When The Shoe Is On The Other Foot

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she did a number of things that set precedents for the future. She removed Republicans from committees, something that in the past had only been done by the party involved. She refused to allow some Republicans on the January 6th committee, again setting a precedent. Well, some of the precedents set by the January 6th committee are about to come back to haunt the Democrats.

On Sunday Just the News reported:

The precedent set by the House Jan. 6th Select Committee in obtaining relevant documents as evidence against former President Donald Trump and issuing subpoenas for their investigation could be a boon for Republicans in the congressional probe into the Biden family’s overseas business dealings.

The Jan. 6 panel demonstrated that it could conduct oversight and gain access to evidence and witnesses even as the Justice Department conducted a sprawling criminal probe into the same figures and issues, and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer told Just the News he plans to ride those precedents.

“They set a lot of precedent during that Jan. 6 committee that I think they’re gonna regret with respect to this Biden investigation,” he told the Just the News, No Noise television show.

Comer and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan are currently investigating President Joe Biden’s possible involvement in Hunter’s foreign business deals. Biden has repeatedly said he had no knowledge or involvement with his son’s businesses, but documents and testimony given to the committee call those denials into question.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed David Weiss, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, to special counsel on Friday. Weiss has been leading the investigation since 2019.

Just on the basis of what has come out in the press, how could anyone investigate Hunter Biden for four years and not come up with anything?

The article notes:

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Just the News that making Weiss a special counsel will strengthen the congressional investigation into the extent of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.

“I think it should increase the power of Congress to look into this,” he said during an interview on Friday. “I think it shows that there is still room for more investigation, and that Congress can play an important role in getting to the bottom of that.”

He noted that Congress has a “constitutional power to check and balance the executive and so the fact that there’s an ongoing investigation should not be an absolute barrier for Congress to do its job.”

Dershowitz said that Congress can insist on “subpoenaing prosecutors and then if they refuse, they can be held in contempt and it could go to the courts and we’ll see how the courts decide it.”

Please follow the link to read the entire article. If the Democrats choose to change the rules, the Republicans should embrace the change!

Democrats Are Good At Destroying Evidence

Remember when Hillary Clinton wiped her servers clean and destroyed cell phones? She was never held responsible for either action. Obviously some of the House Democrats have learned from her experience.

On Wednesday, The Conservative Treehouse posted the following headline:

The article reports:

Most close watchers already knew the motive and intention of the J6 committee was to build narratives useful against their political opposition and the 2022 midterm election cycle.  Factually, the makeup of the J6 committee was specifically structured for this intention.

That said, this remarkable statement by former J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson is essentially admitting the committee destroyed evidence that undermined their preconceived notions.

The article explains:

After being questioned by republicans about the absence of evidence provided to the committee, former Chairman Bennie Thomson says:

…”Consistent with guidance from the Office of the Clerk and other authorities, the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee’s actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities. Accordingly, and contrary to your letter’s implication, the Select Committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of transcribed interviews or depositions.

…Based on guidance from House authorities, the Select Committee determined that the written transcripts provided by nonpartisan, professional official reporters, which the witnesses and Select Committee staff had the opportunity to review for errata, were the official, permanent records of transcribed interviews and depositions for the purposes of rule VII.”…  (READ MORE)

Guidance from House authorities” is political code speak for House counsel.

Who do you think was counsel for the House J6 Committee?  👀👇

Mary McCord, former Assistant U.S. Attorney

One of the key House J6 counselors, giving advice to destroy evidence that ran against their narrative, was at the epicenter of all Trump targeting while in office.

The Democrats have opened up a can or worms in their charges against President Trump. He now has the power to subpoena the records of the January 6th Committee as part of the discovery process. Isn’t it interesting that many of those records have been destroyed?

The Other Side Of The Story

On Wednesday, The New York Post posted an article about some aspects of the January 6th Capitol riot that the January 6th Committee somehow left out. One of the questions asked by anyone who had followed the events of the previous summer and the political contention that was building was, “Why wasn’t extra security called in?” This article seeks to answer that question.

The article reports:

House Republicans issued a scathing report Wednesday exposing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s key role in the catastrophic security and intelligence failures that left the US Capitol vulnerable to a violent attack on January 6, 2021.

Days after Pelosi’s Jan. 6 select committee recommended insurrection charges against former president Donald Trump over the Capitol riot, Republicans have hit back with a counter-investigation apportioning blame for the internal security breakdown on Jan. 6 to Pelosi and a dysfunctional Capitol Police intelligence division.

“Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on January 6, 2021,” says the report, which is based on a trove of texts and email messages, and testimony from Capitol Police leaders and rank-and-file officers.

House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who answered to Pelosi as one of three voting members of the Capitol Police Board, “succumbed to political pressures from the Office of Speaker Pelosi and House Democrat leadership,” was “compromised by politics and did not adequately prepare for violence at the Capitol.”

Pelosi and her staff “coordinated closely” with Irving on security plans for the Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 6, but Republicans were deliberately left out of “important discussions related to security.” 

None of that should be a surprise to anyone.

The article also notes:

The Republicans responsible for the withering report — Jim Banks (R-IN), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) and Troy Nehls (R-TX) — are the five congressmen originally nominated to sit on the Jan. 6 committee, until Pelosi vetoed Banks and Jordan. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled the rest of his nominees in protest. Pelosi then installed two Never Trump Republican outcasts, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger. 

Given Pelosi’s assiduous grooming of Cheney, no doubt it suited both their interests to focus the final Jan.6 committee report on Trump — and not on Pelosi’s culpability.

But now the Republicans Pelosi rejected have skewered her in their rival report, dredging up some of what she tried to hide, despite complaining of obstruction from the personnel she controls.  

