Here is a Mayor that worked with Pelosi to block Trumps request for Military security, why was that? They knew the fix was in? Security would ruin it? Now bow wow is trying to get in good with Trump? something Stinks
Far left Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said she had a “great meeting” with President Trump this week.
According to Bowser they “discussed areas for the collaboration between local and federal government, especially around our federal workforce, underutilized federal buildings, parks and green spaces, and infrastructure.”
That is interesting since it was Mayor Bowser and Nancy Pelosi who refused to quell the violent George Floyd rioters in 2020 in the nation’s capital. The American left destroyed up to $2 billion in US property that year alone.
Leftists torch Washington DC in George Floyd protests in Washington DC.
And it was Bowser and Nancy Pelosi who set up Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.
During his interview, Kash admitted that Mayor Muriel Bowser turned down thousands of National Guard troops at the Capitol on January 6 for political reasons.
Chris Wray’s FBI also refused to notify the Trump administration and his cabinet secretaries that they believed there could be a situation like the mass protests at the Capitol that took place.
Mayor Bowser then later openly lied to Congress under oath discussing her refusal for National Guard on January 6, 2021.
One of the first investigations launched by the FBI, DOJ, or DHS, following President Trump's upcoming Inauguration should be against Pelosi, Bowser, and others who left our US Capitol open to mayhem on January 6, 2021, and who made this decision and when.
Matthew Graves: The DOJ’s Partisan Enforcer Flees Accountability
Matthew Graves, the now-resigned U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, leaves behind a legacy of corruption, partisanship, and a weaponized Department of Justice (DOJ). His tenure, marked by the targeting of President Trump, his allies, and everyday conservatives, has drawn widespread condemnation. Graves’ resignation comes as the incoming Trump administration, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, prepares to hold rogue officials accountable for their abuses of power.
Graves is not stepping aside with dignity—he’s running from the justice he knows awaits him.
Graves’ Tenure: A Weaponized DOJ
Matthew Graves epitomized the Biden administration’s use of the DOJ as a political weapon, turning federal prosecutions into acts of partisan warfare. His role went far beyond enforcing the law—he actively sought to crush dissent, intimidate Trump supporters, and protect the Biden family from scrutiny.
Targeting Trump and His Allies
Graves’ obsession with punishing Trump and his closest allies revealed the DOJ’s partisan agenda:
Steve Bannon: Graves led the prosecution of Bannon for contempt of Congress, ignoring executive privilege and turning a procedural dispute into a high-profile political spectacle.
Peter Navarro: Trump’s trade adviser faced similar treatment, as Graves pursued contempt charges designed to criminalize dissent from a partisan January 6 Select Committee.
Roger Stone: Graves continued the legacy of targeting Stone, orchestrating a politically motivated raid and prosecution that served as the blueprint for attacking Trump allies.
These cases were not about justice; they were about using the legal system to dismantle Trump’s political movement and silence opposition.
The January 6 Community: Criminalizing Patriots
Graves’ most egregious actions involved his relentless pursuit of January 6 participants. He aggressively prosecuted non-violent protesters, handing out draconian sentences while ignoring far-left riots and demonstrations. His approach was a modern-day replay of the Lois Lerner Tea Party scandal, where the Obama administration weaponized the IRS to suppress conservative activism.
Selective Justice: Protecting the Bidens
While Graves targeted conservatives with unrelenting zeal, he shielded the Biden family from accountability for their corruption and criminality. Under Graves’ watch:
Hunter Biden’s Scandals: Despite overwhelming evidence of tax fraud, influence-peddling, and firearms violations, Graves obstructed investigations into Hunter Biden. He allowed the statute of limitations to expire on key charges, ensuring the President’s son avoided justice.
Joe Biden’s Involvement: Documents from Hunter’s infamous laptop implicated Joe Biden as “the Big Guy” set to receive a cut of Hunter’s corrupt deals. Graves’ DOJ, however, acted as a firewall, ensuring the President faced no scrutiny while deeming him “unfit for prosecution” despite his campaign for re-election.
Behind Matthew Graves stood his wife, Fatima Goss Graves, a radical activist whose influence extended deep into the DOJ’s agenda. As president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), Fatima championed leftist policies that aligned perfectly with the Biden administration’s priorities.
