Author: Papa Giorgio

The Truth is “Bad Optics” | J6 Committee’s Failures

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here are three points the J6 Committee wish to make their endeavor both controlled and illegal.

FIRST

The First point is that this “committee” is illegitimate. I made this point with an upload to my YOUTUBE and subsequent post titled: “Trump’s Lawyer, John Eastman, Explains Why He Claimed the 5th.” Which is, this committee is actually illegal via the House Rules as well as the agreed upon rules of said committee. Which means, no one — zilch, zero, nada — needs to respond to any document calling them to speak at the committee. Over a thousand witnesses have been interviewed apparently… not a single one by the opposing view. This is tragically tyrannical, ripped straight from the paged of Stalin.

The same points are made but worth repetition, as, Pedagogy is the Mother of All Learning. Here the indomitable

So, that above point is key. Why would Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want a one-sided [jaundiced] view of the evidence? Well… because they wish to hide something of course. To ensure something is not heard from the Halls of Congress, so-to-speak.

(RIGHT SCOOP) Democrats call everything a threat to democracy. Guns are a threat to democracy. Trump is a threat to democracy. Truckers are a threat to democracy. Supreme Court Justices ruling on cases is. Counting every vote is. Preventing voter fraud, living in Florida, using the wrong pronoun. Even refusing to send your kids to drag strip shows is a threat to democracy according to the left and the media.

But the realest threat to the American system, which is a constitutional system, is what is happening right now in the so-called January 6 “investigation.” Mark Levin broke that down tonight on Life, Liberty and Levin and it’s awesome – in the sense of hearing someone put into words correctly and well a thing that is terrible and not at all awesome.

SECOND

What is that “something”?

That something is discussed in a previous post, just updated a couple of days back but posted originally in February 2021, “Trump Offered 10,000+ Troops Prior To J6.” You see, they cannot claim that Trump wanted this to happen, or directed it, or any other charge if they allow the fact… the fact that Trump — upon hearing chatter of violence — wanted to ensure that this type of scenario didn’t happen. The FEDERALIST reports on a new Congressional investigative report of this failure (RIGHT SCOOP hat-tip):

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shoulders much of the blame for the security breakdown at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a preliminary report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis determined.

The Capitol Police (USCP) were HALF-STAFFED ON JAN. 6, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms DENIED MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR NATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE FROM THE PENTAGON AND THE USCP CHIEF in the days leading up to Jan. 6, OFFICERS WERE POORLY EQUIPPED and had insufficient riot shields and helmets, and they were NEVER TRAINED TO HANDLE A RIOT EVEN AFTER THE RIOTS OF 2020, the investigation shows, according to Banks.

[….]

“This inaction left the Capitol unnecessarily vulnerable,” Banks and Davis noted.

Banks and Davis pointed to an After-Action Report from Capitol Police showing that the law enforcement department reorganized its intelligence without authorization which left it without essential “open-source intelligence capabilities” and caused staffing changes that “may have contributed to the tragedy” on Jan. 6.

In light of this information, Banks and Davis added that “the USCP intelligence unit had knowledge of the potential for violence yet failed to adequately communicate the threat or take the necessary steps to protect the Capitol.”….

John Solomon explains the new revelations that show Pelosi’s sergeant-at-arms refused the support of the National Guard ahead of Jan 6th due to “bad optics.”

(Watch the fuller show where the above clip came from, HERE)

What is not known by the typical cable news watcher, probably, is that both the Capital Police and the mayor of D.C. turned down offers to help secure the government areas before and as the mob of crazed Lefties and Righties descended on the Capital:

    • …Three days before the riot, the Pentagon offered National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. Capitol Police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter. Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, police planned only for a free speech demonstration. (WASHINGTON TIMES)
    • Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown. “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. According to Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Service were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday. (THE FEDERALIST)

Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020:

Even though Republicans were able to get two objections formally considered in 2021, they objected to votes from only six states. 

[….]

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states.

But this isn’t the main issue… what is is the dilemma this would bring if noted publicly. You would get these commentaries in prime time:

Yep. Hypocrites. See more related to the issue on my site:

THIRD

And another lie perpetrated by the media and the J6 Committee is that 5 police officers died because of the riot on Capitol Hill. While I disagree with Tucker on his opening point regarding Ashley Babbitt, he is wholly right on what he follows it with in the segment.

