NeverTrumper Adam Kinzinger Attempts to Use “Italian Job” to Hurt Trump – Was Kinzinger In On It? – Nwo Report

Posted BY: Joe Hoft

After the 2020 Election was stolen there was much effort to cover it up. Big Media and Big Tech never reported on the steal and censored those who did. But in addition to that, bad actors inserted themselves on the GOP side to attempt to destroy President Trump with false information on the steal. The “Italian Job” was one of these efforts…

EXCLUSIVE: Rudy Giuliani Asks For Live Coverage of His Scheduled Testimony on National TV – But Jan 6 Committee Declines — Sham Jan. 6 Committee Lacks Transparency — The Gateway Pundit | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

Rudy Giuliani speaks at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021.

Former New York City Mayor and Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to “testify” before the House Jan. 6 Committee on Friday.

A source close to Giuliani told The Gateway Pundit that Rudy agreed to testify as long as it is recorded or broadcast live.

As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, the radicals on the January 6 Committee issued subpoenas to Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and Boris Epshteyn last January and claimed they “publicly promoted unsupported claims about the 2020 election and participated in attempts to disrupt or delay the certification of election results.”

A judge vindicated Rudy of any involvement in violence on Jan 6 by a district judge appointed by Obama.

Rudy Giuliani agreed to testify if his appearance is broadcast on live TV or if he is able to record his testimony.

Giuliani says he wants to be transparent, but he lacks trust in Adam Schiff and other committee members because Adam Schiff lied to the American public about the Russian hoax for so long.

Rudy says, “I want to cooperate. I’ve always done the right thing.”

A source close to the Giuliani camp said, “Why should America’s Mayor be subjected to angry, misguided politically corrupt people? They would probably doctor his testimonies, transcripts, or his words. They are so untrustworthy, if polled today the committee may be lower than the frail Joe Biden.”

There have been credible reports Antifa was involved as well as the FBI, and the American people want a thorough and honest investigation. Has Nancy Pelosi been questioned? Did President Trump offer her the National guard and she refused? What about the videos of staff encouraging people to come into the Capitol?

Rudy Giuliani was scheduled to testify but the committee lacks transparency.

EXCLUSIVE: Rudy Giuliani Asks For Live Coverage of His Scheduled Testimony on National TV – But Jan 6 Committee Declines — Sham Jan. 6 Committee Lacks Transparency — The Gateway Pundit

Prison term reduced from 110 to 10 years under public pressure — RT World News

…The driver said the brakes of his truck failed and that he tried his best to avoid the collision. No drugs or alcohol were reportedly found
in his system after the incident. During the trial, Aguilera-Mederos asked the families of the victims for forgiveness several times, saying he wished he had died in the crash instead of them…

FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes

Comment by tonytran2015: This is on top of the “Russian collusion” activities. Haha!
FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes By Adam Andrzejewski, CEO/Founder of; originally posted in Forbes Federal agencies paid out at least $548 million to informants working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,…

Decision to strip Assange of Ecuadorian citizenship hasn’t come into force, his lawyer tells RT, while preparing an appeal — RT World News

The court ruling to nullify the WikiLeaks co-founder’s status as
a naturalized Ecuadorian citizen was the result of an orchestrated
political trial and must be overturned, Carlos Poveda, Assange’s lawyer,
told RT.
An administrative court in
Ecuador decided on Monday that Assange should be stripped of his
citizenship due to unpaid fees and what they claim are numerous
inconsistencies in his application for naturalization. But Poveda
insisted that the ruling “can’t be considered final yet” as he going to appeal it.

Assange’s attorney believes that an appeals court has more than enough grounds to overturn the “shameful” decision because his client “was deprived of his right to defend himself,” and “the evidence wasn’t examined properly.”

Assange, who is now being held in Belmarsh maximum security prison in
the UK, obviously couldn’t travel to Ecuador, but the administrative
court denied the request for him to take part in the trial via video
link and present the proof he had, his attorney said.

