Category: Enemies Domestic

When Turnips Attack!.
Joe Biden is the most dangerous threat to the US since the Civil War

Good morning to the other 74,999,999 semi-fascists trying to destroy our democracy by insisting the FBI, the DOJ, the Intel community, the military, the IRS, and congressional Democrats apply laws equally — and that the Executive branch not use private Big Tech companies to censor speech at the Administration’s direction.

Apparently, you need be an *actual* fascist to battle the “MAGA extremists” that comprise half — or maybe more —of the voting population.

Remember the instructive, sober words of communication luminary, Karine Jean-Pierre: you’re considered an extremist if you disagree with the progressive political consensus. Opposition to the ruling party is an act of insurrection.

— Meanwhile, you are most certainly in the camp of non-extremists if you back President Turnip and his 38% approval rating, because in progressive math, 38% approval is approval enough. So shut up, you 62% of the population who are racist fascist transphobic xenophobes!

President Turnip has F-15s. Do you? President Turnip directs a military armed with non-gendered pronouns and led by a thick-bodied, bag-eyed yes man in touch with his privilege and aware of his own white rage. Do you? President Turnip has the unwavering support of Max Boot and Jen Rubin — two of this country’s most beautiful minds. Do you?

“Dark Brandon,” flanked by Marines and backed by Hellish lighting, mumbled, shouted, and emoted his way through a Hitleresque scapegoating of large swaths of the population. And his call to arms has energized all the woke and virtuous defenders of democracy, who are now demanding a one-party system and the shunning of Republicans as lesser humans. Because, in the same way you sometimes have to destroy villages to save them, sometimes you have to become an unelected Administrative dictatorship to save democracy from the benighted and filthy MAGAts who so frustratingly vote incorrectly.

President Turnip’s speech — presented with the full backing of the Executive branch and its law enforcement and justice arms — was perhaps the most egregious speech ever given by a US president. It was more than simply divisive. It was tacit permission to treat those who don’t favor progressive governance as enemies of the State. It’s the summer of 2020 with presidential approval. It’s dangerous. It’s unconscionable.

And we know this didn’t land with all the sanctimonious anti-MAGA crowd, because even slovenly token CNN Republican and Dispatch co-founder Jonah Goldberg — while agreeing with “nearly all” of what Biden said on the substance — still called the speech “a mistake.”

And though the author of Liberal Fascism has morphed into the kind of lazy compromised shill who now uses his own book as an instruction manual rather than the political jeremiad it once was, it remains true that when you’ve even semi-lost Goldberg, you risk losing those legions of putative Republicans heretofore willing to elect progressive Democrats in order to conserve conservatism.

— Because while nothing is more crucial to conserving conservatism than protecting those hallowed norms that translate into politicizing the DOJ, the FBI, the Intel community, the IRS, et al., while simultaneously using executive orders to destroy energy independence, import millions of unvetted illegals, and wage lawfare against your political opponents, confrontational speech may just be a bridge too far!

It’s time to revisit Ayers’ et al., Prairie Fire manifesto, which laid out a blueprint for the violent socialist takeover of the US. It involved imprisoning political dissidents. Re-education camps. And even worse, for the intransigent.

Since we know that Barack Obama was a protégé of Ayers, and since we know that the Biden Administration is really the third Obama administration with a corrupt, incontinent, and addled figurehead who can barely read a teleprompter, it’s worth passing around the word: Cloward-Piven will mark the end of the middle class and create new dependents. Political opposition to this Great Reset will be criminalized. And then?

Utopia!

That’s the plan.

It can happen here. Biden’s speech last night shows that the more desperate the socialist authoritarians become to finish their project, the more latitude they’re willing to give themselves to allow the ends to justify the means.

We are here. Time is running out. What are we prepared to do about it?

Just to point out for those who may not know.

DoD Instruction 1334.1, “Wearing of the Uniform,”

1.2. POLICY.
a. The wearing of the uniform by Service members of Active and Reserve Components, retired Service members, cadets, midshipmen, auxiliary members, and members of organizations authorized to wear a military uniform by the respective service, is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

(2) During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment, or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship by DoD or the Military Service concerned for the activity or interest may be drawn.

Now, the Marines in attendance at that political activity were almost assuredly under direct orders to attend that ‘speech’, but that doesn’t excuse them, or their commanders, from what they did (for they should know better), nor the politicians who abused the public trust, and the non-politization of the military, by inferring that the military would, or will ‘back up’ Biden’s rant by having them on stage. The only time uniformed military service members are permitted to attend a political activity is  as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties
(DOD Directive 1344.10 -§ 4.1.2.15)

What Biden and his handlers have done is make a direct threat to his political opposition by showing that he feels he has the power to use the military for partisan political purposes.

