SPERRY: If Past Is Prologue, Marc Elias Has Made the Case for His Own Prosecution

Editor 1
-
0
SPERRY: If Past Is Prologue, Marc Elias Has Made the Case for His Own Prosecution

(Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations) Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias had a rough election. Several of his clients, notably Kamala Harris and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, fell to defeat.

But instead of accepting their losses, Elias disputed the presidential and senatorial results in Pennsylvania, leading to charges that Elias, a self-advertised “democracy defender,” is what he’s accused Donald Trump of being: an “election denier.”

With the races now settled—and many of his skeptical posts on X deleted—Elias is unrepentant and remains defiant. Not only is he shaking off the criticism, but he is vowing to fight Trump and Republicans even harder in court in 2026 and 2028.

“Democrats need to oppose, and not simply resist, a second Trump presidency,” the lawyer said recently.

This time, Elias promises to employ more “ruthless” tactics to stop Trump, Republicans, and their MAGA agenda.

“All legal tactics must be on the table,” he added in his recent blog post. “We must be comfortable using every legal tool available to challenge Trumpism in court.”

Elias believes he will get favorable rulings because “more than half of federal judges were appointed by Democratic presidents,” and “many state courts are controlled by liberals,” the principles of impartiality and blind justice notwithstanding.

“The judiciary is the best hope we have to stop Donald Trump from running through American democracy,” he asserted on his podcast.

Elias continues to bring legal challenges in several states. He recently noted there were still 211 voting or election cases pending in 40 states at the time of publication. (The far-left Brennan Center for Justice listed 27 states with pending litigation as of Tuesday afternoon.)

Elias’s anti-Trump crusade has gotten personal. In his trademark smashmouth style, he recently called Trump a “buffoon” and has compared hime to Hitler. Now he worries Trump has targeted him for attack.

“I fear the threat of retribution, political vengeance,” he said in a recent column. Elias notes that Trump’s nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, has branded him “an enemy.”

While claiming to protect voting rights, elections, and the democratic process, Elias’s partisan actions in the wake of the 2024 election stand in tension with his past statements excoriating Trump for denying the 2020 results and trying to “steal the election.”

After the Associated Press and ABC News called the 2024 Pennsylvania Senate race for GOP challenger Dave McCormick, Elias refused to accept the loss suffered by his client Casey.

“The Pennsylvania Senate race is not over,” Elias insisted on X (a post he has since deleted).

Instead of advising Casey to concede, he demanded a recount. Meanwhile, he sued state election officials over provisional ballots, which he argued should be counted even though they were ruled invalid.

When McCormick countersued to throw out such ballots, Elias complained: “Candidates who believe they have won don’t file lawsuits like this. Very strong Trump 2020 vibes.”

But the Republican National Committee said the desperate party was Elias.

“We actually have legal filings by the Bob Casey campaign filed by Marc Elias, where they have called on votes that are cast by individuals who are not registered to vote to be counted,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said. “They have taken every step that they can to try and engineer votes that would overturn this margin.”

In the end, Casey struck out on the recount, and his high-priced lawyer whiffed in court. Casey finally conceded the election to McCormick after 16 days of protesting the result on the advice of counsel.

Elias even disputed Trump’s own clear victory in Pennsylvania, where he beat Vice President Kamala Harris by 171,000 votes.“Trump knows he is losing Pennsylvania,” the Harris campaign lawyer claimed in a post on X, also since deleted.

Asked for a response, Elias spokesman Blake McCarren did not comment.

It’s not the first time the controversial Duke-educated attorney, who keeps a “BEWARE OF ATTACK DEMOCRAT” sign behind his desk, has doubted the results of elections and used questionable tactics to try to overturn them.

In 2021, Elias pushed the House Democratic leadership to nullify the victory of GOP Iowa Rep. Mariannette Miller–Meeks over his Democratic client, Rita Hart.

Meeks’s narrow win had already been certified by Iowa when Elias asked congressional Democrats to essentially kick her out of office (she remains in Congress).

In 2018, he represented Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson in his recount loss to Republican challenger Rick Scott.

And in 2008, Elias was able to switch a Senate seat in Minnesota from an incumbent Republican to Democrat Al Franken by shopping for a friendly judge to count previously rejected ballots and overturn the lead of GOP Sen. Norman Coleman. The seat flip gave newly elected President Barack Obama the 60-seat majority he needed in the Senate to pass legislation such as the controversial Affordable Care Act without any Republican support.