The report insinuates that the Speaker left the Capitol Police without backup on Jan. 6 because “widespread concern from Democratic leadership over ‘optics’ in the aftermath of the Summer 2020 ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests prevented early deployment of the National Guard.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is a part of the story that you are not likely to hear from the mainstream media.

Perspective From A Brilliant Legal Mind

On Monday, The Washington Times posted Alan Dershowitz’s response to the January 6th Committee’s final report. The Committee voted unanimously Monday to refer four charges to the Justice Department for prosecution: inciting the attack on the Capitol, obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the government, and making false statements on fake presidential electors. That is not a surprise considering that the Committee purposefully looked at only one side of the evidence and included only people who were out to destroy President Trump. Alan Dershowitz’s reaction was interesting in that he relied on the law as the basis for his statement–something the Committee chose not to do.

The article reports:

According to Mr. Dershowitz, the panel operated against the spirit of one of only two civil-liberties provisions in the original Constitution, before the Bill of Rights was added — a ban on “bills of attainder.”

That provision banned Congress from passing indictments of unpopular people by name.

…Mr. Dershowitz, a liberals who twice voted against Mr. Trump but has become a vocal critic of liberal attacks on him, suggested that “the Justice Department should reprimand Congress for even trying to suggest who should be prosecuted.”

He acknowledged, though, that the Justice Department under President Biden would likely not do that.

“I don’t expect it to happen. I would hope it would happen. I do expect that they won’t take it seriously,” he said before outlining what he thought a properly operating non-political Justice Department would do.

“Don’t tell us who to investigate and who to prosecute. You had a kangaroo hearing. One-sided. You didn’t allow a cross-examination. You didn’t allow any adverse witnesses, so don’t expect us to take seriously any recommendations you make about prosecution. The American public should make no conclusions based on this one-sided recommendation and it should ignore it as well,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

It’s “worthless. It’s a worthless piece of paper,” he added.

It’s a shame that taxpayer money was spent on this sham committee. There are a lot of unanswered questions about January 6th (such as the involvement by the FBI, why Speaker Pelosi refused extra security, etc.) that should be explored, but this committee worked very hard not to investigate those questions.

Don’t Let That Pesky Constitution Get In Your Way

One of the constant cries from the political left is that the political right is a danger to our democracy. First of all, we are a representative republic–not a democracy. Secondly, which political wing is ignoring the Constitution–that requires us to secure our borders, requires equal justice, limits the federal government to enumerated powers as stated in the Tenth Amendment? Today we have a new Constitutional breech.

Breitbart is reporting the following today:

The Democrats’ January 6 Committee will conclude its “investigation” on Monday by asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute former President Donald Trump, though the committee lacks constitutional authority to do so.

Congressional committees must be organized for a legislative purpose, not as part of a law enforcement action, which is a function of the executive branch under the separation of power in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the January 6 Committee — in what is expected to be its final act before a Republican-led House takes over next month — is expected to ask the DOJ to prosecute Trump for what it says are multiple crimes.

I suspect that the one crime that President Trump is actually guilty of is being President Trump.

The article concludes:

Schiff saw no irony in accusing the former president of trying to overthrow the government when he himself had tried to overturn Trump’s administration through the “Russia collusion” hoax and a failed impeachment.

Neither of the two Republicans chosen by Pelosi for the committee was reelected to Congress; one Democrat retired, and one Democrat, Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), was defeated in November by her Republican opponent.

The mainstream media has treated the January 6 Committee hearings as legitimate, despite the fact that they were scripted “show trials” — complete with TelePrompTers — and that they offered no representation to the other side of the argument. Several witnesses 466 that the committee lied about what they had said in closed-door depositions; some witnesses changed their stories to be more amenable to the committee’s agenda.

The committee’s request to the DOJ will come nearly two years after the Senate failed to convict Trump on similar charges, especially after evidence that he told a rally crowd to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

There isn’t enough popcorn in the world to watch the ridiculous circus that the current session of the House of Representatives has become.

Did Anyone Ever Believe This Was Objective?

On Saturday, The Daily Caller reported that the January 6th Committee has entered a new level of biased investigating.

The article reports:

  • The committee probing the Jan. 6 Capitol riot hired a consultant who may have a major “conflict of interest,” watchdogs told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • The Jan. 6 Committee is investigating security failures by the House Sergeant-at-Arms (SAA) in connection with the Capitol riot — and its consultant Brian Young is married to House Deputy SAA Kim E. Campbell.
  • “Young needs to come clean about what he is doing for the J6 Committee,” Tom Jones, executive director of the American Accountability Foundation, told the DCNF. “There is no way a husband can give an independent and objective assessment of his wife’s performance.”

Wow. Let’s ask the fox to investigate security in the hen house.

The article concludes:

“If it is true that he communicated with his wife about a matter involving her office, this is Ethics Conflicts 101,” Michael Chamberlain, director of the watchdog Protect the Public’s Trust, told the DCNF. “The reason ethics laws were enacted in the first place was to prevent precisely this type of conflict of interest from impacting government activities.”

“It also raises the question of how he was even allowed to be in the position where this type of conflict could exist,” said Chamberlain. “Why would those in charge of such a high profile and controversial committee jeopardize the credibility of their investigation like this? It certainly does not add to the committee’s already questionable efforts.”

The Jan. 6 Committee did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the House SAA office, Campbell or Young. Polar Solutions did not respond.

In case you have forgotten, the refusal of Speaker Pelosi to allow the minority to choose their representatives on that committee was a first. It ended any pretense of impartiality. Unfortunately this may well set a precedent for future investigations if the Republicans take Congress. Remember it was a decision by Senator Harry Reid to change the rules for confirming Supreme Court judges that allowed President Trump to appoint three relatively conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Speaker Pelosi’s actions regarding the January 6th Committee may also backfire.