Trump allies raided by FBI

First, Congressman and Trump ally Scott Perry said the FBI seize his cellphone

The Guardian tries to talk up the seizure of a Congressman’s phone by the FBI (painting Representative Perry as a threat to the Biden regime).

Federal investigators seized the cellphone of the Republican congressman Scott Perry on Tuesday, his office said, suggesting the justice department is examining the communications of a close ally of Donald Trump and person of interest to the House January 6 select committee.

The move by the FBI to take Perry’s phone came a day after federal agents executed a search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and seized boxes of documents, though it was not clear whether the two events were connected.

Perry, the prominent Republican from Pennsylvania who is also the chair of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus and has been subpoenaed by the select committee, confirmed that his phone was taken by federal investigators in a statement earlier reported by Fox News.

“This morning, while traveling with my family, 3 FBI agents visited me and seized my cell phone. They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish,” Perry said in the statement.

“My phone contains info about my legislative and political activities, and personal/private discussions with my wife, family, constituents, and friends. None of this is the government’s business.”

The congressman – one of Trump’s most vociferous defenders on Capitol Hill – compared the seizure of his phone to the FBI’s search of Trump’s Palm Beach resort, claiming, without evidence, that the moves were politically motivated overreach by the Biden administration.

“As with President Trump last night, DoJ chose this unnecessary and aggressive action instead of simply contacting my attorneys. These kinds of banana republic tactics should concern every citizen,” Perry said of the court-approved warrant used by the FBI.

(Read more at the Guardian)

When I heard of the FBI seizing a Representative’s phone, I didn’t know what to think

I hoped that it would be a one-off — and maybe it would have been the only other banana-republic tactic of the FBI had the real press sprung into action. However, we do not have a real press. The conservative media has been suppressed to the extent that they cannot get their message out.

Try searching on Google or Bing for a headline out of today’s Breitbart top five articles. You will not find anything from Breitbart.

On the other hand, try looking at your standard main stream media article for both sides of a story (for example, the second and third articles quoted in this blog post). At best, you may find a pretense or a tease at presenting the conservative side. Rarely does the article address both sides.

Second, Bannon announces that 35 Trump allies have been raided by the FBI

Newsweek reports on the announcement by Steve Bannon where he claimed 35 Trump allies had been raided by the FBI.

Steve Bannon, former adviser to ex-President Donald Trump, says the same day he was arraigned on criminal fraud charges, the FBI carried out raids on the homes of nearly three dozen allies of the former president.

Speaking to conservative talk show host Charlie Kirk Friday, Bannon made the explosive allegation, saying law enforcement is part of a broader conspiracy to hobble opponents of President Joe Biden. Bannon’s remarks come a day after he pleaded not guilty in a New York court to fraud charges and amid efforts by conservative figures to cast the FBI as being politically weaponized.

Bannon told Kirk that the FBI “rolled in on” 35 “senior members of MAGA, Republican supporters of Donald Trump.” Saying the alleged searches were unnecessary because their targets have lawyers, he called the FBI the “jackbooted Gestapo,” a reference to the secret police of Nazi Germany.

“This is this globalist apparatus,” Bannon said. “This is the American arm of that: the Biden regime.”

Bannon added, “They’re trying to use lawfare, financial terrorism, law—you know, everything legally—and quite frankly, up to assassinations.”

(Read more at Newsweek)

[ tweet ]

Oddly, Newsweek (falling short of its name) does not dig into who the FBI has raided

Would this happen were it not Biden benefitting? This lack of curiosity seems almost as compelling as the lack of curiosity the press seems to have in the stabbing murder of an investigative reporter by a Democrat.

Read allusions to the FBI’s Mike Lindell search warrant “items to be seized”

Newsweek teases us with a promise of a look at the FBI warrant for Mike Lindell’s phone, seized while he was in a Hardee’s drive-through.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell shared details of an FBI search warrant for his cell phone despite being told not to “disclose the existence” of the subpoena.

Lindell, a Donald Trump supporter and one of the most prominent pushers of 2020 election misinformation, said his cell phone was seized by federal agents on Tuesday while he was at a Hardee’s fast-food drive-thru in Mankato, Minnesota.

Lindell said he was questioned by the FBI about Tina Peters, a Colorado clerk who is under indictment over allegations of tampering with election voting equipment. Lindell said he was also asked about Dominion Voting Systems, and fellow 2020 election denier Doug Frank.

(Read more at “Newsweek“)

Here, again, the press promises much and delivers nothing

The sad thing is (for just the story presented by this main stream media outlet) that the media promises, but does not deliver. Although their headline reads Read FBI’s Mike Lindell Search Warrant ‘Items To Be Seized’, no links appear in the article to the warrant. No quotes of the warrant. It talks about a letter from the U.S. Attorney District of Colorado which they claim accompanied the search warrant. Further, they claim the warrant calls out an official criminal investigation of a “suspected felony” in Colorado.

I will call a BS on this one regarding any claim of objectivity or thoroughness by the press or any claim of lawfulness by the FBI.


One more strike against the empire?

Democracy dies in darkness. So why hasn’t it died?

All the news that’s print to fit

Your daily dose of federal propaganda filtered through a conservative outlet – with a twist

FBI special agent who opened Trump investigation reportedly escorted out of bureau

Just the News reports how the story has changed from the architect of the Hunter Biden cover-up “abruptly resigning” to his being “forced to leave his post” (likely with wheelbarrows of government pensions in tow).

Former FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault was reportedly escorted out of the bureau Friday, amid whistleblower allegations that he showed political bias in his handling of politically sensitive investigations.

The Washington Times reported eyewitness accounts that “Thibault was seen exiting the bureau’s elevator last Friday escorted by two or three ‘headquarters-looking types.'”

