House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan wants President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice to explain why it targeted Blaze investigative reporter Steve Baker for covering the Jan. 6, 2021 chaos at the U.S. Capitol. Baker, one of the leading conservative journalists covering the fallout from the events at the Capitol, faces four charges connected to his presence while reporting at the demonstrations.
In a letter penned on March 12, Jordan demanded U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. Matthew Graves hand over documents, communications, and other information related to Baker’s arrest and charges as well as “the investigation, prosecution, or arrest of any journalists covering the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
“There are serious concerns about selective prosecution in this case as well as the Department’s commitment to the First Amendment rights of journalists,” Jordan warned. The Republican noted that “other journalists were in the Capitol at the same time as Mr. Baker who have not been charged with crimes” but Baker, “who has been critical of the Department’s handling of the January 6 investigations and prosecutions” was.
“As Mr. Baker’s attorney noted, the Department ‘is not allowed to decide what press coverage it likes and what press coverage offends it and take prosecutorial action based on those judgments’,” Jordan wrote.
The FBI told Baker last month to turn himself in without disclosing the exact charges he would face. When Baker self-surrendered in Dallas on March 1, the FBI “fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed, and placed Mr. Baker in the back of an FBI vehicle, transported him to the courthouse, and brought him before the magistrate judge in ‘a belly chain, box cuffs, and leg shackles.’”
“Mr. Baker’s counsel, a former federal prosecutor, stated that, in his long career with the Department, he never once saw ‘in an initial appearance on misdemeanor charges where the defendant was told to report first to the FBI to be fingerprinted and photographed before going to the courthouse,’” Jordan noted.
Not only did Jordan say, “this conduct smacks of harassment and selective treatment for a disfavored criminal defendant,” but he also wrote that the DOJ’s actions inherently contradict its alleged principles.
“The disparate treatment of disfavored groups violates the Department’s mission of equal justice under the law,” Jordan
Jordan also noted that members of the Judiciary Committee filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, which is “considering whether the Department has improperly interpreted a financial crimes statute to sentence January 6 defendants to 20-year prison terms,” focused on “explaining how the Department’s conduct criminalizes politics and weaponizes the administration of justice.”
“All of these issues raise concerns about the Biden Administration’s commitment to equal application of the law,” Jordan concluded.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter Wednesday to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration (CISA) — which has been called the “nerve center” of government censorship — notifying the agency that documents related to CISA’s partnership with Pennsylvania to target so-called “misinformation” are included in the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing subpoena, according to a copy of the letter obtained exclusively by The Federalist.
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro recently announced the state’s Election Task Force would partner with CISA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to “mitigate threats to the election process, protect voters from intimidation, and provide voters with accurate, trusted election information.”
The Pennsylvania State Department revealed to The Federalist that the state would also be partnering with CISA to “open lines of communication and share intelligence among the included government agencies.” The State Department did not clarify what “intelligence” refers to or what will be done with said information.
Jordan demanded the DHS provide more detailed information on the partnership by April 3.
“The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech,” the letter reads. “In light of recent public reporting that the [CISA] has partnered with at least one state government in a way that may target Americans’ speech online in the lead-up to the upcoming 2024 election, we write to notify you that documents about such partnerships are responsive to the Committee’s April 28, 2023 subpoena.”
“The reporting about a partnership between CISA and the Pennsylvania Election Threats Task Force reinforces concerns that CISA is again partnering with third parties in a way that will censor or chill Americans’ speech,” Jordan wrote.
“The government’s involvement in this type of speech is particularly alarming because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, ‘the importance of First Amendment protections is at its zenith’ for ‘core political speech,’” the letter continued.
Shapiro said the task force would “combat misinformation” but CISA, the DHS subagency which congressional Republicans have called the “nerve center” of federal censorship, has a history of targeting Americans and their free speech by smearing it as “misinformation” or “malformation.” CISA defines“malinformation” as anything “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
In other words, CISA has censored Americans for stating true information. For example, America First Legal obtained documents showing CISA created a six-point list in October 2020 warning of the risks of unsupervised mail-in voting. Publicly, however, the weaponized agency flagged social media posts highlighting those concerns as “disinformation” for Big Tech companies to censor.
CISA partnered with consulting firm Deloitte and asked for notifications of social media trends about “narratives relating to ‘Vote-By-Mail’ — and to flag specific social media posts for CISA’s awareness and attention.”
One of the posts Deloitte flagged was an October 2020 tweet from then-President Donald Trump in which he claimed there were “Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is investigating whether the 51 former intelligence officials who signed the infamous Hunter Biden laptop letter were paid by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
After Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop surfaced during the 2020 election, more than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter in Politico saying the computer “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” In a letter to CIA Director William Burns on Monday, Jordan, who leads the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, demanded the CIA chief come clean about the agency’s alleged involvement in branding the laptop as Russian disinformation, which plainly amounted to election interference.
“We understand that former intelligence officials often return to the intelligence community under private contract for their previous agencies,” Jordan wrote. “It is vital to the Committees’ oversight to understand whether any of the signatories of the public statement were actively employed by CIA as contractors or consultants at the time they signed the public statement.”
“If so,” Jordan added, “this information would raise fundamental concerns about the role of the CIA as it pertains to the October 19, 2020, ‘Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails’ signed and published by 51 former intelligence community officials in the weeks preceding the 2020 presidential election.”
A report from the Weaponization Committee in May revealed the CIA’s covert involvement in orchestrating the letter. Evidence that surfaced from Hunter Biden’s laptop unveiled blockbuster details about the Biden family’s influence-peddling operations now at the center of a Republican impeachment inquiry.
In his Monday letter to the CIA chief, Jordan demanded a list of all signatories to the letter “who were on active contract or consulting for the CIA at any time from January 1, 2020, to the present,” as well as whether any of those potential contracts “pertained to Hunter Biden’s business dealings, Biden family influence-peddling, Ukraine, or the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.”
Several of the intelligence letters’ signatories have since doubled down on the debunked claims of Russian interference despite the laptop having been verified even by news outlets that first dismissed the computer’s legitimacy. Charges that the laptop stemmed from a Kremlin campaign were even debunked by rare on-the-record statements from the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Department of National Intelligence, and the State Department before Election Day. However, the laptop was suppressed by major online platforms, at least in part over the allegations that it was Russian propaganda.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper defended signing the letter in an interview with New York Magazine last fall, with the magazine noting that “Clapper was not pleased to be asked about the letter two years after its release.”
“What are you trying to get me to say, that I screwed up and I shouldn’t have signed the letter? I’m not going to say that,” Clapper told the paper. “As far as I was concerned, we were waving the yellow flag. At the time, it was fishy to me. It had the characteristics of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who led the agency under President Barack Obama, likewise told Fox News in October, “No, I don’t have any regrets” about signing the letter.
Last week, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., became the latest to peddle the fake Russia narrative at a hearing on censorship with the House Weaponization Committee.
“The problem,” Goldman said about the laptop, “is that hard drives can be manipulated by Rudy Giuliani or Russia.”
In April, House Republicans expanded oversight inquiries surrounding the Politico letter to include Secretary of State Antony Blinken. In a letter to Blinken, lawmakers wrote, “[W]e have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we therefore request your assistance with our oversight.”
Jordan gave CIA Director Burns until Dec. 15 to comply with the congressional request for records.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
The FBI interviewed a priest and choir director affiliated with a Catholic church in Richmond as part of an agency probe of “radical-traditional Catholics” as “potential domestic terrorists,” according to a new congressional report out Monday.
The interim staff report from the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government revealed the FBI under President Joe Biden “abused its counterterrorism tools to target Catholic Americans” and “relied on at least one undercover agent to develop its assessment.”
“The FBI even proposed developing sources among the Catholic clergy and church leadership,” House investigators wrote.
The violent rise in antisemitism from supporters of Hamas terrorists’ fight against Israel, meanwhile, has escaped the same “domestic terrorism” treatment that President Joe Biden’s administration applied to traditional Catholics, as well as to parents who protested Covid lockdowns and inappropriate content in their kids’ schools. (A separate interim staff report from the Weaponization Committee in March found the Biden administration had “no legitimate basis” for investigating parents as terrorists.)
The White House was asked in October if the administration that directed counterterrorism resources toward concerned parents at school board meetings would apply the same “domestic terrorist” label to terrorist sympathizers who cheer violence against Jews.
“The people in this country making violent antisemitic threats. Are they domestic terrorists?” inquired Fox News’ Peter Doocy at a White House press briefing.
“I don’t know that we’re classifying people as domestic terrorists for that,” said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby. “I mean, that’s really a question better left to law enforcement. I’m not aware that there’s been such a characterization of that.”
Since the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel that killed upwards of 1,200 civilians, violent and explicitly antisemitic demonstrators showing solidarity with Hamas have terrorized Jewish Americans. In late October, Jewish students at a Manhattan science and art school were compelled to take shelter at a campus library as anti-Israel protesters stormed the building. Demonstrators in Times Square even presented Swastikas at a rally celebrating the massacre of Jews.
Jewish students at Cooper Union College have been locked inside the library for their own safety as a mob of anti Israeli protesters block the doors.
Anyone could easily predict what the FBI protocol would be had recent anti-Israel demonstrations been full of right-wingers waving Confederate flags. The federal intelligence agency kicked into high gear six years ago to prosecute those involved in Charlottesville’s “Unite the Right” rally in 2017, even raiding an organizer’s Discord chats.
After carrying a Confederate flag through the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a 53-year-old man was sentenced to three years in prison. The presence of a few Confederate banners at the rally that day earned endless headlines in nearly every major publication.
And eight years after the Confederate banner was taken down at the South Carolina state house, the Palestinian flag is now being raised over one town in Massachusetts.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
A formal vote by the full House to authorize an impeachment inquiry will make “for a stronger case” against President Joe Biden for peddling influence through his family’s foreign business dealings, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Newsmax on Thursday. Jordan chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which is helping the Oversight and Accountability Committee probe the Bidens’ business dealings.
It was reported Wednesday that House Republicans are considering holding a formal vote next month to authorize the impeachment inquiry as the party looks to legitimize its investigation into wrongdoing.
“We would like to go to a formal vote for an impeachment inquiry. You don’t have to do that. We’re in an impeachment inquiry,” Jordan told “Wake Up America” co-host Rob Finnerty. “
“The speaker of the House said that there’s no requirement, but it’s a stronger case if you have to go to court to fight these things.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed some caution about the impeachment push, warning against a rush to judgment. But he says the evidence already uncovered by Republican chairmen is “alarming.”
Jordan told Finnerty that work remained before the House could consider an impeachment vote.
“We learned so much when we actually had Devon Archer, one of his [Hunter Biden’s] business partners, under oath in a deposition earlier this year … there’s a handful of key people that I think we do need to talk to, and then we make a decision based on all the facts, and what we may learn from those individuals, and how that squares with other testimony we’ve received and the documents.”
Jordan stressed that getting to a vote on impeachment “depends on the facts” and must be done properly.
“I do think this impeachment inquiry vote that we want to take in the House, and I think we’re gonna have the votes for it,” he said, “I think will be helpful when we inevitably have to go to court to get documents and to get these depositions done in the sequence that they need to be done,” the chair said.
Before his appearance concluded, Jordan was asked whether embattled Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., should be expelled from the House. The chamber is expected to vote Friday on whether to expel Santos, who faces criminal corruption charges and new accusations that he misspent campaign money.
“I’m against it,” Jordan said. “I think that’s always a decision between the person in office and the voters back in his or her district. That’s how our system works, and we have due process. I’m against it.”
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com
The House of Representatives’ bid to elect a new speaker ended in another stalemate on Wednesday after 22 Republicans voted against front-runner Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Wednesday’s vote marks the second in which enough Republicans defected to kneecap Jordan’s speakership bid. On Tuesday, 20 GOPers — including Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado, Don Bacon of Nebraska, and Jen Kiggans of Virginia — voted for House members other than Jordan. These members and many others also voted against Jordan in Wednesday’s vote.
