Saturday, August 6, 2022

So...Pelosi doesn't think ANYONE needs or is entitled to know what SHE AND HER COHORTS are doing !! YOU JUST HAVE TO TAKE HER WORD THAT EVERYTHING SHE DOES IS LEGAL AND ABOVE BOARD....

Pelosi Congress Claims Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court to Keep Secret January 6 Videos and Emails

Judicial Watch  From JudicialWatch President Tom Fitton: CORRUPTION: Pelosi Congress is HIDING ever single one of their 1/6 security-related emails (and the 14,000 hours of videos) while making fake claims about Trump and 1/6.

Pelosi Congress Claims Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court to Keep Secret January 6 Videos and Emails

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents citizens from suing for their release.

 Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Exective Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.

Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.

All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedent that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”

“In ‘the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’” … “[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.”

The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government….” “Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.”

“The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.”

In November 2021, Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building. The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd. In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.

Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield “improper activity.”

Friday, August 5, 2022

I copied this article from "Knuckledraggin My Life Away". Read it here or over at "Knuckledraggin," BUT you should READ IT !

Commentary: The Establishment’s Effort to ‘Destroy Trump’ Belies a Terrible Truth  by Roger Kimball  Aug 1st...Admin.

For some time now, Michael Anton has been saying that the Establishment – Democrats tout court, of course, but also large swaths of the testosterone-challenged GOP – are dead set against allowing Donald Trump to run for president again. It’s been obvious from its beginnings that the January 6 committee – an illegally constituted kangaroo court – was interested in one thing and one thing only: eliminating Trump and his followers from the metabolism of American political life. The fact that its public face is Liz Cheney, a soon-to-be cashiered anti-Trump RINO, underscores Anton’s point, or part of it.

It’s not just the Democrats who cannot countenance Trump. It is the entire certified political class, what Anton calls the bureaucratic “uniparty” that runs the government and maintains the Overton Window that determines what is and what is not acceptable in the political life of the country. Donald Trump is not in the picture frame.

Another data point: just Friday, the New York Times gleefully reported that Fox News – Fox! – had also cut the former president loose. Apparently, he hasn’t appeared on the network since April. The Times noted that other mouthpieces of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire – the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, for example – had published opinion pieces harshly critical of Trump and pointedly announcing that he was unfit to run for president.

There is a certain anxiety evident in all these anti-Trump imprecations, a fact that that is made more understandable when one looks at the polls. The unhappy fact – unhappy, anyway, if you are dead set against Donald Trump being president – is that Trump is by far the most vital Republican candidate. The Republican consensus is repeating the mantra “DeSantis, DeSantis, DeSantis.” Nothing wrong with that: Ron DeSantis is a good guy, Trump without the mean tweets and other baggage that CNN dislikes. Were he the GOP candidate, I would support him avidly.

But will he be? As Newsmax reports, Trump is “crushing all potential opponents in a Republican primary,” including DeSantis. A recent Harvard-Harris poll has Trump hoovering up 56 percent of the vote in a field of seven GOP rivals. DeSantis clocks in with 16 percent. The last time I checked, 56 was a considerably bigger number than 16.

Anton’s point is that the regime is prepared to move heaven and earth to stop Trump. They would prefer to stop him from running at all. If they can’t do that, they will go to any length necessary to prevent him from winning. And if that doesn’t succeed, they will prevent him from being seated as the next president.

As I say, Anton has been singing this tune for some time now, and I have been privileged to hear some of his cadenzas on the subject. He has now gathered the various leitmotifs together into a single robust essay that was published to wide notice last week in the lively new website Compact. Titled “They Can’t Let him Back In,” Anton’s essay reads like a playbook lifted from a John Le Carré novel. If the January 6 committee fails in its appointed task to destroy Trump, Anton forecasts, there are a host of contingencies ready and waiting to complete the job.

Anton lists six or seven likely responses to a Trump candidacy, each more disturbing than the next. But what is perhaps most disturbing is his observation that this huge salient is not, or at least not primarily, about Donald Trump. At the end of the day, Anton observes, “Anti-Trump hysteria . . . is not about Trump.”

The regime can’t allow Trup to be president not because of who he is (although that grates), but because of who his followers are. That class – Angelo Codevilla’s “country class” – must not be allowed representation by candidates who might implement their preferences, which also, and above all, must not be allowed. The rubes have no legitimate standing to affect the outcome of any political process, because of who they are, but mostly because of what they want.

And what is that? Why, it’s what everyone says they want but few actually do: democracy, self-determination, the recovery of sovereignty by the people from the self-engorging bureaucracy that wrested power from the hands of the people decades ago.

The burden of Anton’s essays is twofold: first, to explain why the regime believes that “under no circumstances” can Trump be allowed near the levers of power again and, second, how it intends to prevent that unacceptable thing from happening. As a coda, Anton points out that, should the impossible happen and should Donald Trump somehow, over Liz Cheney’s most strenuous objections, actually win the presidency and be en route to taking office, the reaction would be (in the words of a George Soros-linked entity) “a street fight, not a legal battle.” And then? A conflagration would erupt that would make “make their reaction to Jan. 6 look like a marshmallow roast.”

