TB Fanatic

Judge keeps mother, son in Capitol riot jailed pending trial
  • This booking photo released by the Metro Nashville, Tenn., Police Department, shows Lisa Marie Eisenhart,left, and Eric Gavelek Munchel. A Washington, D.C., judge on Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2021, ordered that the Georgia woman and her Tennessee son remain jailed pending trial on charges for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Lisa Eisenhart is accused of breaking into the Capitol with her son, Eric Munchel, who was photographed carrying flexible plastic handcuffs in the Senate chamber. (Metro Nashville Police Department via AP)
  • Capitol Breach Arrests Tennessee
    This booking photo released by the Metro Nashville, Tenn., Police Department, shows Lisa Marie Eisenhart,left, and Eric Gavelek Munchel. A Washington, D.C., judge on Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2021, ordered that the Georgia woman and her Tennessee son remain jailed pending trial on charges for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Lisa Eisenhart is accused of breaking into the Capitol with her son, Eric Munchel, who was photographed carrying flexible plastic handcuffs in the Senate chamber. (Metro Nashville Police Department via AP)
Thu, February 18, 2021, 9:03 AM

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A Washington, D.C., judge on Wednesday ordered that a Georgia woman and her Tennessee son remain jailed pending trial on charges for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Lisa Eisenhart is accused of breaking into the Capitol with her son, Eric Munchel, who was photographed carrying flexible plastic handcuffs in the Senate chamber.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that “no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community" if the two are released pending trial.

Both of them “supported the violent overthrow of the United States government” and pose a “clear danger to our republic," the judge wrote.

Eisenhart’s attorney filed a notice Thursday that she is appealing the ruling.

In separate hearings late last month, a federal magistrate judge in Nashville had ordered them released to home confinement. Prosecutors opposed the release, and at their request, the judge stayed his order until it could be reviewed by the District of Columbia court.

U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell, of the District of Columbia, then blocked the release of 56-year-old Eisenhart and 30-year-old Munchel pending a hearing and ordered them transported to D.C. for further proceedings.

COVID-19-related complications slowed their transportation to Washington, and the two sought review of their detention, Judge Lamberth wrote. The judge on Wednesday arraigned the two and prosecutors made a new oral motion for pretrial detention.

Prosecutors say the two wore tactical and bulletproof vests in the Capitol and Munchel carried a stun gun. Munchel also recorded their storming of the Capitol, and prosecutors say that video shows the pair stashed weapons in a bag before entering the building. A search of Munchel’s Nashville home turned up assault rifles, a sniper rifle with a tripod, shotguns, pistols, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a drum-style magazine.

Lamberth wrote that the defense attorneys' portrayal of the offenses “as mere trespassing or civil disobedience is both unpersuasive and detached from reality.”

The judge added that Eisenhart's words after the riots were chilling — that she would “rather die ... than live under oppression" and "would rather fight.”

“If Eisenhart does not fear the ultimate consequence, the consequences for disobeying release conditions are unlikely to deter her,” the judge wrote.

Likewise, the judge wrote that Munchel indicated after the riots that he was willing to take similar actions again, quoting Munchel saying: "the point of getting inside the building is to show them that we can, and we will.”

“He compared himself — and the other insurrectionists — to the revolutionaries of 1776, indicating that he believes that violent revolt is appropriate,” the judge wrote.

Both Munchel and Eisenhart are charged with violent entry and disorderly conduct on the Capitol grounds, conspiracy and civil disorder. They could each face up to 20 years if convicted.


TB Fanatic

U.S. investigating possible ties between Roger Stone, Alex Jones and Capitol rioters
Alex Jones joins supporters of President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 12.

Alex Jones joins supporters of President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 12. (Evelyn Hockstein for The Washington Post)
Spencer S. Hsu and
Devlin Barrett
Feb. 20, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. UTC

The Justice Department and FBI are investigating whether high-profile right-wing figures — including Roger Stone and Alex Jones — may have played a role in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach as part of a broader look into the mind-set of those who committed violence and their apparent paths to radicalization, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The investigation into potential ties between key figures in the riot and those who promoted former president Donald Trump’s false assertions that the election was stolen from him does not mean those who may have influenced rioters will face criminal charges, particularly given U.S. case law surrounding incitement and free speech, the people said. Officials at this stage said they are principally seeking to understand what the rioters were thinking — and who may have influenced beliefs — which could be critical to showing their intentions at trial.

However, investigators also want to determine whether anyone who influenced them bears enough responsibility to justify potential criminal charges, such as conspiracy or aiding the effort, the officials said. That prospect is still distant and uncertain, they emphasized.

Nevertheless, while Trump’s impeachment trial focused on the degree of his culpability for the violence, this facet of the case shows investigators’ ongoing interest in other individuals who never set foot in the Capitol but may have played an outsized role in what happened there through their influence, networks or action.

“We are investigating potential ties between those physically involved in the attack on the Capitol and individuals who may have influenced them, such as Roger Stone, Alex Jones and [Stop the Steal organizer] Ali Alexander,” said a U.S. official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a pending matter.

On Feb. 12, former president Trump’s legal team argued for his acquittal, saying his words were protected by free speech. (The Washington Post)

Stone is a longtime adviser to Trump, while Jones is a radio and web-streaming host behind Infowars.com. Both are frequent purveyors of conspiracy theories: Stone wrote a book suggesting Lyndon B. Johnson was behind John F. Kennedy’s assassination; Jones has spread and retracted claims that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a “hoax.”

All three amplified and intensified Trump’s incendiary claims that the 2020 election was illegitimate in the weeks leading up to the riot. But Stone and Alexander have directly credited each other with inspiring and planning the pro-Trump Stop the Steal campaign, with Alexander saying he came up with the idea and helped organize the Jan. 6 rally that drew Trump supporters to Washington. Stone and Jones also promoted the extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and had preexisting business or personal ties with members the government has charged with coordinating and planning certain parts of the breach or with violence at an earlier Trump rally, records and documents show.

A key task for prosecutors and agents is to sift through the multitude of motives and intentions of the roughly 800 people in the mob that descended upon the Capitol — from those who came as individuals drawn to the idea of derailing Joe Biden’s presidency before it began, to those who allegedly began organizing immediately after the election to show up in Washington in large numbers to use force to try to keep Trump in power.

The U.S. official and others familiar with the investigation cautioned that the role of firebrands like Stone and Jones may be important mostly to painting a complete picture of that day’s events, regardless of whether they ultimately rise to the level of conspiracy or other crimes.

Stone and Jones helped promote Trump’s false reelection fraud claims and earlier rallies in Washington and participated in pro-Trump events Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, but each has denied intending anything beyond peaceful protest.

Shortly after the riot, Jones said on Infowars that he was invited by the White House on about Jan. 3 to “lead the march” to the Capitol, and that he paid nearly $500,000, mostly donated, to help organize the event on the Ellipse.

Jones promoted the event vigorously, called for one million marchers and told his viewers on Jan. 1, “Roger Stone spent some substantial time with Trump in Florida just a few days ago, and I’m told big things are afoot and Trump’s got major actions up his sleeve.”

Roger Stone at a rally the day before the insurrection at the Capitol.

Roger Stone at a rally the day before the insurrection at the Capitol. (Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
A day before the insurrection, Jones urged a pro-Trump crowd at Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington “to resist the globalists” with his refrain, “I don’t know how all this is all going to end, but if they want to fight, they better believe they’ve got one!” In a Jan. 6 post from near the same spot, he declared “1776” — a term co-opted by Trump fans urging a kind of second revolution against the government. “We’re under attack, and we need to understand this is 21st-century warfare and get on a war-footing,” Jones said.

On that day, however, Jones said he followed, not led, the rally crowd as people moved toward the Capitol, and became alarmed by the chaos.

“Let’s not fight the police and give the system what they want,” Jones was recorded shouting from an inaugural stage. His attorney Marc Randazza said the video shows Jones urged calm, adding, “If you wish to know what Alex Jones’ role was [on Jan. 6] you need look no further than the video.”

Later Jones is heard saying, “Trump is going to speak over here! Trump is coming!” in what appears to be an attempt to distract and move a crowd away from the building’s embattled west front.

Stone has also publicly distanced himself from the violence and criticized it, telling Moscow-funded RT television on Jan. 8 that he was invited to lead a march but “I declined.” He said in the same interview that when he addressed a rally at the Supreme Court on Jan. 5, he intended “peaceful protest” and added, “I have specifically denounced the violence at the Capitol, the intrusion in the Capitol. That’s not how we settle things in America.”

In the Jan. 5 speech, Stone characterized the next day’s events as “an epic struggle for the future of this country between dark and light . . . the godly and the godless . . . good and evil.”
Stone’s attorney Grant Smith said in a statement, “There is no evidence whatsoever that Roger Stone was involved in any way, or had advance knowledge about the shocking attack that took place at the US Capitol on January 6th. Any implication to the contrary using ‘guilt by association’ is both dishonest and inaccurate.”

Alexander, in a since-deleted video on Periscope weeks before the Jan. 6 rally, said he and three hard-line Republican Trump supporters “schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting” to change the minds of those who wouldn’t go against certifying Biden’s win.

Alexander did not respond to an emailed request for comment for this story. But in an email to The Post in mid-January, Alexander said he had “remained peaceful” during the riot.
“Conflating our legally, peaceful permitted events with the breach of the US Capitol building is defamatory and false,” he said. On Telegram, Alexander has since blamed outside “Capitol agitators” for sabotaging events.

Part 1 of 2


TB Fanatic
Part 2 of 2

Right-wing connections
In recorded videos and on Infowars, Stone and Jones have lifted the profiles of the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a history of violence, and Oath Keepers — a loose network of self-styled militias — branding them as street-level security forces for right-wing causes and VIPs. A half-dozen alleged members of the Oath Keepers have been charged with conspiracy and leading up to 30 to 40 others in the break-in, according to court filings. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, has said he gave no direction or signals to members to storm the Capitol. The leader of the Proud Boys has said the group did not plan to interrupt Congress.

Stone was recorded on video both at the Supreme Court and at his Washington hotel on Jan. 5 and 6 with several Oath Keepers militia members who he has said were providing security.

Stone in online columns accused news organizations that reported the recordings of engaging in guilt by association and “more ‘Russian-collusion hoax-style’ smears.” Stone wrote that he knew of “no wrongdoing by the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys” and if credible information emerges that reveals a conspiracy, everyone involved should be prosecuted.

Already, officials have charged three Proud Boy leaders in connection with the Capitol riot or an earlier pro-Trump rally in Washington — Proud Boys chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, organizer Joe Biggs and Seattle leader Ethan Nordean. The three registered a company together last year, and Tarrio and Biggs also have preexisting personal or business connections to Stone and Jones, respectively, according to records and documents.
The scene on Jan. 6.

