June 16, 2024 - House Intel Chairman Mike Turner explains how his team and intel community will control Speaker Johnson and MAGA Republicans

This interview by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner is buckets of interesting and simultaneously very revealing.

Playing along with the big club intelligence game as framed by Margaret Brennan, HPSCI Chairman Turner showcases his weasel nature and alignment with the worst actors in the Intelligence Community from the outset.  Watch it closely and you will notice that Turner frames national intelligence activity as a political product.

Instead of telling Ms Brennan that it is impossible to hold a public hearing on terror threats because her President refuses to declassify the intelligence, thereby limiting conversation to only closed-door hearing discussion, Turner intentionally obfuscates to cloud the issue.

Then the bigger reveals start to happen as Ms. Brennan brings up the fabricated issues around Scott Perry and Ronny Jackson.  Brennan says Perry is under FBI investigation (Perry is not and Turner knows he is not), but Turner refuses to say that Perry is not under investigation.  Brennan then makes an outlandish claim of Representative Jackson taking perfectly legal medication to help him sleep.  Instead of quashing the ridiculous narrative, Turner plays along with the intent to hold leverage over Jackson (think blackmail).

Representative Mike Turner really is one of the worst members of congress.  I would rank Turner’s corrupt and Machiavellian status right next to SSCI Chairman Mark Warner.  Turner will defend the corrupt IC Deep State even more than Marco Rubio.  Remember, it was Turner who manufactured the letter of support for his FISA renewal strategy, falsely attributing supportive signatures of Devin Nunes and John Ratcliffe.

IF you are good at spotting corruption, WATCH between the lines and the Turner comments shout at you:

Welcome back to Face the Nation.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER (R-Ohio): Good morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair Turner, last week, as you know, there were federal immigration arrests of these eight individuals with suspected ties to ISIS. They were rounded up in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and New York.

They traveled from Central Asia, Tajikistan, across the southern border into the U.S. Do you have any indication that there is an act of terror plot?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, Margaret – I’m – your – I can neither confirm nor deny all the details that you’ve just reported.

But what’s important about these reports and what we’re seeing, especially in conjunction with Director Wray’s public statements that we are at the highest level of a possible terrorist threat, that the administration’s policies have absolutely – you know, directly related to threats to Americans.

These are no longer speculative, no longer hypothetical. And we have actual administration officials stepping forward. And, certainly, our committee and our committee members have concurred on the intelligence that we’re seeing, that, as a result of the administration’s policies allowing people to cross the border unvetted, we have terrorists that are actively working inside the United States that are a threat to Americans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the issue, as we understand it from our reporting, is that there was vetting, but that the vetting didn’t turn up any derogatory information.

Doesn’t that indicate that there’s a broader problem with the system that Congress would also have to address?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, Margaret, as you know, there – there are those who are vetted and – and in the vetting process.

They – there is no evidence the United States currently has that they’re actively engaged in terrorist plotting or engaged with terrorist groups, organizations. And this administration, by their own policy, are then allowing those individuals in, instead of fully vetting them, fully understanding what the risk is to the United States, and for the fact that they’re letting them in, and there they are – they’re entering the United States through the southern border illegally.

And that’s what the threat is. That’s what Director Wray is identifying and is bringing forward. This administration’s policies are directly resulting in people who are in the United States illegally who have ties to terrorist groups and organizations, and this is a threat.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The U.S. has already been in a heightened threat environment.

But, this past week, our CBS colleague and the former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell wrote a piece in “Foreign Affairs” warning that the United States faces a serious threat of terrorist attack in the months ahead.

He called on Congressional Intelligence Committees, like the one you chair, to have public hearings with the director of national intelligence, the CIA, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Will you commit to doing that?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, we have.

In fact, the testimony that you just played of Director Wray…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Public unclassified information from those individuals?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: The – the – the testimony that you just played of Director Wray was a result of the Intelligence Committees, including mine – Director Wray was testifying before my committee and said exactly the same thing publicly of the threat.

What we have done, and continue to do, and what this administration needs to be held to, is that they need to declassify the information of the terrorist threats that they’re seeing, so that there can be a public discourse concerning what the administration’s risk and threats are.

You know, this was notable and expected as a result of the Biden administration’s policy of an open southern border. And we are seeing it absolutely across the country. The – and my – my committee has been open, my members have been open…

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: … and publicly discussing this threat and pointing the finger directly at the administration’s policies.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as you know, the administration points back at Congress, saying they asked for more authorities and Congress refused to act.

But I want to ask you about the Intelligence Committee. You’ve tried to keep it nonpartisan, as you’ve said on this program. Speaker Johnson, though, recently decided, as you know, to add two congressmen, Scott Perry and Dr. Ronny Jackson, to your committee, reportedly at the behest of Donald Trump.

One of your members, Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, referred to Perry as a threat to intelligence oversight – quote – “He will be on the very committee that oversees the FBI while he is directly under investigation by this very agency.”

Do you think that is a disqualifying conflict of interest?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, being concerned, obviously, about that issue, and being the chairman, I contacted the I.C. to see whether or not there was an issue that, you know, in due diligence from our committee, that we needed to – to resolve or address.

They indicated that there was not an – a – an ongoing or continuing issue or even a current issue that we needed to address.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The FBI told you that?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: The issue, I think, here that’s most important – the I.C. told us that.

I think what’s very important here is that the speaker makes this appointment and then what he’s done since. The speaker has absolutely committed himself to these two individuals following the rules, not only the laws. Both of them have military experience. Both of them have had access to classified information before.

And there’s been no reports of any incidences of their handling – mishandling of classified information. The speaker has met with our committee, Republican members. He has spoken directly to Jim Himes. We’ve had a meeting with Mr. Perry, myself and the speaker, where all of these assurances have been made.

But the speaker has said this, that he’s going to continue to monitor the situation, if there’s any indication of anything improper happening, that he will intervene. And I believe the speaker will assert leadership here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And withdraw that nomination potentially?

Well, look, I – Scott Perry has come out and took aim at you, as you know, because he said, if he gets on this committee, he’ll conduct “actual oversight, not blind obedience to some facets of our intelligence community.”

