Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Stunner: Documents Many Prove Top CIA Employees Plotted to ‘Take Out’ Trump

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    2
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to “get rid of” and “take out” President Donald Trump.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for “reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to ‘get rid’ of then-President Trump.”

    “The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”

    In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:

    Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

    Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues…

    At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.

    “After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”

    Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary…”

    Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.

    “It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”

    In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:

    Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.

    Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.

    All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Court Asked To Rule Against Trump Prosecutor Who Failed To Respond To Record Lawsuit

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    2
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image

    A high profile conservative law firm is asking a Georgia court to enter a default judgment against anti-Trump prosecutor and liberal Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, after Willis failed to respond to a lawsuit demanding documents detailing her coordination with Washington liberals in Trump’s case.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “has asked the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to declare a default judgment against District Attorney Fani Willis in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records of communications Willis had with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee.”

    The motion was filed after Willis simply refused to respond to Judicial Watch’s suit seeking what are supposed to be publicly-available records.

    “I think this is the first time in Judicial Watch’s thirty years that a government official failed to answer an open records lawsuit in court,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “This further shows Ms. Willis has something to hide about her collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress on her unprecedented and compromised ‘get-Trump’ prosecution.”

    “The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, GA, after Willis and the county denied having any records responsive to an August 2023 Georgia Open Records Act request for communications with the Special Counsel’s office and/or the January 6 Committee (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al. (No. 24-CV-002805)). (Judicial Watch dismissed Fulton County from the lawsuit.),” Judicial Watch notes.

    Judicial Watch notes Willis “was served with the lawsuit on March 11, 2024, but that she has not yet answered it,” writing in its motion:

    Defendant has not filed an answer and no answer has been served upon [Judicial Watch].… Defendant’s answer was due 30 days after service, or on April 10, 2024. Pursuant to [Georgia law] the case automatically became in default when an answer was not filed by the due date. Further pursuant to that Code section, Defendant was permitted as a matter of right to open the default within 15 days of the day of default, or by April 25, 2024.

    Judicial Watch asserts it “is now entitled to a verdict and judgment by default.”

    By all accounts, Willis coordinated her case with some liberals in Washington, and has records that Judicial Watch and the public are legally entitled to see.

    In its lawsuit Judicial Watch states that Willis’ “representation about not having records responsive to the request is likely false.”

    Judicial Watch points to “a December 5, 2023, letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to Willis that cites a December 2021, letter from Willis to then-House January 6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson. In that letter Willis requested assistance from the committee and offered to travel to DC.”

    Judicial Watch also cited “news reports and other records which ‘indicate that representatives of Willis’s office traveled to Washington, DC, and met with January 6 Select Committee staffers in April, May, and November 2022, as Willis proposed in her December 17, 2021 letter …’”

    Judicial Watch is assisted in the case by John Monroe of John Monroe Law in Georgia.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Backlash Grows as Well-Known Conservatives Sell Out to Woke Bud Light

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Easily bought conservatives. In the aftermath of the brutal fallout from Bud Light’s woke transgender promotion fiasco with man-pretending-to-be-a-woman, ‘transgender influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney, the beer giant tried everything to woo back angry conservatives who have been successfully boycotting it. 

    Bud Light sales have crashed, dropping almost over 27% in a few short months.

    In a panicked response, parent company Anheuser-Busch brought back the majestic Clydesdale horses, it also highlighted its events for, and donations to, veteran’s groups. It even made a commercial with football star Travis Kelce. 

    But nothing. Nada.

    Videos and images of empty Bud Light venues went viral, as did shelves filled with untouched Bud Light cases being almost given away free. Bud Light kept crashing and Mexico’s Modelo beer passed it up as top-selling beer in America.

    Along the way, Modelo became a sponsor of the UFC.

    The only thing the American beer behemoth hasn’t done is apologize for its huge mistake. And Bud Light executives, apparently fearing a minority of leftist woke activists more than they fear losing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, stubbornly refuse to do that.