The scene on Jan. 6. (Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)

In proceedings while charged with obstructing Congress, Stone testified that Tarrio was one of a handful of aides he entrusted with his phones and social media accounts, explaining why Stone’s Instagram account had posted an image of the judge’s head next to what appeared to be gunsight crosshairs. Stone was convicted but pardoned by Trump last year.

Tarrio, 33, promoted Stone’s legal defense fund, launched an online store selling Stone and Proud Boys gear and led Latinos for Trump in Florida, which worked with the White House’s political liaison office. During last year’s campaign, Trump famously encouraged the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

On Dec. 29, Tarrio took to Parler to encourage the Proud Boys to “turn out in record numbers” to the Jan. 6 demonstration, adding in a Jan. 3 Telegram post, “What if we invade it?

Biggs, 37, became an on-air personality for Jones’ online Infowars outlet starting in 2014, covering armed Oath Keeper vigilantes’ emergence at protests against police brutality at Ferguson, Mo., and ranchers’ violent standoff against U.S. authorities at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

In a Nov. 20 podcast promoted by Jones, Tarrio suggested viewers “kick off this [Biden] presidency with f------- fireworks,” infiltrate his inauguration and “turn [it] into a f------ circus, a sign of resistance, a sign of revolution.” That podcast, which featured Biggs and Nordean, and was first reported by online news site The Daily Dot, was posted to YouTube but has since been removed. The Post has viewed the video.

Nordean, 30, who called himself Rufio Panman online, became a Proud Boys spokesman after a video of him punching out a Portland protester in June 2018 went viral and was featured by Jones. Last July, Tarrio, Biggs and Nordean started a Florida business called Warboys LLC, promoting right-wing causes online in the footsteps of Stone and Jones and through Tarrio’s store, the 1776 Shop.

Americans must “desensitize” themselves to violence, Nordean said in a Parler-linked video Dec. 31 in which his guest called Proud Boys “soldiers of the right wing” at war.

Biggs’s defense attorney Michael Ryan has called the allegations against Biggs “speculative” and said he is not accused of damaging the Capitol.

Nordean’s attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Corey Endo of Seattle, has said his client is not accused of violence, and prosecutors were targeting Proud Boys via “guilt by association.”

Endo declined to comment, and Ryan did not respond to requests for comment.

Tarrio was not at the Jan. 6 rally and has not been charged with any wrongdoing related to the riot. He was arrested on Jan. 4 and pleaded not guilty to weapons and property destruction charges at a previous pro-Trump protest in the District. Tarrio said he posted “What if we invade it” referring to recruiting candidates to take over local and national Republican committees, not the Capitol. He said he was in touch with Stone and others about his plans to attend the Jan. 6 rally, but that was all.

“There was no plan to go into the Capitol . . . There was no plan to even interrupt Congress.”

Reviewing radicalization
The Proud Boys have been a major focus of the FBI investigation so far, in part because of their statements in the run-up to the attack, according to people familiar with the investigation. At least 18 Proud Boys or associates also have been charged, including several who, according to court documents, allegedly appeared to move in an organized fashion at the head of crowds storming police, forcing entry. Some also appeared to be wearing or using earpieces and two-way walkie-talkie style communication devices, prosecutors and the FBI said.
People near the Capitol make the “OK” sign, a gesture co-opted by white supremacists who recast it to mean “white power.”

People near the Capitol make the “OK” sign, a gesture co-opted by white supremacists who recast it to mean “white power.” (Amanda Andrade-Rhoades for The Washington Post)
Proud Boys during a rally for Trump in Washington on Dec. 12.

Proud Boys during a rally for Trump in Washington on Dec. 12. (Evelyn Hockstein for The Washington Post)

The group’s actions pose another critical question for prosecutors and FBI agents: How individual rioters grew “radicalized” to allegedly commit crimes that meets the textbook definition of domestic terrorism, and whether any criminal culpability extends beyond the rioters to anyone who may have worked with them.

Prosecutors and the FBI have cast a wide net for evidence of radicalization that led to violent criminal conduct at the Capitol, obtaining more than 500 search warrants and grand jury subpoenas and opening case files on more than 400 potential suspects as of Jan. 26.
A Jan. 21 search warrant for the home and electronic devices of a Maryland man charged with assaulting police on Jan. 6 sought information relating to “radicalization against the U.S. Congress, the 2020 presidential election, the Jan. 6 certification … and the Jan. 20, 2021 presidential Inauguration.”

The warrant also sought information regarding animosity toward U.S. officials or law enforcement; interest in the security and layout of federal buildings; and others who “collaborated, conspired or assisted [--] knowingly or unknowingly,” in the assault, or who communicated about related matters.

Justice Department spokesmen referred questions to the FBI, which declined to comment.
First Amendment litigator Ken White said the legal hurdle for charging incitement rises the further removed in time and distance the speaker is from any lawless activity.

“It’s incredibly hard under current law to say that someone like Alex Jones saying something a day or a week before is going to meet that standard as the law has been interpreted,” White said. “I anticipate that you will see increasingly creative alternative approaches by federal prosecutors, like conspiracy.”

Current and former U.S. authorities said investigators are likely excavating “layers” of rioters’ motivations, including whether any might have been part of any wider conspiracy. Those officials likened the process to investigating street-level drug dealers or gangsters who might “flip” and implicate higher-ranking captains or ringleaders.

“Every terrorism case I’ve ever worked on … has shown something about the radicalization process, or how a person came to harbor the views, animosity and intent to commit a crime of violence,” said Mary McCord, a top national security official at the Justice Department from 2014 to 2017.

Trump may have seeded and stoked rioters’ grievances with false claims of election fraud and thinly veiled calls for violence, said McCord, now at Georgetown Law School. But investigators are also probing whether rioters were lone actors or coordinated by others who directed them or provided resources such as money for travel, lodging, or weapons, she said.

“Just like the kingpin in a conspiracy, the fact he [Trump] gave directions doesn’t mean other conspirators are not guilty,” McCord said.

Michael M. Clarke, former lead FBI case agent investigating the 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, added, “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to think some people conspired.” However, he added, “That doesn’t mean you have a grand conspiracy involving everyone, but you may have loosely connected groups.”


TB Fanatic
INSANE: Louisiana Secretary of State About to Hand Over $100 Million in Voting Machine Purchase – Dominion Is Reportedly In the Running

By Joe Hoft
Published February 21, 2021 at 6:55pm

Insanity – Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results.

The AP reported in a biased and one-sided article that Louisiana is looking at buying voting machines for the state. We used to have less corrupt media, but today the media is full far-left and very dishonest. This article proves it (see bolded text):
Dominion Voting Systems, the target of unfounded voter fraud claims by supporters of former President Donald Trump, intends to bid for Louisiana’s new voting machine contract as it continues to combat the conspiracy theories surrounding its equipment, the company’s leader said Friday.
“It’s our expectation and hope that it will be a free and fair process that will not be judged or weighed on misinformation,” Dominion CEO John Poulos said in an interview.

Republican Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin’s solicitation went out Jan. 27 for contractors seeking to replace 10,000 voting machines that are decades old. Bids from companies interested in the contract are due at the end of March. Louisiana’s contract is estimated to be worth up to $100 million.
It’s really outrageous that the AP would state that the claims against Dominion are conspiracy theories and unfounded. And what’s even more outrageous is that the Republican Secretary of State in Louisiana would entertain a bid from this company.

Here’s a link to Mr. Ardoin’s email.

Dominion is at the center of the stolen 2020 election where President Trump set records for the most votes ever by a large margin only to have the election stolen from him by a candidate no one was excited about, Joe Biden. The CEO of Dominion spoke in front of the Michigan legislature in an attempt to quell accusations against the company. But this only led to accusations about the CEO’s trustworthiness:

Inventor and cybersecurity expect Jovan Hutton also pointed out that the Dominion voting machines are connected to the Internet, something Dominion has consistently denied:

These machines should be destroyed, not purchased. They are at the heart of fraudulent elections in Venezuela and now the US.


TB Fanatic

HUGE NEWS: New Hampshire Senate Votes 24-0 to Force the State to Perform Audit of Windham, New Hampshire November 3rd Elections

By Jim Hoft
Published February 22, 2021 at 9:49am

As we previously reported at The Gateway Pundit —

A recent hand recount in the Rockingham District 7 NH House Race in Windham, New Hampshire, found that the Dominion-owned voting machines shorted EVERY REPUBLICAN by roughly 300 votes.

Via Facebook

The Dominion machine counted results were wrong for all 4 Republicans in Windham by almost exactly 300 votes.

Dominion Voting Systems owns the intellectual property of the AccuVote machines used in New Hampshire.

earlier this month we spoke with Dr. David Strang M.D., the Belknap County Republican Committee State Committee Member, for the New Hampshire GOP.

David told The Gateway Pundit that the Republican candidates in Windham had 6% of their total votes removed by the Dominion-owned voting machines.

According to Dr. Strang, these same Dominion-owned machines are used in 85% of the towns in New Hampshire.

What makes the New Hampshire 2020 results even more suspect:
** Republicans flipped the New Hampshire Senate from 14-10 Democrat to 14-10 Republican in 2020.
** Republicans flipped the New Hampshire House from 230-156 majority Democrat to 213-187 Republican majority in 2020!
** Yet, Joe Biden who was 4th in Dem primary and Kamala Harris, who did not make it to the Dem primary, won the state 52.7 to 45.4 to Trump.

These results are IMPOSSIBLE.

What Democrats did was skim 6% off each GOP candidate in each race where there was a recount.

Now this…

Last week the New Hampshire state senate voted 24-0 to force the state to perform an audit of the Windham, New Hampshire state representative races on November 3, 2020.
Ken Eyring
at Granite Grok reported:
The din behind the largest discrepancy regarding an election recount is growing… And We, the People are being heard. The “Windham Incident” has brought people together from all political ideologies… and it is amazing.
Last week, the Senate passed an amendment to Senate Bill SB43 that was championed by Senator Bob Giuda. The amendment replaced the entire text of SB43 with language that would FORCE the state to perform an audit on the Windham State Rep race on November 3, 2020.

It passed 24-0. Let that sink in! 24-0! That is quite a statement that reflects our desire to have accurate elections. The House will pick up the baton this week – and I’m hopeful that it flies through.

The Windham Board of Selectmen have been on board requesting an investigation regarding what the heck happened since the beginning of the debacle – and tomorrow they have an agenda item to discuss the situation further.
Please make a statement and join the meeting. You don’t have to talk, just being there says it all… that you care about our Republic, and that you will not sit idly by while our state government officials do nothing. Your presence will speak volumes!
There is a meeting tonight! Read the rest here.


TB Fanatic
Attorney Sidney Powell Responds to Latest Supreme Court Rulings on Election Integrity – Justice Thomas’s Dissent Included

By Jim Hoft
Published February 22, 2021 at 10:42am

The United States Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases.
The court made the announcement on Monday morning.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial.

Trump- nominated Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices.



