Several takes on the testimony by Garland before the Senate Judiciary Committee (updated)


Grassley sets up Garland with a question on foreign influence

Yes, Senator Grassley ended his questions to Garland by asking about Hunter Biden’s shady dealings

The New York Post goes directly to the question posed by Grassley to Garland regarding the Hunter Biden bad actions that could be tied to “the Big Guy.” You know, the question that Garland deferred rather than answer.

Sen. Chuck Grassley interrogated Attorney General Merrick Garland over the Hunter Biden investigation Wednesday, revealing for the first time that “over a dozen sources” had tipped off the FBI and Justice Department to potential criminal activity by the first son.

“Recent lawfully protected whistleblower disclosures to my office indicate that the Justice Department and FBI had — at one time — over a dozen sources that provided potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden.” Grassley (R-Iowa), 89, told Garland during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “The alleged volume and similarity of information would demand that the Justice Department investigate the truth and accuracy of the information.”

“Accordingly, what steps has the Justice Department taken to determine the truth and accuracy of the information provided?” Grassley asked. “Congress and the American people have a right to know.”

Garland, 70, deflected, saying he had promised during his confirmation hearings not to interfere in the probe headed by Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, and “I have carried through on my pledge.”

Grassley later cast doubt on Garland’s claims that the probe by Weiss — one of the few still-serving US attorneys appointed by President Donald Trump — was truly independent.

“Has the Delaware US attorney sought permission of another US Attorney’s Office, such as in the District of Columbia or California, to bring charges?” the senator asked. “If so, was it denied?”

“I don’t know the answer to that,” Garland said before insisting that Weiss has been told that “he is not to be denied anything that he needs, and if that were to happen, it should ascend through the department’s ranks, and I have not heard anything from that office to suggest that they are not able to do everything that the US attorney wants to do.”

(Read how Senator Grassley gave his view at the )

However, before the question noted by the New York Post, there was a set-up question

As shown by a 2 March 2023 article in the Independent Sentinel, Senator Grassley started with the following question to which Garland agreed should be investigated:

Grassley said, “If the Justice Department received information that foreign persons had evidence of improper or unlawful payment paid to elected officials and those payments may have influenced policy decisions, would that pose a national security concern?”

Garland’s answer was, “if an agent of a foreign government asking someone and paying someone to do things to support that foreign government in secret? Yes, I definitely think that would be a national security problem.”

(Read more at the Independent Sentinel)

Oddly, the Independent Sentinel buries the leading exchange from Grassley and Garland behind the exchange where Garland refuses to answer; however, if you watch the Judiciary Committee hearings, the paper obviously put the events out of order.

Oh, no!! Are independent-thinking news outlets trying to force us into thinking for ourselves and making us put these events in order?? Oh, the horror!!

So much for his oath to protect the Constitution or the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection under the law”

Garland approves of treating pro-life activists like terrorists

The Washington Examiner calls on the exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and Merrick Garland to illustrate how the Biden regime has justified ignoring crimes against pro-life citizens and organizations. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

Attorney General Merrick Garland proved himself an utter disgrace to the office Wednesday.

After six months of repeated questions from members of Congress about the astonishingly reckless and extravagant use of force to arrest a cooperative pro-life activist in front of his seven children, Garland, in a Senate hearing, provided a cowardly nonanswer about the incident. In essence, he said that the buck doesn’t stop with him, because he has refused for half a year to let the buck reach him in the first place. It was an egregious exercise of defiance masked as pusillanimity, or more likely, a malignant combination of both.

The case, covered for months in national media outlets, involved Mark Houck, who, for years, has made regular trips to pray outside of a Philadelphia abortion clinic but without ever blocking the entrance. He was arrested after an exceedingly mild altercation with an older man named Bruce Love, who was escorting women into the clinic and who, according to witnesses, had accosted Houck’s son. The arrest came even though the law under which Houck was charged, known as the FACE Act, specifically was designed not to apply to volunteer patient escorts such as Love. In a Senate debate, FACE Act sponsors former Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and David Durenberger (R-MN) both explicitly said that the act “does not protect the escorts.”

Local prosecutors declined to prosecute such a laughable “case” against Houck, and a federal grand jury rightly acquitted him despite the full efforts of Garland’s Justice Department to send him to prison.

Yet as abusive as the entire prosecutorial attempt was, that wasn’t as much at issue as the arrest itself. Heavily armed agents showed up en masse at Houck’s house shortly after dawn and arrested him in front of his children, some of them quite young. Houck’s wife said there were 20 or more agents, guns drawn like a SWAT team, rude and extremely frightening, with five of them aiming guns at Houck’s head. Photographs show at least several agents with significant-sized weapons. The Justice Department disputed the “SWAT” characterization of the arrest and vaguely said it wasn’t quite so dramatic, but it has offered few concrete details other than that.

Here’s the rub, which, thank goodness, did not result in a “rub out,” meaning a death: Houck’s attorney, having heard that federal prosecutors were considering charging his client with violation of the FACE Act, had called and specifically said Houck would appear voluntarily at federal offices for arrest purposes if that’s what they planned. The fact of his offer is not in dispute. Nor was there anything in Houck’s long record of pro-life advocacy, other than the minor scuffle in purported defense of his son, to indicate that he is anything other than a peaceful, law-abiding citizen.


Garland said decisions about the use of force are “made at the level of the FBI agents on scene,” as if it’s not his responsibility to review such decisions when challenged on them, especially when he has been specifically asked to review them. He also dismissed the concerns by saying that the FBI disputes “how many agents, of the agents that were there, and what their roles were.”

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

The real mystifying issue during the hearing was this: Garland said he could not prosecute the criminals who firebombed the pro-life centers because “it was done at night”

The New York Post laughingly points out how obviously Merrick Garland would have been a failure on the police force of any city, since criminals commit most crime during the night.

Lee told the attorney general the DOJ’s “use of force” against Houck didn’t appear “justifiable” before drawing attention to what he called a “disparity” in the department’s approach to abortion-related prosecutions.