The article appears to have been updated and now states that Thibault “abruptly resigned” but that he was “forced to leave his post” and cites two unnamed former FBI officials.

CBS News reported Tuesday that two U.S. officials have confirmed that Thibault resigned and was escorted from the building.

“But these officials also said that Thibault had reached retirement age,” reported the network’s Catherine Herridge, “and they added that all of those who retire hand over their badge and gun and are escorted out of the building.”

Just the News has not independently confirmed the Times and CBS reports.

(Read more at Just the News)

I sure am glad the government overlords offer liberals like Lois Lerner and Timothy Thibault the chance to leave their posts

Somehow, I don’t remember that offer being made to General Flynn, Roger Stone, or Paul Manafort.

Still, so far, this FBI has gotten away with:

Take in mind that the FBI/Biden regime got all of the above and only had to give up one lackey (Tim Thibault). They probably think they got a great deal.

I think it’s up to us to prove them wrong on election day.

One more thing: this post requires a hat tip to Bunkerville.

Stories not broadly reported on the Trump raid

Former Supreme Court law clerk shreds the reasoning of the intelligence czar’s review of the Mar-a-Lago documents

Townhall lays out the reasoning of Mike Davis (former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch) regarding the specifics behind the Trump raid.

The circus over the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago on August 8 continues with this latest development: our intelligence czar told Congress her office would review the seized documents. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines announced yesterday that the records taken from the home of the former president would undergo a thorough classification process (via CBS News):

The director of national intelligence is preparing to review the items recovered during the FBI search of at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month, CBS News has learned. 

In a letter sent to congressional leaders Friday, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said her office would conduct a “classification review of relevant materials.” 

“The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) are working together to facilitate a classification review of relevant materials, including those recovered during the search,” Haines wrote. “ONDI will also lead an Intelligence Community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of the relevant documents.

This raid has become an ever-degrading hurricane in the news cycle. 

Federal agents ransacking the home of a former president over the fact that he wasn’t turning over documents to the National Archives fast enough is a historic moment. The obstruction of justice allegations is once again proven false. Trump’s lawyers worked with government officials to review and send records back. They sent 15 boxes to the agency in January. The allegations that nuclear secrets were strewn about the residence were also false. At least there’s no mention in the affidavit that provided probable cause for the raid.  

Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, has been active and informatory about classification, the presidency, and how the liberal media is focusing on things that don’t matter in this case. He’s continued to inform the public that the classification statutes and regulations do not apply to the presidency’s office, that government always over-classifies materials of any post-presidency, and that Trump taking the documents is a declassifying action. Trump already declassified documents relating to Crossfire Hurricane—the FBI spy operation against his campaign.

(Read more at Townhall)

Why the press wasn’t focusing on Crossfire Hurricane or the declassified Hillary documents is beyond me

It would seem that at least the Republican-leaning press (possibly Fox or NewsMax) might mention the declassified Crossfire Hurricane.

Elsewhere, I have heard of the papers on Hillary being declassified. If that, in fact, is the case — I cannot understand the press ignoring that also.

Judge announces “preliminary intent to appoint a special master” to review seized Trump records

The Washington Examiner details U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s announcement that there will be a “special master” to review the Trump documents.

A federal judge in Florida announced the court’s “preliminary intent to appoint a special master” to review the documents seized during the FBI’s raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon said in a Saturday order that she was providing “notice” of the decision to the parties involved, noting that the decision was made due to the “exceptional circumstances presented.” On Monday, lawyers for the former president filed a motion requesting the appointment of a special master to assess the records, arguing that the raid of his Palm Beach, Florida, golf club and winter residence was a “shockingly aggressive move.”

“Pursuant to Rule 53(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, and without prejudice to the parties’ objections, the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case,” Cannon wrote in a filing Saturday.

A hearing on the motion to commission a special master, also known as a third-party attorney, will be held this Thursday in West Palm Beach.

The District Court judge ordered the Justice Department to file a response by Wednesday providing, “under seal,” a “more detailed Receipt for Property specifying all property seized pursuant to the search warrant executed” on Trump’s Florida golf club. The judge also ordered Trump’s legal team to respond to the defense’s response before Thursday’s hearing.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

If the main stream media is not lying again, then this judge may turn back on this request

The judge at the center of this request for a “preliminary intent to appoint a special master” may be rethinking her request (according to a pre-drive-time report on Houston’s ABC affiliate).

Search warrant affidavit for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate: Five things to know

Fox News addresses five things about the Trump raid that seem to be left out of the affidavit. Here are portions of the first three points:

1. Lots of black ink

Approximately 20 pages of the 38-page document were either significantly or fully redacted. Twenty-four pages had at least some information blacked out. 

Significant redactions were expected, given the Justice Department’s argument about the sensitivity of the case. 

“Premature disclosure of the contents of this affidavit and related documents may have a significant and negative impact on the continuing investigation and may severely jeopardize its effectiveness by allowing criminal parties an opportunity to flee, destroy evidence (stored electronically and otherwise), change patterns of behavior, and notify criminal confederates,” the Justice Department wrote. 

2. Lots of pages

The length of the affidavit was also notable. An average search warrant affidavit from federal law enforcement is significantly shorter than the 38-page document the FBI submitted to Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. 

Prof. Mark W. Smith, a professor at the Ave Maria School of Law and senior fellow in law and public policy at The King’s College told Fox News Digital the length still raises questions. 

“The length of the probable cause affidavit is not unprecedented, but it is a bit odd. The more explaining an attorney must do in writing often that translates into a longer legal document and frequently signifies a weaker legal position,” he said. “The reference to multiple federal statutes and detailed discussion of confidential designations makes the document look a bit like an educational tool for the public or perhaps for the Florida federal courts.”