Here is the full document released this morning by the US Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Refuses Trump Taxes Case, 2020 Election Cases Response by Jim Hoft on Scribd

Attorney Sidney Powell reported this on her Telegram page.
Denials with Dissents
1. Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (formerly Boockvar), began with Application for stay filed September 28, 2020. No. 20-542. (CU/CUF/TPC amicus brief in this case on November 25, 2020.)
2. Corman (formerly Scarnati) v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party. Petitioners are Pennsylvania state legislators, began with Petition filed October 27, 2020. No. 20-574.
In these two cases, Thomas dissented and Alito/Gorsuch also dissented.
Roberts and Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the Dems Dissents appear at the end of the Order list.
As Thomas said: “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Denials without any dissent.
3. Congressman Mike Kelly v. Pennsylvania, began with Application for injunctive relief filed December 3, 2020. No. 20-810.

4. Trump v. Degraffenreid (PA), No. 20-845, began with Petition for Cert filed December 21, 2020.
This was John Eastman’s case.
Powell linked to Justice Thomas’s dissent at Techno Fog.


TB Fanatic

Trans Woman Jessica Watkins Stripped Naked and Left in Cell with Lights on for 24 Hours a Day for 4 Days – Is Still Being Held for Crime of Walking Through US Capitol, Talking to Cops, Following Orders on Jan. 6

By Jim Hoft
Published February 22, 2021 at 8:39am

Jessica Watkins was arrested in January after she turned herself in to federal authorities.

Ms. Watkins attended the January 6th protest and rally at the White House Ellipse and the US Capitol. She was reportedly working as security at the Ellipse and met with US officials before the president’s speech. She is also a member of the Oathkeepers, a pro-Constitution group frequently maligned by the liberal media and Democrat politicians.

During the siege of the US Capitol Jessica Watkins did not threaten anyone, did not vandalize anything, encourage others not to vandalize, spoke with several police officers inside the Capitol, and followed their orders.

From her court documents:

Mike Cernovich reported on the case.

For her alleged “crimes” of “conspiring to attack the US Capitol building on January 6,” Jessica Watkins was stripped and left naked in a jail cell for four days with the lights on 24 hours a day.
She is still being held without bond, a clear violation of her 8th Amendment rights.

The abuse of Jessica Watkins is over the top.

Where are all of the civil rights attorneys?

Business Insider reported:
A member of a far-right militia who stormed the US Capitol building has petitioned to be released from jail due to safety concerns relating to her being transgender, according to BuzzFeed News.
Jessica Watkins, an Oath Keeper, charged with conspiring to attack the US Capitol building on January 6, filed for release pending trial on Saturday.

She alleged that she has been “treated harshly” and is at “particular risk in custody” because she is transgender, BuzzFeed News reported.
Watkins also argued that she is no threat to the public, the media outlet said.
The 38-year-old has been held in at least two facilities, including in the Montgomery County Jail in Dayton, Ohio. It is not clear where she is currently being held.

She is asking for the court to release her and instead consider home detention.
In a legal document seen by BuzzFeed, Watkins alleged that she had been mistreated in an Ohio county jail.
She claims that she was stripped naked and left “in a cell with lights on 24 hours a day for 4 days in full view of everyone,” according to her attorney.
This was in response to a hunger strike that the Oath Keeper went on in a bid to get treatment for an arm injury, the media outlet reported.


TB Fanatic

READ: Dominion Sues Mike Lindell For $1.3BN, Uses Nazi “Big Lie” Phrase 31 Times In Court Filing.
The text of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1,300,000,000 lawsuit against My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell has been released.

The suit, which alleges Lindell “exploited” the 2020 election to sell pillows, relies on the Democrats’ “Big Lie” talking point, a term coined by Adolf Hitler ahead of the Holocaust.

The 115-page document uses the term roughly 30 times and insists Lindell “sells the lie to this day because the lie sells pillows.”

Read: scribd doc on website


TB Fanatic

Nolte: Only 17% of Trump Supporters Believe Joe Biden Legitimately Elected
Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46th president of the United States by Chief Justice John Roberts as Jill Biden holds the Bible during the 59th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
JOHN NOLTE22 Feb 2021342

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll found that only 17 percent of Trump voters believe His Fraudulency Joe Biden was legitimately elected, while 73 percent said he was not.

NOTE: Please keep in mind that USA Today/Suffolk polls are false polls with terrible track records, so everything should be taken with that grain of salt.

Nevertheless, fake news outlets are apoplectic over this poll, even though, if these numbers are to be believed, these same media outlets are primarily responsible for the results.

What we saw happen in the wing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia during the election was real. State courts and bureaucrats unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) changed voting laws, mailed out tens of millions of unsolicited ballots, stopped counting in the middle of the night, and then His Fraudulency squeaked out a narrow win.

In the swing states that mattered, Biden’s win was narrower than Trump’s.
Something stinks.
Sorry, it just does.
Does this mean there was voter fraud?
Of course, there was voter fraud!
Does this mean there was enough fraud to overturn the presidential election?
We don’t know.

And that’s the problem — we don’t know. And one thing that makes us suspicious is that no one wants to find out if there was voter fraud, most especially the establishment media.

Instead of looking into the 2020 president election, instead of investigating what happened and taking people’s concerns seriously, the corporate media are only increasing our suspicions by refusing not only to look into what happened, but by writing those of us off who have questions as terrorists and conspiracy theorists.

People with nothing to hide don’t freak out when you ask a question.

Governments with nothing to hide don’t freak out when you make an inquiry.

Between the last-minute rules changes, the stopping of the vote count, the lack of government transparency, and the media playing tackle to demonize anyone asking questions, Trump voters have every reason to believe the 2020 election was stolen. That doesn’t mean it was stolen, but when you behave as though you have something to hide, people have every right to believe you have something to hide.

Same with the Capitol Hill riot…

In this same poll, 58 percent of Trump voters said the riot was “mostly an Antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters.” Well, that’s more than double the 28 percent who say it was “a rally of Trump supporters, some of whom attacked the Capitol.”

Only four percent described it as an “attempted coup inspired by President Trump.”
This doesn’t surprise me at all.

Look at how many lies the corporate media have told about the riot. We were told a police officer was beaten to death by a fire extinguisher. Nope. We were told some guy showed up with handcuffs. Nope. We were told this was an armed insurrection. Nope. Then there are the lies of omission, especially the media covering up the fact that in his speech just prior to the riot, President Trump called on his supporters to be peaceful.

Oh, and we also learned the corporate media did business, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, with a leftist agitator who stands accused of partaking in the Capitol Hill riot and encouraging others to join him. That sure sounds like a false flag operation to me.

I’m sorry, but after all these media lies of commission and omission and the breathtaking news that the media rewarded a left-winger accused of rioting and encouraging others to riot, it is perfectly reasonable for people to believe it was an Antifa-inspired attack.

We are unceasingly lied to by the corporate media, Big Tech, and the federal government. Whenever we ask questions, we are shouted down as liars and conspiracy theorists just before we are blacklisted. No one tells us the truth. No one is interested in discovering the truth. Anyone who questions any of this is canceled and attacked.

Of course, this is going to breed suspicion, and it should breed suspicion.
I know I’m suspicious.

If three-quarters of Trump supporters do not accept Biden’s legitimacy, you’re talking about some 60 million Americans.


TB Fanatic

National Security ‘Experts’: GOP ‘Behaving Like a Terror Group,’ to Be Viewed ‘as Enemy Combatants’
Terrell Jermaine Starr Headshot
Atlantic Council
JOSHUA KLEIN20 Feb 20213,602

Several “national security experts” interviewed for an essay in The Root published on Thursday, attacked the Republican Party, claiming it behaves “like a terror group,” is rife with “terrorist sympathizers,” and should be viewed as “enemy combatants.”

The essay, penned by senior reporter Terrell Jermaine Starr and titled “Democrats Are Stuck With a Republican Party Rife With Conspiracy Theorists, Anarchists and Terrorist Sympathizers,” begins by asserting that the GOP is “authoritarian” and only cares for whites.

“[W]e have an entire political party that has converted into an authoritarian—albeit Americanized version—style of politics that cares nothing about U.S. democracy or anyone who is not white,” the essay starts.

Starr then refers to the GOP as “a party of turncoats” for having “basically sat by and said nothing” to counter “lies” reinforced by the former president’s defense lawyers during his impeachment trial last week.

Starr then introduces several national security experts who, he claims, told him “the Republican Party is functioning like a terror cell.”
NEW: National security experts told me the Republican Party is functioning like a terror cell. One said, "If they were in Afghanistan, we would’ve hit them. Either a raid, drop a bomb on them." Thanks @PamKeithFL, @_pamcampos, @KyleWBibby, @MalcolmNance. Democrats Are Stuck With a Republican Party Rife With Conspiracy Theorists, Anarchists and Terrorist Sympathizers
— Terrell Jermaine Starr (@Russian_Starr) February 18, 2021
The experts go on to voice their thoughts on the GOP, former President Donald Trump, and conservatives.

US Navy veteran Pam Keith, who ran as the Democrat nominee for election to the U.S. House to represent Florida’s 18th Congressional District, is quoted as saying that Democrats cannot work with Republicans.

“The only way a country like ours survives is through mutual agreement to set a standard.

That’s what the Constitution is. That’s what the rule of law is,” she said. “If you don’t have that, then there’s no incentive to peacefully allow the other sides to exercise power.”

Earlier this month, Keith compared Trump to Osama bin Laden, and in 2019, she openly called for women to stop having sex with conservative men.

According to Keith, the days of compromise are over.

“We still have this delusion of bipartisanship, Keith said. “There’s no ****ing bipartisanship. Get off that ship. It does not work. It’s sinking. It’s done. It’s at the bottom of the ocean. It’s the ****ing Titanic. It’s down in the water. Let it go.”

Former Marine Corps Infantry officer Kyle Bibby, the national campaign manager at Common Defense, told The Root that if those who took part in the early January riot at Capitol Hill “were in Afghanistan” they would have been hit.

“We would’ve hit them,” he said. “Either a raid, drop a bomb on them, whatever it is.”

Ultimately, Bibby claims, it is the Republican Party and conservative media that are responsible.

“But the organizations that are funding this and who are backing this that are creating the political movement behind this are organizations like Fox News, Breitbart, One America News Network, and the Republican Party,” he said.

“If these organizations existed in another country, we would be sanctioning them. We would be seizing their assets for inciting terroristic threats against an American ally or against U.S. interests.”

According to Pam Campos-Palma, director of Peace & Security at the Working Families Party, “white nationalist violence” like that witnessed during the early January Capitol riot, is “inherent to the GOP, policing and national security institutions.”

Starr then accuses Republicans in Congress of not doing much to quell “right-wing media lies.”
“In fact, they are spreading them,” he writes.

He claims they do so because they “feel their power is being threatened and the only way to galvanize support for their causes is through lying and scaring people so intensely that they will see lies as truth.”

