Thursday, August 11, 2022

Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation

Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation | Just The News


Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation

Trump got spring grand jury subpoena, gathered documents, turned them over and allowed agents to search storage locker the FBI later raided.

Two months before his Florida home was raided by the FBI, former President Donald Trump secretly received a grand jury subpoena for classified documents belonging to the National Archives, and voluntarily cooperated by turning over responsive evidence, surrendering security surveillance footage and allowing federal agents and a senior Justice Department lawyer to tour his private storage locker, according to a half dozen people familiar with the incident.

While the cooperation was mostly arranged by his lawyers, Trump personally surprised the DOJ National Security Division prosecutor and three FBI agents who came to his Mar-a-Lago compound on June 3, greeting them as they came to pick up a small number of documents compliant with the subpoena, the sources told Just the News, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the visit was covered by grand jury secrecy.

The subpoena requested any remaining documents Trump possessed with any classification markings, even if they involved photos of foreign leaders, correspondence or mementos from his presidency.

Secret Service agents were also present and facilitated the visit, officials said.

Trump signaled his full cooperation, telling the agents and prosecutor, "Look, whatever you need let us know," according to two eyewitnesses. The federal team was surprised by the president's invitation and asked for an immediate favor: to see the 6-foot-by-10-foot storage locker where his clothes, shoes, documents and mementos from his presidency were stored at the compound. 

Given Trump's instruction, the president's lawyers complied and allowed the search by the FBI before the entourage left cordially. Five days later, DOJ officials sent a letter to Trump's lawyers asking them to secure the storage locker with more than the lock they had seen. The Secret Service installed a more robust security lock to comply.

Around the same time, the Trump Organization, which owns Mar-a-Lago, received a request for surveillance video footage covering the locker and volunteered the footage to federal authorities, sources disclosed.

The disclosure Wednesday to Just the News raised immediate new questions in legal and congressional circles about the necessity for the subsequent raid, including whether the judge who approved the warrant knew of the earlier cooperation.

“The more we learn, the more confusing this gets,” George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News program Hannity. “….Did they relay this history to the magistrate? That, according to these sources, that the president had cooperated.

”I mean, the idea that he was subject to a subpoena, complied with a subpoena, didn't challenge it, voluntarily showed the storage room to the agents, followed their advice, secured it to meet their demands. All of that is hardly a basis for saying now we need to send in 40 FBI agents on a on a raid,” he added. “I mean, if the subpoena worked the first time, then presumably a second subpoena would work the second time if there were remaining documents.”

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., told Just the News that Trump mentioned to her Tuesday night the prior cooperation, and that she viewed the raid as an effort at nullifying his future run for the presidency in 2024 if he chooses.

“Look, this is exactly what people, the public is seeing: a two-tiered justice system. This is impeachment 4,” she said, citing Trump‘s prior two impeachments and the January 6 hearings that preceded the raid.

The flurry of cooperation in June came months after Trump had already returned about 15 boxes of documents, many of them classified, at the request of the National Archives. Government officials have said the documents were mistakenly boxed up by the General Services Administration along with Trump's personal possessions from the White House and shipped to Mar-a -Lago.

After the subpoena was delivered in late May, federal authorities said they suspected there were more classified materials still left at Mar-a-Lago, and arranged the June 3 visit.

After mid-June, the government had no other official contacts with the president's lawyers until agents showed up unannounced on Monday and executed the search warrant, ousting the president's lawyers and staff and spending nine hours collecting evidence. Sources told Just the News they collected about 12 boxes of evidence.

U.S. officials who confirmed the June 3 voluntary visit and subpoena compliance, refused to say whether U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart was apprised of the full extent of Trump's compliance when he was asked to sign the unprecedented search warrant last Friday.

The FBI then waited three days after getting the judge's approval before executing the warrant, one of many oddities in the timetable.

Some officials said the extra time was used to assemble a team to raid Mar-a-Lago in the most incognito manner so the public wouldn't be alerted and while the former president was out of town. 

The officials told Just the News the search warrant was sought after the FBI obtained some witness information and other evidence suggesting some classified documents may have still remained on the property after June, stored in locations such as a private safe Trump had in his residence, and that some of the storage locations may have been accessed in 2022.

The new revelations came the same day that new questions arose about Reinhart, the judge in the case.

Just the News obtained a court document showing that Reinhart — just six weeks before signing the warrant — recused himself from Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the Russia collusion scandal, citing concerns he couldn't be impartial.

Reinhart, appointed in 2018 as a federal magistrate in West Palm Beach, Fla., filed the recusal document on June 22, a few weeks after presiding over the start of the civil litigation. 

