GOP lawmakers are urging the FBI to investigate former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney for "potential criminal witness tampering" during a congressional investigation, Fox News reported. Cheney was part of the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, which was formed in 2021 to investigate the breach at the Capitol.
The committee was part of Democrats' attempt to turn the unrest into an excuse to keep President-elect Donald Trump out of the White House. During the politically-motivated investigation, Cheney may not have been acting above board.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk is determined to hold her accountable. "Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation," said a report from the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight chair.
"Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge," the report added. Hutchinson was the committee's "star witness."
According to the report, Cheney had "direct intervention" with Hutchinson, including her choice to replace legal representation with "Committee-friendly attorneys to represent her." This was after Hutchinson, an aide to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, had already testified.
She told the committee that Trump was "irate" and demanded to join the protesters at the Capitol after delivering his speech near the White House. Hutchinson was responsible for spinning the most insane narrative of all about Trump's behavior that day.
According to Hutchinson, Trump wrestled with the Secret Service and attempted to grab the steering wheel of the SUV he was riding in so he could go to the Capitol. This purportedly happened after they insisted on returning Trump to the White House.
Of course, this insane account was refuted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Anthony Ornato. Still, that wouldn't be the last time the committee would hear from Hutchinson.
Once Hutchinson switched legal representation, she "sat for her fourth transcribed interview with the Select Committee under unusual circumstances," the report said. Hutchison was interviewed in Cheney's office with just her new attorney, Cheney, and a Select Committee attorney rather than the "approximately a dozen people" in a conference room as other witnesses were.
Hutchinson's special treatment and elevation to become a key witness to the exclusion of others shaped the investigation. Laudermilk's report noted that "it is unlikely the Select Committee could make its assertions about President Trump’s mood, attitude, and alleged culpability in the events of January 6" without Hutchinson's remarks.
"Hutchinson is mentioned by name in the Select Committee’s Final Report no fewer than 185 times. Inexplicably, the Select Committee discredited the multitude of legitimate witnesses who, under oath, repeatedly refuted Hutchinson’s testimony," the House GOP went on.
"These legitimate witnesses include senior government officials and federal agents." The report also noted that, as Trump asserted, the committee didn't archive "as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts.
"Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with [Rep. Bennie] Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps. They deleted and destroyed all evidence," Trump said in an interview. "And Cheney was behind it."
The investigation began in bad faith and bore bad fruits. The voters of Wyoming rightly threw Cheney out of office already, and this report only makes her look that much worse.
Podcaster Alex Marlow said President-elect Donald Trump is right to sue pollster Ann Selzer over skewed eleventh-hour poll in Iowa, Breitbart reported. Marlow, the publication's editor-in-chief, made this recommendation on Monday.
During the final days of the 2024 presidential election, the seasoned pollster released results suggesting Vice President Kamala Harris was going to win the state by "three or four points," Marlow recounted. Instead, Trump won the state "by over 13%," which is a wide swing.
"[Trump’s] announced he wants a lawsuit against Ann Selzer for rigging her Iowa poll to influence the election; of course, he should do this. It absolutely was election interference. This was an insurrection," Marlow said.
Marlow believes there is more to the story than Selzer simply getting it wrong by being so radically wrong. "She's a very good pollster. How could she miss by that much?" Marlow asked.
"She couldn't. It had to have been intentional. Or, at least, it was close enough, was suspicious enough, where someone's got to investigate it to learn for sure," Marlow claimed.
"So Trump needs to be highly aggressive for people try to interfere with our democracy. Our democracy is under attack from Anne Seltzer. She attacked our democracy with that bogus poll, and we need to understand how things got the way it got," he went on.
"Maybe the air will get cleared. But our democracy is a precious thing, and we cannot trust it to the Ann Selzers, who are willing to miss polls by 16 or 17% to cause some sort of a frenzy of momentum for Kamala Harris," Marlow added.
The podcast host repeatedly said that this was "an insurrection," using the language the left has used against Trump for nearly four years. Now, it seems the tables have turned as Trump proceeds with his legal action.
On Monday night, Trump's legal team filed a lawsuit against Selzer and the Des Moines Register alleging "brazen election interference," Fox News reported. The lawsuit falls under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act and related provisions.
The poll was published on Nov. 2, 2024, in the final days of the campaign. "Contrary to reality and defying credulity, defendants’ Harris Poll was published three days before Election Day and purported to show Harris leading President Trump in Iowa by three points; President Trump ultimately won Iowa by over thirteen points," the filing states.