“DOJ has announced charges against 34 individuals for blocking access to or vandalizing abortion clinics,” he said, while noting “there have been over 81 reported attacks on pregnancy centers and only two individuals have been charged.”

“How do you explain this disparity by reference to anything other than politicization of what’s happening?” Lee asked.

In response, Garland lamely tried to explain the discrepancy by claiming that pro-life activists commit violations “during the daylight [and] seeing the person doing it is quite easy.

Those who are attacking the pregnancy resource centers, which is a horrid thing to do, are doing this at night, in the dark,” the AG added. “… These people who are doing it are clever and are doing it in secret. I am convinced that the FBI is trying to find them with urgency.”

(Read more at the New York Post)

We have long passed the day when Merrick Garland and Joe Biden should have resigned due to incompetence.


Both a matter of cleaning up elections and playing the game


Republicans on course to get blown out by phantoms in the 2024 elections

Houston’s News Radio KTRH quotes Jay Valentine of Omega 4 America as he prognosticates over the voting scene.

There are 8% -15% fake voters, or fake addresses in every one of the states that we looked at. The phantoms are the voters on every voter roll, and they don’t vote for MAGA candidates or conservative Republicans. This is something used by the Democrat party to keep conservatives out of office.

Houston is one of the worst, Harris County is unbelievably corrupt. The stuff that are teams have found in Harris County would make your hair stand up, if you have any. There are probably more phantoms per square foot in Harris County, than in any other county in the country.

(Hear the interview at KTRH)

By the fact that more than a dozen Republicans of Harris County have sued for election irregularities, some will fight

As reported by The Texan.News, Alex Mealer and over a dozen other Republicans have sued to contest the election results due to the numerous irregularities previously mentioned at this blog.


The press and other Democrats ask how McCarthy will avoid extremist control after they bowed to BLM for years

Even the conservative Washington Examiner asks how McCarthy will control a “divided and angry GOP”

The Washington Examiner poses the question of how McCarthy will control what it seems to suggest to be a radically conservative faction in the House.

Newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) would like to defy recent history. He’s joining a troubled fraternity whose tenures ended badly, as opposed to riding off into a triumphant semi-retirement like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) helped lead Republicans to their first majority in the chamber in 40 years, the first member of his party to wield the gavel since Rep. Joseph W. Martin Jr (R-MA). He was out within five years, with the GOP’s right flank already nipping at his heels.

Former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was actually booted from the original Gingrich leadership team, passed over after two terms as the House Republican Conference’s chairman in favor of then-Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK). He clawed his way all the back up to the top spot, winning the speakership in 2011. Within four years, he was hounded out of office by disaffected conservatives.

Newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) would like to defy recent history. He’s joining a troubled fraternity whose tenures ended badly, as opposed to riding off into a triumphant semi-retirement like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) helped lead Republicans to their first majority in the chamber in 40 years, the first member of his party to wield the gavel since Rep. Joseph W. Martin Jr (R-MA). He was out within five years, with the GOP’s right flank already nipping at his heels.

Former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was actually booted from the original Gingrich leadership team, passed over after two terms as the House Republican Conference’s chairman in favor of then-Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK). He clawed his way all the back up to the top spot, winning the speakership in 2011. Within four years, he was hounded out of office by disaffected conservatives.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Where were these questions when Nancy Pelosi took a knee to Black Lives Matter for the past few years?

Where were the intrepid reporters when it came to the George Floyd riots?

What probes went on when the purported middle-of-the-road Democrats took a knee to the socialists?

On the other hand, since the journalists at the Washington Examiner decided to deride conservatives, maybe they should also explain why conservative is bad. That might be an informational ride for us all (especially since the Washington Examiner formerly had some conservative bona fides).

Seriously, they quote Schiff on his misgivings on GOP concessions

The Washington Examiner also sat and listened to serial liar Adam Schiff and his inane opinion on how concessions were offered to certain groups other than his favored groups.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) slammed the new House speaker on Saturday for conceding “all the power of his office to the crazies” in a bid to win the speakership.

“He had to give away the house to do it, and that was a sacrifice he was willing to make — for the title,” Schiff wrote in a tweet.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Either the Washington Examiner has lapsed into occational satire or they have hired liberals who cannot research Schiff-for-brains

I certainly hope that they have converted to a satire site with this article.


A comparison of the Right and Left


  1. After a month of recounts, Lauren Boebert officially wins her reelection bid

The Daily Wire laid out Representative Boebert’s dekayed win against her Democrat foe.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) won her bid for reelection after a tight race decided by roughly 550 votes, a recount confirmed on Monday.

The final results in Colorado’s Congressional District 3 showed the incumbent received 50.06% of the votes, while her Democratic rival, Adam Frisch, received 49.89%. Tallies showed Boebert with 163,839 votes following a net loss of three, and Frisch with 163,293 votes after a net gain of one.

The initial results had been within Colorado’s margin for a mandatory recount, which is at or less than 0.5% difference between the top two candidates. But Frisch, a former Aspen City Council member, already conceded defeat last month, and Boebert declared victory.

“We have won this race,” Boebert said at the time. “With this victory and with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives we can focus on the issues that actually matter most, including getting inflation under control, increasing our domestic energy supply, securing our southern border and being a strong check on the White House.”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

So the people on the Right count their wins

Part of our current problem has been that the districts have been so tightly gerrymandered and the Democrats have learned to use ballot harvesting where it is legal (as it is in Georgia and California).

  1. A conservative publisher interviews Maxine Waters concerning the questioning of a Democrat mega-donor

The Washington Examiner reports on the aeemingly arranged arrest of Bankman-Fried by interviewing the soon-to-be out-of-power Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee.

Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried will not testify in front of a House committee on Tuesday after he was arrested in the Bahamas on Monday, according to the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Chairwoman Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) confirmed the news in a statement Monday night, claiming she was surprised to hear of his arrest but that the committee would continue to try and get answers on the collapse of the FTX cryptoexchange through FTX’s current CEO John Ray III during the hearing.

