(FreedomWire.org) – Last week, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland surprised the nation by announcing that he had appointed a special counsel to oversee two DOJ-led criminal investigations concerning former President Donald Trump, including the Mar-a-Lago classified documents debacle and the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion.

“Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election, and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel,” Garland said in a statement, naming Jack Smith as the special counsel who will oversee the investigations.

While Smith is generally known as an experienced, neutral prosecutor who’s worked several high-profile cases against Democrats and Republicans, the same might not be true for his wife, a filmmaker who seemingly has clear partisan ties.

According to the New York Post, Smith’s wife, Katy Chevigny, has “producer” credits for a 2020 Netflix documentary titled “Becoming.” The subject of the documentary is former first lady Michelle Obama.

Further complicating matters, especially in the court of public opinion, is the revelation that Chevigny donated $2,000 to President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign that same year.

News of Chevigny’s political donation to the Biden campaign and her work on the Michelle Obama film stirred intense debate on social media as to whether it creates a conflict of interest for her husband in his investigation into Trump, as Trump stands a strong chance at becoming Biden’s political opponent in 2024.

Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde slammed the Justice Department on Monday.

“You just can’t make this stuff up. Katy Chevigny, wife of Jack Smith—the special counsel appointed by DOJ to go after President Trump, donated to Joe Biden’s campaign and produced Michelle Obama’s documentary. America cannot stand with a corrupt, two-tiered justice system,” Clyde tweeted.

Others echoed the same sentiment, including Turning Point USA founder and president Charlie Kirk.

“Of course the wife of Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland to investigate President Trump, was one of the producers of the Michelle Obama documentary. But don’t worry guys, the DOJ has not been weaponized against conservatives. Everything is fine!” Kirk tweeted Monday.

According to The Washington Post, Smith will begin his investigation remotely from the Netherlands after recovering from a recent bicycle accident.

CNN reported Monday that Smith’s investigation has officially launched after he took his oath of office, presumably remotely, to make it official. Both AG Garland and Smith have insisted that the special counsel addition to the investigations will not slow them down.

So far, there isn’t any evidence to suggest that Smith will recuse himself due to his wife’s political leanings.

(FreedomWire.org) – Bill O’Reilly predicted the Biden Justice Department’s appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Donald Trump will backfire on the Democrats.

O’Reilly said, “In order for Jack Smith to investigate what Trump did or did not do on Jan. 6, he has to get into the FBI and what the FBI did or did not do. He has to. He can’t bury it.”

Bill said the New York Times reported that Noting that “there were at least eight FBI agents embedded in the most virulent protesters that day. They were there. The FBI was there. Well, what the deuce were they doing?”

That issue came up in the House recently during a committee hearing when FBI Director Christopher Wray was questioned.

“Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6 protests on January 6, 2021?” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) asked Wray.

Wray said: “As I’m sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when and where we do and do not use confidential human sources…

“But to the extent there is the suggestion that the FBI’s confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated Jan 6th, that’s categorically false.”

Higgins said, “Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6, prior to the doors being opened?”

“Again, I have to be very careful,” Wray said.

“It should be a no!” Higgins said. 

“Can you not tell the American people, ‘No, we did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol on January 6.’?”

“You should not read anything into my decision not to share information on confidential human sources,” Wray said.

“The question,” O’Reilly said, “was simple: 

Did any FBI agents dress up like Trump supporters and go into that Capitol? 

“And Wray would not answer the question. Now, that should raise flags everywhere.

“I don’t think Garland even considered that when he was mocking up the special counsel. 

“I don’t think he even considered it.

“But if it’s proven to be true, and I’m not a conspiracy guy, I don’t believe the FBI instigated anything — but if the FBI knew what was gonna happen and didn’t report it to the White House and to the Justice Department, all hell’s gonna break loose in this country.”

(FreedomWire.org) – Former Vice President Mike Pence on Sunday blamed “bad advice from lawyers” after former President Donald Trump incited an attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

During an interview on Meet the Press, Pence was asked if Trump had criminal liability for inciting the attack. “Do you think that Trump committed a criminal act in fomenting the insurrection?” host Chuck Todd asked. “Do you think a crime was committed?”

