How biased are these pushes? Mollie Hemingway and Laura Ingraham explain:
‘The Federalist’ editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway discusses NewsGuard’s global disinformation index categorizing right-leading media outlets as ‘risky’ and left-leaning outlets as ‘least risky’ for disinformation on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’
The former chief of the Justice Department’s tax division is calling on the federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors to reject the agreement.
Eileen O’Connor, who ran the DOJ tax division from 2001 to 2007, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday outlining why the plea agreement Hunter Biden struck with the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office ought to be dismissed.
“Judges can reject plea agreements,” O’Connor wrote. “That would be an appropriate disposition here.”
[….]
Federal prosecutors also concealed the FD-1023 form housed with the FBI that alleged a criminal bribery scheme between the Biden family and a Ukrainian energy titan……….
The discovery of a secret Joe Biden cellphone paid for by Hunter Biden’s Communist China-connected business, and new confirmation that Joe is indeed “the big guy” designated for a piece of Hunter’s shady overseas profits are developments that may imperil the Biden presidency, Peter Schweizer says in the latest episode of The Drill Down podcast.
THE FEDERALIST notes that the below testimony by Shapely is only the “dust-bunnies” of the real dirt [my words… we have all tile in our home so the dust bunnies come out to visit. Often.] This is the key part of their article:
And while corruption in the vastly left-leaning bureaucracy almost always benefits Democrats, the problem goes beyond partisan politics.
And this goes to “leaks” as well. Why do the leaks almost always help Democrats push narratives? At any rate, “enjoy” the below.
Following the sensational whistleblower testimony that dropped Thursday, revealing how the Department of Justice systematically blocked an IRS investigation into Joe Biden’s son Hunter and diverted agents from examining the incriminating evidence against his presidential father, House Republicans are threatening the overdue impeachment of Attorney General Merrick Garland — except most of the pro-Biden interference in the DOJ happened before Garland was installed, while President Donald Trump was still in office.
Does Garland still deserve impeachment for his assortment of abuses, such as sitting on his hands to avoid real accountability for the younger Biden (and his pop), while weaponizing the country’s top law enforcement agency to try to send Biden’s top presidential challenger to federal prison? Absolutely. Is it smart politically for Kevin McCarthy to use the current momentum to hold Garland to account? Probably. Is the alleged involvement in a foreign bribery scheme enough to merit Biden’s own impeachment? Most definitely.
[….]
After IRS agents discovered a WhatsApp message in which Hunter Biden purportedly threatened a Chinese business associate that “I am sitting here with my father” and that the Bidens could “hold a grudge” if a “commitment made” to them was not “fulfilled,” federal prosecutors rejected IRS efforts to look into the messages. That was around August 2020, when Trump had nearly half a year left in the White House.
In October 2020, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf acknowledged “probable cause had been achieved” for executing a search warrant on Hunter Biden but still refused to allow a search. In the meantime, the DOJ continued to block IRS investigators from accessing the laptop and openly cited the investigation’s potential to hurt Biden’s electoral chances as their reason for slow-walking it.
Wolf would also order IRS investigators not to ask about “dad” or about an email stating there would be “Ten held by H for the big guy.” That happened in December, more than a month before Biden’s inauguration.
That same month, IRS and FBI investigators planned to seek a consent search of Hunter Biden’s residence and interviews with Hunter and his associates, since the search warrant had been rejected. “FBI headquarters,” Shapley said, apparently notified the transition team of the plan, a move which “tipped off” the Bidens’ inner circle. Of the 12 interviews investigators sought, they got one.
All of that happened under Trump and his attorney general, William Barr. That’s not to make the absurd suggestion that it happened at Trump or Barr’s direction. Rather, it shows how monstrous the triple-letter leviathan and its grip on our political process are. The regime, the deep state, the bureaucracy, whatever you want to call it: Shapley’s testimony shows their ability to manipulate political outcomes is so entrenched that their own elected overseers are powerless to stop it.
Unsurprisingly, as Shapley noted, “This same sort of unprecedented behavior continued through” Joe Biden’s first year in the White House. When IRS agents finally sent their recommended charges against Hunter Biden to the DOJ, the agency — by then under Attorney General Merrick Garland — opposed the recommendation. Based on the deal offered to Hunter Biden last week, we know the DOJ dropped most of the charges. Shapley also testified that he has been subject to retaliation from the DOJ since speaking out…..