Furthermore, Starr writes, the ideal type of supporters Republicans can “groom into ill-informed and lethal insurrectionists and white supremacists who will help you maintain power” are those who will believe the “lies,” adding that this is so even if the enemy — “Black folks and people of color” — may “suffer and/or die as a result.”

According to Malcolm Nance, a national security expert and author, the Republican Party behaves like a terror group and if Trump were to have won the recent presidential election, then “the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Boys, the state militias, all these other groups, are essentially going to become semi-official Brownshirts [the original paramilitary of Germany’s Nazi Party] of the Trump campaign.”

Nance also predicted that if Trump would lose, these same groups “are going to become the Iraq insurgents. They’re going to go underground” and “will resort to armed violence, political standoffs, and terrorism.”

Starr then writes that “Democrats have few options to get to the heart of white terrorism because their Republican colleagues in Congress benefit from it politically.”

“We have to view the GOP as enemy combatants because, for years, they have proven that Democrats are theirs,” he added.

The essay drew a host of bitter responses on Twitter.

“They actually want to kill Republicans,” wrote commentator Ian Miles Cheong. “Wild.”
They actually want to kill Republicans. Wild. https://t.co/pPrExetj5X
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 19, 2021
“This sounds like an incitement to civil war,” wrote conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. “What a way to talk about half the country! We have not seen this type of rhetoric in this country since 1860.”
This sounds like an incitement to civil war. What a way to talk about half the country! We have not seen this type of rhetoric in this country since 1860 https://t.co/yDxmzwukjg
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) February 19, 2021
“Abandon bipartisanship (understandable!) and treat your political opponents as ‘enemy combatants’ (insane!) Or we could just ‘drop a bomb on them,’ say ‘national security experts,’” wrote journalist Michael Moynihan.
Or we could just “drop a bomb on them,” say “national security experts” https://t.co/Dmk9C0iLg3
— Michael C Moynihan (@mcmoynihan) February 19, 2021
“Nothing dangerous about arguing for droning one of America’s two major political parties,” wrote journalist Dan McLaughlin.
Nothing dangerous about arguing for droning one of America's two major political parties. https://t.co/ltRCg8YJ1n
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) February 19, 2021
magine the reaction if someone in a right-wing outlet published an article in which someone casually mentioned dropping a bomb on Democrats,” wrote historian Varad Mehta. “These people are nuts.”
Pam Keith is a loon who retweets unhinged conspiracy theories on Twitter. Or is that Malcolm Nance? And imagine the reaction if someone in a right-wing outlet published an article in which someone casually mentioned dropping a bomb on Democrats. These people are nuts. https://t.co/uoUEYb5e3r
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) February 19, 2021
“Just liberal bluechecks saying Republicans should have bombs dropped on them,” wrote one Twitter user. “Paging @TwitterSafety.”
Oh, nothing.
Just liberal bluechecks saying Republicans should have bombs dropped on them.
Paging @TwitterSafety. https://t.co/leqoV46w9t
— RBe (@RBPundit) February 19, 2021
“So, #republicans are to be assassinated, per @TheRoot and a ‘national security experts’? But the @gop are the violent ones?” asked another Twitter user. “#nationaldivorce soon seems to be the only peaceful remedy when @thedemocrats label their opposition as ‘terrorists.’”
“Your periodic reminder that they hate you and want you dead,” wrote another.

“Just a National security expert suggesting bombing republicans,” wrote yet another. “Unity!”
“This inflammatory rhetoric needs to stop,” another Twitter user warned. “This is the type of stuff that gets people killed.”
This inflammatory rhetoric needs to stop. This is the type of stuff that gets people killed. https://t.co/P4YilHE5SG
— Dr Quigley (@CarrollQuigley1) February 19, 2021
“This is so insane, dear God,” wrote comedian Sean McCarthy.
This is so insane, dear God. https://t.co/nxSofqN2Lg
— $ean P. McCarthy (@SeanMcCarthyCom) February 19, 2021
The essay comes as some Democrats continue to target conservatives and paint Trump supporters as the worst of criminals, despite having repeated calls for “healing” and “unity.”

Earlier this month, The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed addressing the struggle to “resist demands for unity” in the face of acts of “aggressive niceness” on the part of friendly Trump-supporting neighbors who are compared to terror organizations who “offer protection and hospitality” and “polite” Nazis.

In a recent video created by left-wing novelist Don Winslow, citizens are called upon to become cyber detectives to monitor and report fellow citizen Trump supporters to authorities while comparing the work of this “army of citizens” to that which led to the capture of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

The clip, which received over four million views, claims the greatest threat facing America today emanates from “radical extreme conservatives, also known as domestic terrorists” hidden among us.

A video clip released last month by the left-wing MeidasTouch PAC brands Republican Party members as “traitors” unworthy of being called conservatives while describing the GOP as “no different” from the ISIS terror group.

The statements came from MeidasTouch co-founder Ben Meiselas on the PAC’s podcast in an over two-minute clip published Friday. In one tweet, the video was introduced with a message referring to the Republican Party as the “GOP terrorist party.”

Also last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dubbed members of Congress who seek to protect themselves with firearms the “enemy.”

“We will probably need a supplemental for more security for members when the enemy is within the House of Representatives, in addition to what is happening outside,” she said.


TB Fanatic

Breaking — Supreme Court rejects Trump’s Pennsylvania election lawsuit…

Posted by Kane on February 22, 2021 9:51 am

This story is developing.

Supreme Court refuses to review Pennsylvania election cases. No standing before an election, moot after. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissent from the denial.



Veteran Member
Biden AG Pick Merrick Garland Vows To Prosecute Capitol Rioters

SUNDAY, FEB 21, 2021 - 14:50

President Biden's pick for Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has vowed to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6 incursion into the US Capitol.

"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 -- a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government,"
Biden AG pick Merrick Garland says #Antifa attacks on federal courthouse may not be domestic terrorism because they happened at night.
RT 1:09secs
View: https://twitter.com/BirginiaVeach/status/1363937447248359428

Double standards applied...again.
View: https://twitter.com/seniorlivinglfe/status/1363944422061330440
View: https://twitter.com/brexitlivesey7/status/1363949295930638344


TB Fanatic

Days Before Certifying Colorado’s Questionable 2020 Election Results for Biden, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold Caught Deleting Dominion Voting Machines 2015 Proposal for Work
By Joe Hoft
Published February 22, 2021 at 2:00pm

Days after Colorado’s 2020 Election results for President were declared on December 8, 2020, for Joe Biden, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold deleted a proposal from Dominion in 2015 off of the Secretary’s website. The state’s 2020 results are very questionable. Is this why she deleted this Dominion document?

Another day, another suspicious act committed by Democrats in the 2020 election. Joe Biden was declared the winner in Colorado in the 2020 election. But the number of votes for Biden was reportedly more than both Hillary and Obama received in prior elections, a lot more.

President Trump surpassed both the Obama and Hillary record vote counts, which you would think would have won him the state since Biden had no game and no following, but instead the impossible occurred. Biden received half a million more votes than Obama and Hillary to set a record and outperform them all.

We wrote about these impossible results 10 days ago:

Today we’ve uncovered the fact that the Colorado Democrat Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, removed a document from her state’s website days after the 2020 election and days before certifying the 2020 election. The document was a proposal (RFP) from Dominion for voting machines in the state in December 2015:

Dominion RFP in Colorado w Coomer and Crane by Jim Hoft on Scribd (Scribd doc on website)

Why did the Colorado Secretary of State delete this document after the 2020 election and before the results were certified? Was it because it was with Dominion or because of the names included in the document?


TB Fanatic

BREAKING: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Pennsylvania Election Cases – Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas Dissent

By Jim Hoft
Published February 22, 2021 at 10:22am

The United States Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases.
The court made the announcement on Monday morning.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial.

Trump- nominated Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices.


Here is the full document released this morning by the US Supreme Court.
(scribd doc on website)


Faithful Steed
It will not be long now before ANY mention of fraud in the 2020 election will get you 3 to 5 for "Incitement."

And this ESPECIALLY includes the Internet.

They (TPTB) have the tools to monitor, document, and come for you at your house.

You will not be able to render an opinion. Freedom of speech is DEAD.

So if you have any interest, for all the good it will do you, to get and hold things like the Mike Lindell Video, Pulitzer's testimony, or even the video of the Georgia Voting for Biden at 2 a.m., get them now before they disappear into the "memory hole."



TB Fanatic

READ: Trump’s Dynamic Plan For Election Reform
On January 6th, President Trump revealed a common sense plan to restore integrity in U.S. Elections.
Lauren Witzke

February 22, 2021

READ: Trump’s Dynamic Plan For Election Reform

These are the reasonable recommendations that Trump made for election integrity in his rally speech that Democrats claimed “incited violence” on Jan. 6: requirements for voter ID and proof of American citizenship, banning ballot harvesting, prohibiting unsecured drop boxes, stopping universal unsolicited mail-in balloting, cleaning up voter rolls, and curbing Big Tech monopolies on one-sided information flow.

Under the sloppy election-integrity circumstances of the 2020 presidential election, people have a right to be suspicious about the outcome of an election decided in the Electoral College by a mere aggregate of less than 45,000 votes spread out over three states, out of over 150 million cast nationally. At his Jan. 6 speech, Trump spelled it out easily for the Republican National Committee to understand:
  1. “Pass … requirements for voter ID. You need an ID to cash a check, you need an ID to go to a bank, to buy alcohol, to drive a car; every person should need to show an ID in order to cast your most important thing, a vote.”
  2. “We will also require proof of American citizenship in order to vote in American elections.”
  3. “We will ban ballot harvesting and prohibit the use of unsecured drop boxes to commit rampant fraud. These drop boxes are fraudulent. They … disappear, and then all of the sudden, they show up.”
  4. “We will stop the practice of universal unsolicited mail-in balloting.”
  5. “We will clean up the voter rolls and ensure that every single person who cast a vote is a citizen of our country, a resident of the state in which they vote, and their vote is cast in a lawful and honest manner.”
  6. “We will restore the vital civic tradition of in-person voting on election day.”
  7. “We will finally hold big tech accountable…. Get rid of Section 230, something that no other company, no other person in America, in the world has. All of these tech monopolies are going to abuse their power and interfere in our elections, and it has to be stopped…. They should be regulated, investigated, and brought to justice under the fullest extent of the law.”
While Ronna McDaniel and the RNC have a plan to spend millions of dollars to fund a “Never Trumper” Task Force which will refuse to acknowledge the 2020 election fraud or do anything to reverse it, grassroots efforts are cultivating support to push through legislation on the state level to ban vote by mail, ban electronic voting machines, and require voter ID. You can join the grassroots effort by visiting www.HoldtheLinePAC.com.


