Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘testimony’

Turley to Testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Free Speech


By: Jonathan Turley | March 25, 2025

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2025/03/25/turley-to-testify-in-the-senate-judiciary-committee-on-free-speech/

After speaking at the National Press Club, I will be testifying today before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on free speech and censorship. My testimony is below.

The hearing, titled “The Censorship Industrial Complex” will be held in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

We now know a great deal about the censorship system developed under the Biden Administration in coordination with academic and corporate units. Indeed, the release of new information since January has proven a windfall for those of us who have been seeking greater transparency for years. There is still much to be done. It is essential for Congress to complete this work and allow for total transparency on the past funding and coordination by the government.

The past efforts to block investigations and withhold information on the censorship system have failed. However, the motivation is telling. While publicly declaring the need to combat misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, the Biden Administration and its allies in the censorship system struggled to withhold information on their actual targets or actions. The reason again is obvious. The public understands the threat to free speech and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media.

Almost 250 years ago, Tom Paine famously wrote that “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” That was the first line of a work published by Thomas Paine in the Pennsylvania Journal on December 19, 1776, a work which would become known as “The American Crisis.”

We are living through a new crisis in the fight for free speech. The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has now reached our shores. The United States remains a final line of defense for free speech, a nation founded on free speech as our indispensable right as a free people. This is a crisis of faith as the “summer soldier and sunshine patriot” finds every excuse for remaining silent as others are censored or canceled for their views. Congress must step forward to demand both greater transparency and protection for free speech. This new “American crisis” can be our greatest American moment in speaking in one voice – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – in support of the right that defines us as a people.

Here is the testimony: Turley.Senate Testimony.Censorship.Final

Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry


JonathanTurley.org | March 29, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/29/say-it-aint-so-joe-the-house-formally-invites-president-biden-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry/

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter (below) to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. President Biden is not expected to testify. However, the media should be interested in his answering the questions presented by the Committee. It is now clear that the President lied during his campaign and during his presidency on his lack of knowledge of his son’s business activities as well as his denial of any money gained from China. Yet, the White House responded, again, with mockery — a sense of impunity that only exists due to an enabling media.

Chairman Comer reduces the past testimony and evidence acquired by the Committee in the corruption scandal. In the last hearing, Democratic members simply refused to acknowledge that evidence. There was a bizarre disconnect as members mocked the witnesses for not supplying evidence of the President’s knowledge or involvement. They then did so and the members declared that there was no evidence.

Various members also misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in stating there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take.

Now, the Committee has laid out the considerable evidence showing that the President had lied, knowingly and repeatedly.

Interspersed with specific evidentiary findings, the Committee presents ten questions that the President should be able to answer directly and unequivocally:

  1. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont?
  2. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC?
  3. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund?
  4. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings?
  5. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings?
  6. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding?
  7. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina?
  8. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov?
  9. Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you?
  10. Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017?

In response, the White House Counsel’s office again responded with mockery and taunting. I have previously discussed (including in my testimony in the Biden hearing) how the role of the White House staff in these denials can raise serious questions under the impeachment inquiry.

That has not deterred White House Counsel spokesperson Ian Sams, who has been previously accused of misrepresenting facts and engaging in heavy-handed treatment of the media. Sams responded to the letter:

“LOL. Comer knows 20+ witnesses have testified that POTUS did nothing wrong. He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations. This is a sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment. Call it a day, pal.”

The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics.

Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something.

Here is the letter: 2024-03-28-CJC-letter-to-JRB

Robert Hur Claps Back at Dems: Biden Not Exonerated


By Mark Swanson    |   Tuesday, 12 March 2024 04:10 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/hur-testimony-house/2024/03/12/id/1156991/

Former Special Counsel Robert Hur corrected House Democrats, who persisted in their assertions during a public hearing that he had “exonerated” President Joe Biden in the classified documents case.

Hur submitted a 345-page report in early February, outlining his decision against charging Biden for mishandling classified docs, but the word “exonerate” does not appear anywhere in his ruling, a fact he brought up multiple times during his hours-long testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Committee ranking member Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., used his opening preamble to say Hur’s report “represents the complete and total exoneration of President Biden.”

“That is not what the report says,” Hur said later in the hearing. “The report is not an exoneration. That word does not appear in my report.”

Committee member Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also asserted that Hur’s report was a “complete exoneration” of Biden.

“I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, exoneration. That is not a word that appears in the report. That’s not part of my task as a prosecutor,” Hur said.

Regardless, Hur’s decision not to charge Biden, exoneration or not, fueled the ire of Republican committee member Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who railed against Hur’s decision as a “glaring double standard” of justice, given former President Donald Trump is facing a federal trial for mishandling classified docs in Florida.

“The fact the only person being prosecuted for this offense happens to be the president’s political opponent makes it an unprecedented assault on our democracy. This is the worst we could expect from a banana republic,” McClintock told Hur, who is not the special counsel bringing Trump to trial. Jack Smith is.

