Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Getting to the Bottom of Matt Gaetz’s Nomination and Withdrawal


It appears that this is as close as we’ll get to the real Matt Gaetz story: his acquaintance, the former tax collector Joel Greenberg, was caught abusing his office to make fake IDs and concealed weapons permits, which led to the discovery of numerous crimes committed by Greenberg in office, financed with money he embezzled and revolving around prostitution and, apparently, trafficking minors to public figures.  Greenberg told Barr’s DOJ he could implicate Gaetz in exchange for leniency, and the present investigation into Gaetz was opened.

Gaetz’s father Don was then approached by “former” DOJ attorneys and told they could make his problems go away if he gave $25 million to fund the rescue of American hostage Bob Levinson from Iran.  Bob Kent would lead the rescue mission, and the payment would appear to be for a service, rather than a bribe to prosecutors.

Seven months ago, I clipped together some videos with Gaetz and Scott Adams that go back in time through these allegations, including the infamous Tucker interview, which can be watched here.  Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska was targeted with the same scheme, down to the dollar, according to Gaetz, and he wasn’t the first.  Newsweek suggests that the Levinson ransoms had become a running joke at the FBI.

The first thing to ask is what evidence Greenberg had implicating Gaetz.  He gave the DOJ thousands of photos and videos and years of transaction records, after which Gaetz’s records were subpoenaed and witnesses brought before Congress, and we’re told the records and testimony show that Gaetz slept with a 17-year-old.

Enough of that evidence is now public to see that the case is another media ruse.  The drift of it is that there’s a history of Gaetz sending money to women he had relationships with, some or all of the time through Greenberg, some or all of whom were introduced to him by Greenberg.  Gaetz transferred funds to two of them using Venmo when he was single, and one said she saw him with a minor.

Venmo transaction records with the two adult women are shown, and the low-attention-span reader is led to believe that this shows Gaetz paying (and sleeping with) the minor, since one of them talked about a minor.

They say they were hooking, Gaetz says they were his girlfriends, and there’s nothing in the memos to indicate who’s telling the truth (nor would Greenberg’s pictures and videos).  Gaetz’s money being sent to the same women repeatedly over time suggests a long-term relationship, but the women say they were prostitutes.

Apparently there were four more women interviewed, and one of them claims she and Gaetz had relations when she was a minor.  But she “reportedly“ represented herself as an adult to Greenberg (on a website), who then introduced her to Gaetz.

The woman on the Venmo records who claimed she saw Gaetz with a minor also said he didn’t know it and that when he found out, he stopped until she turned 18.  What I’d like to know, if it isn’t all completely made up, is whether she’s the same girl Greenberg made a government-quality fake ID for.  He told the court he made one for a 17-year-old Gaetz slept with.  Did they use it to fool Gaetz into sleeping with a minor?  Because that’s how it sounds.

Greenberg fabricated state IDs for numerous “young women,” but we’re not told how young or for what purpose.  Why did he hold thousands of self-incriminating records for years after?  Was he running an entrapment operation?

Lt. Col. (retired) Tony Shaffer says this is a common practice:

Something we’ve known ... here in Washington, is that there are overlapping interests which will use criminal networks such as pedophiles for political purposes.  I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term “brownstoning.”  Brownstoning is where you have the traditional honeypot, you may have a Congressman enticed to sleep with a female ... what they do then is to try and get you in bed with an underage girl, telling you she’s only 20.  And then they videotape that, then you are theirs.

So this brownstoning thing has become something we need to examine as a methodology that’s been used, I believe effectively, to subvert political figures here in town.

Looking closer at the $25-million extortion, we can see more or less what they tried to do.  They set Matt up, apparently failed to acquire kompromat, and then (I think) made up stories of what would have happened if it had worked based on their experience with other public figures.

It’s possible that Matt fell for it, and they want to put him in line without expending the actual blackmail.  If that’s the case, then they managed to keep him out of the A.G. office without expending it.  But the trajectory so far is remarkably similar to the Bragg-Merchan case against Trump, which was alsospearheaded by the DOJ indicting a third party (Michael Cohen).

