MAGA Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-CO) tunes in to Matt Whitaker’s podcast to discuss key issues facing America and how patriots can help take back their freedom.
Lauren became the first mom to represent Colorado’s Third District in Congress after unseating a five-term incumbent Congressman and then, despite being outspent nearly 2-1, defeated her Democrat opponent on November 3rd, 2020. Lauren’s historic victory showed that no amount of money can beat good, old-fashioned grassroots enthusiasm and hard work.
Lauren was the founder and former operator of Shooters Grill, a restaurant that earned national notoriety for staff that proudly open carry as they serve their customers. She gained additional recognition in September 2019 by attending presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s rally to tell him directly: “Hell, no, you won’t take our guns.”
When Colorado’s liberal Democrat Governor tried to shut down small businesses across the state, it was Lauren who stood against tyranny and kept her business open. They operated safely and took every precaution to keep her staff and her patrons healthy. Because of this, Lauren’s staff was able to continue making their hard-earned money and weren’t sent to the unemployment line. Lauren will ALWAYS fight for small businesses.
A Coloradoan living on the Western Slope, Lauren is active in her church and has spent years counseling at-risk women at the local jail, encouraging them to become self-sufficient and productive members of society who do not depend on government assistance. Lauren’s husband, Jayson, has worked his entire adult life in oil and gas fields, primarily in Western Colorado. They are the proud parents of four boys.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Everyone knows crime has exploded in New York City (NYC). This is especially true in the city’s subway system where aggressive mentally ill vagrants and homeless people abound.
But when a white, 24-year-old Marine veteran on the subway tries to subdue a “threatening” black, mentally ill man (with a rap sheet as long as his arm – including an outstanding warrant for felony assault) – the left can only see one thing – ‘racist murder.’
The Marine vet used a chokehold to subdue the aggressive 30-year-old homeless man, Jordan Neely on Monday.
The hold reportedly lasted 15 minutes. He was assisted in subduing Neely by at least two other riders, one of whom was black.
The apparent effort to protect passengers on the F train from Neely’s “threatening” behavior proved to be fatal. Sadly, Neely later died.
Many argue the Marine was justified. One witness told the New York Post that the man was screaming in a threatening manner.
“He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail,” said Juan Alberto Vazquez. “He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground.”
But before the coroner had issued a cause of death, leftist agitators were calling it murder.
“NYC is not Gotham. We must not become a city where a mentally ill human being can be choked to death by a vigilante without consequences. Or where the killer is justified & cheered,” City Comptroller Brad Lander tweeted Tuesday.
The next day, in response to a cautious and responsible statement from NYC mayor Erik Adams, where he said he was going to wait for more facts, Democrat NYC Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back on a statement, calling the incident a “public murder,” and saying fellow Democrat Adams had reached “a new low” with his response.
This honestly feels like a new low: not being able to clearly condemn a public murder because the victim was of a social status some would deem “too low” to care about.
The last sentence is especially rich from an admin trying to cut the very services that could have helped him. https://t.co/0DtXl9DOO5
Adams, who was once a transit cop during his career with the NYPD, seemed to focus on the mentally ill Neely then also called on elected officials and advocacy groups to: “Join us in prioritizing getting people the care they need and not just allowing them to languish.”
The far-left Working Families Party ripped the initial response from Adams, calling the death “a modern-day public lynching,” said in a statement.
The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide Wednesday evening, though it needs to be clear that this does not equate to murder.
Homicides can be accidental or unintentional.
And even the conservative news outlet Daily Caller sensationalized the Marine’s action in their tweet:
While leftists tried to demonize the blonde, shaggy-haired Marine, and make Neely into an innocent victim, Newsweek reported that Neely had 42 prior arrests between 2013 and 2021, including four for assault.
And considering NYC’s violent subway crime wave, including people getting shoved in front of trains, subduing Neely seems reasonable.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that since 2019, the rate of violent crimes — murder, rape, felony assault and robbery — has more than doubled in the New York City subway system, even as ridership has dramatically decreased.