In fact, Hur left the Justice Department last week.

Hur would not comment further on the difference between the cases, but in his report, he acknowledged Biden’s cooperation vs. Trump’s refusal to hand over classified material. That and the fact Biden is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

“That’s one of the points you make, President Biden is likely to be an elderly sympathetic person with a poor memory. How does that bear on any individual’s guilt or innocence?” McClintock said. “Isn’t that a question for a judge … after guilt or innocence is determined? Here’s the problem. Donald Trump is being prosecuted for the same act that you’ve documented Joe Biden committed.”

McClintock went on, “All I have to do when I am caught taking home classified materials, ‘I’m sorry, I’m getting old, my memory isn’t so great?’ This is the doctrine that you’ve established in our laws now and it is frightening.”

Hur responded, “Congressman, my intent is certainly not to establish any sort of doctrine. I had a particular task. I had a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment to one particular set of evidence and that’s what I did.”

McClintock had the last word.

“The foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. That’s what gave the law its respect and its legitimacy. … It doesn’t matter who comes before her, all are treated equally. You’ve destroyed this foundation. And the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. It becomes a weapon to wield against political rivals and a tool. And I’m desperately afraid this decision of the Department of Justice has now crossed a very bright line,” he concluded.

Mark Swanson 

Mark Swanson, a Newsmax writer and editor, has nearly three decades of experience covering news, culture and politics.

Dems’ Censorship Demand Now ‘Insatiable,’ Constitutional Expert Warns


By: Bob Unruh, WND News Center | December 6, 2023

Read more at https://conservativefiringline.com/dems-censorship-demand-now-insatiable-constitutional-expert-warns/

Gaines
 Riley Gaines (Courtesy photo)

The demands by Democrats in Congress for absolutely censorship of those with viewpoints contrary to the political party’s ideology have become “insatiable,” as evidenced by the actions of a party member from Pennsylvania, according to recognized constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.

Turley, a professor at George Washington University, often has testified before Congress on constitutional issues, and even has represented members in court.

His conclusion is that, “Democrats have embraced an anti-free speech agenda to silence opposing viewpoints” that has become “insatiable,” after Rep. Summer Lee, that Pennsylvania Democrat, lost her cool during a hearing.

She demanded that a witness statement, because it referenced her personally, be censored, even though Lee had barely finished attacking that witness.

It happened like this: Lee insulted witnesses scheduled to make statements as transphobic and hateful, with, “Madam Chair, I ask that while we sit through this hearing and the hateful misinformation I’m sure is coming our way, let us not forget the children at the core of this issue.”

Waiting to testify on the issue of Joe Biden’s agenda to promote transgenderism, no matter the injury to other innocent people, was Riley Gaines, famed as a college athlete after racing against Lia Thomas, a man portraying himself as a woman in college swim competitions.

Thomas responded to Lee’s attack with: “Of course, there is a place for everyone, regardless of gender identity, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of race or what sports you play. There’s a place for everyone to play sports in this country. But unsafe, unfair and discriminatory practices towards women must stop. Inclusion cannot be prioritized over safety and fairness, and ranking member Lee, if my testimony makes me transphobic then I believe your opening monologue makes you a misogynist.”

Turley reported, “Lee than pounced and demanded that Gaines remarks be struck for ‘engaging in personalities.’”

He reported, “What followed was hurried consultation and presumable a few explanations for Lee on why witnesses are allowed to respond to such attacks by a member. Lee then withdrew her demand.”

He noted Congress has a rule that bans members from engaging in “personalities,” apparently to prevent personal attacks.

“However, Lee was attempting to use this against a witness who was defending herself against her own personal attack. It is a dangerous extension,” he warned.

He explained, “The fact that Lee’s immediate response was to censor a person who she had just attacked is telling. After labeling Gaines a hateful bigot, Lee did not believe that she should be allowed to denounce Lee’s own comments as an attack on women. It shows the slippery slope of censorship. Democrats have embraced an anti-free speech agenda to silence opposing viewpoints. That desire becomes insatiable even as citizens seek to rebut personal attacks from members in a congressional hearing.”

commentary at RedState explained, “If a congressional member chooses to personally attack someone in a hearing, they shouldn’t be able to shut down a response just because they don’t like it.”

In fact, Turley pointed out that danger.

“That would create a nightmarish combination if members are protected from actions in defaming witnesses but then can censor them when they defend themselves.”

The commentary pointed out, “Democrats and their bureaucratic allies already believe they have the right to shut down speech they don’t like. It’s just a matter of whether the courts allow them to get away with it or not.”

The commentary’s conclusion? “The Democratic Party is made up of entitled wannabe tyrants who believe they should be immune from the very things they do. They don’t want to live by their own standards, and that’s not a tenable position for a functioning society. The problem is especially acute among younger Democrats like Lee. She does her ‘yas queen’ rantings for the camera, accusing others of bigotry but can’t take the slightest bit of pushback. Meanwhile, she wouldn’t dare say that stuff outside the halls of Congress because she knows she’d be legally liable. It’s cowardly and pathetic.”

