Call a spade a spade. Hamas, Pro Hamas Rioters, and White and Black Progressive Supremacists have the same goals. For my Liberal readers, let me explain before you try to do a doxing on me the way Progressives do. This is my pointing out of white progressive and black progressive supremacists.
The two groups have the same goals. They don’t allow debate. Only one view is allowed, and they dox whenever they get the chance. They will also go after moderates and liberals who disagree with them.
They claim that they’re not antisemitic, but they don’t condemn the rioters or openly support Israel in the October attack. They also will say something like I don’t support the government, but I support the people. Never do you see them in rallies in support of the people. They only show up in these rallies for a river to the sea cleansing of Jews.
So, when you see me connect progressives with Hamas, KKK, Confederates, Jim Crow laws, and other signs of hate, you will know of whom I speak.
The Interior Department’s inspector general released a report examining the permitting process that allowed tens of thousands of Trump supporters to gather on Jan. 6, 2021.Credit...Kenny Holston for The New York Times
Let’s clear up one thing about January 6 and the FBI. There has been much misinformation from the left when it comes to the FBI and January 6. One thing for sure. FBI had people in the crowd.
There is no way that they would not be there. It was known for weeks that this rally and protest was taking place. One thing we are not sure of is what if any did the agents play in the rally that for some turned into a protest.
Vivek Ramaswamy was pretty much on in the interview with CNN. The CNN person had no clue about what happened January 6. Remember that the MSM only goes by what parts of the videos they want their audience to see.
(Left) Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) / (Right) Former U.S. President Donald Trump. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
(Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Pool via Getty Images)
Reported by THE EPOCH TIMES
The special counsel’s office is preempting former President Donald Trump’s appeal of his case to the U.S. Supreme Court by petitioning the high court for a writ certiorari before judgment—an immediate ruling—of whether the former president can rely on his presidential immunity defense.
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged President Trump on four counts regarding his actions to challenge the 2020 election results; President Trump has filed four motions to dismiss the case. Several were rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, and the defense has since appealed the motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity to a federal appeals court.
The prosecutors are asking the Supreme Court “whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”
President Trump had asked the district court to pause proceedings pending appeal, noting that he would seek that pause from the appeals court if the district court didn’t grant it. If granted in either court, the legal strategy would certainly throw off the trial schedule.
Prosecutors are now asking the Supreme Court to issue judgment before the appeals court makes a decision.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” the special counsel’s team argued in the new filing. “The district court rejected respondent’s claims, correctly recognizing that former Presidents are not above the law and are accountable for their violations of federal criminal law while in office.”
They argue that President Trump’s legal strategy in the appellate court now jeopardizes the March 4, 2024, trial date.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the prosecutors argued.
They claimed that President Trump is “profoundly mistaken” on the law and only the Supreme Court can “definitively resolve” the issues at hand. The court’s granting the writ of certiorari before judgment would “provide the expeditious resolution that this case warrants.”
he former president issued a statement describing the move as a “Hail Mary” on the prosecutor’s part, “by racing to the Supreme Court and attempting to bypass the appellate process.”
He also noted Mr. Smith’s poor record at the high court, which he stated “has not been kind to him, including by handing down a rare unanimous rebuke when the Court overturned him 8-0 in the McDonnell case,” in which Mr. Smith prosecuted former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
President Trump reiterated his belief that the prosecution is politically motivated.
“There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics,” he stated.
Trial Date
The trial on March 4, one day before Super Tuesday Republican primary elections in more than a dozen states, would be the first of the four criminal cases against President Trump.
The 45th president, who has pleaded not guilty to 91 criminal counts, was also facing a May trial date in a federal criminal case in the Southern District of Florida, which is almost certainly going to be postponed as the judge is set to revisit the trial schedule in January.
In Georgia, prosecutors have pushed for an August 2024 trial start, which President Trump’s attorney has argued falls too close to the general election, likely putting jurors in the position of voting for or against him while they attempt to try the case objectively.
President Trump is also facing criminal charges in Manhattan; prosecutors originally set a March 2024 trial date, but the court is set to postpone the case around the schedules of these other criminal cases.
On top of that, President Trump faces several civil lawsuits, one with trial ongoing in New York and another two set to go to trial in mid-January.
Presidential Immunity?
On Dec. 1, a federal appeals court ruled that presidential immunity doesn’t shield President Trump from lawsuits regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach and noted that the court wouldn’t be the final authority on the issue.