"The undersigned Magistrate Judge, to whom the above-styled cause has been assigned, hereby recuses himself and refers the case to the Clerk of Court for reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455," Reinhart wrote in his order of recusal in the Trump v. Clinton case.

You can read the document here:

The statute that the magistrate cited for his recusal states in part that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" and then describes the various circumstances that could trigger such concerns.

They include "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts" or prior work as a lawyer for a party involved in the case. 

Reinhart's order did not specify the conflict or source of the concern prompting his recusal.

Trump's lawsuit accuses Clinton, Democrat allies and current and former government officials of engaging in a racketeering conspiracy to falsely portray Trump as colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. The sweeping nature of the suit involves numerous parties and public figures.

The recusal filing emerges as numerous media reports have surfaced about the magistrate's prior work, including donations before he was judge to President Barack Obama and Jeb Bush and work for figures associated with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Daily Wire also raised questions about Reinhart's impartiality toward Trump, reporting that in a 2017 Facebook social post — a year before he was named a magistrate — he challenged the 45th president's moral character after Trump attacked the late Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon.

"I generally ignore the President-elect's tweets, but not this one," Reinhart posted, according to the Daily Wire. "John Lewis arguably has done more to 'make America great' than any living citizen. Last August, I took my son to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma so he could understand the kind of courage and sacrifice required to live in a democratic society. John Lewis embodies that spirit. Although I've never met him, he is one of my heroes.

"Thank you, Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel, 'John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet.'

"Or, as Joseph Welch said to Joseph McCarthy, 'At long last, have you left no sense of decency?'"

List of Tax Hikes in Democrat Reconciliation Bill


List of Tax Hikes in Democrat Reconciliation Bill


$6.5 Billion Natural Gas Tax Which Will Increase Household Energy Bills       

The bill imposes a regressive tax on American oil and gas development. The tax will drive up the cost of household energy bills. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the natural gas tax will increase taxes by $6.5 billion.

The tax hike violates President Biden’s tax pledge to any American making less than $400,000 per year. Biden administration officials have repeatedly admitted taxes that raise consumer energy prices are in violation of President Biden’s $400,000 tax pledge.

letter to Congress from the American Gas Association warned that the methane tax would amount to a 17% increase on an average family’s natural gas bill. Democrats have included a tax in the bill despite retail prices for energy surpassing multi-year highs in the United States.


$12 Billion Crude Oil Tax Which Will Increase Household Costs

With gas averaging more than $4.00  per gallon across the country and only weeks removed from record-high prices, Democrats have included a 16.4 cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil and imported petroleum products that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.

The tax hike violates President Biden’s tax pledge to any American making less than $400,000 per year.

As noted above, Biden administration officials have repeatedly admitted taxes that raise consumer energy prices are in violation of President Biden’s $400,000 tax pledge.

As if it weren’t bad enough, Democrats have pegged their oil tax increase to inflation. As inflation increases, so will the level of tax.

The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates the provision will raise $12 billion in taxes.

$1.2 Billion Coal Tax Which Will Increase Household Energy Bills

The bill would more than double current excise taxes on coal production. Under the Democrat proposal, the tax rate on coal from subsurface mining would increase from $0.50 per ton to $1.10 per ton while the tax rate on coal from surface mining would increase from $0.25 per ton to $0.55 per ton.

JCT estimates that this will raise $1.2 billion in taxes that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Corporate Income Tax Hike on U.S. Businesses Which Will Be Passed on to Households

Democrats imposed a 15 percent corporate alternative minimum tax on the financial statement income of American businesses reporting $1 billion in profits for the past three years. These American companies employ millions of Americans.

The cost of this tax increase will be borne by working families in the form of higher prices, fewer jobs, and lower wages.

Tax Foundation report from last December found a 15 percent book tax would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent and kill 27,000 jobs.

The most recent cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office found the provision would increase taxes by more than $313 billion.

According to JCT’s analysis, 49.7 percent of the tax would be borne by the manufacturing industry at a time when manufacturers are already struggling with supply-chain disruptions.

Tax Foundation also warned that current supply chain issues could be worsened by the book tax’s disproportionate burden on key industries. The report concluded that “the coal industry faces the heaviest burden of the book minimum tax, facing a net tax hike of 7.2 percent of its pretax book income, followed by automobile and truck manufacturing, which faces a 5.1 percent tax hike.” 

$124 Billion Stock Tax Which Will Hit Your Nest Egg — 401(k)s, IRAs and Pension Plans

When Americans choose to sell shares of stock back to a company, Democrats will impose a new federal excise tax which will reduce the value of household nest eggs. Raising taxes and restricting stock buybacks harms the retirement savings of any individual with a 401(k), IRA or pension plan.

Union retirement plans will also be hit.

