “How Bill Fulton Infiltrated Alaska’s Right Wing As An FBI Informant,” the subject revealed that he voted for former President Barack Obama and lauded his own actions that day at the Miller town hall.

“It completely solidified our position within the right wing,” Fulton said of the handcuffing incident. “Because there’s nothing the right wing likes more than you roughing up the left-wing media and such.”

It cannot be overstated the amount of negative media coverage the Miller campaign received as a result of the incident, with claims the candidate opposed freedom of the press. It did not matter that neither the campaign staff nor the candidate had directed the handcuffing or approved of it.

In 2013, Los Angeles Times reporter Kim Murphy also noted the role Fulton played in the 2010 race in an article headlined, “Why was FBI informant William Fulton involved in political campaigns?”

Miller pointed out in the piece that his race was the second in as many cycles in Alaska in which the FBI had played a part in the contest’s outcome, referring to a criminal investigation that almost certainly cost Republican Sen. Ted Stevens his 2008 re-election bid. Stevens’ conviction was overturned just months after he lost the race to Democrat Mark Begich.

Murkowski ended up beating Miller 39 to 35 percent, with the Democratic candidate taking the rest of the votes in the three-way race.

FBI assets have been doing some weird stuff in the political realm for years; it’s not very far-fetched to believe that they may have played a part in the events that unfolded on Jan. 6.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Thursday was able to tour D.C. jail facilities, including the section that’s holding people accused of committing crimes in and around the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The tour lasted over three hours, according to Greene.

“I’ve never seen human suffering like I witnessed last night,” she wrote on Twitter.

Greene said she witnessed some inmates engaged in continuing education classes but also saw others she described as “truly suffering from long stays in solitary confinement for ‘bad behavior.’”

The tour concluded with the section of the D.C. jail system holding Jan. 6 defendants.

Greene said on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” that it was hard to detail what it was like when she, colleagues, and staff members entered the section.

“It was like they were prisoners of war. They had lost hope. They felt forgotten. They said that some of their family members thought they’re dead. They’re not dead. They’re there. And they are being treated horribly.” she said.

Greene is alleging the men were suffering from “virtually no medical care” and “very poor food quality.”

Greene and her staff members were putting together a report about what they saw.

“I am committed to ending this political war and seeing that our justice system is never used against Americans as a political weapon ever again. I am also beginning a plan for real prison reform. Our nation is broken and our people are divided. It’s time to fix it,” she said.

The visit came after Reps. Greene and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) were blocked from entering the facilities on Wednesday. They then implored Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser to direct officials to let them tour the system.

The D.C. Department of Corrections referred comment to Bowser.

“Several members of Congress asked for a tour of our DOC facilities and why not let them in if we’re conducting a tour. I think that would send an entirely wrong message to say that there’s something to hide at the DC Jail,” Bowser, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“This is an important issue and we want people who have to be in the jail to be treated humanely, to have safe conditions, to have access to their lawyers, and to go to trial. And if they’ve been sentenced to be transferred, to be transferred to wherever that sentence will be served. So we hold ourselves to a very high standard as well, and to the extent that the Marshals found deficiencies, I want to be very clear that we will deal with those deficiencies so that we have a safe jail until such time that the District is able to build a new one,” she added.

U.S. Marshals conducted an unannounced visit to the jail last month, the agency announced this week. The visit uncovered poor conditions in the portion not holding Jan. 6 detainees, authorities said, prompting the transfer of hundreds of detainees to a facility in another state.

A federal judge, meanwhile, on Wednesday ordered Christopher Worrell to be released to home incarceration because of mistreatment in the D.C. jail. Worrell, of Florida, is accused of committing crimes on Jan. 6.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan nominee, had last month found Washington jail officials in contempt for resisting efforts to get to the bottom of what happened to Worrell, whose recommended hand surgery was repeatedly put off.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/rep-greene-gains-entry-to-dc-jail-holding-jan-6-defendants_4088627.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

Since the founding of this great nation, a God-blessed America has offered the hope of liberty to the world. In more recent years, we have come to realize that should our experiment in self-governance fail, there would be no other nation on Earth that could fill the void left in its wake as defender of such freedom. Never before had any nation been founded to safeguard the rights of the individual, which changed the course of human history from brute force dictating propriety to recognition that every individual has value. Our Declaration of Independence enshrined the truth that individual rights come from the hand of our Creator, acknowledging them to be established by the Almighty and therefore not defined by the brute force realm of human power.

It took a Civil War and Civil Rights movement for America to grow into the profound commitments of its Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The Declaration has stood the test of time to ensure liberty for all in our nation and as the beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Our nation has continued to move to right the wrongs of fallible human beings and build upon the past.  We were getting exceedingly close.

Under Biden’s rule, for the first time in our history, normalizing the denial of civil rights and civil liberties based on ideology, not wrongdoing, is presented as a noble cause. Equal justice under the law for the Biden Department of Justice has taken a giant leap backwards in embracing the medieval notion of might makes right in glorifying the denial of civil rights for political opponents. It is shameful and dangerous.

For months, elected officials representing the citizens of this country have been seeking truthful, non-politicized answers from the government about the events that unfolded on January 6. We have been continually stonewalled, belittled, ignored, and even demonized by the Department of Justice, leadership at the Capitol Police, and the Bureau of Prisons. They each ignore requests and questions, refusing to allow oversight of their actions which gives every appearance of a cover-up of wrongdoing. Think of the legal doctrine of spoliation. In court, if one party holds evidence and destroys it or refuses to produce it, the judge may instruct the jury to infer that the evidence is completely against the party hiding it. This is exactly what they are doing.

Should ideology and abuse of power continue to drive this administration’s actions, the Rule of Law will cease to exist. The only safeguard against these obvious improprieties is transparency. Until recent times, our country protected our individual freedoms by dragging every ugly wart out into the light of day to examine the actions of our government. We gave deference to individual rights. By its actions, the Biden Administration is shredding the foundations of our legal system and the rights of the people’s representatives to protect them from government abuse.

A number of January 6 prisoners were held behind bars for months without ever being charged with a crime, and some without ever seeing evidence for or against them. Some have already accepted plea deals despite not having access to all of the evidence involving their cases, which is a civil rights violation and potential Brady violation. There have also been reports of heinous mental and physical abuses against these prisoners at the D.C. Central Detention Facility, although a recently released prisoner said things got better after four of members of Congress attempted to tour the facility.

Now, imagine the outrage from Democrats and their accomplices in the media had Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters been prosecuted with a fraction of the vigor with which the DOJ has gone after the January 6 defendants. Undoubtedly, there would be Leftists, including elected officials, chomping at the bit to call on their supporters to donate funds to assist these terrorists, just as our now-Vice President did last year. For reference, the riots in the summer of 2020 were reported, based on insurance claims, to be the most destructive riots in U.S. history.

Those riotous individuals terrorized American cities for months, set fires to federal and law enforcement buildings and destroyed the livelihoods of innocent Americans. More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured during these “mostly peaceful” protests. These groups even attempted to breach the White House in May of 2020, creating a threat so serious that Secret Service agents were forced to rush then-President Trump into a secure bunker.

Of course, most of them will never face a day of judgment in court because, despite all of their criminal and terroristic actions, these rioters didn’t express their support for Donald Trump.  In the mind of their Democrat apologists including quite a number of Biden Administration officials, they are absolved no matter the statutory offenses because they worship at the altar of wokeness with the heartfelt belief that America is evil and must endlessly be punished for its transgressions.