Soros-Funded Radicalism
Under Fatima’s leadership, the NWLC received significant funding from George Soros-backed entities, including the Tides Foundation and the New Venture Fund. These organizations are known for their efforts to undermine American institutions and promote radical leftist ideologies.
Court-Packing Schemes
Fatima was a vocal advocate for packing the Supreme Court, aiming to dilute its conservative majority and turn the judiciary into a tool for progressive policies. Her activism reflects the broader Marxist agenda that has infiltrated federal institutions under the Biden administration.
The Graves Duo: Corruption in Tandem
Matthew and Fatima Goss Graves operated as a power couple deeply embedded in the left’s machinery. While Matthew weaponized the DOJ to target conservatives, Fatima advanced the ideological framework that justified his actions. Together, they turned public service into a platform for radical activism.
Pam Bondi: A Reckoning Awaits
With Pam Bondi stepping in as Attorney General, the DOJ is poised for a dramatic overhaul. Bondi has made it clear that the abuses of the Graves era will not go unanswered:
“The DOJ has been weaponized under this administration. We will investigate, we will prosecute, and we will restore trust. The prosecutors who crossed the line, the bad actors, will face justice.”
Graves’ resignation is a transparent attempt to escape the consequences of his corruption, but Bondi’s commitment to accountability ensures that his actions will not be forgotten.
Matthew Graves: A Legacy of Corruption
Matthew Graves’ departure marks the end of one of the most corrupt tenures in DOJ history. His targeting of Trump allies, shielding of Biden family corruption, and selective prosecution of conservatives have left a stain on the Department of Justice. Paired with the radical influence of his wife, Fatima Goss Graves, his legacy represents everything that Americans have come to distrust about the federal government.
As the Trump administration moves to restore integrity to the DOJ, Graves and his enablers will finally face the justice they so desperately tried to avoid. The era of accountability has begun.
Trump questions a corrupt 2020 election and everyone knows it except the idiots that watch the Democrat media Garbage and now they want to block Trump which won both popular and electoral college you know the thing that gives all 50 States a voice in the election. these people are SICK!
Eight years back around this time of the year, some Hollywood has-beens released a message urging Electoral College representatives to not vote for Trump, whom they deemed unfit to be President, before the results were certified. They hoped to convince enough Republican electors such that Trump's electoral college tally would be reduced to less than the required 270.
Concurrently, Electoral College representatives received death threats while anti-Trump protests and riots sprung up in Democrat-run states. These undemocratic efforts backed by Democrats failed and Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
This time, the Democrat insanity isn't overt -- possibly because the Democrats spent four years pushing the 'insurrection' hoax and used it during the bumbling word salad chef's fumbling campaign. Perhaps the Democrats don't want to appear blatantly hypocritical by rejecting Trump's emphatic victory. Perhaps they know their efforts will be futile and have settled to peddling hoaxes during the Trump presidency.
However, not all Democrats think a Trump Presidency in 2025 is unavoidable.
Recently, The Hill published a piece written by Columbia Law Review editor-in-chief Evan Davis and former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal David Schulte, directed at Congress. The authors quote Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to make the case that Trump's disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution:
“No person shall… hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
To support their insurrection claim, the authors cite evidence from three forums:
The first forum is Trump’s second impeachment trial.
"...On Jan. 13, 2021, then-President Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection.” At the trial in the Senate, seven Republicans joined all Democrats to provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office. Inciting insurrection encompasses “engaging in insurrection” against the Constitution “or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” the grounds for disqualification specified in Section 3."
The authors conveniently forget that Trump was cleared by the Senate and that the impeachment failed.
The second forum cited is the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment disqualification. The authors quote the Court ruling that “found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.”
However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor in their unanimous verdict that "states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 for federal offices, especially the Presidency."
But the authors claim the "Supreme Court did not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection," hence Congress can reject electoral votes when they convene on Jan. 6.
The authors add that "counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law, this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question."
The authors recommend that Congress reject the electoral vote based on the Electoral Count Act, which allows for an objection if "the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not 'regularly given.'"
"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by a 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."
Yes, you read that correctly -- they still think Kamala, who lost both the Electoral College and popular vote, can be president.