“I am surprised to hear that Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas at the direction of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It’s about time the process to bring Mr. Bankman-Fried to justice has begun,” Waters said in a statement. “Although Mr. Bankman-Fried must be held accountable, the American public deserves to hear directly from Mr. Bankman-Fried about the actions that have harmed over one million people, and wiped out the hard-earned life savings of so many. The public has been waiting eagerly to get these answers under oath before Congress, and the timing of this arrest denies the public this opportunity.”

Waters added that Bankman-Fried’s lawyers confirmed that the crypto mogul was planning to testify on Tuesday, before his arrest. Testimony from Bankman-Fried was also being sought by the Senate Banking Committee. However, the former CEO refused to testify in front of the Senate committee, senators said Monday.

Bankman-Fried’s arrest was first reported by the attorney general of the Bahamas and confirmed by the U.S. attorney from the southern district of New York based on a sealed indictment.

The indictment is expected to be unsealed Tuesday morning, and the crypto mogul is expected to be charged with “wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, securities fraud conspiracy and money laundering,” according to the New York Times.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Why would the Washington Examiner interview Republicans who go along to get along?

Why would the realists at this conservative publisher go to the conservative side when effective liberals like Mitch McConnell arrange for a filibuster-proof majority for the Respect for Marriage (the bill that kills our individual free speech rights to not bow to gay marriage)?

Likewise, why would conservatives trust in House Republicans who joined the lame-duck Democrat majority to stab conservatives in the back?

  1. Musk reveals pedophilic statement in Roth thesis: Yoel Roth suggested giving under-18-year-olds access to gay hook-up app Grindr

The Daily Mail relates Musk’s quotes of Yoel Roth’s thesis in a way that seems to make Roth the victim.

Twitter’s former censor has been forced to flee the $1.1m Bay Area mansion he shares with his boyfriend after Elon Musk shared part of his thesis which suggested letting children access gay hook-up app Grindr.

Yoel Roth, 34, and his partner Nicholas Madsen, 44, moved out of their two-bed, two-bath property in El Cerrito over fears for their safety, after receiving a torrent of threats, the Washington Post reported. 

Musk tweeted: ‘Looks like Yoel is in favor of letting children being able to access adult internet services in his PhD thesis.’

He also shared a screenshot of part of the document.

Roth’s thesis, written in 2016 while he was at the University of Pennsylvania, included the claim that many under-18s access gay hook-up app Grindr, despite being too young to do so.

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

However, those who conspire with the FBI and conspire to corrupt our children are not the victims

Nobody forced Yoel to make the statement he did in his thesis.

By contrast, while the FBI may have pressured the social media giants to help Biden and hurt Trump, the social media giants were like all of us who find ourselves in a moral dilemma. We never have to do evil.

Most importantly, pointing out that evil has occurred does not always in itself constitute evil. In fact, in my opinion, Musk currently fits the bill of a hero.


  1. Never focusing on themselves, the Biden regime calls out Marjorie Taylor Greene comments on 6 January 2021 riot

The Washington Examiner points out how the Biden regime just cannot allow another narrative than their own on the 6 January 2021 riot.

The White House called out firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Monday, saying her comments about an armed Jan. 6 riot that would have succeeded were antithetical to American values.

Greene made the comments, which she insists were sarcastic, at Sunday night’s New York Young Republican Club Gala, saying, “If Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention, it would’ve been armed.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre decried those comments during Monday afternoon’s press briefing.

“This is what is coming from a member of Congress,” said Jean-Pierre, who briefly called her “Majority” Taylor Greene. “What’s more, she said it to a group that lashed out against condemning Holocaust denial. They were giving her an award.”

The congresswoman was decrying those who accused her of giving “insurrection tours” and helping plan Jan. 6 even though she “couldn’t even find the bathroom in the Capitol” due to being a new member of the House in early 2021. She then said that if she organized it, things would have been different.

“See, that’s the whole joke, isn’t it?” Greene said. “They say that whole thing was planned, and I’m like, are you kidding me? A bunch of conservatives, Second Amendment supporters, went in the Capitol without guns, and they think we organized that? I don’t think so.”

Greene said in her own Monday statement that Democrats were “trying to weaponize a sarcastic joke.”

The White House did not take it that way.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

As I recently mentioned, Biden has no room to complain about anything gun-related

With Biden’s release of the “Merchant of Death” into the mix of the Ukrainian war, Joe Biden has no reason to complain about any action or comment regarding guns.

  1. Were Democrats focusing on potential embarresment to them when they allowed Democrat mega-donor Bankman-Fried to be arrested hours before facing questions from Congress?

Brietbart reports on the arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried and his unwillingness to testify while under arrest.

Democrat Mega-donor and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas on Monday, just hours before he was scheduled to testify in front of the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday.

Bankman-Fried was arrested after U.S. authorities filed criminal charges against him, U.S. Attorneys confirmed.

“Earlier this evening, Bahamian authorities arrested Samuel Bankman-Fried at the request of the U.S. Government, based on a sealed indictment filed by the SDNY,” United States Attorney Damian Williams said. “We expect to move to unseal the indictment in the morning and will have more to say at that time.”

(Read more at Brietbart)

Could it be that Democrats arranged for the arrest of Bankman-Fried?

Anyone who has watched the empty prosecution of Trump and his affiliates will know that the Southern District of New York remains as a hotbed of Democrat activists in lawyer suits.

  1. Biden invites drag queen who performs for children to attend “Respect for Marriage Act” signing

Breitbart exposes the fact that the drag queen that Biden invited to the signing of the Respect for Marriage bill performed for children.

President Joe Biden invited a drag queen who performs for children to the White House on Tuesday to witness the signing of the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which enshrines same-sex marriage into law.

Drag queen activist Marti Cummings celebrated the invite on Twitter, and though he keeps his account private, the Libs of TikTok account shared Cummings’ status.

