Trump acquitted in second impeachment trial on charge of inciting Jan. 6 Capitol riot - Marisa Schultz
​ by Marisa Schultz
GOP, led by Mitch McConnell, largely sticks with Trump during Saturday verdict
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
SCHUMER LEAVES DOOR OPEN TO 14TH AMENDMENT MEASURE TO BAR TRUMP FROM OFFICE
Trump praised the victory, thanked his supporters and promised he'd soon emerge with a "vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future."
The former president, who has largely stayed silent since his impeachment, also took aim at his opponents.
TRUMP CELEBRATES ACQUITTAL IN SENATE TRIAL, FORESHADOWS POLITICAL FUTURE: 'MUCH TO SHARE'
"This has been yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country," Trump said in a statement. "No president has ever gone through anything like it, and it continues because our opponents cannot forget the almost 75 million people, the highest number ever for a sitting president, who voted for us just a few short months ago."
Trump's second impeachment trial lasted just five days of arguments, making it the shortest in presidential history. The previous record was held by Trump in 2020 when his trial related to inviting foreign interference into the election spanned 21 days.
The trial surrounded the Jan. 6 riot when pro-Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, beat police officers, chanted "Hang Mike Pence" and forced lawmakers to take shelter. The mayhem temporarily stopped Congress' certification of President Biden's Electoral College win.
House impeachment managers accused Trump of inciting the insurrection by spreading a "big lie" the election was stolen from him, summoning his supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, telling them to "fight like hell" and then refusing to call off the attack once the mob violently took over the Capitol.
"He named the date. He named the time. He brought them here, and now he must pay the price," lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said in his closing remarks to the Senate.
Trump legal's team denounced the proceedings as an unconstitutional "sham impeachment" against a private citizen, driven by Democrats' "hatred" for Trump and desire to silence a political opponent.
Trump lawyers also argued the former president's political speech is protected by the First Amendment and his words on Jan. 6 to his supporters to "fight like hell" were not meant literally. To drive home that point during the trial, Trump's defense played an 11-minute video of nearly every Democrat in the chamber using the words "fight" in their past speeches and interviews.
In this image from video, House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks during the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 11, 2021. (Senate Television via AP)
The vote capped a wild Saturday in Washington with numerous plot twists.
In a curveball move, the Senate Saturday morning voted 55-45 to allow witnesses at the trial after Raskin said they wanted to hear from GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler.
Raskin, D-Md., cited the "breaking news" overnight about details Beutler revealed of a heated phone call that Trump had with House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy during the middle of the Capitol attack.
Beutler, who was one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in House, released her account of the call late Friday, confirming a CNN report that Trump dismissed McCarthy's pleas to call off the riot and instead told McCarthy that the rioters were "more upset about the election" than the House leader.
MCCONNELL WILL VOTE TO ACQUIT TRUMP IN SECOND IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, AS DAY FIVE GETS UNDERWAY
"When McCarthy finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol," Beutler said in her statement. "McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That's when, according to McCarthy, the president said, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.'"
pic.twitter.com/6N8vg5PRJz
— Jaime Herrera Beutler (@HerreraBeutler) February 13, 2021
Trump's legal team blasted the decision to call witnesses and threatened to depose 100 people in the case if the door is open. A visibly angry and animated Michael van der Veen said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Kamala Harris would "absolutely" need to be deposed, too, but not by Zoom.
"These depositions should be done in person in my office in Philadelphia," van der Veen told the senators, which drew audible laughter from the Senate chamber.
ANOTHER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TWIST: SENATE SIDESTEPS WITNESSES DESPITE VOTE ALLOWING THEM
Van deer Veen shot back: "I haven't laughed at any of you. And there's nothing laughable here."
Lawyer Michael T. van der Veen speaks during Trump impeachment trial on Friday, Feb. 12.
The surprise vote on witnesses shook Washington and seemed to even catch senators off guard.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the move set off "chaos" in the chamber. He speculated the trial could last until April with witnesses.
"At this point, it's pandemonium," Cruz told pool reporters.
But just as quickly as the Senate went down the path of witnesses, lawyers then reversed course on Saturday.
Trump's legal team agreed to allow the damaging statement from Beutler to be entered into the trial as evidence. Armed with her statement, House lawyers then abandoned their demand that Beutler be called as a witness altogether.
House managers said the revelations about McCarthy's call with Trump show that Trump abdicated his oath of office by showing support for the rioters and disregard for the security of members of Congress and Pence, who was targeted by the mob for assassination.
"He chose retaining his own power over the safety of Americans," said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I. "I can't imagine more damning evidence of his state of mind."
The arguments, however, weren't enough to sway the 17 GOP senators needed for conviction.
MCCONNELL RIPS TRUMP, SAYS ACTIONS 'UNCONSCIONABLE' BUT TRIAL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was very critical of Trump's conduct surrounding the Jan. 6 riot and his wife -- former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao -- even resigned from the administration in the aftermath of the attack that killed at least five people, including a Capitol Police officer.
"There's no question... that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said in a speech after the vote Saturday.
Still, McConnell found Trump "not guilty," saying he believes convicting the former president is unconstitutional.
"We have no power to convict and disqualify a former office holder who is now a private citizen," McConnell said in a speech.
Marisa Schultz
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
After a slow start, Trump's attorneys had a barn-burning impeachment closing - Andrea Widburg
​ by Andrea Widburg
The defense showed mesmerizing photos and videos of Democrat lies and incitements to violence.
Trump hired his legal team for the impeachment just a few days before the proceedings started, which may have accounted for their singularly lackluster opening argument. However, by Friday, they'd gotten their ducks in a row, and David Schoen, especially, had a great closing argument.
He opened by pointing out that Democrats improperly sat on footage of events in the Capitol to blindside Trump's defense team and deny him due process. From there, he moved to the fact that the Democrat House impeachment managers outright lied about their alleged evidence, whether it was faked tweets or manipulated video. As part of this lambasting of the Democrats for dishonesty, Schoen played for them Trump's entire statement about events in Charlottesville, which the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) twisted into the disgraceful, defamatory "fine people" hoax.
Schoen demonstrated that Democrats have lusted after impeachment since Trump's inauguration. The next thing he showed is that Democrats actively promoted violence in the street and have frequently and openly expressed their desire to commit actual violence against Trump, his supporters, and America itself. Moreover, to the extent Trump used the word "fight," he did so in a purely political sense, which is something that Democrats have done repeatedly over the years.
(I have the video queued to start at the right point, but, if it doesn't, go to 27:40.)
