Wednesday, January 26, 2022
The true story of the "insurrection"...If we could only get the FBI to tell it. She didn't deny it, just refused to talk about it...
By Julie Kelly January 11, 2022
A top official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation repeatedly refused to disclose how many FBI agents and informants were involved in the Capitol protest on January 6, 2021.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning, Jill Sanborn, executive assistant director of the FBI’s national security branch, cited privileged protocols as to why she would not tell Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) the number of FBI assets that “actively participated” in the protest. “Sir, I’m sure you can appreciate that I can’t go into sources and methods,” Sanborn, who served as assistant director of the FBI’s counterterrorism division when the protest erupted on January 6 and would have full knowledge of FBI undercover operations, told Cruz.
The Texas senator also demanded to know if FBI agents committed any violent crimes or incited any violent crimes on January 6. Sanborn again declined to answer. Presenting photos of Ray Epps, a man caught on video on both January 5 and 6, imploring people to “go into the Capitol” but has not been charged with any crime, Cruz asked Sanborn whether she knew Epps. “I’m aware of the individual, sir, I don’t have the specific background to him,” Sanborn replied.
“Miss Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?” Cruz asked. Again, Sanborn said she could not answer the question. Cruz also asked why, based on reporting by Darren Beattie at Revolver News, Epps’ “magically disappeared” from the FBI’s Most Wanted List related to January 6.
Again, Sanborn had no answer.
According to a recent Newsweek investigative report, the Justice Department stationed elite FBI forces at the FBI training academy in Quantico the weekend before January 6; hundreds of agents were deployed to the Capitol grounds that morning.
In September, the New York Times confirmed that FBI informants infiltrated the Proud Boys, an alleged militia group, and participated in the first breach of the Capitol perimeter right before 1 p.m. The man seen with the Proud Boys before the first intrusion was Ray Epps.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) asked Matthew Olsen, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, whether any plain-clothes officers were at the Capitol on January 6. Olsen, who announced today the formation of a domestic terror unit within DOJ, said he was not “aware” of any plainclothes officers within the crowd or inside the building on January 6. Cotton slammed Olsen for repeatedly refusing to give the committee specific answers. “Did you prepare for this hearing, did you know this hearing was happening before this morning, Cotton asked Olsen.
Cotton also pressed Olsen about Epps; Olsen deferred the question to Sanborn. “Do you really expect us to believe you’ve never heard the name Ray Epps, you don’t know anything about him?” Cotton asked. Olsen said he had “no information at all” about Epps.
Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness. She is the author of January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right and Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried―And Failed―To Take Down the President. Her past work can be found at The Federalist and National Review. She also has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and Genetic Literacy Project. She is the co-host of the “Happy Hour Podcast with Julie and Liz.” She is a graduate of Eastern Illinois University and lives in suburban Chicago with her husband and two daughters.
ArchivePhoto: WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 03: Jill Sanborn, Assistant Director of FBI Counterterrorism Division, testifies at a Homeland Security
This all sounds like something that would come out of communist Russia or Hitlers Germany...HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH YOUR "GOVERNMENT"..!!
In the early hours of March 12, FBI agents in southwestern Florida barricaded a neighborhood to prepare to raid the home of one resident. Christopher Worrell of Cape Coral was arrested and charged with several counts related to the January 6 Capitol melee. Even though Worrell had been cooperating with the FBI for two months, the agency nonetheless unleashed a massive, and no doubt costly, display of force to take him into custody.
Law enforcement agents, according to one neighbor who spoke with a reporter, wore “whole outfits . . . like military and it was crazy. There was like six or seven . . . big black vehicles. They busted down the front door.” The raid included “armed men with helmets and a tanker truck” and was partially executed by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Worrell never entered the Capitol building on January 6; he isn’t accused of committing a violent crime. But a D.C. judge overturned a Florida judge’s ruling to release Worrell pending further review of his case. He remains in jail.
