While having his entire Jan. 6 conviction and criminal case tossed out is a “step in the right direction,” former sheriff’s deputy Colt McAbee says he must rebuild his life amid ongoing cries of “insurrection” from the left.
In a per curiam order March 17, a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated McAbee’s Jan. 6 criminal conviction and remanded the case to the U.S. district court, where the same day, it was dismissed as moot.
Both actions were based on McAbee’s appeal filed in March 2024 and a U.S. Department of Justice now under the control of President Donald J. Trump.
'I was genuinely helping people there.'
“At the end of the day, it’s just words on paper,” McAbee, 31, of Unionville, Tenn., told Blaze News. “People still have their own opinions. The Democrats still call us insurrectionists and domestic terrorists, even though it’s their party that destroyed our cities and is now destroying our vehicles.”
McAbee was released from the federal prison in Rochester, Minn., on Jan. 20, hours after President Trump issued a pardon declaration covering more than 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants. He walked out into the minus-18-degree cold to hear a shout of “FREEDOM” from his waiting wife, Sarah, and her mother, Kim.
“Since I was released, I’ve been looking for a new career and a way to take care of my family financially,” McAbee said. “It’s still a struggle. I’m still fighting for the restoration of my rights in Tennessee.”
McAbee was one of the most high-profile Jan. 6 defendants, based on the government’s claim that he was a lawless law officer who came to Washington, D.C., that day to commit violence against police.
Chronicled extensively by Blaze News, the case was described as a “manifest injustice” by McAbee’s onetime defense attorney, William Shipley.
As detailed in a Blaze News investigation, federal prosecutors lied, twisted evidence, and withheld material from a judge in order to keep McAbee behind bars. A careful review of video evidence shows that McAbee never assaulted Metropolitan Police Department Officer Andrew Wayte as alleged. He shielded him and helped him get back to the police line.
A jury found McAbee guilty on five criminal counts in October 2023. He had earlier pleaded guilty to slapping one police officer who cross-checked McAbee’s broken shoulder with a riot stick. McAbee received a 70-month prison sentence on Feb. 29, 2024.
McAbee said having the entire case dismissed shows he was trying to help people in front of the Lower West Terrace Tunnel, including Officer Wayte and a dying Rosanne Boyland, who was unconscious and being ignored by police.
“I feel a sense of justice being served,” McAbee said. “It shows that I was genuinely helping people there. ... It’s a step in the right direction.”
The McAbees have been vocal about his case and the weaponized criminal justice system since he returned to Tennessee.
'I pray that everything goes back to normal.'
“I’ve used my experience to speak out. I’ve done several appearances and speeches since then, and it’s amazing that people still don’t know the truth of what happened that day,” McAbee said. “Of course, people are amazed about the atrocities that happened on the inside.”
McAbee filed suit against the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and former Lt. Crystal Lancaster for an incident in September 2022 in which McAbee said he was repeatedly hit with a stream of pepper spray for removing his COVID mask in order to take medication.
“I’ve been pretty vocal about it and won’t stop until everything is over,” McAbee said. “More and more is coming out, thanks to [Blaze Media investigative journalists Joe Hanneman] and Steve Baker. The truth will come out in full!”
For now, McAbee said he faces an uncertain future.
“I don’t know what the future holds,” he said. “I just hope that it works out for all of us.
“I pray that everything goes back to normal, but what is normal?”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Despite spending years complaining about threats to democracy, Democrats are scheming to thwart the collective will of the 77.2 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump in a fair and free election.
In a Dec. 26 op-ed for The Hill titled "Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now," David Schulte, a Chicago investment banker friend of both Barack Obama and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, joined the former Democratic president of the New York City Bar Association, Evan Davis, in echoing Rep. Jamie Raskin's (D-Md.) February call for Congress to block Trump from taking office.
The Democratic duo accused Trump at the outset of being an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" — not against the government but against the Constitution — then tried standing up this allegation on the unsuccessful attempt by Democratic lawmakers to convict Trump in early 2021 for supposed incitement of insurrection; on the say-so of the Democratic appointees on the Colorado Supreme Court; and on Democratic Jan. 6 committee members' partisan rhetoric.
Apparently convinced that their appeals to the perceived wisdom of fellow Trump-haters was sufficient to justify their scheme, the duo argued that it was still possible to void the Electoral College votes of the American people when sent to the president of the Senate — failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris — and to give the Washington establishment the unearned win they so desperately crave.
According to Schulte and Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Trump v. Anderson concerning Democrats' attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado does not prevent Congress from rejecting electoral votes on Jan. 6 on the basis of a supposed 14th Amendment disqualification.
'Watching Trump's most fanatical opponents argue that they have the right on January 6 to reject his Electoral College victory is one of the funniest things ever.'
Schulte and Davis accused the conservative majority on the high court of "overreach" when indicating that "there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment" and claimed that the Supreme Court does not have a say about the counting of Electoral College votes "because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question."
The Democratic duo then identified the way by which the 2024 election could be stolen and Harris installed as president.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, a rewrite the Electoral Count Act of 1887, identifies two grounds for a congressional objection to an Electoral College vote. The first objection calls into question whether the votes by electors were "regularly given" and whether the recipient was an eligible presidential candidate under the Constitution. The other basis on which Congress could object is if the document submitted by a state governor identifying the electors was defective.
Schulte and Davis figure the way to go would be with the first objection.
"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House," wrote the Democratic duo. "If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president."
While Democrats may have the numbers in both the House and the Senate to make their objection known, numerically, this strategy is little more than the wishful thinking of anti-democratic radicals. Rep. Raskin contemplated going this route during a Feb. 17 panel discussion at a D.C. book store.
Raskin correctly and begrudgingly predicted at the time that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that Trump could not be disqualified from Colorado's presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, calling the imminent decision an "abdication of [the court's] very clear duty to disqualify Donald Trump."
Raskin said on camera, "[The justices on the Supreme Court] want to kick it to Congress, so it's going to be up to us on Jan. 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified."
While apparently open to the idea, the Democratic congressman noted that the repeal of the people's will at the counting of the Electoral College votes "really could lead to something akin to civil war."
Raskin indicated further that after lawmakers disqualify the would-be president-elect, "We need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions all because the nine justices — not all of them but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection — simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means."
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer responded Thursday to Schulte and Davis' op-ed, writing, "Surprised it took so long but the Left is back at trying to subvert the election."
"You people are sick," tweeted Eric Trump.
BlazeTV host Steve Deace wrote, "This ... feels very insurrectiony."
"Oh, look. Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people," wrote Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump. "Threat to Democracy."
"Hey look insurrection," tweeted BlazeTV's Auron MacIntyre. "If people just standing outside the capitol can go to jail for years then journalists absolutely can."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald noted, "Watching Trump's most fanatical opponents argue that they have the right on January 6 to reject his Electoral College victory is one of the funniest things ever. I hope it spreads."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democratic voters have shown a high tolerance the past four years for the lies coming out of their leaders' mouths, but after Kamala Harris’ brutal loss to Donald Trump, many of them are starting to distance themselves from the party.
This shockingly includes sports media personalities Stephen A. Smith and Colin Cowherd, who have both claimed to be independent despite having voted for Harris.
“I’m sorry, go ask the Democrats. Be warned, once you detach from regular people in America, you will pay a price,” Cowherd said in a recent clip from his show, “The Herd.”
Jason Whitlock of “Fearless” appreciates the sentiment but believes Cowherd may need to take his own advice.
“Colin, you have to recognize that if you want to be attached to normal people when you’re making all that money, it’s important that you stay attached to someone who’s not in that elite echo chamber, that bubble,” Whitlock says. “That, you know, ‘Oh, I got to get as far away from a MAGA supporter, or someone who has a biblical worldview as it relates to the LGBTQ issue.’”