Democrat Lawmaker: Joe Biden Took Part in Hunter’s Calls


By Charlie McCarthy    |   Monday, 31 July 2023 02:35 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/joe-biden-hunter-biden-devon-archer/2023/07/31/id/1129125/

Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., who served as lead majority counsel in the first impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, says President Joe Biden took part in phone calls involving Hunter Biden and foreign business partners. Goldman spoke after whistleblower Devon Archer’s appearance Monday before the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door session. Archer is Hunter Biden’s former business partner.

Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman says Hunter Biden did, in fact, frequently put his dad on speakerphone for his business partners — but they were only talking about the weather,” RNC Research posted on X.

“Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman says Joe Biden spoke with Hunter’s business partners, but they spoke about stuff like the weather not business deals,” The Post Millennial posted on X.

Goldman conceded that Archer had testified that Joe Biden was placed on phone calls with Hunter Biden’s associates perhaps twice a year over the 10 years that Archer was associated with the first son. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a member of the House panel, took to social media after Archer’s early testimony.

“Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former best friend and business associate, asked Hunter why appointees from the Obama/Biden Admin arrested him,” Greene posted on X.

“Hunter explained, ‘It’s democracy … every presidents family is held to a higher standard … it’s the price of being the most powerful group of people in the world … the unfairness to us allows for the greater good.'”

Hunter continued, ‘Every great family is persecuted prosecuted in the us — you are part of a great family — not a side show not deserted by them even in your darkest moments. Thats the way Bidens are different and you are a Biden. Its the price of power. and the people questioning you truly have none whereas you do through perseverance and poise.’

“Archer’s arrest was just par for the course for Hunter,” Greene posted. “Hunter didn’t just peddle his family’s influence to secure business deals that would otherwise be unattainable, he knew he and his associates would largely be shielded from the scales of justice because of his last name: Biden.”

Related Stories:

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

IRS Whistleblower X Is Joe Ziegler, a Gay Democrat


By Eric Mack    |   Wednesday, 19 July 2023 02:03 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/us/irs-whistleblower-house/2023/07/19/id/1127706/

The previously unnamed Internal Revenue Service “Whistleblower X” revealed himself during public testimony before three GOP-led House committees Wednesday, saying he is a “gay Democrat married to a man” and wrongfully slandered as a partisan operative or a “traitor” to his party.

“In coming forward, I am risking my career, my reputation, and my casework outside of this investigation,” Joe Ziegler, with the IRS for 13 years, said in his opening statement.

Ziegler testified with a 10-minute statement alongside his supervisor Gary Shapley, the second whistleblower, who previously came forward publicly.

“I’m no more credible than this man sitting next to me due to my sexual orientation or my political beliefs,” Ziegler continued. “I was raised and have always strived to do what is right.

“I have heard from some that I am a traitor to the Democratic Party and that I am causing more division in our society. I implore you, that if you were put in my position with the facts as I have stated them, that you would be doing the exact same thing.”

Ziegler and Shapley, career IRS criminal investigators, allege the Justice Department obstructed with their yearslong investigation into Hunter Biden.

“In early August 2022, federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice Tax Division drafted a 99-page memorandum,” Ziegler continued in his opening statement. “In so [doing,] they were recommending for approval felony and misdemeanor charges for the 2017, ’18, and ’19 tax years.

“That did not happen here, and I am not sure why.

“And, as the special agent on this case, I thought the felony charges were well supported.”

Leaders of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means committees led the hearing, the first public testimony from the two IRS agents assigned to the federal case into President Joe Biden’s youngest son, Hunter, which was focused on tax and gun charges.

“The decision to bring felony counts against Hunter Biden was agreed to by both prosecutors and investigators in the fall of 2021,” Ziegler added. “I met with prosecutors assigned to the case, and we all agreed and decided which charges we are going to recommend to in the prosecution report, which included felony counts related to 2014, and ’18.

“In March of 2022, the prosecutors requested Discovery from the investigative team and presented the case to the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office and in later meetings, in early August of 2022, all four attorneys agreed to recommend felony and misdemeanor charges for the 2017, ’18, and ’19 tax years, insofar as the Department of Justice Tax Division attorney sent an email about the process of bringing charges to include felony and misdemeanor tax charges in two separate districts, Delaware and Los Angeles.”

The congressional inquiry into the Justice Department’s case against Hunter Biden was launched last month, days after it was announced that the younger Biden will plead guilty to the misdemeanor tax offenses as part of an agreement with federal prosecutors.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted to publicly disclose hundreds of pages of testimony from the IRS employees in which they described several roadblocks agents on the case faced when trying to interview individuals relevant to the case or issue search warrants.

One of Shapley’s most explosive claims was U.S. Attorney David Weiss in Delaware, the federal prosecutor who led the investigation, asked to be provided special counsel status in order to bring the tax cases against Hunter Biden in jurisdictions outside Delaware, including Washington, D.C., and California, but was denied.

