Biden’s Potential Pardons For Corrupt Bureaucrats Expose ‘Nobody’s Above The Law’ As A Lie
Democrats' so-called 'standard' of upholding 'justice' was just a way to justify their use of lawfare against their political enemies.Democrats' so-called 'standard' of upholding 'justice' was just a way to justify their use of lawfare against their political enemies.Trump wins, lawfare loses, and America faces a reckoning
With his historic re-election to the presidency, Donald Trump’s legal problems appear to be over. Trump, as practically everybody knows, has been the target over the last two years of numerous federal, state, and local prosecutions. Now that Trump will be returning to the nation’s highest office, these cases will be put indefinitely on hold or dropped altogether.
But if Trump’s problems in this respect are over, America’s are not.
Although congressional committees cannot punish any wrongdoing they uncover, the costs of complying with the investigation would serve as a wholesome deterrent.
These cases present a problem for the nation because of the popular perception that they were merely a form of political “lawfare” brought to damage Trump, impair his candidacy, and prevent his return to power. Polls have shown that substantial numbers of Americans view these cases as politically motivated. In what may come as a galling surprise to Trump’s political enemies, exit polls indicate that he won a majority of the votes of those Americans who believe democracy is under threat. This result surely reflects these voters’ sense that the various prosecutions of Trump were really an attempt to undermine democratic self-government by depriving the people of a free choice in the presidential contest.
Moreover, the sense that the anti-Trump cases were politicized and abusive is obviously well-founded. All these cases — the federal prosecutions of Trump in relation to the events of January 6 and his retention of official documents, the New York state fraud case, the New York “hush money” case, and the Georgia RICO prosecution — were absolutely unprecedented.
It is, or should be, impossible for any honest person to pretend that they were dictated by some real law enforcement necessity. Trump did not tell any of his supporters to enter the U.S. Capitol illegally. He is not the only former president (or vice president) to have retained official documents. His alleged real estate fraud harmed nobody. A non-disclosure agreement is not a crime. And there is nothing felonious in a defeated politician arguing to election officials that he would have won if different rules had been followed.
There is, then, ample reason to think that these legal cases were abuses of official power intended to skew the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, either by damaging Trump politically or by making it impossible for him to campaign at all. They were intended not just to harm Donald Trump but also effectively to disenfranchise his supporters. In this sense they represent an unprecedented attack on American self-government.
But what is to be done about them?
Some Trump supporters on social media, in their anger and frustration, have suggested that Republican prosecutors should retaliate against popular Democratic politicians. Such a response would be clearly wrong and destructive, unjustly harming innocent individuals while further undermining the norms and institutions that ensure personal security and self-government. Fortunately, no evidence suggests that President Trump or any other elected Republican intends to take such a course of action.
There is, however, a lawful way to address such abuses of the legal system. Section 242 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits and punishes “deprivation of rights under color of law.” If, as seems to be the case, the justifications for these cases were only pretexts to harm Trump politically, then they would seem to fall within this provision of federal law. There would therefore be nothing unjust or improperly retaliatory if President Trump’s Department of Justice were to investigate these prosecutions as possible violations and to bring prosecutions against the perpetrators if appropriate.
But such an approach, although not unjust, would certainly be imprudent. Democrats and the media would portray the investigations as examples of Trump prosecuting his political enemies. Regardless of the merits of such a claim, the inevitably resulting furor would probably detract from the Trump administration’s ability to pursue the many important initiatives that the good of the nation requires and that Trump’s voters elected him to work on. It’s not worth it.
This is not to say, however, that these abuses should just go completely unaddressed. There are other authoritative institutions besides Trump’s Justice Department that possess both the authority and responsibility to inquire into the possibility of deprivations of rights under the color of law, especially ones that are intended to influence the outcome of federal elections. I refer, of course, to the houses of Congress. Republicans will control both the House and the Senate in 2025. It would be perfectly appropriate for either the House or the Senate Judiciary Committee — or both — to investigate the federal, state, and local prosecutions of Donald Trump.
These committees have direct jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and therefore have every right to oversee the special counsel that Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed to investigate and prosecute the then-former president. This should be done to satisfy both the Congress and the public that the federal power was not abused here — or, if it was, to ensure that it does not happen again.
These committees would have jurisdiction to investigate the possibly politicized uses of state and local prosecutors’ offices, either because the latter have received federal funds, or, if not, at least to find out whether it is necessary to amend and strengthen the federal prohibition on “deprivation of rights under color of law.” This is certainly a genuine legislative purpose sufficient to justify congressional investigation. Congress and its committees have ample powers to subpoena records and compel testimony in the service of such an investigation.
A congressional inquiry would have the advantages of neither appearing arbitrary and vindictive, on the one hand, nor being toothless, on the other. It would be hard to paint a legislative investigation as a mere kangaroo court, because the committees would include Democrats with an incentive to defend their co-partisans under investigation.
Republican congressional leaders framing the inquiry would do well to avoid anything like the composition of the farcical January 6 committee, which excluded any Republican members who might be inclined to defend President Trump. And although congressional committees cannot punish any wrongdoing they uncover, the costs of complying with the investigation — the time, effort, and public exposure of improper motives, if any — would serve as a wholesome deterrent to future instances of politicized lawfare.
It is not always possible to punish wrongdoing. This does not mean, however, that it must go unremarked and unrebuked by official authority. In the matter of anti-Trump lawfare, congressional investigation and exposure are the best option in the public interest.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at The America Mind.
After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning
We can’t just say 'Oh well we’re all Americans in the end' and pretend that everything is okay. Everything is not okay.If Trump Wins, He Should Arrest And Prosecute Jimmy Kimmel
Douglass Mackey was jailed for making nearly the same joke about Hillary Clinton. We should force the left to play by its own rules.Damning video exposes former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn's tortured relationship with Jan. 6 truth
Former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn prides himself on telling the truth.
When it comes to January 6, though, he and the truth often appear to be at odds.
That is the powerful contention in a new Blaze Media video production, “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn: Part One — A Leisurely Pace,” streaming on BlazeTV and social media.
The video chronicles some of the tales told by the most famous police officer on Jan. 6 — and then reveals what really happened.
Steve Baker, a Blaze News investigative reporter who researched and narrated the production, said Dunn’s carefully crafted story — told before Congress, on network talk shows, and in his best-selling book — is nothing but fiction.
“Everything he did to establish his fame was done deceptively,” Baker said, recalling Dunn’s dramatic retelling of a briefing he attended at the Capitol early on Jan. 6. It was a meeting that security video proves never took place.
“When one opens their own narrative with so much detail about the time, the location, the content of the meeting that never happened,” Baker said in the film, “well, then everything else he says about January 6 must be called into question.”
'Harry rose to fame based on deception and lies.'
Just as more doubts began to emerge about his truthfulness in 2024, Dunn retired from the Capitol Police. After a losing bid for the U.S. House of Representatives, Dunn joined the presidential campaigns of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
“I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration, to say that we are one election away from the extinction of democracy as we know it,” Dunn told CBS News when he announced his bid for Congress.
During a presidential election panel discussion in Michigan in August, Dunn said news accounts undersold the amount of violence he and other officers experienced on Jan. 6 at the hands of Trump supporters.
“The violence that you saw was probably 10, 100 times worse than what the cameras portrayed it to be,” Dunn said in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Dunn was not the target of violence on Jan. 6. The Blaze Media investigation showed how Dunn’s dramatic tales about his actions on Jan. 6 don’t match thousands of hours of Capitol Police security video that Baker reviewed. Security footage shows Dunn’s stories simply don’t match the evidence.
Baker got the initial idea for the video while listening to Dunn testify for the prosecution in the first Oath Keepers trial in October 2022. The details Dunn shared not only didn’t add up, they were different from what he told the FBI in his first meeting with agents in 2021, Baker said.
Baker discovered that Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus could not have witnessed an alleged confrontation Dunn had with the Oath Keepers. Dunn testified under oath that Lazarus was present near the Small House Rotunda with the Oath Keepers. But at the time Dunn claimed it took place, Lazarus was on the other side of the Capitol.
As Baker dug into more of Dunn’s public statements and media appearances, other problems became apparent.
Included among them was Dunn’s contention that he engaged in “hand-to-hand combat” with rioters and that fellow officers were carried away on stretchers during the worst violence of Jan. 6.
Then there was Dunn’s most widely repeated story of a group of 50 white-supremacist Trump supporters chanting the N-word when he told them he voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
A review of hundreds of hours of footage from that day, tracking Dunn's whereabouts, did not uncover any evidence that any such "hand-to-hand combat" or racially charged interactions occurred.
“The key to the story is that Harry rose to fame based on deception and lies,” Baker said.
Dunn testified under oath before the now-defunct Jan. 6 Select Committee. He made countless television appearances on CNN, MSNBC, and the ABC talk show “The View.” He received a Presidential Citizens Medal from Biden at the White House in 2023.
Dunn’s 2023 memoir, “Standing My Ground,” received widespread media attention. Baker said the book, much like Dunn’s other public testimonies, is “a gold mine of lies.”
Capitol Police and Dunn did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump ally Steve Bannon to report to federal prison
Steve Bannon, a powerful voice in the Make America Great Again movement and one of former President Donald Trump's staunchest allies, is scheduled to report to federal prison on Monday.
Nearly two years ago, a federal jury found Bannon guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress after he refused to testify before or submit documents to the January 6 House Select Committee despite subpoenas ordering him to do so. Bannon served as chief strategist for the first several months of Trump's presidency but then abruptly left the White House in 2017 after a falling out with the president.
Bannon has also kept on the political offensive and is steadfastly optimistic about the upcoming election, anticipating a 'landslide' victory for Trump.
Bannon and Trump later made amends, and in the years since, Bannon, now 70, has continued to promote Trump and the MAGA movement on his Rumble program, "War Room." He has also appealed his conviction.
In an interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News over the weekend, Bannon called the J6 committee "illegitimate" and insisted that in ignoring its subpoenas, he had been only following the "advice of counsel."
"I took my lawyer's advice," Bannon explained, "as everybody else in the country, if they had a high-powered lawyer, would do."
Recently, members of Congress have also challenged the legitimacy of the J6 committee in the hopes of sparing Bannon a prison sentence. Last week, several high-profile House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) and Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), filed an amicus brief in support of Bannon's appeal.
Johnson called the J6 committee "wrongfully constituted," effectively arguing that the subpoenas issued to Bannon were therefore invalid, and for all the damage the committee has apparently caused, Scalise pointed the finger directly at former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "House Republican Leadership continues to believe Speaker Pelosi abused her authority when organizing the Select Committee," Scalise wrote in a joint statement with House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.).
Just days after the amicus brief was filed, however, SCOTUS denied Bannon's appeal to remain out of prison while the appeals process continues. Thus, Bannon must report on Monday to a low-security federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, where he will spend the next four months.
He will be released just a few days before Election Day on November 5.
Despite the looming prison sentence, Bannon has projected an image of courage. On Friday's episode of "War Room," he asked supporters to pray for his persecutors and not to waste any time writing him letters of encouragement. "Do not write a letter to me at all. It will not be read. I am not going to take a second to read your letters. I'm not. Because you know why? I don't want you taking time to write a letter. I want you to get to work," he said.
"This is all about victory. There is no substitute for victory here. There is no substitute for victory. You know that. I know that."
Even as he calls on MAGA supporters to stay focused on the election, Bannon is steadfastly optimistic about the outcome of it. In fact, he anticipates a "landslide" victory for Trump. "It's going to be 340 or 350 [electoral] votes," he told Karl.
Bannon has also kept on the political offensive, calling himself "a political prisoner of Nancy Pelosi and Merrick Garland." He likewise warned several former leaders of federal agencies that, should Trump win in November, investigators would soon be coming for them. He even named names, including former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, and Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr.
"It's not retribution. It's justice," he explained.
Royce White — a current BIG3 pro basketball player, a frequent contributor to Jason Whitlock's BlazeTV show, "Fearless," and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota — has voiced his unwavering support for Bannon on social media. White called Bannon "a great man" and even suggested that a nebulous group of enemies wants "to kill" him "because he's too effective."
"Free Steve Bannon[.] The People Are Coming!" White wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
House Republicans to back Bannon with amicus briefs, underscore illegitimacy of Jan. 6 committee
House Republicans are finally throwing their weight behind Trump ally and "War Room" host Stephen K. Bannon and his emergency appeals to stay out of jail for defying the Jan. 6 committee's subpoenas.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other House GOP leaders on the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group successfully voted Tuesday to file a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in support of Bannon.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) will also be filing an amicus brief but instead with the U.S. Supreme Court as chair of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight in support of Bannon's emergency appeal.
The line of argumentation in the briefs may not only persuade the high court to spare Bannon from prison but could possibly also ramify for other American prisoners.
Loudermilk's committee is also reportedly crafting legislation aimed at nullifying the work of the Jan. 6 committee.
Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, said, "It's great to see the work the committee is putting in here, and this sort of thing probably has more ability to spare Bannon prison time than the attempt to withdraw the subpoena (something that's only been done once — by the same committee that issued the subpoena, and before charges were brought)."
Background
Bannon was convicted in July 2022 of two charges of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the Democrat-controlled House select committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 protests. He was sentenced to four months in prison.
While Carl Nichols, the Trump-nominated judge overseeing Bannon's case in Washington, D.C., initially paused his sentence while the populist appealed his conviction, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel later rejected Bannon's challenges, prompting partisan prosecutors to urge Nichols to send Bannon to prison.