And he claimed they’re spying on the American people. How do you respond to that?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Well, he has – he has apologized. And, certainly, those are – are the types of words that you would not want from somebody who’s joining a committee that is obviously very dedicated to national security and very dedicated to working in a bipartisan way.

I think that, upon him joining the committee, and looking at the work that both he gets to do and the work that we’re doing, that he’ll be absolutely satisfied that he can play a role to – in the work that we’re doing for national security.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I – I understand you said you’ve – you received assurances about their ability to handle classified information that they’ll have access to.

But, as you know, Dr. Ronny Jackson was demoted by the Navy because a Pentagon inspector general report found that he had been taking sedatives while providing medical care to two U.S. presidents. That kind of compromising behavior would be disqualifying for most people when it comes to receiving a security clearance or having any access to the nation’s secrets.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: I’m aware of those reports.

I – as you have just indicated, though, they are unrelated to the handling of classified information. And, certainly, the individuals in his district believe that those issues are resolved. He presents himself to – to Congress with his military background.

And we’re going to be certainly working with the speaker and with Mr. Jackson so that – again, that he is a very productive member of our committee. And, if there are any incidences, the speaker has indicated that, as with Mr. Perry, that he will enforce our rules.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But there are – these seats could be filled by Republicans with national security backgrounds who don’t have these kinds of compromising situations over their heads.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: There certainly was a broad range of individuals who – who sought these seats.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You were with Donald Trump when he was on Capitol Hill this past week and he met with lawmakers.

Is it true, as Congressman Matt Gaetz claims, that Mr. Trump said “Ukrainians are never going to be there for us” and that he was trashing the Ukraine aid bill to Speaker Johnson’s face, which Gaetz said is – “so epic.”

Is that true? And did anyone push back?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: I don’t believe that the president – Trump did that. I was certainly present. He did raise issues of how the Ukraine issue is being handled.

I think there’s certainly enough criticism to go around the Ukrainians not being given the authority to use weapons inside Russia to hit targets that are hitting them. But I think, overall, what was important is that – that Trump was very focused on what his issues were as to why he was seeking the presidency and the changes in policies in the Biden administration.

Border was an issue. Energy was an issue. The economy, China and inflation were an issue, all ones where he had real, concrete things that the Biden administration did to reverse his policies that have resulted in negative consequences for our country that he intends to reverse back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will see if he stands by Ukraine, then, if he is elected.

Chair Turner, thank you for your time.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: I believe he – I believe he will. And – and, certainly, the – of the members who are strongly supporting Ukraine…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: … we certainly believe that he will, and it certainly is essential.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair Turner, thank you for your time this morning.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL TURNER: Thank you.

(Conservative Treehouse, 6/16/2024)  (Archive)

June 17, 2024 - New docs: FBI knew since 2016 Hunter Biden nearly scored $120 million Ukrainian deal while Joe was VP; At same time Trump was impeached for Ukraine phone call

The FBI learned as far back as 2016 that Hunter Biden and his partners had plotted to set up a new venture in tax-friendly Liechtenstein that would be capitalized by a whopping $120 million investment from the controversial owner of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings, according to documents obtained by Just the News that have been kept from the American public for eight years.

The mega-deal was not referenced inside Hunter Biden’s now infamous laptop or during the 2019 impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine, but was instead chronicled in a trove of 3.39 million documents the FBI seized from Hunter Biden and his business partners during an investigation of securities fraud nearly a decade ago.

Devon Archer is reportedly in talks to speak about Joe and Hunter Biden’s alleged $10 million bribes. (Credit: Alec Tabak/New York Post)

The cache of documents was recently turned over by former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer to the House Oversight Committee as part of its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden’s conduct.

The new evidence shows the major investment plan was being built at the time when Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board of directors and Joe Biden was still serving as Barack Obama’s vice president in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy.

The memos state Hunter Biden was also supposed to serve on the board of the new company called Burnham Energy Security LLC, and it was going to be capitalized in 2015 by Burisma owner Nykola Zlochevsky, who at a time was trying to get out from under corruption allegations in his home country.

The Hunter Biden-connected Burnham entity was slated to get a quarter of the new venture’s net revenues without putting up any cash, according to recent testimony to Congress from one of the partners.

Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch, meanwhile was committed to “$120 Million over thirty-six (36) months to be invested in exploration and leasehold improvements” in the new venture designed to make Burisma a global energy leader, according to a prospectus for the project.

Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

Hunter Biden’s “credibility” for venture

Zlochevsky’s top lieutenant, Vadym Pozharskyi, wrote in an August 2015 email that it was important to his boss for Hunter Biden to be involved with Burnham Energy.

“You mentioned to me that it’s also you and HB [Hunter Biden] who will be the founders of the Llc in Delaware. Cliff mentioned only yourself,” Pozharskyi wrote Archer in August 2015 in one email obtained by Just the News. “For credibility ‘Ukrainian’ purposes you both would be better.”

It is unclear exactly what Pozharskyi meant by “credibility,” but Just the News previously reported that Burisma saw Hunter Biden’s involvement on its board as a form of protection, especially from pressure by its own government, according to Archer’s testimony for the House impeachment inquiry.

Another partner, Jason Galanis, testified to Congress that he believed Archer and Biden were placed on the board to protect the company from Ukrainian investigations and prosecutions. (Read more: Just the News, 6/17/2024)  (Archive)

June 18, 2024 - The DoD admits it has no idea how much money it gave China to make viruses more dangerous

Sen. Rand Paul questions Anthony Fauci during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee about the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic on November 04, 2021. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The year millions of people were killed worldwide by a virus likely engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese scientists in Beijing began toying with a more deadly coronavirus variant called GX_P2V that killed humanized mice 100% of the time, largely with late-stage brain infections. While not formally linked, the study referenced parallel work executed by Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli.

In March, Chinese researchers at the Hebei Medical University revealed they had created a mutant version of the virus vesicular stomaitis, known to infect cattle, by giving it a protein from the Ebola virus. The hamster test subjects infected with the recombinant virus suffered weight loss, ulcerated eyes, inflammation, multi-organ failure, and then all died.

