Good morning and a Happy Father's Day to all the Dads out there! Here are the top stories from this week that I think you will want to read:
- Thursday's January 6 hearing: Pence's role
- The Kangaroo Court
- Acts of Domestic Terrorism
- Curious: Does Jan. 6 committee WANT to stop Trump from running?
- Breaking: John Solomon obtains secret Jan. 6 report
1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
1 Corinthians 13:13
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
Thursday's January 6 hearing: Pence's role
This was originally published on June 17.
During NBC’s Thursday coverage of the January 6 committee hearings, they cut away to golf. Hey, it was the U.S. Open. Here’s Nick Arama at REDSTATE.
The focus on Thursday was Vice President Mike Pence and what he went through that day. Not that there was any cross-examination in an attempt to really know. We did learn that Pence spent several hours in a secure location, which appeared to be a loading area deep within the complex, and we heard committee Democrats praise him lavishly for his courage in not going along with Trump. Greg Jacob, former counsel to Pence, said that “Pence’s instinct” told him there was no way the framers of the Constitution intended the VP to have that kind of power.
It seems to me that being pulled into this story might actually have helped some viewers understand how Trump was feeling at the time. Obviously, he believed the election HAD been stolen by Democrats in those battleground states and that the Judicial Branch had not done its job. Yes, he chose to listen to the advisers who said what he wanted to hear, as we all do. And the way he saw it, he wasn’t trying to instigate a coup. He was hoping to prevent one, by the left. And some on the right did go way too far.
Mark Levin, speaking Thursday night on HANNITY, pointed out that while Biden, Schumer and Pelosi criticize Trump for not responding “quickly enough” to the January 6 riot, they still haven’t responded to the assassination plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanugh, which would certainly represent a more serious threat to our Republic than a bunch of unarmed ragtag Trump supporters.
They also haven’t responded to “the threats that are coming down, the potential need for the National Guard to protect the Supreme Court” when the decision is announced on their landmark abortion case.
He reminded viewers of how “extraordinarily violent” the left is, evoking the summer of 2020, the riots accompanying Trump’s inauguration –- to try to prevent HIM being sworn in as President (that apparently was okay) –- and the attack at the White House that injured 50 Secret Service agents.
So after putting January 6 in perspective, he said he was “disgusted” at the 40 minutes he watched on Thursday, seeing that it was “choreographed,” with teleprompters, spliced-up and cherry-picked video, and no contrary witnesses, contrary evidence, motions, challenges or cross-examination. No opposition whatsoever.
Even the legal analysts sit there on TV and say, we learned a lot today, he said. “You learned NOTHING."
As for the testimony regarding Pence, Levin pointed out that their chief witness, Michael Luttig, was not an adviser to Pence and never spoke to Pence. Levin’s sources close to Pence say Luttig “volunteered” his analysis by submitting it unsolicited to the Vice President’s office. None of that came out in testimony on Thursday --- could it possibly be because there was no cross-examination?
J. Michael Luttig is a conservative former federal judge who testified that Pence had no authority to stop Congress from certifying the election –- he had tweeted this on January 5 –- and that this would have brought on a “constitutional crisis.” He painted a picture of Trump as someone desperately trying to cling to power and called his efforts a “war on democracy.”
FORBES reports that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz clerked for Luttig and considers him to be a mentor. It would be very interesting to get Cruz’s take on his testimony. Amazingly, Luttig’s other law clerk was Trump attorney John Eastman, the very adviser who was the one encouraging Trump –- and Pence –- to challenge the election. What an interesting scenario. If only there were some real Republicans involved in these hearings, to bring in some cross-examination…
Levin also brought up the letter we reported on yesterday, from former U.S. attorney in Philadelphia William McSwain to President Trump, dating from June 2021. Recall that he was telling Trump that Attorney General Bill Barr had instructed him not to say anything publicly about the allegations of election “irregularities” that had been coming to his office, but to pass these along to the state attorney general, who had said Trump could not win.
