Yesterday—just as she did in the debate—Kamala Harris again misrepresented her movements/whereabouts on Jan 6.

When NABJ reporter asked her about her Secret Service detail driving past the DNC “pipe bomb,” she interrupted him to say she was in the building.

But here is video of her motorcade arriving at the DNC at 11:25am. The “explosive” was under some bushes between 2 benches just to the right of the screen.

DHS IG said at this point, she came within 20 feet of the device, which FBI maintains to this day was planted btw 7:30-8:30pm on January 5.

@Julie_Kelly2

Defense again claims August 2022 photo was staged.

But I am reliably told by the former feds that this is SOP.

@Julie_Kelly2

SCOTUS majority notes the chilling consequences of Jack Smith's J6 indictment against Donald Trump:

"Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession, as in Burr and Nixon.

The danger is akin to, indeed greater than, what led us to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability—that the President would be chilled from taking the “bold and unhesitating action” required of an independent Executive. Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than the range of civil damages suits that might be brought by various plaintiffs, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent. Potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more likely to distort Presidential decision-making than the potential payment of civil damages.

The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 575 (2016), raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of government." (LOL this refers to Jack Smith's prosecution of former VA Gov Bob McDonnell, which SCOTUS overturned 8-0)

A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office. And if a former President’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, “the independence of the Executive Branch” may be significantly undermined. The Framers’ design of the Presidency did not envision such counterproductive burdens on the “vigor” and “energy” of the Executive. The Federalist No. 70."

@Julie_Kelly2

A reminder that these are the four judges--Chutkan (Obama, top left), Childs (Biden, top right), Pan (Biden, bottom left) and Henderson (bottom right) responsible for the history-making decision that Trump should face criminal prosecution.

Childs and Pan have barely any appellate court experience, but it doesn't matter. They delivered the goods to the guy who appointed them.

@Julie_Kelly2

More examples here.

Not only was Stanley Woodward injured, he was representing one of the Oath Keepers at the time as trial was getting underway.

@Julie_Kelly2

Traitorous...

Thanks for having me #CPAC2024. I met so many amazing people today. And I apologize for saying “great crowd” ??‍♀️

@Julie_Kelly2