What was really funny was the defense that Stacey Plaskett, one of the House impeachment managers, raised to the part of the montage in which Democrats repeatedly stated that they would fight Trump and demanded that their supporters do so as well. According to her, the whole montage was...wait for it...racist and sexist:
"It was not lost on me": Stacey Plaskett points out that when Trump's attorneys showed videos of Democrats using the word "fight," many of them were Black women and people of color
"I thought we were past that. I think maybe we are not." https://t.co/YUg7sgxuDX pic.twitter.com/FSqviCCyXI
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 12, 2021
In addition to Schoen's excellent arguments, Michael T. van der Veen, another Trump attorney, made a compelling point about the violence at the Capitol — it was a multi-faceted attack with people from the range of the political spectrum: "One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa."
"One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa"pic.twitter.com/zLepRff6Cx
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 12, 2021
I'll close with this short, stunning video montage comparing Trump's endless reverence for the Rule of Law with the Democrats' bloodthirsty desires for revolution: Watch the video here
Andrea Widburg
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/after_a_slow_start_trumps_attorneys_had_a_barnburning_impeachment_closing.html
Palestinians: More Corruption as Biden Resumes Financial Aid - Bassam Tawil
​ by Bassam Tawil
Anyone in the Biden administration who thinks that the Palestinian leadership would make real "concessions" to Israel in return for hundreds of millions of dollars is living under an illusion.
The assumption that renewed financial aid would lead the Palestinian leadership to make "concessions" has proven, over the past three decades, to be completely baseless. Anyone in the Biden administration who thinks that the Palestinian leadership would make real "concessions" to Israel in return for hundreds of millions of dollars is living under an illusion.
Last year, the Palestinians rejected Trump's $50 billion Middle East economic plan that would create a global investment fund to lift the Palestinian and Arab state economies. The Palestinians dubbed it an "attempted bribe."
The "innocent Palestinians" the Biden administration is talking about would undoubtedly be happy to receive financial aid from the US or the European Union. These Palestinians, however, are concerned that their leaders will continue to deprive them of the financial aid, and that the money, ever-fungible, would, as usual, just end up in the pockets of Palestinian leaders as well as to incentivizing murder for "pay-for-slay" terrorists.
A recent public opinion poll showed that a majority of Palestinians are still worried about the corruption of their leaders, especially the Palestinian Authority.
The majority of Palestinians believe that corruption is concentrated among senior public sector employees, particularly in the executive public institutions (the ministries, the presidency and the security services). The Palestinians continue to believe that senior employees are the most corrupt individuals among the Palestinians.
All this means that, if and when the general elections take place, Hamas is well on its way to score another easy victory.
The message that the findings send to the Biden administration and other Western donors: The funds you are sending to Palestinian leaders are being stolen. If you want to send money, you must ensure that the money does not end up in the private bank accounts of Palestinian leaders.
If, as the poll shows, a majority of Palestinians continue to see their leaders as corrupt, this means that Abbas's rivals in Hamas are again likely to win the vote.
A recent public opinion poll showed that a majority of Palestinians are still worried about the corruption of their leaders. The findings send a message to the Biden administration and other Western donors: The funds you are sending to Palestinian leaders are being stolen. If you want to send money, you must ensure that the money does not end up in the private bank accounts of Palestinian leaders. Pictured: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks in Ramallah on May 19, 2020. (Photo by Alaa Badarneh/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Ignoring rampant corruption in the Palestinian Authority (PA), the US administration of President Joe Biden says it is preparing to resume unconditional financial aid to the Palestinians.
"The suspension of aid to the Palestinian people has neither produced political progress nor secured concessions from the Palestinian leadership," US State Department Spokesman Ned Price said at a press briefing earlier this month. "It has only harmed innocent Palestinians."
In 2018, the administration of President Donald Trump announced that it would not spend more than $200 million set aside for Palestinian aid on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Since the signing of the Oslo Accord between Israel and the PLO in 1993, the Palestinians have received billions of dollars in international aid, including from the US and many Western donors.
Did the money change the Palestinians' position on crucial issues such as the status of Jerusalem or the "right of return" for millions of refugees and their descendants to their former homes inside Israel? No.
The "right of return" means flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians with the hope of turning Jews into a minority in their own state. For many Palestinians, the so-called two-state solution means establishing two Palestinian states: one in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, and another one that would replace Israel.
Did the money stop Palestinian incitement against Israel? No.
Did the money make Abbas change his mind about rejecting Israel as a Jewish state? No.
Did the money make Hamas and other Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist? No.
Last year, the Palestinians rejected Trump's $50 billion Middle East economic plan that would create a global investment fund to improve the Palestinian and Arab state economies. The Palestinians dubbed it an "attempted bribe."
In 2019, the Palestinians boycotted the US-led "Peace to Prosperity" workshop in Bahrain, which aimed to "facilitate discussions on an ambitious, achievable vision and framework for a prosperous future for the Palestinian people and the region."
Nabil Sha'ath, a senior adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, claimed that the workshop was aimed at "bribing" the Palestinians. "We won't sell our cause," he explained.
Another senior Palestinian official, Monir Aljaghoub, said: "The Palestinian cause is a political issue and not an economic one. We don't need money."
The Palestinians, according to the poll, even expect an increase in corruption during 2021.
The findings of the poll, conducted by the Palestinian Coalition for Accountability and Integrity (AMAN), should sound alarm bells in Washington and other Western countries that continue to provide unconditional financial aid to the Palestinians.
The results of the poll also need to be brought to the attention of Western taxpayers, whose dollars and euros will continue to go into the fattening coffers of the PA leadership.
According to the poll, 58% of Palestinians believe that the scale of corruption in the Palestinian Authority's institutions is still large. This year, the rate of Palestinians who believe that the scale of corruption is large decreased by five points (58%) compared with 2019 (63%). The rate is highest in villages (73%), compared with 59% in refugee camps and 50% in the cities. The rate is 63% among private sector employees, and 61% among public sector employees.
According to 27% of the Palestinians, the ministries and public institutions are the most corrupt (35% in the West Bank and 15% in Gaza), followed by the PA presidency at 23%.
The Palestinian security services ranked third (19%) as the most susceptible to corruption.
"The crimes of nepotism, embezzlement of public funds, abuse of position, bribery, and money laundering were the most common forms of corruption," AMAN noted in its survey.
Sixty-nine percent of Palestinians also complained about corruption in the Palestinian judiciary.
According to the poll, 53% of Palestinians believe that corruption increased during 2020. Another 55% said that they believe that corruption will further increase in 2021.
The poll also found that many Palestinians do not have confidence in efforts to combat corruption. The Palestinians are also doubtful of the independence of the Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) and believe that it is under the influence of the Palestinian leadership.
"A high rate of citizens are dissatisfied with anti-corruption efforts, and are not confident of the independence of the PACC because of the Executive Authority's interference in and influence on its work," according to AMAN.
"Eighty-five percent of West Bank citizens considered PACC's effectiveness in combating corruption either moderate or poor. Thirty-two percent said that the main reason for PACC ineffectiveness it that citizens have not seen senior-level corrupt persons held accountable seriously, while 30% said that it is not serious in holding the corrupt accountable."
The findings of the poll are significant for two reasons.
First, the poll coincided with the announcement by the Biden administration of its intention to resume financial aid to the Palestinians. The message that the findings send to the Biden administration and other Western donors: The funds you are sending to Palestinian leaders are being stolen. If you want to send money, you must ensure that the money does not end up in the private bank accounts of Palestinian leaders.
Second, the poll's results were made public as Palestinians prepare to hold new general elections in the coming months. If, as the poll shows, a majority of Palestinians continue to see their leaders as corrupt, this means that Abbas's rivals in Hamas are again likely to win the vote.
In 2006, Hamas candidates ran in the parliamentary election under a list called Change and Reform.
The list promised to end massive corruption in the Palestinian Authority; that was one of the two major reasons why Hamas won the parliamentary election. The list also promised to continue the "armed resistance" against Israel. That was the other reason, and still would be.
To avoid such a scenario, the Biden administration and Western donors need to make financial aid conditional upon reforms and an end to financial and administrative corruption in the PA. Failure to do so would delight Hamas and assure it of sailing to victory in the upcoming parliamentary election.
Bassam Tawil, a Muslim Arab, is based in the Middle East.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17042/palestinians-corruption-financial-aid
The Impeachment Trap - Joseph Hippolito
​ by Joseph Hippolito
In trying to destroy Trump, his enemies could destroy themselves.
President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, which began Tuesday, could provide the turning point for his and his opponents' legacies -- though not in the way many might think.
Trump and his lawyers could use the trial to prove conclusively the existence of nationwide fraud in last year's Presidential election. Trump thus not only would ensure acquittal in the Senate and begin his second term. He would disgrace and destroy his enemies for all time.
Ironically and unwittingly, the House of Representatives put itself in such an untenable position. The impeachment resolutionstated that for two months, Trump "repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials."
The resolution also stated that on Jan. 6, during a rally while Congress met to certify Joe Biden's ostensible election, Trump "reiterated false claims that 'we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.' "
In demanding impeachment, the resolution claimed Trump incited protesters to breach Capitol security -- despite evidence to the contrary, as FrontPage Magazine reported in "The Ultimate Betrayal" and "Capturing the False Flag."
Then on Feb. 4, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, alluded to Trump's accusations of voter fraud in a letter asking the president to testify. Raskin wrote that the president, in his lawyers' response to the impeachment resolution, "attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense."
Since those "critical facts" concern election fraud, Trump's lawyers have the chance to make their case. But how can those lawyers succeed if meticulous research from Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, Peter Navarro and Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, among others, apparently failed to get national traction?
Simple. The military would have to collect irrefutable evidence of tampering, especially from foreign parties. As commander-in-chief, Trump would have the ultimate military clearance -- and Trump was commander-in-chief during the election.
So how would the military collect such evidence? One way would be through the United States Space Force, which Trump made a separate military branch in December 2019.
Ten months earlier, in a policy directive for the proposed branch, Trump delineated the Space Force's responsibilities. Duties included "deterring aggression and defending the Nation ... from hostile acts in and from space."
Fulfilling that mandate would mean engaging in cyber security. As a report from the Modern War Institute at West Point statedin July:
"The Space Force has an opportunity to pioneer safeguarding the infrastructure security of the United States, and it resides in fusing its responsibility for the hardware component with a consolidated cyber capability. Specifically, it is time to transition the national security cyber domain architecture from a combatant command into the operational mechanism of space warfighting."
If other countries manipulated vote totals in Biden's favor, those nations would do so by using internet connections to hack into voting machines or data repositories in the cloud. In his report, Pulitzer wrote that adjudicated ballots "can be sent off site, downloaded to Excel spreadsheets, manipulated and then re-introduced into the system" electronically.
FrontPage Magazine explored that likelihood in "The Serbian Connection." Serbian tech specialists working for Dominion Voting Systems wrote the software for Dominion's voting machines. The software included an algorithm that could reduce Trump's votes, which could be manipulated from Serbia's capital, Belgrade, where Dominion has an office.
Powell also asserted foreign interference Nov. 20 when she said on Howie Carr's radio show in Boston that Serbia, China, Iran and Liechtenstein played key roles.
So the Space Force's satellites and tech specialists would be able to explore the cloud and various servers, find suspicious activity, decipher the accurate vote totals and determine who acted when, where and how.
Moreover, as a separate military branch, the Space Force could work with other federal agencies without interference from other branches. As the Space Force's proposed policy directive stated:
"The Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall create and enhance mechanisms for collaboration between the Department of Defense and the United States Intelligence Community in order to increase unity of effort and the effectiveness of space operations."
Trump then could view the cyber evidence in real time in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, as FrontPage Magazine suggested in "Beijing Is Called For Biden," which also reported how Trump tried to repel foreign interference.
Trump made federal election tampering a national security issue, and gave oversight authority to the Department of Homeland Security, which would work with the Department of Justice. In November 2018, Trump created the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the DHS to keep civilian networks from being hacked.
Two months earlier, Trump declared a national emergency because "the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference," stated his executive order. That order amplified his ability to gather information through the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, among other officers in the executive branch.
Last Nov. 2, the DOJ announced it would monitor voting and tabulating in 44 counties in 18 states with the National Guard's help. The announcement included jurisdictions in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, sites of the biggest disputes.
But if malevolent parties hacked voting machines and software, that means all the safeguards failed, right? Not necessarily.
What if Trump allowed the hacking to take place so he could trap the responsible parties and their benefactors, foreign and domestic?
Why would he do that? To deal the ultimate death blow to the "deep state," the collection of entrenched politicians and bureaucrats who sacrifice the nation's founding principles on the altar of personal ambition. Trump has based his entire approach to politics on that goal.
So if cyber evidence shows that Biden or any other American colluded with foreign governments to rig the election, they risk being charged with treason and sedition.