Either way, the investigation would have ruined Gaetz’s life just by airing the allegations publicly, and they sent lawyers to solicit a bribe to make it go away.  Had the Gaetzes “made it go away,” there’d be no guarantee the charges wouldn’t resurface later, if Matt got out of line, and that appears to be the point.  Greenberg would get a reduced sentence, and the Deep State would be able to leverage Matt any time they wanted, because then he’d be guilty of bribery on top of the underlying charges with the 17-year-old, and paying the bribe would evidence his guilt on those charges.

So it was never about the money; it was about controlling Congress, and the $25 million was a down payment, after which Matt Gaetz would pay them with his votes.

Don Gaetz contacted local FBI and wore a wire to his next meeting with the former DOJ lawyers, two of whom were later convicted for the extortion.  But he was apprehensive, thinking Matt could get in trouble for what would be a bribe were it not an FBI sting operation, and he got it in writing that he was transferring the money for the FBI.

The FBI or DOJ leaked the investigation (what the ex-DOJ lawyers were offering to cover up) to the New York Times almost immediately after he put it in writing, protecting the lawyers from the more serious charges that would have been pressed if the money changed hands.  If Don hadn’t put it in writing, would the investigation still have leaked?  Or, as Mel Witte suspects, was the FBI’s counter-sting a busted setup?

The DOJ eventually dropped its charges on Matt, but Congress under Kevin McCarthy revived them, and that’s where we are.  It’s the word of a congressman versus the word of prostitutes, they’re propped up by Gaetz’s known enemies in Congress, and it’s as clear as day that those congressmen are corrupt.

Congress was not to release its Gaetz report until he resigned from Congress, which may have been a move to prevent that.  This is a good exploration of the scenarios.  They left the door open to releasing it anyway if Gaetz weren’t confirmed as AG, before he withdrew.  His announced plans not to rejoin Congress are not binding.



X22, And we Know, and more- Nov 26

 




Trump’s Best (And Maybe Only) Chance At Success Lies In The Senate


Opinions are like Democrats: everyone has one. OK, not Democrats, but you know what I mean – those words are interchangeable, and full of the same thing. As are those people out there insisting they know who Donald Trump should go to bat for and who he should abandon as far as his Cabinet goes in his second term. In the simplest terms possible, just let Trump be Trump. 

Victory, they say, has a million fathers, while failure is an orphan. This is truer nowhere more than in politics. In radio, I’ve met more people who’ve claimed to be responsible for either “discovering” or “mentoring” (by which they mean creating) everyone from Colin Cowherd to Glenn Beck, and everyone in between. I have no idea if they even know the people they claim to have been influential in the lives of, but I do know I don’t care. Glory, as with guilt, is not inheritable. 

There’s a difference between being around something that happens and making something happen. Very few people actually make things happen, but many claim as much credit as possible when no one who knows the truth is around. It’s kind of gross, actually.

It’s worse in politics. Everyone is responsible for either the win or causing the loss, depending on who they’re talking to and about what. 

Everyone in Washington has some connection to “Trump’s inner circle.” That claim and $5 will get you a cup of coffee. And everyone offered advice, or at least claims to have, at some point during the campaign. Hell, even I’ve done it – having sent notes and columns to my contacts in there. Did anything make it through? I have no idea, nor real concern, because we won. That’s all that matters, or at least all I care about.

Once that victory was secured, the advice as to how to populate a second administration began in earnest. 

It’s tough to blame people, many of whom want as much of what Trump promised on the campaign trail to be implemented as quickly as possible (as do I). However, Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s advice, and it’s pretty clear he’s not really soliciting it – unless you’re Elon Musk, which you are probably not (but if you are, get in touch, I’d love an interview for the podcast).

Short of being Elon, screaming about this nomination or that one, either positive or negative, doesn’t really matter. Yes, some sycophants went a little overboard in supporting some nominees, one of which has withdrawn, but whatever. Better too much excitement than not enough. 

That having been said, the agenda is what matters, so the focus should be on the Senate.

On the issues that need legislation, and there are a lot of them, and not executive orders (there are a lot of them, too, and those will need creative legal thinkers to overcome the lawsuits leftists have already drafted to prevent deportations and protect criminal illegal aliens), the biggest hurdle the Trump administration will face is the Senate. That may sound weird, considering Republicans control it, but quite a few Senate Republicans are about as interested in anything that doesn’t directly benefit their electoral chances as Tim Walz is in acting like a normal human being.