3. Affidavit cites other documents Trump possessed with classified markings

The affidavit refers to nearly 200 documents with classified markings that Trump had previously handed over. It said that the FBI in May inspected 15 boxes of documents Trump gave to the National Archives and Records Administration earlier this year, which contained a trove of documents marked classified. 

“A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET,” the affidavit said. “Based on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain NDI.”

(Read the rest and see the illustrations at Fox News)

I don’t care who we have as the next Republican president. That president had better play tough

The next Republican president had better use some law enforcement wing to instill fear in Democrats — just as the Democrats have done since Johnson. Otherwise, nothing will change.

Note that I am not necessarily advocating lawlessness. However, we either need to go full lawfulness or full lawlessness. Nothing else will get the attention of the politicians.

DOJ leaves “unanswered questions” with blacked out Trump raid affidavit

Townhall discusses the unanswered questions left by the affidavit and the raid on Mar-A-Lago.

As Spencer reported, the Department of Justice has released a highly redacted version of the affidavit used by the FBI to raid President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. 

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley looked it over and says it leaves a number of unanswered questions.

(Read more at Townhall)

The black of the redactions only shows how deeply into the muck of the swamp we have waded

When we ask for clarity and get pages of nothing but black ink, we do not have clarity. That constitutes one pure and simple fact.

So, when did we go from a country “of the people and by the people” to a country of secrets? I would say it was well before some old, demented guy could brag to European elites about getting his son out of a fix by threatening to withhold billions of American taxpayer dollars from going to a backwater nation.

Key details are lacking in the DOJ’s Trump raid affidavit

Townhall points out how the affidavit only builds the case that the FBI raid was merely political.

The day has arrived. Parts of the Biden Justice Department affidavit that provided probable cause for the FBI to raid the home of a former president have been released. Spencer and Katie wrote about this supposed bombshell that was predictably a dud when it comes to corroborating the most explosive allegations against Donald Trump and the dispute over missing documents with the National Archives. Judge Bruce Reinhart, who also signed off on the equally shoddy search warrant, wasn’t convinced by the government’s arguments for keeping the entire affidavit under seal. He allowed the Department of Justice to redact portions that could harm the integrity of the investigation, the security of its sources, and here’s the kicker: the safety of Donald Trump. 

It’s a sea of black ink that does very little to support the narrative that this federal raid, which occurred on August 8, was justifiable. There’s no smoking gun here; Trump isn’t even mentioned in the affidavit in a way that gives the impression that he was targeted for criminal acts. All it did was bolster the argument that an over-politicized goon squad at the FBI and DOJ ransacked Trump’s home as a warning to Trump to stay at home in 2024. Federal agents have threatened those who might paint the Biden White House negatively. This raid is a Trump-media-DOJ story. The point is if there were something genuinely criminal—we would have known about it by now; the same applied to the Russian collusion hoax. 

Some are focused on the classified documents that the FBI discovered on the Mar-a-Lago property, but there are no specifics about the nature of these documents. Also, there is nothing about nuclear secrets, a comical DOJ leak that further exposed this raid as part of a political persecution campaign. Brett Tolman, executive director for Right on Crime, noted that the affidavit does not contain evidence that supports the federal mens rea requirements, which is a burden of proof benchmark the government must meet to show criminal intent. There was no evidence to provide probable cause to search the safe. In other words, it’s quite a nothingburger that shows the DOJ cobbled together a bunch of fake law violations to make for incomprehensible legalese to bust down the doors of the home of an ex-president. That’s not law and order; that’s a rogue DOJ that’s become increasingly engulfed by paranoia, vindictiveness, and political animosity.

(Read of input from Katie Pavlich, Spencer Brown, and Matt Vespa at Townhall)

A pattern of lies and deceit in our installed president

Yes, Biden called for the “unmasking” of General Flynn while in a meeting in the Obama oval office

The New York Post provides a little insight to the instance where Joe Biden suggested using the Logan Act against General Flynn during the transition to the Trump administration.

Former Vice President Joe Biden appears to have “personally raised the idea” of investigating Michael Flynn for potentially having violated the obscure Logan Act during his phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to newly filed court papers Wednesday.

The previously sealed document also says that former President Barack Obama told top members of his administration that “the right people” should investigate Flynn.

But then-FBI Director James Comey acknowledged during the meeting — which also involved Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and possibly national security adviser Susan Rice — that Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak “appear legit,” according to the Washington, DC, federal court filing by Flynn’s defense lawyers.

The revelations are contained in handwritten notes prepared by disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok that Flynn’s lawyers called “stunning and exculpatory evidence” in the government’s since-abandoned case against President Trump’s former national security adviser.

A partially blacked-out copy of Strzok’s notes is attached to the filing and includes a mention that appears to say: “VP: ‘Logan Act.’”

“According to Strzok’s notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act,” defense lawyers Jesse Binnall and Sidney Powell wrote.

”That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn.”

The revelation contradicts Biden’s claim of total ignorance regarding the Flynn probe when he was vice president, which he was asked about during a May 12 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

“I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” he said at the time.

Biden later claimed he misunderstood the question, adding, “I was aware that there was — that they asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about it, and I don’t think anything else.”

The Logan Act, which dates to 1799, bars unauthorized Americans from engaging in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government.”

The law has only led to two indictments — in 1803 and 1852 — but neither resulted in a conviction.

Strzok’s notes, apparently written on Jan. 4, 2017, were “previously withheld from General Flynn” until finally being turned over on Jan. 23 of this year, his lawyers wrote.

(Read about the court filing and the effect of the notes at the New York Post)

Wouldn’t a little turn-about work well here?

As Democrats exit office, surely a little oversight might be done. Maybe Republicans might prepare for a big oversight to occur soon in the oval office.