If such an idea sounds like it came from a bad spy novel or crime drama, consider the following.
First, neither of Trump's impeachment lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, are experts in Constitutional law. Castorspecializes in civil cases while Schoen deals in violations of civil rights and voting rights. Schoen even consulted with former Vice President Al Gore's legal team in the controversy over Florida's votes in the 2000 Presidential election.
Second, Trump expressed an unreserved resolve to punish theft in his 1987 book, "The Art of the Deal":
"My philosophy has always been that if you ever catch someone stealing, you have to go after him very hard, even if it costs you 10 times more than he stole. Stealing is the worst."
If the Space Force has irrefutable evidence of electoral fraud, and if Trump's lawyers present it during his trial, he not only would have survived impeachment for a second time. He not only would have started his second term and devastated his political enemies.
Trump would have directed the most extraordinary and vital sting operation in American history.
Joseph Hippolito
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/impeachment-trap-joseph-hippolito/
Pete Hegseth reacts after Ilhan Omar named vice chair of House foreign affairs subcommittee - Dom Calicchio
​ by Dom Calicchio
Omar's promotion shows "you can 'fail up' in the United States House – and get a vice chairmanship," Hegseth says
Rep. Ilhan Omar named to leadership post on House foreign affairs panel
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar's promotion this week to a leadership position on a U.S. House subcommittee drew a sharp reaction Friday night from "Fox & Friends Weekend" co-host Pete Hegseth.
Hegseth, a native of Omar's adopted home state of Minnesota, shared his views during an appearance on "Fox News Primetime" with host Mark Steyn.
Omar, 38, now in her second term in Congress after initially being elected in 2018 and then reelected last year, has been named vice chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on Africa and global human rights issues. The Democrat is a native of Somalia who emigrated to the U.S. with her family as a teenager.
Her office confirmed her new assignment earlier this week, according to the Star Tribune of Minneapolis.
"Upholding basic human rights around the world is a core priority for me and the Fifth District of Minnesota," Omar said in a statement, according to the newspaper. "As someone who represents a large African diaspora community and is the first African-born immigrant to serve in Congress, I am particularly excited to play a leadership role in overseeing our international aid and foreign policy on the continent."
ILHAN OMAR'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTED NEARLY 80% OF POLITICAL PAYMENTS TO HUSBAND'S CONSULTING FIRM: FILINGS
The news about Omar came a little more than a week after a U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, unveiled a bill to remove Omar from the Foreign Affairs panel – apparently in response to GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia recently being removed from her committee assignments over some past comments, The Hill reported.
Hegseth, a former officer in the Army National Guard, called Omar's new assignment "absurd," given her past comments that have been critical of the U.S. government in which she serves.
"The idea that Ilhan Omar is even on the foreign affairs, foreign relations committee, is absurd," Hegseth said. " Now she's a vice chair of a subcommittee … This is the modern-day Democrat Party – anti-Americanism writ large."
NANCY MACE FIRES BACK AT ILHAN OMAR AFTER CRITICAL TWEET
Hegseth then recounted some past controversies involving Omar, including her "Some people did something" comment about 9/11, other remarks about the "Black Hawk down" tragedy in Somalia that involved U.S. service members and her "all about the Benjamins" quote about Israel.
Pete Hegseth
"We know who she is. … Her view of foreign policy is, it's all Jewish-financed American imperialism. We're the problem in the world," Hegseth said.
Steyn then remarked that it was surprising Omar has advanced in Washington as a foreign-born lawmaker despite a track record of "denigrating" the United States. Hegseth agreed.
"Minnesota welcomed her, housed her, fed her, educated her, empowered her, elevated her and then elected her," Hegseth said, "and ultimately when she sees the United States, she sees a racist, oppressive or torturous country. When she looks back at Somalia, it's blissful. Those are her words, not mine.
"And unfortunately … her district in Minnesota has sent more of its residents to go fight with ISIS, on their side, than any other district in America. … So she's got a little bit of a terrorism problem in her backyard that she hasn't addressed. But you can 'fail up' in the United States House – and get a vice chairmanship."
Dom Calicchio is a Senior Editor at FoxNews.com. Reach him at dom.calicchio@foxnews.com.
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/pete-hegseth-reacts-after-ilhan-omar-named-vice-chair-of-house-foreign-affairs-subcommittee
Recall Newsom campaign reaches enough signatures to potentially trigger special election - Brittany De Lea
​ by Brittany De Lea
Around 1.5 million people have signed the petition, more than the required amount, Fox News confirmed on Wednesday
Gov. Newsom called out for lack of accessibility as recall effort gains steam
Organizers of a campaign to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom say they have obtained the required number of signatures to trigger a special election.
The secretary of state's office will need to process the signatures and determine if they are valid.
Around 1.5 million people have signed the petition, more than the required amount, Fox News has confirmed. Organizers said they expect to have 1.6 million signatures by Sunday.
Organizers are aiming for 2 million signatures by mid-March due to the verification process and the campaign is seeking a comfortable margin. The group noted there was a 25% disqualification rate among signatures collected last time.
A spokesperson for Newsom's office did not immediately return Fox News' request for comment.
FORMER SAN DIEGO MAYOR SIGNS PETITION TO RECALL GOV. NEWSOM: 'WE NEED A CHANGE NOW'
California recall initiatives are not uncommon – though they rarely make it onto the ballot.
However, people may be particularly displeased this year with Newsom, who has faced criticism over a number of recent events, including for violating his own strict coronavirus restrictions when he attended an indoor dinner party late last year. Attendees at the expensive restaurant gathering were seated closely and were not wearing masks.
The California governor eventually apologized for the incident, deeming it a "bad mistake."
Randy Economy, senior adviser and official media spokesman for the campaign, suggested in a previous interview with Fox News that supporters of the movement believe the governor mismanaged the coronavirus situation, adding that many small business owners in the state – like restaurants, boutique shop owners – have completely lost their livelihoods, while big-box stores, like Target, have been allowed to remain open.
Newsom "put corporate interests before the people of California," Economy said.
Gray Davis, who was recalled in 2003, was the first governor recalled in the United States since 1921. Davis was ultimately replaced by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former bodybuilder and actor.
If the recall makes it onto the ballot, voters will be asked whether they want to recall Newsom and who should replace him. If a majority of voters approve the recall, the next governor will be the individual who accumulates the most votes.
Brittany De Lea
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/recall-newsom-campaign-signatures-special-election
EU's Covid-19 Vaccination Debacle: "Epochal Failure" - Soeren Kern
​ by Soeren Kern
"The commission decided to aggrandize its competence and it wasn't up to the job — it didn't have the right people or the right skills." — Adrian Wooldridge, political editor, The Economist.
The vaccination rollout has been plagued by bureaucratic sclerosis, poorly-negotiated contracts, penny-pinching and blame shifting — all wrapped in a shroud of secrecy. The result is a needless and embarrassing shortage of vaccines, and yet another a crisis of legitimacy for the EU.
"The European Commission ordered too late, limited its focus to only a few pharmaceutical companies, agreed on a price in a typically bureaucratic EU manner and completely underestimated the fundamental importance of the situation. We now have a situation where grandchildren in Israel are already vaccinated but the grandparents here are still waiting. That's just completely wrong." — Markus Söder, Bavarian premier and possible future German chancellor.
"I now fear that the European Union will find itself in the impossible situation of having to prolong some of the existing [Covid-19] restrictions beyond the summer, while both Britain and the United States start to normalize. That is the cost of the vaccine delays: a very high cost in lives, prestige and further economic losses." — Bruno Maçães, political scientist and former Portuguese Europe Minister.
"In the dispute over the delivery delay of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the EU Commission is currently making the best advertisement for Brexit: It is acting slowly, bureaucratically and protectionist. And if something goes wrong, it's everyone else's fault." — Bettina Schulz, commentator, Die Zeit.
The EU's Covid-19 vaccination campaign rollout has been plagued by bureaucratic sclerosis, poorly-negotiated contracts, penny-pinching and blame shifting, resulting in a needless and embarrassing shortage of vaccines. Pictured: People await their vaccination at the Robert-Bosch hospital in Stuttgart, Germany on February 12, 2021. (Photo by Thomas Kienzle/AFP via Getty Images)
The European Union's much-touted campaign to vaccinate 450 million Europeans against Covid-19 has gotten off to an inauspicious start. The vaccination rollout has been plagued by bureaucratic sclerosis, poorly-negotiated contracts, penny-pinching and blame shifting — all wrapped in a shroud of secrecy. The result is a needless and embarrassing shortage of vaccines, and yet another a crisis of legitimacy for the EU.
As of February 11, the EU had administered vaccines to approximately 4.5% of its adult population, compared to 14% in the United States, 21% in the United Kingdom and 71% in Israel, according to statistics compiled by Our World in Data. The EU's vaccination fiasco comes as many European countries are struggling to combat an extremely virulent third wave of the coronavirus and healthcare systems across the continent are once again at breaking points.
The current imbroglio, months in the making, was triggered on January 22, when AstraZeneca, the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company, notified the EU that, due to production problems at a plant in Belgium, initial deliveries of its Covid-19 vaccine would be reduced by 60% in the first quarter of 2021. The company said that it would deliver to the EU only 31 million doses by the end of March, rather than the 80 million doses originally pledged.
A few days earlier, the US-based pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, and its German partner, BioNTech SE, slowed supplies of their vaccine to the EU. Pfizer said that the temporary move was necessary to reconfigure its production plants to increase long-term supply of the vaccine.
European officials, caught off guard amid mounting public anger, resorted to the blame-game by accusing the pharmaceutical companies of failing to honor their contractual commitments. On January 29, the European Commission made public a heavily redacted version of the 42-page contract between the European Commission and AstraZeneca. European officials apparently hoped this move would swing public opinion to their side.
The redactions, however, were ineptly made in such a way that the original text was easily decipherable by tech-savvy members of the public. The now-public text revealed that European negotiators agreed to unusually lenient procurement terms, and that AstraZeneca is under no contractual obligation to deliver a specific quantity of doses within certain time frames. According to the contract, AstraZeneca is only required to make "best reasonable efforts" to deliver the vaccines on schedule.
"It is hard to define the 42 pages as a contract," concluded Johan Van Overtveldt, chairman of the European Parliament's budget committee. "This is more a declaration of good intentions."
In an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, the CEO of AstraZeneca, Pascal Soriot, admitted that the company was two months behind in production but blamed the supply shortages on the EU's delays in signing the contracts:
"We've also had teething issues like this in the UK supply chain, but the UK contract was signed three months before the European vaccine deal. As a result, with the UK we have had an extra three months to fix all the glitches we experienced....
"We didn't commit with the EU, by the way. It's not a [contractual] commitment we have to Europe: it's a best effort. We said we are going to make our best effort. The reason why we said that is because the EU at the time wanted to be supplied more or less at the same time as the UK, even though the EU's contract was signed three months later. So, we said, 'ok, we're going to do our best, we're going to try, but we cannot commit contractually because you are three months behind UK.' We knew it was a super-stretch goal and we know the pandemic is a major issue.... Basically, we said we're going to try our best, but we can't guarantee we're going to succeed. In fact, we are getting there even though we are a little bit delayed."
Markus Ferber, a German Member of the European Parliament (MEP), noted:
"The anger is justified. If I conclude a contract, but there are no obligations for the manufacturer...then it is not a balanced contract."
European leaders had hoped the vaccine rollout — organized by the European Commission on behalf of all 27 EU member states — would restore confidence in the European Union after Covid-19 systematically destroyed many of the foundational myths — European solidarity, open borders, multilateralism — underpinning European unification.
In her November 2020 "State of the Union" address, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a grandiose "European Health Union." In what appeared to be an unabashed power grab, she said that more centralization of decision-making power in Brussels was necessary to fight Covid-19 as well as future pandemics:
"Our aim is to protect the health of all European citizens. The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the need for more coordination in the EU, more resilient health systems, and better preparation for future crises. We are changing the way we address cross-border health threats. Today, we start building a European Health Union, to protect citizens with high quality care in a crisis and equip the Union and its Member States to prevent and manage health emergencies that affect the whole of Europe."
EC Vice-President for Promoting the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, added:
"Today, we are taking a big, meaningful step towards a genuine EU Health Union. We are strengthening our common crisis management to prepare and respond to serious cross border threats to health. Our EU agencies need to be equipped with stronger mandates to better protect EU citizens. To fight the COVID-19 pandemic and future health emergencies, more coordination with more efficient tools at EU level is the only way forward."
Von der Leyen also promised that the EU's administrative prowess would save not only Europe but the rest of the world from the ravages of Covid-19:
"This vaccine will be a breakthrough in the fight against the coronavirus, and a testament to what partners can achieve when we put our minds, research and resources together. The European Union will do all in its power to ensure that all peoples of this world have access to a vaccine, irrespective of where they live."
EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides added:
"Working together will increase our chances of securing access to a safe and effective vaccine at the scale we need and as quickly as possible. It will ensure fair and equitable access for all across the EU and globally, thus offering the best opportunity of finding a permanent exit strategy from the COVID-19 crisis. This is the EU at its best: pooling resources, joining efforts, bringing tangible results to the everyday lives of people. No one is safe until everyone is safe and we will leave no stones unturned in our efforts to protect EU and global citizens."
On January 29, however, in a sudden about-face, Kyriakides abruptly announced plans to impose export controls to prevent shipments of the Covid-19 vaccine from leaving the European Union. She said that EU citizens must be vaccinated first.
Kyriakides' announcement, specifically aimed at preventing AstraZeneca from using its plant in Belgium to fulfill its contract obligations with the United Kingdom, was a direct attack on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed a just month earlier. The move, which undermined the foundation of the Brexit deal that took four years of arduous negotiations to complete, set off a firestorm of criticism and triggered yet another self-inflicted public relations disaster for the European Union.
"For Europe to say they are going to control exports [of the vaccine] is contrary to what they said a few months ago, that they were going to give access to everybody," said Soriot, the CEO of AstraZeneca. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, added:
"The European Union was originally inspired by Christian social teaching — at the heart of which is solidarity. Seeking to control the export of vaccines undercuts the EU's basic ethics. They need to work together with others."
Now that the vaccine debacle has become the top political issue in Europe today, European leaders appear to be looking to Russia for salvation. In an effort to save face, European regulators reportedly are considering fast-tracking approval of the Russian-made Sputnik V Covid vaccine for use in Europe. Such a move would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. That the EU would suddenly cling to Russia, which is under a panoply of EU sanctions for its actions in Ukraine, amounts to massive geopolitical humiliation.
In a January 27 interview with the German broadcaster ZDF, Markus Söder, the Bavarian premier and possible future German chancellor, laid blame for the botched vaccine rollout squarely at the feet of the EU:
"The European Commission ordered too late, limited its focus to only a few pharmaceutical companies, agreed on a price in a typically bureaucratic EU manner and completely underestimated the fundamental importance of the situation.
"We now have a situation where grandchildren in Israel are already vaccinated but the grandparents here are still waiting. That's just completely wrong.
"It cannot be that such a large continent, which is so economically strong and has so many large pharmaceutical companies, is unable to produce more vaccines."
Select Commentary
European analysts — pro- and anti-EU — have been scathing in their criticism of the way the European Commission has mishandled the vaccine rollout.
In an essay published by the UK-based Spectator, columnist Matthew Lynn wrote that the vaccine disaster has undermined the EU's legitimacy in three ways:
"First, the EU is by its very design a technocratic elite, without much in the way of democracy. Of course, that's fine if you like that sort of thing. In the political theory seminars there have always been respectable arguments for letting the experts run everything without all the messy business of elections. There is a catch, however. The technocrats have to be genuinely technically competent, otherwise what's the point? The vaccine disaster suggests the EU's technocrats are third division, and even that is probably generous.
"Next, it has shattered the myth of market power. The EU has built itself on the idea that the Single Market worked better than lots of fragmented national economies. Its bargaining power, and sheer size, meant that companies, no matter how big and powerful they might be, would always have to bend to its will. Left to themselves, smaller countries, and even France and Germany, would simply be ignored. But that doesn't seem to have worked in this case. Israel isn't a big market. Nor on the world stage is Britain. Serbia, vaccinating at twice the rate of Germany, definitely isn't. Small, it turns out, is fine.
"Finally, it has called into question its status as a 'regulatory superpower.' The EU has made a lot in the last decade of its ability to become the world's leading rule and standard setter. It certainly isn't a military superpower anymore, and its claims to be an economic one fade with every accumulated year of underperformance. But at least when it came to regulations it could argue it led the world. The EU's rules would be the gold-standard that everyone else would have to follow. And yet why would anyone want to follow a regulator that makes such a hash of things?
"Any particular crisis will blow over eventually. Very few last more than a couple of weeks, and any industrial problem can always be fixed if you have unlimited money to throw at it. But the vaccine affair has exposed how hollow the EU has become — and that will do lasting damage."
Guntram Wolff, director of the Bruegel think-tank in Brussels, wrote:
"Why is the EU lagging behind? .... As always in such complex issues, there is no single answer as to why this is happening.... Part of the explanation is that the EU ordered too few vaccines too late.... Purchases were slowed down further as the EU insisted that liability in case of negative side-effects on health remains with pharma companies and therefore rejected early emergency authorization.... EU funding has also proven insufficient... Last, the EU was not prepared for the pandemic.... Building a racing machine only when the race has started means delays."
In an essay titled, "Why the EU Lost the Vaccine War," Bruno Maçães, a Portuguese political scientist and former Portuguese Europe Minister, wrote that the bloc's unease with technology was partly responsible for the delays:
"There is a lot that went wrong with the European Commission's vaccination strategy. But before everything else, there was complacency.... There was no urgency in signing the necessary contracts with the most promising manufacturers, with protracted haggling over prices further delaying the process....
"During a pandemic, it makes a vital difference whether vaccines are available now or in two months' time, both in terms of saving lives and resuscitating the economy....
"This was never understood in Brussels, with the Commission insisting it had secured billions of doses but forgetting to consider when these doses would be available. Even in normal times, being able to lead in key technological areas will sooner or later be translated into more visible forms of global power....
"The main question posed by the pandemic will be the one concerning technology. The responses adopted by governments around the world seem to fall into two main categories. Those countries able to leverage new and emerging technologies to fight the virus have done better in limiting the number of cases and fatalities, while managing to keep most of their economies and societies operational. The countries unable to use technology had to rely on lockdowns, quarantines, generalized closures and other physical restrictions — the same methods used to fight the Spanish Flu more than a century ago and, in many cases, with the same slow, painful results.
"I now fear that the European Union will find itself in the impossible situation of having to prolong some of the existing restrictions beyond the summer, while both Britain and the United States start to normalize. That is the cost of the vaccine delays: a very high cost in lives, prestige and further economic losses. The current crisis has the potential to spiral out of control. The imperative was to reduce the risks of that happening, no matter what the immediate financial cost. But again, to think technologically rather than legally is something that Brussels struggles with. Economies of scale, exponentials, tail risks — all foreign concepts."
Bloomberg News, in an essay titled, "Faced With a Vaccine Emergency, the EU Made an Enemy of Everyone," observed:
"The events leading up to the decision to control exports show von der Leyen's team buckling under the immense pressure to fix its vaccination program. Beginning the week under fire for moving too slowly, they ended up possibly making things much, much worse by moving too fast.
"On top of the faltering vaccine program, which is likely to cost thousands of lives and billions in lost output, von der Leyen and her team have done real damage to the EU and its self-image as a champion of open markets and the rule of law."
Adrian Wooldridge, political editor of UK-based magazine, The Economist, said,
"The EU Commission is very good at negotiating things like trade deals, but traditionally it hasn't had competence in such matters as vaccines and contract negotiations, which were left to member states. The commission decided to aggrandize its competence and it wasn't up to the job — it didn't have the right people or the right skills.
"By contrast, Britain put a successful venture capitalist specializing in biosciences, Kate Bingham, in charge of its vaccine procurement program. Her competence is in buying vaccines and drawing up contracts, and that's not the competence of Ursula Von der Leyen or anyone within her employ."
In an essay titled, "The Best Advertisement for Brexit," Die Zeit, one of the most pro-EU newspapers in Germany, wrote:
"In the dispute over the delivery delay of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the EU Commission is currently making the best advertisement for Brexit: It is acting slowly and bureaucratically and is resorting to protectionism. And if something goes wrong, it's everyone else's fault. This is how many Britons see the EU and so the prejudices have been confirmed: 'Now I understand Brexit better,' an AstraZeneca employee said on television."
In another article titled, "Europe Loses the Vaccination Competition," Die Zeit wrote:
"This is a disaster for the European Commission. Since last autumn, their spokespersons have repeatedly referred to the necessarily secret nature of the negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies. Again and again the message was: 'Trust us! We have a clear mandate from all EU member states and we are in a position of strength vis-à-vis the manufacturers.' European ideology was certainly involved: 'together we are superior to all others and therefore we do not get involved in a global race for vaccines.'"
In an op-ed titled, "How Europe Dodges Responsibility for its Vaccine Fiasco," the UK-based magazine, The Economist, wrote that EU member states share responsibility for the current state of affairs:
"Start with the body Mrs von der Leyen heads: the commission. It took months to sign contracts for covid-19 vaccines, something that could have been done in weeks. Shrugging off liability — ensuring that the drug firms were on the hook should anything go wrong — was prioritized over speedy delivery. The row with AstraZeneca was badly handled. In a mix of institutional panic and fury, Mrs von der Leyen demanded export controls on any vaccines heading out of the EU. This threat of a blockade led to concern from Tokyo to Ottawa, rather undermining the EU's claim to be the doughtiest defender of the rules-based trading system....
"But no one forced national governments to put the commission in charge. Legally, EU institutions have barely any responsibility for the health care of the continent's citizens, which is left to national governments. Rather than deal with the tricky politics of some EU countries buying more vaccines than others, governments outsourced the job to the commission. Commission negotiators, used to arguing over simpler things like beef quotas in trade deals, were tasked with dealing with makers of novel pharmaceuticals. Reshuffling institutional responsibilities while in the middle of a crisis is risky, yet surprisingly normal in the EU. The job of overseeing a project costing €2.7bn ($3.35bn) to vaccinate 450m people was handed to a department whose main previous concern was food labelling — all at the behest of national capitals."
Roland Tichy, founder of the influential German blog, Tichys Einblick, predicted that the vaccine debacle would result in EU member states clawing back decision-making powers from the European Commission:
"Ursula von der Leyen combines decisiveness with ineptitude. She represents a confused ideology and despises democracy and self-determination. Her blind belief in the blessings of a central (istic) bureaucracy destroys the diversity and efficiency of European states and cities. Ursula von der Leyen could be the nail in the coffin of this kind of union of bureaucrats and ideologues. Nobody needs this kind of paternalistic EU except for failed politicians and far too many overpaid bureaucrats who use it to expand their own power, importance and income.
"Ursula von der Leyen involuntarily is setting the pace. She is a pacemaker for an EU that is being cut back to size in the direction of the original European Economic Community: a common Europe without borders — but with lively democracies that work for their citizens instead of reducing them to being subjects of the EU."
In scathing commentary published by Bild, Germany's largest-circulation newspaper, chief political reporter Peter Tiede concluded:
"This is a health disaster of unprecedented proportions. For us Germans and for all of Europe! The EU's vaccination order is a debacle. One that will cost lives.
"The United States launched the largest vaccination program in history ('Warp Speed') last April. And what did the EU do?
"It created the biggest trust-destruction program in its history: too bureaucratic, too stingy and above all too slow. With this, Brussels and all of the national governments involved have achieved one thing: to confirm the weakness of Europe.
"Worse still: At all levels, those in power in Brussels and Berlin respond to indignant and disappointed citizens with arrogance — 'It's not our fault!'
"This epochal failure must be investigated down to the last detail and there must be consequences. Not sometime in the future. NOW! Anyone who has negotiated and approved this has to go."
Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17052/eu-vaccination-failure Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Back to the Future with FISA - Lloyd Billingsley
​ by Lloyd Billingsley
The secret court, most powerful in the land, was always about the partisan targeting of American citizens.
Last month DC Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg gave FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith probation, a small fine, and community service instead of the five years in prison and the $250,000 fine his crime deserved. As it happens, Boasberg is also presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that Clinesmith had defrauded. More than a travesty of justice, Boasberg's action lifted the robe of secrecy on the FISA court, whose unchecked power troubles many in Congress.
"The FISA court is a judicial body with no parallel in American history," Sen. Ron Wyden explained in 2013. "A group of judges operating in complete secret and issuing binding rulings based solely on the government's arguments." As Sen. Richard Blumenthal clarified, the FISA court "exercises vast invisible power." From the start, that powerful court was all about targeting American citizens.
"FISA was originally enacted in the 1970s to curb widespread abuses by both Presidents and former FBI officials of bugging and wiretapping Americans without any judicial warrant," Sen. Patrick Leahy testified in 2002. One of the victims was the leftist Morton Halperin, who wrote in Defense Strategies for the Seventies that the Soviet Union constituted no danger to the United States, and the USSR never contemplated the use of military force against Western Europe. Halperin's telephone was illegally tapped by officials in the Nixon administration.
"It is a great pleasure for me to testify again on FISA," Halperin said in the same 2002 hearing. "As you know, I was deeply involved in the process that led to the enactment of it. I urged the Congress to support it. I still think it is in the national interest and plays a vital role."
Sen. Edward Kennedy introduced the FISA Act in 1977, during the administration of Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter so enraged Kennedy that he sought help from the Soviet Union, then headed by the KGB's Yuri Andropov, a hard-line Stalinist. Kennedy offered to help Andropov deal with Reagan and in return the Soviet boss would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.
Sen. Kennedy collaborated with a hostile foreign power to influence an American election. The FISA process failed to stop or expose this criminal collaboration, which did not emerge until the 1990s. Greater failures were yet to come. As Sen. Arlen Specter also testified in 2002, FISA played no role in stopping the terrorists of September 11, 2001.
"The failure to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for Zacarias Moussaoui was a matter of enormous importance," Specter said. If American officials had gotten into Moussaoui's computer, and followed up on reports of terrorist flight training, Specter said, "9/11 might well have been prevented." It wasn't, yet the FISA court, a body with no parallel in American history, continued to wield unchecked power.
By 2016, the "composite character" David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama had transformed the nation into a more authoritarian arrangement. The outgoing president picks his successor and rigs the FBI and DOJ to support Hillary Clinton and attack Donald Trump. His campaign was not collaborating with Russia, so the task for the FBI and DOJ was to get creative. Enter Kevin Clinesmith, of the FBI's national security and cyber law division.
The FBI lawyer falsified an email to say that U.S. Navy veteran Carter Page was not a CIA asset, when in fact he was. That exposed the Trump associate to surveillance under FISA. Were it not for DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the crime would have gone undiscovered.
In August 2020 Clinesmith pleaded guilty to falsifying the email, so in January 2021 he was an admitted felon awaiting sentence, not a "defendant," as Boasberg described him. The FISA court boss also told the court Clinesmith had made a "misstatement," a strange description of deliberate falsification. The FISA warrant to surveille Carter Page, Boasberg also explained, would have been approved even without the lawyer's misstatement.
Judge Boasberg made these statements in open court, and his conduct is evidence of the way he acts as presiding judge of the FISA court. That body holds a distinct advantage over the U.S. Supreme Court, which operates in public, with rulings and opinions endlessly analyzed.
In 2014, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Boasberg to the FISA court, but there was no public hearing to determine his fitness to serve on that body. The president of the United States can be impeached and so can justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains unclear if FISA court judges can be impeached, and whether the secret court would allow any impeachment attempt to be made public.
Boasberg knew the FISA court would have approved the warrant on Carter Page without Clinesmith's falsification. So Boasberg doubtless signed off the entire process, bogus dossier and all. The FISA court boss then slips back into his circuit court robe and lets Clinesmith go with a tap on the wrist. This has no parallel on the U.S. Supreme Court.
John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas et al cannot let stand a lower court ruling then step down to the lower court and participate in the sentencing process. So even without lifetime tenure – FISA court judges have a seven-year term – Boasberg holds a distinct advantage. In effect, Boasberg is the nation's most powerful justice, and the FISA court the most powerful in the land.
Kevin Clinesmith was the only person to face criminal charges from the investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham. The alleged man of integrity brought no charges against FBI director James Comey and FBI counterintelligence boss Peter Strzok. They operated above the law and got away with it, and that travesty of justice will have serious consequences going forward.
If the FBI wants a warrant to spy on any American for partisan purposes, presiding FISA court judge James Boasberg will be okay with it. Meanwhile, Morton Halperin, who was "deeply involved" in the creation of FISA, is now a senior advisor with the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros. The leftist billionaire is surely delighted with the way things have turned out.
Lloyd Billingsley
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/back-future-fisa-lloyd-billingsley/
▼ Feb 7 (55)
Trump acquitted in second impeachment trial on cha...
After a slow start, Trump's attorneys had a barn-b...
Palestinians: More Corruption as Biden Resumes Fin...
Pete Hegseth reacts after Ilhan Omar named vice ch...
Recall Newsom campaign reaches enough signatures t...
EU's Covid-19 Vaccination Debacle: "Epochal Failur...
Another Member of the Equity Squad Joins the Biden...
Book Burning, Name Calling, And The Democrats Prae...
Dems' Next Plot Against Trump - Joseph Klein
The 'Five Million Palestinian Refugees' - Hugh Fit...
Biden Takes 'Death to America' Terrorists Off Terr...
The International Criminal Court Threatens Middle ...
Republicans Need to Stop Accepting Progressives' '...
Alexei Navalny and Public Dissent in Russia - Emil...
Teachers' union pet: Biden moves the goalposts aga...
Joshua's Altar restored - Shlomo Witty
Turkish Reforms: From Imperial Repression to Thugg...
Biden Administration's Haste to Resume Aid to Pale...
China Is Creating a New Master Race - Gordon G. Chang
Is Palestine a State? - Alan M. Dershowitz
Biden's Mixed Signals Over Iran Stoke Middle East ...
Merkel under fire for failing to choose sides betw...
Donald Trump Was America's Whistleblower-In-Chief ...
The Thirty Tyrants - Lee Smith
Now It's the Turn of the Palestinian Voter - Lt. C...
A Positive Step Amidst Syrian Chaos - Joseph Puder
Saudi FM: Iranian nuclear program threatens entire...
The Anti-Trump Election Conspiracy Goes Public - M...
Southern Poverty Law Center Stops Monitoring Black...
Islam's Three 'Claims' to Jerusalem - Raymond Ibrahim
Pied Pipers With Scalpels - Bruce Bawer
US attorney handling Hunter Biden probe asked to s...
For Biden, there's never too much control for Amer...
We only have ourselves to blame - Nitsana Darshan-...
Abbas Threatens to Kill Anyone Opposing Him - Sami...
Maher Bitar and Israel's Ideological Elections - C...
Obama's 3rd term - Melanie Phillips
The Reichstag Fire of the Democrats - Daniel Green...
If You Thought the 2020 Elections Were Chaotic, Ju...
Will the Trump Successes in the Middle East Surviv...
The ICC aids and abets terrorism - Yoav Limor
The Betrayal of the American People by Biden and t...
Supreme Court Blocks California Ban on Indoor Wors...
The grand illusion of the 'great reset' - Michael ...
Rigging the Election for China and Profit - Claric...
Washington winds blowing through The Hague - Amnon...
When (Or If) Comes The Pushback? - Victor Davis Ha...
Trump's attorneys have the perfect troll tactic fo...
TIME expose highlights coordinated effort to unsea...
Israeli hospital claims it developed drug to cure ...
150 People Were Shot in Chicago Since Illinois Sen...
Video: Biden's Covid-19 Con Job - Frontpagemag.com
California again delays bullet train first stage, ...