In November 2022, Mr. Smith was appointed special counsel on issues related to the Capitol breach, just days after President Trump announced his candidacy. This summer, he unsealed the indictment against President Trump alleging criminal conspiracy in his actions to challenge the 2020 results, tying much of the case to Jan. 6, 2021.
U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan ruled that President Trump was acting as candidate Trump in much of what he is being sued for and that his actions weren’t official acts of a president.
“When a sitting president running for re-election speaks in a campaign ad or in accepting his political party’s nomination at the party convention, he typically speaks on matters of public concern. Yet he does so in an unofficial, private capacity as office-seeker, not an official capacity as office-holder. And actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official-act immunity,” he wrote, rejecting an appeal filed by President Trump, who is also facing civil lawsuits related to Jan. 6, 2021.
The judge added that the rejection of presidential immunity in this case assumes truth in the plaintiffs’ allegations against him, which will need to play out in district court.
“When these cases move forward in the district court, [President Trump] must be afforded the opportunity to develop his own facts on the immunity question if he desires to show that he took the actions alleged in the complaints in his official capacity as President rather than in his unofficial capacity as a candidate,” he wrote. “At the appropriate time, he can move for summary judgment on his claim of official-act immunity.”
The special counsel’s office argues that President Trump sought to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud” and that he conspired with several people outside of office to do so.
They rebutted President Trump’s presidential immunity defense by arguing that a former president doesn’t have the same immunity and that if he did, it “would be narrower than the ‘outer perimeter’ standard” afforded a sitting president.
The defense argued that President Trump has a history of taking allegations of election fraud seriously, pointing to several investigations he approved while in office, and argued that the speech about election fraud during the end of his term fell squarely within the duties of a president. The special counsel frames the situation quite differently, arguing that President Trump was aware of having legitimately lost the election when he made allegedly false claims about election fraud and “stolen” votes.
In the petition to the Supreme Court, they are also arguing that President Trump has been impeached on similar issues and that the immunity argument is “undercut” by the impeachment clause.
The special counsel has argued, and the district court affirmed, that to grant President Trump presidential immunity here would be to put him “above the law.”
If the Supreme Court agrees to issue judgment before the appeals court rules, it may throw off President Trump’s plans to stall the case past the general election.
On January 6th, 2021, “insurrectionists attacked the United States Capitol intent on preventing the certification of a democratic election and, apparently, inflicting violence upon elected officials… Several lives were lost, including at least one Capitol Police officer…” wrote Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), then-Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security to Transportation Security Administration Administrator David Pekoske on January 11th, 2021, in a previously unrevealed letter. This committee “focuses on legislation and oversight related to the security of the United States” with the goal of “[ensuring] that the American people were protected from terrorist attacks.”
Chairman Thompson started his letter with unproven charges and false information in this salacious statement of fiction as he requested an Executive Branch agency ignore due process and deprive thousands of Americans of their Constitutionally protected rights to travel freely within the United States (a right recognized since at least 1870.) Rep. Thompson’s account of the events on January 6th, 2021, could have been lifted directly from a far-left opinion website like HuffPost or ProPublica. While Thompson does not source his wild allegations, he could have easily credited a ProPublica article that made identical claims: law enforcement agencies were “unprepared,” and “the attack was planned largely in open internet forums.” A subsequent article by the same author falsely claimed that “Officer Brian Sicknick died defending the Capitol.”
But Congressman Thompson’s concern was not about how to better protect the U.S. Capitol. His immediate concern, less than a week after the events of January 6th, was punishing those who came to Washington, DC, without trial or investigation. He said the “perpetrators have continued to enjoy freedom of movement throughout the country. Only a fraction of the insurrectionists have been arrested, and many of those arrested have been released pending a future court date. To our knowledge, the Federal government has not prevented a single insurrectionist from boarding an aircraft.” Perhaps the Chairman is less than familiar with the U.S. Constitution to which he was required to swear allegiance in his 15 terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but the 5th Amendment is quite clear on the following: “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Chairman Thompson continued with a statement he attributed to “growing online chatter,” which informed his belief that “many of the same groups that planned and carried out Wednesday’s attack intend to return to Washington, D.C., to cause further disruption and violence in the coming days, including at the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.” Those of us who were working in law enforcement during the inauguration of Joe Biden marveled at the speed and efficiency of locking down Washington DC into a Police State scene out of the Cold War. The anti-scale fencing, which was nowhere to be found during the summer riots of 2020, was installed with an efficiency that shocked the government sensibilities in a place like Washington, DC. But at the bottom of his third paragraph, Rep. Bennie Thompson says the so-called quiet part out loud: “It appears little is being done to disrupt the travel of terrorists who just attacked the seat of the U.S. Government and wish to do so again.” Furthermore:
“Please provide a briefing not later than the end of this week on the following topics:
Current efforts to disrupt the travel of white supremacist and other domestic terrorist groups who may be planning further attacks against the U.S. Government and may be targeting the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden;
Options available for quickly denying air carrier service to individuals identified as posing a potential threat, including TSA’s authorities to prevent individuals from flying on a temporary or flight-by-flight basis;”
After this letter was received by the top official at the TSA, many Americans who had simply traveled to the National Capitol Region on or around January 6th, 2021, were welcomed to the “Quiet Skies.” These unsuspecting (and unconvicted) American citizens were added to a secretive program known as Quiet Skies—which the TSA claims identifies “international travelers who may require enhanced screening” by a “set of risk-based, intelligence-driven scenario rules.” It further claims that “these rules have strict oversight by the Department of Homeland Security, including the privacy, civil rights and liberties, and general counsel offices.” However, several Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) whistleblowers and retired supervisory FAM Sonya Labosco have blown the lid off some of the abuses of this program in numerous national interviews and a previous article published by UncoverDC. Additional coverage by UnCoverDC’s Wendi Mahoney introduced those unfamiliar with Quiet Skies to the “Quad S” designation.
