90 Miles From Tyranny : Search results for pelosi

Showing posts sorted by date for query pelosi. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, March 1, 2024

The Left Demands Millions of Human Sacrifices to Appease the Gods of Climate Change

“At their Monday night poker game in hell,” writes Mark Steyn, “I’ll bet Stalin, Hitler, and Mao are kicking themselves. ‘It’s about leaving a better planet for our children?’ Why didn’t we think of that?”

These three evil socialists of yesteryear would certainly be green with envy at the way today’s green socialists have convinced millions of citizens to willingly surrender their liberty to the State.

“The ruling classes of the fading West are determined to save the planet by immiserating their fellow citizens,” writes Joel Kotkin. He continues:

Their program calls not only for fewer people and fewer families, but also for lower consumption among the masses. They expect us to live in ever smaller dwelling units, to have less mobility, and to endure more costly home heating and air-conditioning. These priorities are reflected in a regulatory bureaucracy that, if it does not claim justification from God, acts as the right hand of Gaia and of sanctified science.

This apparent religiosity highlights an interesting sort of logical somersault for modern progressives. On the one hand, they believe it to be primitive “Christian Nationalism” to assert, as all documents associated with America’s Founding do, that our natural rights were endowed to us by God, rather than some government edict written by a government official somewhere. On the other hand, high priestesses like Nancy Pelosi assure the faithful that hurricanes on the Gulf Coast and wildfires on the West Coast are signs that “Mother Earth is angry,” and is visiting her vengeance upon us.

Quite literally, today’s party of The Science™ is an apocalyptic doomsday cult which fears the wrath of deities that are personified by nature, complete with the sacrifice of countless children.

“Access to safe abortion is a right, a moral imperative,” says Gabby Bess in her article at Vice. This article is wisely silent on the question as to who or what bestows this “right” among women to voluntarily kill their unwanted babies, but we can safely assume it’s not the Christian God that was recognized by the Founders as having bestowed upon us a right to life.

On a global scale, 73 million babies are killed in the womb every year, or roughly 200,000 killed per day. In America alone, 1-in-5 women who become pregnant kill their babies, at a rate ranging between 1,500 and 2,500 per day.

But that’s not enough to satiate Mother Earth’s bloodlust, suggest Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger at the Yale School of the Environment.

“Voluntary family planning is too often ignored as a means to lower carbon emissions,” they offer. The killing of 73 million babies resulting from unintended pregnancies might be a good start, but those are rookie numbers, I guess, given that “as many as 121 million pregnancies each year are unintended.” Ostensibly, every “unintended” pregnancy results in a child who should be killed before he or she has the opportunity to add “4.5 tons of carbon into the air annually” by simply...

New Photos From Jan 6 Footage Appears To Discredit Key Testimony From Oath Keepers Trial

U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) has released new security camera images from January 6, 2021, that appear to discredit testimony from a Capitol Police officer regarding an encounter with a member of the Proud Boys. The story was first reported by The Blaze.

Loudermilk released a series of images, with timestamps, that show the whereabouts of of U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, telling the outlet that “an allegation of a Capitol Police officer lying under oath is very serious and must be fully investigated.”

In a previous report, Baker examined a key component of the “Oath Keepers” trials that took place last year. Multiple members of the group were convicted of “seditious conspiracy” after federal prosecutors branded them as the “the leaders” of “the insurrection” in a trial that has alarmed civil liberties advocates. Several Oath Keepers were sentenced to decades in prison, including some who did not even enter the building.

Central to the government’s case was an interaction in which members of the group allegedly clashed with law enforcement. The supposed confrontation took place at the top of the stairs next to the Capitol Rotunda, also known as the small or mini rotunda or the Speaker’s Lobby.

Despite the fact that there were more than 1,700 security cameras active on January 6, the jury was never presented with direct video evidence of the confrontation. Instead, prosecutors relied on testimony from Lazarus, a member of Nancy Pelosi’s security detail, who testified that he saw U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn engaging with four Oath Keepers “three or four times” while he was evacuating staffers for Pelosi.