The authors also cite testimonies from the 'bipartisan' inquiry of the January 6th House Select Committee.
This section is littered with the following falsehoods.
"Trump unlawfully demanded that his vice president, Mike Pence, throw out votes in the Electoral College for political opponent Joe Biden, a power he did not have."
".....while the riot was in progress, Trump used Pence’s rejection of his demand to further enflame the crowd and cause them to chant “Hang Mike Pence!”
The piece concludes that the Democrats must "take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution."
So what do we make of this?
The piece, littered with myriad debunked Democrat lies, isn't even remotely persuasive. Trump's emphatic victory last month was a rejection of those lies by the public; it was also a verdict against law enforcement and judicial overreach.
The self-righteous often lack self-awareness, hence the irony that an insurrection hoax was being used to mount a case for an insurrection wasn't comprehended by the authors.
What is amazing is that The Hill deemed this worthy of publishing. Before an article is published it is fact-checked while the editorial board decides if the piece is worthy of public consumption. But for this piece, the factual inaccuracies and the unintended irony were ignored.
There's a slim possibility that the goal behind the publishing of this piece is that the outrage caused will boost traffic to their website.
The Hill may claim they allow all kinds of opinions. But they haven't published articles about unfairness in the 2020 elections?
The Hill didn't cover the influence of Zuckerbucks on the 2020 elections, Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story, or former intelligence officials falsely claiming that the laptop story was Russian disinformation. All The Hill's articles on the 2020 elections that appeared seem to be pushing Democrat narratives.
This serves as another reminder that outfits like The Hill serve as mouthpieces for the Democrats. To call them pro-Democrats is an understatement -- they are the Democrats.
This absurd piece involves a conspiracy to overturn the 2024 elections and must be regarded as the Democrats thinking aloud.
The NYT, the WaPo, etc., are the foremost Democrat mouthpieces, while The Hill and Politico are tier 2 propagandists aspiring to achieve tier 1 status. Perhaps decision makers at The Hill think that they will achieve tier 1 status by publishing such pieces, i.e., Democrats will be impressed by their propaganda.
Like all propagandists, The Hill doesn't care about their credibility after publishing such a shoddy article. Their goal is not to cover facts but to relentlessly push hoaxes, and they do so unrepentantly.
This should be a wake-up call to those who assume that the Democrats have surrendered to the inevitability of a Trump presidency. They may not be able to prevent Trump from being inaugurated, but they will most certainly place impediments during his Presidency.
Hopefully everyone, especially President Trump and his team, remains very alert.
It seems President Biden won’t stop at letting his convicted son Hunter off the hook. The White House staff is reportedly pondering an unprecedented, pre-emptive set of presidential pardons for numerous officials who haven’t been formally charged or convicted of federal crimes but may be liable for indictment or conviction under the incoming Trump administration.
Prominent on that list is Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).
Why Fauci? Team Biden is mum. But the most likely rationale is a possible perjury charge: Fauci testified under oath in congressional inquiries. At issue: Fauci’s responses to the crucial question of whether American taxpayers’ dollars were used to fund viral “gain-of-function” experiments – research designed to enhance transmissibility or virulence of a pathogen – in a Chinese laboratory.
That issue just resurfaced in a meticulous 520-page report issued by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. “Dr. Fauci’s testimony was, at a minimum, misleading,” congressional investigators concluded. “As established, at the time of Dr. Fauci’s testimony senior NIH (National Institute of Health) officials and the NIH website defined gain of function research as a ‘type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers a new or enhanced activity to that agent.’ Further witness testimony and a plain reading of Eco Health’s research conducted at the WIV (Wuhan Institute of Virology) using U.S. taxpayers’ dollars confirm it facilitated an experiment that conveyed new or enhanced activity to a pathogen—thus, satisfying the definition of gain of function research.”
The Tangled Web
For over three years, congressional investigators have been trying to untangle a complex web of relationships, financial and otherwise, between NIH grantees and American scientists and subgrantees, including top scientists in China, particularly at the WIV, a center of coronavirus research. Congressional investigators have also struggled to get clarity on certain controversial lab experiments in China, especially those conducted under the auspices of the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based recipient of substantial taxpayer funding courtesy of Fauci’s agency.