Similar election reversals may have had major influences on key state races in Virginia and North Carolina, giving Democrats the opportunity to flip the traditionally red states blue, which they did successfully in the case of Virginia with the election of former Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe as governor and Mark Herring as attorney general by dubiously razor-thin margins.

‘Extreme’ Gerrymandering

While Elias has decried what he calls “grotesque partisan gerrymandering” by Republicans in red states like North Carolina, court records show he defended Democrats doing the same thing in blue states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Maryland.

In Maryland, a state court ruled in 2022 that the Democrat-drawn map pushed by Elias was so one-sided against Republicans that it “subverts the will of those governed.”

The judge tossed out the map for “extreme partisan gerrymandering.” The same year, a federal judge in New York rejected Elias’s lawsuit to reshape congressional districts to favor Democrats as a “Hail Mary pass.”

Federal Election Commission records reveal Elias has earned millions of dollars from redistricting clients—such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee, along with its affiliate, the National Redistricting Action Fund—to assist their efforts to redraw electoral maps to protect Democratic congressional seats in blue states.

One year after publicly mocking Trump and his campaign lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, over their unfounded claims that Dominion voting machines switched Trump votes to Biden in 2020, Elias himself blamed the same Dominion “voting tabulation machines” for a Democratic client’s loss in New York.

In 2021, Elias unsuccessfully claimed machine “irregularities” had somehow undercounted thousands of votes for Rep. Anthony Brindisi. But a judge rejected his complaint, ruling that there were “no discrepancies” with the machine counts while denying his request for a hand recount of the votes. FEC records show Brindisi paid Elias $8,230 for legal services.

Publicly, Elias has railed against the infusion of “dark money” in Republican campaigns. But behind the scenes, he’s lobbied to lift campaign finance caps and is credited with helping create the so-called “super PAC,” political committees that can accept unlimited contributions from dark money groups.

“Well before Marc was litigating major voting cases, he was a campaign-finance lawyer, fighting against regulation on the Democrat side,” said Rick Hasen, an election-law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It was Marc working to loosen campaign-finance limits on political parties, a move that has increased the role of big money in influencing candidates through the political parties.”

Shortly before the 2016 election, billionaire left-wing donor George Soros, whom Elias views as “a hero,” gave at least $5 million to Elias and his law firm to fight voter ID requirements at polling places.

Dark money groups also helped fund his legal work in the 2020 election. When reporters pointed this out, he threatened to make it easier to sue journalists for defamation, arguing the courts should “revisit New York Times v Sullivan,” the landmark libel case that makes it harder for public figures to sue for defamation. (He’s since deleted the tweet.)

‘Dark Money’ Double Standard

What’s more, two nonprofit groups Elias founded, Democracy Docket Legal Fund and Democracy Docket Action Fund, are “both projects of the Arabella Advisors dark money funding network,” according to the Capital Research Center.

They provide him almost unlimited cash to file lawsuits across the country to block GOP measures to prevent voter fraud.  Arabella manages several nonprofit “dark money” funders, who in turn channel money to Elias’s groups, according to the Capital Research Center.

Notwithstanding his rhetoric about “protecting voting rights,” critics say Elias’s primary concern is making sure Democrats have the advantage in elections. Indeed, his law firm, the Elias Law Group, acknowledges on its website that it is “committed to helping Democrats win.”

When Elias says he’s fighting against “voter suppression” by Republicans, detractors say he’s really fighting against laws to stop voter fraud, such as non-citizens illegally casting votes for Democrats.

Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary and GOP pundit, warned that what Elias did in Pennsylvania is a harbinger of how Democrats plan to count votes in future close races. “They want people who aren’t registered, don’t have IDs, or live out of state to be counted,” he said on X.

After the election, Elias complained he had lost more than 50,000 followers on X. He has used the political platform to plug his digital newsletter, “Democracy Docket,” and attract paid subscribers for the for-profit website, which he started in 2020. He has done this even while defending Media Matters against a defamation lawsuit brought by Elon Musk. The Soros-backed propaganda group claimed X promotes Nazism.