TB Fanatic

Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents From Supreme Court On Election Case: 'We Need to Make It Clear'

MONDAY, FEB 22, 2021 - 20:00
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion regarding the high court’s decision not to take up a case challenging the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results.

The court on Monday announced it won’t take up lawsuits challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that relaxed ballot-integrity measures, including a move to extend the ballot-receipt deadline during the November election by three days due to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Former President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania’s GOP urged the court to take up a review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.

“This is not a prescription for confidence,” Thomas wrote on Monday, adding that “changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough.” Thomas, considered by many to be the most conservative justice, said the court should have granted a review.

That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas wrote (pdf). “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

Other than Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

“If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic,” Thomas, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, also wrote.

Thomas also appeared to make a reference to allegations of fraud and irregularities during the Nov. 3 election.

“We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” Thomas wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence. Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.”

The Supreme Court on Monday also declined to review a bid by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and others who asked the court to strike down a policy that expanded mail-in ballots.

A lawyer for Kelly, Greg Teufel, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week that “it’s important the court should take an interest in whether Pennsylvania’s election laws are administered constitutionally or not, and in accordance with the Pennsylvania constitution and with the federal constitution.” Teufel noted that before the court’s decision on Monday, there was a slim chance of the justices taking it up.

Trump still has a request on the Supreme Court docket regarding his challenge to changes that the Wisconsin Election Commission ordered last year.


TB Fanatic

Pennsylvania – How the State Officially Became a Third-World Banana Republic After the Stolen 2020 Election

By Joe Hoft
Published February 23, 2021 at 7:15am

Today we officially know that Pennsylvania is for sure and without a doubt a ‘banana republic’. Led by corrupt Democrats in the Executive Branch, corrupt politicians in leadership, and corrupt judges, there is no way a free and fair election will ever be held in that state ever again. And, the US Supreme Court on Monday made it official.

Before the 2020 election, President Trump spent many evenings in the state of Pennsylvania encouraging the state to vote for him instead of the insane policies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. ‘America First’ was Trump’s message. At one rally Trump had 58,000 people in Butler PA – 29 times more people than Biden had during the entire campaign season.

But the state is very corrupt. Its politicians weren’t interested in what is free and fair. The Democrats wanted power and the Republicans slept and enjoyed the huge Trump crowds.

But for months the Democrats worked on stealing the election. The executive branch made an effort to change the date of the election that is stated clearly in US law by moving it to three days after Election Day. Then after being told this was not proper, a judge stepped in and agreed to the change. The US Constitution be damned, the corrupt Democrats in the executive branch and in the courts claimed they made the rules.

A case landed in the Supreme Court. New judge Amy Barrett stayed out of it and the lower court rule stood. Justice Alito, however, mandated that the state keep track of all ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Next comes the election and President Trump crushes Joe Biden by a two to one ratio in the state on Election Day. It was a massacre. But then the state started counting absentee ballots.

The state never declared how many ballots were in safekeeping on election day and the number that came in before 8 pm on election night. This enabled them to add more and more ballots to the counts and no one knew how many. Republicans were kept out of the counting areas for days. A judge finally ruled Republicans should be allowed in but they weren’t. To hell with the law, Democrats had an election to steal.

Eventually, they manufactured enough votes to steal the election for Biden.

A few days later, we reported on the pattern that showed up in the absentee ballots that was not normal and likely fraudulent:

We reported on thousands of absentee ballots returned before being mailed out:

Trailers of hundreds of thousands of completed ballots were uncovered that were reportedly driven from New York to PA:

We found patterns in the PA results related to the ‘Drop and Roll’ that we found in other states:

We found out that there were 200,000 more ballots cast than people who voted:

There was corruption everywhere and when the dust settled the corrupt Secretary of State said there were only 10,000 ballots that arrived after Election Day. A million absentee ballots were counted for days with no Republicans present and we are all supposed to believe only 10,000 ballots came in after Election Day.

Today the Supreme Court agreed with the results of the corrupt state and refused to look into the case regarding who has the right to set election laws in the state. The Supremes claimed it didn’t matter. There weren’t enough votes to overturn the election (only 10,000 votes per the corrupt now-former Secretary of State) and so the Supremes passed on even looking into this fraud.

Pennsylvanians must be furious. The same corrupt politicians that moved their jobs overseas, stole the 2020 election from President Trump and the people of America. The Supremes sealed it. The US, starting with Pennsylvania, is now officially a third-world Banana Republic thanks to the Obama gang and Senile Joe Biden.


TB Fanatic

UPDATE: BLM-Antifa Organizer John Sullivan, Who Was Arrested After Storming US Capitol, Bashing Windows Is Writing a Book, Being Paid for Video as Trump Supporters Rot in Jail

By Jim Hoft
Published February 23, 2021 at 12:32pm
Antifa-Black Lives Matter leader John Sullivan

Antifa-Insurgence leader John Earl Sullivan was arrested in Utah after the US Capitol riots.
As reported previously Antifa protester John Sullivan was caught on video posing as a Trump supporter during the rioting at the US Capitol on January 6th.

Footage obtained by the Gateway Pundit from militant Black Lives Matter and Antifa activist John Sullivan’s Discord server shows the so-called “civil rights activist” reveling inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6 as he damaged federal property.

Sullivan has maintained in multiple interviews that he regularly attends protests only to record what’s going on, but did not actively partake in the insurgence in Washington. This is a lie. He is a leader of the Utah Antifa-BLM movement and has been previously arrested.

“It’s just recording, solely, and not being active in it,” he told Fox News last week.

Sullivan also organized an Antifa-Insurgence rally on January 6th at the Washington Monument at 11 AM before they stormed the US Capitol.

The mainstream media refuses to report these facts.

Last week Politico reporter Kyle Cheney reported that John Sullivan was paid $35,000 from both CNN and NBC for his footage inside the US Capitol on January 6th.

And now Jayden X is writing a book.
It is scheduled to be released next summer.
Look for John Sullivan to be the next liberal star.
It’s OK when leftists riot.

The Washington Examiner reported:
John Sullivan, who goes by the online moniker Jayden X, is releasing a book titled Insurrection: Uncovering the Storming of the United States Capitol on July 30, which will detail “the hidden truths of [antifa’s’] plot to overthrow Democracy.”
“As he uncovers, the alt-right community is identified as Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Trump Supporters. Who are hell-bent on Stopping The Stolen election by orchestrating the Insurrection at The United States Capitol,” Sullivan’s website reads. “In their last desperate attempt to halt the elected officials in the congressional meeting who are counting the electoral votes to declare Biden, the United States’ next president.”
An accompanying YouTube video promoting the book features former President Donald Trump denouncing antifa and various left-wing groups, as well as President Biden condemning the Capitol Hill incident.
View: https://youtu.be/OMzYHTHxWI8
2:05 min

Trump supporters are currently sitting in jail for walking through the US Capitol.
Antifa organizer John Sullivan is making bank for his video and writing books following his arrest at the US Capitol.

Something is not right with this picture!


TB Fanatic

“Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” – Sidney Powell Responds to Supreme Court Decision to Ignore Election Fraud

By Jim Hoft
Published February 23, 2021 at 9:18am

The United States Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases.
The court made the announcement on Monday morning.

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial.

Trump- nominated Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Trump’s Pennsylvania election challenge as moot. pic.twitter.com/6LTvvuMG52
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 22, 2021
JUST IN – U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review #Pennsylvania election cases. No standing before an election, moot after. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissent from the denial.
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) February 22, 2021
Attorney Sidney Powell posted notes in reaction to the court’s decision on Monday morning.

Last night Sidney Powell posted a response to the news saying “irrefutable proof is coming soon.” Powell told her supporters she will not let the fraud stand!

Attorney Sidney Powell posted this on Telegram late on Monday night.
Thank you all! There are still important live cases. Irrefutable proof is coming soon. Keep educating everyone about the facts. Today’s Supreme Court orders were disappointing but we are NOT done, and we will not let this fraud stand. #WeThePeople are supposed to run this country. Our new SuperPAC should be up tomorrow.



TB Fanatic

Former Capitol Police Chief Blames Intel Breakdown For Jan. 6 Breach

TUESDAY, FEB 23, 2021 - 13:42
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The former chief of the Capitol Police on Tuesday blamed a breakdown in intelligence ahead of the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol.

“I think in exigent circumstances there needs to be a streamlined process for the Capitol police chief, for Capitol Police, to have authority,” former Chief Steven Sund told senators during a hearing about the incident.
“A clear lack of accurate and complete intelligence across several federal agencies contributed to this event and not poor planning by the United States Capitol Police,” Sund argued.
“Based on the intelligence that we received, we planned for an increased level of violence at the Capitol and that some participants may be armed, but none of the intelligence that we received predicted what actually occurred.”
Sund, who resigned from his post several days after the Capitol breach, remarked that the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms on Jan. 4 allegedly did not respond to a request for assistance. He also requested assistance from the National Guard but was rebuffed.
“Your testimony makes clear that the current structure of the Capitol Police Board resulted in delays in bringing in assistance from the National Guard,” Senate Rules Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told Sund during the hearing.
Acting Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert Contee defended the response, saying officials were not alerted about the potential for violence despite federal officials’ claims.
“The District did not have intelligence pointing to a coordinated assault on the Capitol,” Contee said in a statement before the hearing.
“MPD’s police officers were engaged in a literal battle for hours. Many were forced into hand-to-hand combat to prevent more rioters from gaining entry into the Capitol. This was not a peaceful protest. This was not a crowd trying to express their First Amendment rights—rights which we are proud to protect regardless of belief,” Contee said, referring to the Metropolitan Police Department. “At the end of the day, this was an assault on our democracy, and MPD officers held the line.”

Former Acting Department of Homeland Security Chief Chad Wolf earlier this month said there are still questions as to why Capitol Police officers weren’t properly prepared.

There was a “heightened threat environment” due to the Jan. 6 rally “given all the tensions” regarding the election’s outcome, Wolf told CBS News, adding there were numerous “coordination calls” with various law enforcement agencies. He said the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies beefed up security ahead of the riot.

Capitol Police had “the same intelligence that we did” at the Department of Homeland Security, Wolf said. He said that intelligence was shared with the U.S. Capitol Police as well as the Metropolitan Police Department.

Former President Donald Trump was impeached in January for a speech he gave on Jan. 6, with Democrats and some Republicans blaming the riots on his remarks and rhetoric. Trump, via lawyers, denied that he incited violence. During his speech, he called on demonstrators to “peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard.”


TB Fanatic

February 23, 2021
Our Supreme Court Goes Full Nicaragua in PA Election Case
By C. Edmund Wright

For a couple of years, my wife and I escaped Obama’s America by owning a Pacific Ocean hotel in San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua. The irony was that in supposedly socialist Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega's government left us alone far more than government did in the supposedly free country of the United States of Obama.