Apparently, the Pentagon has no idea to what extent it has bankrolled these kinds of potentially ruinous experiments in communist China.

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General released a partially redacted report Tuesday detailing the results of its efforts to track down the money the Pentagon has invested helping the communist Chinese enhance deadly pathogens.

The report made clear it was referring to gain-of-function experiments, referencing a definition published in the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, which states, “The term ‘gain-of-function’ means ‘to enhance a function by genetic manipulation’ or ‘to add a new function’ and applies to much research involving genetic recombination and genetic manipulation.”

The DOD Office of Inspector General sought specifically to track the amount of federal funds given either directly or indirectly by the Pentagon to:

• the communist regime itself;
• the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other organizations administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
• Peter Daszak’s scandal-plagued and debarred EcoHealth Alliance, whose gain-of-function subcontractor was among the likely patients zero;
• the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences; and
• any other related lab in the Asian nation.

Of special concern was whether and where funds were spent on “research or experiments that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of any coronavirus, influenza, Nipah, Ebola, or other pathogen of pandemic potential or chimeric versions of such a virus or pathogen.”

The conclusions of the report were damning.

The Pentagon has admitted that it has no idea to what extent it has funded the creation of deadly viruses in an adversarial nation it has identified as its “top pacing challenge” — a country whose overall biorisk management score is less than stellar.

June 20, 2024 - Marc Elias law group files suit in Nevada to prevent election integrity group from cleaning up voter rolls

Attorney Marc Elias preps Aug. 3, 2016, before the hearing for his lawsuit against Arizona over voting rights. (Credit: David Jolkovski/Getty Images)

(…) Marc Elias has been involved in dozens of lawsuits to make it easier for Democrats to steal elections.

Then in 2022, Marc Elias told MSNBC that the results in the midterm elections would not be known for days. This is the line they use when you know Democrats are going for another steal.

In May, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of a voter ID ballot initiative.

Now, Marc Elias is hoping to overturn a Nevada election law that forces election administrators to clean up the voter rolls.

Why would Marc Elias and the Democrats be against this?

The Federalist reported:

Bogus Russian dossier peddler and Democrat Party problem fixer Marc Elias has again injected himself into a key election integrity case to “defend the broken status quo.”

Swing-state Nevada’s dirty voter rolls include hundreds of suspect addresses, at bars, strip clubs, empty parking lots, and other commercial addresses, according to an investigation by the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Doing so is clearly against the law.

“In Nevada, by the state law, you are required to be registered where you actually live, where you sleep. Not where you work, not at a P.O. Box. So we’re trying to get elections officials to enforce the law,” Lauren Bis, PILF’s director of communication and engagement, says in a video tracking bad addresses in the Las Vegas area.

To that end, the foundation has filed a petition in Washoe County, Nevada’s second-most populous county, to force elections officials to investigate and fix commercial addresses on the voter roll. PILF investigators found addresses on the rolls reported as liquor stores, empty lots, and even the Nevada Gaming Control Board, among others.

Elias Law Group and a band of leftists have sought to intervene in PILF’s petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that forcing Washoe election administrators to follow the law and clean up the county’s dirty voter rolls will “threaten” voting rights.

For the record, Nevada is still a member of ERIC, a shady group linked to the left that is a blight on this country’s elections. (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 6/20/2024) (Archive)

June 21, 2024 - AFL Part 2 - New docs from disbanded DHS group reveal the Biden admin views Trump supporters as “domestic terrorism threats”

(Credit: Adobe Stock Images / Gorodenkoff)

Today, America First Legal (AFL) is releasing the second tranche of internal files from the “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group,” obtained exclusively through AFL’s litigation with Ambassador Ric Grenell against the Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is the second installment of #DeepStateDiaries, a multi-part series of releases including newly obtained documents.

Yesterday, AFL released documents showing how the Deep State’s DHS intel group proposed expanding DHS’s reach into local communities in an “ambiguous” and “non-threatening” way and contemplating ways to get teachers and mothers to report their children.

Today’s installment exposes how the Biden Administration classifies someone as a person likely to commit “domestic violent extremist” attacks, particularly those who support President Trump, are “in the military,” or are “religious.”

Under the Brennan-Clapper committee’s approach to national security, when all else fails, DHS should use being “in the military” or “religious” to profile people and tag them as having  “indicators of extremists and terrorism” as a pretext to allow DHS to spy on them. According to the Group, “we should be more worried about these.”

The group went on to discuss how “most of the Domestic Terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president,” i.e., Trump supporters.

Read the first installment of #DeepStateDiaries here.

(America First Legal, 6/21/2024)  (Archive)

June 21, 2024 - Left wing fact-checker, Snopes, finally admits Trump didn't call Charlottesville neo-Nazis ‘very fine people’

The left-leaning fact-checking website Snopes acknowledged Saturday that former President Trump never called neo-Nazis “very fine people” during his press conference following the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally in 2017.

Snopes, 6/21/2024

Critics of Trump have claimed for years that he equated neo-Nazis with counterprotesters following the event. President Biden was chief among those critics, citing the supposed incident as a main reason for launching his 2020 campaign.

“While Trump did say that there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and White supremacists and said they should be ‘condemned totally.’ Therefore, we have rated this claim ‘False,'” Snopes wrote.

The Snopes fact check now aligns with years of arguments from Trump’s camp, who long stated, backed by transcript and video, that his comments were taken out of context. The fact-checker notes that the false claim about Trump’s comments “spread like wildfire” on the left, eventually being cited as a cornerstone of Biden’s election campaign.

When Biden released his 2020 campaign announcement video, the first words he said in it were “Charlottesville, Virginia.”

“The president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it,” Biden claimed in the video. “And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I’d ever seen in my lifetime.”

Snopes’ ruling removes key ammunition from Biden’s arsenal just days before he and Trump are scheduled to meet in their first debate this week. (Read more: Fox News, 6/23/2024)  (Archive)

June 22, 2024 - Julie Kelly covers Jack Smith's gag order motions on Trump in advance of hearing

In advance of Monday’s hearing on Jack Smith’s latest proposed partial gag order on Trump, the special counsel last night filed another hyperbolic brief filled with unsubstantiated claims of bodily threats to law enforcement in docs case.