The apparent political revenge and retaliation against some of the January 6 detainees by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice should chill every American to their core. Even the way many were arrested is more reminiscent of Gestapo tactics, than those of a once admired FBI.  Those on the Left have made one thing perfectly clear: if you are a Trump supporter facing prosecution, or even Donald Trump himself, you are guilty until proven innocent and are undeserving of the basic civil rights which all other Americans are supposed to be afforded under the Constitution.

It appears that at least some of those treated so vilely for suspected involvement in the January 6 events are political prisoners of the U.S. government. If we as a country continue to allow this abuse of power to unfold and turn this nation into a banana republic, there is nowhere left in the world to take refuge for lovers of liberty and freedom.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/the-tyrannical-treatment-of-jan-6-prisoners-is-a-threat-to-our-democracy_4080664.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-05-2&mktids=674f69ecc63380e560f788348fe2eafd&est=7R3POHGRpL41kpgkn6K3Lg%2BAw56kkjpRWSjHnXU2OnDn4SUaqRc1AYAlt5pEyICQMA%3D%3D

The contents are stomach-churning. The psychological abuse, physical neglect, and denial of legal rights grossly violate the 8th Amendment’s promise that no Americans shall be subject to “cruel and unusual punishment”—something especially applicable here because none of the people being treated this way have been convicted.

The January 6 prisoners have also been denied their 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. Given the D.C. forum, they’re likely, as well, to be denied the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury. Instead, they’ve been imprisoned for nine months without trial or bail, almost all for non-violent offenses.

DeGrave describes in some detail the following abuses:

• For the first four months, 23-24 hours a day solitary confinement.
• Arbitrary, capricious, and constant punishment for minor, random infractions.
• Even in solitary, being required to wear masks constantly, with any deviation the subject of a disciplinary report
• Confiscation of privileged, legal documents as well as chronic and significant interference with the attorney-client relationship. Note that this is one of American law’s most privileged relationships.
• Medical neglect, including refusing treatment for Christopher Worrell, who has both cancer and a broken hand. (Finally, two weeks ago, federal judge Royce Lamberth filed contempt charges against the prison warden for this one.)
• Health hazards include overflowing raw sewage, mold, and dirty water.
• Malnutrition from inedible and marginal food.
• Denial of access to personal hygiene.

https://dudepac.com/articles/the-political-prisoners-of-january-6th-wake-the-hell-up-america

A former Drug Enforcement Agency official faces up to 15 years in prison over his alleged role at the U.S. Capitol despite never entering the Capitol Building.

Mark Ibrahim, an Army veteran who was fired from the DEA over his involvement in the Capitol incursion, shared the information during an episode Tucker Carlson’s original series on the aftermath of Jan. 6.

Ibrahim claimed he was invited to Trump’s rally on Jan. 6 by an FBI informant. He also said the informant later invited him to enter the Capitol Building, but that he refused to enter.

“They labeled me a domestic terrorist, I just want to see peace and unity,” Ibrahim said during the interview on Carlson’s new program.

“Because I’ve seen it in foreign countries, between Sunni and Shia, open violence in the streets. It’s a sad and scary thing,” he added.

Biden Rambles for 37 Seconds, Apologizes for Repeating Himself, Loses Where He Is, Repeats Himself Again

Ibrahim also said he was concerned about America experiencing the same conflict as he has seen in Middle Eastern nations.

“I’m afraid that if this division and dehumanizing continues, that’s where America is headed, and I pray that never happens,” Ibrahim said.

Ibrahim has been charged with making false statements to federal agents, entering restricted grounds with a firearm, injuring or climbing on a statue, and carrying a firearm on Capitol grounds, according to a report by the Daily Mail.

Tucker’s new “Patriot Purge” series on Fox Nation has drawn much controversy over its focus on the rights of Americans being violated following their involvement in Jan. 6 in Washington, D.C.

Should the FBI be investigated over its role in Jan. 6?

Starting Monday pic.twitter.com/MRbx5FKVAc

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 28, 2021

Part 1 of the groundbreaking series is described in strong terms.

“The domestic war on terror is here — and it’s coming for half of the country. Tucker explores how the Biden regime is using the Capitol riots on January Sixth to paint Americans as terrorists. But what exactly happened on 1/6 and how much of what we were told was a lie?”

Patriot Purge (Part 1) from Tucker Carlson Originals is available now. Stream the Fox Nation series and all Tucker content right now for 90 days free – exclusively by going to https://t.co/sLkXnGKCFd pic.twitter.com/nooLt7krPb

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 1, 2021

Anti-Trump GOP Rep Announces He’s Leaving Congress

Not everyone agrees with Carlson’s new series.

Great endorsement for #PatriotPurge https://t.co/AYWRXq5WvS

— Jeff Cunningham (@jeffrygc) October 28, 2021

“It appears that @FoxNews is giving @TuckerCarlson a platform to spread the same type of lies that provoked violence on January 6. As @FoxNews knows, the election wasn’t stolen and January 6 was not a “false flag” operation,” Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney and anti-Trump advocate.

Cheney also serves as vice-chairperson of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House select committee on Jan. 6.

For over nine months, the establishment media has attempted to use the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion to demonize the Republican Party. This week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced his latest effort to fight against the leftist narrative.

According to Newsweek, Carlson revealed a trailer on Wednesday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” for a documentary about “the true story behind 1/6, the war on terror 2.0 and the plot against the people.”

Carlson also posted the trailer to his Twitter account.

November 1 pic.twitter.com/5yCRlkZlzM

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 28, 2021

No Woke Agenda in Court: Rittenhouse Judge Says Rioters Can’t Be Called ‘Victims,’ Approves This List Instead

“The domestic war on terror is here,” a man says at the beginning of the trailer. “It’s coming after half of the country.”

Later in the trailer, President Joe Biden is shown characterizing Americans as terrorists.

“Terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today,” he says.

Biden is correct that white supremacy is terrible and should be eradicated. The problem is that for many leftists, “white supremacy” is synonymous with “anything I don’t like.”

“False flags have happened in this country, one of which may have been Jan. 6,” a woman says as the trailer continues.

Will you watch Carlson’s new documentary?

The documentary will premiere on Nov. 1. Newsweek reported that it will be in three parts and will be available on the subscription-based streaming platform Fox Nation.

“We believe that it answers a lot of the remaining questions from that day,” Carlson said. “Our conclusion? The U.S. government has in fact launched a new war on terror. But it’s not against al-Qaida; it’s against American citizens.”

That language is certainly strong and could be jarring to many people. But given what we know about the Jan. 6 incursion, the possibility is at least worth exploring.

For one thing, the FBI reportedly had at least one agent planted in the crowd that day. Video footage of the incident shows a majority of the people inside the Capitol simply standing around. While they may have been guilty of unlawful entry, they were certainly not the violent terrorists the left made them out to be.

Here We Go Again: Dems Want GOP Members Expelled from Congress Over Jan. 6

In August, Reuters reported that the FBI found “scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result.” Nonetheless, the establishment media continued to cover the event as a right-wing scheme to overthrow the government.

If Carlson’s documentary makes these points and attempts to answer questions about FBI involvement and media coverage, that would be completely valid. If it tries to defend violent rioters, that should be condemned.

Of course, the establishment media has already jumped at the opportunity to label Carlson a conspiracy theorist.

“Tucker Carlson’s Most Deranged Moment Yet?” a Rolling Stone headline blared on Wednesday.

“Tucker Carlson’s new documentary baselessly suggests the January 6 riot was a false flag,” Business Insider declared. How can you know the claim is “baseless” if you haven’t watched a minute of the documentary to see what evidence is presented?

