Recently, I wrote a column about Meta’s restoration of free speech protections after the company admitted to censoring users on platforms like Facebook. The company also revealed that it was pressured by the Biden Administration to conduct such censorship. Now, Google has taken the same step in restoring a number of YouTube accounts and pledging to show greater respect for free speech.
Google made the disclosure in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH):
“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”
This is another major victory for free speech. Google specifically acknowledged past political censorship and stated that it “values conservative voices on its platform.”
The company, for the first time, admitted that it yielded to comprehensive pressure from the Biden Administration to censor Americans. It acknowledged that the Biden censorship pressure was “unacceptable and wrong” and pledged to resist such pressure in the future.
Meta has substantially reduced censorship by replicating the approach of Elon Musk at X. These changes are a testament to Musk’s legacy in the restoration of free speech on social media. As I previously noted, we need companies like Facebook and Google. These are companies that are big enough to stand up to the European Union (EU) and its unrelenting campaign against free speech.
The censorship on Google and YouTube had a harmful impact beyond the loss of free speech. It suppressed opposing views on Covid policies from the efficacy of masks to the need to shut down our schools.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
The disclosure is also a blow to many Democratic members of Congress who long attacked witnesses, including myself, who testified against the coordinated censorship by corporate and government officials. Before the release of the Twitter files, members insisted that there was no evidence of such coordination. Some still deny such coordination despite multiple companies now confirming it.
The greatest challenge, however, still lies ahead for these companies. The EU remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans. After Musk purchased X with a pledge to restore free speech, figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the EU use its infamous Digital Services Act to force X to censor Americans.
The Trump administration has warned the EU about its efforts to censor Americans. Meta and Google can now join X in creating a formidable corporate alliance for free speech. For the first time, the free speech community might have a coalition of government and corporate allies that could stand up to the EU.
There will likely remain a degree of mistrust from the free speech community towards these companies after years of censorship and stonewalling. However, we also need to accept our allies where and when we can find them. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe and many on the left are encouraging similar censorship laws for the United States. We need these companies and should support them as they take meaningful actions in favor of free speech.
In a powerful and necessary rebuke on the floor of Congress, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) expertly dismantled the false and dangerous narrative being perpetuated by the disgraced Democrat, Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). This confrontation came after Crockett, in a shocking display of ignorance or outright malice, chose to echo the same defamatory lies that recently cost Jimmy Kimmel his television show, attempting to blame the assassination of conservative leader Charlie Kirk on the very movement he dedicated his life to advancing.
Refusing to learn from the well-deserved fate of the late-night host, Crockett stood by her deeply offensive and insensitive claims, attempting to cite a far-left Yahoo News article as her sole piece of evidence. This is a common tactic of the liberal media: to seize upon a single, unverified detail from a questionable source and amplify it to push a politically convenient lie, all while ignoring the overwhelming body of facts that contradict their preferred storyline.
Representative Greene, however, would not allow this malicious fiction to stand unchallenged. She rose to deliver a stunning smackdown, presenting the clear and undeniable facts of the case that the mainstream media has desperately tried to obscure. With precision and force, MTG laid bare the truth for the congressional record and for the entire American public to witness.
“I can assure you that the 22-year-old man, Tyler Robinson, that murdered Charlie Kirk, is not MAGA,” Greene stated authoritatively. She continued, methodically dismantling Crockett’s falsehood, “His family may be Republican, but all of the evidence being presented proves he is a far-leftist, very much integrated in online groups that are linked to Antifa.”
Greene then detailed the assassin’s personal life, which is completely anathema to the values of the MAGA movement and the millions of decent, law-abiding citizens who support President Donald J. Trump. “He was in a relationship with a biological male, so-called furry, whatever that is, that is transitioning to be a fake woman,” she explained. “He was not MAGA, not one bit; that is a complete lie, and it’s an insult to every single Republican and person who identifies with those types of politics.”
In a crucial and sobering segment of her remarks, Representative Greene connected the dots between this kind of reckless, hateful rhetoric and the escalating political violence perpetrated against conservatives. She issued a stark warning that the days of tolerating such dangerous defamation are over.
🚨 MTG just TOOK DOWN Jasmine Crockett after she FALSELY claimed Charlie Kirk’s kiIIer was a MAGA Republican
The American people see RIGHT THROUGH the Democrats’ lies
“We will not tolerate it. And that is the exact type of language that is getting many of us death threats, day after day,” Greene declared. She powerfully linked the toxic rhetoric from the left to real-world acts of violence, stating, “This is what led to shootings on the baseball field where Steve Scalise was shot, President Trump nearly being assassinated, and Charlie Kirk being assassinated. So, I just want to give a warning there, we’re not going to tolerate that anymore.”
This firm stance is a defense of truth and a stand against the unhinged left-wing bias that continues to poison the nation’s discourse and put lives in imminent danger. It is a defense of the peaceful supporters of the Make America Great Again movement and a defense of President Trump himself, who has been the primary target of this non-stop vitriol from the corrupt and dishonest media.
Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial remarks of Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.) denouncing a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. By the end of the hearing, Kaine effectively lumped Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini in his statement at the committee hearing.
Here is the column:
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) this week warned the American people that a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.
Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, revealed his dangerous proclivities to Kaine in his opening statement when he said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”
It was a line that should be familiar to any citizen — virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary. Yet Kaine offered a very surprising response in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”
The idea that laws “come from the government” is the basis of what is called “legal positivism,” which holds that the legitimacy and authority of laws are not based on God or natural law but rather legislation and court decisions.
In my forthcoming book celebrating the 250th anniversary, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I detail how the Declaration of Independence (and our nation as a whole) was founded on a deep belief in natural laws coming from our Creator, not government. That view is captured in the Declaration, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Kaine represents Virginia, the state that played such a critical role in those very principles that he now associates with religious fanatics and terrorists. In fact, Kaine’s view did exist at the founding — and it was rejected. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Although the Framers were clear, Kaine seemed hopelessly confused. He later insisted that “I’m a strong believer in natural rights, but I have a feeling if we were to have a debate about natural rights in the room and put people around the table with different religious traditions, there would be some significant differences in the definitions of those natural rights.”
This country was founded on core, shared principles of natural law, including a deep commitment to individual rights against the government. The government was not the source but the scourge of individual rights. This belief in preexisting rights was based on such Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke who believed that, even at the beginning when no society existed, there was law, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone,” he wrote. “And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind.”
Note that a natural law can also be based on a view of the inherent rights of human beings — a view of those rights needed to be fully human. Like divinely ordained rights, these are rights (such as free speech) that belong to all humans, regardless of the whim or want of a given government. They are still not “rights [that] come from our laws or our governments.”
The danger of legal positivism is that what government giveth, government can take away. Our prized unalienable rights become entirely alienable if they are merely the product of legislatures and courts.
It also means that constitutional protections or even the constitutional system itself is discardable, like out-of-fashion tricorn hats. As discussed in the book, a new generation of Jacobins is rising on the American left, challenging our constitutional traditions. Commentator Jennifer Szalai has denounced what she called “Constitution worship” and argued that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
That chorus includes establishment figures such as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley Law School and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Other law professors, such as Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, have called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
That “reclamation” is easier if our rights are based not in natural law, but rather in the evolving priorities of lawmakers like Kaine. Protections then become not the manifestations of human rights, but of rights invented by humans. Kaine’s view — that advocates of natural law are no different from mullahs applying Sharia law — is not just ill-informed but would have been considered by the founders as constitutionally blasphemous.
He is, regrettably, the embodiment of a new crisis of faith in the foundations of our republic on the very eve of its 250th anniversary. This is a crisis of faith not just in our Constitution, but in each other as human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Democrats are struggling to convince the public that they are outraged that there is gerrymandering afoot in Texas. It is no easy task, particularly after Texas Democrats selected Illinois as their sanctuary state, a state considered the most gerrymandered in the country. Trump received 45 percent of the vote in the state, but Republicans have only 14 percent of the congressional seats. Even the New York Times admitted that gerrymandering has favored Democrats across the nation. However, the winner of the Claude Rains award must be Marc Elias, who has expressed disgust over the notion of gerrymandering despite the fact that his group was denounced by courts for outrageous gerrymandering efforts.
The origin of the term was based on re-districting associated with Elbridge Gerry, a Founding Father, vice president, and governor of Massachusetts. He signed off on a district designed to guarantee a seat for the precursor of today’s Democratic Party. The district resembled a salamander, so the Boston Gazette deemed it the “Gerry-mander.”
That effort pales in comparison to what was done in Illinois to deny Republicans a fair share of congressional seats. This is the Illinois map:
The 13th congressional district stretches from East St. Louis to Springfield, 90 miles away. It then takes a sharp turn east to grab Decatur and Champaign. This monstrosity was approved by Democrats who are now insisting that they will respond to Texas with a gerrymander war, as if they were political pacifists until a few days ago.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker portrayed his party as the victim of conniving pols and pledged to respond in kind. Yet, it was Pritzker who approved the redistricting that guaranteed that, while Republicans represent almost half of the voters, they will receive less than twenty percent of the congressional seats.
The same is true in California, where Governor Gavin Newsom is also pledging to retaliate despite previously engaging in rampant gerrymandering. Republicans constituted roughly 40 percent of the congressional vote in 2024 but received only about 17 percent of the House seats. Across the country in 17 blue states, the Dems won 56.7 percent of the popular House vote but secured 143 of the 185 House seats — 77.7 percent. New York has achieved that same enhanced democratic representations despite the fact that Trump received 45 percent of the vote. Republicans are confined to a small handful of districts.
I have long opposed gerrymandering by both parties. However, the claims of disgust and outrage by Democrats border on the comical.
(MSNBC/via YouTube)
That brings us to Marc Elias, who is again trying to raise clients and donations off the outrage.
Elias has not only been sanctioned in past litigation, but past courts have also criticized his group. In Maryland, Elias filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found violated not only Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map pushed by Elias “subverts the will of those governed.”
Elias is currently looking at a likely demand for testimony in the new grand jury investigation into the Russian conspiracy. He featured prominently in the filings of Special Counsel John Durham. It was Elias who made the key funding available to Fusion GPS, which in turn enlisted Steele to produce his now discredited dossier on Trump and his campaign. During the campaign, reporters did ask about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. Weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie.
It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and categorically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
With the likes of Marc Elias leading the cause against gerrymandering, the Democrats have reached a level of hypocrisy that knows no equal.
For the public, this growing war should support a movement to put an end to gerrymandering by all parties. Politicians will then have to look to voters, not maps to maintain their power.
Democrat Rep. Delia Ramirez (D., Ill.) is locked into a fierce fight with the White House over controversial remarks at the second annual Panamerican Congress held in Mexico, including declaring, “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.” Ramirez does not deny making the remarks but insists that there is a double standard for “my white colleagues [who] identify as Irish-American, Italian-American, or Ukrainian-American to honor their ancestry.” Ramirez was also criticized for her criticism of the United States as being “addicted to war” and threatening the world with its “imperialism, militarization, conquest, control, competition in its attempt at domination.”
The White House criticized Ramirez as well as the appearance of other high-profile Squad members, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA): “These Democrats’ comments are despicable and underscore their commitment to putting Americans last.”
The comments of Ramirez have clearly struck a nerve on both sides. For my part, I am very proud of both my Irish-Sicilian background. My Sicilian grandparents came to this country at the turn of the century. They were deeply proud of their heritage but always insisted that their children identify as Americans first and foremost. As I discuss in my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster 2026), we share a common identity of a people who are joined by core principles of liberty and individual rights. This country is unique because it is composed largely of people who came here to embrace a new identity of shared values.
I was surprised that Ramirez did not simply say that ranking was a poor choice of words. There is a difference between calling oneself a Guatemalan-American and saying that you are Guatemalan first and an American second. She has often publicly discussed how she is “the wife of a DACA recipient. I am the daughter of Guatemalan working immigrants,” including a mother who crossed the Rio Grande while pregnant. It is a harrowing story of many who came to this country to seek a new identity and a better life. My grandparents came to this country in the filthy hold of a wooden ship where immigrants died and two gave birth. What drove them was the promise of a new start in a nation based on freedom and opportunity. This country has never had prouder Americans.
The anger over Ramirez is not about how she defines herself, but about what it is to be an American. It is a shared identity, an article of faith that defines us all. That does not mean that Ramirez does not love this country. You can criticize this country and still love it. However, she should also realize how her ranking insults many citizens who cherish their heritage but embrace their core identity as Americans.
Below is my column in Fox.com on the release of the last declassified material on the origins of the Russian collusion investigation. After the release, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in the New York Times insisted that they never relied on the Steele dossier. The column only reaffirmed the level of dishonesty and duplicity that marked their tenures in office. (The Times still printed this claim despite being demonstrably untrue).
The documents quote Brennan in overruling career analysts and intervening to include the dossier in the intelligence assessment. Moreover, the column echoes the media spin that the investigation was about an attempted Russian interference while dismissing the collusion claim that consumed much of the first term. (Even after leaving office, Brennan continued to push the false collusion claim). Both countries routinely hacked each other’s emails — that is why we have the most recent incriminating evidence on the Clinton campaign’s funding and spreading the false collusion claims. We hacked their emails. We have also regularly tried to influence the elections of other nations. The key to the dossier and the Russian investigation was the allegation of collusion and the central role of the Clinton campaign in creating the narrative that Trump was a Russian asset.
Here is the column:
This week, Washington was rocked by new releases in the declassification of material related to the origins of the Russian investigation. The material shows further evidence of a secret plan by the Clinton campaign to use the FBI and media to spread a false claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. With this material, the public is finally seeing how officials and reporters set into motion what may be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in American politics. There never was a Russian collusion conspiracy. This is the emerging story of the real Russian conspiracy to manufacture a false narrative that succeeded in devouring much of the first term of the Trump Administration.
What is emerging in these documents is a political illusion carefully constructed by government officials and a willing media. The brilliance of the trick was getting reporters to buy into the illusion; to own it like members of an audience called to the stage by an illusionist.
The effort closely followed the three steps of the classic magic trick: The Pledge, The Turn, and The Prestige.
The Pledge
The trick began with the pledge, the stage where the public is set up by showing ordinary events with the suggestion that it is about to transform into something extraordinary. The key is to make something seem real that is actually not.
The Clinton campaign delivered the pledge by secretly funding the Steele dossier, using Fusion GPS and a former British spy named Christopher Steele, to create a salacious account of Trump being an agent of Russia. New emails state that Hillary Clinton personally approved the operation.
It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.)
Later, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, appeared before Congress for questioning on the Steele dossier. Podesta emphatically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
The FEC ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee over the handling of the funding of the dossier through his prior firm.
The Turn
The next step is the turning point when the ordinary becomes something extraordinary. This required the involvement of the government. The Clinton team worked behind the scenes to feed the dossier to the FBI. It would be the criminal investigation that would transform the ordinary accounts, like Carter Page speaking in Moscow, into an elaborate Russian plot. Even though the FBI was warned early on that Page was a CIA asset, not a Russian asset, the Clinton team found eager officials in the Obama Administration to assist in the illusion.
The newly disclosed evidence shows how the turn was made. In July 2016, Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s “plan” to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The original Russia investigation — funded by Clinton’s campaign — was launched days after this briefing.
Months later, it would be Brennan who overruled his own CIA analysts in his ordering of a second last-minute assessment at the end of the Obama Administration in support of the Russian allegations. It would help make the turn with the all-consuming Russian investigation that would follow.
Career analysts were not buying the turn. They objected that the reliance on the Steele dossier “ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.” One CIA analyst told investigators that “[Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s main flaws, [Brennan] responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”
That is the key to the turn; it needs only to be enough to fool the audience.
The Prestige
The final stage is called the Prestige, where the magician faces the toughest part of the trick. As explained in the 2006 movie “The Prestige,” the viewer is “looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled.” However, “making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back.”
The difference is that this trick was designed to derail Trump and it worked. In the end, however, the Special Counsel and Inspector General both rejected the Russian collusion claims. The public then reelected Trump. Now, the prestige may be revealed by the CIA.
Reports indicate that the CIA is about to declassify material showing that foreign sources were also in on the trick. The information reportedly indicates that foreign sources were aware of the move to create a Russian collusion scandal and expected that the FBI would play a role in the plan. That was before the bureau launched its controversial Crossfire Hurricane probe. One source said the foreign intelligence predicted the move “with alarming specificity.”
The most recently declassified material shows that the Russian actors in 2016 hacked emails from the Open Society Foundations, formerly known as the Soros Foundation. The emails reveal a broader network of activists and allies who were aware of the Clinton conspiracy.
Leonard Bernardo, who was the regional director for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, explained that “during the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated…from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications.”
Bernardo added, “Julie (Clinton Campaign Advisor) says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire.”
The media (including the Washington Post and New York Times, which won Pulitzer prizes for reporting on the debunked claims) are apoplectic in dismissing these disclosures. The last thing they will do is report on how they helped sell a political hoax. The problem is that they never said it was a trick. They said it was the truth. That is why they cannot honestly cover the story. To do so would not be coverage, it would be a confession.
It appears that everyone was in on the trick: the U.S. government, the media, even foreign governments. The only chumps were the American people. Now they are about to see how it was done.
When President James Buchanan declared that the United States Senate is the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” he clearly had not envisioned Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.). In yet another tirade on the floor, Sen. Booker attacked not just President Donald Trump but his Democratic colleagues for voting for a bipartisan bill on law enforcement. Behind the “I am Spartacus” theatrics is a more troubling trend in the United States Senate as it devolves into a more populist, impulsive institution.
In 1872, Moncure Daniel Conway published an account of a meeting between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Jefferson questioned Washington’s support for the creation of a second or upper house in the form of the Senate. Washington asked:
“Why…did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer, before drinking?”
“To cool it,” answered Jefferson, “my throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so,” rejoined Washington, “we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
These days, it seems like legislation goes to the Senate to heat up. The Senate is losing its constitutional and cultural moorings as the cooling saucer for our heated politics. Instead, it is becoming more like . . . well . . . the house.
The role of the Senate is key to the Madisonian design in forcing compromise and deliberation. Senators were given longer, six-year terms to insulate them from the immediate political demands that often motivate the House.
That has changed with the 24-hour media-saturated political environment. It has changed in this age of rage. Cue Corey Booker:
Putting the claims of “secret police” and, once again, the imminent collapse of democracy, Booker was immediately set upon by his colleagues after he moved to block the bipartisan bill by fellow Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.). Klobuchar effectively accused Booker of grandstanding and hypocrisy:
“I will note that Sen. Booker objected to my police reauthorization bill, the cops funding, the Clinton cops funding, long before Donald Trump came into office. So, this is not just about this. This is a long dispute over this type of funding.”
She also snapped back at Booker saying that he could not make a key hearing on the drafting of the bill because of a conflict, noting “I can’t help it if someone couldn’t change their schedule to be there.”
Cortez Masto struck back at the notion that Democrats should simply refuse to cooperate with the Administration or that working with Republicans is what Booker calls “complicity.”
Booker is clearly maneuvering for a possible presidential run and seeking to tap into the rage growing on the far left. He is also the inevitable result of the rising rhetoric of figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in pandering to the far left of his party. Democratic senators are now being denounced as “establishment” as Booker and others tack to the left to lead “the resistance.”
Booker just raised the anger ante for Democrats. They must either join the resistance and the rage or face the ire of their party. In the interim, the constitutional system will suffer. We need the House of Representatives as the “people’s house.” We do not need two Houses of Representatives. The Senate ideally moderates, not magnifies, the pressures and passions in the political system.
Booker’s tirades clearly resonate with some on the far left, but it is likely to come at a cost for the institution itself. As tensions build on the Democratic side, Teddy Roosevelt’s quip seems to be coming true in voting for bipartisan legislation: “When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not guilty.””
“What we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Those words to a Democratic member are part of a chilling Axios story on the rising violent rhetoric on the American left. As alleged Antifa members are arrested in Texas for the attempted murder of ICE agents, Democratic members are beginning to express private concerns over unleashing uncontrollable rage after their election defeat.
Axios reported on conversations with Democratic members who admit that followers are turning to violence and rejecting messages of political reform.
One House member explained that there is a “sense of fear and despair and anger” among voters that “puts us in a different position where … we can’t keep following norms of decorum.” The member does not address how Democratic leaders are fueling the rising violent rhetoric and imagery (including the most recent posted picture of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) brandishing a baseball bat).
One House Democrat told Axios, “Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.”
Yet another admitted that constituents have told them to prepare for “violence … to fight to protect our democracy.” Others reported that liberals are talking about the need “to storm the White House and stuff like that.”
One explained that “They’re angry beyond things.” Another said, “It’s like … the Roman coliseum. People just want more and more of this spectacle.”
Some are discussing triggering or staging violence. One member said, “What I have seen is a demand that we get ourselves arrested intentionally or allow ourselves to be victims of violence, and … a lot of times that’s coming from economically very secure white people.”
We have recently seen such performative acts with members like Sen. Alex Padilla (D., Cal.) heckling a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Democratic members storming an ICE facility.
In one encounter, a lawmaker told Axios: “I actually said in a meeting, ‘When they light a fire, my thought is to grab an extinguisher’. And someone at the table said, ‘Have you tried gasoline?’”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) declared, “Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D, Md.) claimed on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” that Musk and Trump were conducting a “rapidly expanding and accelerating coup.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) appeared to be working off the same talking point and declared that a “coup” was being carried out. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) warned that Musk was “taking away everything we have.” Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.) said, “We are here to fight back.” Sen. Cory Booker (D., NJ) called on citizens to “fight” and declared, “We will rise up.”