Ginning Up “Domestic Terrorism”
Worrell’s arrest is the latest in what the U.S. Department of Justice warned would be an “unprecedented” investigation leading to sedition charges filed against American citizens. Attorney General Merrick Garland pledged to make the Capitol Breach manhunt his top priority; on his first day in office, he received an update on the investigation from FBI Director Christopher Wray. Garland has compared January 6 to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, including 15 children.
Roughly 300 people have been arrested so far, many of them transported to Washington, D.C. to await trial and dozens denied bail after federal prosecutors argued the defendants, including a high school senior from Georgia, pose a threat to the nation.
The Capitol Breach probe, the department’s official title, is a flagrant political prosecution targeting Trump supporters. Every display—from heavy-handed FBI raids to a militarized Washington, D.C.—is designed to portray the President Trump’s allies as domestic terrorists.
The differences between how the government is handling the January 6 defendants and other so-called protestors could not be more stark. For example, a Portland investigative reporter found the Justice Department has dropped more than one-third of the federal cases related to last summer’s riots in that city, with more to come. Only about a dozen people have been arrested for last week’s rioting in Portland, which included attacks on a federal courthouse.
But the violence in Portland is different, according to Merrick Garland, who said during his confirmation hearing the Capitol attack was “domestic terrorism” because the January 6 protestors attempted “to disrupt democratic processes.” The term doesn’t apply to attacks on the Portland courthouse, Garland claimed, because those only happen at night when court is out of session.
Stretching the Law
Garland’s explanation, however absurd it sounds to the majority of Americans, bolsters one of the Justice Department’s most widely-used allegations in its Capitol investigation. More than 75 protestors now face one count of “obstruction of an official proceeding.”
The temporary disruption of Congress’ attempt to certify the Electoral College results, a task completed 13 hours after the chaos began, is repeatedly cited in charging documents as evidence of wrongdoing: “It [is] a crime to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding—to include a proceeding before Congress—or make an attempt to do so,” several affidavits read.
But the government’s attempt to apply this vague law to defendants in the Capitol case is a stretch, to say the least. In several instances, it represents an enhancement charge to add a felony to mostly misdemeanor offenses.
Further, there’s no indication the law pertains to a proceeding before Congress. Here’s the exact text from the statute prosecutors cite: “Whoever corruptly . . . otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The provision is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, signed into law in 2002 as a congressional response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Corporate bad actors—not regular citizens protesting the actions of their elected officials in a public government building paid for by taxpayers—are the proper targets of that law.
In his signing statement, President George W. Bush explicitly rebuked any intention to use the law against Americans. “To ensure that no infringement on the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of grievances occurs in the enforcement of section 1512(c) . . . which among other things prohibits corruptly influencing any official proceeding, the executive branch shall construe the term ‘corruptly’ in section 1512(c)(2) as requiring proof of a criminal state of mind on the part of the defendant,” Bush said in July 2002.
No Speedy Trials
How will federal prosecutors convince a judge someone like Christopher Worrell, who never entered the building to try to stop Congress’s certification, had a “criminal state of mind” and wasn’t simply exercising his constitutional right to protest his own government?
What Worrell and others did—those who didn’t commit crimes such as assault a police officer or vandalize property—is wholly American and well within the protections of the First Amendment.
Perhaps that explains why thousands of protestors who occupied the Hart Senate Office building in October 2018 to interrupt the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh didn’t face “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges. Ditto for those who surrounded and banged on the doors of the Supreme Court. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was not accused of inciting an insurrection after she fired up the crowd that later stormed the Senate building and harassed U.S. senators.
Trump-hating thugs who tore up the nation’s capital during his 2017 inauguration also did not face extra charges for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” In fact, nearly all of the charges eventually were dropped by the same U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. now overseeing the Capitol riot investigation.
The burden of proof, to the extent it matters in the hyperpartisan Beltway justice system, is high. Nonetheless, it appears the Justice Department is having trouble building its cases, including “obstruction of an official proceeding” charges.
