The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘trump’

China is Terrified of Trump


China is terrified that Donald Trump could turn it into a Japan-style zombie economy.

According to the Wall Street Journal, China is “Right to worry.”

The reason is Trump’s aggressive tariffs on China — with more to come on April 2nd — are hitting when China’s economy is already reeling from failed central planning.

This includes trillions of overcapacity dumped into state favorites from green energy and EV’s to semiconductors and commercial aircraft.

Overcapacity in China

To illustrate, by 2019 China had five hundred electric vehicle makers.

80% have already gone bust. With a hundred still to go.

This over-capacity is crashing prices in China, which are actually falling again — despite panicked money-printing by China’s central bank.

Meanwhile, private-sector estimates peg China’s economy limping along just over 2% growth — a far cry from double-digits a decade ago.

Ominously, after China’s youth employment soared past 20%, Beijing stopped reporting it.

China’s response to overcapacity has been dumping abroad, which is why you can get four dollar shirts on Temu.

That’s pissing off trade partners including the EU.

But that’s barely making a dent, with prices still falling. Which puts tens of thousands more factories at risk.

That could mean millions more jobs lost.

Last year China had nearly a thousand “dissent events” — including riots.

Millions of unemployed factory workers would be gasoline to the fire.

Trump’s Tariffs

Donald Trump is now feeding China’s house of cards into the wood chipper.

A few weeks ago he hiked tariffs to between 17 and a half to 35 percent, with more to come on April second, when Trump goes nuclear with reciprocal tariffs.

Even China perma-bull JP Morgan admitted “we felt tariffs were a negotiating tactic rather than a structural change. We appear to be wrong.”

I’ve mentioned in previous articles that Trump’s dream of bringing production back to America is actually possible if business taxes and red tape are tamed.

DOGE is aiming directly at both. And Trump keeps flirting with repealing the entire income tax.

Given America’s huge economy — we’re one-quarter of the entire global economy — if you nestle that under a big beautiful tariff umbrella and cut costs and red tape you get a flood of Chinese companies wanting to Make it in America.

Beijing will be bribing them to stay.

China’s Abuse of Foreign Firms

It’s not just Trump.

Doing business in China has always been like dating a stripper — good-looking but there’s an awful lot of drama.

Beijing forces you to train your competitors and share your trade secrets — so-called forced technology transfer.

Its regulations change depending who you know. With foreigners at the back of the line.

Occasionally it arrests your managers as hostages if it’s upset with your country.

Thanks to all this, foreign investment into China has collapsed 96% since Xi Jinping took office, actually turning negative — more leaving than coming — with a record $168 billion outflow last year.

There’s even talk that China could be turning into a Japan-style zombie economy thanks to government allocation of capital. Bond markets say it already has.

What’s Next

China’s President Xi appears incapable of handling the challenge. He’s the most anti-business Chinese leader since Mao — with a decade of low growth to show for it.

Worse, his instinctive combativeness is going to create fireworks with Donald Trump, who’s currently luring China’s most important ally, Russia, out of its orbit.

Sadly for the Chinese people, Xi’s greatest achievement is the police state he built. So, at age 71, there’s no cavalry coming.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Who are the Judges ruling against Trump’s orders?


Money Trails and Backgrounds of 10 Democrat-Appointed Judges Blocking Trump Policies

Federal judges ruling against President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions have been almost entirely appointees of his two Democrat predecessors.

Some were previously activists, others were steeped in Democrat politics, and one is a former clerk for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump’s policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other matters. 

Plaintiffs have been “forum shopping” to attain more favorable rulings, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. Forum shopping means they search for specific parts of the country where judges are more likely to be liberal and sympathetic to their case.

“They are trying to flood the zone and make it hard for the Trump administration to pursue its agenda,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “They are likely to win at the district level. And liberal districts are often in liberal circuits. So, in some cases, they can win at the circuit level and give the appearance that the Trump administration is under siege. Another advantage to flooding the zone is that the Supreme Court is limited. It only hears about 75 cases per year.”

Some of the judges ruling against Trump include:

A one-time major Democrat donor, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, recently sided with a group of Democrat state attorneys general in a lawsuit to block Trump’s attempted funding freeze for numerous federal grants to nongovernmental organizations. 

From 2000 until when President Barack Obama nominated him to the federal bench in 2010, McConnell contributed about $60,000 to Democrat candidates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed his nomination, noting his long career as a lawyer who sued over lead paint and tobacco, Forbes reported. 

McConnell was a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline, according to the Providence Journal. Cicilline was later elected to the U.S. House. 

Notably, the judge previously rejected a lawsuit to remove candidate Trump from Rhode Island’s 2024 ballot. 

In a separate case targeting the order on the funding freeze, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Joe Biden, imposed a restraining order on the freeze. AliKhan was previously on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the D.C. solicitor general. 

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, enforced a restraining order to prevent the spending freeze on foreign aid disbursed by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 2020, Ali contributed $1,500 to Biden’s presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. He also made modest contributions to numerous other Democrat candidates. 

Before his nomination, Ali was the executive director of the MacArthur Justice Center, an organization initially founded to oppose the death penalty but that has since expanded to other criminal justice issues.  

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of the District of Maryland, an Obama appointee, blocked the Trump administration from conducting immigration raids and arrests at certain houses of worship. 

During much of Obama’s time in office, Chuang was the deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security. Before that, from 2007 to 2009, he was the deputy chief investigative counsel for the Democrat majority on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He was also a past contributor to several Democrat candidates, including giving $750 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $1,250 to the 2004 presidential bid of Democrat John Kerry. 

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York recently halted DOGE’s access to Department of Treasury records. 

Biden nominated Vargas, a former New York federal prosecutor, last year. Vargas contributed $2,000 to Biden’s 2020 campaign, and before that, gave $750 to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Before working in the Justice Department, Vargas clerked for then-U.S. 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor from 2001 to 2002. 

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead of the Western District of Washington state blocked Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions. Biden nominated Whitehead in 2023. During the Obama administration, Whitehead was the senior trial attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland sided with the American Federation of Teachers, a union, to block DOGE from accessing information from the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education regarding student loans. 

Biden nominated Boardman, a former federal public defender, in 2021. She has been a moderate donor to numerous Democrat campaigns, including giving $500 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $500 to Clinton in the same campaign cycle.  

U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s restrictions on federal funding for “sex change” treatments for minors. 

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole of the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued a similar ruling to block the Trump administration’s restriction on sex change funding. He was recommended for the seat by then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson of Maryland, Biden appointee, blocked Trump’s executive order ending federal support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs, or DEI. A very modest donor to Democrat candidates, he was previously a magistrate judge and in private practice in Maryland. 

Some notable exceptions to the Democrat-appointed judges handing Trump court losses: There have been at least four court rulings on Trump’s order scrapping birthright citizenship, with two of those rulings coming from Republican appointees—Judges John Coughenour of Washington state and Joseph Laplante of New Hampshire. They were nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

‘Deranged Jack Smith’ Executive Order Takes Down And Shakes Up His Friends


An order signed by President Trump on Tuesday signals a new front in fighting lawfare operatives in the private sector.

As an aide started to explain the latest order about to be signed during a press conference in the White House on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump interrupted his spiel.

“Hold it, this is a good one,” the president, holding up his hand, said to several reporters assembled in the Oval Office. “Is everybody listening? We’re going to call it the ‘Deranged Jack Smith’…bill.”

The order, in the form of a memo to several agency heads, suspended the security clearance of employees at Covington & Burling, a Democratic-connected white-shoe law firm headquartered in Washington. According to a January 27 Wall Street Journal article–and followed up by Politico–the firm provided at least $140,000 in pro bono services to disgraced former special counsel Jack Smith.