While Elias claims “Donald Trump tried to subvert the election results in a lot of different ways in 2020,” he himself used a variety of dirty tricks to influence the election held four years earlier, which caught the eye of federal prosecutors who subpoenaed him to testify about his election meddling in court in 2022.

In 2016, while working as Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer, Elias hired D.C. opposition research shop Fusion GPS and former FBI informant Christopher Steele to feed the FBI false information about connections between Trump and the Kremlin to generate an investigation of the Republican opponent.

As special counsel John Durham suggested, Elias’s objective was to turn around and tell his media contacts that Trump was being investigated in the hopes of swinging the election in Clinton’s favor. During the same month he commissioned Steele, Elias hired the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike to write a public report blaming Russia for hacking the Clinton campaign. In his since-debunked dossier, Steele went a step further, pinning the hacking on not just Russia but also the Trump campaign.

Also in 2016, Elias collaborated with Clinton campaign official Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser) on the Russian Alfa Bank hoax targeting Trump, resulting in another dead-end FBI probe. After Elias’s campaign schemes fell under the scrutiny of Durham in 2020 and 2021, Elias scrubbed several years of posts from his X feed.

Critics say Elias seems to morph into those he denounces.

“Elias insisted that [Trump] was an election denier and [a] threat to democracy,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “What is hypocrisy to some is a living to others.”

GOP Report Recommends FBI Investigate Liz Cheney for J6 Witness Tampering

Headline USA Editor
-
0
GOP Report Recommends FBI Investigate Liz Cheney for J6 Witness Tampering

(The Center Square) – A new Republican oversight report accuses former Congresswoman Liz Cheney of colluding with witnesses in the Jan. 6 Select Committee investigation that she oversaw.

The bombshell report released Tuesday said Cheney should be investigated by the FBI for possible criminal activity for her role in the first committee, which was led by Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the conflict at the Capitol after now President-elect Donald Trump left office in 2021.

The Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., released the report, his second major report on the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

From the report:

“Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge. This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512. Such action is outside the due functioning of the legislative process and therefore not protected by the Speech and Debate clause.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury. Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee. Additionally, Hutchinson was interviewed by the FBI as part of its investigation into President Trump. This Subcommittee sought a copy of the FBI report 302, documenting this interview and Hutchinson’s statements, but the FBI has refused to produce this vital document. The FBI must immediately review the testimony given by Hutchinson in this interview to determine if she also lied in her FBI interview, and, if so, the role former Representative Cheney played in instigating Hutchinson to radically change her testimony.”

Cheney has yet to publicly responded to the report.

Trump recently suggested some committee members should face jail time.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., told media outlets this week that President Joe Biden should issue preemptive pardons for those members, something he is reportedly considering.

In a statement first reported by The Hill responding to Trump’s jail threat, Cheney focused on Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, not her own defense.

The report raised a litany of concerns and questions about how the Jan. 6 investigation was carried out, how witnesses may have been pressured or influenced, and how records, files and other evidence was handled.

“Over the past twenty-four months of this investigation, my subcommittee staff have faced incredible obstacles in pursuit of the truth; missing and deleted documents, hidden evidence, unaccounted for video footage, and uncooperative bureaucrats,” the report said.

Loudermilk’s first report examined the security lapses at the Capitol.

After Loudermilk and his team examining thousands of hours of video and millions of pages of documents, interviewing dozens of witnesses and multiple hearings, the report found the Jan. 6 event was a result of security lapses and bad decision-making at several levels of government.

“This report reveals that there was not just one single cause for what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6; but it was a series of intelligence, security, and leadership failures at several levels and numerous entities,” the report said.

“Even amid multiple failures, there were two common elements that significantly contributed to the security issues: an excessive amount of political influence on critical decisions, and a greater concern over the optics than for protecting life and property.”

Head of Largest Russian Oil Producer Says Gold Could Rival the Dollar

Money Metals News Service
-
0
Head of Largest Russian Oil Producer Says Gold Could Rival the Dollar

(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) The head of Russia’s largest oil producer says gold could become the dollar’s main competitor in world trade.

Russian policymakers have a vested interest in undermining the dollar, so their rhetoric should be taken with a grain of salt, but it’s worth paying attention to what they say. Others around the world undoubtedly sympathize with the Russian viewpoint thanks to America’s weaponization of the dollar.

