'I didn’t talk to Biden'

The Department of Justice is taking steps to preserve charges against Jan. 6 defendants after the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to its efforts. After the Supreme Court issued a ruling June 28 limiting the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ would “continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.” Since then, the DOJ has taken first steps to salvage its charges, including asking judges for additional time to evaluate the impact of the ruling while stressing that the Supreme Court did not entirely reject its use of the statute. The statute, Section 1512(c)(2), holds up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.” However, the Supreme Court held in Fischer v. United States that to charge an individual under the law, “the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.” More than 355 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding,” according to the DOJ. “The DOJ is not happy about the Fischer decision and is currently strategizing ways to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling,” criminal defense attorney David W. Fischer wrote Wednesday for the blog “Declassified With Julie Kelly.” For example, in certain cases the DOJ may attempt to recharge using corrected charging language in indictments, which will claim that particular defendants targeted the ceremonial ballot box or other documents used by Congress during the January 6 certification. Creative charging language, however, doesn’t change the evidence, which is quite strong that none of the J6ers were targeting evidence. In a number of cases, the DOJ is now asking for additional time to evaluate how the ruling will apply. “The Supreme Court remanded Fischer to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings and to assess the sufficiency of the indictment on that count,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves wrote Thursday in defendant Taylor Franklin Taranto’s case. “Based on the Supreme Court’s opinion and the forthcoming proceedings in the D.C. Circuit, the government anticipates that it will need additional time to evaluate its prosecution of charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).” Graves’ office wrote Tuesday in defendant Tara Stottlemyer’s case that her conduct “may very well meet the changed standard” for the statute, noting that the “government is still evaluating Fischer’s impact on this and other January 6 cases.” Prosecutors cited Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion, which noted that it “it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding.” “If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed,” Jackson wrote. Jackson joined the majority in the case to limit the statute’s scope, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Criminal defense attorney William Shipley, who represents Stottlemyer, wrote on X that the DOJ’s efforts to delay are “very frustrating for Tara and other J6 defendants who rightfully see Fischer as a victory that is now being withheld from them by procedural games.” However, some defendants have already seen relief. Judges granted several defendants, including Kevin Seefried, Alexander Sheppard and Thomas B. Adams Jr., early release before the Supreme Court even issued its ruling. The DOJ stated Wednesday in a filing it would not yet request Adams’ return to custody. A federal judge also granted defendant Jorge Riley release on Friday pending the resolution of his motion to vacate his sentence. The DOJ did not oppose Riley’s request, though it declined to concede he had a “meritorious claim” under the Supreme Court’s ruling. “In short, the United States’ decision to not oppose Riley’s motion for release should in no way be understood as a waiver or concession regarding the merits of Riley’s Section 2255 claims, collateral attacks based on Fischer generally, or any other January 6 case that may (or may not) be impacted by Fischer,” Graves wrote Thursday. Likewise, the DOJ did not oppose defendant Katharine Morrison’s motion to terminate her special condition of home detention on Wednesday, but emphasized it should not be “construed as a concession” that she has a claim under Fischer. Prosecutors requested dismissal of the obstruction count Friday in defendant Mark Sahady’s case to enable the trial to proceed in August on other counts and to “promote judicial economy and efficiency.” “The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision,” Garland noted in his statement after the Supreme Court’s ruling. “There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer.” The DOJ did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Biden DOJ Aims to Salvage Jan. 6 Charges After Major Blow at Supreme Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Left-wing smears of Project 2025 constitute “probably the greatest misinformation campaign since the Russia hoax,” the head of the initiative for the next conservative president said Monday at The Heritage Foundation’s Policy Fest at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Paul Dans, director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project for Heritage, was referring to the eventually debunked allegations that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidency in 2016. Dans spoke at the Policy Fest on the first day of the RNC, which will run through Thursday when Trump is scheduled to accept the party’s nomination for a third time. The purpose of Project 2025 is “to bring our [conservative] movement together,” Dans said. “We’re 110 conservative organizations who have really committed ourselves to making America a government of by and for the people,” Dans said. “Over the last 100 years, the progressives have built an administrative state and it’s ruled by a class of experts, as Sen. [Mike] Lee was saying. And really, it’s the anti-democracy at work.” President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign launched a website dedicated to attacking Project 2025 and has posted what Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and others call baseless claims about the policy initiative, including falsely asserting that Project 2025 seeks to “terminate the Constitution.” Organized by Heritage but including contributions from over 100 other conservative groups, the 2025 Presidential Transition Project (its full name) aims to equip an incoming conservative presidential administration with policies to rein in the size and power of the U.S. government’s bureaucracy. Project 2025 provides a “solution set” to take on the government’s deep state, Heritage’s Dans said, and is a call for Americans to take back control of their own government. “This is really a way for us to make sure, when we ultimately get in the driver’s seat, that we’re ready to move out because this whole system has been built by the Left, and even when we win, we can still lose if we aren’t working to put the policies in place,” he said. Project 2025 isn’t running for president, Trump is, Dans said. “We’re a group of private citizens advocating for better government,” he said. The post ‘Greatest Misinformation Campaign Since Russia Hoax’: Project 2025 Director Counters Lies appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dem Donor to Journalists: Spin Assassination Attempt As Potential Fake

For years leftist journalists have been scaring their audience into believing that a Donald Trump victory in 2024 will bring about the “end of democracy.” So it shouldn’t surprise anybody that a crazed shooter might have acted on that premise.  These anchors, reporters and pundits should be the last ones to criticize any conservative for their “tone” in the coming days.  The following are just some of the most obnoxious cases of journalists (via MRC’s archives) declaring democracy dead, if Team Trump wins. First up is a montage of MSNBCers (by MRC video editor Bill D’Agostino) being a bunch of democracy doomsayers:        MSNBCers Fearmonger: Trump a “Danger” to Democracy “Let me ask you, do you think that Donald J. Trump presents a clear and present danger to our Democracy?”— MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle to Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, January 23, 2019. “This would be the end of America. If this is what we’re gonna be, this won’t be a democracy. That’s a monarchy.”— MSNBC host Joy Reid during MSNBC’s live coverage of Donald Trump’s RNC acceptance speech, August 27, 2020. “While there are now some comedic takes online about how much people think about the Roman empire these days, it is dead serious. The notion of an actual Trump-led wannabe empire is the end of democracy. Which sounds like a bad thing, unless, by the way, you’re part of this sort of half-trolling half-serious right-wing online community.”— Host Ari Melber on MSNBC’s The Beat, December 4, 2023. “A re-election of Donald Trump could mean the end of democracy, because it instantly no longer becomes a presidency, and it becomes something far, far worse.”— MSNBC political analyst Kimberly Atkins Stohr on Deadline: White House, February 2, 2022. “Isn’t it one of the larger questions that the country confronts, or has to confront, is when will America start sleepwalking towards the end of Democracy? I mean, all of us here at this table can recall the summer of 2015 when Donald Trump maligned John McCain, maligned his service, maligned his career. Everybody I know said, “Well that’s it for Trump.” … Well, it wasn’t, and it isn’t up until this moment in time.” — MSNBC Contributor Mike Barnicle on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, November 4, 2023. “What he’s [Donald Trump] offering is…. ‘If you pick me, that’ll be the end of politics, and you won’t have to deal with politics anymore. You won’t have to deal with contested elections, you won’t have to deal with contests or divisions when it comes to power, you’ll have a strongman leader and I’ll just do what I want. And won’t that be a lot simpler?’...That strongman model is what the Republican base is enthused about….We are naive to think he is tricking people into picking him and then surprise he’s gonna act like a dictator. What he is offering is strongman leadership, the end of politics, the end of elections.”— MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Inside with Jen Psaki, January 22, 2024. “I was in the UK visiting friends and family, where a lot of people kept asking me the same two questions: One, can Donald Trump really win again? And two, would it really be the end of American democracy if he does? And my answer to both those questions was yes. He can win again, and a second Trump term will be an existential threat to American democracy — in a way that even his first scandal-ridden controversy-plagued, fascist-like term was not.”— Host Mehdi Hasan on MSNBC’s The Mehdi Hasan Show, July 23, 2023. “A historian will say, what was at stake tonight and this week, was the fact — whether we will be a democracy in the future. Whether our children will be arrested and conceivably killed. We’re on the edge of a brutal authoritarian system, and it could be a week away.”— Presidential historian Michael Beschloss on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, November 2, 2022. “One year from now, it could be over. American democracy could be over, Donald Trump one year from now could win… So a year from now it could all be over. The American experiment, at an end. One year from now!”— Host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, December 18, 2023.   On ABC: Trump Conviction Is Democracy’s “Ultimate Stress Test”      “In 1774 John Adams said, ‘representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty.’ 250 years later, the heart and lungs of liberty are facing what may be the ultimate stress test. Twelve anonymous jurors rendered their verdict on Thursday, finding Donald Trump guilty on all counts. It’s the third time in the last two years that jurors have rendered verdicts against Trump. Jurors have yet to consider charges against Trump for even more serious crimes: blocking the peaceful transfer of power, concealing classified documents, encouraging the filing of false electors. But for now, the New York jurors have already presented their fellow citizens with a choice: do we want to be represented — to be led for the first time in history by a convicted felon? That answer will come in November.”— Moderator George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, June 2, 2024.  “Another first in American history. Donald Trump, now the first and only man who’s held the presidency to face a felony conviction….Guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of an illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election that made him president. This is the third time this year that citizen jurors have held Trump accountable. In January, an $83.3 million judgment for defaming E. Jean Carroll. In February, a $450 million judgment for civil fraud in his business dealings. Juries. Ordinary people doing their duty under enormous stress, demonstrating civic courage. Remarkably, convicted felons can run for president. So, this year, in this extraordinary time, American voters will be the ultimate jurors. We’re going to cover the fallout of this unprecedented event.”— Co-host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Good Morning America, May 31, 2024.   Trump Is Testing the “Bedrock Tenets” of “Democracy”  “Until now, no American presidential race has been more defined on what’s happening in courtrooms than what is happening on the campaign trail. Until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits — to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.”— Moderator George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, April 28, 2024.   CBS Proclaims Trump Guilty Verdict = America Is Reborn     “When the guilty verdicts were read this past week, America in a tangible way rechristened itself as a republic. It was a sobering reminder that every American is precisely equal before the law. I have always admired Thomas Jefferson for wanting no title before his name except mister. Like the other Founders, he didn’t want or expect special treatment under the law….Former President Trump’s conviction proves that in the eyes of the law even an ex-president is just another Mister….The Manhattan Criminal Court has changed American presidential history forever. Out of 46 presidents, only Mr. Trump carries the ignoble albatross of ‘convicted felon.’ It’s a sad phrase, but it also gives reason to rejoice that Jefferson’s republic is new all over again.”— Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley on CBS Sunday Morning, June 2, 2024.   Going a Bit Far with the Civil War Imagery      Ted Koppel: “I don’t think there has ever been a more recorded mini-insurrection, than what happened on January 6th, and yet we’re still arguing about what happened. [To Chris Gwinn, Gettysburg Chief of Interpretation and Education] Are you seeing some of the same similarities that I’m seeing in what’s happening today?....You don’t have to [answer], if it’s too hot a potato.”Chris Gwinn: “It’s a little hot. It’s a little hot for the park service.”...Koppel: “When the Civil War began with the surrender of Fort Sumter in 1861, there was throughout much of the land wild celebration and no inkling of the price to be paid. Wars rarely begin in a climate of foresight….So could the chest beating at a political rally provide real insight as to what could happen in the event of another Trump defeat?...President Trump’s critics and their legion are fearful of what his victory in the election might mean for the country. And he might do well to consider the consequences of another Trump defeat.”— CBS News Sunday Morning, June 2, 2024.

