https://nypost.com/2025/10/24/us-news/kash-patel-skewers-stephen-a-smith-for-suggesting-trump-was-behind-nba-gambling-ring-arrests/
22 results for "tag:proxy-defense"
https://nypost.com/2025/10/24/us-news/kash-patel-skewers-stephen-a-smith-for-suggesting-trump-was-behind-nba-gambling-ring-arrests/
Gold Star family member Christy Shamblin:"We invited both President Trump and the Biden-Harris administration and we didn't hear back from the White House.""When [President Trump] came to Section 60, it was at our request to spend time with our loved ones. There was no political campaigning done at Section 60 that day.""We support President Trump and he supported us.""I think our media needs to do a better job on focusing on the Afghanistan withdrawal instead of things like this that aren’t really relevant or important."
President Trump published a statement on Truth Social from five family members, thanking him for making the visit and saying, "We are deeply grateful to the president for taking the time to honor our children and for standing alongside us in our grief, offering his unwavering support during such a difficult time." Joining me now is one of those family members, Kristi Shamblin, mother-in-law of Marine Corps Sergeant Nicole Gee. Gee, aged 23, was deployed to Afghanistan where she served as a female engagement team member to help facilitate evacuation support for Afghan women and children. She was killed in a suicide attack along with 12 other service members that day leaving behind a husband. Kristi, thank you so much for being here. Please tell me about Nicole. Oh, thank you for having me. Nicole was a ray of light. She was an encourager. She believed in having a positive mental attitude, and she was so very proud to be serving on with the FET team in Afghanistan. She was very, very proud to serve there, and they all worked so hard to get the most vulnerable out of that country before, you know, certain death. And we're very proud of her. And we want to continue on her legacy and being encouraging and having a positive mental attitude. I'm so sorry for your loss, and I'm trying to understand what exactly went on on Monday. You wanted the former president there. By the way, I think it's a wonderful thing that he was there, reflective and honoring our war dead. But it crossed a line at some point. How do you see it? Well, first, I want to remind everybody that it's really hard to find a way on August 26 to celebrate, and we want to celebrate our heroes. We invited both President Trump and the Biden Harris administration, and we didn't hear back from the White House. We were happy to welcome President Trump to lay wreaths with all three of our families and our wounded, some of our wounded from that day. And when he came to Section 60, it was at our request to spend time with our loved ones. There was not a presence there. We privately took pictures among ourselves. And it was, you know, a more celebratory feeling for that day, because, you know, we want to celebrate our loved ones. And it's very hard to find ways to do that, you know, at a cemetery. But they were very respectful. We didn't see any altercation. And really, we just want our loved ones to be honored and remembered in a positive way. So I hear and respect all of that. At the same time, I have to say he should not have used the video that was recorded in TikTok for a campaign purpose. Can we agree on that? I'm not on TikTok. So I don't know what it is. But yeah, you know, there's no political campaigning that was done at Section 60 that day. Right. It was a respectful time. I'm showing I'm showing I'm showing what was put on TikTok so that the audience can see it. And I recognize you might not be able to see it. We didn't lose one person in 18 months, says the narration, and then they took over that disaster. The leaving of Afghanistan. We lost 13 great, great people. I mean, it's got a message of saying I did right by our soldiers and he Biden or Biden and Harris did not. I mean, up until that point, I like I like get it. It's great that he's there. Family members want pictures. Terrific. Take the pictures, do whatever the family members want. But he shouldn't have put it on TikTok for a political purpose. Well, you know, I just have to go back to we really just want our kids to be remembered and honored. And it's unfortunate that we can't get that, you know, in other ways. So we support President Trump and he supported us. A final question, if I might, do you worry that the issue, the legitimate issue of the way in which we left Afghanistan and the circumstances three years ago at Abbey Gate now sort of diminishes as an issue, because when people think of Afghanistan, the withdrawal, it'll be the controversy over Arlington instead of a very appropriate focus on the death of those 13 final thought on that. I think our media needs to do a better job of focusing on the Afghanistan withdrawal instead of things like this that aren't really relevant or or important. I mean, we were very respectful. I understand that there may have been, you know, a little bit of a misunderstanding, but we'd like to take the focus back to just like you said, let's talk about how we left all the equipment behind. Let's talk about the Americans and the Afghans we left behind. Let's talk about the people we brought over that weren't vetted. Let's talk about the wounded. And that's what we want to bring focus back to. I appreciate that because that's exactly what we want. You know, the American people to focus on. We want our armed service members to be safer. We will have another evacuation. And if we don't start to focus on how to fix this, it will end in more casualties. And that's unacceptable. Christy Godspeed to you, your family in particular, your son. Thank you for being here. Thank you very much.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Leo Terrell: "There is not a single shred of evidence that President Trump participated in a crime, either falsifying records, or to hide a Campaign State or Federal Finance charge."