Lazarus went on to explain that he observed Dunn “arguing” with rioters, which allowed him to evacuate “11 or 12” staffers from Pelosi’s office. “Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was antagonistic,” explained Lazarus under direct questioning by Assistant United States Attorney Alexandra Hughes in what was a defining moment in the trial.
While the Capitol Police officer’s testimony became a popular talking point to highlight the supposed dangers of the “insurrection,” Baker reported that Lazarus was actually across the street in a separate Senate office building when the altercation with Dunn began.

His whereabouts have now been confirmed in a time-stamped photo released by Rep. Loudermilk.

Baker tracked Lazarus’ movements throughout the day in a detailed X thread, poking a number of holes in his sworn testimony.

“During Lazarus’s Oct. 31, 2022 trial testimony, he stated that he began his return to the Capitol Building after hearing “shots” fired over USCP radio. That occurred at 2:43 p.m. Here, Lazarus can be seen moving back toward the Capitol at 2:45:04 p.m,” Baker explained, providing another time-stamped CCTV still.

Follow the Numbers: China Steps Up Military Activity Near Taiwan

China’s recent military activity around Taiwan reached new heights after Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s meeting in April with then-U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

This increase in China’s military activity and long-term trends point to troubling times ahead, and our military and political leaders need to be ready.

With wars in Ukraine and Israel grabbing so much attention, it’s important that the United States not lose sight of Chinese military actions that unsettle the peace in Asia.

On Sept. 10, China began military drills beyond the first island chain into the Philippine Sea with a naval force of 20 vessels that included the aircraft carrier Shandong. During five days of exercises, the Chinese flew a total of 161 aircraft.

Notably, 86 of the planes that flew near Taiwan passed the median line—a significant if unofficial threshold separating the two contesting militaries. In recent days, the Chinese have again sent their aircraft carrier into these distant waters.

Why Is China Doing This Now?

China’s increase in military activity might have been a signal to world leaders attending the two-day G20 summit, which opened one day before China’s massive September drills began.

Interestingly, Chinese leader Xi Jinping skipped that summit even as his military upped the pressure on Taiwan.

Before the most recent September military exercises, the 10-day average for activity by Chinese naval vessels around Taiwan had been stable, at about three vessels a day. Since then, the average has remained at six vessels a day.

The average daily presence during China’s Sept. 10-14 exercises, of course, was much higher: 14 vessels. This sustained presence is inherently destabilizing as it enables the Chinese Communist Party’s military, called the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, to ratchet up tensions quickly or worse, without much warning.

In the meantime, China’s increased military operations also exhausts and conditions Taiwan’s military responses for when Xi’s communist regime decides to turn an exercise into a prelude for attack.

Increasingly, China is confident about using its military to send strategic messages to the United States.

While Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met Sept. 17 in Malta with U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan, China sent 103 planes near Taiwan. Of them, 40 crossed the median line in what was the largest display of China’s airpower within a single day in recent years.

Taiwan’s typically unfazed defense minister stated: “Our enemy’s recent movements are r e ally quite abnormal.”

The message couldn’t be clearer: China wants the U.S. to understand its seriousness about Taiwan and is willing to risk escalation as the nation’s militaries operate in close proximity.

Are These Actions Out of the Norm?

Typically, the Chinese conduct large military drills between July and September. But the latest drills also show China’s ability to operate large forces beyond the first island chain for longer for regional impact. (“First island chain” refers to island nations hemming in mainland China, stretching from Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia.)

Case in point, the aircraft carrier Shandong and 20 escort vessels recently operated in the Philippine Sea, which is near the Philippines—a U.S. treaty ally that is embroiled in territorial disputes with China.

This near-constant activity around Taiwan also provides some insight into a range of military options China is practicing. This was most evident in the military response following both then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022 and McCarthy’s meeting with Tsai last April in the U.S.