Both Weiss and the Justice Department have vehemently denied such claims, saying he had “full authority” of the case and never sought to bring charges in other states.

Ziegler described his persistent frustrations with the way the case was handled, dating back to the Trump administration under Attorney General William Barr. He said he started the investigation into Hunter Biden in 2015 and began to delve deeply into his life and finances. Republicans have also sought testimony from other agents involved in the case but have been mostly unsuccessful thus far.

Republicans, including the three chairmen — Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, James Comer, R-Ky., and Jason Smith, R-Mo. — have sought to paint the Justice Department’s case as rife with political interference and bias.

“Bank records so far show the Biden family, their business associates, and their companies received over $10 million from foreign nationals and their related companies,” Comer said in his opening statement.

“A lot of this money poured in while Joe Biden was Vice President.

“Despite creating many companies after Vice President Biden took office, the Biden family used business associates’ companies to receive millions of dollars from foreign companies in China, Ukraine, and Romania.

“After foreign companies sent money to business associates’ companies, the Bidens then received incremental payments over time to different bank accounts.

“These complicated financial transactions were used deliberately to conceal the source of the funds and total amounts. No normal business operates like this.

“What were the Bidens’ selling? Nothing but influence and access to the Biden network. This is an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Bidens. We need to know whether Joe Biden is compromised by these schemes and if our national security is threatened.”

They have also called the plea agreement Hunter Biden made with prosecutors to likely avoid jail time a “sweetheart deal.”

High-ranking officials at the Justice Department have countered these claims by pointing to the extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding a criminal case into a subject who at the time was the son of a leading presidential candidate.

Testimony from Justice Department officials could come after Hunter Biden appears for his plea hearing next week.

Material from The Associated Press was used to compile this report.

Secret Service agent and former White House official willing to testify that false claims were made at Jan. 6 hearing about Trump


Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | June 28, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/secret-service-agent-and-former-white-house-official-willing-to-testify-that-false-claims-were-made-at-jan-6-hearing-about-trump-2657578414.html/

A former White House official and a Secret Service agent said they were willing to testify in the Jan. 6 hearings in order to contradict claims that former President Donald Trump got into an altercation while trying to make his way to the Capitol rioting. The claims were made by Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, on Tuesday. Hutchinson said that she heard from Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, that the former president became incensed when he wasn’t allowed to go to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. He is alleged to have grabbed at the steering wheel of the vehicle and then lunged at the agent who was preventing him from leaving.

Later on Tuesday, that Secret Secret agent reportedly said he was willing to testify that this account was false. Ornato also indicated the same willingness to testify contrary to the story. Both Ornato and Robert Engel, the agent, had previously testified for the Jan. 6 Committee behind closed doors about what they witnessed on that day.

A spokesperson for the committee released a short statement about the development.

“The Committee trusts the credibility of a witness who was willing to testify under oath & in public but is also willing to hear any information that others may have that would aid in their investigation,” read the statement.

Among the other shocking claims from Hutchinson, she stated that Trump allegedly said that Vice President Mike Pence deserved to be hanged by the crowd of people rioting at the U.S. Capitol. The former president took to social media to deny some of the claims and to lambast Hutchinson as a person that he hardly knew except for his having heard terrible things about her.

In response to the day’s testimony, Fox News host Bret Baier said the claims were “stunning” and “compelling” because of Hutchinson’s proximity to power.

Here’s more about the claims made in the hearing:

Bret Baier: This is stunning www.youtube.com

Confirmed: Top Democrat Impeachment Witness Lied Repeatedly Under Oath, Ambassador Yovanovitch Caught Lying on Burisma, LOCK HER UP (Video)


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published May 14, 2020 at 7:00am

During her opening statement under oath before Congress Yovanovitch said the Obama administration never raised the issue of Burisma or Hunter Biden with her.

But then during her testimony Yovanovitch admitted that during her confirmation hearing she was warned about Hunter Biden and Burisma.

Then President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani revealed in December that there is documents showing Schiff’s star witness, fired US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself at least twice during her impeachment testimony.

Documents prove Yovanovitch was personally involved in the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s investigations and denied visas to witnesses who could prove Biden, Dem corruption, Giuliani said. And now there is more information that former Ambassador Yovanovitch lied under oath about Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.

New documents show Ambassador Yovanovitch perjured herself in her impeachment testimony. The fired ambassador left out mention of Burisma meetings, numerous letters on Burisma. Fox News contributor John Solomon and Rep. Lee Zeldin joined Laura Ingraham for the discussion.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  

DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses


Posted by 

URL of the original posting site: https://steadfastandloyal.com/politics/doj-inspector-general-horowitz-to-publicly-testify-before-senate-judiciary-committee-on-december-11-about-his-investigation-into-fisa-abuses/

We have been waiting so long for the IG report on FISA abuse and we have been teased many times about the release, but now we know the report has to be released by early December because Horowitz has agreed to testify on his report to the Senate on December 11th, That will be televised nationally and he will have no new ground to cover since it will be all over the conservative media. But, he will be able to rebut whatever smears the Democrats make after the post is released.  The Democrats will do whatever necessary to distract from this if they can.

