Twitter CEO Elon Musk has reinstated former President Donald Trump’s access to his infamous Twitter account which was notoriously blocked following the Jan. 6th Capitol riot.
While the former President has yet to make his re-entrance to the Twitter sphere, instead opting for his own TRUTH Social platform, the idea is enough to make liberals’ blood boil over.
Watch Amanda break down the situation below.
ANALYSIS – Donald Trump has been wrongly persecuted since he was elected president in 2016. From the 4-year long Hillary Clinton-manufactured ‘Russia collusion’ hoax, to corrupt investigations, to ‘deep state ‘resistance’ within his administration, to a partisan impeachment — no president has been so unfairly hounded in U.S. history.
And now, we have the multiple indictments against him, including the ones for poor bookkeeping in the Stormy Daniels nonsense, and the “I can’t remember exactly when it happened, but Trump raped me 30 years ago” case of E. Jean Carrol.
We have seen a lot of proverbial ‘stuff’ thrown at this Republican leader. Most of it stinks of political persecution. Few of it has stuck. And I have defended him through much of it.
But the latest federal criminal indictments are different. Yes, they are, of course, politicized.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) under the thumb of a president from the other party, and an opponent in the next election, accusing an ex-president of federal crimes, can’t be anything but political.
And that will hold a lot of sway, especially with Republican voters.
Still, these latest indictments are far more serious and dangerous for Trump.
I have previously argued that Trump brought the Mar-a-Lago classified documents charges onto himself.
In part he did this by not turning over the sensitive materials when requested, by bragging about having them, by claiming he declassified them, and by jerking federal investigators around for 18 months.
Trump basically dared them to come after him. And they obliged. First by raiding his Mar-a-Lago home. Then, by indicting him.
Neither Joe Biden, nor Mike Pence did these things when they were found to have classified materials in their possession. They just turned them over.
Note – Trump was not charged for any materials he did return earlier in the process. He could have avoided the entire legal ordeal had he just returned all the classified documents, instead of hiding them in bathrooms.
Those charges carry real jail time; if they stick, and a Florida jury convicts him. Those are two big ‘ifs.’
But Donald Trump now faces new criminal charges for the fourth time in five months, arising from efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
In total, Trump faces 78 criminal counts. Any one of them can land the ex-president in federal prison.
The federal crimes with which Justice Department prosecutors have now charged the former president involve three conspiracies; conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct certification of the Electoral College vote and Conspiracy Against Rights.
Trump was also charged with obstruction. All can carry prison time if convicted.
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States makes it a crime for two or more people to “conspire either to commit any offence against the United States or to defraud the United States” or any federal agency and for one of them to perform some action that would affect the object of the conspiracy, which carries a fine or maximum prison sentence of five years if convicted.
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding criminalizes “obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding” or attempting to do so, which is punishable by a fine or up to 20 years in prison.
Obstruction charges relate to Trump’s alleged attempts to block Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote. The January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building postponed the vote count.
According to the New York Times, he isn’t the only charged in these conspiracies:
The indictment identified six individuals as co-conspirators in Trump’s effort to overturn the election, but none of those people were charged Tuesday. Though the alleged co-conspirators were not named, the descriptions correspond to a cabal of Trump lawyers who embraced increasingly fringe strategies as Trump’s bid to remain in power faltered. They include Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell.
Trump is scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday afternoon for an initial court appearance before a magistrate judge.
He is expected to plead not guilty.
However, unlike the classified materials case in Florida, where a Trump appointed judge is in charge, this time Trump’s case has been initially ‘randomly’ assigned to U.S. District Court Tanya Chutkan, an Obama-appointed judge who has been among the harshest critics of Jan. 6 defendants.
She appears anything but fair-minded.
As I said, political, or not – these indictments could be very serious.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Viewers are leaving Fox News in droves…
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – From the beginning, conspiracies surrounded the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021. Stunned conservatives couldn’t believe Republicans caused that mayhem. Some called it a deliberate false flag operation by the feds to entrap innocent Trump supporters and launch a massive witch hunt.
Both last two things did occur.
Meanwhile, the Democrats and media called the afternoon event an attempted coup and later more steadily ‘the insurrection.’