This fear was highlighted in January 2022 when Michelle Alyssa Go, a 40-year-old Asian-American woman who worked at the consulting firm Deloitte, was shoved in front of an R train in Times Square by a homeless man who police said had a history of crime and mental illness.
Meanwhile, the Soros-backed, ‘progressive,’ Manhattan District Attorney, or DA (yes, the same one gunning for Trump), Alvin Bragg, who is black, has said his office is now investigating the incident.
As part of our rigorous ongoing investigation, we will review the Medical Examiner’s report, assess all available video and photo footage, identify and interview as many witnesses as possible, and obtain additional medical records. This investigation is being handled by senior, experienced prosecutors and we will provide an update when there is additional public information to share.
Much more to come, but maybe not as quickly as some would like.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.
ANALYSIS – Most conservatives understand that one of the left’s major weapons in the war of ideas is manipulating language and using well-researched buzzwords and phrases to change reality and mask their more extreme ideas.
We see it every day with the constant use of ‘gun violence’ rather than shooting or murder committed by a criminal. We see it with ‘global warming’ becoming ‘climate change’ when the facts don’t support the narrative.
We also see it with the insanely deceptive and grotesque ‘gender-affirming care’ rather for genital-mutilating sex-change surgery.
And of course, we see it in spades with abortion, where supporting the unrestricted killing of unborn babies in the womb becomes ‘reproductive health care rights,’ previously known as being ‘pro-choice.’
The new term is far better politically since it appears to somehow be about rights and health, not deception and killing. Plus, ‘pro-choice’ has been thoroughly sullied by its accurate association with being ‘pro-abortion.’
And we can’t have that.
And now, since the Dobbs decision correctly returned the abortion issue to the states where it always belonged, the battle to control the language, and hence the narrative on abortion, is intensifying.
And it just got a lot worse.
The latest words and phrases chosen by the left to describe or refer to abortion fly in the face of fact and science.
But the leftist language warriors are now being reinforced by the power behind the news media – the Associated Press—and its widely used ‘Stylebook.’
The Associated Press recently released a guide for news outlets for reporting on abortion that’s so biased in favor of the procedure, its guidance often runs contrary to medical science. The new guide has the ability to significantly distort how Americans perceive the abortion issue.
The AP’s “Abortion Topical Guide” is part of the widely used “AP Stylebook” that many outlets across the country, including The Daily Signal, use as a guide for everything from grammar to punctuation to best practices for terms and phrasing.
One glaring problem among many? The guide frequently cites the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to back up its guidance. ACOG claims to be the premier professional membership organization of OB-GYNs. But on the issue of abortion—a procedure that most OB-GYNs don’t perform—ACOG is wholly committed to lobbying for extreme abortion policies that don’t reflect its membership’s views.
In typical Orwellian fashion, the leftists at AP cudgel writers into referring to an unborn child’s “heartbeat,” which is detectable via ultrasound from the very early stages of life to the deliberately bland and mostly meaningless term “cardiac activity.”
The Stylebook also inappropriately enters the scientific realm as self-made medical experts when it advises writers not to refer to unborn children as “pain-capable” until after at least 24 weeks.
This, even though the beloved doctors who actually perform surgeries on ‘preemies,’ or premature babies in utero, regularly use anesthesia for those babies under 24 weeks because they feel pain.
The AP’s demonic advice also contradicts the massive, and growing, body of research showing unborn babies can feel pain at just 15 weeks or even earlier.
And most importantly, the Stylebook admonishes writers to never, ever use the accurate but uncomfortable phrase – ‘late-term abortion.’
Polls show a solid majority of Americans are opposed to late-term abortions, so best to religiously (pun intended) avoid the term.
The AP guide misses the mark throughout. Of course, that’s inevitable when the goal is not objective reporting of fact but rather promoting pro-abortion propaganda. Try as the AP might, it’s a fool’s errand to put lipstick on a pig.