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D., TX) yelled, “We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it.” Rep. LaMonica McIver (D., N.J.) added: “God d—it shut down the Senate!…WE ARE AT WAR!” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for Democrats to fight “in the streets.””
Such rhetoric can inspire unhinged citizens who actually believe that this is a war against a coup. It is the type of rhetoric that can prompt anti-Republican Nicholas John Roske to try to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson to try to massacre Republican members playing softball.
This week, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of ten alleged Antifa members who are being charged in an ambush of ICE agents in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4. Democratic members have long played a dangerous game in dismissing the violence or even the existence of groups like Antifa. Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the nationwide anti-free speech movement. We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.
Nevertheless, former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.
Liberal sites have sold Antifa items, including baby outfits, to celebrate the violent group.
Now, Democratic leaders are privately expressing alarm that their followers are demanding violence and rejecting moderate language. Yet, many are fueling that rage and few of their colleagues are speaking out against them. The party is attempting to ride this wave of rage to victory. However, history shows that the enablers of the mob today often find themselves the enemies of the mob tomorrow.
Yesterday, I wrote a column in the Hill discussing how Trump is unlikely to go to Congress in launching an attack on Iran and how he has history on his side in acting unilaterally. The column noted that many Democratic politicians and pundits who were supportive of such unilateral actions by Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are suddenly opposed to Trump using the same power. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are “shocked, shocked” that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors.
Democratic members are calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act.
Schumer insisted that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement.
Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges.
I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach.
Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan.
The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action.
The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period.
President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA .
Presidents have routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question.
In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.
Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying, ” authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces,” both Obama and Trump did precisely that.
Trump was wise to notify Congress. However, what occurs after that is anyone’s guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater.
Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.
Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations.
In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust in the use of the same authority that they once accepted in prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has both testified and litigated in the area of war powers, including the prior representation of members of Congress. He also testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.
N.B.: A slightly different version of this column ran on Fox.com
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced this morning that he would oppose the introduction of his war powers resolution on Iran if the ceasefire held. He described the resolution as a moot point if peace is restored. That is clearly not going to satisfy colleagues like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) who is struggling to maintain her call for impeachment.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez seemed a tad adrift when asked about the ceasefire, offering a rambling explanation on why it does not change a thing in terms of impeachable conduct:
“I think that the president of the United States, admitting that he unilaterally brought the United States into a war without congressional approval, is a very grave public admission. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional…And, and so for me, while the president is posting something about a ceasefire, I think what he also posted was an official acknowledgement that this was war. And I think that is something that should be taken into very serious consideration.”
It was an obvious blow to many democrats. You get all dressed up for an impeachment and then peace suddenly breaks out.
If it is any solace, there was never a plausible impeachment in the making. If so, you could have impeached presidents going back to Thomas Jefferson. Barack Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone from Syria to Libya to Somalia to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iraq. Democrats did not rise up and demand impeachment after Obama was hitting targets around the world.
Nevertheless, you could also taste the palpable disappointment for many.
Across the country, a new defense is being heard in state and federal courtrooms. From Democratic members of Congress to judges to city council members, officials claim that their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government. It is a type of liberal license that excuses most any crime in the name of combating what Minn. Gov. Tim Walz called the “modern-day Gestapo” of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path.
This was not a major incursion, but these state and federal officials joined a mob in briefly overwhelming security and breaching the fence barrier after a bus was allowed through the entrance. Federal officials were able to quickly force back the incursion.
McIver and House Democrats insisted that McIver’s forcing her way into the facility might be trespass and assault for other citizens, but she was merely exercising “legislative oversight.” Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared“You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we’re going to have a problem.”
Rep. Eric Swallwell (D., Cal.) promised more such actions: “I promise you there’s gonna be more un-noticed visits by my colleagues where they show up and they better be let in.”
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) even ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver: “It’s a red line. They know better than to go down that road.”
Well, the red line was crossed in a big way after Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba charged McIver with a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1). The ACLU called the charge “authoritarianism” and insisted that these state and federal politicians “have every right to exercise their legally authorized oversight responsibilities for expanded immigration detention in New Jersey.”
The problem with the oversight claim is that McIver’s status as a member of Congress does not allow her access into closed federal facilities. Congress can subpoena the Executive Branch or secure court orders for access. However, members do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency. If that were the case, Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez would not have posted images of herself crying at the fence of an immigrant facility, she could have climbed over the fence in the name of oversight.
Conversely, Republicans in the Biden Administration could have simply pushed their way into the Justice Department to seek the files on the influence-peddling scandal.
Yet, the point of the claim is less of a real criminal defense and more of a political excuse.
It is the same claim being heard this week from Worcester City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj who was shown in a video shoving and obstructing ICE officers attempting to arrest a woman on immigration charges. Two other individuals (including a Democratic candidate for a school board) were arrested, but not Haxhiaj who claimed that she was merely protecting “a constituent.” After the melee, the city manager issued an order preventing city police from assisting in any way in the carrying out of such civil immigration enforcement efforts by the federal government.
Even judges are claiming the same license. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a federal arrest of an illegal immigrant who appeared in her courtroom. Dugan heard about agents waiting outside in the hallway to arrest the man and went outside to confront the agents. She told them to speak to the Chief Judge and that they needed a different warrant. The agents complied and the Chief Judge confirmed that they could conduct the arrest. In the interim, however, Dugan led the man out a non-public door and facilitated his escape (he was arrested after a chase down a public street).
Judge Duggan also claimed that she was carrying out her duties even though her hearing was over, the charges were not part of state matter, and the arrest was being carried out outside of her courtroom. She was declared “a hero” by Democratic politicians and pundits.
As Democratic leaders like Walz engage in rage rhetoric and paint Republicans (and federal law enforcement) as Nazis, political violence is on the rise across the country. Many of the people burning Teslas and engaging in such crimes claim the same type of license that the ends justify the means. That includes affluent professionals who are now shoplifting from Whole Foods as a “protest” against Jeff Bezos meeting with Trump.
When the Administration sought to investigate those burning Teslas and dealerships, Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) denounced it as a “political weaponization” of the legal system. The comments suggest that such arson is somehow a form of political expression on the left.
House Minority Leader Jeffries was correct that a “red line” was crossed but not the one that he was thinking of in threatening consequences for any charges. The red line is the one separating political expression and criminal conduct.
Border Czar stressed repeatedly to political leaders that they can protest and refuse to help but “you can‘t cross the line” into obstruction and interference with their operations.
If oversight means that members can force their way into any federal facilities, we would have 535 roaming inspectors general who could wander at will through the executive branch.
Rep. McIver would be better to claim a different type of oversight, in allowing her passion to briefly overwhelm her judgment in rushing into the facility.
In the end, however, McIver and Duggan may have a license of a different kind.
Both have the advantage of being charged in liberal districts where they would appear before sympathetic jurors. They need to just convince a single jury to engage in “jury nullification,” to vote based on the cause, not the crime, in the case.
Donald Trump and House Republicans have been hard at work crafting a bill that aligns with many of the former president’s priorities. They’ve faced plenty of hurdles along the way, with negotiations proving to be quite challenging. On Sunday night, however, the bill passed a critical House vote, giving it a new lease on life.
The vote was quite close, following a disruption caused by four conservative members of the House. These lawmakers had thrown a wrench in the works on Friday morning, but by Sunday night, the bill managed to clear the House Budget Committee. Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana made an unexpected appearance just before the vote, expressing optimism that the night would end on a positive note.
The bill passed the committee with a vote of 17 to 16, with four Republicans opting to vote “present.” This move allowed the bill to advance, but it still faces further negotiation. The four conservatives who had issues with the bill’s details were Reps. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, and Andrew Clyde. They did not block the bill’s progress on Sunday night, however.
Their “present” votes were part of a strategy to keep discussions moving forward. As the bill advances through the House Budget Committee, it remains largely a procedural step. Lawmakers have indicated that changes will likely be introduced as amendments when the bill reaches the House Rules Committee.
Interestingly, two of the fiscal hawks on the Budget Committee, Reps. Chip Roy and Ralph Norman, also serve on the Rules Committee. Norman expressed enthusiasm about the bill’s progress, stating, “In an effort to move this bill forward, I’m excited about the changes we’ve made. And I will vote present.”
Trump’s vision for the bill includes enacting his campaign promises, focusing on tax cuts, immigration, energy, defense, and addressing the debt limit. While there’s still work to be done, Sunday night marked a significant win for Johnson. House Republicans are working tirelessly to pass what they call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
This legislation represents what some see as a once-in-a-generation chance to provide tangible relief for Americans. The proposed changes include historic tax relief, significant investments in border security, and substantial spending cuts. Additionally, the bill aims to restore American energy dominance and strengthen Medicaid and SNAP for those who need them.
Speaker Johnson celebrated the progress with a tweet highlighting these key points. RedState has vowed to continue covering this story as it develops, emphasizing the successes of the Trump administration. The outlet encourages readers to support their efforts in sharing what they consider the truth about these accomplishments.
In an era where political discourse can be divisive, the passage of this bill represents a significant moment for Republicans. As the negotiations continue, there’s a sense of cautious optimism among its supporters. The bill’s fate will ultimately be decided in the coming weeks as it moves through the legislative process.
The journey to this point has been anything but smooth, but the commitment of those involved remains unwavering. With many eyes on the House Rules Committee, the next steps are crucial. The outcome will have implications for the broader political landscape and the future of Trump’s policy goals.
As discussions continue, the focus remains on delivering what supporters believe to be concrete improvements for the American public. The stakes are high, and the path forward is uncertain, but the resolve among proponents is strong. Each step forward brings the bill closer to a potential vote on the House floor.
Critics may question the bill’s provisions, but for its backers, the proposed changes are necessary. The emphasis on fiscal responsibility and national security resonates with many conservatives. As the legislative process unfolds, it’s clear that the bill’s supporters are committed to seeing it through.
This ongoing saga is a reminder of the complexities inherent in the political process. While the future of the bill remains uncertain, the determination of those championing it is evident. The coming days will be critical as lawmakers work to address remaining concerns.
For now, the focus is on refining the bill and garnering the necessary support. The goal is to ensure that it aligns with the values and priorities of its backers. As the debate continues, the political landscape remains dynamic and ever evolving.
As developments unfold, the bill serves as a focal point for discussions on policy and governance. Its progress reflects broader themes in American politics, including the push for fiscal conservatism and national security. The coming weeks will be telling in terms of the bill’s ultimate fate.
The legislative process is inherently challenging, but the commitment of those involved remains steadfast. With each development, the bill’s supporters are focused on achieving their objectives. The next steps will be crucial in determining the bill’s success or failure.
For now, the focus remains on collaboration and negotiation. Lawmakers are working to address outstanding issues while maintaining the bill’s core principles. The path forward is uncertain, but the determination to see it through is unwavering.
As the story continues to develop, the political landscape may shift. The bill’s progress is a testament to the dedication of those involved. As negotiations continue, the focus remains on delivering results for the American people.
His bold leadership, which quickly brought 75 countries to the negotiating table, he said, should be applauded. Clearly, his strategy is working: America is gaining leverage, and China is becoming more and more isolated.
While conservatives have been divided and disorganized about how to respond to the president’s policy, with almost all Republicans in Washington still watching from the sidelines, we’re calling on Americans to unify around a “yes, and” agenda.
That means saying yes to strategic, reciprocal tariffs that target China and other trade abusers—based on their barriers, not simply the balance of trade—as we work toward true free and fair trade.
And it means insisting that tariffs are most effective when paired with a broad array of conservative policies that alleviate economic pain on the American people. While Trump works to liberate us from foreign abuses, congressional Republicans must fight to liberate Americans from the burdens of federal regulations, mandates, and taxes.
Republicans Must Make Tax Cuts Permanent
First, we must not settle for extending the status quo on tax relief. Thanks to the majorities Trump delivered in November, Republicans must pursue deeper tax reform through reconciliation. Every penny raised from tariffs should be offset with pro-growth tax cuts.
Making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent is a good start, but we also must remove every remaining tax penalty on expanding hiring and business operations in America by adopting full and immediate expensing for all investments. Pairing this with a simplified flat tax for all is even better. Congress should collapse the personal income and corporate tax rates to 15%.
Second, Congress should work alongside the Trump administration, using the reconciliation process, to transform the current 10% universal tariff into a true border-adjusted tariff. That means applying a universal 10% tariff on all imports, while granting a matching 10% credit to all American exports.
That isn’t just smart policy—it’s a long-overdue correction to a global tax system that has punished American industry for decades.
We’ve let foreign goods pour into our markets tax-free, while our manufacturers are taxed at home and slapped again abroad. That’s not free trade—it’s economic surrender. And no country has abused this broken system more brazenly than China, which has cheated on trade, exploited our openness, and gutted the U.S. industry while Washington looked the other way.
If we want to rebuild our economy, secure our supply chains, and end our dependence on adversarial regimes, then a border adjustment tariff must be part of the conservative economic playbook.
As a bonus, these revenues can be used to offset lost revenue from the lower tax rates we are calling for.
Congress Must Cut Federal Spending
Third, Republicans must finally get serious about cutting spending—not with half measures or messaging bills, but with real, structural reform. Through reconciliation, Congress should significantly cut mandatory spending riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse.
Now is not the time to settle for the lowest common denominator, which is always a temptation in politics. If we are to undo the fiscal and inflationary damage done by the previous administration and decades of fiscal irresponsibility, we must go big and take advantage of this historic electoral mandate.
Then, through the appropriations process, we must slash the bloated discretionary budget that fuels the unchecked growth of the federal bureaucracy.
In the meantime, the Department of Government Efficiency must be fully unleashed to do its job—scrutinizing every dollar, rooting out inefficiency, and holding agencies accountable. This is how we restore fiscal integrity and prove to the American people that their government works for them, not the other way around.
Businesses Need Deregulation
Fourth, American enterprise must be unleashed through sweeping deregulation. For too long, unelected bureaucrats have imposed crushing rules that stifle innovation, punish small businesses, and expand government control far beyond its proper bounds.
It’s time for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority, starting by empowering lawmakers to roll back legacy regulations that have accumulated over decades of executive overreach by passing the REINS Act and the Sunset Act.
At the same time, the administration should lead a coordinated effort—through executive orders and agency rulemaking—to dismantle the regulatory state piece by piece.
Fifth, permitting reform is long overdue, and it’s time we treat it like the national priority it is. For decades, radical environmentalists and bloated bureaucracies have used red tape to delay, derail, and destroy American energy and infrastructure projects. The result? Higher costs, energy dependence, and missed opportunities for American workers.
We need to streamline the permitting process from top to bottom—cut timelines, eliminate duplicative reviews, and ensure projects get approved on merit, not political ideology. If we’re serious about unleashing American energy, rebuilding our industrial base, and securing true energy independence, then Congress must act—the administration must lead—with bold, unapologetic reform.
In Washington, conservatives talk a lot about policies, but policies are not ends in themselves. They’re tools to achieve a certain end—the flourishing of the American people. Americans care about policy only insofar as it influences how they can purchase a home, build strong families, raise their children in safe communities, and live lives rooted in faith, purpose, and freedom.
For too long, America’s strength has been undermined by a bipartisan failure to defend our own economic foundation. Congress and previous presidents ran up our debt, piled up regulations, outsourced our manufacturing base, surrendered our supply chains, and signed trade deals that ignored Chinese cheating.
All of this served government bureaucrats, but not the American family. The result? Hollowed-out towns, lost jobs, and a working class forced to pay the price for decisions made in Washington and on Wall Street.
This result wasn’t inevitable—it was a choice. And it’s time we choose differently. It’s time to put American industry, families, and sovereignty back at the center of our national agenda.
As conservatives, we’re not just fighting for policies—we’re fighting for the American way of life. A way of life rooted in personal responsibility, bound by opportunity, and defined by human dignity. Every policy we advance—whether it’s tax reform, deregulation, tariffs, or border security—must serve that higher purpose: to strengthen families, empower communities, and preserve the blessings of liberty for the next generation.
There is a major story developing on Capitol Hill after House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, revealed that a long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was a knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions.
The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.
The report was finished while Biden was still running for reelection and would have likely enraged environmentalists. The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,”found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers.
Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts.
Comer’s office told Fox News Digital that DOE repeatedly declined to provide this study to the House Oversight Committee or comply with other requests for information.
What is most concerning is that our LNG exports help reduce the dependence on Russia and would have decreased the revenues to that country to support its war in Ukraine. However, critics charge that Biden ignored the national security and economic benefits. Supporters note that we still exported a massive amount of LNG.
When the U.S. ramped up exports to Europe, progressive Democrats like Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., went ballistic. This appears to have worked in shelving the study while slowing demands for further increases.
The Biden Administration later released data in December 2024 suggesting that a rise in exports could cause consumer prices to rise by as much as 30%.
There are obviously two sides to this debate. The problem is that it seems that only one side was allowed to be publicly presented by the delay in the release of the study.
After speaking at the National Press Club, I will be testifying today before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on free speech and censorship. My testimony is below.
The hearing, titled “The Censorship Industrial Complex” will be held in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.
We now know a great deal about the censorship system developed under the Biden Administration in coordination with academic and corporate units. Indeed, the release of new information since January has proven a windfall for those of us who have been seeking greater transparency for years. There is still much to be done. It is essential for Congress to complete this work and allow for total transparency on the past funding and coordination by the government.
The past efforts to block investigations and withhold information on the censorship system have failed. However, the motivation is telling. While publicly declaring the need to combat misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, the Biden Administration and its allies in the censorship system struggled to withhold information on their actual targets or actions. The reason again is obvious. The public understands the threat to free speech and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media.
Almost 250 years ago, Tom Paine famously wrote that “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” That was the first line of a work published by Thomas Paine in the Pennsylvania Journal on December 19, 1776, a work which would become known as “The American Crisis.”
We are living through a new crisis in the fight for free speech. The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has now reached our shores. The United States remains a final line of defense for free speech, a nation founded on free speech as our indispensable right as a free people. This is a crisis of faith as the “summer soldier and sunshine patriot” finds every excuse for remaining silent as others are censored or canceled for their views. Congress must step forward to demand both greater transparency and protection for free speech. This new “American crisis” can be our greatest American moment in speaking in one voice – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – in support of the right that defines us as a people.
Below is my column in The Hill on the disgraceful Democratic attacks against Elon Musk over his status as a naturalized citizen. For years, some of us have raised concerns over the adoption of McCarthyite tactics and rhetoric by the left to demonize those with opposing viewpoints, including critics of the massive censorship system under the Biden Administration. Those attacks are now reaching a dangerous crescendo after the 2024 loss in the presidential election.
Here is the column:
This month, 75 years ago, Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc.) gave his infamous speech denouncing disloyal Americans working at the highest levels of our government. It was the defining moment for what became known as McCarthyism, which attacked citizens as dangerous and disloyal influences in government.
Some of us have criticized the rising “rage rhetoric” for years, including that of President Trump and Democratic leaders, denouncing opponents as traitors and enemies of the state.
In the 2024 election, the traditional red state-blue state firewalls again collapsed, as they had in 2016. The response among Democrats has been to unleash a type of new Red Scare, questioning the loyalty of those who are supporting or working with the Trump administration in carrying out his promised reforms.
Elon Musk is the designated disloyal American for many on the left. That rage has reached virtual hysteria on ABC’s “The View.” This is the same show before the election on which hosts warned that, if Trump were elected, journalists and homosexuals would be rounded up and “disappeared.”
After the election, democracy seemed to stubbornly hang on, so the hosts had to resort to attacking as disloyal anyone joining the government or supporting Trump’s policies.
This week, co-host Joy Behar followed many others in questioning Musk’s loyalty and attacking him over being a naturalized American citizen: “The guy was not born in this country, who was born under apartheid in South Africa. So, [he] has that mentality going on. He was pro-Apartheid, as I understand it.”
Behar was then forced, perhaps by panicked ABC lawyers, to walk back the comment — such retractions having become a regular feature on “The View“. What came out was the type of jumbled confusion that results when you interrupt a lunatic on the metro in mid-rave.
Behar stated: “I’m getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I don’t really know for sure if he was … He was around at that time, but maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t—he might have been a young guy, too. So, don’t be suing me, okay Elon?”
This anti-immigrant attack on Musk, however, has worked its way into many Democrats’ talking points, even though their party had previously claimed to defend immigrants against racist Republicans seeking to close the Southern border and deport criminal illegal immigrants.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) launched a xenophobic tirade that should have shocked the conscience of the nation. She warned citizens that Musk could not be trusted because he is an immigrant who has been a citizen for only a couple of decades: “Mr. Musk has just been here just 22 years and he’s a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself the question: With the damage he’s doing here when push comes to shove, which country is he loyal to? South Africa, Canada, or the United States? And he’s only been a citizen, I’ll say again, 22 years.”
Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney was another joining in to attack Musk for being an immigrant. “You may be unfamiliar with that part of our history since you weren’t yet an American citizen,” she wrote on Musk’s social media platform, X.
These attacks are straight out of McCarthy’s playbook. It was McCarthy who insisted that “there are no degrees of loyalty in the United States — a man is either loyal or he’s disloyal…” Of course, McCarthy (and the earlier Red Scare) attacked government employees, writers and others on the left. It is now the left that is employing the same tactics, including censorship, blacklisting and public vilification.