I think all this is likely. But what I do not know, and what Anton does not speculate about, is what happens then. He is quite right that the regime has mastered the supreme rhetorical trope of blaming conservatives for fraudulent or near-fraudulent behavior that it itself perpetrates. They do the bad things. It is still our fault. “They get to engage in shenanigans that make elections look fishy; we get blamed for saying they look fishy.” Nice work if you can get it!

But they can get it. All the time. It’s their stock in trade. That is the amazing thing. “When we point out that, hey, something looks off there, the response is invariably: How dare you sow doubt about the election! You are undermining confidence in Our Democracy™. Not their shenanigans, but our doubts undermine confidence.”

Exactly. But what about our side? Anton has reviewed the likely order of battle for the regime. What about us deplorables? Do we just roll over and take it? We always have. After the deeply flawed 2020 election was called for the Man in the Basement, there was abundant grumbling. There was even the jamboree at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Liz Cheney hops up and down telling us that was an “insurrection.” We all know – even Cheney knows – it was not an insurrection. It was a spontaneous protest whose chief structure seems to have been supplied by various para-government operatives, informants, organizers, and plants. For his part, Donald Trump urged the crowd headed to the Capitol to make make their views known “peacefully and patriotically.” Determined to make the case that Trump was inciting a riot or worse, the Jan 6 committee omitted that bit from its video of the event. But the mass of citizens understands that Trump was not guilty of trying spark an “insurrection” to “overturn the election.”

The big question remains, however, what happens next time? Trump enjoys the support of tens of millions of people. How many read the New York Times or watch CNN? One way of framing the question I have no answer for is this: Is there a line in the sand that, if crossed by the regime, would galvanize the deplorables into open revolt? What if, the next time a presidential election was curated by George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Democratic National Committee, a few million of them began acting like Black Lives Matter protestors during the summer of 2020? What then?
– – –

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and the president and publisher of Encounter Books. He is the author and editor of many books, including The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine’s Press), The Rape of the Masters (Encounter), Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse (Ivan R. Dee), and Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity (Ivan R. Dee).
Photo “Donald Trump” by Trump White House Archived.

Thursday, August 4, 2022

Judicial Watch
The U.S. has dropped a ghastly $146 billion on Afghanistan reconstruction in the last two decades and billions more continue to be spent, but the Biden administration is blocking federal auditors from conducting their congressionally mandated job of investigating where the money is going. For months the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has been trying to investigate the abrupt collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, if the State Department is complying with laws and regulations prohibiting the transfer of funds to the Taliban and ongoing humanitarian programs supporting the Afghan people. However, the State Department and its offshoot, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), refuse to cooperate as required by law.

WATCH: Fox’s Doocy Confronts Karine Jean-Pierre Over Biden Finishing Trump’s ‘Racist’ Border Wall    BY RUSTY WEISS AUGUST 1, 2022 

Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy confronted Biden Press SecretaryKarine Jean-Pierre over reports that the Biden administration is building sections of the border wall – asking, “Is this racist?”

The Department of Homeland Security issued a press release last week announcing that they would be closing gaps in the wall near Yuma, Arizona.

NBC News described it as the administration having “authorized completion of the Trump-funded U.S.-Mexico border wall” in that locale.

Jean-Pierre, in 2019, described the wall as “racist,” urging protesters to “take to the streets” as then-President Trump was trying to use emergency funds to pay for it.

Peter Doocy and Karine Jean-Pierre Get in Tense Debate

Karine Jean-Pierre argued with Peter Doocy over the basis of the border wall report, suggesting the administration wasn’t “finishing” the wall but rather, simply cleaning up what Trump left behind.

Doocy pointed out that Biden had vowed not to build another foot of the border wall to which Jean-Pierre countered, “We are not finishing the wall.”

“If walls work in that part of Arizona — is this the administration trying to get migrants to cross somewhere else, like in Texas? What is the plan?” the Fox News reporter continued.

“We are not finishing a wall. We are cleaning up the mess that the prior administration made. We are trying to save lives,” Jean-Pierre fired back. “This is what is this is what the prior administration left behind that we are now cleaning up.”



Hell No’: Watch Wyoming Voters Tell CNN If They Intend to Vote For Liz Cheney  BY RUSTY WEISS AUGUST 2, 2022 

Wyoming voters lampooned Republican Representative Liz Cheney during a segment on CNN in which they were asked if they’d support the anti-Trump politician in her upcoming primary.

Video captured of their responses doesn’t bode well for Cheney, who will face a primary later this month.

“Hell no!” one vociferous supporter of the former President said during a portion of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” show.

She later added that Cheney had “done us dirty.”

Another pair of Wyoming voters also expressed their opinion on Cheney, one saying “absolutely not” when asked if they would vote for her, while another suggested she already had “three [terms] too many.”

Joe Dan Gorman #UltraMAGA 1776 @ThatJoeDanGuy
CNN goes to Wyoming to ask voters if they're gonna vote for #LizCheney... Hilarity ensues.  

Monday, August 1, 2022

Tucker Carlson: It turns out we're insane  Fox News  4 days ago

Fox News host Tucker Carlson rips President Biden for denying the United States is in a recession despite what economists say on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' #FoxNews #tucker

JUST IN: Jim Jordan Questions Why DOJ Is Ignoring 'Illegal Activities Of Hunter Biden'  Forbes Breaking News 4 DAYS AGO

Forbes Breaking News
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) spoke about the Department of Justice under the Biden administration.