Unveiled memos raise questions about Biden’s role in President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate

The Washington Times reports how newly-disclosed memos show that Joe Biden seems to have requested the FBI raid on President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

A newly revealed letter shows that President Biden authorized the National Archives and Records Administration to reject any executive privilege claims that former President Donald Trump might use to stop the Justice Department from accessing classified documents stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

A letter posted late Monday on the website of conservative journalist John Solomon — one of the few people authorized by Mr. Trump to review National Archives records — revealed that Mr. Biden ordered the National Archives to share all materials it had requested from Mr. Trump to be shared with the Justice Department and the FBI.

The letter, written by National Archivist Debra Wall to Trump attorney Evan Corcoran, says the president cleared the way for her to rule on Mr. Trump’s executive privilege claims. That opened the door for the National Archives to allow the FBI and the Justice Department to review the missing documents, which culminated in this month’s raid on Mr. Trump’s residence.

“The counsel to the president has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal counsel regarding whether or not I should uphold former the former President’s purported ‘protective assertion of executive privilege,’” Ms. Wall wrote. “I have therefore decided not to honor the former president’s ‘protective claim of privilege.’”

Ms. Wall also wrote in her letter that Mr. Biden has the authority to nix Mr. Trump’s privilege claims based on a 1977 Supreme Court decision against former President Richard M. Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

She wrote that the decision “strongly suggests that a former president may not successfully assert executive privilege ‘against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.’”

The letter raises questions about the White House’s claims that Mr. Biden was caught off guard by the FBI investigation into his predecessor before the Aug. 8 raid. Mr. Biden was aware of “the particular circumstances” surrounding Mr. Trump’s claim of executive privilege, according to Ms. Wall’s letter.

A memo by White House Deputy Counsel Johnathan Show, also posted on Mr. Solomon’s website, shows that the administration was engaged in conversations with the FBI, the Justice Department and the National Archives as early as April after Mr. Trump voluntarily returned 15 boxes of classified material to the Archives after they had been sent to Mar-a-Lago in the waning days of his administration.

Mr. Show also wrote that Mr. Biden would not object to waiving Mr. Trump’s privilege claim.

The memo and letter are the strongest evidence to date that the White House was involved in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Mr. Trump.

(Read more of Biden’s FBI fishing trip at the Washington Times)

This is exactly what was at the center of Watergate (except that we now have proof of presidential involvement)

If you would like to see the memos broken by John Solomon, go to Just the News.

After reading them, you might ask “Why hasn’t the press been all over this?” But you can’t forget: at the Washington Times, they’re Democrat journalists protecting Democrat politicians.


Six stories centering on the FBI’s dishonest dealings with Trump

FBI took three passports in raid of Mar-a-Lago

The Washington Examiner reports on how President Trump has claimed to have had three passports taken by the FBI.

Former President Donald Trump accused FBI agents of taking three passports in their search of his Mar-a-Lago home one week ago.

The accusation, made in a Truth Social post on Monday, comes four days after a judge unsealed a search warrant, including an inventory of items taken from Trump’s residence in Florida, which showed some classified materials.

“Wow! In the raid by the FBI of Mar-a-Lago, they stole my three Passports (one expired), along with everything else,” Trump said. “This is an assault on a political opponent at a level never seen before in our Country. Third World!”

There is some speculation surrounding the multiple Trump passports, as some individuals may possess more than one for diplomatic or official business travel.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

I do not inherently trust anyone. However, when it comes to the FBI’s Russian collusion hoax, the Democrat’s January 6 “insurrection,” or the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid — I will trust the words of Donald Trump over FBI Leftists

The Leftists in the FBI have proven to be more subversive and less trustworthy than Donald Trump and his associates. When the “golden showers” tale and the story from Christopher Steele came out, the FBI spent $32 million investigating before announcing Trump innocent of the accusations.

Although the 6 January inquiry has not come to an end (and will likely never do so), nothing has come out in a formal fashion that has implicated President Trump of involvement in wrongdoing.

Moreover, as the following article illustrates, when Trump suggested that passports were taken, the FBI (despite initial denials by the agency and its apologists in the media) soon admitted that they had taken those passports.

CBS says Norah O’Donnell’s tweets denying FBI confiscation of Trump passports do not measure up to CBS standards

The New York Post delves into the story of how CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell has so consistently gotten the story against President Trump wrong.

“CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell is rankling journalists at CBS News with her tweets about former President Donald Trump’s passports, with some griping that she played it fast and loose according to CBS News’ reporting standards.

O’Donnell tweeted Monday that she had been told by a “DOJ official” that the FBI was “not in possession” of Trump’s three passports, which contradicted the former president’s statement that his travel documents were taken by FBI agents who searched his Florida home last week.

But the anchor attributed the information to a single source — a big no-no at CBS News, which has a strict two-source protocol, angry CBS sources told The Post. They added that the tweets also made it sound like O’Donnell was calling the former president a “liar.”

“This is an embarrassment for CBS that the face of your network can’t even make a second call to a Justice Department rep,” one livid source said. “It’s Journalism 101.”

The FBI had returned the documents earlier in the afternoon, according to now-public correspondence between Trump’s camp and the DOJ.

(Read more at the New York Post)

Of course, the inherent trust of the Left with anything that advances their narrative leads us to the next two stories

The Leftists in the newsroom of CBS would rather believe the worst about Trump; therefore, they don’t bother to check their single sources for accuracy. Likewise, they want to believe the best about a group that has done nothing but attack Trump from his first days of campaigning; therefore, they support this agency (as shown in the next article).

Only liberals trust the FBI in significant numbers

The New York Post tells us how only liberals trust the FBI in significant numbers.

It is curious that the biggest fans of the FBI today are liberals. You hear them on MSNBC, singing from the same song sheet as former disgraced CIA and FBI operatives who have been transformed into esteemed and well-paid TV experts, shilling for whatever unseen forces motivate them, or creating confusing narratives to cover their tracks. 

