Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Intellectual Froglegs Transmission – The Trilogy


Comrades, the rebellious messenger Joe Dan Gorman has transmitted again in a coded frequency only receivable by patriots with a funny bone. The secret message uses humor thereby ensuring communists and leftists are incapable of receiving or deciphering it.

The subversive summer transmission comes from deep in the underground bunker of the Rebel Alliance. Pull out those super-secret decoder rings, and enjoy the broadcast before the deep state satellite interception trucks show up on your driveway…



2024 is MAGA burning the ships behind us.  This one is for all the marbles. This is not a place where tepid half-measures and gentlemanly pastels will suffice.  Get right with God, put on the armor, absorb the focus of fighting like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s ark, and get comfortable being uncomfortable.

Our ally is anyone who stands beside us, right now. Our enemy is anyone who doesn’t.

The new sons and daughters of the revolution are going to look completely different.  The Green Dragon Tavern may be a church, a lunchroom, a picnic table or a tailgate.  The assembly is not focused on the labels of the assembled; there’s no time for that.  The mission is the purpose… The fight is wherever it surfaces…. Delicate sensibilities must be dispatched like a feather in a hurricane.

A reckoning is needed!


X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- Sept 12

 



Writers Union spiraling out of control these past 2 days (accusing 1 returning daytime talk show of breaking their stupid 'strike rules' while absolutely refusing to call out all the other returning talk shows that are coming back next week, and now they're accusing the studios of delaying their residual checks even though they have no proof the delays are deliberate.), yet another 'Hallmark turned GAF' actor being falsely accused of something he didn't do by another attention seeking bitch (I migt talk about that eventually, if I find a good report on it).

Yup, day before my birthday is certainly not without the laughs and eyerolls.

The Frightened Left ~ VDH

Will their upheaval  succeed?


An impeachment inquiry looms and the shrieks of outrage are beginning.

The Left is now suddenly voicing warnings that those who recently undermined the system could be targeted by their own legacies.

So, for example, now we read why impeachment is suddenly a dangerous gambit.

True, the Founders did not envision impeaching a first-term president the moment he lost his House majority. Nor did they imagine impeaching a president twice. And they certainly did not anticipate trying an ex-president in the Senate as a private citizen.

In modern times, the nation has not rushed to impeach a president without a special counsel investigation to determine whether the chief executive was guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

But thanks to the Democrats, recent impeachments now have destroyed all those guardrails. After all, Trump was impeached the first time on the fumes of an exhaustive but fruitless 22-month, $40 million special counsel investigation—one designed to find him guilty of Russian “collusion” and thus to be removed from office but found no actionable offenses at all.

Instead, dejected Democrats moved immediately for a second try. In September 2019 a few weeks after Trump had announced his 2020 reelection bid, the Democratic House began to impeach the president on the new grounds that he had talked to the President Zelensky of Ukraine and said he might delay offensive arms shipments—unless the Ukrainians could demonstrate that they had ended corruption and, in particular, were no longer influenced by the Biden family quid pro quo shakedowns.

Trump was proven right: the Biden family is not just corrupt, but, in particular, Joe Biden as head of the family and Vice President had intervened in the internal politics of an aid recipient, by threatening not to delay but rather to cancel outright all U.S. aid to Ukraine—unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor.

Shokin was then looking into the misadventures of Biden’s son Hunter, and why the Vice President’s imbecilic son was receiving lucrative compensation on the boards of a Ukrainian energy company Burisma, yet without any demonstrable expertise or education in matters of energy policy.

Since Trump was impeached, we now know that Joe Biden did lie that he had no connection with or even knowledge of his son’s business. And we know that the fired prosecutor believed the Bidens were recipients of bribes. We know that contrary to Biden’s assertions, he was not following State Department policy.

In contrast, the U.S. had, in fact, lauded Shokin’s efforts to repress corruption. In sum, Biden was undermining the stated policy of the U.S. government to protect his son’s—and his own—efforts to leverage money from Kyiv by monetizing the influence of his own Vice Presidency. In some sense, Biden was guilty of the very “treason” charge—altering U.S. foreign policy for personal benefit—by which Rep. Adam Schiff had earlier falsely accused Trump.

Given that reality, it is easy to argue that the House impeached Donald Trump in 2019 for crimes that he did not commit, but which the current president Joe Biden most certainly had during his Vice Presidency.