While pundits fill the airwaves with countless pieces of advice over what Trump should do next, anyone who wants that next thing actually done needs to call the Senate. 

Republicans will get one, maybe two bites at the apple to get things done legislatively, but only through reconciliation. There’s no point in explaining what this is here, just know that it must be related to the budget and, thanks to “the Byrd Rule,” it cannot dramatically change non-fiscal policy. It can change policy through funding it, or cutting its funding, but it can’t create new policy. They can try, but the Senate Parliamentarian gets to rule on whether or not a provision in a reconciliation bill crosses that line, and that ruling is binding on the Senate. 

That’s the Byrd Rule, which was created to prevent the bypassing of a filibuster. There’s more, of course, Google it if you want to know. 

That means the fiscal priorities on the spending front can get through with only 50 votes plus VP JD Vance. Sounds simple, and it is…as a concept. As far as execution goes, it will be difficult. 

It’s time to find out just how connected those people claiming to have helped made a difference in the election really are. There can be one reconciliation bill per year (maybe two, thanks to what Chuck Schumer did as Senate Majority Leader), which is not a lot. 

Outside of the courts, reconciliation is where the fights that matter will be. While the Cabinet officials will be critical in cutting the size of departments and enforcing laws already on the books, the best shot Donald Trump will have at having the biggest impact will depend on the Senate. We need to find out how many of those million fathers truly love their kids and how many were only in it for the baby-making process. 




No Wake for the Woke


Democrats will learn nothing from their electoral drubbing.  If they were capable of self-reflection and intellectual growth, they would not need “safe spaces” or social media platforms dedicated to mass censorship.  When you are so afraid of dissent that you feel psychologically compelled to label all contrary opinions as “hate speech,” you are not a fully functioning adult willing to process new information and adapt accordingly.  You are a toddler whose reflexive instinct is to cry, scream, and call everyone a “poopy head” when you don’t get your way.

We have seen the “poopy head” routine play out on cable television for weeks.  Democrat operatives tell their dwindling viewing audience that they lost the election because of “disinformation,” racism, and misogyny.  Americans are just too “stupid” and “deplorable” to be trusted with the vote.  The country is a MAGA junkyard filled with “garbage” human beings.  

The hyperventilating harpies of The View insist that Kamala Harris ran a “perfect campaign.”  If anyone is to blame for her loss, the formaldehyde femmes explain, it is the news media.  “Journalists” should have used all their airtime reminding Americans that President Trump is “literally Hitler.”  You see, America, Democrats didn’t lose because they’re stark raving mad!  They lost because of bad “messaging”! 

What’s the answer for their woe?  Isn’t it obvious?  The Democrat party must simply double down on its “winning” policy agenda!  America’s borders must be made even less secure so that narco-terrorists, sex-slavers, and foreign soldiers can operate more freely across the continent.  Congress must waste trillions more on impractical “green energy” schemes and limit the domestic production of oil and natural gas.  We must have more inflation, crime, and illegal immigration until Americans are willing to admit that they’ve never had it so good!  

Now is the time for the government to embrace “transgenderism” as a state religion.  We must punish faithful Americans who believe in biological reality.  We must promote more military men in high heels and skirts.  We must have more drag shows for elementary school kids.  We must have more child-grooming, adolescent genital mutilation, and prepubescent sterilization.  We must have more men beating up women in sports.  We must have more pronouns.  We must be less judgmental of pedophiles and more willing to put children in harm’s way.  We must be more accepting of dangerous delusions.  Inclusivity demands it!

Americans must redefine censorship as free speech.  We must ban all commentary Democrats don’t like as “harmful disinformation.”  We must demand more “woke” indoctrination.  We must hire more Democrat prosecutors, IRS agents, and FBI storm troopers willing to imprison Americans for their unapproved beliefs.  The First Amendment must be reinterpreted as protecting only State-sanctioned speech.  Until Americans are intimidated into silence, we can never truly be free!

Now that’s a winning political platform!  Who wouldn’t want to be part of the “progressive” movement for higher costs, less liberty, and abject dependency on the State?  It’s as Hillary Clinton asked back in 2016: with this kind of policy agenda, how could any Democrat not be fifty points ahead?

We know how.  Democrat delusions don’t match Americans’ everyday reality.  Americans do not need a medical degree to understand that men are biologically different from women.  They do not need an MBA to appreciate that everything costs more today than when Biden and Harris first came to office.  They do not need a law degree to recognize that Democrat prosecutors, a corrupt Department of Justice, and partisan judges are persecuting half of America for their personal beliefs.  They do not need a journalism degree to recognize that corporate news “reporters” have become nothing but propagandists for the State.  They do not need the Department of Homeland Security to release accurate border records or for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to release accurate crime statistics.  Americans can see with their own two eyes that mass illegal immigration and rising violent crime have made their hometowns unsafe.

Democrats can’t win elections honestly unless their delusions are accepted as false truths.  When the American people think for themselves, Democrats lose at the ballot box.  And no matter how persistently Democrats broadcast their delusions over the airwaves these last four years, a healthy majority of voters recognized them as lies.

I come from an area that conservatives throughout the West would recognize.  As children, we were punished for calling people names, but we were also regularly reminded, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me.”  In this way, we were taught to be respectful of others but also to ignore meaningless insults.  We were taught to stand up for ourselves.  We were taught not to run away from necessary fights.  We were taught to solve our own problems and to look out for our family and friends.  We were taught not to follow the crowd and always to think for ourselves.  We were taught to be humble and caring but also fierce and brave.  Although “woke” politicians would pretend otherwise, this kind of culture grows like verdant vines across the American and European landscape.

Why is that so?  Because it’s the kind of cultural incubator that produces strong, psychologically healthy, determined, and self-sufficient individuals.  Conservative communities create resilient citizens capable of solving problems.  When children are taught that hardship is a part of life, they develop into adults who face adversity head-on.  Young people who are encouraged to care for themselves do not wait for government agents to come to their rescue.  A community that promotes faithful service to God teaches citizens that they should be more than obedient servants of government.  In other words, conservative communities produce survivors.  And survivors tend to outlast people who are “triggered” by words and mistake dissent for “violence.”

How have Democrats handled President Trump’s resounding election victory since November 5?  The U.S. State Department decided to fund “therapy and listening sessions” for heartbroken employees (so much for the notion that our spies and diplomats are made of sterner stuff).  Stephen Colbert and other overpaid late-night “comedians” have turned their shows into group counseling services for damaged Democrats unable to accept Kamala Harris’s loss.  Meathead Rob Reiner, who confidently predicted Kamala’s victory on Election Day, is so distraught that he has checked himself into a mental health facility.  News organizations are so distressed over their loss of influence that overrated “journalists” take turns screaming at the public for having rejected their pro-Harris talking points.  Joy Reid and other mentally unstable hosts on MSNBC are warning Democrats to cut off communications with their Trump-supporting relatives.  Breitbart has put together a growing list of post-election incidents that include Democrat teachers terrorizing students, Democrat doctors threatening patients, Democrat psychiatrists conspiring to harm Trump voters, Democrats working to bankrupt Trump-supporting businesses, Democrats divorcing their Trump-voting spouses, Democrats threatening or committing acts of violence against MAGA Americans, and several Democrats who actually carried out heinous acts of murder in response to President Trump’s victory.  

All of this unhinged behavior is utterly unacceptable in a tenuously sane world.  Yet all of this madness is entirely predictable in a world saturated with Democrat delusions.

Democrats are a danger to themselves and others.  On the other hand, one musical genius did manage to transform Democrats’ election breakdowns into a heavy metal work of art.

This much is certain: people this psychologically unstable are not survivors.  They cannot endure conflict.  Hell, they can’t even endure intellectual debate.  They need censorship and “safe spaces” to avoid melting into an emotional puddle.  Democrats will not control the future because they can barely control themselves.  Their ideas are dying and not worth remembering.  There will be no wake for the “woke.”  We’ve already said our goodbyes.  Good riddance.



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


WATCH: Taylor Sheridan's New Show 'Landman' Tackles Wind Turbines, and It Will Have You Fist-Pumping


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

In a sea of redundant, woke garbage, Taylor Sheridan continues to produce shows with a refreshingly honest and fresh direction. From "Yellowstone" to "Tulsa King," he's not afraid to break the traditional mores dictated by Hollywood, and it's paid dividends with viewership.

His latest endeavor, "Landman," centers on the oil industry and contrasts the lives of Texas-based tycoons and workers, and one clip is already going viral. Billy Bob Thorton, who plays "Tommy Norris" in the show, lays out the reality of wind turbines and the human need for fossil fuels in a way that will have you fist-pumping. 

TOMMY NORRIS: Do you have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete? Or make that steel and haul this **** out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane? Do you want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that ******* thing? Or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan, it won't offset the carbon footprint of making it. And don't get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Telsa battery. 

There's more, but the first question people are going to ask, especially those inclined to support "renewables" in their current form, is whether the above statement is true. The answer is yes. The wind industry readily admits that turbines are not carbon neutral. They last about 20 years, and the pieces are very difficult to recycle. While they produce less carbon emissions than some other forms of energy, they are also far less efficient. 


Nuclear power remains king if carbon emissions are a concern and is much more reliable. The environmental footprint, specifically dealing with land usage, is also much smaller. Of course, carbon emissions and efficiency aren't the only issues with wind power. Petroleum is used for far more than energy production, which is where the clip goes next.

TOMMY NORRIS: And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don't have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It'd take 30 years if we started tomorrow. And unfortunately for your grandkids, we have a 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure. Our lives depend on it. And hell, it's in everything. That road we came in on. The wheels on every car, including yours. It's in tennis rackets and lipstick, refrigerators and antihistamines, pretty much anything plastic, your cellphone case, artificial heart valves, any kind of clothing that's not made with animal or plant fibers, soap, ******* hand lotion, garbage bags, fishing boats, you name it. Every ******* thing, and you want to know what the kicker is? We're gonna run out of it before we find its replacement. 

The amount of petroleum-based products is mind-boggling, and I'd venture a guess that most people have no idea how much we rely on it. Any suggestions that humans stop pumping (or fracking) oil is a pipe dream. People are not going back to the pre-industrial age, and that means those products will either need to be fully replaced with better alternatives, or they are here to stay. There is no other option. 

I will mention that some people have questioned that last sentence which states "We're gonna run out of it before we find its replacement." Is that true? In a macro sense, sure. Humans will eventually reach a point where they can't get to what is left of the Earth's fossil fuels. With that said, past hysteria surrounding the specific timeline has proven to be false and will likely continue to be proven to be false as more reserves are discovered and newer extraction techniques are developed. 

Regardless, "Tommy Norris" is specifically referring to oil used in the litany of life-saving products that humanity depends on. Will we find replacements for those? That's a different story than talking about increasing nuclear power production.

AINSLEY NORRIS: It's the thing that's gonna kill us all, as a species. 

TOMMY NORRIS: No, the thing that's gonna kill us all is running out before we find an alternative, and believe me, if Exxon thought them ******* things right there were the future, they'd be putting them all over the ******* place. Getting oil out of the ground is the most dangerous job in the world. We don't do it because we like it. We do it because we've run out of options. 

For my money, this is the most important part of the clip. No one has more of an incentive to pursue and dominate the market for "renewables" than the oil companies. They also happen to have the most capital to do so. 

If the oil companies thought wind turbines or solar panels were a viable alternative to fossil fuels, they'd be first in line to seize the market because, in the end, it's all about sustainability in making money for them. That they aren't is the biggest tell. Yes, Chevron and Exxon dabble in the sector, mostly for public relations reasons, but it's clear they aren't believers. 

I don't think anyone should be against alternatives to fossil fuels. Innovation is a good thing, but the currently forced regime has already led to disaster in some European countries, which then had to scramble for more oil and natural gas. No one knows what the future holds, but you can't fight reality, whatever it may be.



