Biden’s Dishonest Pardon Statement Should Revive, Not Bury, Pursuit Of Crimes And Cover-Ups

President Joe Biden’s issuance of an unprecedented blanket pardon of his son should be seen as part of a continued cover-up.

Losing Her Job Is The Bare Minimum Punishment Kimberly Cheatle Deserves

There need to be criminal investigations into Cheatle, Mayorkas, and their respective agencies, and, where appropriate, prosecutions.

JD Vance shreds liberal host's narrative and backs Trump's proposal to have Biden investigated



Former President Donald Trump noted in January that if he was ultimately denied presidential immunity in his election interference case, "Then Crooked Joe Biden doesn't get Immunity, and with the Border Invasion and Afghanistan Surrender, alone, not to mention the Millions of dollars that went into his 'pockets' with money from foreign countries, Joe would be ripe for Indictment."

Trump added, "By weaponizing the DOJ against his Political Opponent, ME, Joe has opened a giant Pandora's Box."

In subsequent months, various Republicans raised the possibility that President Joe Biden and his allies might soon get a taste of their own medicine.

For instance, a fundraising email circulated by Rep. James Comer's (R-Ky.) campaign in March noted, "When President Trump returns to the White House, it's critical the new leadership at the DOJ have everything they need to prosecute the Biden Crime Family and deliver swift justice."

'Joe Biden has done exactly that for the last few years and has done far more in addition to that to engage in a campaign of lawfare against his political opposition.'

While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on July 1 that Trump and other presidents have "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within [their] conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) appears more than happy to keep alive the fear among Democrats that upon turning the tables, a Trump administration might similarly engage in lawfare.

On Sunday, Kristen Welker of NBC News' "Meet the Press" showed Vance year-old footage of Trump stating, "I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family."

Insinuating such action would be unprecedented, Welker pressed Vance on whether he would support such an initiative as Trump's vice president.

Vance, on Trump's shortlist of potential running mates, answered, "I find it interesting how much the media and the Democrats have lost their mind over this particular quote. Donald Trump is talking about appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Joe Biden for wrongdoing. Joe Biden has done exactly that for the last few years and has done far more in addition to that to engage in a campaign of lawfare against his political opposition."

"I think what Donald Trump is simply saying is, 'We ought to investigate the prior administration.' There are obviously many instances of wrongdoing," continued Vance. "The House Oversight Committee has identified a number of corrupt business transactions that may or may not be criminal. Of course, you have to investigate to find out."

Vance underscored that Trump's desire to investigate Biden is a "totally reasonable thing for him to do and frankly, the Biden administration has done far worse."

"If you think that what Donald Trump is proposing is a threat to democracy, isn't what Biden has already done a massive threat to our system of law and government?" added the Ohio Republican.

After a hurried attempt to distance the Biden White House from the prosecutions against Trump — entirely sidestepping at least one case wherein prosecutors reportedly met with elements of the White House before taking action against Trump — Welker asked Vance once more whether he would back Trump should he seek justice for Biden.

"I would absolutely support investigating prior wrongdoing by our government. Absolutely. That's what you have to have in a system of law and order," said Vance. "But I have to reject the premise here."

Vance torpedoed Welker's intimation that lawfare would be unprecedented and that Biden had nothing to do with the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, noting that Attorney General Merrick Garland — who made the appointment — was not only handpicked by Biden but "answers to Joe Biden [and] can be fired by Joe Biden."

After indicating Biden's fingerprints were on the appointment of the special counsel who brought two indictments against his political opponent, the Ohio senator continued poking holes in the talking head's narrative framework.

Vance noted that one of the "main guys" engaged in the prosecution of Trump in New York "was a Department of Justice official in the Biden administration who jumped ship to join a local prosecutor's office to go after Donald Trump."

Vance was referencing Matthew Colangelo's migration from a senior position in the Biden DOJ — acting associate attorney general, then principal deputy associate attorney general — to a supporting role going after Trump in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office.

Welker immediately went on the defensive, suggesting, "That happens all the time."

After indicating Welker's claim that such strategic migrations were common was rubbish, Vance reiterated that Trump's proposal is aimed at "merely reinforcing our system of law and government."

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

We Need More Democrats To Oppose The Left’s Destruction Of Democratic Norms

Biden’s administration has done everything Democrats said Trump would do to undermine democracy: prosecute their political opponents, suppress dissent, and destabilize the world.