“You’re detaching from normal people, it’s problematic, and you’ve surrounded yourself with people that live in that bubble, that echo chamber of fantasy world,” he adds.
Stephen A. Smith went even further in his criticism of the Democratic Party, calling it out for the lies surrounding January 6.
“So 23 folks for the FBI were in the crowd, and we’re just finding that out. Didn’t hear anything about that before the election. Didn’t hear anything about that when the ... ‘insurrection’ was broached by Vice President Kamala Harris as a Democratic nominee, by President Biden before her, by Democrats in both the House and the Senate, as they articulated the belief that Donald Trump was a danger to democracy,” Smith said.
“Now, here we are, yet again, finding even more evidence to Donald Trump’s claims when articulated that the process is rigged,” Smith continued, adding, “My issue is that I’m really, really sick and tired of every time I turn around finding something else that the Democrats have lied about or downplayed or misrepresented along the way.”
While Smith’s sentiment is spot on, in Whitlock’s eyes, he’s a few years too late.
“I’ve seen a lot of conservatives celebrating it and pushing it,” Whitlock says. “Look at this idiot, figuring out what we’ve known for three years.”
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Despite desperate attempts by the Democrats to disguise what really happened on January 6, the truth is finally coming out.
A new DOJ report showed that there were dozens of FBI informants present at the Capitol riot, and even some liberals are outraged that they’ve been lied to by their own party.
Stephen A. Smith is one of them.
“Didn’t hear anything about that before the election. Didn’t hear anything about that when the quote unquote ‘insurrection’ was broached by Vice President Kamala Harris as a Democratic nominee,” Smith said in a recent rant on “The Stephen A. Smith Show.”
“The belief that Donald Trump was a danger to democracy, and using this as a profound illuminating bullet point to make that case, and now here we are, yet again, finding even more evidence to Donald Trump’s claims,” he continued, adding, “I’m really, really sick and tired of every time I turn around, finding something else that the Democrats have lied about or downplayed or misrepresented along the way.”
“I’m getting really ticked off at every time they open their mouth about something pertaining to y’all, they seem right to make the case that the right had a monopoly on insidious evil tendencies, corrupt tendencies, duplicitous, hypocritical, untruthful, tendencies. And every time they make those accusations, we turn around and find out that at least some of them are guilty of the same,” he concluded.
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” has been patiently waiting for Smith to reach this point.
“I think what you’re seeing right there is perhaps the final little bit of the red pill that Stephen A. Smith has been taking for these last couple of years,” Rubin says, adding, “You have now fully seen through the lies.”
To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
As part of Blaze Media’s three-part mini-documentary series “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn,” we continue to update readers on how we arrived at this point in our “Truth About January 6” series. You can find part one here.
Despite denials from the U.S. Capitol Police and some congressional investigators, evidence quickly emerged after the January 6, 2021, protests and riots that Capitol Police officers were intentionally under-deployed.
Testimonies from Capitol Police officers in various Jan. 6 trials, along with radio transmissions and whistleblower statements, have provided many answers. These findings also suggest a coordinated cover-up to keep this information from the American public.
If the Capitol Police had been fully deployed that day, the breach likely would not have occurred. Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland might still be alive, and the Department of Justice’s 1,500 prosecutions — ranging from trespassing to seditious conspiracy — might never have happened. Additionally, members of the Capitol Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, and several convicted Jan. 6 participants might not have died by suicide in the aftermath.
Although I have long suspected that trained provocateurs manipulated the events of January 6 under the watch of the Capitol Police command center, many believe that frontline, uniformed Capitol Police officers were knowingly complicit and even initiated the violence. Video evidence contradicts that claim.
Here’s a sample of the social media comments that followed my initial blog series — written before my time at Blaze Media — in which I referred to the Capitol Police as “sacrificial pawns” on January 6:
“The Capitol Police were willing participants by following those D.C. fascists’ orders. I have no sympathy for them or their families.”
“Don’t sign up to collect a paycheck defending a corrupt government.”
“They’re a disgrace to the uniform and America. How f***ing dare they.”
“You’re being played.”
These comments came from the political right, but the left wasn’t silent either. Some were quite bloodthirsty, suggesting that every Capitol Police officer should have replicated Lt. Michael Byrd’s gunshot and left us with “a thousand more Ashli Babbitts.” Many who called for defunding the police after George Floyd’s death in 2020 suddenly became strong supporters of “Back the Blue” following the events of January 6, 2021.
In my January 6 writings, I’ve often stressed that I had to reassess some of my initial assumptions as more evidence surfaced. For example, in my first article about January 6, published on January 13, 2021, I misidentified the officers in “fluorescent-sleeved jackets racing down steps toward the first upper tier above street level” as Capitol Police. They were actually members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police.
This may seem like a minor distinction — especially to the “all cops are bastards” crowd — but these details are crucial as we work to uncover and present the full truth of that day. Most importantly, who in the command chain set up or allowed these events to unfold?
When it comes to the many unanswered questions, odd circumstances, and unindicted figures, we don’t need to agree on every detail. We also don’t need to agree on each event, video, or police officer’s actions to find common ground on one key point I’ve emphasized about January 6: I saw bad people doing bad things, good people doing good things, and even otherwise good people doing really stupid things.
This observation applies to both individual protesters and police officers. There were heroes and villains on both sides of that thin blue line on January 6.
My questions about the Capitol Police’s deployment, orders, and actions on January 6 began with my first published article. From the moment my Uber driver dropped me off at the Washington Monument around 9:30 a.m. until I reached the lower west terrace of the Capitol Building at exactly 1:19 p.m., neither I nor my camera saw a single law enforcement officer.
As the crowd swelled from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, it was hard to imagine not seeing any police presence among such a massive group in the nation’s capital. Police and Secret Service officers heavily guarded the Ellipse stage, where President Trump was set to speak, but the crowd’s density kept me from entering that area. When I eventually started walking from the Washington Monument lawn toward the Capitol Building again, I still didn’t see or capture on camera a single police officer.
As I approached the Peace Monument, sirens signaled the arrival of D.C. Metro Police units. At the Reflecting Pool, I finally spotted Metro Police officers in fluorescent jackets streaming down the Capitol steps toward the lower west terrace.
I then heard the first flash-bang grenades and saw tear gas released on the lower west terrace. No barricades or police lines blocked my way — initial agitators and provocateurs had removed them about 20 to 25 minutes earlier — so I ran to the terrace and began recording the violence at exactly 1:19 p.m., just three minutes after President Trump left the Ellipse stage, more than a mile away.
For a year, I publicly asked: "Why wasn’t there a police presence on the Washington Monument lawn? Why didn’t I see any police on the mile-long walk to the Capitol?" and "Why were so few Capitol Police officers on duty at the Capitol, considering the planned rallies, marches, and legally permitted events on the Capitol lawn that day?"
I initially estimated that fewer than 200 Capitol Police officers were at the Capitol on January 6. A year later, on the anniversary of the event, I returned to D.C. to seek answers. I asked patrolling Capitol Police officers those questions, and I also wanted to know what orders they received that day. I was particularly interested in what seemed like a "stand-down" or "pull-back" order at around 2:00 p.m.
None of the officers I approached on the streets or at the Capitol would answer. At the time, I didn’t know about the nondisclosure agreements Capitol Police had signed under Yogananda Pittman during her seven-month tenure as acting chief of police.
On December 16, 2021, Forbes made a convoluted attempt to answer the question about Capitol Police deployment on January 6:
USCP documents show that at 2 p.m. on that day, only 1,214 officers were “on site” across the Capitol complex of buildings. Congressional investigators concluded, however, that USCP could only account for 417 officers and could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers.