At the same time, a majority of Americans, 53%, view the FBI as “Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo,” according to a new Rasmussen poll out Thursday. 

The agency’s standing is at rock bottom among Republicans and conservatives, and not too healthy with independents and moderates. 

The poll, conducted on Monday and Tuesday, one week after the extraordinary FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s Florida mansion, shows just 50% of all voters hold a favorable view of the federal law-enforcement agency, down from 60% in May 2020. 

But while just 30% of Republicans and 45% of independents feel positive about the FBI, 75% of Democrats and 81% of liberals are big fans. 

Since the Mar-a-Lago raid, 70% of Republicans say they have less trust in the FBI than they used to, while 50% of Democrats trust it more. 

(Read more at the New York Post)

Trump and Obama both had procedures that reclassified documents taken as part of executive work

In the following issue of Facts Matter, Roman Balmakov points out that the Trump team issued the following regarding the accusation that Trump held classified documents:

The very fact that these documents were present at Mar-a-Lago means they couldn’t have been classified …  As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring their work home from time to time. American presidents are no different. President Trump, in order to prepare for work the next day, often took documents including classified documents from the Oval Office to the residence. He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken into the residence were deemed to be declassified.

Back in 2009, Obama issued Executive Order 13526 in that order, he laid out a process by which all federal officials would follow to declassify documents; however, in that executive order, he explicitly exempted himself:

Information originated by the incumbent President or the incumbent Vice President, the incumbent President’s White House Staff or the incumbent Vice President’s White House Staff that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section.

Likewise, John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence, said:

The president does have ultimate declassification authority. He can literally declassify — and President Trump had that authority, and could declassify anything you want while he was president.

Of course, the liberal-left portion of the Obama regime produced an ideologue who contradicted Obama’s own exemption for the President in the declassification process when he (Richard Immerman) said:

He can’t just wave a want and say it’s declassified. … There has to be a formal process. That’s the only way the system can work. … I’ve seen thousands of declassified documents. They’re all marked ‘declassified’ with the date they were declassified.

Luckily, it seems that the Trump team had a response for the Leftist’s banality:

The power to classify and declassify documents rests solely with the President of the United States. The idea that some paper-pushing bureaucrat, with the classification authority delegated by the President, needs to approve of declassification is absurd.

It would seem that Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling on Bill Clinton’s sock drawer might have some effect

As recorded in an article at Just the News, a 2012 ruling by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on secret documents found with Bill Clinton.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch’s suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson’s ruling — along with the Justice Department’s arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI’s decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” she added.

(Read the full article at Just the News)

Tweets that illustrate the dishonest cooperation between the Democrat media, the political Democrats, and the Democrat FBI

By the way, these tweets were shamelessly stolen from Bunkerville during the light of day. Each of these illustrate the cooperation between the Democrat media, the Democrat FBI, and the Democrat politicians.


This Biden-commented story will now disappear; HOWEVER, …

Biden jumped into the middle of what he thought would be the persecution of Muslims in redneck America

Reuters applauded Joe Biden’s sidling up to the Muslim community by way of pushing for an investigation of four murders of Muslim men.

Police in New Mexico on Sunday asked for the public’s help in locating a “vehicle of interest” in their probe of four fatal shootings of Muslim men whose slayings in Albuquerque over the past nine months are believed by investigators to be related.

Mayor Tim Keller said state authorities were working to provide an “extra police presence at mosques during times of prayer” as the investigation proceeds in New Mexico’s largest city, home to as many as 5,000 Muslims out of some 565,000 total residents.

The latest victim, police said, was gunned down on Friday night, in a killing that local Islamic leaders said occurred shortly after he had attended funeral services for two others slain during the past couple of weeks.

All three of those men, as well as the very first victim who was shot dead in November, were Muslim men of Pakistani or Afghan descent who resided in Albuquerque.

Police have given few details of the latest murder but described the first three killings as ambush shootings. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has characterized them as “targeted killings of Muslim residents.”

U.S. President Joe Biden posted a message on Twitter on Sunday expressing solidarity with the Muslim community, adding, “These hateful attack have no place in America.”

(Read more tripe at Reuters)

Of course Dementia Joe channeled Obama

Dementia Joe has done his best to continue the failed portions of the Obama years. Why not return to this?

The first problem is that the murderer wasn’t who Joe Biden suspected

A 51-year-old Sunni Muslim has been arrested in connection with the murders

The United Kingdom’s Metro reports that Muhammad Syed, an Afghan Sunni Muslim, has been arrested.

A ‘primary suspect’ has been charged in two of four killings of Muslim men in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Muhammed Syed on Tuesday night was charged with murder for two of the killings. He was also identified by police as the main primary suspect in the other two cases.

When police arrived to search Syed’s house in Albuquerque, he drove away in a Volkswagen Jetta that they believe was used in one of the ‘ambush-style’ shootings.

Police followed Syed from the home before eventually arresting him in Santa Rosa – about 118 miles west of Albuquerque.

Syed was charged with the July 26 murder of Aftab Hussein and the August 1 murder of Muhammad Afzaal Hussain.

‘The gun used in both of those shootings was discovered during the overnight search of his home,’ stated police.

Police Chief Harold Medina said they are still working to charge Syed for the deaths of Naeem Hussain on August 5 and Mohammed Zaher Ahmadi on November 7, 2021.

He did not know whether the deaths would be classified as hate crimes, serial killings, or both.

(Read more at Metro)

Any speculation on how long it will take Biden and the Democrats to act like this never happened?

Will you be able to measure the shortness of time?

However, we cannot let them sweep the Trump raid under the rug

Despite the tendency of the main-stream-dupe Democrats to swing their cameras away from the real story of the Trump raid, we cannot let it go.

