Tag: washington dc

So, Is That Why the Washington Post Isn’t Covering DC’s Raw Sewage Nightmare?

It’s a total s**t show in Washington, DC. For those not following, four weeks ago, an underground sewage line failed, and the Potomac, which is already disgusting, has been flooded with hundreds of millions of gallons of human waste. If it hasn’t taken the title, it will soon for being the worst wastewater spill in US history. 

To boot, it won’t be fixed for another 10 months. It should be covered, in The Washington Post of all places, but it isn’t. Maybe that’s because there’s a Joe Biden connection: the CEO and general manager of DC Water is David L. Gadis, who the former braindead president picked to serve on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council to “serve with distinction as the sole expert on the Council from the wastewater utilities sector” in 2022.

DC Water says the underground sewer line that burst and began spewing wastewater into the Potomac River four weeks ago could take another 10 months to repair. 

Although DC Water crews continue to successfully divert the majority of the sewage away from the river, officials say more than 240 million gallons of sewage has made its way into the Potomac. 

In the latest spillover, a mass of flushed wipes clogged the utility company’s temporary pumps, releasing an additional 600,000 gallons of sewage water into the Potomac. 

“The risk of flow entering the Potomac River exists until we can get the flow back into the Potomac Interceptor. Right now, it’s bypassed through the C&O Canal and then routed back into the Potomac Interceptor,” DC Water COO Matthew Brown said. 

“And so that is our goal. That is what we are working towards. And there are people on site 24 hours a day working to make this happen,” he said. 

Brown is the first high-level DC Water official to have spoken publicly about the incident. 

Keep reading

Newly Declassified FBI Memos Reveal Bureau Ran SECRET ‘J6 Tabletop Exercise’ in Summer 2020 — Planned ‘Mass Prosecutions’ and ‘Embedded Informants’ MONTHS Before Capitol Event

The deep state’s fingerprints are all over the events of January 6, and a newly declassified memo has just blown the lid off the entire operation.

Documents obtained by Just the News and recently turned over to Congress by FBI Director Kash Patel at the request of Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), show the FBI’s Boston Field Office led an internal intelligence assessment warning that “domestic violent extremists (DVEs)” could escalate violence if the 2020 election results were contested.

This wasn’t just a routine drill. It was a blueprint for the very tactics used to hunt down and persecute Trump supporters: undercover informants and “heavy-handed” mass prosecutions for minor offenses, according to the news outlet.

The documents show that while the American public was focused on the 2020 campaign, the FBI’s Boston office was busy conducting a “tabletop exercise” imagining election-related violence.

According to the FBI’s own internal Executive Analytical Report dated August 21, 2020, the Bureau assessed that:

“…Domestic violent extremist (DVE) threats related to the 2020 elections likely will increase as the election approaches… ‘Election-related threats’ include but are not limited to those against candidates, campaign events, presidential conventions… and threats or plots related to electoral outcomes.”

While the bureau looked at “anarchists” on the left, their primary focus, and their eventual implementation, was laser-targeted at the American right.

Perhaps the most stunning revelation is the Bureau’s recommendation to build what it called a “robust source base” embedded within groups deemed capable of post-election violence.

The assessment explicitly recommended embedding Confidential Human Sources (CHS) within potentially violent groups to provide “early detection and disruption of planning for future events.”

This is exactly what played out. We now know, thanks to whistleblower reports and congressional oversight, that there were informants embedded in the crowd on January 6.

Keep reading

FBI strategy memo on election violence raises questions about double standard between J6, BLM riots

When the FBI prepared on the eve of the 2020 presidential election for possible violence in case of a disputed election, it made no distinction between left and right-wing groups when it recommended prosecutions to deter illegal activity. 

Yet, months later, there was a disparity in how the FBI, the Justice Department, and local prosecutors were treating illegal activity during the breach of the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021, compared to the summer of 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.  

An FBI memo reported on by Just the News earlier this week shows the bureau’s Boston office led a tabletop exercise and culled open-source intelligence on the potential for violence from both left-leaning anarchists to right-leaning extremists. It recommended relying on undercover informants and aggressive prosecutions for minor crimes to keep tabs on potentially violent groups and deter them. 

90% of 2020 BLM protesters were not jailed, but 84.6% of J6 rioters convicted

The document raises new questions for congressional investigators about why the bureau failed to heed its own warnings ahead of the Capitol riot and whether it provides further evidence there was a double standard in federal prosecutions. 