Throughout the 2024 campaign, the Democrats, including President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, painted Republicans as either aspiring or actual fascists. That continued recently with Minnesota Gov. and former Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz (D), who referred to Republicans as “fascists and Nazis.”
Even journalists and civil libertarians have been reviled using the same terms. After a hearing on censorship two years ago, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) attacked journalists and members who had spoken in favor of free speech. She denounced the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson and former Rep. Gabbard) as “Putin apologists” and Putin-lovers.
Stacey Plaskett, the Democratic delegate representing the Virgin Islands in the U.S. House, even suggested arresting respected journalist Matt Taibbi, who, along with Michael Shellenberger, testified on their investigation into a massive censorship system developed under the Biden administration.
The attack on Musk is particularly disgraceful, given his contributions to his adopted country. Ironically, filmmaker Michael Moore denounced the deportations of criminal illegal immigrants last week by noting that Trump was deporting someone who might cure cancer or be the next Steve Jobs. Well, this is a naturalized citizen who not only could be the next Elon Musk. He is Elon Musk.
As politicians and pundits question Musk’s loyalty, Space X is moving to rescue two astronauts stranded in space. Musk has volunteered his time and skills to achieving a record reduction in the size and waste in government. One can disagree with his priorities or the means he uses to achieve his goals, but he has nobly stepped forward to serve his country despite death threats from the left.
Musk is also facing such attacks in Canada, where thousands have signed petitions to strip him of his citizenship. The left did not seek to revoke the citizenship of figures who have eviscerated free speech and other individual rights in that country. It is Musk who is persona non grata.
This is nothing new for Musk, whom the left has targeted since he announced an intention to buy Twitter and restore free speech protections on that site.
The concern is not for Musk, who has the intestinal fortitude (and financial means) to stand up to a global mob. Moreover, with polls showing overwhelming support for reducing the size of government and the budget, the campaign to obstruct these efforts is unlikely to resonate with voters.
The danger is more acute for the country as disagreements over policy are transformed into attacks over loyalty. It is the most dangerous form of rage rhetoric, an effort not to debate but to demonize those with whom you disagree.
When you have members of Congress standing in front of the Capitol, denouncing naturalized citizens as untrustworthy after a mere 22 years as a citizen, it is a moment that would have made McCarthy blush.
President Trump was elected with a mandate — a mandate to rethink the core assumptions of Washington, D.C., that have led this country to disaster after disaster. A mandate to put America first instead of last. To fulfill his mandate, the president needs to be able to make the appointments of his choosing without being sabotaged by the members of his own party that he carried to victory in November.
Yet right now, a fight has broken out over the nomination of Elbridge Colby to be undersecretary of defense for policy, the top strategy official at the Pentagon. Make no mistake: This is a make-or-break moment for whether Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy will succeed — or even happen. Colby is being attacked precisely because his opponents recognize he is the most effective and able person to put Trump’s America First approach into effect. He must be confirmed and empowered.
Who is Colby? Colby has an establishment background. But don’t be fooled: He has been arguing against the disastrous Bush-Cheney foreign policy regime since he was in college. Colby instead embraces a foreign policy of genuine peace through strength, one that avoids wars while protecting our authentic interests, gets our allies to do their part, and focuses on the top threats to Americans rather than irrelevant distractions.
Look back over Colby’s written record, and you will see that he was arguing for Trump’s America First approach long before it was popular — in fact, before Trump himself even arrived on the political scene. Colby paid the price for his advocacy, repeatedly losing out on high-powered jobs he could have easily received if he’d been willing to play along with the D.C. consensus.
Colby served Trump loyally and ably at the Pentagon during his first term, producing the landmark defense strategy shift that refocused the Defense Department on China, a central Trump goal. As great America First conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Jim Banks point out, Colby’s acclaimed book The Strategy of Denial is a guidebook for how to put an America First foreign policy into practice. Indeed, a Politico profile of him in 2023 was literally titled, “Elbridge Colby Wants to Finish What Donald Trump Started.” Even when almost every other foreign policy expert lambasted President Trump, Colby never did, enthusiastically and publicly supporting Trump in his historic 2024 campaign.
So why is Colby being attacked? The fact is, despite what they say in public, many Republican politicians want to frustrate President Trump’s attempt to change American foreign policy. They want to revive the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Mitch McConnell. These America Last Republicans think they can manipulate President Trump and his top officials the same way they tried to do in his first term.
They don’t even deny it. For instance, one anonymous senator recently said: “I think Tulsi Gabbard is flawed, but [is] she going to be harmful? No, because I think that there are going to [be] enough strong intelligence people around her.” GOP senators openly plan to tout Trump’s goals in public, then sabotage them in private. That same anonymous senator also said: “When it comes to those nominees below the Cabinet who may be less on people’s radar, who will be able to facilitate things, that’s where I think it can be dangerous.”
And that’s precisely why they see Colby as such a threat. He is so effective, so knowledgeable, and so genuine in his conviction for an America First foreign policy that he cannot be manipulated or controlled. Colby will actually do what the American people have given President Trump a clear mandate to do, and for that reason, the D.C. blob must stop him.
Colby’s nomination is a fork in the road not just for President Trump and his administration but for the country. If Colby is scalped by the secret cabal of bitter-ender neoconservatives, it will cut the legs out from under President Trump’s America First foreign policy, and it will chill any other nominees who follow in Colby’s wake.
People are watching to see whether President Trump’s administration will deliver real change, putting Americans first and ending the endless wars. If committed and loyal stalwarts like Colby are allowed to be taken down by those who want to return to the era of Dick Cheney, then it would be a disaster for the country — and supporters of the president will remember who was responsible.
Charlie Kirk is the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, and host of The Charlie Kirk Show, a nationally syndicated radio show and one of the most listened to conservative podcasts in the country.
Below is my column in the Hill on the historic defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich last week. Where John F. Kennedy went to Berlin to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner,” Vance went in Munich to declare a type of “Ich bin ein Amerikanisch.” He spoke of free speech as an American with a power and clarity that is unrivaled in modern times. As expected, he is being attacked by Europeans and many in this country on the left. However, his speech was a tour de force of our core values.
Despite that profound point, on Feb. 14, Vance found that transformative moment. Speaking to European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, he shocked his audience by confronting them over their attacks on free speech in the West. For the free speech community, it was truly Churchillian — no less than the famous Iron Curtain speech in which Churchill dared the West to confront the existential dangers of communism.
Roughly 80 years after Churchill’s speech, Vance called our allies to account not for the growing threat from countries like Russia or China, but from themselves. To a clearly shocked audience, Vance declared that he was not worried about “external actors” but “the threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”
Vance then pulled back the curtain on the censorship and anti-free-speech policies of the European Union and close allies ranging from the United Kingdom to Sweden. He also chastised one of the most vehemently anti-free speech figures in Europe, Thierry Breton, who led the EU efforts to control speech with draconian measures under the infamous Digital Services Act.
Vance called out the hypocrisy of these nations asking for greater and greater military assistance “in the name of our shared democratic values” even as they eviscerate free speech, the very right that once defined Western Civilization.
The point was crushing.
Before we further commit to the defense of Europe, he argued, we should agree on what we are defending. These European nations are erasing the very distinctions between us and our adversaries.
In my recent book, I discussed many of the examples cited by the vice president. One of the most telling came from Canada last year, when the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau temporarily blocked the citizenship of Russian dissident Maria Kartasheva. The reason was that she had a conviction (after a trial in absentia) in Russia for condemning the Ukrainian war. The Canadian government declared that Kartasheva’s conviction in Russia aligns with a Criminal Code offense relating to false information in Canada.
In other words, her use of free speech could be prosecuted in Canada under its abusive Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code, punishing speech deemed to be “convey[ing] false information with the intent to alarm or injure anyone.”
Vance ran through just a fraction of the parade of horribles, from Britain arresting people for silent prayers near abortion clinics to Sweden prosecuting a religious protester who burned a Koran, with Judge Göran Lundahl insisting that freedom of expression does not constitute a “free pass to do or say anything.” Apparently, it does not include acts once called blasphemy or insulting religion.
Vance also mocked the underlying premise for speech crackdowns to combat “disinformation,” pointing out that these measures constitute a far greater threat to citizens in the West than any external threat. He had the courage to say what has long been verboten on the restriction of speech to combat foreign influence: “if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.”
In perhaps the greatest single declaration uttered by an American leader since John F. Kennedy in Germany declared “Ich bin ein Berliner,” he added: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
The reaction of the European diplomats was one of astonishment. Few even offered the usual polite applause. Instead, rows of smug leaders looked straight ahead with the same level of disgust as if Vance were the second coming of the Visogoths threatening the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace.
In a single speech, Vance shattered the hypocrisy of our allies’ calling for a defense of the West while abandoning Western values. They did not like it, and many in the American press joined in dismissing his address. He was called a “wrecking ball” for bringing up the anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe. One German official declared “This is all so insane and worrying.” This is a diplomat from a nation that shredded free speech for decades, to the point of arresting people over their ringtones.
Of course, our own anti-free speech voices were in attendance, too. Politico quoted one “former House Democratic staffer” who bravely attacked Vance anonymously: “I was aghast … He was blaming the victim. What the f— was that? I had my mouth open in a room full of people with their mouth open. That was bad.”
No, it was not bad. It was glorious.
After Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the company’s censorship system, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned to the EU, calling on it to use its Digital Service Act to force the censorship of her fellow American citizens. That did not leave many people agape. But Vance’s defense of free speech is considered a breathtaking outrage.
In “Hillbilly Elergy,” Vance explained his lack of faith in transformative moments.
“I’ve seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change, only to lose their mettle when they realized just how difficult change actually is,” he wrote.
And there is no “genuine desire to change” in Europe. The appetite for censorship is now insatiable, and free speech is in a free fall.
In the midst of this crackdown, Vance spoke with a quintessentially American voice. It was clear, honest and unafraid. There was no pretense or evasion. It was a speech about who we are as a nation and the values that still define us — and no longer define our allies. They saw him as a virtual hillbilly, an American hayseed who does not understand transnational values.
For the rest of us, it was a true elegy — part lament and part liberating.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the unhinged response to Vice President J.D. Vance’s historic defense of free speech in Europe. The chorus of criticism from press and pundits was immediate. Literally speaking through tears, German diplomat Christoph Heusgen responded to VP Vance: “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.” Indeed, it is and that is a good thing. Vance was speaking truth to transnationalists who view free speech as a threat to the “international order” that they maintain. The response from the American left was even more bizarre. Not only did CBS’s Margaret Brennan suggest that free speech caused the holocaust, but Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said that Vance, in defending free speech, used “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Here is the column:
On Friday, Vice President JD Vance gave a historic defense of free speech at the Munich Security Conference. In front of a clearly hostile assemblage of European diplomats, Vance confronted our allies with their systemic censorship as they demanded more support to “defend democracy.” For the free speech community, it was akin to Ronald Reagan’s call: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Vance questioned how our allies could claim to be the bastions of freedom while denying free expression to their citizens. He then delivered this haymaker: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
Not surprisingly, the Europeans sat on their hands while glaring at Vance for calling them out for their hypocrisy. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared Vance’s remarks were “not acceptable.” An unnamed German official in attendance declared, “This is all so insane and worrying.”
The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.” It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism.
In one of the most bizarre attacks, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” In other words, it was free speech that brought Hitler to power and caused the Holocaust. Brennan’s statement is completely detached from history and logic.
Germans did enjoy free speech protections after World War I, though the Weimar Constitution was more limited than the First Amendment. However, one of the first things that the Nazis did in coming to power in 1933 was to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. Censorship is the harbinger of authoritarianism and Germany is the ultimate example of how no censorship system in history has ever succeeded in killing one idea or stopping a single movement.
Brennan could not have picked a better country to utterly destroy the point that she was trying to make in favor of limits on free speech.
Germany continued to censor and criminalize speech after World War II, targeting the neo-Nazi movement and other prohibited viewpoints. Authorities charged citizens for everything from wine labels to ringtones with banned content. The government has sought to force figures like X owner Elon Musk to censor Americans and others to combat anything that it deems “fake news” or “disinformation.”
Of course, Germany’s massive censorship effort has done little to deter the thriving neo-Nazi movement. What it has done is chill the speech of ordinary citizens. One poll of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet.
Other nations joined in the harrumphs with equally disingenuous statements, including the United Kingdom. British diplomats expressed shock despite their systemic suppression of free speech, including arresting citizens for simply praying to themselves near abortion clinics.
The British have doubled down on censorship with sweeping new laws. Hundreds have been arrested recently for speech crimes like spreading “fake news” or disinformation that could lead to “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.”Previously, British citizens were arrested for criticizing religious groups or opposing homosexuality or immigration. In one case, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime.
The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy went to Germany to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” to express solidarity with those who were fighting for the right to live and speak freely behind the Iron Curtain.
More than 60 years later, Vance returned to essentially declare “Ich bin ein Amerikanischer,” affirming our commitment to a right that not only defines the United States, but once defined Western civilization. He argued that if we are to defeat our foreign adversaries, we must first protect those rights that distinguish us from them.
The response of our press and pundits only proved Vance’s point. We have returned to the moment described by Tom Paine during our Revolution, a time that would “try men’s souls.”
Those opposing free speech today are like “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” who, Paine warned, would “shrink” from the defense of our values.
The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has finally reached our shores.
Vance drew a bright line in Europe and we will all have to decide on which side to stand. Some obviously have made the decision to stand with Europe.
For the rest of us, we will stand with free speech.
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”
Two House Democrats have voted alongside Republican lawmakers to ban athletes born male from participating on girls’ school sports teams. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, led by Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., would amend federal law to specify that student athletes must participate in school sports teams that coincide with their gender at birth.
Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Vicente Gonzales, D-Texas, were the lone Democrats to vote for the bill when it passed 218 to 206. Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., voted “present.”
All three won re-election on razor-thin margins in districts that have trended redder over the years.
Senate Republicans have already signaled they are aiming to take up the bill soon.
Republicans have been pushing to restrict transgender sports participation, particularly for girls’ teams. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The change would apply to all federally funded schools from kindergarten through high school, as well as colleges and universities that receive federal dollars.
It comes after several Democrats spoke out against their own party’s laser focus on inclusivity and progressivism, arguing that the far-left did not leave any room for dissent on issues like transgender youth. Notably, however, some Democrats who raised such issues – like Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass. – voted against the bill.
Republicans have championed the bill as a bid to protect women and girls from unfair athletic standards.
Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube first introduced the bill in the 118th Congress. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., challenged Democrats on the bill during his weekly press conference on Tuesday.
“Everyone’s talking about their children today. I’ve got two sons and two daughters, and we see the difference. Of course everyone does. And it’s kind of silly to deny it,” Johnson said. “The American people sent a clear message in November. They want us to return to common sense, and we’re going to see if Democrats have heard that message.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., said during debate on the bill,“Why are we even having to discuss this? It’s amazing to me that the idea that we would have XY chromosome males competing and taking the place of women and girls in sports is just mind-blowing.Where are we in society that we’re doing this? Where are the feminists? Where are the people who fought so hard to get rights for women?” LaMalfa asked.
But the majority of Democrats were vehemently opposed to the bill, with Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., and others dubbing it “The GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act.”1
Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Ore., argued, “This bill sets an unfair playing field that any parent can raise a concern that a transgender girl is playing on a girls’ team,” while noting such cases were rare.
“These decisions should be left to parents, coaches, teachers, and families – not D.C. politicians. In addition, this bill could open the door to young girls experiencing intrusive questioning, or worse. I will not rubber stamp bad policy. Republicans should stop focusing on culture wars and start getting to work on lowering costs, investing in public education, and increasing access to affordable health care,” freshman Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., said after the bill passed.
The bill previously passed the House in 2023 in a 219 to 203 vote, but it was never taken up in the formerly Democratic-controlled Senate.
Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.
Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com
After a presidential campaign where both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris pushed back on claims that they were trying to shut down much of the fossil fuel industry, Biden waited until the final days of his administration to ban oil and gas drilling over 670 million acres of America’s coastline. President-elect Donald Trump responded that“It’s ridiculous. I’ll un-ban it immediately. I have the right to un-ban it immediately.” It will likely be more difficult than a simple “un-ban” order. Environmental groups will likely push a “sue, baby, sue” campaign to counter Trump’s “drill, baby, drill.”
In his statement, Biden justified the move to counter the “climate crisis.” A White House announcement stated that “President Biden has determined that the environmental and economic risks and harms that would result from drilling in these areas outweigh their limited fossil fuel resource potential.”
The question is whether the order can handcuff Trump in pursuing one of the main parts of his campaign platform to unleash America’s fossil fuel resources.
This is all familiar ground.
Biden acted under Section 12(a) of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which states that the president “may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.”
As noted in a Congressional Research Service report there is an ongoing debate over whether presidents can reverse the withdrawals of prior presidents. Trump faced that question in 2017 when he sought to overturn a ban by President Barack Obama in order to open up Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas and some parts of the Atlantic to oil and gas exploration. Two years later, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska struck down Trump’s order. While acknowledging that the law is ambiguous, it did not find express authority for such reversals. Litigation ran out the clock and Biden later overturned Trump’s executive order.
So, there are grounds to assert this authority of reversal, but it will take years in court. The alternative and preferred route would be Congress. This is an issue that should ultimately rest with Congress. This ambiguous law is unfortunately common in poorly crafted provisions giving presidents sweeping authority. Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has already pledged to “push back using every tool at our disposal.”
Below is my column in the Hill on the sentencing this week of President-Elect Donald Trump in Manhattan. Judge Juan Merchan waited to schedule the hearing for just ten days before the inauguration, limiting the time available to appeal. His order suggests that, if there is any interruption or delay in his sentencing, he might follow the advice of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and suspend sentencing for four years, a terrible option that we previously discussed. One could call that passively aggressive, but it seems quite actively aggressive.
Here is the column:
At 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 10, 2025, the curtain will fall on the longest performance of “Hamlet” in history. Acting Justice Juan Merchan will finally decide whether “to be or not to be” the judge to sentence Trump to jail. (Spoiler alert: He appears set to avoid a jail sentence and likely reversal.)
Since Trump’s conviction in May 2024, Merchan has contemplated his sentencing options. This was to be the orange-jump-suit moment many longed for over years of unrequited lawfare. They will likely be disappointed. As some of us noted after the verdict, this type of case would often result in an unconditional discharge or a sentence without jail time. That prediction became more likely after Trump was reelected in November. Limits on Trump’s freedom or liberty would likely result in a fast reversal, and Merchan knew it.
While various pundits predicted that Trump “will go to jail” after the trial, more realistic lawfare warriors had other ideas. The next best thing was to suspend proceedings and leave Trump in a type of legal suspended animation. Merchan would hold a leash on the president as a criminal defendant awaiting punishment. But the whole point of a trophy-kill case is the trophy itself. Merchan will not disappoint. While indicating that he is inclined to a sentence without jail or probation, he will finalize the conviction of Trump just 10 days before his inauguration. In so doing, he will formally label the president-elect a convicted felon.
It will be punishment by soundbite. Trump will become the first convicted felon to be sworn into office, a historical footnote that will be repeated mantra-like in the media. Merchan seems at points to be writing the actual talking points for the talking heads. In his order, he states grandly that the jurors found that this “was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.” He then adds that he could not vacate the conviction because it would … constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law.”
Of course, this did not work out as many hoped. That apparently includes President Biden. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Biden was irate over the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute Trump more quickly to secure a conviction before the election. He also reportedly regretted his appointment of Attorney General Merrick Garland as insufficiently aggressive in pursuing Trump. It appears Garland was not sufficiently Bragg-like for Biden’s lawfare tastes.
The sentencing, however, will have another impact. Trump will finally be able to appeal this horrendous case. It has always been a target-rich opportunity for appeal, but Trump could not launch a comprehensive appeal until after he was sentenced.
Those appellate issues include charges based on a novel criminal theory through which…..
“This body and this nation has [sic] a territories and a colonies problem.” Those words from Del. Stacey Plaskett echoed in the House chamber this week as the delegate interrupted the election of the House speaker to demand a vote for herself and the representatives of other non-states. The problem, however, is not with the House but with Plaskett and other members in demanding the violation of Article I of the Constitution.
After her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections. Despite being a lawyer, Plaskett has insisted in Congress that hate speech is not constitutionally protected, a demonstrably false assertion. Where there is overwhelming evidence of a censorship system that a court called “Orwellian,” Plaskett has repeatedly denied the evidence presented before her committee. When a journalist testified on the evidence of that censorship system, Plaskett suggested his possible arrest. (Plaskett suggested that respected journalist Matt Taibbi had committed perjury due to an error that he made, not in testimony but in a tweet that he later corrected).
However, ignoring the free speech or free press values pales in comparison to what Plaskett was suggesting this week in nullifying critical language in Article I.
Article I, Section 2, states:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch in the States Legislature.”
The ability to vote in the House is expressly limited to the elected representatives of “the several states.” Nevertheless, as the vote was being taken on the eventual election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), Plaskett rose to demand recognition and to know why she was not allowed to vote:
“I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia were not called, representing, collectively, 4 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, collectively, the largest per capita of veterans in this country.”
The presiding member asked a rather poignant question in response: “Does the gentlelady have a problem?”
The answer was decidedly “yes.”
Plaskett responded, “I asked why they were not called. I asked why they were not called from the parliamentarian, please.”
The response was obvious:
“Delegates-elect and the resident commissioner-elect are not qualified to vote/ Representatives-elect are the only individuals qualified to vote in the election of the speaker. As provided in Section 36 of the House rules and manual, the speaker is elected by a majority of the members-elect voting by surname.”