But weaponizing impeachment is just one baleful legacy of the Left. There are plenty more of their own precedents that Leftists now would not wish to have applied to themselves:

  • Will the next president have the FBI pay social media censors to suppress the dissemination of any news it feels is unhelpful to the reelection of a Republican president?
  • Is it OK now for the next Vice President to invite his son onto Air Force Two to cement multimillion dollars deals that benefit both, with Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian oligarchs who enjoy government ties?
  • Should a conservative billionaire stealthily insert $419 million late in the 2024 campaign to absorb the work of registrars in key voting precincts?
  • If a Democratic president wins the 2024 election should conservative groups riot at the Capitol on Inauguration Day? Should a conservative celebrity yell out to the assembled crowd of protestors that she dreams of blowing up the White House? And if a Republican wins, should he prosecute any Democratic rioters who once again swarm Washington on Inauguration Day and charge them with “insurrection,” meting out long prisons sentences to the convicted?
  • Is Joe Biden now vulnerable to being impeached for systematic family corruption, or using the Department of Justice to obstruct the prosecution of his son in his last days in office, and then being tried in the Senate as a private citizen?
  • If the Republicans gain the Senate, will they move to end the filibuster in agreement with Democratic assertions that it is “racist” and a “Jim Crow relic”?
  • If the midwestern Electoral College “Blue Wall” seems to reappear, or if Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada recreate new blue walls, will there be a conservative effort to end the constitutionally mandated Electoral College?
  • If in 2024 there is a narrow Democratic win in the Electoral College, should conservative celebrities conspire to run ads urging the electors to reject their constitutional duties and not vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote that went Democratic? Should a Republican third-party candidate sue to stop a state’s selection of its electors on grounds the voting machines were rigged?
  • If Supreme Court decisions begin to appear to favor the left, will Republicans talk of packing the court, or have the DOJ turn a blind eye when mobs began to swarm the homes of liberal justices? Should the conservative media go after liberal judges with serial accusations of corruption? Should the Republican Senate leader assemble a mob of pro-life protestors at the doors of the court and call out Justices Sotomayor or Jackson by name, with threats that they will soon reap the whirlwind they have sowed, given they have no idea of what is about to “hit” them? Should conservative legal scholars urge the country to ignore Supreme Court decisions deemed liberal?
  • Will local prosecutors in red jurisdictions begin filing criminal charges against leading Democratic candidates on various charges, among them accusations of old inflated real estate assessments, campaign finance laws, questioning ballot results, or taking classified documents home? If Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton were to run in 2024, will their past illicit behavior gain the attention of a city or state attorney in Utah, West Virginia, or Wyoming?
  • If Joe Biden continues to decline at his present rate, will Republicans demand he be given the Montreal Cognitive Assessment? Will they subpoena Ivy League psychiatrists to testify that an intervention is needed to remove him from office? And will an FBI director and a deputy Attorney General plan to wear wires, and record Biden in his private moments of senility, as a way of convincing the cabinet or Congress that he is demonstrably mentally unfit for office?
  • In the 2024 election, should the Republican nominee hire a foreign ex-spy to compile falsehoods about the Democratic opponent and then seed them among the media, and Department of Justice? Should the FBI hire such a Republican contractor and likewise use him to gather dirt on the Democratic nominee?
  • If there appears incriminating evidence concerning a Republican nominee, should the FBI retrieve such evidence, keep it under wraps, lie about its veracity, and instead go along with media and ex-intelligence officers assertions that it is a fraudulent production of Russian intelligence?
  • Will conservative CIA and FBI directors, and the Director of National Intelligence be given exemptions from prosecutions for systematically lying while under oath in Congress or to federal investigators?
  • Will conservative celebrities ritually on social media, without fear of censorship, brag about ways of decapitating, shooting, stabbing, burning, or blowing up the Democratic nominee?
  • Since in many states the statues of limitations have not yet expired for arson, murder, assault, looting, and attacks on 1,500 police officers during the summer 2020 riots, will state prosecutors now begin identifying those 14,000 once arrested and mostly released, and begin refiling charges of conspiracy, racketeering—and “insurrection”?
  • Will they also file insurrection charges against those who torched a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic Washington DC church, or conspired to riot and swarm the White House grounds in an effort to attack the President of the United States?
  • Will they file charges against Vice President Kamala Harris for “inciting” ongoing violent demonstrations with monotonous, emphatic, and repetitive threats in the weeks before her nomination? Contrary to liberal “fact checkers” at time of nationwide violence, Harris certainly did not distinguish violent from non-violent protests, but in fact implied that they were intimately tied to the upcoming election and beyond. So given the hundreds of police officers injured, the hundreds of millions in property damage, and the dozens killed, what exactly did Harris mean by tying that ongoing summer of often violent protests to Election Day?:

“But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not.”

Was the above more or less inflammatory than Trump’s January 6 remarks for which in part he is under indictment: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore…I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”?

In sum, the Democratic leadership along with the media long ago deemed that Donald Trump posed such an existential threat to democracy that they were entitled to destroy democratic norms to destroy him.

Their actions were predicated on three assumptions: one, they had that right because they were more sophisticated, morally superior, and smarter than the rest of America and thus deserved the exemption to blow up customs and norms to achieve the “correct” ends; two, whatever damage they did to long-standing protocols of equal justice under the law paled in comparison to the damage that Trump supposedly would or did do; and three, their conservative opposition either lacked the wherewithal, the brains, or the audacity to emulate such behavior and thus there was no worry anyone would dare do to them what they did to others.