“To be a non binary drag artist invited to the White House is something I never imagined would happen. Thank you President & Dr. Biden for inviting me to this historic bill signing. Grateful doesn’t begin to express the emotions I feel,” Cummings tweeted while sharing a screenshot of the White House invite.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is more proof that the Biden regime does not want to convince, but to program

Since Biden has decided from the beginning to:

  • Deny the opposition a platform for debate (through FBI collusion with the social media companies)
  • Endoctrinate the uninformed (through Drag Queen story hours and the like)
  • Playing with and stretching the rules (as shown by the need for the repeated recounts)


Justice or political gamesmanship at the FBI?

Is this justice or political gamesmanship?

The FBI ramps up spending to fight MAGA terrorism

Newsweek removes all doubt that they might still harbor any objective journalists as they show support for the Biden regime’s attack on its political enemies.

The FBI is conducting three times as many domestic terrorism investigations than it was five years ago, with 70 percent of its open cases focused on “civil unrest” and anti-government activity, according to FBI documents and government specialists. The Bureau has also quietly changed the general classification of white supremacy, antisemitism, abortion-, and anti-LGBTQI+-related extremism to “hate crimes” rather than “terrorism.” Since terrorism remains the top national security priority, this has lowered the visibility and resources dedicated to those issues.

The FBI considers all violent acts (and threats of violence) with a political motive to be terrorism, a senior government official explains to Newsweek. But not all acts of extremism are considered terrorism. “If an act is focused on the government, it’s terrorism,” the source says. “But if extremism is focused on private individuals or institutions, it’s considered just a crime or classified as a hate crime.” The source was granted anonymity to speak about classified matters.

(Read more at Newsweek)

Since this is the FBI that targeted parents, I will suggest that this is a gun-holder acting as jury and judge

It seems to me that this seems like a crime in search of a perpetrator.

In my mind, they have made up their minds and just want to pin something on the opponents of Biden.

Real Clear Politics puts down the “crazy right-wing shooter” dog of the left

Real Clear Politics does what it can to debunk the “crazy right-wing shooter” myth. (I inserted bolding for emphasis.)

If you only read the New York Times editorials, you’d believe that political violence in America is a “right-wing” problem. The Times has been warning of violence from the right for years, but on Nov. 19 and 26, they wrote two long editorials making these claims. The violence stems from the lies “enthusiastically spread” by Republican politicians. Democrats’ only complicity was their $53 million in spending on “far-right fringe candidates in the primaries.” The fringe candidates, it was hoped, would be easier to beat in the general election. 

Both editorials mention the mass murderer in Buffalo, New York, as a political right-winger. But they have been doing that all year. In May, the Times claimed he was of the right because he was racist and listened to a video on a “site known for hosting right-wing extremism.” The headline in the Times announced: “Replacement theory, espoused by the suspect in the Buffalo massacre, has been embraced by some right-wing politicians and commentators.”

You wouldn’t know it from reading the Times, but the Buffalo killer was yet another mass murderer motivated by environmentalism. 

In his manifesto, the Buffalo mass murderer self-identifies as an “eco-fascist national socialist” and a member of the “mild-moderate authoritarian left.” He expresses concern that minority immigrants have too many children and will damage the environment. “The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world,” he writes. “Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

The murderer argues that capitalists are destroying the environment, and are at the root of much of the problem. “The trade of goods is to be discouraged at all costs,” he insists.

Overpopulation and the environment are hardly signature conservative issues. It’s certainly not something you’ll hear Donald Trump talk about at his rallies. And while some Republicans believe in limiting international trade, it’s certainly not for environmental reasons.

The Buffalo murderer’s manifesto has word-for-word similarities to those of the mass shooters in 2019 at a New Zealand mosque and at an El Paso Walmart

But the New York Times has consistently referred to the New Zealand mosque attacker as “far-right,” and tried to link the murderer to President Donald Trump’s supposedly racist language. The Times describes the El Paso murderer as having “echoed the incendiary words of conservative media stars” who have spoken out against illegal immigration.

But conservatives don’t usually declare that “conservatism is dead” and that “global capitalist markets are the enemy of racial autonomists.” Nor do they call themselves “eco-fascist” and profess that, “The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.”

The El Paso murderer had the same sentiments. “The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations … The next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”

All three of these deranged killers made minorities their principal target. But they’ve done so out of a crazy environmentalist determination to reduce the human population by whatever means necessary. 


Of the 82 mass public shootings from January 1998 to May 2021, 9% have known or alleged ties to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or anti-immigrant views. But many of those, such as the Buffalo murderer, are environmentalist authoritarians.

Another 9% of mass public shootings are carried out by people of middle eastern origin, despite them making up only 0.4% of the US population. Whites and Hispanics are underrepresented as a share of the population. Blacks, Asians, and American Indians commit these attacks at a slightly higher rate than their share of the population.

Seventy-one percent of mass public shooters have no identifiable political views.

Even violence against pro-life people and organizations this year has been over 22 times more frequent that violence against pro-choice groups.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

Odd how the shooter of the Denver gay bar dropped out of the news after identifying as nonbinary

It is almost as if the press turned off its interest once the murderer who turned a gun on five gay-bar patrons identified as nonbinary.

A “clarification” (or not) from the Capitol Riot Committee

The Wall Street Journal comments on what seems to be an ever-so-confusing situation in the light of Democrat justice.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D., Miss.), who defied the U.S. Constitution in 2005 by seeking to block certification of the re-election of President George W. Bush, is back in the news. No, Mr. Thompson is not denying legitimate election results again. But his Tuesday comments appear to represent yet another affront to constitutional governance.

Luke Broadwater reports for the New York Times:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will issue criminal referrals to the Justice Department based on its inquiry, the panel’s chairman said on Tuesday, but has made no decision on who it will recommend charging or what offenses it will cite.

Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the Democratic chairman of the committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill that the panel had agreed to take the step and would meet later Tuesday to discuss the specifics. But within moments, he and his staff rushed to clarify his statement, reflecting a debate that is still underway within the panel about whether to call for charges against former President Donald J. Trump and some of his top allies.

What was clearly needed was not a clarification but a retraction. Americans reasonably expect their government to identify a specific crime before suggesting charges. But it seems the “clarification” simply clarified the outrageous approach pursued by this sham committee which consists only of Democrats and Democrat-approved Republicans. Mr. Broadwater of the Times continues:

“What we’ve decided is that we will probably make referrals,” Mr. Thompson told reporters a short time later.

Mr. Thompson, who is known for giving big-picture guidance about the investigation but being at times less involved in the granular details of its work, then suggested that that decision was no longer in question.

“There’s a general agreement we will do some referrals, but we’ve got to get there,” he said. “We’re not there yet.”

Is this committee so political and partisan that it first decided that criminal referrals are necessary to advance its agenda, and only now has set about trying to figure out little details like who should be targeted for prosecution by Biden Justice and on what basis?

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

Is this justice or a crime in search of a perpetrator?

Are the members of the committee actually ready to deliver a fair referral or is this just more kabuki theater?

Do these guys actually have a case or are they counting their bullets for their next coup?


The difference between establishment Republicans and those who get it

Some Republicans don’t get it and stick to old ways

Again trying to parrot McConnell’s criticism of Walker, a report compiles the failures of the Republican party support in Georgia

The Daily Mail lays out the lack of agenda and using the eccentricities of state election law to get votes.

Senate Republicans expressed no surprise the day after Herschel Walker‘s loss in Georgia and blamed both lack of a unifying agenda and a missed opportunity to drum up early votes.

The knives came out for the former NFL star – plagued by domestic violence accusations and claims that he paid for multiple women’s abortions despite staking out a pro-life position – after his loss to incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock by about three points.

‘Candidate quality does count,’ Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., who is leaving the Senate to run for governor in 2024, said in a news briefing Wednesday.

But he didn’t just blame Walker – he also cited a lack of a policy plan to rally voters. 

‘If there’s not a clear plan of what you’re for — we are basically for nothing and we complain about it along the way. And then we say, “Well, maybe we’ll tell you after we’re elected.” It’s not going to work. Democrats are political enterprisers,’ Braun said.

While the loss did not shock, some Republicans descended into finger pointing both at Walker and former President Trump. Others defended Walker and blamed the broader party’s strategy.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., placed blame squarely on Trump’s influence.

‘His obsession with the 2020 election became an albatross and a real liability,’ Thune told reporters.

Asked by if he was surprised his party lost in Georgia on Tuesday, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said: ‘No. It was a hard-fought campaign.’ Still, he called Walker a ‘superb candidate.’

Asked if the results took him by surprise, Sen. Marco Rubio shrugged and said, ‘I don’t know.’

‘We should be asking ourselves both politically and from a policy standpoint [what happened],’ Rubio said.

‘I think [the loss] was factored in,’ retiring Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told ‘There was no surprise.’

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

If California Republicans have stopped complaining about ballot harvesting and embraced it, why can’t establishment Republicans?

If California Republicans have learned to “collect” ballots at churches, conservative civic clubs, and the like — why did Georgia stick to the old way of doing things?

If this is a matter of being able to fight dirty like the Democrats, there have been instances where Warnock evicted low-income tenants. Warnock has been known to be a deadbeat dad. Warnock has even gone silent on accusations of impropriety with children at his summer camp.

Something tells me that the issue establishment Republicans have does not find a foundation in the “candidate quality,” but in the conservative values espoused by Walker.

Some Republicans get it and adapt

Again trying to parrot McConnell’s criticism of Walker, a report compiles the failures of the Republican party support in Georgia

The Daily Mail points out how Texas Governor Greg Abbott has drawn a straight line from the Chinese spying he has observed and the tool of TikTok; therefore, he has banned the use of TikTok on state phones, tablets, and computers.

A growing number of states, including Texas, are banning the use of the short-form video app TikTok on government devices because of the likelihood that data from the app is harvested by the Chinese Communist Party.

On Wednesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott became the latest state leader to ban the use of the popular app, following Maryland, South Dakota, South Carolina and Nebraska.

Abbott, a Republicansaid, ‘TikTok harvests vast amounts of data from its users’ devices—including when, where, and how they conduct Internet activity—and offers this trove of potentially sensitive information to the Chinese government.’

‘While TikTok has claimed that it stores US data within the United States, the company admitted in a letter to Congress that China-based employees can have access to US data. It has also been reported that ByteDance planned to use TikTok location information to surveil individual American citizens,’ Abbott continued.

He directed Texas state agencies to immediately ban officers and employees from using or downloading TikTok on any government-issued device, which included cell phones, laptops, tablets, and all other devices capable of internet connectivity.

The app, which has long been a trouble spot for the US intelligence community, has 85 million American users and is owned by a Chinese company that employs members of the Chinese Communist Party and has a subsidiary that is partially owned by the CCP.

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

It seems that some Republicans don’t need to be kicked in the teeth to understand China opposes us

Some Republicans have come to the realization that, just as Democrats will use all methods available to maintain power, the Chinese Communist Party has a long-standing reputation of stealing, spying, and performing other nefarious acts to get what they want.

Since Governor Abbott was around to experience the Chinese burning documents when they were caught stealing technology from the Medical Center in Houston and from Johnson Space Center, he knows not to trust the CCP.


Encouraging articles written over the past few weeks, part two

The left has started to turn upon itself

The Washington Post slams Biden for granting immunity to Saudi Prince over killing of columnist

The Daily Wire outlines the infighting that has begun between members of the ruling left. I would act like I think that the quibbling is cute; however, I am really hoping for a cat fight.

The Washington Post slammed President Joe Biden in a statement Friday for shielding Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from a lawsuit on Thursday over his involvement in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, one of the newspaper’s columnists.

