KOMMONSENTSJANE – Elite Democrats Shunned DEMOCRACY Throughout Biden’s Term and Now They’re Paying the Price.

01/17/2025

The Democrats kept accusing President Trump of trying to steal our Democracy for four years – and yet – they never used it – but abused it. Biden destroyed the country using a dual socialism/progressiveness.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elite-democrats-shunned-democracy-throughout-biden-s-term-and-now-they-re-paying-the-price/ar-AA1xkNgM?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=9cc83e104a4c4a0ab92973350ad7957e&ei=48

When Donald Trump is sworn in Monday, America will have a president for the first time in four years.

The Biden era hasn’t been a presidency but an interregnum, with seemingly no one in charge in Washington.

The sign on Harry Truman’s desk used to say, “The buck stops here.”

Where did it stop with Joe Biden in the Oval Office?

Voters never asked for an experiment in leaderless administration, but the party that put Biden in power gave them one anyway.

In the 21st century, Democrats are misnamed.

They’re the less democratic of the two great parties, and their insider-dominated politics explains both how Biden wound up in a role for which he was unfit and why the candidate picked to replace him went on to lose every battleground state.

Kamala Harris had never won a presidential primary.

But the party’s mandarins first pushed her for vice president, and then they pushed Biden off the ticket and made her the nominee without giving voters the slightest say.

This isn’t a people’s party: Bill and Hillary Clinton still believed the party belonged to them even after Barack Obama beat Mrs. Clinton for the 2008 presidential nomination.

The Clintons and Obama’s coterie subsequently agreed to power-sharing, with Hillary Clinton as President Obama’s secretary of state and all-but-officially-designated successor.

Biden was very much a junior partner in the Obama-Clinton party, and that didn’t change after the party made him its nominee in 2020.

Obama and Hillary Clinton had kept Biden from running four years earlier. Obama wouldn’t support his own vice president because it was Hillary’s turn — that was the deal.

Trump shattered their corrupt dynastic bargain, just as he broke the hold of the Bush family and its allies on the GOP.

Trump put to the test a much-debated question in political science: Does the party decide — meaning party elites — or can voters pick a winning nominee in defiance of what the political establishment wants?

Thanks to Trump, the Republicans became a party of primary voters, while the Democrats remained under elite control.

The results are now in, and they can be seen in both Biden’s sad job performance and Harris’ humiliation at the polls.

Turning into a party of primary voters wasn’t without cost for the GOP, however, and led to the nomination of some weak candidates in the 2022 midterms and other recent contests.

Yet the price not only Democrats but the whole country paid for the anti-democratic politics of the Clintons and Obamas has been much steeper.

Democrats forfeited their future by selecting Biden and Harris five years ago — the one too senescent to serve as president, the other too unlikeable to win a national election herself.

The Democratic establishment — which includes Nancy Pelosi — has had a stranglehold on the party since the 1990s, as occasional challengers like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discovered in turn.

That led Gabbard and Kennedy out of the Democratic Party’s confines and into the freer and more freewheeling coalition of Trump’s GOP.

The Democrats had actually been the first party to commit fully to the modern presidential primary system, but they were burned by the experience.

Richard Nixon won the 1968 election in part thanks to Democratic disarray: Like Biden, the incumbent president that year, Lyndon Johnson, dropped out of the race.

The party’s eventual replacement, Hubert Humphrey, was, like Harris, a vice president handed the presidential nomination without competing in a single primary.

Stung by defeat, in 1972 Democrats tried to embrace democracy by giving primaries more weight — but wound up with a candidate, George McGovern, who lost in a 49-state blowout.

Jimmy Carter, whose dismal years as president look a little brighter by contrast with the Biden-Harris interregnum, was actually the Democrats’ savior in 1976 and seemed to vindicate the wisdom of primaries.

But then the party lost three consecutive presidential elections in the 1980s, and after Bill Clinton restored the Democrats’ fortunes in 1992, he and his wife were determined to remain the power brokers.

Obama could have been the Democrats’ Donald Trump, the man who gave the party back to the people.

Instead he gave it back to Hillary Clinton, and after Trump trounced her, Democrats had no leaders left — just a nonfunctional Biden and an unelectable Harris.

Now that the insiders’ political machine has self-destructed, will Democrats dare trust their voters to choose a new generation of leadership — or do they fear that will only land them with the next George McGovern?