I go further by saying AP is part of the left’s far-flung language-distorting media empire intended to manipulate words, in order to manipulate news, in order to manipulate you.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Even though, after the recent Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action, the momentum seems to be shifting away from discriminatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts nationally, one major, crime-infested, ‘Defund the Police’ city on the Left coast hasn’t gotten the message.
Seattle’s Democrat Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office ordered fewer White males and officers with ‘military bearing’ be shown in promotional images and videos for the city’s struggling police force.
The controversial document appears to be part of the mayor’s Comprehensive Police Recruitment and Retention Plan passed last year which prioritizes applicants with “diverse racial and immigration backgrounds.”
Once the memo provoked a firestorm of protest, the document was quietly edited to remove the offensive verbiage. Then the mayor’s office lied about having copies of the original memo, saying the original versions were lost.
This, according to a March 2023 memo written for the Seattle Police Department (SPD), titled “SPD Marketing More and Less,” calls for more photos and videos of “officers of color” who are “younger” and of “different genders” to be featured in the department’s marketing materials.
And to make the overtly discriminatory point as clear as possible, the memo also directed that there should be “less” images and videos of “officers who are white, male” and “officers with military bearing.”
The outrageous memo was written by Ben Dalgetty, a Digital Strategy Lead from the mayor’s office who oversees SPD recruitment. And it got the Seattle Police Officers Guild justifiably upset.
Officer Mike Solan, president of the police union told Seattle radio host Jason Rantz in a written statement that the union cannot abide by “discrimination.”
“What I condemn and will forever continue to push back on is the verbiage within the recruitment document that calls for less of white male officers. Less of people in leadership positions, and less of humans with military backgrounds. This is flat-out discrimination. Period. It is an affront to decency, reasonableness and further divides our communities,” Sloan wrote.
“It is embarrassing, shameful, and detrimental to a healthy functioning society.” But he wasn’t the only one outraged by the memo.
According to My Northwest, police sources who spoke to “The Jason Rantz Show” were shocked that the mayor’s office would put their radical racial and other preferences for police recruitment in writing.
“I thought, ‘Are you kidding me? You put this in writing?'” one SPD source reportedly said. “It shows not only a lack of respect for officers, but a lack of respect for the military. They have no understanding of someone willing to put their lives on the line for their fellow man. They don’t have respect.”
Other SPD officials were “livid” with the memo. After receiving complaints from SPD, Dalgetty made several edits to the document.
“The Jason Rantz Show” said their public records request for the original memo went unanswered for months before the mayor’s office finally provided the edited version on July 10, but wrongly claimed the original version wasn’t available anymore.
Meanwhile, there were 52 homicides in Seattle in 2022, and last year had the highest number of violent crimes with 5,625, the most in over 10 years of Seattle crime statistics.
And, since 2020, and the Black Lives Matter riots, the SPD has had a net loss of 325 officers. Last year, it was a net loss of 90 cops, despite Mayor Harrell’s much-publicized diverse recruitment efforts.
At the same time, the left-wing city council and two different Democrat mayors have talked for nearly three years about forming teams of social workers or mental health counselors to respond to some calls instead of police.
But the fact is that 300-plus cops who used to respond to an increasing number of 911 calls are gone — and haven’t been replaced with anything real.
Still, city officials have the audacity to discriminate against the remaining white male officers with ‘military bearing’ who remain.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)
ANALYSIS – After an outrageously long five-year investigation, federal prosecutors are finally going to charge Hunter Biden for various crimes. He is expected to plead guilty.
The catch?
The charges are minimal misdemeanors, and Hunter will get a sweet deal that allows him to avoid any federal jail time. This is thanks to Biden’s attorneys who have been negotiating with prosecutors for a very long time.
Many will contrast this to the way former President Donald Trump is being treated by federal prosecutors and see the first son getting preferential treatment.
But don’t expect Republicans to just let things go.
Hunter has been under investigation for tax crimes related to his shady overseas business dealings and for illegally possessing a firearm, having allegedly lied about his documented illegal drug use when purchasing a handgun in 2018.
The deal reached between U.S. Attorney David Weiss and Hunter’s attorneys, which a judge still needs to approve, will undoubtedly intensify concerns that Hunter received a sweetheart deal.
According to the Washington Post, Hunter “has tentatively agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges of failure to pay in 2017 and 2018.” Hunter is accused of not paying taxes on a liability of about $1.2 million. But instead of jail, prosecutors agreed to recommend Hunter receive only probation and pay the amount of taxes that he originally owed.
Meanwhile, Hunter will admit to illegally possessing a firearm, but he will not plead guilty to lying on the federal form. Under typical circumstances, possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs is a felony. But Hunter will technically not be prosecuted for the crime. Instead, he will be offered a diversion program and probation.
When Hunter Biden meets the conditions of diversion, the crime will be removed from his record, but he will be banned from owning firearms, the New York Times reported.
The deal would require Hunter to remain drug-free for 24 months and agree to never own a firearm again. Good luck enforcing any of that.
While the Biden’s say, ‘case closed,’ and spin it all as just a wayward son with a drug problem gone astray, it won’t end the superheated politics of the case.
Republicans have argued for years that Hunter Biden committed an array of crimes that should put him behind bars. They have also argued that his crimes call into question the honesty of his father.
And Republicans won’t be letting go. This sweetheart deal for Hunter will just intensify their efforts.
Coming less than two weeks after the Justice Department indicted former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he risked exposing national security secrets and obstructed efforts by the government to reclaim classified documents from him, an agreement that allows Hunter Biden to walk free is also sure to bring a torrent of criticism from the right and intensified efforts by House Republicans to portray the Justice Department and the F.B.I. as biased.
As president, Mr. Trump had long sought to tie Hunter Biden’s business deals and personal troubles to his father. Mr. Trump’s first impeachment had its roots in his efforts to persuade the Ukrainian government to help him show wrongdoing in Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, and while in the White House he pressured the Justice Department to investigate.
Republicans still believe, notes The Times, that “the president has been complicit in an effort engineered by his son to enrich his family by profiting from their positions of power.”
The Times even admits about Hunter:
After his father became vice president, he built relationships with wealthy foreigners that brought in millions of dollars, surfacing concerns inside the Obama administration and among government watchdog groups that he was cashing in on his family name…
But the questions about what occurred during that period never led to conduct that prosecutors believed could win them a conviction in court.
Let’s see if the House investigations will find more damning evidence than federal prosecutors did.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Americans may soon learn more about how a FBI agent worked with a liberal group to target President Donald Trump in a criminal investigation.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for communications between former Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault and the anti-Trump organization American Oversight.”
“It’s a shame that we must sue to get these records about how the Biden gang at the FBI and DOJ tried to rig an election by jailing Trump for disputing the 2020 election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It’s past time for these institutions to focus on transparency under law, so the American people can know the full truth on the lawfare attack perpetrated on Trump.”
Judicial Watch reports it filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) failed to respond to a January 31, 2025, FOIA request for:”
Records and communications between Timothy Thibault, former [Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office] and the non-profit organization American Oversight, 1030 15th St. NW, B255, Washington, D.C. 20005, email domain: @americanoversight. The search terms for this request are a) Trump b) Electors c) Investigation d) election
According to Judicial Watch, “in July 2022, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) reportedly warned then-Attorney General Merrick Garland that Thibault and an official in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, Richard Pilger, were ‘deeply involved in the decisions to open and pursue election-related investigations against President Trump. At the time, whistleblowers told Grassley that the Thibault-Pilger investigation’s predicating document was based on information from “liberal nonprofit American Oversight.”’ Thibault retired in August 2022.”
Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) have revealed in a statement that:
Internal FBI emails and predicating documents provided to Grassley and released jointly by the two senators show Timothy Thibault, a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) who was forced to retire from the Bureau after Grassley exposed his public anti-Trump bias, authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election. Records show Thibault essentially opened and approved his own investigation.
Judicial Watch reports American Oversight describes itself as “founded in 2017 in response to the unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.…” Earlier this year, Politico described it as, “A left-leaning watchdog group … working to gather materials that could feed Congressional investigations into the Trump administration.”
ANALYSIS – One of the most transcendent political issues today is the Left’s war on reality. Specifically, the radical efforts to push a totally made-up, anti-science, transgender ideology on society, and especially our children.
And most Republicans agree. Actually, most Americans agree.
Being on the wrong side of this issue should automatically disqualify a GOP candidate for president. And former New Jersey governor Chris Christie is wrong on this issue – big time.
During a segment on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, Christie argued against state bans on sex change treatments for children, reported Fox News.
When asked about Republican governors banning life-altering, genital mutilating gender reassignment surgeries and experimental ‘puberty blockers’ drugs and hormones for minors in their states, he replied:
I don’t think that the government should ever be stepping in to the place of the parents in helping to move their children through a process where those children are confused or concerned about their gender.
To be fair, Christie also said: “What I would like to make sure each state does is require that parents are involved in these decisions.” And that is critical. But it isn’t enough.
If this was 1980, and a Republican candidate said the government shouldn’t get between parents and their children, I would wholeheartedly agree.
But in 1980 no one would have imagined a society, medical establishment, public school system and government pushing radical transgenderism on our kids, and their parents.
The world is now officially upside down. And even parents are being pressured to permanently damage their kids. The only chance we have to preserve basic human values is by Republican red states defending them wholeheartedly.
And when possible, defending them at the federal level.
Former President Donald Trump has been vocal about his stance: “These people are sick, they’re deraigned,” Trump recently said in North Carolina, speaking of those who support men competing in women’s sports.
Unfortunately for Christie, and fortunately for the rest of us, Fox News reports that a strong majority of Americans disagree with him.
A Washington Post-KFF poll “found that 68% of Americans oppose access to puberty-blocking medication for kids ages 10 to 14 and 58% oppose access to hormonal treatments for kids ages 15 to 17.”
But Christie isn’t just wrong on this extreme issue. He has been wrong on transgender issues for many years.
While serving as governor of New Jersey in 2017, Christie passed laws allowing children to use school bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity rather than sex assigned at birth.
Christie’s signature also removed restrictions on biological men competing in women’s sports, an issue that the WaPo poll found over 60% of Americans think should be banned.
Christie also signed another law that year prohibiting insurance companies from denying services to anyone based on their ‘gender identity.’
In the increasingly crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls, former President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and former Ambassador Nikki Haley, are all on the right side. They all support restricting children under 18 years of age from receiving gender reassignment (or genital mutilation) procedures.
All three also support banning biological men from competing in women’s sports. And they are all correct.
But, as far as I’m concerned Christie just disqualified himself from being a GOP candidate for president.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
By Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - Director Wray Installation Ceremony, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63667603
The election of Donald Trump in November 2016 was, for the entrenched political class, a thunderclap. It was not supposed to happen. The experts, the pollsters, the seasoned operatives had assured the country that Hillary Clinton’s victory was inevitable. Yet by the morning of November 9, the White House was preparing to receive a president unlike any in modern history: a political outsider with no government experience, an instinctive distrust of Washington, and a willingness to discard its conventions. For some in the outgoing administration and the permanent bureaucracy, this was not merely a surprise. It was a crisis to be managed, or better yet, undone.
That undoing began in earnest just four months into Trump’s presidency, when Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, with the approval of FBI Counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap and General Counsel James Baker, authorized a criminal investigation into the sitting president of the United States. This probe did not arise from fresh evidence of presidential misconduct. It rested on the same thin reeds that had underpinned the Russia collusion narrative since mid-2016: opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, laundered through the Steele dossier, and presented as intelligence. It was a case study in how partisan disinformation can metastasize into official action when it finds a willing audience inside the government.
To understand how extraordinary this was, one must appreciate the context. Intelligence reports later declassified in the Durham Annex revealed that, as early as March 2016, the Clinton campaign had hatched a plan to tie Trump to Russian operatives, not as a matter of national security, but as an electoral tactic. These plans were known to senior Obama administration officials, including John Brennan, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, before the election. Yet when Trump won, the machinery they had assembled did not wind down. It shifted purpose: from preventing his election to destabilizing his presidency.
The first casualty in this internal campaign was Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser and one of the few senior appointees with both loyalty to Trump and an understanding of the intelligence community’s inner workings. In late January 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, warned the White House that Flynn had misled them about conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI had already interviewed Flynn, in a meeting arranged by Comey that bypassed standard White House protocol. Even Peter Strzok, one of the interviewing agents, admitted they did not believe Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, the incident was used to force Flynn’s resignation on February 13, with Vice President Pence publicly citing dishonesty over sanctions discussions. In hindsight, it is clear this was less about Flynn’s conduct than about removing a man who might have quickly uncovered the flimsiness of the Russia allegations.
Next came Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump loyalist but a DOJ outsider with no prior experience in its leadership. Under pressure over his own contacts with the same Russian ambassador, Sessions recused himself from any matters related to the 2016 campaign on March 2. This decision, encouraged by DOJ ethics officials from the Obama era and accepted without challenge by Pence and other advisers, effectively ceded control of any Trump-Russia inquiries to deep state officials and Obama holdovers. It was the opening the FBI needed.
By mid-May, after Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the FBI’s leadership was in open revolt. McCabe, Priestap, and Baker, all veterans of the Obama years, debated whether Trump had acted at Moscow’s behest. They even discussed the 25th Amendment and the idea of Rosenstein surreptitiously recording the president. These were not jokes. On May 16, McCabe authorized a full counterintelligence and criminal investigation into Trump himself, premised on the possibility that he was an agent of a foreign power. This was the first such investigation of a sitting president in US history.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
The evidentiary basis for this move was paper-thin, much of it drawn from the Steele dossier, a work of partisan fiction that its own author was unwilling to verify. Baker, the FBI’s top lawyer, was a personal friend of Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign attorney who had helped funnel the dossier to the Bureau. Priestap, who signed off on the investigation, had overseen its use in obtaining FISA warrants to surveil Trump associates. They knew the source was tainted and the allegations were fiction. They proceeded anyway.
The day after the investigation formally opened, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, locking the inquiry beyond Trump’s reach. Mueller’s team, stocked with Democratic donors and Obama DOJ and FBI veterans, inherited the case and its political overtones. For nearly two years, the president governed under a cloud of suspicion, his every move interpreted through the lens of an unfounded allegation.
The impact on Trump’s presidency was profound. Key legislative initiatives stalled. Allies in Congress, warned privately by Pence and others that the investigation was serious, kept their distance. Figures like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Jeff Flake acted in ways that hampered Trump’s agenda, from blocking Obamacare repeal to threatening his judicial nominations. Inside the executive branch, FBI Director Christopher Wray, another newcomer with no institutional knowledge of the Bureau’s internal politics, declined to purge the officials who had driven the investigation, allowing them to operate until they were forced out by Inspector General findings.
By the time Mueller submitted his report in March 2019, concluding there was no evidence of collusion, the damage was done. Trump’s first term had been defined in large part by a manufactured scandal. The narrative of foreign compromise, though disproven, had justified a Special Counsel, sustained hostile media coverage, and ultimately greased the skids for an unfounded impeachment over Ukraine.
The Durham Annex, unearthed years later, stripped away any lingering doubt about intent. It documented that the Russia collusion story was conceived as a political hit, that it was known to be false by the time it was weaponized in 2017, and that senior intelligence and law enforcement officials chose to advance it rather than expose it. In Madison’s terms, the accumulation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands, here, the unelected leadership of the FBI and DOJ, amounted to tyranny.