Standing for Trump’s rights not to be raided and even eliminating the FBI are not a matter of opposing “defund the police.” The police that I support are local and must answer locally for their actions. Accountability remains a central part of any structure that I want to use to invest power.

The FBI, on the other hand, does not answer to a local control (or any control outside of the Democrat National Committee). That presented quite a conflict of interest (or at least should have) when the House, Senate, and presidency were held by the other party. And, now that the American gestapo has installed their own brand of demented leader, it compounds the problem.

Therefore, we cannot afford to let this go, since, as we were reminded by The Federalist‘s Margot Cleveland:

If we have the attorney general come out, we have the FBI director come out and say, “We had evidence. We had evidence that he had classified documents. We went to court. We did this the right way. We got a warrant” — why should we believe them? They already proved to us that they were willing to lie and that a judge was willing to rubber-stamp something in the past to get Trump.


Joe’s folly

Joe Biden says he wants to build wind farms in the Gulf of Mexico

According to a 20 July 2022 article in Reuters, Joe Biden wants to build a system of wind farms in the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore locations.

 The Biden administration on Wednesday said it had identified 700,000 acres for possible offshore wind energy development in the Gulf of Mexico, seeking to expand a growing clean energy industry to a major U.S. oil and gas hub.

It also said President Joe Biden would direct his Interior Department to move ahead with offshore wind development in areas of the Atlantic coast where former President Donald Trump banned oil and gas development.

“Today we open up yet another coast and frontier in expanding offshore wind,” a senior administration official told reporters.

The announcement was part of a slate of new measures to address climate change that Biden unveiled during a trip to a Massachusetts facility making offshore wind components.

The expansion of the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry is a cornerstone of Biden’s plan to fight global warming and decarbonize the electricity sector by 2035.

Biden’s Interior Department will seek public input on two areas in the Gulf. One is off the coast of Galveston, Texas, and the other near Lake Charles, Louisiana. If projects are ultimately developed there, they could power more than 3 million homes, the administration said.

The two areas will undergo further review to determine the locations most suitable for leasing.

In 2020, a government lab found that the Gulf’s shallow waters and proximity to oil and gas infrastructure would support offshore wind development. Several Louisiana companies involved in offshore drilling were tapped to help build the nation’s first offshore wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island.

(Read more at Reuters)

As just a technical writer in the computing, aerospace, and oil/gas industries — I have these questions

How exactly will Joe address the following:

  • Anchoring these windmills – How will the windmills be anchored with consideration to the seafloor, sea life, shipping lanes, and fishing interests?
  • Preventing an easy blockade of America – Will Joe create an easy means for either nature or our enemies to blockade us by felling these windmills to block our shipping lanes?
  • Allowing the working man to eke out a living – How will these windmills change the ways that commercial fishers ply their ware? Will shrimpers be able to deploy their nets in the waters they have fished for generations? Will coatings on the windmills introduce carcinogens into the water?
  • Avoiding decimating existing life – How will the windmills be designed to keep from acting as “bird blenders” (since many bird species migrate through the Gulf)? How will they be designed to avoid killing aquatic life (since AC power tends to follow the skin effect and travel along the outside of the conductor)?
  • Considering the conductive nature of water – How will the windmills be designed to transmit the power from the source to the cities? High voltage transmission usually creates an electrical field around it. How will designers mitigate these fields? Can those fields be mitigated through shielding and insulation? Will that shielding and insulation withstand sea water?
  • Considering our current grid – Where does Dementia Joe plan to connect this power? Will he connect it to the aging U.S. grid or the already overburdened Texas grid?
  • Considering Murphy’s Law – Considering the adage “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong” might prepare you for the eventual. Therefore, what measures will Joe take to ensure that this system shuts down quickly in the event of a disaster?
  • Considering the Gulf weather – How will Joe make certain these windmills survive the first hurricane? How will Joe address the freezes that have stretched down into the Gulf? When either of these weather events occur, what will Joe do with the damaged blades that cause great environmental hazards?


Good news during Joe’s apocalypse

Realize that your politicians are humans, not idealized generalizations

Thomas Klingenstein illustrates through his speech, Trump’s virtues (posted at the American Mind), how we must accept the humanity of our leaders.

Because it influenced me so greatly, I have posted the speech in its entirety here.

Many leading Republicans and conservatives want someone other than Donald Trump to run for President in 2024. But this judgment requires an assessment of Trump’s vices and virtues in the context of our current political and cultural circumstances, as well as an assessment of other prospective Republican presidential candidates. Among the talked-about alternatives to Trump, I have not yet seen anyone who possesses either his virtues or his backbone. I am not suggesting that everyone make way for Trump; rather that it is too early to throw him overboard.

I regularly ask Republican politicians what they think of Donald Trump. The most frequent response is some version of, “I like his policies but don’t like the rest of him.” But this formulation gets it almost backwards. Although Trump advanced many important policies, it is the “rest of him” that contains the virtues that inspired a movement.

Trump was born for the current American crisis: the life and death struggle against the totalitarian enemy I call “woke communism.” The “woke comms” have seized every political, cultural, and economic center of power in the country from where they ruthlessly push their agenda. That agenda rests on the conviction that America is thoroughly bad (systemically racist) and must be destroyed.

If there is one thing that patriotic Americans know about Trump it is that he, like them, is unequivocally pro-American and willing to fight to defend the American way of life. When Collin Kaepernick and his ilk knelt before the American flag, Trump called them “sons of bitches.” As always, he was being forceful, authentic, and unmistakably clear.

Trump stood up for America every time he violated the strictures of political correctness. Trump has said over and over exactly what political correctness prohibits one from saying: “We have our culture, it’s exceptional, and that’s the way we want to keep it.” Trump’s contempt for political correctness showed patriotic Americans that its ever-tightening grip could be loosened. As Trump and his supporters know, political correctness cripples our ability to think clearly and act decisively.