Populism can lead to better leaders, but only if a party’s primary voters aren’t already too far from America’s middle ground.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.

****

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – Jack Smith Report: No Evidence of Jan. 6 Insurrection.

01/17/2025

Does this eradicate the Democrats’ special committee. What about all of the people in prison?

ttps://dailynewscycle.com/jack-smith-report-no-evidence-of-jan-6-insurrection/

Thursday, January 16, 2025

Home » Jack Smith Report: No Evidence of Jan. 6 Insurrection

Jack Smith Report: No Evidence of Jan. 6 Insurrection

By Chelsea BetonieJanuary 15, 2025Updated:January 15, 2025Corruption 5 Comments4 Mins Read

Share


Listen

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recently released report on January 6, 2021, has upended the mainstream narrative surrounding the Capitol riot. In his 174-page document, Smith admitted he could not substantiate claims that the events constituted an “insurrection” under federal law. This revelation dismantles years of media rhetoric and raises questions about the politically charged investigations targeting former President Donald Trump.

Smith, who resigned last week after his cases against Trump were dismissed, intended to use the report as a final criticism of the incoming president. However, his findings inadvertently confirmed what skeptics have long asserted: the Capitol riot, while chaotic and unlawful, did not meet the legal definition of an insurrection.

Central to Smith’s report is an analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2383, commonly referred to as the Insurrection Act. This statute defines insurrection as an uprising against civil or political authority through open and active opposition to the enforcement of laws. According to Smith, proving that January 6 constituted an insurrection would require substantial evidence that the violence was a coordinated and purposeful attempt to overthrow U.S. authority.

“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,’” Smith wrote. He conceded that the available evidence failed to meet these criteria.

Further, Smith highlighted that prior legal cases involving the term “insurrection” often used the word loosely, as a rhetorical device rather than a grounded legal determination. The report cites several examples where courts referred to January 6 as an insurrection but did so without applying the Insurrection Act’s precise legal standards.

Smith’s findings expose a significant gap between the media’s portrayal of January 6 and the legal realities outlined in his report. The term “insurrection” became a powerful buzzword for news outlets and political commentators, fueling a narrative that January 6 was an orchestrated coup attempt. However, Smith’s inability to pursue insurrection charges underscores the lack of concrete evidence to support this claim.

“These cases, however, did not require the courts to resolve the issue of how to define insurrection for purposes of Section 2383, or apply that definition to the conduct of a criminal defendant in the context of January 6,” Smith acknowledged. In essence, the term was used to bolster a narrative rather than to meet a legal burden of proof.

Smith’s report also addressed the accusation that Trump incited the Capitol riot. While Smith suggested that Trump’s rhetoric around alleged voter fraud may have contributed to tensions, he admitted his office could not find direct evidence linking Trump to the planning or execution of the riot.

“There were reasonable arguments … particularly when the speech is viewed in the context of Mr. Trump’s lengthy and deceitful voter-fraud narrative that came before it,” Smith wrote. However, his team was unable to establish a direct connection between Trump’s words and any coordinated action by rioters.

Smith’s report inadvertently bolsters Trump’s claims that the investigations against him were politically motivated. Trump and his allies have long argued that the January 6 narrative was exaggerated to undermine his presidency and subsequent political campaigns.

Critics of Smith’s report argue that it exposes the weaponization of the justice system and the media’s complicity in perpetuating an unfounded narrative. “This report confirms what we’ve always known: the ‘insurrection’ story was a political tool, not a legal reality,” said one Trump advisor.

The release of Smith’s findings has ignited renewed debate over the events of January 6. Supporters of Trump view the report as vindication, while his detractors insist that the riot’s impact on democracy justifies the term “insurrection” regardless of legal definitions.