Trump's 'banana republic' conviction won't be Democrats' last — unless there is 'retaliation in kind': UC Berkeley law prof



UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo made clear this week that President Donald Trump's conviction before a Democratic judge in a Democratic enclave on charges brought by a Democratic prosecutor effectively obliterates any remaining pretense that the justice system is a means for resolution and restitution. The courtroom is now instead apparently a vehicle for seeking retribution and political advantage.

With this transformation, Yoo says its high time for "retaliation in kind" by Republican district attorneys.

Ahead of President Donald Trump's conviction, Yoo noted in National Review that it was abundantly clear the hush-money case was built around "farcical charges" and aimed not at delivering justice but at protecting a decrepit Democratic president from facing his top competitor in November.

"The superficiality of the facts and the vagueness of the crimes magnify the harm that Democrats have inflicted on our political norms," wrote the former deputy assistant attorney general. "Make no mistake, Democrats have crossed a constitutional Rubicon."

Yoo issued a note of caution: The "weakness of the case against Trump lowers the bar for prosecuting future presidents below that for prosecuting garden-variety criminals in New York City."

'Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents.'

"Regardless of the trial's outcome, its consequences will have a profound effect on the presidency. The weaker the Trump cases are, the more open the invitation is to future prosecutors of presidents of the opposite party," wrote Yoo. "After this Trump trial, any city, county, or state prosecutor might be encouraged to prosecute any federal officer for conjured violations of a state's criminal law or other patently partisan reasons."

To remedy "this breach of constitutional norms," Yoo indicated that Republicans' only recourse is to observe the Golden rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents."

For instance, a Republican district attorney will have to do the work the Biden Department of Justice appears unwilling or at the very least incapable of doing: Hold Hunter Biden to account for one of his various alleged crimes.

"Another Republican DA will have to investigate Joe Biden for influence-peddling at the behest of a son who received payoffs from abroad," continued Yoo. "Only retaliation in kind can produce the deterrence necessary to enforce a political version of mutual assured destruction; without the threat of prosecution of their own leaders, Democrats will continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint."

"We must rely on Republicans to threaten an escalation of banana-republic politics in order to prevent actually becoming a banana republic," concluded Yoo.

Early in its critique of Yoo's argument, New York magazine admitted that "the Alvin Bragg prosecution is weak. That's not to say Trump is innocent, but that it's a borderline case that did not need to be charged."

Time will tell whether Republican district attorneys will rise to the challenge. In the meantime, several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate have indicated that bipartisanship under the current regime is over.

Republican Sens. Michael S. Lee (Utah), J.D. Vance (Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) issued a statement Friday, noting, "The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways. As a Senate Republican conference, we are unwilling to aid and abet this White House in its project to tear this country apart."

"To this end, we will not 1) allow any increase to non-security related funding for this administration, or any appropriations bill which funds partisan lawfare; 2) vote to confirm this administration's political and judicial appointees; and 3) allow expedited consideration and passage of Democrat legislation or authorities that are not directly relevant to the safety of the American people," said the statement.

The original eight invited other senators to join them in taking a stand in the wake of the unprecedented conviction of Biden's political opponent.

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

Missouri AG: Trump trials are a witch hunt; prosecutors colluding with Biden's DOJ



Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is demanding that the Department of Justice turn over documents related to several of the prosecutors going after former president Donald Trump.

Bailey believes the prosecutions appear to be part of a coordinated effort by the DOJ that involved the White House.

“Everyone can see the illicit witch hunt prosecutions that are going on from Alvin Bragg’s office, from Fani Willis’ office, from Letitia James’ office, and from the Biden’s crooked Department of Justice,” Bailey tells Glenn Beck, who believes Bailey is “one of the really good AGs in the country.”

“The Biden Department of Justice has become a nerve center for a coordinated witch hunt prosecution of a political opponent, and it’s not designed to obtain a legally valid conviction. It’s designed to take anyone running against Joe Biden — in other words, president Donald Trump — off the campaign trail,” Bailey explains.

And they’re not trying to hide it.

Matthew Colangelo was the number three ranking official at Biden’s DOJ. Colangelo was a longtime DNC activist who has just now taken a job with Bragg’s office to lead prosecution at the state level in the Manhattan courtroom.

“The political motivation of the prosecutors is sufficient to call into question their judgment in these cases,” Bailey says, adding, “Couple that with the fact they brought baseless charges not supported by the facts of the law, and it will undermine the credibility of whatever illegal conviction they ultimately obtain.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Will Trump get full presidential immunity? Law expert explains



Former President Donald Trump is in the midst of multiple legal battles, but everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity.

“The Court is a lot more concerned about the presidency than about Trump,” National Review contributing author Andrew McCarthy tells Glenn Beck.

“It’s an important point to make because a lot of the coverage has been this hysteria over whether the Trump-packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him and they’re going to get rid of Jack Smith’s prosecution,” McCarthy says. “I don’t think that’s going to happen at all.”

Rather, McCarthy believes that the court will send the case back to the trial judge in Washington “with instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call "official acts" that might arguably be immune from prosecution” and “what are private acts or private wrongs that he would not have immunity for.”

However, according to McCarthy, Trump’s lawyer has admitted that a lot of conduct charged in the indictment is considered private conduct that wouldn’t fall under an immunity claim.

“What are some of the acts that could fall under private?” Glenn asks, adding, “and what are the acts that are the president and you don’t prosecute?”

One of the “solid examples” McCarthy uses is that “Trump’s lawyer conceded that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get slates of electors designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress suggesting that they were the authentic, actual slate of electors designated by a state, that would be private conduct because it’s purely office-seeking.”

“On the other hand,” McCarthy explains, “there’s an allegation in the indictment that Trump tried to use the Justice Department to signal to states that there were serious concerns about fraud and considered both removing the attorney general when he got push back and considered sending a letter that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia to tell them that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election.”

“Trump argues very strongly, and I think the court will probably go along with this, that is the president’s control over the Justice Department,” he says.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

NYC attorneys say deli worker, 61, who fatally stabbed younger attacker in self-defense went overboard: Report



New York City attorneys said the 61-year-old deli worker who two years ago fatally stabbed his attacker in self-defense went overboard, according to the New York Post.

What's the background?

Video showed 35-year-old Austin Simon going behind the counter of a Harlem deli on July 1, 2022, and physically attacking a worker there, Jose Alba. Simon was angry that Alba took potato chips from the 10-year-old daughter of Simon's girlfriend, whose benefits card failed to work in the transaction.

Video also shows Alba pleading with Simon, "I don't want a problem," before Simon aggressively shoved Alba into store shelves and grabbed him by the neck. Simon then began to walk Alba from the area behind the counter.

With that, Alba grabbed a knife.

“He wanted me to come apologize to the girl,” Alba told a New York City police detective, according to the New York Daily News. “I took the knife we use to open boxes, and I stabbed him.” The Daily News said Alba stabbed Simon at least five times in the neck and chest.

The paper — citing the criminal complaint — added that Simon’s girlfriend grabbed a knife from her purse and stabbed Alba in the arm.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office faced intense criticism for charging Alba with second-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon, sending him to notorious Rikers Island, and setting his bail at $250,000. One of Alba's defenders was Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who called Alba "innocent."

Soon, Alba was released on a reduced $50,000 bail and maintained he was defending himself against Simon. Bragg's office soon dropped all charges against Alba in the face of continued public pressure.

After Alba sued Bragg and the NYPD for civil rights violations last fall, New York City lawyers in December urged a federal judge to dismiss his lawsuit, Fox News reported. The attorneys' court filing indicated that "under the circumstances there was sufficient probable cause to arrest and prosecute Mr. Alba," a city Law Department spokesman said at the time, according to Fox News.

NYC attorneys had previously stated "it was entirely reasonable to believe" that Alba "unnecessarily escalated the confrontation between himself and Mr. Simon — even if it was Mr. Simon who initiated the confrontation," the cable network said.

Now what?

Alba has argued there was no reason to arrest and prosecute him given that he was acting in self-defense. But the Post reported that city attorneys in federal court papers filed in March said "considering the events that led to plaintiff stabbing Mr. Simon, that is an extreme position."

“Mr. Simon pushed [Alba] once and grabbed him by the collar to escort him outside for the expressed purpose of having him apologize to” his girlfriend, the attorneys added, according to the Post. “While the District Attorney’s Office found it would be difficult to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt, it was not unreasonable to arrest plaintiff in the first place.”

