Jay Jones proves Democrats will excuse anything for power



Jay Jones, the Democrats’ nominee for Virginia attorney general, has become a general travesty. Disqualified by his own words and actions, he keeps running while Democrats refuse to call him off. Apparently, they still think he deserves the office.

On Aug. 8, 2022, Jones, who had recently resigned from the Virginia House of Delegates after representing Norfolk, texted Republican state delegate Carrie Coyner about tributes to former legislator Joe Johnson Jr. One tribute came from then-Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert. Jones dismissed Johnson’s centrism and Gilbert’s praise with crude contempt. His texts quickly turned menacing.

Might Jones’ first prosecution be against himself? Doubtful. But how could he prosecute others for the same vile behavior he once celebrated?

Jones called Gilbert “that POS.” He wrote, “If those guys die before me, I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves.” He added that if he could shoot Hitler, Pol Pot, and Gilbert but had only two bullets, Gilbert would get “two bullets to the head” — “every time,” he said.

He accused Gilbert and his wife, Jennifer, of “breeding little fascists” and wished that Gilbert’s children would “die in their mother’s arms.” Coyner urged him to stop. He should have heeded her advice.

Half-hearted apologies

Jones has tried to apologize since his texts surfaced. At the time, he showed no hesitation or doubt about his vile remarks. For more than three years, he expressed no remorse until the prospect of consequences forced his hand — plenty of time to craft an apology and even longer to locate a conscience.

This episode isn’t Jones’ first disqualifying act. Coyner recalled Jones once saying that “if a few [policemen] died, that they would move on, not shooting people, not killing people.”

In January 2022, Jones was convicted of driving 116 mph — 46 mph over the limit. A court fined him $1,500 and ordered 1,000 hours of community service. He spent half of that time working for his own political action committee, Meet Our Moment.

The attorney general serves as Virginia’s top cop and prosecutor. According to the commonwealth’s website:

The Office of the Attorney General provides legal services to the Commonwealth’s agencies, boards, commissions, colleges and universities. They are the Commonwealth’s law firm, defending the interests of Virginians and Virginia government and also work with law enforcement throughout the Commonwealth to prepare for emerging public safety threats and to promote successful, secure communities.

Jones’ record conflicts directly with the job he seeks. Voters might ask how Jones can protect Virginians from crimes he’s committed himself? The statute of limitations on threats is one year for a misdemeanor. But Virginia has no statute of limitations on felonies.

Might his first prosecution be against himself? Doubtful. But how could he prosecute others for the same vile behavior he once celebrated — or those who endanger police officers, as he once suggested was necessary?

Unaccountable stupidity

A state legislator’s role differs sharply from that of the attorney general. A legislator’s foolishness, however damaging, remains limited to the district that elected him and can be tempered by the rest of the General Assembly. The attorney general, by contrast, represents all Virginians — including law enforcement and the entire state government. His mistakes ripple through every level of public service and civic life.

RELATED: Evil unchecked always spreads — and Democrats are proof

Trevor Metcalfe/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Virginians pay the price

But Jones and his army of Virginia Democrats think otherwise. Their refusal to remove him from the ticket speaks volumes. It shows they believe, just as Jones does, that he’s entitled to be attorney general — a stance as damning as his own text messages.

Jones’ desire to be attorney general and his support from Democrats has outweighed his lack of objective qualifications for the job. Virginians should not have to bear the price of their vile partisan game.

The case against Clinton, Brennan, and Comey is stronger than ever



By now, most politically literate Americans understand that the Steele dossier — the infamous, much ballyhooed collection of 2016 opposition research memos — was either reckless fantasy or deliberate defamation. But what many still don’t grasp is how that discredited document could become central to criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and John Brennan.

They pushed it. They knew better. And now a case is building.

The dossier’s known falsity

On July 28, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan briefed top Obama administration officials — including President Obama, FBI Director James Comey, Vice President Joe Biden, and National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Brennan reported that the Clinton campaign intended to frame Donald Trump by blaming Russian interference on him. This strategy, he explained, aimed to distract from revelations that the Democratic National Committee had rigged its primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

If the dossier was a cartoonish act of election interference, then its creators and knowing advocates should face prosecution.

At the same time, the FBI Special Agent Michael Gaeta alerted his superiors that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was compiling a salacious dossier on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. Brennan passed this intelligence to the FBI as a criminal referral.

So what did Clinton, Brennan, and Comey do with that knowledge?

Clinton approved and oversaw the media blitz. Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Clinton herself pushed the Russia-Trump collusion narrative exhaustively to the press and to DNC delegates — statements that were knowingly false.

That alone opens the door to criminal charges: false statements to federal officials and the press to advance an operation built on fabricated intelligence.

Brennan’s role in spreading a lie

Brennan, for his part, played both sides. He privately briefed White House officials about the hoax but reportedly gave false information to legislators like Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who used it to smear Trump publicly.

Despite knowing the dossier was unverified, Brennan insisted it had “the ring of truth” and fought to attach it to the January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment as “Annex A.” In May 2023, Brennan denied to the House Judiciary Committee that he pushed the dossier’s inclusion. That claim was contradicted by a December 2016 email he wrote. Lying under oath about that decision could carry criminal consequences.

Comey’s FISA cover-up

Then-FBI Director James Comey didn’t just accept the hoax. He institutionalized it.

Comey approved the October 2016 FISA warrant applications that relied on the Steele dossier. He failed to inform the court that Steele’s work was a Clinton campaign product. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe tried to downplay the dossier’s origins in the FISA applications — and it’s hard to believe Comey was shut out of the discussion.