As The Daily Caller reported, Jordan needs at least 217 votes to become speaker. Meanwhile, Democrats are casting their votes for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
BREAKING: Jim Jordan lost 22 votes on the second ballot for Speaker:
While the speaker’s gavel remains up for grabs, some moderate Republicans are reportedly floating the idea of colluding with Democrats to pass a resolution expanding the powers of the chamber’s interim speaker. According to Fox News, the effort is being spearheaded by Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, and has gained support from other establishment Republicans, such as Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida, and Rep. Nick LaLota of New York.
Gimenez and LaLota are among the nearly two dozen Republicans to vote against Jordan’s speakership bid.
Republicans Hate Their Base
While not perfect, Jordan as House speaker would be a major upgrade for GOP voters. Not only does he sport a more conservative voting record than former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., he’s also one of the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus.
So why, despite a groundswell of support among conservative voters, have a handful of Republicans decided to tank Jordan’s speakership bid? While anonymously sourced conspiracies are likely to dominate legacy media’s coverage of the issue, the real answer is likely much simpler: Many of these Republicans despise their voters.
Don’t take my word for it. Bacon admitted as much when complaining to reporters earlier this week about the “pressure campaign back home” for him to back Jordan as speaker. The Nebraska congressman went on to say the reason he opposed Jordan’s initial speakership bid was to stick it to the few House Republicans who ousted McCarthy and prevented Scalise from becoming speaker.
“You don’t have a process where I play by the rules and some people can’t — and they get what they wanted, and now I’m supposed to play by the rules,” Bacon whined.
So, to recap: A grown man serving in the U.S. Congress is actively defying the will of his voters to spite some of his colleagues.
As petty and pathetic as his actions are, Bacon is merely a symptom of the greater cancer that’s infected the GOP establishment for years. On the campaign trail, these Republicans make grandiose pledges to stand up for conservative values and “drain the swamp,” only to discard such promises once they get to Washington.
It’s not that they forget what they promised. It’s that they never intended to fight for their voters in the first place. Whether on religious freedom, illegal immigration, or federal spending, conservatives can always count on the Republican establishment to sell them out.
If Republicans like Bacon spent as much time fighting Democrats as they did stabbing their own voters in the back, the battle for America’s soul would look more like a fight between two rivals than the one-sided shellacking Democrats are dolling out on a weekly basis.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
After Hamas’ violent attacks on Israel last week, Rep. Ilhan Omar finally found someone she can condemn as a “terrorist”: Ohio Republican Jim Jordan. Omar chose this moment in world events to resurrect and post a quote from former House Speaker John Boehner describing Jordan as a “legislative terrorist” (a description Boehner apparently used to complain about Jordan’s ability to make “Boehner’s life miserable”).
Thankfully, others have stepped up to disavow the heinous behavior of Hamas. A San Francisco Board of Supervisors declaration condemned the “domestic terrorist organization” and blamed its sponsor states for putting “weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us.” Rep. Jamaal Bowman called for focusing “energy” on fighting “the Nazis” before “anything else.” The National School Boards Association wrote to the attorney general about the “immediate threat” posed by “actions of malice [and] violence,” urging a response to “terrorism and hate crimes.” Whoopi Goldberg of “The View” bravely denounced them as “terrorists.” Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage condemned the “terrorist” at the top.
Omar, to her credit, decried the “ethnic cleansing” and “war crimes.”
Just kidding! None of these principled condemnations were directed at the terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians last week. Issued over the past several years, they respectively referred to the National Rifle Association, Republicans in Congress, concerned parents at school board meetings, congressional Republicans (again), and Donald Trump. Omar’s “ethnic cleansing” comment was actually about Israel urging residents and others in Gaza to evacuate before incoming airstrikes against Hamas targets, while her “war crimes” remark slammed Israel for turning off electricity in Hamas-controlled territory.
Meanwhile, left-wing college students, their professors, and other congressional Democrats have found themselves unable to condemn the actual terrorists who killed, raped, and kidnapped unsuspecting Israelis and their families. Student groups and Marxist outfits like Black Lives Matter have aligned themselves with the terrorists, while others have reserved harsher words for the defending Israeli forces than for their attackers.
Why is it so hard to call a terrorist — a real one, who murders families in their homes and, yes, beheads babies — a terrorist? For a known antisemite like Omar, the answer is easy enough to discern.
For Marxists like BLM and their drones in college classrooms, it’s only slightly more complicated. Having been taught to see everything through the lens of oppressors and oppressed, they buy into the lies about Israeli “colonizers” and must therefore stand with the terrorists “freedom fighters.” Hamas, after all, is only doing to Israeli civilians what true Marxists think should be done to all “settlers.”
But there’s another hurdle to leftists admitting the terrorist acts committed by Hamas are, in fact, terrorism. To do so would invite comparison between those terrorists — of the raping, killing, and beheading variety — and the Republican “terrorists” that Democrats have assured us pose the greatest threat to the republic.
It looks pretty silly to call a potential speaker of the House of Representatives a “terrorist” when there’s so much real terrorism going on in the world. It looks equally silly to call Republicans “Nazis” while your own side cheers the deaths of hundreds of Jewish victims. No serious person could take a person like that seriously!
The Hamas attacks in Israel are inconvenient for the narrative that paints Republican congressmen, pro-life demonstrators, and concerned public school parents as terrorists who pray to Donald Trump at night, hide out in booby-trapped compounds in the Texas desert, and work to rain violent jihad on the sexually frustrated elementary school teachers exposed by Libs of TikTok. If there are terrorists actually dragging women’s battered bodies through the streets and taking toddlers hostage, Americans might realize that “terrorism” is a touch hysterical to describe voting for Trump or questioning the effectiveness of Covid lockdowns online. And then where would Democrats’ efforts to defend “democracy” be?
Anyone who honestly opposes “terrorism” should have no problem blasting Hamas’ crimes in the strongest possible terms. But to be honest about the term would also require not applying it to suburban soccer moms, Jim Jordan, and Trump-supporting grandmothers. (To be fair, some leftists do condemn Hamas’ terrorism as such. Draw your own conclusions, I guess, about what that means they think of you when they call you the same word.)
If I were given the choice of being stuck in a room with a Hamas jihadi or one of the Trump voters, parent protesters, or congressmen who have been described as “terrorists,” I’d take my chances with any of the latter three — or heck, all of them combined! I bet most of the people who casually slander American conservatives as “terrorists” would too.
Then again, when people tell you whose side, they’re on, you should probably believe them.
Elle Purnell is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her work on Twitter @_etreynolds.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, listens as the House of Representatives holds its second round of voting for House speaker. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Conservative Jim Jordan failed in his second attempt at the top job in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday, as his fellow Republicans considered a backup option for the leaderless chamber to move forward.
Jordan, who was endorsed by Donald Trump, for a second straight day fell short of the 217 votes needed to fill the vacant speaker’s chair, as 22 Republicans and all 212 Democrats voted against him.
The House is now in its 16th day without a leader, which has left Congress unable to respond to the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, or to take action to head off a partial government shutdown which will begin in less than a month without congressional action.
Jordan’s vote total of 199 was less than the 200 Republican votes he secured on Tuesday.
Republicans who control the chamber by a narrow 221-212 majority have been unable to unite behind a speaker candidate since a small faction of them ousted Kevin McCarthy on Oct. 3.
It was not immediately clear whether Jordan would mount a third attempt or clear the way for a fallback option that would give increased power to Rep. Patrick McHenry, who has been temporarily filling the speaker’s chair.
The idea has been floated by Republicans and Democrats, as well as two former Republican speakers, Newt Gingrich and John Boehner.
“We’ve got to decide today,” Jordan told reporters before the vote. “Both questions should be called. Let’s get an answer. We’ve been at this two weeks. The American people deserve to have their government functioning.”
One proposal submitted by Republican Representative Mike Kelly would name McHenry as speaker through Nov. 17 or until a permanent speaker is selected, which would remove uncertainty about his current ability to run the chamber. That temporary solution could also buy more time for Jordan to line up support for the job after that point.
Democrats, whose support would likely be crucial, have made clear they want Jordan out of the picture. “We want a bipartisan path forward. That does not involve Jim Jordan, who is a poster child for Republican extremism and a danger to our democracy,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Tuesday.
Jordan’s supporters say he would be an effective advocate for advancing conservative priorities in Washington, where Democrats control the White House and the Senate.
“I don’t think anybody in here on any issue of any substance would have to guess where Jim Jordan is going to stand. He doesn’t deceive. He doesn’t dissemble. He simply tells you straight up,” Republican Representative Tom Cole said as he nominated Jordan for speaker ahead of the vote.
But other Republicans have voted against him for a variety of reasons, including his positions on taxes, spending and disaster aid, and the strong-arm tactics of his supporters.
New Republican alternatives aside from McHenry could also emerge if Jordan does not pick up support. Potential candidates include Representative Tom Emmer, currently the No. 3 House Republican.
Jordan, a former wrestling coach, is a close ally of former President Donald Trump and a founder of the House Freedom Caucus.
Republicans rejected Rep. Jim Jordan for House speaker on a first ballot Tuesday, as an unexpectedly numerous 20 holdouts denied the hard-charging ally of Donald Trump the GOP majority needed to seize the gavel. More voting is expected as Jordan works to shore up support to replace the ousted Kevin McCarthy for the job but the House immediately went into recess as the firebrand leader of the GOP’s hard-right flank struggled to take a central seat of U.S. power.
After two weeks of angry Republican infighting since McCarthy was removed by hard-liners, the House vote quickly became a showdown for the gavel. Reluctant Republicans refused to give Jordan their votes, viewing the Ohio congressman as too extreme for the powerful position of House speaker, second in line to the presidency.
In all, 212 Democrats voted unanimously for their House leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, while 200 Republicans voted for Jordan and 20 for someone else. Jeffries has no chance of winning, and Jordan must pick up most of his GOP foes to win a majority.
The holdouts are a mix of pragmatists, ranging from seasoned legislators and committee chairs worried about governing to newer lawmakers from districts where their voters back home prefer President Joe Biden to Trump.
But with public pressure bearing down on lawmakers from Trump’s allies including Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, it’s unclear how long the holdouts can last. Jordan swiftly flipped dozens of detractors in a matter of days, shoring up Republicans who have few options left.
“Jim Jordan will be a great speaker,” the former president said outside the courthouse in Manhattan, where he is facing business fraud charges. “I think he’s going to have the votes soon, if not today, over the next day or two.”
The political climb has been steep for Jordan, the combative Judiciary Committee chairman and a founding member of the right-flank Freedom Caucus. He is known more as a chaos agent than a skilled legislator, raising questions about how he would lead. Congress faces daunting challenges, risking a federal shutdown if it fails to fund the government and fielding President Joe Biden’s requests for aid to help Ukraine and Israel in the wars abroad.
To seize the gavel, Jordan will need almost the full majority of his colleagues behind him in a House floor vote, as Democrats are certain to back their own nominee, Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. With the House Republican majority narrowly held at 221-212, Jordan can afford to lose only a few votes to reach the 217 majority threshold, if there are no further absences.
Jordan conferred immediately afterward with McCarthy, who fared nearly as badly in January, having lost almost as many votes on the first of what would become 15 ballots for the gavel.
As the somber roll call was underway, each lawmaker announcing their choice, the holdouts quickly surfaced. One, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a leader of the centrists, voted McCarthy, the ousted former speaker. Murmurs rippled through the chamber. Others voted for Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who was the party’s first nominee to replace McCarthy before he, too, was rejected by hardliners last week.
Making the official nominating speech was another top Trump ally, GOP conference chairwoman Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who drew from the lessons of the Old Testament before declaring Jordan will be “We the People’s speaker.”