Brutal attack on Democrat Party Totalitarianism and Killer Defense of the President.A must watch from @marklevinshow!
Right. All these lawsuits against Donald Trump, 91 felony charges. This isn't a coincidence. This isn't an accident. Either they're all talking to one another, or they all read the tea leaves. They watch the news. These bombs that they've dropped on Trump, left and right, to try and bankrupt him, to try and make it impossible to run a campaign, to try and get him convicted of some ridiculous felony. Every one of these charges. I'm the real legal analyst. OK? Every one of these charges is bogus. All 91 of them. Not one of them should have ever been brought. Not one of them. And my point to you is this. What is it that they want? They want Donald Trump in prison. You don't bring 91 felonies for the front of it. Not just to get a conviction. They want Donald Trump in prison. And what happens if they get a conviction here, a conviction there, convictions, and gets in front of these Democrat judges? Well, what happens if he's convicted? You're going to send him to jail? And if they send him to jail, what happens then? Well, Joe Biden might be the only candidate running for president, other than a few third party candidates. Can you run for president from prison? I suppose so. But you kind of have your hands tied behind your back, don't you? So the goal of the Democrat Party, the goal of Joe Biden, who's behind it all, he's aware of it. His people are out there. They've communicated with a number of these different prosecutorial offices. They don't put a stop to it. It's all bogus. It's all totalitarian. What is the goal? The goal is a one candidate race, one party rule. You didn't think it could happen. It's happening right in front of your eyes. Let's take a look at what this totalitarian Democrat Party's been up to. Impeachment number one, when the House was controlled by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, they tried to impeach him on Russian collusion. They tried. They had hearings and all the rest. Then they see this phone call that Trump himself released leaks coming out of the White House. They take a sentence completely out of context and they impeach him with barely any hearings. They impeach him on a sentence that wasn't criminal nature, nothing. And of course it goes to the Senate where he is found not guilty. Then they impeach him again. For what? After January 6, he's leaving office. He didn't call in the military. He didn't call in anybody to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. They impeach him while he's getting ready to leave for office. And while he's a private citizen at Mar-a-Lago, while he's a private, they vote to impeach him and they hold a trial in the Senate, never done before in American history ever based on what? Insurrection. Well where's the evidence? They didn't hold a hearing. They didn't have any facts. They didn't ask a question. They just said he did it. They ran through this impeachment. They ran it to the Senate because why? Because they're trying to destroy him. It's not on behalf of the country. It's not because of any so-called insurrection. That's impeachment number two. Now we have number three, the whole Russia collusion issue. Launch a criminal investigation. Schumer and the others pressured the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor and unfortunately they buckled over there because they knew it would bog down President Trump for years. The job of a special prosecutor is to focus like a laser on one person on one issue. It's not like a typical US attorney's office that has a thousand issues. It was based on fabricated information created by the Hillary Clinton or paid for it by the Hillary Clinton campaign, supported and promoted by the FBI and our intelligence agencies with the knowledge of, we now know, of Barack Obama and Joe Biden and others in the Obama administration. We've never seen anything like this. The result was no charges. Why? Because he didn't do anything wrong. That's why criminal investigations, depositions, subpoenas, warrants, nothing. Then we have this New York attorney general. She is a radical reprobate who runs for office saying she's going to get Trump. That should be enough to disbar her. The problem is it's in New York. Who controls the bar in New York? That's right. Her party. Like-minded radicals. She should have been disbarred. And what does she do? She's doing everything she can to bankrupt Trump. US attorney's office said there's no case here. Her predecessor, another radical, but he said there's no case here. She said I'll make a case here. The case is a consumer fraud statute that doesn't require fraud. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything Donald Trump did. Donald Trump not only didn't commit fraud, he made money for the banks. He paid all his taxes, everything not only on time, sometimes before time. And she digs this up and they say, oh, we got something, a phony law with a crummy, radical, elected Democrat nitwit of a judge. And now he's online for half a billion dollars trying to break him. They tried to take his businesses away. So an appellate judge said not so fast. I'll put that on stay. Why? Why are they trying to do this? Why do you think? And then we have this Soros, Manhattan DA brag, a complete moron, in my view. What does he do? Takes two laws, maybe three, tries to work him over to create a federal felony, which then creates a state felony for what? For nothing. For a bookkeeping issue. What happens there? Oh, we have another elected Democrat judge. So rather than saying, you know, this is crap, let's throw it out. Even the Democrat legal analysts on CNN say it's crap. But no, no, we're going to go forward with that. We just need one conviction on one count. He's got like 40 counts Trump. It's not hush money. It's a non-disclosure agreement. Every media outlet reporting on this has ended into non-disclosure agreements. Is that hush money? No, it's not hush money. Every corporation in America has, every business has married couples that divorce. They do the same thing. No, it's hush money. Gotta make it sound very devious. He didn't break any law, nor did his businesses, as relates to this. So now they're bogged down in Manhattan. Then we go to Atlanta. A RICO statute. RICO has nothing to do with challenging an election. Oh, but they had a separate slave electors. We'll call them fake electors. No, we'll call them a separate slave of electors. The same thing they did in 1876, the same thing they did, I think it was 1960 in Hawaii. If you're challenging the election results in a state, and if that goes all the way to the archivist of the United States who collects the electoral votes and then presents them to Congress when it meets to count them, if you don't have an alternative slate, you have no challenge. There's nothing to replace them. This is history. And so what do they do in Atlanta? They criminalize the entire process of challenging an election. Well, he called X, Y, Z and said, are you sure we don't have the votes? You sure we can't find the votes? He didn't say create votes. He didn't say manufacture votes. He said, don't we have any votes somewhere? Are we sure we checked everywhere? Oh, that's a crime. No, it's not. We also have the issue there, whether a local DA who's corrupt, who's unethical and all the rest has the authority to bring charges that affect the federal election. A judge already ruled. She does, but she doesn't. Let's continue. Washington, D.C. Garland appoints a hack, a prosecutor who was humiliated by a Supreme Court in an eight to zero decision when he targets and goes after the former governor of Virginia. Now, that should have been a warning that you don't appoint somebody like that with a major sensitive case like this. But for Garland, it was a resume enhancer. Why? Because Biden made it clear to the New York Times through his aides that he was sick and tired of Merrick Garland, a former judge acting like a judge, a curious judge rather than a prosecutor. Garland got the message. He hires the hack and they go full bore January six. So it must have been very, very terrible. It must have been really horrific what Trump did. I'm sure he charged him with insurrection. No, sedition. No. Well, the media keeps saying it was an insurrection and Trump committed sedition, but he didn't. Oh, well, then we have the the Ku Klux Klan Act to help us. 1871, we just figured out that exists. And we have the Enron Act. That is nothing to do it, but we'll use it. And then, of course, we have this federal contractor law that's really intended to prosecute federal contractors who break the law. We'll use them all against Trump. Really? That's how serious your case is. They keep throwing around insurrection and sedition and that he incited violence. He's not charged with any of it. But they keep saying insurrection. It's amazing. Those charges are completely concocted, completely concocted. Let's move on to the documents case where we're told that's the real case. What do you mean it's the real case? You raise another constitutional issue. I started it. Let me continue. A president has unfettered power to classify or declassify anything. He is the executive branch, not the secretary of state, not anybody at the National Archives, not at the CIA. None of them are in the Constitution. The president is the executive branch. He can delegate power by his own actions. He can take the power back. If there's no president, there is no cabinet officer and all the rest that don't exist in the Constitution. But he didn't he didn't declassify. We don't have any record of it. He took the document with him. So effectively, certainly appliedly, he declassified the document. He didn't say, I'm taking the document so they can charge me with a crime. How stupid is that? But even more, Hillary Clinton was in charge. He was never president. Joe Biden scores of felonies when he was a senator, private citizen. When he was vice president. You understand when he met with that ghostwriter and gave that ghostwriter classified information, you know what that was? Joe Biden sold it effectively, not to the ghostwriter, but to the publisher. They gave him an eight million dollar advance. He had to come up with something. I've got information and they don't know it. That's what he did. He essentially sold classified information for eight million dollars. That's what he did. But we can't charge him. He's an imbecile, an imbecile. Wow. But he could be president. We can have imbeciles as president. That's perfectly fine. The Espionage Act has never been used against a president. Passed in 1917. Never been used against the next president. Never been used against the next secretary of state. Never been used against the next vice president. Wasn't used against Bill Clinton when he was hiding classified information on videos in his sock drawer. Again, not used against Hillary Clinton at a 30,000 times she violated the act. Or so, oh, Mark, she didn't. Oh, we'll quibble over the numbers, right? Or the scores of times Biden violated the law since 1976. He stole classified information out of the Senate's gift. They have cameras. So you know what he had to do? He literally had to do this or pull a Sandy Berger and put it down his pants or whatever the hell he did. That's what he did. And he violated the Espionage Act every time he moved the records, put it in his briefcase, went for this house, the rental home, went here, went there, kept them open. That is a slam dunk case. Slam dunk case. But Trump, they say the difference is obstruction. What we have here is a setup. You don't get a warrant. Send this FBI SWAT team to a former president's home to grab documents. How do I know that? I'm the only person on this network or almost any network who was chief of staff to an attorney general. I know you've had Bill Barr say things, I mean an attorney general like Ed Meese. You know what he would have done? He would have said, you want me to send my guys into a federal court to get a criminal warrant against a former president over documents? You know what kind of constitutional issues I don't raise? You know what kind of impact that I'll have on the future election? I'm not going to set fires all over the place. Let me give him a call. That's what he would have done. How do I know? I used to sit next to the man. If that didn't work, he still would have done something else. Gone civilly with the matter. There is no way in hell he would have done what Biden obviously was encouraging his attorney general to do or the rogue attorney general did. What else has the totalitarian Democrat party done? Well, their surrogates tried to take Trump off the ballot with some cockamamie interpretation of section 3 of the 14th amendment, which was always bizarre. But hey, anything that can work, so they tried to do that. So what else have they done? Well, my first guest, congressman leading the investigation of the January 6th committee, congressman Loudermilk, the January 6th committee destroyed massive amounts of information, manipulated witnesses, censored certain witnesses, only put out information they wanted, covered up exculpatory information that they didn't want to provide and took the most important piece of evidence Donald Trump had to prove that he had nothing at all to do with any riot, any violence, any sedition, any insurrection, which would