“Wouldn’t it be nice when Barr was testifying, that somebody was there to challenge Barr? Somebody was there to challenge Luttig?” Levin asked. He pointed out that even some leftist legal professors agreed with Trump attorney John Eastman’s position “before it was John Eastman’s [and Trump’s] position.” The final say on election law was supposed to be with state legislators, he said, not with judges, and Levin holds that Trump “had every right” to ask state legislatures to look into these matters.
He also said it’s not clear under the 12th Amendment what the responsibilities of the Vice President are in such a situation. There needed to be challenges in the hearing about this.
“This is a railroad job,” Levin said of these hearings, “pure and simple. And it’s time the media get off its a-- and pay attention, and legal analysts act like real lawyers.”
Couldn’t have said it better.
The Kangaroo Court
This article was originally published on June 17th.
Nancy Pelosi has been conducting a kangaroo-court sham hearing about the January 6 riots, and it’s so theatrical that her committee hired a former “Good Morning, America” TV producer to stage it so it would be good TV. But it’s been very bad government. And the person who ought to be most ashamed of herself isn’t even Pelosi. It’s a pretend Republican from Wyoming, Liz Cheney.
According to the rules of the committee, there was supposed to be bipartisan participation, with the Republicans appointed by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The names he submitted were real Republicans who were determined to make sure the committee acted in good faith. Well, Nancy couldn’t have that, so she arbitrarily rejected the Republican appointees and appointed her own lapdog pet Republicans who would run to the feeding dish when she rang the bell. The only two she could find who would disgrace themselves by being her tightly leashed love-pups were Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who at least had the dignity of not running again for his Congressional seat after he’s made a fool of himself by selling out to the likes of AOC and the radical Squad.
But Liz Cheney has no dignity left. Her personal animosity toward Donald Trump has eclipsed every last ounce of integrity she might have ever possessed, and she joyfully joined the most partisan and vicious Trump-haters in DC to try and blame Donald Trump for a breakdown in security at the Capitol, despite the irrefutable fact that he urged Pelosi, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, and others to allow him to supply up to 20,000 troops for security that day. They all turned him down, and then they had the audacity to blame him for a rally that turned into the riot.
The reason I hold Liz Cheney in such contempt is because she is pretending to be such the law-and-order stickler. But every conservative I know has clearly spoken out against those who did damage to property at the Capitol, or who threatened or challenged a police officer that day. But what Liz Cheney has NOT done is to demand an accounting for the unjustified shooting of the only person who died in the Capitol building that day—an unarmed woman and Air Force veteran named Ashli Babbitt who was shot dead by a Capitol Hill police officer –- but about which the details of the investigation have never been made completely public.
Liz Cheney has not demanded an accounting for Ashli Babbitt’s death. Nor has she said a word about the disgusting and humiliating treatment of Peter Navarro, who was arrested as he boarded a plane last Friday to come to Nashville to be on my show. The FBI office is literally next door to his apartment—next door! He offered in writing and on the phone to voluntarily come in should they wish to talk to him. Instead, they followed him to the airport and waited until he was boarding the flight to Nashville, when they arrested him, handcuffed him, and hauled him away in unnecessary humiliation. They then put him in leg shackles and strip-searched the 72-year-old Harvard scholar who had never been arrested.
Will Liz Cheney demand answers as to why he was treated this way but former Attorney General Eric Holder wasn’t? Holder was charged with criminal contempt of Congress, and even 17 Democrats voted for it because he refused to answer questions about the disastrous Fast-and-Furious operation that resulted in the death of border agent Brian Terry. And Adam Kinzinger, who cried about January 6, didn’t shed a tear about Ashli Babbitt or the treatment of Peter Navarro.
Here's what some of us want to see: Send Liz Cheney and other swamp creatures home and replace them with liberty-loving, courageous constitutionalists who will demand accountability for the corrupt officials at the FBI and DOJ and in the Biden White House who have persecuted their political opponents with the power of the government and hidden the crimes of the connected. As for Republican candidates or incumbents who won’t do that, vote them out and replace them with those who will fight for us and our country. And I mean fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s Ark when it starts to rain!
Acts of Domestic Terrorism
This article was originally published on June 9th.
At least 124 House Republicans sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, demanding that he investigate violent attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers as acts of domestic terrorism.
The letter lists 11 instances of pro-life pregnancy centers, anti-abortion centers and churches being vandalized, firebombed and sprayed with threatening graffiti reading, “If abortions aren’t safe, then neither are you.”
And in case our politicized disgrace of an AG is too busy targeting non-woke parents to comprehend what a real domestic terrorist is, here’s a primer for him. An Antifa-linked pro-abortion group called Jane’s Revenge issued a blatantly terroristic threat online against pro-life organizations, reading in part:
"We offered an honourable way out. You could have walked away. Now the leash is off. And we will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of oppression to continue. We have demonstrated in the past month how easy and fun it is to attack. We are versatile, we are mercurial, and we answer to no one but ourselves. We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti.
From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season, and we know where your operations are. The infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive. We will never stop, back down, slow down, or retreat…”
You know what would make them stop? Throwing them into prison for about 20 years. AG Garland, THAT is your job, not harassing critics of Biden policies. If they are organizing and leaving threats online, then they are creating electronic trails that the FBI can use to trace, identify and arrest them. You were able to locate harmless grannies who wandered into the Capitol on January 6th to take a selfie and treat them like terrorists. Now, try using that same set of skills to hunt down and arrest these actual terrorists.
Curious: Does Jan. 6 committee WANT to stop Trump from running?
This article was published on June 14th.
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, at the conclusion of Monday’s hearing, said the committee appeared to be trying to “lay the foundation” for what they’ve claimed was an attempted coup. But what this really seems to be is a sort of “persona non grata” trial, he said, intended to show that Trump is “a horrible person.”
Turley laughed at something that happened at the end on Monday that he said “sort of put a pin on it” regarding the outrageously one-sided nature of these hearings. “The most telling moment,” he said, was when the chairman said he was going to “introduce this video, unless there is an objection.” Of course, everyone knew there would not be an objection! Who could imagine Liz Cheney suddenly rising to her feet and saying, “Wait, this seems unfair! Maybe we need to look at other evidence to be introduced as well!” That will not be happening.
“..This sort of emphasized,” he said, “there ISN’T anyone to object.”
He’s right --- we won’t be seeing any Perry Mason-like moment when someone in the room lets conscience prevail and tearfully sputters, “I confess! We’re all guilty! This hearing is a sham! We just couldn’t help ourselves!” These people don’t have consciences.
Turley observed that this one-sidedness is a “signature move,” a “fairly common practice” by Speaker Pelosi. She “muscles through, to get the conclusion she wants.” In the first Trump impeachment, for example, she “decided to forego investigation in the Judiciary Committee and the calling of essential witnesses.” In the second impeachment, “she did one better: she had a ‘snap impeachment,’ with no hearings at all.” I would add that she had to move lightning-fast because at that point, Trump was practically out the door. She had to get in just one more impeachment before he left!
But Turley isn’t so sure she’ll get the conclusion she wants. Other than hard-core anti-Trumpers, people will see that there’s no other side presented, the ‘other side’ being not that violent protest was a good thing but that key issues such as the deliberately lax security at the Capitol are not being examined at all.
He also made the point that through all the chaos, the system actually “did actually work to some extent.” Well, it worked in that power was indeed transferred; that’s about all that can be said for it.
We would add that to support their desired conclusion, Liz Cheney had to lie, saying, for example, “Donald Trump did not condemn the attack,” when he did –- unequivocally –- in a heartfelt Oval Office address. Read what he said at the link, here. He also condemned the violence on Twitter; Twitter blocked him. Cheney is a bald-faced liar, but, by design, there was no one at the hearing to point out her lies.
(By the way, as of this writing, President Biden has yet to condemn the unlawful protests at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home or even the aborted attempt to kill him, which most of the media have ignored as well. Kayleigh McEnany and I spoke about this, and the double standard of justice in general, on last night’’s HANNITY.)
