Boebert Makes Unhinged Comparison Between D.C. Takeover and January 6

Hard-core MAGA representative Lauren Boebert is trying to conflate the conditions that preceded Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C., with those of the January 6 insurrection. 

Boebert went on a strange tangent at a congressional hearing on Wednesday, comparing the two events in an attempted “gotcha” of liberals who disapproved of Trump’s federal takeover of the nation’s capital. 

“As far as taking issue with the National Guard having a temporary presence to get your city, this city, our nation’s beautiful capital, under control and safe—I didn’t hear any problems from Washington, D.C. residents or or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when 20,000 national guards came in and surrounded the Capitol Building and prohibited your first amendment right to petition your government with your grievances,” the representative from Colorado said. 

“I didn’t see an uprising there. We weren’t happy about the fences. And the hundreds of miles of barbed wire surrounding our nation’s Capitol ... keeping you out of the people’s house. But now they’re here to help and keep you safe, and that’s somehow an issue?”  

 It doesn’t matter how loud or how confidently Boebert says it. This is a stupid, deceitful misrepresentation of what actually happened on January 6, 2021, and why President Donald Trump called in the National Guard for his military crackdown on D.C.

On January 6, the National Guard was called in because a mob of over a thousand people, including far-right militia groups armed with guns and pipe bombs, stormed the Capitol Building, scaling walls, breaking windows, brutally attacking police officers, and threatening to kill legislators. 

Meanwhile, the true catalyst for the National Guard’s recent deployment  in D.C. was a former DOGE bro, Edward Coristine, a.k.a. “Big Balls” getting mugged—an event nowhere near as dire or dangerous as the insurrection. 

Those two events are nowhere near the same.  

Boebert is also exaggerating the scope and scale of the January 6 deployment, as those 20,000-odd troops took almost a month to fully deploy, with only around 1,000 arriving on the date itself, and well after most of the rioting had cleared. 

 Boebert’s comments drew sharp criticism, and quickly. 

“A violent insurrectionist coup attempt where police were mercilessly beaten and politicians were hunted through the Capitol was not ‘petitioning the government,’” one X user wrote in Boebert’s comment section. “Yes, the National Guard was deployed to protect the Capitol from psychopaths who couldn’t handle losing an election.”  

This January 6 revisionism has been rampant since Trump returned to office and pardoned virtually every insurrectionist, from average QAnon kooks to violent Oath Keepers. Boebert acting like the January 6 insurrectionists politely knocked on the door of the Capitol and asked to have a nice meeting is just another example of that. 

South Korean businesses have suspended at least 22 U.S. projects after an ICE raid on a Hyundai Motor factory site in Georgia detained hundreds of South Korean workers.

Some 475 employees, including 300 South Koreans, were taken into custody Thursday at the Savannah-area battery plant. Videos released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials showed the detained workers in shackles and chains. The raid shocked Seoul, a key U.S. ally, where people expressed a sense of betrayal by Washington.

The facility was part of a $4.3 billion joint venture that was slated for completion later this year. It was expected to create 8,500 jobs that would support the car company’s nearby electric vehicle plan, but construction on the factory was put on pause after the raid.

Work on at least 22 other factory sites with ties to South Korea has also been halted, reported The Korean Economic Daily. Those facilities are involved in industries related to automobiles, shipbuilding, steel, and electrical equipment.

South Korean companies with U.S. business interests have canceled travel plans and recalled their U.S.-based staff, fearing that their employees could be affected by more raids.

“Korean workers are being treated like criminals for building factories that Washington itself lobbied for,” a company executive in Seoul told the business newspaper. “If this continues, investment in the U.S. could be reconsidered.”

President Donald Trump defended the raid, claiming Friday that the employees were in the U.S. “illegally” and that U.S. companies needed to focus on training their American employees in order to do the jobs they would otherwise outsource.

An immigration attorney representing several of the detained South Koreans, Charles Kuck, told the Associated Press that the president’s statement wasn’t just wrong—as many of the workers were authorized to work under the B-1 business visitor visa program—but was basically unfeasible in the short term, as no U.S. companies make the machines utilized at the Georgia factory.

“They had to come from abroad to install or repair equipment on-site—work that would take about three to five years to train someone in the U.S. to do,” the AP reported.

Industry officials in Seoul have warned that the projects—collectively worth more than $101 billion—could face serious delays or be placed on indefinite hiatus unless Washington agrees to bilateral talks for new visa arrangements for South Korean employees.

The South Korean workers were expected to be released back to their home country on a chartered plane Wednesday afternoon, though the flight was reportedly delayed “due to circumstances on the U.S. side,” the South Korean Foreign Ministry told the BBC.

A new report from the Center for American Progress projects that the Trump administration’s economic policies will leave all but the wealthiest Americans worse off financially.

According to the nonpartisan policy institute, by 2027, Trump’s tariffs and policies under his so-called One, Big, Beautiful Bill will have decreased the incomes of all but the top 1 percent of American households—which will be $5,000 richer, per the report.

Meanwhile, the 90–99 percent will lose about $675 and the bottom 20 percent will be $1,650 poorer. Groups in between will see losses ranging from $1,300 to $1,800.

But four years from now, the situation will reportedly be even more dire.

By 2029, “Americans at all income levels will have lighter pocketbooks, on average, than they would under a scenario in which the Trump administration’s policies were never implemented.” Even the incomes of the top 1 percent are projected to be $2,647 lower, with income groups within the other 99 percent of Americans suffering losses between $1,920 and $3,356.

While the administration touts its economic policies as major wins for the working and middle class, the “Trump effect” is apparently poised to benefit only the wealthiest Americans—and, even then, just in the short term.

FBI Director Kash Patel is being sued by three ousted federal agents, who allege he was instructed to remove any employee who’d previously investigated President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit comes from former Special Agents Steven Jensen, Spencer Evans, and Brian Driscoll, an 18-year agent who was accidentally appointed acting director of the FBI at the beginning of Trump’s second term. Before he was fired in August, Driscoll had resisted the president’s efforts to excise employees.

In a 68-page filing Wednesday, the trio alleged that their removals were unlawful, that Patel “deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people,” and that he “degraded the country’s national security by firing three of the FBI’s most experienced operational leaders.”

The suit alleged that Patel told Driscoll that top officials at the White House and Department of Justice had “directed him to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump.” Failure to do so would ensure Patel’s head was put on the chopping block next.

The suit also contained disturbing details from Driscoll’s vetting process in the early months of Trump’s second term, suggesting that the president’s team was taking unconstitutional efforts to target workers based on their politics.

Patel allegedly called Driscoll and told him that he should anticipate a vetting call from the presidential transition team. Patel told Driscoll “that as long as [he] was not prolific on social media, did not donate to the Democratic Party, and did not vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, the ‘vetting’ would not be an issue.”

Soon after, Driscoll received a vetting call from Paul Ingrassia, a 28-year-old lawyer Trump nominated to run the Office of Special Counsel. (Ingrassia’s confirmation hearing was postponed in July after widespread concern over his lack of experience and ties to neo-Nazis.)

Driscoll alleges that Ingrassia asked him who he had voted for in 2024, as well as the previous five elections. Driscoll was also asked when he started to support Trump. He said he refused to answer the questions.

According to the lawsuit, he was asked other questions to reveal his stance on Trump’s various legal vendettas, such as whether the federal agents who raided Mar-a-Lago should be “held accountable,” and about his views on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The lawsuit also lists Attorney General Pam Bondi, the FBI, the DOJ, and the entire executive branch as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the trio’s firing was illegal, violating their First Amendment rights by ousting them for their perceived political affiliations, and Fifth Amendment rights by ruining their professional reputations.

Charlie Kirk, conservative activist and founder of conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was reportedly shot Wednesday at an event in Utah.

Witnesses at Utah Valley University in Orem reported seeing Kirk get shot in the neck during a Q&A with students. Kirk was scheduled to appear at a “Prove Me Wrong Table” at the university as part of his American Comeback Tour.

Kirk has built a career off of traveling to college campuses to engage students in debates about different controversial political topics, including advocating against gun control.

Kirk is reportedly in critical condition, according to America First Post, a conservative news outlet.

Despite a previous report that police had arrested a suspect, “the suspect is not in custody,” UVU spokesperson Scott Trotter said in a statement. “Police are still investigating. Campus is closed for the rest of the day.”

A livestream of the event captured the incident from a distance, showing a large crowd of people outside on campus, running and screaming.

President Donald Trump quickly issued a statement praying for Kirk’s swift recovery. “A great guy top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM,” the president wrote on Truth Social. Turning Point USA previously mobilized behind Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign.

JD Vance also issued a statement about the reported shooting. “Say a prayer for Charlie Kirk, a genuinely good guy and a young father,” he wrote on X.

And, weirdly enough, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted that he was “praying for” Kirk.

FBI Director Kash Patel published a statement that he was “closely monitoring reports” of the incident. “Our thoughts are with Charlie, his loved ones, and everyone affected. Agents will be on the scene quickly and the FBI stands in full support of the ongoing response and investigation,” Patel wrote on X.

Democratic activist David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting and target of Kirk’s ire, also commented on the “horrifying news” that Kirk had been the victim of gun violence.

“Gun violence and political violence have to fucking stop,” Hogg wrote on X. “Charlie, his family, and all the students who had to witness the shooting are in my thoughts. We have disagreements, but we all agree something has to change.”

Earlier this year, Kirk mocked Hogg, saying that he was indistinguishable from a “survivor from a concentration camp.”

In 2023, Kirk said it was “worth” the cost of “some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

This story has been updated.

On Wednesday, border czar Tom Homan, as he is wont to do, threatened a local elected Democrat on Fox News.

This time, Homan targeted Boston’s Democratic mayor, Michelle Wu, who has earned national prominence—and the ire of Homan and the White House—for spiritedly defending her city from incursions by the Trump administration.

Asked about Wu’s staggering primary victory as she seeks reelection in November, Homan said, “I don’t care who the mayor is.… They’re not going to stop us. They can stay on the side and watch us do their job. However, they better not step over the line. They better not impede our efforts. Or there’s going to be consequences.

“We’re coming,” Homan continued. “We’re going to be there tomorrow. We’re going to be there the next day. We’re going to be there next month. We’re going to be there next year. You’re not stopping [us] from what we’re doing.”

Last week, Trump’s Justice Department sued Boston and Wu over the Boston Trust Act, which limits local authorities’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies. The DOJ argues that the law illegally obstructs the federal government—though Boston University law professor Sarah Sherman-Stokes told the Associated Press it is well within the city’s “constitutional right to limit their involvement in enforcing immigration law.”

Wu, for her part, condemned the lawsuit as an “unconstitutional attack” by a presidential administration “intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda.”

“This is our city,” the mayor said, “and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris’s new memoir sheds light on her abbreviated presidential campaign, skewering Joe Biden’s decision to remain in the race as “recklessness” in the process. 

“‘It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.’ We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized,” Harris wrote, in an excerpt from 107 Days, her first-person account of her sprint to Election Day, published in The Atlantic on Wednesday. “Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.”

Harris comes off as more bitter and negative toward the Biden administration than ever before here, and with good reason. Biden maintained his candidacy for 2024 despite accruing years’ worth of mental slip-ups and gaffes, culminating in an absolutely disastrous debate performance that made it clear he was in no state–mental or physical—to run for a second presidential term. 

Even after that, it took nearly a month for him to officially step down. Harris wrote, rather transparently, that she stopped short of advising the president to step down because she felt it would make her look bad, and too self-serving.  

The former vice president also described feeling forced to constantly prove her loyalty to the Biden administration, particularly after she essentially called him a segregationist onstage at the Democratic primary debate in 2019. She also felt pigeonholed by the busywork and events she was tasked with, and abandoned in the face of her enemies when she took center stage as the candidate. 

“In Selma, Alabama … I gave a strong speech on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.… I reiterated my strong support for Israel’s security and called on Hamas to release the hostages and accept the cease-fire agreement then on the table,” Harris wrote. “It was a speech that had been vetted and approved by the White House and the National Security Council. It went viral, and the West Wing was displeased. I was castigated for, apparently, delivering it too well.” 

She continued, writing, “Their thinking was zero-sum: If she’s shining, he’s dimmed. None of them grasped that if I did well, he did well.”

A constant theme in these pages is how Harris’s unwavering loyalty to Biden was constantly unrecognized and unrewarded, making her decision to stay so loyal (up until now, really) all the more questionable.  

“When Fox News attacked me on everything from my laugh, to my tone of voice, to whom I’d dated in my 20s, or claimed I was a ‘DEI hire,’ the White House rarely pushed back with my actual résumé,” Harris wrote. “Two terms elected D.A., top cop in the second-largest department of justice in the United States, senator representing one in eight Americans …  getting anything positive said about my work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible.”  

On one hand, Harris has a right to feel slighted, and set up for failure. It sounds like senior members of the Biden administration had issues acknowledging her strengths and working with her, at the very minimum. 

On the other hand, it feels quite futile to hear Harris, who had multiple opportunities to differentiate herself from her predecessor, parrot the same talking points about Biden’s health that progressives were criticized for, well after the fact. Even if hindsight is 20/20, it might not do Harris any good in 2028. 

Her new memoir, 107 Days, comes out September 23. 

A special election in Virginia has put the House one step closer to releasing the Epstein files.

James Walkinshaw’s win in Virginia’s 11th congressional district on Tuesday night has given Democrats another vote in the lower chamber, shrinking a razor-thin Republican majority that has so far obstructed attempts to bring transparency to records related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.

The Virginian’s blowout victory will push the party breakdown to 219 Republicans and 213 Democrats in the House, a margin so tight that House Republicans will only be able to lose two votes on any legislation they hope to pass through the chamber. But three other vacancies—in Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee—threaten to further erode a conservative grip on the House.

Two of those special elections are almost certain to be Democratic victories. They include the races to fill seats left by Texas Democratic Representative Sylvester Turner, who passed away March 5, and Texas Democratic Representative Raul Grijalva, who died just days later, on March 13. Walkinshaw, who will replace Gerry Connolly, was the first Democrat to win a special election since Donald Trump returned to office in January.

So far, House Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked bipartisan attempts to make the Epstein files public. But if supporters of the movement can muster 218 votes in the House, they can circumvent Johnson altogether, sending the motion to the Senate.

Some notable House Republicans have already joined hands with dozens of their Democratic counterparts in a bipartisan effort to make the Epstein case files publicly available.

Introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie, who has a habit of actually standing up to Trump, the bill aims to “make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices” relating to Epstein and his longtime girlfriend and sex-trafficking associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The text of the bill specifies the release of flight logs, travel records, the names of individuals and government officials connected to Epstein’s “criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings,” the names of corporations or organizations tied to Epstein’s trafficking networks, potential immunity deals or sealed settlements, as well as “internal DOJ communications.”

Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Elijah Crane, Tim Burchett, Nancy Mace, and many others have already signed their support for the bill.

Falling short of condemnation, President Donald Trump is acting completely clueless about the more than a dozen Russian drones that entered Polish airspace.

Writing on Truth Social Wednesday morning, Trump didn’t attempt to conceal his confusion. 

“What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!” he wrote.

But Trump is going to need to come up with a better response to Russia’s latest incursion than, “Huh?” Poland has invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty, meaning that the alliance—including the United States—must consult about the latest security threat.  

For the first time in NATO’s history, alliance fighter jets engaged enemy targets in allied airspace, as forces scrambled to shoot down the foreign drones, according to The New York Times. The drones were part of a larger-scale attack across the border in Ukraine.

Trump refused to answer a question about what Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called a “large-scale provocation” Tuesday night, after a disastrous foray to a restaurant in downtown Washington, D.C. 

The president has previously used social media to create the impression that he is criticizing world leaders that he privately cozies up to, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But Trump’s latest statement falls short of public condemnation, portraying ignorance—and for once, it’s seemingly on purpose!

Russia’s latest move has reignited long-held concerns that Trump’s toothless approach to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has emboldened Moscow to expand its efforts to other neighboring states. 

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina is dead set against the prospect of federal agents being deployed in Charlotte.

Due to the fatal stabbing of a Ukrainian refugee in the city last month, Charlotte has garnered increased attention in recent days, particularly among conservatives who blame the incident on supposedly soft-on-crime Democratic officials.

In remarks published online Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump decried the incident, tying it to a purported scourge of blue-city crime, which he’s cited in his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., and his musings over sending National Guard troops elsewhere.

“It’s time to stop this madness,” the president said. “The people of our country need to insist on protection, safety, law, and order. We have proven that it can be done, because we did it right here in D.C.”

Asked by NOTUS on Tuesday about the possibility of the Trump administration sending troops to Charlotte, Tillis said that other cities are in greater need of attention. “I hope that people don’t amplify this into something.”

Tillis said he hasn’t heard that Trump will target Charlotte, and noted, “If they do, it’ll be a problem for me.”

The senator has previously been critical of Trump’s D.C. crackdown, telling CBS last month that the Trump administration “is micromanaging local governments, and I don’t know how any limited-government conservative can reconcile supporting that with a limited-government ideology.”

On Tuesday, another North Carolina Republican came out against a federal takeover of Charlotte, as Charlotte City Council member Edwin Peacock III observed on Fox News that crime is actually “statistically down” there—though he claimed there is a “growing” crime problem. To Newsweek, Peacock expressed confidence in local police leadership “and the partnerships we already have with federal agencies.”

But not all elected Republicans in the Tar Heel State are against stationing troops in its largest city.

MAGA Senator Ted Budd told NOTUS that he’s in favor of “whatever it takes” to address crime there, apparently including federal intervention.