Speaking at the Verona Eurasian Economic Forum, Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin said continued restrictions on the dollar create more opportunities for using national currencies in trade and developing new “universal instruments.”

“Using the dollar as an instrument of sanctions is a big mistake because trade will never stop. Both energy security and life in general depend on it. Alternatives will always be found. Gold will be the dollar’s main competitor, which mankind has been using for thousands of years for settlements.”

The U.S. and its Western allies have aggressively sanctioned Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. They locked Russia out of the SWIFT financial system and froze around $300 billion in Russian central bank assets. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen even floated the idea of selling those frozen assets and giving the proceeds to Ukraine.

One can certainly argue that sanctions are justified, but it’s important to consider the blowback. An Associated Press report about Yellen’s comments conceded the weaponization of the dollar comes with risks.

“There are tradeoffs since the weaponization of global finance could harm the U.S. dollar’s standing as the world’s dominant currency.”

As Sechin pointed out, trade will continue, and sanctioned nations will find alternatives if locked out of the dollar system.

He’s also correct that gold is the logical choice to usurp the dollar, given that it has served as money for thousands of years. People universally recognize the value of gold, and it is accepted as money around the world. It can easily be converted into any currency and comes with no counterparty risk.

Sechin also took shots at what he described as sagging U.S. influence globally.

“It is also obvious that the U.S. has allowed itself to lose its leadership in the scientific, technological, industrial, and financial spheres, which was hard to imagine 20-30 years ago.”

He accused the United States of trying to create “special conditions” for its economy at the expense of other countries – including its own allies, saying that it has bungled its leadership role by failing to create the necessary conditions for “maintaining a fair world order.”

“Conflicts are being deliberately aggravated and created in the Middle East, Ukraine, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region.”

The Weaponization of the Dollar and Its Ramifications

The U.S. has a long history of using its privilege as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency to further its foreign policy aims.

The U.S. government utilizes a “carrot-stick” approach. It showers billions of dollars of foreign aid on its friends. But enemies can have access to their own dollars cut off, as Russia learned.

The dollar’s status as the global reserve currency, along with the SWIFT system, provides the U.S. significant leverage over other nations.

Using the dollar as a weapon can certainly advance foreign policy goals. But there is a big potential downside when the U.S. uses its economic privilege to bend other countries to its will.

Nobody wants to be bent.

If you realized somebody had leverage over you, what would you do?

You would try to find a way to get out from under their thumb, right?

More specifically, if you’re worried that the U.S. and its allies might cut off your access to dollars, you would try to minimize your dependence on dollars.

In other words, if you are concerned that the U.S. could pull the “dollar rug” out from under you, why not pull out from the dollar system first?

This is exactly why you see a trend toward de-dollarization. Dollar reserves globally have dropped by 14 percent since 2002, and de-dollarization accelerated after the U.S. and her Western allies aggressively sanctioned Russia.

It’s important to note that de-dollarization won’t happen overnight. Given the dollar’s dominance in the global economy, countries that spurn it take on financial risk. This is why plans for alternative currencies and payment systems are moving at a snail’s pace.

Russia was pushing hard for BRICS to consider an alternative payment system to replace the dollar-denominated SWIFT system before its fall summit. But after the meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin conceded that there was no immediate plan, saying the economic bloc “have not and are not” creating such a system.

But Russia isn’t the only country pushing hard to topple the greenback from its dominant perch. The Chinese are also taking steps to minimize dependence on the dollar. The South China Morning Post recently reported that China is encouraging African countries to use local currencies in a bid to “de-dollarize” trade.

Even a modest drop in demand for dollars would be problematic for the U.S. economy. That’s because demand for dollars props up America’s massive national debt.

Because the global financial system runs on dollars, the world needs a lot of them, and the United States depends on this global demand to support its borrowing and spending. The only reason the U.S. can run huge budget deficits month after month is the dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. It creates a built-in global demand for dollars and dollar-denominated assets. This absorbs the Federal Reserve’s money creation and helps maintain dollar strength despite the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies.

Even a modest de-dollarization of the world economy would cause a dollar glut. This would cause the value of the U.S. currency to further depreciate. You and I would feel the impact through more price inflation eating away at our purchasing power. In the worst-case scenario, global de-dollarization could spark a currency crisis and lead to hyperinflation.