Banana Republic, we have arrived.

Two Minutes Hate: Biden Rails Against His Fellow Americans in Dark, Threatening Prime-Time Speech

Joe Biden harangued and threatened the nation for 20 minutes on national TV on Thursday in a speech that will be remembered for its vicious rhetoric and blood-red lighting.

In the highly partisan speech, Biden railed against MAGA America like there was no tomorrow—he used the words “MAGA Republicans” 11 times in the first 12 minutes. Some of the most-used words in the speech were: violence, darkness, threat, and politics. The most-used word was “democracy,” the Marxist-leaning crowd’s favorite term of derision for our republic.

But that’s all Joe Biden’s got right now. By nearly every metric, America is worse off than it was during the Trump years, so Biden can only resort to fearmongering and demagoguery.

For most politicians, Independence Hall in Philadelphia would be the perfect backdrop for a patriotic speech. But Biden’s handlers apparently thought it would be better to stage the boss’s dark rhetoric with blood-red lighting and shadowy Marines standing at attention, suggesting a cross between the 6th circle of Hell and a Fidel Castro rally.

 

Even with the pink-washing, the speech was a bridge too far for CNN’s Brianna Keilar:

 

NCLA Suit Uncovers Army of Federal Bureaucrats Coercing Social-Media Companies to Censor Speech

Washington, DC (September 1, 2022) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana, have filed a lawsuit that blows the lid off a sprawling federal censorship regime that will shock the conscience of Americans. The joint statement on discovery disputes in the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., reveals scores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor. This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.

Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done—and is still doing—on a massive scale not previously divulged. Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social-media companies—pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed.

Discovery has unveiled an army of federal censorship bureaucrats, including officials arrayed at the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ “hesitation” to work with the government.

These actions have precipitated an unprecedented rise in censorship and suppression of free speech—including core political speech—on social-media platforms. Many viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced or suppressed in the modern public square. This unlawful government interference violates the fundamental right of free speech for all Americans, whether or not they are on social media. More discovery is needed to uncover the full extent of this regime—i.e., the identities of other White House and agency officials involved and the nature and content of their communications with social-media companies.

The government has been uncooperative and has resisted complying with the discovery order every step of the way—especially with regard to Anthony Fauci’s communications. Defendants claim, for example, that White House communications are privileged, even though such privilege does not apply to external communications. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana should overrule the government defendants’ objections and order them to supply this highly relevant, responsive, and probative information immediately.

NCLA released the following statements:

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased. The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed. These bureaucrats continue to resist efforts to expose the degree of their unconstitutional actions every step of the way.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 “The incredible extent of government interference with the speech rights of Americans must be seen to be believed. Yet, even with all that this case has revealed, the government defendants are still resisting their obligation to disclose the names of all the public servants who were involved in this unlawful scheme.”
— John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

 For more information visit the case page here.

 

I will reiterate:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life liberty and property to free speech a free press freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.
― Robert H. Jackson

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

With RINO-Republicans Like Ohio’s Matt Dolan, Who Needs Democrats?

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Ohio GOP lawmaker introduces gun safety bill; includes red flag law, enhanced background checks,” ABC affiliate News 5 Cleveland video reports. “Cleveland-area state Sen. Matt Dolan proposed bill with mental health in mind.”

That this obvious advocacy piece masked as news relies on assumptions right out of the starting gate is evidenced by repeating the term “gun safety” in the headline, the lede, the body of the “report,” and twice in the crusading reporter’s embedded self-publicizing tweet (embedded below). And curiously, since “red flag” laws are also promoted, you’d think the term “due process” would appear at least once in an unbiased report?

You’d think.

Also of note, no real opposing viewpoints are presented. The single gun owner quoted who appears marginally uncomfortable with what he’s being told isn’t totally against the idea; he just isn’t sure what it would actually do. He said that “most gun owners don’t want to cause issues.”

I suppose asking someone from Buckeye Firearms Association what they thought about it would be too much of an investigative reporting stretch. Besides, they’d probably just throw a wrench in the predetermined narrative and give the video editor much more work to futz around with context. And that’s assuming anyone at WEWS even bothered to look for “Ohio gun rights groups” to see what might turn up first on Google.

For his part, that Republican Matt Dolan is following a time-worn gun-grabber script could not be more apparent, especially when he declares, “[The bill] protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while also…”

Grabbers always sound that way when they feign “I support the Second Amendment” right before showing everyone their big “but.” Remembering that it ends in “shall not be infringed,” what other tyrannical usurpations besides disarming citizens who have not been convicted, let alone even charged, does Dolan intend to “protect” us with?