Plaskett then declared “This body and this nation has a territory and a colonies problem. What was supposed to be temporary has now, effectively, become permanent. We must do something about this.”
As Plaskett’s mike was cut off, she objected “But I have a voice!” as Democrats gave her a standing ovation………
MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell is under fire this week for using the terrorist attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans to attack the United States Army as a greater threat than those crossing our Southern border. The statement is a vintage example of why many are turning away from legacy or mainstream media, including MSNBC (which has lost nearly half its audience since the election).
O’Donnell has long maintained his show as something of a safe space for the left, including declaring that no Trump supporter would be allowed to speak on his show because they are all “liars,” a label that now applies to a majority of American voters in the last election.
Yet, this statement stands out for many in its unhinged effort to spin the tragedy into a more favorable liberal talking point.
O’Donnell declared:
“The simple fact is, this country has suffered more deadly terrorism at the hands of American-born citizens who are veterans of the United States military than people who have crossed into this country at the southern border. It is very clear from the evidence that if you want to worry about terrorism in this country, the United States Army is a much bigger problem than the southern border.”
There are two curious elements to O’Donnell’s comment. The first is that Army training somehow makes veterans greater threats of terrorism. The military also tends to instill patriotism and public service in its members. Moreover, O’Donnell was referencing the fact that Shamsud-Din Jabbar served in the Army, even though he was largely trained as a human resources and information technology expert. His attack was not a McVeigh-like truck bomb, but the use of the truck itself — an unfortunately common terrorist method that hardly speaks to any Army training.
Second, O’Donnell makes reference to those crossing the Southern Border as opposed to others who have either crossed any border or have entered this country legally. Again, the suggestion is that there is something about military training worthy of special concern. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Colvin Reid, James T. Hodgkinson, Thomas Matthew Crooks, Darrell Edward Brooks Jr., and others may beg to differ.
O’Donnell made specific reference to Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist behind the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995:
“Timothy McVeigh parked a truck outside that building loaded with explosives in an act of homegrown American terrorism. Timothy McVeigh’s hatred of the American government was not tamed in any way by his service in the American military. So, too, with America’s latest terrorist attack in New Orleans on New Year’s Eve, with an American military veteran driving a pickup truck through a crowd to murder 14 people.”
Ok, McVeigh and Jabbar became extremists after they served in the military. However, all terrorists make such ………
One of the most consistent elements of the identity politics practiced by the left is its selectivity. Whether in politics or higher education, the outrage that comes from allegedly racist or insensitive comments is confined to targets on the right. A case in point is the deafening silence after a diatribe by Rep. Jasmine Crockett D-Texas, during which she accused Hispanic voters of having a “slave mentality” and said that they “can barely vote.” There was no vaporous segment on The View or condemnations on the floor from members.
Crockett has been celebrated in left-wing publications such as Vanity Fair for schooling her colleagues, which she describes as “old as sh*t.” She offered Vanity Fair her “distilled summary of what happens within the Latino community.” Not surprisingly, it is identity politics with a race edge:
“I’ve not run into that with the Asian community. I’ve not run into that with the African community. I’ve not run into that with the Caribbean community. I’ve only run into it with Hispanics. When they think of ‘illegals,’ they think of, you know, maybe people that came out of the cartels and that kind of, like, the criminal-type book or whatever. It’s insane.”
“It almost reminds me of what people would talk about when they would talk about kind of like ‘slave mentality’ and the hate that some slaves would have for themselves. It’s almost like a slave mentality that they have. It is wild to me when I hear how anti-immigrant they are as immigrants, many of them. I’m talking about people that literally just got here and can barely vote that are having this kind of attitude.”
The attack on Hispanic voters as including people who “literally just got here and can barely vote” did not even generate objections from many Democratic Hispanic groups. Imagine if Trump or a conservative commentator made this comment.
Ironically, just before the election, I wrote how recent immigrants seemed to have a particularly strong connection to our defining and collective values. That does not appear a view shared by the congresswoman.
Crockett was, if anything, inclusive in her attacks based on gender and race. She also attacked black men and women for voting for Trump. She just dismissed black men as hating women: “I’m going to chalk up to misogyny.” What is unimaginable is that any woman or person of color could vote on the merits against the Democrats.
Notably, after her loss, Hillary Clinton offered the same attacks on women as voting against her only because they are weak and self-loathing. She claimed that Kamala, who notoriously avoided interviews and could not think of “a thing she would do differently” from Biden, “ran a flawless campaign.” The problem is again self-hating women and minorities, adding, “I don’t trust White women. I said, I’m just telling you, and I think you need to have conversations with your sisters, because they are the group that failed Hillary Clinton.”
The claim that Hispanics “can barely vote” would not be tolerated from someone on the right. It is reminiscent of the controversy involving Democratic lawyer and former Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias over what some called inherently racist comments about Georgia voters. Elias argued that Georgia voters could not be expected to be able to read their driver’s licenses correctly — a statement that seemed to refer to minority voters who would be disproportionately impacted by such a requirement.
What is striking about the Vanity Fair article is that Democrats continued to rely on identity politics despite every indication that it was not working. Now, after losing both houses and the White House, they are doubling down on identity politics.
Below is my column in The Hill on the rising rage of the holiday on the left as we approach the second Trump inauguration. From looking forward to harassment at restaurants to the purchase of Antifa-themed Christmas gifts, some appear to be planning for a hate-fest in the New Year.
Here is the column:
“May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace.”
Those words, from Disney’s new Snow White actress Rachel Zegler, came shortly after half of the country, roughly 77 million Americans, voted for Donald Trump.
Only a few weeks ago, Kamala Harris and her supporters were rallying the country to choose “love over hate.” Now, the “joy” is gone. Tis the season of the liberal hate-fest.
As Washington prepares for the inauguration, we are seeing a return to rage.
During the first Trump administration, liberal servers and restaurant owners pledged not to serve Trump officials. Now, the Washingtonian is reporting on the planned resumption of the harassment of those serving in the Trump administration.
Zac Hoffman, manager at the National Democratic Club and “D.C. restaurant veteran,” told the magazine that abusing conservatives was only natural and understandable: “You expect the masses to just ignore RFK eating at Le Diplomate on a Sunday morning after a few mimosas and not to throw a drink in his face?”
One bartender stated that Trump people may “theoretically [have] the power to take away your rights, but I have the power to make you wait 20 minutes to get your entrée.”
Suzannah Van Rooy, a server and manager at Beuchert’s Saloon on Capitol Hill, declared that she would not serve some Trump officials. “It’s not, ‘Oh, we hate Republicans,’” she said. “It’s that this person has moral convictions that are strongly opposed to mine, and I don’t feel comfortable serving them.”
This campaign of hate is all too familiar to conservatives. Many remember when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. As others were denied service or chased from restaurants, Democratic members like Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, supported such harassment.
For those restaurants not willing to follow the Red Hen model, the response was equally unhinged. Mariya Rusciano runs a D.C. pizza restaurant. She posted congratulations to Trump on X after the election to encourage everyone to come together as a nation. The response from Democrats was furious, filled with pledges to boycott the restaurant and force it out of business.
It is not just service and civility that are scarce in Washington. Even while accusing Trump of putting his political and personal interests ahead of the nation, Biden is now reportedly moving to veto a bipartisan bill to relieve pressure on our overwhelmed court system.
The Judges Act, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, would add 66 new judgeships to an over-worked court system. The White House supported the bill right up until Trump won the election. While some Democrats are still trying to get the White House to change its mind, liberal groups are applauding the expected veto “to prevent President Trump from having more vacancies.”
If Biden carries out his threat, it will be not only gratuitous but illogical. The bill deliberately staggers the addition of judges over the next decade so that presidents of both parties will presumably be able to appoint them. Moreover, the Senate is still closely divided, and “blue-slipping” (whereby senators can hold up some nominations) remains in effect.
More importantly, the reason for this bipartisan effort is due to a dire need for our courts. Judges are drowning in dockets with rising caseloads. In 2004, the number of cases in district court pending for more than three years was 18,280. This year, there are 81,617. If justice delayed is justice denied, our court system is becoming a tar pit of injustice, with litigants left without verdicts or relief for years.
The word of the intended veto stripped away any pretense of the White House putting the public interest before politics. A veto would put rage before reason. In my recent book, I discussed how addictive rage is. People do not like to admit it, but they like being angry. Sometimes, people can choose madness as a release from reality. It offers a righteous license to slip from the bounds of civility and decency. It allows people to harass Republicans in restaurants or to scream profanities outside of their homes.
It allows a president to say that he might block judgeships for a struggling court system, just because he does not want his successor to make any of the appointments. It is the reason 41 percent of adults under 30 believe that killing others, like healthcare executives, is justified, according to an Emerson College poll.
We cannot seem to shake this rage addiction even after an election or during a holiday committed to peace and understanding. One liberal site, Crooked Media, is actually selling holiday items featuring the violent extremist group Antifa — one of the most anti-free speech groups in history, which routinely attacks journalists, speakers, and conservative demonstrators. Created by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor, the Crooked Media site is selling a line of Antifa items for liberals, including Antifa onesies for infants and “Antifa Dad” shirts to seemingly celebrate political violence.
It seems the joy, bipartisanship, and civility have all expired like last year’s eggnog. Even Disney’s new Snow White seems to have taken the cue from the Evil Queen and treated this election as “a blast of wind to fan my hate.”
In March the Republican-led House passed H.R. 3391, which would continue funding research of pediatric diseases like childhood cancer. The legislation never went anywhere in the Senate under the leadership of Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. But now Democrats are trying to use sick kids with cancer as leverage to pass 1,500-plus pages of pork.
On Wednesday Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a 1,500-page so-called “continuing resolution” that was really nothing more than a stuffed omnibus bill that included money for censorship, sweetheart deals for Congress, and other unnecessary expenditures. Almost immediately the pork-stuffed “continuing resolution” was rebuked by millions of Americans, including President-elect Donald Trump and incoming co-director of the Department of Government Efficient (DOGE) Elon Musk.
Following public pressure, the House released a trimmed-down version (116 pages) on Thursday. That measure funds the government through March 14. The new version keeps the $110 billion in disaster relief and farmer assistance from the original bill and suspends the debt ceiling for two years. The new version also removed the funding for childhood cancer.
And suddenly — after H.R. 3391 has collected dust in the Senate under the leadership of Schumer for months –Democrats are outraged about funding for pediatric cancer research.
The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote that after “pediatric cancer research advocates spent years” working to get funding, “Elon began tweeting.” Elon “killed the budget deal,” according to Stein, and with it funding for childhood cancer research.
Hawaii Democrat Sen. Brian Schatz posted on X: “F-ck cancer. Especially pediatric cancer. These people want to punish these precious little kids to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations in human history.”
Pod Save America host Jon Favreau blamed Musk: “Congrats to Elon Musk for giving the people what they want: less funding for child cancer research.”
But where was the condemnation from Favreau or Schatz or Stein when Schumer sat on H.R. 3391? Why haven’t they begun pressuring Schumer to do something with the legislation he already has?
If the only time you come out swinging in defense of funding for childhood cancer research is when you can use it to smear your political opponents and push through pork spending, but you stay silent when your own party sits on the legislation (after Republicans passed it), you’re not the good guy. You’re a hypocrite using sick children as leverage to further your pet projects.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
The shooting at the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, immediately prompted renewed calls for gun control from President Joe Biden and others. As I have previously written, these calls often appear entirely disconnected from the actual crime or the constitutional protections afforded gun owners, including President Biden demanding a ban on assault weapons after a shooting with a handgun.
President Biden’s call for greater background checks and enforcement was a bit incongruous after he pardoned his own son on gun charges. More importantly, the Wisconsin case only highlighted why these standard demands for gun control would not have impacted that case.
This was a juvenile who is believed to have used a 9mm handgun in the attack. Natalie Rupnow, 15, was not supposed to have a gun and would not have gone through background checks. While both Biden and Kamala Harris have raised limiting or banning the popular 9mm, Harris admits that she is one of millions with the weapon and it would not be subject to any of these proposals.
The president once again denounced the availability of what he collectively calls “assault weapons,” a common reference to such popular models as the AR-15. Efforts to ban this model have already failed in the courts on constitutional grounds, though litigation is continuing on that issue.
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
That is why laws to ban or curtail sales of the AR-15 run into constitutional barriers. Even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ban on adults under 21 purchasing semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.
These calls for greater gun controls remain either factually ambiguous or legally dubious. For example, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe declared after the Wisconsin shooting that it is time to “change the context of gun ownership.” While admitting that he did not know all of the facts, McCabe said:
We’re [going] nowhere because it keeps happening. We know it’s going to happen again. It’s happening today. It’s going to happen again in the near future. I can guarantee you that and every time it happens, we do just about nothing. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things we can’t do. We could do things. We could — we could support and enact legislation that changes the — the — the context of gun ownership in this country and emphasizes gun safety and responsibility with the firearms that you own and keeping them out of the hands of children and doing — and really vigorous, consistent background checks across the country. We could stop selling people — stop — you — eliminate the ability to purchase guns without a background check.
It is unclear what “changing the context” means, particularly when the context is first and foremost constitutional.
Likewise, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) called for his House colleagues to “stand up to gun manufacturers” but stopped short of explaining what that would actually mean:
Thoughts and prayers without action means more school shootings, more dead kids.
More ACTION is needed by our elected officials.
And more BACKBONE to stand up to gun manufacturers.
This is uniquely a United States problem that doesn't have to happen.
Pocan has previously called for “common sense” laws without tackling the more difficult question of how to produce the sweeping changes given the narrow scope of constitutional limits for an individual right.
Wisconsin has robust gun control laws that did not prevent this shooting because Rupnow was not subject to the background checks and other regulations. She was not supposed to have the weapon and 9mm is not one of the guns that Democrats are calling to ban.
None of this means that people of good faith should not work on new initiatives and measures to combat gun violence. However, politicians like President Biden have misled the public for years about the narrow range of constitutional options for gun control legislation. The suggestion is that “this did not have to happen” despite the fact that none of these proposals would have stopped this from happening.
In a tragedy of this magnitude, our leaders have a duty, first and foremost, of honesty in speaking with the public.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the news reports that outgoing Rep. Susan Wild (D. Pa.) was the person who violated the rules (and oath) of the House Ethics Committee and leaked information to the media this month. The information concerned the investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.). Wild embodies the collapsing ethical foundation of the Democratic Party as members struggle to justify the Biden pardon.
Here is the slightly expanded column:
“You must be wary of those seeking to use their influence and their expertise to wrongful ends.” Those words were spoken at the George Washington Law School commencement ceremony two years ago by the recently defeated Rep. Susan Wild (D., Pa.).
This week, the words took on a new meaning after Wild was accused of leaking information from the House Ethics Committee. Wild embodies a party that is in an ethical and political free fall this month. If news reports are accurate, Wild appears to have given our students a curious ethical lesson in how not to be a lawyer or legislator.
Wild was fighting to release the report of the investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.). When Gaetz decided to withdraw from Congress, the report was not released. That is when details from the committee were leaked to the media, and the press reported that “two sources said Wild ultimately acknowledged to the panel that she had leaked information.”
Keep in mind that this is the House Ethics Committee, and she is a member. She is also a member of Congress who took an oath as part of the panel’s rules that “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.”
Wild herself has not publicly confirmed or denied the alleged leaking of the information. If the reports are true, Wild knowingly violated an oath that she took not to release information from the Ethics Committee because she was unhappy with losing votes on the release of information.
Her office seems to have shrugged off media inquiries. As in the past controversy, Wild has avoided public comment on the report that she was the leaker.
This controversy speaks to more than one unethical former representative. This month, we have seen Democrats line up to support one of the most unethical and abusive uses of presidential pardon power in history. President Biden not only pardoned his son but pardoned him for any crimes over a decade, including some that many felt implicated President Biden himself.
The President issued the pardon after repeatedly lying to the public when he was a candidate that he would never do so. In the previous election, Biden lied to the public about not having met Hunter Biden’s clients or having knowledge of his dealings in the influence-peddling scandal.
Biden’s lack of ethics surprised no one. However, even today, the support that he received from Democratic leaders over the pardon has been shocking. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate majority whip, even called it a “labor of love.” Indeed, much of the corruption in Washington is a labor of love, from nepotism to influence peddling to corrupt pardons. Indeed, faced with overwhelming opposition of the public to the Biden pardon, Democratic members look like the comical choreography of “Prisoners of Love” from the movie The Producers. (“Oh, you can lock us up and lose the key; But hearts in love are always free!”).
The distorted view of ethics in the Democratic Party was vividly on display during an embarrassing moment recently at the White House when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed that a poll showed “64% of the American people agree with the pardon — 64% of the American people. So, we get a sense of where the American people are on this.” That poll actually showed the majority of Americans opposed the pardon. Yet, it was 64 percent of Democrats who favored a president giving his own son a pardon. It is all about the ends rather than the means in today’s politics of rage.
The 2022 words of Wild were particularly poignant because they were used as part of a false attack made by Wild at my own school. In a speech to the law students on living an ethical life as a lawyer, Wild accused me of testifying falsely in the Trump impeachment that only criminal acts are impeachable after saying the opposite in my testimony in the Clinton impeachment. The only problem is that Wild’s statement was demonstrably and undeniably false. I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachments that an impeachable offense need not be an actual crime. Ironically, Wild’s own Democratic colleagues and later the House managers in the Senate Trump trial repeatedly cited my testimony on that very point.
None of this matters in the Wild world of Democratic ethics. It is very simple. Whatever Democrats are attempting cannot be “wrongful ends.” More importantly, it is the ends, not the means, that are the measure of ethics. Since they are only fighting for what is right, the ends justify the means from cleansing ballots of Republicans (including Trump) to supporting a massive censorship system to ignoring court decisions to count invalid votes. It is the same sense of ethics that led someone at the Supreme Court to leak a draft of the Dobbs decision. Even though the leak shattered court ethical rules and traditions, the leaker was lionized by many on the left.
For years, the “by any means necessary” wing has dominated the Democratic Party. Ironically, the collapsing of the party’s credibility with the public has left little to show beyond a litany of unethical means used to achieve unrealized ends.
Yesterday, I was notified by the Justice Department confirming that a recent swatting indictment includes the person or persons responsible for my own swatting a year ago. One of the defendants, Thomasz Szabo, was arrested a couple weeks ago.
The indictment below charges two foreign nationals: Thomasz Szabo, 26, of Romania, and Nemanja Radovanovic, 21, of Serbia.
Szabo and Radovanovic are each charged with one count of conspiracy, 29 counts of threats and false information regarding explosives, and four counts of transmitting threats in interstate and foreign commerce.
Their alleged conspiracy began as early as December 2020. It continued through January 2024, using personal identifying information, including home addresses, to falsely report emergencies to provoke a police response at the victim’s home. According to the Justice Department, they used various monikers to communicate. Szabo used “Jonah,” “Jonah Goldberg,” “Plank,” “Rambler,” “War Lord,” “Shovel,” “Cypher,” “Kollectivist,” “Mortenberg Shekelstorms,” and “NotThuggin2”. Radovanovic used “XBD31,” “XDR,” “Angus,” “Thuggin,” “Thug Hunter,” “NotThuggin,” “DCL,” and “AOD.”
The indictment alleges that their crimes encompassed 40 private victims and 61 official victims, including members of Congress, cabinet-level executive branch officials, and senior federal law enforcement officials. It also included four businesses, four religious institutions, and one victim university.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe is prosecuting the case. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 (1), the indictment triggers ten rights for me and the other alleged victims, including the right to be heard at a hearing involving any plea, sentencing, or parole proceeding. I was given my own Victim Identification Number (VIN) and Personal Identification Number (PIN) under the CVRA for future communications.
I am grateful to the Justice Department and these cooperating U.S. and foreign offices for their work in finding the alleged culprits who swatted my home between Christmas and New Year’s in 2023.
Whatever the role politics may have played, or our current divisions, swatting constitutes a very serious crime that can result in lethal accidents and trauma for victims. It also pulls law enforcement resources away from real crimes. In my case, five or six officers were needlessly pulled from their other duties to respond to the call.
For some, these stories become irresistible opportunities to vent against the victims or even bizarre attacks on conservative legal theory. The liberal gotcha site, Above the Law, covered my swatting with the usual ad hominem attacks while adding a truly unhinged spin to the story. Senior Editor Joe Patrice (who has defended“predominantly liberal faculties” and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors) insisted that swatting is somehow the fault of gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and “edgy” police:
“Swatting is a byproduct of a nation awash in more and more powerful weapons and more and more edgy cops. And that makes these false police reports regrettably a manifestation of our age of failing to confront the disconnect between the text and history of the Second Amendment and the lazy ahistorical interpretation of this Supreme Court.”
Prosecutors notably did not include the conservative justices as co-conspirators with Szabo and Radovanovic.
This indictment is a valuable addition to deterring a crime that has become all too common. The fact that this investigation stretched to Hungary and Romania showed the extraordinary effort needed to make these arrests. The arrests are the result of an investigation that involved a global effort, including the U.S. Secret Service Washington Field Office and Criminal Investigative Division, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Minneapolis Field Office, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service’s Bucharest Resident Office, Miami Field Office, Syracuse Resident Office, Springfield Resident Office, the FBI’s Legat Office in Bucharest and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Washington, the District of South Dakota, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of New York.
As more such cases are prosecuted, it will hopefully shatter the sense of anonymity and impunity of such culprits. Once again, I am very thankful for the effort of all of these agencies in bringing this case.