And now? For the first time, given recent polls, the Left is scared that a Republican House and perhaps soon a Republican Senate and White House might follow its own precedents, and use new leftwing guidelines to enact conservative agendas.



Forget the 2024 Presidential Election


posted by Manic Contrarian at RedState 

No, I'm not really suggesting we forget the 2024 presidential race. It matters a great deal. Perhaps more than any other presidential race since 1980. But hear me out.

As a recovering politician who spent eight years (two terms) serving in local office, I’ve often pointed out that the real political action, with commensurate relevant ramifications, is at the local level. However, voters in America choose to ignore local politics while seeming to obsess over national politics as though it were a spectator sport. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

According to the United States Election Project, which compiles data on voter turnout, the average voter turnout for presidential elections from 1980 to 2020 was around 56.3 percent of the voting-eligible population. Local election turnout can range from single-digit percentages to more substantial percentages, typically in the mid-20 percent range, depending on the specific circumstances.

The founders understood the importance of local government, hence the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives the states the power to handle local issues such as education, courts, public safety, law enforcement, commercial development, and of course, local government. These powers are called reserved powers, and they allow states to have control over important matters within their own borders.

But there are other reasons why it would serve conservatives well to focus more attention on local politics than they currently do. However, the same is true irrespective of ideology or philosophy. The following statistic should make the point well: According to a New York Times story, “How Every Member Got to Congress,” 80 percent of members of the 116th Congress had served in state or local elected offices prior to their tenure in Congress.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), approximately 59 percent of members of Congress typically serve first at the local level. So, while the 116th Congress was higher than average, there’s no reason to assume the higher percentage won’t continue, especially as city councils and county boards continue voting to increase the annual salary to serve on a city council or county board.

And while that might sound like an inherent conflict of interest (and it most certainly is), believe it or not, very often it is the voters themselves who vote in favor of raising local government salaries, assuming this will improve the quality of candidates (it doesn’t). However, it has resulted in more people with higher education levels running for a local office as a stepping stone to higher office.

Case in point: According to the same CRS study, a whopping 98 percent of members of Congress have a college education. And while the CRS study doesn’t break down each office attained prior to being elected to Congress, in many, if not most, cases, the electoral steps include city council, county boards/commissions, state legislature, and then Congress. Many governors were also former local government officials, including Gavin Newsom, just to name one. Newsom served as Mayor of San Francisco.

Other launching pads to Congress, governor, or even higher office can include sheriff, district attorney, and superior court judge. And yet, many voters will often ignore these political offices entirely when filling out their ballot. Or they might call a friend or relative to help them decide how to vote. I've received hundreds of such calls. In some cases, voters will seek more information from a voter’s guide published by a local watchdog group such as a taxpayer’s association or a league of women voters. While supposedly nonpartisan, these groups have their political biases.

The point is the level of interest or knowledge as to who these candidates are is much lower than what voters decide to know about a candidate running for Governor, U.S. Senate, and, obviously, President of the United States. But why? After all, today’s mayor, district attorney, or state senator could be tomorrow’s president of the United States. In the case of the state Senate, think Barack Obama. After voting "present" 129 times in the Illinois Statehouse, he got elected to the U.S. Senate and then President of the United States.

While it might not be unusual for those with grand political ambitions to skip the city council level, skipping the county or state level is less rare. And even on occasion, reaching Congress might involve first serving on a local school board or a blue-ribbon commission established by a county board and then the county board, or state legislature, before eventually reaching Congress. And by that time, it could be too late. Once elected to Congress, defeating these people, regardless of their effectiveness or lack thereof, can be nearly impossible.

According to a study conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics, between 1964 and 2020, the average reelection rate for incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives was approximately 95 percent. This means that, on average, around 95 percent of sitting members of the House who seek reelection win another term. Next thing you know, they're 83 years old and seeking reelection to their 20th term.

But there’s yet another important reason why paying more attention to local politics matters. These races have the power to profoundly shape our communities, influence public policies, and directly impact our daily lives. And that's why it's crucial for conservative voters to prioritize local and state elections over national contests. 

First, with local political races, your vote matters more. In local and state elections, your voice carries greater weight. With smaller constituencies and fewer voters, each individual can make a real impact. By participating in these elections, you can be a catalyst for change and have more influence in your local community.

Second, unlike national elections that focus on broader issues, local and state governments directly influence our immediate surroundings. They make decisions on education policies, public safety measures, zoning and land-use regulations, and also healthcare reforms that have a tangible effect on our daily lives. By actively engaging in these local elections, conservative voters can shape public policies that promote their conservative values.

Third, the outcomes of local and state elections have far-reaching consequences. Policies implemented at the local and state levels can serve as models for broader initiatives that may eventually reach the national stage. By paying attention to and actively participating in these elections, conservative voters can shape these initiatives and influence national discussions on crucial issues such as education funding, healthcare reform, regulations, and criminal justice reform.