Joe Biden and the MSM loves these lies as well:

 

SCOTUS Strikes Down Unconstitutional Concealed Carry Law

Published by Papa Giorgio

Finally, today marks a monumental step in the right direction for gun rights activists. Listen as Buck Sexton breaks down the Supreme Court’s decision:

Here is some of the TRANSCRIPT:

…..“to keep and bear arms.” That first part, keeping up of the arms, was dealt with pretty well in D.C. v. Heller. Remember that case from some years ago?

You had an individual licensed to have a gun for work but who lived in the District of Columbia and couldn’t even bring his firearm that he had at work all day home with him. So that’s crazy, right? But that was the law, and they would arrest you. D.C. was vicious about enforcing even the most minor infractions of firearms law. Unless you’re, you know, a gang member with a long history of drugs; then they’re always looking. And this is the thing you have to remind yourself about the libs.

If you’re somebody who has guns and is actually a danger to society, they don’t want to make an example of you. They want to go soft on you. This is what we’ve seen with the progressive prosecutors and criminal justice reform, as they call it. But if you’re guy who likes to go hunting on the weekends but you cross from Virginia into D.C. with two shotgun shells in your pocket that are 20-gauge meant for pheasants, guess what? Too bad. You’re on your own. They’re gonna lock you up. That’s their attitude, right?

Well, in this case the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen — Bruen is the superintendent of the New York State police — what we have here is the “bear arms” part of it finally coming into Supreme Court focus. And by 6-3 the proper cause requirement for getting a handgun permit, a firearm permit to have and carry a concealed pistol or revolver, the proper cause requirement is gone now. It is unconstitutional.

Now, what this means, in effect — remember D.C. v. Heller said, “You gotta be able to — if you’re a law-abiding citizen and you meet some very basic thresholds, you gotta be able to — buy a gun. You can’t just say, ‘You’re not allowed to have a gun, period,’ because the Second Amendment.” Well, now it’s can you get a concealed carry permit? Can you actually carry your weapon with you? And I know there’s gonna be the whole distinction between concealed carry and open carry and all this.

But just to be able to carry in any capacity in these states was not allowed unless you were special, unless you could prove, demonstrate a special need that is different from just people in general. And 6-3 decision here. Roberts did join the majority; so he may be a wimp, but he’s not a lunatic. 6-3 decision, took a sledgehammer to the anti-gun regime of so many of these states, or I should say the anti-bearing arms regime, right? ‘Cause you’re loud to own in New York, you’re allowed to own a firearm in California, but can you carry it anywhere?

Can you get a concealed carry permit? Now, in the state of New York, as I said, this is near and dear to me because I have not been able to. As an adult, I have not been able to enjoy Second Amendment rights in my home state, and it’s obscene. And one of my favorite parts of this decision, one of my favorite parts of the way they dismantle… I mean the libs, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, just pathetic stuff in their dissent. Honestly. “Oh, but there’s so much gun violence!” Wait, but there’s so much gun violence, you guys are banning guns in these states in every way you can but there’s still so much violence.

Almost like the only people who are gonna have guns in a no gun regime state like New York or California are the bad guys. Oh, that is what happens. That is what happens. New York bans and has for over a hundred years. I’ve known about the Sullivan law passed in 1911… By the way, I rarely would say this you to. If you are a Second Amendment enthusiast, though, reading this whole decision just because of the history that it goes into is fascinating, the history of weapons and concealed carry and the Old West and even goes back in the medieval period, goes back to English common law, seventeenth century, eighteenth century.

It’s fascinating history, of course, written by the constitutionalists, the conservatives on the court in their 6-3 slap down of this unconstitutional absurdity of you’re not allowed — a law-abiding American in these states was not allowed — to get a pistol to carry concealed for protection unless they were special, which basically meant unless you’re connected, unless you know how to work the system. And that’s why honestly you know who is the getting concealed carry permits in New York City specifically? Celebrities………

MORE form JUSTICE THOMAS:

…..I just want to read to you. THIS IS FROM THE OPINION, WRITTEN BY JUSTICE THOMAS, who is… I’ve said this before. If I can come up with a better, more specific phrase, but he is a national treasure. He really is. Justice Thomas is an amazing man who should be so much more… I mean, he’s celebrated by conservatives. He should be celebrated so much more nationally for what he is, being brilliant, having an incredible life story. But I digress.