Those military operations and force dispositions provided keen insight into China’s consideration of battle scenarios involving Taiwan, such as...

Kevin McCarthy Loses Speakership Amid Gaetz-Led Charge

WASHINGTON— Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) successfully ousted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy by a razor-thin margin on Tuesday afternoon. Gaetz rallied eight dissatisfied House conservatives to vote with Democrats, ending McCarthy’s speakership by a margin of 216-210 votes. Never in the history of the United States has the Speaker of the House lost his post in a motion to vacate.

As Republicans prepared to take back the House last fall, McCarthy addressed questions about whether he could win the speakership in an interview with The Federalist. “I’ve had people push and do different things,” he said. “But if you’re able to be running for speaker, that means all you’ve ever done is win. And I don’t think you change the coach then.”

After McCarthy’s 269 days atop the conference, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) now serves as interim speaker. McCarthy could win a vote to reassume the chair, but Republicans are looking at other members, from Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

Speaking on background after the vote, one Republican lobbyist said Jordan “feels like the guy to me” but cautioned that it would become clearer after the GOP conference met later on Tuesday evening. Gaetz floated Emmer as an option. A senior GOP aide told The Federalist on Tuesday that Emmer, an establishment stalwart, is seen as playing a crucial negotiator role in HFC wins this year.

House Republicans are thrust suddenly back to the chaos of early January, flailing to cobble enough votes together to elect a Republican speaker with the party’s narrow nine-member majority. McCarthy, who yielded to Paul Ryan when John Boehner stepped down in 2015 and assumed the minority leadership position in 2019, proved to be the only person capable of bringing together enough centrists and conservatives — and even then, it took him 15 ballots and a host of concessions to get the gavel.

Indeed, it was one of those very concessions that enabled Gaetz to yank the gavel from his hands on the heels of McCarthy’s weekend deal to avert a government shutdown. Before Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a change in 2019 — having watched former Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) challenge Boehner’s reign — the “motion to vacate” the speakership could always be filed by one member. As CBS News reported in January, “Under Pelosi, a motion to vacate could be offered on the House floor only if a majority of either party agreed to it.”

In order to become Speaker, McCarthy conceded to members of the Freedom Caucus that he would undo Pelosi’s change. Citizens for Renewing America President Russ Vought, an ally of the Freedom Caucus who served as Donald Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, released a statement on the heels of Tuesday’s vote, calling the motion “the most critical” of the concessions made in January.

“If Kevin McCarthy were to violate the power sharing agreement, the motion to vacate would be available to topple the coalition government in exchange for a new one,” said Vought. “He did that–twice–on the most vital leverage points that provided opportunities to check the Biden Administration. Instead of working with conservatives, he chose to go into a coalition with House Democrats on those critical votes.”

Vought’s statement referred to McCarthy’s deals to lift the debt ceiling in May and to support passage of a...

It’s Looking Ever More Likely That Jan. 6 Was A Fedsurrection

A former top FBI official testified that numerous confidential human sources attended or participated in the Jan. 6 riot.

Few incidents in recent history are as poorly understood as the riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Ever since it happened, the Biden administration and the corporate media have pushed the narrative that this was an insurrection by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election and destroy American democracy. They have compared this event to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and even the Civil War. Accordingly, the Department of Justice has spared no expense to bring in each and every offender (there are now more than a thousand of them awaiting trial) and indict and convict their ringleader Trump.

However, several cracks in this story have started to appear. In last week’s hearing with the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted his ignorance on whether there were federal agents in the crowds on Jan. 6. In a closed-door session with the same committee, Steven D’Antuono, former assistant director-in-charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, allegedly conceded that he lost count of the number of confidential human sources who joined the protest.

One of those informants was almost certainly Ray Epps, a man who was caught on camera urging other protesters to storm the Capitol. While Garland and D’Antuono played dumb in their testimony, Epps was finally charged with a mere misdemeanor despite his prominent role in provoking the riot. This stood in stark contrast to Enrique Torrio, someone who wasn’t even in Washington, D.C., that day who was sentenced to 22 years in prison just a few weeks earlier, or the hundreds of other protesters with similar sentences.