Still, while Ortega 2.0 might have shed most of his socialism, he had not shed his lust for power, and the job of making sure he never lost again was that of the Chief Justice Roberto Rivas Reyes of what is in effect the Nicaraguan Supreme Court. I’m not sure who was actually more powerful or corrupt -- President Ortega or Justice Rivas -- but Rivas’s was bigger. His motorcade, that is, and he owned the two biggest homes on the two most elevated lots in San Juan del Sur, the nation’s top coastal town, a few hundred yards from our hotel.

Today I’m not sure whose court is more corrupt vis-a-vis election law: Nicaragua’s court or our Supreme Court. It appears that Donald Trump has remade the U.S. Supreme Court -- in Mitt Romney’s image! (I am not blaming Trump, just stating the obvious.)

While I think the United States Supreme Court stumbled badly in its 7-2 rejection of the Texas case on standing last year, the refusal to “grant cert” (i.e., to take the case) yesterday in a Pennsylvania case is horrifying beyond words. I could say that our election laws are now full-on banana republic, but I’d hate to insult bananas that badly.

East facade of the Supreme Court Building
Photo credit: Jeff Kubina CC BY SA-3.0 license

What the Supreme Court codified yesterday, and what it started with the Texas rejection, is that election laws and procedures cannot be challenged beyond a state court, at any time, regardless of how badly those states shred the United States Constitution, and regardless of the major consequences to the other 49 states as a result. They don’t ever say that per se, but the results of what those two rulings have done are just that. Period.

Those trying to challenge Pennsylvania’s obviously corrupt and rigged election system have been told that they cannot challenge the laws ahead of the election, because there is not yet a victim. They’ve been told that fellow Americans impacted by Pennsylvania’s corrupt system cannot challenge, because of standing. Now they’ve been told that they cannot challenge after the election, because it’s after the election - and therefore moot.

Ortega on line one, asking the Democrats just how do they get away with this?

This kind of infantile and absurd logic just defies belief and takes one's breath away. And not just mine. I think it’s clear that Justice Clarence Thomas is even more mystified than am I, and he was livid. He was also, as he always is, right on the money in his analysis.

"One wonders what this Court waits for,” understates Thomas in his dissent, adding “we failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

In other words, we are punting the ball again. But let’s make no mistake -- this is “not doing nothing” with all respect to Justice Thomas. This is proactive, and it absolutely legalizes institutional voter fraud and neuters state legislatures in lieu of state courts. Lawyers gonna lawyer, I reckon.

The only other quibble I have regarding Justice Thomas’s statement is that actually no, we don’t expect more of our courts any more. This is exactly what we have come to expect. We saw Brett Kavanaugh emasculated in his hearing process, and clearly he hasn’t had enough testosterone replacement shots yet, and Amy Coney Barrett, the mom, seems worried about her kiddies at school. Cancel Culture 1, Constitution 0. Voters be damned.

For the record, the broad strokes of the Pennsylvania case revolve around the fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed election laws at the last minute to expand unchecked mail in voting. The Constitution, that once relevant but now apparently irrelevant document, makes it clear that the state legislatures are in charge of state elections. In Pennsylvania, as in many states, the legislature is controlled by Republicans - while Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court is controlled by radical leftists. One lesson the late, great Rush Limbaugh helped teach us is that the left always uses the courts to get stuff done that they could never accomplish through the ballot box.

Never has that been truer than in the 2020 Election, in Pennsylvania and other places as well. As Thomas adds:
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.... [T]he Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots... the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline… (and) ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. … these cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address (this) before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Tragically, it’s not inexplicable. It’s very explicable. It’s that the explanations are chilling and uncomfortable. Our Supreme Court is now part of the Washington Swamp, and the Washington Swamp is now totally divorced from any understanding of or caring about the rest of the nation. Roberts surrendered to the Swamp shortly after being seated. Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett have done so even quicker.

Our Supreme Court is now no more an agent of a free people than similar courts are in places like Venezuela and Nicaragua. Our nation is becoming ungovernable, because there is no reason for a thinking person to have any respect for our institutions like the FBI, The Justice Department, or our courts on any level. We are facing dark days indeed.


TB Fanatic

Video on website 4:50 min

US media reports of the invasion of the Capitol have contributed to the spread of hatred and fear

The decline of journalism in America is made clear by the reporting of the attack

Patrick Cockburn@indyworld

The invasion of the Capitol on 6 January now stands alongside 9/11 as an act of war against American democracy. Unsurprisingly, news coverage of the incursion has come to resemble war propaganda. All facts, true or false, are pointed in the same direction with the aim of demonising the enemy and anybody who minimises its demonic nature.

The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump. The five who died during the events are seen as evidence of a violent, pre-planned plot to overturn the result of the US presidential election.

Film spliced together and shown by prosecutors during the impeachment proceedings gives the impression that what happened resembled a battle scene in Braveheart.

Does it matter what really did occur? Many people feel that anything damaging to Trump and his fascistic followers is all right by them. They may suspect privately that accounts of Trump’s plot against America are exaggerated, but the fabricator of 30,573 falsehoods over the last four years is scarcely in a position to criticise his opponents for departing from the strict truth. They argue that he is an unprecedented threat to American democracy, even as it becomes clear that what actually happened in the Capitol on that day was radically different from the way elements of the media reported it.

But what is reported matters and particularly so when it risks exaggerating violence or deepening fear and a sense of threat. If the US government really was the target of an armed insurrection, then this will be used to justify repression, as it was after 9/11, and not just against right wing conspiracy theorists. By becoming partisan instruments for spreading fake news, the media undermines its own credibility.

A problem with a giant news story like the Capitol invasion is that at first it is over-covered before we know the full facts, and then it is under-covered when those facts begin to emerge.

This has been true of US media coverage. But even at the time it seemed to be a very peculiar armed insurrection. Only one shot appears to have been fired and that was by a police officer who killed Trump supporter Ashil Babbitt who was involved in the storming of the Capitol. In a country like the US awash with guns, this absence of gunfire is remarkable.

Five people died during the takeover of the Capitol building and this is the main proof of deadly intent by the rioters. But one of the dead was Babbitt, killed by the police, and three of the others were members of the pro-Trump mob, who died, respectively, from a stroke, a heart attack and from being accidentally crushed by the crowd.

This leaves just one person, Capitol policeman Brian Sicknick, as the sole victim of the Trump supporters who allegedly beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. On 8 January, the New York Times ran two stories about his death, quoting anonymous law officers as describing how pro-Trump rioters had struck him on the head with a fire extinguisher causing “a bloody gash on his head”. He is then reported to have been rushed to hospital, placed on life support but to have died the following day.

This graphic story went around the world and was widely picked up by other news outlets - including The Independent, the BBC and USA Today. It was also separately reported by the Associated Press. It gave credibility to the idea that the pro-Trump mob was willing to kill, even if they only killed one person. It also gave credibility to the idea that vice president Mike Pence, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and senator Mitt Romney had only escaped being lynched by seconds.

Yet over the last seven weeks – without the world paying any attention – the story of the murder of Officer Sicknick has progressively unravelled. Just how this happened is told in fascinating detail by Glenn Greenwald, the investigative journalist and constitutional lawyer, who concludes that “the problem with this story is that it is false in all respects”.

It was always strange that, though every event that took place during the riot was filmed, there is no video of the attack on Sicknick. He texted his brother later that day and sounded as if he was in good spirits. No autopsy report has been released that would confirm his alleged injuries. Conclusively, the New York Times quietly “updated” its original articles about the murder of Sicknick, admitting that new information had emerged that “questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police”.

Since these officials were the only source for the original story, this – though readers might not guess it – amounts to an admission that it is untrue.

The misreporting of the Capitol invasion also included: a man carrying zip ties – that were taken to be evidence of a possible organised plan to detain political leaders – were in fact, according to prosecutors, picked up from a table within the Capitol, likely to ensure police could not use them. It is significant because it is part of a decline in media reporting everywhere, but particularly in the US. Trump is both a symptom and cause of this decline since he is a past master of saying and doing things, however untruthful or absurd, which are usually entertaining and always attention-grabbing. He guarantees high ratings for himself and the television channels, Trump haters and Trump-lovers alike, to their mutual benefit.

This symbiotic relationship between Trump and the media means that they do less and less reporting, allowing Trump and his supporters to provide the action while they provide the talking heads who thrive on venomous confrontation. Even American reporters on the ground have turned themselves into talking heads, willing to waffle on endlessly to meet the needs of 24/7 newscasts.

Events on Capitol Hill provided damning evidence of this decline in American journalism when Robert Moore, ITV News’s Washington correspondent, was the only television correspondent to make his way into the Capitol in the middle of the turmoil. He later expressed astonishment that, given the vast resources of US television and the thousands of journalists in Washington, that it should be “a solitary TV crew from Britain that was the only one to capture this moment in history – it’s bizarre”.

Bizarre, but not surprising. As a news event, the Capitol invasion showed that when it comes to spreading “fake facts”, the traditional media can be even more effective than the social media that is usually blamed.


TB Fanatic
[Excerpted from article]


Don Surber

Monday, February 22, 2021
3 victories for conservatives

Finally, the Wall Street Journal opened its paywall and reported
, "A new Treasury Department watchdog report warns that law-enforcement agencies may not be on firm legal footing when they use cellphone GPS data drawn from mobile apps without obtaining a warrant first.

"In a review of the Internal Revenue Service’s use of a commercial platform that allowed the agency to track cellphones, the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration said that a landmark 2018 Supreme Court case might preclude the warrantless tracking of criminal suspects through location data generated by weather, game and other apps. The report encouraged stricter controls on use of the data.

"Many government lawyers have concluded that the decision in Carpenter v. United States doesn’t apply because it addresses data held by cellphone carriers that contain a subscriber’s personally identifying information, rather than GPS location data drawn from apps, which doesn’t."

The bad news is the government does not believe court rulings apply to it.

The good news is there are still people in government willing to risk their livelihood to stop this.

There still is hope for America, even in what Chairman Xiden calls a very dark winter.


TB Fanatic

President Trump issues statement in response to Supreme Court decision…
Posted by Kane on February 23, 2021 3:20 am

Statement on the Continuing Political Persecution of President Donald J. Trump

This investigation is a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our Country, whether it was the never ending $32 million Mueller hoax, which already investigated everything that could possibly be investigated, “Russia Russia Russia,” where there was a finding of “No Collusion,” or two ridiculous “Crazy Nancy” inspired impeachment attempts where I was found NOT GUILTY. It just never ends!

So now, for more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I’ve ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S. The Tea Party was treated far better by the IRS than Donald Trump. The Supreme Court never should have let this “fishing expedition” happen, but they did. This is something which has never happened to a President before, it is all Democrat-inspired in a totally Democrat location, New York City and State, completely controlled and dominated by a heavily reported enemy of mine, Governor Andrew Cuomo. These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!

The new phenomenon of “headhunting” prosecutors and AGs—who try to take down their political opponents using the law as a weapon—is a threat to the very foundation of our liberty. That’s what is done in third world countries. Even worse are those who run for prosecutorial or attorney general offices in far-left states and jurisdictions pledging to take out a political opponent. That’s fascism, not justice—and that is exactly what they are trying to do with respect to me, except that the people of our Country won’t stand for it.

In the meantime, murders and violent crime are up in New York City by record numbers, and nothing is done about it. Our elected officials don’t care. All they focus on is the persecution of President Donald Trump.

I will fight on, just as I have, for the last five years (even before I was successfully elected), despite all of the election crimes that were committed against me. We will win!


TB Fanatic

Sen. Ron Johnson Suggests ‘Provocateurs’ and ‘Fake Trump Protesters’ Planned the Capitol Riots

Savannah Rychcik
February 23, 2021

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) spent time during a Senate hearing focused on the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, raising concerns about alleged claim “provocateurs” and “fake Trump protesters” planned the insurrection.

Johnson read from a piece published in The Federalist by J. Michael Waller, a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy, recounting his experience witnessing the violence.
“Of the thousands of people I passed or who passed me along Constitution Avenue, some were indignant and contemptuous of Congress, but not one appeared angry or incited to riot,” Johnson said as he read the article.

He continued, “Many of the marchers were families with small children; many were elderly, overweight, or just plain tired or frail—traits not typically attributed to the riot-prone.”
Waller claimed he saw some wearing “pro-police shirts” or carrying “pro-police back and blue’ flags.”

Watch his comments below:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1364256884044271620
1:17 min

Johnson continued to read, “A very few didn’t share the jovial, friendly, earnest demeanor of the great majority. Some obviously didn’t fit in.”

He added, “[Waller] describes four different types of people – plainclothes militants, agents provocateurs, fake Trump protesters, and then disciplined uniform column of attackers. I think these are the people that probably planned this.”

During an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Johnson claimed the riots were not predictable, as IJR reported.

“There was really no suspected harmful activity,” Johnson said. “People really were caught by surprise. This was not predictable. This was not foreseeable as the House managers continue to talk about. I just don’t believe it was.”

During Trump’s impeachment trial, the House managers argued the violence was foreseeable.
The Senate voted to acquit Trump on the charge of inciting an insurrection after it failed to acquire the 67-votes needed to convict him, as IJR reported.


TB Fanatic

weisenbach thumb

FEBRUARY 23, 2021

WATCH: Veritas Journalist Asks USPS Postmaster Rob Weisenbach About Alleged Ballot Back-Dating Scheme in Erie, Pennsylvania

In November, a brave USPS insider by the name of Richard Hopkins came to Project Veritas to blow the whistle on wrongdoing he had witnessed in his Erie, PA post office.

Hopkins told Project Veritas that he overheard his Postmaster, Rob Weisenbach, discuss plans for the backdating of ballots received after Election Day so that they would count in the election.

https://www.projectveritas.com/5c30bb15-8f7d-4ff9-b5b5-eae948cb3ce2 2:18 min

Veritas journalists recently approached Weisenbach to get comment on that explosive story:
https://www.projectveritas.com/181bfd4f-7ed0-4aa5-8642-abda6d02dcf0 1:15 min

Weisenbach declined answering any questions. It is unclear if he has anything to hide from the public when it comes to election integrity.

Here are some of the statements Hopkins originally made to Project Veritas in November:

These allegations are quite serious, and answers are still needed in order for Americans to have faith in election integrity in this country.

Project Veritas remains undeterred when it comes to investigating alleged illegal activities.
Wherever there is fraud, especially alleged electoral fraud, Project Veritas will be there to investigate and ask the hard-hitting questions.

Anyone with information on election fraud can securely contact Project Veritas through the following channels:
Email: VeritasTips@protonmail.com
Signal: 914-653-3110
Telegram: 914-653-3110


TB Fanatic

Supreme Court Denial Of 2020 Election Cases Invites ‘Erosion Of Voter Confidence’

The Supreme Court’s abdication of its authority to answer important constitutional questions threatens even more chaotic federal elections.

Margot Cleveland

By Margot Cleveland
FEBRUARY 23, 2021

On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court refused to hear two 2020 election-related appeals, falling one vote short of the four needed for the high court to agree to hear the case. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari, as did Justice Samuel Alito in a separate dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

With Joe Biden now a month into his office as president of the United States, Americans may shrug at the court’s decision, but we shouldn’t: The Supreme Court’s abdication of its authority to answer important constitutional questions only encourages further lawlessness by state election officials and courts, undermines voter confidence, and threatens even more chaotic federal elections.

The two cases the Supreme Court rejected on Monday both involved the 2020 election in Pennsylvania and the constitutionality of a state court decision overriding an unambiguous deadline the Pennsylvania legislature established for the receipt of mail-in ballots of 8 p.m. on election night. As Justice Thomas explained in his dissent, “Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a post mark—that the ballots were mailed by election day.”

The Republican Party of Pennsylvania and several members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate attempted to challenge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the U.S. Supreme Court before the election, but, at the time, the justices refused to expedite the case, leaving the petitions for review to proceed under the normal briefing schedule. But following briefing, the court denied the petition on Feb. 22.

Thomas dissented from the court’s denial of the petition for certiorari, calling the court’s refusal to hear the case “inexplicable.” In his dissent, Thomas explained both the problem with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision and why it was imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to enter the fray.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” Thomas opened his dissent, citing Article I, § 4 clause 1 and Article II, § 1 of the national Constitution. “Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead,” the originalist jurist continued.

Whether such nonlegislative actions violate the Electors Clause of the Constitution, as Article I, § 4 clause 1, has become to be known, or Article II, § 1, which governs the selection of the president, is the essence of the exercise of self-government, Justice Thomas wrote, because “elections are ‘of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.’”

Elections, however, “enable self-governance only when they include processes that ‘giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election,” the dissent continued. And “unclear rules threaten to undermine the system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections.”

While our country was fortunate that the rule change in Pennsylvania did not alter the outcome of a federal election, “we may not be so lucky in the future,” Justice Thomas stressed. So the Supreme Court should make clear “whether state officials have the authority they have claimed,” or “if not,” then the Supreme Court should “put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Yet the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. But why? Both constitutional and prudential principles weigh in favor of granting certiorari.

Constitutionally, while federal courts only have the power to hear a “case or controversy,” meaning the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear “moot” cases, here there is a well-established exception to the mootness doctrine: the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception.

This exception to the mootness doctrine provides that federal courts hold authority to resolve cases where “the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration” and where “there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”

Both criteria exist here, Justice Thomas wrote, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision came a mere six weeks before the election, and the petitioners in the cases—the state Republican party and state legislators—are likely to “again confront nonlegislative officials altering election rules.”

In his separate dissent, Justice Alito also concluded that certiorari should be granted because the cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question.” His dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch, focused mainly on the mootness question.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was so broad, Alito wrote, that the questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court are “surely capable of repetition in future elections.” That decision, Alito explained, held “that a state constitutional provision guaranteeing ‘free and equal’ elections gives the Pennsylvania courts the authority to override even very specific and unambiguous rules adopted by the legislature for the conduct of federal elections.”

“Indeed, it would be surprising if parties who are unhappy with the legislature’s rules,” Justice Alito continued, “do not invoke this decision and ask state courts to substitute rules they find more advantageous.”

Not only were the cases not moot, but as the dissents both made clear, the cases both “call out for review,” as Justice Alito put it. The cases present “an important and recurring constitutional question,” and a question that “has divided the lower courts,” his dissent added. Further, as Justice Thomas stressed, “postelection litigation is truncated by firm timeliness,” which “imposes especially daunting constraints when combined with the expanded use of mail-in ballots.”

Thomas’s dissent highlighted another significant reason for review. “Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots,” Justice Thomas wrote, “increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.”

Here Justice Thomas wisely noted in his dissent that “settling rules well in advance of an election rather than relying on postelection litigation ensures that courts are not put in [the] untenable position” of either potentially disenfranchising a subset of voters or ignoring the rules the legislature believes necessary to ensure election integrity.

Yet the Supreme Court denied review.

Maybe the six justices who voted against certiorari believe the country will be better off without relitigating the election. The denial, however, will not heal a country that witnessed state officials and courts change the rules mid-vote—not just in Pennsylvania, but in Wisconsin and Michigan too. Then her citizens saw the Supreme Court seemingly ignore those violations of the Electors Clause when Texas sought relief in the Supreme Court.

Worse yet will be the damage done to our republic when the bending and breaking of election laws repeats in the future. For now, as Justice Thomas concluded, “by doing nothing,” the Supreme Court invites “erosion of voter confidence.” We “citizens deserve better and expect more.”

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


TB Fanatic

Capitol violence marked by security breakdowns, witnesses tell senators in wide-ranging hearing

"This mob was like nothing I have seen in my law enforcement career" - former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund.

U.S. Capitol Jan. 6

U.S. Capitol Jan. 6
(Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

By Susan Katz Keating
Updated: February 23, 2021 - 4:54pm

The Jan. 6 breach on the U.S. Capitol was marked by intelligence breakdowns, senators said in concluding statements following a Tuesday hearing. Their comments came following an hours-long hearing in which former Capitol security officials testified about events related to the breach.

The much anticipated joint oversight hearing included testimony from former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper Michael Stenger; former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving; former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund; and the acting chief of Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department, Robert Contee.

"You can point fingers but can also look at this as a process that is not prepared for a crisis," Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said at the conclusion of the roughly four-hour hearing.

Security at the Capitol should involve "better intelligence sharing," Klobuchar also said. "We'll get more details in the coming week," at a hearing with intelligence officials.

The date of that hearing will be announced on Wednesday.

Questioning at a hearing largely focused on the timing of when U.S. Capitol Police asked for National Guard support during the riot.

Security witnesses told senators that they were not complicit in the violence at the Capitol Building. The witnesses made their comments in response to questions about remarks to that effect from retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who was appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to review the security posture surrounding the breach.

In the days following the violent breach, Honore – who established a reputation for managing the federal response to Hurricane Katrina – cast blame on Capitol Police and other security officials for being "complicit" in the riot.

"I found the statements he made regarding myself" and the police were highly disrespectful, former former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said.

Said Sengar: "Saying something like that is not in good taste."

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., affirmed statements from the witnesses who said they were not complicit in the violence.

Honore was "disrespectful" in suggesting otherwise, Hawley said, adding that the outspoken retired three-star general "has no business leading any security review of events of Jan. 6."

Other questions addressed the timing of when Capitol Police asked for National Guard for support.

Sund told senators that he waited four-and-a-half hours to receive help from the National Guard, after first asking the House and Senate sergeants at arms that the situation at the Capitol was dire.

"I notified the two Sergeant at Arms by 1:09 p.m. that I urgently needed support and asked them to declare a State of Emergency and authorize the National Guard," he said. "I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command. I continued to follow up with Mr. Irving, who was with Mr. Stenger at the time, and he advised that he was waiting to hear back from congressional leadership, but expected authorization at any moment."

Irving testified that he had no memory of a call from Sund at 1:09 p.m., prompting Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, to say that the timing was important, and that both men should produce their phone records.

The hearing opened with ex-security and law enforcement officials saying the intelligence assessments they receive before the breech did not include warnings of an overwhelming, violent assault.

"The breach of the United States Capitol was not the result of poor planning or failure to contain a demonstration gone wrong," Sund told senators. Based on intelligence, law enforcement officials expected protests similar to other events at the Capitol and Supreme Court, and prepared accordingly.

"The USCP implemented a number of enhancements to our planning for January 6, 2021, based on the intelligence that we had," he also said.

The former chief described officers' shock at encountering a violent confrontation.

"This mob was like nothing I have seen in my law enforcement career," Sund said. "The group consisted of thousands of well-coordinated, well-equipped violent criminals. They had weapons, chemical munitions, protective equipment, explosives, and climbing gear."
Stenger echoed the comments about intelligence assessments.

"We all believed the plan met the threat," he said. "We all know we had the wrong plan."

"Like Chief Sund, based on the intelligence and the extensive deployment of law enforcement resources, I erroneously believed that we were prepared," Irving said in prepared testimony.
He also said in prepared remarks: "Certain media reports have stated that 'optics' determined my judgement about using those National Guard troops.

"That is categorically false. 'Optics' as portrayed in the media did not determine our security posture; safety was always paramount when evaluating security for January 6. We did discuss whether the intelligence warranted having troops at the Capitol, and our collective judgment at that time was no – the intelligence did not warrant that."


TB Fanatic

Dark To Light: The Deep Rig – An Interview With Patrick Byrne
[Tracey Beanz]

1614122728246.png Audio on website 1:12:41 min

We spend an hour having a conversation with Patrick Byrne, who just released a book called “The Deep Rig: How Election Fraud Cost Donald J. Trump The White House.”

Listen as we speak about some of the behind the scenes, a few more in-depth stories about other instances of fraud, and some about the Capitol on January 6.

While sometimes hard to hear, the story is important and you should consider picking up a copy of this book if you can as it tells an honest story that many haven’t heard.


TB Fanatic

Dems Want Mayor Bowser – Who REFUSED Troops For Jan 6 – To Have Full ‘Commander-In-Chief’ Powers In DC.
national guard
Senate Democrats introduced legislation to designate the Mayor of Washington D.C. as the Commander in Chief of the National Guard – despite reports Mayor Muriel Bowser refused to deploy the troops ahead of January 6th and during violent Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots.

The January bill – District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act – seeks to “extend to the Mayor of the District of Columbia the same authority over the National Guard of the District of Columbia as the Governors of the several States.”

Appearing to be in response to the events on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol, the bill amends the D.C. Official Code by striking the term ‘‘President of the United States’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Mayor of the District of Columbia’’ instead.

What’s more, the act would also replace the use of the term ‘‘the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard’’ both places it appears” and instead “insert ‘‘the Mayor of the District of Columbia.”

The changes would give Bowser authority over “consent for relocation of units,” “issuance of supplies,” “appointment of fiscal officers,” and more.

The changes, however, are misguided, as D.C.’s current mayor appears to have refused then-President Trump’s requests for thousands of National Guard troops ahead of January 6th.
And when violent protests hit the city in the summer of 2020, Bowser spoke out against deploying the force to restore law and order to Washington D.C.

Thank you @SpeakerPelosi for standing with DC as we push back on uninvited military, out-of-state National Guard & unidentifiable federal officials amassing on our streets for the glorification of one man who sits afraid/alone
If it can happen in DC, what jurisdiction is next? pic.twitter.com/MT56Rl2vGs
— Muriel Bowser (@MurielBowser) June 4, 2020
Scribd doc. on website


TB Fanatic

Ex-Capitol Police Chief’s Testimony Blows Up Dem Narrative About Capitol Riot Attack

byKyle Beckerabout 2 hours agoupdated about 2 hours ago

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund has provided explosive testimony to the U.S. Senate that runs directly against the Democrats’ narrative about the January 6th Capitol riots.
Sund, who was forced to resign after pressure from Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats, clearly relates that the House Democrats “knew” there was a high potential for a riot with the capacity for violence. But due to concerns about the “optics” of the situation, the House sergeant-at-arms did nothing to stop it, he earlier said.

The former Capitol Police Chief’s testimony has been indispensable in establishing that there was plenty of advanced warning for the House and Senate. Sund earlier stated that the House was warned six times about the pending danger. He revealed the resources the Capitol Police requested, including a stronger National Guard presence, in a resignation letter aimed directly to Speaker Pelosi.

The risk of a violent riot breaking out at the January 6th Electoral College session of Congress, following a contested election that would see Donald Trump purportedly “incite” a protest, was anticipated in detail as early as last March.

This was revealed in a Time piece that exposes a full-out effort by radical groups, powerful corporations, and labor unions to “fortify” the U.S. election and keep it from being won by Donald Trump. The Time article also reveals coordination among these influential left-wing groups and radical activists to keep a low-profile at the riots.

Testimony was also entered into the Senate record today from J. Michael Waller, who attested that ‘agents provocateurs’ had infiltrated and agitated the Capitol Riots crowd. There were also baffling acts, such as Capitol Police allowing protesters into the building.

Furthermore, concrete intelligence from early December suggesting foreign influence in the origins of the planned Capitol Building assault has since been reported by CBS News’ Catherine Herridge.

Everyone in D.C. had to have known it would be a powderkeg; just like it was following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration in 2017, which also saw violent and destructive rioting.

On one hand, the gap between the intelligence indicating the high potential for a violent riot, along with far-right extremist plans for a capitol building raid, and on the other hand, the complete inaction by the House and Senate leadership, is a chasm that raises profound questions. One of the foremost questions regards what Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats knew about the impending riot and their concerns about the “optics” of the event.

View: https://youtu.be/uliT02K84BI
5:49 min

“I have been in policing for almost 30 years, the events I witnessed on January 6 was the worst attack on law enforcement in our democracy that I have seen in my entire career,” Sund said.

“I witnessed insurgents beating police officers with fists, pipes, sticks, bats, metal barricades and flag poles,” he continued.

“These criminals came prepared for war. They came with their own radio system to coordinate the attack and climbing gear and other equipment to defeat the capitol’s security features,” Sund continued.

“I am sickened by what I witnessed that day,” he went on. “Our officers fought valiantly using batons, shields, chemical munitions and pepperball guns to hold back the attackers. Capitol Police and responding law enforcement agencies showed tremendous restraint by not using their firearms, which would have likely led to a more chaotic situation and ae possible mass casualty incident. No civilian law enforcement agency to include the United States Capitol Police is trained or equipped to repel an insurrection of thousands of individuals focused on breaching and building at all costs.”

Sund’s testimony thus raises the question about exactly why it was so unusually easy for unarmed protesters and rioters to freely enter the Capitol Building despite advanced warning that far-right groups were intending to raid the building. There were concrete plans to raid the Capitol Building posted online in public as early as December 28th. That would be a full week ahead of the event.

“Must have Tactical gear/ bullet proof vest, bring first aid kits and water. No firearms unless you are licensed to carry in D.C,” one advisery for a U.S. Against Racism banner said. It was such preparation that tipped off Antifa-supporting activist John Sullivan to infiltrate and agitate at the event.

“A clear lack of accurate and complete intelligence across several federal agencies contributed to this event and not poor planning by the United States Capitol Police,” he continued. “We rely on accurate information from our federal partners to help us develop effective security plans.”

“The intelligence that we based our planning on indicated that the January 6 protests were expected to be similar to the previous [peaceful] MAGA rallies in 2020, which drew tens of thousands of participants,” he said. “The assessment indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups and Antifa and other extremist groups were expected to participate in on January 6th, and that it may be inclined to become violent.”

The January 6th capitol uprising was a pre-planned attack carried out by various extremist groups, including the far-right Proud Boys, the BLM-sympathizing anarchist group Boogaloo Bois, and even radical activists, like the Antifa-supporting founder of Insurrection USA John Sullivan.

“As recent as Tuesday, January 5th, during a meeting I hosted with my executive team, the Capitol Police board and a dozen of the top law enforcement and military officials from DC,” he added. “No entity, including the FBI, provided any new intelligence regarding January 6. It should be also noted that the Secretary of Homeland Security did not issue an elevated or eminent alert in reference to the events at the United States Capitol on January 6th.”

“We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence, what we got was a military-style coordinated assault on my officers and a violent takeover of the Capitol building,” Sund said.

Indeed, if this was a “military-style” coordinated assault, it was one where the combatants were virtually completely unarmed. Furthermore, all of the deaths that can be established to have been sustained directly due to the rioting were of Trump supporters.

“While my officers were fighting, my post was in the command center coordinating resources from numerous agencies around the national capitol region to provide critically needed support,” he said. “I was also briefing the two sergeant in-arms [of the U.S. House and Senate] and working on establishing accountability and priorities for the incoming resources. As Capitol Police and outside resources began to re-establish the security perimeter, I responded to the capitol building to personally evaluate the situation and brief the sergeant-at-arms and leadership.”

Washington, DC USA 1 7 2021

This further corroborates the Capitol Police’s coordination with the House and Senate.
“These issues must be addressed, through new training policies and procedures, even our best efforts were not enough to stop this unprecedented assault on the capital,” he added. “However, casting blame solely on the United States Capitol Police Leadership is not only misplaced, but it also minimizes what truly occurred that day.”

Steven Sund’s testimony once again points to the lack of knowledge the American people have about the House and Senate failing to take the warnings more seriously. Furthermore, it appears that the FBI may have kept Sund deliberately out of the loop.

“Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund on Tuesday told lawmakers he did not receive a copy of an FBI report warning of violence that was issued the day before the attack on the Capitol,” the Hill reported. “The FBI issued a report from its Norfolk, Va., field office on Jan. 5 that detailed specific calls for violence on Jan. 6, including those that suggested protesters go to the Capitol ‘ready for war.'”

“I actually just in the last 24 hours was informed by the department that we actually had received that report,” Sund said in response to a question from ranking chair Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

The Washington Post earlier cited Sund regarding the responses to his warnings from the House’s and the Senate’s respective Sergeant at Arms:

House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency ahead of the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund should informally seek out his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

Speaker Pelosi has formed a 9/11-style commission to ‘look into’ the origins of the Capitol building attack, led by a hand-picked partisan general. Her announcement of the “independent” commission came on the same day high-ranking Republicans served Pelosi notice they are indeed interested in asking such questions.

It smacks of a brazen attempt to control the narrative about the nation-shaping incident and prevent serious questioning of her and the House Democrats. The testimony of former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and other eyewitnesses is indispensable for the American people getting real answers.