By championing conservative values at the local and state level, conservative voters can have a significant impact on the national conversation while also playing an important role in who we send to Washington to make policy at the federal level.

A robust democracy relies on an engaged citizenry who actively participates at all levels of government. By prioritizing local and state elections, conservative voters can cultivate a culture of civic engagement, instilling a sense of individual responsibility and community empowerment. This commitment to grassroots democracy ensures that conservative values and principles continue to thrive in our communities and the nation as a whole.

To be sure, while national elections often dominate headlines, the fabric of our society is woven through the everyday concerns and issues faced by local communities. By giving more attention to local and state elections, conservative voters can refocus on the issues that directly impact their lives and align with their conservative values. 

Whether it's advocating for limited government, fiscal responsibility, or traditional family values, local and state elections provide an ideal platform to address these concerns and bring about meaningful change in our communities, including in our own neighborhoods. It really is that important.

And so, as conservative voters gear up for the highly anticipated 2024 presidential election, let's not forget the tremendous power and potential of influencing local elections on the same ballot. By prioritizing these local races as conservatives, we can amplify our collective voice, impact our respective communities, and ensure that our values are strongly represented.

It's time for conservatives to shift our focus and embrace the power of local elections to help build a stronger, more conservative America at the grassroots level. Because as former Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neil said, in America, all politics is local.



Elizabeth Warren's Call to Investigate Elon Musk Is Dangerous


Democrats are mad at Elon Musk again, this time for the grave offense of exercising autonomy over his own company. 

As RedState reported, controversy struck after Musk made a decision in 2022 to not offer his Starlink satellite network to Ukrainian forces as they were preparing an attack on the Russian navy in Crimea. As the billionaire explained, he felt that making his company complicit in a direct act of war was a bridge too far, backed by his fear that a nuclear strike could result. 

In a clarifying post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, Musk noted that Starlink was not operational in Crimea in the first place. He explained that the Ukrainian government made an “emergency request” to activate the service in the region ostensibly to aid in the attack on the Russian fleet. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation,” he wrote in response to Mario Nawfal, an entrepreneur and social media personality who repeated the original claim from the CNN report.

Whether one agrees with Musk's decision or not isn't really relevant. What's relevant is that short of the United States government procuring Starlink through the proper channels, including paying market value for it, there is no obligation for SpaceX to offer its technology free of charge for submarine attacks on the Russian navy. 

Unfortunately, Democrats, drunk on power, are now calling for investigations into Musk and SpaceX for not being willing participants in the military attack of a foreign nation. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is leading the charge. 

This is incredibly dangerous because it assumes that the U.S. government operates as a fascist state in which largely unelected officials have the final say over how a private company distributes its technology. If Warren is worried about the government being the last word on foreign policy, then the government is welcome to offer its own satellite and communication systems, whatever they may be, to the Ukrainian military. It is not the job of private American citizens to facilitate proxy wars, even if the Ukrainian cause is just. 

Musk drew a line in the sand for what he was willing to be a part of, including consulting Russian officials on what their relation to such an attack would be. That is not conducting foreign policy. It is conducting the business of a private company. 

With the recent suspension of gun rights in New Mexico instituted by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, it is becoming increasingly clear that even basic freedoms in America are hanging on by a thread. If Democrat politicians were given free rein, there is no limit to the damage they would do, not just to the American system of government, but to individuals who dare cross their chosen ideologies. 

Warren's demand is just the latest example of that. How long can the courts hold back the tide of tyranny? Time will tell, but the more relentless the left gets, the more tenuous the situation becomes. 



Ana Navarro Gaslights About Concerns Over Joe Biden's Age: 'He Ain't Dying Anytime Soon'


Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

It seems the hosts of “The View are trying to pour some more gas into the lamp as Americans grow increasingly concerned about President Joe Biden’s age. On Monday’s episode, co-host Ana Navarro dismissed concerns over Biden’s old age and argued that it was part of a Republican-bred narrative designed to incite panic.

This is the latest in a series of instances in which Democrats and their close friends and allies in the activist media try to assure the nation that there is no reason to be concerned about Biden’s age and apparent cognitive difficulties. Nevertheless, polling continues to show that people are buying what Navarro’s ilk are selling.

In this episode of “Let’s See How Gullible Our Audience Is,” the four hosts were discussing a CBS interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in which she indicated, with a straight face, that she would be ready to assume the presidency if something nasty were to happen to Uncle Joe. That brought them to the topic of Biden’s age when Navarro went into full spin mode:

This is what Republicans have against Biden, because this administration has really gotten a ton of very difficult bipartisan legislation through in a divided Congress with a very difficult Senate makeup of 50 50, bipartisan infrastructure bill, bipartisan Safe Communities Act, first major gun legislation in decades, us. Innovation and Competition Act, bipartisan Climate, Health Care and Tax Package, fiscal Responsibility Act and the list is long. So what do they need to focus on? They need to focus on the undeniable. Joe Biden is old, and that's a narrative that's been created to cause panic in people.

