By Mike Huckabee
July 12, 2022
|
|
|
|
BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Blessings on you and your family and from all the Huckabee staff! Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
|READ AD-FREE ON SUBSTACK | SUBSCRIBE | CONTACT ME |
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:9 NIV
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected].
Kangaroo court: Cipollone NOT ASKED about Hutchinson
Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who according to witness Cassidy Hutchinson spoke with her on the morning of January 6 about not letting President Trump go to the Capitol, testified before the committee for eight-plus hours on Friday. The way his testimony is being reported is a primer in how to create fake news.
If you’re senior editor in charge of propaganda, you first come up with a misleading headline to get your desired idea across. In this case, the headline is that Cipollone “did not contradict” Hutchinson’s testimony. That’s the story according to multiple establishment media outlets. Recall that Hutchinson testified Cipollone had told her that then-President Donald Trump would be charged with “every crime imaginable” if he went to the Capitol on January 6. That had the predators on the committee salivating.
The next step is to put the key information far down within the body of the piece. To VANITY FAIR’s credit (rarely warranted), writer Kelly Rissman waited only until the fourth paragraph to say, “However, sources familiar with Cipollone’s testimony told CNN that not only was the former White House lawyer NOT ASKED ABOUT HUTCHINSON’S QUOTE (emphasis ours), but if questioned about it, Cipollone would not have confirmed it.”
Perhaps if Rissman had written the headline --- editors usually determine those --- she’d have highlighted that. I don’t want to blame the writer if her editor had other ideas.
https://www.vanityfair.com/
ABC News ran the headline “Trump White House counsel’s Jan. 6 interview didn’t contradict other witnesses: Kinzinger.” (Yes, the headline quotes foaming-at-the-mouth Trump-hater Adam Kinzinger, as interviewed by George Stefanopoulos. Talk about a set-up story.) Farther down, they dispense with the major inconvenient fact in this vague line: “Both CNN and THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that Cipollone was not asked about some specifics from Hutchinson during his own interview on Friday.” "Some specifics"?? Like, maybe, the most important question to ask him? Why was that?
By the way, something Kinzinger said in his ABC interview gives away the goal of this “fact-finding” (haha) committee: “...I can guarantee...in about 10 years, there’s not going to have been a single Trump supporter that exists anywhere in the country. It’s like [Richard] Nixon. There were a lot of people that supported Nixon until he was out of office, and then everybody was like, ‘No, nobody supported Nixon.’”
Cipollone’s testimony is on video, but he’s not expected to testify publicly, according to THE NEW YORK TIMES. They obviously don’t want him on live TV. A source told POLITICO that his testimony is “still under lock and key.” That source said the committee did find his testimony “very helpful,” but you better believe that if they’d gotten what they wanted from him, the transcript would be everywhere. What they’ll do is go through the video and cherry-pick fragments of testimony that are “very helpful.” Anything else will remain under lock and key.
Byron York pointed out the problem with the committee’s questioning of Cipollone in a couple of tweets. “Hutchinson is J6 committee’s biggest star. Now members can point to her testimony and say: No other witnesses have contradicted her! How dare you question her account! 4/4 End.”
In his other tweet, he noted that according to the NY TIMES story, which cites “two people familiar with Cipollone’s actions that day,” the J6 was informed in advance that Cipollone “would not confirm” that conversation if he were asked about it. So he wasn’t asked.
THAT is the big take-away. Joel Pollak’s report in BREITBART NEWS got it right. The headline: “Report: January 6 committee avoids asking Cipollone questions that could implicate Hutchinson in perjury.”
In related news, if you missed the story about Steve Bannon agreeing to testify before the committee, here’s the magnificent letter Trump wrote to tell him he’d be waiving executive privilege and allowing Bannon to go ahead.
https://twitter.com/
Peter Navarro still refuses to dignify the committee with his testimony, though he could face two years in prison. His legal bills have topped $400,000, though he wasn’t even at the Capitol on January 6. He says his resistance isn’t about himself or even President Trump, but about constitutional issues such as the separation of powers.
https://www.newsmax.com/
(Side note: Tucker Carlson, on his Monday show, pointed out that both Bannon and Navarro happen to have been two of the most vocal and effective China critics in the Trump administration. Something to ponder as we learn even more about the “Biden family business” from Hunter’s electronic debris.)