The media has already made its determination about the accuracy of Carlson’s documentary before it has even come out. That kind of dishonesty is exactly why Carlson needed to make the documentary in the first place.

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.

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan says the Democrats committee investigating the incident at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 is a “complete assault on Americans’ liberty.”

Jordan, who has called for an investigation into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her role that day, went off when discussing the committee approving a criminal contempt report to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress.

“There’s been subpoenas issued to 11 individuals, 11 American citizens who asked the government permission on an application to hold the Trump rally,” Jordan said.

“The government granted it and now the January 6 committee petitions them to ask them questions about exercising their First Amendment right to assemble,” he added.

“And why would they subpoena me? I didn’t do anything wrong — I talked to the president,” Mr. Jordan told the Washington Post. “I talk to the president all the time. I just think that’s — you know where I’m at on this commission — this is all about going after President Trump. That seems obvious.”

“And they told these companies that, by the way, don’t let the person we’re telling you to preserve information for, don’t let them know as the law requires, don’t let them know that we’ve asked you to do this,” he said.

“This is scary where they want to go and what they’re doing to Americans’ constitutional rights. And finally, I would ask the fundamental question, how would you expect witnesses to participate when you wouldn’t let Republicans participate in the committee? How can you do that? We know what this is about, it’s plain and simple, this is about they’ve got nothing else to talk about.”

Back in July, Jordan called for an investigation into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While briefly speaking to CNN reporter Manu Raju, Jordan was asked about the Democrat-led January 6 Commission that will investigate the events at the U.S. Capitol.

Jordan wasted little time saying the investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt aimed at going after Donald Trump.

He also said the Commission should investigate Pelosi and what she knows about what happened on Jan. 6.

Below is a transcript of the exchange:

RAJU: “Mr. Jordan, what do you hope to accomplish on the Republican side of this investigation?”

JORDAN: “You know what this is about. This is about going after President Trump, you know. I mean, the Democrats, they don’t want to talk about anything else so they got to talk about this. They don’t want to talk about the crime that’s going on in every major urban area. They don’t want to talk about the crisis at the border. They don’t want to talk about the price — the fact that the price of everything has gone up, the price of eggs has went up, the price of milk has went up, the price of lumber has went up, the price of airline tickets is up, the price of used cars — everything has gone up. They don’t want to talk about all that so they’ve got to talk about how we’re going to go after President Trump for a third time.”

WATCH

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=oNfPngwpS4yEsOyiJGHsFg&share=true

New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik also called for “radical authoritarian” Pelosi to be fired after the latest stunt from Democrats.

Pelosi rejected the appointments of Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks to the January 6 Commission.

Soon after Pelosi rejected Jordan and Banks, Stefanik tore into Pelosi.

“Nancy Pelosi is a radical authoritarian Speaker. The Pelosi partisan January 6 commission was never about investigating the facts, it was only ever about Pelosi’s radical politics and the Left’s endless obsession with crushing any discussion or debate. What is Nancy Pelosi so afraid of?” Stefanik said.

“She is afraid of the American people finding out the truth that her failed leadership and the gross mismanagement of the U.S. Capitol led to the tragic events that day. It is time to Fire Pelosi once and for all. I have no doubt that after the next November, Nancy Pelosi will never, ever hold the Speaker’s gavel again. She will make history as the most despised Speaker of the House who will be fired not once, but twice. And it can’t come soon enough,” she added.

Former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday in a Washington D.C. court against the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol incident and against the National Archives in a bid to keep his presidential records classified, citing executive privilege.

Trump’s court filing, namely, argues (pdf) that the committee’s records request is too broad and doesn’t serve any legislative purpose.

“The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by [President Joe] Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration,” the lawsuit said. “Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), one of the chairs of the House select committee, and the national archivist, David Ferriero, were also named as defendants in the lawsuit.

“In cases like this, where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review,” Trump’s court filing said, “there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability of the Executive to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material.”

The Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional should it be “read so broadly as to allow an incumbent President unfettered discretion to waive the previous President’s executive privilege, mere months following an administration change,” according to the lawsuit. The committee is seeking potentially millions of presidential records, including presidential conversations and communications with lawyers.

The lawsuit was filed by Jesse Binnall, who had represented Trump in a Nevada election-related lawsuit filed last year.

Subpoenas for documents and testimony were issued by the Jan. 6 committee against several former Trump administration aides. Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon publicly vowed not to comply with the congressional demands.

After Bannon’s comment, Biden said that the Department of Justice should prosecute him if he continues to defy the subpoenas. However, a Justice Department spokesman rebuked his claim, saying it will “make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop.”

It comes days after White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the Biden administration would not allow Trump to assert executive privilege to block the request from the House committee.

“The president has determined an assertion of executive privilege isn’t warranted for the first set of documents from the Trump White House that have been provided to us by the National Archives,” Psaki said on Oct. 8, adding that more troves of documents could be evaluated on a “case-by-case basis.”

The National Archives is reportedly scheduled to hand over the Trump administration documents next month.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-sues-house-jan-6-committee-national-archives_4055692.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

No matter what you think happened on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, there is no denying that it has been a gift, politically speaking, to the establishment left.

It bolstered leftists’ longstanding claims that the nation is filled with white supremacist terrorists just chomping at the bit to bring back the lynch mob and impose the vague form of fascism that anyone even remotely right-leaning is so often accused of supporting.

What is truly terrifying about those who stand accused of participating in the Capitol incursion, however, is the way they’re being treated.

There have been multiple reports of mistreatment and civil rights violations among the Jan. 6 defendants awaiting trial, none of whom, by the way, are facing charges of treason or sedition.

These are serious accusations — as they would be if we were talking about antifa insurgents or Black Lives Matter protesters, as well.

US Marshals Could Begin Rounding Up Trump Supporters Targeted in House Jan. 6 Committee

Thankfully, it appears a federal judge agrees.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth found Washington, D.C., jail officials to be in contempt of court this week over their treatment of a Jan. 6 defendant and has called on the Department of Justice to investigate whether the rights of other incursion suspects are being violated.

The director and warden of the D.C. Department of Corrections, Quincy Booth and Wanda Patten, respectively, failed to see that defendant Christopher Worrell received necessary medical treatment, The Washington Post reported.

Worrell faces four felony charges, including rioting and spraying pepper gel at law enforcement officers during the Capitol incursion.

He was arrested in March and has been held at the D.C. facility without bail. After breaking his wrist in May, it was recommended that he receive surgery, which has yet to happen thanks to the officials’ neglect.

During a hearing, Lamberth said this failure was “more than just inept and bureaucratic jostling of papers,” suggesting that it could have even been deliberate mistreatment.

“I find that the civil rights of the defendant have been abused. I don’t know if it’s because he’s a Jan. 6 defendant or not, but I find this matter should be referred to the attorney general of the United States for a civil rights investigation into whether the D.C. Department of Corrections is violating the civil rights of Jan. 6 defendants,” he said.

This is a disturbing example of what many fear could happen to our justice system if we are not careful.

For months, attorneys representing Jan. 6 defendants have been crying foul about how their clients are being treated. The allegations sound like they’re right out of the third world and include lack of access to clean water, lengthy periods of time in solitary confinement, and limited legal counsel.

‘Insurrection’? Climate Change Protesters Attempt to Storm Interior Department Building

By many accounts, the alleged rioters are being treated like political prisoners in a corrupt, illiberal system — and, sadly, I’m sure many would agree that that is essentially what they are.