Who was one of the main “road bumps to the investigation that stymied Shapely? Lesley Wolf
Rep. Jim Jordan on Lesley Wolf: “There’s typically a process you go through before you’d ever get to a subpoena, but if that’s what it takes, we think it’s important to talk to her.
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 25, 2023
Jim Jordan wants to speak to this “agent” of disruption! The DAILY CALLER has a bit more:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf of Delaware, accused of stonewalling federal agents building a criminal case against Hunter Biden, is a lifelong Democrat who previously worked for a major liberal law firm.
Wolf, who began working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Delaware District in 2006, told Biden and his attorneys that IRS agents wanted to search his storage locker in northern Virginia, IRS agent Gary Shapley and another whistleblower testified. She also allegedly shut down agents’ proposal to search a guesthouse on Joe Biden’s Delaware property where Hunter had been living off and on, and participated in a meeting where attorneys suggested departures from Justice Department protocol.
Before joining the DOJ, Wolf clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody, a George H.W. Bush appointee. She also worked as an associate at corporate law firm Ropes & Gray. Ninety-one percent of the firm’s political donations went to Democrats between 2017 and 2020, University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller found, making it the 39th-most liberal of the 100 biggest law firms in the country.
[….]
IRS Supervisory Agent Gary Shapley and another whistleblower named Wolf as the DOJ official who stonewalled investigations into Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings. According to their testimonies, Wolf denied requests to search a Northern Virginia storage locker belonging to Hunter Biden. She then allegedly alerted Biden’s attorneys that federal agents were eyeing the property, allowing him the opportunity to move evidence.
After agents viewed a text exchange showing Hunter Biden apparently threatening a Chinese businessman, they sought to search Joe Biden’s home in Delaware, where Hunter was then staying. Wolf again demurred, questioning “whether the juice was worth the squeeze,” according to Shapley. She also said that “optics” were against the search, the agent testified…..
The WASHINGTON FREE BEACON reminds us of other deep state corruption shown to be more lies to cover up for Democrats crimes:
….Morell recruited 50 former intelligence officials to sign the now infamous letter, which asserted the release of the younger Biden’s emails days earlier “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The missive, published by Politico, spurred public doubt about the authenticity of the laptop, which contained details of his foreign business dealings and taxes. Joe Biden cited the intel letter in his debate with Donald Trump days later, calling it a “Russian ruse.”
But unbeknownst to those operatives, the FBI had authenticated the laptop nearly a year earlier, according to Shapley.
Shapley, who oversaw an IRS investigation into Hunter Biden, told the House Ways and Means Committee that FBI agents authenticated Hunter Biden’s laptop in November 2019 and turned it over to the IRS the following month because it “likely contained evidence of a tax crime.” That claim was supported last week after the U.S. attorney in Delaware charged Hunter Biden on charges he failed to pay taxes on more than $3 million in income.
According to Shapley, the FBI obtained electronic evidence that placed Hunter Biden in the vicinity of the repair shop where he allegedly left his computer for repairs in April 2019. Hunter Biden has suggested that he may not have dropped the laptop off for repairs and that it may have been stolen, perhaps by Russians.
Shapley also testified that FBI investigators found no evidence that information on Hunter Biden’s laptop was manipulated or altered. “We have no reason to believe there is anything fabricated nefariously on the computer and or hard drive,” Shapley wrote in an Oct. 22, 2020, memo he gave the House Ways and Means Committee.
Morell and Shapiro have yet to weigh in on Shapley’s claims. They did not respond to requests for comment. Bates, who served as the Biden campaign’s rapid response director, did not respond to requests for comment. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment about Blinken’s views of Shapley’s testimony……
At today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questioned Special Counsel John Durham about his report on the FBI and the investigations into former President Trump.
What did Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Loretta Lynch, and James Comey know about Russia-collusion — and when did they know it? John Durham dropped a bombshell in his testimony today at House Oversight, which will go on for at least a couple of hours or more, but this part wasn’t the bombshell. In his special-counsel report, Durham had already revealed that CIA Director John Brennan briefed these four in August 2016 that Hillary Clinton planned to paint Donald Trump as linked to Russian intelligence, presumably to shift attention away from her own e-mail scandal.
That briefing resulted in a “referral memorandum,” and one of its recipients was then-FBI director James Comey. Oversight chair Jim Jordan asks Durham whether Comey ever bothered to share that with the agents assigned to the newly launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane or ever presented to the FISA court when applications were made for domestic surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
[….]
JORDAN: “Did [Comey] share it with the agents…working the Crossfire Hurricane case?!”
DURHAM: “No.”
JORDAN: “Can you tell the committee what happened when you took that referral memo, and shared it with one of those agents?”
DURHAM: “He indicated he had never seen it before. He immediately became emotional…”
JORDAN: “He was ticked off!”
DURHAM: “The information was kept from them.”
Let me expand the truncated transcript on Durham’s recollection:
JORDAN: Can you tell the committee what happened when you took that referral memo, and shared it with one of those agents?
DURHAM: We interviewed the first supervisor on the Crossfire investigation, the operational person. We showed him the intelligence information. He indicated he had never seen it before. He immediately became emotional, and got up and left the room with his lawyer, spent some time in the hallway, came back.
JORDAN: He was ticked off, wasn’t he? He was ticked off because this was something he should have had as an agent on the case. This was important information that the director of the FBI kept from the people doing the investigation.
DURHAM: The information was kept from them.
In other words, the director of the FBI knowingly withheld evidence pertinent to an FBI investigation. That resulted not just in errors made by the agents conducting the investigation that might have resulted ending what turned out to be a witch hunt, but also contributed to misrepresentations to the FISA court about the nature of the evidence they used to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign figures.
Representative Troy Nehls (R-TX) questioned Special Counsel John Durham in the House Judiciary Committee today, spending his time dismantling the absurd claims made by Democrats about the existence of an alleged “Trump Pee Tape.”
Hank Johnson shames John Durham for failing to indict Hunter Biden (but there’s a good reason for that) | TWITCHY
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, joins ‘The Evening Edit’ to discuss the ‘hard deadline’ he has given the IRS to turn over documents and communications pertaining to ‘Twitter Files’ journalist Matt Taibbi.
‘The Five’ co-hosts react to Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi’s ‘unannounced’ timed run-in with the IRS just before his testimony before Congress.
Prior to the FBI’s raid Monday on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, a string of whistleblower reports alleged that senior officials at the FBI exhibited a pattern of bias in their handling of politically sensitive investigations and also reclassified cases without justification to substantiate the White House’s public narratives on crime and extremism.
Beginning in late May, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley called attention to then-Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault over political bias concerns. Thibault expressed support for several “highly partisan” opinion articles on LinkedIn and made a series of politically charged social media posts, according to Grassley, who referred Thibault to the Office of Special Counsel to address the federal agent’s potential violations of the Hatch Act, which bars government officials from partisan political activity.
Concerns surrounding Thibault escalated in July, as whistleblowers came forward claiming Thibault’s partisan persuasion directly impacted his work at the bureau. While seeking approval from FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland to open an investigation into Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, Thibault withheld from them that his predicating evidence was based in “substantial part” on information from a “left-aligned organization,” according to Grassley’s office.
In a separate instance, whistleblowers claim Thibault worked to falsely discredit evidence against President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and prevent the bureau from investigating him.
“Whistleblowers have told my office that the FBI maintains many sources that have provided extensive information on Hunter Biden,” Grassley said in August. “That information allegedly involves potential criminal activity such as money laundering. According to allegations, the underlying information was verified and verifiable. However, instead of green-lighting investigative activity, the FBI shut it down.”
Grassley also pointed to Robert Pilger of the Election Crimes Branch, who he alleges was of vital aid to Thibault in his efforts to open the investigation into Trump. Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, the Iowa Republican noted, testified that “Pilger’s conduct frustrated the department’s ability to properly operate the Election Crimes Branch.”
Thibault, Grassley confirmed, was reassigned to an unspecified posting prior to the bureau securing a warrant to raid Trump’s estate. Sources briefed on the raid confirmed to Just the News that the agents came from the Washington Field Office, in which Thibault was serving until just days prior.
In late July, whistleblower reports emerged that bureau supervisors were pressuring agents to reclassify cases under the label of “domestic violent extremism” (DVE) without substantive justification in order to support White House narratives…..
The raid at Mar-a-Lago was by people flown in from the D.C. Field office where many of the whistleblower accusations have taken place. Which is interesting because some of these individuals at the D.C. office are under investigation by Durham… which would explain why the had the warrant set up the way they did.
And even the “judge” that okayed the warrant had a duty to keep the warrant focused and not as broad as it was. But something smells here. Here is my response to JIM G. on my Facebook:
FBI seizes privileged Trump records during raid; DOJ opposes request for independent review: sources (FOX)
Trump Warrant Furthers Justice Department’s January 6 Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW)
Judge Bruce W. Reinhart even recused himself just six weeks before giving the green light to the FBI raid on Trump’s home. All this is important, because it shows a disregard for the law by the FBI. Which Alan Dersowitz notes well:
…..What’s more, the agents had no right to open Trump’s safe, as they did, without a special warrant that goes above and beyond a normal search warrant, Dershowitz noted:
“Not only that, but under the law, if you seize a safe, you don’t go into the safe – you have to get a special warrant to get into the safe, and you have to prove that the material in the locked safe would have been destroyed.”
“They darn well better have smoking-gun proof,” the Constitution scholar and law professor said. And, since it’s unlikely they do, the FBI has violated Justice Department rules, Dershowitz declared:
“So it seems to me that they have violated the rules of the Justice Department, they have gone after both a former president and a future candidate – and they darn well better have smoking-gun proof – which I don’t see happening.”
The FBI’s behavior is not redolent of that of a democratic rule-of-law country, especially since there’s no evidence that Trump committed “a serious, serious crime,” Dershowitz said:
“And, clearly, there’s been a double standard here. But, even if it was a single standard, it’s not good enough!
“You don’t get a warrant, unless a subpoena won’t suffice. In a democratic rule-of-law country, you do it legitimately: you go to the lawyer, you say, ‘By tomorrow I want that safe delivered to the Justice Department. I want these documents turned over.’
“And unless you can demonstrate that there was a very substantial chance they would have been maliciously destroyed – which would have been a serious, serious crime. I mean, that would be a serious crime.
“That’s Nixon – and there’s no evidence that that happened here.”
“I don’t think you use search warrants and prosecutions to go after political enemies,” so the Biden Administration is acting like the government of a third-world Banana Republic, Dershowitz said.
“That’s not supposed to happen in the United States,” Dershowitz said, denouncing the Biden Administration’s unjustified prosecution of its opponents as “impermissible in a democracy”:
“I’ve just written a whole book on that, called ‘The Price of Principle,‘ where I go into the whole issue of why you don’t use partisan considerations to go after political enemies. That’s what happens in Banana Republics.
“That’s what happens in third-world countries. That’s not supposed to happen in the United States. It was right not to go after Hillary Clinton, because she was a candidate for president. You need a much higher standard, but you can’t apply one standard to Hillary Clinton and another standard to Donald Trump. That is impermissible in a democracy.”
What FX does this have?
….A new poll from Convention of States and Trafalgar Group shows that 83.3 percent of Republicans and 71.7 percent of independent voters are now more motivated to vote following the FBI’s raid at Mar-A-Lago on Aug. 8.
Overall, nearly half of voters believe the raid was carried out by Trump’s political enemies. Among Republicans, that figure is more than 76.7 percent and among independent voters that number is 53.9 percent. However, 70.5 percent of Democrats believe the raid was conducted by “the impartial justice system.”
The polling data also show that after the FBI’s raid at Trump’s home, motivation to vote in the 2022 election increased 53.4 percent among Asians, 73.7 percent among blacks, 80 percent among Hispanics, and 69 percent among white voters…..
In real time? A guy I have gone rounds with a couple times on FB had this to say:
Yep. I was pulling for DeSantis… but Trump now is my guy.
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.
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.
Here is my comment on the above at 60-Minute’s YouTube:
This didn’t age well. Leslie Stahl was spreading misinformation. Works by Lee Smith, Gregg Jarrett, Dan Bongino, Molly Hemingway, John Solomon, Chuck Ross, and the like — had already proven Trump’s statement via the E V I D E N C E. What a disgrace to investigative journalism 60-Minutes has become. Another example why more ppl distrust news sources, and with a recent poll showing a majority of Democrats now want Hillary investigated… 60-M will lose more viewers.
Suffice to say “spying” has been known to have happened already through multiple channels:
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers that belonged to Trump Tower and, later, the Trump White House “for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” according to a motion filed Friday by Special Counsel John Durham. Fox News reports:
Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussman has pleaded not guilty.
The indictment against Sussman says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
According to the Feb. 11 filing, in a section titled “Factual Background,” Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive-1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
Billing records show that Sussman “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”
Sources told Fox News that Sussman and Tech Executive-1 had also met and communicated with another law partner, Marc Elias, formerly of Perkins Coie, who also served as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign.
Durham’s filing states that in July 2016, the tech executive worked with Sussman, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm 1 on behalf of the Clinton campaign, numerous cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”
“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing states. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”
“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states. “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”…..
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, weighs in on new evidence from the Durham investigation that the Clinton campaign paid to spy on and link Russia to President Trump.
Ratcliffe Predicts More Clinton-Related Indictments
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on the John Durham findings showing Hillary Clinton findings into the efforts to pin Russian collusion on Trump and his presidential campaign.
Hemingway: Durham Reveals Spying On Trump Was Worse Than Watergate
Bombshell Durham Report Finds Clinton Campaign Spied On Trump During Presidency
FOX Business Maria Bartiromo, Fox News Contributor Liz Peek and Michael Lee Strategy founder Michael Lee discuss the latest findings in the Durham report.
Gregg Jarrett & Peter Schweizer Respond to New Durham Info
Watters: ‘Criminal’ Clinton Should Be Banished From Polite Society
Jesse Watters comments on a filing from special counsel John Durham alleging the Clinton campaign paid money to penetrate Trump Tower servers and calls the former Democratic presidential candidate a ‘political criminal’ on ‘The Five.’
RUMBLE— This is arguably one of my most important uploads. While I edit and add to Ben Ferguson’s original podcast to embolden his points, this is a subject that while long (40-minutes +) should be listened to or watched in it’s entirety.
Below are resources used or for video or snapshots of headlines:
VIDEO:
Rep. Veronica Spartz (R-IN) chastised the FBI during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. (YOUTUBE)
“Tucker Carlson Tonight” — JAILED for “parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building” on January 6. Donna Bissey didn’t set fire to any property. She didn’t hurt anyone. She paraded. What you are seeing is unequal enforcement of laws in this country. (FACEBOOK)
White House lays out plan for COVID-19 vaccine rollout for children 5-11 (YOUTUBE)
Your Memo Was The Last Straw’: Jordan Rips Into Garland After School Board Directive (YOUTUBE)
ARTICLE HEADLINES (couple extras)
Capitol Injustice: January 6 Rioters Held in Solitary Confinement (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
The National School Board Association Apologizes for Its Part in the Merrick Garland ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Letter (100% FED-UP)
FBI Knew The Steele Dossier Was Highly Dubious As Early As January 2017, But Still Relied On It For FISA Renewals (W3P DISQUS PAGE)
A Comparison Of The 2017 Inauguration Riot, 2020 George Floyd Riots, And 2021 Capitol Riot (THE FEDERALIST)
Jan. 6 Protestors Held in Solitary Confinement, Inhumane “Third-World” Conditions (PRO DEO ET LIBERTATE)
Solitary confinement for Jan. 6 riot participants draws criticism from Democratic senators and ACLU (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
Graphic letter from Jan. 6 detainee being held in solitary details ‘nightmare’ of his life behind bars (BPR)
Sens. Warren and Durbin: End Solitary Confinement of US Capitol ‘Insurrection’ Defendants (RON PAUL)
What Constitution? People held after Jan. 6 Capitol incident, some not charged with a crime, still being held in solitary confinement (LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY)
As you will hear, his oath to the law made him take the 5th. I truncate a larger interview between John Eastman and Dennis Prager (12-6-2021). “Everyone knows the Jan 6th committee is a sham. It is filled with Democrats and two hand-chosen Republicans [against House rules] who are trying to save their political careers” (PALMIERI REPORT).
Eastman is a highly respected constitutional law professor who acted as an attorney to President Donald Trump. Eastman has been called to appear before the House of Representatives’ “January 6 Committee.” This committee is an extraordinary departure from the role of Congress and from basic procedural fairness. The very legality of the committee is in question, as it includes no ranking minority member. It appears to have been stacked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with partisans for whom the outcome of the investigation is known before the investigation has begun. Eastman has very wisely declined to participate in this partisan denigration of procedural fairness, and has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
No person may be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. This is fundamental to our republican form of government. The origin of this rule, as illustrated at length by the famous Claremont professor Leonard Levy, is the necessity of forcing the state to produce evidence of a crime, to guard against the political persecution of enemies and the possibility of manufacturing evidence through coercion. Our legal tradition holds that no inference should ever be made as to guilt by the invocation of this sacred Constitutional right and rule of procedural fairness.
These safeguards are more urgent now than ever before. Every intelligent and educated citizen who is willing to face the truth, to look past the official narratives of the establishment media, can see the facts and the direction in which events are moving.
[….]
But, for those deemed enemies of the regime, no protection is given for the express right to a trial prior to punishment.
The rule of law itself is at stake in this controversy. This growing danger must be firmly resisted now, before it is too late.
You can contribute to John Eastman’s legal defense fund HERE.
The following is a link to a three hour video of people that probably have already been arrested and need felony assault charges [again, probably already done].
Of course none of this would have happened if they listened to Trump and Federal Authorities**… which is why they illegally banned [and thus made the J6 Committee illegal] Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Jim Banks:
“Pelosi Owns The J6 Commission, And That’s Why It Failed” (THE FEDERALIST)
Here is an excerpt:
….Pelosi’s decision to politically exploit the riot at the Capitol was a no-brainer. Democrats nearly lost the chamber in 2020 when Democrats took control of the Senate and presidency. The president’s party almost always loses significant numbers of House seats during midterm elections. The only time that didn’t happen in recent history was 2002, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Pelosi understandably felt her best bet to preserve power was, with a massive assist from left-wing media, to somehow turn disgruntled Donald Trump supporters’ riot at the Capitol into the next 9/11.
There were massive problems with the scheme. For one thing, Republicans had immediately and vociferously denounced the riot. This was a far cry from the Summer of Violence, when Democrats and their media enablers cheered as leftist groups destroyed sectors of cities throughout the country, resulting in “some 15 times more injured police officers, 23 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.”
Democrats did not condemn these serious and lengthy attacks on the White House, federal courthouses, police buildings, private businesses, and homes. Instead, they joined with the rioters in calling for the defunding of police and other radical measures.
The riots were the result of a deeply destructive lie, pushed by top Democrats, that the country and its policing are irredeemably evil and racist. What’s more, any and all attempts to quell the siege of federal buildings were condemned in the most hysterical terms by Pelosi and other Democrats.
Kamala Harris, then a senator from California and the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee, supported bailing out rioters who destroyed much of Minneapolis. Pelosi pooh-poohed the destruction of federal statues and historical markers. Republicans had consistently opposed political violence, beginning in the summer of 2020, but Democrats had not…..
END NOTE
** 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 Sevice were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday. (THE FEDERALIST)
In the fight between left vs right, Democrats vs Republicans, progressives vs conservatives, the sides are clear. The motives are clear. One side will say what they believe helps them the most and hurts their opponents at the same time. It may be ugly, but it’s honest (at least in their intentions if not in substance).
On Tuesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) laid out the Republican case against impeachment in his opening statement as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. In his statement, he did as most expected and attacked the Democrats’ case, but the real meat and potatoes from his statement came in the form of attacks against mainstream media. (NOQ REPORT)
Rep. John Ratcliffe, notes that Democrats have called Trump’s conduct “bribery” and then pulls out a mountain of papers of deposition transcripts. He says at no point have witnesses described his conduct as “bribery” in the last six weeks. He says the word appears only once — and that’s in relation to former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged conduct.
Here’s a few notable clips from this evening’s hearing, the first of which is both Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker agreeing that Zelensky had no idea that the Ukraine ad was being held up at the time of the July 25th phone call…
Volker also testified that there was no quid pro quo or ‘bribery’, as they are now calling it:
And finally, Morrison, who was listening in on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky says nothing concerned him about the call:
Yet again, Chairman Adam Schiff blocks questions from Republicans, refusing to allow @Jim_Jordan to inquire about one of the two individuals Vindman read out about the July 25 call.
If Schiff doesn’t know who the “whistleblower” is, why is he objecting to this question? pic.twitter.com/J7E6wBRI8l
Rep. Devin Nunes, D-Calif., the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, questioned George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. The probe centers around a July phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Both Kent and Taylor testified to lawmakers in October behind closed doors.
At the beginning of the first public impeachment inquiry hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who was temporarily moved to the Intelligence Committee, asked Schiff when they could vote on having the whistleblower testify since it was he who wanted to hear their testimony in the first place.
“You are the only member who knows who that individual is, and your staff is the only staff of any member of Congress who has had a chance to talk with that individual,” Jordan said. “We would like that opportunity. When might that happen in this proceeding today?”
“First, as the gentleman knows, that’s a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower and I’m determined to make sure the identity is protected,” Schiff replied. “But as I said to Mr. Conway, you’ll have an opportunity after the witnesses have testified to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote.”
Well, Schiff needs to look at reports from September and October.
Back in October, the Intelligence Community Inspector General said “the whistleblower did not disclose contact w Schiff/Committee staff – so IG never looked into it.”
A few days before that The New York Times reported Schiff knew about the whistleblower’s accusation before anyone filed a complaint.
Even The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios because for two months he kept claiming no one on his committee spoke to the whistleblower….