The co-host continued, insisting that “Joe Biden’s old, but he ain’t dying anytime soon.”

She then went on to recount all the traveling the president has done lately. “He was at the G20 one moment. I turned on the TV, he was in India, then I turned on the TV. He was in Vietnam,” she said.

Sunny Hostin also chimed in, defending Harris against claims that she is not fit to serve as president.

That's kind of offensive to me. And the other thing is she's unprepared. Kamala Harris, by the way, was the first woman elected DA. Of San Francisco, the first woman to be attorney general of California. She's the first female vice president. She's been on the job, doing a damn good job, and I am so tired of people questioning her qualifications.

Hostin continued, echoing Navarro’s sentiments that Biden’s age is a total nonissue that nobody should care about: “I don't think Joe Biden's going anywhere because I see him on his bike in Delaware. I can't bike that much. And, I mean, he's fit.”

Well, it was a valiant effort, wasn’t it? To be fair, the folks at “The View,” being nothing more than propagandists influencing women, have to push this ridiculous narrative, don’t they? They, along with their comrades in other areas of media, are having a hard time convincing Americans that they are not seeing what they are seeing.

But the polls show that it’s still not working.

A CNN poll released Thursday found Trump leading Biden by 1 point, 47% to 46%. A Wall Street Journal survey published Sept. 3 found them tied at 46% each. A New York Times/Siena College poll taken in late July found Biden and Trump tied at 43% apiece. The former president is currently polling stronger against Biden than he did at any point in 2020, when he trailed by as many as 10 points and never came within 3 points in the FiveThirtyEight average.

Not only is Trump neck and neck with Biden, but most Americans are worried about the president’s age. If the folks at “The View” and the rest of the left-wing intelligentsia wish to swing attitudes in favor of their president, they are going to have to do much better than this.



Fulton County Grand Jury Was Totally Unhinged, Reveals Election Lawyer

‘I knew coming out of there that the whole thing was a loose cannon,’ election-law expert Cleta Mitchell told The Federalist.



“It was a surreal experience,” attorney and election-law expert Cleta Mitchell told The Federalist, referring to the hours-long questioning she faced when called before the Fulton County special purpose grand jury. 

“I knew coming out of there that the whole thing was a loose cannon,” Mitchell said, adding that “they were definitely going to recommend indicting basically all the Trump allies — it was a completely political situation — nothing to do with the law. NOTHING.”

With Friday’s release of the grand jury’s final report, Mitchell, who had represented former President Trump in his challenge to the Georgia 2020 election, is now speaking out. The report confirms Mitchell’s intuition: The grand jury recommended District Attorney Fani Willis charge a total of 39 people — “basically all the Trump allies” — not merely the 19 individuals the get-Trump prosecutor eventually indicted. The large number includes Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both of Georgia. Like Graham, Perdue, and Loeffler, Mitchell was recommended for charges but not named in the sprawling RICO indictment handed down last month. 

Now that the report is “all out in the open,” Mitchell is sharing some details of her experience, and they reveal just how unhinged from reality the special purpose grand jury — or at least its forewoman, Emily Kohrs — was.

Mitchell explained to The Federalist that when testifying, she had taken with her copies of the election-contest complaint and the memorandum of law filed with the court in support of that complaint. “At some point, the chairwoman that you’ve seen on TV,” a reference to Kohrs who had made the media rounds shortly after the special purpose grand jury disbanded, “asked me what I had in my hands,” Mitchell explained. “I told her what it was, and she asked if she could see it,” Mitchell continued, telling The Federalist she gave Kohrs both. 

“After a while, she asked ‘You say here, in the memorandum of law, that you are asking the court to award the electors to Donald Trump.’” 

“I looked at her with a puzzled look on my face,” Mitchell told The Federalist. “I said, ‘Where do you read that?’” 

Kohrs then handed the court document back to Mitchell, and the election lawyer looked at the paragraph she referenced. As Mitchell explained to The Federalist:

Nowhere in the memorandum of law does it say that the election should be awarded to Trump. We argued that there is precedent under Georgia law for the court to vacate the results and order a new election IF we were able to establish that the evidence proved there were more illegal votes, cast in violation of state law but counted and included in the certified total, than the margin of difference between the two candidates — the remedy is a new election. Alternatively, we argued that the state legislature has plenary power under the U.S. Constitution to meet and determine the electors — and I told her that.

In other words, the grand jury’s forewoman read “the memorandum of law to say something that is simply not there.” No wonder, then, that they recommended indicting 39 individuals!

While Mitchell had an opportunity to at least try to correct the misunderstanding about the legal documents, when it came to the Jan. 2, 2021, call between Trump and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Mitchell participated, she had no such opportunity. 

“They recommended indicting me for the phone call,” Mitchell noted, in reference to the 25-page grand jury report that pushed the Fulton County prosecutor to charge Mitchell for a variety of crimes related to that phone conversation. “But they did not ask me ONE question about the phone call. Not one,” Mitchell told The Federalist, adding that she testified for several hours, but the lawyers mainly pushed her on what they saw as “deficiencies” in the election contest.