Trump said Haiti is a “shithole” and that Representative Maxine Waters has a low IQ. These were not racist lies but uncouth, politically incorrect observations that most people would agree with but not dare say. Most of us, conservatives no less than liberals, are reluctant to criticize black Americans for fear of being called a racist. Trump, on the other hand, is an equal opportunity criticizer. This is what we used to call “colorblindness.”

Trump treated the woke media with the same contempt he treated political correctness, provoking their outrage and revealing their utter corruption.

Trump made no apologies for America’s past. His unlimited confidence in America is, in this time of national doubt and self-loathing, just what the doctor ordered. Trump thinks America can vanquish all comers if we just put our mind to it and he is right.

Trump is a man of action, guided by facts and common sense. He has no use for theories. He knows that slavish devotion to theory can lead to nonsensical beliefs; for instance, that children should be able to undergo “gender conformation”; that police forces should be defunded; or that biological boys should be able to compete against girls in athletics.

Trump knows it is time to make a stand, and for that we need strong men. Weak men do anything to avoid admitting the hardest truths because they lack the resolve to do what truth demands from them. Trump is a manly man. In present times, when manhood is being stripped of its masculinity, traditional manhood, even when flawed, has much appeal.

Trump is also comfortable in his own skin, a prerequisite for independence and courage. Trump ripped apart people he thought were weak. Sometimes he went overboard, but his supporters forgave his excesses because strength is in such short supply. Trump plays to win. And he knows that in war reaching across the aisle is usually a sucker’s game

A large part of Trump’s appeal was that he is a bona fide outsider who distrusted the expert class, which comprises so much of the “swamp.” Although his own administration sometimes made it difficult for him to get done everything he promised, his supporters knew he was on their side and was trying his damnedest not to let them down. Culturally, Trump, fueled by Big Macs, understands, as does the outsourced American worker, that a cheap smartphone is not a replacement for a meaningful job and the life it supports. Trump also understands that what Americans of all races and creeds desire are stable communities, and the opportunity to raise their families in a culture that values industriousness, self-reliance, patriotism, and freedom.

Trump revealed—not “caused”—the divide in this country. He awakened the public to the dangers of woke communism and, as good leaders do, gave his supporters the breathing room to voice their discontents. This may have been his most important achievement, made possible by qualities independent of policy. You cannot win a war unless you know you are in one.

This enumeration of Trump’s virtues does not fully capture his uncommon courage and firmness of purpose. Trump is the most towering political figure in living memory. He has, like it or not, defined the politics of our age. In 2016 and 2020 he was the political leader most fit for war-like circumstances. Yes, he has vices; even so, we should pause before we move on to someone else.

If Republicans do choose another candidate, they must do so in full confidence that he will embody Trump’s virtues. If not Trump himself, his positive qualities must be the standard by which we judge other candidates.

Democrats hand Republicans a new weapon

The BBC lays out these features in Manchin’s new bill

The BBC tells us about these portions of the new bill:

Would devote $369bn to climate policies such as tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles, and to tackling the impact of pollution on low-income communities.

“By a wide margin, this legislation will be the greatest pro-climate legislation that has ever been passed by Congress,” Mr Schumer said.

Mr Manchin and Mr Schumer also maintained the measure would pay for itself by raising $739bn (£608bn) over the decade through hiking the corporate minimum tax on big companies to 15%, beefing up Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement and allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices.

(Read as much drivel as you can stand at BBC)

Politico similarly provides these details

Politico says this about the Manchin bill:

The Manchin-Schumer deal includes roughly $370 billion in energy and climate spending, $300 billion in deficit reduction, three years of subsidies for Affordable Care Act premiums, prescription drug reform and significant tax changes. Manchin said the bill was at one point “bigger than that” but that’s where the two Democrats settled.

(Read the full-on article at Politico)

The Epoch Times likewise lays out these tricks

According to The Epoch Times, these items should be considered:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced on July 27 that he has reached a deal with Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on energy, taxes, and health care to advance what appears to be a revised, alternate version to the Build Back Better (BBB) bill.

The new spending package (pdf), now dubbed the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” will “address record inflation by paying down our national debt, lowering energy costs, and lowering healthcare costs,” Manchin said in a lengthy statement.


“The revised legislative text will be submitted to the Parliamentarian for review this evening and the full Senate will consider it next week,” Manchin and Schumer said in a joint statement on July 27.

Schumer seeks to pass the measure through a procedural tool that allows a bill related to taxes, spending, and debt to be passed in the chamber by a simple 51-vote majority rather than having to pass the 60 vote filibuster threshold. The process also limits debate on the bill to 20 hours. That could allow the bill to be passed with only Democratic votes, if necessary—if every Democrat is on board.

Hours after Manchin announced the deal, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), a moderate Democrat, told news outlets that her office does not have a comment on the proposed legislation and that she will need to review the text.

Bill Claims to Reduce Federal Deficits by $300 Billion

The two senators said the bill “will make a historic down payment on deficit reduction to fight inflation, invest in domestic energy production and manufacturing, and reduce carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.” It will also allow Medicare to negotiate for prescription drugs and lower health care costs for Americans, they added.

A one-page summary (pdf) from Manchin’s office show that the deal will see a total of $433 billion in investments: about $369.75 billion in energy security and climate change programs over 10 years, and $64 billion to extend the expanded Affordable Care Act program for federal subsidies of health insurance, for three years through 2025.

(Read all of the article at The Epoch Times)


6 January 2020 trials — will they go away or go to center stage?

Judge acquits 6 January defendant after the video he presented shows police allowing him into the Capitol building

The Western Journal tells us of the acquittal of one 6 January 2020 defendant who got off due to a video showing that the police did escort him into the Capitol.