Earlier this month, Bannon was ordered to report to prison by July 1. He had, however, two more arrows left in his quiver: an appeal to a full panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
The first arrow missed its mark.
On June 20, Biden and Obama judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 against keeping Bannon out of jail while he exhausted his legal options.
Blaze News previously reported that Trump-nominated Judge Justin Walker, who cast the lone vote against denying Bannon's emergency motion, noted in his dissenting opinion that Bannon's key argument could potentially succeed before the Supreme Court.
An appeal to the high court
Bannon filed an appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday.
The filing underscored that the stakes were high and noted, "Now that a panel of the D.C. Circuit has said that Licavoli remains binding, there is no obstacle to future indictments of anyone and everyone who allegedly defaults on a congressional subpoena, even when they had good faith defenses like advice of counsel or executive privilege — defenses that Licavoli will bar them even from presenting to a jury."
In his defense, Bannon previously suggested he had not responded to the subpoenas on the basis of both advice of counsel and executive privilege.
"In the future, when the House or Senate and the Executive Branch are controlled by the same party, there is every reason to fear that former Executive Branch officials will face prison after declining to provide privileged materials to a committee, even where the position taken was based upon the advice of counsel in good faith and requested further negotiations," added the filing.
Bannon's attorney further argued that the Biden Department of Justice's recent decisions to ignore congressional subpoenas demonstrate "both the significance of the mens rea issue as a matter of law and also the illogic of preventing Mr. Bannon from even arguing to the jury that his reliance on advice of counsel undermined the government's case for 'willfulness.'"
The DOJ is set to file a brief with the Supreme Court Wednesday demanding the Trump critic's immediate jailing.
House Republicans act
Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) leaned on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to spearhead a legal effort to support Bannon's emergency appeal.
Banks noted in a Monday letter to the speaker that "several factors separate the Committee's illegitimate and unenforceable subpoenas [to Bannon and Peter Navarro] from lawfully issued congressional subpoenas."
"As you know, the Committee is the first and only congressional committee in history composed on entirely partisan lines," continued Banks.
'The January 6 committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted. We think the work was tainted.'
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (Calif.) Jan. 6 committee rejected then-GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy's proposed committee members, prompting McCarthy to pull his members and boycott the panel. The committee ultimately had no GOP-appointed ranked minority member.
"Furthermore, the Committee repeatedly violated House Rules and its own charter, House Resolution 503, including provisions limiting its deposition authority," wrote Banks.
In addition to the likelihood of its illegitimacy, Banks noted that thanks to the work of Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), "We now know that the Committee deleted hundreds of records shortly before the 118th Congress and the start of the House Republican majority. This willful destruction of evidence violates House Rules, and because the improperly destroyed documents potentially included evidence of the Committee's misconduct, they could have assisted either Mr. Bannon's or Mr. Navarro's defenses during future appeals."
Banks underscored to Johnson that an amicus brief filed filed on behalf of the chamber in support of Bannon's appeal would have his full support.
Johnson confirmed on Fox News and CNN Tuesday night that the House was working on an amicus brief in support of Bannon's appeal.
"The January 6 committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted. We think the work was tainted. We think that they may have very well covered up evidence and maybe even more nefarious activities," said Johnson. "We will be expressing that to the court and I think it will help Steve Bannon in his appeal."
Johnson noted in a joint statement with Republican Reps. Steve Scalise (La.) and Tom Emmer (Minn.) Wednesday morning that the amicus brief will be "submitted after Bannon files a petition for rehearing en banc and will be in support of neither party."
"It will withdraw certain arguments made by the House earlier in the litigation about the organization of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol during the prior Congress. House Republican Leadership continues to believe Speaker Pelosi abused her authority when organizing the Select Committee," added Johnson.
The Daily Caller reported that Loudermilk was planning to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, emphasizing the Jan. 6 committee lacked the authority to conduct depositions under the House resolution that authorized it.
Loudermilk's office told the Caller that the brief indicated that the Jan. 6 committee held Bannon in contempt for "failing to appear for a deposition," which it was not able to conduct for lack of a ranking member to notify.
"While Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney’s two year inquisition may have entertained the media and kept numerous Democrat lawyers busy, it had very real world implications, which we see in the imprisonment of Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon," Loudermilk told the Caller.
"We're in uncharted constitutional waters here. Congress's ability to compel people to appear before it is long-established, but has been eroding since Eric Holder refused to enforce a subpoena against himself. The ability to moot a contempt charge after the fact is hard going, but the ability to convince the court the committee itself was illegitimate? That could be easier," Christopher Bedford told Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com