I have previously written about the dubious investigations of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6th and the alleged violation of the standards for the use of lethal force by the officer who shot her. I strongly disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd, who shot the unarmed protester. Now, Just the News has an alarming report of the record of Byrd that only magnifies these concerns.
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt, who was shot while trying to climb through a window. However, the media lionized Byrd and portrayed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt as clearly justified. That is in sharp contrast to the approach that the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement. An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press.
As I have previously written, what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed. The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol, interrupted the constitutional process, and committed property damage.
Babbitt was one of those rioters. She was wrong in her actions, but the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. I previously spoke with her mother, Micki Witthoeft, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, about their continuing effort to expose what occurred that day.
The new report confirms what many of us had previously heard about the Byrd controversy.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses. However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.
Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared that “no further action will be taken” in the case. He then demolished the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
The new report confirms prior accounts that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues. According to Just the News, they included “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.”
Given this history and the shooting of Babbitt, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chair of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation, wrote to express concern over Byrd’s promotion to captain. Those incidents included Byrd firing at a car and allegedly misrepresenting the incident in claiming that “he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.” The letter states the Office of Professional Responsibility found that the evidence did not support his claim and “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by.’”
The concern is that the political environment — and powerful interests in Congress — demanded that Byrd be cleared. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the Justice Department had publicly pledged to bring “shock and awe” in prosecuting anyone associated with the riot. Finding that the only person killed that day was an unjustified shooting would not exactly fit with the narrative.
The incidents also include allegations of improper handling of his weapon, including reports that Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex used by tourists and visitors.
The Babbitt family has continued to fight to force the facts into the open and has filed a civil case. A trial is now set for 2026.
Here is his letter detailing the disciplinary problems of Captain Byrd:
Below is my column in the New York Post on the reappearance of Marc Elias in leading the effort to undo the victory of Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania. While some have distanced themselves from the controversial Democratic lawyer, Sen. Bob Casey has embraced Elias in his effort to retain the seat. Despite being sanctioned and ridiculed by courts in prior cases, Democrats continue to enrich Elias, who is the personification of the hypocrisy of some self-appointed “save democracy” champions. Casey continued on Tuesday to refuse to concede. Every candidate has a right to have all of the votes counted. However, regardless of the outcome of the effort, Casey’s association with Elias destroys any moral high ground for him and his campaign.
Here is the column:
Marc Elias is back and that is not good news. Despite the Pennsylvania race being called by the AP almost a week ago, Elias is working with Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) to try to change that outcome. It is not surprising that Casey was left with Elias.
For many, Elias is a notorious figure who captures the hypocrisy of the “save democracy” crowd. Elias is an attorney who has been sanctioned in court and denounced by critics as a Democratic “dirty trickster” and even an “election denier.” Despite his checkered history, Elias remains the go-to lawyer for many Democratic campaigns.
It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.) During the campaign, reporters asked about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they met with nothing but shrugs from the Clinton staff.
Elias was back when John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress on the Steele dossier and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were ultimately sanctioned by the FEC over the handling of the funding of the dossier through his prior firm. (I previously discussed the comparison to the criminal charges against Trump for treating the mislabeling of payments as “legal expenses.”).
Elias continued to be accused of not defending but thwarting democracy. In Maryland, Elias filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map pushed by Elias “subverts the will of those governed.”
His work for New York redistricting was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters to end such gerrymandering but effectively negating the votes of Republican voters. In 2024, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin not only rejected but ridiculed the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”
The point is that it does not have to make sense. Democratic campaigns fund Elias and his various profitable enterprises to seek to change the outcome of called elections.
That is the case with Casey. Trump won Pennsylvania’s presidential election, and Dave McCormick received tens of thousands more votes. With 99 percent of the votes counted, even Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer relented in reversing his decision to bar McCormick from the orientation for new senators.
What is most striking is the strategy of Elias. The state has roughly 87,000 provisional ballots to count, but those ballots were generally challenged for defects or suspected invalidity. Even if they were to count, it is unlikely that they will break so overwhelmingly for Casey to overturn the result. Indeed, only about 30,000 were coming from Casey strongholds in Philadelphia and Allegheny County. However, Elias just wants to get within .5% to trigger a mandatory recount.
It is reminiscent of Trump demanding an additional recount in Georgia, maintaining on a call that all he needed was to “find 11,780 votes” to change the outcome. All Elias needs to do is find 40,000 votes.
Of course, when Trump made that comment, Elias and Democrats insisted that he was seeking to defraud the state by demanding a new recount.
It is not the first time Elias seemed to morph into those he denounced. Previously in New York, Elias unsuccessfully sought to flip the result in a congressional race by claiming that the Dominion voting machines somehow switched or changed votes. Sound familiar?
Casey will eventually have to accept defeat, but Elias will remain the break-the-glass option for Democratic campaigns when other lawyers have lost the appetite for challenging election results.
Below is my column in The Hill on the growing calls for an organized resistance to the Trump Administration by Democratic governors and prosecutors. They may find, however, that the resistance movement this time around will be facing significant legal and political headwinds.
Here is the column:
The single most common principle of recovery programs is that the first step is to admit that you have a problem. That first step continues to elude the politicians and pundits who unsuccessfully pushed lawfare and panic politics for years. That includes prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James and politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who affirmed this week that they will be redoubling, not reconsidering, their past positions.
For its part, The Washington Post quickly posted an editorial titled “The second resistance to Trump must start now.” They may, however, find the resistance more challenging both politically and legally this time around.
It is important to note at the outset that there is no reason Democratic activists should abandon their values just because they lost this election. Our system is strengthened by passionate and active advocacy. Rather, it is the collective fury and delirium of the post-election protests that was so disconcerting. Pundits lashed out at the majority of voters, insisting that the election established that half of the nation is composed of racists, misogynists or domination addicts who long to submit to tyranny.
Others blamed free speech and the fact that social media allows “disinformation” to be read by ignorant voters. In other words, the problem could not possibly be themselves. It was, rather, the public, which refused to listen.
I don’t think I could’ve said this any better. My friend Jenny spitting facts early in the morning. It’s time for the political elite in this country to realize America told you exactly how they felt on election day. This goes to the media as well. America is done with the… pic.twitter.com/v73sK7gnkF
That does not bode well for the Democratic Party. As someone raised in a liberal politically active family in Chicago, I had hoped for greater introspection after this election blowout. Ordinarily, recovery can begin with “a terrible experience” when someone hits rock bottom. After a crushing electoral defeat and the loss of the White House and likely both houses of Congress, one would think that Democrats would be ready for that first step to recovery. However, those hoping for a new leaf on the left do not understand the true addictive hold of rage.
In my recent book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore rage and our long history of rage politics. There is a certain release that comes with rage in allowing people to do and say things that you would never do or say. People rarely admit it, but they like it. It is the ultimate high produced by the lowest form of political discourse.
Over the course of the last eight years, the U.S. has become a nation of rage addicts. For months, Democratic leaders denounced Donald Trump and his supporters as fascists and neo-Nazis. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and others suggested that democracy itself was about to die unless Democrats were kept in power.
Just before the election, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called those voting for Trump “anti-American.” By Hochul’s measure, over half of the American electorate is now “anti-American.”
James is the face of lawfare. She may have done more to reelect Trump than anyone other than the president himself. She ran on nailing Trump on something, anything. In New York, she was joined by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in this ill-conceived effort. They fulfilled the narrative of a weaponized legal system. Every new legal action seemed to produce another surge in polling for Trump. Yet there James was, soon after the election, with another press conference promising again to unleash the powers of her office to stop Trump’s policies.
Then there was Pritzker, doing the community theater version of “The Avengers” and declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he too will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda. Rather than lower the rhetoric, these rage-addicts ran out for another hit.
Our prior periods of rage politics were largely ended by the public in major election shifts like the one this month. Things, however, are different this time around both politically and legally. The problem for the resistance is the very democracy that they claimed to be saving. Democrats lost after opposing policies supported by an astonishing share of the public at a time of deep political division. That effort included opposing voter ID laws favored by 84 percent of the public, among other things. They are now committed to opposing policies central to this election blowout, including deportations of illegal immigrants, which is favored in some polls by two-thirds of Americans.
Likewise, Democrats have already doubled down on attacks on free speech, including blaming their loss on the absence of sufficient censorship. On MSNBC, host Mika Brzezinski blamed the loss in part on “massive disinformation.” Yet, according to some polls, free speech ranked as high as second among issues on Election Day.
According to CNN, Trump’s performance was the best among young people (18-29 years old) in 20 years, the best among Black voters in 48 years, and the best among Hispanic voters in more than 50 years. Harris actually lost a bit of support with women, and Trump won handily among some groups of women.
None of that seems to matter this time. We have an alliance of political media and academic interests wholly untethered to the views of most of the public. Yet, with both houses of Congress under Republican control, the investigations and impeachment efforts that hounded Trump throughout his first term will be less of a threat in his second term. For that reason, the center of gravity of the “second resistance” will shift to Democratic prosecutors like James, Bragg and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was just reelected. Various Democratic governors are also pledging to thwart Trump’s policies despite the results of the election.
The “second resistance” will try to use state power to oppose the very issues and policies that led to this historic political shift. That means that there will be a legal shift in the focus of litigation to inherent federal powers versus state powers. That battle will favor the Trump administration. In fairness to these Democratic politicians, they are certainly free to go to the courts, as Republicans did under Biden to argue for limitations on federal powers. But the promise of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to “Trump-proof” the state is easier to make rhetorically than it will be to keep legally.
Indeed, Trump will be able to cite a curious ally in this fight: Barack Obama. It was Obama who successfully swatted down state efforts to pursue their own policies and programs on immigration enforcement. Obama insisted that state laws were preempted in the area and the Supreme Court largely agreed in its 2012 decision in Arizona v. U.S.
Congress may even seek to tie the receipt of federal funds to states cooperating with federal mandates. For this reason, Democrats, who campaigned on the promise to end the filibuster for the good of democracy, suddenly became firm believers in that Senate rule right around 2:30 a.m. last Wednesday.
As the majority of the country walks away from the party shaking their heads, many activists are left only with their rage. Instead of reappraising the years of far-left orthodoxy and intolerance, some are calling to tear down the system or take drastic individual actions, including for women to break up with their boyfriends and husbands or to cut off their hair.
They will actually keep their rage and dump their relationships. Now that really is an addiction.
On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said“If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.”
Raskin previously said that he would not guarantee certifying Trump and that, if he wins, he may be declared as disqualified by Congress: “It’s going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions.”
Raskin went on HBO to repeat his reservation on accepting the results of any Trump victory:
“When I say we will support a free and fair election, no, we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states or steal it in the Department of Justice or steal it with any other election official in the country.‘
If it’s a free and fair election, we will do what we’ve always done. We will honor it.”
Remarkably, as the audience applauded Raskin, Maher added “That is the Democrats’ history: They honor it. That’s the big difference between the parties.” However, that is not the history and Raskin knows it.
The certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election was opposed by Democrats and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort of then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who organized the challenge.
Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.
Raskin also insisted on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”
Democrats not only sought to strip Trump from the ballot this election but sought to cleanse ballots of 126 House members. We are already seeing an ominous uptick of challenges, which I discuss in my column this weekend. There are also new allegations of systemic fraudulent registrations in multiple districts.
Raskin presumably expects any voters to protest “peacefully” if they are declared the losers.
I am leaving for New York today to join in the coverage. This could prove a long night, if not a long week.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the prestigious award given to Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya last week and what it has to say about those who censored, blacklisted, and vilified him for the last four years. In celebrating his fight for “intellectual freedom,” the National Academy effectively condemned those who joined the mob against him as well as the many professors who stayed silent as he and others were targeted.
Here is the column:
Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award. The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Bhattacharya has spent years being vilified by the media over his dissenting views on the pandemic. As one of the signatories of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, he was canceled, censored, and even received death threats.
That open letter called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.
All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.
It did not matter those positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many. Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.
Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media also further ostracized dissenting critics.
Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.
I spoke at the University of Chicago with Bhattacharya and other dissenting scientists in the front row a couple of years ago. After the event, I asked them how many had been welcomed back to their faculties or associations since the recognition of some of their positions. They all said that they were still treated as pariahs for challenging the groupthink culture.
Now the scientific community is recognizing the courage shown by Bhattacharya and others with its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom.
So, what about all of those in government, academia, and the media who spent years hounding these scientists?
Biden Administration officials and Democratic members targeted Bhattacharya and demanded his censorship. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) attacked Bhattacharya and others who challenged the official narrative during the pandemic. Krishnamoorthi expressed outrage that the scientists were even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
Journalists and columnists also supported the censorship and blacklisting of these scientists. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while “Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement,” he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
Then there are those lionized censors at Twitter who shadow-banned Bhattacharya. As former CEO Parag Agrawal generally explained, the “focus [was] less on thinking about free speech … [but[ who can be heard.”
None of this means that Bhattacharya or others were right in all of their views. Instead, many of the most influential voices in the media, government, and academia worked to prevent this discussion from occurring when it was most needed.
There is still a debate over Bhattacharya’s “herd immunity” theories, but there is little debate over the herd mentality used to cancel him.
The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised for resisting their campaign to silence him and others.
This month, there is a new case on the docket after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The First Circuit reversed a trial court that dismissed the case, alleging that the American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico. I believe the First Circuit is dead wrong and will be reversed. However, as a torts professor, there is a question of whether the tort element of proximate cause could be materially changed in the case. Torts professors are already lining up to argue that there is a proximate cause under existing doctrines to hold the firearms industry liable. I respectfully disagree.
In the petition, Smith and Wesson and other gun manufacturers challenge the claim, including the argument that their sale of lawful firearms in the United States is the proximate or legal cause for the carnage in Mexico. They note that Mexico has long been riddled with violence and corruption connected to the extensive drug industry in that country.
In my view, the trial court dismissed the case correctly under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That was passed to bar suits against firearms companies based on criminals using these products for criminal or intentionally tortious acts.
However, the First Circuit reversed on the ground that Mexico has made a legally cognizable case that gun manufacturers aided and abetted firearms trafficking that has harmed the Mexican government. The First Circuit is an outlier in this case and ignores both the purpose of the law and basic tort principles of proximate causation.
The Court has accepted the review on two questions:
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
PLCAA was enacted to require dismissal at the inception of lawsuits like this, and other courts have recognized that. The First Circuit’s decision creates a circuit split.
Mexico’s complaint is wildly off base both factually and legally. It suggests that these companies are effectively funneling guns to criminal gangs in Mexico by producing products that they have used in criminal conduct.
The First Circuit adopted an analogy that destroyed the credibility of its decision:
Imagine that a U.S. company sent a mercenary unit of combat troops to attack people in Mexico City. Such an attack would directly cause Mexico itself the expense of paying soldiers to defend the city. Proximate cause would be quite clear. So, too, here, where the defendants are alleged to have armed the attackers for their continuing assaults.
Is that the best these federal judges could come up with? There is a vast difference between the United States sending a combat unit across the border and manufacturers who supply distributors who serve dealers who sell lawful products to consumers. That sounds more like The Merchandisers than The Expendables.
PLCAA specifically bars any “qualified civil liability action” against gun manufacturers and licensees. Any action filed against a federal firearms licensee for damages or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm is expressly addressed in the statute under § 7902 of PLCAA: “A qualified civil liability action … shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.”
Mexico and gun control advocates are focusing on an exception for any manufacturer or seller of a firearm that “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought….”
The First Circuit found that, if proven, a case can be made that Smith & Wesson engaged in “affirmative and deliberate efforts to create and maintain an illegal market for [its] weapons in Mexico” and that, as such, it was “aiding and abetting downstream dealers in violating state and federal laws governing the transfer of firearms.” The level of speculation and conjecture in such a claim is manifestly obvious. Mexico failed to offer anything beyond conclusory claims as to “downstream” users to allege this nexus.
The exception is clearly directed at violations of gun statutes, such as falsifying records or conspiracy to sell to a specific prohibited person. Even then, it must be shown to be the proximate cause of the injury. Mexico does not maintain such a specific showing but treats sales generally as aiding and abetting the violence in that country.
Under standard tort doctrine, criminal or intentionally tortious acts by third parties generally cut off legal causation. However, there is an exception where such conduct is foreseeable. Here is the language from Second Restatement of Torts 448:
“The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.”
The Third Restatement contains the same approach while, again, recognizing that “If the third party’s misconduct is among the risks making the defendant’s conduct negligent, then ordinarily plaintiff’s harm will be within the defendant’s scope of liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical & Emotional Harm (2010)§ 19 cmt. c (“If the third party’s misconduct is among the risks making the defendant’s conduct negligent, then ordinarily plaintiff’s harm will be within the defendant’s scope of liability.”).
However, these exceptions have not been extended to the extent envisioned by Mexico or the First Circuit. For example, in the famous case of Brower v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 91 N.J.L. 190 (1918), a train negligently struck a wagon carrying cider and knocked the driver senseless. The railroad personnel left his goods unprotected and they were stolen. The court ruled:
“The negligence which caused the collision resulted immediately in such a condition of the driver of the wagon that he was no longer able to protect his employer’s property; the natural and probable result of his enforced abandonment of it in the street of a large city was its disappearance; and the wrongdoer cannot escape making reparation for the loss caused by depriving the plaintiff of the protection which the presence of the driver in his right senses would have afforded.”
Simply selling a lawful product falls significantly short of this type of nexus. It would be akin to holding train manufacturers liable for the negligent operation of the train engineer in Brower in aiding and abetting such conduct by third persons.
It is hard to see how the Court could find that these companies were “the” proximate cause of the harm without creating a federal standard for proximate cause that would extend foreseeability beyond any recognition. There are powerful superseding intervening forces in play in Mexico. To embrace this theory that the manufacturers knowingly and foreseeably increased the risk of violence in Mexico would allow torts to effectively gut the industry and existing federal law.
Previously, gun control advocates tried to use product liability and nuisance laws to curtail gun sales. Those cases failed as over-extending tort doctrine to achieve indirectly the courts what could not be achieved directly in the legislatures. Conversely, Congress passed PLCAA to prevent such circumvention of the legislative process.
There are good-faith arguments to be made that the exception for criminal conduct can be maintained where there is sufficient foreseeability and that the First Circuit was merely allowing Mexico to prove its case. However, the complaint is manifestly insufficient for such a claim.
There is no specific evidence that would establish the required showing of knowledge or foreseeability by manufacturers in working with Mexican drug gangs. Mexico has been rife with drug cartels and corruption for decades. Much of this violence has occurred with the cooperation and collusion of Mexican officials, including law enforcement officials.
In my view, the First Circuit should and will be reversed.
She now stands accused of unethically contacting a key represented witness to get her to change her testimony. In my view, ethical proceedings are unlikely after the disclosure of ex parte communications with former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson. However, the evidence seemingly contradicts public accounts of how Hutchinson decided to fire her counsel and change her testimony.
Hutchinson was represented by Stefan Passantino, who some clearly viewed as a stumbling block to getting Hutchinson to turn against Trump. Hutchinson would claim under oath that Passantino pressured her to stay “loyal” to Donald Trump and coached her responses to support Trump despite her conflicting accounts.
However, newly disclosed evidence allegedly contradicts that account, including Hutchinson telling former Trump aide (and now The View co-host) Alyssa Farah Griffin that “[Passantino’s] not against me complying.” Griffin reportedly responded “I actually agree with Stefan’s approach and think it’s accomplished everyone’s goals. I am happy to tip liz off.”
Hutchinson would later dump Passantino and testify to allegations that have been challenged as untrue. That includes the limo allegation that was repeatedly raised by Cheney and others. Hutchinson recounted the story that Trump allegedly grabbed the wheel of the vehicle after the Secret Service allegedly refused to take him to the Capitol. Cheney and the Committee were aware that the account was directly and clearly refuted by the driver of the vehicle. However, they buried his account and highlighted that claim in its final report as being credible.
The new allegation concerns the communications leading up to that changed testimony. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., chairman of the House Administration oversight subcommittee has released the new evidence while alleging that Cheney used an encrypted phone app to evade defense counsel in speaking with Hutchinson. Under Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person or is authorized by law or a court order to do so.”
At the outset, in my view, Cheney was acting as a member of Congress in this matter. That has always been a rather grey area for lawyers who are also members of Congress. The bar has taken a broad view of the need for lawyers to adhere to these ethical standards. However, it is not clear politically or ethically if the Bar officials would be inclined to pursue Cheney, who has been lionized in Washington for her role in the investigation. Yet, the record does indicate that Cheney was not just aware of the represented status but the policy of the House to respect the rules governing represented parties. In one message Griffin tells Hutchinson, “Her one concern was so long ad [sic] you have counsel, she can’t really ethically talk to you without him.”
That did not appear to prove a barrier. Before Passantino withdrew as counsel, Cheney communicated secretly with Hutchinson. A later message was sent to Cheney reading on June 6, “Hi, this is Cassidy Hutchinson. I’m sorry for reaching out this way, but I was hoping to have a private conversation with you (soon), if you are willing.”
Cheney responded, “I would be happy to. Let me know what time works for you.”
A few days later, Hutchinson fired Passantino, who told Just the News that “I absolutely had no knowledge at the time that Congresswoman Liz Cheney was communicating with my client behind my back – either directly, through her staff, or through cutouts.”
However, Cheney has claimed that it was Hutchinson who reached out to her and indicated that she was severing her counsel. As an investigating member of Congress, she had an institutional interest, if not a duty, to pursue witnesses.