Although both cases ended after Trump’s election, Smith’s problems were just beginning. Trump had promised on the campaign trail that his administration would investigate evidence of abuse and misconduct by the special counsel and his team. He fulfilled that promise by signing an executive order on January 20 to end the “weaponization” of the federal government, particularly the DOJ and intelligence community: “The prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”

In a follow-up move, Attorney General Pam Bondi formed a “Weaponization Working Group” on Feb. 5 and specifically cited Smith, “who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump.”

Smith officially left the Biden DOJ on January 10 but not before succeeding in releasing one volume of his two-volume report into the investigations of the president. And in the “quit digging a hole” category, Smith recently signed an open letter to current prosecutors expressing “alarm…by recent actions of the Department’s leadership.”

With Free Friends Like This…

Trump, along with his DOJ, likely will have the last laugh. And it’s doubtful Smith’s free lawyers at Covington & Burling, with offices around the world, are amused. While it’s unclear how many security clearances have been suspended, it appears two lawyers—Peter Koski and Clinton pal Lanny Breuer—were directly involved in providing free counsel to Smith. Koski worked at the DOJ’s public integrity unit during the same time Smith headed the unit during the Obama administration. Other notable Democrats at the firm include former Attorney General Eric Holder, Biden’s longtime foreign affairs advisor and Ukraine war architect Victoria Nuland, and Biden’s former White House counsel Dana Remus.

The presidential directive may have an immediate impact on Smith’s ability to build a defense, particularly for Koski. “Revoking [Koski’s] clearance could limit his access to sensitive government records, given that both of Mr. Smith’s criminal investigations against Mr. Trump involved classified documents. Doing so could sharply limit what representation Mr. Koski might be able to offer,” the New York Times reported on Feb 25.

But Trump’s “Deranged Jack Smith” order goes beyond suspending access to privileged material. The president further ordered federal agencies to look for any government contracts with Covington & Burling. “I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the president wrote.

It’s unknown how many, if any, government contracts exist with the firm. Possibly none. But the missive is yet another welcome sign of the so-called “Trump 2.0” administration, where heads will roll inside and outside government not just for viciously targeting the president and his supporters but for misleading the American people and wasting time and money in the process. To wit, the president indicated this is just the start.

After signing the order, the president turned to his aide and asked, “we’ll be doing this for other firms as time goes by?” The aide answered in the affirmative. After adding his signature, Trump threw his Sharpie to someone in the office. “Why don’t you send it to Jack Smith,” he joked.

Prestigious law firms act as both the hidden hammer and revolving door in the lawfare against Republicans. This is playing out in at least a dozen lawsuits filed against the Trump administration over the past 30 days. Until there is pain felt by both public and private lawyers responsible for this unprecedented attack against the will of the people, it will continue.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

A Busy First Week At The Trump DOJ


From reassigning Democratic operatives to shutting down the J6 prosecution, the new Department of Justice isn’t wasting any time cleaning house while waiting for Pam Bondi’s Senate confirmation.

Senate Democrats last week put on hold the confirmation process for Pam Bondi, President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Her full Senate approval appears inevitable but Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee claimed they wanted more time to review her background file. Another hearing is scheduled for Wednesday; a vote to advance her nomination out of the committee is expected later that day.

But if Democrats had hoped postponing Bondi’s confirmation would delay the Trump administration’s carpet bombing of the Department of Justice, they are once again wrong. In fact, Trump’s DOJ is wasting no time reversing the dangerous course set by Joe Biden and Merrick Garland while redirecting resources from the now-closed January 6 prosecution to fight real security threats across the country.

Shortly after the president took the oath of office last Monday, several Trump appointees were sworn in at Main Justice to fill top posts at the department. James McHenry, a longtime immigration lawyer at the DOJ, will serve as acting attorney general until Bondi takes over; the move appears to underscore the president’s plans to prioritize immigration enforcement at the department.

Emil Bove, who represented the president in both the Alvin Bragg case in New York and former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case in Florida, is now the acting deputy attorney general. Bove traveled to Chicago over the weekend to meet with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan and other federal law enforcement officials to coordinate mass deportations, which are underway in the Windy City. One official told ABC News that Bove had “personally observe[d] DHS immigration enforcement operations and support[ed] the efforts of FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, and federal prosecutors who are assisting DHS in this critical mission.”

Other appointments include Omeed Assefi as acting chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division until Trump’s pick, Gail Slater, is confirmed. According to Bloomberg, Assefi sent a video message to the division’s staff last week to pledge an “aggressive stance going forward,” including pursuing investigations and lawsuits against Big Tech—which might explain all the sucking up by Big Tech titans before and on Inauguration Day.

“Can I Take My Swingline Stapler?”

At the same time, notorious political operatives inside the DOJ are getting the Milton from “Office Space” treatment, moved from their cushy role doing the dirty work of the Democratic Party to offices where they might actually get their polished fingernails dirty. George Toscas—a top National Security Division official who looked into the Hillary Clinton email server “matter,” helped initiate the FBI’s surveillance of the 2016 Trump campaign, and pushed for the armed raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022—has been reassigned to a newly-created unit at the DOJ to fight efforts by lawless “sanctuary cities” to obstruct deportation plans. Toscas was last seen giving former Attorney General Merrick Garland a bear hug during his grotesque Dear Leader-like march on his last day in office.

Corey Amundson, who as head of the DOJ’s public integrity unit fought hard against an FBI investigation into election fraud in Georgia in 2020, also has a new desk at the immigration unit. At least 20 DOJ employees reportedly have been moved to other positions.

This is all super unfair, according to one former assistant U.S. Attorney. “It has terrified people,” Ashley Akers, a J6 prosecutor who resigned last week, complained to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. “It’s not sensical. You have people who are subject matter experts…and to pull them and put them in an unrelated section where they have no experience and probably on interest seems contrary to the mission of the department.”

Depoliticizing the Most Political Agency in the Land

Now Akers might be slightly bitter since her last act in office was undoing her own prosecution of several J6 defendants. Following the president’s full pardon of J6ers, prosecutors in the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office, which handled the unprecedented investigation for four years, were forced to file dismissal motions before D.C. judges. Further, the office has a new chief, Ed Martin, a longtime conservative activist who was sworn in as acting D.C. U.S. Attorney last Monday afternoon. Martin immediately filed a flurry of motions to dismiss J6 indictments and confronted at least one judge attempting to keep in place probation for some of the 14 defendants whose sentences were commuted by the president.

And in a move cheered by J6ers, the DOJ also removed the “Capitol Breach” database from the department’s website. The portal listed the name, case number, charges, outcome, and sentence for every J6er, something defendants considered a scarlet-letter tracking mechanism of sorts to incite more harassment against them.

The DOJ’s targeting of pro-life protesters, arguably the Biden/Garland’s DOJ most vengeful and political use of federal law, also came to an end. New chief of staff Chad Mizelle on Friday sent a memo to the civil rights division strictly curtailing the application of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE ACT; the Biden/Garland DOJ prosecuted at least two dozen pro-life activists under the FACE ACT, resulting in lengthy prison sentences for most including women in their 70s. “President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of ending the weaponization of the federal government and has recently directed all federal departments and agencies to identify and correct the past weaponization of law enforcement. To many Americans, prosecutions and civil actions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act have been the prototypical example of this weaponization. And with good reason,” Mizelle wrote.

Trump also pardoned 23 pro-lifers on the eve of the March for Life; several were immediately released from prison including 76-year-old Joan Bell, who was serving out a 27-month sentence imposed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an 80-year old federal judge in Washington. (Karma will be a bitch for these evil DC judges.)