“If someone aged 18 to 21 wants to buy a gun, they would only be able to buy a rifle or shotgun that holds only a single round of ammunition if they buy the gun by themselves,” the report notes. So evidently double-barrel Fudd guns are out.

Why would he invent such a ludicrous Constitutionally and historically unsupportable and offensive restriction?

Continue reading “”

Attorney General Merrick Garland Threatens DOJ Employees About Contacting Congress – In the Current Environment He Appears to be Breaking the Law

According to attorney Mike Davis, Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland just ordered that no members of the DOJ can contact Congress. That’s against the law.

In a Twitter thread this evening, attorney Mike Davis shared that AG Merrick Garland ordered all members of his corrupt DOJ to not contact Congress.

Image

 

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

Arizona Supreme Court Kills Soros-Funded Ballot Initiative

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday against allowing a ballot initiative that would overturn new voter integrity laws in the state.

In a unanimous ruling, the court found that there were not enough valid signatures on a petition submitted to place an initiative on the ballot that would overturn recently passed election reform laws, according to Breitbart.

The initiative, financed in part by billionaire George Soros, fell 1,458 short of the required 237,645 signatures to place it on the November ballot, the report said.

According to Ballotpedia, the Arizonans For Free and Fair Elections initially submitted 475,290 signatures. Maricopa County Judge Joseph Mikitish disqualified 75,000 of those Aug. 19 after reviewing challenges, but eventually allowed the measure to move forward and be placed on the ballot.

Mikitish, however, reversed on Aug. 26 after the State Supreme Court asked him to explain his rationale behind the disqualified signatures.

The higher court then affirmed the reversal and the ballot initiative died, according to the report.

“In reversing itself today, the trial court has done something never done before in Arizona initiative practice and which is not authorized by statute,” lawyers for Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections said in a statement following the ruling. “It has allowed initiative challengers to strike individual signatures under (the law), for any reason, and allowed them to benefit from the invalidity rate calculated by the County Recorders’ random sample that the challengers did not include in this lawsuit.”

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement that the upheld ruling “vindicated” its efforts to get the initiative thrown out.

“[The ruling] vindicates what we knew all along: the radical Free and Fair election initiative lacked enough lawful signatures to qualify for the ballot,” the group’s statement said. “The other side knew it too, and that is why their lawyers tried to get the court to adopt a rigged methodology to calculate the final number of valid signatures that would sneak their disqualified measure onto the ballot.”

Supporters of the initiative included some $10 million in donations from an organization called ADR Action, according to financial documents filed with the state.

That group’s website is not available as of Tuesday, but its page on Twitter is still accessible.

According to that page, the group is “dedicated to community empowerment, civic participation, and equitable democracy.”

‘own goal’

Andy Ngo Reports: Portland Street Mob Shoots at Elderly Driver, Accidentally Kills One of Their Own

In addition to the elderly man who appeared to be shot, two participants of the takeover were also injured by gunfire, leading to the death of 20-year-old Cameron Taylor.

Shocking video has emerged on social media showing scenes of deadly and fiery chaos at lawless street occupations in Portland, Ore. over the weekend.
At one of the street racing takeovers on Sunday night near the Expo Center attended by hundreds, an elderly man in a van appeared to be caught in the road before being violently attacked by an armed mob. Video posted on social media shows that as he desperately attempted to reverse and drive away while being attacked, he backed into a car.

A man in the crowd then fires at least 18 rounds at his fleeing van. A follow-up video shows the crowd catching up with the elderly man who had stopped on a patch of grass. He appeared to be in shock and was bleeding heavily.

“There were hundreds of people and cars in the area participating in an apparent illegal street takeover event, making it difficult for officers to respond and investigate the shooting,” Portland Police said in a press statement announcing that no arrests were made.

Continue reading “”

IT ALWAYS GOES BACK TO MARX, SOMEHOW…

Leftists will get impatient or roll their eyes when they hear someone like Jordan Peterson describe postmodernist “critical theory,” critical race theory, or any aspect of identity politics (especially the phenomenon of “gender fluidity”) as “cultural Marxism.”  And yet. . .

Michael Anton drew my attention to a passage in the transcript of Leo Strauss’s seminar on Marx that he taught at the University of Chicago in 1960 (emphasis added):

Partly basing himself on Adam Smith, Marx makes this suggestion: the inequality of capacities which is empirically undeniable is the effect rather than the cause of the division of labor. So the inequality of capacities, in other words, is a social product, not a natural datum. Great inequality of capacities is certainly the effect of the division of labor. The division of labor in its turn leads rather to the impoverishment of the activities of the individual. 

All this would seem to lead to the conclusion that with the abolition of the division of labor, eventually there will be equality of capacities. But does not the inequality have natural roots? 

Yet what is the historical process except the conquest of nature, and therefore also to some extent of human nature? But to what extent is the historical process a conquest of human nature and therefore a conquest also of natural inequality? Marx is unable to give a principle here, and that is a revenge for his contempt about the question of the essence of man; because if the essence of man remains so wholly indeterminate, how can you then have any principle here?

Comment: this preceding paragraph expresses exactly the premises behind Kamala Harris’s seemingly incoherent recent statement that demonstrates the Marxist roots of her thought: “So equity, as a concept, says: Recognize that everyone has the same capacity, but in order for them to have equal opportunity to reach that capacity, we must pay attention to this issue of equity if we are to expect and allow people to compete on equal footing.”

To continue with Strauss:

Let us read the clearest passage of Marx on the natural root of the division of labor: “With the development of property the division of labor develops. The division of labor was originally nothing except the division of labor in the sexual act.” Period.

In other words—that is of course an absolutely fantastic assertion, because if you want to be realistic you would have to say that this division of labor is not limited to the sexual act; it has to do with procreation as a whole. You know that men do not become pregnant but women do. 

But this wholly unreasonable limitation to the sexual act instead of taking the whole, procreation, is characteristic of the whole procedure.

 Now if you think this through, what is the conclusion? If the division of labor is rooted ultimately in the bisexuality of man—that is the primary form—and the division of labor is to be overcome, let’s get rid of the bisexuality. Yet don’t laugh. I mean, it is silly but it is a very serious problem, and there is of course—and you know, I’m not speaking of Mr. or Mrs. Jorgensen* in particular [laughter], but I’m concerned with the—people have given some thought throughout the ages to the question of producing human beings in test tubes. You know, the homunculus problem.

Well, that is a practically absurd suggestion; that is clear. But we are concerned now—what is the principle which allows us to say that is absurd and not merely some vague knowledge of what we can do and cannot do?

* NB, from the footnotes: “Christine Jorgenson underwent sex-reassignment surgery in 1951. Jorgenson, previously known as George William Jorgenson, Jr., became a celebrity after a front-page story in the (New York) Daily News in December 1952 told her story (“Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty”).

On other words, Strauss more than 60 years ago anticipates one way in which the wholesale madness of Marxism would go retail in our time, and why sooner or later it had to express itself through direct hostility toward the essentially differences between men and women.

The One Letter That Exposes the FBI’s Trump Raid Was Not About Missing Documents

The Biden Department of Justice should be bracing for a whipping because the longer this Mar-a-Lago fiasco goes on without a smoking gun. FBI agents ransacked the home on August 8 under suspicion that Donald Trump had classified materials on the grounds, violating the Espionage Act. There was also obstruction of justice allegations. It was a historic moment, a political bombshell that had every liberal in America sighing with relief—this was the ‘we got him’ moment, right? It never came. The president is the ultimate authority figure in declassifying classified materials, and Donald Trump declassified many documents before he departed Washington. That’s why no president, the figure who also is the main decider regarding issues involving state secrets, can never be slapped with such a silly mishandling charge.

Mar-a-Lago is a secure site protected by the Secret Service. Former presidents have staff to handle these records with care. We’ve mentioned how the follow-up stories have mainly been concentrated on the dates involving legal members of Trump’s office and the National Archives. That’s not evidence of a crime. If anything, it shows cooperation, but another angle is that the Biden DOJ might have laid a trap for the former president.  They sent a June 8 letter telling Trump’s legal team to keep all documents at Mar-a-Lago in the storage room basement. They were instructed to keep those records there “indefinitely.” One month later, federal agents raided the house.

Again, you all know this wasn’t about some missing document beef. Was it a dragnet to find any corroborative evidence regarding the Russian collusion investigation or the January 6 riot, the latter of which liberal America erroneously thinks was a Trump-led plot, despite an August 2021 FBI report rebuking that conspiracy theory?

Erick Erickson believes the raid was over the latter—the FBI wanted to find anything to tie Trump to the January 6 riot. It blew up in their faces. They also searched the safe, which they had no probable cause for, as indicated in the partially released affidavit, but it was empty. Were they expecting to find Russian rubles in there?

Around 30 FBI agents raided the home of a former president over disputed documents that the National Archives per regulation and the Presidential Records Act. No one believes that.

Trump wants a special master to review the documents, though the DOJ says they’ve already analyzed them.  Where’s the incriminating evidence that will put Trump in prison? With how leaky that building has become, we would have heard about something damning because, thus far, this has devolved into the most boring anti-Trump fishing expedition.