Patrick H. Moore

Hey MAGA. There they fuck is your outrage? "The categories Blanche cited for withholding material only deepen the concern. Anything involving child sexual abuse imagery, images of death, or materials “related to a federal investigation” will not be released. Some redactions are appropriate. No one is arguing otherwise. But these buckets are so broad they function less as safeguards and more as escape hatches. “Related to a federal investigation” can mean nearly anything if the people defining it are the same ones facing scrutiny. This is not happening in a vacuum. Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi staged a highly publicized “Phase 1” Epstein release, complete with binders handed to conservative influencers. It was billed as a breakthrough. It turned out to be theatrics. Now, months later, the same pattern has returned — bigger numbers, bigger promises, and the same quiet retention of whatever actually matters. When Blanche was pressed on whether names of powerful men implicated in Epstein’s network would be revealed, his response grew defensive and evasive. He dismissed the premise, as if accountability requires a neatly labeled list to exist before it can be pursued. That is not how investigations work. Epstein’s operation generated flight logs, payments, schedules, contact lists, and introductions. Pretending those cannot be used to identify perpetrators is either disingenuous or deeply alarming." BREAKING: Deputy AG Todd Blanche Says DOJ Will Withhold Half of the Epstein Files open.substack.com/pub/demwinsmed…

Patrick H. Moore's Rogues & Patriots is FREE on Amazon TODAY only! Don't miss this chance to pick up a copy and learn how LA PI Nick Crane runs afoul of Marguerite Ferguson and the Principals and how Nick fights for his life against his insidious enemies.amazon.com/Rogues-Patriot…

Available today: STEALING PARADISE by Curtis Ippolito @curtis_sd , back in print as part of A Grifter’s Song, with Sam & Rachel turning a Coronado “vacation” into a beachside score. amazon.com/gp/product/B0G…

We reached 1 million views in 10 hours.

Patrick H. Moore's intriguing novella "Setting the Record Straight," part of Frank Zafiro's wonderful 35-episode series, "A Grifter's Song," is now re-released on Amazon by Mr. Zafiro. Don't miss this touching and thought-provoking story! amazon.com/Settin.../dp/B…...

"The most conspicuous retreat came from Republicans in Congress. Many entered the Trump era with reputations as institutionalists, constitutional conservatives, or moral voices. They left it having trained the country to expect silence in the face of abuse. Mitch McConnell is the central figure here, not because he admired Trump, but because he understood him clearly and still chose accommodation. McConnell privately acknowledged Trump’s unfitness and his responsibility for January 6, then engineered an acquittal that ensured Trump would face no consequences from the Senate. His explanation was procedural, his motive transparently political. By separating personal judgment from institutional action, McConnell taught future leaders that there is no penalty for attacking democracy so long as the calendar is favorable. What unites these failures is not ideology but risk aversion. Elites understood that opposing Trump carried costs. Primary challenges, social media mobs, loss of influence, and professional exile were real threats. But the very purpose of elite status in a democracy is to absorb risk on behalf of the system. When those with power refuse to spend it, institutions become brittle and norms collapse. The most damaging lesson of the Trump era is not that a demagogue can rise, but that the gatekeepers will step aside. Republican elites in particular internalized the idea that survival required silence. Over time, silence became endorsement. Endorsement became dependency. Dependency became fear. The party’s internal culture shifted so that stupidity, cruelty, and authoritarian gestures were no longer disqualifying but affirming. This brings us to the question that matters most. When Trump is gone, whether through defeat, incapacity, or time, will Republicans recover the ability to speak and act against dangerous leadership. The record so far is discouraging. Many of the behaviors Trump encouraged are now structurally embedded. Election denial persists. Loyalty tests remain. Punishment for dissent is swift. The incentives that rewarded cowardice have not disappeared." The Silence That Remade The GOP open.substack.com/pub/marcfriedm…

Patrick H. Moore's scintillating thriller "27 Days" is free on Amazon all day today. Don't miss this chance to pick up a copy of this intriguing story in which Nick Crane fights for his and Bobby Moore's freedom! amazon.com/dp/B0FWDQYZP5?… #nickcrane #patrickhmooren #Freedom

The Return! Orphaned when Down and Out Books shuttered its doors, Code 4 Press is re-issuing this series throughout January 2026. MORE TO COME! @reverenderyk @HollyWest @jaramilloc2 @blacklionking73 @PauljGarth @JamesDFHannah @nkolakowski @PatrickHMoore1

Jordan Walsh doing Josh Hart better than Josh Hart

Wow. "After Sauer acknowledged that Congress could not simply perform “abdication” of its duties (which, by the way, it has in many respects); Justice Gorsuch responded wryly, “I’m delighted to hear that.” Gorsuch then flipped the question with a liberal bogeyman hypothetical. “Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered cars and autoparts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” Gorsuch asked. Sauer admitted that he probably could, even while getting in a cringeworthy dig about the “hoax” of climate change. “I think that has to be the logic of your view,” Gorsuch warned, indicating that he did not like the prospect of a climate change emergency tariff at all. Gorsuch then raised a question that cut straight to the heart of our current constitutional crisis. If, as the White House argues, Congress has ceded to the executive branch absolute power over tariffs, then “what president is ever going to give that power back” by signing a bill that reins it in? He noted, “As a practical matter, in the real world,” Congress “can never get that power back.” Gorsuch called this a “one-way ratchet” that would give the White House ever more authority, because after supposedly ceding such power, Congress would need a supermajority sufficient to override a presidential veto to ever claw it back. On this question of whether IEEPA actually authorized tariffs, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who considers herself textualist, led the charge with an assist from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The government had been trying to hang its hat on the words “regulate importation” in the IEEPA, claiming this granted wide authority to impose the tariffs. Barrett wasn’t buying what Sauer was selling. “Can you point to any other place in the code, any other time in history, where that phrase together—‘regulate importation’—has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Sauer mentioned a predecessor to IEEPA that President Richard Nixon used to impose a 10 percent tariff in 1971. But Barrett noted that that statute was replaced by IEEPA in direct response to Nixon’s actions. So, Barrett wondered, is there any other example? Sauer hemmed and hawed, prompting Sotomayor to interrupt. “Could you just answer the justice’s question?” she demanded. He had no answer to Barrett. Sotomayor had another devastating text-based question to ask. Sauer kept citing the power to “regulate … importation,” but as Sotomayor noted, the text actually says “regulate … importation or exportation.” Why would that language suggest the power to “tariff” if “exportation” would not ever involve any tariffs? Again, there’s no ready answer for this. This is one of the first cases squarely before the Supreme Court on appeal where the question presented is whether Trump exceeded his legal authority. Nearly every other case that has come out “favorable” to Trump has been a punt by SCOTUS: lifting stays, temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to allow Trump’s policies to proceed while the case is resolved, in effect giving him a win while reserving the merits of the legal question until later. The Court didn’t have that ability here because the case had wound its way up through the normal appellate process and couldn’t simply be dealt with on the “emergency docket.” There was going to be a full oral argument, which occurred yesterday, and there will be a full ruling with the Court’s decision-making process laid out. That the question presented involved financial policies by Trump that are likely ruinous and unpopular among corporate interests is notable. This Court recently has appeared more willing to step in and put a stop to things when they involve high economic stakes. For example, the Court has allowed Trump to fire just about everyone he wants from his administration except Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. When it came to that key position, the Court let her keep her job while the case was pending. It stands to reason that if there is to be a hard line drawn by the SCOTUS radical majority, it is over money and the economy. Philosophically speaking, they simply don’t like having an ass braying by the trading pit and causing general chaos in the markets." Did SCOTUS Just Reveal Its Line in the Sand?, by @nycjayjay open.substack.com/pub/statuskuo/…

GIANT STEPS by Patrick H. Moore is now #4, #5 and #5 in the FREE CATEGORY of the three major thriller/suspense/action categories...amazon.com/Giant-Steps-Ni…

"The victories were so significant that they “changed the electoral landscape.” What do I mean by that statement? Republicans are busily redrawing congressional districts in an effort to gerrymander their way into retaining the House in 2026. But their depraved scheme is based on a logical fallacy: They are revising the 2026 congressional districts based on 2024 electoral results. That is a mistake. A big one. Kate Riga of Talking Points Memo identified the Republican dilemma in her analysis: The risk in drawing aggressive gerrymanders, as Republicans did in a few red states and plan to do in several more, is that your candidates inherently get put in more competitive districts. In wave elections, those newly vulnerable lawmakers can get swept away. If Tuesday is a sign of where the midterm winds are blowing, the Republican gerrymanders may lead to bigger Democratic gains — on top of the big Democratic (Gavin Newsom) win, as voters approved a defensive California gerrymander by almost 64 percent. Using the 2024 results to slice and dice congressional districts makes sense if the coalition Trump built in 2024 is a permanent one. It is not—as Tuesday’s results showed. First, as many commentators have noted, the scale of the victories was remarkable. Turnout was high, winning margins were high, and enthusiasm was high. Those factors suggest that a “safe” Republican district leaning “R+8” in 2024 might be a “toss-up” in 2026. But it gets better for Democrats and worse for Republicans. Much. Second, swing voters shifted decidedly in favor of Democrats. Third, Latino voters have also shifted strongly against Trump—fueled by a mixture of regression to the mean, revulsion at the inhuman treatment of Latino immigrants by ICE, and by a sense of betrayal over Trump’s failed promises to improve the economy for people who work for a living." “Toto, I don’t think we’re in 2024 anymore . . . .” open.substack.com/pub/roberthubb…

@PatrickHMoore1 youtube.com/watch?v=IE_P2o…

@PatrickHMoore1 Can't wait to get my hands on this one :)

Interview with Patrick H. Moore – S. 11, Ep. 10 debbimack.com/blog/crime-caf… via @debbimack

American PsyOps open.substack.com/pub/lorraineev…

Check this out: Book Fight Club: Giant Steps: A Nick Crane Thriller bookfightclub.blogspot.com/2025/10/giant-… #NickCrane #mustread

Check out this feature: The E-Bookie: Giant Steps: A Nick Crane Thriller theebookie.blogspot.com/2025/10/giant-… #NickCrane #freedom

Trump just completely lost it on Truth Social after watching Senator Kelly obliterate Republicans for shutting down the government—instead of doing their jobs and stopping your health care premiums from doubling or tripling. Imagine how angry Trump would get if we all shared this video and every American saw it.

OMFG. "Speaker Johnson said in an interview with Fox Business that the ACA subsidies are “bad policy,” and that talking point is being echoed by Republicans and conservatives. It’s a billionaire-funded talking point. Why are billionaires putting so much pressure on lawmakers to steal healthcare away from The People when they are supposed to represent the people? Let us not forget that the United States is the only “developed,” wealthy, or industrialized nation that does not have a system of universal healthcare for everyone. These billionaires have the power to set the agenda in DC via their influence over lawmakers, who ignore their duty to the people while taking refuge in obviously disingenuous “concern” about the government’s involvement in health policy. We are to believe billionaires when they say it’s bad policy, never mind that the policy was partly based on Republican [Mitt Romney] ideas including the individual mandate, as soon as Obama’s name was attached to it (via Republican talking points back then, when they were so sure Americans would hate having more existing conditions covered that they constantly referred to it as “Obamacare”), Republicans hated it. But it’s hard to rip healthcare away from tens of millions of people, and so they tried lying about “illegals” being on it, but that’s is not accurate." GOP Repeats Billionaire-Funded Talking Points on Healthcare thedailypoliticususa.com/p/gop-repeats-…