Assange received Ecuadorian citizenship in January 2018 after being
granted asylum in the country’s embassy in London in 2012, fleeing
sexual assault allegations that never became actual charges.

WikiLeaks founder has always denied the claims, and his supporters
insist that he was persecuted for his journalistic activities, which
included the publication of numerous classified US documents on Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.

The publisher “had a legal right for naturalization [in Ecuador] because he was under international protection at that moment,”
Poveda said. In April 2019, British police officers entered the
Ecuadorian Embassy and arrested Assange over accusations of breaching
bail. He has been in Belmarsh Prison since then and recently celebrated
his 50th birthday behind bars.

The ongoing trial, which Poveda says is political, indicates that an “independent justice system is lacking in Ecuador” and “gives a bad name” to the country.

The WikiLeaks co-founder is wanted on espionage charges in the US and could face up to 175 years in prison if extradited.

early 2021, a UK judge denied his transfer across the Atlantic, citing
Assange’s poor mental health. But the UK High Court recently granted
Washington permission to appeal the decision, despite increasing public
calls to release him.

Also on
US would show no mercy to Assange if he’s extradited, but Bush & Blair will never face justice for their crimes

Craig Murray: FBI Fabrication Against Assange Falls Apart | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

The US may have to come up with yet another last-minute, bogus indictment in Julian Assange’s extradition proceeding. From Craig Murray at

Thordarson was always the most unreliable of witnesses, and it seems impossible to believe FBI cooperation with him was ever any more than deliberate fabrication of evidence by the FBI, says Craig Murray.

On the final day of the Assange extradition hearing, magistrate Vanessa Baraitser refused to accept an affidavit from Assange’s solicitor Gareth Peirce, on the grounds it was out of time. The affidavit explained that the defense had been unable to respond to the new accusations in the United States government’s second superseding indictment, because these wholly new matters had been sprung on them just six weeks before the hearing resumed on Sept. 8, 2020.

The defense had not only to gather evidence from Iceland, but had virtually no access to Assange to take his evidence and instructions, as he was effectively in solitary confinement in Belmarsh. The defense had requested an adjournment to give them time to address the new accusations, but this adjournment had been refused by Baraitser.

She now refused to accept Gareth Peirce’s affidavit setting out these facts.

What had happened was this. The hearings on the Assange extradition in January 2020 did not seem to be going well for the U.S. government. The arguments that political extradition is specifically banned by the UK/U.S. extradition treaty, and that the publisher was not responsible for Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing on war crimes, appeared to be strong. The U.S. Justice Department had decided that it therefore needed a new tack and to discover some “crimes” by Assange that seemed less noble than the Manning revelations.

Continue reading→

Father Arrested After Continuing To Call His Child “She” Following Court-Ordered Gender-Transition Treatments

…There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned […]

Unequal Justice: Rule by Left-Wing Lunatics | The Wentworth Report

Unequal Justice: Rule by Left-Wing Lunatics. By Ann Coulter.

A governing principle of the Democratic Party is to ask, “Who is in the dock?” before deciding whether to enforce the law. As we have seen throughout the last year of antifa/BLM riots, in blue states, it’s now legal to commit arson, attempted murder, assault on a law enforcement officer and destruction of property — provided the perp is antifa or antifa-friendly. Andy Ngo’s smash bestseller Unmasked gives chapter and verse on antifa’s shocking violence untouched by criminal penalty. On the other hand, if you’re a conservative, don’t commit a misdemeanor in a blue state. Proud Boys, Capitol Hill protesters, police and other presumed Trump supporters are getting more prison time than actual murderers for minor infractions. Even a couple of personal injury lawyers (liberals) are being criminally prosecuted in St. Louis for brandishing guns at violent looters coming toward their home. The rioters, you see, were BLM protesters. In all these cases, local Democratic officials gleefully announce that they are locking up “white supremacists.” …


In 2018, the night before Proud Boys founder, Gavin McInnes, was scheduled to give a speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club on the Upper East Side of New York, antifa smashed the windows of the historic club with a brick, glued the lock, and spray-painted the anarchist “A” on the front door of the club’s townhouse, along with a threat that this destruction was “merely a beginning.” All that’s legal, too — provided it’s done by antifa. The day of the speech, 80 masked antifa goons showed up at the club to attack attendees — women and children, young and old. But unfortunately for antifa, the event was being protected by the Proud Boys. McInnes’ speech went off without a hitch, and no attendees were injured at the event. When it was over, New York police officers directed the Proud Boys to Park Avenue, and sent antifa in the opposite direction to Lexington. The Proud Boys followed orders, but a gang of six masked antifa circled around from Lexington over to Park to confront them, including, in antifa’s manly way, throwing a bottle of urine at them. Two Proud Boys proceeded to kick six antifa butt. The same thing happened a few blocks south. Again disobeying the police, another group of antifa cut over to Park Avenue to fight with the Proud Boys. They, too, received a solid ass-kicking. So who was arrested? Ten Proud Boys and not one antifa. Oh darn. We couldn’t catch them. (Hey, NYPD! Send the Proud Boys next time.) The police did manage to arrest three antifa thugs who followed one speech attendee leaving the event, punched him and stole his backpack. But it turns out that’s also legal in New York. The antifa were arrested for the violent attack … then immediately released with no charges. The governor and attorney general of New York, the New York City mayor and a slew of council members rushed to social media to denounce the Proud Boys for “hate” and vow to prosecute them — for protecting Upper East Side Republicans who went to a speech. McInnes is funny, and if there’s one thing leftists cannot abide, it’s a sense of humor. Gov. Andrew Cuomo tweeted: “Hate cannot and will not be tolerated in New York” … The prosecution had no victims and no evidence of injury. But two Proud Boys, John Kinsman and Max Hare, now sit in a New York state prison, sentenced to four years, after being convicted of attempted assault and attempted gang assault — for defending themselves from antifa, who showed up at conservative event, then disobeyed the police and stalked the Proud Boys. It wasn’t the Proud Boys disrupting an antifa event, and it wasn’t the Proud Boys defying the police to confront antifa. Yes, you are correct: This was the same district attorney, Cyrus Vance, who allowed Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein to rape and molest young girls in his jurisdiction for years and years. But those guys were major Democratic donors, so no harm, no foul. … Much of the testimony elicited by the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, concerned the defendants’ non-PC beliefs, e.g.: Kinsman’s support for guns, his opposition to antifa, and his attendance at a “fake news” protest outside CNN. Steinglass actually presented evidence of McInnes’ jokes from his comedy show. Inappropriate laughter in a blue state will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

Selective enforcement has superseded the notion that we are all are equal before the law. Now the justice system is being used to enforce leftist ideology. Thus, centuries of progress towards a more just society has been rolled back by the left. And don’t complain, or you’re a white supremacist!

Mutual Destruction: How Trump’s Trial Became A Tale Of Constitutional Noir – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in the Hill on second Trump trial and how core values quickly became the extraneous to the purpose of this constitutional process.  The final chaos triggered by Rep. Jaime Raskin (D., Md) only highlighted the procedural and legal irregularities in a trial that seem increasingly detached from values like due process.

Here is the column:

In the 1946 movie “Gilda,” Rita Hayworth delivered perhaps the ultimate film noir line. Looking at her former lover, she declared, “I hate you so much that I would destroy myself to take you down with me.” Hayworth made self-destruction sound positively alluring. That line came to mind as I watched House impeachment managers and Democratic senators systematically discard basic values that once defined fair trials — and American values — under the Constitution.

When Donald Trump’s defense counsel objected that he was not afforded due process in the House, the managers shrugged and said due process was not required. When the defense objected that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was protected under the First Amendment, the House scoffed that free speech is not only inapplicable but “frivolous” in an impeachment. Nothing, it seems, is so sacred that it cannot be discarded in pursuit of Trump. Over and over, it was made clear that his trial is about the verdict, not about our constitutional values.