The poll showed a seven-point swing in Harris' favor over Selzer's September poll. Attorneys for Trump said that the results for Harris in "deep-red Iowa were not reality, it was election-interfering fiction."
A police officer has just learned his fate after a recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court.
According to KERA news, a small Texas city in Leon County was justified in firing a police officer who crashed during a high-speed chase while a civilian was in the car.
However, just because the Supreme Court ruled that the officer could be fired, that doesn't mean this case is over. Now, the question is, did the city of Buffalo, Texas, go about the disciplinary process incorrectly?
Under the Texas Local Government Code, the Buffalo City Council has the authority to oversee the details of former police officer Gregory Moliere's employment, including the decision to fire him. Justices on Texas' Supreme Court decided that the Buffalo City Council did NOT act beyond the city's authority.
"Moliere cannot dispute that he had been subjected to discipline for conduct that could have exposed the municipality to substantial liability; he did not contest it," the court wrote. "The City Council had the authority to respond as it did."
Moliere was a police officer in Buffalo, Texas, which is an hour east of Waco, back in 2020. During that time, he engaged in a high-speed chase while a civilian was riding along with him.
Texas Supreme Court records did not indicate why a civilian was in the vehicle, but they did decide that the decision to engage in a pursuit at that time directly violated department policies.
The chase reportedly ended in a crash that damaged the police car Moliere had been driving, although neither Moliere nor the civilian were injured.
Police Chief Lloyd Lance Pavelka initially only gave Moliere a written reprimand for starting a high-speed chase over a minor infraction. Moliere acknowledged the letter and did not appeal, according to court records. Police Chief Pavelka stated in an affidavit he had no intention of firing more.
However, a few weeks later, the Buffalo City Council met, reviewed the situation, and voted to fire Moliere. Police Chief Pavelka said that the Buffalo City Council had never done that during his tenure before that day.
Moliere's case is of special interest right now because high-speed chases have been under scrutiny in Texas, especially after the deaths of two people in less than one month's span in Fort Worth last year during police chases. Cities in Texas are desperate to clean up their image after the fatalities.
Moliere felt like an example was being made out of him, so he sued the city and Mayor Jerrod Jones in 2021, arguing council members didn't have the authority to fire him. Texas' Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the firing was legal, but Moliere is now fighting on a different issue:
KERA states that "a separate claim — whether the city council violated Moliere’s due process rights by not correctly following the police department’s disciplinary procedures and the rules governing complaints against police officers under state law."
From day one of his presidency, Joe Biden did everything possible to reverse course from his predecessor's immigration policies, and in the last days of his term, the commander in chief is still working to appease the left flank of his party on the issue.
It was reported last week that the administration was taking steps to haul wall materials away from America's southern border so they could be sold at government auction, activity that was captured on video to show Biden's determination to thwart President-elect Donald Trump's plans for stronger immigration enforcement, as Breitbart reports.
As the Daily Wire explained, the Biden administration had commenced its plan to undermine the potential resumption of border wall construction by removing and subsequently selling unused or incomplete components of the border wall championed by Trump, supplies that were abandoned once the current president took power in early 2021.
Videos obtained by the outlet from a Border Patrol agent reveal portions of wall being taken away on trucks, with the source guessing that upwards of half a mile was being shifted away from the border on a daily basis.
The agent, who requested anonymity, said, “They are taking it from three stations: Nogales, Tucson, and Three Points. The goal is to move all of it off the border before Christmas.”
The insider continued, “They just started taking all the wall that was not used which is still totally good and usable, and they started taking it northbound. They're pulling it all off the border.”
As the Daily Caller noted, if substantial amounts of materials brought to the area during Trump's initial term in office are auctioned off now, progress on the wall's resumption will likely be delayed to a considerable degree.
In response to the news that the Biden administration was attempting to remove border wall materials ahead of the presidential transitions, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick appeared on Fox News with a creative suggestion.
“Message to the White House right now, I will bid on all of that wall, and we will buy it in Texas, and we will give it to Donald Trump,” Patrick said.
To that end, Patrick later noted that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had ordered the Texas Facilities Commission to explore the possibility of buying abandoned wall materials.
Patrick ultimately explained, “The Texas Facilities Commission told us today that the material for sale was mostly junk, with most panels covered in concrete and rust. There were a few panels that might be usable but not worth the cost of shipping to Texas from Arizona.”