It was neither. But it also wasn’t a well-orchestrated false flag operation. The truth is just as bad but less planned.
I was at the Capitol on Jan 6 as a security contractor for a foreign TV news crew, and I condemned the violence the next day. I wrote that the, at times, violent riot wasn’t a coup, or an insurrection but the violence was criminal behavior, and should be punished.
I also noted that the rioters all appeared to be passionate Trump supporters, and not likely a false flag operation by the feds, or ANTIFA infiltrators.
Since then, I have defended many of the peaceful protesters unfairly caught up in the FBI dragnet and harshly charged for minor nonviolent crimes.
I have also written about the large number of undercover police and federal agents and their informants since identified at the Capitol that day. And I have noted how the Democrats in charge of the House and Senate that day refused National Guard support, as did the Democrat mayor of DC.
At least until it was too late.
Now, former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund has added his insight into the events. And he claims that it seems as if they wanted something to happen.
Sund resigned from his post shortly after the riots. He had been chief of the Capitol Police since 2019 and had served as a police officer for more than 30 years in total.
Newsmax reported on his untelevised interview with Tucker Carlson taped before Carlson was fired from Fox News:
“Everything appears to be a cover-up,” Sund told Carlson. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist … but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it’s all watered down. I’m not getting intelligence, I’m denied any support from National Guard in advance. I’m denied National Guard while we’re under attack, for 71 minutes …”
… “Could there possibly be actually … they kind of wanted something to happen? It’s not a far stretch to begin to think that. It’s sad when you start putting everything together and thinking about the way this played out … what was their end goal?”
Sund told Carlson he believes that Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had intelligence of what was coming on Jan. 6 but failed to communicate it and subsequently covered it up.
“If I was allowed to do my job as the chief we wouldn’t be here; this didn’t have to happen,” he said.
Carlson also said on Russel Brand’s podcast that Sund told him: ‘Oh yeah, that crowd was filled with federal agents.’
This all fits neatly with much of what I have noted previously. But while I blamed Democrat leaders for holding back needed support to defend the Capitol for other political reasons, Sund seems to believe they held it back because they started hoping for a big chaotic show they could then turn into a political circus.
And the chaos ensued, and so did their circus.
Sadly, Donald Trump and some of his supporters fell for the trap.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Affirmative Action at top universities as unconstitutional, the same race-based policies used to achieve ‘diversity’ elsewhere are being scrutinized nationwide, including at the Pentagon.
And now we learn that Joe Biden’s pick to replace Army General Mark Milley as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, himself had racist hiring practices.
That could make him ineligible to be the nation’s top military officer.
Air Force General Charles Q. (CQ) Brown, a man of color, is accused of making “discriminatory comments and potential unlawful impact on military personnel,” according to the American Accountability Foundation (AFF).
The AFF was set up in early 2021 to expose the leftist backgrounds of Biden’s top nominees.
Multiple sources have reported that Brown made statements while chief of staff for the Air Force and during his previous tour as Pacific Air Forces commander suggesting that he hired personnel and promoted them based on race, rather than merit, to force diversity in the Air Force.
“Race-based hiring has no place in the military. Our men and women in uniform deserve to be led on missions by the most qualified and skilled officers and leaders our nation has, who will give them the best chance of success and getting home safely,” said the AFF in a statement.
Considering the accusations against Brown, the AAF filed a complaint with the Air Force Inspector General and requested an official investigation into Brown’s allegedly discriminatory comments and practices.
As the Daily Caller (DC) reported:
While serving as the Air Force’s chief of staff and before that as Pacific Air Forces commander, Brown made statements suggesting he selects individuals for certain roles and promotions based on their race to build purposefully diverse organizations, multiple sources show. Brown could be violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) argues, making him ineligible to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The DC added:
If Brown has acted upon his “publicly stated beliefs on what should be official hiring policy of the U.S. Air Force [race-based hiring], it would present a significant likelihood of violating the civil and constitutional rights of military personnel” as well as Department of Defense (DOD) codes of conduct, AAF said.
And records appear to show that Brown did exactly that. Brown’s diversity policies appear to have prioritized bringing on non-white officers and recruits. The Air Force Times reported that 2022, Brown changed the Air Force’s demographic goals for officers to 67% of them being white, down from 80% in 2014.