That Trump survived this onslaught is remarkable. Few presidents, faced with a hostile bureaucracy, disloyal appointees, and a media eager to amplify every leak, could have done so. That the plot failed to remove him does not make it less a coup. It makes it a failed coup, one whose near-success should alarm anyone who values electoral legitimacy.
The lesson is clear. The intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the United States must never again be allowed to become an instrument of partisan warfare. The use of fabricated opposition research to justify surveillance, investigations, and the effective nullification of an election result is a violation not just of political norms but of the constitutional order. It took years for the facts to emerge. It will take far longer to repair the trust that was lost.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
ANALYSIS – The original interview Tucker Carlson did withformer Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund about the Capitol Riot never aired on Fox News because Tucker was fired just before. Still, a lot about that interview has leaked.
In that piece, I note that the Jan 6 riot was not a false flag operation, and most of the rioters were confirmed Trump supporters. However, in many ways, it was allowed to happen.
But to put the entire thing on the record, Carlson did the interview again – and posted it to X, formerly known as Twitter. And it is damning to those Democrats who benefited from the Capitol Riot.
Much of what Sund has said coincides with or dovetails with facts I have written about previously, especially how the Sergeant at Arms for both the House under Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate under Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both declined National Guard support until it was too late.
The same occurred with the Democrat Mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser who specifically stated that troops not be deployed unless the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved.
She added that she believed her police department was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” to ensure Jan. 6 unfolded safely. They weren’t. And they didn’t.
This despite President Donald Trump offering the National Guard to them more than once.
*(Note that the graphic above is incorrect in one detail – Officer Brian Sicknick was NOT killed defending the Capitol. He died later of natural causes (a stroke) unrelated to the riot.)
In the case of Pelosi, Carlson is direct: “So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 — you know, the worst thing that’s ever happened on American soil — and she’s in charge of allowing the National Guard to come in and respond but she doesn’t for 71 minutes? What is that?”
Ep. 15 Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reveals what really happened on January 6th. Our Fox News interview with him never aired, so we invited him back. pic.twitter.com/opDlu4QGlp
In the interview, Sund indicated critical intelligence pertaining to possible threats ahead of the Jan. 6 protest was withheld from the Capitol Police and that the absence of such intelligence was cited by the congressional sergeants at arms — who were reporting to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time — as cause not to reinforce the Capitol in advance with the National Guard and federal assets.
However, the outlet added the former Chief now understands that the intelligence was there. It just wasn’t provided to his department:
According to the former chief, “We now know FBI [and] DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seemed to have some very concerning intelligence as well,” adding that the FBI field office in Washington and other outfits “didn’t put out a single official document specific to January 6. That’s very unusual.”
During a conference call on Jan. 5, 2021, with the leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI Washington field office along with National Guard, military officials, and others, “not one person on that call talked about any concerns from the intelligence … that was out there.”
“This was handled differently. … It’s almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason,” said Sund. “It wasn’t right the way the intelligence was handled and the way we were set up on the Hill.”
The question is – did these federal security agencies make the decisions not to forward this intelligence on their own, or where they told not to send it?
In the interview, Sund noted that then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley had “both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D.C., because they were so worried about violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”
Sund added: “On Sunday and Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol hill because of the concern for violence.”
He continued: “You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hill for demonstrations? I do. You know who wasn’t told? Me.”
This deserves much more investigation. The Jan 6 Committee was a partisan circus and designed only to blame Trump.
I have argued that the Pentagon leadership was extremely wary of bringing in the National Guard or any federal assets to DC due to the extreme overreaction by Democrats over Trump sending federal officers to quell riots in Portland a few months earlier.
Democrats also were apoplectic with rage at Trump’s actions to stop violent rioters outside the White House on June 1st.
There was also the incessant talk in the media about Trump using the military for a ‘coup,’ which Miller has stated as a constraint several times. These all remain valid explanations for the Pentagon’s preferred inaction.
And maybe for the Mayor’s decision to initially reject Guard troops.
But what about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? What did they know and when did they know it? And why did they veto reinforcing the Capitol till the chaos had already begun?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