Continue

Infamous J6 ‘Gallows’ Were Destroyed by Capitol Employees the Next Day w/o Investigation

Ken Silva
-
0
Infamous J6 ‘Gallows’ Were Destroyed by Capitol Employees the Next Day w/o Investigation

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) The so-called J6 “gallows” were used as a prop by the Justice Department and Democrats for nearly four years to argue that the Capitol Hill protestors were threatening government officials and staging an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. President Joe Biden even falsely claimed earlier this year that they were “erected to hang Vice President Mike Pence.”

However, it appears as if the public will never know who built them, according to a report released Tuesday by the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

Tuesday’s report followed earlier findings from February, when the subcommittee revealed that the FBI claimed to not know who built the gallows (which weren’t actually gallows, the FBI later admitted). This latest report suggests that neither the FBI nor any other law enforcement agency even bothered looking into the matter. The Democrat-controlled Jan. 6 Commission didn’t investigate the matter, either, the report added.

“United States Capitol Police guidelines prohibit the construction of temporary structures on Capitol grounds. Despite this, USCP made no effort to prevent the construction of the gallows, and the USCP CCTV footage confirms that the gallows remained on Capitol grounds for a full twenty-six hours with no effort to have them removed,” the report said.

“The gallows were finally removed at roughly 9:06 AM on January 7 … USCP video footage reveals that no law enforcement entity investigated the structure before it was removed and destroyed. Instead, USCP video footage shows Architect of the Capitol (“AOC”) employees loading the structure into the back of a dump truck and crushing it using a forklift,” the report said.

“The AOC then discarded the now-broken lumber alongside the other refuse left on Capitol Grounds from January 6.”

According to the subcommittee’s investigation, the gallows builders arrived at approximately 6:30 a.m. on January 6, 2021, in a white full-size van parked north of Constitution Avenue. There, three passengers unloaded a large bundle of lumber with wheels.

After unloading, the group walked the bundle across Constitution Avenue and onto the grass at Union Square, according to Loudermilk. They were then joined by two more people arriving by cab at the corner of 1st and C Streets NW.

Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m., the group constructed the platform and two main pillars of the gallows, only leaving off the crossbeam, he said. During this time, the apparent group leader along with one other person, left the group and walked down 3rd Street, heading north. They returned a few minutes later with coffee, and the entire group left the scene.

Around 1 p.m. the group returned to the scene, and the leader installed the final crossbeam and added the noose made of bright orange rope.

The report said Capitol Hill surveillance footage wasn’t clear enough to identify the men’s faces. Congressional investigators traced their route, and identified other government cameras that should have captured better footage—including cameras on the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. District Court building for the District of Columbia.

However, those agencies said that the FBI never asked for their footage of the men, according to the report.

“Shockingly, each entity confirmed that they were never contacted for this footage by any government entity, including the FBI and the Select Committee,” the report said.

In July Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., asked FBI Director Chris Wray about Biden’s claim during a Wednesday congressional hearing, and Wray surprisingly debunked the president’s false characterization of the “gallows.

“I’m not aware of any physical gallows … It might have been a replica or symbol,” Wray told Massie.

Massie asked Wray whether anyone has been arrested or even identified as the builder of the gallows. He also asked whether the gallows builders were FBI informants.

Wray said he had no knowledge of informants being involved.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.

‘We Want to Vomit’: Fake News Anchor Scams Elderly Woman Out of Tens of Thousands

Julianna Frieman
-
0
‘We Want to Vomit’: Fake News Anchor Scams Elderly Woman Out of Tens of Thousands

(Julianna Frieman, Headline USA) A Facebook user impersonating MSNBC host Ari Melber reportedly scammed a 73-year-old woman in Washington out of at least $20,000.

Police are investigating the fake news anchor’s deception of the elderly Patrica Taylor, which started when she received a message from the scammer’s profile about a “sick dog” and a request for money and gift cards, according to Local 12.

“We want to vomit,” Taylor’s daughter, Meri Taylor, told the outlet.

Taylor first messaged the fake profile, which she believed was Melber, the outlet reported.

The scammer replied with a “Get a $500 Apple gift card” message and eventually bombarded the 73-year-old with demands that she fork over money unless she wanted to let his “sick dog” die.