Note how Smith says “this Court.” He… pic.twitter.com/fA1DQCihVV

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

Full text:

In advance of Monday’s hearing on Jack Smith’s latest proposed partial gag order on Trump, the special counsel last night filed another hyperbolic brief filled with unsubstantiated claims of bodily threats to law enforcement in docs case.

Note how Smith says “this Court.” He thinks Cannon won’t know about the similar gag order he sought (and received) from Judge Chutkan in DC.

In that proposal, he asked Chutkan to ban Trump from publicly criticizing HIM and others in special counsel’s office.

Chutkan granted—DC appellate court later reversed the part of her order covering Jack Smith, basically saying he’s a public official and should be able to take some criticism lol

As I explain here, Smith’s gag order is an attempt to cover up the reckless, sloppy, dirty FBI docs investigation and dangerous raid of MAL.

Can’t wait to hear what Judge Cannon has to say on Monday…https://t.co/niTiG1z5Q6

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

To tie Trump to Shiffer’s “attack” on FBI office, Jack Smith cited this post as an exhibit in latest gag order motion: pic.twitter.com/yLHsPJxcCm

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 22, 2024

(Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Alex Brandon/ AP)

June 22, 2024 - Kash Patel: According to British court docs, Paul Ryan was first to receive Steele Dossier and then didn't tell anyone about it

On Wednesday 6/19/2024, Bannon responded to a speech Paul Ryan made that was critical of Trump’s character and why he couldn’t support his candidacy for president.

On Saturday 6/22/2024, former Trump official Kash Patel joined Steve Bannon on The War Room to discuss his latest blockbuster report on Paul Ryan.

According to Kash Patel, Paul Ryan was the first to receive a copy of the bogus Steele Dossier back in 2016. And Paul Ryan hid this from investigators, his Republican colleagues, and Trump officials.

Kash Patel posted this on Truth Social on Thursday 6/20/2024:

Kash Patel: Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House had in his possession the Steele Dossier before he had [Devin Nunes] and I launch Russia Gate Investigation, and never told us(think, before anyone knew anything about fake intel, he had his own copy). I found it on my own then blew up FBI/DOJ. Why didnt he tell his own damn team? Report that fake news.

From Kash on The War Room 6/22/2024:

Kash Patel: Remember in 2016, let’s rewind the tape. It was Russia collusion, Russia collusion, Russia collusion. Then Speaker Paul Ryan enlisted me and Devin Nunez to investigate the Russia collusion.

Nobody knew what the Steele dossier was in 2016. They had already gone to the federal court and unlawfully surveilled Donald Trump with it. But we didn’t find out until after we completed our investigation in 2018, was that the speaker, Paul Ryan, who charged us with investigating Russiagate, was the first guy to ever get a copy of the Steele dossier in 2016.

He never told us. He still never admitted it. It finally was admitted in a British court where Christopher Steele was being sued. Just think about it, Steve. We could have asked, Where did you get it? Who did you get it from? How was it paid for? All of these secrets could have come out under this man’s very investigation, but he rigged it from the beginning.

So I’m done listening to lectures about the new conservative brand that is Paul Ryan, and anytime he wants to debate me, I’m all in. He charged us with an investigation that he rigged because he didn’t want Donald Trump to succeed. He kneecapped him from the beginning. That guy’s talking about not going to the RNC. No one wants him there. He’s so arrogant. He doesn’t understand the simple fact that we put out the truth.

Steve Bannon:  Are you telling me and telling this audience in a British court filing that Steele filed under penalty of perjury, he identified that Paul Ryan actually had the Steele dossier before he charged you guys, House Intel, to look into this, and he never informed Devin Nunez, the chairman of that? That’s impossible to believe. Are you sure about this?

Kash Patel: 100% accurate. The Steele dossier was handed to Paul Ryan’s Chief of Staff in 2016. They put out a mealy-mouth of retreat to it, response to it, which basically said, ‘Oh, we didn’t get it from Christopher Steele directly. They admitted it in court that they had a copy the entire time, and they didn’t tell us in 2016, they didn’t tell us in 2017, they didn’t tell us in 2018.

The quintessential piece of evidence which was exposed because I went to DOJ and got the FISA, which the Steele dossier was an entire part of, and Paul Ryan was the one that fought us tooth and nail, and remember, on declassifying it. Now we know why. He had it for sure. He is a total coward.

(Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 6/22/2024)  (Archive)

UPDATE 6/24/2024

June 24, 2024 -CNN wants to censor viewers who might clip parts of the upcoming presidential debate and post/discuss on social media; Elon Musk says he will not comply

CNN and the entire left are so terrified of free speech, it’s almost beyond belief. They will go to unreal lengths to control the narrative and silence anyone who dares to challenge the progressive storyline or call out—and even mock—the so-called leaders on the left. That’s exactly why, with the highly anticipated upcoming debate, the regime-run media hacks at CNN are desperate to control the narrative. This includes censoring right-wing accounts that might clip parts of the debate to share on social media. CNN has even threatened to go after any accounts that do this by citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which was created to protect copyright holders from online piracy. The law was passed in the late ’90s and is what CNN is wielding as a weapon to prevent any “undesirable” clips—like Biden’s lies, flubs, and blunders—from going viral.

Popular podcaster Tim Pool, who plans to live stream the debate, called attention to CNN’s threats in a post on X.

CNN is now threatening any social channels that provide commentary on the debate stating they will not allow the use outside of CNN

Commentary on a presidential debate is the epitome of fair use and we fully intend to provide insight and real time fact checking Thursday LIVE

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 24, 2024

This latest desperate move by CNN shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, when legitimately questioned about their extreme and radical anti-Trump agenda, instead of responding, host Kasie Hunt just cut Team Trump’s feed. Real professional, right? Once again, this is CNN stifling free speech and running cover for the regime, and at this point, they’re not even trying to hide it.

BREAKING: CNN host Kasie Hunt CUTS OFF Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt the second she brings up Jake Tapper spending years comparing Trump to Ado*lf Hit*ler

This is a preview of how CNN will act during the debate.