Last week, the government asked for permission to violate the Speedy Trial Act and grant a 60 day continuance in its case against nine defendants, alleged members of the Oath Keepers, all charged with obstructing an official proceeding among other offenses. The lawyers insist they need more time to assemble all the evidence. “[T]he ends of justice served by granting a request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”
The judge agreed. Of course he did
Convicting any of the Capitol defendants on charges of obstructing an official proceeding will cross a dangerous line—a line government prosecutors and federal judges clearly feel undeterred to cross. This isn’t about justice, it’s about partisan retribution and revenge. And the consequences will be disastrous.
Rep. Jim Jordan was the GOP choice to be on the Jan6 committee, but the demoRats wouldn't accept him....Why? Because he asks all the RIGHT questionsWait 'til the final report comes out in 5 years. We will all kick ourselves for not doing more. And our kids will kick us, too.
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
by Wesley J. Smith October 13, 2017
IPAB’s stated purpose is to contain Medicare costs, a laudable goal. But the powers granted to the presidentially appointed and confirmed commissioners subvert democratic accountability and violate our constitutional system of separation of powers. They could, one day, be weaponized to implement invidious medical discrimination mandates—e.g., health-care rationing.
Unlike members of most bureaucratic boards, IPAB commissioners do not have to comply with such typical administrative procedures as obtaining public comment. Rather, when projected Medicare expenses exceed a given amount—which has not yet happened since Obamacare’s passage, hence its quiescence—IPAB is required to submit a cost-cutting proposal to Congress by the following January 15, which, in turn, must be introduced as enabling legislation without change by House and Senate majority leaders the same day it is received. By April 1, the relevant committees must complete their consideration of the legislation. Any committee that fails to meet that deadline will be discharged from further involvement in the matter. Congress is handcuffed from considering any legislation or amendment that does not meet the IPAB financial targets or that would repeal or change the fast-track process without a three-fifths majority (60 votes) of the Senate. Non-germane amendments are not permitted.
In its area of jurisdiction, IPAB is more powerful than the president, Congress, and the courts. If Congress does not pass the proposal before August 15—or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress—the original IPAB recommendations automatically go into effect. And take note: Once enacted, the IPAB mandate is not subject to administrative or judicial review. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
At present, IPAB is precluded from changing Medicare benefits or revising eligibility standards—i.e., it cannot ration care. That leaves few means of reducing costs other than altering reimbursement formulas to doctors and hospitals. But these limitations should not make us sanguine, as they were politically necessary for IPAB to be included in the ACA. There is every reason to believe that IPAB was never intended to remain so constrained.
Not long after the ACA went into effect, President Obama called for the “strengthening” of IPAB’s power, while former members of his administration urged that IPAB be given more authority. Christina D. Romer, the former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued in the July 21, 2012, New York Times that IPAB be allowed to “suggest”—which would really mean “impose,” as the board’s “suggestions” are quasi-mandates—“changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided.” That sure smells like health-care rationing to me.
Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary during the Obama years—and a frequent panelist these days on MSNBC’s Morning Joe—more explicitly advocated granting IPAB the power to ration. In 2012, he took to the pages of the Gray Lady to declare, “We need death panels,” lamenting that IPAB’s inability to ration care was a “problem” requiring a remedy:
Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is in . . . reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes a quarter of the program’s budget.
And get this:
No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with the price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and families to try for every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled—including Canada, Australia and New Zealand—have systems for rationing care.
Extolled by technocrats like Rattner, perhaps. But I doubt many Americans want rationing.
Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the country’s most influential bioethicists and a prime architect of Obamacare, wrote as far back as 1996 that health care “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” This is a typical mindset among bioethicist “experts” who would likely be appointed to create IPAB’s cost-cutting mandates.
IPAB’s autocratic power makes it the perfect health-care rationing board, impervious to popular—and even elected officials’—objections. That is why it must be excised from the law regardless of the ultimate fate of Obamacare. The good news is that the administration generally supports IPAB’s repeal. And a measure to do just that, the Protecting Seniors’ Access to Health Care Act (HR 849) introduced by physician Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), has passed the Ways and Means Committee and enjoys bipartisan support, with some 265 cosponsors in the House—including 43 Democrats.