Added to this is the incoherent response of the Capitol Police. On one hand, they were happily ushering certain protesters into the building, even giving some of them a tour, including “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley. On the other hand, they used excessive force against other protesters, hitting them with rubber bullets and tear gas and beating them down with riot sticks— and in the case of Ashli Babbit, shooting them dead at point-blank range.

The implications of these reports are massive. Altogether, they strongly suggest that the federal government deliberately egged on a riot to silence any discussions about the 2020 election, crush Trump’s populist movement, and cast Trump as a dangerous tyrant. Along with the police, at least “a handful,” but probably more like dozens of (or possibly many more) informants and undercover agents from various government agencies were in the crowd goading otherwise innocent Americans to become violent and breach the Capitol. And now, these protesters are being denied due process rights and sentenced by psychopath judges to ridiculously long prison sentences in kangaroo courts.

In other words, much like the plan to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has been labeled a “Fednapping plot” since the whole scheme was directed by FBI agents entrapping unsuspecting civilians, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack can fairly be considered a “Fedsurrection” for the same reason. How would events have unfolded if government agencies had not inserted themselves in the protest? Or if certain high-level politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually allowed extra security instead of...

Nancy Pelosi's son - who secretly joined mom on her controversial trip to Taiwan - is a top investor in Chinese telecoms company, despite House Speaker's campaign to tackle China's corporate influence in the US

Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr, 53, is the second largest investor in a $22million Chinese company
Paul secretly accompanied his mother on her controversial trip to Taiwan last week and is seen in photos alongside Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen and other top Taiwanese officials
Paul worked for the telecoms company, Borqs Technologies, in a board or consultancy role, and was awarded 700,000 shares for his services, making him the fifth - and later second - largest shareholder
His ties to the Chinese firm are revealed as Pelosi campaigns to tackle the Chinese government's aggression abroad and its corporate influence in the United States
Paul's name was not listed in the official delegation sent out by the Speaker's office, but in a statement the Speaker admitted her son was her 'escort' on the trip in lieu of her husband

Nancy Pelosi's son is the second largest investor in a $22million Chinese company whose senior executive was arrested in a fraud investigation, DailyMail.com can reveal, raising questions about his secretive visit to Taiwan with his mother.

As well as investing, Paul Pelosi Jr, 53, also worked for the telecoms company, Borqs Technologies, in a board or consultancy role, Securities and Exchange Commission documents show.

He was awarded 700,000 shares for his services, making him the fifth largest shareholder in the company. After other insiders sold stock in June 2021 he became the second largest – more stock than one of its two co-founders and topped only by CEO Pat Sek Yuen Chan.

In September 2019 Chinese law enforcement detained the president of one of Borq's subsidiaries and seized copies of contracts and accounting records in a reported fraud investigation.

A later SEC filing from May 2022 listed the top 10 shareholders which did not include Pelosi Jr., suggesting he has slipped down the rankings of top shareholders since last year.

Nancy’s spokesman, Drew Hammill, also told DailyMail.com neither company has ties to Asia and neither processes mined lithium. Neither currently have revenue.

DailyMail.com's revelation of Pelosi Jr.'s role in the Beijing-based company comes after he and his powerful mother visited Taiwan in a show of solidarity for the nation that China controversially claims is part of its sovereign territory.

Pelosi Jr.'s name was not listed in the official delegation sent out by the Speaker's office. In a statement this week the Speaker admitted her son was her 'escort' on the trip in lieu of her husband when questioned by the press.

Nancy's son's ties to the Chinese firm could put the House Speaker in an awkward position over her current campaign to tackle the Chinese government's aggression abroad and its corporate influence in the United States.

Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr, 53, is the second largest investor in a $22million Chinese company. Paul secretly accompanied his mother on her controversial trip to Taiwan last week

During their 19-hour visit the House Speaker and Pelosi Jr. were photographed alongside Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen and other top Taiwanese officials

DailyMail.com's revelation of Pelosi Jr.'s role in the Beijing-based company comes after he and his powerful mother visited Taiwan in a show of solidarity for the nation that China controversially claims is part of its sovereign territory. Pelosi Jr.'s name was reportedly not listed in the official delegation

Paul worked for the telecoms company, Borqs Technologies, in a board or consultancy role. Borqs is a Chinese telecoms company that specializes in 'Internet of Things' products and is listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange with a current market capitalization of $22million

Pelosi Jr.'s name was not listed in the official delegation sent out by the Speaker's office. In a statement this week the Speaker admitted her son was her 'escort' on the trip in lieu of her husband when questioned by the press. A spokesman for the Speaker told DailyMail.com that spouses and adult children are 'never included in...

J6 defendant sentenced to 22 years: Once again, Democrats stick it to the black guy

What is it about Democrats and abnormally harsh sentences for black guys?

They're the ones behind the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key sentencing "reforms" in the 1990s that Kamala Harris embraced as prosecutor in California during her heyday, keeping black prisoners imprisoned beyond their sentences in order to secure their labor to fight wildfires.

They recently released all of the defendants charged by the Fulton County prosecutor, Fani Willis on bail -- except for the hapless black guy, Harrison Floyd, whose accused crimes were insignificant and in any case, was no flight risk as they claimed. They shoved him into their rat- and bedbug infested jail for five days, while letting all the whites out on bail.

Now they've issued their toughest January 6 defendant sentence -- 22 years, to Enrique Tarrio, the purported leader of the Proud Boys, for "seditious conspiracy" with "terrorism" enhancements.

Sure enough, Tarrio was the black guy. His Wikipedia entry says he is of Afro-Cuban descent.

Yes, the Proud Boys shouldn't have been doing what they were doing, acting in a riotous manner at the Capitol on January 6. Nobody is saying that the group shouldn't have to pay something. But to pin the entire January 6 riot mess on this nobody who literally wasn't at the Capitol at all and his pals is pretty draconian, letting all the incompetence and bad faith from the FBI with its provocateurs, Nancy Pelosi refusing a National Guard detail offered by President Trump, the Capitol Police escorting protestors into the building and other blunders off scot-free.

A 22 year sentence is plainly cruel and unusal punishent, and well more than most murderers get. Had Tarrio gone out and say, looted a building, he wouldn't be facing any time at all.

Twenty-two years.

Nobody died. Nobody whipped out a gun. Nobody lost a limb. Nobody's bank account was emptied. Nobody lost a building.

To sentence Tarrio with this kind of punishment, when he wasn't even near the Capitol building when the crowd got out of control, is frankly outrageous no matter what his color.

That he was the black defendant here, and combined with the harsh treatment of Harrison Floyd in Georgia, has more than a whiff of something else going on. These weren't monstrous crimes being committed by either of these two, but by some strange coincidence, both got the harshest, most life-altering sentences. Someone wanted them out of circulation.

What it suggests is that black supporters of President Trump are a special threat to the Democrat establishment and its grip on power. So instead of normal punishment, even by the standards of what the other J6 and Fulton County defendants got, Democrats are singling out black defendants for...

This Political Prosecution Scheme is Going To Backfire Hard

The Left is celebrating now - but they won't be able to control what they've unleashed.

Yuck it up, you morons who think it’s cool to try to frame political opponents because your mug shots are coming soon enough. And maybe not just mugshots. You’ve genuinely screwed yourselves. You can’t control what you have unleashed. And you’re celebrating. You shouldn’t.

I know, I know, you can’t imagine that your decision to take out your political opponents by throwing them in jail will bite you in the Asa. But it will. Hard. And you ought to hope it’s only mug shots. I hope it’s only mug shots, not for your sake, but for my country’s sake. You’ve screwed up my country, and it’s not clear that the wounds you caused are not mortal. This is now a country where we lock up political opponents. I just want to get that out there again, and I want you to understand what has changed. This is now a country where we lock up political opponents. And it’s inevitable that very soon, you’re going to realize that you are some people’s political opponents too.

Some people ask me my legal opinion of these frame jobs masquerading as criminal cases. Well, I have no legal opinion of them because these have nothing to do with the law. When not invented out of whole cloth, they consist of inapplicable statutes stretched tighter than Nancy Pelosi’s lifted and Botoxed face to try to encompass perfectly legal activities by people whose real crime is opposing the ruling class. And the accused aggravated their crimes by having succeeded for a time.

Do you think these laws only go one way? Do you think this precedent can’t be used right back against you and yours? There are a lot of state attorney generals and district attorneys out there in red states, and they are going through their statute books. Conservatives, who tend to be doomers, are fretting because none of these red officials have acted yet. But they will act, all in good time. First, slow, then all at once. That is inevitable. That is the logic of this scenario. You see, all the incentives are to prosecute Democrats in red enclaves for things Democrats did far away. The first red AG or DA who does it is going to be a superstar. And then all the others are going to have to follow along lest they be left behind. Some of them won’t want to. Some of them may have some residual attachment to the law as we once knew it. But their red voters do not, and in the words of Rush – the Canadian band, not the radio legend – these Republican officials must conform or be cast out.

What they do in retaliation will have the appearance of law but not the substance. In that way, these prosecutions will be exactly like the ones Trump is currently experiencing. They will echo the nonsense of the Trump indictments. Perhaps I will outline it in more detail in a future column, but suffice it to say that when Anthony Fauci and dozens of other bureaucrats are indicted under Missouri’s RICO law based on a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the citizens of the Show-Me State via their massive COVID fraud, the indicted ones are really going to hope that the aptly-named Fani – because of what she’s full of – Willis‘s ridiculous indictments have already been tossed out by the federal courts.

Oh, this isn’t right or good or anything I wanted. In fact, I have columns going back years warning you about the new rules you decided to play by. But you didn’t listen. It was inconvenient. It was hard actually having to convince lesser people to give you power, so you’ve decided to steal it. Now, of course, you don’t put it that way. You don’t tell yourself that you’re a fascist. But you are. No, you tell yourself this is a necessary exception. You imagine that Donald Trump is some sort of particular case and that after you frame him, we’re just going to go back to business as usual. You really are stupid, or you think we are. Ron DeSantis will be the next special case because he’s practically Hitler, too. Next, Nikki Haley will be Hitler. Then Tim Scott will need to be indicted to keep him from invading Poland.

You’re not putting this genie back in the bottle. Right now, you don’t want it back in the bottle. You think you’ve stumbled on a shortcut to permanent power. You couldn’t just try to beat Trump in an unrigged election. You decided to toss the law out. And you’re too freaking dumb to realize that the only thing protecting you is the law that you just erased. There was a pretty famous movie about a pretty famous guy who you never learned about at the University of College, where you got your degree in Marxist interpretive dance. He had something pretty insightful to say about the law and its purpose and why you need to uphold it.

But the law got in the way of what you really wanted, so you tossed it out, and now there is no law, and there’s nothing for you to hide behind. So, who protects you? I mean, you don’t have guns. You don’t have training. You can’t even do a push-up. There’s just power now, and all you have is the institutional power that is backed up and enforced mainly by, well, people like the ones you want to oppress. And the guys who Oliver Anthony has been talking about who wear a uniform or carry a badge might kill for you and might die for you for a little while. Still, when you send them to butcher their own brothers and sisters, they’re probably going to rethink the direction they’re shooting.

Oh, that’s crazy talk, you say. All through history, no ruling class that tried to clamp down on the masses has ever been overthrown and its members punished. There was nothing about that in the 1619 stuff you learned about in commie school. The law is still going to protect you, and the institutions will still protect you because they’ll still function because you haven’t torn their guts out. Oh, wait, you have.

A reckoning is coming, and you’re too dumb to...