It was then that Patrick revealed the real reason behind Biden's push to move and action off old wall materials.
“In short, this was a Biden ruse to gain favor with the radical left open border crowd, showing Biden was fighting President Trump to the bitter end,” Patrick observed.
He added, “Rest assured, if they sell any panels that make economic sense, we will buy them and give them to President Trump when he takes office,” and given Trump's decisive victory on Nov. 5, that is a move millions of Americans would support.
A Georgia judge has rejected Kenneth Chesebro's request to withdraw his guilty plea in his case involving President-elect Donald Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, The Hill reported. Chesbro was formerly a lawyer for Trump and was part of a sweeping case against Trump and 17 others in his orbit.
Last year, Chesebro and his legal representative reached a plea deal just before becoming the first of the group to go on trial. He pleaded guilty to a single charge he was facing as Trump was shocked by the brazenness of the Georgia prosecution.
However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee retooled the indictment and removed several charges. One of those was the single charge the former Trump attorney had already accepted the deal for.
Despite this fact, McAfee denied Chesebro's request on the basis that it was unworkable "in more ways than one," the judge claimed. "The Defendant has already submitted a plea in response to this indictment — one of guilt," he wrote.
McAfee took exception to many problems with Chesebro's request. For starters, Chesebro never successfully argued against the charge, and now the request to dismiss it is too late in the process.
His attorney countered by claiming it could be considered a "motion in arrest of judgment," which is a challenge to the validity of the charge. McAfee struck that down as well, citing Chesebro's sentencing under the First Offender Act.
The Georgia statute "defers further proceedings while the charge remains pending for the duration of the sentence," but there never was a judgment in the case. McAfee noted that this nullified Chesebro's request.
"No final judgment occurs. Therefore, there can be no motion in arrest of judgment here," McAfee said.
Chesebro's attorney, Manny Arora, acknowledged the judge's decision was reasonable in light of the facts of the situation.The only other route right now will be to file a habeas corpus petition to further examine the legality of the overall case.
While Chesebro might not get a reprieve from his guilty plea, the entire case has been coming apart at the seams. According to NBC News, Trump's attorneys now argue that the case against him should be thrown out following the election.
Trump is the incoming president and will be immune from all prosecution once he takes the White House, the defense argues. However, that case had problems even before Trump's electoral victory.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was prosecuting the case, had a considerable conflict of interest. According to Fox News, she has also been stonewalling Judicial Watch's subpoena for communications between her office and special counsel Jack Smith, who was in charge of Trump's federal investigation.
"Fani Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit," Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President, said.
As Trump heads to the White House, it becomes increasingly clear that these efforts to stop him were all for nothing. Unfortunately, Chesebro got caught up in Georgia's version and can't seem to find a way out just yet.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has signaled a willingness to work with President-elect Donald Trump, Fox News reported. The Michigan Democrat said she hopes to "find some common ground" with Trump in a stunning turnaround.
Whitmer made these remarks while speaking with CNN during a Democratic governors' meeting in Los Angeles this week. "People in Michigan, like a majority of Americans, voted for Donald Trump, and my oath is to Michigan," Whitmer said.
"Obviously, I’ve got experience in this type of environment that will help inform how I continue to fight for Michigan. But I know Donald Trump cares about Michigan," Whitmer added.
"And I’m hoping that because of that, we’ll be able to find some common ground in some important ways," the Democratic governor concluded. After losing the state in 2020, Trump won again this time around.
Trump and Whitmer famously bumped heads during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. At one point, Trump referred to her as "that woman from Michigan," which became a rallying cry for the radical leftist.
As recently as August of this year, Whitmer brought it up while stumping for Vice President Kamala Harris, CBS News reported. She called Trump "That man for Mar-a-Lago" in her remarks during the Democratic National Convention.
"Being a woman from Michigan is a badge of honor," Whitmer had told the crowd. She also denigrated Trump for his wealthy lifestyle, suggesting it somehow made him out of touch and unable to help the people in her state.
"You think he understands that when your car breaks down, you can't get to work? No!" Whitmer claimed.
"His first word was probably 'chauffeur.' You think he's ever had to take items out of the cart before checking out?" Whitmer slammed Trump. "Hell, you think he's even been to a grocery store? That's what the chauffeur is for."
Now, Whitmer and others are attempting to build goodwill with Trump by stroking his ego. They believe doing so will keep Trump from attacking them, which is a victory in its own way for the Republican president, even if they can't see it.