Shared from [JP on X] pic.twitter.com/zuGJj5HgO5

— Bruce Snyder (@realBruceSnyder) June 24, 2024

Actually, we just published an article on this topic, where Glenn Greenwald had a very interesting take on the exchange between Hunt and Team Trump that exemplifies just how trashy our propaganda media truly is:

RELATED: Glenn Greenwald reveals critical moment from CNN’s ‘feed cut’ that truly personifies what trash our media is…

Thankfully, Tim Pool thought CNN’s latest episode of mass censorship was important enough to flag for Elon Musk. Elon was quick to respond and promptly crushed CNN’s hopes of using the 1998 law to silence conservatives. According to Musk, the DMCA doesn’t apply in this context and will not be enforced on X.

Boom!

The public has a right to see Presidential debates however they would like. DMCA does not apply.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 25, 2024

(Read more: Revolver News, 6/25/2024) (Archive)

June 24, 2024 - AFL Part 3: New docs from disbanded DHS group reveal how January 6 and the raid at Mar-a-Lago emboldened DHS to expand monitoring Americans

America First Legal logo and X header

Today, following its victory in disbanding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group,” America First Legal (AFL) is releasing the third tranche of the group’s internal meeting notes, exclusively obtained from litigation. This is the third installment of #DeepStateDiaries, a multi-part series of releases including newly obtained documents.

Today’s installment shows how the Biden administration’s allies on the Brennan-Clapper committee discussed using January 6 and the manufactured raid at Mar-a-Lago to justify further targeting and surveillance of political dissent.

January 6 as a catalyst for expanding surveillance:

One group member noted that “prior to January 6th” (i.e., under the Trump administration), analysts thought that “it was inappropriate to collect” intelligence on Americans. Following January 6, however, they observed that there had been a change in collection and reporting methods.

The documents indicate that under the Biden Administration, the federal government has used January 6 to justify expanding efforts to collect intelligence on what they deem “DVE” or “Domestic Violent Extremists.” As the second installment of the #DeepStateDiaries showed, DVE is the group’s term for people who are “religious,” “in the military,” or support President Trump.

The Brennan-Clapper-led group discussed “collection based on sites where they expect to see indicators,” suggesting that the federal government sought to monitor sites they viewed as “domestic extremism threats.”

Notably, one group member asked, “When you are looking at speech online, how do you know if it is serious? Political? Hyperbole?” The Biden Administration’s historical approach, as evidenced by these documents and the Department of Justice’s sentencing of Douglass Mackey to 7 months in prison for posting memes ahead of the 2016 election, is that speech online should be considered “serious” only when it comes from conservatives.

As another data point, later in the conversation, someone else again mentioned how “efforts to collect” intelligence have noticeably changed post-January 6.

As another data point, later in the conversation, someone else again mentioned how “efforts to collect” intelligence have noticeably changed post-January 6.

And yet another participant noted that the “support” for the “mission set” has changed post-January 6 at the “departmental” level and has “become political.”

The translation is that the committee appears to have been interested in DHS using the DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis to push the bounds on activity—traditionally thought to be off limits—and is using January 6 as the excuse to do it.

The following statement, from an unknown Group member, sheds some light on where that political support is coming from. Recall that this Group was full of security state officials who aligned themselves with the political left (98% of the political contributions from the Group members went to Democratic candidates for office, whereas 1% went to Republican candidates for office).

This Group Member went so far as to encourage I&A to lean into using practices that 1) even the FBI says it does not have the authority to do, 2) the Senate has refused to give to any law enforcement agency, and 3) Members of Congress generally oppose. But in the name of getting “actionable intelligence,” the Brennan-Clapper-led group urges I&A to ramp up “collection” on “U.S. Persons” without a “foreign nexus” and “trade authorities for civil liberties.” Click here for pages on this matter.

Disturbingly, the group went on to discuss that around January 6, the “FBI testified that they were limited with what they could do with social media,” but that “action reporting” post-January 6 may have changed. This suggests that the group was planning to potentially advise DHS to ramp up efforts to monitor political dissent on social media.

Using the raid at Mar-a-Lago as a catalyst to expand activity:

The group also discussed using the fabricated and illegal raid on President Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago – where the FBI staged photographs to manufacture incriminating evidence – to justify its expanded activities. With respect to Mar-a-Lago, one Group member said there was “reason to be concerned about a violent reaction” after the raid.

The group also discussed whether this is “politically driven or in [their] mission space,” and one group member noted they should be aware of the “public optics” of this activity.

In considering threats of “violence,” the group also discussed a hypothetical scenario in which “there is a shooting with 12 injured” and whether that would require a national response from DHS and if it falls into a “domestic violent extremism” category.

Just last week, 5 people were killed and 8 were wounded in Chicago, and in Washington, D.C., 4 people were shot. Yet, the Brennan-Clapper does not appear to be concerned with addressing the rampant rising crime and violence in American cities; it is only when they can attribute violence to political opposition that they label violence as domestic extremism.

These documents, obtained exclusively by AFL through litigation against DHS, prove there is a pronounced difference between how I&A operated (collected and reported intelligence for DHS) before and after January 6. They demonstrate how the standards followed under the Trump administration to respect Constitutional rights and civil liberties are apparently no longer followed under the Biden administration.

Stay tuned for the next installment of #DeepStateDiaries…

In the first installment, AFL released documents showing how the group proposed expanding DHS’s reach into local communities in an “ambiguous” and “non-threatening” way and contemplating ways to get teachers and mothers to report their children.

In the second installment, AFL showed how the Biden Administration proposed using military, religious, and even political (Trump supporters) affiliations to tag Americans as prone to committing violent attacks.

Follow us on social media for the latest updates on America First Legal’s fight to protect your constitutional rights! (America First Legal, 6/24/2024)  (Archive)

June 24, 2024 - The US Postal Service helps surveil Americans

U.S. Postal Service logo 1970-1993

According to The Washington Post, the US Postal Service has been giving information about thousands of Americans’ letters and packages to law enforcement every year for at least ten years.

The postal service provides law enforcement with the names, addresses, and other details from the outside of boxes and envelopes without a court order.

The Washington Post, in response to a congressional probe, looked at a decade’s worth of records. Postal Service officials have received more than 60,000 requests from federal agents and police since 2015 and they rarely say no.

Postal inspectors recorded more than 312,000 letters and packages between 2015 and 2023.

It doesn’t matter if it was 100,000, or 300,000, or ten million. The government has no right to do this.

(Read more: Independent Sentinel, 6/24/2024)  (Archive)

June 24, 2024 - Wikileaks founder Julian Assange reaches plea deal and is free

This photo has graced our FB group page for the past eight years. Many people mistakenly believed Wikileaks released the Clinton emails. The State Department originally released them in a jumbled mess and Wikileaks reformatted the file to make them easier to research.  (Credit: Cheri Johnson/Graphic Artist and Timeline research team member)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in which he will plead guilty to a conspiracy charge, allowing him to avoid extradition to the United States and walk free in lieu of time already served behind bars, according to court documents.

The plea agreement, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth of the United States in the western Pacific Ocean, indicates that Mr. Assange was charged with one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information.

A letter from a DOJ official to Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shows that Mr. Assange is set to make a court appearance in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, on the morning of June 26. During that court appearance, Mr. Assange is expected to enter a guilty plea to the charge.

The DOJ official—Matthew J. McKenzie, deputy chief of the counterintelligence and export control section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division—wrote in the letter that Mr. Assange would be returned to his home country of Australia after entering the plea.

June 25, 2024 - New information shows CIA contractors colluded with Biden campaign to discredit Biden laptop story

New information released by the House Judiciary Committee shows CIA contractors colluded with the Biden campaign to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop.

In October of 2020 – just days before the presidential election – 51 former intelligence officials signed and published a letter that baselessly decried the contents of Hunter’s ‘laptop from hell’ had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

This was a lie.  They all knew it was a lie. The fake news media ran with the story anyway.

High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication. Because several former senior intelligence officials signed the statement, the PCRB sent the draft statement to the CIA’s then-Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis, who said he subsequently informed then-Director Haspel or then Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop that the statement would be published soon. Senior CIA leadership had an opportunity at that time to slow down the CIA’s process for reviewing publication submissions and ensure that such an extraordinary statement was properly vetted.

Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication. Throughout the course of the Committees’ investigation, the signatories claimed to not have had access to any classified information when asserting that the allegations surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. However, at the time of the statement’s publication, at least two signatories—Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors. Due to purported operational concerns, the CIA declined to declassify the entire universe of signatories who were on active contract. In addition, some signatories to the Hunter Biden statement also had special “Green Card” access to the CIA at the time of the statement’s publication, allowing them to gain entry to secure CIA facilities.

After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.” At least one employee found it “[i]nteresting to see what was submitted and approved” when discussing media talking points that the statement’s co author, former Senior Intelligence Service Officer Marc Polymeropoulos, submitted related to the statement. When discussing Polymeropoulos’s talking points, another CIA official stated, “It appears [Polymeropoulos] is actively involved in a pro-Biden campaign and may be disclosing classified information in his efforts.” The CIA’s internal review board, known as the Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB), determined that Polymeropoulos’s talking points contained classified information that had to be removed prior to publication.

“The new information included in this report, based on new testimony and declassified documents, shows the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community. In the waning days before the 2020 presidential election, 51 intelligence community officials rushed to draft and release a statement using their official titles, presumably to convey access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. The statement was conceived following a conversation with a senior Biden campaign official and designed explicitly to provide talking points to the Biden campaign to discredit politically damaging allegations. Some of the signatories of the statement were on the CIA payroll at the time as contractors and others had special access to CIA facilities. Even Michael Morell—before the Committees learned of his contract with the CIA—acknowledged, “It’s inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor to be involved in the political process,” the House Judiciary Committee said. (The Gateway Pundit, 6/25/2024)  (Archive)

🚨 MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: New Information Shows CIA Contractors Colluded with the Biden Campaign to Discredit Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Read our latest report: https://t.co/nzZTNWwvUo pic.twitter.com/NPC2vhApZZ

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

“The House Intelligence Committee’s work provided us with solid direct evidence that in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to falsely cast doubt on an explosive New York Post story and label…

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

The highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement prior to its publication. CIA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis testified that he informed Director Gina Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release. This sequence of…

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

June 25, 2024 - CNN debate moderator, Dana Bash, was married to one of the "Spies Who Lied" about the Biden laptop; questions of her impartiality during the debate ensues

How can CNN debate moderator Dana Bash be impartial questioning Trump, she was married to Trump-bashing Russiagate conspiracist, Biden donor and Brennan aide JEREMY BASH who signed 2020 intel statement falsely insisting Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. pic.twitter.com/xJGhML5E2g

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) June 25, 2024

Reminder: CNN debate moderator Dana Bash’s husband, Jeremy Bash, was one of the 51 IC members who signed onto the infamous Hunter Biden hoax letter pic.twitter.com/NZ8oVVCUoH

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) June 25, 2024

June 26, 2024 - Clinton, Pompeo, Pence, and other Deep State critters, still hate Assange—here’s why

(Credit: Revolver News)

(…) We at Revolver News have been enthusiastic supporters of Assange from the beginning—see, for instance, the interview we did with Assange’s fiancee here. We welcome his freedom, but of course we find it a shame that it happened this late and find the regime’s manner of saving face by forcing Assange to plea guilty to the sham conspiracy to obtain and disclose classified information in exchange for crediting Assange for his time served in Belmarsh. Many others, such as Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald, celebrated Assange’s release. Not everyone, of course, was happy. Among those who publicly registered their disapproval of Assange’s newfound freedom were none other than the goober traitor Mike Pence.

Julian Assange endangered the lives of our troops in a time of war and should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Biden administration’s plea deal with Assange is a miscarriage of justice and dishonors the service and sacrifice of the men and women of our…

— Mike Pence (@Mike_Pence) June 25, 2024

It might come as a surprise to some that a former Trump administration official, let alone Trump’s vice president, should come out so publicly against Assange. After all, didn’t Wikileaks’ exposure of Democrat corruption help Trump win in 2016?

From a broader perspective, Assange and Wikileaks’ history of exposing the crimes of the national security state, in particular the War on Terror, would seem to consort ideologically with Trump, who bravely and famously defeated the Bushes and the Clintons in one of the biggest embarrassments to the establishment in 2016. The answer here is complicated. While Trump’s anti-establishment energy certainly synergized with the efforts of Wikileaks, the very same deep state elements that took every step to undermine Trump, of course, went after Assange. Trump may have been nominally in charge of the national security bureaucracies and Justice Department, but this never stopped the bureaucracies from working tirelessly to undermine his presidency. It should come as no surprise then that the same national security bureaucracy that opposed Trump while Trump was president should have gone ahead with the indictment of Assange. Most disturbingly, there have been credible reports that Trump’s own Secretary of State secretly plotted to have Assange assassinated.

That Pompeo has always been bad news, of course, should come as no surprise to regular Revolver readers. See, for instance, our classic piece here or our interview with Trump on Pompeo here.

After a long pause, Trump admits Pompeo blocked release of JFK files

He’s the deep state’s con artist formerly known as “fat mike” pic.twitter.com/7z1DV25MN3

— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) March 16, 2023

It is worth revisiting some of the reasons the establishment and deep state hate Assange so much.

Assange Exposed the Deep State and Hillary Clinton’s Criminal Policy in Syria

In the 2016 election, one of the many fundamental differences separating Trump from Clinton was foreign policy. As Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was directly involved in some of the worst foreign policy disasters since Bush’s Iraq War—for instance, Clinton’s notorious involvement in ruining Libya. A particularly hot-button geopolitical issue at the time was Syria, in which the deep state was desperate for another regime change operation to topple Bashar Assad. Many who analyzed the situation at the time noted that the United States seemed to be in a very uncomfortable alliance with the so-called “Sunni rebels,” which included radical Sunni elements and, reportedly, ISIS. There was a dark logic to it—ISIS was Assad’s enemy, so we should support them, however surreptitiously.

What was clear to keen geopolitical observers became indisputable when Wikileaks leaked an email involving Hillary Clinton in which a State Department official casually let it slip that “Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria.”

“[al-Quada] is on our side in Syria”–email from policy advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Feb 2012) https://t.co/Jq5FDgD2hr pic.twitter.com/k6hIk68nvC

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 12, 2017

Thankfully, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary, he pivoted away from US support for the Sunni rebels, Al Qaeda, and ISIS, and sure enough, this led to the fall of the ISIS caliphate in Syria.

Assange Exposed Early On the Dark Side of Big Tech

If you read one thing by Julian Assange, it must be his hilarious, incisive, and insightful assessment of big tech called “Google Is Not What It Seems.” Keep in mind that this piece was written in 2011, far before the problem of Big Tech censorship was widely understood, much less the dynamic that the censorship tools and approach were repurposed from psychological warfare tools Big Tech brought to the Arab Spring and other foreign conflicts, courtesy of former State Department Official and Google’s Censorship Architect Jared Cohen.

To get a sense of Assange’s humor and keen perception of human character, take a glance at the following two paragraphs describing his impressions of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, respectively.

Julian Assange via Newsweek:

For a man of systematic intelligence, Schmidt’s politics—such as I could hear from our discussion—were surprisingly conventional, even banal. He grasped structural relationships quickly, but struggled to verbalize many of them, often shoehorning geopolitical subtleties into Silicon Valley marketese or the ossified State Department micro-language of his companions. He was at his best when he was speaking (perhaps without realizing it) as an engineer, breaking down complexities into their orthogonal components.

I found Cohen a good listener, but a less interesting thinker, possessed of that relentless conviviality that routinely afflicts career generalists and Rhodes Scholars. As you would expect from his foreign-policy background, Cohen had a knowledge of international flash points and conflicts and moved rapidly between them, detailing different scenarios to test my assertions. But it sometimes felt as if he was riffing on orthodoxies in a way that was designed to impress his former colleagues in official Washington.

The following paragraphs capture early and perfectly the emerging role of Big Tech as a key tool of the national security state and empire.

But as Google Ideas shows, the company’s “philanthropic” efforts, too, bring it uncomfortably close to the imperial side of U.S. influence. If Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi was running a program like Google Ideas, it would draw intense critical scrutiny. But somehow Google gets a free pass.

Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and Internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend Internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the Internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history.

If the future of the Internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in Europe—for whom the Internet embodies the promise of an alternative to U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.

A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire.

Read the full piece from Assange, published at Newsweek, here.

Assange Humiliated the Military-Industrial Complex 

Assange famously called out the sad reality that the goals of our foreign wars are not to be successful but to be endless and thereby continue to fill the coffers of our security elite.

Take, for instance, the following iconic (and representative) clip:

Today is a good day to remember this video, which encapsulates in less than 30 seconds exactly why the American government had to destroy Julian Assange’s life and health. They’ve done that and they didn’t even need to imprison him in the US. pic.twitter.com/AKFSlYxo0q

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) June 25, 2024

It is a sad irony that just as Assange is freed, we face the very real prospect that President Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for 2024, may in fact face jail time for what amounts to the same crime: embarrassing the corrupt ruling class of the United States. We will continue to follow Assange’s case with interest and congratulate him and his family on his newfound freedom. (Read more: Revolver News, 6/26/2024)  (Archive)

June 26, 2024 - James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's intel czar rigged 2016 and 2020 debates against Trump

James Clapper (Credit: public domain)

“Just before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off in their second presidential debate, then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper met in the White House with a small group of advisers to President Obama to hatch a plan to put out a first-of-its-kind intelligence report warning the voting public that “the Russian government” was interfering in the election by allegedly breaching the Clinton campaign’s email system.

On Oct. 7, 2016 – just two days before the presidential debate between Trump and Clinton – Clapper issued the unprecedented intelligence advisory with Obama’s personal blessing. It seemed to lend credence to what the Clinton camp was telling the media — that Trump was working with Russian President Vladimir Putin through a secret back channel to steal the election. Sure enough, the Democratic nominee pounced on it to smear Trump at the debate.

And that wouldn’t be the only historically consequential maneuver for Clapper, whose role in skewing presidential campaigns might deserve a special place in the annals of nefarious election meddling – by, in this case, a domestic, not foreign, intelligence service.