“The informant told his handlers at the FBI that the Kansas City Proud Boy Group he was infiltrating and accompanied to the Capitol on January 6 ‘were not involved in, nor did they inspire the breaking of the barriers at the Capitol building.’ CHS describes the scene as the crowd doing it, as a ‘herd mentality,’ and that it was not organized.”
In fact, the CHS said, the Proud Boys had come to the event “to risk their own safety to protect average Trump supporters from Antifa attacks so MAGA folk could enjoy the day and ‘get back to their hotels safely.’” He also said that group members never mentioned “stopping the electoral college or certification of the election.” According to GATEWAY PUNDIT, “the FBI plant made it clear to his bosses that the Proud Boys and their friends had no idea what they were walking into, there was NO CONSPIRACY to enter the Capitol, and Proud Boys helped law enforcement inside the Capitol.”
A total of six from this group have been charged with conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, aiding and abetting (this charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years), obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, threatening a federal officer, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon.
If you have time, here’s the internal FBI document; for the really interesting part, scroll down and start at page 15. We have to wonder if the grand jury --- and the attorneys for the Proud Boys --- got to see this.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/
Here’s a transcribed, easier-to-read version.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.
As Jonathan Turley says in the following commentary, head of the Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes has offered to testify, even though he faces criminal charges. BUT...it has to be live and in public, so it “can’t be edited or tailored by the Committee.” I would buy a front-row ticket and a giant bucket of popcorn to that. As Turley says, “If Rhodes is willing to take this risk, the Committee should be willing to give up control over what the public can see and hear in the J6 investigation.” If they’re not, that tells us all we need to know (as if we didn’t know already).
In case you missed this tweet from trusted reporter Paul Sperry, he said on July 1: “BREAKING: Internal email reveals day before Jan. 6 riot, US Capitol Police intel unit warned “BLM from Baltimore” was bussing in rioters: BLM/Antifa will wear MAGA hats, wear camo, and attempt to blend in with MAGA crowd” so violence blamed on Trump supporters attending Trump rally.” Full story:
And there was this, about three Antifa members driving to the Capitol grounds that day with a gun in their vehicle, lying to law enforcement about it, and being allowed to simply drive home to Michigan. Here’s more:
Meanwhile, the next Jan. 6 kangaroo court hearing is...today.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT, I READ THEM!
"Radical extremists"
To listen to President Biden or virtually any Democrat politician or celebrity, they represent the mainstream of thought on abortion and pro-life Republicans are “dangerous, radical extremists.” So let’s look at the stats on that…
Guy Benson at Townhall.com reports that a new Harvard/Harris poll (hardly a conservative-leaning outfit) found that 37% of Americans favor allowing abortion only in cases of rape or incest. 12% would ban it after the first six weeks of pregnancy, and 23% would ban it after 15 weeks, which was the limit that Mississippi set in the case that got Roe v. Wade overturned. When you add up those figures, it totals a whopping 72% of Americans who want abortion either banned with rare exceptions or severely limited. By the way, contrary to the propaganda we’re being fed, women are more likely than men to favor limits on abortion.
Another 18% of Americans would ban abortion after 23 weeks, or the second trimester. That brings us up to 90% of Americans who want to ban or limit abortion.
And how many Americans want abortion to be legal right up through the ninth month of pregnancy? Only 10 percent. That’s the position that virtually all House Democrats and 49 out of 50 Senate Democrats recently voted for.
In short, 99% of national Democrat office holders have staked out a position so over-the-top that only 10% of Americans support it.
Tell me again: who are the “radical extremists” here?...
Slips of the tongue
I try not to be too hard on politicians for making a slip of the tongue. I know how easy it is to get fumblemouth when you’ve been, say, campaigning for weeks and making the same speech 20 times a day. But considering that President Biden works a few hours a day and spends half his time on vacation, and he was reading off a Teleprompter, and he still got the date of a recent school shooting wrong – by a hundred years – well, to quote Buffalo Springfield, “There’s something happening here.”
And here’s more bad news: whatever condition Joe Biden has that makes his mouth go flapping uncontrollably like a bass on the bottom of a fishing boat, it is apparently contagious. Jill Biden offended some Hispanics with an appearance in San Antonio in which she mispronounced “bodega” and praised the Hispanic community for being “as unique as the breakfast tacos here in San Antonio.”
https://www.foxnews.com/
That went over like a tofu enchilada with kale salsa.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/
Incidentally, comparing Hispanic people to tacos might actually be the least offensive thing about this shindig. She was speaking at an event for a group that Western Journal describes as a pro-illegal immigration NGO called UnidosUS that’s funded by leftist oligarchs like Bill Gates, and it was called the “Latinx IncluXion Luncheon.” So there was something for everybody to hate, from conservatives to Latinos to people who care about correct grammar and spelling.
