Breaking: Nancy Pelosi Steps up to Incriminate Trump

By  | 

Donald Trump, the 45th US President, is about to be charged with a crime as law enforcement agents get ready to conduct an arrest.

A bombshell discovery about the predicted Trump indictment is just around the corner. In essence, Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, received a whopping $130,000 from Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, to cover up a purported encounter between the two in 2006. While the President denies engaging in any illicit liaisons, rumors have been swirling about Cohen’s purported payment from campaign funds, which were dubious “legal fees.”

JUST IN: Trump 24K Golden Dollars – Available Now!

During the predicted arrest of Trump, as revealed by Breanna Morello, Alvin Bragg addressed the growing opposition. This was an exciting event on Saturday night.

Bragg said to the people in his office, in part: “Please know that your safety is our top priority. We have full confidence in our outstanding security staff and investigators, along with our great OCA and NYPD colleagues, and will continue to coordinate with all of them. We do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York.”

Nancy Pelosi has given up the Speaker’s gavel, but she is unrelenting in hammering home her point that Trump is stirring up his supporters as his upcoming arrest looms next week.

“Whatever the Grand Jury decides, its consideration makes clear: no one is above the law, not even a former President of the United States,” Pelosi tweeted.

“The former president’s announcement this morning is reckless: doing so to keep himself in the news & to foment unrest among his supporters,” she added. “He cannot hide from his violations of the law, disrespect for our elections and incitements to violence. Rightfully, our legal system will decide how to hold him accountable.”

“Here we go again — an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump,” McCarthy said. “I’m directing relevant committees to immediately investigate if federal funds are being used to subvert our democracy by interfering in elections with politically motivated prosecutions.”

Upon news of the extreme District Attorney’s intention to prosecute the former president, California Representative Adam Schiff strongly objected to McCarthy’s approach.

Have You Seen This? The TRB Black Card is Something That Every Single Patriot Is Passionately Waiting For!

“Here we go again: Kevin McCarthy once again playing the part of criminal defense counsel to shield Trump from accountability,” tweeted Schiff. “Heedless of the consequences to the country, he stirs the pot, and calls for an investigation of the investigators. It’s all part of Trump’s playbook.”

Californian Representative Eric Swalwell similarly charged McCarthy with “using his powers in government to stop an independent prosecution of his boss.”

Ted Lieu, a Democratic congressman from California, strongly disagrees with McCarthy’s call for an investigation.

“Dear [McCarthy]: Do you even know what the charges are?,” wrote Lieu. “Have you seen any of the grand jury evidence? No. You are being a craven, partisan politician who doesn’t respect the rule of law. In America, no one is above the law, including the person to whom you bend your knee.”

Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, has introduced the idea that Donald Trump is a “right-wing extremist” who is going to “fan the flames of political violence.”

“We live in a democracy,” Jeffries said. “Right-wing extremists who fan the flames of political violence with inflammatory rhetoric are not fit to serve. American values over autocracy.”

The California congresswoman Maxine Waters asserted vehemently that Donald Trump is trying to organize “domestic terrorists” to interfere with planned protests the next week.

“Most people have never seen or believed that we would have a president who has acted in the way that he has, who has disrespected the Constitution of the United States of America, who has lied, who has tried to organize domestic terrorists,” she asserted.

“And some believe that he did organize them as they attacked our Capitol on January 6,” she went on. “This president has conducted himself in a way that he does not deserve not to be arrested. He should be arrested. He should be indicted. And the charges that he’s being indicted on are minimal, as opposed to the charges that I believe he could have been indicted on. I don’t know what’s going to happen when he announces himself. It’s almost like he’s attempting to organize his domestic terrorists to show up and to resist him being arrested. You have to be careful with him.”

It’s interesting that Waters claims Trump is organizing “domestic terrorists” to protest, despite the fact that he has hosted over a hundred non-violent rallies, that there is no FBI evidence connecting him to a masterminded “insurrection” plot, and that those who perished in the Capitol Riots on January 6 were his own supporters.

Jonathan Turley, a renowned constitutional attorney, criticizes the Trump prosecution and claims that the charges lack adequate legal support.

“Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic,” Turley argued. “Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of ‘hush money’ to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.”

“It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage,” he continued. “That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.”

“In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal,” he added. “The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.”

The Democrats’ desired catalyst, the probable arrest of Trump, might set off a revolt that could result in a broad attack on American liberty.

The dramatic and exaggerated presentation of the Capitol Riots as a “insurrection” on the fateful day of January 6 prepared the stage for this increased response.

The incident on January 6 has been compared to previous occurrences like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The contrast highlights the event’s significant impact on the country even though no deaths, with the exception of one Trump supporter named Ashli Babbitt, could be definitively attributed to it.

“Many of us remain disgusted and angered by the Jan. 6 riot — but it was a riot,’ Turley remarked.

According to an intriguing Time article, the Democratic Party intentionally lay the framework almost a year before the Capitol Riots by penning a compelling account of Donald Trump’s purported provocation of his supporters.

Introducing John Podhorzer, brilliant strategist and brains behind the Democratic Party’s victorious 2020 campaign. He brought together an extraordinary coalition of strong tech companies, significant corporations, tenacious labor unions, and energetic activist groups as senior advisor to the president of the AFL-CIO to vigorously counteract Trump’s influence. The outcome? a significant partnership unlike any other.

The primary premise guiding the meetings in the fascinating realm of “shadow cabal” gatherings was the high likelihood of a closely contested election. This rumor appeared to be very likely given that Democrats had previously challenged election results three times, in 2000, 2004, and 2016. These enigmatic debates first appeared in March 2020, which is where they got their start.

On March 3, a confidential three-page memo emerged, h“Threats to the 2020 Election.” raised over Trump’s intentions, fears mount that the electoral process may be disrupted, casting doubt on its fairness and legitimacy. The stakes are high as tensions escalate in anticipation of the crucial, potentially game-changing election he wrote. “On Nov. 3, should the media report otherwise, he will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.”

Let’s read it once more: Trump “will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.” The three-page Podhorzer memo is still being withheld from the public as “confidential.”

What made them think that Electoral College disagreements would occur? Suspicions surfaced among several election oddities because Biden was a less threatening opponent, ran a mostly undetectable campaign, and attracted a divided voter base. Something appeared to be simmering underneath the surface.

The 2020 election has come under under observation since a high-level meeting in March, and fake scenarios have been set up to foresee and prepare for any difficulties. In a July Boston Globe piece, civil society leaders are described as coming together across party lines to “war game” potential conflicts between Trump and Biden during this historic election, an event that left them extremely concerned about what might come next.

Political leaders, former government and military people, and academics unknowingly entered a terrifying discussion of the precarious nature of American democracy during a low-key online gathering on a June Friday.

A diverse group of Democrats and Republicans gathered to discuss the likely results of the upcoming election in November, delving into fascinating yet plausible scenarios. For example, what if President Trump refuses to concede defeat as he has hinted at doing? How might the situation develop to ensure his retention of power, and are there any chances that Democrats will stand their ground defiantly?

“All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse,” Rosa Brooks, a former Defense Department official and professor of law at Georgetown University, co-founded the Transition Integrity Project. She gave a grim account of what they discovered: “The law is essentially … it’s almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it.”

Breaking: A recent report, which sheds insight on their probable relation to the Capitol riots, discloses the FBI’s pursuit of potential radicals going back to November. It’s interesting that the Bureau examined the communications of American citizens using a notable NSA database, which is famed for its debatable mass surveillance techniques, raising concerns about the legality of such actions.

“The FBI’s requests for access to masses of electronic communications harvested by the National Security Agency (NSA) is revealed in a newly declassified report from the United States’ secret surveillance court,” the Daily Mail reported.

“It shows the FBI has continued to perform warrantless searches through the NSA’s most sensitive databases for routine criminal investigations, despite being told by a federal judge in 2018 and 2019 that such a use was an unconstitutional breach of privacy,” the report continued.

Obviously, the Capitol Police were well aware that during Trump’s rally, which coincided with the crucial Electoral College ceremony certifying Joe Biden’s victory, a sizable number of fervent protesters may pour onto the Capitol.

The United States Capitol Police (USCP) learned in advance that President Donald Trump’s rally would draw a historic 3 million spectators on January 4, 2021. USCP Captain Jessica Baboulis, who alerted authorities at 1:13 p.m., provided ample time for preparation for this historic event that ultimately shook Washington, D.C., on January 6, with dramatic consequences that still persist today. This was confirmed in a federal trial exhibit and court testimony.

“Activity on the 6th. Women for America. March for Trump (POTUS attend at 11) 20k (organizer says 3 million to attend),” the email read.

Surprisingly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed in her duty to protect the Capitol from a riot that was anticipated since March of the previous year. According to his testimony, the former head of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, made at least a dozen urgent requests to the House and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms for National Guard reinforcements starting on January 4. But, there was no substantive reply.

Paul Irving, the House Sergeant-at-Arms, is in the news because of questions surrounding his story of what happened on January 6. Yet, according to his own timetable, he requested permission just 20 minutes before the official call for National Guard help, despite his version of events claiming that no requests for assistance were made until that fatal day. This curious chronology inconsistency raises the possibility that Irving might be “covering” for Pelosi.

Former President Donald Trump pleaded with the Department of Defense to station 10,000 more National Guard members in Washington, D.C., but it was turned down. During this time of civil upheaval and political unrest, Major General William J. Walker testified before Congress that he got a “extraordinary” command requiring the consent of two senior military officials in order to protect Guardsman forces tasked with protecting the nation’s capital city. “No civil disturbance equipment could be authorized, unless it came from the Secretary of Defense,” he added.

In a letter written on January 5 to the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser vehemently called for a small but strategic National Guard and police force at the Capitol. The National Guard’s ability to deploy and prepare for the imminent riots was severely constrained by the Pentagon, despite her request, as reported by the Washington Post.

“[Acting Defense Secretary Christopher] Miller and other senior Pentagon officials never relayed the 10,000 figure to anyone outside the Defense Department, according to a former U.S. official who was familiar with the matter,” the WaPo article acknowledged.

“They didn’t act on it because based on discussions with federal and local law enforcement leadership, they didn’t think a force of that size would be necessary,” the former representative remarked.

The management of safety for the Electoral College on January 6th was plagued by a variety of grave issues, according to the Capitol Police Inspector General’s report released in April 2021.

“A new report by the Capitol Police’s internal watchdog found that department leaders overlooked key intelligence in the run-up to the riot on Jan. 6, including a warning that ‘Congress itself is the target,’ and barred the force’s riot response unit from using its most powerful crowd-control measures,” the New York Times reported.

There didn’t seem to be much of the National Guard present on that fatal day due to worries about perception. As a result, they were less able to secure the Capitol, and the Capitol Police’s activities caused even more controversy. Surprisingly, court records show there were at least 20 FBI/ATF agents among the rowdy throng on January 6.

So, the enigmatic obstacles put in the way of guarding the Capitol on January 6 by important authorities such as the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and the Department of Defense, raises questions. Despite being aware that extremist groups were planning to congregate, further security measures were consistently refused, prompting the urgent question of whether this was an innocent oversight or a cunning ruse.

For MAGA supporters considering protests in the wake of a possible Trump arrest, caution is advised because metropolitan settings may act as a false “insurrection” trap.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jerry Yocum
2 days ago


phoebe litwak
2 days ago

This is one more ridiculouse witch hunt in an effort to take Trump down. Sick and tired of the unethical and stupid behavior of the sickos like Pelosi and Maxine Waters and Schiff and Newsome. Think they are above the law and do not have to care about the people in this country – only lining their pockets and trying to destroy our country with their evil, mindless, life sucking behaviors!!