A federal judge on Wednesday acquitted a New Mexico man of misdemeanor charges that he illegally entered the U.S. Capitol and engaged in disorderly conduct after he walked into the building during last year’s riot.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden issued the verdict from the bench after hearing testimony without a jury in the case against Matthew Martin. McFadden, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, acquitted Martin of all four counts for which he was charged.

Martin did not dispute that he joined hundreds of other people in entering the Capitol building during the riot. The judge said Martin’s actions were “about as minimal and non-serious” as anyone who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Martin is the third Capitol riot defendant whose case has been resolved by a trial. He is the first of the three to be acquitted of all charges that he faced.

Martin, whose bench trial started Tuesday, testified that a police officer waved him into the building after the riot erupted. A prosecutor dismissed that testimony as “nonsense.”

The judge, however, said video shows two police officers standing near the Rotunda doors and allowing people to enter as Martin approached the doors. One of the officers appeared to lean back before Martin placed a hand on the officer’s shoulder as a possible sign of gratitude, the judge said.

McFadden described Martin’s testimony as “largely credible.” The judge said it was not unreasonable for him to assume that officers allowed him to enter the Capitol, even though alarms were blaring and broken glass was strewn about the floor.

(Read more at the Western Journal)

If any of those under investigation by the Durham probe of the Russian collusion hoax get the same treatment as those held in solitary for over a year for wandering on the capital, I will be surprised

If Hillary’s lackies get even a modicum of the treatment doled out to the 6 January 2021 protesters, I will be stunned. If they have to sit for even two months in solitary confinement, there will be an uproar on the Left. If they get beaten to the point that any one of them loses an eye, it will work as a “get out of jail free” card (unlike the 6 January protester).

Guess who is on the January 6 committee? Would you guess it includes a signer of the “Intelligence community” letter that discounted the Hunter Biden laptop?

The Washington Examiner provides a key name of one who signed the letter saying (aka lying) that the Hunter Biden laptop was “Russian disinformation” and now “serving” on the January 6 committee.

The former intelligence officials who signed an October 2020 letter baselessly claiming Russian involvement in the Hunter Biden laptop stories are largely remaining silent, though some have continued to defend their signatures, while a few recently returned to government service.

The laptop saga has burst back into public view a year and a half after the New York Post published emails belonging to now-President Joe Biden’s son, with the New York Times and the Washington Post finally joining a number of right-leaning outlets that had confirmed the authenticity of emails on the laptop.


David Buckley, a former CIA inspector general who signed the infamous laptop letter, is now the staff director for the Democratic-led House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

One reason that the swamp never gets punished is that the swamp has been charged with law enforcement on the swamp

When the FBI (or is that FIB?) and the CIA (put there to Cover liberal @ss) get implicated in liberal schemes to subvert the Constitution, they find a way to make it go away. By now, the track record of these agencies has been made evident through their employees (James Comey, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, John Brennan, et al).

Hidden in Biden’s budget request: An effort to whip the 6 January “riots” into a top priority

The Independent Journal Review outlines how Biden wants to make the 6 January 2020 “riots” even a bigger show.

Democrats believe that when something isn’t working, they simply must do more of it.

After more than a year of mining the political fool’s gold of the Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol, the new Department of Justice budget proves they’re still not ready to give up on that narrative.

According to the White House budget release, the DOJ requested $37.7 billion in its discretionary funding, an increase of more than $4.2 billion that amounts to 13 percent more than what it received in 2021.

Moreover, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco made it clear that Jan. 6 will remain on its list of priorities.

“The Jan. 6 investigation is among the most wide-ranging and most complex that this department has ever undertaken,” Monaco said while answering a question after giving her remarks about the Fiscal Year 2023 Funding Request.

“It reaches nearly every U.S. attorney’s office, nearly every FBI field office,” Monaco said. “We’ve charged more than 750 cases, and we’ve charged unprecedented conspiracies and the use of rare tools like the seditious conspiracy statute,” she boasted.

(Read more at the Independent Journal Review)

This might explain the latest quote from Kamala on inflation

Early in his presidency, Ronald Reagan quipped:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Now (in response to run-away inflation, spiking crime, an out-of-control border, and corruption by Democrats) we have this from Kamala:


How did CNN miss this?

A former Trump official goes to the liberal press pushing her book

And pointing out that she lied in her official capacity

Recently, a new perspective was presented on AFR‘s The Hamilton Corner podcast regarding a recent Stephanie Grisham interview on the CNN show New Day (hosted by John Berman and Brianna Keilar) where Ms. Grisham admitted lying in her official capacity.

Speaker Quote
John Did you ever want to do a press conference?
Stephanie Well, selfishly, in this administration, I didn’t because I knew I would possibly be put in a position to stand at that podium and not be honest.
John Lie?
Stephanie And lie. And I didn’t want to do that. Working in the White House had always been my dream — my dream to stand behind the podium and do it the traditional way — but in our administration, I selfishly did not want to do it.
John You did do interviews on Fox, though.
Stephanie Yes.
John Were you always truthful there?
Stephanie I probably wasn’t. I prob — I can’t think of an example right now. I probably wasn’t and I regret that so much. …

At that point, Alexander Hamilton asked why neither of these “reporters” asked the obvious question: Why should we believe anything in your book if you just confessed to lying in your professional capacity?

However, in light of the the way the Hunter Biden story got suppressed at CNN, the 2016 presidential debate questions were leaked to the DNC by CNN, the time Donna Brazile leaked questions to Hillary Clinton, and too many other instances of bias to count, one has to ask:

  • Is CNN so accustomed to looking away from real news that it cannot help but look away when real news walks up like a puppy and jumps in their lap (that is, why not ask the question above)?
  • Has CNN gotten so accustomed to working with liars like Joe Biden that it expects the impossible (truth from habitual liars)?