New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul schmoozed Trump as a native of the Empire State. She told Trump he is a "president who is a New Yorker, has been a New Yorker, would understand how important it is for the success of our state" during a phone conversation.
However, Hochul hasn't completely abandoned her leftist hatred for Trump. "It would be irresponsible of me not to anticipate all scenarios of what could happen, especially listening to what the president said, what his advisers have said, what his appointees have said, what his candidates for various positions have said, and what Project 2025 says," the New York governor claimed.
"I have to be keenly aware of all those potential challenges and have a strategy to respond to each if they actually occur. So it’s playing some defense right now, getting the game plan together, and being willing to work," Hochul said.
Trump is retaking the White House with a mandate from the people. Everyone is getting in line behind him now, from America's adversaries to the Democratic governors who recognize that Trump is not to be discounted or trifled with.
Sens. Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Peter Welch (D-VT) have proposed adding term limits for Supreme Court justices, Fox News reported. The change would require a constitutional amendment as justices are currently appointed for life.
Like everything else in politics, the Supreme Court has become more partisan in recent years. Several wins by the conservative majority have prompted Democrats to call for changes.
Manchin was a longtime Democrat who recently became an independent after becoming fed up with his party. The West Virginia lawmaker is also in the final days of his term, as he did not seek reelection.
Perhaps this finality compelled him to propose an amendment that would shake up the Supreme Court. In a news release, Manchin and Welch explained how their term limits would work.
The court currently consists of nine justices appointed for life based on the language stating they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" in the Constitution. The lawmakers propose a change that would come over time.
"The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire. During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench," the news release explained.
"Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court," the news release added.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 implemented the current nine-justice panel, but the Constitution does not stipulate any number. Manchin and Welch seek to change that, effectively stopping any efforts to pack the court with additional justices to tip the balance of power.
"Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system," the release notes.
Manchin believes the current system "has eroded public confidence" in the judicial branch. "I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court," the news release quoted Manchin.
"The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land." Manchin said it would mean a new appointment every two years "with the advice and consent of the United States Senate" to confirm.
"I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system," Manchin added. Welch similarly cited the need to "restore Americans' faith in our judicial system" in his reasoning.
"Taking action to restore public trust in our nation's most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans," Welch claimed.
The left only seems eager to tinker with the Supreme Court now that conservatives have a six to three majority on the court. America's founders believed term limits would lead to more political jockeying, not less, and their wisdom in lifetime appointments seems more prescient than ever.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tripped and fell during the weekly Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Fox News reported. The 82-year-old GOP Senate leader suffered a sprained wrist and a cut to the face.
The upper chamber was in turmoil as news broke that a wheelchair was seen being brought to McConnell's office around 1 p.m. Tuesday. Not long after that, a fire and rescue squad from Washington, D.C., was seen departing from his suite.
"Leader McConnell tripped following lunch. He sustained a minor cut to the face and sprained his wrist," a spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
"He has been cleared to resume his schedule," the spokesperson added. McConnell had missed Tuesday's presser due to the incident.
According to CNN, McConnell had several falls last year. In February 2023, McConnell lost his footing in Finland just after meeting with the Finnish president and the rest of the U.S. delegation.
A colleague blamed the ice for McConnell's fall as it was a very snowy day. However, just days later, McConnell fell again in Washington, D.C., and landed in the hospital with a concussion and broken ribs.
In July 2023, McConnell fell again while deplaning at Reagan National Airport. He did not sustain any injuries that time, but it added fuel to the fire of growing concerns over his age and health.
McConnell earned the distinction of being the longest-serving Senate party leader last year and is going on 18 years in that position. He said he won't seek the leadership position again, and his term in the Senate expires in 2026.
While it's true that McConnell has a weakened leg due to childhood polio, he has a history of falls dating back to at least 2019, when he fractured his shoulder at home. There are also more troubling signs for the elderly statesman who has yet to retire.
The political world was abuzz after McConnell had a freezing incident in August 2023, NBC News reported. It was the second time in as many months that the Kentucky Republican quit speaking and blankly stared ahead in the middle of a sentence.
The later incident came as McConnell answered a question about whether he would run for office again. An aide came up to him in an attempt to get McConnell to snap out of whatever it was that he was suffering.
"Did you hear the question, senator?" she asked McConnell. He answered a different question before she repeated the latest inquiry, and McConnell left shortly thereafter.
Mitch McConnell freezes again during a press conference.