News outlets have reported for years on the fact that a vast majority of cases against protesters who broke the law during the fiery and violent summer of 2020 were dropped, especially by localities. A 2021 analysis from The Guardian found that this happened in about 90% of cases across a dozen U.S. jurisdictions that experienced protests. 

In Houston, one of the epicenters of protests in Texas, about 93% of all charges brought were dropped, The Guardian reported. This is despite the fact that the demonstrators blocked a federal highway, threw objects at police officers, and damaged buildings. Eight officers were also injured. In Philadelphia, where protesters smashed windows, looted stores, and set fire to police cars, at least 95% of the arrests resulted in no prosecutions or dropped charges.

Many of these cases were handled by local prosecutors. In the more than 300 federal cases brought against those involved in the protests, fewer than half pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, the Associated Press found.  

Conversely, more than 1,500 individuals were arrested in connection with the Capitol riot, resulting in 1,270 total convictions–making that outcome about 80% of the cases–on the eve of President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardon last year. That comes out to about 86%.

Federal prosecutors also used a controversial statute that allowed them to prosecute some of those who were charged with obstructing an official proceeding for interrupting the Jan. 6 congressional certification of the electoral college vote. The statute was also used in some of the charges levied against President Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith in his case arguing Trump was directly responsible for the violence that day. 

That interpretation of the statute, which Republicans often pointed to as evidence of the double standard of aggressive prosecutions, was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in June 2024. The high court ruled that the law only applied when a defendant prevented the use of “records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding.”

Keep reading

DC Grand Jury Declines to Indict ‘Seditious Six’ Democrat Lawmakers Who Urged Members of the Military to Defy Trump’s Orders

A federal grand jury in Washington DC declined to indict the seditious six Democrat lawmakers who called on members of military to defy President Trump’s orders.

In November, without offering any specifics, Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Democrat Reps. Maggie Goodlander (NH), Jason Crow (CO), Chris Deluzio (PA), and Chrissy Houlahan (PA) repeatedly stated, “You can refuse illegal orders,” or “You must refuse illegal orders,” in a viral video.

CBS News and The New York Times reported that a grand jury declined to indict the ‘Seditious Six.’

CBS News reported:

A federal grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict six congressional Democrats who drew President Trump’s ire last year by taping a video telling members of the military that they must reject “illegal orders,” according to three sources familiar with the matter, including one within the Justice Department.

The Democratic lawmakers are the latest Trump foes that the Justice Department has sought criminal charges against, following former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. After the lawmakers’ video was posted in November, the president called their comments “seditious” and demanded that they be “arrested and put on trial.”

The news of the declined indictment was first reported by The New York Times.

CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Two sources who were briefed on the matter told CBS News the Justice Department sought to charge the lawmakers under a criminal statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 2387.

Democrat Rep. Jason Crown lashed out the Trump Administration after a grand jury declined to return an indictment.

Keep reading

WHOA! “Go F*ck Yourself… Rape My Children, You Sick Bastard!” UNHINGED J6 TV Star Michael Fanone Screams at Ivan Raiklin During Jack Smith Committee Hearing – Democrats Cheer as he Exits Hearing Room with Capitol Police (VIDEO) – UPDATE: Fanone FLIPS OFF Lawmakers During Hearing!

Former DC Metropolitan Police Officer and January 6 Hoax TV star Michael Fanone became unhinged at a committee hearing on Capitol Hill, screaming profanities and threatening January 6er Ivan E. Raiklin.

Though it is still unclear what happened, Ivan Raiklin told The Gateway Pundit that he simply stuck his hand out to say hello, and Panone “just completely flipped the switch,” suggesting that he may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Four January 6 police officers are in the crowd at today’s hearing to support Jack Smith’s targeting of President Trump and conservative lawmakers.

Panaone wore a shirt that reads “Fighting Nazis since 1996” to the hearing.

During a brief afternoon recess in Smith’s testimony, the confrontation broke out with Panone screaming, “Go f*ck yourself” and getting in Raiklin’s face. F*cking do something. Do something.” He continued, “Trust me, I’m using a lot of restraint right now,” as a large man held him back and Capitol Police officers approached the situation.