On the other side of the aisle, Democrat caucus chairman Rep. Pete Aguilar of California nominated Jeffries and warned that handing the speaker’s gavel to a “vocal election denier” would be “a terrible message” at home and abroad. Aguilar recited all the times Jordan voted against various measures — abortion access, government aid and others, Democrats chanting “He said no!”
Upset that a small band of hard-liners have upended the House by ousting McCarthy, Republicans have watched their majority control of the chamber descend into public infighting. All House business has ground to a halt.
After a late-evening meeting Monday at the Capitol turned into a venting session of angry Republicans, Jordan acknowledged: “We’ve got a few more people to talk to, listen to.”
One holdout, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, said Jordan’s role in the runup to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his refusal to admit that Biden, a Democrat, won the 2020 election remained an issue.
“Jim, at some point, if he’s going to lead this conference during the presidential election cycle and particularly in a presidential election year … is going to have to be strong and say Donald Trump didn’t win the election and we need to move forward,” Buck said.
But Jordan can rely on Trump’s support as well as pressure on colleagues from an army of grassroots activists who recognize him from cable news and fiery performances at committee hearings. Republicans say it will be hard for rank-and-file lawmakers to oppose him in a public floor vote. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who engineered McCarthy’s ouster by a handful of hard-liners, publicly praised each lawmaker who has flipped to Jordan’s column — and berated those who have not.
“Thank you Rep. Ann Wagner!” Gaetz posted on social media, after the Missouri Republican announced her support.
One by one, others also announced their support. Still, it could take multiple rounds during House floor voting, not unlike in January when it took McCarthy 15 ballots to win the gavel.
Democrats have decried the far-right shift, calling Jordan the leader of the chaos wing of the GOP.
Jordan has been a top Trump ally.
Now the Republican Party’s front-runner to challenge Biden in the 2024 election, Trump backed Jordan to replace McCarthy early on and was working against the nomination of Scalise, who withdrew last week after colleagues rejected their own rules and failed to coalesce around him.use.
Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
The Department of Justice directed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss not to respond to congressional inquiries, according to an email provided exclusively to The Federalist. That same email stressed that under DOJ policy, only its Office of Legislative Affairs, or OLA, can respond to requests from the legislative branch.
Yet Weiss would later sign and dispatch a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in response to an inquiry sent directly to Attorney General Merrick Garland. And in that letter, Weiss misleadingly claimed he had “been granted ultimate authority over” the Hunter Biden investigation. The DOJ’s disregard of its own policy provides further proof that both Garland and Weiss intended to obfuscate the reality that Weiss never held the reins of the Hunter Biden investigation.
On May 9, 2022, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin wrote to Delaware U.S. Attorney Weiss inquiring about several aspects of the Hunter Biden investigation. After the senators sent a follow-up email to the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office requesting a response by week’s end, Delaware’s First Assistant U.S. Attorney Shannon Hanson asked the DOJ about protocol and then updated Weiss, stating in an email:
Consistent with my conversation with [redacted] last night, we are supposed to forward this and any other correspondence to OLA. Per DOJ policy, only OLA can respond on behalf of the Department to a request from the legislative branch.
On June 9, 2022, the OLA, as provided for in the DOJ’s policy, responded to Grassley and Johnson’s letter. The following month, Grassley and Johnson dispatched a second letter to Weiss, as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In an email reviewed by The Federalist, the Office of Legislative Affairs told Weiss’s office it would “take the lead on drafting a response” to Grassley and Johnson’s letter.
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project obtained these emails and the most recent one revealing the DOJ’s policy that only the “OLA can respond on behalf of the Department to a request from the legislative branch,” after its Director Mike Howell filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ. The email to Weiss summarizing the DOJ policy contained in this latest batch of court-ordered disclosures proves huge given the sequence of events that occurred earlier this year.
On May 25, 2023, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland questioning him about the removal of the IRS whistleblowers from the Hunter Biden investigation. Although Jordan directed his inquiry to Garland, on June 7, 2023, Weiss dispatched a letter to the House Judiciary chair, noting in his opening: “Your May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was forwarded to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department.”
Weiss then stated, as Garland had previously indicated, that he (Weiss) had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution…”
That Weiss would respond on behalf of Garland raised eyebrows at the time. Jordan noted “the unusual nature of your response on behalf of Attorney General Garland,” and asked for information concerning the names of individuals who drafted or assisted in drafting the June 7 letter, as well as details concerning the drafting and dispatching of the letter.
But now we know it wasn’t merely “unusual” for Weiss to respond on behalf of the attorney general — it was in apparent violation of the DOJ policy that only the OLA would respond to legislative inquiries. And it was that same policy that prevented Weiss from responding to the earlier questions posed by Johnson and Grassley directly to the Delaware U.S. attorney.
The content of Weiss’s June 7 letter provides a pretty clear answer for why the DOJ ignored its own policy and enlisted the Delaware U.S. attorney to respond to Jordan: Garland needed Weiss to verify what the attorney general had previously told Grassley during a March 1, 2023, hearing. During that hearing, Garland expressly stated that “the U.S. attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority … to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary.” Weiss’s assertion in the June 7 letter that he had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution…” seemingly confirmed Garland’s testimony.
Of course, as informed Americans now know, the release of the IRS whistleblower’s testimony — that Weiss claimed he was not the ultimate decisionmaker — forced the Delaware U.S. attorney to pen a follow-up letter to Jordan. In that June 30, 2023 sequel, Weiss, while purporting to stand by what he had previously written, contradicted his earlier representation that he had “been granted ultimate authority.” Instead, Weiss explained he had “been assured” that “if necessary,” he would be granted authority to charge Hunter Biden in any other district.
Having ultimate authority and being assured that you would be given ultimate authority if necessary are clearly two different things, yet Weiss gave cover for Garland in his June letters. Now we have further proof that the DOJ was behind those letters — otherwise, Weiss would be in violation of the department’s policy.
The DOJ did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment on Weiss’s apparent violation of the department’s policy.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion (forthcoming), National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prive—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
U.S. Attorney, now Special Counsel, David Weiss did not have full charging authority during the bulk of his federal investigation into Hunter Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland slyly admitted in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Garland’s confession contradicts his previous under-oath insistence that Weiss possessed all of the authority he needed to properly charge President Joe Biden’s youngest son with various tax and gun crimes, some of which extended to other jurisdictions.
“You said [Weiss] had complete authority but he’d already been turned down. He wanted to bring an action in the District of Columbia and the U.S. attorney there said ‘no, you can’t.’ And then you go tell the United States Senate under oath that he has complete authority,” Chairman Jim Jordan explained during the hearing.
“No one had the authority to turn him down,” Garland claimed. One second later, Garland divulged that those U.S. attorneys in fact “could refuse to partner with him.”
AG Merrick Garland just admitted that David Weiss did NOT have full authority during the Hunter Biden investigation.
Even after acknowledging Weiss’s attempts to charge Hunter were hampered by a U.S. attorney acting on behalf of the DOJ, Garland doubled down on his claims that the attorney “has full authority to conduct his investigation however he wishes.” He repeatedly invoked Weiss’s position as a Donald Trump appointee as proof that he was acting independently of the AG.
Despite the potential penalty of perjury, Garland claimed during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 1, 2023, that “the U.S. Attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority … to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary.”
In a June 7 letter to Jordan, Weiss appeared to confirm that “I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges.” In a subsequent June 30 letter, however, Weiss reversed his claim and declared that his charging authority “is geographically limited to my home district.”
Weiss’s June 30 clarification is consistent with testimony from IRS whistleblowers, including email documentation they recorded in 2022, and testimony from FBI agents. During the hearing, Garland attempted to discredit the agents’ attestations that the DOJ’s “cumbersome bureaucratic process” made it difficult for Weiss to charge Hunter by claiming “their description of the process as cumbersome is an opinion, not a fact.” He also claimed that Weiss’s letters “reflect that he had never asked me to be special counsel and that he understood the process for asking for a signature on a Section 515 form,” the form which Garland needed to sign for Weiss to prosecute outside of Delaware.
Weiss’s lack of jurisdiction was further confirmed in August when Garland named Weiss special counsel, an authority that allows the prosecutor to charge Hunter outside of Delaware. If Weiss truly did possess full autonomy in the Hunter case, as Garland dubiously declared on numerous occasions, he wouldn’t have needed the special counsel appointment to prosecute the president’s son. Garland still claimed he had made it clear that Weiss could bring a case in any jurisdiction with the attorney general’s blessing via a Section 515 form.
For most of the hearing, Garland tried to appear as a hands-off department head who let Weiss independently conduct his investigation. Republicans quickly saw through that facade when Garland immediately refused to disclose whether he had communications with Weiss about Hunter’s case.
.@RepMikeJohnson: "Under oath…your testimony is – you have not had any discussions with Mr. Weiss about this matter?"
GARLAND: "I do not intend to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations, whether or not I had them."
“There is no question that he can answer whether such conversations occurred,” legal scholar Jonathan Turley noted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “When Bill Barr testified as Attorney General he confirmed subjects even in communications with the President while declining details on conversations.”
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit and shared exclusively with The Federalist establish that on multiple occasions, the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to respond to congressional inquiries related to the Hunter Biden investigation. This revelation raises more questions about the June 7, 2023, letter dispatched to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan under Weiss’s signature line, in which the Delaware U.S. attorney claimed he had “ultimate authority” over charging decisions related to Hunter Biden. It also suggests Weiss and the DOJ may have conspired to mislead Congress.
Did the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs respond to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson’s May 9, 2022, letter seeking information concerning the Hunter Biden investigation? Weiss posed that question to one of his lead assistant U.S. attorneys, Shannon Hanson.
“Not to my knowledge,” Hanson replied, followed soon after with a second email noting that Joe Gaeta, the then-deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legislative Affairs, was working on a response. And although Grassley and Johnson had addressed their May 9, 2022, inquiry solely to Weiss, DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs would intercede on his behalf, responding in a letter dated June 9, 2022, that the DOJ would not respond to the questions posed.
The following month, Grassley and Johnson dispatched another letter requesting information related to the Hunter Biden investigation, addressing this letter to Weiss, as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Again, the Office of Legal Counsel intervened, telling Weiss’s office in an email reviewed by The Federalist that it would “take the lead on drafting a response” to Grassley and Johnson’s letter.
These never-before-seen emails establish the Department of Justice and U.S. attorney collaborated in responding to congressional inquiries and were among the first batch of documents provided to the Heritage Foundation following a court order last week in Heritage’s FOIA case against the DOJ. That court order required the DOJ to produce, by Aug. 25, 2023, all records collected from Weiss and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf that were responsive to the Heritage FOIA lawsuit.
Mike Howell, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, initiated the FOIA request and then filed suit against the DOJ after the Biden administration attempted to slow-walk the production. Howell told The Federalist the emails show that while Garland was claiming Weiss had the independence to bring whatever charges he wanted, Garland was “simultaneously running communications from Weiss to Grassley through the political controls of Main Justice.” “It is a slap in the face,” Howell said.
Significantly, the emails also call into question the veracity of a series of exchanges between Weiss and Jordan, beginning with Weiss’s June 7 response to the May 25, 2023, letter Jordan sent to Garland. In that May 25 letter, Jordan questioned Garland on the removal of the IRS whistleblowers from the Hunter Biden investigation.
Even though the House committee addressed that letter solely to Attorney General Garland, Weiss responded to the inquiry on June 7 in a letter, which opened: “Your May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was forwarded to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department.” Weiss then claimed that, as Garland had stated, the Delaware U.S. attorney had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution…”
Two more letters would soon follow, the first being to Weiss from Jordan on June 22. In that letter, Jordan reiterated the Judiciary Committee’s need for substantive responses, before asking Weiss for more details “in light of the unusual nature of your response on behalf of Attorney General Garland…” Specifically, Jordan asked for information concerning the names of individuals who drafted or assisted in drafting the June 7, 2023, letter, as well as details concerning the drafting and dispatching of the letter.
