There seems to be no bottom for President Biden’s poll numbers, with even his base now crumbling under him like a California house during a mudslide. A new Quinnipiac poll found that he’s now losing his most loyal constituency, black voters. His approval with them has dropped 14 points since April and is now at 49%, below the majority level for the first time.

With whites, his approval is down to 32% with 60% disapproving, and worst of all is his approval rating with Hispanics: 24%. This is being chalked up to the toll taken on working people by rampant inflation, record gas prices and out-of-control crime in blue cities.

That dismal approval number among Hispanics, and the growing number of Hispanic voters turning Republican, likely explains this story:

In a move that critics say “reeks of desperation,” a group of Hispanic investors with financial backing from leftist billionaire George Soros (the same man who bankrolled the DA’s who created that out-of-control crime) has purchased 18 Spanish language radio stations across 10 cities. They plan to use them to counter conservative Spanish stations, which the group’s founders, former Obama staffer Stephanie Valencia and Obama and Hillary Clinton campaign veteran Jess Morales Rocketto, accuse of spreading “misinformation.” Like what, that inflation is rampant, gas prices are at record highs and crime is out of control? Or just "misinformation" under the current definition: "true stuff I don't want anyone to talk about."

They must not have much faith in the intelligence of Hispanic Americans to believe they can be convinced to ignore what they see with their own eyes and are living through every day. Hispanics are only too familiar with nations where monopoly media outlets pump out 24/7 leftist propaganda. But even in a nation as isolated as Cuba, the people are smart enough to know that they’re being lied to.

FYI: the group is called the “Latino Media Network” (not “Latinx?”), so if you hear that name or the initials “LMN,” you’ll know what you’re dealing with. Just think of LMN as standing for “Lies Mean Nothing.”

While the Democrats are trying desperately to convince us that Donald Trump is personally responsible for the January 6th riot, here’s a round-up of seven of the most recent of many violent/terrorist attacks on conservatives by leftwing extremists that seem to be directly inspired by irresponsible, incendiary rhetoric by top Democrat politicians.

Will anyone hold them to account for inciting violence, even attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice? I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

Related: Remember when politicians at least had the decency to say that the children of public figures were “out of bounds” for attacks? (I mean actual children, not like Hunter Biden.) That ethical standard has been steadily eroding. Now, thanks to radical pro-abortion extremists, the children of Supreme Court Justices they disagree with are considered to be acceptable targets for harassment and terroristic threats.

I agree with Stephen Kruiser of P.J. Media that these despicable people in groups like “Ruth Sent Us” (I’m sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg would recoil at them using her name) are “a criminal enterprise, not a protest group,” and they “need to have some harsh legal consequences visited upon them soon.”

Let’s all hope that Merrick Garland’s “Justice” Department finds a few minutes free in its busy schedule of harassing and arresting the Democrats’ political opponents to actually enforce the law and arrest these bullying thugs.

Also, here’s more on the accusation that the Biden FBI is purging its ranks of any employees who are conservative or who question the partisanship and skewed priorities of the agency under Biden.

I guess they aren’t supposed to notice things like Biden joking to Jimmy Kimmel about sending his Republican opponents to jail, and then the very next morning, the FBI arresting the leading GOP candidate for Governor of Michigan on charges related to him being in Washington on January 6th, 2021. These are all misdemeanor charges that amount to him filming the crowd and “gesturing.” Yet it was vitally important that they make this very public arrest just before the hyped-up January 6 Committee TV extravaganza.

From kicking Republican candidates off the ballot to arresting them on dubious charges, it seems that someone is desperate to ensure that Gretchen Whitmer gets reelected. For some inexplicable reason, Stockholm Syndrome perhaps, Whitmer is currently safely ahead in the polls. I sincerely hope the voters come to their senses and realize that virtually any Republican short of Liz Cheney would be an immense improvement over power-mad Gretchen Whitmer.

From Cheryl A, on Substack:

I won’t be watching the kangaroo court. I don’t even recognize America anymore. I feel like I woke up in a parallel universe. Where is that portal? I want out!


Honestly, we deserve hazard pay for watching last night. All those toxic fumes.

The Democrats --- they say their committee is bipartisan, but it isn’t --- said Thursday’s hearing would be “like an opening statement.” And it was, but only from the prosecution.  In other words, this may have been billed as a hearing, but we're "hearing" just one side. This kangaroo committee was not formed according to the rules, and their stated goal is to show a “nexus” between President Trump, his allies, and the siege of the Capitol building to violate the will of the people.

To do this, they have to lie and selectively edit. Democracy was never really at risk because of anything those unarmed protesters did. Nobody took over anything, and if they’d had proper security, the breach would’ve been prevented. Biden became President –- happy now? If democracy is at risk, it’s because of the REACTION to those protesters --- labeling Trump supporters “domestic terrorists,” denying any problems with the election, marginalizing roughly half the country, and monitoring American citizens.

“This has all been produced down to the minute,” Bret Baier said on FOX Business News as Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi called the hearing to order. His opening remarks, right out of the gate, recalled the small Mississippi town of his birth, where people used to “justify the actions of slavery, Ku Klux Klan, and lynching.” Never mind that these evils all came courtesy of the Democrat Party –- he said they’d been brought to mind by “the actions of the insurrectionists in 2021.” Ah, we were off to a good start.

Predictably, he brought up the oath that, ever since the Civil War, elected officials and government employees have taken. This was introduced to prevent Southern rebels from “holding a position of public trust.” He said, “That oath was put to test on January 6th,” likening those who breached the Capitol that day with those who’d fought against the Union in 1862. This is the strategy Democrats want to use to disqualify certain members of Congress, and (of course) President Trump, from running again.

“It was domestic enemies of the Constitution,” he said, “who stormed the Capitol, and occupied the Capitol, who sought to thwart the will of the people” (except he said “thowrt”) “to stop the transfer of power.” All Presidents in our nation’s history had accepted the will of the people, he said, “except Donald Trump.”

Thompson apparently knows the 2020 election was perfectly above-board. The American people voted Trump out, he said, and “it was not because of a rigged system,” he added confidently. Then he played a clip from former Attorney General Bill Barr saying that in December 2020 he had advised that “he did not think the election was stolen.” In fact, he had called that idea BS. But that soon after the election, did Barr –- or anyone –- really have that much to go on? Doubtful.

“Donald Trump had his days in court to challenge the results,” Thompson said. “He lost in the courts, just as he did at the ballot box.” (Actually, that’s untrue; the courts rejected his claims without looking at evidence.) “That’s the end of the line. But for Donald Trump, that was only the beginning of what became a sprawling, multi-step conspiracy aimed at overturning the Presidential election, aimed at throwing out the votes of millions of Americans –- YOUR votes –- in our democracy and replacing the will of the American people with his will to remain in power after his term ended.”

Again, not true. In spite of what some (not all) advisers were telling him, Trump firmly believed the election had been stolen, and that he was trying to fulfill the people’s will.

“Donald Trump was at the center of this conspiracy,” Thompson lied again. “And, ultimately, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down [to] the Capitol and subvert American democracy.

“Any legal jargon you hear about seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States [NOTE: be prepared for a lot of that] boils down to this: January 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup, ‘a brazen attempt,’ as one writer put it shortly after January 6, ‘to overthrow the government.’ The violence was no accident. It represents ‘Trump’s Last Stand,’ [his] most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power.”

So there it is. Wow, Rep. Thompson laid it on even thicker than we’d thought he would. Of course, you and I (and President Trump) know this isn’t what Trump was doing at all. Doesn’t matter; the most outrageously partisan and extreme interpretation of events is what Thompson led with.  He apparently wants Trump charged with sedition.

Oh, and he hilariously denied that this is a political attack on Trump by people who don’t like him. “That’s not the case,” he lied. He said Trump’s people “didn’t want January 6 investigated at all.” On the contrary, they’d welcome neutral parties looking into numerous aspects –- say, the FBI’s role, and the curious lack of security. Think we’ll get that here?

The next committee member to give a statement was “Republican” Liz Cheney. She put up a tweet Trump sent at 6:01 PM January 6 and read aloud from it, conveniently leaving out the part that said, “Go home with love & in peace.”

Cheney must have relished her role as prosecutor. “President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” she said. “...Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power.” She then played selected, context-free clips --- again with no opportunity for more questioning.

She said that in the coming weeks, there would be testimony from officials who’d been in the West Wing that day and had “begged” Trump to do something to stop the protesters. Will there be any cross-examination of those witnesses? NO.

Having no cross-examination is why the Democrats’ big show is ultimately meaningless, though it cost $8 million of taxpayers’ money. The entire committee is advocating for one side. It’s as I said yesterday: Imagine how differently the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial would have gone if there had been no cross-examination of Amber Heard.

The committee hopes their dramatic video of violence and chaos at the Capitol will tear at emotions. Yes, the violence was abhorrent, and we all recall sitting stunned on that day, watching in horror. I know of no Republican who thinks otherwise –- Donald Trump included, no matter what came out of his mouth in anger as it unfolded. This had to be the worst possible turn of events for Trump himself. As we’ve said but the committee did not, Trump had offered Speaker Pelosi up to 20,000 National Guard troops to protect against this very thing.

Notice that the phrase “in the coming weeks” was repeated a lot. Good grief, how much lying are we supposed to endure? Most Americans don’t blame Trump at this point and surely will see this for what it is. (And they might be able to put it into perspective now that we’ve had an attempt on the life of a Supreme Court justice, a story that THE NEW YORK TIMES buried on page twenty-something.) There are hearings next Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. I wonder if networks might pull the plug on this in-kind contribution to the Democrat Party if the ratings tank.

Anyway, let’s not waste more time on this one-sided sideshow. Let’s move on to what some legal experts and other commentators have to say...


First, here’s a strong antidote, which we know you need. Tucker Carlson said, “This is the only hour on an American news channel that will not be carrying their propaganda live. They are lying and we are not going to let them do it.”

“The whole thing is insulting,” he said. “In fact, it’s deranged, and we’re not playing along.”

Nancy’s committee obviously has it in for Peter Navarro, and this piece looks at why.

The Democrats say January 6 was a carefully plotted event, staged by Donald Trump himself. Really? Seemed pretty ragtag to us, especially when compared to the raging violence of BLM/Antifa. Derek Hunter at TOWNHALL spares no words.

Jeremy Brown is a Green Beret –- served his country for 20 years –- and Republican candidate for Congress in Florida. He is also a Jan. 6 political prisoner. He called tonight’s hearing “a well-orchestrated and highly produced lie meant to target the minds and perceptions of the uninformed and misinformed masses with intent to demonize and dehumanize their opposition.”

Republican Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, who was originally appointed to the committee but was pulled by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy when Pelosi refused to seat Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, said McCarthy made the right call. He was asked by Shannon Bream about something Cheney told her Republican colleagues who are, Cheney said, “defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone. But your dishonor will remain.”  (Yes, she said that.)

He chose to respond more generally about the committee itself, saying, “...We’re kicking minority members off of committees, we’re silencing the voices of entire constituencies, and I can tell you from ten years of practicing law, the hardest cases are when you need your rules and your procedures to work best. They’re not when you get to change them to fix a narrative, and that’s exactly what has happened with this committee from the beginning. They’re putting pressure on DOJ, they’re getting mad at DOJ...they’re issuing subpoenas and contempt charges without any merit whatsoever...” He says the House isn’t working the way it should because rules and procedures are not being honored.

BREITBART NEWS has a good write-up full of excellent updates and some refreshing tweets. The reviews are in, and they are bad. Also, Jason Miller, featured in a video clip during the hearing, says he was deceptively edited. It also appears they overlaid Trump’s voice onto footage of the Capitol violence. Not a good look for the committee.

At REDSTATE, we see committee members were using teleprompters and Democrats were trying to “temper expectations,” as they really had nothing we don’t already know. More outstanding tweets here as well.

In related news, law professor Jonathan Turley criticized FBI Director Chris Wray for calling the January 6 riot “domestic terrorism,” after the DOJ finally up-charged key Proud Boys leaders on Monday with seditious conspiracy.

And here’s Jim Banks --- Kevin McCarthy's choice for the committee until Pelosi refused to seat him --- with eight questions that remain unanswered about January 6. His questions will give you an idea of why she didn’t want him NEAR that committee!


Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media has some brutally funny comments about the January 6th Committee Good Time Variety Hour and its openly-admitted purpose: to try to distract Americans from the real problems they’re dealing with and keep Democrats in power in November so they can keep creating more of them.

By the way, I know how expensive it is to produce a TV show, so let me save them some money by telling the real root cause of the January 6th riots: it’s the pathological, psychotic Trump Derangement Syndrome of Nancy Pelosi and Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Knowing there would be a large partisan crowd, Trump offered 20,000 National Guard troops to insure safety and order. And without even thinking about what would be wise or prudent, they not only refused the help, they attacked Trump for offering it, because that was their response to everything he had done ever since he dared to deny Hillary Clinton her ordained coronation as President. So they could never, ever work with him on anything. If Trump was for it, it must be BAD!

That’s why we no longer have border security, energy independence or a foreign policy that prioritizes American interests, and why they’re trying to undo a tax cut that helped 80% of Americans. Because Trump IS THE DEVIL!! It’s the kind of mindless, psychotic obsession that we used to treat by putting people into psychiatric institutions, not the institutions of government.

So if you really care about these people, in November, please, take pity and remove them from the place where their obsession is allowed to foment and send them home, where they can finally get the mental health treatment they so desperately need.

As Democrats gear up for tonight’s big attempt to convince you that a couple of hundred rioters 17 months ago represent the entire Republican Party and are the biggest, most violent, extremist threat to our democracy in America, the news seems to be aligning to convince the public otherwise.

Here’s a story about escalating vandalism and fire-bombing of pro-life pregnancy centers by pro-abortion domestic terrorists whom I seriously doubt vote Republican.

And then there’s the 26-year-old California man arrested yesterday outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s family’s home. One group that’s been encouraging protesters to illegally target judges' homes initially tried to suggest that it was overblown and he probably didn’t even have a gun. In fact, he was reportedly carrying a black tactical chest rig, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazines and ammo, pepper spray, zip ties, a knife, hammer, screwdriver, duct tape, crow bar and other items.

He told police he was all fired up over the leaked decision overturning Roe v. Wade and the Uvalde killings. He thought Kavanaugh would vote to end Roe and protect the Second Amendment, so he decided to “give his life purpose” by murdering Kavanaugh.

Questions are now reasonably being raised that if Trump and his staffers can be legally hounded for words they spoke, then why isn’t Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer liable for inciting an assassination attempt?

He’s become infamous for threatening SCOTUS Justices on more than one occasion if he thought they were going to rule in some way he didn’t like. Most recently, he declared about the leaked ruling, “I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hits you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Now, why would an unstable leftist think that was a message from an authority figure encouraging an attack on Kavanaugh?

Such threatening, banana republic rhetoric is obviously having an effect: a shocking new poll commissioned by the SPLC found that 44% of male Democrats under 50 believe it’s acceptable to assassinate a politician “who is harming the country or our democracy.”

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, who tonight will try to convince Americans that Trump incited violent insurrection against a branch of the government by telling his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically,” blocked an attempt by Republicans to get the House to pass an emergency bill to increase security for SCOTUS Justices - a bill already passed unanimously by the Senate.

So once again: which party is supposedly the party of violent, extremist threats to our democracy?

From Huckabee reader Margaret K, on Substack:

I trust Mike Huckabee's team, as I don't have the wherewithal to watch 2 hours of political theatre interspersed with leftwing commentary by network "political experts."

From Rick, also on Substack:

Once again, Thank You! I pretty well abide by your suggestion to let you follow the news and keep us informed. It helps!


Thanks, readers! Of course, you’ll have to try hard to avoid seeing Thursday’s primetime telecast of Nancy Pelosi’s January 6 committee hearings.

We call it “The January 6 Propaganda Machine Good-Time Show.” But this completely one-sided anti-Trump extravaganza, produced by former ABC president and news producer James Goldston, will run on ABC as “Attack on the Capitol: The Investigation.” On NBC, the simultaneous coverage is billed as “NBC News Special: The January 6 Hearings.” On CBS, it’s “CBS News: Capitol Assault Hearings.” On MSNBC, it’s “The January 6th Hearings: The House Investigates.” At CNN, they’re more dramatic, calling it “Attack on Democracy: The January 6th Hearings.” On FOX BUSINESS NEWS (yes, they’re running it), it’s simply called “January 6th Committee Hearing.”

The propaganda machine is wall to wall.

I wonder if this being shoved down our throats has anything to do with the American people gradually coming to see this was not Trump’s fault. According to an NBC poll taken in May, a minority now hold him mostly responsible. Panicked Democrats have to do something about this right away, as January 6 is all they have.

So they’ve brought in the big dogs, propaganda-wise, in what must be the biggest in-kind contribution to Democrats in political history. And Thursday is only the beginning –- this is really about the next election, and the next. As reported by NBC San Diego, “The hearings are expected to be exhaustive but not the final word from the committee. It plans to release subsequent reports on its findings, including recommendations on legislative reforms, ahead of the midterm elections.”

But New York GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik of the House Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that the GOP would be “all over the airwaves, setting the record straight” with “a slew of events and media appearances” of their own.

The challenge, though, will be finding any of it. “All over the airwaves” –- that won’t be happening. And even with FBN showing Nancy's hearings, some Democrats have expressed rage that FOX News isn’t showing this propaganda, too. Nothing short of full compliance will satisfy them.

If you can stomach some leftist spin, this CNN opinion piece predicts the GOP counterprogramming “will fail.” I say that if it does, that will only be because the media have systematically shut it out.

CNN thinks it’s “despicable” for Trump allies to try to be heard, even though, as ranking Judiciary Committee member Jim Jordan of Ohio has noted, Pelosi’s committee has set it up so there will be NO CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES in her hearings. (Do you think Nancy’s hand-picked “Republicans,” Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, will do that? Get real.) This might be a first: completely one-sided hearings! Goodness, if legitimate legal proceedings didn’t allow for cross-examination, they really would be kangaroo courts. Imagine how the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial would’ve gone if no one had been able to cross-examine Amber Heard.

So, who IS showing the Republicans’ counterprogramming? Good question. Axios say it’s limited to the GOPs’ own platforms, such as Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” “Real America’s Voice,” and Trump’s Truth Social and Save America PAC. So it'll be preaching to the converted. FOX News will run its normal programming.

Here’s one example of counterprogramming that NEWSMAX has already reported:

Come to think of it, Nancy’s hearings might turn out to be unintentionally hilarious. Her star witness, Nick Quested, a British filmmaker who followed the Proud Boys, once posted on Instagram (now deleted) that only one cop was stationed on the Capitol steps and someone “in authority” opened the door for protesters to come inside in a “deliberate act.” Oops!
Oh, wait, that would only come out in cross-examination...

At least the FOX News opinion shows are fighting back. Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue from Wednesday is not to be missed. He describes what Trump’s rally actually was, aside from the foolhardy breach of the Capitol by some acting on their own, and asks many of the questions that won’t be mentioned in Nancy’s hearings.

As I often say, “we watch the news, so you don’t have to,” so you can count on us to keep an eye on the proceedings, though my writers tell me they’d much rather watch the re-run of YOUNG SHELDON that would normally be on CBS. We hope the ratings all tank, and that the only three people watching at all are us, because, well, we have to.

We’d also make the point that in the year-and-a-half since the protest, there have been numerous investigations and analyses that cause many to doubt even more the legitimacy of the election. We don’t have a definitive answer to that question yet, but it’s understandable why some people wanted to take a pause before certifying the vote. That’s all they wanted. If some got rowdy –- and yes, foolishly, some did –- it was out of frustration that the Justice Department was not hearing them and, arguably, not doing their job to SAFEGUARD “our democracy.”

To me, the big take-away from the incident is that if anything is a “threat to democracy,” it’s the growing suspicion that our election outcomes are fake. Anyone questioning those outcomes deserves not to be silenced but to receive proof that they haven’t been rigged. We got the opposite of that; we got the curtain slamming down.

What we’d like to see is Nancy and her winged monkeys very, very sorry in the end that they did this. And perhaps that will happen. Steve Bannon, who’s been charged with criminal contempt of Congress for not “cooperating,” has served subpoenas to Nancy herself and her nine committee members, plus Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Rep. Jim Clyburn, three staffers and the House general counsel, seeking documents relating to the decision to refer his case for a criminal trial. These would also include anything having to do with how the committee was set up in the first place. His trial is scheduled for July 18.

Some legal experts are saying that House members and staff will be shielded by the Speech and Debate Clause. That would be ironic, considering Bannon is refusing to cooperate because the President is supposed to be shielded by executive privilege. Details here.

Both Bannon and Peter Navarro hold that they don’t have to respond to subpoenas by an illegitimate committee. But now the DOJ is reportedly trying to make Navararo shut up about it.

Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs has a must-read piece explaining why he refuses to testify. “I have watched the Star Chamber proceedings...and have reached the conclusion that not only is it illegitimately formed, in violation of the rules of the House, it is manifestly organized for one purpose: a search and destroy mission against any and all perceived political enemies.

I’ll leave you with this definition, from Merriam-Webster:


1) a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted

2) a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures


In related news, remember the “Governmental Disinformation Board,” to be run by that Mary Poppins person? Nanny Nina is gone, but, importantly, the board itself has not been disbanded.
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley has obtained leaked documents that show it was NOT set up just to handle disinformation from foreign sources, as we’d been told. (Why, that was disinformation!)  Their “rumor control program” was to monitor Americans as well (as we always knew it was). And, get this: Part of its reason for being was that some Americans were questioning --- get ready --- election integrity and January 6.
Well, we can’t have that!

Biden on Kimmel

June 9, 2022

Last night, President Biden finally gave an interview for the first time in 120 days, but instead of a live press conference, it was a pre-taped chat with sycophantic late night host, Jimmy Kimmel. As expected, it was like Biden's previous visit with fellow ABC host George Stephanopoulos: a softball session with a DNC mouthpiece who isn’t as funny as he used to be.

Kimmel completely ignored the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh and brushed off inflation, the #1 concern of most Americans according to the latest polling (Biden seemed to think he’s created the greatest economy ever and Americans just haven’t realized it.) Kimmel let Biden bash Trump and Republicans while claiming that people are always asking him why he “plays square” with Republicans when they don’t do it with him (Who are these people telling Biden that he’s being too bipartisan and conciliatory with the people he brands as the most dangerous extremists in America and who want children to die from gun violence? I’d like some names, please.)

He claimed he won’t issue a lot of executive orders because “I don’t want to emulate Trump’s abuse of the Constitution and constitutional authority.” Again, please explain how Trump abused his Constitutional authority. Almost all of his executive orders, even ones that were clearly within his powers, were held up by activist judges, after which Trump followed the appeals process. Biden has issued a flurry of executive orders that have decimated border security, the domestic fuel industry and Constitutional rights, and we’re lucky if he pays any attention at all when judges put stays on them. In that way, he's like the king of ruling-by-executive-order, his old boss, Barack Obama.

One could easily argue, especially today, that the Democrats have shown nothing but contempt for the Judicial branch and have openly encouraged threats of violence against judges.

If you have the interest and a strong stomach, here’s a write-up of the interview…

And full video of what Fox News’ Joe Concha said wasn’t even tough enough to be a softball interview, it was more like T-ball for kindergartners.

Or if you’d like to get the gist of it, including some of the worst moments that the media will gloss over, try these write-ups from Bonchie and Nick Arama at, listing the many delusional moments.

In more late-breaking news, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, says whistleblowers within the FBI have told him the Bureau is retaliating against staffers who hold conservative views. They are reportedly purging their ranks of conservatives, particularly those who question their January 6 narrative.

According to Jordan, a decorated Iraq war veteran was “being run out of the FBI” for daring to say something “that offended the FBI leadership about the January 6 investigation.” For disagreeing, he was indefinitely suspended without pay.

Another FBI official is being treated the same way because of an answer that person gave on an anonymous questionnaire to a question about January 6. It was something the leadership disagreed with, so that apparently is a career-ender.

Jordan says half a dozen from the FBI have come to his committee to tell their stories. Others have had their security clearances revoked after simply attending the Capitol Hill rally, even though they were far from the Capitol building and had nothing to do with the protest. Attending a Trump rally was enough.

As for the televised hearings, he said this was the only congressional committee hearing he’d ever seen in which there was no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. “Because there’s no Republican on that committee who will do it,” he said. He explained that even when Adam Schiff had his private impeachment “bunker,” Jordan, as a member of the committee, could still be in that room and ask questions. But for this committee, Nancy Pelosi hand-picked every member, including the two anti-Trump “Republicans” --- that’s what makes it illegitimate --- and they can be counted on NOT to ask the questions that need to be asked.

Again, to hear anyone even dare to ask those questions, we’ll need to go over and listen to Elise Stefanik’s rebuttal. See you there.

Hey, America! Get ready for the “The January 6 Propaganda Machine Good-Time Show” starring...Nancy Pelosi...(CUE APPLAUSE)...and co-starring her special hand-picked friends, the Good-Time January 6 Committee members...(APPLAUSE)... ready to entertain you by dancing, side-stepping, and sometimes tiptoeing around what really happened on January 6! Produced by ABC, or at least by former ABC producers who shill for the Democrats and try their best to make them interesting! Brought to you, in a round-about way, by Mark Zuckerberg...Perkins Coie, Attorneys-at-Law...and Dominion Voting Systems! It’s the biggest event of the pre-election season! In primetime starting Thursday; check local listings!

Of course, this show will seem a lot like a re-run of Trump’s second impeachment, which was likewise a major video production brought to you by House Democrats. For the REAL show, the one that offers you facts that most people will not have heard before, check out the rebuttal by House Republicans --- the actual Republicans who weren’t allowed on Nancy’s bogus committee.

In breaking news late Tuesday, John Solomon offered a preview of at least one facet of the GOP rebuttal, after obtaining a secret Capitol Police “after-action report” that identified ‘sweeping blunders” regarding security on January 6. This is the difficult subject that Nancy’s committee should talk about in their hearings but won’t, as they’re too busy speculating about what was going through President Trump’s mind and trying to make him and his supporters look like insurrectionists, even though they aren’t.

This just-emerged, year-old report identifies 53 (!) areas of failure needing corrective action, ranging from “delayed deployment of specialized disturbance units” to “the fateful dismantling of an intelligence unit that monitored social media for threats.” Solomon says it “produces a far more stark portrait of leadership failure than those offered by Democrat-led investigations, making abundantly clear that the Capitol police under Nancy Pelosi were ill-equipped to defend one of America’s most symbolic and high-value institutions two decades after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Here’s the full report:

“...The internal after-action report was constructed from observations from 44 different submissions from frontline Capitol Police commanders and officers to its Coordination Unit,” Solomon writes, “providing a specificity of failings and an unvarnished assessment of the senior leadership and its grasp on command and control during the crisis on January 6.” He said that many of those who requested to see the report, including Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, were not provided with a copy.

These submissions came directly from the front lines that day and support the view that “the Capitol was not protected in a proactive way,” said a senior law enforcement official who would only speak to Solomon about this report on condition of anonymity.

Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik reviewed the report and said it “pointed to failure at the highest level of Capitol security,” adding that legislators showed no interest in actually investigating the security failures he saw that day. The only way this is really going to be investigated, he said, is if Congress gains new leadership after the November elections. “You know, somebody’s got to look at this,” he said. “The next House is going to have to do that.” In the meantime, the Democrats get to put on their show.

Kerik was adamant about current leaders’ negligence, saying, “You mean to tell me that nobody, nobody made any preemptive plans on how they were going to deal with any protest, any crowd, any large gathering around the Capitol for their quick reaction force...that’s crazy.”

He was interviewed by the January 6 committee, and I’d like to think he lit into them this way. it’s hard to believe they could slip up this badly without deliberately trying to leave the Capitol vulnerable. Ironically, the one person who really seemed to be on top of this was President Trump, when he offered up to 20,000 National Guard troops.

Besides having poorly designed equipment and delayed access to it –- it was locked on a bus and nobody had the key –- officials did not receive adequate training and preparation for such an event, the report said. “There were not enough hard platoons for the day.” Civil Disturbance Units (CDU) of the Capitol Police had been taken off their duty to cover other assignments, it said, “leaving an inadequate number to respond to the riot.”

You know, that’s when it would have been good to have those NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS.

Oh, but there was much more. As Solomon writes, “The report found that even the basics of physical security –- like secure elevators and locked doors –- were failures in a Capitol building long feared to be a target of terrorists and violent political extremists.”

Pelosi’s committee won’t be looking for answers about what went wrong with security; that’s not what it’s for. (And if they’ve even read the secret report, they haven’t acted on it, as we’ve learned the CDU has still not revised its readiness plan.) In fact, Nancy’s role in what happened will be “off limits” during the hearings, as the committee chair, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, has said.

Solomon appeared, along with Kash Patel, on Tuesday’s HANNITY TV show to discuss the report. He said there were opportunities to address it during earlier security hearings about January 6 but that never happened. To do so would be to reveal that the “Mayor of the Capitol,” Nancy Pelosi, failed in her responsibility to secure Capitol Hill.

He cited as the most important thing the failure of the leadership of the Capitol Police Department to react to the FBI’s warning that there might be violence. They should have filtered down such active threat information to their commanders and officers. This was “a glaring omission,” he said.

When Hannity asked him about reports that the Capitol Hill Police chief had requested (at least six times!) that National Guard troops be called up, Solomon said that is “irrefutable.” This report doesn’t confirm it but he’s seen it in other documents. He said that over the next few weeks, he’ll be releasing about 10,000 pages.

“The basics of security went out the window,” he said, “and it’s because of their leadership. They have political leaders, not security leaders.”

Patel, who has testified before Nancy’s committee, reiterated what we reported yesterday: that he, Mark Meadows, and former acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller were in a January 4 meeting in the Oval Office with Trump and all witnessed his offer of up to 20,000 National Guard troops for the event. Gen. Mark Milley has also attested to this. And there’s documentation, in the form of a “delegation memo” to the Secretary of the Army, who is then supposed to be ready for the Speaker’s request. Pelosi never requested them. And DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was clear that she did not want them, either. Patel once again stressed that all documentation relating to January 6 needs to be made public.

As you know, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik will host the rebuttal --- the REAL story. She also asks important questions, such as “Who placed a bomb outside the headquarters of the Republican National Committee?” “Why was the U.S. Capitol Police left so ill-prepared?”

Why indeed?



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.


New Court Ruling, but not the one you are waiting for

The Supreme Court is really dragging out the wait for a ruling possibly overturning Roe v. Wade. The Court released one decision Wednesday, but it was on an obscure case called Egbert v. Boule. While we continue to wait, you can read about that case here:


“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

John 16:33

If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]

Timely Reminder

A timely reminder to President Biden and other Democrats clamoring for more gun laws and gun confiscation: a major group that you’re talking about disarming is Black Americans who have been buying more guns recently to protect their families from the wave of violent crime set off by your leftist, pro-criminal policies and defunding of police. So why do you racists want to leave law-abiding Black Americans at the mercy of violent criminals?

Here’s more on a growing demographic that Democrat gun control advocates want to pretend doesn’t exist: Black women gun owners. In short, the people who most need protection from the deadly consequences of Democrat policies in blue urban areas.

Keeping up with politics can be a real downer

When you have to keep up with politics for a living, it can really get you down. That’s why I suggest that people let us read the news so you won’t have to. We’ll give you the stuff worth knowing and tell it to you straight so you can be informed then go do more pleasant things.

For instance, it’s easy to get depressed when you have to listen every day to the gaggle of dunces that comprise the Biden Administration. It’s a place where the President refuses to take questions from reporters but will finally sit down tonight for his first Q&A in months…with late night “comedian” and DNC mouthpiece Jimmy Kimmel. Comic Jimmy Failla said it was likely to be about as hard-hitting as a bouncy castle. We should get combat pay for having to watch both Biden and Kimmel at the same time so you don’t have to.

Then there are the incessant inanities of Vice President Kamala Harris, and the utterly clueless comments of Biden’s Cabinet officials, from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (who just didn’t see inflation coming, but now helpfully says, “I very much hope it will be coming down”) to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who said of high gas prices, “The reality is that there isn’t very much more to be done.”

Well, maybe aside from the President calling off his war to destroy the domestic fuel industry and letting Americans pump and refine oil, and build pipelines and nuclear power plants. But that’s crazy talk! We just need a billion more windmills.

Still, even while being forced to keep up with this Category 5 storm of stupidity, there are a few bright spots. One of them is hearing what Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy has to say about it all. Here are a few choice recent quotes, and there are more at that last link:

“The price of gas is so high that it would be cheaper to buy cocaine and just run everywhere.”

As for how Biden can solve all these baffling problems: “Do what we were doing the day before you took office.”

Kennedy said, “The American people understand that,” and that’s why Biden “is about as popular right now as a sinkhole.”

Yet Another Reason Why We Put “Fact Checkers” In Quotes

In a new undercover expose video, Project Veritas caught CBS Documentary Associate Michael Mulford saying that he wants to leave journalism because it’s not as impartial as it was and corporate media prioritizes “money over values” and “money reigns supreme.”

For instance, he says they engage in cheap fact-checking: “I’ll just Google like, whatever, and then like, ‘CBS’ on the end, and if there’s a CBS article about it, then I’m like, ‘Great, [news report] verified.’”

To state that more clearly, he’s saying that CBS “fact-checks” a story by Googling to see if CBS has run a previous story on the same subject, and if so, it’s considered fact-checked. Their fact-checking authority is themselves.

And you thought only the parents of young children could get away with saying, “It's so because I said so!”


Apparently, Disney thinks it hasn’t done enough to drive away parents with inappropriate LGBTQ+++ messaging in children’s entertainment. So here’s what you’ll see if you take your kids to their next big movie, "Lightyear."

Remember when Disney used to be considered the only reliably safe choice for wholesome family entertainment? That sure seems like a long time ago.

That article also quotes anonymous Disney employees complaining that the company’s new diversity and inclusion initiative “Reimagine Tomorrow” doesn’t seem to have much room for including Christians or conservatives. They should try reimagining tomorrow in their theme parks as a day when there are no Christian or conservative paying customers.

Bulletin: Armed man arrested outside of Kavanaugh home

Wednesday morning, police arrested a California man outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house. Early reports were that he was carrying a gun and a knife and burglary tools, and that he said he wanted to kill Kavanaugh because he was angry about the leak indicating Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

As you can see at the link, Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Joy Reid who have spewed irresponsible rhetoric threatening the Justices are being remarkably quiet, while the “Ruth Sent Us” group that was doxing conservative Justices and protesting illegally outside their homes tried to deflect blame, but not very successfully.

Mitch McConnell called on the House to pass a measure to provide more security to SCOTUS Justices that already passed the Senate but was inexplicably blocked by House Democrats. Some are also urging McConnell to discourage this kind of thuggery by announcing that Republicans will block any SCOTUS nominations for openings created by assassination until after the swearing-in of the next President. This is a breaking story, so we’ll have more details as they become available. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on Democrats to apologize for clearly inciting violent insurrection against a branch of our democracy.

Meanwhile, law professor Josh Blackman has a suggestion for the SCOTUS: stop dragging out the release of the decision on Roe v. Wade and get it over with. We don’t need any more time for leftists to work themselves up into homicidal frenzies or for Chief Justice Roberts to lobby conservatives to vote with the liberals and keep a bad court ruling on life support.

And thanks to Instapundit for this round-up of reminders about which Party really is the most dangerous group of extremists around today.


Thank you for reading my newsletter. 

For more news, visit my website.

Good news

June 7, 2022

Good news: Congress is finally doing something to prevent a fertilizer shortage. They’re giving Adam Schiff a microphone.

Schiff is famous for producing more horse manure than the Kentucky Derby, and he’ll get another chance to demonstrate that skill on Thursday, when Democrats desperate for anything to save their seats will hold a prime time session of their illegitimate January 6th Committee (I call it “illegitimate” because it is: its founding legislation required it to contain Republicans chosen by the House GOP leader; Nancy Pelosi rejected his choices and appointed her own, so it’s in violation of its own charter, its subpoenas should carry no weight; and it should be immediately disbanded.)

Democrats have abused their powers horrendously in trying to destroy their political opponents and innocent Trump supporters, and overcharged and persecuted even people who might actually be guilty of something. They’ve also spent a year and half bloviating about what a huge threat to “our democracy” that three-hour riot was (it was deplorable, but actually pretty short and relatively non-violent compared to the Democrats’ own “peaceful” riots.) They’ve tried to convince us it was the end of the world, like a toddler screaming that she’s going to DIIIIIIE from a paper cut.

I don’t know who they think will actually watch this primetime dog and donkey show, since most Americans have real problems of the Democrats’ own making to deal with and are way past caring about January 6th. Like a TV series on its last legs that tries to rekindle interest by throwing in a wild new plot twist, Schiff is claiming to have a “great deal of new evidence” to show how close we came to “losing our democracy.” Quick, spread that on a wheat field! 

Does anyone seriously believe that a brag-tag mob was going to overthrow the federal government, or that Trump would have led a violent insurrection? Does anyone believe that Adam Schiff has any “new evidence?” If he did, he would’ve leaked it by now, since lying and leaking are his only two legislative talents. And where has this so-called “evidence” been all this time? In the same coat pocket with all that evidence he claimed to have of Trump officials colluding with Russia?

Or is this the kind of “new evidence” he’s talking about?

It’s another fake news claim that the Secret Service feared Trump was about to turn against Vice President Pence and put him in physical danger. Notice how many of these accusations are about things they “feared Trump was going to do” that he never actually did? Even the head of the Secret Service under Biden shot down this latest imaginary tale, saying no threat against Pence was ever communicated to the Secret Service.  

The Republicans are planning a rapid response to all the Democrats’ ridiculous claims, but I question whether anyone will even be watching this garbage, other than CNN and MSNBC hosts and, unfortunately, me. The Democrats could better spend their time trying to fix some of the problems they’ve caused, but they either don’t know how or can’t admit that the damage was deliberate. Going whole hog on abusing their power to punish their political opponents is as dumb and short-sighted a move as killing the filibuster. As law Professor Jonathan Turley writes, they may soon be headed for a long stretch in the minority, and if Republicans follow the precedent they’ve set, it’s going to be a very uncomfortable stretch indeed.

Personally, I can’t wait to see what the Republican Committee to Investigate the Democrats’ January 6th Committee turns up.


Hopeful signs

June 7, 2022

Here are a couple more hopeful signs that the tyranny of the Rainbow Mafia may finally be coming to an end as people stand up and say, “Enough.” First, the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team held a “Pride Month” weekend celebration of the LGBTQ community, and several players refused to wear the rainbow logo on their uniforms because it violated their Christian religious beliefs. Before they’re falsely accused of “hatred,” relief pitcher Jason Adam said, “It’s just what we believe the lifestyle he’s (Jesus) encouraged us to live for our good, not to withhold. But we love these men and women, we care about them and we want them to feel safe and welcome here.”

And 70 churches in Georgia have officially split from the United Methodist Church, largely because of church leaders prioritizing LGBTQ activism over the Bible. Like the quote above, they don’t see how loving the sinner requires them to approve of and celebrate the sin.

I keep hearing about how church attendance is falling in America, and it’s usually spun as being people rejecting God or the Bible. But from the comments on that second story from people who claim to have attended Methodist churches in recent years, there seems to be near unanimous agreement that it’s the church that left them. There are many complaints that their churches became more like social centers or coffee houses, and ministers were more focused on pushing current social issues than preaching the Bible. One commenter said until he switched to a Baptist-based church, he’d never ever heard much about the New Testament or anything about redemption through Christ.

People are still looking for God and the message of Jesus Christ. If they aren’t finding that in a particular church, then there are plenty of others where it’s readily available for free.

Yesterday, we brought you the disgusting story of what was done to Trump economic and trade adviser Peter Navarro, leading into the week on which Democrats are pinning all their hopes and unrealistic dreams of holding back Republicans this fall: the hearings into January 6 being held by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s sham committee. If you do force yourself to watch any of that --- remember, “we watch the news, so you don’t have to" --- a lot of it will look familiar.

Who could forget the second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, the one that took place when he was already headed out the door? The House impeachment managers went all-out, featuring a professionally produced video that heightened the drama of January 6 and exaggerated the violent “insurrection” that was going to destroy our democracy and take our country down by force! Never mind that it was really just a small group of desperately concerned but tragically misguided people who wanted the final vote to be checked out before the election was certified, and that there was not even ONE GUN among them. Some insurrection.

For the impeachment, video production was done not by a movie company, as was widely reported at the time, but by a firm called DOAR, which specializes in trial strategies, including "crafting visual presentations that aim to persuade juries."

I condemned the behavior on January 6 at the time and repeatedly thereafter, but I do understand that protesters were reacting to a hard truth: that no one in the Judicial Branch was listening to them. Remember, the only person killed in violence that day was an unarmed woman, and her death was at the hand of Capitol Hill security. (As we learned later, another unarmed woman who died may also have been killed by police, beaten as she lay on the ground, trampled.)

Anyway, this time, Pelosi’s hearings, to be held in primetime starting Thursday, will be “produced” by former ABC News president James Goldston, producer for “Good Morning, America,” “Nightline” and “20/20.” His contribution to the Democrats is described as “an upcoming primetime multimedia presentation that has been likened to a high-quality investigative documentary special.”

FOX News reports that Goldston has actually joined the committee as a “soon-to-be announced advisor.” His video is the first in a series “designed to engage the American people and journalists” who had tuned out of the issue. With the country in chaos on virtually every front, Democrats are desperate to brainwash voters into not voting for Republicans no matter how bad it gets.

So expect this “series” to continue till Election Day, cranked out by the big Democrat propaganda machine.

They’ve also enlisted the help of former ABC producer Amy Robach, who’s best known for saying on a hot mic that her network had spiked her Jeffrey Epstein interview and quashed the story for three years. It seems appropriate that Nancy’s committee has hired people with experience in spiking stories; get ready for the real story of January 6 to be similarly suppressed.

What you definitely should watch is the rebuttal by Republicans led by New York Rep. Elise Stefanik. It will tell what Nancy’s committee hearings will not: that on January 4, President Trump himself, in front of multiple witnesses (former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, his chief of staff Kash Patel, and Gen. Mark Milley) in the Oval Office, BROUGHT UP the subject of offering Pelosi --- who as Speaker of the House is in charge of Capitol Hill security --- up to 20,000 National Guard troops for security during his rally, and that she, along with Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Department of Defense, denied his offer.

According to Patel, there is ample documentation of all of this, which the January 6 committee should have but will likely not make a part of their primetime production. He says that what this committee really should do is release all documents and transcripts they have relative to January 6, showing that they acted appropriately, “and that the President’s authorization was unequivocal.”

“I can say definitively,” Miller told Hannity, “President Trump offered any and all support requested by suitable officials within Washington DC...federal and local.” He went on to say that the U.S. military, with 10,000 police officers scheduled for duty in DC that day, had said they could handle UP TO A MILLION DEMONSTRATORS without enlisting additional security. If that sounds crazy to you, it does to us, too. Think Nancy’s committee will address this at all?

Shockingly, Mayor Bowser actively discouraged “additional deployment,” as in this letter from a recent inspector general’s report (which, believe it or not, found preparations for the event “appropriate”): “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 [Metro Police Department] if such plans are underway.”

Why not utilize more security if it is available? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Gosh, you’d think Democrats were deliberately paving the way for the event to get out of control. Nah, surely that couldn't be.

As for Navarro, he was not at the Capitol on January 6 and did not encourage anyone to breach security. He ended up in handcuffs and shackles, sitting in a cell that once held would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley, only because he wouldn’t violate President Trump’s executive privilege for Nancy’s committee. (And he'd told them he would have turned himself in; FBI headquarters is an easy walk from his next-door apartment.) The committee wants to know every detail of Trump’s private conversations, so they can go after him just for discussing the constitutionality of various courses of action. Not for carrying them out --- because he didn’t, of course –- but for TALKING about them with his advisers. Talking about them is not a crime. But this is all they have to try to keep him from running for President again.

Recall that a decade ago, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder was found in criminal contempt of Congress for citing executive privilege in refusing to comply with a subpoena relating to the “Fast and Furious” scandal that armed Mexican drug dealers and led to Border Patrol officer Brian Terry's murder. This charge had overwhelming, bipartisan support. NOTHING happened to Holder.

Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue Monday about the double standard of 'justice' featured a montage of media hacks trashing Navarro for his non-compliance. “This prosecution is really about punishing Navarro based on his blatant disrespect for the congressional subpoena,” said one typical idiot on MSNBC. Ah, so this is really about respect! Hey, if it’s illegal to blatantly disrespect this illegitimate committee or any of its work product, I guess we should be counting the minutes till the FBI breaks down our door and places us in handcuffs. It has given us no reason to grant it the slightest respect.

Today marks the 78th anniversary of D-Day, the biggest seaborne invasion in history and likely the most complex military operation of all time. Somehow, a massive invasion involving over 300,000 troops was kept secret until the moment it began on the beaches of Normandy. (Leakers were not considered heroes back then, thank God.)

Of the Allied troops who stormed the beaches or parachuted behind enemy lines, thousands were killed or injured by relentless gunfire from the entrenched German snipers’ positions. But they fought on and eventually prevailed, gaining a foothold in France and marking the turning of the tide of World War II in Europe.

Here's a good primer on how the D-Day invasion was planned and carried out, and the aftermath.

This is a report on the commemoration of D-Day in France, and how, with COVID lockdowns finally behind us, veterans in their 90s were once again able to return to be honored and to honor their fallen comrades.

And some historic photos from D-Day…

Sadly, many young Americans are in danger of forgetting the incredible heroism of the troops who landed on D-Day and what they did to end the threat of Nazism because they’re not being taught accurate American history. It’s hard to push a narrative about America being evil when you have to tell students how many Americans sacrificed their lives and limbs to save people they’d never met on the other side of the world.

The anniversary of D-Day is a reminder of what true courage really is. It’s doing the right thing, even when it requires charging head-on into the face of death. D-Day veterans often shun the title of “hero,” but nobody is more deserving of it. And nobody is more deserving of being remembered and honored long after their lives are over, and long after all of our lives are over.

To learn more about D-Day, and even more importantly, to help teach your children about it, here’s a link to the website of the National D-Day Memorial. You can also watch today’s commemorative event on video there:

Note to anyone wishing to censor, suppress, demonetize or otherwise interfere with the dissemination of this story: It makes no claim that any vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems were used to change the outcome of the 2020 election. (That’s a separate issue.) But a highly anticipated report by CISA --- the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – has provided official documentation of the major security flaws posed by Dominion Voting Machines.

As Kyle Becker reports, the CISA findings were issued based on the analysis of J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan and Drew Springall of Auburn University.

Their overview lists nine different security concerns. These vulnerabilities “justify the concerns of election observers who pointed out that admin rights could be used to override security features and that the system could potentially be hijacked due to “spoofing.”

The vulnerabilities of the versions of Dominion’s ImageCastX software they were able to test could allow someone to disguise malicious applications on a device, gain elevated privileges and/or install malicious code, and perform arbitrary administrative actions. It gets worse: An attacker could also gain access to sensitive information and perform privileged actions to potentially affect other election equipment (!). Also, the “authentication mechanism” is susceptible to forgery, allowing an attacker to print an arbitrary number of ballots without authorization.

I’ll put it in layman’s terms. This system is a hot mess. And these are the same potential problems that some cyber experts have been trying to discuss for a year and a half.

CISA has a long, loooong list of recommendations for increasing the level of security in future elections. This list is so exhaustive that it’s hard to imagine all of them ever being followed. So, hey --- I have a great idea! Let’s scrap electronic voting systems entirely and go back to physical paper ballots with no connection to the internet, in-person voting except for very specific reasons, photo ID and poll watchers everywhere. That’s the only way we’re ever going to have faith in our elections now.

Importantly --- though the report itself doesn’t get into how the 2020 presidential election might have been affected --- Becker notes that “a number of these mitigation measures were not followed” at that time. These include:

--- ensuring physical security of machines and equipment (there were lost flash drives)

--- broken chain-of-custody procedures (don’t get us started about the drop boxes)

--- machines proven to have been connected to the internet

--- missing or destroyed ballot images

--- using QR codes instead of printouts that can be read by an actual person

Early on, CISA told us, “We can assure you we have utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should, too.” But, as Becker observes, “...CISA’s infamous claim that the 2020 election was ‘most secure in American history’ is clearly disproven by its own report two years after the fact.”

Ever since the election, voters who expressed any concern at all about election security and integrity were condemned for “destroying faith in our democracy.” Why, we were just conspiracy theorists, upset that the election didn’t turn out the way we wanted. But now, after all this time, we find that we were right to be concerned. And the machines themselves were just one facet of that extremely flawed stone that was the 2020 election.

How I wish this "official" vindication made me feel better. But with it coming so late, and knowing how little acknowledgment it will receive, I still feel a little sick.

Take a look at how it's being reported: CBS News twisted the headline to read, "U.S. finds no evidence flaws in Dominion voting machines were ever EXPLOITED." (Emphasis mine.) According to Becker, we don't know how hard they were even looking for that. "CISA can claim that it has no evidence of voting machines being exploited," Becker writes, "but voters are left to wonder if that is because they didn't seriously look."

Even some who don’t call themselves conservatives were taken aback by the treatment of former Trump economic and trade adviser Peter Navarro by Nancy Pelosi’s sham January 6 committee, which has charged him with contempt of Congress for not turning over materials and details of private conversations that President Trump maintains are privileged. Both Trump and Navarro also claim the committee isn’t even constitutional, as it violates the separation of powers. In addition, Pelosi hand-picked everyone on it, including the only two “Republicans” she allowed, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, both viciously anti-Trump.

As I’m sure you know, Navarro was arrested and handcuffed at the airport on Friday as he was about to board a flight to Nashville to appear on my TBN weekend show. This was done even though he‘d told them in writing on Wednesday he’d come in on his own if they asked. He also says he lives in an apartment that literally is next door to FBI headquarters, so he could've just walked over, or vice versa. Here’s what he had to say after his arrest, both the video and transcript. Peter has filed a civil suit against the committee.

Here’s what I had to say about it in this weekend’s opening monologue. (I also had a few words for the Michael Sussmann judge and jury.) I hope to have Peter on my show very soon.

Bestselling author and DILBERT cartoonist Scott Adams is one of those who found this committee’s behavior extremely discomforting, and he is not a Republican. In his “Coffee With Scott Adams” podcast on Saturday, Episode 1764 on YouTube, he weighed in. Here’s the link to the entire podcast; below are highlights and our comments.

After describing the manner in which Navarro was arrested, Adams asked, “Do you think they did that to Sussmann? Did Sussmann have shackles; did he get arrested in public?” That question, of course, was rhetorical; not only did law enforcement deal with Sussmann professionally, but the FBI had always treated him like a buddy. Sussmann had his own FBI security badge, free to come and go at their headquarters. According to recent reports, he even occupied the FBI’s “secure work environment” at his law firm, Perkins Coie, with a portal to the FBI database --- a highly unusual arrangement.  He was that special!

“So I saw Peter Navarro talking about [his arrest],” Adams said, “after he got released, probably on bail, I guess, and [long pause]...did you see this? Can you tell me how this made you feel? Because, I felt something. And I didn’t like it at all. What happened to Roger Stone, I said to myself, ‘Well, this is a travesty, but it might also be a one-off. It’s not one-off. Apparently, there’s just a different standard for how the Trump supporters are being treated. This is so clear now...I mean, this is just shocking.”

He continued: “Now, Peter Navarro also has a new book out, called TAKING BACK TRUMP’S AMERICA, which as of this morning [Saturday] was #4 on Amazon. And I’ve been pumping it up, telling people to buy his book, ‘cause it’s how he’s gonna pay for his defense. I don’t know if he can even make enough money from the book, even if it’s a #1 bestseller, to pay for the defense, because the defense is pretty expensive, but I thought, ‘I don’t like where this went. I don’t like what my government did, and I would like to push a little power back in his direction.’”

He said that “as one small thing” he could do, he’s been tweeting support for Navarro’s book. “I’ve pre-ordered it,” he said, “and I’d recommend that you do the same. If it gets to #1, then his defense will be bolstered, both financially and in the public, and I think that that’s the appropriate way to handle this.”

Adams then went off on an interesting tangent, saying he can see why some might not support Trump, “because he was divisive," but explaining why he supported him in 2016: “I wanted him to break everything. ‘Cause everything needed to be broken...And in a large way, I got what I wanted. He did demolish everything...[chuckling] not without its cost. It’s not free to demolish stuff...But there wasn’t any chance they could keep working the way they were working. So we needed somebody strong enough to just break the system, and...I think he did that, in a number of ways.”

He said that thanks to Trump, “there are things that we think about differently, permanently we understand ‘fake news,’” etc.

“But this Peter Navarro thing is almost like a Bat-call for Trump,” he said. (He’d also like to hear Ron DeSantis’ take on it.) “But if Peter Navarro ends up serving jail time or something, for this –- what appears to be hunting Republicans, you know, the whole January 6 witch-hunt sort of thing, which is not to say there weren’t bad people who need to be brought to justice; everybody understands… –- this feels as though it could happen to me. Like actually, literally me. Actually, I saw myself in chains.”

Adams is right to consider that possibility. It COULD happen to him, or you, or certainly to me. It’s a risk for anyone they see as effective in running counter to their rules and their message. I would add that those who, like him, have a history of leaning left are particularly at risk. These one-time leftists who have had epiphanies --- Brandon Straka of #WalkAway is a great example --- are well aware of the hatred directed at them now and how the legal system has been turned against them.

Here’s Straka on my show a few weeks ago, describing how he was treated.

As for Adams, he doesn’t “mind a good fight, so let’s bring that on.” He added later in the show that if Navarro goes to prison over this, he’ll likely support Trump, as it would show things still really need to be broken, “though there is a risk of him over-breaking it.” Adams thought DeSantis might also be able to do the necessary breaking but that he still needs to prove himself to be strongly pro-free speech.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appeared on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES to explain what’s twisted about Pelosi’s committee and also to provide more details about Navarro’s arrest. Apparently, law enforcement followed him on his ride to the airport to arrest him there and “make a scene and to handcuff him.” He added that with their plan to hold prime-time public hearings, they’re showing themselves to be “a political committee going after their opponents and trying to raise money.”

To end on a high note, the GOP is not taking this lying down, and they'll be running rapid-response programming during the Democrats’ kangaroo-court proceedings. New York Rep. Elise Stefanik is presiding, and she's guaranteed to shine. They’ll address what Nancy’s committee should investigate but won’t: how security at the Capitol Hill rally was completely botched, a disaster. Here are the details.

After a very long count of a very close vote, David McCormick conceded to Dr. Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary race and pledged his support.

Oz will face Democrat candidate and current state Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, who made news of his own. Questions have been swirling about whether Fetterman was hiding health problems after he suffered a small stroke and still isn’t back on the campaign trail. This week, he released a letter from a doctor claiming that he has heart problems and a pacemaker/defibrillator. But he’s stable and if he follows doctors’ advice (which he admits he ignored for five years, but claims he's learned his lesson), he should be okay. But since it’s not from his regular doctors but one who, until this week, hadn’t seen him since 2017, it’s raising even more concerns.

Meanwhile, noted that this will be a Senate race between a retired heart surgeon and a guy who’s off the campaign trail due to a heart problem. At least if any emergencies occur during the debates, there’ll be a heart doctor in the house.

In other political developments, New York Republican Rep. Chris Jacobs announced that he will not run for reelection because of all the angry blowback he’s getting from Republicans and conservatives for joining with Democrats to support a federal “assault weapons” ban.

And in Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, Trump-backed GOP House candidate Robby Starbuck won his legal challenge against the state Republican Executive Committee, which voted to remove him, Morgan Ortegus and Baxter Lee from the ballot over alleged eligibility issues. Starbuck did provide alternative proof that he was eligible to run, and the court ruled that the committee violated the state’s open meetings law with its sudden, secretive vote to remove the candidates. There’s more at the link, but it’s not clear if Ortegus and Lee will try to get back in the race, since they were removed from the ballot at the same illegal meeting.

Abuse of Power

June 6, 2022

By now, you might have heard about the scurrilous abuse of power by Nancy Pelosi’s illegitimate January 6th Kangaroo Kommittee (Is my verbiage too subtle for you to tell what I think of them?) in having former Trump adviser Peter Navarro arrested for contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate. Frankly, I think contempt is the only rational reaction to this star chamber.

Navarro was on his way to tape an interview on my TBN show when the feds played their role as Pelosi’s personal Stasi. Here is more on the story, followed by my statement on this unconscionable and un-American action.

The outrageous treatment of Peter Navarro is another example of a federal police agency gone mad. Navarro was actually boarding a plane in DC to come to Nashville to be the primary guest on my show this weekend when he was handcuffed and whisked to a DC jail, put in leg shackles and held until his appearance before a magistrate.

He had spoken to the FBI Wednesday and told them if they were going to charge him to call him and he would turn himself in. Navarro literally lives in an apartment NEXT DOOR TO THE FBI! But they had to “make a spectacle” and publicly humiliate a 72-year-old man who has faithfully served his country.

And the “TRUMPED up” charge (emphasis mine) was because he genuinely believes (as I do!) that Nancy Pelosi’s sham committee failed to meet its own rules for how it was to be constituted, but most importantly involves the very serious Constitutional issue of separation of powers in which a partisan, hate-filled gang of House Democrats are demanding that the Executive Branch give over internal documents, notes and other confidential papers from the White House. This is an issue of grave violation of Executive Privilege and should be settled by the Supreme Court.

This entire episode is another example of how the powers of Washington, the Democrat mafia, and the media colluded not only to destroy a man’s reputation and life, but how they have been active partners in shredding the Constitution. These are the REAL insurrectionists!

We offered a theory after Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann walked last week that we now formally call The "Loss Leader" Theory. Just as a retail store might offer some product, such as a jug of milk, at below cost –- a “loss leader” –- to get customers into the store and buy more, so Special Counsel John Durham prosecuted a small case he knew he would lose in the DC courts, to introduce evidence suggestive of far greater misdeeds.

This appears to have been done with Michael Sussmann, even as he walked out of court free and clear on his charge of lying to the FBI. Emails included as part of his trial raise questions as to his role in something else involving the FBI; namely, shaping the narrative of the so-called “Russian hack” of the DNC and the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). You know, the “hack” for which there is no evidence –- at least that the public has seen –- of it being a Russian hack, or even a hack at all.

THE EPOCH TIMES has obtained trial documents and, in a premium story, reports that “Sussmann proposed alterations to an FBI statement on the hacking of the [DCCC] to avoid undermining the narrative for his clients.” And the FBI bent to his will.

In July 2016, Jim Trainor, assistant director for the FBI Cyber Division, wrote Sussmann, who was representing the DNC and DCCC, to get his “thoughts” on the FBI’s draft response to all the phone calls they were getting on the “Russia hack” story. Sussmann read the draft and wrote back:

“The draft you sent says only that the FBI is aware of media reports; it does not say that the FBI is aware of the INTRUSION [emphasis ours] that the DCCC reported. Indeed, it refers only to a “possible” cyber intrusion and in that way undermines what the DCCC said in its statement (or at least calls into question what the DCCC said).”

Trainer went right along with Sussmann’s proposed changes. Instead of saying the FBI is aware of reporting on “a possible cyber intrusion involving the DCCC,” it would say the Bureau “is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media and the FBI has been working to determine the nature and scope of the matter.”

To provide some context, one day before this email exchange between Sussmann and Trainor, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama that Russia was aware of a plan by Hillary to “vilify” her rival, Trump, by “stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” Days later, the CIA told the FBI they had intelligence showing Clinton’s plan was meant to distract the public from her own scandal, the use of a private email server for classified government business.

Recall that the DNC and DCCC hired the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike to investigate the so-called “intrusions.” The FBI opened their own investigation, but they were relying on server images and reports produced by CrowdStrike and partially redacted. The Bureau requested the unredacted documents but never received them. According to another email produced at trial, Sussmann was the point person between the FBI and the DNC/DCCC.

Other emails between Sussmann and Trainor show Sussmann upset that the FBI had announced it was investigating. He requested the Bureau consult him before making public statements about it. A compliant Trainor apologized and agreed. He said the FBI and the “victims” (the alleged hack-ees) would be “equally cooperative partners as we navigate this matter.”

Note that in changing the words of Trainer’s draft, Sussmann was firming up his preferred narrative that this breach DID HAPPEN, not just that it possibly did. He wanted to have no question of this, even though the FBI had not concluded it on their own and would always simply take CrowdStrike’s word. Trainer’s original draft was really more accurate.

So we’ve established that Sussmann was the point man and storyteller for something that still remains a mystery, an event that appears to have set up the whole Russia Hoax. It seems to us that the truth about it might be one of those big-ticket items in the store; Sussmann’s doomed trial on one count of lying was just the jug of cheap milk that got us in there.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold an emergency meeting today to put together a bill that will reportedly include eight new gun control measures. It includes “proposals to raise the minimum age for purchasing a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, ban ‘high capacity magazines,’ establish a registry for bump stocks and more.” True to form, it’s not called the “Gun Control Omnibus Act” but the “Protect Our Kids Act.” So when you hear that term, you’ll know what it actually is.

Never let it be said that we don’t listen to all sides of an issue. Here’s an op-ed by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, detailing what he says are some small changes that could be made to gun laws and increasing support for mental health that could help reduce gun violence and prevent school shootings and that members of both parties could agree on.

I invite you to read what he has to say and tell us in the comments whether you would be willing to compromise on such measures, whether you think they would help, and why or why not.

For more, here’s Derek Hunter of analyzing a New York Times editorial demanding more gun control and explaining the holes in their thinking.

In his inimitable way, Kurt Schlichter explains that the problem isn’t a lack of gun laws, it’s a shortage of duty and accountability.

Finally, the uncle of one of the young victims of the Uvalde school shooting spoke out against people using their family’s name to promote more anti-gun laws. He said their own family are responsible gun owners, and they believe enhanced security at schools is a far better solution.

I often refer to modern so-called “anti-racist” efforts as the “racist anti-racist” movement. That’s not a partisan pejorative. I honestly believe that the left, under the guise of fighting racism, is actually attempting to divide Americans, foment hatred and suspicion of other races, and bring back the vile days of officially-enforced segregation and judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. Why do I think that? Because they just keep telling us over and over.

Here’s the latest example: Under the cloak of “equity,” some schools are now instituting race-based grading. The latest example is in Oak Park, Illinois, but as the linked story reports, it’s a growing trend that started in San Diego and like exotic diseases, wildfires and most awful leftist ideas, started spreading eastward from California.

The Illinois plan is typical of leftist policies in that it comes couched in fuzzy four-dollar words to hide its toxicity. It’s called “Transformative Education Professional Development and Grading.” It claims that “traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap” through “outdated practices” and “unconscious biases” like letting “non-academic factors” such as student behavior and whether a student shows up to class interfere with teacher evaluation of students. Things like showing up late, misbehaving in class or handing in work late cannot reduce a student’s overall class grade.

While the Illinois plan doesn’t mention any particular race that this is supposed to benefit, it does condemn the traditional system it’s replacing as a “race-based grading system,” so it’s pretty clear what the insulting thinking is behind this. It used to be called “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” but now it’s called “equity.”

This should be abhorrent to people of all races. I do have to say, though, that I admire the one teacher quoted who was brave enough to question what this will do to students. She noted that she has a job where she’s expected to show up on time, do the work and behave professionally. This system will not prepare students for what they’re going to encounter when they leave school and join the real world.

But it is a truly “transformative” system if you want students to be so poorly prepared for the work world that they’re transformed into permanent dependents of the state. I get the feeling that’s the “equity” they’d like to impose on all of us.

Don’t let anyone tell you that Special Counsel John Durham might as well pack it up after his loss in court Tuesday in the Sussmann case. That’s the mainstream media narrative –- at the conclusion of a trial they deliberately ignored –- and since when has a mainstream media narrative been true?

Former Attorney General Bill Barr appeared on “Jesse Watters Primetime” Wednesday night to comment on the Durham investigation in light of Michael Sussmann’s acquittal. Here’s the big take-away from that interview:

“No one’s more frustrated than the law enforcement people who are trying to uphold the law and trying to uphold one standard of the law –- and there’s not; there are two standards of the law, and we’ve had this struggle with that. And people have done, I think, a very good job trying to develop this case in the face of very strong headwinds. And part of this operation is to try to get the real story out. I’ve said from the beginning...if we can get convictions, if they’re achievable, then John Durham will achieve them. But...the other aspect of this is to get the story out, and I think the Danchenko prosecution [relative to the ‘dossier’] is gonna further amplify these themes and the role that the FBI leadership played in this, which is increasingly looking fishy and inexplicable.”

The prospect that the “dossier” was Russian disinformation fed through the Hillary campaign was “very real,” Barr said, and never looked into by special counsel Robert Mueller, Barr said, “even though he had all the relevant facts.”

Barr said he disagreed with Andrew McCarthy about the case being “lost or mismanaged” because of Durham painting the FBI as being ‘duped.’ (If you read what we said yesterday, you know we’re more in line with Barr than McCarthy on this.) “He didn’t. What I think he skillfully did,” Barr continued, “was focus on the clearest violation of the law that didn’t require him to prove even...[a] much more onerous case of the bad faith of the FBI at this stage. That would’ve been a Herculean case...[with a] high degree of difficulty compared to what he was doing.”

Durham didn’t say the FBI were ‘duped’ –- he “treated them as neutral, and let the facts speak for themselves,” Barr said. And the materiality of the lie told to the FBI, Barr thought, was clear. But this is a case that has to be built “painstakingly.” It would have been “a very hard case to prove, at this stage,” that the FBI “are bad guys,” he said. “Especially in front of a DC jury.”

NOTE that Barr has twice used the qualifier “at this stage,” implying that down the road, given what the investigation has revealed at that point, it might not be so hard to make the case.

“Complicated cases like this take a long time to build,” Barr concluded. “They occur step-by-step, and in secret. People don’t like that. But if they want people punished, that’s what it takes. If they want the facts of what happened, you can get it that much more quickly; you can give people immunity, and then require them to provide evidence. So, if you want the facts, if you want a report, that can be done fairly quickly. But if you want scalps, that takes time.”

If it’s true great minds think alike, I should congratulate the former attorney general for echoing essentially what we said here after the Sussmann verdict was read. The points to keep in mind are these:

– It’s true: there really are two systems of justice, and that is now painfully clear.

– Besides getting convictions if possible, Durham’s larger purpose is to get the full story out.

-- The next trial (Danchenko, involving the Steele “dossier”) will continue doing that.

-- The case did NOT hinge on the FBI being duped. Durham meant to let the facts show their behavior to be “fishy and inexplicable.” (In this courtroom, there would have been an acquittal either way.)

-- One big question to be answered is why the Mueller investigation tiptoed around known facts.

– The case Durham is building is very complicated and will take a long time.

– Durham is after big scalps. Don’t worry; this trial was just to sharpen the cleaver a little.

So, where does the investigation go from here? THE EPOCH TIMES has an excellent piece on that. (Writer Hans Mahncke does agree with McCarthy that Durham was pushing the “overarching” narrative that the FBI was duped; again, we saw that a bit differently.) Of course, there’s Danchenko and the “dossier” --- that trial is scheduled for October --- but there are other private actors such as the infamous Marc Elias, Fusion GPS co-founders Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson, and, of course, Rodney Joffe –- who was NOT granted immunity.

There was testimony in the Sussmann trial suggesting that Joffe had a role in analyzing the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC emails in May 2016. “If Joffe was involved in shaping the narrative of the alleged hacking,” Mahncke writes, “it would cast yet more doubt on the flimsy but prevailing conclusion that the Russian government was responsible.”

Let’s hope and pray that Durham is headed in that direction. It might even be the Holy Grail. The so-called “Russian hack” story laid the foundation for the whole Trump-Russia Hoax, yet there’s no evidence, at least that has been made public, that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians. The FBI accepted that explanation from the DNC without even examining their hard drive, which is in the possession of a company called CrowdStrike.

Mahncke points out that if Durham has more serious charges in mind for Joffe, he’s not hemmed in by the statute of limitations. For lying to the FBI, it’s only five years (and the allegations are from 2016), but for major fraud against the United States, it’s seven years.

Of course, there are also the “fishy” government actors such as the FBI’s Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe and Director James Comey. They seem like much slipperier fish to catch, but we now have evidence from this trial that the people on the 7th Floor were “fired up” about the Alfa Bank server and demanded a full investigation even though they had no credible evidence.

Jake Sullivan is another possible target. One fact, however, complicates Durham’s look at some government actors and shows how incestuous Washington DC is: Attorney General Merrick Garland’s counsel, Margaret Goodlander, is married to...Sullivan, who was helping spread the fake Alfa Bank narrative with Hillary and is now working in the Biden White House. For Durham, every day must feel like going to work in a mine field.

I’m not certain if there’s any point anymore in keeping track of President Biden’s poll numbers, other than for the same kind of curiosity that comes with watching a limbo contest: “How low can they go?!” For those keeping track, they just went even lower. The latest Civiqs Poll found Biden’s disapproval holding steady at 55%, but his approval rating dropping from 37 to 34%.

I’m not certain who the people are who approve of how things are going, but 34% approval is down there with heat rash and ketchup on salmon. Biden’s approval rating has even dropped to 35% in his home state of Delaware. He’s even at 42% approval/46% disapproval in California (But that could partly be because he’s not instituting even worse policies fast enough for some California leftists. Here’s a good example, and brace yourselves for maximum insanity.)

There are only three states where Biden’s approval rating is higher than his disapproval rating – Vermont, Massachusetts and Hawaii – and Hawaii is the only one where his approval reached 50%.

Biden’s approval rating is now lower than Trump’s, and Biden has gotten a free ride from the media while Trump was vilified on a daily basis. According to NBC News, Biden is reportedly furious that his approval rating is lower than Trump’s, and he’s casting around for a “better messaging strategy.”

I’ve written about this many times before: whenever leftist policies crash and fail, as they inevitably do, it’s never because the policies don’t work. It’s always because the public just doesn’t know how successful they are because the media are so biased against Democrats. I know, when you put it into words, it sounds even crazier.

Guy Benson at recounted some of Biden’s excuses, blame-shifting and self-pitying rationalizations for Americans not liking the problems that his own policies have created.

Biden is reportedly pushing his staff "to make a sharper case for all that we have accomplished thus far." I don’t think that’s going to help. Most Americans are well aware of what he’s accomplished. I report on that every day.

I also don’t think that whining about all the problems he inherited is going to help. He knew the problems and ran on a promise that only he knew how to fix them. He also inherited a rebounding economy, a secure border, three COVID vaccines, cheap and abundant oil and gas, and a plan for withdrawing safely from Afghanistan. If I’m going to feel sorry for any President, it will be whoever takes over the job from him.

Maybe the most worrisome Biden complaint is that he thinks he’s making clear, succinct statements and then his staff rushes out to contradict and correct him. The media are concerned that that plays into Republican messaging that he’s weak and incoherent. Yeah, that’s the problem. Not the weakness and incoherence, but the Republicans pointing it out.

While Democrats and much of the media continue exploiting the terrible Uvalde school shooting to promote gun control and repealing the Second Amendment, we’re learning that much of what we were initially told about the police response was wrong. That’s why Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was so furious that he was given false information to pass along to the public.

The latest story in dispute is the claim that the shooter got in because a teacher had propped open a door that was supposed to be locked. Not willing to take the fall, the teacher hired an attorney who says that video proves she heard men at the funeral home across the street yell, “He’s got a gun,” and she kicked aside a rock that was holding the door open and slammed it shut. She assumed it would automatically lock because it was supposed to. It did not, and it was reported that neither did another door in the school, despite nearly $70,000 being spent on security measures a few years ago.

There was also this (warning!) very disturbing story about yet another giant red flag involving the shooter that apparently was ignored.

As for the investigation into why the police stood outside for 45 minutes while the shooter murdered children and teachers until Border Patrol agents finally arrived and ended the siege, it was reported that local police stopped cooperating with state investigators. The Department of Public Safety issued a statement claiming that the local police and school district were cooperating, but the Uvalde police chief hadn’t responded to a follow-up interview request made two days before.


Meanwhile, “Beto” O’Rourke has flip-flopped yet again and now once more backs confiscating everyone’s AR-15 rifles, saying this “may not be politically popular.” I think that’s a rare understatement for him. If that tasteless stunt he pulled at the press conference didn’t end any chances he had of being elected Governor of Texas (and those were snowball level chances in Hades to begin with), this should do it.

But it’s not just Texans who are rejecting the argument that guns are to blame for school shootings. A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters asked what is most to blame for young men shooting up their schools.

Only 30% put most of the blame on access to firearms. Forty percent blamed it more on mental health. That aligns with comments made by the parents of both the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters, claiming that COVID lockdowns had made their sons estranged from their families, paranoid and susceptible to radicalization via the Internet.

Ten percent each blamed family problems or social media, and 4% blamed problems in school.

I imagine at least 40% remember, as I do, when there were lots of guns and boys brought their rifles to school to go hunting afterward, but nobody shot their classmates. That was during a time when America valued marriage and family, two-parent homes, the sanctity of life, law and order, giving children discipline and moral instruction, worshipping God, reading the Bible and keeping sick entertainment like gory violence and pornography far away from kids. The left has been working diligently for decades to undermine all of those things, and now when amoral, disaffected youth with no moral compass shoot up a school, they blame it on the guns.

Ironically, their solution is to disarm law-abiding people who might not need to own guns if their cities weren’t also run by leftists who empty the jails, defund the police and refuse to enforce the laws. It’s all part of an endless cycle of leftists destroying things, blaming it on Republicans, then insisting that the only solution to the problems they caused is more of their policies. They’re like medieval doctors who knew only one cure for every ailment: more leeches.

Here’s a great editorial cartoon that sums up this endlessly recurring cycle perfectly.

Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett has similar thoughts on the decline of the family and the influence of fathers as contributors to the epidemic of violent young males.



The reign of terror and error by transgender activists might finally be coming to an end, judging by several news stories that all came in over the weekend. First, another top executive at Netflix defended Dave Chappelle's and Ricky Gervais' right to make jokes about trans people as a free speech issue, just as comedians make jokes about anyone else, despite the furious calls for boycotts and censorship and the hyperbolic claims that joking about the excesses of trans activists will cause people to die.

Even some members of the trans community are speaking up in defense of Gervais, saying that he’s not attacking trans people, he’s speaking truth to power about the excesses of trans activists. One trans journalist wrote, “Trans activist ideology has run unchecked for too long, and it is time to call it to account."

“Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling has also refused to knuckle under to the cancel crowd and continues to speak out in defense of women (as Gervais would say, the old-fashioned kind, with wombs.) She was attacked for tweeting a news story about terrified women inmates at a New Jersey prison where officials are housing violent male felons who claim to “identify” as women. But HBO is still seeking a new creative deal with her.

And then the most surprising and possibly portentous pushback of all: the New York Times actually ran a story Sunday on the trans takeover of women’s sports that not only fairly presented the concerns of female athletes (who came across as much more sympathetic than the selfish “#MeFirst” attitudes of the trans activists they quoted), it actually included comments from doctors. These experts who have medical degrees (and I assume, eyes) said that swimmer Lia Thomas does have an unfair advantage because going through puberty as a male confers physical advantages that a year or even four years of testosterone-lowering hormones cannot reverse.

Of course, irrefutable biological facts aren’t enough to stop Thomas, who now wants to compete against women in the Olympics, where officials are still easily cowed by accusations of transphobia.

Sister Toldjah at sees all these things as hopeful signs that the tide of public opinion is finally turning against the tidal wave of radical transgender insanity that’s engulfed society over the past two years. Or at least that people are finally growing spines.

I think the trans people who are defending Ricky Gervais are right: these radical activists are doing them more harm than good. They say they just want to be accepted to live their lives like anyone else, but the radicals are insisting that they be treated as a special class, with the right to never be called out no matter how unreasonable they are, to never be laughed at (as we all are at times), and to have the power to destroy anyone who criticizes them.

They claim to be a poor oppressed minority and say that any criticism of them is “punching down,” even as they’re the ones crushing other people. News flash: When people are cowering in fear that you’ll glare their way and destroy their lives, careers and reputations just because they told a joke you don’t like, you aren’t a powerless underdog. You’re that monstrous child who sent people to the cornfield on “The Twilight Zone.”

Here’s the kind of story that somehow tends to get released on late Fridays of holiday weekends when nobody will notice it: an internal State Department document proves that, just as many of us suspected and said so at the time, John Kerry and other former Obama officials were secretly meeting in 2018 with Iranian officials, continuing to conduct their own US foreign policy.

Some of the topics they discussed included “nuclear weapons, potential prisoner swaps, [the] Afghanistan withdrawal and negotiations with the Taliban.” While President Trump was deciding on sanctions and trying to extricate us from their bad Iranian nuclear deal, they were acting as if they were still in office, trying to preserve it by conducting their own US foreign policy and signaling that Iran should stand firm against America and the policies of the actual elected President.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the former Obama officials “working against their own nation’s policies alongside such a brutal regime” was “bad stuff, dangerous stuff, un-American stuff,” and that they “should be ashamed of themselves.”

Actually, it's far worse. They were illegally conducting US foreign policy with a hostile nation in an attempt to undermine the official foreign policy of the elected President. To accurately use terms that Democrats love to throw at their political opponents, it was sedition and insurrection, possibly treason, and at the very least, a clear violation of the Logan Act that they’re always trying to pin on other people.

Between current National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s alleged role in launching the groundless Russian Collusion investigation and “climate czar” Kerry’s illegal attempts to conduct secret negotiations with Iran, exactly how many treasonous individuals are currently on the Biden Administration payroll?

Over the weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi was charged with DUI in Napa, California, after he reportedly crashed his Porsche into a Jeep while driving home from a party. Nobody was injured, and his attorney denied a report that it was a second offense, claiming the earlier DUI was someone else with the same name.

A spokesman for Nancy Pelosi said, "The Speaker will not be commenting on this private matter which occurred while she was on the East Coast."

Nice job of distancing herself from her husband by a continent. I have a feeling their house will be as frosty as her two luxury refrigerators when she returns home.

I could do an essay about how Nancy holds her political opponents to the strictest standards and wants to send them to jail for any offense, real or imagined. But since there could be personal issues at play here with her husband, I’m not going to pile on, at least not yet. However, I will turn the floor over to one of my writers, Pat Reeder, for a rebuttal of her brief statement:

“The reason I never knew my grandfather, and why my late father was never able to attend college, is that a drunk driver killed my grandfather when my dad was in high school. He had to immediately go into the Army, then to work to support his mother and younger brother. Because of that drunk driver, I was the first person in our family to be able to attend college. So please don’t tell me that DUI is a ‘private matter.’ It’s a matter of public safety that can have massive repercussions for innocent people. A car with a drunk at the wheel is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. I’d like to see you pretend to be just as concerned about the former as the latter.:”

By now, you know that Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, even though he did.

In his statement after the trial, Sussmann said he didn’t lie to the FBI. But that was a lie, too. Special Counsel John Durham had absolute proof, in the form of a Perkins Coie billing record and a text to then-FBI general counsel James Baker saying that Sussmann wasn’t meeting with him on behalf of clients when he really was. But the judge used a technicality to let jurors weigh that second piece of evidence minimally, as it had been handed over to Durham by Baker after the statute of limitations had lapsed. Once Sussmann couldn’t be charged for THAT lie –- the one in the text –- Baker happened to remember some texts, including that one. Isn’t it funny how a lapsed statute of limitations can jog someone’s memory?

So it appears Baker and Sussmann were on the same team. Baker helped Sussmann, and so did the judge, who worked like a champ to keep Durham’s evidence out of the courtroom.

Nick Arama discusses the judge’s ruling on Sussmann’s text message here. He also reviews what Durham managed to expose about Hillary and her campaign, noting there is more to come.

Durham surely knew by the time the jury had been seated --- maybe even by the assignment of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee with huge ties to the Democrat Party and the DOJ --- that his chances of getting a conviction in this Washington DC court were nil. Heck, he probably knew it all along, but he had his reasons for pursuing it. Those who insist Durham’s defeat is some kind of “black mark” against his investigation are missing the important stuff.

Durham has exposed what Hillary and her campaign did, which went well beyond the “political dirty trick” of peddling a fake story to the media. They reinforced their fake story by also peddling it to the FBI to push for an investigation. In other words, they went to federal law enforcement under false pretenses to frame a political opponent, and THAT, if you or I did it, would be very serious indeed.

But this jury treated it like nothing. This is evident because the jury forewoman, who doesn’t give her name, has spoken to the media. And now we can see she went beyond the scope of what she was there to determine, concluding that the case shouldn’t have been prosecuted at all. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI,” she told the media.

Oh, REALLY?? What if, say, a Republican attorney for the Trump campaign had gone to a Republican-appointed FBI official with a fake story about Hillary Clinton a few days before the 2016 election, and had flat-out lied and said he wasn’t representing Trump? (Not that anyone would need to peddle a fake story about Hillary; there were enough real scandals about her.) Do you think this solid-Democrat Washington DC jury would just blow that off?

Of course not. They’d call it the crime of the century. They’d say this attorney was working with Russians. They’d blame him for Hillary’s loss. They’d call him an ultra-MAGA deplorable, an insurrectionist, destroyer of institutions, election-interferer. Their quick verdict would be Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. They might not even need any hard evidence, just an accusation by the Democrat special counsel. And that lawyer would be off to jail.

Of course, the judge made it a lot easier for the jury to think this was nothing, as he largely kept Durham’s evidence of the “joint venture” (broader conspiracy) out of the courtroom.

As Jonathan Turley tweeted: “Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality.” As in, ONLY THAT. Turley noted that such a bias, if expressed during jury selection, would have led to this woman being challenged by the prosecution.

And Durham surely would’ve challenged her, but recall that Judge Cooper actually refused his challenge of some members of the jury pool who ended up on the jury.

The kicker: This woman insisted after the trial that politics had not been a factor.

Throughout the past two weeks, we’ve discussed the various factors that people are pointing to now in the post mortem. As Andrew C. McCarthy told FOX News Thursday evening, “In order to figure out this case, I think you really have to make up your mind about what the FBI is. Are they ‘a dupe’ or are they a willing collaborator? Durham has staked his investigation on the notion that they’re a dupe. You have to prove, for materiality purposes in a false statements trial, that the ‘duped’ party actually was fooled. And I think the evidence here was pretty strong that...they weren’t fooled at all by it. They fully knew that they were getting political information from a partisan source. And a lot of what they did was designed to conceal the fact that they knew that.”

All true. But that’s what we think Durham was really in that courtroom to show. Again, he had to know he would lose the Sussmann case, given the judge and jury. We believe this case was, to Durham, a “loss leader.” As you probably know, that’s a term in retail that describes a store selling one item, such as milk, at a loss, just to get people into the store. Similarly, the Sussmann case had to be a loss for Durham, but look at what it accomplished for the investigation as a whole!

In that observation, we are more in line with what Margot Cleveland says in her analysis from Tuesday. “...For all posterity,” she writes, Clinton’s fingerprints will be seen covering the worst political scandal of our country’s history.”

Here’s what she wrote just prior to the jury’s verdict, which, of course, she expected.

"...Measuring Durham’s performance by the outcome in United States v. Sussmann would be a mistake,” she said. “...It would ignore the valuable information exposed related to the broader Spygate scandal. Using that gauge as a measure, the special counsel’s office succeeded wildly.”

Her piece is a must-read. It’s infuriating to see how much was made of the Alfa Bank story and the whole Trump-Russia Hoax, considering that it was all based on NOTHING. It became an industry, a make-work program for lawyers. Years wasted, hundreds of attorneys and investigators, many millions of dollars, people’s lives ruined (Michael Flynn, to name one), and the country divided, all over a fake story.

“Justice” became a joke. As Charles Lipson wrote for SPECTATOR, “Despite Sussmann’s not-guilty verdict, his trial revealed the rank odor of Washington politics. It suffuses our courts, our law enforcement bureaucracy, and the mainstream media. It reeks of insider dealing and extreme partisan bias. That stench should alarm anyone concerned about America’s ability to govern democratically.”

This is what the special counsel has exposed, and will continue to expose. Thank you, Mr. Durham.



As long as we’re talking about the stench of Washington politics, especially as it centers around Hillary Clinton and Perkins Coie, there’s a related story –- just breaking –- that the special counsel will want to look into, if he isn’t doing so already:

Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Jim Jordan of Ohio received an FBI whistleblower contact about the existence of an actual FBI workspace inside DNC and Hillary law firm Perkins Coie, complete with a portal to the FBI database. In response to a letter sent to them by Gaetz and Jordan, Perkins Coie reportedly admitted they have been hosting this "secure work environment" since 2012.

That’s right, the premiere Democrat law firm –- and, by extension, Hillary Clinton –- had a portal right into the FBI databases. If this is what it looks like, it takes what Hillary was doing as First Lady in the White House with individuals' raw FBI data (remember her mysterious White House “personnel” officer Craig Livingstone?) to a whole new level.

It's how she rolls.  This kind of thing goes back decades for Hillary, with some of the same players bouncing from one scandal to the next. Here’s a little time capsule.

Fast-forward to 2022. “The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation,” writes Sundance at CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE, who has long suspected the existence of something like this. Here are the details.

He says that the record of non-compliant searches shows “the same people were continually being tracked, searched and surveilled by querying the FBI database over time.” The scale and scope of these unlawful searches, going back to 2012, was noticed by FISA presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. And 2012 happens to be the year Perkins Coie first started operating the FBI portal. Also, the dates in the report from Gaetz and Jordan about Perkins Coie are “in direct alignment,” he says, with Collyer’s report on unlawful searches..

He sees this as “having the potential to be extremely explosive.”

The story is so far-fetched, we didn't know how seriously to take it at first, but be assured, it's verified.  Gaetz appeared on Tucker Carlson's FOX News show Tuesday evening to talk about this, and he dropped another bombshell:  For the past year, the attorney working out of the FBI's "secure location" at Perkins Coie was...(drum roll, please)...
MICHAEL SUSSMANN.  He with the "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.
Gaetz said he's spoken to former federal prosecutors "on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the country" about this, and he hasn't heard of any similar set-up with a private law firm.  Sussmann, he added, is "an election lawyer," which raises even more questions.
Gaetz and Jordan are demanding immediate answers from FBI Director Christopher Wray.
This office needs to be shut down.  "The Democratic Party shouldn't have this special access, special 'portal,' to the FBI," he said, especially since we know their focus on digging up "oppo" research to use against their opponents.
AMERICAN GREATNESS has a report as well.

For the past two weeks --- the last one completely dominated by yet another horrific and senseless school shooting --- I’ve brought you the day-by-day report and detailed analysis of the Michael Sussmann trial, as unfolding in federal court by Special Counsel John Durham. Some might wonder why we’ve paid so much attention to a case that most major media aren’t bothering to cover at all.

Here's why:  I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that the Durham investigation could be the last thing standing between us and the total loss of our system of justice. It doesn’t stand or fall on this particular trial –- with this judge and jury, it’s almost certain to be an acquittal, even with incontrovertible evidence that he DID IT –- but on the investigation as a whole, and what it reveals about the big picture.

John L. Simon, writing for THE EPOCH TIMES, concurs, and has written a commentary called “Why We Are Praying for John Durham.” When it comes to Durham and the deep state he's exposing, Simon is reminded –- in a more secular way, of course –- of that old gospel song, “He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands.”

He’s dealing with something “extraordinarily significant,” Simon tells us. “He holds in his hands the future of democratic government under the law, republican (small ‘r’) or otherwise, as we know it –- if not forever, for the foreseeable future.”

It’s taken a long time to get here, mostly because of the COVID lockdowns that kept the special counsel from convening a grand jury and pushed him to the edge of the statue of limitations, but now, with the testimony of Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook, we know Hillary herself was aware of the plot and that even though she knew the Alfa Bank story was unverified, she personally gave the order to use it anyway. Incredibly, she had her campaign frame her political opponent for what could be considered a treasonous offense –- being a covert agent of the Russian government.

You know, Hillary has done some bad things in her time, and has always gotten away with them, but this takes the (Devil’s food) cake. Sure, she’s responsible for mishandling classified documents as Secretary of State with a “secret server” arrangement to keep her dealings out of reach, and then deleting the evidence –- even having it destroyed it with hammers –- but this hoax takes us to a whole new depth of Hillary-ness, at least that we know about so far. And it seems to us that if treason was committed, it was by HER and her allies. As Simon writes…

“While this all may not be treason in the legal/technical sense, it’s certainly as treasonous as any behavior that has come from the political class of either party in any of our lifetimes and, though completely ignored by the legacy media whose culpability in it was nearly total, vastly more serious than Watergate that they still obsess about.”

“Whether or not you believe in American Exceptionalism,” he says (and we’d like to think it still exists, or could), “the country that has been almost since its inception the envy of the world was busy stomping on its own institutions and itself to the edge of being unrecognizable. Could our enemies have asked for more?”

As for this trial, he reminds us that all Sussmann needs for an acquittal is ONE JUROR and notes the similarity to the O.J. jury, as we have. It’s likely that, in solid-blue Washington DC, every last one of the jurors voted for Hillary in 2016, probably even believing that Trump really was being helped in his campaign by Vladimir Putin. Some of them might still believe it. It’s not as if the mainstream media and the DOJ had come out and issued an apology or anything.

But this might not matter, because, as Simon writes, whether Sussmann is convicted or not, “the door has been opened to explore the ‘myriad accomplices’...”

“The question is, will the buck stop at Hillary or will she be thrown under the bus so the other denizens of our political class from the FBI to the White House can skate?” Simon is thinking beyond Hillary, we assume to Main Justice and even the Oval Office. Usually it’s Hillary throwing other people under the bus; this time, depending on who else might be implicated; she might be the one covered with tire tracks.

He says it’s in Durham’s hands “to steer our ship of state back to the rule of law. If not him, who?” And we’ll continue focusing on his effort. In Simon’s words, “It’s our job, every one of us, to disseminate it --- factually and with a minimum of rancor --- as widely as possible as the truth emerges.”

Law professor Jonathan Turley is doing the same, and he has a great opinion piece in THE HILL, “Friends with Benefits: Sussmann trial is a black eye for the FBI.”

Turley writes that regardless of how quickly the verdict comes in for Sussmann, the verdict for the Department of Justice needs “little deliberation.” He calls Durham’s investigation “an indictment of a department and a bureau which, once again, appeared willfully blind as they were played by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

He points out the irony of it being Sussmann’s DEFENSE team that implicated Hillary as personally approving what he was doing. We would add that this was probably Durham’s strategy all along, though even he might have been surprised at how easily that testimony was elicited from defense witness Robby Mook.

Even on the stand, former general counsel at the FBI James Baker made it clear that he and Sussmann were friends –- as in, on the same side –- and that the real adversary was the special counsel. “This is not my investigation, it’s yours,” he said to prosecutors who were pressing him for information.

Joe Pientka told FBI agents that they were being ordered by the 7th Floor (Director James Comey) to investigate the Alfa Bank story, even though it had seemed preposterous to cyber analysts from Day 1. “It’s not an option,” Pientka emailed Special Agent Curtis Heide.

Of course, the FBI clung to the unverified “dossier” as well. As Turley writes, their eagerness “magnifies concern over the bureau’s alleged bias or predisposition on the Trump investigation.”

Jake Sullivan is implicated as well. He had to know the Alfa Bank story was unverified, yet he’s the one who created the sensationalistic bullet points to go along with Hillary’s tweet about it. This liar is currently working in the White House as Biden’s national security adviser. Remember this next time Sullivan comes to the podium to inform the nation about ANYTHING.

Will Durham even be allowed to write a final report on his findings? That’s hard to say, with Merrick Garland running the DOJ. Many in Washington no doubt hope there won’t be one, which is precisely why there MUST be one. Durham will find a way to get it out there.




by Laura Ainsworth, staff writer

The 1955 movie BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, starring Spencer Tracy and a fine ensemble cast, ran last weekend on TCM, and I decided to see it, not realizing it was a morality play with obvious parallels to the Durham special counsel investigation.

It wasn’t intended to be allegorical at the time it was made; in fact, the director tried to minimize comparisons to the blacklisting of the ‘50s. But now –- as conservatives find themselves being the ones blacklisted (“canceled”) and called insurrectionists –- I see amazing similarities to Durham’s investigation of the Trump-Russia hoax.

The setting is a tiny, completely isolated Western town, Black Rock, which, to me, symbolizes the Washington bubble. The law has broken down there, as the sheriff is a figurehead, totally ineffectual. This town is run not by him at all but by a handful of corrupt men who put him there and have him and everybody else intimidated. About four years previously, they did a very bad thing that they’ve so far managed to keep under wraps. But a stranger arrives in town asking questions and sniffing around.  He encounters obstacles at every turn but remains quietly undeterred.

The heart of the film resides in the less powerful characters who individually have to decide if they’ll continue to be controlled by the corrupt leadership of the town or take a risk and help the stranger find out about what they did and escape to tell the tale.  This is also their only hope of cleaning up the town.

Does that sound like the Durham investigation or what?

With the lockdowns finally over, and in spite of record gas prices, many Americans are desperate to get out of the house and go to beaches or parks to celebrate Memorial Day weekend as the unofficial start of summer. But let’s not forget that Memorial Day means far more than that. It’s a day set aside to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to provide for us the unprecedented freedom that we so often take for granted as Americans.

In a story that appeared last year in the Epoch Times, veterans talked about the meaning of Memorial Day, and all of them made it clear that it isn’t about them, but about their comrades who never made it back home. One explained the meanings of our military holidays by saying, “Veterans Day is for those who survived and retired. Armed Forces Day is for those who are still serving. Memorial Day is reserved for those who never got to take off their uniform.”

Despite the distortions of America’s history that so many people want to force into our schools, the fact is that no people in the history of the world have experienced the liberties, opportunities or prosperity that we have enjoyed as citizens of the greatest country on God’s green earth — the United States of America. I don’t say that as a biased American, but as one who has traveled the world and who can scour the pages of human history and say definitively that no nation has ever given its inhabitants the degree of freedom, security, and pursuit of happiness as has this extraordinary experiment in government called the United States.

Our Constitution is a simple, yet profound, blueprint for a government in which the ultimate power rests with the people and not with a king, a tyrant dictator, a military general, or even an elected official. The genius of our nation is that the people have been vested with the highest power, and while we temporarily grant it to those we elect, we don’t give it away (even during a pandemic.) Sometimes, our leaders need to be reminded of that, which is what free speech and elections are for.

This great system of self-government with its separation and balance of powers and its accountability to the people has been and continues to be protected against both foreign and domestic threats by those who trade their clothes of choice for a uniform and who trade their personal liberties to accept orders from someone who outranks them.

In the process of providing that protection, in wars and other police actions over more than two centuries, more than one million of those in our military have given their lives for those of us who will enjoy this long weekend. No American should take this for granted nor ignore it. It shouldn’t be left to the Gold Star families alone to take a pause for a somber reminder of the price of our benefits of citizenship. We all owe it to them to show respect in some way for those whose deaths gave us our lives.

This year, May 8 was the 77th anniversary of World War II’s VE Day (Victory in Europe) and August 15 will be the 77th anniversary of VJ Day (Victory over Japan.) Even if there are no commemorative events near you, parents should use the Internet to teach kids about VE Day and VJ Day.

For kids who’ve heard derogatory comments about the military, these anniversaries are a golden opportunity to teach them that the rights, freedoms and comforts they enjoy were paid for with the blood of patriots: over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. To cite just one war alone, many people today unconscionably water down the meaning of the term “Nazi” by hurling it thoughtlessly at political opponents.

This Memorial Day, especially in light of the shocking rise of anti-Semitic attacks by those who are ignorant of what World War II was about, please teach your children about the real evils of Nazism and the tens of millions who died because of it. Fly your flag, be proud to be an American, and give thanks and prayers for the 16 million Allied military members in World War II – over 405,000 of them Americans – who heroically gave their lives to stop it.

Memorial Day

May 30, 2022

Once a year, on the last Monday in May, we set aside a day to honor our fellow Americans who made the greatest of all sacrifices so that the rest of us could continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty and security. Although this has been an especially tragic month, with many innocent victims to mourn, we can’t let this day pass without paying our respects to those who gave their lives for our freedom and security, both recently and long ago.

Memorial Day was born after the Civil War, when families would take a day to tend and decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers. It soon spread to the North, and became known as Decoration Day. Eventually, it became a national holiday to honor all American military veterans who gave up their homes, their families, their very lives -- everything they had, or ever dreamed of having – all in sacrifice for their country. And just how many have made that ultimate sacrifice? Brace yourself:

From the Revolutionary War to the War of 1812, the Civil War and Spanish American war, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other wars, police actions and rescue missions around the world since 1776, over one million, three hundred and eight thousand Americans have died in uniform.

Imagine if all those soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen could come back to life for a Memorial Day parade. Picture them marching past in rows of ten, each row taking just 10 seconds to pass. That parade would stretch on and on, row after row, 360 rows per hour, for hour after hour, 24 hours a day, for over 15 straight days. That is the enormity of the military casualties America has experienced since 1776. That doesn’t even include the millions more who sacrificed their limbs, their sight, their peace of mind, and the best years of their lives, all for us.

Makes you realize just how ignorant and slanderous it is to claim America's history is built on slavery, racism and selfishness instead of freedom, compassion and sacrifice.

Today's military members, like those before them, risk their lives to protect the cherished American principles of liberty, equality, democracy, fighting tyranny and defending the weak. Previous generations guarded these bedrock principles so that they could be passed down to us. It is now our sacred duty to preserve them for future generations.