As Smith steps down in disgrace and the cases against Trump collapse, the credibility of the January 6 investigations is under scrutiny. For many, the report serves as a reminder of the dangers of politicizing the justice system and the need for accountability in media reporting.

https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-7511718651466925&output=html&h=280&adk=4253073088&adf=1828814763&w=601&abgtt=6&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1737117317&num_ads=1&rafmt=1&armr=3&sem=mc&pwprc=5426440692&ad_type=text_image&format=601×280&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailynewscycle.com%2Fjack-smith-report-no-evidence-of-jan-6-insurrection%2F&fwr=0&pra=3&rh=150&rw=600&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&wgl=1&fa=27&uach=WyJXaW5kb3dzIiwiMTAuMC4wIiwieDg2IiwiIiwiMTMxLjAuMjkwMy4xNDYiLG51bGwsMCxudWxsLCI2NCIsW1siTWljcm9zb2Z0IEVkZ2UiLCIxMzEuMC4yOTAzLjE0NiJdLFsiQ2hyb21pdW0iLCIxMzEuMC42Nzc4LjI2NSJdLFsiTm90X0EgQnJhbmQiLCIyNC4wLjAuMCJdXSwwXQ..&dt=1737117258248&bpp=2&bdt=3220&idt=2&shv=r20250114&mjsv=m202501130101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D254460c4f77c33d1%3AT%3D1733456980%3ART%3D1737116781%3AS%3DALNI_MYy1CIBitPSQ7hLnMpeo6435jSXUw&gpic=UID%3D00000fa88b67f88b%3AT%3D1733456980%3ART%3D1737116781%3AS%3DALNI_MbawMMGL70EVsyPzuJIfXZtTimjMw&eo_id_str=ID%3Dc691ec174d2e8f1e%3AT%3D1733456980%3ART%3D1737116781%3AS%3DAA-AfjbHmYwXZN3A246crdG_ooI-&prev_fmts=0x0%2C601x280%2C601x280%2C1001x280%2C1001x740%2C1001x124%2C601x280%2C601x280&nras=7&correlator=5311630956603&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=-360&u_his=2&u_h=820&u_w=1024&u_ah=820&u_aw=1024&u_cd=24&u_sd=1.25&dmc=8&adx=120&ady=6979&biw=1001&bih=740&scr_x=0&scr_y=4022&eid=31089724%2C31089809%2C95332584%2C95350245%2C95349396%2C95347433&oid=2&psts=AOrYGskpHecctAXLjXs5USo3LQGYcgQHWVQ6sMaiTqxUsQBEfwPuEZmF2pXLJ1LgGME8vKxdZE6ydoRsjy7g6T52v_q1T4g%2CAOrYGsm773yKA1x-MfHPI_XB_HjAybmsT5LHH7gUkVlEPLUyrFGqYgfVXxokbKyLZU0YQ-51wj_IP7v7A4rZ5f5wlYpehGA%2CAOrYGsmn_dFT6SZmF6SfxfhGFfk-o-DeoLAFsQ4VwrPOdYYve4Zxdz4hOJIY4hddriACr9w5nb20K_JMdr5JpweiB64qK6A%2CAOrYGsng1fJl5tSpTZ5O7HCH98CcHqqytptzd2h8IVr6a9RrOfB7hjx2Llv_gzHjHhQg4mDWC42S8aTIoRqV83POi63dANKa79rTmxAvYgPLfSxprcijWg%2CAOrYGsnQKa6Rv6E0ssL6Mrl8bzZWL-LAYqfFZ1mDNoy952MqoHs1_un0dcK4JTbDS98RY3TbgKdySrOq1Kb0gGTR1c0bOq8%2CAOrYGskIojsGBgPhFZWx22f7j8gjEVhj0NVicFsa9qaem100vchH_GrZ36eO_-RGoBwKWi4kLjIaJm_BS3857GFfwiYZskw&pvsid=3186626628665415&tmod=500631058&wsm=1&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1408&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1024%2C0%2C1024%2C820%2C1016%2C740&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Cs%7C&abl=NS&fu=128&bc=31&bz=1.01&td=1&tdf=2&psd=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDNd&nt=1&ifi=7&uci=a!7&btvi=6&fsb=1&dtd=59374

Jack Smith’s report has dealt a significant blow to the narrative surrounding January 6. By acknowledging the lack of evidence for insurrection and incitement charges, Smith inadvertently revealed the extent to which the events were misrepresented. While the report’s findings may not satisfy everyone, they mark a critical turning point in the ongoing debate over the Capitol riot and its aftermath.

The question now is whether the revelations in Smith’s report will prompt a reevaluation of how the events of January 6 are understood—or whether the political and media narratives will persist unchanged. For Trump’s supporters, this moment is a vindication; for his critics, it’s a stark reminder of the challenges in proving such politically charged allegations.