The tax will put U.S. employers at a competitive disadvantage with China, which does not have such a tax.

Stock buybacks help grow retirement accounts. Raising taxes and restricting buybacks would harm the 58 percent of Americans who own stock and more than 60 million workers invested in a 401(k). An additional 14.83 million Americans are invested in 529 education savings accounts.

Retirement accounts hold the largest share of corporate stocks, accounting for roughly 37 percent of the outstanding $22.8 trillion in U.S. corporate stock, according to the Tax Foundation.

In 2017, corporate-sponsored funds made up $4.45 trillion in market value; union-sponsored funds accounted for $409 billion; and public-sponsored funds, which benefit teachers and police officers, added up to $4.25 trillion.

When companies perform stock buybacks, these investors are the ones who benefit. A tax on buybacks could dissuade companies from conducting this action and negatively impact retirement savings.

95% Federal Excise Tax on American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Democrats would impose a 95 percent excise tax on prescription drugs unless drug manufacturers accept government price controls.

In reality, all drug manufacturers would accept the price controls or stop selling the drug in the U.S. market entirely rather than pay the 95 percent tax.

This provision would restrict U.S. medical innovation and limit the supply of new medicines.

Price controls never work because they cause supply shortages. CBO warned the reduction in manufacturers’ revenue could be as high as $1 trillion over the next ten years and would “lower spending on research and development and thus reduce the introduction of new drugs.” 

The CBO further stresses the “uncertainty” in assessing the number of new medicines that would be prevented from coming to market. The agency already revised its original assessment to increase the number of drugs prevented from being introduced by 50 percent. 

$52 Billion Income Tax Hike on Mid-Sized & Family Businesses

Just as the U.S. economy slides into a recession, Democrats are including a tax hike on passthrough businesses with declared losses. This provision widens the net of taxable income. Preliminary cost estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation show the provision will increase taxes by $52 billion.

Senate Democrats passed an amendment to the bill before final passage that created a two-year extension on loss limitations of noncorporate taxpayers if the amount of the loss is in excess of $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a joint return). This provision was scheduled to sunset in 2026 under current law.

This provision would raise taxes on a manufacturer, retailer or other capital-intensive business that sees significant business losses in any year due to the cost of wages, rent, new equipment, inventory, and interest payments. 

The loss limitation was originally created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congressional Republicans but was used to offset the creation of the 20 percent deduction for passthrough businesses, resulting in a net tax cut for these businesses. Senate Democrats have now extended this loss limitation for two additional years to pay for their reckless tax and spend spree. They did not extend the 20 percent deduction for passthrough businesses.

This provision violates President Biden’s campaign pledge to small businesses: “Taxes on small businesses won’t go up.” 

Supersizing the IRS to Increase Audits – $124 Billion

The bill would spend $80 billion to supersize IRS with 87,000 new agents and auditors and ramp up audits on working households and small businesses. The IRS would perform an additional 1.2 million annual audits under the plan. Democrats claim the increased spending on enforcement would net $124 billion.

The bill spends 14 times as much money for “enforcement” — such as small business audits — than for “taxpayer services” — such as answering the phone. IRS employees only answer the phone “19 or 20 percent” of the time.

Monday, August 8, 2022

Congresswoman: New army of IRS agents coming after Americans

Congresswoman: New army of IRS agents coming after Americans

'And they're buying more guns and ammo too'

Congressional firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene is warning Americans that, under the Democrats' new tax-'em-all scheme, a "new IRS force" of 87,000 agents will be coming after them.

"And they're buying more guns and ammo too," Greene, R-Ga., explained in a report in the New York Post.

The new army is being created by the Democrats' reconciliation bill already adopted by the Senate.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan watchdog, says up to 90% of the billions in additional taxes the IRS is expected to collect will come from small businesses with incomes of less than $200,000 per year.

Green said, on social media, "87,000 IRS agents will be hired with $80 billion taxpayer dollars when the Senate Reconciliation bill passes this weekend. … Lower to middle income Americans and small businesses will be the primary targets of Democrats’ new IRS force."

She continued, "This new version of Biden’s Build Back Better more appropriately named Bring Back Blackouts bc of it’s insane foolish energy failing agenda will force Americans literally in the dark."

The Democrats' oddly named "Inflation Reduction Act," because studies show it actually will increase inflation, is the result of Democrat pressure on Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who earlier had resisted his party's demands to spend trillions of dollars the nation doesn't have on a Democrat wish list of green and other programs.

He finally caved, and agreed to support this tax-and-spend program that was adopted by the Senate on a 51-50 vote over the weekend.

The new taxes

It is Americans for Tax Reform that has listed the new taxes Americans will pay, including a multitude of taxes that will prove Joe Biden was not speaking truthfully when promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.

Those include a $6.5 billion natural gas tax that will hit household energy costs – a "regressive tax on American oil and gas development" that will "drive up the cost of household energy bills."

"The tax hike violates President Biden’s tax pledge to any American making less than $400,000 per year. Biden administration officials have repeatedly admitted taxes that raise consumer energy prices are in violation of President Biden’s $400,000 tax pledge," ATR reported.

Then there's the "$12 billion crude oil tax" that also will raise house household energy costs.

This tax, too, "violates President Biden’s tax pledge to any American making less than $400,000 per year."

And there's the $1.2 billion coal tax that "will increase household energy bills," the ATR said.

"The bill would more than double current excise taxes on coal production. Under the Democrat proposal, the tax rate on coal from subsurface mining would increase from $0.50 per ton to $1.10 per ton while the tax rate on coal from surface mining would increase from $0.25 per ton to $0.55 per ton."

Then there's the 15% "corporate alternative minimum tax on the financial statement income of American businesses reporting $1 billion in profits for the past three years."

The ATR said, "The cost of this tax increase will be borne by working families in the form of higher prices, fewer jobs, and lower wages. A Tax Foundation report from last December found a 15 percent book tax would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent and kill 27,000 jobs."

The ultimate cost to consumers? $313 billion.

Also in the bull's-eye are retirement programs, because of a new $124 billion stock tax – which also will target union retirement plans.

And then there's the fact that many new drugs and medical treatments may not be developed because of Biden's 95% federal excise tax on American pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Mid-sized and family businesses will pay an additional $52 billion for the Democrats' changes to passthrough businesses with declared losses.

Thursday, August 4, 2022

Colorado Election Analysis by Dr. Douglas Frank – US 2020 Election Fraud at a Glance

Colorado Election Analysis by Dr. Douglas Frank – US 2020 Election Fraud at a Glance


Colorado Election Analysis by Dr. Douglas Frank

See also the main article on Colorado, for documented election integrity issues and further reports.

The following charts show Dr. Doug Frank’s analysis of the 2020 election data in Colorado. For an overview of Dr. Frank’s approach and findings, see the main page on Dr. Frank’s Election Analysis.

Using 2010 US Census data and updated 2019 American Community Survey data from the Census Bureau, Dr. Frank is able to predict not only the voter turnout by age, but voter registration by age. When Frank’s prediction is compared to the actual voter turnout and voter registration by age, it correlates to an unusually high level of accuracy.

Pay particular attention to items highlighted in red, below:

  • Counties where the percent of population registered to vote is higher than 95%. This may simply be poor administration in not removing old voters from the rolls, or it may provide some indication of counties where “phantom” voters were been added to the rolls for the purpose of submitting fraudulent votes. These deserve deeper investigation.

  • How accurately Dr. Frank was able to predict the voting turnout based on the census data and applying his algorithm (the “Predictability” column below, also known as the correlation coefficient). Very high numbers above 0.95 may indicate some form of algorithmic manipulation of votes.

Click a column heading to sort by that column.