Monday morning began with a flood of information regarding the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump Saturday afternoon. Following a clear fluke by the secret Service, pressures mount for a claim for such a clear failure. Yet, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, who oversees the Secret Service, ignored questions from CNN's Kate Bolduan on the topic, deflecting the blame entirely.  As Bolduan asked basic questions, Mayorkas deflected, stating ten times that there would be an independent review of the situation. People deserve answers, but Mayorkas refused to accept any blame, even when asked directly by Bolduan (click expand): BOLDUAN: I mean, it's been called by some lawmakers a security failure at the highest level, we now know, just this morning, we learned the Secret Service director in her first public comments said this, “The Secret Service is working with all involved federal, state, and local agencies to understand what happened, how it happened, and how we can prevent an incident like this from ever taking place again.” Secretary, do you call this a security failure on the part of the Secret Service? MAYORKAS: An incident like this cannot happen. That is precisely why President Biden directed an independent review. So that that review, its conclusions and its recommendations have the full confidence of the American public. We will — uh — uh — carefully analyze in an independent and thorough fashion what occurred, recommendations will be made. Those recommendations will be implemented. We are in a dynamic threat environment. We adapt to that dynamism every single day. Changes have been made to the Republican National Convention just as the 18-month planning calls for. It calls for changes based on changes in the threat environment. And that is where we are now.     Again Bolduan asked the question and again Mayorkas gave a half spun answer (click expand):  BOLDUAN: If you don't want to say because the review is still happening, who is — who failed in terms of the security around this rally? Do you agree that it was a failure? You said this cannot happen, but first and foremost, before you make sure you make the changes, you have to acknowledge what a failure this was. MAYORKAS: Kate, when I say that something like this cannot happen, we are speaking of a failure. We are going to analyze through an independent review how that occurred, why it occurred, and make recommendations and findings to make sure it doesn't happen again. I couldn't be clearer. Since Saturday’s Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania was being live streamed, hundreds had videoed all aspects of the surroundings. So it’s no surprise that so many of these videos depicted the clear and present threat of the shooter. Multiple witnesses testified to notifying security of the shooter minutes beforehand, yet nothing was done to stop him, and people are angry. A man died, many were injured, including the former President of the United States. So, yes, there absolutely is a sense of justified anger, and pretense for questions of what did the Secret Service do and why didn’t they do it quicker? Back to the interview, when Bolduan pressed him further citing Congressman Mike Waltz’s (R-FL) comments “that there have been repeated requests for stronger Secret Service protection for President Trump denied by Secretary Mayorkas,” his response was once again ignored as, “a baseless and irresponsible statement.”  So quick to point out the falsities, it is apparent that even the liberal media are waiting for answers on what went wrong. The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: CNN News Central 7/15/24 8:25:00 AM EST   KATE BOLDUAN: Joining me right now, is the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. Of course, Secretary, the Secret Service is in — under the Department of Homeland Security. There are so many questions today about what happened on Saturday. What – what did the Secret Service do, not do? What kind of a failure was it in their planning and their protocol? How was that man able to get so close to assassinating a former President? What is — first and foremost, the latest you know about the man who did this. Do you think we will learn a motive Secretary? ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Kate, we will deliver answers to the American people to the fullest extent possible. That is our responsibility and not ours alone. As I hope you know, the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation and President Biden has directed an independent review of the incidents on Saturday, but let me take a step back and echo President Biden's very, very important words. We are so relieved that former President Trump is okay. Our hearts break for the Comparatore family and of course, we pray for a speedy and safe full recovery for those injured. We have to — we have to tone down the rhetoric in this country. We are in a heightened threat environment. Our incredible protective services adapt to that dynamic threat environment and make the changes that are necessary. That is indeed what an independent review is directed to do, identify what occurred, make recommendations to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. We