More Changes Ahead

Bondi still has her work cut out for her—rooting out bad actors within the department’s whopping 34,000 employee base won’t be easy. She may face headwinds from Senate Republicans afraid to pursue much-needed internal investigations into Jack Smith and his team as well as former DC US Attorney Matthew Graves for bringing vindictive, selective prosecutions against the president and his supporters.

But reform and accountability are already underway. The once-revered Department of Justice suffers a deep public trust deficit following a decade of relentless politically charged lawfare against Republicans. It appears, however, that the right team is in place to restore that public’s trust and return the DOJ to its original crime-fighting mission—something the country desperately needs.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Justice Restored: Trump’s Mission To Reclaim The DOJ


The Department of Justice is finally being reclaimed from the grips of partisan weaponization. President Trump’s administration, in its second term, is delivering a long-overdue reckoning. Over 20 career officials, entrenched in a culture of bias and selective enforcement, have been sidelined overnight. This isn’t just a shake-up—it’s a war against the corruption that has festered for years under the guise of justice. Trump’s team is not just draining the swamp; they are dismantling it, brick by brick, to restore fairness and accountability to an institution that has betrayed the American people.

The abrupt sidelining of over 20 long-serving DOJ officials marks the death knell of what conservatives rightly decried as the “Merrick Garland Reign of Terror.” For years, Garland’s DOJ symbolized the grotesque transformation of justice into a political weapon, targeting Trump and his allies while coddling Democratic operatives. This two-tiered system eroded trust in one of America’s most critical institutions. But with Trump’s return to the White House, the administration is laser-focused on uprooting this corruption and restoring equal justice under the law.

President Trump’s team has employed an ingenious strategy to bypass bureaucratic roadblocks. Federal regulations shield career employees from reassignment for 120 days after new leadership takes over. However, the Trump administration identified a loophole:

Because Acting Attorney General James McHenry has been with the DOJ for more than 120 days, he is not bound by federal regulations requiring a waiting period before reassigning career employees. If Pam Bondi were confirmed, she would have to wait 120 days to make similar changes. Ironically, Senate Democrats’ delays in confirming Bondi have provided Trump with a unique advantage to expedite the much-needed house-cleaning at the DOJ. McHenry’s tenure as the head of a Justice Department unit focused on immigration enforcement underscores his alignment with Trump’s vision of law and order. By the time Pam Bondi is confirmed the McHenry should have purged the corrupt actors at Justice. Together, this team exemplifies the administration’s unwavering commitment to dismantling the deep state and restoring integrity to the DOJ.

The reshuffling of DOJ leadership is nothing short of revolutionary. Ed Martin, a champion of election integrity and leader in the “Stop the Steal” movement, now holds the position of Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin’s appointment is a clarion call to those who weaponized the legal system against conservatives: their time is up. Martin’s record of defending January 6 defendants and his unwavering stance against abortion and illegal immigration sends a powerful message about the administration’s priorities. Just the other day, when Judge Mehta, at the behest of congressional Democrats, modified Trump’s commutation of eight January 6th political prisoners Martin was on the case filing a motion challenging Judge Mehta’s imposition of release conditions on the commuted sentences of January 6th defendants.

John Durham’s legacy also finds new life in the Eastern District of New York, where his son now leads. Known for his relentless pursuit of criminal networks like MS-13, Durham’s son reflects the administration’s no-nonsense approach to crime and immigration enforcement. In the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon—renowned for prosecuting Sam Bankman-Fried and dismantling sex trafficking rings—brings a pedigree that includes clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon. Her appointment signals a return to principled, results-driven law enforcement.

The FBI, long accused of partisan overreach, is undergoing a seismic transformation. Christopher Wray, whose leadership became synonymous with the politicization of federal law enforcement, has been removed. Paul Abbate has retired. Taking the reins is Tom Ferguson, a former FBI veteran who worked alongside Rep. Jim Jordan to expose the weaponization of government. Ferguson’s disdain for “woke” ideology and socialism underscores his commitment to restoring the FBI’s mission of impartial justice. With these changes, the FBI is finally being returned to the people. Until Kash Patel, President Trump’s pick for FBI Director, is confirmed by the Senate, Ferguson’s leadership ensures the Bureau will remain in good hands, continuing the administration’s efforts to purge corruption and restore accountability.

This is not just a personnel change; it is an existential challenge to the deep state, the network of bureaucratic elites who have long wielded power without accountability. For years, conservatives have watched as these entrenched interests undermined Trump’s presidency and targeted his supporters. The Trump administration’s bold appointments are dismantling this shadowy cabal, replacing it with leaders who prioritize justice over ideology and accountability over partisan gain.

The Trump DOJ overhaul represents a historic correction to years of corruption and abuse. For too long, the Department of Justice and the FBI have been weaponized against conservatives, eroding public trust and undermining the rule of law. Under President Trump’s leadership, the era of unchecked bureaucratic power is coming to a dramatic end. This is not merely a shake-up; it is a reformation, a decisive step toward restoring America’s faith in its institutions. The swamp is being drained, the deep state is being exposed, and justice is finally being reclaimed for the American people. Trump promised to fix the system, and as we witness these changes, one thing is clear: he is delivering.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Watch as Always Gracious Melania Cleverly Exposes the Obamas as the Infinitely Petty Frauds They Truly Are


Melania Trump kisses then-President-elect Donald Trump as he arrives for the inauguration ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

Hello liberal haters. As you’re eye scanning this, I can only assume you’re trying to pick your tears out of your cosmopolitans as the second Donald Trump administration is underway. It’s the end of democracy, you’re saying — but at least former President Joe Biden did the proper thing by allowing a “dignified transition of democratic power,” or whatever term you’ve doubtlessly aped from MSNBC’s coverage of the inauguration shindig.

Well, let me disabuse you of two of the facts implicit in that thought. First, Joe Biden isn’t making any decisions on his own these days, except maybe what ice-cream flavor he gets for not reading the teleprompter instructions. Second, as first lady Melania Trump pointed out in an interview before the inauguration, keep in mind that the Obamas — the beau ideal of the leftist presidential couple — didn’t warmly participate in the transition of power back in 2017.

During the sit-down with Fox News’ Ainsley Earhardt, Melania Trump talked about the “challenging transition” the first time Trump entered the White House.

“The difference is I know where I will be going, I know the rooms where we will be living. I know the process,” Melania said during the interview, which aired on Jan. 13, when asked what had changed since her 2017 move-in to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

“The first time was challenging, we didn’t have much of the information,” she added.

“The information was [withheld] for us from [the] previous administration,” she added.

This time, she said, she’s “already packed” for the move-in.

“It’s [a] very different transition second time around,” she said.

She was asked whether the Bidens had helped her out this time around.

“They’re still living there, and they will be out on Jan. 20,” she said. “The transition team has only five hours to move Bidens out and to move us in.”

Michelle didn’t attend Jimmy Carter’s state funeral on Jan. 9, reportedly due to a “scheduling conflict” with her vacation (because apparently, the avocation of former first lady as a professional calling isn’t enough of a vacation for her). This time, a source leaked to People Magazine, it’s because she really, really, really hates the living hell out of Donald Trump. (The source didn’t use those exact words, instead saying Michelle didn’t want to “plaster” on a fake grin for the sake of paying homage to the principle of the unbroken transfer of power.)

“There’s no overstating her feelings about [Trump]. She’s not one to plaster on a pleasant face and pretend for protocol’s sake,” the source said.

“Michelle doesn’t do anything because it’s expected or it’s protocol or tradition.

“She would be expected to swallow her feelings in the spotlight if she attended his second inauguration.”

The magazine also noted, the source told them “that Trump’s history of attacking the Obama family” played into her decision. Oh, yes, because the Obamas have been great to Trump over the years.

As for Trump being “someone whom she still considers a threat to American democracy,” as the source also claimed, most of this rhetoric has Barack Obama as patient zero — with the former president first dismissing Donald Trump as some peon who had made his money before he got into politics instead of getting into politics to make money, then hyping him as Literally Hitler™, with the rest of the Democrats and the media gladly following his lead and declaring that they were With Her.

But I’ll stop myself before I give everyone a migraine over the double-standard. The point is that, beneath their carefully manufactured exteriors — their preternatural scripted cool, their improbably hipster-perfect book choices and playlists, their worshipful treatment by an adoring media — these are petty, vain, and childish creatures. To the extent that the Bidens look any better, it’s just because the power half of the couple passed the point of senility before he was elected in 2020 and only went downhill from there.

If you want to see what class and unity looks like, watch Melania state the unpleasant realities about how the Democrats acted during her husband’s two inaugurations herself — no anonymous source leaking quotes about how a girlboss former first lady refuses to “plaster on a pleasant face and pretend for protocol’s sake” to a trash celeb rag — with a smile on her face and with reserve and poise. It’s what real confidence and courage looks like.

In short: Keep crying those tears in your cosmos, libs. That cosmo is going to be 99 percent saline by the time January is over, and it’ll only get better for America from there.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Delusional Attempt to Impeach Trump Already Underway


For those of you pining for the sturm und drang of Donald Trump’s first term, I’m the bearer of good news: The first attempt to impeach the newly minted president is already underway.

Sure, as political pseudoevents go, it’s about as anticlimactic, low profile, and ill-conceived as a Limp Bizkit reunion album. But 2.0 has to begin somewhere, and it’s apparently beginning with leftist interest group Free Speech For People.

The group — whose website looks like it dates from the era where Daily Kos’ site interface looked positively cutting edge — bills itself as a “non-partisan campaign, but is focused on a bevy of leftist issues, including stopping “voter suppression” (read: preventing anti-voter fraud initiatives), eliminating dark money in politics (unless it comes from George Soros, one assumes), and tackling “corporate abuse of power.”

It’s perhaps best known for its opposition to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled independent campaign expenditures counted as free speech. (Floyd Brown, founder of The Western Journal, was also the founder of Citizens United, the plaintiff in that case.)

But now, the group has a more important mission. Free Speech For People — which apparently knows about as much about what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are as it does about using definite articles to make their organization’s name sound less awkward — began a campaign to impeach Trump on the day he was inaugurated.

The group’s petition is “calling on the U.S. Congress to initiate an immediate impeachment investigation into Donald Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clauses and into his unlawful, corrupt campaign practices.”

“Trump’s return to the White House poses an unprecedented threat to our democracy,” says John Bonifaz, organization president.

“During his campaign and in the months before his inauguration, Donald Trump engaged in unlawful, unconstitutional conduct and threatened more. He has once more positioned himself to abuse the office for personal profit and power in violation of clear constitutional commands and at the expense of our democratic institutions, constitutional precedent, and the safety of our country’s most vulnerable.”

The petition refers to two sections of the U.S. Constitution Free Speech For People believes Trump has violated: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7.

The first clause they believe is impeachment-worthy: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The second: “The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

By the way, in case you’ve forgotten from the last go-around, “emolument” means “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.”

Sorry to insult the intelligence of most of our readership but I’d wager there’s probably some “White Dudes for Harris” straggler reading this in the dark as he munches his Beyond Meat chicken tendies in his faded pink, unwashed knit p**** cap, thinking to himself: “Hot diggity! So you’re saying there’s still a chance! But, uh, what’s an ’emmermonumment’?”

This, by the way, is the same bovine effluence the left tried to make stick the last time before James Coney, Robert Muller, and Alexander Vindman gave them shinier objects to gaze upon — and, one assumes, it’ll have even shorter legs this time.

“Trump has refused to sell his ownership stake in companies through which he is assured to receive substantial payments from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause,” the group’s statement said.

“At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.”

If you want a good laugh, try doing a Google search for “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden Burisma” or “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden CEFC.” See how many hissy fits the organization had about those emolument-looking arrangements when they happened. For gambling types, I’m setting the over-under on relevant search results at 0. Anyone who picked the over can just give me your money now.

And, by the way, there’s a huge difference between the Trump family and the Biden family. Trump came to the presidency after a career in the private sector — and a successful one at that. Of course he had assets — especially real estate — and of course the wealthy were drawn to the Trump name before and after he became president. That’s not an emolument, that’s business as usual.

Joe Biden, meanwhile, has spent four of the last 52 years in the private sector — and he spent it writing a book which he improperly retained classified documents to complete. Hunter, meanwhile, mysteriously began getting well-remunerated roles with companies in countries like Ukraine and China in fields which he had no experience in, and while he was in the throes of a drug, alcohol, and sex addiction that would make Hunter S. Thompson and Charlie Sheen blush. His father claims that he had no knowledge of or discussions about his son’s overseas dealings, which is why he took numerous photos with his son’s foreign business contacts, a trove of which were released as Uncle Joe was exiting the White House:

Oh, and it’s not just the emoluments clauses! “The campaign lists additional impeachable offenses committed during Trump’s 2024 election campaign and leading up to the inauguration, including: threatening physical violence, including murder, against political opponents, journalists, and protestors; using racist, xenophobic rhetoric that has endangered immigrant communities; and violating campaign finance laws by offering benefits in exchange for campaign contributions,” the release reads.

Unlike their fulmination over alleged violations of the emoluments clauses, however, there’s absolutely no supporting evidence of this given — and there’s also no impeachable offense in there once you reduce the febrile rhetoric to what it is, which is positions Trump and his supporters have taken that they disagree with.

If this is what they think will produce the third impeachment of Trump, it’s practically adorable. I doubt that Free Speech For People will be the last organization advocating for this kind of futile opposition to The Donald’s second term. It’ll be hard to top them for sheer unintentional humor value, however.

Morons just never, ever learn. Einstein’s definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Congressional Obstruction And The Case For Adjournment


Moments of extraordinary peril have demanded extraordinary action. Today, as the nation teeters on the precipice of economic turmoil and national insecurity, President Trump finds himself facing an adversary not foreign but domestic: a Congress shackled by obstructionism. The Democrats’ calculated stonewalling of key cabinet nominations, including CIA nominee John Ratcliffe and DOJ nominee Pam Bondi, has left federal agencies rudderless, vulnerable and infiltrated by what can only be described as the Deep State. Trump’s power to adjourn Congress—a constitutional provision buried in the seldom-visited corridors of Article II, Section 3—may be the nation’s best hope for restoring order and ensuring competent leadership at the helm of our government.

The Framers of the Constitution, wise to the capricious nature of politics, granted the president the power to adjourn Congress “in extraordinary occasions” when the House and Senate fail to agree on adjournment. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 70, extolled the virtues of a decisive executive, arguing that energy in the executive is “a leading character in the definition of good government.” While this power has never been exercised in the nation’s history, its inclusion underscores the Framers’ recognition that paralysis within the legislative branch can imperil the republic.

Indeed, Justice Joseph Story’s commentaries on the Constitution describe the adjournment clause as a safeguard against legislative dysfunction. The current congressional deadlock, with Democrats weaponizing procedure to undermine executive appointments, exemplifies the very “extraordinary occasions” that justify invoking this power.

The stakes could not be higher. With the CIA and DOJ operating under interim leadership, their ability to counteract threats—both foreign and domestic—is severely hampered. Ratcliffe’s delay ensures that the CIA remains a playground for DEI zealots and entrenched bureaucrats. Similarly, without Pam Bondi’s confirmation, the DOJ continues to sidestep Trump’s mandate to root out ideological rot. Recent revelations of agencies rebranding DEI positions to evade detection highlight the Deep State’s subversive ingenuity—a direct challenge to Trump’s executive orders banning such programs. The message is clear: without Trump appointees in key positions, federal agencies will remain unaccountable fortresses of woke orthodoxy.

Historically, periods of executive action have often followed legislative gridlock in times of crisis. Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s aggressive New Deal measures illustrate that decisive action, while controversial, is sometimes necessary to preserve the nation’s integrity. The present crisis, though less visible, is no less existential. National security cannot afford to be a casualty of political gamesmanship.

The economic ramifications of congressional obstruction extend beyond the Beltway. With inflation persisting, global markets jittery and outgoing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warning that the government will run out of money this week, the United States faces a dire emergency. Yellen’s suggestion for the incoming treasury secretary to implement extraordinary measures underscores the urgency. Without Trump’s treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, at the helm, who is running the show—a second-string quarterback? Treasury, commerce and energy, among others, require Trump-aligned leadership to implement policies that restore fiscal discipline and energy independence, ensuring America’s financial stability during this critical moment.

Consider the contrast: during the Reagan administration, swift executive appointments enabled the rapid implementation of supply-side economics, catalyzing a historic economic boom. Conversely, today’s delays have left markets uncertain and businesses hesitant, awaiting clarity from an administration hamstrung by partisan brinkmanship. By adjourning Congress and making recess appointments, Trump can bypass the stalemate and restore confidence in America’s economic stewardship.

Critics may balk at the unprecedented nature of adjourning Congress, invoking fears of executive overreach. Yet such criticisms ignore the reality that precedent is not destiny. When Ronald Reagan fired air traffic controllers during the PATCO strike, he faced similar accusations of authoritarianism. History, however, vindicated him as a leader who prioritized national interest over fleeting norms.

Furthermore, the Constitution’s silence on the length of adjournment grants Trump significant discretion. As the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning clarified, a recess of 10 days is sufficient to activate the Recess Appointments Clause. By adjourning Congress over a weekend, Trump can legally appoint his cabinet, ensuring that Senate deliberations proceed without jeopardizing national security or economic stability.

The specter of the Deep State looms large. Recent investigative reports reveal an entrenched bureaucracy—particularly within intelligence and law enforcement—dedicated to undermining Trump’s agenda. These unelected officials have exploited vacancies to shield their machinations, from rebranding DEI departments to slow-walking compliance with executive orders. By filling these vacancies, Trump can dismantle this unelected cabal and restore accountability to the executive branch.

How it Would Work

The president could trigger the adjournment clause with the help of either the House or Senate through a specific series of events. First, one chamber, say the Senate, led by Majority Leader John Thune, would need to pass a resolution to adjourn for a period of more than three days. This could be done with a simple majority vote, as a motion to adjourn cannot be filibustered according to Senate Rule XXII(1). Next, the House, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, would need to either actively reject the Senate’s adjournment resolution or fail to act on it before the proposed adjournment date. Given the Republican majority, the Senate could lose up to three votes, while the House could lose up to five votes, and still pass the resolution. This lack of agreement between the chambers would then allow the president to step in and formally adjourn Congress to a time of his choosing. This scenario highlights how the president could use the adjournment clause, with the cooperation of one chamber of Congress, to potentially create a recess and make recess appointments.

The time for half-measures has passed. In this moment of crisis, Trump must wield the constitutional tools at his disposal to adjourn Congress and make recess appointments. The stakes—national security, economic stability and the integrity of federal agencies—are too high to allow congressional obstruction to persist. Just as Lincoln’s bold actions preserved the Union, Trump’s decisive use of the Adjournment Clause can ensure that the republic remains secure, prosperous and true to its constitutional principles. To paraphrase Reagan, history will remember not the critics who howled but the leader who acted.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

House Report Discloses New Information on Unsolved J6 Pipe Bomber


House Republicans reveal stonewalling, major security lapses, and misrepresentations by top law enforcement officials related to the still at-large J6 pipe bomber, ‘aka’ the fake deep state alternate plan ready to go on a moment’s notice had J6 never happened.

Four years after what the FBI describes as an act of domestic terror–the protest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021–federal authorities have not yet solved the most consequential crime of that day: the presence of two explosive devices within blocks of the U.S. Capitol.

A report issued today by Representatives Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky), chairmen of House subcommittees examining the events of January 6 and the work of the January 6 Select Committee, details how the FBI investigation into the so-called pipe bomber went cold by early 2021 despite dedicating significant resources into finding the suspect and initially identifying several “persons of interest.”

The FBI originally claimed an individual wearing a hoodie planted the devices near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and outside the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee on January 5, 2021 between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. The devices were not discovered until 17 hours later, coincidentally, around the same time the Joint Session of Congress convened at 1:00 p.m. on January 6 to debate the results of the 2020 presidential election. A woman doing her laundry found a pipe bomb in an alleyway near the RNC headquarters at around 12:40 p.m.; a plainclothes Capitol Police officer discovered a similar device outside the DNC headquarters at 1:05 p.m.

The latter situation posed an extreme danger to incoming Vice President Kamala Harris, who left the Capitol at 11:25 a.m. and inexplicably went to the DNC, where she remained until around 1:15 p.m. As I have reported, several officers including numerous Secret Service agents and a bomb-sniffing canine failed to detect the device sitting just steps away from the building’s entrance.

News of the devices prompted the evacuation of nearby buildings and set off the first wave of panic that afternoon. Some top law enforcement officials including former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund believe the devices were a diversionary tactic. “[While] law enforcement has not identified the suspect responsible for planting both pipe bombs, the explosive devices played a critical role in how the events of that day unfolded. Whether intended to or not, both pipe bombs acted as diversions, forcing law enforcement to draw resources away from the Capitol,” the report states. The first exterior breach of Capitol grounds occurred at 12:53 p.m.

But no one has been arrested despite a $500,000 reward offered by the FBI. Further, the failure to locate the J6 pipe bomber doesn’t add up considering the extensive investigative tools still being used by the FBI to track down and arrest J6 protesters, a caseload now approaching 1,600 individuals.

Footdragging, Stonewalling, and Non-Interest by J6 Truth Seekers

Not only did the trail go cold, either intentionally or organically, the same political leaders and government officials who promised to expose the “truth” about the events of January 6 oddly are uninterested in the pipe bomb threat and not cooperating with Republicans in their separate attempts to find the bomber. The report discloses extensive stonewalling by federal and local agencies including the FBI, the ATF, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Metropolitan (DC) Police Department related to House Republicans’ requests for documents and interviews to help better understand the failed pipe bomb investigation.

“[The] FBI has failed to provide any responsive documents. On December 12, 2023, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Matthew Foder briefed the Committee on the status of the FBI’s pipe bomb investigation. Deputy Assistant Director Foder’s briefing failed to satisfy even the Committee’s most basic informational needs and dealt exclusively with information already in the public domain.”

The former head of the Washington FBI field office, Steven D’Antuono, who led the pipe bomb investigation for nearly two years, also appears to have misled Congress by claiming some of the cell phone files obtained by the FBI were “corrupted,” which impeded their investigation. But according to today’s report, “the major cell carriers confirmed that they did not provide corrupted data to the FBI and that the FBI never notified them of any issues with accessing the cellular data.”

Further, despite promises to fully investigate every aspect of January 6, the January 6 Select Committee ignored what represented the biggest threat to public safety and the safety of top elected officials including Harris and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“A thorough review of almost three terabytes of data turned over by the Select Committee yielded shockingly few results regarding the pipe bombs— emphasizing how the Select Committee failed to thoroughly investigate the security and operational failures surrounding the events of January 6,” the report reveals. Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of the now defunct committee, told Massie in 2023 that his committee did not look into the pipe bomb matter. The committee’s final 845-page report devoted less than three pages to the pipe bomb incidents and relegated it to the appendix.

Even after the devices were detected on Jan 6, security perimeters established around both locations insufficiently protected the public, commuters, and nearby Congressional buildings, the report confirms. A motorcade carrying Pelosi drove past the device after it was detected but before it was detonated. “Prior to Speaker Pelosi’s motorcade driving by the DNC pipe bomb, federal law enforcement had allowed more than fifteen vehicles to drive past the DNC pipe bomb despite repeated calls over the radio for law enforcement units to stop all traffic passing by the explosive device. The breakdown in command and control around the DNC pipe bomb and the failure to correct the breaches of the security perimeter culminated in law enforcement risking the safety of congressional leadership.”

Plenty of Leads, No Answers

The subcommittees’ report describes a full throttle investigation into the pipe bombs early on.

In the immediate aftermath of January 6, the FBI’s case team worked aggressively to cultivate and pursue leads toward apprehending the pipe bomb suspect. As of January 2021, the FBI’s investigation consisted of over fifty investigators, including special agents, data analysts, Task Force officers, and support staff. Of those more than fifty investigators, thirty were special agents assigned to the case. The investigation also comprised of a range of investigative support teams such as the Cellular Analysis Survey Team, the Computer Analysis Response Team, and the Digital Imaging and Video Recovery Team. As a result, by April 2021, the FBI had collected over 105,000,000 data points in connection with the investigation.

In February 2021, the FBI identified 186 phone numbers of interest; 36 numbers were assigned to agents for interviews, 98 required additional investigative steps. Fifty-one were categorized as “not needing further action” because the phones “belong[ed] to law enforcement officers or persons on the exclusion list.”

By using another sophisticated investigative technique–tracking advertising data–the FBI case team, according to the report, “identified one [individual] whose movements matched the suspect’s movements as outlined by the video the FBI released tracking the suspect’s whereabouts.” But the result of that “significant lead…remains unclear,” the report states.

More Unanswered Questions

How is it possible the pipe bomber remains at large given the extensive resources first expended by the FBI and at their disposal to this day? Why did the J6 Select Committee avoid looking into the threat, particularly since it posed a mortal danger to both the incoming vice president and the Speaker of the House, who created the committee? Why did Kamala Harris never discuss her near-assassination attempt on the campaign trail? Why did D’Antuono mislead Congress about the condition of cell phone data? Why has the media stopped covering the pipe bombs?

This is why scumbags Wray and others have jumped ship early and Pelosi’s out of country in Europe for supposed surgery.

The good news for now is that House Republicans are not backing down. The key to permanently unraveling the entire Jan 6 narrative is tied to the mystery pipe bomber—and once that missing puzzle piece is found, the public will find more shocking revelations.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Wall Street Journal’s Shameful J6 Propagandizing


From promoting the lie about Brian Sicknick’s death to swooning over the J6 Select Committee while ignoring new findings about the events of Jan 6, the WSJ is soiling its once-solid reputation.

The January 6 narrative continues to crumble amid near-daily revelations related to, among other things, the shady circumstances surrounding the Jan 6 “pipe bomber,” the corruption of the January 6 Select Committee, and evidence directly contradicting the carefully fabricated storyline including who was responsible for delaying the deployment of National Guardsmen that afternoon. (Hint: Not Donald Trump.)

A few news and opinion outlets, however, remain stubbornly loyal to the regime-established Jan 6 propaganda mill. After years of investing ink and clicks to promote the most outlandish and in some instances debunked angles of the so-called “insurrection,” these outlets refuse to entertain the idea, now being considered by millions of Americans, that maybe they were snookered into believing one of the most destructive political hoaxes in U.S. history.

The Wall Street Journal is chief among them.

Once regarded a “conservative” paper with a news section largely devoted to the business sector and an editorial page section largely devoted to supporting conservative political causes, the WSJ currently rivals MSNBC and the Washington Post as the most hysterical J6 propagandists on record.

On Christmas Eve, the paper published a report authored by four WSJ reporters that named several companies who had pledged to withhold financial support for Trump and Republican lawmakers after the Capitol protest that now are donating to the president’s inaugural committee. Describing the events of January 6 as an “invasion” of the Capitol, the reporters lamented how “many of those pledges are a thing of the past.”

After Trump supporters invaded the Capitol in 2021 to protest the results of the presidential election, dozens of companies vowed to rethink their political contributions going forward. Some paused all donations. Others suspended donations to any lawmaker who voted against certifying the 2020 electoral college results. Some simply promised to factor integrity into their donation decisions going forward.

Now, as corporate executives hurry to make inroads with an incoming president whose agenda will have sweeping ramifications for the business world, many of those pledges are a thing of the past.

This latest installation of the WSJ’s “insurrection” chronicles follows a long arc of reporting and pontificating that began the day after the Capitol protest.

Lies About Cops and Lying Cops

On January 7, 2021, as the country knew few details about what actually happened, the WSJ’s editorial board called for President Trump to resign or face impeachment. “This was an assault on the constitutional process of transferring power after an election. It was also an assault on the legislature from an executive sworn to uphold the laws of the United States. This goes beyond merely refusing to concede defeat. In our view it crosses a constitutional line that Mr. Trump hasn’t previously crossed. It is impeachable,” the board, led by longtime “conservative” commentator Paul Gigot, wrote.

The next day, the paper helped fuel the lie that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters with a fire extinguisher, a falsehood first reported by the New York Times. The original WSJ article remains intact with a one-sentence correction from April 2021 admitting the D.C. coroner had concluded Sicknick died of natural causes. Nonetheless, the paper continued to describe Sicknick as a “slain” police officer.

A few months later, WSJ contributor Karl Rove—need I say more?—called the testimony of four police officers featured during the first televised hearing of the January 6 Select Committee “riveting” and how they “demolished claims by some Republicans that the assault on Congress wasn’t very different from a ‘normal tourist visit’ or a peaceful protest.”

But video evidence unearthed since that July 2021 hearing contradicts the accounts offered by all four officers under oath; some testimony could result in perjury charges. This appears to be of no interest to Rove or the WSJ in general.

Pelosi/Cheney Partner in Crime

To be fair, the WSJ criticized former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s heavy-handedness in creating the January 6 Select Committee, a body the WSJ supported in order to “get to the bottom of it all.” However, editors and columnists proceeded to fully participate in the committee’s media echo chamber. The evidence presented during the committee’s professionally scripted televised performances, the WSJ editorial board agreed in June 2022, represented “a reminder of the violence and how Trump betrayed his supporters.”

The following month, the paper’s editorial board regurgitated now-debunked accusations that Trump “stood still” and did nothing to prevent or halt the chaos on January 6. “No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump’s conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help,” WSJ editors wrote in July 2022. Never mind the fact the president had urged the deployment of National Guardsmen days before the certification vote then posted tweets and a personal video asking for calm within the scope of a few hours that day.

WSJ Hearts Cassidy

But perhaps nothing can top the WSJ’s swooning over Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide considered the committee’s star witness. Her June 2022 testimony, the editorial board insisted in a cringe-worthy rant, represented the committee’s “accumulating evidence of [Trump’s] conduct” on January 6. “Republicans should [not[ look away from the considerable evidence it is producing about Mr. Trump’s behavior that would surely be relevant to voters if he runs in 2024.”

Former Reagan speechwriter and Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer Peggy Noonan completely humiliated herself with a lengthy ode to Hutchinson, whom Noonan claimed was the sort of courageous gal that “can upend empires.” The young aide, Noonan continued, “showed more guts than any of Trump’s men. Her testimony strengthens the case for prosecution.”

Doubts over her testimony should be challenged, Noonan argued. “If she lied I see no motive. Any who know otherwise, who can rebut what she said, should come forward and, like her, testify under oath.”

Which is precisely what happened. In the months following Hutchinson’s testimony, several individuals directly refuted under oath her accounts of Trump’s behavior. Transcripts recently obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating the J6 committee and events of January 6, show that several witnesses including the driver of the presidential limousine told committee investigators and former Rep. Liz Cheney, Hutchinson’s hand holder, that Hutchinson’s allegations were untrue particularly related to an alleged physical confrontation inside the vehicle.

No Interest in Covering the Unraveling J6 Narrative

But unfortunately, the WSJ does not share the same interest in Loudermilk’s committee as it did in the Jan 6 select committee. Despite uncovering shocking proof of malfeasance and potential crimes committed by members of the Jan 6 select committee, including Cheney, Loudermilk hasn’t received any coverage in the WSJ.

The paper appears to have ignored a separate report issued earlier this month by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirming the presence of at least 26 FBI informants in Washington on January 6. Nor is the paper interested in the ever-changing story about the “pipe bombs” allegedly planted near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on January 5, 2021; the last time the WSJ published anything about the explosives was more than 2 ½ years ago.

Even more inexcusable is the paper’s selective ignorance on the abusive treatment of January 6 protesters. One would be hard pressed to find any mention of how the Biden DOJ weaponized federal law to criminalize political protest or how the FBI has conducted hundreds of predawn armed raids for even nonviolent offenders or how federal prosecutors seek excessive prison time including “terror enhancements” for J6ers.

Instead, some WSJ writers now oppose Trump’s plans to pardon the wrongly accused and victims of a double standard of justice. Issuing pardons of J6ers, political columnist William Galston recently opined, would represent a “misread[ing]” of Trump’s decisive victory. “Two-thirds of Americans polled by the Washington Post would oppose issuing pardons for people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol,” Galston wrote, as if public opinion should dictate how the inarguable abuse of the legal and judicial system must be resolved.

Another shameful example of the WSJ excusing away the government’s political persecution of Trump supporters while continuing to promote nonsensical aspects of January 6. What a fall from grace.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Selective Justice: How FARA Became A Tool To Target Republicans


There is a cruel irony in how a statute born to counteract Nazi propaganda in the late 1930s has been exhumed from its bureaucratic tomb to serve as a weapon of political warfare nearly a century later. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), originally a dusty relic collecting mothballs in the annals of American law, was suddenly thrust into the limelight at the dawn of Donald Trump‘s presidency—not as an impartial instrument of justice but as a cudgel against his allies. Before Trump’s rise, FARA enforcement was so rare it could be likened to a curiosity better suited to a museum than a courtroom. Between 1966 and 2016, the Justice Department invoked FARA a mere seven times, yielding just three prison sentences. Then Trump happened, and with him came a political reckoning, as the DOJ turned a disused statute into a partisan sword.

FARA: A Law Designed for Sunlight, Not Punishment

To understand this cynical reanimation, one must return to the law’s origins. Passed in 1938, FARA (22 U.S.C. §§611-621) was intended to expose Nazi propaganda efforts by requiring agents of foreign interests to disclose their activities. It was never about outlawing foreign influence outright—transparency, not criminalization, was the aim. Like the sunlight exposing the grime in a neglected house, FARA presumed that openness alone would disinfect.

For decades, the law remained more of a warning sign than a hammer. Its definitions were notoriously ambiguous, its enforcement selective to the point of obsolescence. As long as lobbyists checked the right bureaucratic boxes—retroactively, if necessary—FARA became an administrative afterthought.

But when Trump stormed into Washington with his promise to drain the swamp, the Department of Justice suddenly rediscovered its appetite for enforcement—albeit with a particular taste for Republicans. Between 2017 and 2021, FARA prosecutions surged to over 20 cases, a sharp contrast to the mere seven between 1966 and 2016. Notable names included Paul Manafort (Republican), who received 7.5 years in prison for unregistered Ukrainian lobbying and Samuel Patten (Republican), who pleaded guilty for failing to disclose his work with a Ukrainian political party. Bijan Rafiekian (Republican), Michael Flynn’s associate, was convicted for lobbying on behalf of Turkey, though his conviction was later vacated on appeal. In contrast, prominent Democratic figures like Gregory Craig escaped prosecution when an all-Democrat jury swiftly acquitted him.

These cases illustrate the selective application of FARA—a law ignored for decades until it became politically expedient to wield it against Trump’s allies.

Manafort: The Poster Child of Political Selectivity

The case of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, is the most glaring indictment of this selective weaponization. In 2018, Manafort was prosecuted for failing to register under FARA for his lobbying work on behalf of Ukrainian interests—a charge born from Robert Mueller‘s sprawling investigation into alleged Russian collusion. That the Mueller probe ultimately yielded no evidence of collusion was irrelevant; the damage was already done. Manafort became the sacrificial offering for a narrative that demanded blood.

Here lies the outrage: prior to Trump, FARA violations were routinely resolved administratively. Retroactive filings were the norm, not handcuffs and prison cells. Indeed, Manafort’s lawyers were actively working with the DOJ to resolve any filing discrepancies—until Mueller’s team appeared. Suddenly, the same grace afforded to countless others evaporated, replaced with the cold steel of aggressive prosecution. Manafort was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison, his life shattered as collateral damage in the left’s desperate fishing expedition.

This selective enforcement becomes even more glaring when viewed in contrast to figures like Tony Podesta—whose Ukrainian lobbying work closely mirrored Manafort’s. While Manafort faced prosecution and prison, Podesta simply retroactively filed, as was customary, and the DOJ shrugged. Manafort was imprisoned; Podesta merely updated paperwork. The contrast is not merely striking but damning.

Justice or Theater?

Manafort’s ordeal reveals FARA’s true utility in the age of Trump: not as a safeguard of transparency but as leverage. Prosecutors wielded it like a rack, hoping to squeeze incriminating evidence from Manafort that might ensnare Trump himself. But despite the pressure, despite the draconian sentence, no such evidence materialized. Manafort’s prosecution became a grotesque spectacle—a reminder that when justice becomes political, fairness is the first casualty.

And what of the Democrats? Consider Gregory Craig, a former White House counsel under Barack Obama, who faced similar FARA-related charges. Unlike Manafort, Craig enjoyed the privilege of an all-Democrat jury and walked free after a swift acquittal. Samuel Patten, Elliott Broidy and others within Trump’s orbit were not so lucky, their livelihoods sacrificed to the gods of political vengeance.

The Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Bidens

While Manafort languished, Hunter and James Biden operated with impunity. As former DOJ prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has observed, the selective enforcement of FARA undermines its stated purpose: “The law is meant to ensure transparency, not to serve as a bludgeon against political opponents.” Hunter Biden‘s dealings with Burisma and Chinese firms met the same legal criteria as Manafort’s work, yet the DOJ chose to look the other way, exposing a glaring double standard in its application. Hunter’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm, and BHR Partners, a Chinese-backed investment fund, practically screamed for FARA scrutiny. By any reasonable standard, these activities should have triggered registration requirements. Yet the DOJ remained conspicuously silent, shielding the Bidens from the legal entanglements so eagerly imposed on Trump’s allies.

Legal experts have pointed out the hypocrisy: if Paul Manafort’s Ukrainian ties constituted a crime, Hunter Biden’s ventures were open-and-shut FARA violations. The difference, of course, is not legal but political. Some surnames, it seems, are more equal than others.

A Pandora’s Box

The DOJ’s politicized enforcement of FARA has had unintended consequences. Republicans, long skeptical of the law’s ambiguity, now see it as an opportunity to turn the tables. Cases like Senator Robert Menendez’s 2024 conviction for acting as an unregistered agent of Egypt, or Linda Sun’s conviction for representing Chinese Communist Party interests, suggest the pendulum is swinging—but at what cost? FARA’s resurrection, once intended as a partisan tool, has begun to ensnare dissenting Democrats as well.

Even so, glaring omissions remain. Hunter Biden’s immunity from scrutiny remains the starkest example of DOJ inconsistency. The agency’s newfound enthusiasm for enforcement appears curiously targeted, like a spotlight that illuminates selectively while leaving politically favored actors in the shadows. This is not justice; it is theater.

The saga of FARA enforcement is a cautionary tale for any nation claiming to uphold equal justice under the law. It exposes how a law, when selectively applied, can morph into a tool of political vengeance—undermining public trust in institutions and corroding the very foundation of the republic. Justice weaponized is justice denied. Once a dormant statute born to combat Nazi influence, FARA has become a political cudgel in the hands of a system that is anything but blind. The persecution of Paul Manafort and the exoneration of figures like Tony Podesta and Hunter Biden reveal a chilling truth: the machinery of justice, when wielded selectively, ceases to be justice at all.

The harm done here is not merely to individuals like Manafort but to the very concept of justice itself. A republic cannot endure when the law becomes a weapon of partisan vengeance. If FARA remains a tool for political warfare rather than transparency, then we have not upheld the integrity of the republic—we have betrayed it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Wray Slayer


With Donald Trump’s nomination of Kash Patel, the FBI appears to be in panic mode. Chris Wray is the first to fall but not before giving a fantastical account of his seven-year stint as FBI director.

Confirming reports he planned to step down before Donald Trump’s inauguration next month, FBI Director Christopher Wray today announced he will retire at the official end of the Biden administration. Wray, appointed by then-President Trump in 2017, delivered the news during an all-hands-on-deck virtual meeting of more than 38,000 FBI employees.

In typical oleaginous fashion, Wray touted the bureau’s alleged achievements under his leadership—fighting the trafficking of illegal drugs, protecting children from predators, thwarting cybercrime, blah blah—by “abiding by the rule of law and adhering to our core values.” Whatever that means.

The FBI, Wray claimed, is immune to the whimsy of American politics: “Unfortunately, all too often in today’s world, people’s standard for whether something was fair or objective—a Supreme Court decision, a verdict in a high-profile case, the investigation we brought, or the one we didn’t bring—is whether they liked the result, whether their side won or lost. But that’s not how independence and objectivity work. We’re not on any one side. We’re on the American people’s side, the Constitution’s side.”

That, of course, is not true; in fact, it is demonstrably false. While former FBI Director James Comey initiated the partisan weaponization of the FBI against Trump in 2016 with the opening of “Crossfire Hurricane,” Wray accelerated the effort while expanding the FBI’s political hit list. The “side” Wray chose time and again was the side of the Democratic Party—the Bidens in particular—while subjecting Trump supporters and other conservatives to the crushing boot of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world.

What, No Bragging About Jan 6 and Whitmer Kidnapping Plot?

For example, one day before Wray’s “we don’t take no sides” speech, agents with the FBI Counterterrorism Task Force arrested a man from Florida for his participation in the events of January 6 as the caseload for the FBI’s biggest criminal investigation in history reaches 1,600 total defendants. Wray’s FBI continues to execute military-style SWAT raids of J6 protesters; the FBI just issued a “Most Wanted” poster for a 60-ish man from California who fled his home right before a pre-dawn armed raid on October 17.

Oddly, however, Wray did not brag about the J6 investigation during his scripted remarks today. He did not boast about how the FBI saved America from the threat of Indiana meemaws or decorated veterans pissed off about a rigged presidential election. Wray omitted mentioning the FBI’s extensive use of geofence warrants for cell data and subpoenas for banking records and Amazon purchases and the interrogation of family members and co-workers to hunt down J6 trespassers.

Why so humble all of a sudden, Mr. Wray?

He also failed to mention the greatest unsolved crime related to a day Wray himself designated an act of domestic terror: the identity of the J6 pipe bomber. Wray’s FBI still offers a $500,000 reward for anyone who helps nab the individual who allegedly planted explosives—devices Wray’s FBI insist were “viable” and “lethal”—outside the headquarters of the RNC and DNC the night of January 5. Surely the fact the MAGA bomber, who almost assassinated Kamala Harris that day, is still on the loose must keep Wray up at night. Isn’t that open case something Wray would want to encourage his presumed successor, Kash Patel, to pursue?

Wray also overlooked the FBI’s “success” in foiling the plot to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, which was considered the FBI’s biggest domestic terror investigation prior to January 6. Why didn’t Wray take credit for saving Whitmer from the guy living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop in a Grand Rapids strip mall?

Which leads to one reason why Wray may have abruptly announced his resignation today: the long-awaited release of an internal DOJ investigation into the FBI’s role in January 6, which could happen by the end of the week. As I reported here, the report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to at least partially confirm the number of FBI confidential human sources, commonly known as informants, before and on January 6.

In many ways, the Whitmer fednapping hoax—which involved dozens of FBI informants, undercover employees, and handling agents working out of numerous FBI field offices—represented a dress rehearsal for January 6.

And Wray’s Congressional testimony over the past few years related to his knowledge about the presence of informants may contradict the official findings, possibly prompting perjury charges against him after he vacates the J. Edgar Hoover building next month.

Watch his shifting testimony here:

At the same time Wray’s FBI concocted the Whitmer fednapping hoax to make it appear that rightwing gun crazies wanted to take out one of Trump’s biggest political foes in 2020, Wray’s FBI created a coverup operation for Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop. Despite possessing the device, loaded with proof that the “Big Guy” was directly involved in his addicted son’s international racket, since 2019, Wray’s FBI refused to launch an investigation.

To the contrary, Wray’s FBI colluded with Big Tech to ban reporting of the laptop’s contents just weeks before Election Day 2020. Photos, emails, and other correspondence directly contradicted Joe Biden’s public denials of his knowledge about Hunter Biden’s “business” deals, facts that could have swayed the already rigged election results.

One Armed Raid, One Voluntary Search

But nothing comes close to the disparity between the FBI’s handling of Trump’s alleged possession of so-called classified documents versus Joe Biden’s longtime hoarding of similar files. Wray’s FBI, over the objection of lower-level FBI officials, executed a search warrant of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022. At least 30 armed FBI agents from two field offices rummaged through Trump’s residence for nine hours. The private suite of Melania Trump and bedroom of Barron Trump were ransacked despite no evidence classified papers were hidden in either place. The FBI raid plan included the bureau’s “use of lethal force” policy.

But the FBI’s search for classified files at the Biden home did not require armed agents with authorization to shoot-to-kill if necessary. Two “voluntary” searches yielded national security documents, material Biden was never authorized to take as vice president. And while Trump faced a 40-count federal criminal indictment in southern Florida, Biden’s condition as an “elderly man with a poor memory” allowed him to evade prosecution.

There are of course many other examples of Wray’s brazen politicking: arresting pro-life activists, spying on parents protesting woke policies at school board meetings, abusing warrantless surveillance tools for partisan purposes.

This represents the shameful legacy of Christopher Wray. A recent Gallup poll showed the FBI has the lowest approval rating in history; less than one-quarter of Republicans trust the FBI, a stunning figure from the party of law and order.

And all of the self-aggrandizing bloviating in the world can’t cover Wray’s disgraceful performance as director of the FBI. I hope the Cretin burns in eternal rotting hell.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: