'Bombshell' video: Why Officer Brian Sicknick's death was 'planted'

'This deceit, manipulation of the public and abuse of government power is horrific'

Protesters confront police at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.

There's growing evidence that violence by police officers themselves triggered the crowd of protesters, some of whom later turned into rioters, during that infamous confrontation at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Those are the events Democrats continue to claim were an actual insurrection, a plot to take over the government, its operations, its military, and install new leaders, as an insurrection is defined.

They make those claims in their lawfare campaigns to try to prevent Donald Trump from running for president in 2024, a race that so far he leads by significant numbers.

To cover up the officers' violence, according to key Jan. 6 investigative reporter Julie Kelly, police created the story line that officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of the riot.

WND columnist Laura Hollis explained that the "insurrection" claim "is one of the biggest lies with the most serious repercussions."

She explained, "For example, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn whether federal agents instigated or contributed to violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6th, Sanborn refused to confirm or deny it – not once, but multiple times. The media reported that Capitol Police Office Brian Sicknick was killed by the crowd on Jan. 6th. He was not; he had a stroke days later and died of natural causes. Former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund told Tucker Carlson in a recent interview that his requests for additional National Guard protection were denied, both in advance of Jan. 6th and even when the crowds were converging on the Capitol. Why? Was all of this to create the narrative of an 'insurrection' – one that would later be used to impeach Trump an unprecedented second time?"

Kelly concluded that police were desperate to cover up their own "brutality" that day, and so they launched the Sicknick death claim, "a fabricated story" and "intentionally" planted to cover up the deaths of four Trump supporters that day.

One of those was Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point-blank by a police officer and died. Three other Trump supporters also died, and Kelly explained at least two of those deaths were due to "police excessive force."

Ashli Babbitt

Then authorities cremated the victims' bodies, without family permission, so that no evidence would remain.

She said it was during a court hearing for the Proud Boys in a Washington courtroom some months ago a police officer admitted "when they started firing rubber bullets into the crowd, the crowd exploded," meaning the crowd was passive before that.

"The way police act was how … that is what got the crowd so enraged," she explained.

Hollis explained the Jan. 6 events were just part of the "brazen" deceit being inflicted on Americans.

Other subjects include COVID, attacks on President Trump, the Biden family scandals, the "insurrection," and more.

She found, "This deceit, manipulation of the public and abuse of government power is horrific. Those justifying, celebrating or even just tolerating all these lies because they damage people with different political viewpoints seem not to realize a sobering fact: If there are no consequences for those who corrupt our institutions with deceit, then there will be consequences for our country and our society."

https://www.wnd.com/2023/11/bombshell-video-officer-brian-sicknicks-death-planted/

Journalist Michael Shellenberger Embarrasses Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman for Engaging in Conspiracy Theory that Rudy Giuliani and Russia Might Have Manipulated Hunter Laptop

Rep. Dan Goldman (L); Michael Shellenberger (R)

The far-left’s response to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy was generally one of skepticism and dismissal. Many on the left still question the authenticity of the laptop and its contents, and some argued that even if the laptop was real, it did not contain any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father, Joe Biden.

The intel leaders all lied. They knew it was a lie. Joe Biden knew it was a lie. The media knew this was a lie.

We know that the Biden Campaign and current Secretary of State Tony Blinken organized this massive lie. The laptop was real, and EVERY SINGLE INTEL ‘EXPERT’ who signed that letter knew it was real!

The FBI took possession of the Hunter Biden laptop from computer repair shop owner Jahn Paul Mac Isaac in December 2019.

John Paul Mac Isaac then never heard another word from the FBI. The elite investigative agency killed the story and refused to investigate the contents of the laptop. This was a conscious decision by the FBI to help their candidate Joe Biden in his race against President Donald Trump.

Gold, Faith, and Financial Freedom — How A Faith-Based Company Is Transforming Retirement Portfolios

The FBI never disclosed anything to Congressional lawmakers or the Trump administration during the bogus impeachment trial. They had all the evidence to debunk the impeachment. They kept quiet instead.