Adams County 81.9% 77.0% 0.999
Alamosa County 90.2% 72.9% 0.99
Arapahoe County 90.3% 77.9% 0.999
Archuleta County 103.7% 77.2% 0.997
Baca County 108.3% 76.3% 0.986
Bent County 71.0% 69.9% 0.978
Boulder County 96.2% 83.0% 0.996
Broomfield County 103.0% 82.8% 0.997
Chaffee County 97.9% 81.8% 0.997
Cheyenne County 106.8% 81.0% 0.984
Clear Creek County 104.2% 78.0% 0.997
Conejos County 91.1% 79.5% 0.994
Costilla County 96.9% 71.4% 0.99
Crowley County 44.0% 75.5% 0.983
Custer County 102.7% 82.6% 0.997
Delta County 94.6% 82.7% 0.999
Denver County 88.2% 76.8% 0.998
Dolores County 118.0% 76.6% 0.984
Douglas County 104.6% 84.9% 0.998
Eagle County 86.9% 78.4% 0.999
El Paso County 93.3% 75.6% 0.997
Elbert County 106.8% 84.5% 0.997
Fremont County 82.1% 78.2% 0.998
Garfield County 89.9% 77.4% 0.998
Gilpin County 106.1% 75.2% 0.994
Grand County 100.2% 76.6% 0.997
Gunnison County 100.4% 78.4% 0.994
Hinsdale County 121.8% 80.3% 0.98
Huerfano County 99.9% 77.0% 0.996
Jackson County 113.1% 70.2% 0.959
Jefferson County 97.2% 83.5% 0.998
Kiowa County 103.0% 84.8% 0.982
Kit Carson County 96.4% 77.3% 0.989
La Plata County 106.5% 74.4% 0.997
Lake County 90.6% 68.1% 0.992
Larimer County 97.2% 81.2% 0.999
Las Animas County 98.6% 69.5% 0.991
Lincoln County 75.8% 78.0% 0.99
Logan County 72.8% 80.1% 0.997
Mesa County 97.5% 77.8% 0.999
Mineral County 150.7% 81.8% 0.982
Moffat County 97.9% 73.0% 0.994
Montezuma County 103.0% 74.4% 0.997
Montrose County 91.7% 81.1% 0.998
Morgan County 84.6% 76.3% 0.997
Otero County 94.4% 74.4% 0.993
Ouray County 117.4% 83.0% 0.996
Park County 100.7% 77.3% 0.998
Phillips County 106.1% 73.7% 0.983
Pitkin County 99.5% 78.8% 0.997
Prowers County 85.9% 73.2% 0.989
Pueblo County 90.9% 75.6% 0.996
Rio Blanco County 100.7% 78.5% 0.995
Rio Grande County 98.0% 74.6% 0.995
Routt County 101.3% 79.9% 0.998
Saguache County 87.9% 73.3% 0.992
San Juan County 129.0% 73.9% 0.966
San Miguel County 98.0% 77.8% 0.996
Sedgwick County 106.9% 77.6% 0.981
Summit County 97.6% 73.0% 0.998
Teller County 103.6% 78.1% 0.999
Washington County 97.2% 83.1% 0.992
Weld County 89.7% 78.8% 0.999
Yuma County 84.8% 82.3% 0.996
Average of All Counties 97.6% 77.6% 0.993

Other points to note:

  • Sometimes the ballot count numbers and voter registration numbers used by Dr. Frank differ from other official sources. This appears to be because in these comparisons, Dr. Frank takes the number of voters from the state’s voter rolls (or “voter history file”) rather than the official number of votes. In a number of states these numbers do not reconcile accurately, an indicator of poorly administered voter rolls. See Dr. Frank’s mention of this issue, and take this into account with your comparisons.

  • Many states also demonstrate poor clean-up of their voter rolls, where voters that have died or moved interstate are left on the rolls for extended periods of time. This might explain some of the high numbers of registered voters vs residents, including instances where this is over 100%. Although it appears fraudulent at first glance, some of this might simply be poor administration. It definitely deserves a deeper look, however.

Voter Registration & Turnout Compared to Other States

Dr. Frank National Overview Chart

Source: Telegram Post, Nov 28, 2021

Charts For Each County

Dominion’s “Software Update” That Wiped Election Data in Mesa

In the following video Dr. Frank explains the forensic evidence proving that Dominion wiped important election data from the machines in Mesa County:

Watch on Rumble

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

Democrats Alleged Votes Changed by Secret Code in Machines


Democrats Alleged Votes Changed by Secret Code in Machines


Democrats alleged votes changed by a secret code and electronic access to voting machines from anywhere in the world!

By Sidney Powell

Wait, what?!!

It was the Democrats who first claimed vote tallies were manipulated, flipped, and instructed by secret code in voting machines and that the presidential election should be overturned.

The double-standard in play here has reached a whole new level.

As you know, the 2021 Democrat-controlled Congress has interviewed more than 1000 people, spent months, taken hundreds of depositions, held professionally produced-for-television “hearings,” and spent untold millions of tax dollars—impugning or harassing anyone who had the audacity to allege the 2020 election was stolen by fraud—some even blaming lawyers who filed lawsuits—for fomenting the violence that occurred in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Substantial digging has uncovered that it was the Democrats, including Democrats still in key roles on the January 6 Committee who first ever made—or supported lawyers who made—the very same allegations for which they attack us now.

The election of George W. Bush in Ohio in 2004 was a microcosm of 2020. The Democrats screamed about computer fraud, and based primarily on the difference in exit polls versus the votes counted, their lawyers filed a lawsuit which alleged, inter alia:

  • George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell and others “participated personally and/or substantially ‘in devising and/or implementing [a] pattern of vote fraud and discrimination * * * which operated to deprive numerous Ohio citizens of their constitutional and statutory rights.” They had a “plan to steal the election.” Petition at 15, 28.
  • The legitimate result was changed to a fraudulent result by “gaining physical or electronic access to the tabulating machines and systems” such as by modem,” Id. at 30.
  • The “confederate of [the Republicans] who was actually changing the vote totals did not need access to the computer. Electronic access can be obtained from almost anywhere in the world. . .” Id. at 30-31.
  • Fraudulent acts included “erasing or falsifying the electronic audit trail which could show access to the computer and the spreadsheet.” Id. at 31.
  • A second means of changing the result included “by inserting unauthorized and so far undetected operating instructions into the software” used in connection with voting machines,” and,
  • “[S]ome or all of the unauthorized operating instructions were pre-set to delete themselves a given amount of time after the election.” 1 Id. at 31.
  • “[A]t least 130,613 votes were taken from Kerry- Edwards and given to Bush-Cheney.” at 33-35.