    Bud Light even co-sponsored an LGBTQ+ Pride event in Arizona over the weekend.

    Instead, Anheuser-Busch made a more than $100 million bet (“well into nine figures”), and essentially bought a powerful, Trump-supporting conservative personality to become its shill, and affiliated itself with one of the most conservative and masculine sports entertainment venues in the country.

    The big conservative personality is UFC CEO Dana White, the organization is the UFC, promoter of mixed martial arts (MMA) fights. Both are being paid handsomely via a “multi-year marketing partnership” to promote Bud Light as the much-hated beer returns as the official beer of the sports juggernaut. 

    As part of Dana White’s new job promoting his sellout, he is doing the rounds of conservative media. As part of that ‘we aren’t woke’ spin tour, he went on the Sean Hannity show to repeatedly claim – unconvincingly to me – that the UFC, Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light “are very aligned when it comes to our core values.”

    That is the talking point. You will hear it a lot.

    Well, apparently that’s all it took for Hannity to embrace Bud Light’s faux return to the conservative fold. After a little mild, mostly symbolic, pushback, Hannity quickly folded and said he could give the unrepentant woke beer brand ‘one more chance.’

    White also went on the The Charlie Kirk Show on October 26 to push back at conservative critics calling him a sellout. He said he admired the beer company’s core values, adding: “It’s this unbelievable, powerful, American-built business…”

    When discussing the deal, conservative radio hosts Buck Sexton and Clay Travis (who I generally agree with and like) also sympathized with White and the UFC, meekly saying, ‘that’s a lot of money,’ and they might take it from Bud Light too. 

    One of the two also predicted that Bud Light’s huge bet with White and the UFC might pay off, and in a year the transgender boycott will be forgotten, seemingly trying to help make it so.

    I hope they are all dead wrong, and their kowtowing to Bud Light just to please Dana White and his powerful organization will be condemned by conservatives. And there is evidence that a backlash against the UFC decision is now growing.

    It has ignited a firestorm of criticism on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. Many fans have said they will now be boycotting the UFC and canceling their pay-per-view subscription because of the brand partnership.

    As Newsweek reported:

    “I’m canceling my subscription and never buying ANY PPV (pay-per-view) fights anymore until this sponsorship is gone. This is the worst business deal UFC has ever made EVER,” one angry fan wrote.

    “How about you explain your pathetic Bud Light sponsorship!!?? What you doing rainbow uniforms next?? Canceling my UFC fight pass subscription,” said another.

    “I just canceled my ESPN+ subscription. I used to buy every PPV but this is the last straw,” wrote another.

    A fourth added: “Canceled my UFC fight pass subscription. Enjoy your Bud Light, hope it was worth it.”

    But realize it’s not just Dana White and the UFC that are sellouts, it’s also conservative powerhouse commentators like Sean Hannity, and lesser ones like Buck and Clay who seem to be quickly and meekly surrendering to Bud Light and their new partners, the UFC.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Torrential Rain In CA That Will Be Completely Wasted

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    3
    Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), CC BY 2.5 AR via Wikimedia Commons

    California is in the midst of a historic rainstorm, but will it be a waste?

    Watch Amanda break down the latest controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    New FBI Records Reveal Warnings About Suspicious Individual Before Sniper Attack On Trump

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    0

    A stash of newly-released documents reveal FBI, Secret Service and other officials noted a suspicious person carrying bags and scouting security measures in the hours before a sniper attempted to kill President Donald Trump in Butler, Penn., but no one seems to have taken any action to investigate.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “forced the release of 37 heavily redacted pages from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit revealing that law enforcement personnel broadcast radio warnings about an ‘unknown male acting suspiciously’ prior to the attempted assassination of then-candidate Donald Trump at a July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA. These are the first records the FBI has released about the Butler assassination attempt on Trump.”