The fun part will be when they talk about criminal referrals. He will not be able to get into specifics but he will be able to name the ones who face prosecution. There is something else we need to consider. Allegedly, the report was being held up because John Durham was convening a grand jury. If that was true, then we may already see indictments by time Horowitz testifies because it would mean the grand jury has done it’s job and was released

From The Gateway Pundit

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is set to publicly testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 about his investigation into FISA abuse.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced on Monday that Horowitz will discuss the findings of his investigation into DOJ and FBI’s conduct

“I appreciate all the hard work by Mr. Horowitz and his team regarding the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign,” Graham said.

“Mr. Horowitz will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, where he will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better,” Graham added. “I look forward to hearing from him. He is a good man that has served our nation well.”

Horowitz is expected to release his much-anticipated FISA abuse report before Thanksgiving and it is expected to contain several criminal referrals, reported investigative journalist Sara Carter.

Horowitz has been working on a report documenting the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] abuses by Obama’s corrupt DOJ and FBI during the 2016 election targeting Donald Trump.

“It’s as thick as a telephone book,” Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo recently said. “More than just FISA abuse.”

Hagel throws Obama under bus over Bergdahl


WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel apparently isn’t going to let the Obama administration throw him under the bus in the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl scandal. In fact, you could say just the opposite.

In his opening statement this morning at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Hagel made a point of saying it was President Obama “who made the final decision” to swap Bergdahl for five top Taliban leaders.

“Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear on one fundamental point – I would never sign off on any decision that I did not feel was in the best interests of this country.  Nor would the president of the United States, who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team.”

The administration recently implied the final decision was made by Hagel.

After administration officials gave members of Congress a closed-door briefing Monday on the swap, committee chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., said “They indicated (it was) Secretary Hagel (who made the final call).”

Other members of Congress also left the briefing with the impression final approval for the trade was given by Hagel.

An incredulous McKeon wondered, “It was the president of the United States that came out (in the Rose Garden) with the Bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there’s been a little pushback he’s moving away from it and it’s Secretary Hagel?”

In this morning’s testimony, Hagel emphasized more than once that it was the president who made the call to make the swap, saying, “The President’s decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees was a tough call, but I support it and stand by it.”

Hagel also told the committee, “The President and I would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully, in the national interest, and in the best traditions of our military.”

And, “President Obama received a personal commitment in a personal telephone call from the emir of Qatar to uphold and enforce the security arrangements and a final decision was made to move forward with that exchange on that day.”

After Hagel delivered his opening statement, McKeon’s first comment was an expression of appreciation for clarifying that it was Obama’s decision to make the prisoner exchange.

During questioning, Hagel also made sure to note, “The president of the United States has the ultimate responsibility for the security of this country.”

Obama is under intense bipartisan criticism for the swap of Bergdahl for five top terrorists, who, the administration has admitted, it can not guarantee will not return to killing Americans. They were sent to Qatar, where they are supposed to be detained for a year.

Critics say the Taliban leaders were far too dangerous to be released from Guantanamo. Members of Congress were outraged they weren’t given the 30-day advance notice of the deal, as required by law. And several former squad mates say Bergdahl was a deserter, and likely a collaborator, with the Taliban. No former squad mates have contradicted those claims.

The appearance by Hagel did not begin with the fireworks many had expected, given strong bipartisan objections to a number of aspects of the deal.

McKeon actually complimented Hagel for making “a very strong case” for the Bergdahl swap, but, said he left just one thing out.

The chairman noted that negotiations began in January, and 80-90 members of the administration were informed about it, however, no one in Congress knew anything about it. In fact, McKeon speculated, the only elected officials who new about it were the president and, maybe, the vice president.

McKeon told Hagel that if he had met with Congress beforehand and told them what he had just testified, the administration would not have had any pushback at all. He stressed that Congress did not even need to know any operational details. (The chairman later backtracked and said the committee did have another issue with the deal: the wisdom of releasing the five top Taliban commanders.)

BS WARNING BS ALERT

The secretary insisted, “We complied with the law, and we did what we believed was in the best interests of our country, our military, and Sergeant Bergdahl.”

But lawmakers from both parties complained that Obama failed to notify Congress ahead of time, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for transfers of Guantanamo detainees.

McKeon called explanations for not notifying Congress beforehand made by White House officials at the classified briefing ”misleading and at times blatantly false.”

Hagel admitted the administration should have tried harder to let Congress know about what he called rapidly moving developments, saying, “We could have done a better job of keeping you informed.”

“As the opportunity to obtain Sergeant Bergdahl’s release became clearer, we grew increasingly concerned that any delay, or any leaks, could derail the deal and further endanger” him, Hagel added.