In late 2022, when I first met with former Capitol Police officer turned whistleblower Lt. Tarik Johnson, he confirmed that my initial estimate of “fewer than 200” Capitol Police officers at the Capitol Building during the first wave of violence on January 6 was accurate.
Johnson explained that during previous protest events, the standard operating procedure required an “all hands on deck” approach for Capitol Police. On those days, officers working the night shift were required to stay and work a double shift through the next day. But on January 6, Capitol Police command sent those officers home after their shifts, treating it like a routine day at the office.
In a follow-up phone conversation, Johnson revealed more about the deceptions Capitol Police leadership spread regarding force deployment on January 6. Addressing internal department and congressional investigations that claimed officials “could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers,” Johnson said, "It's a bald-faced lie, and you can quote me on that."
Johnson explained that all Capitol Police officers clock in and clock out electronically at the start and end of each shift. Once clocked in, each officer is tracked throughout the tour of duty, making it impossible for their commanders not to know their whereabouts. This information should still be available in the computer logs — assuming the logs haven’t been erased.
When asked why Capitol Police leadership would cover up information about force deployment, Johnson responded, “Because they don’t want to tell you where the officers were or what they were doing. They don’t want anyone to know how many of our officers were on administrative leave that day.”
My investigations, which include interviews with Capitol Police officers and congressional investigators, revealed further embarrassment, as several officers went into hiding once the violence began, locking themselves in offices and closets.
Another key issue involves the “diversion events,” when two pipe bombs were coincidentally discovered within minutes of the first provocateurs breaching the west side Capitol barricade. The pipe bombs were found at both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters — two of nearly 20 buildings under the Capitol Police’s security purview.
Johnson couldn’t estimate how many officers were diverted to the RNC and DNC after the bombs were discovered. However, he emphasized that the emergency response still doesn’t account for the missing whereabouts of 797 officers. He noted that exact records of how many officers were diverted, and precisely who, should be easily retrievable from Capitol Police computer records.
The first Oath Keepers trial featured the testimony of Stephen Brown, a Florida-based event planner hired by the controversial figure Ali Alexander, a Trump supporter and founder of Stop the Steal. Brown’s job was to secure permits from the Capitol Police for an event on the Capitol grounds. He was also responsible for organizing the rental of the staging and public address system and coordinating the scheduling of VIP speakers and stage security, handled by members of the Oath Keepers.
Brown testified that he had previously planned many protest events in the nation’s capital, with attendance ranging from as few as 5,000 to as many as 300,000 protesters.
Under direct examination by Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs’ defense attorney Stanley Woodward, Brown described the surprisingly small presence of Capitol officers during the delivery and setup of the staging and PA system. He noted that at previous events he’d organized on Capitol grounds, he had seen “three, four, even five times the size of police presence, including SWAT teams,” compared to what was present on January 6.
The inconvenient truth is that my camera, Stephen Brown’s testimony, and statements by Lt. Johnson and other Capitol Police officers suggest a deliberate under-deployment of officers that day — a day in which we now know, and as I have previously written:
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, Asst. Chief Yogananda Pittman, head of protective and intelligence operations, the D.C. Metro Police, the United States Park Police, the White House, the Pentagon, the National Guard, both the Senate and House of Representative Sergeants-at-Arms, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, the FBI, and other federal agencies all knew that tens of thousands of protestors would be descending upon the Capitol grounds that day.
An unnamed Capitol Police officer, just days after the melee, told the Associated Press, “During the 4th of July concerts and the Memorial Day concerts, we don’t have people come up and say, ‘We’re going to seize the Capitol.’ But yet, you bring everybody in, you meet before. That never happened for this event.”
According to the Washington Post, only a week after the Capitol was breached, “an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and ‘war,’ according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post.”