    “These documents raise troubling new questions about Secret Service failures to protect President Trump.  And it shouldn’t have taken years and a federal lawsuit to get this basic FBI material about the near assassination of President Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

    Judicial Watch reports it “filed the July 2025 lawsuit after the FBI failed to respond to a July 2024 FOIA request (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-02216)). Judicial Watch asked for:”

    All records, including but not limited to, investigative reports, interview summaries (Forms 1023), letterhead memoranda, photos, audio/visual recordings, database inquiries, interagency communications, and any other records, whether contained in the Central Records System or cross-referenced files, related to Thomas Matthew Crooks, born September 20, 2003 in Butler Township, PA and died on July 13, 2024, who attempted the assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024.

    All records of communication in any form, including but not limited to emails, text messages, encrypted app communications and voice recordings, between FBI officials and/or FBI sources, contractors, and assets on the one hand, and Thomas Matthew Crooks on the other hand.

    Judicial Watch reports its “records include a July 16, 2024, ‘FD-302’ investigative report that states that on the day of the shooting:”

    Prior to the start of the shooting, [Redacted] received reports over the radio about an unknown male acting suspiciously. The unknown male had bags and was wearing a gray T-shirt with “Demolition Ranch” written on the front of it. One report included the unknown male looking at a law enforcement sniper position. Several operators were communicating information about the unknown male back and forth over the radio–including to/from Command, to the Secret Service, to PSP [PA State Police], to “everybody.”

    Judicial Watch’s statement reports:

    A July 15 electronic communication titled “Opening EC for Investigation of Thomas Matthew Crooks” that launched the FBI investigation of Thomas Crooks notes that one purpose of the investigation, given that Crooks himself was killed by Secret Service agents, was to determine “the subject’s motivation and to identify if there were any co-conspirators.” 

    A July 14 investigative report describes an unidentified acquaintance of Thomas Crooks and his family, the acquaintance indicated that sometime between May and June 2024, Crooks “was dehydrated and needed to be taken to the hospital.” It continued, “[Redacted] stated that she thought it was strange that [redacted] did not take him to the hospital themselves.” 

    A July 16 electronic communication states that on the previous day, the FBI returned a flip phone seized as evidence in their investigation of Crooks, and that that “Lead is fully covered.”

    A July 16 report notes that on the previous day a person who was apparently a neighbor, described the Crooks family as “normal, nice people” and that Crooks “seemed like a normal dorky kid.”

    A July 16 electronic communication details that acting on a tip, sent to the FBI regarding a “concerning” Facebook post regarding Crooks’ attempted assassination of Trump:

    Facebook “Damn, bad shot. Would have done the world a service” and another comment on the original post “We should watched his ficking brains brains blown away.” The tipster also provided the Facebook page that posted this was [redacted]. 

    A July 16 electronic communication indicates that a business card was located at the crime scene of Trump’s attempted assassination, and the person associated with it was investigated, although nothing derogatory about that individual was identified in law enforcement records. An interview of that individual was recommended.

    A July 16 interview report states that investigators talked with an individual who had attended the Butler rally:

    [Redacted] recalled that approximately 5 minutes after the shots were fired, a light silver Subaru Hatchback sped past her and almost struck her. [Redacted] didn’t remember the vehicle having any stickers or distinct markings. [Redacted] didn’t get a look at the license plate, but believed the driver to be an older white male with short hair and tan skin. [Redacted] saw the Subaru in the parking lot near houses specifically a brown house with a pool. The vehicle departed the parking lot making a sharp right turn near the old buildings.

    [Redacted] was with [redacted] in the parking lot and observed the vehicle too. [Redacted] described the vehicle as a 2017 silver Subaru Forester…. [Redacted] noted the terrain was too rough to drive at the rate of speed the Subaru was doing. [Redacted] thought the incident with the vehicle occurred maybe 10 minutes after the shooting.

    A July 16 interview report details the observations of a member of the Saxonburg Police Department who was also a member of the Butler Emergency Services Unit:

    [Redacted] was on the counter assault team. His position was in the turret inside the armor vehicle next to the barns behind the stage. [Redacted] stated sniper teams called out and sent photos of a suspicious person with a range finder. [Redacted] stated he watched a guy fitting the description walking from the water tower to the stage area and out of view. He did not see anything on the individual.

    [Redacted] stated prior to anything happening he saw four people one child walking away from the AGR [American Glass Research] building towards the houses then two units took off in the direction of where the shooter was later found. A call came out over the radio of a long gun on the roof. Shortly after shots started going off. [Redacted] rode in the armor behind the tents near the stage, but did not ever have a view of the roof where the shooter was. [Redacted] ran out of the armor vehicle with a ladder to AGR and was told they didn’t need any more guys on the roof. So he came back and held security for a medic working on the deceased individual. The Secret Service then took over the tent.

    In a July 16 interview summary of an individual who had attended the Butler rally:

    [S]he noticed a white male with dark hair interacting with a uniformed law enforcement officer. They both were seen looking at two open windows of the property/building adjacent to the AGR Building. The white male told the officer that those windows were not supposed to be open. [Redacted] saw the windows that appeared to be opened from the inside. As the officer walked around towards the other side of the building, the white male stood on the side where the windows were facing towards the event/stage.  

    Shortly thereafter, at approximately some time after 6PM, she heard another white male yell the following, “He’s got a gun, everybody run!” This white male appeared to be in his late [redacted] who was seen wearing a white shirt, who had dark colored hair and a [redacted]. She remembered seeing a “panicked” look on his face. After he yelled, [redacted] heard six gunshots that sounded like they came from the two open windows. She took [redacted] and ran towards the vehicle along with many others from the crowd. She lost [redacted] in the crowd but continued running towards the vehicle with [redacted] and another white male who helped with getting [redacted] to the vehicle. She eventually located [redacted] with the help of the same male.

    She recalled seeing the law enforcement officer wearing a brown/tan uniform but she did not see the patch.

    When she returned to the vehicle, she recalled seeing the Suburban still parked behind her with no occupants inside. She departed the scene shortly thereafter.

    After reflection, [Redacted] thought the security outside of the fence line was a concern because there was a lot of open access. She did not see anybody screening individuals near or outside the fence line.

    [Redacted] told agents that she does not support conspiracy theorist or is one but she wanted to provide this information to investigators just in case it would help with the investigation.

    A July 16 interview report details the observations of a member of the Slippery Rock Police Department who was also a member of the Butler Emergency Services Unit:

    Once Trump started to move toward the stage, [redacted] and the Bravo squad were prepared to move in the armored vehicle. At that time, a report came in over the radio stating there was a male on one of the roofs ([redacted] was not sure which roof) and that the male had a long gun.

    Almost immediately after the report came over the radio, [redacted] heard several gunshots. [Redacted] was not sure how many, possibly seven or eight shots. The Bravo squad then responded in the armored vehicle to the grand stand. When they arrived, they exited the armored vehicle and pushed up the grand stand. They were there briefly, attempting to determine what was happening, and then pulled back. At that time, [Redacted] observed a male on the ground with a gun shot wound to his chest. The team then formed a tight perimeter around the medics as they addressed the injured male.

    The Secret Service then requested a tactical team to provide security at the Butler Hospital. [Redacted] and three other operators drove the armored vehicle to the hospital and formed a hard perimeter around the outside of the hospital and the helicopter landing pad. [Redacted] stayed there until they “took Donald Trump out.”

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.

    Turning Point is funding the largest ballot-chasing operation in U.S. history to win key battleground states. Our grassroots army is already in the field for 2026 and beyond. But they can’t stay there without your support. Donate today to help win the midterms, protect the America First movement, and keep conservatives in power.

    We Should Be Talking About Biden Corruption not Trump-Created Drama

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – Yes, it’s a big deal, that former President Donald Trump has been booked and charged in federal court with 37 counts of violating federal law. And we should be talking about it. 

    It’s definitely not Watergate, but some of the charges, such as obstruction, are similar to those Richard Nixon faced before he resigned in 1974.

    Thirty-one of the counts are for violating the Espionage Act through “willful retention” of classified records. The other six counts include obstruction of justice and false statements stemming from his alleged efforts to impede the investigation. 

    Meanwhile, the media is conveniently ignoring all of Joe Biden’s brewing scandals, which are far worse; even surpassing Watergate.

    We should be talking about Biden corruption, not Trump stubbornness.

    Many Trump loyalists argue that the Trump indictment proves there is a double standard compared to how Biden is being treated. And I would agree. 

    The investigation into Hunter Biden should not have taken five years and still be unresolved.

    That is an outrage.

    And then there are the bribery and foreign influence peddling allegations against Joe Biden himself.

    That should be the big story today. Not Trump’s rants on Truth Social about his latest legal woes.

    Hillary Clinton was also treated with kid gloves by the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI, even though she destroyed evidence from hard drives and deleted 30,000 emails, some of which may have contained classified information. 

    She got off. That was absolutely wrong.

    If Republican ex-presidents and current presidential candidates are going to be indicted so should Democrat former Secretaries of State running for president. If not, then we have a partisan, two-tiered justice system.

    And I have written about this a lot. But here is where I see things a bit differently.

    We are today talking about Donald Trump and his drama, primarily because of Donald Trump. He did this one mostly to himself.

    Trump could have avoided this criminal legal battle had he simply turned over all classified materials he had in his possession when asked for them over an 18-month period.

    That’s what Joe Biden and former vice president Mike Pence both did when they were discovered to have ‘unknowingly’ kept classified documents after leaving office. They actually turned them over right away. 

    Did Biden do more than that, we don’t really know yet. But neither have been charged with any crimes.

    And Trump was not charged over any materials or records that he returned. Only those he willfully kept.

    Trump first made ludicrous claims about the documents, including that he had declassified them, which he hadn’t. And he fought back in court and delayed and delayed until he was forced to finally give 15 boxes of records to the National Archives and Records Administration.

    But a lot more remained.

    Then he began obstructing and moving the remaining boxes of records, including classified materials at his home in Florida. Despite repeated efforts by the FBI and DOJ to try to get them back, Trump refused.

    And like Watergate, the cover-up is what gets you in trouble.

    That is why the FBI finally raided Mar-a-Lago in August of last year. It was an unprecedented action, which I condemned at the time.

    We have also since learned that the FBI had preferred to continue trying to get Trump’s lawyers to turn over the remaining classified materials and surveil Trump home in case anyone tried to remove materials, but DOJ insisted on the raid.

    Maybe the raid could have been (should have been) avoided, but it was legal. And what the raid uncovered was that Trump had hidden a lot of classified materials in numerous unsecure places in his home.

    Further investigation showed that Trump also had admitted on tape that he didn’t have the authority to declassify documents after leaving office, and that he hadn’t done so prior to leaving. He also reportedly flashed highly classified plans to attack Iran in front of the faces of uncleared persons visiting him.

    None of this is good for Trump or the nation. The classified documents included “defense and weapons capabilities” of the United States and foreign countries. 

    But none of this would have been a legal issue if Trump simply turned over these extremely sensitive national security materials when requested, or at some point over the 18 months in question.

    So, now instead of talking about all of the incredible Biden corruption, we are here again talking about Trump-created drama.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    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.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    Amanda Head: My Thoughts On Last Night And What’s To Come

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Election results are still pouring in on Wednesday as Americans wait with anticipation to see which party will gain control of Congress.

    Watch Amanda break down the situation below:

    Amanda Head: Wokeness Failed In Movie Theaters- Repeatedly!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    2

    Go woke, go broke…

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Pelosi Knew – Tucker Carlson Interviews Capitol Police Chief Again over Jan 6

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

    ANALYSIS – The original interview Tucker Carlson did with former 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. 

    I wrote about some of Sund’s claims earlier in August. 

    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?”

    But Sund adds more details and perspective to the event that makes the lead up even more damning for the Democrats.

    The Blaze reported:

    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.

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022