Trump Has Lost His Popular-Vote Majority

 Trump Has Lost His Popular-Vote Majority





On Election Night, with characteristic modesty, Donald Trump claimed an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” He certainly won the contest legitimately, if more narrowly than many observers initially thought. His popular-vote margin over Kamala Harris has dropped from around 3 percent on the evening of November 5 (or about two-thirds of Joe Biden’s margin in 2020) to 1.58 percent today. That’s about a half-percent smaller than Hillary Clinton’s national popular-vote margin over Trump in 2016. To make some other comparisons: Barack Obama won the popular vote by 3.9 percent in 2012 and 7.2 percent in 2008, and George W. Bush won the popular vote by 2.4 percent in the very close 2004 election.

Unlike Obama and Bush, moreover, Trump did not win a majority of the national popular vote. Though it looked like he was over 50 percent on Election Night, the steady drip of late ballots has eroded his percentage to (currently) 49.87 percent, with further slippage very likely before all the votes are in.

,

Trump’s win in the Electoral College was more impressive, though his 316 electoral votes were less than Obama’s in either of his elections and just above Biden’s in 2020. In Pennsylvania, the “tipping point” state that clinched a second term for Trump, his margin over Harris was 1.8 percent, not exactly a landslide.

,

So by any measure, the claim of an “unprecedented” mandate simply isn’t true. Trump won a very close election and will govern a country where a near majority of people have voted against him three times. Yes, his party won control of Congress as well. But in the House, the margin of Republican control (with three contests still undecided) is so small that Trump’s appointment of three representatives to Cabinet positions could make any controversial votes extremely difficult for House Speaker Mike Johnson until special elections are held, and very difficult even then.

Given that perilous hold on power, Trump might want to reconsider his current strategy of ruling Washington like a devastated and occupied enemy city with a Cabinet largely composed of men and women who appear to hate the departments and agencies they are supposed to oversee, plus a governing plan that may rely on testing the tolerance of the federal judiciary for totally unparalleled assertions of supreme presidential powers. And Trump’s MAGA base should also cool its jets a bit. There’s certainly a degree of triumphalism in the air that really isn’t justified by the election returns. Consider this take from RealClearPolitics columnist Frank Miele, who suggests Trump follow the U.S. Civil War model for subduing enemies:

,

This time around, Trump knows he only has four years to fulfill his plans. So he’s moving with lightning speed to do exactly what Abraham Lincoln accomplished in his four years in the White House: unite the country by demonstrating strength, wisdom, and patriotism.

,

Lincoln’s Confederate enemies, to be clear, seceded from the Union and launched a violent attack on U.S. military facilities that led to a conflict that killed over 2 percent of the nation’s population, followed by the military occupation of rebel areas. If Trump and his supporters believe that’s the kind of mandate the 47th president has somehow been given by a minority of Americans, we are all in a lot of trouble.

,

Axios Founder Melts Like Wicked Witch of the West Over Elon's Five-Word Description of the Media


Teri Christoph reporting for RedState 

RedState regrets to report that Axios founder Jim VandeHei has been reduced to a whimpering puddle of woe following Elon Musk's rather astute observation of the state of today's media.

It all started with a five-word tweet from Musk:


Everyone but the Jim VandeHeis of the world knew what Musk was saying: more truth and information can be found in one citizen journalist's iPhone video than in much of the "reporting" done by well-funded outlets like Axios. Distrust in the media is at an all-time high because they have debased themselves for decades while in service to the Democrat Party.

Musk's comments about us all being "the media now" clearly caused much garment-rending and teeth-gnashing by the media, as evidenced by VandeHei's comments while accepting a lifetime achievement last week at the National Press Club. He was irked.

“Social media people lying every day, every hour, every minute about the news, what you do matters. What the New York Times does matters. What the Wall Street Journal does matters." 

They are incensed that 𝕏 exposes their lies — one reason their industry is in total collapse.

Here's the transcript of VandeHei's remarks:

Everything we do is under fire. Elon Musk sits on Twitter everyday — or X today — saying, "We are the media! You are the media!" My message to Elon Musk is: "Bullsh!t! You're not the media!" 

You having a blue checkmark, a Twitter handle and three-hundred words of cleverness doesn't make you a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter. You don't do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work. 