The simple fact is—thousands of Americans are now subjected to invasive “security” screenings for several years as a form of extrajudicial punishment that was called for by a powerful Congress member and implemented by a feckless administrative agency. The saddest part for those of us who have engaged in surveillance activities of alleged but unindicted terrorists is—legitimate investigations of sworn aspiring members of ISIS or Al-Qaeda are not nearly as destructive to those members’ lives. The entire point of covert surveillance in a law enforcement setting is to document the subject’s behavior without them altering it from the heavy-handed or visible presence of police. The “SSSS” designation on the boarding passes of many attendees of a 1st Amendment-protected activity or even those who coincidentally flew into the region during that timeframe leads to an experience that is the opposite of productive for any “domestic terrorism” investigation. We only know this information because of the tireless work of the AMNC and former FAMs like Sonya Labosco.
Labosco is the Director of a private advocacy group called the Air Marshal National Council (AMNC). Historically, the FAMS have spent the majority of their time traveling internationally. Armed federal agents with specialized training to stop a terrorist hijack attempt or reclaim a seized aircraft, the FAMS are unique in their skillsets and focus on a post 9/11 airborne jurisdiction. But since January 2021, this highly specialized counterterrorism force has been aimed at surveilling Americans who have not been identified under any other federal law enforcement agency watch list.
The AMNC has been quietly working to unravel the chain of events that has led to the weaponization of this agency. This letter from Chairman Thompson appears to be one of the first movements by the eventual “Chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol” (J6 Unselect Committee) to craft the Democratic Party fantasy that “white supremacists and domestic terrorists groups” were the cause of the riot that day. It also appears to be an underhanded request to the TSA, an agency Congressman Thompson’s Committee had “special oversight functions” over, to “disrupt the travel” and “[deny] air carrier service” to Americans who simply found themselves on the wrong side of the Congressman’s politics. Of note, this letter was co-signed by the Committee’s Ranking Member, John Katko, a 3-term New York Congressman who declined to seek re-election in 2022. Former Rep. Katko is currently a senior advisor to Hill East Group—a Washington, DC-based consulting and lobbying firm.
What Americans should know after reading this letter is that the Democrat narrative regarding what they would set out to show in their highly curated, nominally bipartisan Committee on January 6th was already sent out as marching orders to one of the federal government’s most inefficient and theatrical entities: the TSA.
Kyle Seraphin is a former FBI Agent assigned to the Washington Field Office on January 6th, 2021. After a transfer to Las Cruces, NM, he “blew the whistle” on the FBI’s partisan investigations into parents at school board meetings. He was suspended for a year without pay before “resigning,” but not before continuing to blow the whistle on numerous issues, including breaking the story the FBI was targeting Catholics with UnCoverDC. His work has spawned multiple Congressional and Attorney General investigations.
We had a fake commission of Pelosi handpicked partisans who voted for impeachment. Now that we have the 44,000 hours of video, let’s have a real commission.
Make it small. 2 Democrats and three Republicans. And open up the hearing with Trumps full statement on a peaceful protest. What say you?
Truth nothing but the truth on that mostly peaceful protest January 6. It looks as if all the video will be released for all to see. Will the MSM show or give links to it? Also who does this help? Former President Trump of course. Who does it hurt? The rogue cop who killed an innocent woman. Hopefully the part where he leaves the scene without offering medical assistance.
I’m sure we have not seen the end of this.
Follow the link below to view the January 6th tapes for yourself.
To restore America’s trust and faith in their Government we must have transparency. This is another step towards keeping the promises I made when I was elected to be your Speaker.
BREAKING: In this never-before-seen footage of the January 6th insurrection, you can see capitol police officers fighting for their lives as the violent insurrectionists endanger American democracy in real-time pic.twitter.com/DDqPWafrHI
When I ran for Speaker, I promised to make accessible to the American people the 44,000 hours of video from Capitol Hill security taken on January 6, 2021. Truth and transparency are critical. Today, we will begin immediately posting video on a public website and move as quickly as possible to add to the website nearly all of the footage, more than 40,000 hours. In the meantime, a public viewing room will ensure that every citizen can view every minute of the videos uncensored.
If it does happen, MSM will only show the negative parts of the videos. Yes, absolutely make the Jan 6th tapes public , it’s about time , let’s also highlight exactly what Pelosi did and didn’t do.
“The way that the Jan. 6 tapes will be released will be through a website where any member of the public can go and observe the videos that are being released,” Mr. Gaetz, Florida Republican, said on the SiriusXM show “The Wilkow Majority.”
“My expectation is they’re going to be released in tranches and that the first tranche … to be released will be in, you know, days, not weeks,” he told host Andrew Wilkow.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called for Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., to be punished after he pulled a fire alarm in a Capitol office building Saturday, comparing the incident to the Jan. 6 riot at the building.
McCarthy, R-Calif., cited “how other people were treated when they come in and wanted to change the course of what was happening in the building.” He said the Ethics Committee should take the pulled fire alarm “seriously.”
“This should not go without punishment,” McCarthy said. “I’m going to have a discussion with the Democratic leader about it. But this should not go without punishment. This is an embarrassment. ”Bowman said later in a statement that the action was unintentional.
“Today, as I was rushing to make a vote, I came to a door that is usually open for votes but today would not open,” he said Saturday night. “I am embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm, mistakenly thinking it would open the door. I regret this and sincerely apologize for any confusion this caused.
“But I want to be very clear, this was not me, in any way, trying to delay any vote. It was the exact opposite — I was trying urgently to get to a vote, which I ultimately did and joined my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to keep our government open,” he added.
A screen grab of security video was distributed to officers so they could find the person who pulled the alarm, a person familiar with the matter said.
A photo linked to Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulling a fire alarm at the Capitol on Saturday.
Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said he has not yet seen the video. “Until I see the video, I have no further comment,” he said when he was asked.
U.S. Capitol Police are investigating, according to a statement that did not mention Bowman by name, and the House Administration Committee is conducting a probe, as well.
“Rep. Jamal Bowman pulled a fire alarm in Cannon this morning,” an account controlled by the Republicans on the committee wrote on X, the website formerly known as Twitter, in a post that spelled Bowman’s first name incorrectly. “An investigation into why it was pulled is underway.” Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., signed the post.
Fellow Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York, a Republican, said on X that she will introduce a resolution to expel Bowman from the House over the incident. “This is the United States Congress, not a New York City high school. This action warrants expulsion & I’m introducing a resolution to do just that,” she wrote.
The alarm sounded in the Cannon office building, which is connected to the Capitol by an underground tunnel, as the Republicans were trying to begin a vote on a 45-day spending measure to keep the government open.
“Today at 12:05 p.m., a fire alarm was activated on the 2nd floor of the Cannon House Office Building,” a Capitol Police spokesperson said in the statement. “The building was evacuated while USCP officers checked the building. The building was reopened after it was determined that there was not a threat. An investigation into what happened and why continues.”
Democrats appeared to try to delay starting the vote, which they had been given very little notice about. Many complained that Republicans were trying to vote before Democrats had time to read the bill.
Jeffries delivered a 52-minute speech in what was seen as an effort to give his fellow members and their staffs time to figure out whether his party would support the bill.
Ultimately, the vote began 2½ hours after it was scheduled to start. And Democrats overwhelmingly voted in favor of the bill.
Several former intelligence officials who signed a letter suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely a “Russian information operation” are joining a federal “expert” board handling issues of national security, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Tuesday.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former CIA Operations Officer Paul Kolbe, who will now serve on the board, all signed an October 2020 letter casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop and suggesting its release was a Russian disinformation ploy. The group will advise DHS on intelligence and national security efforts regarding issues such as “terrorism, fentanyl, transborder issues, and emerging technology,” DHS announced.
The group will meet four times per year to advise DHS on countering threats to national security, according to the agency.
“The security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect, generate, and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, campus, and private sector partners,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas said in a statement Tuesday regarding the group’s formation. “I express my deep gratitude to these distinguished individuals for dedicating their exceptional expertise, experience, and vision to our critical mission.”
Biden himself used the letter, whose conclusion is false, to characterize reports on the laptop’s contents as a “bunch of garbage.”
However, former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell testified to the House Judiciary Committee that then-Biden senior adviser Antony Blinken, who is now the Secretary of State, “triggered” the creation of the letter. Former CIA chief of staff Jeremy Bash, who signed the letter, connected Morrell and then-Biden campaign chairman Steve Richetti; Bash was later appointed to Biden’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
Moreover, both Clapper and Brennan have been previously criticized for misleading the American public.
Clapper gave incorrect information to Congress on multiple occasions, including in one instance when he gave “inconsistent testimony” about contacts he had with the media while in office. Brennan, for his part, denied that CIA officials had hacked the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, a statement that was later proven false.
The Letter signed by Brennan, Clapper and Kolbe argued that the release of emails from the laptop was an attempt by Russia to influence the U.S. election.
“We write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” the 2020 letter read.
“If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this,” the letter added.
In a February letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), lawyers representing Hunter Biden appeared to admit that data from his laptop is real.
Several social media platforms censored the New York Post’s reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop archive.
DHS didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the specifics of the board.
Last week Noam Dworman of Comedy Cellar USA, on his Live at the Table podcast, interviewed Washington Post columnist Philip Bump. It was a debate, with Bump invited because he’s “most associated with pouring cold water on the Hunter Biden story,” as Noam put it.
The show went viral as Bump, semi-reprising the performance of Russiagate champion and Guardian reporter Luke Harding walking on an interview with Aaron Mate, left abruptly after conceding Hunter’s line, “unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary” was evidence. To be fair the show had run long, but Bump insisted earlier that there was “no evidence” of wrongdoing on Joe Biden’s part, so it wasn’t a timely exit — not that I’m unfamiliar with interviews that go sideways.
I know Noam and my name got dragged into this somewhat absurdly (Bump said I had “an agenda,” as Noam brought up tapes between Petro Poroshenko and Joe Biden I’d referenced), but didn’t want to say anything. Then a subsequent show also went sideways, for much the same reason. More on that in a moment. Back to Bump v. Dworman:
Many exchanges in the podcast stand out, not in a good way. Bump repeatedly tells Noam his problem is that he’s not accepting his, Bump’s, versions of things. At about the 56-minute mark, Bump chides Noam for bringing up things that have been “debunked.” When Noam asks, “What’s been debunked?” Bump says, “I’ve written about this!” He adds, “It’s been debunked in the sense that I’ve already addressed this, and presented the counter-arguments to it.”
At about 1:05 in the video above, Noam brings up “the issue of the press. The press actually bothers me more than Joe Biden…” To which Bump interjects [emphasis mine]: “But you don’t listen to the press. I’m sitting here and telling you you’re wrong about these things and you don’t listen.” About five minutes later Noam again brings up media, and Bump says, “But again, you’re attacking the press, because you refuse to listen to what we’re saying.”
Nearly an hour into the show Bump began complaining he’d been set up, and I know what he was thinking, having of course also been in the position of being invited to an interview with someone who perhaps wants to make an ass of you. I actually don’t think that’s Noam’s game, but even if it were, the answer isn’t to keep repeating, “How can we talk when you keep insisting I get down from this high horse I’m on?”
Bump acts like he and his paper haven’t gotten all sorts of thingswrong in recent years, implicitly rejecting the notion that people like Noam have reason to question anything “already addressed” by papers like the Post. If you need an explanation for declining ratingsand circulation of mainstream press outlets, this vibe is it.
The other episode involved professor and frequent media commentator Dan Drezner, who laughs hysterically and at great length the instant it registers that Noam plans on countering a claim that Trump was a bad president. It’s at about the 52-minute mark:
Drezner is doing what Bump did, albeit with more humor: gagging in disbelief when a mainstream piety sent up the flagpole isn’t instantly saluted.
I think a lot of people in the world I once inhabited, in center-left media and academia, don’t realize they’ve slipped into a deeply unattractive habit of substituting checklists of unquestioned assumptions for thought. In the blue bubble Trump’s limitless evil is an idea with such awesome gravitational pull that it makes nuanced discussion about almost anything impossible. It’s why no one in media could suggest even the possibility he hadn’t colluded with Russia. He’s become an anti-God, of a faith that requires constant worship. When do we get to go back to being atheists?