However, the Post pointed out that the D.C. Department of Corrections has been accused of creating inhumane conditions before and not-so-subtly implied that it’s only now receiving any attention because the Jan. 6 defendants are white and conservative.

“Some veteran defense lawyers privately noted that complaints raised on behalf of mostly White and conservative Jan. 6 defendants [appear] to have won more traction from some political quarters than abuse claims brought by poorer Black and Hispanic defendants who make up the bulk of the jail population,” the outlet reported.

This is an interesting angle from the Post, considering it’s not exactly uncommon in today’s political climate for lawmakers and pundits to draw attention to all manner of alleged civil rights violations, particularly against minorities.

Of course, the left’s leveraging of such grievances for political purposes is not always proportionate to the actual wrongdoing, so we can take the claim at face value.

If the Jan. 6 defendants are not being singled out and this facility really is so atrocious, well, then it’s a good thing that their cases are bringing attention to gross and widespread civil rights abuses, right? Certainly.

Yet what is unique in the case of these supposedly privileged defendants is that their crime, which has been characterized by the establishment as a carefully coordinated and treasonous affair, seems to have had a suspicious degree of FBI involvement.

No matter how you look at it, the way the Jan. 6 defendants are being treated reeks of swamp corruption. We need to fight for a justice system that defends the rights of even the most politically polarizing prisoner.

Let’s sincerely hope that, no matter who is being mistreated in this D.C. prison, this incident will rip the mask off the people responsible.

A House panel investigating the Jan. 6 incursion of the U.S. Capitol will get tough with anyone who dares to cross it, one committee member said Thursday.

Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida took a severe stance when she was interviewed on MSNBC.

“We intend to enforce our subpoenas,” she said. “And the first step will be for us to pursue criminal contempt.

“What that means is that the committee will put together a report and then refer it to the House floor. There will be a vote, and then it goes to the Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department could then decide whether to pursue the case or not, although Murphy said she was confident that the Biden administration would support taking as tough a line as possible with any Trump administration officials or supporters of former President Donald Trump that it has targeted.

Lawmakers: CDC May Be Manipulating COVID Data, Underreporting Vaccine Side Effects by Factor of 5

“I fully expect this Department of Justice to uphold and enforce that subpoena,” she said.

Murphy called the Capitol incursion “an attempt to use political violence to change the outcome of an election.”

She said she wants those who defy the committee to face “the full extent of consequences that is available by the law.”

“I would recommend the full extent of consequences — jail time, fines. We need to make sure that these people understand that this is not acceptable,” Murphy said.

When asked how the panel plans to haul those it wants to hear from before it, Murphy said the effort to do so will be intense.

“I know that we have engaged with a wide variety of law enforcement offices, including the U.S. Marshals, in order to issue the subpoenas, and we will use everything — as you said, with all due respect — we will use all of the agencies and all of the tools at our disposal to issue the subpoenas and then enforce them,” she said.

The committee has subpoenaed Mark Meadows, former chief of staff for Trump; Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist who had left the administration by the time of the incursion; Trump aides Dan Scavino and Kashyap Patel; and various organizers of the rally that took place that day. Bannon has said he will not appear.

Murphy said she wants to know how those in Trump’s orbit were involved in the election protest that eventually devolved into rioting.

Capitol Police Officer Indicted for Obstructing Justice in Jan. 6 Investigation

“Of Mark Meadows and anyone else in front of us, I want to know how much planning was involved,” she said. “Who was involved in that planning. Who funded it. How they — what their intent was when they came into that day.

“And then what they knew as that day unfolded and the safety and security of people like the vice president and members of Congress were at risk, what they did to either respond or not respond on that occasion.

“What we have to do is lay out the full set of facts and let the American people understand how perilous we were in that moment, how close our Democracy was to going over the cliff. And to ensure that we can lay out the facts and figure out how to fix the situation so that we don’t have anybody who tries to take the opportunity to try to undo a fair and free election.”

Trump has criticized the panel.

“Why isn’t the January 6th Unselect Committee of partisan hacks studying the massive Presidential Election Fraud, which took place on November 3rd and was the reason that hundreds of thousands of people went to Washington to protest on January 6th?” the former president said in a statement issued Wednesday.

“Look at the numbers now being reported on the fraud, which we now call the ‘Really Big Lie.’ You cannot study January 6th without studying the reason it happened, November 3rd,” Trump said.

“But the Democrats don’t want to do that because they know what took place on Election Day in the Swing States, and beyond. If we had an honest media this Election would have been overturned many months ago, but our media is almost as corrupt as our political system!”

NEW!

“Look at the numbers now being reported on the fraud, which we now call the “Really Big Lie.” You cannot study January 6th without studying the reason it happened, November 3rd.” – President Donald J. Trump

MORE: pic.twitter.com/HwTiDjxWJg

— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) October 13, 2021

In a statement on Monday, the former president said, “The highly partisan Unselect Committee is just a sideshow to distract America from MASSIVE failures by Biden and the Democrats.

“What happened to the Capitol would have never happened if the people in charge did their job and looked at the intelligence. They abandoned the officers on the ground, just like Biden abandoned Americans in Afghanistan.

“Instead of holding bad leaders accountable, the Democrats are going after innocent staffers and attacking the Constitution.”

Some judges make the punishment fit the crime.

Some make the crime fit the punishment.

That seems to be the approach by one federal judge in Washington, when it comes to defendants in the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6 — especially when the punishment she’s imposing is more than even prosecutors ask for.

According to Reuters, a judge appointed to the federal bench in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama has gone beyond prosecutors’ sentencing requests in handling the guilty pleas of those charged in the incursion — imposing more jail time than Department of Justice lawyers sought, and describing their actions in far worse terms than the charges they pleaded guilty to.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday sentenced two cousins who took selfies in the Capitol that day to 45 days in jail — two weeks more than prosecutors had asked.

Report: Judge Judy Ditches Longtime Bailiff Because of Cost Concerns – But She Makes $47 Million Per Year

On Tuesday, Chutkan sentenced a woman to two weeks behind bars when prosecutors had recommended probation — and had cited her “cooperation with law enforcement” in making the recommendation, Reuters reported.

Last week, she sentenced another defendant to 45 days in jail. Prosecutors had recommended three months’ home confinement, according to The Washington Post.

“There have to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the government, beyond sitting at home,” Chutkan said, according to the Post.

Whatever the merits of that opinion might be — the fact is that “attempted violent overthrow of the government” is not what the defendants were charged with, and it’s not what they pleaded guilty to, according to Reuters.

All had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of unlawful parading and picketing inside the Capitol, the news service reported.

Naturally, in the social media cesspool of Twitter, there were plenty of users who applauded Chutkan’s actions (it’s amazing how flexible liberal principles are). But even on Twitter, Chutkan had her critics.

This is political targeting.

Sentence them to what they deserve only. https://t.co/1LxMOlbhBS

— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) October 13, 2021

This is literally persecution.
One of the things people from other countries can claim for asylum. And now, an activist judge is persecution individuals for misdemeanors.

What happened to those who entered the Senate building during the Kavanaugh hearings?

— ChristopherXade (@ChristopherXade) October 14, 2021

Secret Police Docs Reveal There Was ‘No Good Reason’ to Shoot Ashli Babbitt: Judicial Watch Report

But this one put it perfectly.

This is not justice. https://t.co/OsHixHMlff

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) October 13, 2021

No, it’s not justice by any commonly understood sense of the term.

This is politics by another means.

According to the Post, Chutkan made it clear at last week’s sentencing that she was doing more than weighing the specific case before her and rendering a judgment on the defendant alone.