“It’s for Penny. Please don’t let Penny die,” the scammer wrote to Taylor.

The Facebook scammer did not stop after acquiring $20,000 from the victim, a far cry from the inexpensive coin he named his fake dog after.

Still pretending to be Melber, the scammer convinced the 73-year-old woman they were in love and would soon be married, according to the outlet.

“We find the ring. It’s a $30 ring,” Meri Taylor said.

The victim’s son, Joey Taylor, said the scam was “pretty disgusting.”

When Taylor grew suspicious, the scammer used artificial intelligence to send her a voice message that sounded like Melber, Local 12 reported.

“You’re reading my messages and not responding. I’d never do that to you. Have you found someone else?” the AI-generated voice message asked the victim.

The scam hit its crux when Taylor took a plane to New York City to meet the fake Melber.

However, she was intercepted by a family member during a layover in Portland, according to the outlet, which noted she was taken back home after.

“I believe they would have asked for some type of ransom for her. That we have your mom. See how much money they could get out of us,” Meri Taylor told the outlet.

The victim’s daughter questioned how her mother could have fallen for the MSNBC host hoax and told the outlet she fears the 73-year-old would fall for another scam.

“We just want our mom back,” Joey Taylor said.

MSNBC reportedly said the real Melber has no connection to the scam, Local 12 noted.

Julianna Frieman is a freelance writer published by the Daily Caller, Headline USA, The Federalist, and The American Spectator. Follow her on Twitter at @JuliannaFrieman.

‘Trump Answers the Phone’: Even MSNBC Is Fed Up with Democrats’ 50-Person Firewall

Julianna Frieman
-
0
‘Trump Answers the Phone’: Even MSNBC Is Fed Up with Democrats’ 50-Person Firewall

(Julianna Frieman, Headline USA) MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle unleashed her frustration at Democrats inaccessible due to their 50-person communication blockades as she explained how President-elect Donald Trump picked up the phone when she called.

Ruhle, who interviewed failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris in late September, told a crowd and interviewer in footage surfaced Monday that she has a direct contact to Trump, unlike Democrats like Harris and President Joe Biden.

“I’ll tell you one other example. The day after Donald Trump had that crazy rally in Madison Squate Garden, I rolled the dice and I called him on the phone. And he answered!” the MSNBC host told a laughing audience and the interviewer beside her who shouted, “Of course he did!”

Ruhle told the crowd she did not call Trump to “chit-chat” and instead asked for an interview, which she said the then-Republican nominee “obviously” declined.

She said further details on their conversation could not be disclosed.

“Obviously, he said no,” Ruhle said. “But my point is, I was able to get to him by dialing his phone. Now that might be completely apes**t, and you’re like, ‘I can’t believe people know this guy’s phone number.’”

The 11th Hour host continued by contrasting Trump’s accessibility to that of the president-elect’s political opponents, saying, “But the reverse of that, if I were to want to connect with VP Harris or President Biden, there’s 50 people between be and them!”

Her tone of voice grew agitated as she reflected on her troublesome attempts to speak to safeguarded Democrats.

“I could write a note that maybe could get to somebody, to get to somebody through Pony Express and a pigeon, something might end up in a mailbox near them,” Ruhle raged. “And I called DJT to say, ‘Yo, can I have an interview?’ And he told me to go f**k myself. But I still was able to connect with him!”

Julianna Frieman is a freelance writer published by the Daily Caller, Headline USA, The Federalist, and The American Spectator. Follow her on Twitter at @JuliannaFrieman.

‘Little Napoleon’: Megyn Kelly Rips Into George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Trump Payoff

Julianna Frieman
-
0
‘Little Napoleon’: Megyn Kelly Rips Into George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Trump Payoff

(Julianna Frieman, Headline USA) SiriusXM’s Megyn Kelly ripped into anchor George Stephanopoulos, who she called “Little Napoleon,” Monday over ABC News’s $15 million payoff to President-elect Donald Trump.

On her podcast, Kelly played a clip of Stephanopoulos on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert justifying his defamatory remarks on air to Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., incorrectly saying Trump was found “liable for rape.”

Kelly claimed she would never run her mouth like the ABC News anchor did to Colbert about his ongoing lawsuit.

She said Stephanopoulos was “stupid” and “absolutely foolish” for his brazen appearance on the show.

“You don’t do it because it could come back to haunt you,” Kelly told guests Emily Jashinsky and Eliana Johnson. “He knows that, I’m sure the ABC lawyers told him that. He had swagger around this. He was like, ‘I know I’m only four-foot-two but I’m gonna take down the president! F- you big man, I’m George Stephanopoulos!’”

Kelly claimed Stephanopoulos’s “Napoleon complex” got the best of him.

“He felt the need to try to act like a tough guy,” the radio host said.

Johnson said Stephanopoulos digging his heels in on his defamatory comments gives “pretty good grounds” to prove malice.

Kelly said ABC News could have avoided the entire lawsuit by having Stephanopoulos go on air and apologize for his factual inaccuracy.

“That’s it! That shows a potential jury or judge you didn’t have actual malice in your heart.  You did your best to correct the record. It doesn’t necessarily totally exonerate you, but as a practical matter, it does,” Kelly said. “And instead, you had him out there, again, Little Napoleon, trying to show how tough he was because he obviously had something to prove.”

Stephanopoulos’s comments shaming Mace, a rape survivor, for supporting Trump were made in March.

In May, the ABC News anchors appeared on Colbert’s show, Kelly said, then noting that the outlet’s motion to dismiss the case was denied in July.

“Hello folks, we’re knocking on the door of Christmas and Hanukkah right now. We’re in December,” Kelly said. “So, once they lost the motion to dismiss, they easily could have settled it then.”

Kelly suggested Stephanopoulos has something to hide, saying, “I really think something about George sitting was what made them fold because it’s not unprecedented for talent to have to sit.”

Julianna Frieman is a freelance writer published by the Daily Caller, Headline USA, The Federalist, and The American Spectator. Follow her on Twitter at @JuliannaFrieman.

FBI Informant Tried Implicating Innocent Mother in Whitmer Kidnap Plot, New Record Shows

Ken Silva
-
0
FBI Informant Tried Implicating Innocent Mother in Whitmer Kidnap Plot, New Record Shows

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Four years ago, the Justice Department announced charges against a group of men that were accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan’s governor. Though the DOJ’s case largely collapsed after the public learned that the FBI entrapped the defendants, new details are still seeping out about how the government targeted innocent men—and apparently women, too.

On Monday, journalist Christina Urso, who’s working on a documentary on the kidnap conspiracy case, released a newly unearthed document from December 2020 that shines more light on the FBI’s chilling activities. According to the document, an FBI informant tried implicating one of the target’s mothers in the conspiracy to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer.

The FBI informant—one of at least a dozen undercovers involved in the case—told their handler that after the arrest of Michigan resident Eric Molitor, his mother posted a social media message praising his willingness to defend America. The mother, Sue Molitor, also encouraged others to follow in her son’s footsteps, the FBI informant alleged.

The post Sue Molitor allegedly wrote said she was proud of Eric—“and grandpa would be very proud of you and your brother for defending America and the Constitution in which his father went to war to defend, and he, himself signed on the dotted line.”

“In total, this information caused the [FBI informant] to assess that Sue Molitor may have been more of a driving force behind [Eric] Molitor’s involvement in the plot against the Michigan State Governor than previously noted,” the FBI said in its Dec. 1, 2020, memo, which also raised the possibility of Eric’s brother being involved.

However, the FBI informant’s tip about Sue was misinformation. She was never charged, and her son Eric—who voted for Whitmer in 2018—was acquitted late last year. Two other men mentioned in the newly unearthed FBI memo, brothers William and Michael Null, were also acquitted.

Eric expressed anger upon learning that the FBI targeted his mother and brother.

“These evil turds tried to go after my mom as well back in 2020. I was innocent,” he said on Twitter/X. “She was even cleaner than I was as she wasn’t involved with militias, security work or, paramilitary run and gun competitions.”

Sue had a similar reaction.

“Look what the FBI tried to do to me, I just found this out a day ago. It makes me so sick, if they tried to do these to me, they are capable of doing it to anyone,” she said. “Need to get in touch with someone who can help the victims of FBI/Whitmer.”

Meanwhile, Adam Fox and Barry Croft, who were convicted after their second federal trial in late 2022, are awaiting decisions on their appeals. The decisions could be rendered any day now.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.

Dems Reject AOC for Key Committee Role Despite Hypocritical Calls for Diversity

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Dems Reject AOC for Key Committee Role Despite Hypocritical Calls for Diversity

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A House Democratic panel rejected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., bid to become ranking member of the House Oversight Committee in the incoming 119th Congress. 

Instead, Democrats chose Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., a white man 39 years older than Ocasio-Cortez, to lead the Democrats on the powerful and influential committee. James Comer, R-Ky., will retain his role as the committee’s chairman in the next Congress. 

As reported by Axios, the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee voted 34 to 27 in favor of Connolly. Ocasio-Cortez plans to challenge the results until the full caucus votes in the coming days. 

Ocasio-Cortez’s failed bid could be surprising to many, given the Democratic Party’s frequent virtue signaling on diversity and the urgent need to put non-white women in positions of power.  

She was first elected to Congress in 2018, defeating former Rep. Joe Crowley, the then-chair of the House Democratic Caucus and once considered a potential Speaker of the House. 

The Democratic congresswoman represents New York’s 14th Congressional District, adjacent to the country’s poorest district, the 15th. In contrast, Connolly represents Virginia’s affluent 11th District. 

Connolly, who announced on Nov. 7 that he has cancer of the esophagus, was backed by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in his bid to become the ranking member of Oversight. 

The ranking member’s seat became vacant after Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee’s top Democrat, opted to join the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee instead. 

On X, several critics mocked Ocasio-Cortez’s loss, with one speculating: “Her own party doubts her intelligence.” 

Another user added, “Maybe if she identified as a corrupt white man, she could win.” 

A third user chimed in: “This isn’t the final vote but it is a good sign that AOC will not lead the Oversight Committee. AOC shouldn’t be in any leadership position.” 

Cat Ladies Flip Out over Suggestion of Mandatory Paternity Tests

Dmytro "Henry" Aleksandrov
-
0
Cat Ladies Flip Out over Suggestion of Mandatory Paternity Tests

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Many people, including the self-described conservative Christian women, pushed back against the suggestion that President-elect Donald Trump should implement the anti-paternity fraud law.

“Trump administration should consider a law that makes paternity tests mandatory at birth …to put father’s name on birth certificate etc. It’s bizarre, given this technology, that this isn’t already the law,” @bronzeagemantis wrote.

Many supposedly conservative Christians opposed the suggestion that the government should make it impossible for cheating women to lie to their husbands and force them to raise a child that is not theirs.

“Waaaaaaaa I can’t trust my wife waaaaaaa Daddy government help me lolol,” Managing Editor of the Babylon Bee Joel Berry wrote.

Host of Conspiracy Pilled Abby Libby also criticized the suggestion, stating that Americans “don’t need the government to mandate paternity tests for everyone just so a few men who suspect their partners but don’t have the balls to own their distrust and ask for a test don’t have to.”

“Every husband should be tested for STDs monthly. Same logic,” she added in another post.

Some people also suggested that “there is no conservative argument for government-mandated paternity testing.”

Other women on Twitter also argued that this should not become law because women don’t like to be accused of cheating on their men.

Other people also gaslighted those who support this position by stating that they spend too much time on the internet if they think women cheat on their men and lie to them by saying they are the father of the baby.

Even though some people on the platform openly supported the implementation of the law, they were drowned out by those who opposed the potential law, with the biggest opponent being a woman under the nickname @Cluffalo.

“Fathers’ names are typically included on birth certificates already. Mandating paternity tests for healthy families with nothing to fear is just falling to the standards of low-trust, degenerate society. You should absolutely be insulted by the implications of that proposal,” she wrote.

Prominent conservative political commentator John Doyle was the most famous person who criticized @Cluffalo in his Twitter thread, noting that it is a pattern among the supposed Christian women.

“Posts like the one I’m quoting truly highlight how gynocentric Western societies are. Women could care less that there are no consequences for them committing paternity fraud and destroying a man’s life as long as their feelings aren’t hurt,” @theoccasian wrote.

Other people also criticized @Cluffalo for opposing the anti-paternity fraud law.

“There is literally no reason for a woman to be against this unless she has been or expects to be unfaithful to her husband,” @revenant_MMXX wrote.

1...880881882...3,839Page 881 of 3,839