Sparks did fly after Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., asked Hagel why Bergdahl had not been returned to the United States, so that more could .

The congressman noted how seriously wounded soldiers frequently have been returned to the states almost immediately after being stabilized, then asked “You’re trying to tell me that he’s being held at Landstuhl, Germany, because of his medical condition?”

A clearly indignant Hagel raised his voice for the first time during the hearing and bellowed, “Congressman, I hope you’re not implying anything other than that. The fact is…”

“I’m just asking the question, Mr. Secretary, and you won’t answer,” said Miller.

“I’m going to give an answer, too, and I don’t like the implication of the question,” loudly replied the extremely agitated secretary.

“Well, answer it! Answer it! Answer it!” the congressman demanded.

Hagel said Bergdahl was still at a U.S. military hospital in Germany because that was the advice of medical professionals, until he is ready to take the next step in his rehabilitation.

Undeterred, Miiler said asked if Hagel had ever seen a traumatically injured service member brought to the United States immediately upon being stabilized at Landstuhl? “We do it all the time!”

“This isn’t just about a physical situation, Congressman. This guy was held for almost five years in God knows what kind of conditions,” replied Hagel, adding, “This is not just about can he get on his feet and walk and get to a plane.”

“So you’re telling me he cannot be questioned because of his condition?” Miller asked.

Hagel said the “next step” would be taken when medical professionals have determined he is “ready to move on.”

Another heated moment came when Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., asked if the military would put American lives in danger to recapture any of the five Taliban commanders, if necessary.

When Hagel did not respond directly, Forbes asked the question again, only louder.

As the defense chief continued to evade responding, Forbes kept asking the question, his voice growing louder each time.

Hagel eventually conceded that the military would put American lives at risk to go after any of the commanders, if necessary.

Forbes pressed on, asking Hagel if he had made an assessment of how many lives would be put at risk if we had to recapture the Taliban.

“No,” Hagel replied, and added that the administration had determined “there was a substantial mitigation of risk for this country, for our interest, for our citizens and service members when we made this decision.”

Forbes replied, that “just flies in the face of all the other evidence we have.”

Meanwhile, the White House is planning to transfer even more Guantanamo prisoners, officials said Tuesday.

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said the White House was “making progress on a number of additional promising opportunities.”

“While we do not generally discuss transfers before they take place, we are fully committed to implementing the president’s direction that we transfer detainees to the greatest extent possible, consistent with national security and our humane-treatment policy, as we work toward closing the facility at Guantanamo Bay,” she said.

Hayden said 17 inmates had been moved out of Guantanamo in the last 13 months, including the five Taliban commanders swapped for Bergdahl.

It was Monday that lawmakers became especially upset to learn that nearly 100 people in the Obama administration did know of the Bergdahl exchange, but no members of Congress had been briefed.

‘It strikes me as unfortunate that they could have 80 to 90 people in the administration aware of what was happening and not be able to trust a single Republican or Democrat in the House or the Senate,” said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.

”There was a sense of anger that members of Congress didn’t know about this,” according to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn, who added, “Obviously, if there is secure information — members of Congress knew about the capture of Osama bin Laden — and yet 80 to 90 staff in the White House knew about this.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. said the officials who knew were likely from the State and Defense departments, the National Security Council and the White House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) claimed he was told the day before the Bergdahl was released, but administration officials say that was not true.

Here is what Bergdahl’s former squad mates have said about him.

Buetow

Former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow was the team leader when Bergdahl disappeared on the night of June 30, 2009.

He said he heard Afghans from a nearby village say on the radio, “There’s an American here looking for someone who speaks English so he can talk to the Taliban.”

Buetow said “we were incredibly worried” about what Bergdahl might tell the Taliban, and their improvised explosive device, or IED, attacks became much more effective in the weeks after the soldier left his post.

“Following his disappearance, IEDs started going off directly under the trucks. They were getting perfect hits every time. Their ambushes were very calculated, very methodical,” said Buetow.

“Bergdahl is a deserter, and he’s not a hero,” Buetow told CNN. “He needs to answer for what he did.”

hagel 02

Bethea

Fellow soldier Nathan Bradley Bethea told the Daily Beast, “Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.”

Bethea wrote that one morning, Bergdahl simply failed to show for the morning roll call.

“The soldiers in 2nd Platoon, Blackfoot Company discovered his rifle, helmet, body armor and web gear in a neat stack. He had, however, taken his compass. His fellow soldiers later mentioned his stated desire to walk from Afghanistan to India.”

The soldier wrote that Bergdahl did not “lag behind on a patrol, as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night.”

Rather, Bethea said, Bergdahl was “relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted.”

Vierkant

Another member of Bergdahl’s platoon when he went missing, Sgt. Matt Vierkant, told CNN, “Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”

Vierkant said Bergdahl needs to face a military trial for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Korder

Army Sgt. Josh Korder bluntly told CNN that Bergdahl was “at best a deserter, and at worst, a traitor.”

traitor

Baggett

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett said he was close to two men “killed because of his (Bergdahl’s) actions.”

He told MSNBC that not only was Bergdahl not a hero, he “left his guard post and got real heroes killed,” referring to the men who went searching for the missing soldier.

baggett

Full and Sutton

Former Army specialists Cody Full and Gerald Sutton were platoon mates of Bergdahl who appeared on Fox.

Full contradicted the claim made by National Security Adviser Rice that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. He said Bergdahl “violated his oath and put Americans in jeopardy” and wanted to see him court-martialed as a deserter.

Although Sutton was a friend of Bergdahl, he agreed, it was desertion.

last

At least six soldiers were killed in searches for Bergdahl, according to soldiers who looked for him.

Remember

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

HeartSorry Yet 02Community Organizer TwoHey Lefties. What about these menVOTE 02

 

 

 

Fox News’ Highly Reluctant Jesus Follower


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/november/fox-news-highly-reluctant-jesus-follower-kirsten-powers.html?paging=off

Of all people surprised that I became an evangelical Christian, I’m the most surprised.
Kirsten Powers
[ posted 10/22/2013 2:21PM ]

PHOTO BY SCOTT SUCHMAN

Just seven years ago, if someone had told me that I’d be writing for Christianity Today magazine about how I came to believe in God, I would have laughed out loud. If there was one thing in which I was completely secure, it was that I would never adhere to any religion—especially to evangelical Christianity, which I held in particular contempt.

I grew up in the Episcopal Church in Alaska, but my belief was superficial and flimsy. It was borrowed from my archaeologist father, who was so brilliant he taught himself to speak and read Russian. When I encountered doubt, I would fall back on the fact that he believed.

Leaning on my father’s faith got me through high school. But by college it wasn’t enough, especially because as I grew older he began to confide in me his own doubts. What little faith I had couldn’t withstand this revelation. From my early 20s on, I would waver between atheism and agnosticism, never coming close to considering that God could be real.

After college I worked as an appointee in the Clinton administration from 1992 to 1998. The White House surrounded me with intellectual people who, if they had any deep faith in God, never expressed it. Later, when I moved to New York, where I worked in Democratic politics, my world became aggressively secular. Everyone I knew was politically left-leaning, and my group of friends was overwhelmingly atheist.

I sometimes hear Christians talk about how terrible life must be for atheists. But our lives were not terrible. Life actually seemed pretty wonderful, filled with opportunity and good conversation and privilege. I know now that it was not as wonderful as it could have been. But you don’t know what you don’t know. How could I have missed something I didn’t think existed?

Very Open-Minded

To the extent that I encountered Christians, it was in the news cycle. And inevitably they were saying something about gay people or feminists. I didn’t feel I was missing much. So when I began dating a man who was into Jesus, I was not looking for God. In fact, the week before I met him, a friend had asked me if I had any deal breakers in dating. My response: “Just nobody who is religious.”

A few months into our relationship, my boyfriend called to say he had something important to talk to me about. I remember exactly where I was sitting in my West Village apartment when he said, “Do you believe Jesus is your Savior?” My stomach sank. I started to panic. Oh no, was my first thought. He’s crazy.

When I answered no, he asked, “Do you think you could ever believe it?” He explained that he was at a point in life when he wanted to get married and felt that I could be that person, but he couldn’t marry a non-Christian. I said I didn’t want to mislead him—that I would never believe in Jesus.

Then he said the magic words for a liberal: “Do you think you could keep an open mind about it?” Well, of course. “I’m very open-minded!” Even though I wasn’t at all. I derided Christians as anti-intellectual bigots who were too weak to face the reality that there is no rhyme or reason to the world. I had found this man’s church attendance an oddity to overlook, not a point in his favor.

As he talked, I grew conflicted. On the one hand, I was creeped out. On the other hand, I had enormous respect for him. He is smart, educated, and intellectually curious. I remember thinking, What if this is true, and I’m not even willing to consider it?

A few weeks later I went to church with him. I was so clueless about Christianity that I didn’t know that some Presbyterians were evangelicals. So when we arrived at the Upper East Side service of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, I was shocked and repelled by what I saw. I was used to the high-church liturgy of my youth. We were meeting in an auditorium with a band playing what I later learned was “praise music.” I thought, How am I going to tell him I can never come back?

But then the pastor preached. I was fascinated. I had never heard a pastor talk about the things he did. Tim Keller’s sermon was intellectually rigorous, weaving in art and history and philosophy. I decided to come back to hear him again. Soon, hearing Keller speak on Sunday became the highlight of my week. I thought of it as just an interesting lecture—not really church. I just tolerated the rest of it in order to hear him. Any person who is familiar with Keller’s preaching knows that he usually brings Jesus in at the end of the sermon to tie his points together. For the first few months, I left feeling frustrated: Why did he have to ruin a perfectly good talk with this Jesus nonsense?

Each week, Keller made the case for Christianity. He also made the case against atheism and agnosticism. He expertly exposed the intellectual weaknesses of a purely secular worldview. I came to realize that even if Christianity wasn’t the real thing, neither was atheism.