Weiss responded in a June 30 letter that he was not at liberty to provide substantive responses to the questions concerning an ongoing investigation. The Delaware U.S. attorney then sidestepped questions about the DOJ’s role in drafting the June 7 letter, stating only that he “would like to reaffirm the contents of the June 7 letter drafted by my office” — a statement representing that the Delaware office had composed the letter.
Weiss then proceeded to “expand” on what he meant when he said in his June 7 letter that he had ultimate charging authority, writing:
As the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging authority is geographically limited to my home district. If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case. If not, I may request Special Attorney status from the Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515. Here, I have been assured that, if necessary, after the above process, I would be granted § 515 Authority in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter.
Of course, having ultimate authority and being assured that you would be given ultimate authority, if need be, are two different things. But the scandal goes beyond Weiss not having the authority to charge Hunter Biden, to what clearly seems to be an attempt by the DOJ and Weiss to mislead Congress.
It’s important to remember that when Weiss sent the June 7 letter to Jordan, the whistleblowers’ transcripts had not yet been released. Thus, neither Weiss nor the DOJ knew the specifics of the whistleblowers’ testimony, leading them to represent to Congress that Weiss had ultimate decision-making authority — something Weiss would later have to massage. Weiss’s questionable statements didn’t end there, however. In the June 30 letter, Weiss represented to Congress that he had drafted the June 7 letter.
But why would Weiss draft the June 7 letter? That letter was not even addressed to Weiss. And the emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation establish that even when congressional oversight letters were addressed directly to the Delaware U.S. attorney, Weiss did not answer them. Instead, the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs intervened and spoke on his behalf.
There is a second reason to suspect Weiss did not draft the June 7 letter: the footnote reference in the correspondence to the Linder letter.
Tristan Leavitt, a former Capitol Hill staffer and the president of Empower Oversight, which is helping represent IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, told The Federalist that when he “worked on Capitol Hill (particularly on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which did regular oversight of the Justice Department), the Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs frequently referenced the otherwise-obscure Linder letter in response to congressional oversight.”
“It’s hard to imagine the letter was widely known outside of Justice Department headquarters,” Leavitt continued, “especially in U.S. attorneys’ offices, which almost never respond directly to congressional correspondence.”
Conversely, it is easy to imagine Main Justice drafting the June 7 letter on behalf of Weiss to provide Garland cover and to seemingly corroborate the attorney general’s Senate testimony that he had given Weiss full authority to make charging decisions in the Hunter Biden investigation.
That cover may soon be blown away, however, thanks to the Heritage Foundation.
“The only reason these documents are starting to trickle out is because we sued for transparency,” Howell told The Federalist. “We’ve faced taxpayer funded resistance at every step of the way and haven’t given up,” he added, noting that “the DOJ is under a judicial order to continue this production.”
The next round of responsive documents is due by Oct. 31, and since none of the documents produced to date include references to Jordan’s May 25, 2023, letter, it seems likely we’ll see those emails in the next batch — unless House Republicans seek access to them first through a subpoena.
This article has been updated since publication.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Part four of the “Facebook Files” published by Rep. Jim Jordan on Monday shows a top FBI agent who was coordinating censorship strategy with Silicon Valley tech companies may have committed perjury in November testimony.
FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, who serves as the bureau’s “main conduit between the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and Big Tech,” according to Jordan, was deposed last fall as a central player in the government censorship case Missouri v. Biden. Chan testified that he was only aware of one meeting between Facebook employees and the FBI about the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, but internal Facebook documents show him participating in an additional “secret follow-up call.”
THE FACEBOOK FILES PART 4. FBI LIED ABOUT MEETING WITH BIG TECH REGARDING NY POST’S HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY
Internal FB docs reveal that an FBI Special Agent made false statements in testimony about the FBI’s role in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story
In his November deposition, Chan admitted to an Oct. 14, 2020 meeting with officials at Facebook related to the first Hunter Biden laptop story published by the New York Post. The Post revealed emails from the laptop that indicated then-candidate Joe Biden had been lying when he claimed to have never spoken about Hunter’s business with him “or with anyone else.”
At the Oct. 14 meeting, Laura Dehmlow, the FBI’s section chief of the Foreign Influence Task Force, offered “no comment” when Facebook asked whether the laptop was real, Jordan explained. Facebook quickly announced it was “reducing” the “distribution” of the story until the platform completed a third-party fact check.
Dehmlow told House lawmakers in July that in a meeting with Twitter earlier on Oct. 14, someone from the FBI had acknowledged the laptop’s authenticity before other officials at the bureau switched their answer to “no comment.” That became the FBI’s official response when other companies such as Facebook asked whether the laptop was real, even though the agency had confirmed the laptop’s authenticity as early as November 2019, according to IRS whistleblowers.
In November, Chan recalled Dehmlow’s response at the Oct. 14 meeting where Dehmlow offered Facebook no comment on the legitimacy of the laptop. Chan told lawmakers that was his only meeting on the matter with the social media company. Internal records from the company made public by GOP House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, however, reveal another apparent meeting between Chan and Facebook employees.
One employee recalled having an Oct. 15 discussion with Chan as a “follow up” to the meeting with the Foreign Influence Task Force on Oct. 14. The employee asked Chan for any updates or changes on the legitimacy status of Hunter Biden’s laptop. While Chan testified in his deposition that he had “no internal knowledge” of the FBI’s investigation into the infamous laptop, records from Facebook reveal Chan told employees he “was up to speed on the current state of the matter within the FBI.”
Those weren’t Agent Chan’s only inconsistent statements. Agent Chan also claimed in the deposition that he had “no internal knowledge of [the FBI’s] investigation” involving Hunter Biden’s laptop. pic.twitter.com/eGf4gfx3wW
Previous installments of the “Facebook Files” exposed corporate-government collusion between Facebook and Biden White House officials collaborating to censor information about Covid-19, includingcontent that was “true.” Records show the Biden administration pressured Facebook to take down “humorous or satirical content that suggests the vaccine isn’t safe,” among other claims about side effects even if they were “true.”
In July, Chief Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana delivered a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, prohibiting administration officials from collaborating with tech titans to censor dissenting speech on social media platforms. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals later issued a stay on the injunction, with oral argument scheduled to take place Thursday, leaving federal officials free to continue working with tech companies to censor Americans online in the meantime.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
President Joe Biden’s White House demanded an increase of censorship from Facebook in 2021, new emails reveal — confirming once again that the administration believes Americans are stupid.
In part three of what he deemed the “Facebook Files,” Republican Rep. Jim Jordan released more communications obtained from Facebook detailing the immense pressure the Big Tech company received from the executive branch to limit what Americans saw online. Emails show Courtney Rowe, then-White House director of strategic communications and engagement for Covid-19 response, praising Facebook in April 2021 for offering the White House suppression data “broken down by region and demographics.” One sentence later, she petitioned the Big Tech company to answer, “how do we work with you all to push back on it[?]” because she believed that “if someone in rural Arkansas sees something on FB, it’s the truth.”
Jordan said Rowe “mocked Real America’s ability to determine what’s true and what isn’t” because the Biden administration “didn’t think you were smart enough to decide for yourself.”
In April 2021, Biden’s then-Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty also sent Facebook several suppression demands to censor right-wing commentators and publications. According to Flaherty, outlets like the Daily Wire are “polarizing” and not “authoritative news source[s].”
“You wouldn’t have a mechanism to check the material impact?” Flaherty questioned.
On behalf of the White House, Flaherty even asked Facebook to reduce visibility for the New York Post, which debuted reporting about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” and Biden family corruption six months earlier.
“I’m curious – NY Post churning out articles every day… What is supposed to happen to that from Policy perspective. Does that article get a reduction, labels?” Flaherty asked the censors.
Flaherty eventually concluded that his preference for controlling online speech was to convince Facebook to “kick people off” of the social media platform.
“We’re keen on what platforms are doing to reduce the spread of bad information, that platforms are not funneling people towards bad content,” Flaherty wrote. “That’s our primary concern.”
The censors at the Silicon Valley giant explained that they couldn’t “remove” every user or post deemed problematic by the White House but eventually agreed to demote certain posts even when the posts did not explicitly violate Facebook’s terms and conditions.
Facebook claimed that posts complaining about the “government overreach” of the Biden administration’s Covid jab mandates were reduced because they fed a “vaccine negative environment.”
“The company ADMITTED to the White House that it reduced content of certain posts – even if the posts didn’t violate the company’s terms and contained TRUE information,” Jordan explained.
Weaponizing the censorship industrial complex against Americans isn’t the only time Biden and his Democrat cronies have revealed their belief that Americans are stupid and can’t think for themselves. As early as 1988, Biden was telling voters to their faces that they were not credentialed enough to criticize him.
“I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect,” then-Sen. Biden infamously proclaimed to a voter who asked him to explain his lies about his academic track record.
The ruling regime’s contempt for Americans was made even more abundantly clear during the pandemic. While Democrats demonstrated their disdain for their voters with hypocritical visits to hair salons and fancy restaurants during the height of lockdowns, Biden tried to force Covid shots on hardworking Americans who he apparently thought were not educated well enough to thoughtfully reject the jab.
BIDEN: The choice to be unvaccinated "has been fueled by dangerous misinformation on cable tv… I call on the purveyors of these lies and misinformation to stop it. Stop it now." pic.twitter.com/gVKxunkrjK
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
The Biden administration’s war on so-called disinformation included a federal initiative to censor “malinformation,” information that is true but inconvenient to the Democrat ruling regime.
On Monday, lawmakers on the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government published an interim report on the Department of Homeland Security’s “disinformation” programs within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). According to the report, CISA “metastasized into the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media,” and has steadily expanded the scope of its censorship since 2018.
“In 2022 and 2023, in response to growing public and private criticism of CISA’s unconstitutional behavior, CISA attempted to camouflage its activities, duplicitously claiming it serves a purely ‘informational’ role,” the report reads.
CISA ultimately outsourced its dystopian censorship regime to third-party nonprofits and colluded with Big Tech companies to suppress information deemed incorrect or harmful to regime narratives. CISA, lawmakers wrote, “exploited its connections with Big Tech and government-funded non-profits to censor, by proxy, in order to circumvent the First Amendment’s prohibition against government-induced censorship.”
“This included the creation of reporting ‘portals’ which funneled ‘misinformation’ reports directly to social media platforms,” the report says.
The government’s disinformation efforts extended to the censorship of “malinformation,” defined by CISA as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
“In other words, malinformation is factual information that is objectionable not because it is false or untruthful, but because it is provided without adequate ‘context’ — context as determined by the government,” lawmakers explained.
According to their report, CISA tried to “disguise the true nature” of the agency’s work by “removing references to surveillance and censorship” from its website. President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice also interfered with CISA public records requests to stonewall congressional oversight. The select subcommittee is still waiting on CISA’s compliance with subpoenas.
The select subcommittee held a hearing on the federal government’s disinformation efforts in March featuring two journalists behind the “Twitter Files,” Substack reporters Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger.
“American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy,” Shellenberger told lawmakers. “The censorship industrial complex combines established methods of psychological manipulation, some developed by the U.S. military during the global war on terror with highly sophisticated tools from computer science.”
“We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation requests from every corner of government, from the FBI, the DHS, the HHS, DoD, the Global Engagement Center at State, even the CIA,” Taibbi added. “A focus of this fast-growing network … is making lists of people whose opinions, beliefs, associations or sympathies are deemed misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation. That last term is just a euphemism for ‘true but inconvenient.’”
MALINFORMATION = Information that’s TRUE, but INCOVENIENT.
Lawmakers made clear in their report Monday that the committee “will continue to investigate CISA’s and other Executive Branch agencies’ entanglement with social media platforms.”