But things have only gotten worse under Brown. According to a February 2023 Air Force newsletter, the Air Force also recently pledged to track officer promotions based on “race, ethnicity and gender.”
So now the discrimination Brown has implemented isn’t only against white men, its against straight white men as well.
I agree with AFF’s concerns, if these allegations are confirmed they should make ‘CQ Brown ineligible to serve as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And the United States Senate should not confirm him to that lofty role.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A former IRS consultant who stole the tax returns of President Donald Trump and thousands of wealthy individuals, then leaked them to liberal media outlets to campaign for tax hikes, has pleaded guilty to a single count of “unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information,” despite confessing in court to committing the crime thousands of times.
The decision to charge Charles Littlejohn with a single minor crime, while seeking decades in prison for Trump and many of his supporters, has many claiming it is yet another example of a politicized Justice Department.
Littlejohn faces a maximum of five years in prison, but will almost certainly serve far less than that, if any, time.
Littlejohn used his access to confidential information to steal the tax returns of Trump and wealthy individuals, often saving the electronic files to personal devices like an iPad, then leaking the documents to the New York Times and the liberal activist outlet ProPublica.
The illegal leaks set off a feeding frenzy in the media, who used the illicit disclosures to attack Trump and falsely campaign for tax hikes.
The DOJ’s decision to give Littlejohn a sweetheart plea deal, while targeting Trump supporters with harsh charges, has some in Congress calling out what they see as a biased and two-tier justice system.
“The defendant admitted to making two separate disclosures to two separate news outlets impacting over a thousand taxpayers, and further admitted to impeding or obstructing the investigation — yet the Department of Justice inexplicably only pursued one count of unauthorized disclosure,” the House Committee on Ways and Means Committee fumed in a statement.
“Ways and Means Committee Republicans have pushed federal investigators for years to get to the bottom of who stole and leaked the taxpayer information of thousands of Americans – including those of former President Donald Trump. Finally, the thief has been identified, charged, and now has pled guilty to this unprecedented crime,” said Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.).
“Unfortunately, the Department of Justice elected to charge only one count despite the more than a thousand disclosures he admitted to in open court. To restore trust in the justice system and the IRS – and to deter future thefts – there need to be significant consequences for this type of illegal, politically motivated activity,” Smith added.
ANALYSIS – You know things are bad when the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Team Obama is worried about terrorists crossing the border under Joe Biden.
In the wake of the gruesome and deadly terror attacks against Israeli civilians by Hamas, Jeh Johnson told Fox News that he is concerned that Hamas or other Iranian-backed terrorist groups could use, or already have used, the wide-open border to infiltrate terror cells into the U.S.
As noted by 19fortyfive:
“There are a lot of people entering our southern border right now,” Johnson said. “Thousands and thousands. It’s a hemispheric move north bigger than anything we’ve ever seen. [emphasis added] And the challenge for [U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP], for our DHS, the FBI, is to try to keep up.”
Johnson continued, “Unfortunately, as you know, the system is broken, it’s horribly backlogged, and there’s a whole lot of people entering this country who we cannot identify.”
we know, Jeh. Please tell Biden!
Newsweek reported: “There has also been a rise in recent years in the number of people apprehended on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist, with border patrol agents apprehending 151 migrants along the southern border in the fiscal year 2023 who match the FBI’s screening system, according to the CBP.”
It added: “In fiscal year 2022, 98 people on the watchlist were apprehended after entering from Mexico.”
If Hamas can get past Israel’s highly fortified border with Gaza and deceive one of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence services to conduct what was mostly a massive surprise suicide raid to kill massive numbers of civilians, what do you think Iranian backed terrorists could do to us across our currently open border with Mexico?
One scenario involves them working hand in hand with powerful and deadly Mexican drug cartels that have free reign along the border and are behind much of the human and drug smuggling today.
As 19fortyfive reported:
Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins noted on X Friday that the Border Patrol had apprehended two Lebanese nationals in Eagle Pass, Texas, an area of high illegal migrant flow. Hizballah is based in Lebanon.
Hizballah has a documented relationship with the Mexican cartels that could easily be used to smuggle sleeper agents into the U.S. as it is used to smuggle drugs. Such agents likely would only be activated in the event of a war with Iran, because Hizballah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC].
Recall that in 2011 the IRGC plotted with Los Zetas cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. at Washington, D.C.’s upscale Café Milano in Georgetown.
Had that terror attack not been thwarted, it could have killed dozens of innocent civilians on U.S. soil. This is a perfect example of how Iran or its terror proxies could infiltrate the United States in coordination with Mexican cartels.
Today things could be far worse. They could then use Biden’s wide open border and the cartels’ growing networks inside our country to inflict maximum damage.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – As a former Marine Corps officer and military attaché who served at several embassies overseas in the 1990s, it has infuriated me to see partisans and ideologues impose their radical agendas on our foreign embassies during Joe Biden’s tenure at the White House.
Flying extremely divisive, and to many host countries, offensive, flags representing controversial sexual agendas (LGBTQ+), which includes the extreme ‘trans’ movement, and private groups which espouse hate toward one race and law enforcement (Black Lives Matter – BLM), has been an egregious abuse pushed hard by the Biden State Department since last year.
Our embassies and consulates are official extensions of the United States. They are even considered sovereign U.S. territory.
They are there on behalf of the entire U.S. nation, as represented by our national flag, not sectarian views, or radical and controversial agendas.
This is true, even when these same radical agendas are being forced on our executive branches of government.
Thankfully, the new GOP House is proposing to quickly change that abuse.
The Old Glory Only Act, introduced Monday by South Carolina Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan would prohibit any flag other than the American flag to be flown over U.S. embassies and consulates.
Newsmax reported:
“Our beautiful flag, Old Glory, should be the only flag flying and representing our country over our diplomatic and consular posts worldwide,” Duncan said in a press release announcing the bill’s introduction in the House Monday. “The American flag is a beacon of liberty, and no other flag or symbol better portrays our shared values than the Stars and Stripes. It is important to ensure that Old Glory only is flown at American embassies to represent our ideals abroad.”
The New York Times previously reported that Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken authorized U.S. embassies to fly ‘gay pride’ flags in April 2021, prior to May 17, which is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and to continue displaying the flag through the end of the month.
The push to fly the rainbow ‘gay pride’ flag actually began in 2014, under the Obama-Biden term. That flag has flown over U.S. embassies in more than a dozen countries since then, including Russia, Spain, Sweden and South Korea.
President Trump’s Secretary of State banned the ‘pride’ flags from being flown but his order was quickly reversed by Blinken.
In May, another cable from Blinken’s State Department authorized flying Black Lives Matter flags at U.S. diplomatic facilities worldwide, Foreign Policy reported at the time.
The BLM flag has been flown at U.S. embassies in Brazil, Greece, Spain, Bosnia, Cambodia and South Korea, according to Duncan’s office.
This, even though violent BLM rioters had spent months attacking the federal courthouse in Portland and laying siege to dozens of cities nationwide just months earlier in 2020.
The BLM riots caused over $2 billion in property damage, more than any other similar event in U.S. history, injured over 2,000 local and federal police officers, and resulted in numerous deaths of civilians.
According to the NYT, a cable from the State Department at the time gave the chiefs of missions (COMs), who lead our overseas diplomatic stations, a “blanket written authorization” to display the flags if it was “appropriate in light of local conditions.”
While the Times noted this was an “authorization, not a requirement,” few COMs will ignore the pressure to follow the boss’ lead, and the more woke embassies and consulates quickly started flying these unofficial flags.
Republicans are optimistic the new GOP leadership will hold a vote on the bill since there is broad GOP support for the idea.
But why stop there? Why not ban these divisive flags from being flown over any federal buildings, period – including all of the ones here at home?
According to the General Services Administration (GSA), More than 40 federal buildings across the country opted to raise the Pride Flag to show their support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in the federal workforce.
What they are actually doing is flying the flags of exclusive, divisive and radical private groups on federal property paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
This too must end.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Former Vice President Mike Pence is blasting President Donald Trump’s controversial Iran agreement, warning that the deal looks less like a victory and more like a dangerous concession to a regime that was already on its knees.
In a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pence praised Trump’s military campaign against Tehran but argued the administration is now squandering the leverage won on the battlefield.
“The president deserves tremendous credit for taking the fight directly to Tehran,” Pence wrote. “But the memorandum of understanding with Iran signed last week falls well short of what is required to end the Iranian threat.”