Even with acquittal all but ensured, there was no room for constitutional niceties like free speech or due process. There was only one issue — the same one that has driven our media and politics for four years: Trump. Through that time, some of us have objected that extreme legal interpretations and biased coverage destroy our legal and journalistic values. It was not done out of love for Trump: I voted against him in two elections and have regularly denounced his actions and rhetoric, including his Jan. 6 speech. However, I cherish our values more than I dislike him.

That is why the second Trump impeachment trial played out with a film noir flourish, featuring the same “lost innocence,” “hard-edged cynicism” and “desperate desire” of that movie genre — most obviously when House managers dismissed any due process in an impeachment proceeding. Indisputably, the House could have held at least a couple days of hearings and still impeached Trump before he left office. It knew the Senate would not hold a trial before the end of his term, so it had until Jan. 20 to impeach him. It did so on Jan. 13.

A hearing would have given Trump a formal opportunity to respond to the allegation against him; no one has ever been impeached without such an opportunity. It would have allowed witnesses to be called (including many who already were speaking publicly), to create even a minimal record for the trial. Yet the House refused, and then declined for more than four weeks to call a dozen witnesses with direct evidence to create a record even after its snap impeachment.

So the House could have afforded basic due process but chose not to do so simply because it does not have to. When confronted about this in the Senate, one House manager scoffed at the notion that Trump should be afforded more due process. Representative Ted Lieu said, “Trump is receiving any and all process that he is due.” A chilling answer, since Trump received none in the House. There was a time when denying due process would have been shocking. Even if you believe that due process is not required in an impeachment, it is expected. We do not afford due process to people simply because we have to.

It is like decency, civility and other values. They are not observed because they are mandatory but because they are right. It is a value that defines us and our actions. Moreover, this is a process dedicated to upholding the Constitution. To deny a basic constitutional value in its defense is akin to burning down a house in the name of fire safety. Yet, the House’s position is that a president can be impeached and tried without any record of a hearing, an investigation or witnesses.

Then came the matter of free speech. Trump’s defense argued that it is inherently wrong to impeach a president for speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The House managers cited a letter from law professors declaring the argument “frivolous” even though some of those professors believe Trump’s speech may indeed be protected under cases like Brandenburg versus Ohio.

Understanding how such language would be considered protected by the courts is relevant in whether it should be treated as a constitutional violation for the purpose of impeachment. Just as courts balance the value of criminal prosecution against the impact on free speech, the Senate can strike that same balance in an impeachment trial. Even if you believe the First Amendment does not apply in a case of incitement, you still must decide if this represented incitement or an exercise of free speech. Yet in a letter that spun with circular logic, the professors declared that “the First Amendment does not apply” to impeachment proceedings. At least not in a trial of Trump.

House managers were asked why they did not present a case with specific elements of incitement set forth by the Supreme Court. Lead manager Representative Jamie Raskin said blissfully this case and Trump are a one-time instance of “presidential incitement” with its own ill-defined elements. In other words, it doesn’t have to meet the definition of incitement. Under such logic, the House could have impeached Trump for Endangered Species Act violations and said it need not involve any endangered species.

This impeachment trial captures our age of rage. For four years, people claimed total impunity in discarding legal or journalistic standards. They claimed that attacks on free speech, due process, or media objectivity are noble in pursuit of Trump. You can be lionized for tossing aside such values in order to get him. A few years ago, a trial would have been viewed as wrong without direct evidence, due process, or clear standards. Yet this is a trial of Trump, and many have allowed Trump to define them more than their values. Like “Gilda,” they are willing to destroy their values to destroy him.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as a witness with the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current trial. You can find him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Can the Senate PLEASE remove McConnell? – Trump:The American Years

I’ve never seen a sadder group of people in the Senate than the one we have now. It would be helpful to at least get better,in fact,REAL leadership in the minority Republican party.The weak Republicans in the Senate have been revealing themselves all along but the 2nd fake UNCONSTITUTIONAL impeachment play was the clincher…