Every year, the American Legion sells poppy pins to support veterans and their families. May 27th was National Poppy Day this year ( I hope you bought one and are wearing it proudly. If not, you can still go to the website, buy their merchandise and support them.

The poppy became the symbol of Memorial Day, thanks to the famous poem, “In Flanders’ Fields,” by Canadian Lt. Col. John McCrae. He wrote it in memory of his friend Alexis Helmer, whom he watched die in battle in World War I.

The poem starts, “In Flanders’ fields, the poppies blow,

Between the crosses, row on row…”

Read the poem at the link. It's very short, but it conveys a powerful message of the depth of those soldiers' sacrifice and the debt we owe them all.

With the pandemic receding, we can once again gather in most places to show our support for veterans and our gratitude to those who gave their lives to protect our freedom. But even if you can’t, you can still proudly fly the American flag today. And we can all offer support to some of the many great veterans’ organizations, such as the VFW and the American Legion.

Another great new organization with an especially timely mission is Code Of Vets, founded by Air Force Veteran, Gretchen Smith. She and a staunch supporter, the late Charlie Daniels, once appeared on “Huckabee” on TBN to talk about the group’s efforts to provide support to veterans struggling through the pandemic. You can learn more and donate at It’s tax-deductible, and with their 1% operating costs, you can rest easy knowing that 99 cents of every dollar given goes directly to help veterans in need.

And of course, one more thing we can all do from wherever we are is stop for a moment and think of all the rows and rows of crosses in veterans’ cemeteries…say a prayer of thanks to them…and remember that each and every cross represents a genuine American hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for all of us.

McCrae’s poem ends, “To you, from failing hands, we throw the torch. Be yours, to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders’ fields.” If you really want to memorialize these greatest of American heroes, then take up the torch they passed to us. Hold it high, and never let it drop.

Closing statements were given Friday morning in the Michael Sussmann case, and the jury started their deliberations that afternoon. Since this is Memorial Day weekend, they’ll come back Tuesday to continue deliberating.

The jury will determine whether or not to convict Sussmann of lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when he told him in his office –- never mind the incriminating text we’ve all seen from the day before –- that in meeting with him to discuss the (phony) Alfa Bank story, he wasn’t representing any clients. As FOX News reported Friday, Sussmann’s attorneys slammed Durham’s case against him as “misdirection.” On the contrary, his evidence that Sussmann lied to Baker is as direct as it gets.

Tammy Bruce, sitting in as host on Friday’s HANNITY, talked with FOX News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and Trump attorney Alina Habba about the case. Jarrett jokingly referred to the defense’s argument as “A lie is not a lie if the recipient of the lie realizes it’s a lie.” He said that was the most outrageous rationalization for a lie that he’d ever heard.

In paraphrasing the defense’s argument, he showed how they contradicted themselves and actually incriminated Sussmann, their own client, “by saying, first, he really wasn’t representing Hillary Clinton during that FBI meeting, and then in the next breath...‘But because the FBI figured out he was representing Hillary Clinton in that meeting, it’s not really a lie.”

Jarrett seconded Jonathan Turley’s comment that this is the worst jury he's ever seen in his life. “This is a jury that is stacked with Hillary Clinton supporters,” Jarrett said, “[including] three Hillary Clinton DONORS… The problem is, there really are no Republicans in Washington DC, from which the jury is drawn. You’d have a better chance of spotting a unicorn than a Republican in Washington DC. And so...the defendant is hoping they will acquit him simply because he hates Donald Trump and they do, too.”

The way this case is being tried certainly supports President Trump’s argument about the two systems of “justice.” And Habba, Trump’s attorney in the case he’s filed against many (including Hillary) who damaged him by spreading the fake Russia Hoax, said he was well aware of that. “I mean, the man knows how corrupt it is,” she said, “and that’s why he’s so passionate about defending this country, and ‘correcting’ the country.”

(By the way, she mentioned that he attended the NRA convention at this sensitive time “because he cares about this country.” Trump, from the podium, said the name of every child killed in Uvalde and rang a bell for them.)

As for the Sussmann trial, she said, “I feel like I just sat through two weeks of the soap opera about the demise of America. It was despicable. And to see a jury that --- I hope they come to their senses. When you have a text message that so obviously states, ‘Hey, I’m about to lie to you” can you not call that a lie?

She said the defense spoke of this case as “a David Copperfield trick,” adding with a laugh, “That was the best they had. If I ever as an attorney have to do that, please, Gregg, come get me and tell me to step down.”

Seriously, though, it could be that Sussmann’s attorneys don’t think they even have to try very hard, given this jury. In a normal case, a person such as you or I found guilty of this charge might easily spend a couple of years behind bars. As Jarrett pointed out, Sussmann is “actually very lucky that he wasn’t charged with conspiracy to defraud the government by knowingly, willingly peddling phony information to the government.”

Of course, that whole group of disingenuous low-lifes involved in the Russia Hoax, including Hillary, should face that charge. Bruce questioned the fact that they weren’t all charged with conspiracy, but as we’ve said earlier, Durham saw the writing on the wall if he were to bring that case to a DC jury. He didn’t want to put THE big conspiracy case in front of them and lose. Better to use a small case to get the real story out.

Still, as Jarrett said, “Lady Justice peeks beneath the blindfold, and weights the scales of justice. If you’re a Republican, it’s weighted against you. If you’re a Democrat, it’s in your great favor.”

Consistent with that, a couple of days into Sussmann’s trial, Jonathan Turley compared the way Sussmann is being treated in his case by Judge Christopher Cooper with the way Michael Flynn was treated in his, by Judge Emmet Sullivan. Flynn’s case was held in the same Washington, DC, courthouse, but what a difference. This is a must-read.

Recall that Judge Sullivan abused Flynn in his courtroom, suggesting that Flynn should be charged with treason --- which was never on the table --- and saying to him, “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” Recall also that Sullivan tried to continue the case against Flynn even after it had been dismissed by the DOJ, apparently planning to serve as judge and prosecutor rolled into one.

Legal analyst Margot Cleveland posted her update on the case Friday morning, after the judge had issued his instructions to the jury. Her view coincides with that of other jaded trial-watchers: 1) the evidence against Sussmann is overwhelming, incontrovertible proof of his guilt, and 2) he probably won’t be convicted.

She mentions something we hadn’t seen reported that dispels all doubt his meeting with Baker really was on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. Did you know Sussmann even billed the campaign for the two THUMB DRIVES he gave to Baker? Gosh, you’d think that for $800 an hour, he would’ve thrown those in for free.

Cleveland goes on to show how tightly Durham had this case wrapped up, evidence-wise.

But the defense benefits, she says, from the “disinterested approach to justice” exhibited by the witnesses Durham called. He wasn’t “out to get Sussmann,” Baker said on the stand. If the defendant had lied to them and misrepresented himself, the FBI hardly seemed to care. And if those witnesses are going to shrug off the lie, Cleveland reasons, the jury probably will, too. No big deal, right?

Going further, just about everyone in that DC courtroom –- defendant, defense attorneys, witnesses, jurors –- sees Durham as a political enemy. Does that mean the jurors will simply ignore the facts and the law of this case and use the process of jury nullification to say, “hey, we’re Democrats, we don’t give a rat’s behind what this guy did”?

Quite likely. But even if they do,, the case Durham brought was so airtight that we can say, with complete confidence, Sussmann DID this. We also can say that as an attorney for Hillary’s campaign, he did it with her approval. There shouldn't be a need to put the word “alleged” in front of the charge Durham made against him. Whether this jury finds him guilty or not, Durham showed that he criminally lied, in service to Hillary Clinton, and we all know it.

I generally don’t comment on political statements by Hollywood celebrities. But since Michael Moore seems to have some inexplicable influence over the “progressive” left, and I was on “Hannity” last night when this story was brought up but didn’t get the chance to address it, I thought I’d briefly respond to Moore’s call to repeal the Second Amendment (and he’s hardly the only one doing that.)

As one might guess from its name, the Bill of Rights is not a list of privileges that the benevolent government generously grants us. It’s a list of God-given rights that the government can never take away. You can’t repeal the Second Amendment any more than you can repeal the First Amendment. Now, somebody please tell this Administration that they can’t repeal the First Amendment.

It’s also beyond irritating to hear the same people who sided with teachers’ unions on keeping schools closed despite the growing evidence of stress and mental illness it was causing children, and who have promoted a culture that undermines families and erodes respect for the sanctity of life, and who backed “progressive” DA’s who’ve sparked violent crime waves that forced law-abiding citizens to buy guns to protect their families, now blame Republicans for youth violence and demand to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Kevin Downey Jr. at PJ Media has more inconvenient truths about school shootings that demolish many of the talking points.

Frankly, I resent being forced to talk about politics at a time like this, but I can’t let outrageous false attacks just pass unanswered. However, this time should be reserved for prayer, mourning and comforting the families, and for coming together to talk about real solutions that would help prevent these senseless assaults on innocent children from ever happening again.

There are things that can and should be done to make schools safer, but leftists actively oppose them. As former Boston, L.A. and New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton pointed out, the “Defund the police” movement included demands that safety officers be removed from schools because somehow, having a police officer on school grounds allegedly made kids feel “unsafe.”

The left accuses Republicans of having an “irrational love of guns.” I certainly don’t love guns, but I love the Constitution, and I don’t see the point of laws that violate the rights of innocent people while doing nothing to prevent crime (we had an “assault weapons” ban for a while; it was allowed to lapse because it made no difference.) But why can’t the left acknowledge that it has an irrational hatred of police?

The father of a school shooting victim has proposed a three-point plan that could actually help prevent such horrors. It could be implemented with some of that “COVID relief” money that was showered on schools that are still trying to find something to spend it on.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr agrees with him…

The points don’t include useless new gun laws, but they do include having an armed guard at schools, the same sort of armed guards that liberal celebrities and politicians rely on for their own security. Would they agree that our children deserve the same level of security that they enjoy themselves? If so, then let’s talk.

PS – Matt Vespa at offers some concrete examples of how school resource officers have prevented potential school shootings.

My friend Mike Rowe is the latest to allegedly be targeted by the government for his political beliefs – even though he doesn’t even talk about his political beliefs!

Mike says he was all set to shoot an episode of his show “Dirty Jobs” on boilermakers when the Government Services Administration suddenly yanked permits they’d had for months, claiming vague “security concerns.” It ruined months of costly preparation, caused his freelance crew to lose work and have no time to line up other jobs, and kept the boilermakers from being able to show America what they do.

Mike said he’s shot shows in all sorts of sensitive government environments, from the Capitol to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and never had a problem. Then he said he got a call from someone high up in the GSA, telling him that another GSA higher-up didn’t like his “personal politics” and deliberately strung him along just to yank the permits at the last possible second.

If true, this is not only yet another example of politicized bureaucrats arrogantly abusing their power, it’s also stupid. Mike Rowe doesn’t discuss his personal politics, and he pointed out that his foundation is “aggressively nonpartisan” and gives scholarships to liberals and conservatives alike. All he can figure is that the petty tyrant doesn’t like the fact that his show “How America Works” airs on Fox Business.

I’ll add that his great show “The Story Behind the Story” airs right after “Huckabee” Saturday nights on TBN. Maybe that’s why the GSA jerk’s nose was out of joint. I spend too much time telling you the sleazy stories behind how Washington works. And now, we have another one.

The Price of Gas

May 27, 2022

Triple A reports that as of Tuesday, the average price of a gallon of regular gas was $4.598. As noted by Western Journal, that’s an increase of 35.5% since November 23, 2021, which is when President Biden announced “a major effort to moderate the price of oil, an effort that will span the globe in its reach, and ultimately reach your corner gas station, God willing.”

The global effort doesn’t seem to be going so well. Saudi Arabia just announced that it won’t make any further efforts to increase oil production. They say there’s plenty of crude oil but the problem is refining capacity, so they won’t pump any more than they are now.

November 2021 was also just over three months before Putin invaded Ukraine and gas prices were already high enough to justify a global effort to moderate them, so these aren't "Putin price hikes." What it would really take is a domestic effort: stop waging war on our own oil and gas industries.

Speaking of that, I hate to bring you more bad news, but this story reports that one of the few bright spots for US energy prices is that we pay about one-fourth as much for natural gas as Asia and Europe does. But an industry expert said that over the next six months, our prices are expected to surge and line up with other nations’ prices. That’s more of the “equity” of high fuel prices that Democrats have long argued for as an incentive to force Americans into small electric cars.

So when you hear Biden talking about bringing down gas prices and they only keep going up, remember that someone who really wants to bring down prices doesn’t do everything in his power to make them more expensive.

Before we get started on the Sussmann trial update, there’s one piece of business that needs to be addressed. Yesterday, I wondered how much the high-powered Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann was charging Hillary For America for his consequential little FBI visit. Those fancy DC lawyers cost a pretty penny --- I was thinking $500-600 an hour. That kind of money adds up fast, into the millions, and it’s why Michael Flynn had to sell his house to defend himself against limitless malicious prosecution.

But I have to admit, we were wrong. A top DC lawyer is apparently even pricier. As Miranda Devine at the NEW YORK POST put it, “[Sussmann] is hoisted by his own petard because he couldn’t help but charge the Clinton campaign $800 per perpetrate this dirty-tricks campaign against Donald Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton.”

That’s right, folks, $800 per hour. But, hey, Sussmann billed just 3.3 hours for the day, and given the events he set in motion with his visit to FBI general counsel James Baker, Hillary must have thought it was money well spent! As Devine said on “FOX & Friends” Thursday morning, “She sanctioned, she approved this attempt to dirty-up Donald Trump and paint him as an agent of the Kremlin. The ramifications of that dirty trick went on, crippled the Trump presidency, did great damage to this country, [and were the] source of a lot of the rancor and division that we see now.” What a bargain!

And it was a drop in the bucket, considering the millions Perkins Coie was already receiving to fund Fusion GPS and, through them, the Steele “dossier.” Fusion GPS only paid Christopher Steele $168,000.

Devine summarized: “It may seem that the charge [against Sussmann] is small, but actually, the ramifications and the report that will come from John Durham are momentous. And we should all pay very close attention to it.”

Now, let’s catch up on Day 9 of the trial. First, we learned that closing arguments will begin Friday morning because Sussmann is not taking the stand in his own defense. (Too bad, but did anyone seriously think he would?) On Thursday morning, he declined to testify, and the defense rested.

Also, Durham has just been handed a potentially serious problem. In a couple of rulings Thursday, the Obama-appointed and heavily conflicted judge in this case, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, erected some huge obstacles for the special counsel. As legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy wrote for FOX News, they are a “predictable but damaging blow to the prosecution” that make his case against Sussmann much harder to prove to the jury.

First, even though the text Sussmann sent to Baker is THE smoking gun –- ironclad proof that he lied to Baker –- Judge Cooper ruled that prosecutors must rely not on that text but on evidence that he actually told the lie the following day, while meeting with Baker, in Baker’s office at the FBI. That’s the insane degree of hairsplitting that is going on.

It stems from a legal technicality. McCarthy explains it in detail, but in a nutshell, it’s because at the time of Sussmann’s indictment, prosecutors didn’t have the text, so he wasn’t charged for THAT lie. Why, then, didn’t Durham create a superseding indictment that included both lies as separate counts? The problem is that the five-year statue of limitations was about to kick in when Durham charged Sussmann with lying in Baker’s office. The text to Baker didn’t come to Durham’s attention for another six months –- when Baker says he found it and turned it over –- and by then the statute of limitations had lapsed. Even just altering the original charging document to include anything about that text would invite legal objections. So Durham was stuck.

But, as McCarthy explains, the text isn’t out of the trial completely. It’s been presented in court, and Judge Cooper is permitting prosecutors to say it’s strong evidence that Baker’s memory is correct when he says Sussmann told him in his office that he wasn’t there on behalf of clients. What prosecutors can’t do is tell the jury that the Sussman’s text alone provides the proof he was lying (EVEN THOUGH IT DOES). Got that?

Unlike the text, Sussmann’s verbal lie is one man’s word against another’s. It was said with no witnesses and no notes taken. Baker said under oath that he’s 100 percent sure Sussmann said it, but other statements have been inconsistent, and Sussmann has pleaded ‘not guilty.” If it’s just a matter of who’s more believable, this jury is filled with DC Democrats who want to believe Sussmann. After all, he was just trying to save us from Trump!

Nick Arama at had a similar take on what the judge did, even linking to McCarthy’s analysis. This judge has taken a case that should be simple and cut-and-dried, with the proof RIGHT THERE, and made it as hard to convict as he can. He wouldn’t even allow the tweets from Hillary that show how she capitalized with lightning speed on the Alfa Bank hoax. Judge Cooper was wrong not to recuse himself from this case; we’ve addressed his conflicts before and they are staggering.

Then there’s the jury. As Jonathan Turley has noted, “I mean, he [Durham] is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury.”

Between this judge and this jury, one might be reminded of the O.J. Simpson trial, except with Judge Ito replaced by Al Cowlings.

The media no doubt sense that this jury will acquit Sussmann no matter how strong the case against him, and that’s why they’re laying low right now. If he’s acquitted –- and the verdict might come as early as today –- they’ll spring into action and use the verdict to trash the whole Durham investigation, never mind what it has found.

And Durham continues to find a lot. Testimony from Wednesday revealed that Rodney Joffe was actually the same source for two separate “tips” that falsely connected Trump and Alfa Bank. So he needed Sussmann to lie and say he wasn’t approaching Baker on behalf of clients, so he, Joffe, could still hand off his phony evidence to other people in the FBI. Joffe himself was apparently (surprise) an FBI confidential human source. This is one more reason for Sussmann to lie.

It came out through cross-examination of a defense witness, FBI Special Agent Tom Grasso, one of the people to whom Joffe had given “white papers.” For when you have time, Margot Cleveland will tell you all about it.

Finally, while we wait for the verdict, here’s an excellent review of the Sussmann trial thus far. It calls the trial “part of a three-ring circus, showcasing sleazy political enablers, malfeasance by public officials and biased reporting.” We have to “walk behind the elephants with a huge shovel.”

If Special Counsel John Durham hadn’t obtained the Perkins Coie billing records showing attorney Michael Sussmnn billed Hillary’s campaign for his FBI visit, he might not have had a case. Those billing records prove Sussmann was indeed working for a client when he pointedly told the FBI he wasn’t.

On Wednesday, Durham's prosecution team introduced them into evidence.

In the entry for September 19, 2016, the date of Sussmann’s meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker, Hillary For America is listed as the client. The time allotted is 3.3 hours, and the description is “work and communication regarding confidential project.” He’d originally logged it as 4.5 hours but scaled it back.

I wonder how much this top DC attorney was billing by the hour for such a shady bit of business. We know Perkins Coie pocketed nearly $12 million from the DNC, Hillary For America, and (yes) from Obama’s group Organizing For Action to hire Fusion GPS to create faux-Russian dirt. With so many middle men to hide the source of the “dossier,” all of them taking their cut, ex-spy Christopher Steele was paid a measly $168,000 for his determined gossip-gathering and fiction-writing. Here’s that story from AMERICAN THINKER; notice it goes all the way back to November 2017. You and I have known the real story behind the fake “dossier” for SO LONG.

By the way, guess who else was paying Fusion GPS for fake evidence against Trump? The hilariously-named Democracy Integrity Project, funded by...(drum roll, please)...George Soros. I am not kidding –- here’s the story from last year. This group is run by Daniel Jones, former intelligence staffer for California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He’s the one who contracted with Fusion GPS and Steele.

Bonchie at RedState says the billing statement obtained by Durham proves Sussmann lied when he said –- and texted –- that he was a concerned citizen rather than a paid advocate, but he goes further to say “it shows that Clinton herself, as leader of her campaign, didn’t just approve the false story going to the media, but also to the FBI.”

As we discussed yesterday, there’s a huge difference, legally, between taking phony evidence to the media and taking it to the FBI, and witnesses have been careful to link her only with the media campaign. Presenting fake evidence to the FBI to frame someone is a crime. And we just didn’t buy the idea that Sussmann would’ve gone to the FBI behind Hillary’s back and then billed her for the meeting! In other words, Hillary had to know.

The candidate is ultimately in charge of his or her own campaign. (“I’m so-and-so, and I approved this message.”)  Robby Mook, as campaign manager, answered to Hillary. Sussmann, as attorney for the campaign, answered to Hillary. And we know, if anyone insists on running everything she can get her hands on, it’s Hillary Clinton. The jury might be too biased to even care, but you and I know she approved Sussmann’s FBI visit.

Bonchie concurs, and says, “...the fact that the Hillary campaign hatched a false conspiracy theory and fed it to the FBI for political gain is overwhelming.”

He sees Sussmann as “the first shoe that must drop” on the path towards Hillary. This step is “another direct link to Hillary herself,” he says. Of course, with a jury stacked in Sussmann’s favor, conviction is far from assured, no matter how strong the evidence. But what Durham is really doing is putting a story together, and all the major thoroughfares and interesting side routes lead back to Hillary.

Yesterday, we reported on FBI official Curtis Heide’s testimony that the ‘Justice’ Department was listed in the opening document as the origin of the Alfa Bank “evidence,” not just an “anonymous third party” (Sussmann), and that this was due to a “paperwork error.” Legal analyst Andrew McCarthy told the WASHINGTON EXAMINER, “This investigation opening document is totally outrageous. It not only claims that the information came from the Justice Department. It suggests that the Justice Department commissioned and may even vouch for the ‘white paper,’ when they hadn’t.

Nick Arama at RedState does not believe it was a “paperwork error.” He says, “So, the excuse is that he [Heide] doesn’t even know the basic structure or breakdown of the FBI and the DOJ? What do these guys take us for, fools?” Arama suggests we “grab the popcorn,” as there is more to come.

As for Wednesday, after addressing the billing records and whether they indeed reflect that meeting, the prosecution rested its case, and it was time for the defense to call witnesses. The defense wants to show that the FBI was well aware Sussmann was representing Hillary For America. The FOX News story linked to below has details on the witnesses they called to create doubt in the jurors’ minds.

Example: A project assistant at the firm representing Sussmann --- Democrat legal powerhouse Latham and Watkins --- was called to the stand and asked to comment on a chart that showed various internal FBI documents that referred to Sussmann as working for the Hillary campaign, the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Of course, they could be well aware of his Democrat connections and still be lied to by Sussmann about the purpose of that particular visit. But that’s about all the defense can do.

The claims the defense is making now are in direct conflict with what James Baker testified last week. Baker said he remembered with 100 percent certainty that Sussmann told him he was not there on behalf of any client. And, of course, Sussmann had already texted him the same thing. Why would Sussmann say that if he knew the FBI already believed he was working for Hillary?

We still don’t know if Sussmann will take the stand in his own defense. FOX News has reported that it depends on whether the judge will bar prosecutors from questioning him about pre-indictment negotiations between his counsel and Special Counsel John Durham’s office. They don’t want prosecutors asking him about materials that were submitted to the government before charges against him were filed. These probably would have been materials submitted to try to persuade Durham not to indict Sussmann. Apparently, these did not work, and now our curiosity is peaked.

If Sussmann chooses to testify, that will likely be Thursday, with closing arguments to begin Tuesday, after Memorial Day. If he decides not to testify, closing arguments would likely begin Thursday, and the trial might even be over this week. I have the sneaking suspicion that this judge will rule whichever way leads to the choice Sussmann prefers to make.

In the meantime, law professor Jonathan Turley has an excellent question for us to ponder: Given that researchers were practically ridiculing the bogus data that Sussmann gave to the FBI, why were James Comey and the rest of the 7th Floor so “fired up” (agent Joe Pienkta’s testimony) that they demanded a FULL INVESTIGATION! I think we know.

This Memorial Day may be a good time for Americans to ask ourselves: Do we still deserve our freedom? I’m not talking about our slumping economy nor even descrying our media’s unblinking distortion of issues from our porous southern border to the perfidy of Hillary Clinton. But today we are seeing the tumultuous confluence of two basic decisions reached nearly 50 years ago: the “right” of abortion decided by Roe v Wade in 1973; and the adoption of the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1974. While each choice was made separately, their protagonists could hardly have imagined how those separate choices would evolve to create twin challenges to our way of life.  

 Barely a year apart, two fundamental norms of American life had changed. The right of an unborn infant to live was now outweighed by the right of the mother to choose life or death for her baby. The historical obligation of the American citizen for wartime service had also changed, now becoming a career choice like pursuing orthodontics or agri-business. The rationales were correspondingly different. Abortion, whether or not guaranteed by the Constitution, needed to be safe and legal; the Vietnam-era draft simply needed to end. Fifty years later, we have an expensive, professional military in which less than half of one (>0.5) percent of Americans defend the other 99%. The death toll since Roe v Wade: at least 60 million infants although no one knows for sure.

As one of the last draftees, my reprieve came too late. But ten years into the AVF experiment, I served on the West Point faculty, once moderating a campus-wide debate on the role of women, The contending advocates: conservative doyenne Phyllis Schlafly versus Sarah Weddington, victorious counsel in Roe V. Wade. Even in West Point’s disciplined environment, the debate was a raucous affair; but at least our cadets witnessed the emotions and intricacies of the constitutional process they would soon defend.

 But for me that argument was settled forever the next year, when our newly adopted 4-day-old daughter wrapped her entire hand around my little finger. I was thankful beyond words that her birth mother, finding herself “in trouble,” decided to protect this new life, choosing to set aside every lesser consideration.  Thirty years later, a father’s emotions still run strong looking into her eyes and each of my three grand-sons!

Meanwhile, the Army kept getting smaller, post-Cold War reductions leaving the active force with a half-million soldiers. But then came the shock of 9/11. The voluminous memoirs of President George W. Bush, his vice-president, and his secretaries of State and Defense reveal a stunning omission: None of them apparently asked whether the AVF could sustain a long conflict. Rather than mobilizing the nation for war, the National Guard and Reserves were dragooned for extended overseas tours. Ordinary Americans were encouraged to return to the shopping malls or college campuses. “So your kid goes to Kandahar while mine goes to Yale. So what’s your point?”   

With the War on Terror dragging  on for almost 20 years, manpower became even more scarce and expensive. Meeting combat requirements meant sending the troops back for multiple combat tours to various hell-holes. Not only were our soldiers running exponential risks of PTSD, but they were also becoming increasingly isolated from American society as a segregated warrior caste. And what happened when these Other People’s Kids returned home as veterans? Although the Veterans Administration is unsure of the exact numbers, they estimate that 17-20 veterans commit suicide each day.·

As you may have noticed, the United States is now involved in two separate Cold Wars but is seriously outmanned in each. (Air Force pilots describe this condition as “discovering you’re out of airspeed, altitude and ideas.”) Making matters even worse are our internal contradictions, voices from the left made even more strident by the prospect that Roe v Wade may be reversed. Listening to them, one ponders our national responsibility for the Holocaust of the Unborn, those Other People’s Kids now being aborted.

As I write these words, my friends and neighbors in Uvalde Texas are grief-stricken by the senseless slaughter of 19 elementary school students and 2 teachers by a gun-toting monster quickly dispatched by local law enforcement. Might this latest outrage finally move our secular, prodigal nation to lower our voices, bow our heads and pray for God’s forgiveness? 


Tuesday, there were primary elections in Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama, runoffs in Texas and a House Special Election in Minnesota. Let’s begin with the most important news of all:

In their infinite wisdom, the good people of Arkansas voted for Sarah Huckabee Sanders to be the GOP Gubernatorial candidate by over 83%. (By the way, as an indicator of how reliable polls are this year, she was at 56% going into voting day.) I’m sure she’ll be the best Governor of Arkansas in a generation. She still has to beat Democrat Chris Jones in November. I don’t want to jinx it, but I feel good about her chances, especially considering that in their primaries, Sarah got nearly 288,000 votes to Jones’ 69,000.   

And now, for the less important races…

In Georgia, former President Trump saw a rare loss for one of his endorsements with Gov. Brian Kemp easily defeating Trump-backed David Perdue by about 3-1. But Trump-endorsed NFL legend Herschel Walker won a 69% landslide to challenge uber-leftist Sen. Raphael Warnock.

In Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, Democrats have tried everything from deplatforming Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to accusing her of insurrection to trying to keep her off the primary ballot. Yet, her race was called when she was in the lead by over 70% with 44% of votes counted. There’s virtually no chance she will lose that seat in November, which means Nancy Pelosi will likely be looking up at her as she works on fixing America as part of the House majority. Incidentally, I notice that even a conservative-leaning paper like the New York Post refers to MTG as “far-right.” Isn’t it funny how we never hear any Democrats described as “far-left,” even if they’re openly socialist?

In Texas, Trump-endorsed Attorney General Ken Paxton crushed a challenge from George P. Bush, winning his primary by over 2-1. The media had framed this as a test of whether the “Bush dynasty” still reigned in Texas. I suspected that the “Bush dynasty” has long been something that lives only in the imaginations of media yakkers who haven’t actually talked to a Texas Republican in 20 years, and this proves it.

In Texas’ 28th Congressional District runoff, incumbent Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar declared victory, even though with 94% of the vote counted as of this writing, it’s too close to call yet. He’s slightly ahead of genuinely far-left challenger Jessica Cisneros, who is endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC and various radical left groups, and would be the latest “Squad” member if elected. Cuellar is a DC dinosaur: the last remaining pro-life House Democrat, and he spoke up against open borders. For that reason, “progressives” want him replaced with another looney leftist.

The closeness of the primary vote shows how out of touch activist Democratic primary voters have become with the general population, since that district has been trending red with most thinking people rejecting the crime, drugs and devastation wrought by Biden’s willful failure to secure the border. If Cisneros does somehow eke out a win, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cuellar runs an independent or write-in campaign. But that would split the Dem vote in what’s looking like a red wave year, good news for Republican Cassey Garcia, who won her runoff with 57% of the vote. Hopefully, the angry leftists will have delivered a safe Dem seat to the GOP. 

In Alabama, Katie Britt and Mo Brooks (who had Trump’s endorsement but lost it) will have a runoff for the GOP nomination for Richard Shelby’s Senate seat.

For the latest numbers on other Tuesday races, click this link:



Uvalde Tragedy

May 25, 2022

At this writing, at least 19 school children and two teachers are confirmed dead in the horrific school shooting yesterday in Uvalde, Texas. The 18-year-old shooter is also dead, thanks to the heroic efforts of law enforcement, particularly one unnamed member of an elite Border Patrol tactical unit called BORTAC. He was injured in the leg while exchanging fire with the shooter, who was barricaded and in body armor.

This is a breaking story, so here’s a link to Fox News’ continually-updated news reports:

I know that you will join me and others around the world in praying for the victims and the grieving parents who are experiencing the worst nightmare any parent can face. This is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, and all our attention should be focused on the victims and their families.

Unfortunately, as is always the case, many people rushed to cameras to exploit the tragedy by trying to blame it on their political opponents or use it to push their existing agendas before they even knew who the shooter was, what his possible motives might be, what his politics were or what kind of weapon he used (early reports said a handgun and possibly a rifle, but that’s one of many things we don’t yet know for certain.) Also, as is the case too often, it appears that the killer left red flags on social media that were ignored.

There are those calling for ending the Second Amendment, despite the fact that it’s been around since 1791, and these kinds of cold, conscienceless mass murders have only come in recent years, in an era of family breakdown, rejection of God and moral teachings, desensitizing graphic violence as entertainment, and the erosion of respect for the sanctity of human life. As I wrote recently after the tragic shooting in Buffalo, we have welcomed evil in our midst, and we refuse even to acknowledge its existence. I can make a better case for those things being contributing factors than for “the gun did it.”

But this isn’t the time for political arguments. It should be a time to come together, grieve, offer prayers and comfort to the families, and send a message to the entire world, and especially any would-be future attackers, that every one of those victims was a gift from God and the loss of their lives is an unspeakable tragedy for all of us. Stressing that message to everyone in society – that every life matters and is precious -- would do more to end these horrific attacks than passing more ineffective laws or blaming people who had nothing to do with it.

Related: This is a very good commentary by Darvio Morrow on some things that could be done that really would make our schools safer.

On Tuesday, Day 7 of the Michael Sussmann trial, FBI agent Curtis Heide shed light on how Bureau officials got the idea that Sussmann’s “evidence” about the phony Alfa Bank scandal came from the ‘Justice’ Department.

He said it was his own fault.

In a document drafted the day of Sussmann’s visit by Heide and fellow agent Allison Sands, he said “the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE provided the FBI with a white paper that was produced by an anonymous third party.” This document served as confirmation that an investigation had been opened into the later-debunked allegation.

Heide said the DOJ reference was “a mistake in our paperwork.”

Quite a mistake. When asked by the prosecution how it could’ve been made, Heide said, “I honestly don’t know.”

Recall Monday’s testimony, in which another agent, Ryan Gaynor, testified that the Bureau was shielding Sussmann’s identity from investigating agents, in a procedure called “close hold.” Though this is often considered appropriate, field investigators for this case were frustrated that they couldn’t know the identity. So for all they knew, it WAS the Department of ‘Justice’ that delivered the goods, not just some “anonymous third party,” and such a misinterpretation surely influenced the way they handled the evidence.

Text messages introduced by the prosecution underscore this problem. “We really want to interview the source of all this information,” Heide wrote to Gaynor on October 3. “Any way we can track down who the guy is and how we’re getting this information?”

There wasn’t. They were flying blind. Gaynor told him only that headquarters was looking at it.

Heide happens to be the subject of an internal FBI “investigative inquiry” for allegedly “not identifying exculpatory information as it pertained to one of the Crossfire Hurricane investigations.” His case is still pending. The allegation involves classified information that was left off a FISA application for a warrant to spy. When asked by the prosecution on Tuesday if he’d intentionally withheld such evidence from the Crossfire Hurricane team, he denied that.

Recall that FBI official Kevin Clinesmith was charged and pleaded guilty to altering a document used in the FISA application for a surveillance warrant on Carter Page. We don’t know if the allegation against Heide applies to the same application.

There’s something important to note in the earlier testimony given by Robby Mook, about Hillary personally green-lighting the plan to break the unverified Alfa Bank story in the media. Jim Trusty, a former ‘Justice’ Department official who’s now a DC lawyer, explained to the NEW YORK POST that this fits with other testimony from Mook and Marc Elias saying they were unaware Sussmann planned to also take it to the FBI. Trusty calls this strategy “Protect the Queen.” As in, Queen Hillary. It goes like this:

First, as we’ve said, taking phony evidence to the FBI to gin up an investigation of a political opponent –- or of anyone –- is very serious. It’s a crime, whereas taking it to the media might just be called “political dirty tricks,” completely unethical but not necessarily leading to a perp-walk. Hillary’s accomplices need to keep her out of jail. So by admitting she knew they leaked to the MEDIA, as opposed to the FBI, they’ve gone just to the line, admitting what they have to, but stopping there.

Trusty said Mook and Elias have suggested Hillary was “shocked, shocked by Sussmann going to the FBI.”

We don’t buy it. It makes no sense for Sussmann to GO BEHIND HER BACK to the FBI and then bill her for the meeting!

Trusty put it similarly: “Legal representation simply does not work that way. You don’t ‘free-lance’ a visit to the FBI while billing your client for the time.”

So Mook and Elias can stick to their untenable story and pretend she wasn’t aware, but we know she was. Still, this tenuous testimony might work, especially if Sussmann’s case is being heard by a custom-made equivalent of the O.J. jury. All they need is one excuse, however feeble, to let him off. Heck, maybe billing Hillary was just a mistake in the paperwork. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Trusty called it “a fig leaf [for] any partisan jurors who want to acquit.”

But only those in an extreme state of partisan denial will still believe Hillary wasn’t behind that little trip to the FBI.

TechnoFog is doing some outstanding summaries of the testimony, and for Tuesday, he starts with Trisha Anderson, who in 2016 was an FBI general counsel reporting directly to James Baker. She’s asked to read her memo from Sussmann’s visit, which says, “No specific client, but group of cyber academics talked with him about research.”

Then Anderson is presented with an email dated June 16, 2016, concerning a meeting to be held later that day and including SUSSMANN, the CEO of the DNC, James Trainor of the FBI’s Cyber Division, and SHAWN HENRY of CrowdStrike. This meeting takes place two days after the June 14 announcement by the DNC that it had been a victim of Russian hacking and over a month before the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) said it, too, had been hacked by Russians.

Soooo...Durham appears to be going somewhere with the story about the DNC’s Russian “hack” and CrowdStrike. As you know, CrowdStrike never turned over the DNC hard drive to the FBI, and the FBI, amazingly, never pressed them about it. To this day, there’s been no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, or the DCCC. Someone gave the emails to WikiLeaks, but Julian Assange maintains it was not Russia, or any “state actor.” Yet the “Russian hack” was used to help validate the false Trump-Russia “collusion” story. Sussmann is a common element.

TechnoFog also has more very interesting detail on Heide’s testimony. Heide said Bill Priestap (he of the curious memory lapses on Monday) had made it clear, the FBI’s 7th Floor –- including Director Jim Comey –- was demanding a full field investigation be opened. Heide viewed this as inappropriate, but it was “not an option.”

“In order to open a full field investigation,” Heide said, “we would need specific and articulable facts that a threat to U.S. national security has occurred or there’s been a violation of federal law.” But they were ordered to do it anyway, when nothing was found to substantiate the allegations in the Alfa Bank “white paper,”

Heide also testified that there was another confidential human source besides Sussmann supporting the Alfa Bank story. But this was apparently a media person (!), not a cyber expert. TechnoFog speculates that it was David Corn.

Next witness: Jared Novich, former business partner of Rodney Joffe. He testified that Joffe called and asked him to research some information regarding Trump and Russia. He did it, but said he’d never been asked to do something “very political” like this –- it “felt like opposition research.” The project was called “Crimson Rhino” and involved a list of names, home addresses, spouses, workplaces and personal email addresses. Carter Page’s name was on it. Joffe wanted “a 90-day history of data.” Spying, straight up.

This is getting more fascinating by the day.

Addendum:  We thought we were through with the Sussmann trial for now, until Wednesday's testimony is over, but then saw this.  A must-read.

Primary Day

May 24, 2022

Today is Primary Election day in Georgia, Arkansas and Alabama, plus there’s a House Special Election in Minnesota and primary runoff elections in Texas. Be sure to vote, and I’ll have a roundup of the results tomorrow (at least, those that are in by tomorrow.)

For a list of my Arkansas endorsements through my political organization, Huck PAC, go here.

For my Georgia endorsements, go here.

For my Alabama endorsements, go here.

A couple of races of particular note: In the Texas Attorney General run-off, incumbent Ken Paxton is facing George P. Bush in a race that’s being framed as a test of the Bush dynasty’s ability to survive in the MAGA era. And in Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp is being challenged by David Perdue, who is backed by Donald Trump because Trump thinks Kemp didn’t do enough to challenge the 2020 vote. 

Here’s some more info on these and other races in these states, plus the potential impact of Trump’s endorsements.

Sadly for Georgia Democrats, they have no choice in the Governor’s race because Stacey Abrams is running unopposed. Just think of that: Stacey Abrams is literally the best the Democrats could do!

Today would be a great time for her to face a challenger because last week, she publicly griped that she was sick of hearing about how Georgia is the best state to do business when it’s the worst state to live in (I guess all the New Yorkers who are fleeing there must be masochists.) Also, as I previously reported, the massive surge in early voting has proven that Abrams’ claims about Georgia’s new election integrity laws being Jim Crow-style racist voter suppression – a claim echoed by the media, President Biden, and major corporations and that cost Georgians hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues – was, as I've said from day one, a scurrilous and very expensive lie.

As of the end of early voting on Friday, over 850,000 Georgians had cast early or absentee ballots, which is more than triple the number in 2018.

And it’s not just white Republicans who are finding it easy to vote. One 70-year-old black woman told the Washington Post, "I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any way possible because of the fact that we didn’t go Republican on the last election, when Trump didn’t win. To go in there and vote as easily as I did and to be treated with the respect that I knew I deserved as an American citizen — I was really thrown back." Shame on the people who made her believe that about her fellow Georgians.

In summation, Stacey Abrams told a “Big Lie” that the 2018 election she lost was rigged; she intentionally inflamed racial divisions; and she frightened the public and undermined our democracy by shattering the people’s faith in the integrity of their elections. Aren’t those all the same charges that the Democrats are falsely making against Trump as an argument for banning him from office for life? Yet Abrams has done them all openly for nearly four years, and it made her wealthy, a Democrat Party/Hollywood celebrity, and now they want her to be Governor of Georgia. Once again, if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

I just hope that in November, Georgians will use their new system of easier but more transparent voting to deliver a well-deserved heavy loss to Stacey Abrams. Maybe if it’s a crushing landslide defeat, it will finally be enough to make her go away – or at least stop claiming she actually won.


Joe Biden's Worst Week

May 24, 2022

I can’t imagine how you make a call like this, but both Democratic pollster John Zogby and conservative poll analyst Jed Babbin agree that last week was the worst week of the Biden Presidency so far.

The baby formula shortage worsened, the stock market continued its biggest fall in years, inflation kept raging with gas prices setting new records every day, Biden’s new press secretary debuted to bad reviews, his Ministry of Truth scheme imploded amid bipartisan outrage, and a federal judge blocked Biden’s plans to lift the Title 42 COVID protections on illegal border crossers, a decision that critics on both side of the aisle saw as an impending disaster.

That Zogby poll had Biden’s approval rating at 41%, which is actually better than the latest AP/NORC poll, which has him down at 39%.

What’s interesting about these polls is the internal details. As pathetic as 39% approval is, it’s only that high because of the loyalty of Democrats and African-Americans. Biden’s support among Hispanics has crashed to the mid-20s, but blacks and Democrats have adamantly continued to show the kind of monolithic support that can only be explained by sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, “La-la-la, I can’t hear you!”

But lately, things under Biden have gotten so bad that it’s becoming impossible even for his most self-deluded supporters to keep kidding themselves. The AP poll found that his support among Democrats that’s never before dropped below 82% has fallen to 73%. Even those who still support him admit that everything’s going badly but claim he’s not to blame for it (Biden obviously agrees with them on that point.) But at least some are finally starting to crumble under the weight of reality.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that Biden’s support among black voters is down to 64%. More ominous are the numbers of those who want him to run again. His supporters can pretend to think he’s doing a good job, but when asked if they want him to keep doing it, they scream, “NO!!” This poll found that only 39% of blacks, 31% of Hispanics and 26% of women (all among his strongest support groups) want him to run for reelection.

(That same poll also found that in a potential 2024 rematch, Trump leads Biden by 50-36%.)

And a CBS Poll has more bad news for Biden, with staggering numbers of people pessimistic about the economy and about half of black respondents saying he’s “slow to react.”

It seems obvious that the biggest obstacle for Republicans to overcome is the long-engrained, media-defended notion spread by the left that Republicans are scary, racist fascists. But seldom has any group of voters had a starker example of the real difference between Republican and Democrat policies than living in 2018 (pre-COVID Trump America) and 2022 (post-COVID Biden America.)

A good example of how hard this mindset is to counter is Bill Maher, who for all his recent red-pilling still hasn’t shaken off the liberal brainwashing. Last week, he reacted to Elon Musk's decision to vote Republican for the first time by claiming that for all the Dems’ faults, the Republicans are still the most dangerous party.

Really, Bill? And what would happen if Republicans regained power? Would we take away people’s Constitutional rights, create Orwellian government agencies to police speech, jail people without charges, monitor citizens through social media, explode the national debt, crash the stock market, open up our borders to drug dealers and sex traffickers, allow a massive surge of crime in our cities, put violent criminals back on the streets while tying the cops' hands (basically, turn America into Gotham City), empower our enemies abroad, send our troops to places they have no business going, and make the basic necessities of life unavailable and/or unaffordable?

Because in case you haven’t noticed, that’s the Democratic Party’s current platform.

Gil Gutknecht has a must-read, “From his keyboard to God’s ears” column on the day of reckoning for all those woke corporate CEOs who are putting far-left politics ahead of serving their customer base. In the few months, we’ve seen a number of them suffer crashing stock prices and deep drops in profits, and no, it’s not the fault of the pandemic or Vladimir Putin.

All the media stories about the “unexpected” downturns at Target, Netflix and other companies focused on excuses such as inflation and the supply chain crisis. They mostly avoided the possibility that these companies had ticked off at least half their customer base by embracing radical leftwing political dogma. The media live in a cast iron echo chamber and seldom talk to those peasants in Flyover Country, whom they think are so small in numbers, they can be safely marginalized and ignored. You know, like the 73 million Americans who voted for Trump.

Those folks aren’t like leftists: they don’t tend to “organize,” shout through bullhorns, or threaten and bully those who disagree with them. And they don’t have a complicit mass media to amplify their message and make them sound bigger than they are. They just quietly keep a list in their heads of companies that have ticked them off and that they will NEVER do business with again. And there are a LOT of them (I know, I actually talk to them!)

The talking heads think that because it’s not a loud, organized movement, it makes no difference. There is an organized movement called WalkAway, formed by Brandon Straka, but you don’t have to be a member to simply walk away from companies that spit on your values. If Target or Disney don’t want your dirty conservative money, someone else will gladly take it.

There’s an old saying, “Ignore this at your peril.” These companies ignored half their customers and now they are imperiled. Color me unsurprised.

Speaking of “Get woke, go broke,” when the Fed gets woke, we ALL go broke.

Speaking of large organizations that want to go around parents to indoctrinate small children, State Farm’s “Corporate Responsibility Analyst” (and boy, does he have the wrong job title) put out a memo touting the insurance giant’s partnership with a group called the “GenderCool Project.” It was to have 500 State Farm agents and employees donate a three-book bundle about Being Transgender, Inclusive and Non-Binary to their “local teacher, community center or library of their choice.” The goal was to “increase representation of LGBTQ+ books and support our communities in having challenging, empowering, and important conversations with children Age 5+.” Yes, that’s correct: AGE FIVE and up.

The news sparked predictable outrage not only from parents and State Farm customers but from many agents and employees who didn’t appreciate being turned into spreaders of radical LGBTQ propaganda. The story hit the news like a shovelful of manure hitting a ceiling fan, and not desiring to “get woke and go broke,” State Farm rushed to do damage control. They announced that the memo came from “a mid-to-lower level employee in Florida” who doesn’t speak for the company, adding:

Conversations about gender and identity should happen at home with parents. We don’t support requiring curriculum in schools on this topic. We support organizations providing resources for parents to have these conversations. We will no longer support that program.”

Pretty simple, isn’t it? Companies that want to stay in business concentrate on their corporate mission, stay out of radical political and social issues, and let parents raise their own kids.

Take note, Disney Corp. In fact, take a lot of notes.

A "Pandemic Treaty"

May 24, 2022

I’ve been getting a lot of comments wanting to know more about a “pandemic treaty” that’s being hashed out to expand the role of the World Health Organization. This really took off after Tucker Carlson blasted it last week. There are concerns that proposed changes by the Biden Administration would give the head of the WHO sweeping powers to declare pandemics and impose rights-denying measures like lockdowns on sovereign nations without their consent or even over their objections.

This is a complicated issue, so I’m going to link to a couple of stories with more details than I can provide you here. First, Breitbart explains the objections to the proposed treaty and amendments.

And this article that originally appeared in Fortune argues that those concerns are unfounded: that the WHO would only gain enhanced advisory capabilities to deal more swiftly with health emergencies, but not the power to overrule sovereign governments. They say that because “international law” isn’t really enforceable, such nations could just ignore them anyway.

This is all still in a state of flux, and no matter what the original intention, there’s a good chance that the rising scrutiny and anger will have an effect. My personal view: I certainly don’t think the WHO is deserving of being granted any kind of power over sovereign nations, elected governments or individual citizens. But on top of that, I question the wisdom of expanding their part in dealing with emergencies even in a purely advisory role.

What is there about their botched handling of the COVID-19 pandemic that has earned them the right to greater trust and responsibility? Was it their disgusting and dishonest kowtowing to the communist Chinese government? Or their dogged defense of lockdowns and school closures that have done irreparable harm while studies have since confirmed they had little to no effect on the spread of the virus? In fact, researchers have known for years that lockdowns are useless against airborne viruses. I thought the most basic rule of medicine was "First, do no harm." Here’s just one of many examples of the harm that their policies caused:

Until the WHO cleans up its act and thoroughly reforms and de-policizes itself, it doesn’t deserve more power or even more influence not backed by power. To quote the Who that I respect a lot more, we won’t get fooled again.

During the George Floyd riots, corporations frightened of being tagged as racist plastered the BLM logo on every available surface and showered millions of dollars on Black Lives Matter, without giving a thought to what it would be used for. I’m sure they had some vague notion that it would help black communities. It’s been reported that BLM took in over $90 million and sent over $21 million to local BLM chapters, but black community leaders complained that not a dime has been given to help neighborhoods destroyed by riots and crime. BLM has come under increasing scrutiny, and it’s not pretty.

BLM’s founders seem to be more interested in buying pricey real estate than helping minority neighborhoods, and their failure to comply with laws governing nonprofits has led to several states launching investigations (even California!) The latest state to demand accountability is Indiana, whose attorney general filed a lawsuit against BLM, saying it’s critical to protect Indiana consumers “from this house of cards.” I suppose they could argue that they’re hardly a "nonprofit," but that’s not a legal defense.

Now, at last, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has finally released its first financial disclosure statement, and it’s only raising more questions. For instance, the group’s largest payout was over $2.1 million to a consulting firm owned by one of its board members. The second-biggest was over $969,000 for “live production, design and media” paid to a company owned by the father of BLM co-founder Patrice Cullors’ baby. Other expenses included $709,190 for “communications, IT and digital,” $696,364 to a Los Angeles-based company for “media planning and placement,” and $504,000 to Resistance Labs in Oakland for “tech support.” I wonder how many black lives those expenditures saved. By comparison, BLM gave only $200,000 to the Trayvon Martin Foundation that helps families of kids who are victims of gun violence.

The director of the watchdog group Charity Watch said BLM “had no whistleblower policy, no document destruction and retention policy, and only one board member during the financial reporting period. It reports having and regularly monitoring and enforcing a written conflict of interest policy, but…one person can’t monitor and enforce a conflict of interest policy over themselves. It’s frightening, isn’t it, to consider that this much taxpayer-subsidized public money was being overseen by only one person?”

While I can abhor BLM’s sleazy financial tactics and condemn the way they’ve exploited and inflamed racial divisions to enrich themselves, I have a hard time working up much sympathy for the people who gladly handed over their money. There are many reputable charities and religious organizations that genuinely help people, and with very low overhead. BLM just understood their target audience: guilty white liberals who think you solve every problem by throwing money at it. They were geniuses at making it appear that they were the place where liberals should throw their money. At least for once, they were throwing away their own money and not the taxpayers’.

The White House Emergency Hazmat Crew that rushes to clean up President Biden’s toxic verbal spills works harder than firefighters at an arsonists’ convention. Their latest five-alarm call came after Biden flatly stated that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan. Having already hauled him back from the brink of starting World War III with Russia, his handlers had to scurry to prevent him from doing it in Asia.

Aides said that Biden meant only that the US would provide military equipment to Taiwan, not that he’d send US troops. For the record, here’s the exchange that upset China:

Reporter: “You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, if it comes to that?”

Biden: “Yes. That’s the commitment we made. That’s the commitment we made. We agree with the One China policy; we’ve signed on to it and all the attendant agreements made from there. But the idea that — that it can be taken by force — just taken by force — is just not a — is just not appropriate. It will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in — in Ukraine. And so, it’s a burden that is even stronger.”

Obviously, when he said yes to whether he was willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan, he didn’t mean he was willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan. Are we all clear now? Good.

You know, one of the main tricks of diplomacy is to learn not to say some things out loud. Maybe America should help defend our free ally Taiwan against communist aggression, which is a stance you could at least make an argument for. It’s just that saying it out loud before there is a reason for it is more likely to enrage China and make them think that if they’re going to attack, they’d be better off doing it soon while Biden’s still in office. Probably a thought that also crossed Putin’s mind as he was deciding what to do about Ukraine.

Remember when we were told that we needed the experienced, seasoned adult Joe Biden in charge because Trump was going to destroy the economy, crash the stock market and say something stupid, that would set off World War III? So glad we don’t have an ignoramus like that in charge!

Monday marked the beginning of Week 2 (Day 6) of the Michael Sussmann trial. As you know, last week ended dramatically, when Robby Mook, Clinton’s own campaign manager, said she’d personally signed off on releasing the (phony) Alfa Bank story to the media, even though her campaign people told her it hadn’t been verified. Two CIA staffers also testified Friday, saying that Sussmann had lied to them, too, about not representing any client.

Also on Friday, a now-retired CIA station chief described meeting Sussmann earlier and being told a variation of the lie; namely, that he did have a client, but it was a Republican. The idea of Perkins Coie representing Republicans is almost as crazy as Trump colluding with Russians.

One thing seemed odd to us on Friday, but we found the explanation later. The prosecution was still presenting its case, but Mook was called as a defense witness. Turns out, Mook had planned to vacation in Spain, and the court ruled he could testify out of order so he could go. (Nice! One hopes prosecution witnesses would have received similar dispensation from this judge.) As it happens, Mook was helpful to Durham, so much so that the defense probably wishes they’d just let him go to Spain.

Anyway, Monday might not have been quite as eventful as last Friday, but there were interesting developments, with Bill Priestap –- Peter Strzok’s supervisor –- called to the stand. Trump attorney Alina Habba and her team were there today, as they have been every day, and in an appearance on HANNITY said Priestap seemed unable to recall much of anything, even with his own notes in front of him. He seems to have taken a cue from Hillary herself, who is known for coming up with almost countless versions of “I don’t recall.”

Two other FBI officials, Ryan Gaynor and Allison Sands, testified. Sands said she’d received a memo the day Sussmann met with Baker about a referral on the case from the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (!!!) It didn’t mention Sussmann as the source. This document was circulated to Peter Strzok as well.

Gaynor testified that top FBI leadership had decided to keep Sussmann’s identity on “close hold.” The Chicago field office wanted access to the source but couldn’t get it. He told the court that had he known the source had a political interest or one that overlapped with the Bureau’s, he might not have ever volunteered to be point person at headquarters.

So, when did the ‘Justice’ Department decide to jump in? The DOJ was even mentioned as the source for the “white papers,” when we know that none of them came from there and at least one came from Fusion GPS, creator of the likewise phony “dossier.”

Gregg Jarrett said on Monday’s HANNITY “that the FBI, James Comey and his minions, were lying to their own field agents, and [Gaynor] said, ‘Had we known the truth, had they been honest with us, it would have changed the equation dramatically. We would’ve recognized the hoax for what it was, a political smear invented by Hillary Clinton, and funded and disseminated by her personally, by the way, as well as her many confederates.’”

Jarrett also noted what we’ve said about the timeline: that by the time Trump had been sworn in as President, the FBI had already debunked both the “dossier” and the Alfa Bank story. Yet Sussmann kept on pushing it, and within the FBI, Comey, Strzok and McCabe went right on investigating Trump, treating the hoax as seriously as ever. They used it, Jarrett said, as a “pretext, to escalate their investigation of Donald Trump, to drive him from office.” Comey even stole government documents when Trump fired him, to trigger the appointment of a special counsel, “who just happened to be his longtime friend and colleague, Bob Mueller.”

Either Mueller and his huge team of lawyers and investigators didn’t know this was a hoax that traced back to Hillary, he said, or “they knew it, and they covered it up.”

So, assuming Mueller didn’t know, how could it be that he didn’t find out? We’ve known Trump-Russia “collusion” was a fabrication since early 2017, when then-House Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes and his lead investigator Kash Patel connected the dots to Hillary’s campaign. Jonathan Turley calls Hillary’s involvement “Washington’s worst-kept but least -acknowledged secret.” A must-read:

Turley reminds us that then-CIA Director John Brennan actually told President Obama that Hillary planned to tar Trump as a Russia “colluder” to distract from her own use of a private email server for classified State Department business. Brennan told Obama this three days BEFORE “Crossfire Hurricane” was opened by the FBI. Turley’s report sums it all up nicely and will make you wish everyone involved in this scheme could be confined to, if not jail, then a very, very hot place for all eternity.

That’s especially true after reading that Hillary tweeted, “it’s now clear that so-called ‘fake news’ can have real-world consequences.” It’s time for the Queen Of Fake News to experience some real-world consequences firsthand.

Of course, it’s not just Hillary. As Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse put it, “The DC politicians, institutions of the DOJ and FBI, and the entire corporate media world have been pretending not to know the truth for almost six years. Now they are in a pretending pickle.”

He asks the question everyone should be asking now: “How did Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann spend 2 years investigating Trump-Russia; with a team of 19 lawyers, $40 million in resources; 40 FBI agents; 2,800 subpoenas; 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses; and not find out that Hillary Clinton created the hoax they were investigating?”

As Turley points out, Mueller’s team originally consisted of the very FBI officials who were given Sussmann’s Alfa Bank “evidence.” But, believe it or not, they apparently never talked to any Clinton campaign people, or Fusion GPS, or Rodney Joffe, or Marc Elias, or...Michael Sussmann.

Finally, we’re gong to make fun of Hillary now, because she deserves it. Victoria Taft has some video of Hillary from a 2019 interview with NBC’s Jane Pauley. Seeing it now gives new meaning to what Hillary said so disingenuously at the time: “I don’t know we’ll ever know everything that happened," she told Pauley, "but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day...I know that [Trump] knows this wasn’t on the level.”

Indeed, Hillary, Trump has always known it wasn’t on the level, but not in the way you were trying to make people believe. He knew YOU weren’t on the level. You assumed we would never "know everything that happened," but, the reality is that “clearly we know a lot [about what YOU DID] and are learning more every day.”
Still, what we know must barely scratch the surface of your dishonesty. As bad as things are in our country right now, we can only get down on our knees and give thanks to God that you were not elected President.

While I was in Israel recently, I was asked by Israeli friends how the elections would turn out in America this fall. My response was that Republicans will win in a blowout unless they fail to come up a cohesive message other than, “Hey we aren’t THOSE guys who doubled your gas prices, jacked up groceries by 20%, and who opened the borders to illegals but busted the supply of baby formula.” The policies of the leftist Democrats have finally become untenable for common-sense loving Americans who unlike Joe Biden’s recent nominee to the Supreme Court DO know what a woman is. The Democrats have gone into a wild irrational rage about abortion, calling it “health care for women,” even though at least one person dies every time there is an abortion. They claim that 4 and 5 year old children ought to be taught about gender fluidity before they learn their numbers, colors, and letters of the alphabet. Most Americans know that’s not just bad policy, it’s insanity. And working-class Americans have grown tired of the elitists from Hollywood and Washington lecturing about climate change and carbon footprints when the same hypocritical snobs fly around the globe in fuel-sucking, carbon emitting private jets and upon landing, ride in long black limousines while owning 4 or 5 homes.

The demands to tax more don’t go over well with anyone who owns a business or is trying to get kids to school each day and feed them each evening, but Republicans need to focus on what they will stand FOR if given the majorities in the House and Senate. Keep in mind, that even if the GOP takes both houses, they won’t be able to pass legislation because Joe Biden isn’t likely to sign anything that makes energy cheaper, houses more affordable, or our borders more secure. Biden’s party still wants to pursue truly crazy policies like Critical Race Theory that indoctrinates schoolchildren to believe that all white children are evil oppressors and that our nation is systemically racist and bad, despite it being the ONE place on earth where people of every color risk their very lives to get to because they believe America is still a great country where freedom and opportunity awaits.

Republicans should tell America that if elected, they will pursue the following things and force Joe Biden to either sign the legislation or explain to struggling American why not:

1. We will finish the border wall, enforce immigration laws, and stop the flow of deadly drugs and human trafficking of small children to become sex slaves for the drug cartels.

2. We will support our military by giving them leaders who believe that a military being deadly is more important than being diverse. That means people are promoted because they are the best, not because they are the right color, gender, or sexual identity.

3. We will value all life from conception because we don’t think any human life is disposable or expendable.

4. We will work toward a completely different tax system like the Fair Tax in which we pay taxes on what we consume and not what we produce. We would get rid of the death tax and capital gains taxes because we shouldn’t punish productivity.

5. We will follow the Constitution and allow the states to govern themselves without the federal government mandating the minutia.

6. We will not tolerate violent crime and letting killers and thugs back on the streets to repeat their attacks on the law-abiding public. We all should have an expectation to walk in our neighborhood, ride a subway or bus, or get from their car to the front door of a grocery store without being assaulted.

7. We will renew energy independence by re-starting the Keystone XL pipeline, drilling on federal lands, and extracting the oil and natural gas under our own feet and re-starting a long-term nuclear energy capacity.

The country is in a mess and while Biden and the Democrats blame Putin, Trump, or anyone but themselves, we all know they OWN the results of their policies.

But we the people own the elections with our votes. And the country doesn’t belong to the politicians but the people. Always has; always will!

Ari Fleischer tweeted this on Sunday: “In a 33-paragraph story, the WASHINGTON POST buries in the 27th paragraph, as kind of an ordinary thing, that Hillary approved the dissemination of a ‘dirty trick’ attack to peddle to the press phony collusion info vs. Trump. This should be a feeding frenzy.”

Yes, it should be. But Fleischer is not exaggerating; WAPO did go to great lengths, literally, to bury this bombshell. We’ve linked to the piece; scroll way, way, WAY down to the very end and back up a little and you’ll see the terse, ONE-SENTENCE mention: “The campaign did decide –- and Clinton herself agreed –- to give the allegations to a reporter, he [Robby Mook] said.” Come to think it, the part about Hillary is only part of a sentence, just an aside, really. That is the fleeting consideration they devote to the fact that Hillary Clinton has been directly implicated by her own campaign manager in the most outrageous and shameful political hoax we’ve ever seen --- a monstrous lie that her political opponent was actually an agent of Russia! And never mind what this has done to divide, distract and damage our country.

This joke of a story was written by Devlin Barrett, who, according to his blurb, “writes about the FBI and the Justice Department for The Washington Post” and happens to be one of the so-called “journalists” who share the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, “for coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election.” I am not kidding --- this same person won the Pulitzer for reporting the Russia Hoax as a real story. So burying the true story seems perversely appropriate, like a criminal burying the evidence of his own crime.

He and the other "honorees" should be made to give their ill-gotten prize back. But, gee, maybe they'll just be awarded another Pulitzer instead, this one not for doing Hillary’s bidding and spreading disinformation about her opponent but for doing Hillary's bidding and burying the real story that she wants to see die. Both awards should be given not for Reporting but for Political Hackery.

But this story won’t die –- it’s journalism that is dead. This is just a little reminder of why “we read the news, so you don’t have to!”

As promised, here’s more perspective on what happened last week in the Michael Sussmann trial and its significance going into Week 2.

There were more witnesses called to testify on Friday than just the “stars,” former FBI General Counsel James Baker and Hillary For America chairman Robby Mook. But Mook’s revelation –- that not only was Hillary told of the phony Alfa Bank story and warned it was unverified but also that she personally gave the go-ahead --- garnered so much richly-deserved attention that we’re only now getting to the others.

Two former CIA employees testified on Friday, and they supported Special Counsel Durham’s point that Sussmann’s deception was part of a “pattern.” In other words, Sussmann didn’t just figure on lying that one time to James Baker and the FBI about not representing any clients during his visit. Months later, he told these two CIA employees the same lie.

The two, identified in court only as Kevin P. and Steve M., testified that in February 2017 –- after Trump had become President –- Sussmann came to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, and gave them two thumb drives, just as he had to Baker at the FBI back in September. Kevin P. testified that Sussmann told them he was “not representing any client.” Sussmann said the thumb drives, from a couple of unidentified “contacts,” showed a secret cyber back-channel between a Trump Organization server and one belonging to Russia-linked Alfa Bank.

Steve M. drafted a memo after their meeting, summarizing what had taken place and noting that Sussmann had been there on behalf of a client. The memo was shown to jurors. But Kevin P. edited the memo to change “client” to “contacts.” That version was also shown.

Sussmann also told them he'd taken “similar but unrelated” information to the FBI. (Never mind that the FBI had essentially dismissed his “evidence” the first day and later had found the story in the “white papers” to be unsupported by the data.)

Now-retired CIA official Mark Chadason, who’d been station chief in Europe and North Africa, also testified, saying that Sussmann had reached out to him and told him he had information relating to a matter of “national security” that he'd tried to get to them through the CIA general counsel. Chadason met with him at a Northern Virginia motel on January 31, 2017 –- again, after Trump was President –- at the request of a mutual friend. It appears that Sussmann couldn’t keep his story straight; he told Chadason he did have a client, but that his client was a Republican. Oh, and he wasn’t sure if his REPUBLICAN client would reveal himself to the CIA.

That might be an even more outrageous lie, as I’d be very surprised if “ultra-Democrat” Perkins Coie, the firm that represented both Hillary For America and the DNC, has represented any Republicans at all, EVER. (Well, maybe the Adam Kinzinger- or Liz Cheney-types, but those don't count.) No, Sussmann was just telling another version of the lie. And the lie absolutely was “material” (the magic word in a case about lying), as Baker has testified that the FBI would have subjected Sussmann’s evidence to more scrutiny if he’d told them it was from a client.

In fact, Baker testified that if he’d known Sussmann was pushing the Alfa Bank story on behalf of a client, he would’ve said, “If you’re meeting on behalf of Clinton, you shouldn’t come see me.” He told the court, “I was willing to meet with Michael alone because I had high confidence in him and trust. I think I would have made a different assessment if he said he had been appearing on behalf of a client.”

Jerry Dunleavy at the WASHINGTON EXAMINER has more of his testimony about that very important issue.

As for Chadason, when cross-examined by the defense, he said Sussmann had seemed “frustrated” that he hadn’t been able to interest the feds. Sussmann had said during their meeting that if the CIA didn’t pursue this, he’d take it to THE NEW YORK TIMES. Chadason didn’t take that as a threat, he told the jury, but as more of an act of desperation.

As Nick Arama at RedState reports, the Sussmann defense has tried to portray his lie as just a random “one-off,” not part of a deliberate scheme to mislead. But now we know: lying about not representing any client was part of his plan, because he did it repeatedly.

Friday, Baker said there was something else Sussmann never told the FBI: that a “white paper” he was passing along about Alfa Bank was prepared by Fusion GPS, the same company behind the Steele “dossier.” Baker said this knowledge would’ve caused him to treat the evidence differently, as it would’ve raised fears that “the FBI was being pulled into some kind of political agenda –- a political ploy.” It would have led to “serious conversations,” he said, among top leadership about “what, if anything, to do with this material and how to handle it.”

“It would have raised in my mind the concern about, ‘Wait a minute; he also does, in other matters, represent the [DNC] and the Clinton campaign,’” Baker testified. “‘Is that what’s going on here?’”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL published an editorial on Friday called “Hillary Clinton Did It.” Subhead: “Her 2016 campaign manager says she approved a plan to plant a false Russia claim with a reporter.” The WSJ is by subscription, but even if you don’t subscribe, the link will take you to an excerpt of the “Journal Editorial Report,” featuring Kim Strassel summarizing the “depth and the breadth” of what Durham has exposed and explaining why he might have chosen not to go further with wider conspiracy charges in this DC courtroom. His primary goal, she says, is to tell the story, and he certainly has.

One’s first thought reading that headline might be, “She did it? Did what?" After all, Hillary has done so many bad things over the years. (As Monica Crowley said to Steve Hilton on THE NEXT REVOLUTION Sunday night, “Mrs. Clinton has been a dark menace on the political landscape for 40 years, so the depths of her deceit and corruption know no bounds.”) But thanks to this seemingly interminable investigation that was well worth the wait, we know she personally gave the order to frame her political opponent in 2016.

The “money paragraph” from the WSJ editorial has been thoughtfully passed along by THE DAILY CALLER. A must-read.

Finally, for when you have time, it’s fun to go back and read Paul Sperry’s report from January, detailing what we knew (unofficially) then about Hillary’s role in spreading fake Trump-Russia connections. It wasn’t just the Alfa Bank hoax; it was the “dossier,” too. And Obama had been advised of this. It started as a distraction from Hillary’s own scandal and WikiLeaks’ publishing of those damaging DNC emails, which we still don’t know were a Russian hack, regardless of the Democrats’ insistence. They’ve lied so much; what makes anyone think this particular claim is true?


Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! Today's newsletter includes:

  • Sussmann trial, Day 5: Hillary implicated in bogus Alfa Bank
  • The Democrats' fraudulent claims
  • And much more...


Mike Huckabee


Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:3

If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]

2. New Warner Brothers boss wants Rowling back

There have been a number of good omens recently that the American people are fed up with a tiny mob of loudmouthed leftists on Twitter terrorizing corporations into adopting their deranged political views, and the customer backlash is forcing CEOs to grow a spine. From the rapid decline of Disney’s popularity to Netflix telling its whiny “social justice warrior” employees that maybe they need to find someplace else to work, things are looking up for a return to common sense, neutral corporations and non-propagandistic entertainment.

And now, here’s another good sign: the new boss of Warner Brothers, David Zaslav, not only canceled CNN+, he’s uncanceled J.K. Rowling. The Wall Street Journal reports that he’s meeting with the author to discuss new “Harry Potter” projects.

This has meaning beyond a simple movie/TV deal. Rowling has been “unpersoned” by the cancel culture mob for daring to oppose the erasure of women and allowing men who “identify” as women to invade women’s private spaces and take over their sports. She’s always been a feminist and supporter of liberal causes, but for that single thought crime against trans dogma, she’s been eviscerated online, and her name and image magically vanished from properties she created. In a disgusting act of betrayal, even the young stars of the “Harry Potter” movies, who owe their fame and fortune to Rowling, joined in on the attacks and shunning.

But Zaslav, who apparently believes it’s his job to produce programming that people want to see rather than what far-left wackos think they ought to see, is ignoring the Internet “OUTRAGE!” and wants Rowling back. This is good news for her, for society in general, and for the chances of there actually being something to watch other than badly-written shows filled with heavy-handed leftist messages. That tends to happen when writers are hired for their talent and imagination rather than how many identity politics boxes they check.

3. The “Federal Firearms Licensing Act.”

In their never-ending efforts to exploit tragedies to pass ineffective legislation, House Democrats on Thursday used the Buffalo shooting as justification to introduce a new gun control bill called the “Federal Firearms Licensing Act.”

It would criminalize every gun owner in America by converting your Second Amendment right to bear arms into a privilege for which you’d have to get a license from the Department of Justice for every gun you buy. The DOJ could reject your application at its discretion, even if you’ve never committed a crime.

This is in spite of the fact that, like almost every other mass shooting used as a pretext to push gun control, there were already gun laws in place that didn’t stop the shooter in Buffalo, and this one wouldn’t have, either.

I’m not too worried about this becoming law because it’s blatantly unconstitutional and it could never garner enough support to pass the Senate. But it is important to talk about because this is what the Democrats are prioritizing and what they’ll be running on in November: that they tried to “do something” to stop mass shootings, but the gun-loving Republicans stopped them because they…like mass shootings?

Translation: They will continue to ignore the real problems that lead to these atrocities and focus on disarming law abiding citizens – who, thanks to their policies of releasing criminals onto the streets while defunding police, need firearms to protect their families more than ever. They will do this while ensuring that they always have plenty of armed security to protect them and their families. And they will never stop pushing the same restrictive policies, no matter how many times they prove useless.

One example: President Biden recently declared that we need an “assault weapons” ban. He said we did it before and we can do it again. He is right that we did it before. But Congress allowed the ban to expire because it made no difference in crime stats. Like so many other Democrat policies, it didn’t work, so let’s bring it back and try it one more time.

4. “Cruel Summer”

In a report titled “Cruel Summer,” J.P. Morgan predicts that by August, the average national price of a gallon of gas could be $6.20.

The only upside of that is that prices will likely be even higher in blue states, so maybe residents won’t be able to afford to drive U-Hauls to red states and will finally start voting out the people who caused this.

Even if you have to take a staycation at home, it might not be so comfortable. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. is warning of blackouts this summer, especially in the West and Midwest. The predictable reason (predictable for everyone other than the people in the White House who caused it) is that their war on fossil fuels has forced the closure of gas-fueled power plants and there aren’t enough “green energy” sources to replace them.

Some people are saying this Administration is a joke, but if so, it’s this joke: “What did socialists use for light before candles? Electricity.”

5. It isn't all bad news

I sometimes feel as if I should apologize for having to report so much bad news. I know it can be overwhelming to have to read so much of it. Believe me, it’s hard on me and my staff, as well. That’s why we say, “We read the news so you won’t have to!” There’s so much depressing news that it can really get you down if you let it. So we also try to report good news to uplift you and positive signs that things are turning around to help you stay optimistic that better times are ahead.

Like a new Quinnipiac poll showing that all the race-baiting and divisiveness isn’t working, and that Biden’s approval rating among Hispanics has plummeted from 55 to 26%. That’s even lower than his 32% approval among whites. See, there are things that people of all races can agree on.

It’s also important to remember that despite the left’s attempts to politicize everything, most people aren’t obsessed with politics and just get annoyed with people who are. There are many other things in the world to think about.

To help make that point, I’d like to share a new music video with you by a wonderful female harmony bluegrass/gospel/swing group called the Smith Sisters with the Sunday Drivers.

It’s called “Around the Bend,” and it’s not only a catchy song, it also has an important message. I’ll let the writer, Kelli Lewis, put it in her own words that she shared with one of my writers, who is a friend:

“I just wanted to show that although you may lose everything, good things are always around the bend. Good simple of I told my sister the story is simple but it makes your heart happy.

The song on our music video was originally my story. One about losing my job, house and a friend. I suffered depression, but it turned around. I wrote this song with a goal in mind to help others. Fast niece (she is in our video) is a survivor of domestic abuse. This song has now become her story.

She too lost everything, of course in different ways. She can’t teach because of brain injuries, she had to sell her home etc. She is writing a book about her experience…She wants to share her story…

So the next time you look at the video, imagine at the beginning it saying, ‘I am Cayla...I am a survivor of domestic violence...’”

Kelli, it’s a great song, and Cayla, my hopes and prayers are with you. You’re both great examples of how there are Huck’s Heroes all around us working to help make things better for others. You’re the antidote for the depression some people spread by trying to drag us all down.

6. Sussmann trial, Day 5: Hillary implicated in bogus Alfa Bank

“I guess right now, Hillary’s best defense is a DC jury, an Obama-appointed judge, and the media. Otherwise, she’s got a lot of exposure.”

--- Victor David Hanson

Well, that’s exactly what her flak Michael Sussmann has going for him right now, on trial for lying to the FBI. He can thank his lucky stars that his case has been brought before a DC jury and an Obama-appointed district judge, Christopher Cooper –- whose wife, unbelievably, has even represented big-time Crossfire Hurricane player Lisa Page –- and with a media that for the most part are completely ignoring it.

But as of Friday’s testimony by former Hillary For America chairman Robby Mook, Hillary does indeed have exposure. I wish we could’ve been there in the courtroom when he apparently surprised everyone by candidly admitting Hillary had known about the Alfa Bank scam and had personally given the go-ahead to give it to SLATE magazine, though they told her it hadn’t been verified. As always, when it comes to scandal, all roads lead to Hillary.

Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, appearing with Will Cain on Friday’s TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT, said there were two reasons why this trial is so important: 1) upholding the rule of law in holding someone accountable for lying to the FBI, and 2) telling the story of what the Clinton campaign did in spreading disinformation (the actual kind). And now, with Mook’s testimony, it’s not just the Clinton campaign --- it’s Hillary Clinton herself.

As for where the trial goes from here, Whitaker said it goes to a “broader group” of individuals who were involved in creating this fake story to tantalize the FBI and media --- members of the “joint venture” (actually a criminal conspiracy) tasked with executing the “October surprise” plan. He anticipated that it would “continue to go slow” but would “intentionally try to cast a net that’s broader than just Michael Sussmann.”

Will that net be cast wide enough to catch Hillary in it? Whitaker didn’t say she’d necessarily be perp-walked, much as she might deserve it, but in his view, after Mooks’ testimony that Hillary herself told them to share this story with the media, and knowing these are the same media people who bought the “Russian disinformation” lie about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the case Durham is making will be “a statement that this kind of lying to the American people is over.”

We’ve had the impression that this judge was trying his hardest to keep out evidence that might tie Hillary personally to the Alfa Bank scam. Mook’s glib testimony about Hillary’s participation reportedly surprised attorneys on both sides. I’ll bet it surprised the judge, too. Trump attorney Alina Habba, who was there, said it “was amazing.”

“I’ve never heard so many pens click, and start immediately writing,” she told Jason Chaffetz Friday evening. “[Mook] just cut it right to the top.” She’s been really impressed with Durham’s team, calling them articulate and brief. Sussmann’s attorneys, she said, sometimes came across as angry and defensive, trying to intimidate Baker when his testimony damaged their client.

She says “the jury is a Washington jury,” and we won’t know how they’re processing this till the verdict is read. But the story as presented in the courtroom –- “that they misled, they obstructed justice, and the entire FBI was in on it,” along with the campaign and the DNC –- is clear.

As for that jury, Jonathan Turley told FOX News that it is “a nightmare.” Imagine the most politicized jury ever, and then make it worse. It’s the O.J. jury of juries. It actually includes not just Hillary voters but Hillary DONORS. And the judge has denied Durham’s motions to dismiss jurors with other clear conflicts. “So, I think for the prosecutors,” Turley said, “it seems like the only thing that is missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton.”

What, was Chelsea not available?

This doesn’t mean the jurors are necessarily going to be biased. The evidence against Sussmann truly is overwhelming. But now that Hillary has been drawn in –- they’d been told this case wasn’t going to involve Hillary and politics –- some jurors who first thought they could be impartial might not be after all.

Regarding Hillary, Mook testified she didn’t want to go to the FBI with the Alfa Bank story because she distrusted then-FBI Director James Comey. He said that “two or three of the most dangerous days of the campaign” were brought about by Comey. (Note: Remember, though, Comey is also the one who made it possible for her scandal-ridden campaign to continue, with his ridiculous statement on July 5, 2016, that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute her for mishandling classified material.)

Mook made the surprise admission about Hillary in response to a question by the defense, who is from the Democrat-connected firm of Latham and Watkins and obviously is trying to keep Hillary at a safe distance from Sussmann’s FBI dealings. If she could be tied directly to the plan to weaponize the FBI against her political opponent, that would be very serious. Turley wondered why the defense put Mook on the stand.

We have a question ourselves: If Hillary distrusted Comey and the FBI so much, the attorney for her campaign surely knew this. Why did he make such an effort to get them involved against her wishes? It doesn’t make sense. He went behind his client’s back and then billed her for it? Not buying it.

Another thing that doesn’t make sense: Mook cited Comey’s opening of the “Mid-Year Exam” investigation into Hillary on October 28, 2016, as a reason Hillary didn’t trust Comey and the FBI. But that was AFTER Sussmann took the Alfa Bank story to the FBI, so how could it have had any bearing on her reluctance to do that? Sussmann’s meeting with Baker was in September.

Incidentally, that last-minute investigation by Comey is one of many reasons/excuses Hillary has given for losing the election. “If the election were on October 27, I’d be your President,” she said in May of 2017.

Since Hillary’s tweet about the Alfa Bank story is extremely relevant now, the prosecution moved to have it admitted into evidence, despite the judge’s refusal to do so last month. On Friday, Judge Cooper granted the motion. (This is the tweet that includes a statement from Jake Sullivan, complete with outrageously bogus bullet points. Sullivan is the individual we’re supposed to trust now as White House national security adviser.)

On Friday, Mook defended that tweet, saying, “I did not see it as some sort of silver bullet, and I don’t think others on the campaign did, either.” Well, whether they did or not, they sure put a lot of effort into creating and pushing that story. Obviously, though, it was just part of a larger scheme. After all, they had the “dossier.”


We’ll have more analysis leading into Monday’s testimony. As a final note for today, Elon Musk tweeted this about revelations from the trial: “All true. Bet most people still don’t know that a Clinton campaign lawyer, using campaign funds, created an elaborate hoax about Trump and Russia. Makes you wonder what else is fake.”

7. The Democrats' fraudulent claims

President Biden has a tendency to tell the same dubious stories over and over, but that’s not just a typical grandpa thing. He keeps repeating political attack narratives that have long been debunked (no, Trump never said there were “very good people” among white supremacist Nazis.) So I assume he’ll keep on claiming that voter integrity laws are “Jim Crow 2.0,” despite the fact that the early vote totals in Georgia's primaries just blasted that away like someone going crow-hunting with an AK-47.

Remember the Democrats’ hysteria over Georgia passing a law to ensure elections were trustworthy? It was racist voter suppression (based on the racist assumption that black people can’t obtain an ID or sign their names.) Proponents said the laws simply made it harder to cheat, but easier to vote.

Nevertheless, Stacey Abrams railed and Biden ranted that it was “an atrocity” and “Jim Crow on steroids.” Major League Baseball cost Atlanta $100 million by moving the All-Star Game to Colorado, which has stricter voting laws than the ones in Georgia. Back in the (hopefully dying) days of woke corporate activism, the CEOs of Coca-Cola, Apple, Facebook, Merck, American Express, Google, Citigroup, UPS Porsch, Microsoft, Bank of America, Viacom CBS, Alfack JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock and more joined in the condemnation of Georgia for trying to prevent voter fraud.

Now we discover that, ironically, their claims were fraudulent. In a subscriber-only article, Spencer Brown of reports that as of a few days ago, Georgians had cast 422,565 in-person early voting ballots. That’s 150% higher than at the same point in 2020, and 200% more than in 2018.

Brad Slager has more…

Similar hyperbolic claims of “voter suppression” were rained down on Texas’ new voter integrity laws. Their primary turnout also increased substantially.

So it appears that Republicans are as incompetent at “voter suppression” as Democrats are at…well, everything else. And all that whoop-de-doo over “Jim Crow on steroids” was actually just “typical Democrat bull spouting on steroids.”

By the way, I don’t think Democrats will be happy to find that the laws actually make it easier to vote and that more people are doing so because the primary results also show that a lot more people are voting Republican. And I mean a LOT more. Out of the first 10 states, Democrat turnout is up 3% from 2018, and Republican turnout is up…wait, let me clean my reading glasses…yes, that’s correct: up 38%!

I Just Wanted to Say

Thank you for reading my newsletter. 

Something I know

May 20, 2022

Let me tell you something I know well:

There is more news than ever before covering topics like: Inflation, Energy prices, Ukraine, the Supreme Court Roe v Wade leak, illegal immigration, the Hunter Biden scandal(s), John Durham's investigation…you name it!

Now is the time to stop watching tv, reading fifteen different email newsletters and let me do that for you. I will watch, read and write about these stories and you can read the news, from my point of view, in my Substack newsletter on a daily basis.

The Substack newsletter combines my morning and evening editions into one morning email AND best of all the email is ADVERTISEMENT FREE.


Get 7 day free trial

The free trial will provide you 7 days of a paid subscription to The Morning Edition, free of charge. After 7 days, you will automatically be charged on an annual basis. You can cancel anytime.

Because you are someone who takes an interest in the news and my thoughts on politics, I knew I needed to email you today. I hope you will try the free trial.

It isn't all bad news

May 20, 2022

I sometimes feel as if I should apologize for having to report so much bad news. I know it can be overwhelming to have to read so much of it. Believe me, it’s hard on me and my staff, as well. That’s why we say, “We read the news so you won’t have to!” There’s so much depressing news that it can really get you down if you let it. So we also try to report good news to uplift you and positive signs that things are turning around to help you stay optimistic that better times are ahead.

Like a new Quinnipiac poll showing that all the race-baiting and divisiveness isn’t working, and that Biden’s approval rating among Hispanics has plummeted from 55 to 26%. That’s even lower than his 32% approval among whites. See, there are things that people of all races can agree on.

It’s also important to remember that despite the left’s attempts to politicize everything, most people aren’t obsessed with politics and just get annoyed with people who are. There are many other things in the world to think about.

To help make that point, I’d like to share a new music video with you by a wonderful female harmony bluegrass/gospel/swing group called the Smith Sisters with the Sunday Drivers.

It’s called “Around the Bend,” and it’s not only a catchy song, it also has an important message. I’ll let the writer, Kelli Lewis, put it in her own words that she shared with one of my writers, who is a friend:

“I just wanted to show that although you may lose everything, good things are always around the bend. Good simple of I told my sister the story is simple but it makes your heart happy.

The song on our music video was originally my story. One about losing my job, house and a friend. I suffered depression, but it turned around. I wrote this song with a goal in mind to help others. Fast niece (she is in our video) is a survivor of domestic abuse. This song has now become her story.

She too lost everything, of course in different ways. She can’t teach because of brain injuries, she had to sell her home etc. She is writing a book about her experience…She wants to share her story…

So the next time you look at the video, imagine at the beginning it saying, ‘I am Cayla...I am a survivor of domestic violence...’”

Kelli, it’s a great song, and Cayla, my hopes and prayers are with you. You’re both great examples of how there are Huck’s Heroes all around us working to help make things better for others. You’re the antidote for the depression some people spread by trying to drag us all down.

Wednesday, May 18, marked Day 3 of the Sussmann trial. Before we take a look at what happened that day, here’s a brief editorial from the NEW YORK POST shaming the media for not covering the trial. It didn’t take their editorial board many words to do that.

As they point out, THE NEW YORK TIMES and the WASHINGTON POST even split a Pulitzer for advancing “the most successful disinformation campaign in living memory.” I would add that in a profession that valued honesty, both “news” outlets would be made to give it back.

“If it had been Republicans doing it to a Democrat, the press would be losing its mind,” the POST says. Of course, that’s true.

It’s likely a DC jury would be looking at it differently as well.

Wednesday was a big day for testimony, with former FBI General Counsel James Baker taking the stand. Baker’s the central witness in the case, as he’s the one Sussmann allegedly lied to during a September 2016 meeting at the FBI --- and definitely lied to in a text Sussmann sent to try to get the meeting in the first place.

Baker testified that he’d become friends with Sussmann and they’d been in “frequent contact.” Also (this is new), he said he was “surprised” to get Sussmann’s text on his personal cellphone requesting a “short meeting” at the FBI. This is the text in which Sussmann lied by saying, “I’m coming on my own –- not on behalf of a client or company –- want to help the Bureau.”

Sussmann was granted the meeting, during which he presented bogus evidence of a server connection between Trump Tower and Russia-linked Alfa Bank. (One of the agents who examined this evidence has testified that it was debunked that very day.)

Baker will return to the stand Thursday morning. The other big witness for the day was Hillary For America General Counsel Marc Elias, who was partners with Sussmann at law firm Perkins Coie. (As you know, Elias has also been lead attorney for an army of litigators who bombarded the battleground states and got them to remove election safeguards, sometimes without the required legislative approval. Wish we could ask him about THAT under oath.) Elias testified that he personally hired oppo research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump. Fusion GPS called on British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who responded by compiling the bogus “dossier,” consisting of unverified rumor.

Elias said he kept the hiring quiet wisthin the campaign. “Given who I represent,” he told jurors, “I tend to not want more people to know about it than have to know about it.” We’re not sure exactly what he meant by that cryptic comment, but it sounds shady, like the CIA’s “need-to-know basis.”

When asked if he was aware Sussmann was planning to go to the FBI, he said he was not, and that he wouldn’t have approved that if he’d known of it. But law professor Jonathan Turley saw an inconsistency, tweeting: “Marc Elias testified that he would not have approved going to the FBI with the false Russian Alfa Bank claim because he did not trust the FBI or Director Comey. Yet, the campaign associates also aggressively pushed the Steele dossier to the FBI.”

Wednesday night, Sean Hannity did a segment on the makeup of the jury for the Sussmann trial, and

the news was stunning. He passed along reporting from the NEW YORK POST that Judge Christopher Cooper allowed donors to Hillary’s campaign and also to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into the jury pool. Durham objected to the seating of one of them, a man who works in public policy for Amazon and could only say he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Judge Cooper overruled Durham.

Another juror in the pool had written on her questionnaire that she worked for the Sierra Club, thought the criminal justice system was racist and believed “the police should be defunded.”

In Washington DC in 2016, voters favored Hillary over Trump by a staggering 90.0 percent to 4.1 percent. And as we’ve previously reported, Judge Cooper himself is tight with the Democrat Party; his wife, Amy Jeffress, has even represented one of the prime perpetrators of the Russia hoax, then-FBI assistant counsel Lisa Page. The two were married by...Merrick Garland. It’s unbelievable that Judge Cooper didn’t recuse himself and let the case pass to another judge.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said on Hannity’s show that for a trial like this, there shouldn’t be donors to ANY political party. The reports he had heard were “very troubling.”

Devin Nunes, who chaired the House Intel Committee, said that in this trial, Durham is looking at one sliver of the overall conspiracy. He noted the incestuous nature of this Washington DC group and the connections of this judge. And he offered what might be the Quote Of The Day about the trial: “If this case was not brought in DC...there’s no way that Sussmann would not have pled guilty.” In DC, he knows his chances are excellent to get one or two jurors to “hold this up, to let him off scot free.”

Still, for the first time, Nunes said, Durham is able to bring direct evidence, not just circumstantial. “We now know journalists...were meeting directly with the Democrats, taking this horrible story and willing to go and put it out there, just to destroy Republicans and destroy President Trump before the election.”

Nunes also noted that the next trial, of “dossier” collaborator Igor Danchenko, is in Virginia.

Margot Cleveland, in her piece written Wednesday, details how the story told by Sussmann’s defense just doesn’t hold up. In effect, she expanded on what Turley said in his tweet, above. It’s hard to buy the story that the Hillary campaign didn’t WANT Sussmann to share the Alfa Bank story with the FBI. “...The information known to date,” Cleveland says, “plus the modus operandi of the Spygate players through the years they peddled the Russia-collusion hoax, renders this argument laughable.”

Just read what defense attorney Michael Bosworth told the jury and see how inconsistent it is.

The evidence, largely in the form of texts between Clinton’s people and Fusion GPS, contradicts his story. It suggests that Fusion GPS absolutely knew the value of having the FBI investigate the Alfa Bank story; they used that investigation to help “sell” the story to outlets such as Reuters.

Cleveland really picks apart the defense’s story that the Clinton campaign didn’t want Sussmann to go to the FBI. One danger we see is that a jury –- especially a biased one –- might not be willing or even able to follow this if it’s too long or complicated. It seems to me that Hillary’s own tweets promoting the Alfa Bank story disprove the defense’s fairy tale that she wouldn’t have wanted the FBI brought in. That would make the story bigger! Hillary would LOVE it.

Oh, wait, I forgot –- the judge refused to allow her tweets into evidence.

Recall that at the end of the movie MARY POPPINS, it’s time for Mary to leave when the wind changes. Off she goes, head held high, carried on the wind by her umbrella. Well, the wind has changed, and "Information Nanny" Nina Jankowicz is leaving us.

She submitted her resignation as head of the “Disinformation Governance Board” –- what we like to call the unconstitutional DHS Ministry Of Truth –- on Wednesday morning. Apparently, thanks to public exposure and pressure, the board itself has been “paused” by the Department of Homeland Security. That’s not good enough, of course, as this board needs to be permanently dissolved, as with a soothing bath in nitric acid, and prevented from ever returning, by legislation if necessary, just as soon as a GOP Congress can be convened.

For details, here’s the story in TOWNHALL.

This is what we said should happen when news of this board was first reported and the Poppin-esque video by this strange musical theater person with fancy degrees hit social media. We even devised our own song parody, practically perfect in every way, about what the board was really there to do. Consider it our sendoff. Goodbye, Nanny! Sorry, you didn’t work out.

What was probably the last straw: this report about Jankowicz’s past involvement with a group called “Integrity Initiative --- Defending Democracy Against Disinformation.”

As REVOLVER reported Monday, this group was founded in 2015 “under the auspices of the U.K.-government-funded “Institute for Statecraft.” They recruited “clusters” of all those so-called ruling elite types we love: academics, national security bureaucrats, “journalists,” think-tankers, and lobbyists in multiple European countries to engage in dealing with so-called “Russian disinformation.”

This non-government entity was clearly meddling in politics and using covert influence in Western countries to set up “a coordinated response,” with the pretext of “fighting disinformation.” Fortunately, hackers leaked internal documents that showed what they were up to. In a paper leaked in 2018, Jackowicz is listed as a member of the “inner core” of the Integrity Initiative’s U.K. cluster, in the subgroup dedicated to Russia. The REVOLVER piece has excerpts from these leaked documents.

“An effective network is best achieved,” one document reads, “by forming in each European country a cluster of well-informed people from the political, military, academic, journalistic, and think-tank spheres, who will track and analyze examples of disinformation in their country and inform decision-makers and other interested parties about what is happening.”

If you don’t see the inherent dangers of having an essentially secret group quietly doing this behind the scenes as they see fit, I’m not sure I can help you.

We found a fascinating 2018 news report from the U.K., made on the heels of that leak. It tells the whole story of the Integrity Initiative, and we couldn’t help noticing that one of the Brits on their list of key “U.K. cluster” people –- though he denied involvement –- was Sir Andrew Wood, the retired British ambassador to Russia who co-founded Orbis Business Intelligence, also associated with “dossier” writer Christopher Steele, who still runs Orbis with fellow former MI6 spy Christopher Burrows. See, here they are on the Orbis website.

Sir Andrew admitted in 2017 that he’d pushed the “dossier” to John McCain. At the time, he defended Steele as “professional” and said that he personally had not read the “dossier, though he “was aware” of what was in it. For when you have time, this informative article will serve as your personal Way-Back Machine.

So, right, it’s these people who will save the world from disinformation! In reality, they’re the ones peddling it. Anyway, here’s that report on the Integrity Initiative, highly recommended reading.

There’s still a website for something called the Integrity Initiative, but it has no reference to “Defending Democracy Against Disinformation.” We couldn’t find the word “disinformation” ANYWHERE on the site. So, if this is the same group, it appears to have morphed into one that says it deals with ethics in business, government service and, as they call it, “the bigger sphere of society” (there's that word "sphere" again) –- not those sly, behind-the-curtain attempts to influence politics in far-flung nations.

We did find it hilarious, though, that one of their listed projects is something called “The Big Brother Program.” I think (hope!) they mean ‘big brother’ in a different way, but, still, funny!

According to this Executive Intelligence Review press release from this Monday, the Integrity Initiative did in fact wipe their old website, Facebook page and Twitter account.

As many have noted by now, Jankowicz herself is a purveyor of disinformation. Just to cite one example, she completely mischaracterized Hunter Biden’s laptop as disinformation and also “a product of the Trump campaign.” Imagine a behind-the-scenes network of so-called academics, etc., with international reach, busy twisting narratives and doing the opposite of what they claim to be doing. One document is particularly chilling, as it outlines the activities of their “Spanish cluster” to stop the appointment of a particular gentleman to the post of national security director. They claimed success.

Now, we don’t know if this gentleman posed an actual problem to Spain’s national security or not, but it’s not up to a secret board to “coordinate the Twitter response” to prevent his appointment. If this sort of thing can be done under the cover of darkness to derail someone’s appointment, it can be done to anyone --- anyone with whom this “ruling elite” disagrees, or to promote the appointment of someone they want in that spot. This is not “defending democracy,” by any stretch.


Related story: Since an operation of this type is so dependent on manipulating Twitter, it puts Elon Musk’s move to buy Twitter in a new light. Talking about messing with their plans! As noted here in REVOLVER, “Transforming Twitter back into a real free speech platform would represent nothing less than a declaration of war against the Globalist American empire.”

President Biden is taking criticism for announcing that he will go to Buffalo to comfort the victims of the horrific supermarket shooting by a deranged racist teenager. It’s not because people don’t think it’s a serious tragedy, but that it smacks of the kind of political exploitation of tragedies that I wrote about yesterday. They accuse the Democrats of wanting to focus a lot of attention on a white racist who killed 10 people and injured three others, most of them black, because that plays into the “racist America” theme that they use to divide people and win votes. Yet this weekend’s shooting in California where a Chinese man attacked Taiwanese worshippers in church was also apparently a hate crime, but of a type that Democrats don’t like to acknowledge.

And when an alleged black nationalist drove into a parade in Waukesha, killing six people and injuring 62, most of whom were white, Biden didn’t visit. (To be fair, Jill Biden did go to Waukesha to meet victims’ families and attend a memorial.)

The reason given for Joe Biden not visiting Waukesha was that local authorities had so much to deal with that a Presidential visit would be an expensive and difficult distraction. But that would be equally true in Buffalo as well.

I don’t like questioning people’s motives for showing compassion to victims of heinous crimes. I think we should all do that. For now, I will reserve judgement and note that it’s become part of the President’s duties to comfort Americans in times of tragedy. If that’s what this trip is about, then I’m all for it. But Biden should rise above using it to cynically promote policy points and attack political opponents.

There are already too many people trying to divide Americans by firing up hatred and suspicion of anyone who’s different from them, and turning one group against another. The master of that was Adolf Hitler, and it’s not surprising that we’ve seen reports he was admired by both the white racist who wanted to kill black people and the black racist who wanted to kill white people. It’s all the same poison, just in different bottles.

For the record, here are the kinds of statements that a President of all the people should avoid when comforting the victims of a racist shooting:

Calling for restricting both the God-given First and Second Amendment rights of people who had nothing to do with it.

Blaming the shooter’s crimes on TV networks and news commentators you hate, and who, incidentally, the alleged shooter also hated.

In general, blaming the shooter’s crimes on a wide range of people that you don’t like and neither did the shooter.

Trying to use the tragedy to accuse your political opponents of believing in some racist conspiracy theory that most of them have never even heard of. This reminds me of when they were accusing Trump voters of being Q-Anon followers, and I had to Google that just to find out what the heck it was. This time, get ready to hear a lot about GRT or the “Great Replacement Theory.” Claiming that you believe in it is a convenient way to falsely brand you as a promoter of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for opposing open borders.