In her memoir, Cheney said that it was Hutchinson who contacted her directly after her third interview and added “I was very sympathetic to her situation, but I did not want our committee to be advising her on what she should do next…I told Cassidy that she could consult another lawyer, and seek his or her independent advice on how best to move forward.”
We have previously discussed Passantino’s defamation lawsuit against MSNBC legal analyst and former Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann.
Once again, I am doubtful that this would rise to a formal Bar ethics investigation. However, the evidence shows the communications leading to Hutchinson’s firing of her counsel and changing of her testimony, including accounts later challenged by critics.
Hutchinson, Griffin, and Cheney have been reportedly campaigning together this month in support of Vice President Kamala Harris.
In the end, there are ethical concerns raised by these communications. Cheney should have worked through new counsel and proposing alternative counsel raises additional concerns given the interest of Cheney in having the witness “flip” against Trump. She could have waited for new counsel to communicate with her and the Committee.
Alternatively, Hutchinson could have fired her counsel and formally contacted the Committee as an unrepresented party. The ethical rules are designed to avoid this type of murky representational posture. Nevertheless, I am doubtful that this will result in any ethical proceedings against Cheney.
In announcing his “Operation Aurora,” former President Donald Trump has suggested that he may use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to crackdown on “every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.” The plan to begin mass deportations is certainly popular with the public, according to polling. However, without a declaration of war, he will likely have to look to alternative statutory vehicles for a peacetime operation. There are novel arguments that could be made in federal court, but they run against the presumed meaning of critical terms under the law. The odds do not favor the government in the likely challenges.
This is not the first time that the Trump campaign has invoked the AEA. Last year, the campaign cited the law as giving it the power to “remove all known or suspected gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the U.S.”
The AEA has only been used three times and each time we were in a declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It is a law that became infamous in its use to put Japanese, German, and Italian civilians in internment camps during World War II.
The first reported case arising under the [AEA] is [by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in] Lockington’s Case [in 1814] … Lockington … had refused to comply with the executive order of February 23, 1813, requiring alien enemies who were within 40 miles of tidewater to retire to such places beyond that distance from tidewater as should be designated by the marshals. He was arrested, and on petition for habeas corpus attempted to test the legality of his imprisonment. Chief Justice Tilghman said of the [AEA]:
“It is a provision for the public safety, which may require that the alien should not be removed, but kept in the country under proper restraints. … It is never to be forgotten that the main object of the law is to provide for the safety of the country from enemies who are suffered to remain within it. In order to effect this safety, it might be necessary to act on sudden emergencies. … The President, being best acquainted with the danger to be apprehended, is best able to judge of the emergency which might render such measures necessary. Accordingly, we find that the powers vested in him are expressed in the most comprehensive terms.”
The law’s sweeping language makes it ripe for abuse. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Brackenridge in Lockington’s Case (1814) observed that under the AEA “the President would seem to be constituted, as to this description of persons, with the power of a Roman dictator or consul, in extraordinary cases, when the Republic was in danger, that it sustains no damage: ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.”
However, the AEA’s only limiting language is found in the triggering language for those powers:
“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event…”
In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a supportive decision of the presidential authority under the AEA on when the powers expired, but not when the powers begin:
“And so, we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops.” (emphasis added).
This broad granting of authority under the AEA is obviously a great attraction for presidents who have rarely hesitated to use the maximal levels of their powers. However, the threshold requirement of a declared war has proven the limiting element, and it is telling that the law has been used only three times by presidents.
It can be used for limits that fall short of deportation or internment. For example, President Woodrow Wilson barred alien enemies during World War I from possessing firearms and explosives, coming within a half a mile of a military facility or munitions factory, residing in certain areas, possessing certain communications equipment, and publishing certain types of materials.
Trump can argue that governments such as Venezuela are using the open border to flood the nation with migrants, including those released from their prisons. That does offer a possible avenue under the claim that a formal declaration, but it would also require a broad reading of the term “invasion” or “incursion.” The problem is that the clear thrust of the law was a conventional war. The question is whether federal courts are willing to adopt a very broad interpretation of such terms despite the presumed legislative intent behind the law at the time of its passage.
The greatest hope for a new Trump Administration would be to argue that the use of the law is a “political question” and thus inappropriate for judicial review. That is often a powerful argument that leads to deference of the courts to the political branches.
Yet, even Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court’s opinion recognizing the doctrine, reserved the possible use of judicial review to address “an obvious mistake” or “manifestly unauthorized exercise of power.” Courts have declined to use that reservation but there are strong arguments that this is a matter of statutory interpretation and not a matter left to the political discretion of the legislative or executive branches.
Politicians often speak of national emergencies as “wars” but there remains a difference between the colloquial and the legal. A war on illegal immigration is not the same as a war on the Axis powers. The former can be declared in a campaign while the latter requires a declaration of Congress.
None of this means that a president would not have the authority for mass deportations or that Congress could not pass additional such authority. The massive influx of millions of undocumented persons is now a national crisis with growing national security, economic, and social costs for the nation. The numbers are certainly analogous to an “invasion” for cities and states grappling with the wave of migrants. However, the AEA in my view is a poor vehicle for such a program.
Accordingly, I remain skeptical that such a massive program would survive judicial review. Any effort to do so would face an emergency demand for a preliminary injunction. As a threshold legal question, it could move fairly quickly through the courts, and we could have an answer to a question that has lingered for over two centuries.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
It’s back to the drawing board for House Speaker Mike Johnson.
On Wednesday, the House failed to pass the continuing resolution spending bill, with the SAVE Act attached, that would have funded the federal government beyond the end of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 and through March.
Wednesday evening’s vote failed 202-220. Three Democrats—Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state, Jared Golden of Maine, and Donald Davis of North Carolina—joined 199 Republicans in voting for the stopgap spending bill. Perez’s and Golden’s seats are among the most vulnerable for Democrats in the upcoming election cycle.
Despite those Democratic votes, Republican defections—14 “no” votes and two “present” votes—ultimately resulted in the measure’s failure.
“Now we go back to the playbook. We’ll draw up another play, and we’ll come up with a solution,”Johnson said after the continuing resolution failed. “I’m already talking to colleagues about their many ideas. We have time to fix the situation. And we’ll get right to it.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, was one of the Republicans who voted “present” on Johnson’s continuing resolution. “The [Safeguard American Voter Eligibility] Act is a good thing that seeks to prevent illegals from voting, but it’s not worth keeping our country on a collision course with insolvency,”Massie wrote in a tweet, explaining why he withheld his support from Johnson’s plan. “If the speaker would put a one-year CR on the floor instead of a six-month CR, an automatic 1% cut to spending would kick in on April 30th. We should do that, but too many Republicans in Congress don’t want to cut spending.”
It’s a 6 month Continuing Resolution (instead of 12 separate bills) with the SAVE Act attached. The SAVE Act is a good thing that seeks to prevent illegals from voting, but it’s not worth keeping our country on a collision course with insolvency. I also suspect our Speaker isn’t…
Johnson is left with little time and few options. Just 12 days remain before government funding runs out in fiscal 2024 and a government shutdown ensues—a scenario especially dangerous politically on the eve of a presidential election. Now that the six-month continuing resolution with the SAVE Act attached has failed, Johnson could double down and attempt to attach some sort of immigration or election integrity concession to the continuing resolution that’s popular enough with the GOP conference to pass through the House on Republican votes alone.
The more likely scenario, however, is pivoting to a “clean” continuing resolution with a March deadline, thereby empowering the next Congress to determine government spending levels and make government spending a major issue in the final weeks of the election cycle.
The rightward flank of Johnson’s party—some of whom reject ever voting for a continuing resolution on principle and others who care more about passing the SAVE Act than funding the government—likely would be very unhappy with that scenario. The speaker would have to rely on a coalition of mostly Democrats and middle-of-the-road Republicans to pass the government funding mechanism out of the House.
Yet another instance where the speaker has to rely on mostly Democratic votes to get legislation out of the House could severely harm his prospects of continuing to lead the House GOP moving forward.
Nevertheless, even Johnson’s detractors in this scenario might be pleased to avoid another Christmastime omnibus negotiated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who has once again put Johnson in a three-on-one situation vis-à-vis the other major congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
“One thing you cannot have is a government shutdown. It would be politically beyond stupid for us to do that right before the election, because certainly we’d get the blame,”McConnell told members of the media Tuesday.
“I’m for whatever avoids a government shutdown, and that’ll ultimately end up, obviously, being a discussion between the [Senate] Democratic leader and the speaker of the House,” McConnell added.
Schumer was quick to make use of McConnell’s talking points in a Sept. 17 speech on the Senate floor. “I urge [Speaker Johnson] to drop his current plan, and to work together to reach a bipartisan agreement with the other leaders—Leader McConnell, Leader Jeffries, and myself, as well as the White House. We do not have time to spare,” he said.
With Johnson’s hand seriously weakened, Schumer has decided to play his. The New York Democrat is taking the first procedural step toward passing a mechanism to fund the government. “I will file cloture on a legislative vehicle that will enable us to prevent a Trump shutdown, in the event Speaker Johnson does not work with us in a bipartisan, bicameral manner,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
But if Schumer has his way, the next funding deadline would be December, not March, which would mean the current Congress could seek to hamstring a future Republican House, Senate, and Trump administration from enacting policy changes once in office.
Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., was among the members who voted for Johnson’s continuing resolution with the SAVE Act attached. In an email to The Daily Signal, Norman wrote, “the worst thing we can do is a CR through December and give the checkbook directly to Schumer for a year-end, lame duck omnibus.”
“Right now, everything is up in the air,” Norman added. “We will see how strong Speaker Johnson will stand against the Senate, right up against a possible government shutdown.”
Reps. James Comer, R-Ky., left, and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, confer as then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle testifies July 22 before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in Washington. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
Just over two months ago, former President Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. On Sunday, law enforcement thwarted yet another attempt on Trump’s life. Now, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are scrambling for answers on what transpired at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf club and how to protect the former president and current Republican nominee.
The Secret Service engaged a gunman in an incident law enforcement is calling an assassination attempt while Trump was golfing Sunday afternoon.
The suspected gunman, identified by investigators as Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, fled the scene in a Nissan SUV before law enforcement tracked him down, pulled him over, and took him into custody just north of West Palm Beach. Routh allegedly left an AK-47-style rifle at the scene. He has been charged so far with two firearm counts: possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Routh’s political activity and background, however, are raising eyebrows on Capitol Hill.
He started a group called the International Volunteer Center that sought to coax Americans and foreign troops into fighting on behalf of Ukraine against Russia in the current war, Semafor reported.
In a phone interview with CNN, Oleksandr Shaguri, a representative of Ukraine’s foreign legion, said that Routh “was offering us large numbers of recruits from different countries but it was obvious to us his offers were not realistic.”
“We didn’t even answer, there was nothing to answer to. He was never part of the legion and didn’t cooperate with us in any way,” Shaguri told CNN, adding that Routh’s ideas were “delusional.”
The would-be assassin also self-published a nearly 300-page book titled “Ukraine’s Unwinnable War: The Fatal Flaw of Democracy, World Abandonment and the Global Citizen-Taiwan, Afghanistan, North Korea and the End of Humanity,” CNN reported, a work that makes the case for more U.S. involvement in conflicts overseas.
Routh also regularly published anti-Trump comments on what is believed to be his X account.
“I will be glad when you gone,” one post reads, CNN reported. Another proclaimed “DEMOCRACY is on the ballot and we cannot lose”—a line often uttered by Vice President Kamala Harris and her presidential campaign.
“The American people want ANSWERS!” Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told The Daily Signal in an exclusive email. “For President Trump’s life to be threatened not once but TWICE is absolutely unacceptable!”
The House task force empowered to investigate the first Trump assassination attempt on July 13 in Butler announced it would be briefed on the second assassination attempt in West Palm Beach.
“The task force is monitoring this attempted assassination of former President Trump in West Palm Beach this afternoon,” reads a statement from Chairman Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., the ranking member. “We have requested a briefing with the U.S. Secret Service about what happened and how security responded. We are thankful that the former president was not harmed but remain deeply concerned about political violence and condemn it in all of its forms. The task force will share updates as we learn more.”
“The state of Florida will be conducting its own investigation regarding the attempted assassination at Trump International Golf Club,” DeSantis said in an X post.
Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., wished the former president well Sunday afternoon.
“I’m glad President Trump was unharmed, and I’m grateful that law enforcement was able to identify this individual and intervene,”Thune wrote on X. “I’m continuing to pray for the former president’s safety and security.”
Trump thanked law enforcement and the Secret Service for protecting him in a Truth Social post Sunday night. But on Monday morning, Trump posted that the rhetoric of President Joe Biden, Harris, and other Democrats led to the attempts on his life.
“Because of this Communist Left Rhetoric, the bullets are flying, and it will only get worse!”Trump’s Truth Social post reads in part.
“The media’s ‘coverage’ of these two incidents is laughable,” Norman also told The Daily Signal. “It seems like everyone has already forgotten what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, seemed to concur with Norman’s assessment of the media’s reaction to Sunday’s assassination attempt.
“Let’s be clear what is happening: For the second time in three months, someone has tried to kill President Trump, and leftist media is blaming him for it,” Lee told The Daily Signal. “This dangerous argument ‘ad Hitlerum’ Democrats have indulged in for almost a decade is ripping our country apart, and they need to stop immediately.”
Nevertheless, Norman, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he remains “cautiously optimistic that the speaker’s task force will get to the bottom of this horrible political violence.”
“I am very glad that my colleague and friend Rep. [Clay] Higgins is on the task force because I trust him to ask the right questions and ensure accountability and transparency for ALL that were involved with both attempts on President Trump’s life,” Norman added in the email.
Although the Secret Service succeeded in thwarting the attempt on Trump’s life Sunday, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said he has some pressing questions.
“A former president who was struck by an assassin’s bullet two months ago, and who Iran and others continue to plot against, deserves heightened security,” Johnson told The Daily Signal. “What doesn’t the Secret Service understand about that?”
Below is my column in The Hill on my call for a bill that would bar federal funding of any program and grant to censor, blacklist, or target individuals or sites based on their content. It is time to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business. The column discusses the proposal in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” to block any further funding for the current system of corporate, academic, and government programs targeting opposing or dissenting views.
Here is the column:
It is time to get the United States out of the censorship business for good. In the last three years, the House of Representatives has disclosed a massive censorship system run in part with federal funding and with coordination with federal officials. A federal court described this system as truly “Orwellian.”
The Biden Administration has made speech regulation a priority in targeting disinformation, misinformation or malinformation. President Joe Biden even said that companies refusing to censor citizens were “killing people.” His administration has now created an anti-free speech record that is only rivaled by the Adams Administration, which used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest political opponents.
Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of how speech controls and censorship have become mainstream. Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
I have testified for years about the censorship system. For much of that time, Democrats insisted that there was no proof of any coordination or funding from the government. Such evidence did indeed exist, but Democrats worked to block any investigation to confirm what we already knew about government officials targeting individuals and groups for throttling, bans, and blacklisting.
Then Elon Musk bought Twitter. The release of the Twitter Files destroyed any plausible deniability of the government’s role in this censorship system. Various agencies had employees working with social media companies to target those with opposing or disfavored views. At the same time, we learned of grants from the federal government supporting blacklisting and targeting operations.
That includes efforts to quietly choke off the revenue of disfavored sites by pressuring advertisers and donors.
While companies like Facebook have continued to fight to conceal their coordination with the government, the Twitter Files pulled back the curtain to expose the system. Indeed, Democrats largely abandoned their denials and turned to full-throated defenses of censorship, even calling free speech advocates “Putin-lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was a primary issue for voters. It should be again. Vice President Kamala Harris is known as a supporter for these censorship and blacklisting operations. She can now defend that record and convince Americans that they need to have less free speech. This debate should ideally focus on one simple legislative proposal. In my new book, I suggest various measures that can regain the ground that we have lost on free speech. One such measure is a federal law that would ban any federal funding of any offices or programs (government, academic, or corporate) that rate, target, censor, throttle, or seek to take adverse action against individuals or groups based on their viewpoints in public forums or social media.
There can be easy exceptions to this ban for individuals or groups engaging in criminal conduct or unlawful foreign interference with elections. Threatening individuals or trafficking in child pornography constitute conduct, not speech. They are criminal acts under the federal code. Nothing in this law would prevent the government from speaking in its own voice. If Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas wants to challenge claims made about him or his agency, he can do so on the agency website or make his case to the media. That is the essence of free speech. What he cannot do is create a Disinformation Governance Board to regulate the speech of citizens or groups.
In my prior testimony to Congress, I warned about the use of what I called “censorship by surrogate” through which agencies did indirectly what they are barred from doing directly under the First Amendment.
This new law will not put an end to the burgeoning anti-free speech movement. It will not end the new market for groups making millions in seeking to silence or strangle sites with opposing views. However, it will create a wall of separation of the government from censorship systems.
It would also offer a simple and clear line for the 2024 election. Candidates will have to take sides on free speech. If candidates like Harris want to continue to support the government in blacklisting or censoring citizens, they should own it. We spent years of politicians engaging in cynical denials of the government’s role in censorship. If these politicians are “all in” with censorship, then they should be honest about it and let voters make the same choice that was made in 1800.
With billions to play with and enabling allies in Congress to conceal federal operations, speech regulation is an irresistible temptation for the government. We have seen how this temptation quickly becomes an insatiable appetite for government officials seeking to silence rather than answer critics.
Let’s get our government out of the business of rating, throttling blacklisting, and censoring citizens. It is time to pass a free speech protection act.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has introduced the “No Kings Act” with great fanfare and the support of most of his Democratic colleagues. Liberal groups have heralded the measure to legislatively reverse the ruling in Trump v. United States. It is obviously popular with the press and pundits. It is also entirely unconstitutional in my view. The “No Kings Act” is not just a cynical abdication of responsibility by Democrats but would constitute the virtual decapitation of the Constitution.
I have previously written about the false claims made about the Supreme Court’s decision by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other leading democrats. The press and pundits have reached a new level of sensationalism and hysteria in the coverage with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow even claiming that it was a “death squad ruling.”
The Trump Decision
The Court actually rejected the most extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower courts.
As it has in the past, the Court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.
In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.
In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.
Where the coverage has been wildly inaccurate, the No Kings Act is cynically dishonest.
To his credit, President Joe Biden was at least honest in proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision in Trump. However, that was dead on arrival in Congress since under Article V it would require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses and then ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The Democrats are seeking to circumvent that process with simple majority votes with the No Kings Act. The bill is being presented as a jurisdiction-stripping measure, not an effort to dictate outcomes.
Congress does have authority to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That authority was recognized by the Court itself in Ex parte McCardle (1869). Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that it did have the authority “to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court.” However, Chase also emphasized that the law did “not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised” so that prior decisions would remain fully enforceable.
Moreover, shortly after McCardle, the Court ruled in United States v. Klein (1871), that Congress may not use its authority of court jurisdiction to lay out a “rule of decision” for the Supreme Court, or effectively dictate results in court cases.
The No Kings Act
The No Kings Act does more than just strip jurisdiction and makes no secret of its purpose in dictating the outcome of future cases.
It purports in Section 2 to “clarify that a President or Vice President is not entitled to any form of immunity from criminal prosecution for violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”
That is a rather Orwellian view of “clarification” since it directly contradicts the opinion in declaring in the very next section that “[a] President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”
Schumer and most of the Democratic senators actually believe that they can simply instruct lower courts to ignore a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the Constitution. It would undermine the basis of Marbury v. Madison after 221 years.
To be sure, it is stated in strictly jurisdictional terms. Yet, it crafts the jurisdictional changes to mirror the decision and future immunity claims.
The bill declares that federal courts “may not consider whether an alleged violation of any criminal laws of the United States committed by a President or Vice President was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President unless directed by Congress.”
But the Democrats are not done yet. Section 4 actually removes the Supreme Court from such questions and makes appellate courts the effective highest courts of the land when it comes to presidential immunity:
“The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction, on the basis that an alleged criminal act was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or on the basis that an alleged criminal act was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President.”
Notably, this is one of the wacky ideas put forward by the President’s Supreme Court Commission. After all, why pack the Court if you can just gut it?
Of course, some sponsors like Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) want to both pack the Court and strip it of authority. Presumably, once packed, the authority to act as a court would be at least restored with the liberal majority.
By making the D.C. Circuit (where most of these cases are likely to be litigated) the highest court of the land on the question, the Democrats are engaging in the rawest form of forum shopping. The D.C. Circuit is expected to remain in the control of Democratic appointees for years. (The Act expressly makes the D.C. courts the only place to bring a civil action in this area and states that “a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be final and not appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States.”)
The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction to declare any provision of this Act (including this section) unconstitutional or to bar or restrain the enforcement or application of any provision of this Act (including this section) on the ground of its unconstitutionality.
But wait there is more.
The No Kings Act reads like a fairy tale read by Democratic senators to their grandchildren at night. Not only would the evil conservative justices be vanquished by a lower court controlled by Democratic appointees, but the bill is filled with other wish list items from the far left. It would strip the Court of the ability to take other cases, to dismiss a criminal proceeding, to suppress evidence, and to grant a writ of habeas corpus, or “the Great Writ” that is the foundation of Anglo-American law for centuries.
The Democrats even legislatively dictate that any review of the law must meet a standard of its choosing. They dictate that “[a] court of the United States shall presume that a provision of this Act (including this section) or the enforcement or application of any such provision is constitutional unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that such provision or its enforcement or application is unconstitutional.” Thus, even the clear and convincing provision of the Act must be subject to a clear and convincing evidence review.