Then they requested votes be added to Kerry-Edwards and that the electors for Kerry-Edwards be certified instead of those for Bush, as seen in the screenshot below. Id. at 35.

Republicans seemed to have managed a media blackout. Quoting a thorough article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory   as   nut   cases   in   ”tinfoil   hats,”    while    the   national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ”conspiracy theories,” . . . and The New  York  Times  declared  that  ”there  is  no   evidence   of   vote theft or errors on a large scale.”

Those mantras sound familiar, don’t they?

Guess who filed a brief in support of the lawyers who filed this election fraud petition? Who argued vehemently (and correctly) that those lawyers who challenged the 2004 election should not be sanctioned?

None other than January 6 Committee members Zoe Lofgren and Adam Schiff, plus Democrats Maxine Waters, and former Congressmen John Conyers, Jerry Nadler, and many others.

The Congressmen strongly urged protection of the Democrats’ lawyers from sanctions for their stunning election challenge which included vigorous allegations of machine fraud, vote flipping, a third party changing the vote/outcome, secret instructions in the machines, erased audit trails, vote “hopping,” fake ballots—all as part of their massive conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell, and others.

The Democrats joined John Conyers brief, making these arguments—and the same arguments they now vilify and seek to disbar many of us for making:

Conyers Memorandum at 2-3.

They also wrote: “For over two hundred years, one of the strengths of our democracy has been that citizens may question the results of an election.” Id. at 2. They argued it was strongly in the public interest to allow election contests and discovery in them. Id. at 2-3. Indeed, election challenges are crucial.

As the Democrats urged, citizens who bring election challenges “vindicate more than their private rights. They protect the broader public interest.” [Election challenges] “involve the right of the people to have the fact as to who has been duly elected to be judicially determined. The inquiry must be in as to whether in a given instance the popular will has been or is about to be thwarted by mistake or fraud. The public interest imperatively requires that the ultimate determination of the contest shall reach the right result.” [citations omitted]. Id. at 3.

They also recognized—when it was their candidates who lost—that “the Verified Petition was filed for the entirely proper purpose of challenging an election that seemed deeply flawed and suspicious.” Id. at16. They even accepted defects in the pleadings as understandable, “[u]nder the incredibly truncated time-frame of an election context, procedural error—even in situations where the requirements are beyond question—occurs.” Id. at 16, 17; see id. at 5, 10.

Against cries of “mind-boggling” claims of “conspiracy theories,” ‘‘theory, conjecture, hypothesis, and invective’’ rather than evidence, harassment; and, a challenge filed “only for partisan political purposes,” id. at 16, the Democrats closed their strong brief with this:

Under these circumstances, a finding of bad faith and imposition of sanctions would be highly inappropriate and would serve to chill advocacy of important interests that are implicated by election contests. One of the strengths of our democracy is that citizens are free to question the results of an election. Those who in good faith attempt to complain through legally provided channels about the deficiencies of an election are protected by law from retaliatory sanction motions. (emphasis added). Id. at 17.

With the urging of these Democrat members of Congress, and in a correct application of the law, the Ohio Supreme Court did not sanction the attorneys who filed the election challenges. The same should be true today.

The Congressional Democrats went on to challenge the seating of the Ohio electors—the first such challenge in our history—and produced a lengthy report.

As you can see, the hypocrisy and duplicity of the January 6 Committee and the Democrats know no bounds. The more we learn, the more it appears there has long been only one political machine running “the matrix,” creating an illusion we were making the choices, and as Mr. Obama himself noted, each “side” has cheated in elections.

How long has computerized voting and vote counting to defraud Americans of their sacred votes and install whomever the puppet masters prefer as President of the greatest power on earth? Who are the oligarchs making these decisions?

Our elections simply cannot be about who cheats the best. What if the Democrats were right about Ohio in 2004?

Was Bush elected in Ohio by tactics that have now been perfected and used in multiple states? Who else was?

How long has it been since the American people really elected their president—or other officials?

How deeply and widely has the machine fraud infected elections at every level of our Republic and the states?

Until we get paper ballots, hand-counted, and citizen voter identification, we delude ourselves by thinking we have a Republic or that “we the people” are electing our leaders.

