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.

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.