The Death of Marbury?
Again, Democrats are insisting that they are merely changing the jurisdiction of the Court and not ordering outcomes. However, the sponsors make clear that this is meant to “reaffirm that the President is not immune to legal accountability.” Sponsors like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) declared that “Congress has the power to undo the damage of this decision” by a “captured Court.”
The greatest irony is that the Democrats are practically reverting to the position of critics of Marbury v. Madison, who argued that the Framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the law means. That principle has been the touchstone of American law since 1803, but the Democrats would now effectively revert to the English approach under the guise of jurisdiction stripping legislation. Before the Revolution, the Parliament could dictate what the law meant on such cases, overriding the courts. On a practical level, the Democrats would regress to that pre-Marbury approach.
Marbury introduced a critical stabilizing element in our system that contributed greatly to the oldest and most successful constitutional system in history. Democrats would now toss much of that aside in a spasm of partisan anger. Calling the No Kings Act a jurisdiction stripping bill does not conceal its intent or its implications for our system.
It is all a rather curious position for the party that claims to be defending the rule of law. The No Kings Act would constitute a radical change in our constitutional system to allow popular justice to be meted out through legislative fiat.
Sponsors like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., previously promised a “revolution” if the conservatives did not rule as the Democrats demanded. They have now fulfilled those threats, though few expected that they would undo the work following our own Revolution.
Just to be sure that the sponsorship of this infamous legislation is not soon forgotten, here are the senators willing to adopt this Constitution-destroying measure:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angus King (I-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).
Below is my column in The Hill on the recent notice that this blog is now being formally “reviewed” by NewsGuard, a company that I just criticized in a prior Hill column as a threat to free speech. The questions from NewsGuard were revealing and concerning. Today, I have posted the response of NewsGuard’s co-founder Gordon Crovitz as well as my response to his arguments.
Here are is the column:
Recently, I wrote a Hill column criticizing NewsGuard, a rating operation being used to warn users, advertisers, educators and funders away from media outlets based on how it views the outlets’ “credibility and transparency.” Roughly a week later, NewsGuard came knocking at my door. My blog, Res Ipsa (jonathanturley.org), is now being reviewed and the questions sent by NewsGuard were alarming, but not surprising.
I do not know whether the sudden interest in my site was prompted by my column. I have previously criticized NewsGuard as one of the most sophisticated operations being used to “white list” and “black list” sites. My new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” details how such sites fit into a massive censorship system that one federal court called “Orwellian.”
For any site criticizing the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are “I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you.”
Conservatives have long accused the company of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and carrying out the agenda of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.
Brill and his co-founder, L. Gordon Crovitz, want their company to be the media version of the Standard & Poor’s rating for financial institutions. However, unlike the S&P, which looks at financial reports, NewsGuard rates highly subjective judgments like “credibility” based on whether they publish “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading” information. They even offer a “Nutrition Label” for consumers of information.
Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred diet of many in the country. But they might not get a choice since the goal is to allow other companies and carriers to use the ratings to disfavor or censor non-nutritious sites.
The rating of sites is arguably the most effective way of silencing or marginalizing opposing views. I previously wrote about other sites supported by the Biden administration that performed a similar function, including the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). GDI then released a list of the 10 most dangerous sites, all of which are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting “reputational and brand risk” by “financially supporting disinformation online.” The blacklisted sites included Reason, a respected libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. However, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.
When NewsGuard came looking for Res Ipsa, the questions sounded like they came directly from CGI. I was first asked for information on the financial or revenue sources used to support my blog, on which I republish my opinion pieces from various newspapers and publish original blog columns.
Given NewsGuard’s reputation, the email would ordinarily trigger panic on many sites. But I pay not to have advertising, and the closest I come to financial support would be my wife, since we live in a community property state. If NewsGuard wants to blacklist me with my wife, it is a bit late. Trust me, she knows.
NewsGuard also claimed that it could not find a single correction on my site. In fact, there is a location for readers marked “corrections” to register objections and corrections to postings on the site. I also occasionally post corrections,changes and clarifications.
NewsGuard also made bizarre inquiries, including about why I called my blog “Res Ipsa Liquitur [sic] – the thing itself speaks. Could you explain the reason to this non-lawyer?” Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the header as “The thing itself speaks,” which I think speaks for itself.
But one concern was particularly illuminating:
“I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective, as is evident in your articles. Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”
I have historically been criticized as a liberal, conservative or a libertarian depending on the particular op-eds. I certainly admit to libertarian viewpoints, though I hold many traditional liberal views. For example, I have been outspoken for decades in favor same-sex marriage, environmental protection, free speech and other individual rights. I am a registered Democrat who has defended reporters, activists and academics on the left for years in both courts and columns.
The blog has thousands of postings that cut across the ideological spectrum. What I have not done is suspend my legal judgment when cases touch on the interests of conservatives or Donald Trump. While I have criticized Trump in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.
Yet, NewsGuard appears to believe that I should label myself as conservative or libertarian as a warning or notice to any innocent strays who may wander on to my blog. It does not appear that NewsGuard makes the same objection to HuffPost or the New Republic, which run overwhelmingly liberal posts. Yet, alleged conservative or libertarian sites are expected to post a warning as if they were porn sites.
NewsGuard is not alone in employing this technique. Mainstream media outlets often label me as a “conservative professor” in reporting my viewpoints. They do not ordinarily label professors with pronounced liberal views or anti-Trump writings as “liberal.”
Studies show that the vast majority of law professors run from the left to the far left. A study found that only 9 percent of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative. A 2017 study found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative.
It is rare for the media to identify those professors as “liberal,” including many professors on the far left who regularly denounce conservatives or Republicans. It is simply treated as not worth mentioning. Yet, anyone libertarian or right of center gets the moniker as a warning that their viewpoint should considered in weighing their conclusions. Yet, NewsGuard is in the business of labeling people . . . and warning advertisers. It considers my writings to be conservative or libertarian and wants to know “Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”
It does not matter that my views cut across the ideological spectrum or that I do not agree with NewsGuard’s label. Indeed, while I clearly hold libertarian views, libertarians run a spectrum from liberal to conservative. The common article of faith is the maximization of individual rights, while there is considerable disagreement on many policies. Steven Brill is considered a diehard liberal. Would it be fair to add a notice or qualifier of “liberal” to any of his columns or opinions?
It does not matter. Apparently from where NewsGuard reviewers sit, I am a de facto conservative or libertarian who needs to wear a digital bell to warn others.
It is a system that includes what Elon Musk correctly called “the advertising boycott racket.” Musk was responding to another such group pushing a rating system as an euphemism for blacklisting. For targeted sites, NewsGuard is now the leading racketeer in that system. It makes millions of dollars by rating sites — a new and profitable enterprise with dozens of other academic and for-profit groups. They have commoditized free speech in blacklisting and potentially silencing others. If you are the Standard & Poor’s of political discourse, you can rate sites out of existence by making them a type of junk bond blog.
Yet, the fact that I have no advertisers or sponsors to scare off does not mean that NewsGuard cannot undermine the site. The company has reportedly received federal contracts, which some in Congress have sought to block. It is also allied with organizations like Turnitin to control what teachers and students will read or use in schools. The powerful American Federation of Teachers, which has been criticized for its far left political alliances with Democratic candidates, has also pushed NewsGuard for schools.
This is why my book calls for a number of reforms, including barring federal funds for groups engaged in censoring, rating or blacklisting sites. NewsGuard shows that such legislation cannot come soon enough.
N.B.: The original version of this column included MSNBC as an example of liberal sites that do not post their own ideological bent or label. I later heard from NewsGuard that they did indeed mark down MSNBC for failing to make such a disclosure, so I removed it from this blog column. I posted a response today on why I continue to oppose rating systems such as NewsGuard.
On the weekend, I ran a column critical of NewsGuard and its recent notification of this blog that it was being “rated.” NewsGuard co-founder Gordon Crovitz responded to that column the next day. We have previously exchanged emails on my concerns over rating systems generally, including the Global Disinformation Index (which is not related to NewsGuard). I noted the concerns over bias from conservatives and members of Congress, but my primary concern remains with the concept of a rating system for media sites and blogs. While NewsGuard has given high ratings to some conservative sites, I generally oppose media rating systems due to free speech concerns and the use of these systems by the current anti-free speech movement.
I have always found Gordon to be open and frank about these subjects and I wanted readers on the blog to hear the opposing view from him directly. He was kind enough to consent to my posting the following. I will be posting a response to Gordon separately in the hopes that we can use this controversy as a foundation for a much needed discussion of rating systems and their impact on free speech.
Here is his response:
Jonathan:
We welcome the publicity, but your complaints in your July 27 commentary in the Hill about NewsGuard seem based on some misunderstandings.
First, we launched NewsGuard in 2018 as an alternative either to the Silicon Valley platforms secretly putting their thumbs on the scale for news and information sites or for calls to have the government censor social media and other online speech. Digital platforms were (and are) secretly rating news and information websites, with no disclosure about their criteria and no way for the people running the websites even to find out how they were rated. The only other entity rating news and information sites at the time we launched was GDI, which as you have written is a left-wing advocacy group–which like the digital platforms does not disclose its criteria or let publishers know how they are rated (except when information escapes such as the top 10 list of “risky” sites, which as you noted are all conservative or libertarian sites).
As I have written as a (libertarian-leaning) conservative former publisher, including in this recent Washington Examiner article https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3091369/advertisers-fear-supporting-journalism-heres-how-to-fix-that/, I wouldn’t trust the platforms or a left-wing advocacy group either. We launched NewsGuard as the transparent and apolitical alternative, with the goal of giving news consumers basic information about websites they encounter online.
We reach out to the people running news and information websites for several purposes. We want to be sure we correctly assess sites based on our nine criteria. We’re a journalistic enterprise, so would always reach out for comment before concluding a site fails any of our criteria. We often quote the people running websites to provide more context about their site, whether they fail any criteria or not. More than a quarter of the websites we’ve rated have taken steps, usually relating to greater transparency, to get higher ratings.
In your column, you asserted that NewsGuard treats liberal sites preferentially compared with how we treat conservative or libertarian sites. This is false, as the many high scores for conservative and libertarian sites–and low scores for liberal sites–makes clear. You’ll see examples in the Washington Examiner article I linked to above. (There are right-wing sites like OAN that get low ratings such as for its Dominion Voting Systems claims, and there are left-wing sites that get low ratings for false claims such as about Donald Trump.)
In your Hill article, you claimed that “it does not appear” that we expect left-wing sites to disclose their point of view to readers. You gave the example of MSNBC. I am attaching our publicly available rating for this website. You will see it fails our criterion relating to news/opinion for failing to disclose its orientation. The MSNBC website scores lower than Fox News using our criteria because MSNBC fails to disclose its orientation whereas the website for Fox News does disclose its. (MSNBC also fails our criterion for gathering and presenting responsibly due to claims it made about Trump, Ron DeSantis, Steve Bannon and others.)
We also anticipated even back when we launched that there would be calls for government censorship if secret and partisan ratings were the only ones available in the market. I would have thought, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censorship.
Finally, I appreciated your obituary for Bob Zimmer and your calls for the Chicago Principles to be widely adopted. (Whether our UChicago fully lives up to them is a topic for another day–I prefer the more energetic approach of Ed Levi to today’s more appeasing practices.) More information about websites is an exercise of free speech, and when done with transparent apolitical criteria equally applied seems to me a market solution you should support, not criticize or fear.
For most of us, this election could not become more confusing. However, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D., Tx.) may have added a whole new level of confusion for many in suggesting that Donald Trump may have been the latest victim of systemic racism among law enforcement in the United States.
Trump previously cited his alleged abuse in the criminal justice system as a point of shared experience with some in the black community. Crockett, however, seems to be willing to go further in suggesting that he may be the latest victim of a racist law enforcement system.
In the hearing with Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, the failure to stop and hold Thomas Crooks was raised by both parties in an unprecedented failure of security. Crockett then got her chance and suggested that Trump may have come close to dying at the hands of white privilege.
“I want to talk about training and the fact that there was a little bit of confusion between this suspicious person, and this perceived threat situation, and it seems like a different analysis is being done. One of my questions is what training your officers are getting on bias.
I’ve learned over and over again, dealing with law enforcement, that there’s generally no perception of threat when it’s a young white male, even if he’s carrying a long gun. Yet a lot of times, at least in this country, when it comes to law enforcement, there’s a perception of threat simply because a person has a little bit more melanin in their skin.
…Often times, one of the things that we’ve consistently advocated for on my side — and when I say my side, I mean when we’re faced with a tragedy where law enforcement has made a mistake — is bias training and whether or not our officers are getting it. So I’m curious, in some of the training that you’re talking about that’s part of your budget, is bias training part of it?”
Cheatle responded with “Yes, that’s true.” (An apparent response to the training element).
Notably, Crockett began by getting Cheatle to acknowledge that this was not a failure due to DEI, or Diversity Equity and Inclusion, policies. She then suggested that further DEI training may be needed in light of the assassination attempt.
To be clear, there is no evidence that Crooks was allowed to walk away after being spotted with a “long gun.” The current theory is that Crooks hid the gun before the event.
Moreover, he was identified as a possible threat due to being found with a golf range finder. However, that was not considered a barred or threatening device by the Secret Service.
Yet, Trump may find common ground here with Vice President Kamala Harris who has long maintained that “We do have two systems of justice” and has added:
“I don’t think that most reasonable people who are paying attention to the facts would dispute that there are racial disparities and a system that has engaged in racism in terms of how the laws have been enforced. It does us no good to deny that. Let’s just deal with it. Let’s be honest. These might be difficult conversations for some, but they’re not difficult conversations for leaders, not for real leaders.”
Trump may be willing to have the “difficult conversation” as the now purported victim of white privilege in the dismissal of would-be presidential assassins.
Below is my column in the Hill on the withdrawal of President Joe Biden from the 2024 election. After weeks of Democrats and the media raising the alarm of his mental capacity, Biden finally gave up his public refusal to step aside. Harris will now be the nominee through succession by defenestration or being tossed from a window. Yet, there remains a lingering question of Biden’s capacity to serve for another six months as president.
Here is the column:
President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw as the Democratic Party’s nominee solved an immediate problem for his party. Biden has plummeted in the polls as the vast majority of voters concluded that he is too diminished by age to serve another term. Yet, it has now created several new problems, including the obvious problem of a president who is viewed as incapable of running for an office that he continues to hold.
The Democratic Party essentially created its own political version of the 25th Amendment in forcing Biden off the ticket. This decision was about as voluntary as leaving a building by way of a window on the 46th floor. That is particularly the case when you are thrown out of the window by your closest friends.
The unseemly image of succession by defenestration will soon be whitewashed by a media that will praise Biden after weeks of declaring him incompetent and enfeebled.
That, however, leaves the lingering question after the fall. How can Biden remain in office when he is incapable of running for the office? Biden is notably vague about the reason for his withdrawal after maintaining for days that he will be the party’s nominee. He simply says that it is in the best interests of the country.
The Democratic establishment has two equally unappealing options.
First, it could argue that Biden was withdrawing out of recognition that he is no longer politically viable. But that makes a mockery out of the democratic process. Millions of people went through the primary elections to select him as their nominee. Now he would be set aside and replaced by a vote of the party establishment like a shift in the Russian politburo.
Second, it could admit that Biden was, as stated for weeks in the media and by figures like Special Counsel Robert Hur, greatly diminished both mentally and physically. However, that makes this withdrawal an admission that could trigger a fight under the 25th Amendment. The development could create a new constitutional controversy. The 25th Amendment was written with largely physical disabilities in mind. If a president is comatose, the incapacity is obvious and Section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to sign a declaration to Congress that a president is incapable of holding office.
However, Harris is eager to avoid the image of Brutus in the dispatching of the president. To support such a declaration would risk Biden proclaiming “Et tu, Kamala?” to the nation. The key to succession by defenestration is not to be seen as the hand that pushes the president out the window. Politics follows the same rules as the mafia for capo di tutti i capi: Kill a don, never be a don. While sometimes honored in the breach in the mob, it is hardly an auspicious path for a politician.
There is, however, another intriguing possibility.
Section 4 provides that a president’s fitness can be put before Congress when the “Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide.”
Previously Democrats have cited that language to suggest that they could create their own body to force former President Donald Trump out of office. Indeed, Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-Md.) sponsored legislation called the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act to create a commission empowered to examine a president to Congress on the president’s capacity. It would circumvent the necessity of getting Harris to be the primary hand that dispatched a president.
The question is whether Congress will now make this decision to warrant an investigation or even a Raskin-like bill. This is different than President Lyndon Johnson’s decision on March 31, 1968, that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.” That was before any primaries. In this case, Biden won a primary in which the Democratic Party obstructed anyone who would challenge him and barred any debate.
Millions voted for him, and tens of millions of dollars were contributed to his campaign. He is now withdrawing weeks before accepting the nomination. That unprecedented decision alone would warrant a House investigation into Biden’s continuing capacity to serve in an office that he no longer believes he can run to occupy after January 2025.
Before this decision, a special counsel cited President Biden’s diminished faculties as a reason not to indict him for unlawfully retaining and handling classified material. Now, the president is effectively saying that, in addition to being allegedly too diminished to be prosecuted, he is too diminished to run for the office that he currently holds.
The question is whether Biden has ended the fight to retain his nomination only to trigger a fight to retain his office.
Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, wrote “The President [of the Galaxy] in particular is very much a figurehead—he wields no real power whatsoever. […] His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.” This week, Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) seemed to be taking the Hitchhiker’s Guide as a guide for government. When asked about the alarming physical and mental decline of President Joe Biden, Goldman suggested that it really does not matter. In responding to a call for Biden’s removal under the 25th Amendment, Goldman suggested that the Republic is safe because it is safely in the hands of people around Biden. It is an argument that flips the 25th Amendment on its head and embraces the idea of a figurehead president.
After the Hur report was released noting the diminishment of the President’s faculties, Goldman was one of the most vocal in shouting the Special Counsel down. He went public declaring that the President is “sharper than anyone I’ve spoken to” on public policy issues.
He has continued brushed away the growing calls for President Biden to step aside as incapable of serving another four years. Indeed, some are calling for an investigation into whether he can carry out the duties of his office until January 2025.
“So, let’s not just focus on Joe Biden here. Let’s focus on the people around him, the administration, the policies, and most importantly, the appreciation and protection for the rule of law and our democracy that Donald Trump, every single day, has vowed to take down.”
He added that Biden is “vibrant” and that “the reality is that Joe Biden has surrounded himself with an incredibly capable team with almost no turnover.”
Other Democrats have attempted to avoid the manifest confusion and infirmity of the president. This includes Democrats who repeatedly called for formal action to remove former President Donald Trump under the 25th Amendment, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; Jamie Raskin, D-Md.; Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
However, it was Goldman who, as usual, came up with the most vertigo-triggering spin.
The 25th Amendment was designed to specifically avoid a figurehead presidency where family or aides perform critical functions of the office. That was indeed the concern with presidents like Woodrow Wilson when a stroke left him incapable to function as president. His wife Edith hid the truth from the public and the Congress as she and others carried out his functions.
He also had “an incredibly capable team” around him, but they were not elected president.
In the meantime, the media is still struggling to explain to the public why they did not disclose the President’s condition earlier while promulgating the “cheap fake” narrative. For weeks heading into the debate, media outlets repeated the claim that videos showing Biden’s confusion were false and misleading. Some are now reportedly admitting that they did not want to confirm “right-wing media” accounts — an admission of shaping the news for political purposes.
The greatest threat to President Biden may ultimately be the political calculus. For most of these members, their loyalty to Biden ends at the point that he endangers their own hold on power. A couple dozen members are reportedly preparing a letter calling for possible removal in the hope that they can replace Biden with someone who has a better chance of beating Trump. It is no easy feat, but Democratic operatives are furiously working out the complications under federal election laws and state laws.
In the meantime, the 25th Amendment process is looming. More citizens may become convinced by what Pelosi said about then President Donald Trump: “Congress has a constitutional duty to lay out the process by which a president’s incapacity and the president of any party is determined…A president’s fitness for office must be determined by science and facts.”
The New York Times headline seemed to gloat: “Stephen Bannon Reports to Prison After One Final Podcast Episode.”
“The show will be his last for four months, but the longtime adviser to Donald J. Trump has no intention of surrendering his influence,” the newspaper of record for the Democratic Party and the American left declared in its online subhead on Monday.
And so, the corporate media stories went, reporting on Bannon’s failed attempt to secure an 11th-hour reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court. Bannon surrendered to federal authorities at a Connecticut federal prison to begin serving his time on contempt charges for defying a congressional subpoena. Loathed by the left and ruling-class Republicans, the conservative firebrand became the latest casualty of a two-tiered system of justice in America.
As Bannon begins his term, 15 cabinet officials in the Biden administration continue to defy congressional subpoenas, and Merrick Garland, the attorney general of the United States, continues to insist he’s above Congress. On June 13, U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, chairman of the Committee on House Administration, issued subpoenas to 15 administration cabinet members seeking documents related to Biden’s constitutionally suspect executive order commanding federal agencies to assist in voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns. The agency chiefs failed to comply by Steil’s deadline of June 26.
“Not a single agency has responded with their strategic plan or with any details about the implementation of the EO,” the Wisconsin Republican said in a statement to The Federalist. “Additionally, we know that as many as 40 outside groups assisted and advised the agencies on implementation – we have received nothing on the role these groups played in the design of the strategic plans.”