Let us hope that the bill soon makes it to the president’s desk. The best time to slay a dragon is when it is still in its egg.
Wesley J. Smith, author of Culture of Death: The Age of ‘Do Harm’ Medicine, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council.
Joe Bye-Done: WaPo's Article About Biden's Struggles Sure Does Drive a Dagger Into His Presidency Matt Vespa Posted: Jan 25, 2022
Biden presented himself as an antidote to his predecessor, offering the promise of what his own campaign ads called “strong, steady, stable leadership” after four years of bedlam under President Donald Trump. But the tumult surrounding the administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan offered an early glimpse of the cascade of crises that have badly eroded Biden’s image of restoring calm.Biden on Thursday marks the first full year of his presidency facing intraparty Democratic disarray, stalled legislation, supply chain issues, worrying inflation, rising tensions with Russia and another highly transmissible coronavirus variant called omicron — all of which have led to an approval ratings average stuck in the low 40s.
…the administration has also repeatedly underestimated the magnitude of the nation’s challenges, including failing to anticipate the delta and omicron coronavirus variants, and has struggled to unite the liberal base and the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party. The president and his team have also stumbled in offering a clear and reassuring message, unable to convince many Americans that they understand their travails or that better days are ahead.
Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) said: “If I were giving them a grade — and I was a political science professor for a long time — I’d have to give them an incomplete.”
The decline in Biden’s poll numbers, which already were dropping, accelerated dramatically over the summer. By early September, more Americans disapproved than approved of the way Biden was handling his job for the first time in his presidency, according to a Washington Post average of polls since May 2021.
Post-ABC polls showed a 10-point drop in approval of Biden’s handling of the pandemic from late June to early September. The September Post-ABC poll also found that 60 percent disapproved of his handling of the situation in Afghanistan, and by November, Biden’s overall job ratings had dipped further amid rising disapproval of his handling of the economy and the coronavirus.
“Old.” “Incoherent.” “Lazy.” “Sleepy Joe.”
These were among the first descriptions that came to mind for 10 suburban women swing voters who gathered late last year for a virtual focus group conducted by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on behalf of several liberal organizations. The results were reviewed by The Post on the condition of anonymity to protect the identity of the participants and the groups.
Asked to elaborate, the women in the focus group said it seemed as if “he’s trying,” but that Biden shuffles and frequently seems to lose his train of thought. Biden is “wishy-washy” in standing up to his own party, one woman said, explaining that she thought the president seemed more like an actor in a “supporting role.”
“He doesn’t convey being strong to me,” she said. “He seems weak.”
Others offered suggestions: “If he needs a nap beforehand, take that, because we need him to be there for us.”
It cannot be all doom-and-gloom; this is The Washington Post. Buried deep in the lengthy piece is the hope from the Democratic operative class that Slow Joe can turn it around in time for 2024 if he’s healthy—which he won’t be. By then, the oatmeal that has occupied his cranial cavity will be past its expiration date. In the immediate, it seems everyone knows the game is over.
“One Democratic strategist said the Biden team can turn his presidency around — but probably not in time to stave off defeat in the November midterms,” noted the Post.
“They’re in a tough spot,” this person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share a candid opinion. “Can they recover? For the 2024 reelection — yes. For 2022 — probably not.”
If Biden can’t run, and it’s looking like that might not be outside the realm of possibility, who else is there? Kamala is done—shot. That’s a candidate who will surely lose 45 states in 2024. Mayor Pete? He’s been on what seems to be the longest paternity leave in American history as the supply chain crisis strangles grocery chains.
It’s a mess, much like Joe. The fish rots from the head.
Of course the demoRats are going to TRY to slip it in with something else...wfen basically the GOP only really want "VOTER I D "
Cheapening the Vote: The Other Inflation Real Clear Politics Frank Miele - Jan 17 2022
You didn't have to be a magician to recognize the sleight-of-hand when Democrats pulled a "voting rights" campaign out of their Jan. 6 "armed insurrection" hat.