(Side note: You can see why a group that pushes illegal immigration would love Joe Biden, since, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott chillingly put it, he's responsible for the equivalent of the population of Houston (6 million people) coming across the border every year.)
The bad news gets worse for Biden
Whatever is going on with President Biden’s cognitive functions, it’s getting harder for the media to suppress discussion of it. Some political insiders believe they aren’t even trying. Indeed, they see the coverage of the latest gross and possibly incriminating Hunter Biden cell phone/iCloud leaks as a signal that the media are no longer covering for Biden but are now helping the Democrats grease the skids for pushing him out of office.
This is easy to believe as Democrats must see Biden’s ever-sinking poll numbers as an anchor around all their necks. Even polls by friendly liberal outlets are looking dire. For instance, the latest New York Times poll found Biden’s approval/disapproval rating at 33%/60%. But the demographic breakdown shows it’s even worse.
Democrats were counting on young voters and Hispanics to cement their power, but Biden’s rating with 18-29-year-olds is 19%/69%, and with Latinos, 32%/63%. Even the party’s elite base (whites with a college indoctrination – er, “education”) are souring on him, rating him 45%/51%. The only groups with whom he’s still in positive territory are blacks (62%/30%) and Democrats (70%/25%), but even those approval ratings are stunningly low for those demos.
Also, only 13% of Democrats think the country is on the right track, and just 5% of respondents named abortion as a top issue influencing their votes.
But the bad news for Biden gets worse: The Times poll found that only 26% of Democrats think the Party should renominate him in 2024 and their top concern about him is his age (79.) One Michigan preschool teacher said, “I’m just going to come out and say it: I want younger blood. I am so tired of all old people running our country. I don’t want someone knocking on death’s door.”
This prompted former President Trump to defend older politicians, saying, “Life begins at 80.” Trump said there are many 80- and 90-year-olds who are as sharp as ever, but Biden’s not one of them, “but it has little to do with his age.”
The big problem for Democrats is who would replace Biden? The great Democrat wipeout under Obama cut down over a thousand Democratic politicians nationwide, removing a generation of potential candidates from office. Their DC leadership is even creakier (Nancy Pelosi is 82, Bernie Sanders 80.) The younger members of this Administration aren’t even qualified for the jobs they have now, much less the presidency (Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, etc.) That leaves a handful of Democrat Governors who have actual executive experience, but it’s mostly at locking down their states, helping crime soar and presiding over the weakest pandemic recoveries in America.
What can you say about a Party whose most promising prospect for President is California Gov. Gavin Newsom? Gavin Newsom can’t become President of all 50 states. Where would everyone in America flee to?
NYC Update
New York City DA Alvin Bragg must be tired of people complaining about how soft he is on crime, so he finally charged someone with second-degree murder. Unfortunately, the person he charged is 61-year-old bodega clerk Jose Alba, who was captured on video stabbing a much larger and younger assailant who was threatening his life. The deceased attacker was on probation for assault and had at least 27 arrests on his record. It’s one of the clearest cases of justifiable self-defense in history.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/
Attorneys and other prosecutors called Bragg’s decision to charge Alba with murder “shocking,” “crazy” and “inexplicable,” which coincidentally are all words I used to describe Bragg’s election as DA. It’s so beyond reason that it’s being condemned across the political spectrum. So give Bragg credit for at least bringing people together.
But wait: it gets even crazier: the attacker’s girlfriend, who allegedly started this fracas and brought her boyfriend in to confront Alba after she got upset that her EBT card was declined, will not be charged. She reportedly stabbed Alba in the arm three times and denied it until the video proved otherwise. The prosecutor explained that she was "justified in stabbing Mr. Alba, using force to stop his assault on the victim." As one cop put it, they “didn’t feel charges were necessary” because “she was defending her boyfriend.”
So if you’re planning to go to New York City, remember these two things:
1. Using a knife to defend yourself from a criminal attacker is murder there, but knifing someone who’s defending himself from a criminal attacker is self-defense.
2. Do NOT go to New York City.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY:
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website.
Permalink: https://www.mikehuckabee.com/2022/7/morning-edition-july-12
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.