The prosecutors also asked Mitchell questions such as, “Why did you dismiss the suit?”

“It was moot after the Georgia electors were certified on Jan. 6,” Mitchell would explain. But the Fulton County prosecutor’s team also questioned her on other aspects of the lawsuit such as why they didn’t “have well-known academics as our expert witnesses,” or why they didn’t seek to enforce a settlement agreement when the secretary of state’s attorneys failed to provide data they had promised. 

These questions further cement the reality that what Democrats are trying to do is criminalize election challenges brought by Republicans. And while Mitchell was not charged, other lawyers were and so were the alternative slate of electors appointed to preserve Trump’s Georgia election challenge — even though legal precedent made clear the propriety of appointing alternative electors. 

Mitchell’s recounting of the special purpose grand jury circus should terrify all Americans concerned with election integrity — and should wake up the country to just how political the pending charges against the 19 indicted individuals are. 



Raskin Circulates Memo Outlining Defense Against Biden Impeachment


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Let's first get this out of the way: 

Along with California Democrat Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) is arguably among the three smarmiest members of Congress. 

So as Congress returns from the August recess, it appears all but certain that Republican members will vote to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden's involvement in the Biden Family Business and alleged bribery scandal.

As we reported in early August, House Republicans unveiled a 4-pronged strategy against the president in a potential impeachment effort: the Biden Border Crisis, the "two-tiered justice system," the Biden family's nefarious overseas business dealings —including Biden's direct involvement — and “the weaponization of both the FBI and the DOJ” against Biden's "enemies." 

Raskin being Raskin, he's already playing offense. 

The Maryland lawmaker has been circulating a 14-page memo among House Democrats that astonishingly claims Joe Biden did zero wrong, and that the various investigations into the Biden scandal have provided zero evidence to prove he did, and also that the Republicans are in effect playing "the big get even" for the two impeachments of former President Donald Trump.

Raskin claims in the memo that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) “has resorted to misrepresenting and distorting this huge body of evidence to make baseless and sensationalistic claims."

House Republicans constantly insist that they are investigating President Biden and not his adult son. In that case, we can form an obvious judgment on their investigation: it has been a complete and total bust—an epic flop in the history of congressional investigations. 

The voluminous evidence they have gathered, including thousands of pages of bank records, suspicious activity reports, and hours of testimony from witnesses, overwhelmingly demonstrates no wrongdoing by President Biden and further debunks Republicans’ conspiracy theories.

Just three questions, Mr. Raskin — for now, that is.

So what about that email referencing "10 held by H for the big guy?” Who was “the big guy in the rejected proposal to give Joe Biden a 10 percent share of a Chinese deal his crackhead son was negotiating? Remember, the recipient of the email publicly vouched for its authenticity.

There are multiple other references to Biden’s involvement, Mr. Raskin, which likely more to come. Can you explain how any of it — logically — is a reference to anyone other than Joe Biden? We'll wait.

Moreover, Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer has provided voluminous sworn testimony to implicate Joe Biden directly — and make Jamie Raskin look even more like the foolish partisan hack he is — including that then-Vice President Joe Biden was on speakerphone with his Hunter and his business associates at least 20 times over the course of a decade.

Here's more:

Archer also testified that Hunter Biden was selling the “Biden brand” to foreign companies and oligarchs who believed having Hunter Biden close to them would lead to access to his father. It was also uncovered, through Archer’s testimony and bank records the committee released, that Joe Biden did attend dinner with Hunter Biden and foreign oligarchs who had paid his son on two separate occasions at Cafe Milano in Georgetown. 

Testimony from Archer further alleged that Joe Biden had coffee with one of his son’s business associates in Beijing.

Raskin does not dispute the information the committee has uncovered about Hunter Biden or his business associates but pushes back against the notion that it ties back to Joe Biden.

A spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said:

Mounting evidence reveals that then-Vice President Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ that his family sold around the world to enrich the Bidens. The Oversight Committee has a duty to continue to follow this pattern of corruption and hold President Biden accountable for abusing public office for the financial benefit of his family. 

Unfortunately, Democrats would rather play [the] Biden family defense lawyer instead of working for the American people. We will continue to work to provide the transparency and accountability that Americans demand and deserve.

Yet, Raskin's memo continued the absurd defense of the president: "Not only does this voluminous evidence fail to even suggest any wrongdoing by President Biden — it in fact proves the opposite."

How so, Mr. Raskin? Specifically, I mean.

No Democrat defense of Biden is possible — in the Democrats' TDS-riddled minds — without playing the Donald Trump whataboutism card, and Raskin's memo didn't disappoint.

This is a transparent effort to boost Donald Trump’s campaign by establishing a false moral equivalency between Trump—the four-time-indicted former president now facing 91 federal and state criminal charges, based on a mountain of damning evidence for a shocking range of felonies, including lying to the FBI, endangering national security by illegally keeping classified documents, and conspiring to subvert the U.S. Constitution— and President Biden, against whom there is precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

A broken Democrat record, Mr. Raskin, nothing more.

The Bottom Line

For those who've paid a modicum of attention to the Democrat Party — stretching all the way back to the Bill Clinton administration — it's been clear that the more the walls close in on Democrat political figures, the more preposterous their arguments and silly defenses become.

You know, that "Thou dost protest too much" thing.

As for Jamie Raskin and his absurd defense of Biden, please.



The Case Against Ken Paxton Is All Hat, No Cattle

Paxton’s defense team has offered clear and concise explanations — underscoring how derelict House investigators were to start this entire affair.



The first week of the impeachment trial of Warren Kenneth Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, came to a close Friday with some courtroom fireworks, but the testimony generally left observers who were promised substantial proof of crimes wondering where all the “shock and awe” was.

On Tuesday morning, the trial was gaveled in by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, sitting as judge before the entire Texas Senate, who are sitting as jurors. Almost immediately Paxton’s team made a variety of dismissal motions designed as test votes to discern where senators would lean on some of the more muddled and controversial impeachment articles. A handful of Republican senators voted to dismiss some, and a small cadre voted consistently to dismiss all, but each motion was denied by a solid majority of senators.  

Before any witnesses were called, Judge Patrick exhorted the jury that according to the rules of the impeachment court that they had passed, only evidence that was sworn before these proceedings could be considered as they assessed their final votes. While it may seem obvious, it was an important reminder and a subtle rebuke of the Texas House, which had infamously rammed the impeachment resolution through the House in less than 48 hours over the Memorial holiday weekend in May after receiving a mix of closed and public third-hand summary testimony from sworn investigators who were recounting interviews from witnesses who had not been sworn during their own interviews.

Witness Went from Awkward to Worse

The House prosecution team’s first witness was Jeff Mateer who served as first assistant attorney general under Ken Paxton. Mateer is a widely respected Christian whose biggest claim to fame was having his nomination for district judge under President Trump scuttled for being too conservative. In his testimony, he came across as an Alex Vindman-style bureaucrat defending the “inter-agency consensus” who was upset at Paxton for marching to his own drum and not strictly hewing to departmental policies — as actual elected officials are often wont to do. 

Defense Attorney Tony Buzbee put on a masterclass in deconstructing a web of complex allegations made by an otherwise credible witness. He offered innocent, compelling, and credible explanations for everything that drove the whistleblowers to assume Paxton’s conduct was illegal, which Mateer struggled to refute. Mateer also came across as remaining deeply offended and judgmental about Paxton’s prior confessed extramarital affair, which had clearly caused a rift between him and Paxton, thereby keeping any innocent explanations for Paxton’s conduct from being candidly communicated between the two men.

Next up was Ryan Bangert who served as deputy first assistant attorney general. His primary claim of misconduct was that during Covid, Paxton had sought to get official guidance released to forestall public “courthouse step” foreclosure sales. Bangert’s theory of misconduct was that all along this was an effort to help Nate Paul’s business interests, which he acknowledged was based on media reports, not any investigation of Paul’s particular circumstance. Nate Paul was a friend and donor of Paxton who was persistent if not downright obnoxious in trying to leverage his connections with Paxton for help with his various legal troubles. Paxton’s lawyer credibly established that because Paul had filed for bankruptcy prior to the time when the guidance was released — which automatically stayed the foreclosure — the guidance didn’t benefit Paul at all.

The cross-examination derailed into additional back and forth about how offended Bangert was with how the attorney general didn’t follow the internal process for official opinions, which at one point had Bangert bizarrely arguing a hyper-technical interpretation of Texas government code. In Bangert’s telling, it meant the informal guidance that he himself had authored really was an official opinion under the statute, even though the guidance letter literally said, “Please note this letter is not a formal Attorney General opinion under section 402.042 of the Texas Government Code; rather it is intended only to convey informal legal guidance” — as the closing line right above Bangert’s own signature block.

Ryan Vasser, the final OAG lawyer to be called as a witness, nearly single-handedly broke the Central Texas drought with his own waterworks on the stand, and that was before he had to publicly explain the cringe group texts making fun of his co-workers that he and his fellow whistleblowing wunderkinds had shared between themselves. Recall these were lawyers in the process of staging a mass exit, reporting their boss to the FBI, and seeking whistleblower protections — and they didn’t have the good sense to consider that their text messages would be discoverable during any future litigation. 

Vasser was also the witness who acknowledged under cross-examination by Mitchell Little that they “took no evidence” when reporting the elected attorney general of Texas to the FBI whom he had “no reason not to” trust. He also acknowledged that for three years he and his fellow whistleblowers haven’t paid a single dime for representation from a high-powered Austin attorney who just happens to be linked to Paxton’s primary opponent, George P. Bush.