The video fades to the applauding of MSNBC "journos" like Joe Scarborough and Al Sharpton, who see their careers circling the toilet bowl because the likes of Elon Musk have disrupted the entire media landscape. The funny thing is, they still still don't seem to know that everything has shifted and they have been left behind. It's a self-inflicted wound.

The disdain for Musk having the nerve to come into Jim VandeHei's sandbox drips from his every word in the above video. Note also the red, sweating —he seems like a pretty angry dude for someone who's just received an award. But, it's not anger that's fueling the rant, it's fear.

As RedState's Nick Arama recently reported, leftist media has good reason to be afraid:

Then, in the past couple of weeks came the news that MSNBC took a dive in ratings after the election and that Comcast was going to spin it and other networks off into a separate entity called "SpinCo." That, in turn, raised speculation about the sale and laying off people at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow did reportedly get her salary cut by $5 million. Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went to speak to President-elect Donald Trump, and that seems to have led to many in their radical leftist audience turning on them and leaving. That's funny because they got gored on the horn of their own propaganda to their audience. They sold Trump as akin to "Hitler," and now their audience isn't forgiving them for their actions. 

Musk has teased he might buy MSNBC, an idea sure to make Jim VendeHei's frothing at the mouth that much worse.

It bears noting, with all due respect to Elon Musk, that the true pioneer of citizen journalism was the late Andrew Breitbart. He was a relentless seeker of the truth who encouraged grassroots activists to follow in his footsteps by wielding a cellphone and asking questions. You'll find many Breitbart acolytes right here on the pages of RedState, so it's a concept that not only worked, but is thriving. 

When you throw in an ardent free-speech advocate like Elon Musk taking over the global town square of Twitter, well, that's an existential threat to Jim VandeHei and Axios. Which begs the question: how does Axios stay in business?

Here's a sampling of Axios' newsletter sponsors from the last few weeks:

  • Instagram
  • Walmart
  • PHRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)
  • Bank of America

What kind of return on investment these corporations are receiving for partnering with Axios is unclear, but the panicking words of Jim VandeHei make you wonder if they're reconsidering their options in the changing media world. Time will tell. 

We now go to live coverage of Jim VandeHei's meltdown:


The House January 6 Committee Report Continues to Burn to the Ground As New Evidence Surfaces


Democrats long ago became convinced that the January 6, 2021, Capitol "insurrection," coupled with desperate attempts to convince a majority of Americans that President-elect Donald Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, or at least a "fascist," and that Trump loyalists are white-supremacist "Nazis," would virtually guarantee Democrat succession of Democrat of President Joe Biden. 

Boy, oh boy, how wrong and misguided they were.

The House January 6 Committee Report

As described by George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley:

Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.

[...]

With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate. Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of informationfrom the House January 6 Committee.

And that's exactly what's happening; the credibility of both the committee's "investigation" and final report continue to lose credibility.

Incidentally, even a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found that almost half of the public — 43 percent — believed that “too much is being made” of the episode and that it is “time to move on.” Turley explained why he believes the percentage of Americans "ready to move on" from January 6 continues to grow.

The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.

The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. 

The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”

The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Simply, House Democrats, along with disgruntled (now former) Republican Reps. Liz Cheney (WY) and Adam Kinzinger (IL), predetermined the conclusions that their kangaroo court would come to, and they set about constructing "evidence" and interviewing "witnesses" to support their conclusions.

The Lack of Security Measures

Along with most objective observers with even a modicum of knowledge of the facts as they occurred on January 6, Turley was also puzzled.

After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.

Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.

One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. 

The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”

Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.

Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.

Moreover, the House is under scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting death of Trump protester Ashli Babbitt by a Capitol Police officer.  

As Turley correctly wrote, "an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the left-wing media narrative."

The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department’s bizarre review and report, which notably did not state thatthe shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

Legal gobbledygook from the Justice Department. 

The Bottom Line

It's long past time for the January 6 committee nonsense to be dead and buried. It was from the beginning — most notably, the Democrats' attempt to convince America that it was a bona fide insurrection — a farce, dog and pony show, kangaroo court, or whatever. This country is about to finally discard all remnants of the miserable for years under the Biden-Harris administration and start making itself great again.