Panone then claimed, “This guy has threatened my family, threatened my children, threatened my–threatened to rape my children! Rape my children, you sick bastard! Rape my children!”

Keep reading

Trump Rages As Jack Smith Accidentally Exposed The Partisan Scam Behind The Jan 6 Probe

Jack Smith’s testimony before Congress did more than expose weaknesses in his own case against President Trump. It also laid bare just how partisan the entire January 6th investigation had become—and how willing Democrats were to elevate sensational claims they knew could never survive real scrutiny.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan zeroed in on one of the January 6th Committee’s most infamous moments: the prime-time hearing on June 28, 2022, built almost entirely around the committee’s star witness, Cassidy Hutchinson. 

Jordan reminded Smith that Hutchinson was “their star witness” in what he described as a “staged and choreographed hearing” produced by a former ABC News president.

She was the only witness that night, and her testimony delivered a Hollywood-ready storyline.

Among Hutchinson’s claims was the outlandish assertion that President Trump “lunged across the back seat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried to drive the car to the Capitol.”

Keep reading

Democrats Fight To Keep Insurrection Myth Alive In New J6 Committee

The new J6 Committee has started its hearings and, unlike the prior Committee, Republicans have allowed Democrats to select members to sit in opposition. That has led to sharp exchanges, but one of the more interesting occurred between Rep. Harriet Hageman (R., Wyo.) and Jamie Raskin (D., Md.). After Hageman got a witness to admit that no one was charged with incitement, Raskin made the clearly false statement that a few defendants charged with seditious conspiracy was the same thing as incitement. It is not.

Rep. Raskin triggered the confrontation by making a clearly false claim about one of those charged by the Biden Administration: “I would just commend to everybody the testimony of Pamela Hemphill, who was a convicted insurrectionist that was pardoned. She rejected her pardon.”

In reality, Hemphill was charged (like most of the rioters) with relatively minor misdemeanors. She pleaded guilty to one count of demonstrating, picketing, or parading in a Capitol building and received just 60 days in prison, 36 months of probation, and a $500 fine for restitution. She was never charged with insurrection or any felony.

Rep. Hageman pounced on the comment and asked former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Romano whether any January 6 protester had actually been convicted under the federal insurrection statute.

Romano tried to dodge the question but admitted that no one, not Trump nor any rioter, was ever charged with insurrection. Notably, after January 6th, there was a great amount of coverage on Trump and his aides being possibly charged with insurrection or incitement. Despite some of us noting that the speech was clearly protected under the First Amendment, the press portrayed such a charge as credible and heaped coverage on District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, who announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. It never happened. The reason is obvious. It could not be legally maintained.

While the FBI launched a massive national investigation, it did not find evidence of an insurrection. While a few were charged with seditious conspiracy, no one was charged with insurrection.

The Supreme Court later reduced charges further by rejecting obstruction charges in some cases.

Yet that did not stop members and the media from repeating the false mantra that this was an insurrection, despite some of us immediately rejecting it as legally unsustainable. Indeed, Democrats used the false claim to seek to disqualify Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots.

Now back to the hearing.

Hageman asked the witness, “Mr. Romano, did you prosecute anyone related to January 6th for engaging in an insurrection?” she asked. Romano responded, “No, congresswoman.”

That is when Raskin objected and tried to interrupt the confirmation that, in fact, there never was an insurrection or any such charges.

Keep reading

Did Trump Accidentally Pardon Accused Jan 6 Pipe-Bomber?

It took nearly five years for the FBI to finally arrest someone for planting pipe bombs outside the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties on the eve of the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, but the suspect may avoid serving a prison sentence thanks to the language in President Trump’s sweeping pardon of those who participated in Jan. 6 mayhem.

In that pardon issued on the day of his 2025 inauguration, Trump commuted the sentences of 14 people convicted of offenses springing from the Jan 6 demonstrations. Next, seeking to free some 1,500 others from convictions or pending prosecutions, Trump wrote, “I do hereby…grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

It seems immaterial that the charges against Brian Cole Jr for planting bombs came after Trump’s pardon, notes former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori, writing at Politico: 

Trump could have specified that the pardon applied only to people who had been convicted or charged “as of the date” of his pardon…but there is no such language in Trump’s proclamation. Lest there be any doubt, the Supreme Court made clear more than 150 years ago that presidents have the constitutional authority to do this — that is, to issue “preemptive pardons” for past conduct even if that conduct has not been charged at the time of the pardon.  