Iconic Texas Lawman Testifies

The final witness of the week was Texas Ranger David Maxwell, who served as Paxton’s deputy attorney general for criminal justice. There is a mythology around Texas Rangers, and his resume alone ensured his testimony would capture the attention of the senators of the impeachment jury. He initially came across as a folksy, Andy Griffith-type guy sent from central casting to play the role of a tough Texas lawman. His allegations were powerful and, for most of his time on the stand, appeared extremely credible.

In Maxwell’s telling, his concern began when Paxton advocated for the AG’s office to open an investigation into Nate Paul’s alleged mistreatment by the FBI and Texas DPS during a raid. Paul’s contention was that the feds did him dirty by illegally altering the search warrants after the fact to expand their scope just to get him. His technical experts theorized that there was altered metadata in the digital versions that proved the documents were changed.

Maxwell quickly developed the opinion “that Nate Paul was a criminal that we should not be associated with.” Accordingly, he dragged his feet and ultimately refused to open a formal investigation into the alleged FBI and DPS misconduct. Paxton, convinced of the idea the FBI was untrustworthy — not particularly far-fetched given what transpired with President Trump — eventually hired outside counsel to help explore and adjudicate Paul’s claims, an act that would eventually become the primary catalyst for the “whistleblower” complaints.

Maxwell now claims any investigation into alleged law enforcement misconduct on behalf of Nate Paul would have been committing several federal crimes, including obstruction of justice and interfering with a federal investigation. It should be noted that three years hence, neither the FBI nor the hostile-to-Republicans Travis County district attorney’s office sought charges for the investigation that was eventually opened at Paxton’s direction.

When pushed on the speculative nature of many of his claims and how he was failing to make clear delineations between what he knew versus what he suspected, Maxwell demurred and argued that all he did was “give an investigative committee a lead to go and investigate,” effectively shrugging off the lack of evidence to support his claims as someone else’s fault. This didn’t sit well with Paxton’s lawyer Dan Cogdell, who appeared to be building up to accuse Maxwell of leveraging his vast experience at being a savvy witness to deliberately obscure the fact that he wasn’t speaking with “personal knowledge” when all heck broke loose.

After Cogdell suggested he was playing games from the witness stand, Maxwell sheepishly smirked and said “maybe,” which elicited laughter in the Senate chamber. Cogdell wasn’t impressed and quickly and sternly accused him of playing a “game to throw people off” instead of “testifying to the truth.” Maxwell dramatically paused and stared Cogdell down and then became even more recalcitrant with the remainder of the cross.

Easily the most important moment in Maxwell’s testimony was when he stated, “I didn’t know if it was correct or incorrect. I passed it onto the House, that’s their job.” Admitting that his prior unsworn allegations to the House’s investigators were speculative and not based on personal knowledge was a shocking admission.

Too Many Indians Fashioned as Chiefs

From the offered testimony, it’s clear that in early 2020, discontent within the AG’s office was coming to a crescendo. Against the backdrop of Covid craziness and a boss who had earlier confessed to and sought forgiveness from his leadership team, with his wife by his side, that he had been unfaithful, the leadership team became increasingly suspicious of Ken Paxton. What resulted was a toxic stew of “worst possible assumption” sprinkled with an “I’m smarter than everyone else here” attitude that crippled that office.

The rift widened as senior staff began arrogating to themselves the authority of the elected attorney general when he was in another state with the fig leaf of Paxton being “absent” as justification, and Maxwell dragging his feet to thwart an investigation that Paxton wanted. Whether frustration with their boss begat suspicions around his integrity, or suspicions around his integrity begat their frustration is, at this point, unknowable to the outsider.

The First to Plead His Case Seems Right Until Another Comes and Examines Him

Maxwell’s admission highlighted how the House had largely just repeated suspicions and innuendo as fact in their impeachment articles and never did any sort of credible investigation that cross-examined the claims disgruntled people were making. During the brief House impeachment debate in May, Rep. Matt Schaefer rose to ask if “any member of the general investigations committee had cross-examined a witness?” Chairman Andrew Murr answered, “We hired long-skilled and qualified attorneys and investigators to do that work for us.” One wonders if he now regrets the decision to take that shortcut.

With all four witnesses, the defense did an effective job shaping their counter-narrative that self-righteous and self-appointed defenders of the bureaucratic imperative had zealously judged Paxton’s conduct through a glass darkly, reinforced each other with a toxic cynicism, and lost all perspective during their own makeshift in-house star chamber rush to judgment. The Texas House did no better in their so-called investigation before they rushed through hastily assembled articles of impeachment.

The degree to which the defense was able to offer clear and concise explanations only serves to underscore how derelict the House investigators were and how much this entire affair has been a sham from the start. House members involved in pushing this should be embarrassed to have foisted this upon Texas. It’s a shameful abuse of the machinery of the state, a complete corruption of the important process of holding elected officials accountable, and a stain on each elected official involved.