THE EVENING EDITION
BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Good evening! Blessings on you and your family and from all the Huckabee staff! Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[a] for those who are called according to his purpose.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
Jan. 6: proof of plainclothes surveillance unit in crowd
With another January 6 committee hearing scheduled for today --- 3PM Eastern Time for the few of you who are masochists --- there’s lots of related news. First, the committee has announced that after today’s hearing, they’re taking another break, till after July 4. Oh, but it’s because of the mountain of new evidence coming in! Right.
Next, as reported in an EPOCH TIMES premium story, evidence now proves that undercover watchers were in place during the rally, “embedded among protesters for the purposes of recording video surveillance.”
“Evidence also points to a day of security deficiencies and police provocation for the purpose of entrapment.”
THE EPOCH TIMES obtained a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) report from January 3, 2021, called “First Amendment Demonstrations,” that says beginning on the 4th of January and continuing for the following two days, the MPD was to activate platoons of their Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU). These are, according to the DOJ website, law enforcement officers who are trained to respond to protests, demonstrations, and civil disturbances for the purpose of preventing violence, destruction of property, and unlawful interference with persons exercising their rights under law.”
The stated objective was “to assist with the safe execution of any First Amendment demonstration and ensure the safety of the participants, public, and the officers.” That’s an admirable goal, but were agents embedded in the crowd also encouraging acts of violence and entrapping protesters? If you’ve been following our reports and those of REDSTATE, AMERICAN GREATNESS, REVOLVER and, of course, THE EPOCH TIMES, you’re familiar with the eyewitness accounts and eyebrow-raising videos of suspicious behavior, such as the man identified as Ray Epps trying on January 5 to whip attendees into going inside the Capitol building.
J. Michael Waller of the Center for Security Policy is convinced this was an operation with much advanced planning. Recall what he observed firsthand ahead of the attack. If you didn’t see this before, it’s a must-read.
He said he saw a “covert cadre” of people scattered through the crowd to encourage people to head to the Capitol; these included “fake Trump protesters” wearing MAGA hats backwards. His is just one of such reports.
BUT HERE’S WHAT IS NEW: the “First Amendment Demonstrations” report reveals that an undisclosed number of plainclothes Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) “members,” apparently equipped with bodycams and never referred to as “police” or “officers,” were embedded in the crowd to “document the actions of the demonstrators and MPD’s response to any civil disobedience or criminal activity.” These “members” could be recognized by other security personnel by a particular bracelet on their left wrist.
Waller spoke to THE EPOCH TIMES about this and raised significant concerns, particularly about the warrants that might be needed to conduct surveillance of this kind. The vagueness of the word “members” is also very troubling to him. Who were these people?
“Are they using private contractors?” he asked. “Are they using political volunteers? Are they using paid agents of different types? We don’t know. This is something the public has a right to know and we need to get to the bottom of it. If the DC Police is running electronic surveillance on American citizens without warrants, this could be a very serious breach of our civil liberties.”
Civil liberties...do we still have those? Ask the protesters who still languish in jail, awaiting trial.
Best to read the full EPOCH TIMES story and see documentation for Chief of Police Steven Sund’s request for the National Guard, which, as you know, was denied, even though Trump had approved their deployment. At a hearing for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said that three people were involved in turning down repeated requests for the National Guard: “Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Mayor Muriel Browser.”
Julie Kelly, who reports on January 6 for AMERICAN GREATNESS and whose book JANUARY 6 is now out in paperback, told THE EPOCH TIMES she thinks January 6 was “an inside job”...”something Democrats and some Republicans and federal agencies put together” to “entice” and “entrap” people who went to hear President Donald Trump’s speech. She says the FBI used agents to infiltrate so-called militia groups. She accuses Pelosi and Bowser of deliberately leaving the Capitol grounds unsecured, calling it a “setup” designed to cripple the MAGA movement. Video appears to document efforts to whip up the crowd, even with the use of stun guns and tear gas on well-behaved people, escalating the confrontation.
The EPOCH TIMES story has much more detail on this epic security fail –- if not outright set-up –- and the questions that need to be answered now. Of course, Nancy’s committee won’t touch a bit of it.
In other January 6 news, even CNN is acknowledging that revelations from the hearings are not likely to lead to indictment for Donald Trump. Actually, though, we don’t think the committee ever meant this to get before a real court, where Trump could defend himself by subpoenaing and cross-examining witnesses and bringing in evidence of his own. He might cut ‘em to shreds.
Michael Goodwin at the NEW YORK POST spares no words for the Democrats and their “show trial.” He thinks the persecution of Trump is actually helping him.
Finally, Margot Cleveland has another great commentary on January 6, accusing the committee of ignoring tactics used to affect the outcome of the 2020 election. “By limiting their focus to select and disproven claims of election fraud,” she says, “the Democrat-stacked House committee provides a bait-and-switch prime-time presentation designed to convince the country that Trump lied to his supporters when he declared the election was stolen.”
There are plenty of other ways to jigger with the outcome of an election. We’ve discussed these, but Cleveland lays them all out in her piece. How dare Democrats lecture us about the sacredness of “our democracy,” when to them, “democracy” is just a system to be exploited for desired results?
The cost of Independence Day went up 17%
Remember last Fourth of July, when the Biden White House crowed that a typical July 4th barbecue would cost a whopping 16 cents less than the previous year? Well, they probably won’t be trumpeting this: according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, that same barbecue’s ingredients will cost $12 more this year than last year, which is a 17% increase in inflation. Firecrackers aren’t the only thing that’s exploding this year.
Pro-life Democrat holds onto seat against AOC-backed leftist
A month after the Primaries in Texas, AOC-backed leftist “progressive” Jessica Cisneros finally conceded to incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar for the Democratic nomination of his border area House seat.
Cuellar, a unicorn-rare moderate Democrat who’s pro-life and critical of Biden’s open borders policies, led by 177 votes on election day. Cisneros demanded a recount and ended up losing by 289 votes. Cisneros blamed her loss on “a corrupt political machine, Republican-funded Super PACs, the Koch brothers, private prisons, Big Oil, the Chamber of Commerce, dark money groups, Big Pharma, and nearly the entire Democratic Party establishment in Washington” all working against her. She said that “with this close of a margin, it’s clear that without their aggressive interference in the lives of South Texas families, we would have won.” How gracious!
The director of the “progressive” Working Families Party added, “Democratic leadership trampled over their own stated principles to carry Henry Cuellar to victory.”
I quote that not to show you what sore losers these people are, or what an arrogant sense of entitlement to power that they have, but just to point out that they admitted that backing someone who’s pro-life and doesn’t want open borders amounts to trampling the Democratic Party’s principles. It’s nice to hear their principles stated clearly and honestly for a change.
Poll: New Hampshire Republicans prefer DeSantis over Trump
The first poll of New Hampshire likely Republican voters brought a surprise: their pick for President in 2024 was Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis by 39%, with Donald Trump second at 37%. That’s still within the margin of error, but it’s the first poll of Republicans that’s shown anyone ahead of or even near Trump (my newsletter poll showed DeSantis winning too).
I think it’s likely that some Republicans are starting to feel that DeSantis would bring similar policies and toughness but without the baggage or all the blind hatred that years of negative assaults by the media have built up around Trump.
This question of “To Trump or Not To Trump” is one that GOP voters will have to resolve soon. To help clarify it, Kurt Schlichter has written two must-read columns that lay out the arguments in his typical blunt but hilarious way. Here is “The Case For Trump”…
And “The Case Against Trump.”
Another welcome sign in the fight against wokeness
Yet another welcome sign that wokeness may have run its course: the CEO of the streaming service Paramount+ announced that they will not yield to cancel culture and censor or edit old movies and TV shows that have so-called “problematic” content or attitudes.
Speaking a language too-seldom heard these days (common sense), CEO Bob Bakish said, “By definition, you have some things that were made in a different time and reflect different sensibilities. I don’t believe in censoring art that was made historically, that’s probably a mistake. It’s all on-demand – you don’t have to watch anything you don’t want to.”
Wait…you mean if it streams on demand, I get to decide whether I want to watch it or not? So if it offends me, I can just…not watch it?
Why didn’t someone point this out before?!
Not Exactly A State Secret
Politico reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan said Wednesday that she had spoken separately to two unidentified Democrat lawmakers who told her candidly that “nobody gives a bleep about January 6th.”
I JUST WANTED TO SAY:
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website.