‘No one is above the law’: Democrats PANIC as one of their own actually faces justice



Over the past few years of unhinged lawfare against President Trump, “no one is above the law” has become a favorite saying of the Democrats. However, now one of their own is on the legal chopping block — and they’re crying injustice.

Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) has been officially charged for assaulting, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement after being accused of assaulting two federal agents at the Delaney Hall Detention Facility in New Jersey last month.

According to a new charging document, the ICE facility was stormed by McIver and two other New Jersey lawmakers before McIver allegedly assaulted a Homeland Security Investigations agent and an ICE agent.

The charging document also states that McIver "pushed an ICE officer and used her forearms to forcibly strike the agent."


“Yes, congresswoman, nobody is above the law,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.” “Now, listen. Those on the left might say, ‘This is fascism, ‘Trump is literally Hitler,’ ‘This is just political games are being played.’”

“I would ask what, then, were the 91 indictments and the 34 felony counts of Donald Trump, not for, like, assaulting an ICE officer, not for impeding police and law enforcement, but for falsifying business records, which was a stretch, for the classified documents, which Joe Biden had in his garage where his crackhead son had access to,” she continues.

“All of these bogus things, and now, we have, what is it, the chickens coming home to roost,” she adds.

BlazeTV host Pat Gray is in full agreement.

“When you see the video, you know that she’s pushing around officers. You can easily make the assault case there, they would on any normal citizen,” Gray comments. “And we just heard a million times, ‘no one is above the law.’”

“So yeah, I don’t think they’ve got any room to complain on this,” he adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How Democrats really defended democracy



A year ago, Democrats claimed their campaign was all about “defending democracy.” Instead, they sabotaged it. Repeatedly. No party has done more to contradict its own stated mission.

Speaking on Jan. 5, 2024, in Pennsylvania, Joe Biden asked, “Is democracy still America’s sacred cause? ... This is not rhetorical, academic, or hypothetical. Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time, and it’s what the 2024 election is all about.”

In the end, Democrats pushed Biden aside, despite his uncontested path to the nomination. They argued their coup was necessary to save democracy.

Democrats would soon answer that question, but in the wrong way.

Their sabotage of democracy began long before 2024. In 2019, they launched investigations into President Donald Trump and continued even after they knew the charges were false. Never mind. They would defend democracy later.

Then in 2023, Democratic prosecutors unleashed four indictments against Trump. The timing, so close to an election, was surely a coincidence. But that was OK because they promised to defend democracy again soon.

Meanwhile, Democrats campaigned to protect democracy by concealing Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. They had done so for four years, but in 2024 they failed, especially after some allies admitted the cover-up. It was necessary, they insisted, to defend democracy.

Democrats also shut down their 2024 nomination process to protect Biden. Any would-be challengers, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were discredited. That, they claimed, was how to defend democracy.

For six months, Democrats kept Joe Biden out of sight and denied any obvious signs of his impairment — even when they were glaring.

When Biden stumbled in his debate with Donald Trump before a national audience — no worse than what attentive viewers had already seen — they orchestrated a media pile-on to force him out of the race. One by one, party figures turned against him. In the end, Democrats pushed Biden aside, despite his uncontested path to the nomination. They argued their coup was necessary to save democracy.

Democrats then handed the nomination to Kamala Harris without a campaign or contest — just a rubber stamp. They deemed a traditional convention vote too risky, arguing it would slow their larger defense of democracy.

Democrats shielded Harris from serious press engagement during the contest they appointed her to lead. Rather than provide answers that could inform the public about a candidate nobody voted for, she focused on “defending democracy.”

Instead of appearing before the people, Harris appeared before her people: the elite. By their account, defending democracy meant letting self-proclaimed leaders instruct the public on what to do, what to think, and how to vote. In a true democracy, they argued, the “demos” must follow guidance from its leaders.

Later, reports revealed that many of Harris’ elite endorsers were paid to appear with her. Like a child wearing a pork chop to draw the attention of a dog, this tactic was just fine. Passing money among elites, they reasoned, merely fortified democracy.

Harris had plenty of money to buy friends if necessary. She outspent Trump, insisting that defending democracy doesn’t come cheap.

Democrats also pushed for third-party candidates to undermine Republicans in various races. They refused to remove RFK Jr. from the ballot, even though he had withdrawn and endorsed Trump. Apparently, ballot integrity mattered less than protecting democracy.

Democrats fought voter ID laws, despite broad public support. That’s what it takes to protect democracy.

They took a similar approach to counting ballots. In Pennsylvania, Democratic leaders allowed invalid ballots when they deemed it vital to defending democracy.

Democratic officials vow to oppose the new Trump administration, even though he won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. They insist they are still defending democracy and can’t help themselves.

In a single year, Americans learned much about how Democrats “defend” democracy. They revealed that democracy is too important to be practiced without limits — sometimes it must be protected from itself. We also learned that when Democrats say “democracy,” they really mean “power.”

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.

VIDEO: Biden calls for Trump to be locked up at campaign event before correcting himself



Democratic President Joe Biden undermined the Harris-Walz campaign yet again through a five-word gaffe he uttered while trying to get out the vote Tuesday in New Hampshire.

Biden was speaking to a group of supporters and enumerating what he believed to be the worst of former President Donald Trump's post-inauguration plans when he sputtered out the threat.

'A reminder to the folks who harassed, attacked, and threatened those who were rightly calling out his decline.'

"He is talking about doing away with the entire Department of Education. He means it! This is not a joke! This is a guy who also wants to replace every civil servant. Every single one. He thinks he has the ruling of the Supreme Court on immunity to be able to, if need be, to actually eliminate, physically eliminate, shoot, kill someone who he believes to be a threat to him," said Biden.

"I mean, so I know this sounds bizarre, it sounds like I said this five years ago, he'd lock me up," Biden said before pausing for effect.

"We gotta lock him up," he added.

The crowd applauded in support of the president, but he appeared to recognize that he had gone too far and tried to correct himself.

"Politically lock him out," he sputtered.

Video of the moment went viral on social media, where many took his comments to mean that Democrats could prosecute him out of political motivation. Others pointed out that Trump had been excoriated as a fascist by many on the left when he encouraged supporters to chant "lock her up!" about Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election.

Vice President Kamala Harris has tried to shut down chants of "lock him up!" at her rallies by telling supporters to help her defeat Trump at the ballot box.

"Hold on. The courts are going to handle that part of it. What we’re going to do is beat him in November," she said at a rally in Wisconsin.

"A reminder to the folks who harassed, attacked, and threatened those who were rightly calling out his decline," said independent journalist Yashar Ali.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!