Over the period 2017 and 2018, researchers at the WIV, a subgrantee of EcoHealth, experimented with genetically engineered bat coronaviruses that made them more pathogenic. In that experiment, “humanized mice” (mice engrafted with human cells) were infected with these coronaviruses, and a number of them were sickened and died.
There is no evidence that this particular Wuhan-EcoHealth experiment was, in itself, responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Several scientists examining the case concluded that the viruses used in this specific set of experiments were too far removed from SARS-CoV-2 to have originated it. Nonetheless, in the EcoHealth case, the virulence of the coronavirus had clearly been enhanced. And, in his Jan. 5, 2024, testimony, as cited by the subcommittee report, Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak agreed that this case was clearly “generic” gain-of-function research.
Examining the evidence, including the testimony of top NIH officials, the subcommittee thus concluded that EcoHealth was, in fact, facilitating gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV.
The Big Questions
The central questions are these:
Did the American taxpayers inadvertently fund dangerous gain-of-function research in China?
Did Dr. Fauci and his colleagues know that its grantee (the EcoHealth Alliance) and its subgrantee (the Wuhan Institute of Virology) were conducting such research?
Did they fully comprehend the grave dangers involved in such experiments?
Did Dr. Fauci truthfully respond to congressional investigators concerning these matters?
Complicating the problem is that the technical term “gain of function” has more than one meaning, and various viral gain-of-function experiments have very different levels of risk.
There is a difference between (a) the broader or generic NIH definition of gain-of-function research (cited by the subcommittee) that “modifies” a biological agent that confers “new or enhanced activity to that agent” and (b) the P3CO Framework (2017) that imposes funding restrictions on “potential pandemic pathogens.” The latter is a subset of pathogens that are highly transmissible, have the potential of an “uncontrollable spread, and are “highly virulent” and likely to cause “significant morbidity and mortality” in humans. This is a narrower category, or subset, of gain-of-function research. And that category is subject to funding restrictions.
Based on the record, these definitional differences are at the heart of the Fauci controversy. On May 11, 2021, Fauci told the Senate that his agency did not fund coronavirus gain-of-function research in China. His credibility came into sharp focus on July 20, 2021, during a contentious Senate hearing. Warning him that lying to Congress was a crime, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) again asked Fauci whether his agency funded viral gain-of-function research in China, and Fauci repeatedly denied it.
Following a bitter exchange and dissatisfied with Fauci’s responses, the next day, Sen. Paul requested Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate the truthfulness of Fauci’s sworn testimony. Garland ignored the request. On July 14, 2023, Sen. Paul renewed the request. Again, no response. Citing new circumstantial evidence, on Aug. 8, 2023, Sen. Paul then asked Matthew Graves, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate the matter. Again, no response.
Competing Definitions
Today, Fauci claims that he and Sen. Paul were talking past each other in using different definitions of gain-of-function research. For example, in his Jan. 8, 2024, sworn testimony to House investigators, Fauci summarized his position:
I said that the NIH subaward to the Wuhan Institute was not to do gain of function research. I was referring specifically to the operative definition of gain of function at the time, which is the P3CO framework. And the P3CO framework is a policy and a framework that came out of a policy guidance from 3 years of discussions led by OSTP (the Office of Science and Technology Policy), the National Academies of Sciences, and multiple scientific working groups that came out with a very precise definition. And the precise definition was any experiment that is reasonably anticipated to result in the enhancement of a – and by enhancement it is meant an increase in the transmissibility and or pathogenesis of a PPP. And what a PPP is, is a potential pandemic pathogen. So, if you enhance it, it’s referred to as an “ePPP.” …So, when I was asked the question, did the grant that was a subaward to Wuhan fund experiments that enhanced PPP, that was what I was referring to when I said we do not fund gain of function – gain of function according to the strict definition, which I refer to as the operative definition of gain of function. So, when someone asks me, as a scientist, are you doing gain of function, is that gain of function, I always apply it to the operative definition of gain of function.
