What did Kevin McCarthy know? And when did he know it? Rumblings in Washington, DC, put Kevin McCarthy on the hot seat.

In June 2024, former Trump official Kash Patel dropped a bombshell on Steve Bannon’s War Room, exposing the rotten core of the Republican establishment.

Patel’s blockbuster report on Paul Ryan, which first surfaced on The Gateway Pundit, revealed that Ryan—then Speaker of the House—was the first to receive the fraudulent Steele Dossier in 2016.

This dossier, now widely acknowledged as a fabrication used to justify unlawful surveillance against Donald Trump, was apparently hidden by Ryan from his colleagues, investigators, and even officials within the Trump administration.

This only came out this year – eight years after the Deep State used this document in their first attempt to impeach President Trump in the Russia collusion hoax.

The question now is glaringly clear: Where was Kevin McCarthy during all this? As a leading figure in the Republican Party and a close ally of Paul Ryan, McCarthy’s silence or potential complicity in this cover-up raises serious concerns about his leadership and integrity.

Did McCarthy know of Ryan’s possession and subsequent concealment of the Steele dossier? If so, why did he not act or inform his party members who were blindsided by these revelations?

Kash Patel posted this on Truth Social back in June:

Kash Patel: Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House had in his possession the Steele Dossier before he had [Devin Nunes] and I launch Russia Gate Investigation, and never told us (think, before anyone knew anything about fake intel, he had his own copy). I found it on my own then blew up FBI/DOJ. Why didnt he tell his own damn team? Report that fake news.

Kash Patel shared even more damning details later on The War Room, highlighting Ryan’s treachery. It turns out that while Ryan was pretending to champion the GOP’s investigation into Russiagate, he was sitting on a copy of the Steele Dossier—the very document that the Deep State used to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump.

“Remember in 2016, let’s rewind the tape,” Patel began. “It was Russia collusion, Russia collusion, Russia collusion. Then Speaker Paul Ryan enlisted me and Devin Nunes to investigate the Russia collusion. But what we didn’t find out until 2018, after we completed our investigation, was that the speaker, Paul Ryan, who charged us with investigating Russiagate, was the first guy to ever get a copy of the Steele dossier in 2016.”

The Steele dossier, a now-discredited document central to the Russia collusion narrative, was used to obtain FISA warrants to surveil Trump and his associates. Patel claims that Ryan not only had access to this document early on but actively withheld it from key members of the House Intelligence Committee, including Chairman Devin Nunes, who was leading the investigation at Ryan’s behest and Kash himself.

“He never told us. He still never admitted it,” Patel continued. “It finally was admitted in a British court where Christopher Steele was being sued. Just think about it, Steve. We could have asked, Where did you get it? Who did you get it from? How was it paid for? All of these secrets could have come out under this man’s very investigation, but he rigged it from the beginning.”

Patel didn’t mince words, calling out Ryan’s hypocrisy and arrogance. “I’m done listening to lectures about the new conservative brand that is Paul Ryan,” he declared. “Anytime he wants to debate me, I’m all in. He charged us with an investigation that he rigged because he didn’t want Donald Trump to succeed. He kneecapped him from the beginning.”

Bannon, visibly stunned, pressed Patel on the details, asking for clarification on the shocking claims. “Are you telling me and telling this audience that in a British court filing that Steele filed under penalty of perjury, he identified that Paul Ryan actually had the Steele dossier before he charged you guys, House Intel, to look into this, and he never informed Devin Nunes, the chairman of that? That’s impossible to believe. Are you sure about this?”

Patel responded without hesitation, “100% accurate. The Steele dossier was handed to Paul Ryan’s Chief of Staff in 2016. They put out a mealy-mouth retreat to it, response to it, which basically said, ‘Oh, we didn’t get it from Christopher Steele directly.’ They admitted it in court that they had a copy the entire time, and they didn’t tell us in 2016, they didn’t tell us in 2017, they didn’t tell us in 2018.”

The implications of these allegations are profound. According to Patel, Ryan’s deliberate suppression of the dossier’s existence and content prevented a full and transparent investigation, ultimately shielding the origins of the Russia hoax from public scrutiny. Furthermore, Ryan’s opposition to declassifying critical documents related to the FISA warrants now appears in a new, more sinister light.

“Paul Ryan was the one that fought us tooth and nail on declassifying it. Now we know why,” Patel asserted. “He had it for sure. He is a total coward.”

The Gateway Pundit recently received information from a very credible source that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was Paul Ryan’s right-hand man, also knew about the dossier months before Buzzfeed made it public.

This calls into question McCarthy’s potential future role in a Trump second term. How can Kevin be trusted if he kept this secret from candidate and then President Trump. Why would he not notify Trump of this slanderous piece of propaganda that the intel community was using to spy on him and his campaign and administration?

There are reports today that McCarthy could land a top position in the second Trump administration. The former speaker needs to come clean on this very important matter.

The post Report: Like Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy Likely Knew About the Steele Dossier Much Earlier than Previously Known — And Said Nothing appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In a brazen display of the left’s arrogance, Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino has declared that Kamala Harris should avoid press interviews as the election looms, insisting that for the Democrats, “It’s about f—ing winning,” rather than transparency or accountability.

The 61-year-old leftist director argues that the less Kamala talks, the higher the chances of winning.

During an interview on the Club Random podcast, Tarantino openly dismissed the importance of engaging with the electorate via the press. His comments revealed a disturbing insight into the mindset of those backing Harris: the pursuit of power trumps the need for honesty and openness.

During the discussion, Maher criticized the Democratic Party’s engagement strategies, suggesting they fail to reach beyond their echo chamber. He pointed out Harris’s reluctance to appear on platforms like his.

Bill Maher: The bigger issue is the left and their ability—or their desire—to engage with anyone who’s not already in the bubble, and they get a big fat D-minus on that.

Quentin Tarantino: I couldn’t agree more.

Bill Maher: I mean, you see Kamala—I mean, I’m glad she’s doing well. I’m glad we have a real fight now for President, but she doesn’t talk to the press, would never go near me. When you won’t go near the people who are going to vote for you—do I have to love everything? No, I don’t. It just shows they’re afraid.

Yet, Tarantino dismissed these concerns.

Quentin Tarantino: Okay, you know what? I don’t see her. Well, there’s no reason for her to go on your show before the election, but I can actually see her.

Bill Maher: Yes, there is, because I speak to the exact voter she needs, the person who is in the middle, the person who is not ideologically captured by either side. Now, there are some who are that, and everyone is welcome. I need a bigger audience all the time. I’m greedy that way. But basically, that’s exactly the audience she needs.

The MSNBC crowd is already voting for her. People who watch me, who will decide this election, will probably be decided in four states by something like 80,000 votes in each. That’s how close these elections are these days. And that’s where we’re back to. We’re back to—at least back to normal, which sucked, but it is normal that it’s 50/50 going into the election. With Biden, it wouldn’t have been.

The leftist director argued that Kamala should not do any more press interviews because “she’s not stopping to stumble.” Despite this, the 61-year-old director insisted that he would vote for Kamala no matter what.

Quentin Tarantino:
Let me ask you about this, though. Okay, look, there’s nothing you said that isn’t right. There’s definitely nothing you said that isn’t right in a normal election cycle. I mean, it’s irrefutably right in a normal election cycle where you have a year to set your case. I think this is just all about winning the f—ing election, all right? Then the easiest path to winning the election. Look, you can talk about maybe she should have had more guts about this or that and the other, but we’re the f—ing President.

Bill Maher:
Right.

Quentin Tarantino:
Trump’s not the President, and we’re the f—ing President, and now it’s going to be about this. But this is about f—ing winning. What most people don’t give the Democrats enough credit for—alright?—but we give the Republicans credit for, it’s like, no, sometimes it’s just about f—ing winning, and it doesn’t matter how we look at this moment. It’s about f—ing winning. It’s about f—ing winning.

Bill Maher:
Yeah. No, it is.

Quentin Tarantino:
It’s a mad f—ing dash, and she is running, and she’s not stopping to stumble.

Bill Maher:
You know what?

Quentin Tarantino:
There’s nothing wrong with stopping this. I’m going to vote for her f—ing anyway, no matter what she says in a stupid f—ing interview.

Bill Maher:
Exactly.

Quentin Tarantino:
So don’t f— stuff up.

Hollywood’s elite, like Tarantino, may think they are helping their preferred candidates by advocating for silence and evasion. However, they are undermining the very democratic ideals they claim to champion.

In their rush to “f—king win,” they forget that in a democracy, how you run and how you engage with the electorate is just as important as the outcome of the election.

WATCH:

Quentin Tarantino Goes on a Wild Rant Explaining Why Kamala Harris Shouldn’t Do Press Interviews

“Sometimes it’s just about f***ing winning and it doesn’t matter how we look at this moment. It’s about f***ing winning!” pic.twitter.com/WCJpaH55wx

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) August 25, 2024

The post Quentin Tarantino Says Kamala Shouldn’t Do Press Interviews Because ‘She’s Not Stopping to Stumble’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As Venezuela descends deeper into chaos in the wake of a highly irregular election, fingers are being pointed, and there is a lot of speculation about just what it is that made Venezuela poor, causing more than a quarter of the population to flee the country and now about two-thirds of the population supporting the opposition protesters clashing with the police in the streets.

Apologists for Venezuela’s socialist regime claim that U.S. sanctions made the country poor. And while sanctions didn’t help, the reason the country is poor is because of the socialist policies of the Maduro and Chávez regimes. The transition to socialism and the crash of the economy all happened long before Trump imposed sanctions in 2017.

Venezuela’s economy, while not as centrally planned or restrictive as communist Cuba’s, has been trending in that direction since Hugo Chávez took over in 1999.

Central planning steadily increased during the Nicolás Maduro regime, which began in 2013 and has lasted through the recent election, which was so flawed that the results were rejected not only by Western nations and The Organization of American States (OAS) but even by some socialist allies in Latin America, including Colombia’s leftist President Gustavo Petro and Chile’s leftist leader Gabriel Boric.

Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999 with grand promises of social justice, economic equality, and wealth redistribution.

His socialist agenda, popular among the poor, centered on nationalizing key industries, including oil, telecommunications, and electricity. Companies were nationalized, including banks, foreign-owned firms, and domestic farms.

The proceeds were then used to fund “wealth distribution” schemes, buying him popular support. While these moves were intended to redistribute wealth, they instead led to inefficiencies and rampant corruption.

Government ownership of private enterprises disrupted the market economy. Chávez introduced price controls on basic goods to make them affordable for the poor.

However, these controls led to widespread shortages as producers could not cover their costs, causing decreased production and an explosion of black market activities.

Chávez’s government-funded extensive social programs through oil revenues. While these programs initially improved living standards for many, they were not sustainable.

As oil prices fell, the government faced budget deficits, leading to increased borrowing and inflation. The state sector had become so inefficient due to subsidies and gross mismanagement that even when the price of oil surpassed $100 a barrel, Venezuela’s economy remained in freefall.

Nicolás Maduro, Chávez’s chosen successor, continued the socialist policies, but the situation worsened under his leadership.

Maduro’s tenure has been marked by hyperinflation which reaching six-digits, mass emigration, and a humanitarian crisis. Destructive socialist policies and the general collapse of the economy led to a collapse of domestic savings and investment, which in turn reduced overall economic output.

The absorption of much of the private sector into the mismanaged state sector eliminated the benefit of diversification, leaving the country even more dependent on oil—a sector which is state-owned, state-controlled, rife with corruption, and which distributes wealth to the political ruling class.

Oil production declined, and then exogenous factors such as a reduction in the global price were effectively the death knell of the economy.

The printing of money to cover budget deficits devalued the currency, wiping out savings and incomes. The government’s inability to maintain infrastructure and public services led to frequent blackouts, water shortages, and deteriorating healthcare.

Hospitals lacked basic supplies, leading to a public health crisis. Facing economic hardship, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country in search of better opportunities. This exodus further weakened the economy as the workforce shrank.

The economic policies of Chávez and Maduro, rooted in socialist ideology, emphasized state control and wealth redistribution. These policies ignored basic economic principles, leading to inefficiencies and corruption.

By stifling private investment and entrepreneurship, the government hindered economic growth. Nationalized industries became inefficient, and corruption flourished.

All of these problems were homegrown, resulting from the Chávez/Maduro choice to turn the country into a socialist paradise, which now boasts the highest level of undernourishment in Latin America.

In a recent poll, about 25% of participants said they were planning to leave the country, which will certainly mean more illegals entering the U.S. southern border.

In case anyone missed the horrendous effects of socialism/communism on Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, and Laos, Venezuela should serve as a cautionary tale to American voters to reject socialism.

The post Socialism, Not America, Made Venezuela Poor appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.