In 2020, he was the lead signatory on the “intelligence” statement that discredited the New York Post’s October bombshell exposing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which documented how Hunter’s corrupt Burisma paymasters had met with Joe Biden when he was vice president. It was released Oct. 19, just three days before Trump and Biden debated each other in Nashville. Fifty other U.S. “Intelligence Community” officials and experts signed the seven-page document, which claimed “the arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

In hindsight, Clapper’s well-timed pseudo-intelligence in 2016 and 2020 helped Clinton and Biden make the case against Trump as a potentially Kremlin-compromised figure, charges that crippled his presidency and later arguably denied him reelection. (Read more: RealClearInvestigations, 6/26/2024) (Archive)

June 27, 2024 - Trump and Biden debate

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy didn’t mince words in his commentary about President Joe Biden’s performance in Thursday’s debate against former President Donald Trump.

In a video posted on social media, Portnoy savaged Biden.

“The other takeaway, the major one, is everyone’s just saying how bad Joe Biden looked. And I’m not talking just Republicans and the Trump people. Democrats, CNN, just shoveling dirt on him, being like, ‘he didn’t do what he had to do, he looked weak, we may have to make a change,’” Portnoy said.

Portnoy played a series of clips of a conversation on CNN in which the anchors acknowledged how badly the proceedings went for the president. In one, Van Jones said the debate was “painful.”

The Barstool Sports founder continued, asking how Democrats are “allowing Joe Biden to do a debate” and saying he “belongs in a nursing home.”

“He can barely finish a sentence. I didn’t think he’d be able to find his way from the green room to the podium without getting lost,” Portnoy said.

Emergency Press Conference – The Dems Sent Biden out For Slaughter pic.twitter.com/SxwzJb5cKr

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) June 28, 2024

The commentator played a clip showing Jill Biden praising her husband for his performance. “Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question,” she said, prompting cheers from the crowd.

“Yeah, no sh*t,” Portnoy chimed in. “That’s as good as Biden could be. And I know Trump’s only a couple years younger, but he’s still lucid. That could be Trump in a couple years. He’s still together. Joe Biden doesn’t know where he is.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 6/28/2024) (Archive)

Full Debate:

June 28, 2024 - SCOTUS Fischer decision is a win for J6 defendants and a loss for the weaponized DOJ

The Fischer decision is a huge win for the January 6th defendants – something that was expected since the oral arguments.

Bigger picture, this is a significant victory for the Constitution.

The Biden DOJ weaponized and politicized a post-Enron statute to go after their political rivals.

They want to put real Americans in real America in prison for a long time for a lawful protest permitted by the national park service.

The Fischer decision is a huge win for the January 6th defendants – something that was expected since the oral arguments.

Bigger picture, this is a significant victory for the Constitution.

The Biden DOJ weaponized and politicized a post-Enron statute to go after their… pic.twitter.com/0UFxb9ZL45

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) June 28, 2024

June 28, 2024 - The DC judges who sentenced J6'ers based on the DOJ's unlawful application of 1512(c)(2)

List of shame (of course they have none)–

DC judges who went along with the DOJ’s unlawful application of 1512(c)(2) in J6 cases:

Judge Beryl Howell (Obama, former chief judge)

Judge James Boasberg (Obama, current chief judge)

Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)

Judge Trevor McFadden (Trump)

Judge John Bates (GW Bush)

Judge Amit Mehta (Obama)

Judge Dabny Friedrich (Trump)

Judge Royce Lamberth (Reagan)

Judge Richard Leon (GW Bush)

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton)

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama)

Judge Timothy Kelly (Trump)

Judge Randolph Moss (Clinton)

Judge Paul Friedman (Clinton)

Judge Christopher Cooper (Obama)

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan (Biden)—Pan wrote both appellate court decisions upholding 1512c2

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Justin Walker (Trump)

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Cornelia Pillard

List of shame (of course they have none)–

DC judges who went along with the DOJ’s unlawful application of 1512(c)(2) in J6 cases:

Judge Beryl Howell (Obama, former chief judge)

Judge James Boasberg (Obama, current chief judge)

Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)

Judge Trevor…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 28, 2024

June 28, 2024 - Supreme Court delivers crippling blow to permanent bureaucracy’s power over American lives

New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (Credit: Cause of Action Institute)

The Supreme Court handed small fishing companies a victory Friday in their lawsuits against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), overturning a decades-old precedent that expanded the power of the administrative state.

Siding 6-3 with the fishermen, the Supreme Court reversed its 1984 landmark case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which lower courts relied on to uphold NOAA’s rule forcing companies to dole out $700 per day — around 20% of their revenue — to pay the salaries of federally mandated on-board observers. The principle of Chevron deference, rooted in the landmark case, instructed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous.

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedure Act] requires.”

Small fishing companies sued NOAA after the agency required businesses to pay for the on-board monitors based on its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the law governing fishery management. In both Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, lower courts deferred to the agency’s interpretation of the law, citing the Chevron ruling.

Roberts called Chevron “a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”

“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities,” Roberts wrote. “Courts do.”

Critics of Chevron argued the doctrine, in practice, enabled agencies to assert their interpretations of the law without resistance from the judiciary, giving the government the automatic upper hand when challenged in court and raising significant separation-of-powers concerns.

New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA) highlighted the burden NOAA’s rule placed on businesses in an amicus brief. The short training sea monitors receive does not equip them for the rough conditions on board, the association argued, creating safety concerns and forcing crews to shoulder the burden.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the dissent that the majority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”

“Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: Courts must have more say over regulation over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on,” she wrote. “A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority.”

New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) President Mark Chenoweth said that “the dismantling of the unlawful Administrative State has officially begun.”

“NCLA’s fishermen clients have landed the biggest catch of their lives by persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to take its thumb off the scale when ordinary Americans are contesting unlawful government regulations,” Chenoweth said in a statement. “When NCLA was founded less than seven years ago, taking down Chevron deference was priority number one, because agencies have used it so often to violate people’s civil liberties. That ability ends today!” (The Daily Caller, 6/28/2024) (Archive)