And, given the information above, it is duplicitous and ridiculous to attack those of us who made what we now know to be the same allegations the Democrats made in 2004. The 65Project—whose sole purpose is to demonize and destroy the lawyers who challenged the 2020 election—to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms”—should never have received charitable non-profit status, and it should be terminated for sheer hypocrisy or estopped by law from filing anything.

We can fix this if we unite immediately to demand this simple and far less expensive means of electing our government. No one should be opposed to an honest and transparent election process. Americans are entitled to it, and our elected officials who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks.






CISA Report

Monday, July 18, 2022

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Pace of Decline Slows in Past Decade


Some trends shown in this report have been updated. Rates for overall gun deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides have been updated through 2013. The rate for non-fatal violent firearms victimizations has been updated through 2014. Updated charts and information can be found here.

Chapter 1: Overview

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011.

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.1 The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower decrease in the gun suicide
rate, means that gun suicides now account for six-in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981.

Trends for robberies followed a similar long-term trajectory as homicides (National Research Council, 2004), hitting a peak in the early 1990s before declining.

This report examines trends in firearm homicide, non-fatal violent gun crime victimization and non-fatal violent crime victimization overall since 1993. Its findings on firearm crime are based mainly on analysis of data from two federal agencies. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using information from death certificates, are the source of rates, counts and trends for all firearm deaths, homicide and suicide, unless otherwise specified. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, a household survey conducted by the Census Bureau, supplies annual estimates of non-fatal crime victimization, including those where firearms are used, regardless of whether the crimes were reported to police. Where relevant, this report also quotes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (see text box at the end of this chapter and the Methodology appendix for more discussion about data sources).

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-3Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened.

There also is debate about the extent of gun ownership in the U.S., although no disagreement that the U.S. has more civilian firearms, both total and per capita, than other nations. Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate and higher rates of gun ownership, but not higher rates for all other crimes. (See Chapter 5 for more details.)

In the months since the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December, the public is paying close attention to the topic of firearms; according to a recent Pew Research Center survey (Pew Research Center, April 2013) no story received more public attention from mid-March to early April than the debate over gun control. Reducing crime has moved up as a priority for the public in polling this year.

Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest and concern. They also are a relatively small share of shootings overall. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics review, homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008. These homicides, most of which are shootings, increased as a share of all homicides from 0.5% in 1980 to 0.8% in 2008, according to the bureau’s data. A Congressional Research Service report, using a definition of four deaths or more, counted 547 deaths from mass shootings in the U.S. from 1983 to 2012.2

Looking at the larger topic of firearm deaths, there were 31,672 deaths from guns in the U.S. in 2010. Most (19,392) were suicides; the gun suicide rate has been higher than the gun homicide rate since at least 1981, and the gap is wider than it was in 1981.

Knowledge About Crime

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-4Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago. A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same. (An additional 6% did not know or did not answer.)

Men (46%) are less likely than women (65%) to say long-term gun crime is up. Young adults, ages 18 to 29, are markedly less likely than other adults to say long-term crime is up—44% do, compared with more than half of other adults. Minority adults are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say that long-term gun crime is up, 62% compared with 53%.

Asked about trends in the number of gun crimes “in recent years,” a plurality of 45% believe the number has gone up, 39% say it is about the same and 10% say it has gone down. (An additional 5% did not know or did not answer.) As with long-term crime, women (57%) are more likely than men (32%) to say that gun crime has increased in recent years. So are non-white adults (54%) compared with whites (41%). Adults ages 50 and older (51%) are more likely than those ages 18-49 (42%) to believe gun crime is up.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.

Internationally, a decline in crime, especially property crime, has been documented in many countries since the mid-1990s. According to the authors of a 30-country study on criminal victimization (Van Dijk et al., 2007), there is no general agreement on all the reasons for this decline. They say there is a general consensus that demographic change—specifically, the shrinking proportion of adolescents across Europe—is a common factor causing decreases across Western countries. They also cite wider use of security measures in homes and businesses as a factor in reducing property crime.

But other potential explanations—such as better policing or increased imprisonment—do not apply in Europe, where policies vary widely, the report noted

Among the major findings of this Pew Research Center report:

U.S. Firearm Deaths

  • In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.
  • In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5
  • Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).
  • By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.
  • A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.
  • The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.

U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization

  • In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.
  • In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.

U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime

  • The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.
  • Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.


  • The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.
  • Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.

About the Data

Findings in this report are based on two main data sources:

Data on homicides and other deaths are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on information from death certificates filed in state vital statistics offices, which includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners and coroners. Data also include demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors, who obtain that information from family members and other informants. Population data, used in constructing rates, come from the Census Bureau. Most statistics were obtained via the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), available from URL: Data are available beginning in 1981; suitable population data do not exist for prior years. For more details, see Appendix 4.

Estimates of crime victimization are from the National Crime Victimization Survey, a sample survey conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Census Bureau. Although the survey began in 1973, this report uses data since 1993, the first year employing an intensive methodological redesign. The survey collects information about crimes against people and households, but not businesses. It provides estimates of victimization for the population ages 12 and older living in households and non-institutional group quarters; therefore it does not include populations such as homeless people, visiting foreign tourists and business travelers, or those living in institutions such as military barracks or mental hospitals. The survey collects information about the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. For more details, see Appendix 4.

Roadmap to the Report

The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 explores trends in firearm homicide and all firearm deaths, as well as patterns by gender, race and age. Chapter 3 analyzes trends in non-fatal violent gun crime victimizations, as well as patterns by gender, race and age. Chapter 4 looks at trends and subgroup patterns for non-fatal violent crime victimizations overall. Chapter 5 examines issues related to the topic of firearms: crime news, crime as a public priority, U.S. gun ownership data, and comparison of ownership and crime rates with those in other nations. Appendices 1-3 consist of detailed tables with annual data for firearm deaths, homicides and suicides, as well as non-fatal firearm and overall non-fatal violent crime victimization, for all groups and by subgroup. Appendix 4 explains the report’s methodology.

Notes on Terminology

All references to whites, blacks and others are to the non-Hispanic components of those populations. Hispanics can be of any race.

“Aggravated assault,” as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is an attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether an injury occurred, and an attack without a weapon when serious injury results.

The terms “firearm” and “gun” are used interchangeably.

“Homicides,” which come from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, are fatal injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill. Deaths due to legal intervention or operations of war are excluded. Justifiable homicide is not identified.

“Robbery,” as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is a completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury.

“Sex crime,” as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, includes attempted rape, rape and sexual assault.

“Simple assault,” as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is an attack (or attempted assault) without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury (for example, bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or swelling) or in undetermined injury requiring less than two days of hospitalization.

“Victimization” is based on self-reporting in the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes Americans ages 12 and older. For personal crimes (which in this report include assault, robbery and sex crime), it is expressed as a rate based on the number of victimizations per 100,000 U.S. residents ages 12 and older. See the Methodology appendix for more details.


Many researchers and scholars contributed to this report. Senior writer D’Vera Cohn wrote the body of the report. Paul Taylor, senior vice president of the Pew Research Center, provided editorial guidance. Mark Hugo Lopez, senior researcher and associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, managed the report’s data analysis and wrote the report’s methodology appendix. Catherine A. Gallagher, director of the Cochrane Collaboration of the College for Policy at George Mason University, provided guidance on the report’s data analysis and comments on earlier drafts of the report. Lopez and Kim Parker, associate director of the Center’s Social & Demographic Trends project, managed the report’s development and production. Kevin T. Maass, research associate at the Cochrane Collaboration at George Mason University’s College for Policy, provided analysis of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Research Assistants Eileen Patten and Anna Brown number-checked the report and prepared charts and tables. Patten also conducted background research on trends in crime internationally. The report was copy-edited by Marcia Kramer of Kramer Editing Services.

The report also benefited from a review by Professor Richard Felson of Pennsylvania State University. The authors also thank Andrew Kohut and Scott Keeter for their comments on an earlier draft of the report. In addition, the authors thank Kohut, Michael Dimock, Keeter and Alec Tyson, our colleagues at the Pew Research Center, for guidance on the crime knowledge public opinion survey questionnaire. Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Research Center, provided computational assistance for the report’s analysis of homicide rates by race and ethnicity.

Finally, Michael Planty and Jennifer Truman of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice provided data, invaluable guidance and advice on the report’s analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey.

  1. See Cooper and Smith, 2011. The rate declined through at least 2010. 
  2. A USA Today analysis in 2013 found that 934 people died since 2006 in mass shootings, defined as claiming at least four victims, and that most were killed by people they knew: 
  3. Much of this section draws from Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008. 
  4. The diversity of homicide trend by city was the topic of a recent forum, “Putting Homicide Rates in Their Place,” sponsored by the Urban Institute. 
  5. There were 11,101 gun homicide deaths in 2011 and the gun homicide rate remained 3.6 per 100,000 people, according to preliminary CDC data. 


Monday, July 11, 2022


THEY ALL LIED AND WE HAVE PROOF! Highly Sensitive DOJ Jan 6. Documents Leaked to The Gateway Pundit – FBI Confidential Human Source INFILTRATED Proud Boys, Ran FBI Operation on J-6, Reported They Were INNOCENT! — See Texts and Documents IN FULL!!