John Paul Mac Isaac later gave a copy of the computer hard drive to Rudy Giuliani. The FBI then seized more than a dozen devices from Giuliani’s home and office during a raid in April 2021. They knew Rudy had a copy of the laptop. They devised a plan and warned Big Tech about the story encouraging Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. to kill the story.

During a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government on Thursday, journalist Michael Shellenberger delivered a striking rebuttal to Democrat Representative Dan Goldman’s suggestions of conspiracy involving Rudy Giuliani, Russia, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The hearing, aimed at examining federal government-sanctioned internet suppression and attacks on journalists and media outlets, featured notable figures such as Matt Taibbi, Twitter Files journalist and author; Michael Shellenberger, environmentalist and author; Rupa Subramanya, a Canada-based journalist for The Free Press; and Olivia Troye, former Homeland Security Advisor.

The confrontation between Shellenberger and Goldman (D-NY) arose when Goldman questioned the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop’s contents, implying potential manipulation by Giuliani or Russia. Shellenberger confidently asserted the legitimacy of the contents, challenging Goldman’s baseless conspiracy theory.

“You’ve talked about the Hunter Biden laptop and how the FBI knew it existed. You are aware, of course, that the laptop, so to speak, that was published in The New York Post was actually a hard drive that the New York Post admitted here was not authenticated as real. It was not the laptop the FBI had. You’re aware of that, right?’ Dan Goldman asked.

“It was the same contents,” Shellenberger responded, confidently challenging the representative’s implications.

“How do you know?” Goldman fired back.

“Because it’s the same,” Shellenberger replied curtly.

Goldman then theorized that hard drives can be manipulated, suggesting the possibility of tampering by figures like Rudy Giuliani or even foreign entities such as Russia. Shellenberger stood his ground, asking for evidence to back Goldman’s claims. As Goldman struggled to present any substantial evidence, Shellenberger accused him of “engaging in a conspiracy.”

Goldman: You would have to authenticate it to know it was the same contents. You have no idea. You know hard drives manipulated.

Shellenberger: Are you suggesting the New York Post participating in a conspiracy to construct the contents of the Hunter Biden laptops?

Goldman: No, sir. The problem is that hard drives can be manipulated by Rudy Giuliani or Russia.

Shellenberger: What’s the evidence that happened?

Goldman: Well, there is actual evidence of it, but the point is.

Shellenberger: There’s no evidence for it. So you’re engaging in a conspiracy.

Goldman, attempting to shift the conversation towards transparency, inquired if it would be more transparent for Hunter Biden to testify publicly in Congress rather than privately.

“I’m glad you agree with me, Mr. Schellenberger, that transparency is the most important thing. And my last question for you is, do you think it would be transparent if Hunter Biden came to this Congress and testified in a public hearing? And more transparent than if he testified privately?” Goldman asked.

Shellenberger admitted sarcastically that he hadn’t given it thought.

“I mean, literally, I’ve never thought about that. I have no idea,” said Shellenberger as the audience burst into laughter.

“Congress shall take no action to abridge freedom of speech, and that’s what you just describe,” Shellenberger added.

WATCH:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/journalist-michael-shellenberger-just-embarrassed-democrat-rep-dan/

Texas Sues Pfizer for Allegedly Misrepresenting Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine

 Texas attorney general says Pfizer gave false impression of vaccine's efficacy.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in Davos on May 25, 2022. 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Nov. 30 sued Pfizer, alleging the company misrepresented how efficacious its COVID-19 vaccine was.

Pfizer misrepresented the results of a clinical trial run on its COVID-19 vaccine, according to the suit, which was filed in Lubbock County court.

“We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies,” Mr. Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. “The facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines."

Pfizer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pfizer and its partner BioNTech touted their vaccine as 95 percent effective against COVID-19 infection in press releases and other statements, based on the trial.

The trial was aimed at determining how many participants contracted COVID-19 with symptoms after receiving a vaccine, not COVID-19 overall.

Tens of millions of Americans subsequently received the shot.

The efficacy estimate was a relative risk reduction for vaccinated individuals when compared to unvaccinated participants.

Of vaccinated participants who had no evidence of prior infection, 0.04 percent tested positive for COVID-19. Of unvaccinated participants without prior infection, 0.9 percent had a COVID-19 case. That meant there was a 95 percent relative risk reduction.

Pfizer Failed to Disclose Risk to Babies in RSV Vaccine Trial: Investigation 

Absolute risk reduction, another way of measuring, is determined by subtracting the post-treatment risk of 0.04 percent from the baseline risk rate of 0.9 percent, which reaches a different efficacy estimate.

Pfizer misrepresented the efficacy by promoting the relative risk reduction number and relying on just two months of clinical trial data, according to the new suit.

"Of 17,000 placebo recipients, only 162 acquired COVID-19 during this two-month period. Based on those numbers, vaccination status had a negligible impact on whether a trial participant contracted COVID-19," it stated. "The risk of acquiring COVID-19 was so small in the first instance during this short window that Pfizer’s vaccine only fractionally improved a person’s risk of infection. And a vaccine recipient’s absolute risk reduction—the federal Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) preferred efficacy metric—showed that the vaccine was merely 0.85% effective."

The FDA has said in guidance documents that relative risk estimates made reduction "seem large" and that "treatments are viewed more favorably than when the same information is presented using an absolute risk format." It says drug manufacturers should provide absolute risks in addition to relative risks.

Pfizer also misled the public by excluding COVID-19 cases in the vaccinated if they happened before seven days had elapsed following a second shot, Mr. Paxton said.

Pfizer was also aware of the lack of evidence its vaccine protected against transmission, according to the suit, but repeatedly made statements and ran advertisements advertising it as a way to protect people and their loved ones. The FDA, for instance, repeatedly said there was not enough evidence to say the vaccine shielded against transmission.

"Additional evaluations ... will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission," the FDA said in one document.

Federal laws like the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act bar misbranding products regulated by the FDA. Misbranding occurs if advertising or labeling for the product is misleading, including when advertising "fails to reveal facts material in the light of representations."

In many of Pfizer's statements, the company did not explain the difference between absolute and relative risk reduction.

Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer's CEO, also made misleading statements, the suit alleges, such as claiming—after the trial results were released—that the vaccine would "help bring an end to" the pandemic. He also claimed in February 2021 that the protection from the vaccines was "robust" after six months, despite trial data not being collected yet after six months.

"Pfizer’s misleading statements created the false impression that 95% of vaccine recipients would never obtain COVID-19, full stop," the suit states.

Later in 2021, data from Pfizer, Israel, and elsewhere showed the vaccine protection started waning within months, leading to the clearance and promotion of boosters and, ultimately, new formulations.

The FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment on the new suit.

The suit stems from an investigation Mr. Paxton announced in May into whether Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson misled the public on their COVID-19 vaccines, including possibly manipulating vaccine trial data.

“This pandemic was a deeply challenging time for Americans," Mr. Paxton said at the time. "If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible."

The suit also accuses Pfizer of working to censor people who questioned the company's narrative about the vaccine, including journalist Alex Berenson, who repeatedly pointed out facts about the waning vaccine efficacy. It points in part to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer board member and former FDA commissioner, who urged Twitter to take action against Mr. Berenson.

Mr. Berenson was banned from Twitter but reinstated after suing the company. He has since sued Dr. Gottlieb and others for alleged violations of federal law.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/texas-sues-pfizer-for-allegedly-misrepresenting-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccine-5539112

3 Killed, 6 Injured in Terror Shooting in Jerusalem

 

Three people were killed and six were wounded, two of them seriously, in a terror shooting attack at the entrance to Jerusalem on Thursday morning, police and medics said.

According to police, at around 7:40 a.m. two Palestinian gunmen got out of a vehicle on Weizman Street at the main entrance to the capital and opened fire at people at a bus stop.

Police said two off-duty soldiers and an armed civilian in the area returned fire, killing the two terrorists.

The attackers were named as brothers Murad Namr, 38, and Ibrahim Namr, 30, from East Jerusalem.

According to the Shin Bet security agency, the pair were Hamas members and previously jailed for terror activity.

Murad was jailed between 2010 and 2020 for planning terror attacks under directions of terror elements in the Gaza Strip and Ibrahim was jailed in 2014 for undisclosed terror activity, the agency said.

Footage showed that the terrorists were armed with an M-16 assault rifle and a handgun. A police search of the vehicle found large amounts of ammunition.

Police said officers were searching the area to rule out any additional attackers.

The Magen David Adom ambulance service said its medics declared the death of a 24-year-old woman at the scene, and was taking eight others to hospitals in Jerusalem.

An elderly man and a woman, who were critically wounded, were later declared dead at a hospital in Jerusalem.

None of the fatalities were immediately publicly named.

Another two victims were listed in serious condition, three in moderate condition, and one in good condition, according to MDA.

The bus stop was the scene of a deadly bomb attack almost exactly a year ago.

Thursday’s attack came as a ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas terror group in the Gaza Strip was holding for the sixth day.

Tensions in Israel and the West Bank have been high since October 7, when some 3,000 terrorists burst through the border into Israel in a Hamas-led attack, killing at least 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and seizing some 240 hostages.

Israel responded with an aerial campaign and subsequent ground operation with the goal of destroying Hamas and ending its 16-year rule over Gaza, and securing the release of the hostages.

The IDF has continued to operate throughout the West Bank and police have been on high alert in Israel, in light of concerns about a possible escalation of violence following the release of Palestinian security prisoners in the exchange for abducted Israeli hostages.

https://www.cf.org/news/three-killed-6-injured-in-terror-shooting-in-jerusalem/

WATCH: Sen. Kennedy Skewers Dem Narrative on Chicago and Gun Deaths, Liberal Media Flips Out

 

In the past, we've seen Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) trip up Biden nominees and witnesses pushing Democratic narratives with some great questions. 

On Wednesday, he skewered a witness on the subject of gun deaths, including in Chicago, and destroyed the Democratic narrative on the question in the process.

Sen. John Kennedy was questioning Dr. Megan Ranney, who works at the Yale School of Public Health. He also questioned another witness at the end and got a surprising final answer from that guy about punishing rapists. 

Kennedy observed that Chicago has become "America's largest outdoor shooting range." He asked Ranney if she thought that was because of citizens who lawfully kept guns in their homes for protection or hunting or if she thought it was "because of a finite group of criminals who have rap sheets as long as King Kong's arm?" 

Ranney compared Chicago to three red states and claimed Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri "actually have higher firearm death rates."

"What about Chicago?" Kennedy inquired.

"I think there’s easy access to firearms combined with environmental conditions, lack of great education," Ranney responded. "There have actually been studies that when you green vacant lots and repair abandoned buildings in urban neighborhoods you see decreases in gunshots and violence as well as in stress and depression in the neighborhoods around them."

"No disrespect, doc, but that sounds a lot like a word salad to me," Kennedy responded.

He then pointed out a variety of Democratic cities with left-wing DAs and asked her if their failure to prosecute might affect those gun numbers. She ducked the questions, saying she was not a lawyer. 

Ranney equated gun deaths to heart disease in her opening statement. "Do you support outlawing fried foods?" Kennedy asked. She ran away from that one, too, denying she had said that she was for outlawing any guns. 

How do you know that Kennedy laid out the witness and was over the target? 

Liberal media immediately flipped out. You can hear the relevant part about Chicago, and then "Morning Joe's" Mika Brzezinski claims Kennedy is a "racist."

She fails to point out exactly what he said that was racist and claims, without evidence, that he was dead wrong. Is just bringing up that Chicago has a problem racist? How crazy is that? If anything, it's the Democrats who are racist for failing to ever truly address gun crime and deaths in Chicago, where many of those deaths are of black people. Democrats have controlled Chicago for decades. 

On the contrary, Kennedy is right, and the Democratic narrative and Ranney's take on red states is flawed. 

"Let's see," Reason magazine associate editor Billy Binion posted on X. "Some recent stats: Mississippi's gun homicide rate: ~13 murders per 100,000 people; Louisiana's gun homicide rate: ~15 murders per 100,000 people; Missouri's gun homicide rate: ~11 murders per 100,000 people; Chicago's gun homicide rate: ~29 murders per 100,000 people."

"Why do you pick just a couple of states to compare?" John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, posted on X. "Is that how public health researchers do research? Why don't you look at local crime rates where policing policies are determined and where DAs and judges are almost always selected?"

If you remove the blue cities from the red states, such as New Orleans, the murder rates tend to fall. 

But Democrats don't want to talk about that because it puts paid to their narrative.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/11/30/watch-sen-kennedy-skewers-dem-narrative-on-chicago-and-gun-deaths-liberal-media-flips-out-n2167005

Is McCarthy Leaving Congress? Photo Appears to Confirm Rumor: 'Get the Hell Out'

Could former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s greatest revenge upon the GOP be … quitting?

That’s at least the speculation from congressional insiders, according to a report from Axios on Wednesday.

That speculation could be backed up by an ominous photo from the California Republican’s office.

According to the online news outlet, McCarthy is privately telling his fundraisers he wants to “get the hell out.” Publicly, he may be saying the same thing, too — just in more euphemistic language.

Talking to a crowd at The New York Times’ DealBook summit on Wednesday about California’s Dec. 8 filing deadline to run in 2024, he had this to say: “I have another week or so to decide because if I decide to run again, I have to know in my heart I’m giving 110 percent. I have to know that I want to do that.”

“I also have to know if I’m going to walk away, that I’m going to be fine with walking away. And so I’m really taking this time now,” he added.

That doesn’t exactly sound like someone who’s happy with occupying a reduced role within a party, particularly after he burned quite a few bridges on the way out.

And then there was this Instagram post of McCarthy’s dogs “helping out” at the office:

As you may notice, all that’s left there are a few framed certificates and plaques, some photos, the flag of California, a thin bookcase, an iMac, what appear to be some stadium seats (?!) and a deer’s head, mounted on the wall. And, let’s face it, even the deer looks like he’s cleaning out his desk and polishing his resume.

“Speculation over McCarthy’s potential departure escalated ahead of the Thanksgiving recess, with multiple GOP sources noting he posted a photo on Instagram in which his district office appeared to be in the process of being packed,” Axios noted.

So, how would this be revenge?

Well, consider the GOP’s slim majority in the House of Representatives, one factor in McCarthy’s ultimate downfall as speaker.

Then remember that among their numbers is the untalented Mr. Ripley, Rep. George Santos of New York, who likely will be tossed out of Congress after a scathing ethics report found that the serial fabulist grossly misspent donor funds.

Now, a vote on Santos’ fate is expected to come on Friday, and it isn’t expected to work out well, absent a last-minute decision by the Democrats to vote to keep him in Congress just for the larfs.

Thus, several GOPers told Axios they had “concerns that California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom could hold McCarthy’s seat open if he decides to resign in the new year.”

Axios also noted Republicans were concerned about McCarthy’s “awkward nature of shifting from leading the conference to being a rank-and-file member” — particularly since he doesn’t appear to have much appeal to the “rank-and-file,” either, along with the conservative members he deemed the “crazy eight” who voted to rob him of the seat.

“Some rank-and-file members voiced frustrations with McCarthy attempting to ‘kneecap’ multiple candidates that aimed to succeed him as speaker, arguing that the efforts minimized much of the sympathy he gained after the initial ouster,” Axios reported.

“The image in the rearview mirror is getting smaller by the day,” one Republican said. “I don’t think he’s having a good time being a regular Joe.”

And then there was the incident where he allegedly delivered an elbow to the kidneys of Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett, a former ally of McCarthy’s who voted against him.

So, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

On the one hand, a disgruntled former speaker hanging around in the backbenches is an unpleasant situation, and if McCarthy decides to fully transition to a lobbyist and/or the sort of professional former Republican who goes on left-bubble cable news media and talks about how wild and extreme the current crop of Republicans are, it would be better if it took place before he was able to do more damage within the party.

However, giving more power to Newsom is never something you want to see any Republican do — and with Santos’ departure all but a certainty, given how blatant and massive his con seems to have been, that’s exactly what he’s poised to do. A disgruntled Republican is still a Republican, not an empty seat.

It would be nice, of course, if McCarthy simply realized he wasn’t the man for the moment and got himself a dose of coping.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mccarthy-leaving-congress-photo-appears-confirm-rumor-get/

New Book Details Bad Blood Between Pelosi, AOC: 'She Got So Mad at Me'

What appeared evident to the public was reportedly even more so behind the scenes: There was bad blood between former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

Ryan Grim, a reporter with The Intercept, documents in his new book, “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution,” how things between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez started out on a better note.

In the summer of 2018, Pelosi called to congratulate the then 28-year-old on her upset victory over Rep. Joe Crowley, who was then chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and was said to have designs on ousting Pelosi as party leader, The Guardian reported.

Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez first met in person in July 2018 in a restaurant in San Francisco.

Pelosi completely dominated the conversation, according to Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC’s chief of staff at the time.

“She just keeps talking; it’s a fascinating thing,” Chakrabarti recalled. “We were eating, and she just talked the entire time without even taking a break. And I wasn’t sure exactly what she was saying, but I was like, ‘Huh, OK.’”

One topic that came up was Ocasio-Cortez’s call to “Abolish ICE,” the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. It was a key issue the New Yorker ran on when unseating Crowley.

Pelosi told her the phrase had been injected into American politics by the Russians, and AOC needed to drop it.

When the Democrat leader showed up in New York during AOC’s general election campaign, the candidate dodged requests for a meeting.

Then, shortly after being elected in November 2018, the congresswoman-elect participated in a sit-in regarding climate change in front of Pelosi’s Capitol Hill office.

In 2019, after Democrats took control of the House and Pelosi became speaker for a second time, Ocasio-Cortez and the other “Squad” members, Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, voted against a bill Pelosi backed that included funding for border enforcement.

It was compromise legislation between Republicans and Democrats, when the GOP controlled the Senate.

Pelosi responded at the time that AOC and the Squad “have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got,” The New York Times reported.

In the fight over immigration policy, the then-speaker observed, “Some of you are here to make a beautiful paté, but we’re making sausage most of the time,” according to Politico.
Related:
Watch: AOC Suggests Americans Should Accept Millions of Palestinian Refugees

In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting in July 2019, Pelosi chided members, including the Squad, for going public over their disagreements with House leadership.

“You got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK.”

At another caucus meeting in 2021, Ocasio-Cortez “confronted” Pelosi over the infrastructure bill Democrats were looking to pass, saying it needed more social spending, including measures combat to climate change, according to Grim’s book.

Then, in a rare phone call between the two women, AOC told Pelosi that her Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee vendors “sucked.”

Ocasio-Cortez said “that it was strange that after I beat Crowley not a single person bothered to ask how I beat him … and how I think we should pay attention and ask questions when that happens, to spot weaknesses. She got so mad at me.”

Grim cites texts from Ocasio-Cortez throughout his book, including one from her to him regarding Pelosi saying, “The amount of times she told me that stupid ‘I have protest signs older than you in my basement’ s***. Like, yeah, but mine don’t collect dust.”

Ocasio-Cortez told the author that since Rep. Hakeem Jeffries has taken over as leader of the House Democrats her life has improved drastically.

“I thought a lot of my misery was due to leadership more broadly having a thing against me. But … my life has completely transformed. It’s crazy. And it’s that that made me realize it was kind of just [Pelosi] the whole time.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/new-book-details-bad-blood-pelosi-aoc-got-mad/