So, it’s “more like messaging than it is like a real investigation," he said. No kidding. “I could have been very impressive in court if there were no defense lawyers, you know?” he laughed. “You let the government put on its own case, own witnesses, own exhibits, and then no cross-examination and no defense arguments; I’d have been 1,000-and-0.”
He later said he did not think they’re doing this to stop Trump from running again –- he thinks they might even prefer that he run –- but to set up the case against Trump in case he does. They also want to deliver what they hope would be “the predicates” for criminal prosecution against him. McCarthy is concerned that Biden’s DOJ has been giving in to “the loudest voices on the progressive left” and that a Trump prosecution is what they want, no matter how it divides the country.
Monday evening, Brit Hume echoed what McCarthy had observed, saying that the Democrats might find out “they’ve done the Republican Party a great service” if they stain Trump too much for him to run again. “Because I think many Republicans think they can’t win with Trump at the head of the ticket again. They’re afraid of his supporters --- don’t want to come out against him directly, but they’d like him to go away. If the effect of this committee is to make his possible candidacy go away, I think a great many Republicans would privately be very glad.”
That thought is consistent with our new poll, which, in breaking news, has just concluded and shows a very strong preference for DeSantis over Trump, 56.6 percent to 42.2 percent. (For “someone else,” 2.1 percent.)
Even so, I’d like to think that if Hume had had time to elaborate, he would also have said that, to any conservative, the Democrats’ flagrant abuse of the system to achieve that goal is far too great a price to pay.
But maybe the Democrat’s main goal is something else entirely. According to top Democrat strategist Murshed Zaheed, the primary purpose is “fundraising for a lot of the Democratic Party institutions and establishments.” What the heck, they spent $8 million of YOUR MONEY on this extravaganza, and they’re expecting a big payoff on that investment! Zaheed’s tweets will give you a good “inside” view.
Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul elaborates:
That we’d love to see. But we never will.
America The Beautiful
God's creation is all around us. To learn more about Hot Springs National Park, visit its website here.
So much for free speech
This article was published on June 13th.
Remember free speech? That was great while it lasted, wasn’t it? It obviously no longer exists in the Washington Commanders (formerly Redskins) organization, where defensive coach Jack Del Rio was fined $100,000, even after he apologized for asking why we were making so much of a “dust-up at the Capitol,” where nothing was burned down, but an entire summer of “riots, looting, burning and destruction of personal property,” where people’s livelihoods were destroyed and businesses were burned down, is never discussed and “no problem.” He tried to explain, “I just think it’s kind of two standards and if we apply the same standard and we’re going to be reasonable with each other, let’s have a discussion.”
For that, head coach Ron Rivera accused him of drawing an equivalence “between the events of that dark day and peaceful protests, which are a hallmark of our democracy.” He went on, “I want to make it clear that our organization will not tolerate any equivalency between those who demanded justice in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the actions of those on Jan. 6 who sought to topple our government.”
Certainly, there were “peaceful protests,” but I think he was likely referring instead to the people who tried to burn down a courthouse with people inside; and whose violence, looting, arson and vandalism left 19 people dead and over 2,000 police officers and an unknown number of civilians injured, and caused damages estimated at up to $2 billion, the costliest civil unrest in US history.
FYI, just to show how fair I am, I’m going to link to a liberal site that attempts to downplay the riots and debunk that figure.
Also because I find it amusing that even though the writer twists the facts like a pretzel to make it sound not so bad, in the end, he still has to admit that, yeah, it could’ve been as high as $2 billion. But insurance companies had to pay most of it so it doesn’t count, apparently. Because insurance companies don’t raise everyone’s rates when their costs go sky high.
That’s like saying that we all aren’t losing our free speech rights, just because Jack Del Rio was the one who has to pay a $100,000 fine for making a perfectly reasonable statement that millions of Americans agree with.
One who agrees and who is still exercising his right to really free speech is author/blogger Larry Correia, who unleashed a brutal Twitter thread about why most Americans don’t care about January 6th. Warning: really bad language alert. He might have to put $100,000 into the swear jar.
I Just Wanted to Say:
Thank you for reading the Sunday Standard.