In another context — relating to Trump’s pardon of those who sought to send alternate slates of electors to the 2020 Electoral College — Trump’s DOJ has claimed it has the power to determine which crimes Trump intended to include, but courts may take a dim view of that kind of de facto delegation of presidential pardon power, particularly where the plain language of the pardon is unambiguous and deliberately sweeping.

Federal prosecutors are behaving as if they fully appreciate the pardon’s potential to set Cole free and render their efforts futile. In both court filings and remarks in a hearing, they avoided using language that links Cole’s alleged actions to Jan. 6.   

Keep reading

Questions Grow as Lt. Michael Byrd, Who Shot Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, Operates a Taxpayer-Funded Home Daycare as $190 Million in Federal Child Care Funds Flow to Maryland

In one of his autopen’s last acts before Joe Biden left office was to pardon Capt. Mike Byrd, the DC officer who shot and killed January 6 protester Ashli Babbitt in cold blood during the protests on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.

As TGP’s Brian Lupo noted, video evidence captured Byrd shooting an unarmed Babbitt without warning as she attempted to climb through a narrow window near a barricaded entryway to the Speaker of the House’s office area in the U.S. Capitol.

Following an investigation, Byrd was cleared of any wrongdoing, although questions remain about the escalation to lethal force without attempts to subdue or detain Babbitt.

In the video, other armed law enforcement officers are visible in the background, appearing available to provide backup if needed.

In addition to Byrd leaving his Glock 22 service weapon in a Visitor’s Center bathroom in February 2019, Byrd also had his police powers revoked on several occasions for failing to meet semi-annual firearms qualifications standards.

Byrd expressed defiance after being pressed about killing Babbitt during an NBC interview months following the killing. He claimed that he saved “countless lives” by killing Babbitt.

He also whined that he has been getting death threats since killing the Air Force veteran. The officer said that it was “disheartening” and that he was simply “doing my job.”

Keep reading

ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE: CIA Tells Court It Cannot Produce Requested J6 Documents and Information for 4 More Years!

Here is the latest example of your government working against you!

Last year, on January 6, 2025, Tom Fitton, the President of Judicial Watch, released a video exposing the CIA at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This video was released four years after the stolen 2020 election and uprising at the US Capitol.
From the video:

Tom Fitton: We just uncovered documents that show the CIA had folks involved in a response to January sixth. Now, I got a question for you. What if I had told you three weeks ago and I said, I think the CIA was involved somehow on January sixth. Somehow they were involved somehow. I’d probably get thrown off the internet, right? For promoting a conspiracy theory. But we just uncovered documents that show the CIA had folks involved in the response to January sixth.

Here’s My video first highlighting it.

Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here with some massive news. Judicial Watch just uncovered that the CIA was involved in the response to the January 6th disturbances on Capitol Hill. In fact, CIA bomb technicians were sent over to the RNC and DNC where those pipe bombs supposedly were found. On top of that, there were CIA dog teams on standby in response to January 6th.

Now, there are a lot of questions that are raised by our disclosures. First of all, why did it take Judicial Watch heavy lifting in federal court to get access to these documents after all these years? Why didn’t the Pelosi January sixth Committee, even as corrupt as it was, not disclose the CIA involvement? What was the CIA involved for? Were they investigating foreign intelligence operations? Were they investigating American citizens? What else have they done related to January sixth? All these questions you can be sure your Judicial Watch will pursue. In federal court if necessary.

So we had asked for records from the Department of Justice. What did we ask for? Last year. We asked for records and communications regarding shots being fired inside the US Capitol as well as request for Bureau of Alcohol, Department of Farms, Explosive Special Response Team Assistance on January 6. Remember, they had these pipe bombs that were supposedly found at the RNC and DNC. And so we were interested in the responses there. So we got a bunch of text messages. Of course, they ignored our request, and we had to sue in federal court. Again, this is June 2023. We filed the lawsuit. We probably had asked. Yeah, we asked in… No, we filed the lawsuit in August. We asked for the records in June. So we’ve been waiting almost a year for these records, and it took a federal lawsuit to get them out to us. And so we got these ATF text messages that detail the CIA’s involvement. And there are two sets of text messages, and they’re very interesting to read because they do talk about, as I say, we were asking about the reports of shots fired.

Keep reading