****

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – The Shifting Sands of Kamala Harris’ Word Salads.

01/16/2024

The problem with Kamala Harris is her English phrase statements are like the shifting sands – the words don’t come out through the sand strainer like they went in – a clump here and a clump there.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/disgraceful-kamala-harris-ridiculed-for-telling-los-angeles-fire-victims-to-be-patient-in-word-salad-briefing/ar-AA1xgrQA?cvid=e3f62e34e62f4acf8724ecf42bb6dbbe&ei=58

Vice President Kamala Harris told Californian to 'be patient.'MEGA

Vice President Kamala Harris told Californian to ‘be patient.’MEGA© OK Magazine

Vice President Kamala Harris was mocked after giving what was dubbed a “word salad” statement when sharing advice with the Los Angeles wildfire victims during a recent White House briefing.Kamala Harris was accused of giving a 'word salad' statement on the ongoing Los Angeles wildfires.MEGA

Kamala Harris was accused of giving a ‘word salad’ statement on the ongoing Los Angeles wildfires.MEGA© OK Magazine

Many people, including celebrities, have lost their homes in the Pacific Palisades area as wildfires continue to rage there and elsewhere in Los Angeles County, burning more than 27,000 acres, destroying over 10,000 structures and killing at least 25 people.

In her wordy message to Californians eager to get back home, Harris said: “It’s critically important that, to the extent you can find anything that gives you an ability to be patient in this extremely dangerous and unprecedented crisis, that you do.”

Several critics took to social media to criticize the VP for her “disingenuous” and “unsympathetic” comments toward the victims of the deadly wildfire.

One user on X, formerly known as Twitter, shared a clip of Harris’ statement and wrote: “So basically, these victims should be unburdened by what has been… pathetic excuse for leadership.”

Another X user commented: “I sometimes feel like there is something wrong with me when I can’t understand what the h— she’s saying then I go to the comments sections and see it’s not just me lol.”

A third person shared: “The [word] salad will be expired on Jan 19.”

(Thank goodness. Just think if we had to put up with this for four more years.)

Kamala Harris lost the 2024 presidential election.MEGA

Kamala Harris lost the 2024 presidential election.MEGA© OK Magazine

During the briefing, Harris reiterated: “Lots of people who still have a home who are under evacuation order, I know you want to get back home, but this is a time to be patient,” she said. “There is still so much work that firefighters, police officers, FEMA, and others are doing that is about search and rescue. The work that still needs to be done to ensure the safety around utility lines — this work is still very much in progress.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell released a statement following the White House meeting: “It’s terrifying to think how Kamala would have treated the American people if this is how she treats her home state supporters.”

The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland also mocked Harris’s words: “Those of you fleeing the fire, the most critical thing for you to pack is your patience.”

President Biden announced that victims of the California wildfires would be eligible for a $770 one-time payment meant to be used on essential items like water, prescriptions and paying for temporary shelter.The Los Angeles wildfires destroyed over 10,000 structures and killed at least 25 people.MEGA

The Los Angeles wildfires destroyed over 10,000 structures and killed at least 25 people.MEGA© OK Magazine

As OK! previously reported, since the fires broke out last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other local officials have faced backlash over their lack of preparation and response to the ongoing wildfire.

Several high-profile voices, such as actor Mel Gibson and former Miss USA Shanna Moakler, called for Californians to seek new leadership after the mishandling of the disaster.Related video: Gutfeld calls out Kamala Harris’ ‘profoundly asinine’ statement to California fire victims (FOX News

There is still so much work that firefighters, police officers,

FOX News

Gutfeld calls out Kamala Harris’ ‘profoundly asinine’ statement to California fire victims.

View on Watch

Read more at OK!

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

KOMMONSENTSJANE – Pam Bondi Reminds Adam Schiff of His Humiliating Past as Confirmation Hearing Gets Heated: ‘You Were Censured by Congress’..

01/16/2025

Schif was censured by Congress.

The resolution claims Schiff misled the American public over the course of congressional investigations into the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia, given that other probes have not found conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

“Mr. Schiff exploited his position as chair of Intel Committee, and every opportunity possible, threatening national security, undermining our duly elected president and bringing dishonor upon the institution,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Wednesday afternoon ahead of the vote.