The Biden administration said Thursday evening that MBS’ status holding a high office “allows immunity” in response to a lawsuit filed by Khashoggi’s fiancée and by the rights group he founded, Democracy for the Arab World Now.

“In granting legal immunity to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, President Biden is failing to uphold America’s most cherished values,” Fred Ryan, Publisher and CEO of The Washington Post, said in a statement. “He is granting a license to kill to one of the world’s most egregious human-rights abusers who is responsible for the cold-blooded murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist.”

“While legitimate heads of government should be protected against frivolous lawsuits, the Saudis’ decision to make MBS prime minister was a cynical, calculated effort to manipulate the law and shield him from accountability,” Ryan added. “By going along with this scheme, President Biden is turning his back on fundamental principles of press freedom and equality. The American people-and those wronged by MBS in Saudi Arabia and around the world-deserve better.”

(Read more at Daily Wire)

When addressing a president who won’t speak up for people being welded into buildings now, why does the Washington Post focus on Khashoggi?

First off, let us remember that the Washington Post has done nothing but support Biden.

Further, this saber rattling after the midterms constitutes nothing but gas-baggery, bloviation, and verbal flatulence.

If you ask how I can make such assertions, please consider:

At least one judge does not believe in separate levels of justice for liberals and conservatives

Judge turns down former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s effort to quash a subpoena

The Epoch Times reports on the failed legal maneuvers of Jen “Red Riding Hood” Psaki.

A U.S. judge in Virginia has turned down the bid by former White House press secretary Jen Psaki to quash a subpoena ahead of her scheduled deposition in a case dealing with Big Tech censorship.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis declined to rule in favor of Psaki, who was President Joe Biden’s press secretary until May, during a hearing in Alexandria on Nov. 18.

Davis instead transferred the motion to quash back to the same judge who ruled that Psaki must sit for a deposition.

That judge, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, has already rejected government efforts to quash subpoenas for several officials U.S. lawyers claim are high-ranking and thus should not be deposed, including U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

Doughty, a Trump appointee, has said the need for the depositions outweigh any inconvenience because evidence indicates the government colluded with Big Tech firms to censor users, raising concerns of constitutional violations.

Psaki had argued, with the government’s backing, that she should not be deposed because she lacks information about the censorship despite speaking about it during press conferences. Psaki’s lawyers also said she’d need to invest several days in preparing for the deposition.

Psaki was allowed to file a separate opposition in Virginia because she lives in the state and would be deposed there.

Davis, though, said it makes no sense for him to wade into the questions of whether Psaki’s testimony is relevant when the judge in Louisiana is more familiar with the case.

He also said Psaki failed to show how sitting for a deposition in her home state would be an undue burden. In fact, he said that if Psaki has little information to contribute, as she alleges, it shouldn’t be much of a burden at all.

“How much time does it take to prepare a witness for deposition when she doesn’t really have anything to say?” Davis said.

(Read more at The Epoch Times)

While this might not be the rule throughout the swamp, it encourages me to see it here

Admittedly, you cannot say liberals have it as hard as conservatives when a a protester in the George Floyd riots only gets 15 months in jail for fire-bombing an occupied police car while 6 January 2021 protesters get sentences ranging from 28 months to 63 months for charges ranging from parading to obstruction.


Encouraging articles written over the past few weeks

Representative Ronny Jackson says the House GOP will “absolutely” impeach DHS Chief Mayorkas

Breitbart brings us the most recent article with encouraging news from a Republican House member.

Representative Ronny Jackson (R-TX) said on this week’s broadcast of FNC’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that House Republicans would impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

When asked if the GOP House is serious about impeaching Mayorkas, Jackson said, “Absolutely, we are going to start the process. He has to go. There’s been no accountability in the administration for anything that they have done, whether it’s been the economy, or COVID, or the disaster overseas the in Afghanistan or our border.”

“Mayorkas has got to go, so we’re going to start investigating him,” he continued. “We are going investigate every decision he’s made. We’re going to use the power of subpoena, we’re going to use the power of the purse and come after Mayorkas, he needs to go. We need to make an example of Mayorkas, and he’ll be just the start of what we do in this new Congress, but he’s absolutely got to go. He’s been a complete absolute disaster, and he has been the lead on making this happen, the border being the disaster that it is. Let’s make no mistake about it, this could not be happening without Biden. Biden and Mayorkas, they are the traffickers in chief right now.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Ok, these articles will only be encouraging for the conservatives among us

For the liberals and Democrats, these articles will be like fingernails on the chalkboard.

House Republicans have put 42 Biden administration officials on notice

The Washington Examiner tells us of the 42 Biden regime members who have been put on notice. Here are the first seven.

House Republicans are wasting no time to get their agenda underway as they prepare to take control of the lower chamber, alerting at least 42 officials in the Biden administration that they will be expected to testify in a slew of GOP-led investigations early next year.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have sent letters to White House chief of staff Ron Klain and other top Biden administration officials, requesting testimony from a number of officials. The testimony is expected to be used for the party’s investigations into border security, suspected bias within the FBI and the Department of Justice, and the financial dealings of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

“The American people elected a new House Republican majority because the past two years of one-party Democrat rule have failed America,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is set to become House speaker in the next Congress. “These actions by the Biden administration deserve oversight and accountability, which Republicans will pursue in the new Congress. … Every congressional committee has an oversight responsibility, and we intend to finally get the answers the American people deserve.”

The House Judiciary Committee sent five letters on Nov. 18 requesting testimony from certain Biden administration officials, including in the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the DOJ, the FBI, and the Department of Education.

Here’s a breakdown of the 42 Biden administration officials who are expected to testify before Republicans next Congress:

White House staff

In a letter to Klain, the group of 19 Republicans led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) requested testimony from four White House staff members in relation to “the Biden Administration’s misuse of federal criminal and counterterrorism resources to target concerned parents at school board meetings.”

