House Democrats Try for DC Statehood (Again) Without First Checking Constitution

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed H.R. 51 by a vote of 25-19 Wednesday following an hours-long markup on the current legislative attempt to add Washington, D.C. as America’s 51st state. 

Ultimately, if the Constitution is to be followed, the Democrats’ supposed progress doesn’t really matter, because they’re pursuing an end through improper means.

Democrats in the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (two things for which Democrats in Congress are not particularly well-known) carried on with what our own Larry O’Connor appropriately called “obscene Kabuki theatre” pursuing statehood for our nation’s capital. Back in March, O’Connor noted one big problem with the left’s most recent attempt to give D.C. statehood:

The very body discussing DC statehood does not have the power through a simple majority to grant said statehood.

It’s pretty clear in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”

In addition to what O’Connor pointed out back in March, there’s also the question of what to do with the electoral college votes allocated to D.C. by the 23rd Amendment. If the occupants of the White House end up being the only residents of the shrunken federal territory, one household—likely two or three people—on Pennsylvania Avenue would wield three electoral votes, the same as all the residents of Alaska.

Keep reading

No charges, no identity of shooting officer: Feds close probe of Ashli Babbitt’s death

The federal government said on Wednesday it has shut down its investigation into the shooting death of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a U.S. military veteran who was among hundreds protesting at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Without charges. And without even identifying who shot her.

The Department of Justice issued a statement that did reveal it will “not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer.”

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting” the statement said.

Keep reading

DOJ quietly acknowledges there was no sedition at the US Capitol

Despite all the outrage and the threats of charging “insurrectionists” with sedition—the act of attempting to overthrow the government—proving them based upon actual facts and evidence seems to be increasingly unlikely. For example, Michael Cantrell reported on America’s Sheriff that:

“Many of the trials for individuals involved in the Capitol riot of January 6th have started and much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere, the charges these folks are facing aren’t quite as serious as we were all led to believe they would be. In fact, the Justice Department has now said that the body of evidence in these cases is not as damaging as it was previously thought to be.”

Further, developing reports indicate that none of the 400 people who have been arrested for their involvement in the riot have been charged with sedition, according to the Post Millennial. The most serious charge that has been brought against a defendant in this incident has been assault. To be clear, there is quite a leap between the charges of assault—and the charges of conspiring to overthrow the government.

Even more perplexing, while others have been charged with conspiracy and obstruction, there’s a rather inconvenient fact that prosecutors must reckon. As the Post Millenial explained: “Others have been charged with conspiracy, and obstruction. While five people lost their lives during the riot, only one was killed with a weapon, and that was Ashli Babbit, who died after being shot by an unnamed Capitol Police Officer.”

The secrecy surrounding the death investigations of Sicknick and Babbit do nothing to bolster confidence in “transparency.” The additional three victims suffered medical emergencies, yet transparency is still lacking in these cases as well.

Keep reading

Journalists Attack the Powerless, Then Self-Victimize to Bar Criticisms of Themselves

The daily newspaper USA Today is the second-most circulated print newspaper in the United States — more than The New York Times and more than double The Washington Post. Only The Wall Street Journal has higher circulation numbers.

On Sunday, the paper published and heavily promoted a repellent article complaining that “defendants accused in the Capitol riot Jan. 6 crowdfund their legal fees online, using popular payment processors and an expanding network of fundraising platforms, despite a crackdown by tech companies.” It provided a road map for snitching on how these private citizens — who are charged with serious felonies by the U.S. Justice Department but as of yet convicted of nothing — are engaged in “a game of cat-and-mouse as they spring from one fundraising tool to another” in order to avoid bans on their ability to raise desperately needed funds to pay their criminal lawyers to mount a vigorous defense.

Subscribe now

In other words, the only purpose of the article — headlined: “Insurrection fundraiser: Capitol riot extremists, Trump supporters raise money for lawyer bills online” — was to pressure and shame tech companies to do more to block these criminal defendants from being able to raise funds for their legal fees, and to tattle to tech companies by showing them what techniques these indigent defendants are using to raise money online.

Rep. Ruben Gallego pushes for VA to strip benefits from service members and veterans who stormed the Capitol

Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a Marine Corps veteran, last week called on Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough to withdraw benefits from active-duty service members, veterans, or military retirees who participated in the deadly Capitol riot on January 6.

“The behavior of these individuals is not representative of the large population of American veterans, the vast majority of whom served honorably and are appalled by the thought of insurrection in the country they served,” he wrote in a letter. “Yet, many of the veterans and servicemembers who attacked their own Government actively and enthusiastically enjoy special benefits given to them by their fellow citizens.”

Such benefits include access to disability compensation, healthcare options, and vocational opportunities.

Keep reading

Parler Says It Informed FBI Over 50 Times About Violent Content Before US Capitol Breach

Social media platform Parler said it had referred violent content from its platform to the FBI ahead of the breach at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Parler made the disclosure in a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in response to the panel’s request for documents. The company said that it had referred “violent content and incitement” from its platform to the FBI over 50 times before Jan. 6. It also warned the bureau about “specific threats of violence being planned” about the Jan. 6 incident.

“Parler now writes to set the record straight and provide new information about the positive role Parler played in the days and weeks leading up to January 6th, which should finally put an end to the spurious allegations against the Company,” the letter, penned by Parler’s attorney Michael S. Dry, stated.

The information is the latest in an ongoing feud between Parler and big tech companies that had sought to terminate the platform’s operation following the Jan. 6 incident. Apple and Google removed Parler from its app stores, while Amazon removed the platform from its web hosting service. All three companies took issue with the company’s alleged lax approach to violent content posted by its users and “repeated violations” of their terms of service related to such violent content.

Keep reading

‘Shock and Awe’: Feds Admit They are Prosecuting Jan. 6 Capitol Protesters to Create Chilling Effect on 1st Amendment

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes on Sunday where he admitted that he charged as many people as quickly as possible regardless of the evidence to put a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment rights of Trump supporters.

“After the 6th, we had an inauguration on the 20th. So I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe that we could charge as many people as possible before the 20th,” Sherwin told CBS News. 

He added: “And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re like, “If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.”’

Sherwin made it clear that the feds went after people who had gone viral regardless of whether they perpetrated any violence or committed any actual crime.

“So the first people we went after, I’m gonna call the internet stars, right? The low-hanging fruit. The ‘zip-tie guy,’ the ‘rebel flag guy,’ the ‘Camp Auschwitz guy.’ We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did,” Sherwin said.

Keep reading