I began to read the Bible. My boyfriend would pray with me for God to reveal himself to me. After about eight months of going to hear Keller, I concluded that the weight of evidence was on the side of Christianity. But I didn’t feel any connection to God, and frankly, I was fine with that. I continued to think that people who talked of hearing from God or experiencing God were either delusional or lying. In my most generous moments, I allowed that they were just imagining things that made them feel good.

Then one night on a trip to Taiwan, I woke up in what felt like a strange cross between a dream and reality. Jesus came to me and said, “Here I am.” It felt so real. I didn’t know what to make of it. I called my boyfriend, but before I had time to tell him about it, he told me he had been praying the night before and felt we were supposed to break up. So we did. Honestly, while I was upset, I was more traumatized by Jesus visiting me.

Completely True

I tried to write off the experience as misfiring synapses, but I couldn’t shake it. When I returned to New York a few days later, I was lost. I suddenly felt God everywhere and it was terrifying. More important, it was unwelcome. It felt like an invasion. I started to fear I was going crazy.

I didn’t know what to do, so I spoke with writer Eric Metaxas, whom I had met through my boyfriend and who had talked with me quite a bit about God. “You need to be in a Bible study,” he said. “And Kathy Keller’s Bible study is the one you need to be in.” I didn’t like the sound of that, but I was desperate. My whole world was imploding. How was I going to tell my family or friends about what had happened? Nobody would understand. I didn’t understand. (It says a lot about the family in which I grew up that one of my most pressing concerns was that Christians would try to turn me into a Republican.)

I remember walking into the Bible study. I had a knot in my stomach. In my mind, only weirdoes and zealots went to Bible studies. I don’t remember what was said that day. All I know is that when I left, everything had changed. I’ll never forget standing outside that apartment on the Upper East Side and saying to myself, “It’s true. It’s completely true.” The world looked entirely different, like a veil had been lifted off it. I had not an iota of doubt. I was filled with indescribable joy.

The horror of the prospect of being a devout Christian crept back in almost immediately. I spent the next few months doing my best to wrestle away from God. It was pointless. Everywhere I turned, there he was. Slowly there was less fear and more joy. The Hound of Heaven had pursued me and caught me—whether I liked it or not.

Kirsten Powers is a contributor to USA Today and a columnist for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. She is a Democratic commentator at Fox News.

Police forensic scientist at Newtown hearing


The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Police forensic scientist at Newtown hearing: ‘Assault weapons’ ban won’t work

Patrick Howley
The forensic scientist for the Bridgeport, Conn. Police Department sharply criticized proposed assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans and pointed out the small number of crimes committed by high-capacity weapons in public hearing testimony last week.

Marshall K. Robinson, who said his area of expertise is “firearm and tool mark identification,” testified at the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group, which was convened at the Connecticut State Capitol in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There he opposed statements from many of the other 1,300 speakers in attendance advocating for banning high-capacity AR-15 and AK-47 firearms.

Robinson pointed out that less than two percent of the firearms he has examined since 1996 that have been linked to violent crime in Bridgeport have been the caliber of AR-15 or AK-47 weapons.

“Since November 1996, I have examined approximately 2,370 firearms. Of that number 36 of them were either .223/5.56 mm or 7.62×39 mm,” Robinson said. “The percentage of those guns was about [1.5 percent].”

“I did further research on homicides and assaults in the years 2006 to 2012 inclusive. Of the 217 such cases, there were 912 bullets and 466 cartridge cases recovered. One assault involved .223 caliber and none involved 7.63×39 mm caliber. The largest number cartridge cases recovered in one case was 37 and that involved two guns. The investigations that involved the recovery of eleven or more cartridge cases was 22. Of the 22 cases, 21 involved 2 or more guns,” Robinson added.

Robinson went on to criticize past gun control measures and argued that new proposals will not work to reduce violent crime in any meaningful way.

“These are real numbers from real cases in a real city police department. This is not something made up or fabricated. High capacity magazines have been ‘banned’ before. It proved nothing and the ban was lifted a few years ago,” he said. “There are many guns in existence, since the 1860s, which hold more than 10 cartridges, the early Winchester lever action rifles, for example, and many tubefeed 22 caliber rifles. There are some modern firearms for which no other magazine exist. What do you propose we do with them?”

“In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and collapsible stocks,” he testified. “In over forty years of being a firearm and tool mark examiner, I have never seen these components inflict any injury whatsoever on any person. In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed fully automatic firearms that have the capability of firing a single shot. Ladies and gentlemen, I really need help with that one.”

“We all agree that the Newtown case is a tragedy. I submit to you that you cannot legislate away insanity, which I think is the root cause of this case,” Robinson said. “Laws must be passed based on research and logical thinking, not on emotions.”

Robinson also works at the state police forensic lab in Meriden, Conn.

Marshall K. Robinson testimony by

Tag Cloud