Republicans Investigating J6 Committee Suggest Dems Destroyed Evidence In Apparent Cover Up

In November, the leader of the incoming House Republican majority, Kevin McCarthy, sent a letter to the Select Committee on Jan. 6 reminding lawmakers they were required to “preserve all records” related to the panel’s work. Nine months later, however, Republicans in charge of investigating the committee’s work say the probe failed to comply with House rules.

GOP Georgia Rep. Barry Loudermilk, who became the target of the since-disbanded committee’s salacious attacks last summer, is leading the Republican probe into the Jan. 6 Committee as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Committee on House Administration. Loudermilk told Fox News on Tuesday his team has struggled to locate the leftover material required to review the Select Committee’s work under Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. The partisan probe spent 18 months prosecuting political opponents and was complete with Soviet-style show trials presented with fabricated evidence while lawmakers sought to portray the Capitol riot as a “deadly insurrection.”

“Nothing was indexed. There was no table of contents index. Usually when you conduct this level of investigation, you use a database system and everything is digitized, indexed. We got nothing like that,” Loudermilk said. “So it took us a long time going through it and one thing I started realizing is we don’t have anything much at all from the Blue Team.”

The “Blue Team” refers to the investigative staff on the committee in charge of probing the Capitol security failures, all of which point to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. After then-Fox News prime-time host Tucker Carlson aired footage undermining central narratives of the Jan. 6 Committee in March, Chairman Thompson admitted the Select Committee didn’t actually...

NYT: Trump Prosecutor “Charged the Same Story Three Different Ways”

"There aren’t enough prisons to hold them all."

What do you do when you have a political crime, but not a legal one? You keep trying to attach laws to what you consider a political crime. As I already noted in my analysis, Clinton ally Jack Smith took random unrelated laws and then waved his arms a lot while talking about democracy.

Describing publicly conducted election challenges as an effort to “defraud” the United States government turns 18 U.S. Code § 371 into an open-ended tool for suppressing a wide range of political dissent. Treating lobbying or any kind of advocacy as the equivalent of witness tampering weaponizes 18 U.S. Code § 1512 against virtually anyone trying to influence a function of government. Which is to say virtually everyone who is interested in politics. And finally deploying 18 U.S. Code § 241, originally designed to fight the KKK, against Trump and anyone trying to verify legitimate election results makes election fraud into a civil right.

Instead of finding specific crimes committed, Jack Smith took the House Democrat J6 Committee report and then did his best to fit them into some federal statutes somewhere. Including one that bans wearing disguises on highways which was created to fight the KKK.

The New York Times has to be polite and supportive so it describes Smith’s tactics as “novel”.

(Note to non-lawyers, prosecutors using novel tactics is rarely a good thing for the targets, the prosecutors or the country. Laws are supposed to be reasonably straightforward and so are prosecutions. A country where prosecutors are constantly figuring out how do novel things either has bad laws or is a totalitarian regime.)

In accusing former President Donald J. Trump of conspiring to subvert American democracy, the special counsel, Jack Smith, charged the same story three different ways. The charges are novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances, heightening legal risks, but Mr. Smith’s tactic gives him multiple paths in obtaining and upholding a guilty verdict.

America isn’t a “democracy”, subverting it is what political parties do, and there was nothing illegal in trying to contest an election.

‘Stories’ aren’t charged, crimes are. But Smith doesn’t have a crime, he has a ‘story’ that he’s trying to criminalize by throwing whatever statutes he has at the wall to see what sticks.

Kimberley A. Strassel quickly shows the implications of this “novel” approach in her Wall Street Journal piece.

Take Mr. Trump out of the equation and consider more broadly what even the New York Times calls Mr. Smith’s “novel approach.” A politician can lie to the public, Mr. Smith concedes. Yet if that politician is advised by others that his comments are untruthful and nonetheless uses them to justify acts that undermine government “function,” he is guilty of a conspiracy to defraud the country. Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims? There aren’t enough prisons to hold them all.