The request comes after Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo to law enforcement officials in October 2021 instructing them to address reported threats targeting school board officials, teachers, and school administrators. The memo came in response to a letter from the National School Boards Association a month earlier asking the Biden administration to investigate such threats.

However, the NSBA request has come under scrutiny by House Republicans who say the Executive Office of the President was involved in sending the letter, resulting in “collusion.”

The House Judiciary Committee requests testimony from the following White House officials:

  • Mary C. Wall — Senior adviser of the COVID-19 Response Team
  • Julie C. Rodriguez — Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
  • Katherine Pantangco — Policy adviser for intergovernmental affairs
  • Nezly Silva — Senior policy analyst for intergovernmental affairs

Department of Education

House Republicans have also requested the testimony of three officials inside the Department of Education for its investigation into the Biden administration’s alleged involvement with the NSBA letter. They are:

  • Kimberly Watkins-Foote — Director of the national engagement division
  • Larry Bowden — Senior adviser to the secretary
  • Nicholas Simmons — Special assistant to the Office of the Secretary

(Go to the Washington Examiner for the other 35)

Maybe this will put an end to some of the transgender education and persecution of parents

Hopefully, this will stop the COVID nuttiness, the transgender idiocy, and some of the education lunacy.

How a conservative company kept Tarrant County red

The Daily Caller recounts how Patriot Mobile worked to keep a politically-important county in Texas Republican.

A new non-profit Texas PAC started by a conservative mobile company was formed in January 2022 with the purpose of keeping Republicans in control of Tarrant County, and after less than a year, they are claiming victory.

Patriot Mobile, which touts itself as being “America’s only Christian conservative wireless service provider,” formed Patriot Mobile Action (PMA) “to go on the offensive to save Tarrant County” from turning blue, the Texas PAC’s website stated.

Over the past several election cycles, the Democratic Party has attempted to chip away at the red wall Republicans built in the South. Texas was on the top of a list of states the party wanted to flip. Despite recent high-profile Democratic party wins, PMA felt with enough support, Republicans could reverse the momentum, according to Leigh Wambsganss, vice president of government and public affairs with Patriot Mobile and the executive director of PMA.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

It is good to see that a conservative company had sway in a potentially liberal area

Thank God for the influence of conservative companies (and we need to patronize them), but we also need to keep in mind how recently Texas was a Democrat state.


Yes, it wasn’t the wave we expected, but these four articles show it was more than the press portrays

  1. Stephen McIntyre explains how the Balkanization of America stifled the red wave

In a series of tweets, Stephen McIntyre shows the real progress that was made during the 2022 election over the whole spectrum (and compares those figures to 2016, 2018, and 2020).

It seems the progress we made came primarily in spite of ourselves within mixed (aka non-gerrymandered) districts. This counters the trend our trend to self-segregate and concentrate our votes within existing Republican strongholds (aka the Balkanization of America).

  1. Of course, as Harris County proves, there is also the matter of Democrat cheating

As I have blogged at this site for several days, there remains the matter of Democrat cheating aided by telegraphed messages from the Republican grassroots (for proof, go here and here).

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t approve of the Harris County Elections Administrator sending 600 ballots to each of 23 polling places where past elections saw 2,500 votes cast at each of those polling places.

However, Republicans also need to not outsmart themselves. They don’t need to smugly wait until the last day to vote when early voting sits available. Certainly I didn’t. Furthermore, they shouldn’t limit themselves to knowing the locations of the Republican polling places — as long as Democrats control their county, they should know the locations of Democrat polling places, too. That way, they’ll know where the better-equipped polling places will be.

  1. “So pissed off, I cannot even see straight” — Ted Cruz blames Mitch McConnell’s allocation of money for GOP midterm losses

The Daily Caller brings out the point of view that Republican misallocation of funds played a hand in the losses through a report on Senator Ted Cruz’s assessment of Mitch McConnell’s midterm performance.

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell during a Monday podcast, saying the GOP should have won the majority of the upper chamber and blamed McConnell for not supporting Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters.

Cruz released an episode of his podcast, titled Verdict with Ted Cruz, where he and co-host Ben Ferguson discussed the midterm elections and the GOP’s failure to recapture the Senate. Cruz mentioned his frustration, saying there was no excuse for McConnell to abandon Masters, calling it “indefensible.”

“Well, Ben, let me start off by saying I am so pissed off, I cannot even see straight,” Cruz said.

“We had an extraordinary opportunity. We had a generational opportunity. This should have been a fundamental landslide election. We should have won the House and the Senate. We should have a 30, 40, 50 vote majority in the House. We should have 53, 54, 55 Republicans in the Senate,” Cruz continued.

McConnell’s PAC reportedly yanked $8 million in campaign spending from Arizona after Masters won his primary election, according to Fox News.

Cruz was also asked if McConnell would donate to Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker’s campaign in a run-off. Cruz replied he likely will, but said he believes the GOP could have won Arizona.

“Oh, look, I’m sure he will raise money and invest in the race … But if you look at this last cycle, Mitch McConnell pulled the money out of Arizona. We could have won — won Arizona. We nearly won Arizona and abandoning Blake Masters was indefensible,” Cruz said.

“Explain to me, Senator, why in a race where the polling showed that we had a legitimate chance of winning there. Why did he pull out that money from Masters who desperately needed it?” Ferguson asked Cruz.

“Because Masters said he would vote against Mitch McConnell, and so Mitch would rather be leader than have a Republican majority. If there’s a Republican who can win, who’s not gonna support Mitch, the truth of the matter is he’d rather the Democrat win. So he pulled all the money out of Arizona,” Cruz responded.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Why the GOP’s popular-vote edge hasn’t translated to more House seats

The Washington Post explains how Republicans’ winning the popular vote in the 2022 midterms still did not translate into the “red wave.”

For many years, the manner in which our country elects its leaders has been a very favorable setup for Republicans. Not only did they win the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections despite getting fewer votes, but they also held the House in 1996 and 2012 despite getting fewer votes. Republicans have regularly won more House seats than their popular vote share would suggest — in large part thanks to their superior control of redistricting.