Even before President Biden finished his fire-and-brimstone speech condemning Republicans for "placing a dagger at the throat of democracy" in 2021, he and his handlers had pivoted to the 2022 midterm elections and the necessity of Democrats winning them. It was bad enough when the domestic (i.e., Republican) "terrorists" were running through the halls of Congress, but God forbid they ever have the chance to actually run Congress again, right?
So that meant Democrats needed to find some way to overcome Biden's lousy poll numbers and win the midterms despite being massively unpopular. And the only way to do that was a little something called "election reform." So Joe Biden staked the future of his party on yet another angry speech, this time about protecting the "right to vote" from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The "defeated former president" (he who will not be named) was the chief domestic enemy, but his band of racist Republican senators were just as dangerous.
And, of course, the media pundits nodded their heads in agreement. Orange man bad, and doddering Joe jolly well good. Time and again, we heard the darlings of the left complain about Republican efforts at "voter suppression," which they say is a wicked scheme to undermine democracy by depriving people of the right to vote.
Joe Biden spent a quarter of his first year as president in Delaware By Steven Nelson January 17, 2022
Biden, who returns to the White House on Monday night from his house in Wilmington, simply likes being home, his press representatives say.
But critics are concerned about who may be seeking to influence public policy while paying Biden or his family a visit.
“Generally speaking, the American people have a right to know what the president is up to. This president specifically changed policy to presumably disclose who’s been visiting the White House,” said Tom Fitton, president of conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which for years has battled for White House visitor log transparency.The press secretary confirms the White House will not share who visited President Biden’s Delaware home.REUTERS
“The decision to keep secret who is visiting Delaware makes a mockery of that transparency. It turns it into a joke,” Fitton said.
Biden spent at least part of 101 days of his first year in office in Delaware — almost always at either his primary residence in Wilmington or his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach.
Despite vowing to lead the most transparent administration yet, Biden is increasingly taking flak for being out of public view while giving fewer interviews and press conferences than predecessors. He will give his second solo White House press conference Wednesday — the final day of his first year in office.
The Biden White House initially applauded itself last year for resuming the partial release of visitor logs, saying in May, “These logs give the public a look into the visitors entering and exiting the White House campus for appointments, tours, and official business — making good on President Biden’s commitment to restore integrity, transparency, and trust in government.”
Monday, January 24, 2022
Saturday, January 22, 2022
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
So Byrd, a BLACK DC cop, shot an unarmed WHITE woman who posed NO threat and then wouldn't explain WHY..??..AND they let him get away with THAT...?? Reverse the roles and WHAT ????
Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Cleared Of Criminal Wrongdoing Without Interview BY REALCLEARWIRE JANUARY 11, 2022When U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd went on “NBC Nightly News” to tell his side of shooting and killing unarmed Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt, he made a point to note he’d been investigated by several agencies and exonerated for his actions that day.
“There’s an investigative process [and] I was cleared by the DOJ [Department of Justice], and FBI and [the D.C.] Metropolitan Police,” he told NBC News anchor Lester Holt in August, adding that the Capitol Police also cleared him of wrongdoing and decided not to discipline or demote him for the shooting.
Byrd then answered a series of questions by Holt about the shooting, but what he told the friendly journalist, he likely never told investigators. That’s because he refused to answer their questions, according to several sources and documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations.
In fact, investigators cleared Byrd of wrongdoing in the shooting without actually interviewing him about the shooting or threatening him with punishment if he did not cooperate with their criminal investigation.
“He didn’t provide any statement to [criminal] investigators and they didn’t push him to make a statement,” Babbitt family attorney Terry Roberts said in an RCI interview. “It’s astonishing how skimpy his investigative file is.”
Roberts, who has spoken with the D.C. MPD detective assigned to the case, said the kid-glove treatment of Byrd raises suspicions the investigation was a “whitewash.”
The lawyer’s account appears to be backed up by a January 2021 internal affairs report, which notes Byrd “declined to provide a statement,” D.C. MPD documents show.