Consider how many politicians might already be doing time had prosecutors applied this standard earlier. Both Al Gore and George W. Bush filed lawsuits in the 2000 election that contained bold if untested legal claims. Surely both candidates had advisers who told them privately that they may have legitimately lost—and neither publicly conceded an inch until the Supreme Court resolved the matter. Might an ultimate sore winner have used this approach to indict the loser for attempting to thwart the democratic process?

And why limit the theory to election claims? In 2014 the justices held unanimously that President Barack Obama had violated the Constitution by decreeing that the Senate was in recess so that he could install several appointees without confirmation. It was an outrageous move, one that Mr. Obama’s legal counselors certainly warned was a loser, yet the White House vocally insisted the president had total “constitutional authority” to do it. Under Mr. Smith’s standard, that was a lie that Mr. Obama used to defraud the public by jerry-rigging the function of a labor board with illegal appointments.

What’s the betting someone told President Biden he didn’t have the power to erase $430 billion in student loan debt. Oh, wait! That’s right. He told himself. “I don’t think I have the authority to do it by signing with a pen,” he said in 2021. The House speaker advised him it was illegal: “People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,” Nancy Pelosi said. Yet Mr. Biden later adopted the lie that he did, and took action to defraud taxpayers by obstructing the federal function of loan processing—until the Supreme Court made him stop.

If even a former president can be hit with conspiracy charges, what’s to protect a mere congressman, or a failed candidate, or a consultant? For how long did Stacey Abrams falsely dispute her loss in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race and pressure Georgia lawmakers to alter election procedures in ways that might undermine voting integrity on the basis of untruths? Would the advisers who egged her on in that pursuit qualify as co-conspirators, like the lawyers in Mr. Smith’s indictment?

Strassel goes on like this for a while and obviously she has a point. Legally. Politically, it’s another matter.

The Al Capone tax case wasn’t as absurdly corrupt and abusive as in The Untouchables, but it was obviously corrupt and, for once, not by Capone. The presumption was that Capone had skipped justice too many times and that he was a public menace, all true, and that he had to be locked up no matter what.

That’s the reasoning behind supporting the otherwise nightmarish premises that Jack Smith sets out. Democrats are assuming that they won’t be used against them or much of anyone except maybe Trump, some ‘right-wingers’ and then it’ll stop.

Just like it did in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Revolutionary France...

Capitol Police Chief Called Jan 6 Events ‘A Cover Up’ in Tucker Carlson Interview HIDDEN By Fox News.

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson that events surrounding the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol appear to have been a “cover up,” in never-seen-before footage published exclusively by The National Pulse.

In the hour-long interview, Sund laments the behaviors of then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, who he says had intelligence to suggest problems on Capitol Hill, which they failed to communicate with Sund and his cops on the ground.

“If I was allowed to do my job as the chief we wouldn’t be here, this didn’t have to happen,” Sund begins, around 19 minutes into the conversation, during which he describes himself as “pissed off” about being “lambasted in public” over the events. Sund has written a book, Courage Under Fire, about his experiences.

Having served as a police officer for over 30 years, including taking over as Chief of the United States Capitol Police in 2019, Sund explains the events leading up to January 6th, including prior to the incident at the Capitol itself, and the aftermath, appeared to be a “cover up.”

“Everything appears to be a cover up,” says the decorated police chief, explaining that most things to do with his department were political, specifically because he reported to politicians including then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“Like I said, I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” Sund explains, “…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…”

The full interview has thus far been hidden from the public at the behest of Rupert Murdoch’s increasingly left-wing Fox News channel, which unceremoniously fired its prime time host Tucker Carlson allegedly as part of a private settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.

“It sounds like they were hiding the intelligence,” Carlson quizzed, to which Sund stunningly responds: “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?”

The next portion of the interview, featuring a stunning conversation about Capitol riot “orchestrator” Ray Epps, will be released on TheNationalPulse.com on Thursday morning.

WATCH: