George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley derided the House Democrats’ performance during the testimony of former Special Counsel Robert Hur on Tuesday.

Hur testified before the House Judiciary Committee about his report, which meticulously documented how President Joe Biden had broken laws against mishandling classified documents, but he nonetheless declined to recommend prosecution because a jury would be unlikely to indict and convict such a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

House Democrats, nonetheless, attempted to whitewash Joe Biden’s criminal mishandling of classified documents, such as Rep. Jayapal (D-WA) insisting that Robert Hur had “exonerated” the president of wrongdoing, a claim that Hur steadfastly denied.

On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Gaetz (R-FL) was highly dissatisfied with Hur’s rationale for declining prosecution of Joe Biden, claiming that the former special counsel was invoking a non-existent “senile cooperator theory.”

Turley provided further commentary on the Hur hearings.

“Well, I thought the Republicans did a particularly good job today,” Turley said on Fox News’ “America Reports.” “Often the Democrats are way ahead in framing of hearings, but at points the Democrats seemed almost a border on the delusional. When you had Hur say ‘I did not exonerate the president’ and then Democrats would say ‘okay, so you exonerated the president’ and he would say ‘no, I didn’t’ and they would say ‘thank you for that, with that exoneration.’ So for a lot of people watching, they probably kept on having to sort of reverse and see if they missed something here.”

“The fact is that Hur tried over and over again to distinguish between his findings, which is that he was not confident he could convict if he did bring any charges, and the statement of Democrats that the president was cleared,” Turley added.

Turley noted that the report’s facts make it shocking that no charges have been brought against Biden.

“But out of this hearing, it came really some quite shocking observations. I mean, at the end you’re sort of still wondering why he wasn’t charged, including Hur saying ‘look, we have audio tape of the president referring to the fact that he found classified evidence in his basement.’ Well, okay, that seems like full knowledge. But he kept on coming back to the fact that I think a jury might have been persuaded that this is a nice, elderly man with a faulty memory,” he continued.

Hur decided not to bring charges against Biden, despite discovering evidence that he reportedly knew he had sensitive information in his private residence, because a jury would regard him as a “well-meaning” old guy with a “poor memory.”

Biden falsely described Hur’s conversation with him, telling reporters at a surprise news conference that Hur questioned him about his son’s death. The transcript of the interview reveals that the president, not Hur, brought up Beau Biden’s death.

Turley provided more commentary on X:

Hur just confirmed that Biden had documents marked classified from when he was a senator. Some of those documents reportedly came from a secure SCIF, which would likely require Biden himself to remove them.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 12, 2024

“Hur just confirmed that Biden had documents marked classified from when he was a senator. Some of those documents reportedly came from a secure SCIF, which would likely require Biden himself to remove them,” he noted.

Robert Hur’s refusal to bring charges against President Joe Biden for his documented violations of classified documents law, which the intelligence community is now investigating for potential exposure of national security secrets in a “damage assessment,” is not only a dereliction of duty, a usurpation of the adjudication of justice by a jury of one’s peers, but it is also an attack on the institution of the rule of law.

The United States was founded on legal principles arising out of the many struggles throughout the history of Western Civilization to hold elites accountable to the same standard as the masses. The principle of “blind justice” is under full assault in the United States today, and Robert Hur is an accomplice to that regressive and dangerous trend.

NOW READ:

New House Report on J6 Lays Out Damning Details of How Nancy Pelosi Failed America During Capitol Riots

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina fired back at ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on Monday for “bullying” and “shaming” her for her support of former President Donald Trump, who has been the subject of unproven sexual assault allegations.

Stephanopoulos and Mace clashed on “This Week” on Sunday over her support for Trump and the $83 million judgment against Trump in a civil defamation action brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Mace said the ABC News anchor had “no idea” what she had gone through.

“I was so shocked and dismayed by the line of questioning. George Stephanopoulos tried to bully me and shame me as a rape survivor over my support for Donald Trump, which is insane to me, because he wasn’t found guilty of rape anywhere,” Mace told Fox News host Harris Faulkner.

“But the other thing is that George Stephanopoulos doesn’t – he has never felt the shame of rape. He doesn’t know what this journey is like. It’s a journey of healing over a lifetime and I will tell you, I’ve been built for tough, I’ve been through some very tough things, including the Citadel. The Citadel made me tougher than I’ve ever been. That guy playing Mr. Tough Guy yesterday, wouldn’t last 30 seconds at the Citadel, the military college of South Carolina. He has no idea what he is talking about.”

Mace first publicly addressed her rape during a 2019 debate in South Carolina’s state house over a “heartbeat” measure that restricted abortion access after six weeks of pregnancy.

“Here he was judging me, bullying me and shaming me as a rape victim for my political choices,” Mace told Faulkner about Stephanopoulos’s conduct. “And it’s wrong, but it’s almost like rape is bad unless you are Republican, and then we’ll shame you for it and the way that the left reacted is just a reflection of how bad Joe Biden’s numbers are that this is what they do to rape survivors, to rape victims, to shame them for their political choices.”

Stephanopoulos played Mace’s 2019 statements and then questioned her support for Trump, causing Mace to accuse the former Clinton White House official of “shaming” her. Mace chastised Carroll for joking about going shopping with MSNBC journalist Rachel Maddow and found Stephanopoulos’ line of questioning “disgusting.”

“I said my piece, I thought I did it more respectfully than I should have and I probably wanted to, but it was horrifying. You could see at the very beginning of that interview, I winced,” Mace told Faulkner. “You can see in my facial expression, because I was there to talk about 2024, I wasn’t brought on to talk about my own rape. I didn’t agree to any of that, and he shares the speech I gave, the impassioned speech five years ago about telling my story for the first time. It is very difficult for me to watch that speech, it’s painful. You can see it on my face. I was in dismay that this is where he was going with this. It was disgusting.”

Megyn Kelly had earlier shredded George Stephanopoulos for his ‘rape shaming’ of Nancy Mace.

“What a kind sensitive man who clearly cares deeply about women and their sexual assault allegations,” Kelly said. “Thanks for being an ally, George. I see how concerned you are that victims might not come forward if they are publicly attacked by their rapist or his defenders to be sure. That is a very real concern.”

“It happens all the time, which you know, because you invented it,” she went on. “Remember when you created a whole command center designed to smear Bill Clinton’s sexual assault and rape accusers so you could elevate him right into the presidency? The attorney representing many of Bill’s accusers, and there were many, George. Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers to name just a few, said you and James Carville at Hillary Clinton’s direction formed a so-called War Room, whose purpose was to destroy any woman that would challenge Bill Clinton. You know ‘the war room. They made a whole movie about it.”

“Such a tough guy,” she remarked after airing a clip from the film. “This attorney points out that you don’t like to talk about this particular behavior, George, maybe that’s why you skipped it in your discussion with Nancy Mace. But as you know, private detectives were hired. The women say they were threatened and they were publicly shamed by you and your well-funded team. Did you worry then that this behavior might shame victims from coming forward? You admitted in your own memoir that Hillary Clinton told you about one accuser quote, ‘we have to destroy her story.’ Did you object? Did you say that’s shaming? No. In fact, you later described yourself as Bill Clinton’s quote, ‘enabler.’ But sir, how could you have enabled and defended a man like this accused by multiple women of sexual assault, rape, and harassment?”

“Which brings us to Paula Jones. You were Clinton’s attack dog. When Jones came forward claiming Bill Clinton had exposed himself to her, that when he was governor of Arkansas, he summoned her through state troopers to a little rock, Arkansas hotel room and took out his penis,” she added.

“A charge Clinton denies just as Trump denies Eugene Carroll’s allegations against him,” she continued. “What do you think he wanted done with that thing, George? Just a little show and tell. Jones was poor, a graduate of secretarial school and worked for the state. She had no power, no connections, and he was the sitting governor. She didn’t go to Columbia and Oxford and become a Rhodes scholar like you, George.”

“She was a nothing to you. Your buddy Carville immediately went after Ms. Jones infamously saying, ‘If you drag a hundred dollars bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.’ And you did you defend Paula Jones saying, ‘we don’t shame accusers. That’s wrong.’ No. You compare Jones to Tanya Harding as quoting here from the New York Times. Just another woman seeking cash for telling a tabloid tale.”

“Fire up that war room George and destroy her,” she added. “Bill Clinton would ultimately pay Paula Jones almost a million dollars to settle her civil suit against him. And you remained Team Clinton all the way to say nothing of Juanita Broderick’s rape allegation or Kathleen Willey’s allegations and more. But now you quote, ‘don’t understand how Nancy Mace can support a man found liable for sexual assault of one woman 30 years ago in a civil trial in which the burden of proof is just 51% likely.’ My God. How did anyone at ABC think this was a good line of inquiry for George Stephanopoulos?”

NOW READ:

Matt Gaetz Exposes Robert Hur For Refusing to Charge Joe Biden in Classified Documents Scandal

Republican Colorado Rep. Ken Buck announced on Tuesday that he will be departing from Congress sooner than he previously indicated.

Buck decided in early November that he wouldn’t seek another term in the lower chamber, and would retire following the 2024 election. The House Freedom Caucus member, who frequently broke from his party, announced on X that he will be leaving by the end of next week, bringing the Republicans’ already slim majority to two seats.

“It has been an honor to serve the people of Colorado’s 4th District in Congress for the past 9 years. I want to thank them for their support and encouragement throughout the years,” Buck wrote. “Today, I am announcing that I will depart Congress at the end of next week. I look forward to staying involved in our political process, as well as spending more time in Colorado and with my family.”

Buck has been in Congress since 2015, and was handily reelected in the red district each cycle. The congressman serves on the House Judiciary Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and the Subcommittee on the Indo-Pacific and Western Hemisphere.

The congressman was one of the eight Republicans who voted to oust former House GOP Speaker Kevin McCarthy in early October, along with Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Eli Crane of Arizona, Bob Good of Virginia, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Matt Rosendale of Montana and Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert is the frontrunner to replace Buck among a large field of GOP hopefuls. The congresswoman currently represents Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, but she decided to run in a friendlier environment across the state in December after a tumultuous year in her personal life.

NOW READ:

Hur Wrecks Squad Member Who Claims Joe Biden Was ‘Exonerated’ by Special Counsel Report

Former Special Counsel Robert Hur testified before the House of Representatives and dropped several “bombshell” revelations about Joe Biden’s classified documents case.

But one House Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, attempted to whitewash Robert Hur’s findings for public consumption, but with disastrous consequences.

Jayapal attempted to claim that Hur “exonerated” Joe Biden, but got instantly fact-checked. Even more absurd, however, is she scolded Hur for correcting her bogus claim.

“You exonerated [Biden],” Jayapal claimed.

“I did not exonerate him,” Hur corrected her.

“Sir, it’s my time,” she replied. “Thank you.”

Japayal fared no better in the overall course of her questioning of Hur.

“So this lengthy, expensive and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden for every document you discussed in your report,” she claimed.

“You found insufficient evidence that the president violated any laws about possession or retention of classified materials. The primary law that you analyzed for potential prosecution was part of the Espionage Act 18 USC 793 E, which criminalizes willful retention or disclosure of national defense information. Is that correct?”

“Congresswoman, that is one statute that we analyzed,” Hur replied. “I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used — ‘exoneration.’ That is not a word I used in my report and that is not part of my job as a prosecutor…”

“I’m going to continue with my questions,” Japayal said, talking over Hur’s response.

“You exonerated him,” she wrongfully insisted, despite Hur attempting to correct her willful distortion of the report.

Special Counsel Hur’s testimony before the House of Representatives laid out in damning fashion how Joe Biden not only mishandled classified documents, as a matter of fact and not opinion, but he had lied to about it, raising questions about obstruction of justice.

NOW READ:

Matt Gaetz Exposes Robert Hur For Refusing to Charge Joe Biden in Classified Documents Scandal

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis finds herself in more hot water over evidence of ethical violations regarding partisan collusion with the now-disbanded January 6 select committee to bring criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

Republicans on a House committee announced Monday that they are investigating Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is prosecuting a case against former President Donald Trump, for interactions she had with the House Jan. 6 committee, which was disbanded last year.

A report released on Monday delved into depth regarding the information and evidence allegedly concealed by the Democrat-controlled House Jan. 6 select committee, but they also discovered that the Jan. 6 committee talked with Willis, a Democrat, before she filed her case against President Trump.

During its initial review of records archived by the Select Committee, the Subcommittee discovered a letter from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to the Select Committee dated December 17, 2021.273 In this letter, Willis requested access to any Select Committee records relevant to her investigation into President Trump’s actions to challenge the 2020 presidential election, including “recordings and transcripts of witness interviews and depositions, electronic and print records of communications, and records of travel.”

Based on public reporting, the Select Committee shared important records with Willis and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Select Committee provided “Fulton County prosecutors…key evidence about what former President Trump and his top advisers knew” with respect to Georgia’s 2020 election results.

Politico also reported that Fani Willis’ staff met with the Select Committee in April 2022 and participated in multiple phone calls with the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. The same video recordings that the Fulton County District Attorney requested were never archived by the Select Committee.

Although no additional communications between the Select Committee and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office were archived by the Select Committee, the prospect of the Select Committee sharing video recordings of witness interviews with Willis but not this Subcommittee remains particularly concerning. The Subcommittee has opened an investigation into the extent of the coordination between Willis and the Select Committee and is committed to uncovering answers to these questions.

The Jan. 6 committee, chaired by former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), harshly criticized the former president and essentially blamed him for the breach at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Republicans and the former president claim the panel was politicized and overlooked key facts.

According to Monday’s report, the select committee shared information with Willis and her office, including allegations made against the former president and his aides about the 2020 Georgia election results.

Willis requested access to any Select Committee records relevant to her investigation into President Trump’s actions to challenge the 2020 presidential election, including “recordings and transcripts of witness interviews and depositions, electronic and print records of communications, and records of travel,” according to a letter she sent to the committee on December 17, 2021.

Apart from the House Administration Committee’s findings, other House Republicans have pressed Willis in recent months. Last month, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated that his staff had met with a “whistleblower” who had “raised concerns that Ms. Willis was not following the rules of grant dollars in an appropriate manner.”

Jordan issued a subpoena to Willis a few weeks ago to acquire documents linked to potential abuse of taxpayer funds in her case against President Trump and more than a dozen other co-defendants.

The letter stated that Willis was “required to produce the following items in your possession, custody, or control, from the period of September 1, 2020, to present in unredacted form.”

Previously, the district attorney’s office criticized House Republicans’ proposals as politically motivated. Last year, she stated that Congress had no constitutional authority to “interfere with a state criminal matter.”

President Trump has been hit with a series of charges in Georgia, with prosecutors accusing him of illegally seeking to sway the 2020 election outcome. The former president has pleaded not guilty, claiming the allegations are an effort to interfere in the 2024 election.

The entire January 6 report can be read below.

New House J6 Report Details… by Kyle Becker

NOW READ:

New House Report on J6 Lays Out Damning Details of How Nancy Pelosi Failed America During Capitol Riots

A new House report on January 6 gives Americans the “other side of the story” that was suppressed during the partisan committee’s hearings leading up to the ultimate recommendation that Donald Trump should be charged over his role in the Capitol Riots.

There is not only exonerating evidence that shows decisively that Donald Trump had nothing to do with inciting a pre-planned attack on the Capitol, but the report raises extremely serious questions about J6 security failures, including the potential complicity of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who showed willful neglect to authorize National Guard troops.

Speaker Pelosi’s failure to authorize National Guard troops during the attack on the Congress, despite repeated requests from former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund through her House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, led to prolonged disruption of the official election challenges, which were launched by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and sustained by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at 1:12 p.m.

It is a further oddity that the DNC pipe bomb threat was reported at 1:14 p.m., despite multiple security sweeps and a dummy pipe bomb that had sat in the open near a park bench; surveillance footage suggests the J6 pipe bomb suspect had placed it there to sit overnight.

The 2020 election challenges would eventually be supported by 147 Congressmen, including 8 senators. Thus, it was extremely fortuitous for the Democrats not to have to deal with explaining to the American people how the 2020 election was entirely ‘above board.’

The new House report provides key insights into Nancy Pelosi’s curious behavior on January 6, which includes her dereliction of duty to secure the Congress, along with showing off for a documentary filmed by her daughter Alexandra Pelosi.

Prior to January 6, 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police Chief was required by law to receive approval from the Capitol Police Board before directly requesting assistance from the D.C. National Guard. This requirement caused significant delays in the deployment of the National Guard and therefore delayed law enforcement’s efforts to secure the Capitol.

In the days leading up to January 6, both the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms received requests from USCP Chief of Police Steven Sund for approval to request National Guard assistance. Chief Sund testified that he first requested National Guard assistance from the
House and Senate Sergeant at Arms during the morning of January 3, 2021. According to his testimony before the Subcommittee on September 19, 2023, Chief Sund decided to expand the security perimeter around the Capitol and believed National Guard assistance would be needed to man the expanded perimeter due to the staffing constraints that a Joint Session placed on the Department.

Chief Sund testified that on the morning of January 3, 2021, he walked into House Sergeant at Arms (“HSAA”) Paul Irving’s office and asked that he approve a request for National Guard assistance to support the expanded perimeter.283 According to Chief Sund’s testimony, HSAA Paul Irving, upon learning of the request, said he did not like the “optics” of National Guard troops on Capitol Grounds and did not think the intelligence justified National Guard deployment. It should be noted, however, that HSAA Irving has testified that he does not recall ever using the term ‘optics’ in relation to National Guard deployment, and claims Chief Sund ultimately agreed with his conclusion that the intelligence did not support requesting National Guard assistance.

Before departing, HSAA Irving then urged Chief Sund to speak to the Senate Sergeant at Arms (“SSAA”) and then-Chairman of the Capitol Police Board, Michael Stenger, about the request.286 Later on January 3, Chief Sund conferred with SSAA Stenger, who like HSAA Irving, delayed Chief Sund’s request. SSAA Stenger did, however, suggest that Chief Sund reach out to D.C. National Guard Commanding General William Walker and inquire about what National Guard resources he could have ready for deployment if needed. Chief Sund later wrote in his book: “Several weeks after January 6, I had the chance to ask Stenger if he had been given a heads-up that I was coming to request the Guard, and he told me that Irving had called him and said, ‘Sund just came to my office asking for national Guard assistance. We need to come up with another plan. I will never get this by Pelosi.’”

Had the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms approved Chief Sund’s request, it is likely the Capitol’s outer perimeter would never have been breached. Beginning on December 31, 2020, Major General (“MG”) William Walker of the D.C. National Guard received two letters from the Washington, D.C. government. The first was from Dr. Christopher Rodiguez, the Director of the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, who issued a request for assistance (“RFA”) from the D.C. National Guard to assist the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) at metro stations and traffic control points (“TCP”) on January 5 and January 6 due to planned protests throughout the city. The second letter came from the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser, urging General Walker to immediately connect with Dr. Rodriquez regarding the RFA.

These requests for the D.C. National Guard were directly related to the intelligence received by the D.C. government regarding the scheduled demonstrations.292 In addition to requesting the National Guard, Mayor Bowser also publicly requested non-residents of D.C. to “stay out of the District” in anticipation of these protests.

It is critical to note what Nancy Pelosi was doing during these attempts to get her House Sergeant at Arms to authorize National Guard troops.

On January 6th, 2021, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had her daughter, Alexandra, a documentary filmmaker, accompany her around the United States Capitol with a camera while the day’s events transpired.

Alexandra’s film was given to CNN, which gladly aired the cherry-picked footage in October 2021, which conveniently reinforced the Democratic Speaker’s narrative that the J6 riots were an “insurrection.”

Speaker Pelosi is briefed by staff in the clip. She watches Trump supporters walking toward the Capitol from her office windows says she “hoped” Trump would come to the Capitol.

Pelosi then exclaims, “I’m gonna punch him out” – threatening physically harm against the President of the United States.

But it was a little-noticed aspect of the video that is now raising serious questions about the former Speaker’s coordination and knowledge aforehand about the January 6 riots.

In the video, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seen talking to Secret Service agents about President Donald Trump.

“The Secret Service said they have dissuaded him from coming to Capitol Hill,” Chief of Staff Terri McCullough said. “They told him, they don’t have the resources to protect him here.”

“So, at the moment, he is not coming, but that could change,” she added.

“I hope he comes, I want to punch him out,” Nancy Pelosi remarks.

“I’ve been waiting for this, for trespassing on the Capitol grounds,” she went on. “I’m going to punch him out and I’m going to go to jail and I’m going to be happy.”

There are some very important things to point out about this particular exchange. First of all, Pelosi’s officer and staff were coordinating with the Secret Service during the J6 riots.

Why does this matter? Because the texts and call transcripts of Secret Service agents on January 6 have now gone “missing.”

As reported by the New York Intelligencer in July 2022:

A raft of Secret Service text messages sent on January 5 and January 6, 2021, have been deleted, according to a letter from the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security.

In the letter, which the Intercept reported was originally sent to the House and Senate Homeland Security Committee and then given to the January 6 Committee, investigators claim the messages were deleted soon after officials asked for them, lending the episode an air of nefariousness.

The second aspect of the video that is concerning is the remark that Pelosi had been “waiting for this.” She then refers to “trespassing on the Capitol grounds.”

Nancy Pelosi, for her part, claimed in January that she “begged” for National Guard troops, which is impossible. How do we know? There would have been National Guard troops deployed to secure the Congress, who were already on stand-by, according to General William Walker.

But a huge contrast with Nancy Pelosi’s negligent behavior comes from Donald Trump himself. That is because it was confirmed that Donald Trump had issued his desire that National Guard troops secure the Congress, while he did not have authorization to request that the troops be put there by himself.

The partisan January 6 committee suppressed this exculpatory evidence, which renders claims that he sought to disrupt the election certification (actually, the election challenges) completely implausible.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway recently reported this story.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.

He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Nonetheless, the Democratic Party has been seeking to eliminate Donald Trump from state ballots based on the spurious claim that he had backed an “insurrection,” and are attempting to see him convicted in court for exercising his constitutional right to challenge elections.

The entire January 6 report can be read below:

New House J6 Report Details… by Kyle Becker

NOW READ:

New RNC Leadership Cleans House, Goes on Major Firing Spree

It’s a “blood bath” at the RNC.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is now conducting a massive personnel restructure. The new leadership team, which is closely linked with former President Donald Trump, has taken the dramatic step of firing scores of employees.

The “house cleaning” represents a concerted attempt by the new RNC leadership to overhaul the committee’s direction and strategy ahead of critical election contests. According to sources familiar with the proceedings, the purge is part of a larger attempt to consolidate control and redirect the RNC’s operational focus.

The firings, characterized by insiders as a “wild firing spree,” follow upon Lara Trump being elected as RNC Co-Chair, along with North Carolina GOP leader Michael Whatley.

Michael Whatley, who has shown support for Trump, nonetheless has a mixed record on policies such as election integrity. He has been accused of practicing law without a license and being a McDaniel loyalist, but has garnered the backing of former President Trump.

Lara Trump’s nomination as co-chair was viewed as a watershed event for the RNC, ushering in a new era of leadership that is expected to closely reflect the political and intellectual leanings of the Trump faction within the GOP. Her promotion to a key leadership position inside the RNC was welcomed with both praise and suspicion, highlighting the party’s profound differences about its future direction and the role of the Trump family among its ranks.

Politico reported:

All told, the expectation is that more than 60 RNC staffers who work across the political, communications and data departments will be let go. Those being asked to resign include five members of the senior staff, though the names were not made public. Additionally, some vendor contracts are expected to be cut.

In a letter to some political and data staff, Sean Cairncross, the RNC’s new chief operating officer, said that the new committee leadership was “in the process of evaluating the organization and staff to ensure the building is aligned” with its vision. “During this process, certain staff are being asked to resign and reapply for a position on the team.”

The overhaul is aimed at cutting, what one of the people described as, “bureaucracy” at the RNC. But the move also underscores the swiftness with which Trump’s operation is moving to take over the Republican Party’s operations after the former president all but clinched the party’s presidential nomination last week.

Ronna McDaniel indicated in February that she will retire from office on March 8th, upholding her vow to step down following the South Carolina primary. At the committee’s spring meeting, McDaniel had mixed feelings, stating, “It is a little bittersweet to be with all of you here today as I step down as chair after seven years of working with you all.”

It certainly was “bittersweet” for Ronna McDaniel loyalists, as well, who are undoubtedly among the staffing casualties on “Bloody Monday” at the RNC. Before stepping down, McDaniel had taken heat for her multiple election losing streak, as well as wasteful spending on frivolities like limousines and floral bouquets while viable candidates lacked backing.

H/T Trending Politics News

NOW READ:

President Biden Seeks To Increase His Student Debt Handout In New Budget

President Joe Biden is hoping to expand his efforts to slash student debt with a $12 billion initiative in his fiscal year 2025 budget released Monday.

After the Supreme Court ruled in June that Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was unconstitutional, the Department of Education announced a new costly repayment plan followed by a near $5 million handout in December. Biden proposed the $12 billion Reducing the Costs of College Fund to help finance “strategies to lower college costs for students, along with several other initiatives aimed at furthering his student loan forgiveness agenda.

“From Day One of his Administration, President Biden vowed to fix the student loan system and make sure higher education is a pathway to the middle class—not a barrier to opportunity,” the budget reads. “Already, the President has cancelled more student debt than any President in history, approving debt cancellation for nearly 4 million borrowers through more than two dozen executive actions.”

Biden also proposed “eliminating the origination fees charged to borrowers on every new federal student loan,” increasing “the discretionary maximum Pell Grant by $100” and expanding “free community college through a Federal-State partnership.”

The budget would also pay for two years of tuition for those whose families make less than $125,000 that attend Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions.

The Supreme Court decided that the Biden administration wasn’t permitted to forgive $10,000 in student loan debt for non-Pell Grant recipients and up to $20,000 for those who received the Pell Grant. Following the decision, the Department of Education announced it would forgive student loans via the Higher Education Act and income-driven repayment plans instead.

The Biden administration has already cancelled billions of dollars worth of student debt for more than 3.6 million individuals, according to the White House.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

NOW READ:

President Trump Stands to Gain Up to $4 Billion from Recent Court Decision

There’s a heart-warming ending to Deadspin’s famously failed story of a 9-year-old kid who was caught wearing “black face” at a Chiefs game (obviously just team-colored face paint.)

The writer, Carron J. Phillips, is now unemployed. Gregg Re, former head writer for Tucker Carlson, shared the good news.

Carron J Phillips made his name for defaming a child, but even before that, he regularly defamed white people as racists

he typically targeted athletes in order to technically fit within deadspin's mandate of sports coverage pic.twitter.com/RO9aBDlox2

— Gregg Re (@gregg_re) March 11, 2024

“Carron J Phillips, who defamed a child for wearing face paint, is now unemployed after the collapse of Deadspin,” Re noted, adding, “to appeal to future employers, he lists ‘pulitzer nominee’ on his bio. [B]eing a ‘pulitzer nominee’ means nothing except that you paid a $75 free to be considered.”

“Carron J Phillips made his name for defaming a child, but even before that, he regularly defamed white people as racists,” Re continued. “[H]e typically targeted athletes in order to technically fit within deadspin’s mandate of sports coverage.”

It’s a positive development for journalism — including sports journalism — to see Woke smear merchants like Phillips have to seek alternative employment. With any luck, he will have learned his lesson that weaponizing political narratives to attack innocent citizens is not what journalism is about.

After the report, Phillips deleted his tweet after initially doubling down.

After defaming a little boy, Carron Philips has finally deleted the deranged tweet where he doubled down.

He must’ve lawyered up. pic.twitter.com/n6oqSuxl70

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 28, 2023

“After defaming a little boy, Carron Philips has finally deleted the deranged tweet where he doubled down,” the popular X account End Wokeness posted. “He must’ve lawyered up.”

The Deadspin story remained posted on X; however, it was also deleted after being Community-Noted into infamy.

Conservative pundits blasted Deadspin after looking into the Deadspin hit piece.

Yeah, the black Chiefs players look totally offended by this Native American kid’s so-called “blackface”

I really hope @Deadspin gets sued over this.pic.twitter.com/s2ovzuQgdf

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) November 29, 2023

Here’s the backstory: During CBS’ broadcast of a Kansas City Chiefs game, the camera caught a glimpse of a young fan wearing a Native American headdress. It only showed the right half of his face, which was painted black.

Instead of doing more research, Woke sports media sites like Deadspin accused the kid of wearing “Black face,” a demeaning form of mockery of African-Americans popular in the 1930s, and have since failed to retract their accusations despite the abundance of known facts flying in the face of their half-baked narrative.

The main problem is that left side of the child’s face was painted red, plainly repping Chiefs colors, while the other half was painted black.

Any thinking person knows that this would not be “Black face”; in addition, wearing a Native American headdress has nothing to do with “Black face.” It flat-out makes no sense.

“Deadspin published a hit piece on a little kid for wearing face paint of his team colors,” the popular X account End Wokeness remarked. “They even used a camera angle to make it look like he was wearing blackface. I hope he sues them into oblivion.”

It would be bad enough just to write an attack piece on a child while pushing an ignorant political agenda, but the writer of the piece, Carron J. Phillips, even doubled down.

Libs of TikTok remarked on the situation:

Shame on you trying to ruin a young child’s life. Hope he sues you for defamation. https://t.co/XAyenORfQ6

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 28, 2023

“Shame on you trying to ruin a young child’s life. Hope he sues you for defamation,” she said.

“How soon they forget,” Syzmon Thomas said, while referring to Nicholas Sandmann, who prevailed in his defamation lawsuits against the corporate media. “I hope the parents sue.”

How soon they forget.

I hope the parents sue. pic.twitter.com/4bhxzxlmcZ

— Syzmon Thomas (@ThomasSzymon) November 27, 2023

The Deadspin hit piece was inexcusable. Let’s hope Woke journalists think twice before writing half-cocked pieces attacking children again.

NOW READ:

President Trump Stands to Gain Up to $4 Billion from Recent Court Decision