Justice! President Trump Revokes Security Clearances of ALL 51 ‘Spies Who Lied’ and Former NSA Advisor John Bolton

Tonight, in his first evening back in the Oval Office, President Trump signed a slew of Executive Orders and commuted the sentences of 14 Jan 6 hostages and pardoned all of the remaining political prisoners from the protests at the US Capitol.

He withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization.

He reversed a plethora of Joe Biden’s Executive Orders, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s “Promoting Access to Voting” EO 14019, which allowed all federal agencies to be utilized essentially as voter registration drives.

But perhaps one of the most significant EOs, besides the pardoning of 1500 J6ers, is the “Holding Former Government Officials Accountable For Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information.”

The order highlights the 51 former intel officials who coordinated with the Biden campaign to suggest that the Hunter Biden laptop was “a part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

The letter was in response to the New York Post article written by Miranda Devine that led to widespread censorship on Twitter, now X, Facebook, YouTube that would get you banned for simply mentioning the article in some cases.

Some of the officials that were signatories to that letter held security clearances and maintained ongoing contractual relationships with the CIA.

According to the EO, senior CIA officials were aware of the contents of the letter after it was submitted to the CIA Prepublication Classification.  It was later learned that the FBI at that time had possession of the laptop and had validated its authenticity.

Keep reading

The Left Never Learns: ‘Constitutional Attorney’ Is First to Call for Trump’s Impeachment (Again)

John Bonifaz is the kind of guy who could have answered a casting call for “lunatic leftist who will attempt to resurrect the left’s failed strategies against Trump on his first day back in office.” He says he is the “Co-Founder and President of Free Speech For People,” as well as a “constitutional attorney,” all of which sounds impressive enough if you’re the type who gets impressed by that sort of thing, but which in reality simply confirms that what we have here is someone who has abjectly failed to read the room. He has not realized that the fact that Trump has been impeached twice and has just become president again should tell him that his approach won’t work. Bonifaz also demonstrates that the left hasn’t thought of anything new to do. Its response to Trump 2.0 will be more of the same.

At 12:55 p.m. Eastern Time, not long after Donald Trump took the oath of office as the 47th president of the United States, Bonifaz made his momentous announcement: “BREAKING: We have just launched a new campaign calling for an impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump for offenses he has already committed upon taking the oath. You can access the grounds for this call at http://impeachtrumpagain.org. Join us in this fight for our democracy. @FSFP.” This will, of course, get absolutely nowhere, but it’s nonetheless a glimpse into the hamster-wheel of the left, endlessly repeating the same tired stuff against Trump even though it never gets them anywhere. 

Keep reading

MSNBC anchors Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid triggered by Trump inauguration: ‘How is this happening in America?’

Left-wing cable news channel MSNBC is back to foaming at the mouth about Donald Trump.

Anchors Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid went off the deep end while covering Inauguration Day, both aghast at the prospect of a democratically elected president making good on his policy promises that decisively swept him into office.

“How is this happening in America?” Maddow asked incredulously at the sight of Department of Homeland Security nominee Kristi Noem seated beside Apple CEO Tim Cook at the inauguration ceremony, Mediaite reported.

“How is this happening? Why are people with tons of money up on the dais with cabinet nominees and family members?” she asked, apparently forgetting that billionaires supported former Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

Keep reading

Elizabeth Warren and Other Democrats Sent Threatening Letters to People Who Donated to Trump’s Inauguration

Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats are now sending threatening letters to people and companies that donated to Trump’s inauguration.

This is from the same party that has spent the last eight years calling Trump a fascist.

You may also recall that they have no problem with contributions like this when they are made to to Democrats, just Trump.

Hot Air reported:

Democrats Now Threatening People Who Donated to Trump’s Inauguration

Democrats are the political equivalent of mafia bosses who basically run protection rackets.

“Nice company you have there. Shame if something happened to it.”

We saw a lot of this behavior over the past few years. One of the techniques used to bully social media companies into censorship was the use of open (and private) threats to use antitrust laws to break up Meta, Twitter, Google and all the tech companies if they did not comply with demands to suppress the speech of conservatives and, frankly, anybody including dissenting Democrats.

Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennett are trying the same thing by going after people and companies that contributed to the Trump inaugural.

These contributions are standard practice. Obama took millions of dollars from donors, including the companies Warren and Bennet are targeting. So did Joe Biden, even though all the inaugural hoopla was very muted due to insane COVID policies.

Keep reading

‘Occupy Democrats’ Urges Followers to Wear Black on Monday for ‘National Day of Mourning’ Over Trump Inauguration

The popular social media account “Occupy Democrats” has urged its followers to wear black on Monday for a “National Day of Mourning” during the Trump inauguration.

While many groups have tried to organize protests for the inauguration, this weekend’s demonstrations have fallen far short of what they were after his first election.

While thousands joined the “People’s March” on Saturday, a rebrand of the “Women’s March,” it was nothing like the estimated 500,000 that joined for the 2017 inauguration.

Still, Occupy Democrats is doing its best to grift off of rallying their followers to whine about the election results.

“Don’t forget to wear all black on January 20th. National Day of Mourning,” a post on the page read.

Keep reading

Jeffrey Epstein’s Cellmate Alleges Late Pedophile Was Offered ‘Sweetheart Plea Deal’ if He Gave Incriminating Information To Impeach Trump – But He Had Nothing on Him!

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were two fabulously rich guys in Palm Beach, Florida. But that’s where the similarities end.

They were not friends. Trump barred him from Mar-a-Lago.

And when Palm Beach police first investigated Epstein, Trump was the only famous name to help police in their inquiries.

Now, evidence has arisen that suggests Jeffrey Epstein was offered by the DOJ a ‘sweetheart plea deal’ if he could provide ‘incriminating information’ that would lead to President Trump’s impeachment.

The revelation was made by Epstein former cellmate.

Former cop and convicted killer Nicholas Tartaglione shared a cell with Epstein at the Manhattan MCC weeks before his death in August 2019.

Tartaglione, in a call with with Jessica Reed Kraus, said the King of Pedophiles told him about the proposal after one meeting with the feds.

New York Post reported:

“[Epstein] said [to Tartaglione ‘They told me they’d let me plead out something small, and I’ll do just a couple of years in a camp, if I can give them something on Trump to get him impeached. […] The government told me I don’t have to prove what I say about Trump, as long as Trump’s people can’t disprove it’, Tartaglione said — adding that Epstein considered ‘making stuff up’ to save his skin. Tartaglione never said what Epstein ultimately planned to do.”

Keep reading

Springfield Illinois City Council Bans Trump Shirt

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) was founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms.

Under the leadership of Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the organization engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.

ACLJ has taken on the case of Ms. Rosanna Pulido, a resident of Springfield, Illinois, who “faced outrageous restrictions on her freedom of expression at a city council meeting.”

According to ACLJ, Ms. Pulido attended a Springfield City Council meeting on October 29, 2024, sporting a “Chicanos for Trump” T-shirt.

Despite her peaceful and orderly participation, exercising her free speech was too much for the council, and she was singled out by a Springfield alderwoman, who claimed the shirt violated a policy against “campaign materials” in the council chambers.

She was then forced to either turn her shirt inside out or cover the message.

As ACLJ notes, this rule is nowhere to be found in writing and, although Ms. Pulido wrote to the city council and to the city’s attorney asking what law was being enforced, she received no reply.

Further, the rule is completely unconstitutional: Citizens can wear campaign T-shirts in public places.

Keep reading

TIME Magazine Suggests Leftists Form ‘Crying Groups’ On Inauguration Day

TIME magazine has published an article offering advice to leftists who might not be able to cope on Inauguration Day Monday, suggesting that they hold group crying sessions and go ‘forest bathing.’

The publication, which begrudgingly named President Trump as its man of the year, produced a guide on what to do to avoid “spiralling” as Trump is sworn in, and its unintentionally hilarious.

The piece asks “Why so much distress after months of processing the outcome of this divisive election?”