Bondi reminds Schiff – don’t forget you (Schiff) are an embarrassment to the Senate by his past lies that are attached to him.

Schiff has a hard time with Bondi since he has a hard time remembering what the truth is because all he he been dealing with are the lies of the Democrats.

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pam-bondi-reminds-adam-schiff-of-his-humiliating-past-as-confirmation-hearing-gets-heated-you-were-censured-by-congress/ar-AA1xgSeC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=4e53365f78004e44b2c3cb960fba26b3&ei=36

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images© The Western Journal

Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi got into a heated exchange during her confirmation hearing Wednesday with Sen. Adam Schiff of California, which ended with her reminding him that he had been censured by the House of Representatives.

Schiff first questioned Bondi as she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she would have the independence to say “No” to soon-to-be President Donald Trump, when necessary.

“Let me start with one very specific non-hypothetical. The president has said Jack Smith should go to jail. Will you investigate Jack Smith?” he asked.

President Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as a special counsel in November 2022 to investigate Trump, shortly after the former president announced he would be seeking re-election.

Smith ended up filing two cases against Trump in 2023, one alleging he mishandled classified documents and another claiming he sought to interfere in the 2020 election. Smith dropped both cases after Trump was re-elected and he resigned as special counsel on Friday.

Bondi responded to Schiff, “Senator, I haven’t seen the file. I haven’t seen the investigation. I haven’t looked at anything. It would be irresponsible of me to make a commitment regarding anything without looking … at a file.”Related video: Pam Bondi fires back at Sen. Blumenthal: ‘I sit up here and speak the truth’ (FOX ).

FOX News

Pam Bondi fires back at Sen. Blumenthal: ‘I sit up here and speak the truth’

View on Watch

Open the Youtube video

Schiff followed up asking, based on the knowledge she presently has, if she believed there was a factual predicate to investigate Smith’s conduct as special counsel.

“Senator, what I’m hearing on the news is horrible. Do I know if he committed a crime? That I have not looked at,” Bondi responded.

Schiff later questioned how the nominee would advise Trump regarding his plans to issue pardons on his first day in office to most of those who have been prosecuted for engaging in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol.

“I’m going to look at everything. We’ll look at individual cases,” Trump told NBC News host Kristen Welker last month. “But I’m going to be acting very quickly.”

Welker wondered how quickly.

“First day, I’m looking first day. These people have been there — how long is it? Three, four years,” Trump answered. “They’ve been in there for years. And they’re in a filthy, disgusting place that shouldn’t even be allowed to be open.”

The president-elect added, “There may be some exceptions to it. I have to look, if somebody was radical, crazy.”

Reuters reported last week that more than 1,580 have been prosecuted for Jan. 6 offenses, and of those about 170 were charged with using a weapon or injuring a police officer. No guns were fired by protesters, but a few had them on the Capitol grounds or in the vicinity, according to CBS News.

Bondi told Schiff on Wednesday, “I will look at every case, on a case-by-case basis, and I abhor violence to police officers.”

“Will you be able to review hundreds of cases on day 1?” Schiff queried.

“I will look at every file that I am asked to look at,” Bondi began to answer, but Schiff cut her off, “Of course you won’t.”

Bondi noted she will have staff to assist her in the effort, presumably flagging cases that need her closer review..

“You said, ‘Of course you won’t.’ Listen, I’m not going to mislead this body, nor you. You were censured by Congress for comments just like this, that are so reckless,” she asserted.

The GOP-controlled House voted to censure Schiff in July 2023 for statements he made during Trump’s first term, alleging he had evidence that the 45th president’s campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 race. Schiff was serving as the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, meaning he would have access to more information than available to the general public.

The resolution identified multiple other reasons for the congressman’s censure, given his position of trust on the committee.

Schiff closed his questioning of Bondi calling on her to commit that none of the evidence from the House Jan. 6 investigation will be destroyed while she is attorney general.

In December 2022, the Jan. 6 committee — which was commissioned by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and on which Schiff served — turned over its work to the DOJ prior to the Republicans taking back control of the House the following month.

“Senator, I will follow the law,” Bondi said regarding the materials.

“Why do you have difficulty answering that question?” Schiff shot back.

“I can’t believe you’re asking such a question,” Bondi replied.

****

Problem with Schiff is – he doesn’t know how to work with the truth.

****

kommonsentsjane

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment