Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks during a presidential debate with Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris at the National Constitution Center, Tuesday, Sept.10, 2024, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON (TND) — The Department of Justice released a new report on Thursday showing that crime rates remain elevated under President Biden.
his new data is challenging the narrative currently being pushed by the White House and the Kamala Harris campaign. It also highlights how difficult it is to get an accurate nationwide measure of where crime is actually trending.
The DOJ numbers come from a massive annual government survey of crime victims. The report found 22.5 out of every 1,000 residents reported being the victim of a violent crime in 2023 and 102 of every 1,000 reported being the victim of a property crime. Both of these numbers are statistically unchanged from the year before. Both are also higher than 2020, the final year of Donald Trump’s first presidential term. This appears to back up claims crime remains higher under the Biden-Harris administration than under Trump.
The Department of Justice released a new report on Thursday showing that crime rates remain elevated under President Biden. (TND)
"The public can look at the national crime victimization survey and see that crime is not going down. Again we are told to not believe our lying eyes," said Sgt. Betsy Smith (ret.), spokesperson for the National Police Association.
But the FBI crime statistics tell a different story indicating drops in crime. These are the numbers the White House is focusing on. This set of data shows crime decreases year-to-year, but is still higher than five years ago.
The FBI data, however, has massive holes.
In 2022, less than half of the police departments in the country gave the FBI complete crime data reports, causing critics to slam the fact check by ABC moderators during Tuesday's presidential debate.
At one point in the debate, Donald Trump said, "Crime in this country is through the roof." To which moderator David Muir responded, "President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country."
Trump responded, "Excuse me, the FBI -- they were defrauding statements. They didn't include the worst cities."
The former president doubled down during his press conference on Friday.
I lost a lot of respect for David Muir. He came at me with things ... I was right about the crime stats going way up."
Gallup polling from April found nearly 60% of American adults believe reducing crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress.
Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to "Keep January 6 Safe" Were Deliberately Ignored
WASHINGTON - Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) revealed that days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. The transcripts released show Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives to keep January 6 peaceful - including using the National Guard - which the Pentagon leaders ignored. This revelation directly contradicts the conclusions drawn in the flawed DoD IG reporton January 6, 2021.
In response to these revelations, Chairman Loudermilk released the following statement:
“Pentagon leadership prioritized concerns of optics over their duty to protect lives,” said Chairman Loudermilk. “President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders and directed them to make sure any events on January 6, 2021 were safe. It is very concerning that these Senior Pentagon officials ignored President Trump’s guidance AND misled Congressional Leaders to believe they were doing their job, when they were not. The DoD IG’s report is fundamentally flawed. It does not draw conclusions from the interviews they conducted, but pushes a narrative to keep their hands clean. We have many questions for them, and we will continue to dig until we are satisfied the American people know the truth."
See below for a full breakdown of the Pentagon leaders' choices to ignore President Trump's directives.
Days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, recalls a conversation between the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and President Trump:
Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.' [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, 'Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.'”
On January 5, the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, placed unprecedented restrictions on DCNG Commander Major General William Walker to prevent any movement to the Capitol without Secretary McCarthy’s explicit permission on January 6 and 7.
On January 6, 2021, the outer perimeter on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol was breached by rioters at 12:53pm. The DCNG arrived five hours later. Click here to view the timeline.
These transcripts prove President Trump’s senior Pentagon leaders were focused on OPTICS, instead of doing their job, as the Capitol was breached:
Miller: “There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.”
As “optics” concerns were being discussed and Secretary McCarthy claims he was ‘developing a plan’, the DCNG was ready to move, less than 2 miles from the Capitol – awaiting Secretary McCarthy’s authorization.
Walker’s General Counsel, Colonel Earl Matthews: “We were seeing the Congress of the United States being overrun, and the Guard – and the Capitol Police, the MPD, they need help. We had people at the D.C. Armory who are able to help, and they’re not moving. They’re not allowed to move.”
DCNG Command Sergeant Major Michael Brooks: “They were ready to go, and they just couldn’t understand why they were still sitting there. Literally sitting on a bus, just waiting to drive to the Capitol and do the best they could do to support Capitol Police.”
At 3:04pm, Miller provided verbal approval to Secretary McCarthy for immediate deployment of the DCNG. What was Secretary McCarthy doing between receiving this approval, and 5:08pm, when the order eventually reaches the D.C. National Guard? Why didn’t he communicate this approval for a full two hours?