Here's a Fox News report that aired after Alba filed his lawsuit:

Ex-bodega worker suing NYC over ‘racial equity policies’ youtu.be

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

Trump wants to know whether Cassidy Hutchinson will be prosecuted for telling tall tales



Congressional investigators released a report last week marking some of the distance the Jan. 6 Select Committee and one of its star witnesses journeyed away from the truth as a means to "legislatively prosecute" former President Donald Trump.

The Republican front-runner is now wondering whether there will be consequences for one of the individuals caught casting shade on him with tall tales.

"Our great Secret Service has totally CRUSHED Cassidy Hutchinson's (who I barely knew) made up (FAKE!) stories about me roughing up Secret Service Agents from the back seat of the Beast (Limo)," Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social.

"Has she now changed her testimony?" added Trump.

House Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) released a report last week indicating the Jan. 6 committee erased records; hid numerous transcribed interviews; failed to turn recordings over to Republican lawmakers; suppressed evidence that failed to conform to Democrats' preferred narrative; and colluded with Fulton County's scandal-plagued Democratic district attorney.

The congressional report, penned by the House Administration Committee’s oversight subpanel, also highlighted an instance when the Jan. 6 committee went out of its way to lend credence to sensational gossip without giving a hearing to known witnesses whose firsthand accounts would ultimately paint an entirely different picture.

Blaze News previously reported that Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as assistant to Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows, sat for six transcribed interviews and one publicized hearing with the committee. In her fourth transcribed interview in June 2022, she provided the committee with something they obviously figured they could use. After all, the Jan. 6 committee scheduled Hutchinson's public hearing to take place eight days later.

Despite knowing of other witnesses who may have provided contradictory testimony — including the Secret Service agents featured in the story — the committee put Hutchinson on the stand. She then spun a yarn about how Trump got into a scuffle with a Secret Service agent and attempted to wrest control of the presidential limousine.

Hutchinson claimed that on Jan. 6, Tony Ornato, a former Secret Service agent and Trump's deputy chief of staff, "described [Trump] as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now,' to which [Secret Service Agent Bobby Engel] responded, 'Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.'"

"The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel," continued Hutchinson. "Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, 'Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.'"

Hutchinson, who apparently even got the type of vehicle at the heart of her story wrong, suggested that Trump then lunged toward Engel.

The congressional report released last week indicated that the Jan. 6 committee only got around to interviewing the witnesses with actual insights into the story months after Hutchinson shared her fiction with the nation — when "it was obvious Republicans would win control of the House."

Ornato "directly refuted Hutchinson's testimony," telling the Jan. 6 committee in a Nov. 29, 2022, transcribed interview that "the first time he had ever heard the story Hutchinson claims [he] told her on January 6 was during Hutchinson's public testimony."

Hutchinson's story was also contradicted by the Secret Service agent who was driving Trump to and from the Ellipse on Jan. 6.

While the Jan. 6 committee did not bother to ask the agent about Hutchinson's alternate history during his Nov. 7, 2022, transcribed interview, the agent brought it up anyway, insisting that he "did not see him reach [redacted]. [President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn't see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all."

"The testimony of these four White House employees directly contradicts claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson and by the Select Committee in the Final report," said the Oversight report. "None of the White House employees corroborated Hutchinson's sensational story."

In his Truth Social post Monday, Trump wrote, "Will she be prosecuted for what she did and said? What about the Unselect J6 Committee. They destroyed almost everything, including real evidence and findings. What's going to happen with them — Serious crimes have been committed?"

Extra to seeking accountability for Hutchinson and the committee at large, Trump also recently suggested that former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) "should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee."

Cheney, the Jan. 6 committee's vice chairwoman, was the one to press Hutchinson to testify under oath during the public hearing about what she imagined Trump had done when being driven away from his speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6.

After Hutchinson testified under oath, Cheney gave her a hug, later telling ABC News' "This Week," "What Cassidy Hutchinson did was an unbelievable example of bravery and of courage and patriotism in the face of real pressure."

"I am absolutely confident in her credibility. I'm confident in her testimony," added Cheney.

It appears Cheney's confidence was misplaced. While she has yet to walk back her supportive remarks, voters spared her the need, ousting her in the 2022 Wyoming Republican primary in a landslide vote.

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