Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) event, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles argued that conservatives should not compromise with the left on certain core issues, such as radical transgender ideology, but should reject these leftist ideologies completely.
And this is something I would support wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately, the wording of Knowles’ statements, made while discussing marriage and gender issues, gave the left an opening to hysterically, and falsely, claim he wants to get rid of all transgender people, which he clearly never said, nor intimated.
And what was the statement that created the contrived firestorm of leftist hysteria?
Knowles’ said: “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”
The Daily Wire Host was clearly referring to the bizarre and dangerous new leftist ideology that insists gender and therefore sex can be changed at will, even among children, usually only with a self-diagnosis under pressure from activist counselors, teachers, and the media.
The truth about his remarks, however, didn’t keep left-leaning media outlets such as the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post, and Rolling Stone from falsely reporting that Knowles had called for the genocidal eradication of all trans people.
Adam Vary, at Variety, tweeted, “Pay attention. This is genocidal. That is not hyperbole or alarmist; this rhetoric is calling for the eradication of a group of people for who they are.”
John Knefel of Media Matters called the speech “[e]liminationist, genocidal rhetoric.”
His remarks were clearly none of these things, and he never called for any actions against trans people whatsoever.
And Knowles fought back against these outlets demanding a retraction, which he partly achieved.
The truth is that this extreme trans movement has permanently damaged countless individuals who have been sterilized and mutilated with the help of pharmaceutical reps and surgeons who, along with politicians and activists, have spawned a giant and lucrative new trans-political-medical industry.
This massive new industry pressures and lobbies people of all ages to believe they are transgender, and then quickly pushes them to initiate the costly, painful, disfiguring, and life-long process of ‘transitioning’ to the opposite sex.
All while making tons of cash from the doubts and insecurities of their victims.
But this movement doesn’t just harm its trans victims, as the Blaze notes, it also severely impacts “women and girls whose sex-specific spaces (e.g., prisons, bathrooms, shelters) and events have been infiltrated by biological males masquerading as women.”
The Blaze quotes Knowles as noting that conservatives “suffer from low expectations – we think the thing we can most hope for is that we halt the left exactly where it is.”
But watch his entire speech here for yourselves:
. @michaeljknowles this is deeply concerning language (no matter how bad the idea is). Ideas, good and bad, must flow freely at a public level. pic.twitter.com/zYbYbT79BP
Rather than accommodate the left, making concessions about the age children must be to undergo sex-change surgeries, Knowles suggested conservatives ought to reject leftist ideology outright, especially when it comes to transsexuality.
Knowles said, “There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men can really become women, then it is true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can become women, as they cannot, then it is false for everybody too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
As Americans continue to wait for official midterm results to trickle in Republicans are already diving themselves into two camps: Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – In case you missed it, Joe Biden tripped again recently going down the stairs of Air Force One. And these weren’t the normal tall stairs used by proud Commanders in Chief, that rise all the way to the top of the majestic presidential aircraft, but the very short baby stairs that are used by ‘the help’ that go into the lower bowels of the plane.
That is the new normal for our aging and decrepit occupant of the White House. That and tennis shoes worn with business suits and seeing a physical therapist. All to avoid tripping, slipping, or falling, and not being able to get back up.
This latest slip occurred just hours after Axios reported Biden’s campaign is “working on a critical project for his re-election bid: Make sure he doesn’t trip.”
‘Operation Don’t Let Biden Fall’ would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. But as Axios notes: “Biden’s team is betting that any mockery he receives over using the shorter Air Force One steps and wearing tennis shoes will be worth it to avoid another public stumble.”
Many Democrats worry about Biden having a bad fall like Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole, 73 at the time, had in September 1996, when he fell off a stage at a rally weeks before the election.
Democrats already had been knocking Dole about his age compared to the 50-year-old Bill Clinton running for re-election.
Biden has repeatedly stumbled and tripped in public, including, most dramatically on stage at the Air Force’s graduation in June.
Biden’s physician has diagnosed Biden’s stumbles as likely caused by “a combination of significant spinal arthritis” and “mild post-fracture foot arthritis.”
Folksy old Biden might just say he is getting long in the tooth.
Biden, the oldest-ever serving U.S. president, turns 81 in less than two months. Three-fourths of Americans see Biden as too old for office, according to an AP-NORC poll last month.
Another poll from the Washington Post and ABC News in late September found that 3 out of 5 Democrats would prefer someone else be the party’s 2024 nominee.
The president’s doctor has recommended special exercises for balance, which he called “proprioceptive maintenance maneuvers.”
Unfortunately, Axios noted, no one has ever heard of these “maneuvers.”
“I have never heard the term ‘proprioceptive maintenance maneuvers.’ It is not a clinical term in standard use,” said Professor James Gordon, associate dean and chair of the Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the University of Southern California.
Biden’s doctor is just as good as Biden at using made up words or as good as the White House Press secretary is at blowing smoke.
As bad as his obvious physical frailty is, Americans should be just as concerned, or more so, about Biden’s severe mental decline.
And it must be bad, when even the establishment media has noticed. NBC News reported in July:
Apparent to anyone paying attention is that the Biden they may remember from the Robert Bork Supreme Court confirmation hearings of 1987, or the vice presidential debate with Sarah Palin in 2008, is a different man today. His gait is less steady, his speech not as fluid. He has confused Iraq with Ukraine and Rolling Fork, Mississippi, with “Rolling Stone.” At a conference last year, he looked out at the audience and called for a congresswoman who had recently died in a car crash.
The outlet added that Biden is “relying on “extra-large font on his teleprompter and note cards to remind him of the points he wants to make in meetings.”
I must note that I’ve seen the extra-large font on his teleprompter, and it is embarrassingly HUGE.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported in June that Biden’s “staff schedules most of his public appearances between noon and 4 p.m. and leave him alone on weekends as much as possible.”
But there is only so much you can do to hide the fact that this man should be in a rocking chair with his grandkids, not leading the free world.
It is doubtful that Team Biden can keep their man from falling during the camapign, it is even more doubtful that – barring keeping him isolated in a soundproof bubble – they can keep him from babbling incoherently.
Either way, we definitely don’t want Biden answering what Hillary Clinton in 2008 called “the 3am phone call” to the White House in a major crisis. And I can see a lot of those calls coming in over the next four years.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Daniel X. O'Neil from USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Tensions are running high…
On Friday, Conservative radio host and political pundit Hugh Hewitt stormed off a Washington Post live event after an argument over former President Trump’s rhetoric on election integrity ahead of Election Day.
“Is it me or does it seem like Donald Trump is laying the ground work for contesting the election,” Post host Jonathan Capehart asked Ruth Marcus, who was appearing with Hewitt as part of the live event. “By claiming that cheating was taking place, but suing Bucks County [Pennsylvania] for alleged irregularities … ”
Marcus replied Trump has been “laying the ground work” to contest the election for months, setting Hewitt off.
“Jonathan, I’ve gotta speak up,” he tried to interject.
“Let Ruth finish, Hugh,” Capehart shot back.
“Well, I’ve just got to say, we’re news people, even though it’s the opinion section,” Hewitt said after Marcus finished. “It’s got to be reported. Bucks County was reversed by the court and instructed to open up extra days because they violated the law and told people to go home. So, that lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee, and it was successful. The Supreme Court ruled that Glenn Youngkin was successful,” he added, referring to the GOP Virginia governor’s efforts to purge some 1,600 people from the voter rolls.
“We are news people, even though we have opinions, and we have to report the whole story if we bring up part of the story. So, yes, he’s upset about Bucks County, but he was right and he won in court. That’s the story,” Hewitt said.
After a brief pause, Capehart told Hewitt, “I don’t appreciate being lectured about reporting when, Hugh, many times you come here saying lots of things that aren’t based in fact.”
“I won’t come back, Jonathan, I’m done,” Hewitt said, ripping his earpiece out and standing up.
“I’m done. This is the most unfair election ad I’ve ever been a part of,” Hewitt continued, his face no longer visible on the screen. “You guys are working, that’s fine, I’m done.”
Watch:
The host was eventually forced to end the event early, saying, “Everybody if you’ve been watching … you know these conversations can be interesting, contentious.”
“You just saw Hugh Hewitt leave which is lamentable, unfortunate. It is what it is. Thank you very much for joining us,” he continued and urged viewers to subscribe to the Post.
After the incident, Hewitt announced his resignation from the Washington Post.
“I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt told Fox News Digital, adding he’d recently offered to write another pro-Trump column for the paper ahead of the election. He informed editorial page editor David Shipley on Friday morning.
Vivek Ramaswamy speaking with attendees at the 2022 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona.
ANALYSIS- Who is this skinny guy with the funny-sounding name? (That was his opening line at the debate). Vivek Ramaswamy wasn’t supposed to be at the center of the first Republican presidential candidate debate in Milwaukee.
Ron DeSantis was supposed to be the viable GOP alternative to Donald Trump. A two-term governor of the third most populous state in the union, DeSantis, a Navy veteran who served in Iraq, is as conservative as they come.
And he has a proven track record of fighting the left in Florida – and winning.
But despite his solid bona fides and resume, DeSantis has a personality problem. He just doesn’t exude charm or confidence, and that’s hurting him – a lot.
Meanwhile, Ramaswamy the 38-year-old Trump-defending, Cincinnati-born, biotech billionaire (worth at least $950 million), son of Pakistani immigrants, kind of stole the show at the debate.
According to former FBI agent and body language expert, Joe Navarro: “[Ramaswamy] consistently looked the most comfortable on stage.”
He was also the most openly and unabashedly pro-Trump. He was the first candidate to raise their hand when asked who would support the former President as the party nominee even if he is convicted on felony charges that he’s facing.
He has also promised to pardon Trump if elected. But he went even farther than that.
“President Trump, I believe, was the best president of the 21st century,” Ramaswamy said in a clip from the debate Trump posted on Truth Social.
And Trump loved it.
“This answer gave Vivek Ramaswamy a big WIN in the debate because of a thing called TRUTH. Thank you, Vivek!”
The ever-smiling political newbie Ramaswamy, who seemed to be having a blast on stage, was also the target of many of his GOP rivals.
Maybe it was Ramaswamy’s consistent and confounding defense of All Things Trump. Maybe it was his smooth talk and culture-war acumen. Maybe it was just the fact that Ramaswamy frankly does not care how things were done before and might just have enough self-made money to go the distance.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie snarled that he had “had enough already tonight of a guy who sounds like ChatGPT,” an A.I. battery. He then dismissed Ramaswamy as someone on the same level as a political figure universally loathed in the GOP. “The last person in one of these debates… who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What is a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here?’ was Barack Obama. And I am afraid we are dealing with the same type of amateur standing on the stage tonight,” Christie said.
But the quick witted Ramaswamy’s riposte to Christie was a zinger: “Give me a hug like you did to Obama, and you’ll help elect me just like you did to Obama. Give me the damn hug, brother.”
Ramaswamy was referring to the 2012 incident when Christie was accused of “hugging” Obama during his visit in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy which hit days before the 2012 presidential election.
It’s a claim that Christie has been denying since then, saying: “I didn’t hug him.”
Photos at the time seem to back up Christie, but the zinger still worked.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN under Trump, and ex-South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley, who is of Indian descent, hit Ramaswamy too: “You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows.”
I would agree with that assessment and believe he has made a few deeply flawed important national security statements – including on Ukraine and Israel.
But he is super smart and can learn quickly.
Then Vice President Mike Pence took a Christie-like jab at Ramaswamy, attacking the very same quality that originally helped raise Trump in the GOP base – that he is not a politician.
“Now it’s not the time for on-the-job training,” retorted Pence. “We don’t need to bring in a rookie. We don’t need to bring in people with no experience.”
AS TIME noted: “Attacks during debates are the norm but this was different. Ramaswamy’s competitors really don’t like him. Not even a little.”
However, there is one important GOP rival who seems to like Ramaswamy – Donald Trump. And that could be all that matters.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
ANALYSIS – Can’t say this was unexpected. Joe Biden just traded a convicted Russian arms dealer for a guilty woke basketball player, while leaving an innocent former U.S. Marine to rot in Russian jail.
And to make matters worse, Brittney Griner, who pled guilty to having cannabis vape oil in her luggage, was only in Russian jail for a few months while Paul Whelan, who was set-up and falsely convicted of espionage, has been imprisoned in a Russian labor camp for nearly four years.
Whelan, 52, remains there where he is to continue serving out a 16-year sentence.
Russian arms trafficker Viktor Bout had been serving time in a U.S. federal prison since 2011.
It is clear Biden is playing favorites.
Biden called Griner’s wife earlier this year to assure her of his commitment to securing her release. But no similar call was made to the Whelan family, despite multiple requests from Elizabeth Whelan for a meeting with the president.
After news reports about the snub emerged, Biden finally called Elizabeth Whelan in early July.
Of course, from day one, the liberal media has been constantly bombarding us with Griner’s sob story in her Russian jail, keeping her issue front and center for maximum PR leverage, while leaving Whelan on the back burner, if at all.
While we read every minor detail of Griner’s travails, and she was allowed regular access to the outside world, Whelan was held in a cell at the notorious Stalin-era Lefortovo Prison for over a year, where initially he was denied things like toilet paper and soap, and guards threatened, abused and harassed him.
Whelan also wasn’t allowed to make calls to his parents, his mail was censored, and visits from his lawyers and embassy representatives were extremely limited.
Recall that Griner, who is a black lesbian, also refused to stand for the national anthem.
To the left she checks all the super woke boxes.
Meanwhile, Biden blamed Russia for his failure to include Whelan in the trade.
“We’ve not forgotten about Paul Whelan,” Biden said Thursday morning. “This was not a choice about which American to bring home. … Sadly, for totally illegitimate reasons, Russia is treating Paul’s case differently than Brittney’s. … We will never give up.”
Well, that’s patently false.
It doesn’t matter what the Russians say or want. It’s Biden’s job to make things happen. It should have been both released for Bout, or no deal.
Especially when one who is young and healthy, and had been arrested for drugs, had only been in jail for a few months, and the other one who was falsely accused, is over 50 and been in a labor camp for 4 years.
However, being gracious, and perhaps in a bid to not alienate Biden, Whelan’s twin brother David Whelan, said Thursday:
I am so glad that Brittney Griner is on her way home. As the family member of a Russian hostage, I can literally only imagine the joy she will have, being reunited with her loved ones, and in time for the holidays. There is no greater success than for a wrongful detainee to be freed and for them to go home. The Biden administration made the right decision to bring Ms. Griner home, and to make the deal that was possible, rather than waiting for one that wasn’t going to happen.
At the time, Whelan’s brother David asked: “Is President (Joe) Biden’s failure to bring Paul home an admission that some cases are too hard to solve? Is the administration’s piecemeal approach picking low-hanging fruit? And how does a family know that their loved one’s case is too difficult, a hostage too far out of reach?”
That last message is the more correct one. Biden clearly favored Griner to please his leftist base, while abandoning Whelan, a former U.S. Marine, to rot in A Russian jail. GAND
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – No surprise to me. I ran against this disgrace in 2010 in the GOP primary. I highlighted his obscene corruption, but much of the GOP establishment backed him to the hilt.
In the ‘you can’t make this up’ category, the discredited GOP ex-congressman David Rivera has been arrested by federal officials for conspiring to lobby on behalf of America’s Latin American nemesis, socialist Venezuela.
This, despite being the GOP’s South Florida poster boy for ‘anti-communism,’ an image he assiduously cultivated for years to curry favor with the Miami conservative base and deflect from his myriad failings.
When I ran against Rivera in the South Florida 2010 GOP congressional primary as a Tea Party outsider, my motto was ‘the Marine vs. the Machine’ due to Rivera’s lifelong ties to the GOP establishment.
During that race, Rivera, a termed-out state representative, got a massive number of Republican congressional leaders to back him, even though I was beating the drum about his corruption and lack of integrity.
Rivera won that primary, in part because a politically unknown woman, and possibly Democrat-linked spoiler, named Marili Cancio jumped into the race and siphoned off about 12% of the GOP voters I would have gotten.
Rivera then went on to win the congressional seat.
However, his corruption finally caught up with him and he lost his reelection to an equally distasteful Democrat – Joe Garcia.
That was the first time the GOP had lost that seat in 30 years, and Rivera became radioactive to most in the GOP afterward.
Thankfully, Democrat Joe only lasted one term himself.
Scandals have marred Rivera since he represented parts of the Miami metro area in Congress a decade ago.
The eight-count indictment against Rivera and lobbyist Esther Nuhfer chronicles the nefarious duo’s alleged dealings with Venezuela to help revive its state-run oil company.
The investigation stretches back to the start of the Trump administration when Rivera reportedly arranged meetings with an unnamed senator and a congressman as part of a conspiracy to ease tensions between the United States and South America’s socialist holdout. The unsavory politician ultimately hoped to lift sanctions on a regime universally reviled in South Florida.
Rivera began his efforts after signing a $50 million contract. Per Bloomberg, the indictment lays out the reputed method by which he unlawfully enriched himself:
The Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Delcy Rodriguez, directed executives at CITGO, a Texas-based unit of PDVSA, to draw up a consulting contract with Rivera’s company, according to the indictment.
The contract was between Interamerican and PDV USA, which prosecutors allege was used by CITGO to facilitate “special projects” ordered by executives of the state-owned parent company.
Additional charges against Rivera and Nuhfer include conspiracy to commit offense against the US, conspiracy to commit money laundering and engaging in transactions in criminally deprived property. Nuhfer couldn’t immediately be located for comment.
At one point, note prosecutors, Rivera received a $5 million payment from PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-run oil company and personal piggy bank for its corrupt socialist leaders, in an account at Gazprom Bank in Russia.
Thankfully Rivera’s illegal pro-Venezuela outreach effort ultimately failed, as Trump in 2019 recognized opposition lawmaker Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s legitimate leader and imposed stiff oil sanctions on the OPEC nation in a bid to unseat Maduro.
The U.S. Marshals Service said Rivera bailed out of jail Monday afternoon after making an initial appearance in Atlanta federal court.
Even more concerning, though, the Associated Press’ initial report detailed how Rivera attempted to arrange a meeting between a prominent female Trump campaign adviser-turned-White House “counselor” and a pro-Maduro businessman on his jet in Miami on June 27, 2017.
Kellyanne Conaway was in Miami that day to headline a Republican Party fundraiser. At the time, she served the Trump White House as the Senior Counselor to the President.
This wouldn’t surprise me either, as Conway was very close to Rivera, and may have been behind efforts to keep me from entering the Trump administration during his term, at the behest of Rivera.
Trump’s hiring of Conway, who I admired and knew casually from years in conservative circles, was one of the reasons I believed Trump could win and helped convince me to back him.
Sadly, it seems Conway’s ties to slimy Rivera may have slimed her too.
All this should remind us all to be very careful when blindly backing politicians, no matter who they are.
Opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.