have a fail proof responsibility. BOLDUAN: But what level of failure was it? I mean, it's been called by some lawmakers a security failure at the highest level, we now know, just this morning, we learned the Secret Service director in her first public comments said this, “The Secret Service is working with all involved federal, state, and local agencies to understand what happened, how it happened, and how we can prevent an incident like this from ever taking place again.” Secretary, do you call this a security failure on the part of the Secret Service? MAYORKAS: An incident like this cannot happen. That is precisely why President Biden directed an independent review. So that that review, its conclusions and its recommendations have the full confidence of the American public. We will — uh — uh — carefully analyze in an independent and thorough fashion what occurred, recommendations will be made. Those recommendations will be implemented. We are in a dynamic threat environment. We adapt to that dynamism every single day. Changes have been made to the Republican National Convention just as the 18-month planning calls for. It calls for changes based on changes in the threat environment. And that is where we are now. BOLDUAN: If you don't want to say because the review is still happening, who is — who failed in terms of the security around this rally? Do you agree that it was a failure? You said this cannot happen, but first and foremost, before you make sure you make the changes, you have to acknowledge what a failure this was. MAYORKAS: Kate, when I say that something like this cannot happen, we are speaking of a failure. We are going to analyze through an independent review how that occurred, why it occurred, and make recommendations and findings to make sure it doesn't happen again. I couldn't be clearer. BOLDUAN: And I sincerely appreciate the clarity on this. I did want to ask you because this has been – this has popped up. Republican Congressman Mike Waltz. He said on social media on Saturday, and I'm going to read this for you because it does talk about you, Secretary. “I have very reliable sources telling me that there have been repeated requests for stronger Secret Service protection for President Trump denied by Secretary Mayorkas.” Your department has already pushed back on that calling that absolutely false. But he is putting this on you. Can you respond to that, please? MAYORKAS: Well, that's a – yeah –that's a baseless and irresponsible statement and it's one that is unequivocally false. BOLDUAN: How confident are you now that the Secret Service are up to the task, right now, of protecting President Biden and former President Trump through the duration of this campaign now? MAYORKAS: I am confident that they are. With respect to the Republican National Convention, the plan has been put in place for – in development for 18 months. This is a responsibility that not only the United States Secret Service shoulders, but we work with our federal partners and state and local partners to ensure the safety and security of the Republican National Convention, the Democratic National Convention, and each and every campaign event. BOLDUAN: Secretary just finally, you'd said changes will be made, an independent review will happen. This cannot happen. Do you expect or would you want to see people lose their jobs over what has just happened? Donald Trump had a near death experience, one man is now dead, and two more people were shot – seriously shot and wounded and are recovering now at a hospital. MAYORKAS: Kate, I have full confidence in the leadership of the United States Secret Service. An independent review will make factual findings and recommendations based on those findings. And I look forward to studying those findings and recommendations and act accordingly. BOLDUAN: Secretary, I was literally just handed this. We have new reporting coming in from CNN's Whitney Wild that says a spokesman for U.S. Secret Service tells CNN the agency did not personally sweep the building where the attempted assassin shot former President Trump but instead leaned on local law enforcement to conduct – to conduct security at that location. Are you okay with that? MAYORKAS: Kate let me make two points. Number one, and let me repeat, that we will defer to an independent review of the facts to determine what those facts are and make findings and recommendations based on it. Number one. Number two, in campaign events, historically and now including the conventions themselves, we work collaboratively with our federal partners, as well as with our state and local partners. These are very, very significant undertakings and we work seamlessly and closely with our partners across the National Security Homeland Security enterprise. I am going to defer to the independent review and we will take those findings and recommendations and act on them accordingly. BOLDUAN: Do you have any plans to speak, yourself, with former President Trump or his campaign in light of all of this? MAYORKAS: Kate, President Biden, as he communicated to the American people, has been in touch with former President Trump. We are in close coordination with the Republican National Convention through the United States Secret Service to understand the threat landscape, to understand the security posture. And to take any recommendations and act on them. This is a mutual relationship. Communication works both ways. We are in close touch with the protectees, whom we are responsible for. That is how the United States Secret Service operates historically and on an ongoing basis. BOLDUAN: Secretary, thank you very much for coming on this morning as so many questions and so much is still unknown, but in the midst of it, as it is still unfolding. Thank you very much for coming on. Secretary for Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