“Well, I don’t know if it is criminal to listen to bad advice from lawyers,” Pence answered. “Truth is, what the president was repeating was what he was hearing from that gaggle of attorneys around him. And you know, presidents, just like all of us that have served in public life, you have to rely on your team.”

“I hope we can move beyond this,” he continued. “This is really a time when our country ought to be healing.”

Pence went on to attack the Department of Justice for “advancing political agendas.”

“And then this summer when we see the Justice Department execute a search warrant against the personal residence of a former president,” he complained. “I think the American people join me in hoping we can move past this contention.”

Todd asked if Trump is above the law, which Pence responded, “no one is above the law,” “But I would hope the Justice Department would give careful consideration before they take any additional steps in this matter.”

Just last week, Pence talked about his friendship with Trump, and all that they accomplished while in office together.

(FreedomWire.org) – Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD) joined CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday to discuss the midterm elections with host Margaret Brennan, and suggested that some far-right House lawmakers could vote for former President Trump to be the next Speaker as an indication that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) may not have the votes to be the next leader.

Raskin told CBS’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan some far-right lawmakers have “repeatedly” discussed voting for Trump.

“It’s a real problem for Kevin McCarthy now, because there are certain pro-Trumpists within his House caucus who refuse to accept that he’s really with Trump and they want to get rid of McCarthy,” Raskin said.

“One potential candidate who’s name has been floated is Donald Trump himself because the Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House,” Raskin said.

Raskin noted that the Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of Congress.

Brennan was skeptical.

“That’s not a real option, though,” she told Raskin.

But the Maryland congressman claimed the option is very much on the table.

“They talk about it repeatedly,” Raskin said. “And if Trump decided he wanted to do it, it would pose a profound problem for their party because they refuse to do the right thing.”

The Constitution does not require the Speaker of the House to be an incumbent member and representatives have used this rule to vote for candidates, often in protest, from outside of the House. In 2019, former Rep. Anthony Brindisi voted for Joe Biden — then the former vice president — as Speaker.

(FreedomWire.org) –  New York Times columnist David Brooks accused AOC of being dangerous to the Democratic Party because of her ‘performative populism.’ 

Ocasio-Cortez laid into Brooks on Twitter after he offered a pejorative description of her progressive brainchild, the Green New Deal, suggesting that her brand of left-wing populism is on the outs, along with former President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.

She slammed him for knocking the legislation and for portraying her as a political figure comparable to Trump. She suggested Brooks had no idea what her proposed legislation was at all.

Brooks’ Thursday column, titled, “The Fever Is Breaking,” was a reflection on the latest shift in political dynamics as evidenced by recent midterm turnout. In it, Brooks observed that “performative populism has begun to ebb.”

He wrote, “The election of 2022 marked the moment when America began to put performative populism behind us. Though the results are partial, and Trump acolytes could still help Republicans control Congress, this election we saw the emergence of an anti-Trump majority.”

Brooks cited one national exit poll, which claimed, “nearly 60 percent of voters said they had an unfavorable view of Trump.” Brooks argued that this was a snapshot revealing that people are moving on from aggressive anti-establishment politics. 

However, Trump wasn’t the only one who represents “performative populism” in Brooks’ assessment. AOC does as well. He wrote, “The left had its own smaller version of performative populism. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became a major political figure thanks to her important contributions to Instagram.”

Dismissive of her legislative work, Brooks added, “The Green New Deal was not a legislative package but a cotton candy media concoction.”

He also slammed other far-left ideas embraced by her and other Democrats, writing, “Slogans like ‘Abolish ICE’ and ‘Defund the police’ were not practical policies, just cool catchphrases to put on posters.”

The New York congresswoman appeared insulted at this depiction of her politics. Slamming Brooks on Twitter, Saturday, she wrote, “Perhaps David Brooks should actually read the legislation he’s insulting before referring to it as ‘cotton candy.’”

Defending the Green New Deal, she added, “The Green New Deal was thoughtfully constricted alongside a coalition of scientists, academics, frontline communities, & more.” She then balked at the notion that she’s as far left as Trump is far right, declaring, “He wants me to be Trump, but I’m not.”

In October 2020, Brooks cited Vice President Kamala Harris’ support of the Green New Deal as being one of the many reasons that she was an electable candidate for most Americans. 

(FreedomWire.org) – With the ruling D.C. establishment having successfully beaten back the midterm election challenges to their unchecked power by congressional candidates who were supported by former President Donald J. Trump, the job now turns to snuffing out the MAGA movement and, in the eyes of many, two former leaders with much in common will be spearheading the effort.

Two of Trump’s fellow White House alumni Barack Obama and George W. Bush will be will holding back-to-back “democracy” conferences following the expected announcement that he will be officially declaring a 2024 presidential run, something that the corrupt uniparty appears to be determined to prevent at all costs.

According to a report from Axios, the two conferences will highlight “rising threats from authoritarianism and disinformation — and how to combat them globally and at home,” which will inevitably lead to increased demands for censoring of dissenting voices on social media and the further demonization of the “MAGA Republicans” who were effectively designated as enemies of the state by President Joe Biden in his disgraceful “Soul of a Nation” speech.

On Wednesday, the George W. Bush Institute will hold “The Struggle for Freedom” event in Dallas to be highlighted with an appearance by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who will converse with Bush.

The next day, the Obama Foundation will hold its “Democracy Forum” in New York City where the glowing figure at the center of the American liberal universe will “speak on the state of democracy and participate in a conversation with emerging leaders from around the world,” according to Axios.

“At a time when democracy is under threat around the world, the promise and potential of the next generation of leaders is more important than ever. The Forum will bring attention to the biggest challenges democratic institutions face today and showcase democracy in action around the world. We will bring together hundreds of emerging leaders from across Obama Foundation programs, leading experts, and practitioners who are reimagining our institutions and protecting democratic values,” the Obama Foundation’s website bills the event.

The contrast of differing visions of “freedom” and “democracy” couldn’t be more clear than the two celebrated former presidents aligned against Trump, a man who unlike his predecessors and successor Joe Biden, did not start any new foreign wars, instead he chose to use his influence to advocate for peace, not a big moneymaker for the special interests that rule the roost inside of the Beltway.

Bush’s eight-year tenure was marked by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turning both countries into sinkholes of carnage where obscene amounts of American blood and treasure to promote “democracy” were squandered.

The nation’s 43rd president, using the terrorist attacks of September 1, 2001 as a pretense also implemented the vast domestic surveillance apparatus that would later be abused by Obama for political means, including as Trump has contended, spying on his campaign and transition teams before and after his election in 2016.

In addition to turning the system intended to protect the American populace against those who hate us for our way of life upon law-abiding citizens as documented by the evidence of domestic surveillance programs leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, Obama took particular relish in droning innocent civilians, further contributing to animosity against Americans.

Both men are also bonded by their hatred of Trump, with it being intensely personal for Bush after Trump emasculated his younger brother Jeb during the 2016 primaries, single-handedly sparing the nation from a third Bush presidency.

According to Axios, “Bush and Obama — a Republican and a Democrat respectively — didn’t coordinate their timing, organizers say. But their events — Bush’s is Nov. 16 in Dallas and Obama’s is Nov. 17 in New York — are happening the week after the U.S. midterm elections.”

People aren’t buying that it wasn’t planned, and also if Obama and Bush are the spokesmen for misinformation.

(FreedomWire.org) – As the race to control the House of Representatives comes down to a few seats, the Dem Party needs to run the table to keep control. No one expects them to, so some Dems Reps have started floating an alternative strategy.

The final House margin may be only 1 or 2 votes, and Kevin McCarthy is already feeling pressure from inside the GOP, so the Dems are telling McCarthy to strike a deal with them to secure his Speakership.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) first floated the idea on social media: “Just cut a deal with the Dems Kevin. Whatever you get from Freedom Caucus will not be worth it. The odds will be good but the goods will be odd.”

The Washington Examiner spoke to other Dem Reps about crossing the aisle and working with Kevin or someone else in the GOP to make them Speaker.

“Won’t know that until the dust settles, the margin is determined, and how badly McCarthy needs some Dem support. Anything is possible,” one said. “Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in speakership races.”

Another said: “If he asks, it could be a possibility. 

“Either you can be Speaker for two years and go cash out on Wall Street or be Speaker for three months and get pushed out by the Freedom Caucus.

Another Dem said making a deal to put Kevin in the job would be preferable to having someone like Majorie Taylor Greene or Jim Jordan as Speaker.

“I doubt it, but I guess if the alternative is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), it could be possible. I think it’d be more about the alternative than anything he could give.”

One centrist Dems then floated a plan the Dems are whispering about behind the scenes – put Liz Cheney in as Speaker to get the ultimate revenge on Trump.

The Dem Rep said: “Under no circumstances would just about any Dem ever vote for someone who has downplayed Jan. 6. 

“I’m one of the most bipartisan people in the place, and the thought of supporting Kevin makes me laugh. 

“It’s an insane proposition to consider supporting someone like him. 

“I would never do that. 

“No Dem with principles and a belief in democracy would ever do that.”

A Rep added that there are currently private conversations about “Voting for Liz Cheney and getting a hearty group of both sides to vote for her as a rebuke of Trumpism in a scenario where Kevin couldn’t get the votes. 

“I would classify them as serious in intent to put forth a principled option with the goal of bringing people together but not serious in that I can’t imagine that getting to 218,” the Rep said.

Zack Czajkowski, a field organizer for former President Obama’s re-election campaign and regional get out the vote director for former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, also endorsed the idea.

“Why not Liz Cheney as a transition Speaker of the House. It’ll piss off both Democrats and Republicans. She’s a responsible adult with a conservative voting record, a proven ability to work across the aisle, and most importantly has unflappable morale courage under pressure,” Czajkowski tweeted.

The wacky theory, that could happen, is Rep. Liz Cheney, who will no longer be a member of Congress in 2023, could be Speaker if Democrats joined a handful of Republicans to elect her. A Speaker does not need to be a member of Congress which means that Rep. Cheney, or anyone, is eligible to be Speaker if they have the votes.

The Congressmember said there have been private conversations about “voting for Rep. Liz Cheney and getting a hearty group of both sides to vote for her as a rebuke of Trumpism in a scenario where Kevin couldn’t get the votes. I would classify them as serious in intent to put forth a principled option with the goal of bringing people together but not serious in that I can’t imagine that getting to 218.”

(FreedomWire.org) – A federal judge appointed by former president Barack Obama handed Don Trump Jr. a huge victory over retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Tuesday.

Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. dismissed a lawsuit brought by Vindman against Trump Jr, Rudy Giuliani and others accusing them of witness intimidation and retaliation.

Boasberg wrote: “Plaintiff’s pled facts, taken as true, certainly suggest that Defendants leveled harsh, mean spirited, and at times misleading attacks against him. But political hackery alone does not violate the law at issue.

“Vindman’s facts do not plausibly suggest that Defendants agreed to intimidate him so as to prevent him from testifying or doing his job, or to unlawfully retaliate against him.”

“The Court does not decide the validity of those attacks, regardless of whether some were outside the bounds of appropriate political discourse.

“As a limited-purpose public figure Vindman was a man in the arena.

“Defendants may have played ugly, but Vindman does not plead facts suggesting that they acted with actual malice,” the court said.

Harmeet Dhillon, who represented Trump Jr. said:

“We’re gratified that the court accepted our arguments that even taken as pled, the allegations made by Alex Vindmann, do not violate his civil rights. 

“Harsh political criticism is still allowed in America.”

Kristy Parker, an attorney for Protect Democracy which worked with Vindman on the case said:

“While we are disappointed by the court’s decision and are considering next steps, we have no doubt that it was right for Lt. Col. Vindman to seek accountability in court for the coordinated campaign of intimidation and retaliation waged against him because he honored his oath as a public servant.”

(FreedomWire.org) – We all knew something was wrong when we learned about Pelosi’d refusal to grant Trump’s request on January 6th, and now we know why.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee investigating the January 6th riot, which took place at the US Capitol nearly two years ago, held its last public hearing nearly two weeks go. The committee is exclusively made up of anti-Republican members appointed by the leader of the Democratic Party. In our entire 233 year history operating under the US Constitution, this mono-partisan makeup and appointment has never happened.

No serious lover of law, in either its making or adjudication, would dream up a process of getting to objective facts without an adversarial process in the calling and questioning of documents and witnesses. However, that’s exactly what Pelosi, Chairman Bennie Thompson, and Liz Cheney (who has been expelled by voters) have schemed up at great detriment to the republic.