His verdict was blunt.
“It smacks of the kind of appeasement the president rightly rejected during our first term,” Pence said. “It isn’t the deal a defeated Iran should be getting. It isn’t even a deal — it’s a plan to make a plan.”
The remarkable rebuke puts Pence at the forefront of a growing conservative revolt against the Trump administration’s newly signed 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran.
The agreement, signed last week, commits both sides to negotiate a final settlement within 60 days while immediately easing pressure on Tehran. The framework includes the gradual lifting of the U.S. naval blockade, waivers for Iranian oil exports, and access to frozen Iranian assets while broader negotiations continue.
Critics argue the concessions come before Iran has verifiably dismantled its nuclear infrastructure or ended support for terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East.
Pence warned the agreement effectively rewards the regime before securing meaningful concessions.
“Maximum pressure worked. America’s military strength worked. The blockade worked,” Pence wrote. “Iran came to the table because the regime’s existence teetered on a knife’s edge.”
The former vice president said the administration should use the next 60 days to force Tehran into accepting far tougher terms, including the permanent elimination of its nuclear ambitions and support for regional terror groups.
“This 60-day period should be used to secure what this agreement doesn’t yet provide: an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, an end to Iranian-backed terror, and an end to its half-century of warfare against the U.S. and Israel,” Pence wrote.
“If those reasonable goals cannot be achieved, Mr. Trump should let the armed forces finish the job.”
Pence has doubled down on those concerns in television appearances this week, calling the agreement “much bigger than a mistake” and warning that sanctions relief could become “a lifeline to the Iranian regime.” He argued that the deal preserves the status quo on Iran’s nuclear program rather than forcing its dismantlement.
He’s not alone.
Republican lawmakers including Lindsey Graham, John Thune and other GOP hawks have demanded greater transparency about the agreement’s terms, while conservative commentators have compared the framework to the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned during his first administration.
Even some Democrats have questioned whether Tehran is receiving significant economic relief without providing ironclad guarantees on nuclear compliance.
Supporters of the agreement, led by Vice President JD Vance, argue critics are mischaracterizing the deal. Vance has described the memorandum as a preliminary framework designed to stop the fighting and create conditions for a broader settlement. The White House insists sanctions relief and other benefits ultimately depend on Iranian compliance.
But for Pence, the issue is simple: America already holds the stronger hand.
The question now is whether Trump intends to play it.
ANALYSIS – As we end yet another crazy year, we have a new report on how Democrats continue to be the crazy party.
Despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary, a majority of Democrats still favor masking toddlers to battle the spread of COVID.
A recent I&I/TIPP Poll showed this mass insanity when 56% of Democrats said they believed masking children under the age of 5 is still a good idea.
In contrast, only 24% of Republicans and 31% of independents believed that masking toddlers is a good idea.
When asked if masking toddlers was a bad idea, as much of the scientific evidence now shows, 58% of Republicans and 38% of independents said they think it is a bad idea.
And only 24% of Democrats thought the same way.
But the divide goes deeper, with ideology, race, and ethnicity playing big roles as well.
The Blaze reported:
When respondents were grouped by ideology rather than party, there was a similar divide: 56% of conservatives thought it was a bad idea; 31% of alleged conservatives supported the initiative. Liberals again majoritively (54%) supported covering children’s faces.
Ideology and party were not the only differentiators.
Only 33% of white Americans said it was a good idea, whereas 48% of black and Hispanic respondents supported masking kids. On the other hand, 44% of white respondents and 28% of black and Hispanic respondents were opposed.
When it came to opposing the idea, 39% of women were opposed — two points higher than their male counterparts.
The Blaze continued:
I&I intimated that what might partially account for the significant ideological split between the right and the left on the matter of masking kids is media and activist suppression of legitimate medical studies putting the efficacy of masking children in doubt.
Numerous studies questioned the effectiveness of masking in protecting from serious COVID effects.
As The Blaze explains, these studies highlight the adverse impact masks have on toddlers’ communication skills and the relative unlikelihood of children becoming severely sick from COVID.
The Blaze also notes that neither the World Health Organization (WHO) nor the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends masking little kids.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