The Department of Homeland Security isn’t the only agency in the Biden administration engaged in the censorship industry. The Biden State Department funded a “Disinformation Index” that blacklisted conservative websites from major advertisers.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
An independent nonprofit government watchdog that specializes in whistleblower protection sent letters to Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) this week with more evidence of misconduct by FBI leadership.
On Thursday, Empower Oversight submitted an affidavit of a new FBI whistleblower who came forward with allegations of improper intimidation by FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate. The whistleblower claimed that shortly after Abbate’s appointment in February 2021, Abbate threatened agency employees concerned about the bureau’s overblown response to the Jan. 6 Capitol demonstrations that same year. During a secure video conference, said the unnamed employee, Abbate called on agency staff with concerns about the bureau’s approach to the Jan. 6 riot to meet with the deputy director personally so he could, in the whistleblower’s words, “set them straight.”
“I have witnessed hundreds of Director [Secure Video Teleconference]s and have never seen a direct threat like that any other time,” the whistleblower said in the affidavit. “It was chilling and personal, communicating clearly that there would be consequences for anyone that questioned his direction.”
In May, House lawmakers on the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government heard from several other FBI whistleblowers who made similar claims about the conduct of agency leadership. Former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend, who filed for whistleblower protection in August, told the committee he raised concerns over the FBI’s reaction to the Capitol riot, which he thought “could have undermined potentially righteous prosecutions and may have been part of an effort to inflate the FBI’s statistics on domestic extremism.”
“I also voiced concerns that the FBI’s use of SWAT and large-scale arrest operations to apprehend suspects who were accused of nonviolent crimes and misdemeanors, represented by counsel, and who pledged to cooperate with the federal authorities in the event of criminal charges created an unnecessary risk to FBI personnel and public safety,” Friend said. “At each level of my chain of command, leadership cautioned that despite my exemplary work performance, whistleblowing placed my otherwise bright future with the FBI at risk.”
Garret O’Boyle, another former FBI special agent who filed for whistleblower protection, told lawmakers how he moved his family “halfway across the country” before the FBI suspended him for speaking out.
“They allowed us to sell my family’s home. They ordered me to report to the new unit when our youngest daughter was only two weeks old. Then, on my first day on the new assignment, they suspended me; rendering my family homeless and refused to release our household goods, including our clothes, for weeks,” O’Boyle said.
House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, led by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, have sought testimony from at least 16 FBI employees to probe agency misconduct related to whistleblower retaliation.
Empower Oversight made clear in a Thursday press release that “while the affiant doesn’t know and isn’t associated with Empower Oversight’s other FBI clients, the affidavit is relevant to FBI whistleblower cases that are currently under inspector general review.” According to the affidavit, Abbate’s threat goes against the bureau’s training for new employees who are taken for a tour of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to learn about the lessons for law enforcement.
“The message was this: when orders or policies are wrong, when we are told to do things that violate core values and principles, we must have the courage to ask difficult questions and raise objections. We should be able to do that without fear of being crushed,” the whistleblower said. “The Deputy Director’s threats sent the opposite message: Dissent will not be tolerated. If you question my response to January 6, I don’t want you in my FBI.”
“Abbate’s threat to employees was witnessed by numerous other FBI employees and constitutes evidence of intent to retaliate against any dissent,” said Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt. “This evidence can be independently corroborated by dozens, if not hundreds, of other FBI employees if congressional committees and the Justice Department Inspector General would investigate and document the results.”
The FBI has spent years stonewalling congressional oversight into agency conduct surrounding the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, Jordan re-upped demands for an FBI briefing over the two pipe bombs planted at the RNC and DNC. The FBI, according to former FBI Agent Kyle Seraphin in an interview with The Washington Times, knows what car the suspect used but hasn’t pursued the individual in question.
The pipe bombs, Seraphin added, were found inoperable.
The FBI has also refused to answer Republican lawmakers’ questions about the extent of the agency’s involvement at the Capitol on the day of the riot. Three months after The New York Times ran the headline, “No, there is no evidence that the F.B.I. organized the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,” the paper followed up with another in September 2021: “Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant.”
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee James Comer announced Monday that lawmakers will convene contempt hearings for FBI Director Christopher Wray later this week.
Speaking to reporters in a Capitol Hill press conference, the Kentucky representative charged the FBI with violating a congressional subpoena over an unclassified document. The FBI record purportedly implicates President Joe Biden in a $5 million-dollar bribery scheme with a “foreign national” from Biden’s time in the Obama administration.
“Anything short of producing these documents to the House Oversight Committee is not in compliance with the subpoena,” Comer warned last week.
The House Oversight chairman viewed the document in a secure SCIF at the Capitol on Monday after agency officials initially refused and demanded lawmakers travel to the FBI headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue.
“FBI officials confirmed that the unclassified FBI generated record has not been disproven and is currently being used in an ongoing investigation,” Comer said Monday. “At the briefing, the FBI again refused to hand over the unclassified record to the custody of the House Oversight Committee, and we will now initiate contempt of Congress hearings this Thursday.”
Comer noted the document “appears” to be used in an ongoing FBI probe “which I assume is in Delaware” and promised Congress’ own investigation is only in the “beginning” stages. Agency claims that the document can’t be released, however, are likely to be met with skepticism considering the FBI hired Igor Danchenko as an undercover informant to keep the lies around the Trump-Russia investigation quiet.
Republicans have threatened to hold Wray in contempt of Congress for weeks over the FBI chief’s refusal to hand over the requested record. Comer submitted a subpoena for the document with Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a primary watchdog of the Justice Department in the upper chamber.
“We believe the FBI possesses an unclassified internal document that includes very serious and detailed allegations implicating the current President of the United States,” Grassley wrote in May. “What we don’t know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these claims or investigate further. The FBI’s recent history of botching politically charged investigations demands close congressional oversight.”
While the FBI director faces contempt charges over the document implicating the president in a bribery scheme, the agency continues to stonewall congressional requests on a pair of pipe bombs found at the DNC and RNC headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio has demanded an FBI briefing on the pipe bomb investigation multiple times. According to Kyle Seraphin, a former FBI agent who worked on the case, the agency previously tracked down the suspect’s car but has not identified the culprit. The FBI also found both bombs to be inoperable.
Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sounded the alarm Friday about the Department of Justice’s credibility in investigating the Mar-a-Lago files. In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Ohio Republican said special counsel John Durham’s report on the “failings” of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has called the current DOJ probe into question. The department is investigating a trove of classified documents and sensitive correspondence discovered at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida.
“The special counsel’s report serves as a stark reminder of the need for more accountability and reforms within the FBI,” Jordan insisted, noting the agency’s “documented political bias” against conservatives.
“Accordingly, as Congress conducts oversight to inform these legislative reforms, we write to ensure the Justice Department acts to preserve the integrity and impartiality of ongoing investigations from the FBI’s politicized bureaucracy,” he added.
Jordan then asked Garland to reveal whether special counsel John L. Smith, who is overseeing the Mar-a-Lago investigation, “relies on any information or material gathered exclusively by the FBI prior to the special counsel’s appointment.”
The chairman expects an explanation about those matters by June 15.
He is also seeking to arrange a briefing with the committee about issues related to Durham’s report, including any new measures “implemented to address the misconduct described” by the special counsel.
It comes as President Joe Biden also undergoes a separate DOJ investigation into classified files found at his home outside Wilmington, Delaware, and his previous office at the University of Pennsylvania’s Biden Center.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, have fired off a letter to CIA Director Bill Burns renewing their requests for documents and phone records concerning the public statement on the Hunter Biden emails letter that was signed by 51 former intelligence community officials.
The House committees last week issued a report that revealed the October 2020 letter was perceived as being so partisan that many intelligence officers refused to sign it.
“On March 21, 2023, we wrote to you requesting documents in the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) custody relating to this statement about Hunter Biden,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “This statement, signed by former intelligence community officials using their official titles and emphasizing their national security credentials, suggested that public reporting about Hunter Biden’s business dealings and Biden family influence-peddling ‘ha[d] all the hallmarks of a Russian information operation.’
“We have since learned that the statement was drafted and disseminated following communications between former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell and Biden campaign adviser—now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken.”
Jordan and Turner wrote, after making a minimal production of documents May 9, “the CIA admitted that it did not perform a full and complete search of all agency records prior to that production.”
A May 12 phone conversation with House staff ended with the CIA committing to cooperate in full with the committees’ oversight.
Jordan and Turner wrote the CIA committed to:
Conducting an agency-wide search for documents and communications with each of the names of the 51 signatories to the public statement for the period Oct. 1-31, 2020.
Conducting a search for all documents and communications related to the approval of [former CIA employee] David Cariens’ memoir “Escaping Madness,” including but not limited to Cariens’ email(s) to the PCRB [Prepublication Classification Review Board] seeking approval of his work, any internal communications about the work, and any outgoing email responses from the PCRB to Cariens.
Conducting a search of all CIA phone records for the period Oct. 1-31, 2020, for any phone communications between CIA employees and any of the 51 signatories to the public statement, including but not limited to Cariens.
The lawmakers ended their May 16 letter by saying they expect all documents by May 30.
“If the CIA does not produce all responsive documents, the committees may resort to compulsory process,” Jordan and Turner wrote.
President Joe Biden and his family are at the center of an influence-peddling scheme in which they traded the patriarch’s decades of time in political offices to line their own pockets and then tried to cover up their profiteering with a myriad of complicated transactions and accounts, the House Oversight Committee confirmed during a press conference on Wednesday.
With the help of whistleblowers and congressional subpoenas, Republicans are confidently reporting that the Bidens received at least $10 million worth of diluted payments from foreign companies during and after the president’s time in the Obama White House.
These payments were diced up and transferred to a spread of Biden bank accounts within weeks of significant political action by the then-vice president in the country of the transactions’ origins.
“These complicated and seemingly unnecessary financial transactions appear to be a concerted effort to conceal the source and total amount received from the foreign companies,” the Oversight Committee’s latest memo warns.
At least nine Biden family members including the president’s son Hunter Biden, his brother James Biden, James’s wife, Hunter’s ex-girlfriend who is also his brother Beau Biden’s widow, Hunter’s ex-wife, Hunter’s current wife, and at least one grandchild and a couple of nieces and/or nephews profited from the funneling of funds.
“That’s odd,” Oversight Committee Chair James Comer said. “Most people with grandchildren, who work hard everyday, doesn’t get a wire from a foreign national or anything like that.”
The latest round of records, obtained by the Oversight Committee from four of the Bidens’ 12 apparent banks, detail yet another round of these payments — this time from China and Romania to the Bidens.
One $3 million payment came from the company of Gabriel Popoviciu, who is the subject of a criminal corruption probe in Romania, to the accounts of Biden family associate Rob Walker mere weeks after Biden, then-vice president, welcomed Romanian leaders to the White House to discuss “anti-corruption efforts” and just more than a year after Biden lectured in Romania about the threat corruption poses to national security. Those transactions were quickly funneled to Owasco (one of Hunter’s 15 companies), a Biden associate’s company, one of Hunter’s personal bank accounts, Hallie Biden, and “an unknown Biden bank account.”
The Romanian payments, the Oversight Committee alleges, further prove that the Bidens’ influence peddling operation was in full swing while Biden facilitated foreign policy discussions, especially in Eastern Europe, during the Obama administration.
The newest Romanian payment dilution strongly resembles how the Bidens appeared to use their more than a dozen companies to coordinate with Chinese nationals suspected of close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and “engage in financial deception.”
“The purpose of all these companies being created is to conceal money that the Biden family has been gaining because Joe Biden has been sitting at the upper echelon of our politics for almost five decades. That is the entire purpose here,” Rep. Byron Donalds explained on Wednesday.
These companies receiving funds from foreign nationals, the Republican asserted, serve no legitimate purpose other than enriching the president, his family, and his business associates.
“Joe Biden has no business, except his position in politics,” Donalds concluded.
“If it looks complicated and sounds complicated, it was intentionally made to be complicated so you could not follow the money,” Republican Rep. Nancy Mace added during her talking time. “What we’re trying to do today is show you how to follow the money.”
During a presidential debate in October 2020, Biden told the nation that neither he nor any of his family members profited from overseas business deals with companies connected to communist China.
“My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China. I have not had—The only guy who made money from China is this guy [Donald Trump]. He’s the only one. Nobody else has made money from China,” Biden said.
COMER: “President Biden has claimed since the 2020 election that his family has not received money from China. That was a lie in 2020 — and he continues to lie to the American people now.”
Despite the fact that the Oversight Committee has repeatedly proven Biden’s denials wrong with bank records detailing millions of dollars worth of transactions from foreign shell companies to the president’s family, the White House refuses to do anything but double down on the lie.
“House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is loudly and proudly broadcasting a press conference today to continue his long pattern of making absurd claims that President Biden has made governing decisions not in the interest of America, but of the Chinese Communist Party, using baseless claims, personal attacks, and innuendo to try to score political points,” White House spokesman Ian Sams told Fox News, after smearing the committee’s latest memo as an “absurd innuendo [that] ignores reality.”
The Oversight Committee once again rejected these claims on Wednesday and refuted them with hard evidence that several Biden family members, including Hunter, James, Hallie, an unknown “Biden,” and companies linked to the family “collectively received $1.3 million in payments” from Walker, whose company was paid millions by Chinese firm State Energy HK Limited, implicating the family in selling political favors to China.
The Biden family received the money via several bank transfers within six months of the vice president departing the Obama White House. Comer said in April that his committee still did not know who the unnamed Biden was in the China transaction because the Biden family holds so many bank accounts and LLCs.
“The Biden family needs to answer for this and the DOJ needs to get off its ass and investigate. We’ve done the work for them so that they can’t screw it up. Now, if these allegations, any of these allegations are proven true then someone with the last name Biden needs to be charged, prosecuted, and maybe spend a little time in prison,” Mace said at the conclusion of her remarks.
Last week, Republicans Sen. Chuck Grassley and Comer subpoenaed the FBI over a document they say alleges a criminal scheme between now-President Joe Biden and a “foreign national” during his years in the Obama White House.
The Oversight Committee led by Comer, who previously warned it “doesn’t look good for POTUS,” promised to continue investigating whether Biden sold out the American people to the nation’s foreign enemies to line family’s pockets.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
A federal judge on Wednesday denied Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s request for a court order to prevent the House Judiciary Committee from questioning a former prosecutor involved in the investigation of Donald Trump. Bragg, however, didn’t just lose on the merits. The court’s 25-page order eviscerated the Manhattan D.A. — and his former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz.
Two weeks ago, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, issued a subpoena directing Pomerantz to appear before the House Judiciary Committee at 10:00 on April 20, 2023. Pomerantz was previously a special assistant district attorney before abruptly resigning because Bragg had allegedly decided not to seek criminal charges against Trump.
Bragg responded to news of the subpoena by directing Pomerantz not to provide any information about his prior work to the Judiciary Committee. He also filed a complaint in federal court against Jordan and the committee, seeking an order declaring the Pomerantz subpoena invalid. Bragg simultaneously sought entry of a temporary restraining order to freeze the subpoena pending resolution of his lawsuit.
On Wednesday, federal Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Bragg’s request to stop the Judiciary Committee from questioning Pomerantz. “Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law,” Vyskocil wrote in a transparent swipe at the New York prosecutor who hung his pathetic indictment on that platitude.
While Bragg posited that the Judiciary Committee lacked a valid legislative purpose to issue the subpoena, Vyskocil rejected that argument. Congressional committees have the constitutional authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, the court explained, and the court’s role is “strictly limited to determining only whether the subpoena is ‘plainly incompetent or irrelevant’” to any legitimate committee purpose. Because Jordan and the committee identified several valid legislative purposes underlying the subpoena, the court held Bragg could not quash it.
The court also held that the “speech or debate clause,” which provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House,” Senators and Representatives “shall not be questioned in any other Place,” likely would prevent Bragg from suing Jordan and the committee.
Vyskocil also rejected Bragg’s argument that requiring Pomerantz to submit to questioning would infringe on the attorney-client and work-product privilege the Manhattan D.A.’s office held regarding communications Pomerantz was privy to. Here, the court stressed that the indictment of Trump occurred long after Pomerantz had resigned and that any privilege that may have existed was likely waived by Pomerantz publishing his book, “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.”
“As its subtitle indicates, the book recounts Pomerantz’s insider insights, mental impressions, and his front row seat to the investigation and deliberative process leading up to” the Trump indictment, the court wrote. Yet Bragg did next to nothing to stop the publication of the book. Under these circumstances, “Bragg cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure,” the court concluded.
It Gets Better
The court’s conclusion, however, wasn’t the highlight of the decision. Rather it was Vyskocil’s summary of how the country arrived at a place where it sees a state prosecutor filing a complaint in federal court against the House Judiciary Committee that includes 35 pages and a vast majority of exhibits that “are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
That descriptor alone should give pause to anyone still believing Bragg’s indictment of Trump was righteous. But the opinion highlighted many more facts that confirm the targeting of Trump was a witch hunt.
For instance, it included many excerpts from Pomerantz’s book showing the criminal charges against Trump were ridiculous. So-called “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels “did not amount to much in legal terms,” Pomerantz wrote. “Paying hush money is not a crime under New York State law, even if the payment was made to help an electoral candidate.”
The book excerpts quoted by the court included numerous additional problems Pomerantz saw with the legal theory Bragg eventually relied upon in charging Trump. Trump and his legal team have been highlighting these same many flaws. And now a federal judge just told the country that the “very experienced, sophisticated, and extremely capable attorney” Pomerantz — who had wanted to charge Trump — agreed with all (or most) of Trump’s legal arguments.
The court also noted that Pomerantz was a “pro bono” attorney for the Manhattan D.A.’s office. This should strike the public as strange, especially in light of the well-heeled credentials the opinion highlighted: his clerkship at the Supreme Court, his work as a federal prosecutor, and his many years as a criminal defense attorney and partner at the prominent New York City law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
While the court omitted any mention of Paul, Weiss’ connections to the Biden administration and Democrats, referring to Pomerantz’s “pro bono” status should raise some red flags.
If not, Vyskocil was more explicit elsewhere in the opinion, such as when she said she was “unmoved by Bragg’s purported concern at the prospect of ‘inject[ing] partisan passions into a forum where they do not belong.’”
“By bringing this action, Bragg is engaging in precisely the type of political theater he claims to fear,” the court wrote.
Beyond chastising Bragg for playing politics, Vyskocil rebuked him for his legal arguments, most devastatingly when Bragg argued the court should quash the subpoena of Pomerantz to ensure the grand jury’s secrecy.
“The secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the pending criminal case was compromised before the indictment was even announced,” Vyskocil countered, citing CNN’s coverage of the charges against Trump based on leaks.
The court also unleashed a few zingers on Pomerantz. While Pomerantz complains he is in a “legally untenable position” because he will be forced to make a choice between “legal or ethical consequences” or “potential criminal and disciplinary exposure,” the court “notes that Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by authoring a book that he has described as ‘appropriate and in the public interest.’”
And in response to Pomerantz making “it abundantly clear that he will seek to comply with Bragg’s instructions” not to respond to the subpoena, the court remarked that Pomerantz “claimed deference to the District Attorney’s command is a surprising about-face, particularly given that Pomerantz previously declined the District Attorney’s request to review his book manuscript before publication.”
What Next?
Those already well-versed in the outrageousness of the indictment will take delight in the court’s ripostes. The question remains, however, whether the opinion’s detailed summary of the flaws in Bragg’s legal theory — as identified by Pomerantz himself — will convince the remainder of the country that the indictment is a sham. Or will they discard Vyskocil’s decision as a Trump-appointee diatribe?
Maybe it will take the Judiciary Committee questioning Pomerantz on those precise weaknesses for the unconvinced to realize that once again Trump is right — it is a witch hunt.
We should know soon whether the questioning will go forward and whether Pomerantz will respond to the questions or follow Bragg’s directive. But if the latter, both Bragg and Pomerantz will find themselves back in front of Vyskocil because the Trump appointee wisely ruled that any future disputes related to the Pomerantz subpoena or other subpoenas related to the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry must be filed in the same case mater.
Vyskocil’s devastating conclusion likely caused Bragg as much heartache as her denial of his motion to declare the subpoena of Pomerantz invalid. For Bragg knows that absent reversal by the Second Circuit, the same outcome awaits further challenges of the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena power.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Most committee hearings flounder because politicians waste time grandstanding, but lawmakers shouldn’t squander the chance to ask insightful questions of the ‘Twitter Files’ witnesses.
Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger testify on Thursday before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Little they say will be new, yet because corporate media have refused to cover the story, many Americans remain ignorant about the massive scandals Taibbi, Shellenberger, and the other independent journalists have revealed over the last three months in the “Twitter Files.”
Here’s what the House committee must do to break the cone of silence.
Introduce Taibbi and Shellenberger to Americans
Most Americans know little about Taibbi and Shellenberger, allowing the left to execute its go-to play when faced with inconvenient facts: call the messengers members of a right-wing conspiracy. The House’s weaponization committee should thus ensure the public knows neither Taibbi nor Shellenberger can be written off as conservative conspirators, much less “ultra MAGA.”
Hopefully, the two witnesses for the majority party will ensure their opening statements detail their non-conservative “credentials” — something Taibbi has attempted to do on Twitter, writing: “I’m pro-choice and didn’t vote for Trump,” and noting he is an independent.
Taibbi’s work covering politics for Rolling Stone and his “incisive, bilious takedowns of Wall Street,” as well as past appearances on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC, and his work with Keith Olbermann, are the non-conservative credentials Americans need to hear.
Shellenberger’s biography likewise confirms he is no right-winger or Trump surrogate. Time Magazine named him “Hero of the Environment.” “In the 1990s, Shellenberger helped save California’s last unprotected ancient redwood forest, inspire Nike to improve factory conditions, and advocate for decriminalization and harm reduction policies,” his webpage reads — details helpful to highlight for the listening public.
If Taibbi and Shellenberger’s prepared testimony omits these and other details, Chair Jim Jordan should open the hearing by asking the witnesses to share with the country their political and policy perspectives and then push them on why all Americans should care about the “Twitter Files.”
Here, the committee and its witnesses need to remind Americans of the importance of free speech and that the silencing of speech harms the country, even when it is not the government acting as the censor. (In fact, I would argue it is precisely because our country has lost a sense of the importance of free speech that the government successfully outsourced censorship to Twitter.)
Guide Them So They Tell a Coherent Story
Next, the questioning will begin. Unfortunately, here’s where most committee hearings flounder because politicians prefer to pontificate than pose insightful questions to their witnesses. But in the case of the “Twitter Files,” Republicans can do both because the witnesses have already provided detailed answers to much of what the country needs to know in the nearly 20 installments they published over the last several months.
Thus the goal of the committee should be to provide a platform that allows the witnesses to tell the story of the scandals uncovered. Ideally, then, committee members will lead the witnesses through their testimony as if each question represents the opening paragraph of a chapter, with Taibbi and Shellenberger given the floor to provide the details.
Start at the Beginning, the Best Place to Start
Committee members will all want to focus on the most shocking discoveries, such as the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the government’s demands to silence unapproved Covid messages. But those events merely represent symptoms of the diseased state of free speech Taibbi and Shellenberger uncovered, and the latter represents the real threat to our country.
Democrats, independents, and apolitical Americans will also be inclined to immediately write off the hearings as political theater if Republicans immediately flip to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and Covid messaging. Both are important parts of the story, but Americans first need to understand the context.
Begin there: After Elon Musk purchased Twitter, he provided Taibbi, Shellenberger, and other independent journalists access to internal communications. What communications were accessible? What types of emails did the journalists review? How many? What else remains to explore?
Buckets of Scandals
The story will quickly progress from there, but how?
While the committee could walk Taibbi and Shellenberger through each of their individual “Twitter Files” reports, the better approach would be to bucket the scandals because each thread the journalists wrote included details that overlapped with earlier (and later) revelations.
Remember: The scandals are not merely the “events,” such as the blocking of the New York Post’s coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Rather, they go back to first principles — in this case, the value of free speech.
Twitter’s Huge Censorship Toolbox
Moving next to what Taibbi called Twitter’s “huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user,” the House committee should ask the witnesses to expand on those tools, which include “Search Blacklist,” “Trends Blacklist,” “Do Not Amplify” settings, limits on hashtag searches, and more.
What were those tools? How often were they used and why? Did complaints from the government or other organizations ever prompt Twitter to use those visibility filters? Were official government accounts ever subjected to the filters? If so, why?
Twitter-Government Coordination
The natural next chapter will focus on any coordination between Twitter and the government. Again, the “Twitter Files” exposed the breadth and depth of government interaction with the tech giant — from FBI offices all over the country contacting Twitter about problematic accounts to, as Taibbi wrote, Twitter “taking requests from every conceivable government agency, from state officials in Wyoming, Georgia, Minnesota, Connecticut, California, and others to the NSA, FBI, DHS, DOD, DOJ, and many others.”
Internal communications also showed the CIA — referred to under the euphemism “Other Government Agencies” in the emails — working closely with Twitter as well. Other emails showed Twitter allowed the Department of Defense to run covert propaganda operations, “whitelisting” Pentagon accounts to prevent the covert accounts from being banned. The multi-agency Global Engagement Center, housed in the Department of State, also played a large part in the government’s efforts to prompt the censorship of speech.
Both the Biden and Trump administrations reached out to Twitter as well, seeking the removal of various posts, as did other individual politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
To keep the conversation coherent, the committee should catalog the various government agencies, centers, and individuals revealed in the “Twitter Files” and ask the witnesses how these government-connected individuals or organizations communicated with Twitter, how they pressured Twitter, the types of requests they made, and their success.
The “Twitter Files” detailed censorship requests numbering in the tens of thousands from the government. Asking the witnesses to expand on those requests and how individual Americans responded when they learned they were supposedly Russian bots or Indian trolls will make the scandal more personal.
Non-Governmental Organizations
Questioning should then proceed to the non-governmental organizations connected to Twitter’s censorship efforts. Again, the committee should first provide a quick synopsis of the revelations from the “Twitter Files,” highlighting the involvement of various nonprofits and academic institutions in the “disinformation” project, including the Election Integrity Partnership, Alliance Securing Democracy (which hosted the Hamilton 68 platform), the Atlantic Council’s Center for Internet Security, and Clemson University.
What role did these organizations play? Have you reviewed all of the communications related to these groups? Were there other non-governmental organizations communicating with Twitter? How much influence did these groups have?
Disinformation About Disinformation
The story should continue next with testimony about the validity of the various disinformation claims peddled to Twitter. Internal communications showed Twitter insiders knew the Hamilton 68 dashboard’s methodology was flawed. Other emails indicated Twitter experts found the claims of Russian disinformation coming from Clemson, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, and the Global Engagement Center questionable.
Highlighting these facts and then asking the witnesses to elaborate on the revelations, organization by organization, will advance the story for the public.
Funding Sources
Next up should be the funding of those organizations, which came from government grants and often the same few private organizations. Here the Committee should ask Taibbi the status of his research on the financing of these organizations — something the journalist indicated last month he is delving into.
Taibbi also suggested the Global Engagement Center’s funding should be looked at in the next budget. Why? What should the House know before it makes future budget decisions?
Connecting the Censorship Complex Dots
After these details have been discussed, the committee should connect the dots as Taibbi did when he wrote: “What most people think of as the ‘deep state’ is really a tangled collaboration of state agencies, private contractors and (sometimes state-funded) NGOs. The lines become so blurred as to be meaningless.”
Read that quote — and other powerful ones from either the emails or the journalists covering the story — to the witnesses. Hopefully, staffers already have the best quotes blown up and ready for tomorrow.
Can you explain what you mean, here, Mr. Taibbi? What “state agencies”? What NGOs? Mr. Shellenberger, do you agree? What governmental or non-governmental players did you see involved?
What Was the Media’s Role?
Asking the witnesses about the media’s involvement will then close the circle on the big picture, which is ironic given the press’s role in circular reporting — something even Twitter recognized. Hamilton 68 or the Global Engagement Center would announce Russian disinformation and peddle it to the press, Twitter, and politicians. Then when Twitter’s review found the accounts not concerning, politicians would rely on the press’s coverage to bolster the claims of disinformation and pressure Twitter to respond. And even when Twitter told the reporters (and politicians) the disinformation methodologies were lacking, the media persisted in regurgitating claims of Russian disinformation.
Can you explain how the press responded when Twitter told reporters to be cautious of the Hamilton 68 database? What precisely did Twitter say? Did you find similar warnings to the media about the Global Engagement Center’s data?
Specific Instances of Censorship
Then the committee should focus on specific instances of censorship, with the Hunter Biden laptop story and Covid debates deserving top billing.
While Republicans care most about the censorship of the laptop story, this committee hearing is not the place to put the Biden family’s pay-to-play scandals on trial. Rather, Americans need to understand four key takeaways: The laptop was real, the FBI knew it was real, the FBI’s warnings to Twitter and other tech giants prompted censorship of the Post’s reporting, and the legacy media were complicit in silencing the story. Having the witnesses explain why Twitter censored the story with the goal of conveying those points will be key.
However, highlighting the censorship of Covid debates offers a better opportunity to cross the political divide of the country and to convince Americans that the hand-in-glove relationship between media and government threatens everyone’s speech. Stressing that both the Trump and Biden administrations pushed Twitter to censor Covid-related speech will also bolster that point.
The committee should start by summarizing the various Covid topics considered verboten — the virus’ origins, vaccines, natural immunity, masking, school closings — and then stress that the science now indicates the speech silenced was correct. Highlighting specific tweets that were blocked and medical professionals who were axed from the platform, while asking the witnesses to explain how this happened, will show the public the real-world implications of a Censorship Complex governing debate in America.
Where Do We Go from Here?
The committee should close by giving Taibbi and Shellenberger the floor, asking: “Where do we go from here?”
The “Twitter Files” revealed that the government and its allies did not limit their efforts to Twitter but pushed censorship at other platforms, and also that a new “cottage industry” in disinformation has already launched. How do Americans know they are hearing the truth? How do we know the government is not manipulating or censoring the truth?
Furthermore, if the same Censorship Complex that limits speech on social media succeeds in canceling alternative news outlets, and if the legacy media won’t provide a check on the government, how do we preserve our constitutional republic?
That last question is not for tomorrow’s witnesses, however. It is for every American.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is planning a series of training sessions for House Republican committee staffers in what’s viewed as the party’s next step to prepare for post-midterm investigations. McCarthy and House Administration Committee ranking member Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois sent an email Tuesday morning to staffers inviting them to the upcoming sessions, dubbed “informational briefing(s).” The email, obtained by the Daily Caller, is titled “Oversight Education Series: Investigations 101” and the briefings are designed to ready House committee staffers for conducting oversight, a person familiar with the House Republicans’ plans explained to the Caller.
“Leader Kevin McCarthy and Ranking Member Rodney Davis would like to invite you to attend this informational briefing with Jon Skladany, Chief Oversight Counsel for the Committee on Financial Services, and Rachel Kaldahl, Republican Staff Director for the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight,” the email reads. “This briefing will review the basics of performing effective oversight investigations and will highlight best practices to fulfill Congress’s Constitutional oversight obligations.”
The first “Investigations 101” briefing is slated for the afternoon of July 22, according to the email. McCarthy will also host a second briefing Sept. 8 and a third Sept. 26.
The GOP has a long list of oversight investigation topics should they take over the House post-midterms, the person familiar with Republicans’ plans said. The investigations list, the Caller previously reported, includes border policies implemented under the Biden administration, the origins of COVID-19, and the administration’s reaction in testing, opening schools, and its dismissal of natural immunity. The person familiar with Republicans’ plans also said the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract at the Department of Defense (DOD) is on the investigations list.
Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, arrives with wife Melissa Cohen Biden prior to President Biden awarding Presidential Medals of Freedom during a ceremony in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 7, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Republican lawmakers have been outspoken on their plans to investigate some of these topics. McCarthy, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and Kentucky Rep. James Comer wrote an op-ed published July 1 by the New York Post about investigating Hunter Biden. Comer and Jordan would play leading roles in any investigations of the Biden administration, since they are slated to head the Oversight and Judiciary committees, respectively.
Republicans have already sent “hundreds of preservation notices throughout different parts of the Biden Administration,” the person familiar with the plans said. These preservation notices serve as a request that various documents relevant to a case be preserved, and some have been publicly touted by the party in recent months.
“We’re just laying the groundwork now, we’re going to keep sending our letters. I would imagine at some point … those letters are repackaged and we say, ‘Hey, you did not respond to this request we sent you six months ago. We expect you to turn over these documents,’” the Republican Oversight Committee aide told the Caller.
“We’re just getting ready. We keep conducting oversight … We’ll be ready to roll in January with several investigations already prepared to go,” the aide added.
Preservation letters and informational briefings appear to be just the start in the GOP’s prep for an anticipated House takeover. A senior Republican aide told the Caller that preparation for the majority will likely “kick into full gear once August recess rolls around.”
“It’s expected that House Republicans will flood the Biden Administration with [more] preservation notices and requests that will help jump-start GOP investigations come 2023,” this senior aide said, specifying that there will be “way, way more” preservation notices in the near future.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland are two cabinet officials that Republicans are honing in on for impeachment, according to the senior aide. Axios reported in April on the initial plan to impeach Mayorkas, noting at the time that “many committee members” support the move. Meanwhile, Jordan has not publicly ruled out trying to impeach Mayorkas, The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.
“That’ll be a decision that will be made by the entire conference,” Jordan told the Free Beacon.
As Republicans lay the groundwork for a flood of investigations, the Biden administration is also reportedly busy prepping their defense, according to an article published by The Washington Post in April. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller.
“Senior officials have begun strategizing on how various White House departments, especially the counsel’s office, may be restructured to respond to an onslaught of investigative requests if Democrats lose control of the House or the Senate in November’s midterm elections, as many in both parties expect,” The Washington Post reported.
The White House has also brought on new staffers recently in the hopes that they’ll aid in responding to the various GOP probes, according to The Washington Post. Some of these staffers, like President Joe Biden’s current senior adviser, Anita Dunn, are well known to the president.
“White House officials say their preparations are hardly surprising, given the Democrats’ narrow majorities in Congress and the uncertain outcome of the midterm elections,” The Washington Post reported. “Biden officials also said the White House Counsel’s Office had been structured to respond to Republican oversight efforts from the beginning.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he would pull every Republican member from the House Select Committee to look into the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rejected the recommendations of Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, two sources familiar told the Daily Caller.
Pelosi released a Wednesday statement two days after McCarthy selected a group of five Republicans to serve on the House Select Committee. McCarthy’s Republican picks include Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, North Dakota Rep. Kelly Armstrong and Texas Rep. Troy Nehls.
“Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee. I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation. I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members,”Pelosi said in the statement.
“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee. The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” Pelosi added.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks at a press conference on the INVEST in America Act on June 30, 2021 in Washington, DC. The act directs federal funding into repairing roads and bridges and improving transit systems around the country. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Pelosi announced in late June that she would be establishing the select committee. The House then approved a resolution to form the committee weeks after Senate Republicans killed a bipartisan commission in late May. The House Select Committee announced it will hold its first hearing July 27. The resolution authorized Pelosi to select eight members to serve on the committee and McCarthy to select five. The resolution ended up passing in the House 222 to 190, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in voting in favor. Those two Republicans were Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney.
