The January 6 committee refers Trump for criminal prosecution

Thanks to Hunter Biden’s verified hard drive, we have irrefutable proof that Joe Biden was part of myriad pay-for-play schemes. Add that to the endless footage showing Joe pawing children and Tara Reade’s contemporaneously corroborated claim that Biden sexually assaulted her, and the result is a corrupt, even criminal man. Nevertheless, the Democrats just recommended that the DOJ file criminal charges against Donald Trump. They will stop at nothing to destroy the man who threatens their power.

Since Nancy Pelosi convened the hyper-partisan January 6 Committee, it’s been apparent that the Committee’s purpose wasn’t to determine what happened on January 6. Instead, it existed to generate criminal charges against Donald Trump. To that end, Pelosi refused to allow any Republicans on the committee who might have provided a counterbalance to the Democrats’ fervent Trump hatred. That alone rendered the committee invalid.

Things got worse when Pelosi added to the committee two Republicans who hated Trump even more than the Democrats did: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. The committee then proceeded to engage in procedures that would have made Stalin proud: They conducted proceedings in secret, called only witnesses sympathetic to their position, and refused to give Trump (the obvious target of the proceedings) or those in the D.C. gulag any opportunity to introduce witnesses or question the committee’s witnesses. It was as profoundly anti-American a show trial as anyone can imagine.

Image: January 6th committee. YouTube screen grab.

That’s why it was predictable that the committee would recommend to Merrick Garland, a man so partisan even Eric Holder looks temperate, that Trump should be criminally charged for events on January 6:

The committee, assembled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), concluded its inquiry with a vote recommending Trump be charged with obstructing an official proceeding, conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to make false statements to the federal government, and inciting an insurrection.

The charges are nonsense, of course. The undisputed facts show that Trump cried foul after a highly questionable election that relied heavily on universal mail-in ballots, illegally accepted late-arriving ballots, and suspiciously delayed vote counting, to name just a few things. To that end, he and his supporters attempted to have hearings on the myriad election improprieties, only to find that no court would allow the evidence to air, which is itself disgraceful.

When all that failed, Trump called for a rally, which is a pure First Amendment concept.

At all times, Trump was following in the footsteps of Democrat election deniers. In 2000, Democrats objected to George Bush’s election. In 2016, they reached an almost impossible level of hysteria with Trump’s election—something that resulted, as always, in the Democrat party’s foot soldiers taking to the streets. By 2020, Democrats were unmoved when protesters nearly breached the White House, wounding 60 Secret Service agents in the process, during the George Floyd wars. It was the biggest assault on the White House since the War of 1812 when the British burned it down.

After Trump won, the Democrats openly argued that the Constitution is silent about election fraud, leaving it to the parties to make it up as they go along:

So, is there a process for dealing with a finding that in essence invalidates an election?

When it comes to presidential elections, the answer is: not really. The laws and processes around national elections have grown up in a piecemeal fashion over time, with state and local laws governing the administration of presidential elections. And the Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. As a result, there aren’t clear procedures for how to handle questions of legitimacy after the fact — especially when those questions involve the presidency.

But of course, because Democrat values are never fixed but always situational, what’s sauce for the goose is never sauce for the gander. To them, Democrat election denial is good; Republican election denial is bad.

A few more things about events at the Capitol on January 6, when everyone knew large numbers of people would assemble in D.C.: The Pentagon refused Trump’s request for an increased National Guard presence. Apparently, it was saving the Guard to militarize the city for Joe Biden’s inauguration (plus the subsequent five months).

Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell both explicitly refused to beef up Capitol security. In addition to Capitol police opening the doors to people, there’s also compelling video evidence that unidentified, obviously professional operatives were in place to entice entirely innocent people into entering “The People’s House.”

Even though the charges are completely bogus, the big question is whether Merrick Garland will act on them. We know he wants to. Indeed, we know that the entire Democrat establishment, from Biden on down, is desperate to see Trump face criminal charges. However, if they think that will cause his supporters to turn away from him, they are making a gigantic error. Instead, putting Trump in the dock will only deepen the rifts dividing this country—and as Lincoln so poignantly said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

If you experience technical problems, please write to