Now, the entire premise of this specially-empowered committee was to “investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol” and draft legislative recommendations to prevent a future collapse in security.

Curious then that most of the committee’s effort has been spent violating the civil rights of countless conservative activists, Republican consultants, and probing the Trump administration in a shocking break from precedent with Joe Biden waiving executive privilege on behalf of the Trump administration.

Some of the committee’s subpoenas ask witnesses to produce records from 2019, peaceful political gatherings prior and directly after Election Day 2020, and conversations that contributed to legislative products. Time and time again, committee members have taken to sensationalized TV shows to assert that crimes are being investigated by the partisan body.

Congress, per the Constitution, is explicitly barred from pursuing criminal investigations. What it can do is fix their own security and streamline processes.

The committee has held one hearing involving police. One that didn’t include assessing any of the chain of command failures, miscommunications between the various participating agencies, or abuses that contributed to the death of unarmed protestors—the only people to actually die on January 6th.

The US Capitol Police Chief, who told the Senate that he ordered the evacuation of the Capitol building due to pipe bombs found outside of the RNC headquarters and not protestors, was terminated through “resignation.” So, too, was the House sergeant-at-arms and his Senate counterpart who is now dead amid conflicting accounts between the men.

Before any Congressional investigation had been commissioned, the three men with direct knowledge had been ousted and Congress gave the USCP nearly $2 billion, tasked them with launching an intelligence collection arm, and the next month they opened satellite offices in Florida and California.

These police are not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Julie Kelly over at American Greatness has chronicled the lies by the US Capitol Police, none of which have been corrected, for historical record, by the committee. The list of lies, including Kamala Harris’ whereabouts, by the Department of Justice and security apparatus continues to grow month by month.

It was only this year that we learned there were “shoot-to-kill squads” embedded around protestors and within the Capitol. What else might we not know? What has the committee missed in its political pursuit to dig up criminal referrals against President Donald J. Trump and his top allies?

All of these facts begin to look like a clean-up job.

Even more curious, the committee has not investigated the one person tasked with maintaining (including security) the US Capitol grounds, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

(FreedomWire.org) – Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a video posted to social media accused “right-wing extremists” of having “a plan to literally steal the next presidential election.” 

The video was posted by an organization called Indivisible which claims on its website to be “a grassroots movement of thousands of local Indivisible groups with a mission to elect progressive leaders, rebuild our democracy, and defeat the Trump agenda.”

In the video posted to Twitter on Friday, the former secretary of state began, “Hello, Indivisibles. I’m here to highlight something that is keeping me up at night, and I know this group really understands what I’m about to say. I know we’re all focused on the 2022 midterm elections and they are incredibly important, but we also have to look ahead, because you know what? Our opponents certainly are.”

Clinton continued, “Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election and they’re not making a secret of it.”

“The right-wing controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures, yes, you heard me that correctly, state legislatures, the power to overturn presidential elections,” she added.

“Just think if that happens, the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote, or even by the anachronistic Electoral College, but by state legislatures, many of them Republican-controlled.”

“But there’s also good news in the face of this very real threat to democracy,” Clinton continued. “Indivisible has launched, ‘Crushed the Coup’ to make sure we’re ready to defend democracy in 2024. They’ve put together a list of critical races in six key states and how you can get involved.”

Clinton then pitched, “Will you support ‘Crush the Coup’ by donating to Indivisible and state legislature candidates? Each of these races is highly competitive and your dollars could very well decide the winners, and the winner of the next presidential election, this could not be more important or more urgent.”

The failed presidential candidate has repeatedly questioned the results of the 2016 election. 

In 2020 in the lead-up to the presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Clinton said during an interview for The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket, “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened.”

In 2021, Clinton said that Russian President Vladimir Putin helped to rig the 2016 election against her in an interview on MSNBC. “Putin is the great disrupter. He has a clear mission to undermine democracies, first and foremost, the United States.”

Almost immediately after the statement, Clinton also claimed that anyone who disputed the results of the 2020 election was working for the Kremlin, either directly or indirectly. Many of her fellow Democrats joined her.