In December 2016, Obama ordered the professionally prepared honest draft of the ICA to be changed to include a discussion of Vladimir Putin’s alleged “hack and leak” program to assist Donald Trump in the election.

Brennan and Comey knew of this ordered change and later inserted the dossier’s summary into the ICA. They knew that at least that portion of the assessment was false, especially since many of Steele’s sources were themselves tied to the Kremlin.

Put simply: They pushed Kremlin-fed lies to frame Trump — under the pretense of exposing Kremlin interference.

The Russian cast behind the dossier

The dossier’s roots tell the real story.

Fusion GPS, led by Glenn Simpson, contracted Steele while simultaneously working for Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv — who wanted to roll back the Magnitsky Act. Simpson also helped orchestrate the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting involving Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. While promising dirt on Clinton, Veselnitskaya’s real mission was lobbying against Magnitsky sanctions.

Steele, meanwhile, had previously worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. His key source? Igor Danchenko, a Brookings Institution analyst who had tried bribing U.S. officials for classified information and claimed ties to “Putin’s Rasputin” Vladislav Surkov and Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin.

Danchenko’s supporting cast in his “peeing prostitutes” fraud included Russian PR agent Charles Dolan and Olga Galkina, a former Russian state media operative who bragged to friends ahead of the election about landing a job in Clinton’s State Department.

RELATED: The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Mueller made it worse

Shockingly, Robert Mueller’s special counsel office hired Danchenko, approved $200,000 in payments to him, and requested another $346,000 — while giving him access to sensitive U.S. intelligence operations against Moscow. That’s how far the collusion hoax went: Federal law enforcement paid a likely Russian operative to help “investigate” Russia.

Then there’s Susan Rice’s January 2017 memo, which confirmed that Comey planned to withhold Russiagate intelligence from the incoming Trump administration. Comey even memorialized his secretive maneuvering against Trump in five classified memos — personal notes meant to serve as a post hoc CYA roadmap.

Mueller’s team adopted many of the dossier’s core themes, particularly the “Putin hack and leak” narrative — despite clear technical evidence that the DNC data was downloaded internally, not hacked externally.

No expiration date on treason

Fortunately, Brennan’s 2023 testimony — potentially perjurious — could extend the statute of limitations. That gives Justice Department investigators more time to piece together a conspiracy that stretches from the Clinton campaign to the FBI and CIA and all the way to the Oval Office.

And all of it can be traced back to Steele’s dossier, a cynical exercise that dwarfs any prior American political scandal. If the dossier was a cartoonish act of election interference, it follows that its creators and knowing advocates should face prosecution. The dossier was more than another media smear against Donald Trump. It was a coordinated disinformation operation built on Russian sources, laundered through federal agencies, and weaponized against a sitting president.

If that isn’t criminal, what is?

Trump’s Reduced Bond Doesn’t Make Letitia James’ Election-Meddling Lawfare Any Less Scandalous

The Appellate Division in Manhattan on Monday gave Trump 10 days to post a bond in the still-exorbitant amount of $175 million.

Yes, The Statute Of Limitations Has Passed On Bragg’s ‘Get Trump’ Case

Alvin Bragg’s theory is that because Trump lived in D.C., then Florida, the felony limitations period in New York is still open. He's wrong.

Alan Dershowitz explains why judge may quickly toss out Trump indictment: 'Foolish, foolish decision'



Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz explained why he believes the indictment against former President Donald Trump will be quickly tossed from court.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg confirmed on Thursday that a grand jury has indicted Trump over allegations related to an alleged hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. The indictment, however, remains under seal, and the exact charges will not be publicized until Trump is arraigned, which is expected to take place next week.

What did Dershowitz say?

Reacting to the unprecedented news, the Harvard Law School emeritus professor predicted a judge will toss the case on statute of limitations grounds.

"I think the most important thing is they indicted him when he was out of New York, and that means they could have indicted him within the statute of limitations when he was out of New York. The statute of limitations is way expired," Dershowitz explained on Newsmax. "They claimed they couldn't have indicted him because he was outside of New York, but now they've indicted him when he's not in New York."

Dershowitz added that Bragg made a "foolish, foolish decision, which will cause the case to be thrown out, I think, on statute of limitations grounds."

A scholar of American criminal law, Dershowitz predicted Trump's attorneys will file an immediate motion to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations grounds.

\u201c.@AlanDersh on Trump indictment: "They've made a foolish, foolish decision which will cause the case to be thrown out, I think, on statute of limitations grounds."\u201d
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) 1680213720

What about the statute of limitations?

Bragg reportedly investigated Trump for falsifying business records over allegations that money he claimed went to Michael Cohen for legal services actually went to Daniels.

In New York, the crime of falsifying business records is generally a misdemeanor — for which the statute of limitations is two years — but it can be a Class E felony if the crime occurred "to conceal another crime." The statute of limitations in that case is five years.

It is not yet known what second crime prosecutors allege Trump committed to elevate the charge to a felony, though it is believed that prosecutors will argue the hush-money payment constituted a violation of campaign finance laws.

At the center of the statute of limitations concern is whether they were triggered in 2017 — when the payments to Cohen were allegedly made — or in 2018 on the basis of bookkeeping implications.

As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explained:

Assuming the statute of limitations was thus triggered in 2018, the five-year period would lapse sometime this year. That, at least in part, explains the frenetic investigative activity thathas gone on the last few weeks: If the state doesn't indict soon, the case would be time-barred.Or . . . it could be time-barred already.

The indictment came despite the Justice Department declining to prosecute it. The Federal Election Commission also declined the case.

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

Indicting Trump Will Usher In America’s Banana-Republic Stage

The move to indict a former president for the first time in our country’s history will make political prosecutions the new norm in America.