— Pop Base (@PopBase) August 30, 2023
McConnell is an elderly man with obvious health problems on display for all to see. It's sad on a personal level, but it's outrageous on a political level that he has not retired and allowed someone younger and in better health to take over.
Former first lady Melania Trump explained in her memoir Melania that she was heartbroken after an institution she banked with for a long time suddenly refused to do business with her family, Florida's Voice News reported. Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis shared that this practice is about to be examined.
So-called "debanking," where a bank refuses services to customers on ideological grounds, is becoming a common practice. These institutions are squeezing out clients based on religion, gun ownership, and other views.
The Trump family was famously subject to this, as Melania Trump noted. "I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my longtime bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one," the former and soon-to-be first lady said.
Now that President-elect Donald Trump is returning to the White House next year, many anticipate renewed scrutiny. Indeed, Patronis vowed to "open up the hood" on these banks.
In a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday, Patronis signaled a possible investigation into this brazen discrimination. "I cannot wait to open up the hood on how these federal agencies worked with lending institutions to de-bank Americans," Patronis wrote.
"The unelected bureaucrats who targeted gun owners, Christians, and Trump supporters are going to have a day of reckoning," he added. The problem for the Trump family began shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The Hill reported weeks after the event that several financial institutions cut ties with Donald Trump and his businesses. Florida's Banks United, where Donald Trump held anywhere between $5.1 million and $25.2 million in money market accounts, declined his business.
"We no longer have any depository relationship with him," the institution flatly reported without giving a reason. Professional Bank, another Sunshine State institution, followed suit.
In New York, Signature Bank and Deutsche Bank decided to no longer do business with Donald Trump. The former went so far as to also call on him to resign his then-presidency while the latter was looking to dump $300 million in his loans.
This kind of treatment is not just a problem for the Trup family. It has been cropping up across the financial services industry, including Bank of America, which has garnered a reputation for such actions.
In April, 15 state financial officers from 13 states sent a letter to CEO Brian Moynihan about the company's selective cancellation of accounts based on ideology, Fox News reported. Some of those targeted included Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Christian anti-trafficking organization, and Timothy Two Project International, which trains Christian pastors.
"Americans should never have to worry that their personal financial decisions will be weaponized against them. This practice has become all too common, and banks must urgently course correct to uphold their fiduciary duty and safeguard the constitutional freedoms of Americans," Kentucky State Auditor Allison Ball, one of the signors, said in a statement.
The letter claimed that "systemic drivers of religious and political bias may be at work within the company as a whole." Bank of America has pushed back on that claim, but it is just one of several institutions that seem to be quietly doing the same thing.
It's unconscionable for these banks to deny services based on religion or political viewpoint. It seems Patronis and others are about to shed some light on these shady practices, and it's about time.
President-elect Donald Trump told "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker that he plans to start pardoning those convicted of offenses on January 6, 2021 on his first day in office.
Host Kristen Welker said, “I asked the President-elect if he plans to follow through on his campaign promise to pardon those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, including the more than 900 people who pleaded guilty to a crime.”
Trump said, “I’m going to look at everything. We’ll look at individual cases. But I’m going to be acting very quickly.”
Welker said, “Within your first 100 days, first day?”
Trump said, “First day.”
According to the Justice Department, more than 1,488 defendants in all 50 states and D.C. have been charged with crimes related to the Capitol breach. 894 defendants have pled guilty, while another 186 who contested the charges have been found guilty.
Of those, 562 were sentenced to serve time in jail for their crimes, while the rest received probation or other sentences that didn't involved jail time.
But all those who pled guilty or were convicted will have a criminal record, which can be limiting when searching for jobs, housing, and other necessities of life.
They may also have their voting rights taken away.
Trump can right these wrongs if he pardons these individuals, many of which were charged with much more serious crimes than they needed to be.
Most of those in the Capitol that day were doing nothing more than simply trespassing, but were made out to be violent or dangerous by the media and Democrats.
Using terms like "insurrectionists" and even "rioters" has turned the whole thing into some sort of attempted coup, which it definitely was not. For most, it was more like a temper tantrum or a curiosity excursion than any kind of concerted attempt to stop electoral count voting or overtake the government.
Trump also reacted to the prison many of them were put in, which reportedly had or has terrible conditions.
"These people have been there. How long has it been? Three or four years, OK? By the way, they’ve been in there for years, and they’re in a filthy, disgusting place that shouldn’t even be allowed to be open," he told Welker.