Artificial Distinction
Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield considers this entire episode an exercise in semantic hair-splitting:
Under the P3CO Framework, the target category is a set of pathogens found in nature that are already dangerous to human beings, and enhancing them through gain-of-function experimentation, federally funded or not, would simply make them more dangerous. Under the Framework’s definition, there would not be a funding restriction, for example, on gain of function research on viruses found in nature that are not yet dangerous to humans. So, under the P3CO Framework, you could conceivably conduct a gain of function experiment on viruses not yet dangerous to humans, but deliberately designed to make those viruses dangerous to humans by enhancing their transmissibility and pathogenicity, and that research still would not be considered “gain of function” for the regulatory purpose of restricting federal funding.
As Redfield further explains, “From the standpoint of public health and safety, this distinction is artificial. If you take a virus in the wild, enhance its transmissibility and pathogenicity to humans, through gain-of-function experimentation, you are endangering humanity. Period. In short, by leaning on this regulatory distinction between the generic definition and the Framework, you are insisting on a technical distinction that does not make a real difference in terms of public safety.”
Congressional investigators had, and have, every reason to be suspicious. Note that as of Oct. 19, 2021, the NIH defined “gain of function” research as “a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers a new or enhanced activity to that agent.” That clear and concise definition disappeared from the NIH website “on or about” Oct. 20, 2021, following an inquiry on EcoHealth funding and coronavirus research in Wuhan from Rep. James Comer (R-KY), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
With the incoming Trump administration, congressional investigators should have unrestricted access to unredacted documents, reports, memos, and emails, as well as more unfiltered testimony than even the impressive House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has been able to extract from the uncooperative Biden administration. That flood of evidence will shed more light on the unresolved COVID-19 controversies.
A Disservice
In the meantime, President Biden should not offer any type of blanket pardon to Dr. Anthony Fauci for what he may or may not have done. A preemptive pardon, without indictment or conviction, presumes that Fauci may have done something wrong. His testimony has been consistent, even though it may have been “misleading,” as the House subcommittee report contends. By granting some sort of blanket pardon, Biden would only be further clouding his reputation.
The inept Biden administration’s repeated failures to do the right thing and respond fully and respectfully to legitimate congressional requests has created another problem that a preemptive pardon cannot resolve. If Fauci’s responses to Sen. Paul were truthful, Attorney General Merrick Garland could have quickly complied with Sen. Paul’s initial request, reexamined Fauci’s testimony, determined that a perjury charge was unwarranted, and dismissed the entire controversy. Having refused that simple expedient, Garland did a disservice to Dr. Fauci and the public. By reexamining the case, with full access to any documentary evidence, perhaps the new attorney general can put this matter to rest.
More work for Pam Bondi.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow in the Center for Health and Welfare Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Fauci warning Trump of a Virus problem.How did he know? Planned? Democrats to prepared for this and took advantage of it before an election. Coincidence?
More on the Illegals thanks to Biden and harris and links include the Shithole of New York
This X screen shot, captured from a video posted on Aug. 28, allegedly shows various armed gang members taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado. (@vicentearenastv / X Screen Shot)
Tren de Aragua gang members are rushing the Texas border and attacking Border Patrol agents with knives, tire irons and broken bottles before Trump takes office next month.
According to The New York Post, the Venezuelan gang members illegally entered the US through El Paso last week and attacked border patrol agents who tried to stop them.
An informant told law enforcement that the gangbangers are planning on breaking into the US every night at 3 am.
Knife-wielding Tren de Aragua gang members are mobbing border crossings at El Paso, Texas, in an attempt to break into the US — and have said they will attack border guards who try to stop them, according to a shocking Texas law enforcement memo leaked to The Post.
Last week, 20 of the Venezuelan gangbangers — armed with blades, tire irons and broken liquor bottles — tried to force their way into the US at a border gate, the missive from the Texas Department of Public Safety read.
Another attempt to break through is expected on New Year’s Day, the memo warned.
The brutal prison gang is becoming increasingly desperate to salt more members into the US before President-elect Donald Trump takes over, said Victor Avila, a retired agent for Homeland Security Investigations.
Texas authorities were alerted to the gangbangers’ attempts to force their way into the US by an anonymous informant, who said the violent border break-ins by the gang “would continue every night” around 3 a.m.
The tipster said the gang intends to “cause harm” to the Texas National Guard soldiers who are stationed there — “especially when they are left alone with no agents” to help them.