Site has no Description

Dallas Alexander is a veteran Canadian special forces sniper who’s worked VIP protection at the highest levels and who happens to hold the world record for the longest-range confirmed sniper kill. According to him, Trump’s would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, had help from the inside. Today, he joins Glenn Beck to explain his theory. — (@) “You don’t believe that this was just incompetence on the Secret Service's side?” Glenn asks. “I did that job for a long time — close protection and protecting VIPs, up to and including our prime minister in Canada,” he says. “I’ve seen the videos ... There were too many [policemen and Secret Service agents] to not have the most obvious position covered.” “Children who play Call of Duty or go to paintball would know that that roof is the most important position and that that building is one of the most important buildings to secure,” he tells Glenn, adding that the notion that the Secret Service was simply incompetent is “impossible.” “What do you think would’ve happened?” Glenn asks. “This isn’t me pointing a finger at anyone in particular or a party or an agency, but someone within the ‘inside’ had to have helped with this,” he says. “You can’t walk through layers of security like that and then climb up a ladder to the most obvious shooting position and then take a shot at the former president.” “There had to be someone that helped with that,” Dallas reiterates. Glenn then brings up the reports that the shooter was located at “an adjacent property” and “didn’t have to go through security.” To that, Dallas says that from the footage he saw, the “two most obvious” structures that demanded security were “that building and the water tower in the background,” insinuating that there’s no way that the building where Crooks was stationed was outside what would be considered the danger zone. “Can you explain from the sniper’s perspective ... upon visual acquisition of an enemy sniper, does the counter sniper have permission to immediately take action and fire, or do they have to go through a long process of verifying and then getting permission?” asks Jason Buttrill, Glenn’s head writer and researcher. “That very much depends on the department [and] what the [rules of engagement] are,” Dallas explains. “I can’t speak to the Secret Service when they’re working with the police force — I have no idea. I know in the jobs that I have done, if there is a sniper position and I’m a counter sniper ... yeah, you’re shooting. You’re not waiting for someone to give you permission.” Glenn has several additional questions: “How easy of a shot was this for a 20-something?” “How close did we come to losing a president?” “Have you ever shot and had [your target] dead in your sights and they moved at the very last minute?” “What are the questions that we should be demanding from our Secret Service?” To hear Dallas’ answers, watch the clip above. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The man entrusted with giving the invocation at former President Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, recalled his experience that fateful day both before and after Trump was nearly assassinated.A few days before the event, members of Trump's team contacted Fr. Jason Charron — a Ukrainian Catholic pastor in charge of churches in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, and Wheeling, West Virginia — to see whether he would be willing to lead rally attendees in prayer. Charron agreed.'We are called to a bloody faith,' Charron claimed. 'Christ calls us to get dirty and to have a nail go through the hand sometimes and a crown of thorns through the temple.'So on Saturday evening, Charron stood before the podium on the rally stage and asked God to send His Holy Spirit to help make America and the world "great again in God's sight." "Through Christ, Our Lord, amen," his prayer closed to thunderous applause from the crowd, which Trump estimated to be some 55,000 people.Charron had to leave the rally shortly thereafter, but before departing the main area, he instructed a small group of a couple dozen people to pray for God's protection over President Trump. "The reason I said that is because people are going to try and kill him," he said. "They're going to try and shoot him."His words were remarkably prescient. By the time Charron reached his car just a few minutes after the benediction, he heard reports of gunshots and then witnessed an eruption of chaos. "That's how the devil works," the good father explained. "He loves chaos."Charron then left the rally and soon after sat down for an interview with popular Catholic YouTube channel "Pints with Aquinas." In fact, the interview began so soon afterward that Charron learned from the host about the death of beloved father, husband, and former fire chief Corey Comperatore and the injuries to two other individuals. When asked about a priest's role during such horrific tragedies, Charron resolutely insisted that suffering is a necessary part of the Christian experience, pointing to Christ's suffering on the cross as the example all Christians must follow."We are called to a bloody faith," Charron claimed. "Christ calls us to get dirty and to have a nail go through the hand sometimes and a crown of thorns through the temple."Regardless of circumstances, Charron continued, all Catholics — and Catholic priests in particular — must stand firm in their faith "without apology.""It's important that we Catholics and particularly me, as a priest, that I be present to advocate for the gospel of Christ in the public square without apology," he said.When some raised objections to Charron appearing at a Trump rally despite Trump's quibbling about abortion — an act that the Catholic Church calls a "moral evil" — Charron claimed that far too many people fall for "the fallacy of perfection," which convinces them not to vote for any candidate who is not "absolutely perfect."Even though Charron unequivocally opposes abortion and "the anti-life culture in general," he expressed admiration for Trump — whom Charron believes to be a "baptized Christian" — and his work appointing pro-life justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Though grateful for the ending of Roe, Charron takes issue with some of Trump's beliefs regarding abortion. In fact, Charron views abortion as the source of almost all the violence plaguing America today."We have raised generations of of children with the understanding that it is okay to butcher and dispose of precious human life in the most sacred place, the womb of a mother," Charron explained with conviction. "And if that sacred gift is disposable in that sacred place, then we are all up for extinction."But abortion, Charron insisted, is not the only pro-life issue. As a man of Ukrainian descent, he also sees the war in Ukraine as an important component of it, and he admires Trump for sending "defensive weapons" to Ukraine while in office in contravention to policies established under Barack Obama. During a brief meeting with Trump just before the rally, Charron had the opportunity to thank the former president for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian people. "I said, 'Thank you,' and he was very grateful and he said, 'You know, it's heartbreaking to see what's happening in Ukraine with all these young men dying, and it's because weakness was projected,'" Charron recalled of their conversation.In addition to his pitch for grace for Trump, Charron also encouraged Americans to offer forgiveness to the shooter, whom Charron characterized as "a madman.""There are only two responses in the face of such evil like this. ... One is you become the evil, and the other is you forgive it," Charron claimed. "And the sooner we can go through that valley and come out on the other side, the better it is for us and for the lost souls in this world."Charron suggested on "Pints with Aquinas" that Trump forgive the shooter and share this forgiveness with the public, citing Christ's forgiveness of his executioners and Pope John Paul II's forgiveness of his would-be assailant as models of Christian forgiveness properly understood."I think if President Trump is going to win over his enemies, then the greatest opportunity to win over the undecided and the hostile will be found the day when he can forgive his would-be assassin."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As the country reels from the attempt on Donald Trump’s life, and Joe Biden’s cognitive decline continues to cause fallout, the Democrats and the media have staked their hopes of salvaging the 2024 presidential election by branding the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 as a roadmap to “fascism” and a grave “threat to democracy.” This manufactured hysteria has succeeded in making the report radioactive, causing Republicans, conservatives, and even Trump himself to distance themselves from it.The definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” something Republicans and conservatives are all too familiar with. They constantly allow their political opponents to control the narrative and fall into the same trap — issue a white paper, expect people to find, read, and understand it, and then let the left cherry-pick and distort its contents to fit their agenda, painting Republicans and conservatives as radical extremists. Instead of proactively marketing the conservative policy agenda to win over hearts and minds, they react defensively, often too late to counteract the damage done.A failed education system has programmed too many Americans to think that the federal government is the solution rather than the problem.Unfortunately, it seems the far-left fear campaign is working. According to a recent survey (albeit from a progressive research group), four in five respondents have never heard of Project 2025. Nevertheless, the survey found that 62% of respondents thought that the agenda would negatively impact their family and the country.Since 1980, the Heritage Foundation has issued its “Mandate for Leadership” in nearly every presidential election cycle, presenting a conservative policy agenda for a potential Republican administration. Over 350 influential leaders and more than 50 of the nation’s leading conservative organizations collaborated to craft Project 2025, released in April 2023. Yet, over a year later, there has never been a robust PR campaign to familiarize Americans with its content.If people understood Project 2025, they might realize it stands in stark contrast to the portrayals by the Democrats and the media. It serves as the antithesis of authoritarianism. Despite Biden’s propaganda — he called it “the biggest attack on our system of government, our personal freedoms, that has ever been proposed in the history of this country” — much of Project 2025 would empower Americans and restore our republic to its original intent. Most notably, it aims to restore individual liberties, reduce federal dependency and overreach, and limit government power to the confines laid out in our Constitution.The federal bureaucracy has grown to unprecedented levels and often overshadows the authority of our elected officials in Congress and the presidency. No one can say with certainty how many duplicative offices and jobs exist at the federal level. Unelected bureaucrats wield significant power over our lives with little oversight. The administrative state is a cancer that uses its power to circumvent the Constitution.From spying on and censoring Americans to targeting political opponents, parents, and Catholics, our institutions have forfeited America’s trust long ago. Project 2025 aims to rectify these abuses through a series of measures, including strengthened checks on agencies “that have recently pushed past legal boundaries” such as the FBI.Project 2025’s left-wing critics disingenuously claim that it enhances the power of the executive branch. Not so. The document clearly lays out reforms that would reduce the size and scope of the federal government, diminishing executive authority. As power decentralizes, it returns to where it rightfully belongs under our system of federalism — the states, local governments, and the people.The plan also calls for a comprehensive review of federal programs, which are rarely scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness. That has led to rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, and added to the unsustainable national debt. A prime example is the number of drug abuse prevention and treatment programs at the federal level, where 76 programs exist, with 59 overlapping according to the Government Accountability Office. At the same time, drug use, addiction rates, and overdose deaths continue to rise, which demonstrates their inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Another example is the rampant fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, which the GAO estimates cost taxpayers more than $100 billion a year. Why should we tolerate these failures?Another way to rein in the out-of-control bureaucracy is through the grant process. President Eisenhower warned Americans more than 60 years ago that as research and innovation become more formalized and costly, “A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... and is gravely to be regarded.” Project 2025 proposes to reform the grant system to reduce the ability of federal agencies to manipulate research priorities and outcomes.A failed education system has programmed too many Americans to think that the federal government is the solution rather than the problem. Those who push for government control are the same ones who endlessly warn about “threats to democracy” yet believe the few should control the masses. Many on the left believe the bureaucracy should be the fourth branch of government, more powerful and independent than the other three branches.The Democratic Party seeks greater centralized power and the undoing of our federalism and checks and balances system. Democrats want to eliminate an independent judiciary and pack the Supreme Court to make it a rubber stamp for their agenda. They want to reform the Senate to be a representative body and have expressed their desire to nuke the filibuster. They routinely call for abolishing the Electoral College. They want open borders and prioritize those here illegally to diminish the concept of citizenship. Some even state their desire to impose speech restrictions, calling the First Amendment a “design flaw” in the original Constitution, in their attempt to silence and censor millions of Americans.While the Democrats and the entrenched bureaucratic class sound alarms about "threats to democracy" and Project 2025, their proposals seek to expand government control and diminish our God-given rights as individuals. They want to reimagine America — one where citizens are expected to obey without question, comply without protest, and accept only those liberties deemed permissible by those in power. This stands in stark contrast to Project 2025, which while not perfect, seeks to return to a system where power ultimately resides with the people and their states.