Maybe it’s because the legacy media told fragile leftists that it would literally be the end of the country and the world if Trump won?

The article then lists 11 ways to avoid seeing Trump take the oath, consulting “experts to share their favorite science-backed suggestions.”

OK, this should be funny.

Keep reading

What Jack Smith Left Out

One week before the presidential inauguration, Jack Smith issued a “Final Report” concerning the January 6th prosecution of Donald Trump and his co-defendants.

Presumably, the report is supposed to convince the public that Trump is guilty as charged. Instead, it provides evidence of Smith’s incompetence and bias.

Trump’s attorneys, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, issued a strong rebuttal (Addendum to Final Report) that excoriates this “out-of-control private citizen” for spending more than $20 million to violate “fundamental norms regarding the presumption of innocence …” As they note, “… the Justice Manual prohibits prosecutors from publicly declaring a defendant’s guilt prior to a jury verdict …” Yet, that is exactly what Smith did. It is evident from his concluding statement:

… the (Special Prosecutor’s) Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

Why bother with trials and juries when there are prosecutors who give us the answer in advance?

In addition to trampling on Trump’s Constitutional right to a presumption of innocence, Smith ignored the Presidential Transition Act, which bars DOJ officials from interfering as a president-elect prepares to assume the responsibilities of office.

Here is a review of some other issues in the report and in the underlying information sources:

ALLEGATION THAT TRUMP INCITED VIOLENCE

Smith suggests that Trump wanted to create a riot (or possibly an insurrection). He says that the president-elect “resorted to a series of criminal efforts … to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification.” Indeed, Smith uses the words “riot” and “rioter” about 85 times in his report.

Given his obsession with the Capitol riot, Smith needs to explain why two essential names are totally absent from his 146-page report: “Milley” and “Miller.”

Perhaps those names are missing because the words of Gen. Mark Milley and Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller clearly prove that Trump had no violent intentions.

(See report of House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight.)   

GENERAL MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: “(January 3, 2021) The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’” [Apparently, Milley disobeyed that order.]

CHRISTOPHER MILLER, ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: “The President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day…” [Miller claimed that he did not take the order seriously.]

Although the public did not know of those quotations until recently, Smith has known of them for years.

In addition, the Special Prosecutor bemoans Trump’s “pattern of using social media” (tweets) to publicly attack state and federal officials, judges, and election workers … ”

According to Smith, this led to “specific and graphic threats” about a witness and his family.

The concern for this witness is admirable, but Smith does not even mention the rhetoric that nearly caused Trump to be assassinated — twice. That rhetoric would include reckless accusations of Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, and Mr. Smith, himself. Will his “Final Report” lead to a third assassination attempt?

Keep reading

Dirty Democrat Dick Durbin Demands U.S. Agencies Dig Up Kompromat on Trump’s FBI Nominee Kash Patel

Senator Dick Durbin is going all out to try and derail the nomination of Kash Patel as director of the FBI.

In letters to the Justice Department, Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Durbin accuses Patel of working to undermine the transition process between Donald Trump and Joe Biden following the widespread fraud that tainted the 2020 presidential election.

He wrote:

Mr. Patel was appointed Chief of Staff [for the Secretary of Defense] on November 10, 2020, after then-President Trump lost the 2020 election.

During his tenure, Mr. Patel was accused of impeding the incoming Biden Administration’s transition work with the Defense Department, injecting himself and another political appointee into processes normally handled by nonpartisan career civilian and military officials, and ignoring requests from the Biden Administration’s transition.

As you know, the FBI is the principal federal law enforcement investigative agency, tasked with protecting all Americans.

The Director must be able to execute the FBI’s mission in a nonpartisan, impartial manner that is above reproach.

The credible allegations against Mr. Patel outlined above are deeply troubling, and the Committee is unable to properly consider his nomination without more information on his underlying conduct.

Lawmakers such as Durbin are particularly troubled by Patel’s nomination because of his longstanding record of working to hold Democrats and deep state actors accountable for their countless crimes and misdemeanors.

Keep reading