Pelosi picked her panelists. One of them is Cheney.
Pelosi also selected Democratic Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, California Rep. Adam Schiff, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Rep. Pete Aguilar, Virginia Rep. Elaine Luria and Florida Rep. Stephanie Murphy.
McCarthy announced his opposition to a Jan. 6 commission in May. McCarthy has said he would like the commission to investigate violence committed by Black Lives Matter and Antifa throughout the summer of 2020, as well as the Capitol riot.
“Putting Adam Schiff and Raskin on it looks more like an impeachment committee than one that wants to get to the bottom of the questions that are still out there,” McCarthy said in an interview with Fox News.
Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan is demanding answers from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas regarding how the Biden administration is enforcing federal law in Portland, Oregon, according to two letters obtained by the Daily Caller.
The letters, sent Monday, note that “anarchists and violent left-wing extremists continue to vandalize and destroy federal property in Portland.” The city experienced over one hundred days of consecutive unrest following the death of George Floyd in May 2020 and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was recently forced to re-install fencing around the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse just days after it was removed due to attacks on the building.
Jordan cited journalist Andy Ngo’s February 2021 testimony in front of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in both letters. He noted that Ngo testified about “antifa and left-wing anarchists” developing “a riot apparatus that included streams of funding for accommodation, travel, riot gear, and weapons, which resulted in a murder, hundreds of arson attacks, mass injuries, and mass property destruction.”
In the letter to Mayorkas, the Ohio lawmaker requested an explanation on what the DHS or the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is doing “to protect federal personnel and federal property”in the city. The letter also asked for explanation on what is being done to prevent further destruction to federal property as well as whether the DHS “still believes that it has the authority, the mission, and the intent to enforce federal law and protect federal property in Portland.”
“The Biden administration has a duty to ensure federal law is enforced and that both federal property and federal personnel are protected and kept safe from violent extremists in Portland,” Jordan wrote in both letters.
Jordan’s letter to Garland focused on the Department of Justice (DOJ) and asked for information regarding efforts surrounding identifying and prosecuting individuals responsible for the attacks on federal property and law enforcement. He also requested transparency with the DOJ’s plans to prevent further attacks, asked for clarification on whether the department still blames the city for allowing the unrest and wondered whether it stands by its previous characterization of “peaceful protesters.”
Former Attorney General William Barr said in 2020 that “peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers,” according to Jordan’s letter. The DOJ named Portland as one of the cities that has “permitted violence and destruction of property to persist”in Sept. 2020.
Jordan gave Garland and Mayorkas until 5:00 p.m. on April 12, 2021 to respond to the letters. The letters come amid continued unrest in Portland, Oregon.
The city approved cuts to its police department in 2020 and the current cost of repairs to various federal buildings in the city reportedly sits at around $2.3 million, Jordan noted.
Neither Garland nor Mayorkas’s offices immediately responded to a request for comment from the Daily Caller. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler, who was included on both letters, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Denouncing partisan hypocrisy, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio slammed Democrats on Wednesday for their use of a double standard when it comes to objecting to an election.
Jordan spoke as the House moved forward with the process of impeaching President Donald Trump, citing last week’s Capitol incursion and Trump’s words and action before, during and after the violence. Jordan is among the Republicans opposing impeachment, which is likely to pass the House. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said impeachment is unlikely to make it on the Senate calendar until after Trump’s term in office has ended.
Jordan said that Republicans who last week wanted to voice objections to the Electoral College vote that gave President-elect Joe Biden his victory were only doing something Democrats have done before.
Advertisement – story continues below
“In his opening remarks, the Democrat chair of the Rules Committee said that Republicans last week voted to overturn the results of an election. Guess who the first objector was on Jan. 6, 2017? First objector: the Democrat chairman of the Rules Committee,” Jordan said, referring to Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.
“And guess which state he objected to? Alabama. The very first state called. Alabama. President Trump, I think, won Alabama by like 80 points,” Jordan said, before consulting notes and saying that Trump in fact won the state by 30 points.
Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.
Trump defense team member and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan reacts to House managers’ arguments during trial. House Freedom Caucus member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., offered his assessment of President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial during a Thursday appearance on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”
Jordan said Lead Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is not proving Trump guilty of any crime, or any act that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, or one that would warrant his expulsion from office. He added that the case laid out by Schiff and his team amounts to little more than “assumptions, presumptions and hearsay.”
“They don’t have the facts,” he said. “They make things up. Frankly, it should not surprise us. Adam Schiff is the guy who told us for two years, ‘I have more than circumstantial evidence that President Trump worked with Russia to influence the election’. That was not true.”
He said Schiff has not been entirely forthright or accurate with details of the case. He said Schiff declared that a relevant 2016 FISA court process was adequate — but Inspector General Michael Horowitz ruled otherwise.
“Mr. Horowitz told us they lied to the FISA courts 17 times,“ Jordan said.
“Adam Schiff [also] said we would hear from the whistleblower.” To date, that has not happened.
“The facts are solidly on the president’s side,” he continued. “The Constitutional principles is on the president’s side and the unfair process is another great argument the White House can make because what they did in the House [impeachment inquiry] was very unfair to the president.”
Earlier Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., accused Trump of placing his own personal interests above national security and American democracy and charged that Trump was the only president in history to violate his oath of office so flagrantly.
“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections. Prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct and rightly so,” Nadler said in kicking off Day 3 of the trial.
“This conduct is not ‘America First,’”Nadler said, referring to one of Trump’s campaign themes. “It is Donald Trump first.”
Fox News’ Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 22: U.S. President Donald Trump (C) shakes hands with James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during an Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception in the Blue Room of the White House on January 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump today … Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images
The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general (IG) released his report, which found that the FBI had an authorized “purpose” to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign; however, the agency committed a series of wrongdoings in the process.
The IG report found that the FBI made “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the agency’s applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, stating agents “failed to meet the basic obligation” to make sure their applications were accurate.
We do not speculate whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omissions, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome. Nevertheless, the department’s decision-makers and the court should have been given complete and accurate information so that they could meaningfully evaluate probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a US person associated with a presidential campaign.
House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jordan said that this report revealed that the FBI spied on more people than previously known as part of its investigation into the Trump campaign.
Jordan said in a statement Monday:
We thought they spied on two Americans, we now know it was four. The Inspector General’s report confirms what many of us feared: James Comey’s FBI ignored guidelines and rules in spying on President Trump’s campaign in 2016. We now know that within one week of the investigation opening, the FBI was surveilling the campaign and four specific individuals associated with it.
“The U.S. government’s powerful tools designed and authorized for international intelligence gathering were deployed to monitor the activities of a Presidential campaign,” Jordan added. “This is a grave matter that should deeply trouble Americans of all political stripes. There are many lingering questions and I expect both Chairman Nadler and Chairwoman Maloney to convene hearings with Inspector General Horowitz as soon as possible.”
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
A coalition of more than 100 conservatives sent a letter to House Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio on Monday urging him to throw his name in to replace outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
“There must be a real race for Speaker of the House. Now. No backroom deals. A real race, starting this spring, to make every incumbent and candidate commit on the record, as a campaign issue, whether they’ll vote to save the Swamp or drain it,” the letter reads. “America needs you to declare yourself as a candidate for Speaker at once. We write to you on behalf of millions of Americans who want Congress to Drain the Swamp.”
Ryan rattled Capitol Hill in April when he announced he will retire from the House after nearly 20 years in Congress, telling reporters he wanted to spend more time with his family and pursue other opportunities.
Two of the top House Republicans — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana — are angling for the position, but neither are thought to have a guaranteed lock on the speakership.
McCarthy failed to garner the 218 required votes to become speaker in 2015, but his particularly close relationship with the president has some expecting that, along with Ryan’s full-fledged endorsement, it will give him an upper hand over Scalise in the coming months.
Scalise wouldn’t rule out a potential bid for Ryan’s job but is also adamant he would not run against McCarthy, who he considers a “good friend,” he said in March.
Yet, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, who is best friends with Jordan, might have the closest relationship with the president over any other member of Congress. During a speech Thursday in which Jordan appeared to preview a bid for the speakership, Jordan joked that Meadows was in the back, taking a phone call from the president, which Meadows is known to do on a regular basis.
The letter Jordan received Monday from conservatives echoes a great deal of what the congressman has said himself since Ryan announced his retirement. Namely, Jordan is adamant that Republicans need to get back to accomplishing what they promised voters during the 2016 election cycle, like dealing with immigration and border security, repealing and replacing Obamacare, and stopping out-of-control spending.
Jordan’s response to questions about the speaker’s race have been the same since the day TheDCNF first reported the growing wave of support for his candidacy: There is no speaker’s race, and conservatives need to focus on the issues.
Conservatives are pushing back against Jordan’s assertion that there isn’t an ongoing race to replace Ryan.
“To those who say there is no Speaker’s race at the moment, we say that it’s already underway — in back rooms, behind closed doors, and aimed at preserving the Swamp and making it bigger. The Speaker’s race must be public. There will be no Republican Speaker in 2019 unless the GOP can appeal to those Americans in its own ranks, among independents and even many Democrats who voted for Donald Trump to drain the Swamp and for the current Republican-led House to help him do that,” the letter reads.
“The present House Republican leadership has failed. It is part of the problem. You are the solution. This is your moment. We pray you will seize it, knowing that if you do, we will do everything we can to help you succeed.”
The HFC is no stranger to putting leadership on notice. Jordan, Meadows and HFC members shot down a farm bill in order to secure a vote on an immigration proposal they were promised months ago. Ryan and McCarthy huddled with Meadows and Jordan in the back of the House chamber before the final gavel Friday, but their 11th-hour attempts were unable to sway the conservative members. The bill failed with members voting 198-213, dealing a decisive blow to leadership.
Friday’s vote is evidence the HFC has the leverage to sway major policy issues, given the power of the caucus’ 36 members’ votes. If the caucus votes as a coalition, they can kill a bill or get concessions from leadership.
Many believe Jordan’s bid would be to get concessions from either McCarthy or Scalise, but Ryan still has the rest of the year as speaker, assuming he isn’t pressured to step down earlier.
McCarthy’s folks are reportedly nervous about the potential heat he will take in a drawn-out speaker’s race if Ryan decides to stay through the November midterm elections, which he has promised he intends to do.
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
An internal FBI document shows that the testimony given by Andrew McCabe about leaking to the Washington Post is diametrically opposed to testimony given by James Comey.
It’s a safe bet that one of them is lying. If it turns out to be McCabe, which is likely, he doesn’t need to worry about his pension as much as he should be worrying about prison. McCabe had testified that he had told Comey about the release but when Comey was questioned, he denied that McCabe ever told him about it.
Former FBI Director James Comey told internal investigators at the Justice Department that he could not recall McCabe telling him about having authorized FBI officials to talk to a reporter about an ongoing investigation, the sources said.
Comey’s comments to the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office, which were later included as part of the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility report on McCabe that prompted his firing earlier this month, put him at odds with the statements McCabe has made about authorizing FBI officials to provide information to the Wall Street Journal in an October 2016 story about FBI and Justice Department tensions over an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
McCabe has publicly maintained that he was in a position to authorize the other FBI officials speaking with the reporter and that Comey was aware McCabe had done it.
McCabe and his lawyer both argue that they didn’t lie to Comey and that Comey’s memory just wasn’t that good. But Jim Jordan blasted that by pointing out that McCabe lied four times about not authorizing the leak:
JORDAN: “McCabe didn’t lie just once, he lied four times. He lied to James Comey. He lied to the Office of Professional Responsibility and he lied twice under oath to the Inspector General.”
“Remember, this is Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI. This is Andrew McCabe, the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about Andy’s office, the meeting where they talk about the insurance policy in case Donald Trump is actually President of the United States… Four times he lied about leaking information to the Wall Street Journal.”
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
.jpg)
Reported By 
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.