completely destroy the Democrat party and their media's narrative. He did, in fact, offer the National Guard. He did, in fact, offer 10,000 members. He did, in fact, the night before January 6th, call the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, and say again, do you guys have enough resources and so forth? It actually happened. And yet Liz Cheney and that committee has continued to say it never happened. They're lying. The whole argument that's been going on and on, repetition of the big lie is totalitarian. That Trump led an insurrection. They don't have a syllable of evidence to support it, not a thing, which is why he's not charged with it, which is why in the end, the Senate had to find him not guilty of it. Nothing. Their goal is to imprison Donald Trump so Biden has a clear field. That's why you charge somebody with 91 felonies in four different jurisdictions. I'll be right back.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Andrew C. McCarthy: “ Executive Law 65(12) outlaws engaging in ‘repeated’ and ‘persistent’ fraud in business dealings. Well, okay, but if one engaged in such an egregious pattern of behavior, surely we’d expect to find some victims, right? At least one victim? I mean, if you’re going to incinerate a multibillion-dollar international conglomerate, shouldn’t there be, you know, a bank that lost, if not millions in depositor savings, at least a few bucks? Especially if, as in James’s case, at issue are more than a dozen years of financial dealings. But here: There’s no victim. No harm to any creditor or investor. No bank or insurance company brought in to say, ‘Donald Trump ruined us … or at least profoundly damaged us … or maybe, you know, shaved a few shekels off some middle-manager’s annual bonus.’”
Andrew C. McCarthy: “There is no state-law requirement holding that if an asset is valued at X amount, a bank must charge a set interest rate. These are arms-length transactions. The banks made the loans because (a) Trump was a good customer who had a history of paying up; (b) if a bank had proposed a too-high interest rate, Trump could simply have gone to a different bank that would have welcomed the business; and (c) the banks don’t make money if they don’t lend, and they were happy with the tidy profits they consistently made on Trump loans.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/in_defense_of_donald_trump_.html
https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/08/republicans-insisting-the-party-move-on-are-daring-voters-to-do-the-exact-opposite/
“Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Jan. 6 Hearing Is Modern-Day 'McCarthyism'” https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-jan-6-select-committee-us-house/2022/06/16/id/1074821/
“Ex-White House Aide Kash Patel Presses View Trump Broadly Declassified Documents” https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-white-house-aide-kash-patel-presses-view-trump-broadly-declassified-documents-11661083201
Thank you to our wonderful First Lady! https://t.co/NSrfVgvbMF
Great interview with @GOPLeader Kevin McCarthy on @foxandfriends. “There was no urgency with the Articles of Impeachment because there was no case.”
Brett Kavanaugh and his wife, Ashley, will be interviewed tonight at 7pmE on @marthamaccallum @FoxNews. This is an outstanding family who must be treated fairly!
Statement from Secretary of Defense, James Mattis: https://t.co/OneaxKCneV
Representative Devin Nunes, a man of tremendous courage and grit, may someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure!
"@dbongino: ‘Now cut off my mic!’ Bongino refuses to be bullied by Don Lemon over Trump, 2nd Amendment – HEATED! https://t.co/UgtfaUXzcr"
"@LunsfordWhitney: This is rich coming from her. She tweeted you will be president! #Women4Ttump #Trump2016 https://t.co/2GSGfLS1yT"
"@KinnardJan: @Itsjoeco @realDonaldTrump I took Trump University class and saved my home!"
"@WaltSeher: @realDonaldTrump @morg25016893 @eventbrite yup 200 Polish immigrants were hired by his contractor not Trump"
"@ajodom60: @FoxNews and as far as that low-info voter base goes, I have an IQ of 132. So much for that theory. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain"
"@Highlander6700: @realDonaldTrump @Macys: Seems 1 or 2 lines of Mr. Trump's comments about immigrants are continuously taken out of context
"@JohnRiversToo: @instapundit Macy's sales are declining, their stock is downgraded - maybe not the best time to spit on half of America."