Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Crime Government Overreach January 6 Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources.

If the Abortion scare fails, is January 6 the Ace in the Hole?

Views: 5

If the Abortion scare fails, is January 6 the Ace in the Hole?

The left is now playing the abortion card. Claiming Trump is out to kill women. Well it looks as if Trump is closer to the left on abortion then the right. So they need a new card to play. January 6.

The mostly peaceful rally that had some trouble, some claim the government had folks there instigating. So what’s next? Arrests for folks at January 6 has picked up.

The rate of arrests showed a sharp increase in the first quarter compared to 2023 and 2022, a report shows.

The U.S. Department of Justice reported that as of the close of business on April 5, 1,387 people have been arrested since the breach and violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the first three months of the year, the 122 arrests logged in 2024 vastly outpaced the 70 arrests in the same period of 2023 and the 50 arrests in the first quarter of 2022, DOJ records show.




Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. The Law

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence.

Views: 48

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence. This came out Friday. Newsmax covered this.

By Jim Thomas    |  

In a press release on Friday, Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., of the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight unveiled a previously suppressed interview conducted by the Jan. 6 Select Committee with Anthony Ornato, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

Ornato’s testimony reveals that former President Donald Trump advocated deploying 10,000 National Guard troops to safeguard the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021.The Select Committee conducted Ornato’s interview in Jan. 2022.

“This is just one example of important information the former Select Committee hid from the public because it contradicted what they wanted the American people to believe. And this is exactly why my investigation is committed to uncovering all the facts, no matter the outcome,” Loudermilk said.

The chairman added, “The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative.”

The released interview highlights the White House’s frustration over the delayed assistance deployment. It contradicts the previous narrative presented by the Jan. 6 Select Committee that Trump incited the U.S. Capitol attack.

“Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. [Mark] Meadows has said all along: President Trump did, in fact, offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down,” Loudermilk said.

Meadows “wanted to know if she [D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser] needed any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think, it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”

The distinction between the Select Committee’s findings and Ornato’s testimony turns on the word “ordered” instead of “offered.” While the Select Committee said that Trump did not “order” 10,000 troops to be deployed, reported NBC News, according to Ornato’s testimony, he did “offer” them.

The Federalist uncovered further details, revealing that the Jan. 6 Committee had suppressed exonerating evidence regarding Trump’s push for National Guard deployment.

When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House still requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department if needed.

As events unfolded on Jan. 6, Ornato recounted the Trump administration’s urgent appeals for the force’s deployment from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.

“So, then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling the secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato testified. Later, he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”

The testimony contradicts claims made by Committee member Liz Cheney, the former Republican representative of Wyoming, who asserted there was “no evidence” supporting the White House’s desire for National Guard troops on Jan. 6.


Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Corruption Elections Government Overreach January 6 Politics Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Trump Weaponization of Government.

Winning – MAGA edition: Supreme Court rules states can’t kick Trump off the ballot

Views: 23

Winning – MAGA edition: Supreme Court rules states can’t kick Trump off the ballot

The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states could bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.

By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”

Get out the legal vote. Tenor Photo.


Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics

Setting the record straight January 6.

Views: 31

Setting the record straight January 6. I found this X this morning. Greenwald isn’t your typical Liberal. He will point out left wing lies, and he uses common sense and simple logic to prove his point.

The latest narrative Greenwald is trying to exorcise from the souls of liberals is that January 6 was an attempted coup, armed rebellion, or an insurrection. It’s an emphatic no on all fronts. Joe Biden is president, the military was not deployed, and Trump left willingly. All of the characteristics of a traditional coup d’état are absent, and the former Guardian journalist slaps down all the points made by liberals Destiny and the Krassenstein brothers, Ed and Brian.

If there was an attempt to take over the government, Trump would have been arrested after the so-called insurrection happened. That did not happen.

The DOJ did not get involved until after Trump announced that he was running for President again.




Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach January 6 Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources.

So, why is the MSM and white progressives afraid of the complete January 6 videos?

Views: 19

So, why is the MSM and white progressives afraid of the complete January 6 videos? Truth be told, facts are facts, and with tens of thousands of folks at the Trump rally and the Capitol, the scene was mostly peaceful.

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?


Censorship Commentary Corruption Free Speech January 6 Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Public Service Announcement Trump

Truth nothing but the truth on that mostly peaceful protest January 6.

Views: 25

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.

Speaker Johnson issued the following statement:

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.


Corruption January 6 Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Called Jan. 6 Events a Cover-Up.

Views: 33

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Called Jan. 6 Events a Cover-Up.

Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund called the events of Jan. 6 a cover-up in an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson, an interview that never aired but resurrected by The National Pulse.

Sund made the comments on Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Today.” But according to the Pulse, the interview was buried by Fox.

In the interview leaked by the Pulse, Sund tells Carlson he believes that Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had intelligence of what was coming on Jan. 6 but failed to communicate it and subsequently covered it up in the aftermath.

“Everything appears to be a cover-up,” Sund told Carlson. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist … but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it’s all watered down. I’m not getting intelligence, I’m denied any support from National Guard in advance. I’m denied National Guard while we’re under attack, for 71 minutes …”

Sund resigned his post shortly after the riots. He was chief of the Capitol Police beginning in 2019 and served as a police officer for more than 30 years.

At one point, Carlson begins to posit a question to Sund, saying, “It sounds like they were hiding the intelligence.”

Sund responded: “Could there possibly be actually … they kind of wanted something to happen? It’s not a far stretch to begin to think that. It’s sad when you start putting everything together and thinking about the way this played out … what was their end goal?”

In a bipartisan Senate report released in June 2021, the panel concluded that federal agencies did not raise a sufficient alarm concerning the threat of violence and that the Capitol Police’s intelligence division did not adequately communicate what it knew with the department’s leaders and rank-and-file officers.

Sund told Carlson that should have started at the top.

“If I was allowed to do my job as the chief we wouldn’t be here; this didn’t have to happen,” he said.


Back Door Power Grab Corruption Just my own thoughts

What needs to happen when we have the actual hearing on January 6.

Views: 21

What needs to happen when we have the actual hearing on January 6. As you know, the Democrats had their to do about nothing hearing. A left wing love fest that picked seven people who voted for impeachment. Well it actually proved that the left could pick a bunch of biased loons. Nothing else.

Now if the Republicans have a hearing, it should be titled. What really happened and can we please indict the actual criminal? Start off by making an open apology for the last hearing.

Call all the previous committee members plus Pelosi and Schumer. And call the rogue cop and find out why he murdered an unarmed female. I rest my case.


Back Door Power Grab Corruption Elections Politics The Courts

Surprise, surprise! Nonprofit behind ‘Sedition’ lawsuits is Leftist funded and run.

Views: 57

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., talks to the media about her suspended accounts on Twitter, during a news conference, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 20, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
By Mark Tapscott for Epoch Times April 27, 2022
Updated: April 29, 2022

Just minutes after Donald Trump was sworn in as president in January 2017, Free Speech for People (PFS), working with RootsAction, another obscure left-wing activist group, launched the website

The Trump impeachment website remains live today, but PFS has moved on from years of seeking to drive the embattled Trump from the Oval Office to now trying to remove four of his strongest congressional supporters from their respective November 2022 ballots.

Although officially a nonpartisan educational nonprofit, PFS’s most notable activities since being organized in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision have all been directed at Trump and other Republicans.

Most recently, PFS made headlines with litigation it filed against four House Republicans and one Arizona Republican state representative seeking to have state courts remove the officials’ names from the November ballot.

An Arizona Superior Court judge rejected PFS’s request to remove U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, both Arizona congressmen, and Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem from the November ballot.The PFS lawsuit stated that the lawmakers’ alleged efforts in support of the January 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol amounted to participation in an insurrection seeking to bring down the federal government.

Biggs and Gosar are seeking reelection to the U.S. House, while Finchem seeks to be elected as Arizona’s secretary of state.

Judges in North Carolina and Georgia are hearing similar suits brought by PFS-backed plaintiffs seeking the ouster of Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) from the November ballots in their states.

An analysis by The Epoch Times and the Capital Research Center (CRC) of available public records for PFS reveals a top leadership with deep ties throughout far-left precincts of liberal and progressive nonprofit political activism and funding from numerous well-known and some not-so-familiar liberal foundations.
A total of 91 grants to PFS from left-wing foundations with a value in excess of $7.3 million were found by CRC using the Foundation Search database.

Among the grants received between 2012 and 2019 were these: two grants (totaling $750,000) from the Schumann Media Center in New York; nine grants ($485,000) from the National Philanthropic Trust of Jenkintown, Pennsylvania; four grants ($375,000) from the Gaia Fund of San Francisco; five grants ($365,000) from the Madrona Foundation in Seattle; six grants ($255,000) from the Clements Foundation in Wilmington, Delaware.

Other notable grants during the period included four totaling $249,148 from the Tides Foundation in San Francisco; three grants ($205,000) from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York; two grants ($60,000) from the Rockefeller Family Fund; and four grants ($54,670) from the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund in Boston.

The funding from the Tides Foundation is notable because, in the 1970s, the San Francisco nonprofit pioneered the dark money fund that first provided a way for liberal donors to send large sums to support favored and oftentimes extremely controversial causes but without their names being publicly linked to the recipients.

The contribution is instead officially credited to Tides.

Such “donor-advised” funds are now common across the ideological and political spectrum.

The PFS 2020 IRS 990 tax return indicated that President John Bonifaz received nearly $217,000 in compensation that year, while legal director Ronald Fein was paid more than $159,000 for the period.

The depth of PFS links throughout the vast network of far-left liberal and progressive political activist nonprofits is seen in this analysis by InfluenceWatch, a CRC publication that specializes in reporting on such connections:

“Free Speech For People is led by a team with strong ties to the political left. John Bonifaz, founder of Free Speech for People, is the founder and former executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), a left-of-center electoral advocacy group.

“PFS chairman Ben Clements also sits as a board member for Stop Handgun Violence and works on the advisory committee of the Boston chapter of the American Constitution Society.

“Steve Cobble, [former] senior political adviser for Free Speech for People, [was] an assistant fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-wing think tank.

“Cobble is also a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America, an organization that aims to support the Democratic Party and advocate for an agenda focused on fighting climate change and expanding public healthcare.”

Other PFS officials have similarly left-wing backgrounds. Alexandra Flores-Quilty, who is PFS’s campaign director, was previously executive director of We the People, an activist group that organizes mass protest marches against Trump.

Kristen Eastlick, CRC vice president, told The Epoch Times that “while this organization [PFS] was founded in the wake of the Citizens United decision, the group’s agenda has expanded beyond generic campaign finance activism into partisan hackery—from their effort to launch as soon as he took the oath of office to their efforts to remove individuals from appearing on ballots.”

“Free Speech for People might be the name, but if political speech is the bedrock form of free speech, then eliminating the people’s election options is an assault on that freedom,” she said.


Corruption Elections Politics

Pelosi Congress Claims Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court to Keep Secret January 6 Videos and Emails

Views: 36

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents citizens from suing for their release.

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common law right of access after the Capitol Police refused to provide any records in response to a January 21, 2021, request (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Judicial Watch asks for:

  • Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Executive Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.
  • Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.
  • All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedent that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”

“In ‘the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’” … “[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.”

The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government….” “Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.”

“The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.”

In November 2021, Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.  The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd.

In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.

Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland, and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield “improper activity.”


The laws are for thee, not for me!


Verified by MonsterInsights