“Because the country is watching,” she said, “to see what the consequences are for something that has not ever happened in this country before, for actions and crimes that undermine the rule of law and our democracy.”

It’s pretty clear that besides her legal briefs, Chutkan reads mainstream media outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times to inform her world view. (She’s got well-established bona fides for a liberal on the federal court, ranging from trying to halt the execution of a man who raped and murdered a 10-year-old girl to ordering the federal government to help illegal aliens get abortions.)

Regrettable as the Capitol incursion was, as deplorable as the acts of violence by protesters that took place were — and they were deplorable — no sane person can conflate the actions of an overexcited mob with an armed insurrection against the government.

It’s important to remember that the only person who died as a result of deliberate violence that day was one of the protesters, shot to death for no apparent reason by a Capitol police officer.

And in a crowd where it’s reasonable to suppose there were a fair number of Second Amendment supporters, there were no firearms in evidence (and even the stories about fire extinguishers were inflated by the mainstream media to conjure up a story that protesters killed a Capitol police officer.)

Chutkan was right about one thing: The country is watching. It’s watching a perversion of the concept of justice in service of a political agenda, just as it watched for four years while the FBI was placed in service of the Democratic agenda to kneecap Donald Trump’s presidency, and just as it watched throughout 2020 as rioters savaged American cities and Democrats cheered (and even helped bail them out.)

It’s watched as the defendants in the Capitol incursion have been treated far worse than any Black Lives Matter mob that ever looted an AutoZone. (That didn’t stop the D.C. circuit court’s chief judge from asking in August why prosecutors were being so easy on the Jan. 6 defendants.)

It’s watched as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has openly turned the commission to “investigate” the incursion into yet another weapon in the Democrats’ war against Trump supporters.

Now, the country is watching as a Democrat-appointed judge comes up with her own descriptions of what criminal defendants have pleaded guilty to, and metes out sentences that are beyond what even prosecutors are seeking.

It doesn’t matter that the sentences amount to only a couple of weeks more behind bars. What matters is the principle of equal justice.

What Chutkan is doing is betraying that principle. It isn’t justice. It’s a disgrace.

And there was a time not so long ago that liberals would have known that.

A federal judge on Oct. 13 held top Washington jail officials in contempt, finding that they violated a U.S. Capitol breach defendant’s civil rights by impeding his access to medical care.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, found Washington jail warden Wanda Patten and Department of Corrections Director Quincy Booth in civil contempt in a written order after expressing displeasure with them during a court hearing.

The order doesn’t include sanctions or penalties, but was being transmitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland for an inquiry into the potential civil rights violations of defendants charged in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, “as exemplified in this case.”

“It’s clear to me the civil rights of the defendant were violated by the D.C. Department of Corrections,” Lamberth said in federal court in Washington. “I don’t know if it’s because he’s a January 6 defendant or not.”

The referral concerns the treatment of Christopher Worrell, who has been charged with civil disorder and other counts.

Worrell, who has been held since being arrested in March, has been dealing with a finger fracture and cancer, according to court records. In June, an orthopedic surgeon at a nearby hospital recommended that Worrell have surgery to repair the fracture.

A surgery for the fracture is still in the process of being approved by U.S. Marshals, Worrell’s attorneys and prosecutors wrote in a joint update last week.

Lamberth said that after receiving the update, he contacted Acting U.S. Marshal Lamont Ruffin to inquire about the subject.

Ruffin said that repeated requests for medical records from the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) didn’t yield necessary notes. The judge then ordered the D.C. jail and DOC to provide the records to the court.

Jail officials didn’t respond to the order, Lamberth said in a separate filing on Oct. 12. He ordered them to appear before him and show why they shouldn’t be held in civil contempt.

A lawyer for the jail argued that they had been working to get the records together to comply with the court’s order before the contempt hearing was set.

“He’s needed an operation. He hasn’t gotten it,” the judge said.

Defense lawyers representing a number of Capitol defendants have said their clients are being treated poorly in the Washington jail. Several defendants have said guards beat them.

“They’re being treated like third-world country political prisoners,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times.

Chris Geldart, deputy mayor for public safety and justice in Washington, told The Epoch Times in an email that the DOC “has made every effort to comply with the orders of District Court including the provision of external medical records referenced in this case.”

“The Department works to ensure the Constitutional rights of all residents and will fully cooperate with any lawful inquiries or investigation by the United States Department of Justice and/or the United States Attorney’s Office,” Geldart wrote.

Department of Justice officials didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

“Both my client and I are pleased with the outcome of the hearing and Judge Lambert’s ruling today,” Alex Stavrou, an attorney representing the defendant, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“On behalf of all January 6 defendants, we support the [judge’s] position that the Office of the Attorney General investigate into potential civil rights violations. On behalf of Christopher Worrell and all January 6 defendants, we trust and pray that the Office of the Attorney General will conduct this inquiry immediately and without prejudice,” Stavrou wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-judge-holds-dc-jail-officials-in-contempt-over-mistreatment-of-capitol-riot-defendant_4047231.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

A U.S. military veteran who was charged in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach has died.

John Anderson, 61, died at a hospital on Sept. 21 in Jacksonville, Florida, according to family members and his lawyer. His cause of death has not been disclosed.

“My sweet, handsome husband went home to be with the Lord,” Anderson’s wife said, according to his lawyer, Marina Medvin.

Anderson’s wife is asking for prayers and privacy as she mourns the loss.

Anderson, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, was charged with seven counts, including civil disorder, interfering with law enforcement, and stealing government property.

Anderson was arrested in late February in St. Augustine and released pending trial about a week later.

Authorities said he was part of the crowd that tried entering the Capitol through a tunnel, clashing with officers in the process. But his lawyers said he did nothing wrong and was trapped by people pressing behind him.

Screenshots from surveillance video in the tunnel show Anderson was struck with a chemical substance let loose by a male in the crowd. Police officers later sprayed pepper spray, which also hit Anderson. He was assisted by officers through the tunnel after several minutes. Anderson said the officers saved his life.

But he also protested against the charges, which his lawyer says were not backed by evidence.

“John Anderson never hurt or touched a single police officer. The video evidence proves this,” Medvin said in an emailed statement. “John Anderson died an innocent man wrongfully accused.”

Before Anderson’s death, he and Medvin were preparing to reject a plea offer.

The government is preparing to dismiss the case against Anderson, according to his lawyer. That’s common practice, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in a separate case this month.

Lamberth cited United States v. Pogue as he granted a motion for abatement from the government and dismissed the indictment against Joseph Barnes, a Texas resident, who died after getting into a vehicular accident. Barnes had also been charged in the Jan. 6 breach.

The government prosecutor leading prosecution against Anderson did not respond to a request for comment.

The court was informed Friday of Anderson’s death. Parties were ordered to file a joint status report by Nov. 8.

Florida Man Dies While Awaiting Trial on Charges Related to Jan. 6 US Capitol Breach (theepochtimes.com)

The FBI had an informant on the ground on Jan. 6 before the incursion into the U.S. Capitol, according to a report, which is leading to questions about how involved the bureau was in the building breach.

The New York Times reported on Saturday it had obtained records which showed that an FBI handler had been in contact with a man reported to be affiliated with the group the Proud Boys before the building was entered by protesters.

As the Proud Boys marched to the Capitol on Jan. 6, a member of the far-right group was texting real-time updates — to his FBI handler.