“When we look to the latter half of the 17th century,” this decision says, respondents’ case only weakens. As in Heller, we consider this history ‘[b]etween the [Stuart] Restoration [in 1660] and the Glorious Revolution [in 1688]’ to be particularly instructive. During that time, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II ramped up efforts to disarm their political opponents, an experience that ‘caused Englishmen … to be jealous of their arms,’” and there’s other examples like this.

But this is the key point, friends. When you look at the history of these efforts to disarm the law-abiding, whether it’s in England, whether it’s in the medieval period, or it’s in the Revolutionary period in America, you look at these efforts to disarm, it’s always a means of the powerful asserting their control. Because they want to be able to do whatever they want to do. They don’t want anyone to be able to say, “No, you’re a tyrant. No, you’ve gone too far, and I can do something about it.”

And this really goes to the heart of the Second Amendment. When you read through the history, it’s fascinating. Those with the guns or the swords and the daggers and the halberds and those with those weapons, they don’t want others to be able to meet them with steel and gunpowder. They want to be the ones that get to call all the shots. They say, “You know what? We’re just gonna…” “No. You are not important. You don’t get a weapon,” and you could look all throughout history.

At different times, just the carrying of a sword unless you were connected to the nobility was something that could get you even executed. But then there are other times where there was an expectation that all gentlemen would be carrying. There are cultures, actually, where you have to carry a working blade. Cultures where carrying a knife for utility and for the protection of oneself and perhaps even one’s faith or one’s state, that was expected.

The libs ultimately… There’s the criminal justice component of this and the self-protection. But then there’s also the defense against tyranny aspect. And the left in this country, the anti-gun Democrat Party which now effectively is all the Democrat Party. There are some who will still pretend here and there to win some votes that they’re pro-Second Amendment. But the Democrat Party’s become the anti-gun party because they’re authoritarians.

You’ve seen this over the course of covid. You see this in your day-to-day lives. They want to control your speech. They want to control your property. They want to control every aspect of your life. They want to brainwash your children to gender identity theory. They want full and total control, and even if they may not have the eloquence and the constitutional understanding — which they certainly don’t — to put it in these terms, they do understand at some level that the individual ownership by citizens of this country, of firearms, is a personal act of rebellion against authoritarianism.

Or at least the possibility waiting in the wings, waiting on the sidelines to be that act of rebellion should it be called upon. And they hate that. They hate that because they know somewhere, deep down, hold on a second. We can’t just force them to do anything we want if we have full and total control of the apparatus. We can’t just start pulling people out of their homes and arresting them in front of their families because of climate denial. What do you mean? That would be a problem for us?

Ultimately, the true believers on the left, the real center of the Democrat Party finds that notion of an armed populace unacceptable, unacceptable to them, because they want… They’re always trying… They’re progressing, you see? Yeah, they’re always moving for the next thing, moving to the next issue. But their ultimate progression as progressives is to get to the utopia that is only possible when they are in total and complete control.

And so long as we have an armed population in this country that represents the final bulwark against that tyranny. And they know it; so, they hate it. And they also like all the virtue signaling, of course, from, if we could only pass more gun laws, we would stop all the gun violence out there. It’s not true, but people say that and they feel proud and brave and smart. If only we passed this gun law.

No matter how many times they fail, it feels good for them to say it. It feels good for the left to shout this out so they will keep doing it, they won’t look at the data. Doesn’t matter to them. They want you disarmed and double masked. That’s the point. That’s how they see this. And if we allow them, that’s where we’ll go. But today’s Supreme Court decision a huge victory, a huge move in the right direction.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BUCK: I gave a shout-out to Justice Thomas, who a lot of us know he’s amazing, but deserves even more praise than he gets from those of us who are fans of his jurisprudence, his sharp mind, and his courage. In this decision, he wrote, “A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States.”

Again, this is a quote from the decision. “If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’ Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms — a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America,” and that’s the end of the quote there.

Just a reminder as well for everybody, it was the racist Democrat Party that worked so hard after the Civil War to make sure that black citizens of this country were disarmed. It was the racist Democrat Party during reconstruction and then leading all the way up into the era of the Ku Klux Klan that was doing everything it could to disarm our fellow Americans who were black. So there is a, as I said, long history of disarming in the name of oppression that stretches back for hundreds of years.

Not even just in America but hundreds of years. It stretches back all throughout history. The people in charge want you to shut up and do what you’re told. They get the guns; you get the orders. That’s the way they wanted it to be. Our Founding Fathers — the reason for the Second Amendment — realized, “No, that’s not gonna work. We’re not gonna have a free society, a truly free society of individuals with real liberty unless we change that dynamic.” So I think that’s essential to take away from all this.

Democratic Historic Racism: Rev. Wayne Perryman

Published by Papa Giorgio

12-year Flashback

(March 26, 2010) Rev. Wayne Perryman Speaks With Michael Medved About Historic Democratic Racism

  • My Vimeo account was terminated many years back; this is a recovered audio from it. (Some will be many years old.)

KILLING BLACK & WHITE REPUBLICANS

This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:

You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.

I could go on, but I won’t.

Here is a short video discussing the matter:

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

Did I Harm Students By Asking This Question? (Peter Boghossian)

Published by Papa Giorgio

[Editor’s Note: I do wish to note what Dennis Prager does, that is, the driving force of this view and its “advocacy” is women. Especially white progressive women.]

Following the unexpected cancellation of our Reverse Q&A at Brown University, we created an ad hoc event on the streets of Portland. Here, we are exploring the reasoning behind agreement or disagreement with the claim: “There are only two genders.” We were approached by a group of students and here’s what happened.

This video was filmed on May 11, 2022 outside a Portland State University building that houses the department of social work.

The Biden Admin’s “Bogeyman” | Oil and Gas

Published by Papa Giorgio

Biden threatened [mafia style] oil and gas companies with the “Defense Production Act.” Here Dan Bongino speaks about the issue on a drive between studios the other day. Some articles worth a read are:

  • Biden Is Threatening Oil Companies With Use of Emergency Powers Against Them (RED STATE)
  • Defense Production Act: How Biden Is Using Emergency Powers for Green Energy (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • President Joe Biden Temporarily Suspends Oil & Gas Permitting on Federal Lands & Water (BIG 102.1)

Tulsi Gabbard on Media Bias and Ministry of Truth

Published by Papa Giorgio

TULSI’S TWO CLIPS FROM HER RUMBLE THIS WEEK

At Washington Post, you can print factually incorrect, biased propaganda – but they draw the line at retweeting a dumb joke. MSM priorities are so twisted and out of sync with the American people, it’s just sad to see what our media has become.

Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court

LARGER CLIPS FROM FOX APPEARANCES THIS WEEK

Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard assesses the January 6 hearings, says the Democratic-led Congress is not taking action on the real threats facing Americans on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

‘Outnumbered’ panelists sound off on the media and President Biden for failing to publicly denounce the murder attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

‘Outnumbered’ hosts shred President Biden’s first interview on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ for playing blame-game and ‘painting a rosy picture’ of the country wrapped in crises.

New Documentary Coming Out About Transgender Issues

Published by Papa Giorgio

Abigail Shrier tells Tucker Carlson about the increase in young people who identify as transgender

TWITCHY has an excellent article to read through to compliment the above: Thread From 22-Year-Old Detrans Man About Transitioning As A Teenager (And The Dangers Of Doing So) A Heartbreaking Must-Read

This is another one of those threads where we feel like the writer themselves has done a far better job than we ever could so we’ll leave the writing up to them.

Too late, we know, we’re already writing but still …

Jaden is a 22-year-old detrans male who shared his story about transitioning as a teenager, puberty blockers, and more………

Biden Admin: Green “Transition” Must Be Censored On Social Media

Published by Papa Giorgio

Censorship is the only way for the Democrats to try and win. President Joe Biden advisor Gina McCarthy said content critical of the green “transition” must be censored on social media, during a segment on Axios’ “The Infodemic Age” on 6/9/2022. Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video.

 

Media Black Out Of Kavanaugh Attempted Assassination (Bill Maher)

Published by Papa Giorgio

BILL MAHER UPDATE!