At 3:18pm, Secretary McCarthy told Congressional Democrat Leadership that the DC National Guard had the “green light” and “is moving”. Two hours would pass before Secretary McCarthy’s deployment order would ACTUALLY be communicated to the DCNG.
In these vital hours, the DCNG had been trying but was unable to reach Secretary McCarthy.
DCNG Adjutant General Aaron Dean: “[Walker] tried to call Secretary McCarthy three times between 2:30 and 5pm. He said, ‘I haven’t heard from him all day.’ When he tried to call his cell phone, it went straight to voicemail.”
###
Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed By John Solomon
Key lawmaker says interviews prove Pentagon wrongly allowed optics to overwhelm security concerns in lead-up to fateful day. The Pentagon's top brass did not comply with Trump's orders because of political concerns and "optics."
Then-President Donald Trump gave clear instructions to Pentagon brass days before the Jan. 6 riots to “do whatever it takes” to keep the U.S. Capitol safe, including deploying National Guard or active-duty troops, but top officials did not comply because of political concerns, according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department's chief watchdog that shine new light on government disfunction ahead of the historic tragedy.
Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, confirmed to the Pentagon inspector general three years ago that during a Jan. 3, 2021, Oval Office meeting Trump pre-approved the use of National Guard or active duty troops to keep peace in the nation’s capital on the day Congress was to certify the results of the 2020 election.
Milley's interviews were among several key to transcripts obtained by House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., and shared with Just the News.
“The President just says, ‘Hey look at this. It’s going to be a large amount of protesters come in here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,’” Milley told the inspector general in one of two interviews he did in spring 2021 during a probe of the Pentagon’s response to Jan. 6.
Milley said then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, himself a former general, assured Trump there was an adequate safety plan for Pentagon assistance to Washington, D.C. “Miller responds by saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.’ And that’s about it,” Milley recalled.
"Just make sure it’s safe"
Milley confirmed a second time during the interviews that Trump was clear in his wishes. “It was just what I just described, which was, ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or soldiers, active-duty soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe,” the general told the IG.
But other transcripts gathered by Loudermilk during his subcommittee’s ongoing probe of Jan. 6 security failures show civilian leadership at the Pentagon admittedly openly they would not comply with Trump’s wishes, with some saying they did not like the optics of armed soldiers or Guardsmen roaming the Capitol with weapons during what was supposed to be a peaceful transition of power.
“There was absolutely -- there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period,” Miller told the inspector general during his March 2021 interview.
Miller said officials instead used an interagency process to devise an alternative plan that would put some DC National Guard troops on the ground in the nation’s capitol to direct traffic but not to guard the Capitol, a plan that District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser suggested.
“The operational plan was this, let’s take the D.C. National Guard, keep them away from the Capitol. Let’s put -- the request, it wasn’t my request, Bowser and her Metropolitan Police Department were like ‘Let’s put D.C. National Guard on traffic control points and at the Metro stations to free up credentialed law-enforcement officers that can go out and arrest people,’” Miller explained.
Miller admitted there was a political calculus to his decision not to deploy troops near or at the Capitol ahead of time for preventative security.
“I hate to use the word optics because it’s been used and so prejudicially and negatively. It wasn’t the optics. It was like there was would have been huge political consequences that, because that’s what I got paid to do. Is I had the factor in the politics of this and that was my concern is the situation does not warrant at this time U.S. military forces,” he explained,
Pentagon refused to assist D.C. Police
Former District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee confirmed in his interview that Pentagon officials, specifically Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, resisted his department’s initial request around New Year’s Eve for troops in advance of Jan. 6, especially if they were to be deployed anywhere near the Capitol.
“I received a call directly from the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and at that time -- at that point he had reviewed our request for the support of D.C. National Guard, and what he relayed to me this phone call was not what I initially thought that he would saying,” Contee recounted in his interview. “He did not initially say, ‘Yes, you get the National Guard responding and they’re going to handle this traffic and crowd management that you asked for that they’re going to be responding to handle it.’
“That was not what was stated. What was stated to me was that he was not inclined to fulfill the request with Guardsmen simply because the optics of it was bad,” Conte added. “He said that he did not want to have boots on the ground on the -- he didn’t want to have boots on the ground anywhere near the Capitol is what was stated.”
Loudermilk said he is deeply concerned that Pentagon officials substituted their own personal politics for the president’s instructions.
“President Trump directed senior DoD leaders to ensure events on J6 be safe. They ignored his guidance, prioritized optics concerns over security, and pushed a flawed narrative in their IG report,” he wrote on the X social platform last week. “The American people deserve the full truth.”
Eventually, the Pentagon approved less than 400 DC Guard troops to be used on traffic control. But documents gathered by Loudermilk’s team show the DC Guard was told directly by McCarthy it could not use weapons or engage with protesters, a limitation that became magnified when violence broke out.
“DCNG are not authorized to perform any additional tasks or duties not authorized in this memorandum,” McCarthy’s staff wrote the National Guard commander on Jan. 5, 2021. “In addition, without my personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: a,) to be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, and batons. (Removed body armor and helmets)
“Addition: DCNG Soldiers have the inherent right to self‐defense. DCNG Soldiers will store their helmets and body armor within vehicles or buildings in close proximity to their positions. In the event of an elevation of the threat requiring immediate donning of this equipment for self‐defense, DCNG leadership will immediately notify the Secretary of Army,” that email read
Subsequently, on the afternoon of Jan. 6 when violence broke out, the Pentagon would eventually deploy hundreds more though it took hours to get them to reach the Capitol, a delay that frustrated Capitol Police.
The DC Homeland Security Coordinator Christopher Rodriguez told the Pentagon inspector general that the same concerns about political optics that nixed troops at the Capitol ahead of time may have factored into the delay on the afternoon of Jan. 6, noting a top Army official used the word “optics” during a call as emergency resources were being urgently sought to quell the violence at the Capitol.
“I do believe it was one of the generals that was on the line from Secretary of Army staff that I referred to,” Rodriquez recalled.
When pressed about what he heard on the call, Rodriguez said: “It shocked me quite frankly. And we recognize that we might not be able to get an answer to getting needed support up to the Capitol in a timely fashion”
The Pentagon IG ultimately concluded the Pentagon acted quickly after violence broke out, noting Miller signed an order to approve troops to the capitol within 45 minutes of the request for help.
But Loudermilk has since challenged that assertion publicly, including in interviews with The Washington Times, noting there were other delays after the order that kept troops from arriving until sundown.
“The DC National Guard was significantly delayed from deploying to the U.S. Capitol on J6 because senior DoD leaders had 'optics' concerns,” Loudermilk wrote on X earlier this month.
The DC National Guard was significantly delayed from deploying to the U.S. Capitol on J6 because senior DoD leaders had 'optics' concerns.
The transcripts also show there remain some factual disputes among key players.
For instance, ex-Defense Secretary Miller told Congress that Trump gave a specific number of troops he wanted to see made available for security ahead of Jan. 6.
“The President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day...I interpreted it as a bit of presidential banter or President Trump banter that you all are familiar with, and in no way, shape, or form did I interpret that as an order or direction," Miller testified.
But Milley, the former Joint Chiefs chairman, said he did not recall that number ever being uttered in the meetings with Trump. "There was no discussion of 10,000 troops," the retired four-star general said.
The transcripts also provide some hints that top Pentagon officials personally disliked the 45th president. For instance, former Acting Secretary Miller at one point compared the former president to Cuba’s most infamous communist leader, the late Fidel Castro.
“Everyone was like, ‘Did you listen to the President’s speech?’ I’m like, ‘The guy speaks for 90 minutes, it’s like Castro or something. No. I’ve got work to do,” Miller told the IG at one point.
Rep. Tony Gonzales Confirms Over 662,000 Noncitizens With Criminal Histories Released in U.S. Communities
On March 13, 2024, Congressman Tony Gonzales (TX-23) penned a letter to President Biden and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas expressing his concern over policies in sanctuary cities that shield noncitizens from federal law enforcement and requested information on illegal immigrants on ICE’s docket to better understand how many potential criminals were being released into our communities. On Thursday evening, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Deputy Director Patrick Lechleiter responded to Congressman Gonzales’ inquiry with data that confirms as of July 2024, 662,566 illegal immigrants on ICE’s docket have a criminal history.
“We’ve known for far too long that the Biden-Harris border crisis poses a direct threat to Americans. The truth is clear—illegal immigrants with a criminal record are coming into our country. The data released by ICE is beyond disturbing, and it should be a wake-up call for the Biden-Harris administration and cities across the country that hide behind sanctuary policies,” said Congressman Tony Gonzales. “It’s time for Washington to move past rhetoric and toward results. Americans deserve to feel safe in their communities. As an Appropriator, I will do everything in my power to ensure ICE has the resources necessary to deport noncitizens with a criminal record—this must be a priority. The Biden-Harris administration also plays a part in cleaning up the mess their failed policies have created. They have the ear of sanctuary city mayors—it’s time to encourage them to reverse course and put the safety of American citizens first.”
A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support
@realDonaldTrump
for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats, my voting registration has typically been Democrat (in NY, you must be registered to the party in order to vote in the primary, and usually the Republican candidate has no chance to win), and many of our philanthropic initiatives have supported issues that are consistent with Democratic priorities.
All of the above said, I have always considered myself to be a centrist and/or moderate, and I have voted for the candidate and supported the issues and policies that I believe are in the best interest of the country. Some have accused me of supporting Trump because doing so will somehow benefit me financially. Fortunately, I do not need any financial benefits as I and my family have well more than we need. I have also committed to give away the substantial majority of my resources at or by the time I am no longer, so I don't consider personal financial benefits in the determination of whom I support for office.
Some have suggested that I am supporting Trump because I am seeking a position in his administration. To be clear, I haven't been offered one and I wouldn't take a job in the administration (I love my job and it is the wrong time in my life to work in an administration). I will, however, do everything else I can to help the president succeed in helping our country and its citizens.
All of the above said, I am an investor who manages funds that own some of the best, principally American, businesses in the world. In a better governed and managed America, these business will do better and increase in value faster. One might therefore argue that being 'long' America is somehow a conflict, so I thought to disclose this potential 'conflict' here.
Some of my friends and family who support
@KamalaHarris
are ok with my supporting Trump, but don't want me to attempt to convince others to support him. Because I strongly believe that a Trump administration will be better for the country and the world than a Harris administration, I think it is important to share my thinking to the extent it helps others come to the right conclusion.
Three months ago, when I endorsed Trump on the day of the first assassination attempt, I promised to share my thinking about why I came to this conclusion in a future more detailed post. I intend to do so in possibly more than one post, with the first, this one, explaining the actions and policies of the Biden/Harris administration and Democratic Party that were the catalysts for my losing total confidence in the administration and the Party.
To be clear, my decision to vote for Trump is not an endorsement of everything he has done or will do because he is an imperfect man. Unlike a marriage or a business partnership where there are effectively unlimited alternatives, in this election, we have only two viable choices. Of the two, I believe that Trump is by far the superior candidate despite his flaws and mistakes he has made in the past.
As always, I welcome your feedback on how I could be wrong and on how the below actions and policies I outline below might actually have been good for America. I have always believed that the best way to get to the truth is to hear the best arguments on all sides of an issue.
While the 33 actions I describe below are those of the Democratic Party and the Biden/Harris administration, they are also the actions and policies that unfortunately our most aggressive adversaries would likely implement if they wanted to destroy America from within, and had the ability to take control of our leadership.
These are the 33:
(1) open the borders to millions of immigrants who were not screened for their risk to the country, dumping them into communities where the new immigrants overwhelm existing communities and the infrastructure to support the new entrants, at the expense of the historic residents,
(2) introduce economic policies and massively increase spending without regard to their impact on inflation and the consequences for low-income Americans and the increase in our deficit and national debt,
(3) withdraw from Afghanistan, abandoning our local partners and the civilians who worked alongside us in an unprepared, overnight withdrawal that led to American casualties and destroyed the lives of Afghani women and girls for generations, against the strong advice of our military leadership, and thereafter not showing appropriate respect for their loss at a memorial ceremony in their honor,
(4) introduce thousands of new and unnecessary regulations in light of the existing regulatory regime that interfere with our businesses’ ability to compete, restraining the development of desperately needed housing, infrastructure, and energy production with the associated inflationary effects,
(5) modify the bail system so that violent criminals are released without bail,
(6) destroy our street retailers and communities and promote lawlessness by making shoplifting (except above large thresholds) no longer a criminal offense,
(7) limit and/or attempt to limit or ban fracking and LNG so that U.S. energy costs increase substantially and the U.S. loses its energy independence,
(8) promote DEI ideologies that award jobs, awards, and university admissions on the basis of race, sexual identity and gender criteria, and teach our students and citizens that the world can only be understood as an unfair battle between oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressors are only successful due to structural racism or a rigged system and the oppressed are simply victims of an unfair system and world,
(9) educate our elementary children that gender is fluid, something to be chosen by a child, and promote hormone blockers and gender reassignment surgeries to our youth without regard to the longer-term consequences to their mental and physical health, and allow biological boys and men to compete in girls and women's sports, depriving girls and women of scholarships, awards, and other opportunities that they would have rightly earned otherwise,
(10) encourage and celebrate massive protests and riots that lead to the burning and destruction of local retail and business establishments while at the same time requiring schools to be shuttered because of the risk of Covid-19 spreading during large gatherings,
(11) encourage and celebrate anti-American and anti-Israel protests and flag burning on campuses around the country with no consequences for the protesters who violate laws or university codes and policies,
(12) allow antisemitism to explode with no serious efforts from the administration to quell this hatred,
(13) mandate vaccines that have not been adequately tested nor have their risks been properly considered compared with the potential benefits adjusted for the age and health of the individual, censoring the contrary advice of top scientists around the world,
(14) shut down free speech in media and on social media platforms that is inconsistent with government policies and objectives,
(15) use the U.S., state, and local legal systems to attack and attempt to jail, take off the campaign trail, and/or massively fine candidates for the presidency without regard to the merits or precedential issues of the case,
(16) seek to defund the police and promote anti-police rhetoric causing a loss of confidence in those who are charged with protecting us,
(17) use government funds to subsidize auto companies and internet providers with vastly more expensive, dated and/or lower-quality technology when greatly superior and cheaper alternatives are available from companies that are owned and/or managed by individuals not favored by the current administration,
(18) mandate in legislation and otherwise government solutions to problems when the private sector can do a vastly better, faster, and cheaper job,
(19) seek to ban gas-powered cars and stoves without regard to the economic and practical consequences of doing so,
(20) take no serious actions when 45 American citizens are killed by terrorists and 12 are taken hostage,
(21) hold back armaments and weaponry from our most important ally in the Middle East in the midst of their hostage negotiations, hostages who include American citizens who have now been held for more than one year,
(22) eliminate sanctions on one of our most dangerous enemies enabling them to generate $150 billion+ of cash reserves from oil sales, which they can then use to fund terrorist proxy organizations who attack us and our allies. Exchange five American hostages held by Iran for five Iranians plus $6 billion of cash in the worst hostage negotiation in history setting a disastrous and dangerous precedent,
(23) remove known terrorist organizations from the terrorist list so we can provide aid to their people, and allow them to shoot rockets at U.S. assets and military bases with little if any military response from us,
(24) lie to the American people about the cognitive health of the president and accuse those who provide video evidence of his decline of sharing doctored videos and being right wing conspirators,
(25) do nothing about the deteriorating health of our citizens driven by the food industrial complex, the fraudulent USDA food pyramid, and the inclusion of ingredients in our food that are banned by other countries around the world which are more protective of their citizens,
(26) do nothing about the proliferation of new vaccines that are not properly analyzed for their risk versus the potential benefit for healthy children who are mandated to receive them,
(27) do nothing about the continued exemption from liability for the pharma industry that has led to a proliferation of mandatory vaccines for children without considering the potential cumulative effects of the now mandated 72-shot regime,
(28) convince our minority youth that they are victims of a rigged system and that the American dream is not available to them,
(29) fail to provide adequate Secret Service protection for alternative presidential candidates,
(30) litigate to prevent alternative candidates from getting on the ballot, and take other anti-competitive steps including threatening political consultants who wish to work for alternative candidates for the presidency, and limit the potential media access for other candidates by threatening the networks' future access to the administration and access to 'scoops' if they platform an alternative candidate,
(31) select the Democratic nominee for president in a backroom process by undisclosed party leaders without allowing Americans to choose between candidates in an open primary,
(32) choose an inferior candidate for the presidency when other much more qualified candidates are available and interested to serve,
(33) litigate to make it illegal for states to require proof of citizenship, voter ID, and/or residence in order to vote at a time when many Americans have lost confidence in the accuracy and trustworthiness of our voting system.