Instead of “all hands on deck,” frontline Capitol Police officers were somewhere between one-tenth to one-fifth strength when it came time to respond to what was coming their way. Whether an operational failure or deliberate under-deployment, this set up the circumstances enabling the breach of the Capitol Building by a relatively small number of aggressive and violent rioters.
Ultimately, it remains inexplicable why only 200 to 300 violent perpetrators wielding sticks, flagpoles, clubs, and bear spray were able to overpower two fully armed law enforcement agencies, the tactical units of nearly every three-letter federal agency, and an unknown number of undercover law enforcement assets to breach what is supposed to be one of the most secure government facilities in the world.
Unless, of course, they were set up to fail. Most Capitol Police officers on duty that day believe that to be the case.
This would explain why Capitol Police union members gave then-acting Chief Yogananda Pittman a 92% “no-confidence” vote only five weeks after her curiously absent leadership from their command center on January 6.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has evidently spent a great deal of time contemplating unseemly ways to keep Democrats in power.
Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, Raskin was among the Democrats who campaigned to neutralize conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the high court.
Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, indicated at the time that the broader purpose of that campaign was "to try to combat virtually the only check remaining on the Democrat Party's political power."
Keen for a ruling favorable to the Democratic agenda, Raskin not only denigrated the conservative justices but recommended that the Harris-Biden Department of Justice pressure the court to "require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law."
Raskin ultimately failed in his efforts to cure the Supreme Court's decisions; however, he apparently still has other designs on delivering Democrats the 2024 election.
Troubling footage from a Feb. 17 panel discussion at a D.C. book store has resurfaced in which Raskin details how Congress could prevent Trump from taking office following his election by the American people.
Raskin correctly and begrudgingly predicted that the Supreme Court would rule that Trump could not be disqualified from Colorado's presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, calling the imminent decision an "abdication of [the court's] very clear duty to disqualify Donald Trump."
The Supreme Court noted in its unanimous March 4 ruling, "The Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates."
Raskin said, "[The justices on the Supreme Court] want to kick it to Congress, so it's going to be up to us on Jan. 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified."
According to the Democratic congressman, this repeal of the people's will would take place "at the counting of the electoral college votes, which really could lead to something akin to civil war."
'I thought the Left was the party of 'protecting democracy.''
Raskin indicated that after lawmakers disqualify the would-be president-elect, "We need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions all because the nine justices — not all of them but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection — simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means."
While taking Trump off the board appears to be Democrats' short-term plan, Raskin alluded to their greater aspiration of amending the Constitution more to their liking.
The resurfaced footage has gone viral, prompting a great deal of controversy.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller noted, "I believe this is called a criminal conspiracy to commit election interference."
Elon Musk responded, "That's a crazy thing for him to say."
"I thought the Left was the party of 'protecting democracy,'" wrote Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) suggested that Raskin was not only conceding the election but fomenting civil war and "threatening to defy the will of voters."
Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk wrote, "Jamie Raskin is saying that congress will STOP Trump from taking office even if he's chosen by the voters. This is extremely dangerous. Every Democrat needs to be on the record about this immediately."
"This is what an actual threat to Democracy looks like," tweeted Donald Trump Jr.
"Can't he be immediately indicted by the AG of whatever red state he ever stepped foot in for the past 25 years right now as we speak[?]" wrote Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. "Isn't that the lesson we learned this year[?]"
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tweeted, "These arrogant elitist globalists hate the half of America that still loves America."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
After a smear campaign affiliating the upside-down American flag with 'insurrection' and 'extremism,' leftists are -- by their own definition -- acting pretty insurrection-y themselves.
Smith dismantled the argument that Trump was involved in an 'insurrection' after helping launder the lie through the media.
Their agenda didn't resonate voters. If this were 2021, they would be telling conservatives to accept the loss, sit down, and be quiet.
www.theblaze.com