Seems like contempt of Congress. Will the cabinet secretaries be bunking with Bannon anytime soon? Don’t count on it.
What about Garland?
On Monday, House Republicans sued Garland, who has refused to turn over the audio recordings of a “confused” President Joe Biden’s interview with Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Hur about the president’s mishandling of classified documents. Republicans want a federal court to compel Garland to follow their subpoena. The attorney general effectively told Republicans to go pound sand, citing executive privilege in refusing to release the audio — audio that could be particularly damaging to Biden after his disastrous debate performance last week.
“The congressional inquiry began with the release of Hur’s report in February, which found evidence that Biden, a Democrat, willfully retained and shared highly classified information when he was a private citizen. Yet the special counsel concluded that criminal charges were not warranted,” the Associated Press reported. What the story failed to note is that the special prosecutor deemed charges unwarranted because the octogenarian president “would likely present himself to the jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
Hur told the House Judiciary Committee in March that the White House pushed him to change portions of his report thought to be particularly damaging to the false narrative that Biden’s mental acuity remained sharp.
Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been in jail since March for likewise ignoring a congressional subpoena. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear either man’s emergency appeal.
Before beginning his sentence, Bannon told reporters that he is a “political prisoner.”
Now, who will hold Garland and his colleagues in the Biden cabinet accountable for their contemptible conduct?
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
For years, some of us have asked why the Capitol was so poorly prepared for the January 6th riot. As part of the coverage on that day, I remarked at the start of the protests that I had never seen the Capitol so thinly protected for a major demonstration. Some paths to the Capitol were protected by a handful of bicycle officers and thin barriers. Now, a previously unreleased video taken on Jan. 6, 2021, shows then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitting that she was responsible for the lack of preparedness.
“We have responsibility, Terri. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there. And we should have. This is ridiculous. You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they’ve already breached…that, should we call the Capitol Police? I mean the National Guard? Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?…They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepared for more.”
The video was never released by the J6 Committee, which was criticized for its highly choreographed and scripted hearings with little balance in the presentation of evidence. The lack of emphasis on the security issues was glaring and raised by critics throughout the hearings.
While Democrats and the media dismissed the issue and claims that Trump offered to supply the national guard, it was later confirmed that those offers were made to Congress and rejected. A report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton also found that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6th protests.
What was so curious about the lack of precautions that morning is that the Capitol had just experienced the violence outside of the White House in the Lafayette Park protests.
To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of the Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church. I discussed those accounts in testimony before Congress and in columns on the clearing of the Lafayette Park area. NPR still has a story on its website entitled “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.” More officers were injured in the Lafayette Park protests than on January 6th.
As previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a “snap impeachment,” weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence would have challenged the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.
In the Lafayette Park protests, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the “heavier, less lethal weapons” that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.
Had Pelosi and others accepted National Guard support and installed fencing as was done at the White House, it is doubtful that the riot on January 6th would have occurred, or any disruption would have been far more limited in scope. The fact that the J6 Committee downplayed this major factor in the riot further undermines how the investigation was framed by the Democratic leadership. Pelosi barred the GOP members selected for the committee, hand picking two anti-Trump Republican members.
The absence of any balance on the committee was evident from the start. There was little effort to present alternative explanations or defenses to critical issues raised in hearings. No opposing witnesses were called who might contradict the narrative put forward by the Committee, including witnesses who would debunk the much-repeated, false claim that Trump wrestled with his driver to gain control of the presidential limo to drive to the Capitol.
With the Speaker admitting on tape that she bore responsibility for the lack of precautions, one would think that the J6 Committee, including then Vice Chair Liz Cheney, would consider that relevant for the public to understand the underlying facts. Instead, it was buried with much other countervailing evidence.
Below is my column in Fox.com on the authentication of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the Delaware trial. The government has denounced the Russian disinformation claims as a “conspiracy theory” and put on evidence that there is no evidence of tampering with the laptop. The FBI declared the laptop to be “real” and “authentic” and the court agreed. It was introduced as evidence before many reporters who previously embraced the debunked “conspiracy theory.” As discussed below, Houdini’s elephant was just revealed on stage and most of the audience looked away.
Here is the column:
Watching the coverage this week out of Delaware was like finding oneself in a parallel universe. There were ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post and other news outlets reporting matter-of-factly that the Hunter Biden laptop showed no evidence of tampering and was both real and authentic.
These are the same outlets, and some of the same reporters, who eagerly spread the false claims that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”
Yet, what followed the testimony of FBI agent Erika Jensen was absolute crickets. There was no effort to track down the signatories of the now-debunked letter from former intelligence officials just before the election. In the letter, figures such as Leon Panetta, former CIA director in the Obama administration, claimed that the laptop had all the markings of a Russian disinformation effort by intelligence services. (Panetta continued to make the assertion even in late 2023 in pushing what the federal government is now calling a “conspiracy theory.”)
There was no attempt by the media to confront associates of the Biden campaign (including now Secretary of State Antony Blinken) who pushed a long effort to get former intelligence officials to sign a letter.
There was no attempt to question President Joe Biden, who made this false claim in the presidential election to deflect any questions about the evidence of corrupt influence peddling on the laptop.
Years ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign had pulled off the single greatest political trick in history. As I wrote back then, the key to this Houdini-esque trick was to get the media to invest in the deception like audience members called to the stage.
Houdini used to make his elephant Jennifer disappear on stage every night because he knew that the audience wanted her to disappear. They were part of the act. The Bidens made the media part of the act, and these reporters have to back the illusion or admit that they were part of the deception. They are all laptop deniers, but they know that there are few who will call them to account for their conspiracy theory. Rather, it is social media where readers can see videos of leading media claiming that the laptop is the work of Russian intelligence.
In 2020, CBS News’ Lesley Stahl literally laughed mockingly at then-President Donald Trump when he raised the Hunter Biden laptop and what it revealed about the Bidens.
Figures like former Chief of Staff at the CIA and Department of Defense Jeremy Bash, who told MSNBC that the laptop “looked like Russian intelligence” and “walked like Russian intelligence.” He dismissed the relevance of the laptop before the election by declaring that “this effort by Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post and Steve Bannon to cook up supposed dirt on Joe Biden looks like a classic, Russian playbook disinformation campaign.”
Bash added that it made Trump an effective agent of Russian intelligence since he kept referencing the laptop: “[when] Rudy Giuliani suddenly comes forward with these mysteriously created emails, probably hacked through a Russian intelligence operation, we have to acknowledge the fact that the President of the United States is supporting, is condoning, is welcoming a Russian intelligence operation in 2020. … This is collusion in plain sight.”
Bash, like others behind the conspiracy theory, was later given an intelligence position by Biden.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both eventually verified Hunter Biden’s laptop after big tech dismissed the New York Post’s bombshell reporting during the 2020 presidential election. The Post reporting was famously censored by Twitter ahead of the 2020 election.
CNN’s Alex Marquardt told viewers, “We do know it is a very active Russian campaign.”
Indeed, the Washington Post has continued to suggest that this reporting was accurate. One of the leading purveyors of this false story was the Post’s Philip Bump, who slammed the New York Post for its now proven Hunter Biden laptop story.
In 2021, when media organizations were finally admitting that the laptop was authentic, Bump was still declaring that it was a “conspiracy theory.” Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bump continued to suggest that “the laptop was seeded by Russian intelligence.”
After Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims, I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims. The Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including the laptop conspiracy theory. That was in August 2023.
Of course, this trick would not have been possible without the assistance of 50 former intelligence officials who were reportedly organized through Clinton campaign associates to issue the infamous letter. These figures then continued to spread the false claim.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, one of the 50 who signed the letter, also claimed that the laptop bore “the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.”
James Clapper, a former director of National Intelligence and CNN analyst, said the laptop was “classic, textbook Soviet, Russian tradecraft at work.”
Members of Congress also repeated the false claims, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., who told the media not to join Giuliani as a “vehicle for Russian disinformation.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that the laptop was clearly “Kremlin propaganda.”
This long-debunked claim was even recently repeated in Congress by Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who claimed that the laptop could not be authenticated even though it was just authenticated and introduced in a federal prosecution.
All of those who pushed what the U.S. government is now calling a false “conspiracy theory” have flourished in the wake of Biden’s victory. Intelligence officials like Bash received plum positions while others like Clapper were given media contracts. Schiff is expected to be elected to the Senate and is running, ironically enough, on his record with intelligence investigations of Trump.
Conversely, the New York Post and reporters like Miranda Devine have received no recognition for their work in disclosing the contents and defying attacks from politicians and media alike. While reporters were given a Pulitzer for reporting the now debunked Russian collusion story, Devine and others will never receive a Pulitzer for uncovering the true story behind the laptop.
Devine, the New York Post, and others simply refused to get in on the trick. As is often said, there are some facts simply “too good to check” in the media. The Hunter Biden laptop disappeared from the stage like Houdini’s elephant because the media wanted it to disappear.
The reappearance of the laptop in a Delaware courtroom might be awkward for most people, but not the media or intelligence officials or politicians who pushed the conspiracy theory. After all, they were all in on the trick. It was the voters who were played for chumps.
“Conscience doth make cowards of us all.” Those words from Hamlet captured the moral dilemma for many of us as we face the costs of conscience.
For each of us, there often comes a moment when our principles are put to an undeniable and unavoidable test. It may be as simple as cheating on a test, shoplifting a product, or admitting to a wrong. It is natural to want to avoid such moments, particularly when we cannot even admit to ourselves that we may not be the person we have long claimed.
For Attorney General Merrick Garland, that moment of truth has finally arrived. Garland has long maintained that he is an apolitical attorney general who does not even consider the political consequences of his actions. Over the last three years, some of us have questioned that commitment in a series of actions or, more importantly, non-actions. Yet, Garland has always been able to evade responsibility by shifting decision-making to others or claiming a lack of knowledge.
Yesterday, Garland ran out of room to maneuver when three House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means) sent him formal referrals for the perjury prosecution of Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. The evidence of false answers to Congress is overwhelming and Garland’s department has prosecuted Trump associates and others with far less in past cases, including the prosecution of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Here is the Committee’s summary of the allegations, which I also previously discussed in a column:
During his deposition, Hunter Biden made false statements about holding a position at Rosemont Seneca Bohai (RSB), a corporate entity that received millions of dollars from foreign individuals and entities who met with then-Vice President Biden before and after transmitting money to the RSB account that then transferred funds to Hunter Biden. After deposing Hunter Biden, the Committees obtained documents showing Hunter Biden represented that he was the corporate secretary of RSB.
Additionally, Hunter Biden during his testimony relayed an entirely fictitious account about threatening text messages he sent to his Chinese business partner while invoking his father’s presence with him as he wrote the messages. Hunter Biden testified he had transmitted this threat to an unrelated individual with the same surname. However, documents released by the Committee on Ways and Means demonstrate conclusively that Hunter Biden made this threat to the intended individual, and bank records prove Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partners wired millions of dollars to his company after his threat. A portion of the proceeds has been traced to Joe Biden’s bank account.
During James Biden’s transcribed interview, he stated that Joe Biden did not meet with Tony Bobulinski, a business associate of James and Hunter Biden, in 2017 while pursuing a deal with a Chinese entity, CEFC China Energy. His statements were contradicted not only by Mr. Bobulinski, but Hunter Biden. Mr. Bobulinski also produced text messages that establish the events leading up to and immediately following his meeting with Joe Biden on May 2, 2017.
These are straight-forward questions and answers. More importantly, both men knew and prepared for these questions. They were widely discussed before their testimony. They appear to have knowingly lied. The question is what Garland is now prepared to do about it.
For Garland, a bill has come due. I supported his appointment as Attorney General because I respected his integrity and intellect as a federal judge. I believed his claim that he would not allow political considerations to cloud his judgment. I grew more critical as I saw Garland struggling to avoid decisions that would work against President Biden or his family.
Now, Garland has what appears flagrant perjurious statements made by the President’s son and brother. Given the fact that these were anticipated questions, the false answers appear premeditated and egregious. Hunter and Jim Biden displayed a sense of impunity in denying facts that the committees (and many commentators) believe are well established on the available evidence. Those facts were highly embarrassing to the Biden family and they allegedly chose to lie rather than admit to them.
The fact that such alleged false statements occurred in the midst of an impeachment investigation only magnifies the concerns. This was an effort to establish the President’s knowledge of a massive corrupt influence peddling operation maintained by his family.
The gun charge in Delaware is a relatively minor criminal allegation. This is far more serious and could impose far greater punishment for the President’s son.
In the Trump cases, the Justice Department moved with impressive speed in going to grand juries against figures for false statements or contempt of Congress. There was little handwringing, no hem and hawing.
So, Garland’s moment of truth has arrived. He will either have to meet it or shrink from it. Either way, the Attorney General is about to give the full measure of himself and his office.
Just the News is reporting that the January 6th Committee rebuffed repeated efforts from a Secret Service agent to refute the false story related by Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a violent episode with Trump in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots. The J6 Committee staff repeatedly delayed the testimony of the agent to disprove the widely reported allegation.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 riot, has obtained a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify. However, it turns out that committee staff were asked repeatedly by counsel for the agent to let him present evidence debunking the claim. Despite being reported by virtually every news outlet, the Committee slow walked his appearance as the story went viral.
The transcript of the driver’s testimony contains express objections by the lawyer that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the committee.
The account reaffirms a major criticism of the committee. After Democrats refused to allow the GOP to pick its members (as a long-accepted practice in the House), the Democrats selected two anti-Trump Republicans who did little to push for a full and fair display of witnesses and facts. The Committee was chaired by Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, with Rep. Liz Cheney, as Vice Chairwoman.
Cheney and the committee members clearly knew that Hutchinson’s account was debunked by the very driver who allegedly struggled with Trump. Yet, they allowed the media to report the incident for months while rebuffing the requests of the driver. Loudermilk is quoted as saying “We’re talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail. They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren’t brought in until November.”
The false account was given by Hutchinson in June of that year.
The Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV.
Notably, the transcript shows Cheney trying to explain the delay as due to the need for the Secret Service to produce all documents in the January 6 investigation.
Yet, she had no problem with making the false story public through Hutchinson before such supporting material was supplied. She also did not suggest any countervailing testimony or witnesses on the issue as the media ran with the account. Instead, Cheney publicly teased the claim that they had much more evidence of crimes against Trump, which never materialized. Cheney ended one hearing by calling for more officials to come forward and noting that Trump family members and former officials have now come forward with their own public “confessions.”
Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.
Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence by the Committee was both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.
We previously discussed the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses were primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony was shown, and they were given narrow follow-up questions. They at times seemed more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It had the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings.
That framing led to glaring omissions. The Committee routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully.
What is striking was that offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of this stunning testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process.
If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, testimony on issues like the fight in the presidential limo could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world.
That was clearly not in the interests of the J6 Committee or the media, which eagerly spread this false account.
We have been discussing the dubious constitutional basis for President Joe Biden withholding the audio tapes of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur. I have previously written that the claim of privilege makes little sense when the transcript of the interview has already been released. It seems curious that Biden is claiming to be the president “who cannot be heard” in withholding the audio version. It just got wackier as the Justice Department seeks to create a new type of “Deepfake privilege” that would effectively blow away all existing limits on the use of the privilege when it comes to audio or visual records of a president.
Multiple committees are investigating Biden for possible impeachment and conducting oversight on the handling of the investigation into his retention and mishandling of classified material over decades. Classified documents were found in various locations where Biden lived or worked, including his garage. The mishandling of classified material is uncontestable. Broken boxes, unprotected areas and lack of tracking are all obvious from the photos.
Biden made the situation even worse with a disastrous press conference in which he attacked Hur and misrepresented his findings.
Hur’s ultimate conclusion that Biden’s diminished cognitive abilities would undermine any prosecution left many dumbfounded. After all, the man who is too feeble to prosecute is not only running a superpower with a massive nuclear arsenal but running for reelection to add four more years in office.
From impeachment to oversight to the 25th Amendment (allowing the removal of a president for incapacities), there are ample reasons for Congress to demand information and evidence from the government on these questions. Congress is also interested in looking at repeated omissions for “inaudible” statements. Under this sweeping theory that Biden can legitimately withhold these recordings under executive privilege, any president could withhold any evidence of incapacity or criminality.
As previously explained, the claim that the audiotape but not the transcript remains privileged is hard to square with precedent or logic. However, now the Justice Department appears to be pivoting with a new claim with a late Friday filing. The filing obtained by Politicostates that the audiotape must be withheld due to the risk that it could be altered by artificial intelligence and passed off as authentic in a deepfake release: “The passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence, and ‘deep fake’ technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files.”
Consider the implications of that argument for a second. It would mean that any visual or audio recording of the President could be withheld due to the danger of digital or other manipulation. It would eviscerate any existing limits on privilege assertions.
It is also absurd since you could create such fake recordings using the transcript and Biden’s voice from countless interviews through AI programs. The Justice Department acknowledges that obvious logical disconnect by noting that the release would make any fake version more credible.
“To be sure, other raw material to create a deepfake of President Biden’s voice is already available, but release of the audio recording presents unique risks: if it were public knowledge that the audio recording has been released, it becomes easier for malicious actors to pass off an altered file as the true recording.”
The filing is logically and legally absurd. It is also dangerous.
For a president who is already carefully insulated from questions and controlled in public appearances, the argument would allow staff to completely control any public or, more importantly, congressional review of his actual speech and discourse.
In seeking to prevent “malicious actors” from altering reality, the government is claiming the right to frame reality as an inherent constitutional prerogative.
The argument ignores that, if an audiotape is released, it is harder to pass off a fake as genuine. As it stands, actors can claim tapes as leaked or derived from other sources. In the absence of an official tape, such arguments can be difficult to refute.
The fact that this spurious argument is being made by Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is another disappointing sign that he has abandoned his pledge to remain apolitical in office. This litigation is clearly designed for one overriding purpose: to delay any release until after the election when it cannot harm the President.
It is the legal version of a deepfake — misrepresenting the law to mislead citizens into believing that they are better off with less information on the credibility and competence of their president.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has long maintained that he is a completely apolitical figure who only follows the law. Critics have challenged that claim on key cases, including those related to Hunter Biden. However, Garland may now face one of the clearest tests of his claim in his tenure. The House committees have issued a public report alleging three different instances where Hunter Biden allegedly committed perjury. The question is now what Garland is prepared to do about it.
When Hunter testified, I wrote columns suggesting that he might take the Fifth Amendment to remain silent because the risk was too great that he might lie or mislead investigators in his answers. With months of preparation, he decided to run the gauntlet and now appears to have exposed himself to the possibility of additional criminal charges.
Hunter Biden has still not responded to the specific allegations, but on their face they appear strong. Notably, the Justice Department spent considerable time and money to pursue false statements against figures like Michael Flynn over just one statement describing a meeting with Russian diplomats. These are instances where Hunter was under oath, prepared for months, and had counsel present.
One of the instances concerns the controversial WhatsApp message where Hunter not only threatened a Chinese businessman to send him massive amounts of money but said that his father was sitting next to him at the time. Millions were later sent to the Bidens. The infamous WhatsApp message stated in part:
“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
The response of Hunter to questions about the message was curious and evasive. Hunter said that he had only two things to say about that message. He denied that his father was sitting next to him despite saying that he had no memory of sending the message. Second, and most importantly, he stated “the Zhao that this is sent to is not the Zhao connected to CEFC” who “had no understanding or even remotely knew what the hell I was even Goddamn talking about.”
The Committee staff maintains that Biden’s WhatsApp account shows that he only ever communicated with one Zhao – Raymond Zhao – and that he most certainly did not know what he was “talking about.”
Another alleged lie was Hunter’s denial that he ever helped people associated with Burisma secure visas. He told Congress that he was unwilling to provide “any work as it related to visas that they needed” and that he would “never pick up the phone and call anybody for a visa.” The Committee has produced an email in which Hunter’s associate Devon Archer references the revoking of Burisma CEO Nikolay Zlochevsky’s visa. It states that “Hunter is checking with Miguel Aleman to see if he can provide cover to Kola on the visa…Please send Hunter an email with all Kola’s passport and visa documents and evidence and copy me. We’ll take it from there.”
Hunter also swore that he had no part in shell companies that received foreign payments. Yet, Archer testified that he and Hunter had an equal stake in Rosemont Seneca Bohai and the Committee has evidence from the IRS whistleblowers showing that Hunter received benefits as owner of the entity’s associated bank account.
The most damning evidence may be a document reading “I, Robert Hunter Biden, hereby certify that I am the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC.” He used that document as part of his contract with Porsche Financial Services for a sports car.
Those would seem pretty clear and well-founded allegations for a referral to the Justice Department. After fast-tracking false statement claims against Trump officials, the question is whether Garland will even submit the matter to a grand jury. He could also give the matter to the Special Counsel prosecuting Hunter.
Ordinarily, a prosecutor pursuing a defendant in two different felony cases would jump at any alleged illegality. You would not want to stand between him and a grand jury. However, Special Counsel David Weiss has been accused of minimizing charges against the President’s son and attempting to push through a notorious sweetheart deal that collapsed in court.
Now Garland faces an unavoidable choice in treating this referral as he did Trump cases (in sending this to a grand jury) or scuttling alleged perjury made by the son of the President before Congress. It is far less challenging legally than it is politically for Merrick Garland.
If the rule of law still governs at the Justice Department, Hunter Biden could be facing a third front in his ongoing legal struggles.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.