The informer gave the bureau an inside view that day, according to confidential records obtained by The New York Times. https://t.co/QkBptydk2Z

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 25, 2021

Per the report, the unnamed informant was constantly texting his FBI contact throughout the morning and afternoon of Jan. 6. Those messages were to keep the agent up to date about what was happening. The informant, per the Times, was affiliated with a midwest chapter of the Proud Boys.

He said he met with other members hours before the building was entered at the nearby Washington Monument at 10 a.m. that day. The FBI’s reported mole recounted that Proud Boys members did not organize an attempt to enter the Capitol. He said, rather, that they went in when others did so as doors were opened.

The Times reported the alleged informant and others with the Proud Boys became “consumed by a herd mentality,” but had no intention to commit any violence before traveling to Washington, or once they entered the building with others.

The informant reportedly said there was a prolonged conversation among Proud Boys members about whether entering the building was even a good idea.

Ultimately, he and others did enter. The informant said he later exited the building after he was told someone had been shot.

The shooting was an apparent reference to the shooting death of protester and military veteran Ashli Babbitt. The woman was shot by U.S. Capitol Police officer Lt. Michael Byrd.

The news outlet concluded that the informant’s testimony from the day is evidence that federal officials were actively monitoring the events, and had a good understanding of what was unfolding, which is a narrative the FBI has not embraced publicly.

“Federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known,” the Times reported.

People who viewed the Times report online speculated about the FBI’s involvement in the incursion, with many concluding that Jan. 6 might have been avoided had it not been steered by the bureau.

This is smelling like the Michigan gov kidnapping case. How much was the FBI just observing vs actively encouraging and directing?

To date not a single charge of insurrection or sedition.

— Alex Occasionally-Cornnuts (@AlexCornnuts) September 25, 2021

Trump’s Lawyer Reportedly Had a Six-Step Plan to Overturn Biden’s Victory

So the feds had people in the crowd the whole time? Surely they could have prevented any scary “insurrection” that was happening?
Unless they wanted some drama obviously, then they did a great job.
God bless America, eh?

— Sara Belle (@Sarabelle_Z) September 25, 2021

FBI : We never knew about the coup except the plots online and the spies who told us!

— Mark Wayne (@orwell4ever) September 25, 2021

😂😂😂 This was the mainstream media and CNN’s big “Far Right” boogie man – a bunch of weekend warriors steered by the FBI… https://t.co/5LnIfgg8iM

— Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) September 25, 2021

Another “Conspiracy Theory” becomes Reality.

Again. https://t.co/VBlYqAAxHs

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) September 25, 2021

In other words, the FBI may have incited the Jan. 6th riot. https://t.co/mhiYhBDTNm

— BDW (@BryanDeanWright) September 25, 2021

The Times reported that 15 members of the Proud Boys have been charged over the events of Jan. 6. They are among hundreds of others who have been charged or jailed for alleged acts related to being in or near the Capitol.

The Times report comes as the FBI is already under fire for allegedly not acting to protect children from sexual abuse after having information that Larry Nassar, the former team doctor of the United States women’s national gymnastics team, was a sexual predator.

The bureau is also facing scrutiny over its role in an alleged plot last year to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Report: FBI Handler Had Tap on Jan. 6, Plant in Crowd Working for Him (westernjournal.com)

As the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion cases work their way through the criminal justice system, there’s been no shortage of puzzlement and outrage from some quarters over why some of the defendants have pleaded guilty and received no more than a slap on the wrist.

Eric Torrens is one of these individuals. According to BuzzFeed News, he took a deal on Aug. 19 that saw him plead guilty to a single count of illegally parading, demonstrating, or picketing inside the Capitol.

“He admitted entering the building through a broken door and walking around. The government noted in court papers that Capitol surveillance cameras recorded his entry into the building as well as his movements inside,” BuzzFeed’s Zoe Tillman reported on Tuesday.

“Prosecutors cited four other videos they obtained related to Torrens, including one that showed him exclaiming, ‘We goin’ in!’”

You can say this doesn’t necessarily represent charming behavior on the part of Torrens, but this certainly doesn’t rise to the level of being an “insurrectionist.” And, while there were violent rioters in the crowd on Jan. 6, there were also plenty of people who treated it as an ill-advised opportunity for tourism.

As if to drive the point home, the judge in Torrens’ case ordered the video showing him inside the Capitol to be released.

It’s decidedly underwhelming.

U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell ordered the release after media organizations — including BuzzFeed — requested the videos that prosecutors in cases like Torrens’ are using to determine the defendants’ culpability.

“Before Torrens’ plea hearing, Howell asked to see videos that the government relied on in describing Torrens’ conduct. She also asked the parties to weigh in on whether those videos should be released to the public,” BuzzFeed News reported.

“At the plea hearing, Howell noted that there was a presumption in favor of access to judicial proceedings and that the public had an interest in materials that were submitted in court, that judges relied on in making decisions, and that shed light on how prosecutors exercised discretion in criminal cases.”

The prosecution said the videos showed entrances and exits to the Capitol that weren’t known to the general public and that their release would “compromise the security of the United States Capitol and those who work there.”

“This footage, when combined with other footage from nearby cameras, could be used to track individual rioters moving through the building thereby creating a visual pathway which other bad actors could use in planning their breach point and pathway for future attacks,” prosecutors argued.

Last Wednesday, Howell sided with media organizations, ruling the videos didn’t show “sensitive” parts of the Capitol and could be seen on a public tour.

“Hundreds of cases have arisen from the events of January 6, with new cases being brought and pending cases being resolved by plea agreement every week,” the judge wrote.Related:

Pelosi Had ‘Key Role’ in Gen. Milley’s Undercutting of Trump’s Military Authority

“The public has an interest in understanding the conduct underlying the charges in these cases, as well as the government’s prosecutorial decision-making both in bringing criminal charges and resolving these charges by entering into plea agreements with defendants,” she said.

BuzzFeed’s Tillman uploaded a one-minute clip of the videos released Tuesday to her Twitter account.

The footage, pretty emblematic of the whole, doesn’t exactly look like violent treason in action:

Prosecutors Lost A Fight To Keep A Set Of Jan. 6 Capitol Surveillance Videos Under Seal https://t.co/IwJekF6hSX pic.twitter.com/FTnNPoyuPU

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) September 22, 2021

The videos, which feature a whole lot of people calmly walking about the halls of Capitol Hill, quickly brought forth reactions like these:

Definitely looks worse than 9/11 https://t.co/Rwqnz2joMD

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 23, 2021

And thus did Tillman spend the rest of the day reminding us that Jan. 6 had been Very Bad and the Capitol riot was the handiwork of Extremely Dangerous and Violent Insurrectionists:

WARNING: The following videos and tweets contain graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.

https://t.co/GMHJ5dKaTj

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) September 23, 2021

https://t.co/7rs0ojwjww

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) September 23, 2021

Yes, we know. There’s been no shortage of these videos and they’ve received no shortage of airtime. You don’t break into the Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College without some violence being involved.

However, of the 650 people who have been charged for entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 and those who have evaded detection or capture, how many of them were rampaging, violent beasts in body paint and how many of them were people who made the poor life choice of using the opportunity to stroll around?

The fact that government officials wanted these videos suppressed because they represented some kind of “security” threat — when they clearly didn’t — indicates how desperate they are to curate the narrative that there were far more of the former when what we see instead is a lot of the latter.

With reporters like Zoe Tillman, they needn’t worry. If and when videos like these are released, they’ll simply tell us the only videos that matter are a handful of those that show Jan. 6 at its most brutal.

The insurrection narrative mustn’t die, even if there was never any threat to our democracy.

Judge Slaps Down Government’s Attempt to Control Public Image of Jan. 6 ‘Insurrection,’ Orders Release of Narrative-Busting Video (westernjournal.com)

Many in the political and media establishment have cast the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol as one of the darkest episodes in American history, comparing an episode in which one person was slain (a protester shot by police) to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the Civil War, and the British sacking of the capital city in 1814. Seizing on the gravity of a mob trying to interfere with the process of recording Electoral College votes after a presidential election, Democrats impeached Donald Trump over the Jan. 6 breach and put him on trial in the Senate. Democrats have also spearheaded a congressional investigation—one focused on the former president—that will likely stretch into next election season.

Republicans, Trump supporters, and others see a double standard at play in Democrats’ emphasis on Jan. 6. They note that many Democrats cheered nationwide protests and some even put up bail after the May 2020 murder of George Floyd, a black man, by a white police officer—prolonged unrest that generated far more death and destruction. They argue that groups associated with the summer’s violence, such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, themselves aim to subvert democracy, and acted accordingly in targeting cops, public offices, and private businesses.

The electorate itself is divided, but doesn’t necessarily view this issue as an either/or choice. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans support the idea of examining the causes of both the 2020 summer riots in America’s cities and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

It is clear, then, that many Americans see two sides to this story. In keeping with its mission to fill gaps in press coverage, RealClearInvestigations is launching a running compendium of data, with hyperlinked sourcing, comparing the damage done on Jan. 6, and the subsequent treatment of those accused of perpetrating it, with two other recent events: the summer 2020 riots and—in some ways a closer analogy—the all-but-forgotten riot in Washington on Inauguration Day 2017, as protesters challenged Donald Trump’s election and legitimacy much as Jan. 6 rioters challenged Joe Biden’s.

RealClearInvestigations has found that:

• The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police officers, 30 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot. George Floyd rioters were found to have used more sophisticated and dangerous tactics than did the Capitol rioters, and in some cases weapons of greater lethality.
• Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigor than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases. Many accused Capitol rioters, unlike accused participants in the other riots, have been held in pretrial detention for months—with one defendant serving more time than the maximum sentence for the charge to which he pleaded guilty. Some allegedly endured solitary confinement and other mistreatment.
• With authorities applying lenient prosecutorial standards in many major cities torn by the summer riots, the vast majority of charges last year were dismissed, as were charges in the Inauguration 2017 unrest. Charges have to date been dropped in only a single Capitol riot case.

You can access the database here.

This article was written by the editors of RealClearInvestigations. 

Introducing RealClearInvestigations’ Jan. 6-BLM Riots Dataset (theepochtimes.com)

Court filings say John Pierce hospitalized with COVID-19, while others say he’s suffering from another condition

An attorney who’s representing 17 defendants accused of taking part in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach has disappeared, possibly suffering from COVID-19, according to am Aug. 30 court filing.

Acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips said in a court document (pdf) that nearly 20 cases related to the Jan. 6 incident aren’t proceeding after John Pierce, the lawyer for the defense, went missing.

Pierce is “reportedly ill with COVID-19, on a ventilator, and unresponsive,” according to the filing. Pierce’s law firm associate, Ryan Marshall—who isn’t a licensed attorney—has been appearing in Pierce’s place at court hearings and proceedings. Marshall was also the one who revealed Pierce’s alleged hospitalization and condition.

The lawyer, who generally posts on Twitter several times per day, hasn’t posted since Aug. 20.

“Because Mr. Pierce is unavailable and Mr. Marshall cannot ethically or legally represent Mr. Pierce’s clients, the government is making the court aware of Mr. Pierce’s reported illness so that it can take any steps it believes necessary to ensure the defendant’s rights are adequately protected while Mr. Pierce remains hospitalized,” Phillips said.

But later in the court filing, the U.S. attorney’s office said it had obtained “conflicting information about Mr. Pierce’s health and whereabouts.”

When it was revealed publicly that Pierce was hospitalized with COVID-19, a report from NPR, citing unnamed sources, said that he may have been suffering from dehydration and exhaustion and that he’s believed to have symptoms related to COVID-19.

And a colleague of Pierce, Brody Womack, told Business Insider that Pierce “appears to have been suffering from dehydration and exhaustion in relation to his tireless work on behalf of his clients, including the many defendants he represents in connection with the January 6, 2021, protest at the Capitol.”

On Aug. 26, Marshall appeared in place of Pierce, telling a U.S. attorney’s assistant that he hasn’t had any contact with Pierce and noting that one of his friends “had told him that Mr. Pierce was sick with COVID-19 and another had said he was not,” the filing states.

“From the government’s perspective, given Mr. Pierce’s reported illness and the fact that Mr. Marshall is not a licensed attorney, this case is effectively at a standstill,” Phillips’ office stated.

Even though Marshall “has been the government’s main or sole point of contact for many of the defendants represented by Mr. Pierce, the government does not believe it appropriate to continue to communicate with him in Mr. Pierce’s absence, during which he would necessarily be acting without supervision by a licensed attorney,” the court document reads.

Some of Pierce’s clients said they’re starting to become concerned.

Paul Rae, an alleged Proud Boy from Florida who has pleaded not guilty, told ABC News on Aug. 30 that he’s “a bit concerned” about his lawyer’s health and the overall situation regarding his representation. An associate of Pierce told him that the attorney isn’t on a ventilator and that he’s recovering, Rae said.

“Unless I’m being lied to, I’m hearing ‘Don’t be concerned,’” Rae told the network. “I don’t know what’s going on.”

The Epoch Times contacted Pierce’s office for comment. When reached for comment via telephone, the phone lines for his law firm appeared to be disconnected.

Lawyer Representing 17 Jan. 6 Defendants Has Mysteriously Gone Missing: Court Filings (theepochtimes.com)

My friend Owen Shroyer was forced to turn himself in yesterday.

While he never stepped foot inside the Capitol on January 6th, he’s been charged with “illegally entering a restricted area on Capitol grounds”, along with disorderly conduct.

Owen is a journalist and was covering the event with a news crew from InfoWars.

They never entered the Capitol, never jumped any barricades, and never disobeyed orders from law enforcement – because they were given none!

So why are the Feds going after Owen?

Because he’s an influential conservative media figure, and they can take him down despite having no evidence of wrong-doing!

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are leading this charge with the intent to dismantle the activist wing of the conservative movement.

And it’s working!

Families are being broken up, careers are being destroyed, and everyone else is being terrified into silence or submission.

But not me – and that’s why I’m asking for your support for my run for Congress.

We have to stand up and tell the truth about what is happening, and it shouldn’t surprise any of us that the majority of Republicans in Congress are silent as Nancy Pelosi is literally taking political prisoners around the nation!

Do you think Democrats in Congress would have the same reaction if BLM and Antifa had swarmed the Capitol with Molotov cocktails and bricks like they did in Portland?

No! Pelosi, AOC and Ilhan Omar would be defending their right to protest, despite the fact that their actions are far from being “mostly peaceful”!

While over 600 Patriots have been charged with crimes from January 6th, nearly every BLM rioter is getting their charges dropped!

We need members of Congress brave enough to stand up to partisan plots like this . . . and that’s why it’s so important to send patriots to Congress who have a spine!

Help me get there today by funding my campaign.

And please, take a moment to give your thoughts and prayers to Owen Shroyer and the hundreds of other men and women whose lives have been upended by this partisan political power play.

Thanks so much for your time.

Respectfully,


Laura Loomer

A fourth police officer who was present at the grounds of the Capitol building when it was breached on Jan. 6 has died by suicide, according to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD).

Metropolitan Police Officer Kyle DeFreytag, 26, was found dead on July 10 from suicide, an MPD spokeswoman told The Epoch Times via email.

DeFreytag was assigned to the Fifth District and had been with the police department since November 2016.

MPD Chief Robert J. Contee III had sent a message to the police force last month to notify them of DeFreytag’s death.

“I am writing to share tragic news that Officer Kyle DeFreytag of the 5th District was found deceased last evening,” Contee told the department in July, according to WUSA. “This is incredibly hard news for us all, and for those that knew him best.”

DeFreytag lived in Alexandria, Virginia, and was originally from Pennsylvania, according to an obituary posted by the Bensing-Thomas Funeral Home. A memorial service was held in his memory on July 31.

“He liked hiking, camping, riding his motorcycle, he liked traveling and playing the drums, he enjoyed trying different ethnic foods and always knew the best places to eat. Kyle was kind, he had a quick wit and a great sense of humor and kept us laughing for 26 years,” according to the obituary.

DeFreytag is survived by his parents, his brother, and his sister.

The confirmation from the MPD of DeFreytag’s suicide came just hours after 43-year-old Gunther Hashida was confirmed to have died by suicide.

According to a GoFundMe fundraising page, Hashida is survived by his wife and three children. The page didn’t specify the cause of his death or what may have driven him to end his life.

DeFreytag’s death brings the number of police officers who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 who reportedly died by suicide to four.

The other two cases said to be due to suicide are that of MPD Officer Jeffrey Smith and Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood.

Read MoreTimeline of Events in DC on Jan. 6

Lawmakers gathered at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for a joint session of Congress to count and certify electoral votes for the 2020 presidential election. Proceedings in the chambers were temporarily interrupted when a sizable group of protesters entered the Capitol building. Thousands of protesters, mostly peaceful, remained outside.

It remains unclear who or what groups may have instigated the breach of the Capitol building.

A total of five deaths were recorded in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 incident.

Of the deaths, Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt was determined to have died from homicide on Jan. 6, having been shot and killed by an unnamed officer.

Another three people died on Jan. 6 outside the Capitol building but on Capitol grounds. Two of the deaths were found to be from natural causes—both were men in their 50s who died of hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The remaining death, involving a woman in her 30s, was ruled as an accident from a drug overdose.

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was determined to have died of natural causes on Jan. 7.

More than 100 police officers were reportedly injured in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 incident.

The events of the day culminated in a second impeachment trial for then-President Donald Trump, who was ultimately acquitted of an insurrection incitement charge in February.

More than 500 people have been arrested and charged in cases related to the events on Jan. 6 at the Capitol. Among them, more than 50 are being held pretrial in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, in conditions that are “unconstitutional” and violate “every single basic human right,” lawyers representing several of the defendants told EpochTV last month.

Four police officers on July 27 recounted to a House of Representatives special committee that they were beaten and threatened amid clashes with the protesters on Jan. 6.

4th Police Officer Who Was at Jan. 6 Capitol Breach Dies by Suicide (theepochtimes.com)

As the storming of the Capitol building on January 6th was still unfolding a despicable gremlin of a woman at The New York Times, Sheera Frenkel, was already crafting a totally baseless lie along with her demonic friends at the ADL and Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg about the event being “planned” on both Gab and Parler.

“We need to ascertain right here, right now, whether this specific platform was knowingly facilitating an attack on our nation’s capital, literally a terror act against the seat of our government,” said the ADL’s Greenblatt, who noted that other platforms should also be investigated over the insurrection attempt but he says special attention needs to be trained on Gab.

Source

The ADL also went as far as demanding the DOJ investigate both myself individually and Gab as a whole for “intentionally aided or abetted individuals who carried out the January 6 attack on the nation’s Capitol.”

Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of the largest social network on the internet that happens to have a specific feature for organizing and planning events, also deflected the blame on Gab and Parler. “Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg has sought to deflect blame, noting the role of smaller, right-leaning services such as Parler and Gab.”

It has been widely reported, even by mainstream media outlets, that if the event was planned and organized anywhere it was most certainly done on her platform, Facebook.

Today the FBI is exposing the mountain of lies built up by Frenkel, Greenblatt, and Sandberg (I can’t help noticing a trend here!)

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

Source

The defamatory lies of the New York Times, the ADL, and Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg had dire consequences for Parler, which was immediately removed from App Stores and hosting providers and has never fully recovered despite caving to Apple’s demands for censorship.

These defamatory lies also impacted Gab’s public image. The lie is still featured prominently on Gab’s Wikipedia page and is falsely cited by other reporters in stories about Gab to this day.

We demand a full and immediate retraction of this story by the New York Times and thank God for shining the light of truth on this fake news story.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus is King

NYT Editorial Team,

Gab AI Inc. hereby demands retraction of the false and defamatory reporting published by the New York Times’ Sheera Frenkel on January 6th, 2021 claiming without providing any evidence whatsoever that the storming of the Capitol was organized on our platform.

Today it has been reported that the FBI found scant evidence that the event was organized at all, let alone on Gab.

Gab is not a lawless platform and proactively cultivates good working relationships with U.S. and international law enforcement. If we were made aware of an illegal plot taking place on our hardware, we would have removed it. This stands in sharp contrast to platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which for years have harbored international terrorist organizations like the Taliban – something your paper has never reported on or taken to task to the extent you took us to task for content which appeared on our platform in the aftermath of Jan. 6th and other offensive but legal content that has appeared on our platform from time to time.

We quote from Reuters: “The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.”

In light of this reporting vindicating Gab’s innocence in this matter, we are demanding a full retraction of the defamatory reporting published by The New York Times. Ms. Frenkel’s piece, which alleged that “[t]he storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media” and made extensive reference to posts on Gab that discussed the event (as indeed most of the Internet did on that day) without providing any evidence that the event was in fact organized by those same commenters, was presented as fact, not opinion.

This statement of fact was not only false, it was recklessly and maliciously false. FBI officials’ own statements on the matter, reported today, prove it was false.

Our rights in this matter are fully and expressly reserved. Please be guided accordingly.

Gab Legal

The New York Times and ADL Lies Exposed By The FBI – Gab News

Another widely peddled media hoax has been shot to pieces as Reuters reveals that the FBI has “scant evidence” of any plot or forward planning to overthrow the U.S. government on January 6th.

The news confirms The National Pulse’s reporting from January 11th, and raises questions about the government’s power grab and abuse of authority using January 6th as pretext.

Reuters reported Friday morning:

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

The report also vindicates President Trump and his team, and clarifies that there is “no evidence that the groups had serious plans,” to overthrow the U.S. government or commit anything like an actual “insurrection.”

The news blows apart the media’s narrative over the past eight months, and should refocus attention on the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser refused support in advance of the peaceful Trump rally at the White House earlier that day.

President Trump is known to have cleared the way for 10,000 National Guard troops, in advance of the event, in order to keep the peace.

The FBI, meanwhile, has been targeting peaceful U.S. protesters who did not breach the Capitol on January 6th, including Alaska spa owners Paul and Marilyn Hueper. Many of those arrested in the wake of the riot are being held in D.C. prison without access to edible food, and sometime in solitary confinement.

The National Pulse declared the January 6th hoax dead in March of this year, after exhaustive investigations.

FBI “Finds Scant Evidence” of Jan 6 Insurrection Plot, Killing Off Another Anti-Trump Media Hoax. – The National Pulse