The 2022 election, though, looks like it will buck that trend.

Republicans appear primed to win the narrowest of House majorities — around 220-215 or 219-216 — despite possibly winning a majority of the votes nationwide and edging Democrats by around three or four percentage points.

If they do ultimately win by around three or four points, it would mean Republicans improved on their margin from the 2020 election by around six or seven points, but they were only able to add about 2 percent of seats, as the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman notes.

This has understandably led to some griping and head-scratching among Republicans who wonder how they’re struggling to win the House despite that swing. But it’s worth putting in context.

The first thing to note is that we have incomplete results. The Cook Political Report’s national popular vote tracker currently shows Republicans winning 51.5 percent of House votes to the Democrats’ 47 percent — a gap of 4.5 points. It’s safe to assume Republicans will win the popular vote by a few points, but that margin will continue to narrow as we get more results from blue-leaning states out west, especially California.

The second point is that the popular vote can be deceiving. That’s especially the case in the battle for the Senate, but it’s also true of the House.

The reason: Some districts don’t feature two major-party candidates, and as a result, those races skew the overall numbers. That’s because having no major-party opponent generally means candidates run up a much bigger margin than they otherwise would.

(Read  more at the Washington Post)

Therefore, the article above backs up the hyper-gerrymandered theory of Stephen McIntyre

It never hurts to have two sources saying essentially the same thing.

  1. Why California Republicans stopped complaining about ballot harvesting and embraced the process

The National Review outlines the means used by California Republicans to counter the Democrat advantage. Hopefully, this will be a lesson learned across the nation in places where ballot harvesting is allowed.

Following a bloodbath for Republicans in the 2018 midterms, then-House speaker Paul Ryan couldn’t believe what he had seen out in California.

“We were only down 26 seats the night of the election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race,’’ Ryan — a mentor to California Republican and current House GOP head Kevin McCarthy — told the Washington Post in a post-mortem interview. “This election system they have — I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.”


But in 2020, California Republicans are singing a different tune, even as California governor Gavin Newsom signed a Democrat bill requiring that every registered voter in the state receive a mail-in ballot for the November elections.

Of the seven seats that Republicans lost two years ago, two in Orange County have flipped back to red — Steel’s wife, Michelle Park Steel, won in California’s 48th, while Kim defeated Cisneros in a second try — and Republicans lead by narrow margins in two more.

So what changed?

“I think one of the big areas is ballot harvesting,” California GOP spokesman Hector Barajas told National Review, crediting the pragmatic leadership of state chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson to emphasize the practice in several key races.

“We were either going to do two different things,” Barajas said of the state party’s shift in attitude. “We were either going to continue to whine, oppose valid harvesting, and lick our wounds after the election, or we were going to figure out the rules, look at the chessboard that was put before us, and figure out how to play the game.”


But this time around, Orange County Republicans upped the ante, placing collection boxes in megachurches such as Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills and Influence Church in Anaheim, as well as targeting Vietnamese voters in Westminster and Fountain Valley.

And while California Republicans say that would rather do away with the practice all together — a position shared by California election-law expert Dr. Rick Hasen — they see it as a necessary evil, especially when locked in a high-turnout battle during COVID-19.

“The issue of ballot harvesting is we don’t like it. We don’t agree with it. However, it’d be political malpractice not to do it where the other side is doing it, and the other side has done it effectively,” California RNC committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon told National Review.

“This isn’t the debating club. This is about winning the election,” she continued.

Republicans pointed to how the law enabled the Democrat ballot harvesting machine to work in 2018, with tens of thousands in funding for operatives to hit the streets and collect ballots door-to-door and from favorable union halls.

(Read more at the National Review)

If we want to get rid of the flawed mail-in-ballot option, we need to make it odious to Democrats

When Republicans get to the point that they are out performing Democrats at ballot harvesting, then ballot harvesting will disappear.

When Republicans flip a seat or 10 with mail-in ballots, we likely will have seen the last of the COVID limitations and a drive toward in-person balloting by Democrats. Who knows, maybe they will declare that minorities will be disenfranchised without a return to in-person balloting.


Texas Governor Greg Abbott calls for an investigation of Harris County election antics

Ballots running out at 23 Republican polling places, more ballots than voters, and other issues raise the possibility of investigation

Houston Fox affiliate KRIV reports that Texas Governor Abbott has called for an investigation of the election irregularities within Harris County.

Nearly a week after Election Day for the 2022 midterm elections, tensions remain high over widespread issues facing Harris County voters.

For this reason, Governor Greg Abbott issued a statement Monday calling for an investigation into the issues voters faced including delays, insufficient paper ballots in Republican precincts, and staffing problems. 

“I’m calling on the Secretary of State, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Texas Rangers to initiate investigations into allegations of improprieties in the way that the 2022 elections were conducted in Harris County,” Abbott said. “The allegations of election improprieties in our state’s largest county may result from anything ranging from malfeasance to blatant criminal conduct.”

“Voters in Harris County deserve to know what happened,” he added. “Integrity in the election process is essential. To achieve that standard, a thorough investigation is warranted.”

(Read opposing statements from Republican Cindy Siegel and Democrat Leah Shah at KRIV)

Odd how the main stream press (like the Houston Comical Chronicle, the Houston Disney ABC affiliate, the Houston Comcast NBC affiliate, or the rest) want to comment over the news rather than deliver it

We just got finished with an election season where Democrat Lizzie Fletcher never (as far as I observed) got interrupted as she made claims of being a pro-business/middle-of-the-road Democrat.

However, now that Republicans have filed suit against the Democrats in power (both the appointed and the elected/soon-to-be-indicted variety) for election tricks, the networks’ commentators and reporters cannot wait to the end of the statements by the Republicans. These “reporters” have to break in and insert their opinion of the value of the Republican suit. Rather than delivering the news by providing a video and audio recording of the event, they would rather speak over the live event and summarize things they have not considered.