Bill Maher Rips NY Times for Burying Justice Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt

(TWITCHY)

Zero mentions from ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. We’d put on our shocked faces here but at this point, we don’t have the energy to pretend for these hypocrites.

Imagine if the roles in this scenario were reversed?

[….]

TO WIT…..

Again… J6 Committee Is Illegal AND Altering “Evidence”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jim Jordan tells Maria Bartiromo the select committee are liars and they’ve been caught red-handed.

(PJ-MEDIA) The Jan. 6 Committee has a well-established credibility problem. The committee released various text messages that have actually exonerated Donald Trump, but they falsely characterized the messages as incriminating. And when the truth wasn’t incriminating, they doctored text messages to make them look so.

Now Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is calling out the committee for its deceptions, and he promised an investigation during an appearance on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo.

“I want to see all the depositions,” Rep. Jordan said. “I want to see all the documents. And ranking member Rodney Davis has already sent a preservation letter to the committee, saying, preserve all this information, so we can look at it, and the American people can get the full story, not just this one-sided, choreographed presentation we got — excuse me — we got the other night. But when you think about what this committee has done, never in the history of this country, in the history of the House of Representatives, has a minority leader not been able to put on a select committee that [sic] individuals he or she has selected.”

“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 continued.

[Preserve the evidence/depositions !!]

What was altered intentionally via PJ-MEDIA:

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Witchhunt) has once again been caught manipulating evidence: the House Jan. 6 committee on Wednesday admitted that Schiff had altered a text message from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, making it appear much more damning than it actually was. After THE FEDERALIST exposed the deception, the House committee claimed that Schiff’s editing was “inadvertent.” Sure, and the next time Adam Schiff appears in public, he will be wearing a MAGA hat.

But there really wasn’t much of anything else that the Jan. 6 committee could have said, short of admitting that Schiff is a hate-filled hyper-partisan fanatic with scant regard for truth or accuracy. During Monday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing, Schiff announced that he had proof that a congressman, who turned out to be Jordan, had texted Meadows, urging him to tell Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the 2020 presidential election results. It was dramatic stuff, as so many of Schiff’s past announcements have been, except for the unpleasant fact that it shared a flaw of those past announcements: it was false.

“I want to display just a few of the message[s] [Meadows] received from people in Congress,” Schiff proclaimed grandly. Then he displayed a graphic that he represented as a text from a member of Congress to Meadows. Schiff declared: “This one reads, ‘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.’ You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows about. About a lawmaker suggesting that the former vice president simply throw out votes that he unilaterally deems unconstitutional in order to overturn a presidential election and subvert the will of the American people.”

Schiff did not mention, however, that he had truncated Jordan’s message, which was actually forwarded by Jordan and was written by former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph Schmitz. Schiff left out a significant part of it and added punctuation to make it appear as if nothing had been deleted. According to The Federalist, the original text “included an attachment of a four-page draft Word document drafted by Schmitz that detailed Schmitz’s legal reasoning for suggesting that Pence had the constitutional authority to object to the certification of electoral votes submitted by a handful of states. The piece that Schmitz had sent to Jordan was published at the website everylegal.vote the next day and even included the same ‘DISCUSSION DRAFT’ heading and timestamp on the document that Schmitz sent to Jordan.”

Schmitz wrote: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.” Schiff included only what had been written up to “at all,” and added a period after that to make the message seem complete, without giving any indication that he had altered the message at all.

The Federalist also reported that “according to a source familiar with the matter, Schiff never approached Jordan to discuss the text messages prior to chopping them up and misrepresenting them during Monday night’s hearing. Had he done so or bothered asking Jordan about the text message, Schiff would have known that Jordan was merely relaying to Meadows, without comment, an attorney’s summary of that attorney’s own legal argument as to what Pence should or shouldn’t do.”………..

Mark Levin on Hannity: “I’d ask the Republicans in Congress, but any citizen can do it – with the ethics arm of the Supreme Court of California and seek the license of Adam Schiff”

The Jan. 6 panel apologized Wednesday for the “error,” which was truncating the message with a period, and Schiff presenting it to the public without full context.

Jordan’s office confirmed the congressman from Ohio did send the message to Meadows but stressed that it was a snippet of a message he “forwarded” from an attorney who was expressing a legal theory about overturning the results of the 2020 election.

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER)