Category: National Security

House Republicans Tell Mayorkas He’s Lying, Should Resign

Posted on by The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee told Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas he lied under oath. They said he didn’t prepare for the hearing by responding to requests for information by the committee and wouldn’t answer questions. They also told him he should resign or be impeached.

RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’

Mayorkas appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, which held a hearing on the “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Prior to the hearing, its chairman, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Mayorkas to provide specific data about encounters with illegal foreign nationals, including details about asylum claims being processed. Mayorkas did not appear to provide the information.

After U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, repeatedly asked Mayorkas how many people have been released into the U.S. and deported under Mayorkas’ watch and he wouldn’t answer, Jordan asked the same questions.

“How many illegal aliens has the Biden administration released into the United States?” he asked. “How many illegal aliens has the Biden administration removed from the United States?”

Mayorkas said he would provide the committee with whatever data they requested, after Jordan requested the data prior to the hearing.

“We asked you to be prepared to answer the question,” Jordan said. “The fact that you won’t is bad, the fact that you don’t know is bad.”

Jordan reiterated that Americans want to know the answer. Mayorkas repeated the same reply, saying he will provide the data; “we have been cooperating with the committee.”

RELATED: Why Hasn’t the GOP Yet Walked the Walk on Its Mayorkas Impeachment Talk?

Jordan then showed the documents the committee received from DHS in response to questions it asked about its disinformation board created last year under Mayorkas.

The pages are blank.

U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, thanked Mayorkas for “your performance. I have watched with fascination as you have danced and dodged and lied, yes lied. We know you’ve lied. You know you’ve lied; more importantly the American public knows that you lied throughout your testimony today.”

Mayorkas repeatedly claimed the border is secure, a claim U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, also affirmed on Wednesday.

Referring to DHS’ disinformation board, Hageman said, “And yet you believe that you and your fellow architects of the censorship industrial complex think that you should be able to determine what is and isn’t true and what is and isn’t untrue.

“You are the walking, talking epitome of the very tyrant that our forefathers recognized would gravitate towards government service. It is because of people like you that they drafted the First Amendment. …You do not have the right to limit our freedom of speech … Thank God we have the First Amendment so that we can stop you from doing what you’ve been doing.”

Former Democrat turned Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey listed what he said were Mayorkas’ failures and said he must resign, and then asked if he would resign.

Mayorkas replied, “No, I will not. I am incredibly proud of the work that is performed at the Department of Homeland Security.”

In response, Van Drew said, “Secretary Mayorkas if you will not resign that leaves us with no other option. You should be impeached.”

RELATED: Biden Admin Ripped Apart for Whining About Illegal Aliens Being Bussed to Blue Cities

U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, told Mayorkas, “I’ve been in Congress seven years. I think you’re the most dishonest witness that has ever appeared before the Judiciary Committee. I think I speak for a lot of my colleagues. This is such a frustrating exercise … because our constituents want answers. They’re tired of open borders, they’re tired of people dying from fentanyl overdoses, and it’s your fault.”

The hearing was held as 525 known or suspected terrorists have been apprehended attempting to illegally enter the U.S. so far this fiscal year, including one that was released into the U.S. by DHS last year.

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post House Republicans Tell Mayorkas He’s Lying, Should Resign appeared first on The Political Insider.

Are UFOs a national security risk? Hearing puts Pentagon on notice

Posted on (Updated by Ellen Mitchell

Three former defense officials on Wednesday gave explosive testimony at a House hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs), warning that the sightings “potentially” pose national security risks. 

The witnesses before the House Oversight subcommittee — a former Navy pilot, a retired Navy commander and an ex-Air Force intelligence official — also stressed that the government has been far too secretive in acknowledging such incidents, prompting calls from lawmakers for the intelligence community to be more forthcoming.

“If UAP are foreign drones, it is an urgent national security problem. If it is something else, it is an issue for science. In either case, unidentified objects are a concern for flight safety,” said Ryan Graves, a former F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot who founded Americans for Safe Aerospace, a non-profit group meant to encourage pilots to report UAP incidents. 

And all three witnesses replied “yes” when asked if the UAPs could be collecting reconnaissance information on the United States or probing the country’s capabilities. 

The hearing seemed to unite lawmakers in a push for answers on a topic that has largely been dismissed by politicians, who for decades have been hesitant to touch on UAPs — also known as unidentified flying objects, or UFOs — and other extraterrestrial life lest they become a laughingstock. 

A series of reports from The New York Times beginning in 2017 began to change that. The reports — exploring the Pentagon’s secretive Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and DOD-documented UAP sightings. 

Lawmakers also worry that the sightings could be tied to military technology owned by adversaries but unbeknownst to most Americans. 

“UAPs, whatever they be, may pose a serious threat to our military and our civilian aircraft, and that must be understood,” said the subpanel's ranking member, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). “We should encourage more reporting, not less on UAPs. The more we understand, the safer we will be.” 

The Pentagon has only given tentative information on UAPs, in 2021 releasing a report which found more than 140 inexplicable encounters. 

Videos released by the Defense Department have also shown unexplained happenings, including the now famous “Tic Tac” video, taken in November 2004 on a routine training mission with the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz off the coast of southern California. 

During the encounter, Navy ships and planes used sensors to track an oval-shaped flying object that resembled a Tic Tac breath mint, with four pilots visually sighting the apparatus that flew at high speed over the water before abruptly disappearing.  

Former Navy pilot David Fravor, the commander of the mission and the individual who filmed the video, on Wednesday told the committee that the object “was far superior to anything that we had at the time, have today or looking to develop in the next 10 years.” 

He added that he found it “shocking” that “the incident was never investigated” and said none of his crew were ever questioned.

And fellow witness Graves said during the hearing that he had seen UAPs off the Atlantic coast “every day for at least a couple years.” 

He said the sightings were “not rare or isolated” – noting that UAP objects have been detected “essentially where all Navy operations are being conducted across the world,” and were also seen by military aircrews and commercial pilots. 

But Graves also estimated that only 5 percent of sightings are reported, which he attributed to stigma among pilots who feel it will “lead to professional repercussions either through management or through their yearly physical check.” 

But the most explosive testimony of the day came from David Grusch, a former member of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency whose previous allegations on UAPs and the government’s efforts to conceal them sparked Wednesday’s hearing. 

Grusch claimed that the Pentagon and other agencies are holding back information about UAPs and hiding a long-running program that is attempting to reverse engineer the objects. 

Grusch said that he “absolutely” believes the U.S. government is in possession of non-human technology, adding that he knows “the exact locations” of that material.

He also claimed that he has faced serious reprisals for his statements and had knowledge of those who have been harmed or injured as part of ongoing efforts to cover up extraterrestrial technology.   

Grusch in the past has claimed that the U.S. government has for decades recovered nonhuman craft with nonhuman species inside. 

He repeated similar assertions at Wednesday’s hearing, though he repeatedly told lawmakers he could not share details in a public setting and that his information was based upon what he had been told by others. 

Republicans and Democrats now want to get to the bottom of what these incidents mean for U.S. national security.  

“There clearly is a threat to the national security of the United States of America,” Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) said. “As members of Congress, we have a responsibility to maintain oversight and be aware of these activities so that if appropriate we take action.” 

He later told reporters that lawmakers have “a responsibility now to move forward aggressively to get to the answers of these questions.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told reporters that a bipartisan group of lawmakers will seek a closed meeting with the witnesses to discuss confidential information in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.  

And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday's hearing was the “first of many” on the government's handling of information related to UAPs, which “is an issue of government transparency.” 

“I’m shocked, actually, at just the amount of information that came out because all the roadblocks that we were put up against,” he told reporters. 

“I think what’s gonna happen now, the floodgates — other people are gonna say, ‘You know, I’ve got some information, I’d like to come swear in,’ and that’s what we’re going to start doing.”

Judiciary GOP torn on Mayorkas impeachment as conference eyes other options

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

House Judiciary Republicans appeared split in their appetite for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Wednesday, with many largely refraining from discussions of booting him from office.

Democrats went into Wednesday's hearing expecting the unofficial kickoff of an impeachment inquiry into Mayorkas.

But they were met with a more muted GOP as the party grapples with where to focus their impeachment energy.

The hearing wasn’t entirely free of fireworks. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) told Mayorkas that U.S fentanyl deaths were “your fault” while Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) told Mayorkas he should ‘be ashamed; moreso you should be held accountable.”

And Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) repeated the once popular GOP refrain that he should resign or face removal, telling Mayorkas he’d reached the “inevitable conclusion” that the Homeland Security secretary should quit or “that leaves us with no other option. You should be impeached.”

Democrats previewed a point-by-point argument addressing GOP claims floated at different turns over Mayorkas’s two-and-a-half years on the job, and noted the drop in border crossings following the implementation of new Biden administration policies.

But most of the GOP seemed to carefully skirt the “I” word, a factor one GOP aide privately told The Hill was because “I think everyone has moved onto bigger fish.”

Rep. Jerold Nander (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the panel, rolled through a series of GOP arguments, including those surfaced in a recent report from the House Homeland Security Committee, which has vowed to turn over its investigative products for use by Judiciary should they advance an impeachment inquiry.

He asked Mayorkas to dismiss claims the border is open or that he lied to Congress during prior questioning with Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) about achieving operational control of the border, a standard requiring perfection.

“The Secure Fence Act, specifically the statute, defines operational control as not having one individual cross the border illegally. Under that statutory definition, no administration has achieved operational control,” Mayorkas said.

Nadler said Mayorkas was just one target of a GOP eager to impeach anyone, pointing to earlier comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) while calling their “outrage…entirely evidence free.”

“As she so eloquently put it, ‘Everyone loves dessert, and that's impeachment. Someone needs to be impeached.’ Like many of her colleagues, she seemed not to care who was impeached, so long as they could engage in the political exercise of impeaching somebody in the Biden administration. She singled out Secretary Mayorkas as ‘the lowest hanging fruit,’” he said.

And Rep. Veronica Escaobar (D-Texas), whose district is along the U.S.-Mexico border, accused Republicans of using Mayorkas as a scapegoat while refusing to enact legislation that would do anything to solve the problem. 

“We know that the spectacle you're seeing on the other side is part of the Republicans ultimate distraction strategy, impeachment. They aren't just focused on impeaching you Mr. Secretary, despite the fact that apprehensions at the border are down by 70 percent,” she said.

“I encourage my colleagues who are seeking a true solution to join our effort to address our broken system. Anything short of that is a dereliction of Congress's responsibility and obligation,” she said, a nod to the GOP argument that Mayorkas has been derelict in his duty.

The GOP critiqued Mayorkas’s job performance, with Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) asking him to rate how he’s done on the job on a scale of one to 10.

And Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) accused the administration of offering too rosy a picture.

“We know that this administration repeatedly violates the law under the guise of instituting safe, orderly and humane policies. But nothing about the Biden administration's policy is safe, orderly, or humane,” he said.

“Only this administration and my Democratic colleagues would call it a success when monthly encounter numbers are near 150,000.”

Republicans in the hearing repeatedly griped about Mayorkas’s failure to answer specific questions on statistics or provide figures on the border.

The GOP had put Mayorkas on notice that they were hoping to get numbers – sending a letter on the afternoon ahead of the hearing with nine different areas where they were seeking data. That primarily covered how migrants seeking asylum were processed and deported since the start of the Biden administration.

“As I have stated before, data you wish to have we will provide to you as promptly as possible. What I don't want to do is misspeak when it comes to data,” Mayorkas told Jordan. 

But Jordan said those promises are often not realized.

“I can appreciate that. But we have a history where we've asked questions before, in a hearing, you told us the same thing. You don't get it back to us. So we're trying to get as much as we can on the record, in a public hearing,” Jordan said.

“You say you're gonna get back with this, but the history has not been too good on your part.”

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) also accused Mayorkas of dodging questions.

“I think you're the most dishonest witness that has ever appeared before the Judiciary Committee and I think I speak for a lot of my colleagues. This is such a frustrating exercise for us,” he said.

Mayorkas was one of the earliest impeachment targets of the GOP – Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Mass.) jokingly asked if he's unpacked his office yet – but his appearance comes as Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has floated other targets for impeachment.

McCarthy in recent weeks has floated the potential impeachment of Attorney General Merrick Garland as well as President Biden.

Some Republicans have said Mayorkas should remain a focus, and the Republican Study Committee on Tuesday released a memo backing the action.

But McCarhy has gotten flack about pursuing impeachment, including from Buck shortly after his exchange with Mayorkas.

“This is impeachment theater,” Buck said, saying McCarthy was dangling impeachment as “a shiny object.”

“I don’t think it’s responsible for us to talk about impeachment. When you start raising the ‘I word’ it starts sending a message to the public and it sets expectations,” he added later.

Grassley faces criticism over release of FBI document

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is in the political spotlight as Democrats and critics attack him for releasing a lightly-redacted document detailing unfounded allegations of Biden family corruption and bribery and conservatives praise his move in the name of transparency. 

The eight-term senator has had a storied career, particularly on investigative matters, where he has long been considered a champion of whistleblower protections.  

But critics say his decision late last week to release the tip to the FBI, memorialized in an FD-1023 form, put a chink in that armor. The FBI admonished Grassley and other senators for releasing the form, saying it “risks the safety” of the confidential source, who claims the Bidens “pushed” a Ukrainian oligarch to pay them $10 million.  

“I would never have advised him to do that,” said Kris Kolesnik, who spent 19 years as Grassley's senior counselor and director of investigations but has come out as a critic against his work in recent years.    

“This is like a new guy,” Kolesnik continued, noting that Grassley, 89, spearheaded the oversight efforts against the Reagan administration. “We left him quite an oversight legacy, and he's put all that in jeopardy. Between back then and now, it's like night and day.”  

According to the form released by Grassley and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), the FBI’s informant — known as a CHS, or confidential human source — met in 2016 with Mykola Zlochevsky, the CEO of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, who claimed that he made a pair of $5 million payments to the Bidens. He did not specify who was on the receiving end of those alleged bribes.  

The form relays information on the conversation to an FBI agent but does not assess the veracity of the tip.   

The informant also claimed that Zlochevsky has 17 audiotapes, including two with then-Vice President Biden and the remaining 15 with Hunter Biden, though a number of Republicans have questioned whether they even exist.   

There has not been any evidence linking President Biden to the payments or Hunter Biden’s foreign work, and the White House has strongly denied any improper action.  

Grassley said on Thursday that the move was made for the sake of transparency and that Americans “can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats.” His office added that it was obtained via legal avenues and downplayed claims by the FBI that the safety of the CHS could be at risk.   

But that has in no way calmed the waters as Democrats increase their attacks over what they view as unsubstantiated claims that were already dismissed in full by the Trump administration.

Democratic staff on the House Oversight Committee wrote in a memo to House Democrats on Monday that Grassley and Comer’s actions were “in brazen disregard” of the safety of FBI sources and “the integrity of its investigations.”   

More from The Hill

“Contrary to Republican messaging, the form provides no new or additional support for their corruption allegations against the President or Hunter Biden,” the memo says. “Instead, its release merely seeks to breathe new life into years-old conspiracy theories, initially peddled by Rudy Giuliani, that have been thoroughly debunked.”  

Grassley’s work pertaining to whistleblower protections has long legs that extend well into that universe today. Empower Oversight, an organization of lawyers that includes a number of former Grassley investigatory staffers, has become a key group on this front as it helps whistleblowers navigate the treacherous waters to legally report information to Congress lawfully.   

However, his recent work has come under the microscope as it has become increasingly politicized.  

“He is transgressing all of the oversight principles we learned back in the day, the No. 1 principle of which is ‘Stay the hell away from politics,’” Kolesnik said. “And he’s broken that repeatedly.”   

In a statement, a spokesperson for the senator took issue with Kolesnik’s claims and said that Grassley “calls the shots on his investigation” and that “anyone who’s ever worked for” him would know this.  

“He maintains an impeccable reputation for shining a light on facts that the bureaucracy would prefer to keep hidden,” said Taylor Foy, a Grassley spokesman. “Grassley’s Biden investigation stems from government employees who are concerned that politics has infected the nation’s premier law enforcement agencies. Ignoring these claims would be a failure of Sen. Grassley’s constitutional oversight responsibility.”   

“Shying away from legitimate oversight because of fear of the political implications, as Mr. Kolesnik suggests, is exactly the type of cowardice that results in a runaway, unaccountable bureaucracy,” Foy continued. “That’s no legacy anyone who values oversight should pursue, and Mr. Kolesnik should know better.”  

Supporters of the longtime Iowa senator also maintain that he did nothing nefarious by releasing the document. They say that his track record should speak for itself and that if he is harping on a subject, there’s a good reason.   

“People willing to analyze his oversight history know that when he says something, you should pay attention because he's not one to shoot from the hip,” said Michael Zona, a former Grassley staffer and a GOP strategist, adding that the senator “usually knows a lot more than what he says.”  

“Pay attention to what he's saying or doing because he's probably ahead of the curve,” Zona added.   

Politically, Grassley is under little pressure to deviate from his current investigatory course. He won his eighth term last fall by a 12-point margin over Democrat Mike Franken.  

Republicans in his home state believe that his legacy is secure no matter what comes of the current push into the finances and actions of the Biden family. They also say that news of the document did not make much of a dent with Iowans in recent days as their focus is on the ongoing special legislative session on abortion in Des Moines and the parade of 2024 Republican presidential candidates to all corners of the state.   

"To me, I read this and I'm like, ‘This is classic Chuck Grassley,’” said Craig Robinson, a longtime Iowa-based GOP political strategist. “This is what he does. I don't view any of this as him being hyper partisan in any way. This is on message for who he's been as a United States senator for decades.”  

Federal court blocks Biden rule limiting asylum

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

A federal judge Tuesday blocked a new Biden administration rule that limited access to asylum, issuing a decision that will take effect in two weeks.

The ruling from a federal judge in California is a major loss for the Biden administration, which imposed new restrictions on asylum-seekers, including that they must first seek the protections if offered in another country along their route to the U.S. 

The rule, finalized in May, also limits the ability to seek asylum between ports of entry. 

In blocking the rule, U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar repeatedly referenced U.S. asylum law, writing that the new policy undermines the clear intent of Congress in establishing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and danger.

“Requiring noncitizens to present at ports of entry effectively [constitutes] a categorical ban on migrants who use a method of entry explicitly authorized by Congress,” Tigar wrote in the ruling.

“Conditioning asylum eligibility on presenting at a port of entry or having been denied protection in transit conflicts with the unambiguous intent of Congress,” he added later.

The suit stems from a challenge led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), though the policy also generated lawsuits from GOP-led states.

“The ruling is a victory, but each day the Biden administration prolongs the fight over its illegal ban, many people fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor for their families are instead left in grave danger,” Katrina Eiland, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case, said in a statement. 

“The promise of America is to serve as a beacon of freedom and hope, and the administration can and should do better to fulfill this promise, rather than perpetuate cruel and ineffective policies that betray it.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which promulgated the rule, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, though the Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling.

“We strongly disagree with today’s ruling and are confident that the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule is lawful,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement, referencing the formal title of the rule.

He noted the Department of Justice will appeal the decision and seek a stay pending appeal. 

“Because the district court temporarily stayed its decision, today’s ruling does not change anything immediately.  It does not limit our ability to deliver consequences for unlawful entry. Do not believe the lies of smugglers. Those who fail to use one of the many lawful pathways we have expanded will be presumed ineligible for asylum and, if they do not have a basis to remain, will be subject to prompt removal, a minimum five-year bar on admission, and potential criminal prosecution for unlawful reentry,” he said.

The rule had prompted howls from critics who argued DHS was turning to policies strikingly similar to those proposed under former President Trump. While the Biden rule had some mechanisms for migrants to fight determinations that they were ineligible for asylum, like the Trump-era third country transit ban it effectively blocked asylum for those who did not first seek it along their route.

Immigration advocates have argued few other countries have functional asylum systems to offer such protections.

But in some regard, DHS appeared to have reservations about the rule.

“To be clear, this was not our first preference or even our second,” a senior administration official told reporters when previewing the policy in February.

The court’s ruling follows the decision by the Biden administration to lift Title 42, another Trump-era policy that used the pandemic as a rationale for expelling migrants without letting them seek asylum — another contravention of asylum law.

Border crossings have dipped since the rescission of Title 42, a factor the administration credits both to the new limitations on asylum as well as the creation of new parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans that allows temporary admittance to the country.

Updated at 4:39 p.m.

Gaetz introduces legislation to end ‘unqualified’ birthright citizenship  

Posted on (Updated by Miranda Nazzaro

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill Tuesday that would end “unqualified” birthright citizenship for children whose parents are not themselves U.S. citizens.

The legislation, titled the “End Birthright Citizenship Fraud Act of 2023,” would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act “to reflect the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause,” according to a statement on the measure. 

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  

The amendment was passed in 1866, shortly after the Civil War, to ensure citizenship and equal rights for formerly enslaved people.

The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the idea the 14th Amendment applies to children regardless of their parents’ immigration status.  

Birthright citizenship has become a favored target of hard-line conservatives. Former President Trump, who toyed with moving against it during his time in office, has pledged to end it on his first day in office if he returns to the White House, though experts say a president would lack that legal authority on their own.

More from The Hill

If passed, Gaetz’s legislation would deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens, while “excluding aliens lawfully admitted as refugees or permanent residents or performing active services in the U.S. Armed Forces.” 

The bill claims birthright citizenship has "enabled an entire black market," citing estimates of 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually, and "hundreds of thousands more" born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, "many of whom have misrepresented the purpose of their trip to avoid scrutiny."

It is not clear if the removal of birthright citizenship can happen through legislation. 

“Birthright citizenship has been grossly misapplied for decades, recently becoming a loophole for illegal aliens to fraudulently abuse our immigration system,” Gaetz said in a statement, adding that his bill shows “American citizenship is a privilege — not an automatic right to be co-opted by illegal aliens."

The Florida Republican, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill will “preserve the sanctity of American citizenship” and ensure citizenship is something that is “earned” from legal migration to the U.S.  

The bill comes as the Judiciary Committee is slated to question Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday regarding the agency’s operations and immigration in particular.  

Mark Levin Expertly Eviscerates Florida Judge for Aiding in ‘Election Interference’ Against Trump

Posted on by Kathleen J. Anderson

If you are looking for a Master Class in judicial malfeasance, look no further than conservative firebrand Mark Levin. Mr. Levin has been steadily covering the concerted effort from the Biden administration to take down its biggest competitor, former President Donald Trump.

Recently Mr. Levin scolded Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon for allowing the left to continue interfering with the upcoming presidential election and destroying any chance of a fair race. Judge Cannon split the difference between what the prosecution wanted and what the Trump defense requested, placing the start date for the classified documents trial right before the Republican National Convention.

As usual, Mark is correct in his takedown of the milquetoast Judge and rightly places ownership of laying out a red carpet for the prosecution to destroy a former president and remove any possible hope for a fair presidential election squarely on her shoulders. Say goodbye to the America you knew and hello to the beginning of the end.

Shame on you!

After news broke that Judge Aileen Cannon had ordered the classified document case against President Trump will begin on May 20, 2024, Mr. Levin said on his show:

“Judge Cannon, in Florida, you let the country down. This trial should have been moved to after the election. You just gave your imprimatur and the imprimatur of the federal judiciary to the interference in this election.”

Judge Cannon’s ruling doesn’t just put the court start date before the presidential election; it also places it weeks before the 2024 Republican National Convention. It’s important to note that the former President is the current Republican frontrunner and is also believed to be pulling ahead of the incumbent and the puppet master behind the scenes of his persecution, President Joe Biden.

In this particular act of theater, the former President is charged with illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing the government’s ability to retrieve them. It seems laughable when you consider the current President stashing classified documents from when he was a Senator in his garage. 

Alas, they aren’t joking.

Originally the prosecution had requested a trial start date in December of this year, to which Judge Cannon wrote:

“The Government’s proposed schedule is atypically accelerated and inconsistent with ensuring a fair trial.”

But scheduling the trial to begin shortly before the presumptive Republican nominee for President hits the general election campaign trail won’t lead to any unfairness? Judge Cannon is either woefully incompetent or too focused on endearing herself to a media that earlier blasted her for being a Trump stooge – either option doesn’t bode well for democracy.

RELATED: Pelosi Has A Case Of The Sads: Claims Kevin McCarthy Plan To Expunge Trump Impeachments Is ‘Playing Politics’

An impossible task

Some people had different opinions than Mark regarding the Judge’s decision. U.S. Attorney Harry Litman supported her decision by writing:

“The 5/20/24 trial date that Cannon just set is about as extended as it could be without seeming ridiculous.”

I occasionally dabble in ridiculousness, so let’s look at how ridiculous this entire situation has become. The truth of the matter is that not only will the former President have to wrestle with this trial while running for the highest office in all the land, he also has on his busy legal calendar:

  • criminal charges in Manhattan 
  • civil lawsuits
  • Two criminal investigations over alleged efforts to overthrow the 2020 election

RELATED: Trump Smokes GOP Field – Defeats Biden In New Harvard-Harris Poll

Mr. Levin broke it down even better with the following:

“Trump will have to defend himself against bogus criminal charges in Manhattan, bogus civil charges in Albany, bogus criminal charges in the “documents” case, bogus criminal charges in the Jan. 6 matter, and most likely the shoe will soon drop in Atlanta. All the while, he is running for re-election as President. It is extremely difficult to fight all these prosecutors, and fight for your freedom, and run for President at the same time. And these prosecutors know it.”

So let’s call all of this what it is; it’s not ridiculous; it’s terrifying. 

Winners and Losers

The call to have the “documents” trial start May 2024, according to Georgia State law professor Anthony Kreis, is:

“…the worst possible outcome for the Republican Party. Great for Trump though. This basically allows Trump to snag the nomination before the most easily damning case comes to trial.”

Mr. Kreis’ analysis assumes that the former President won’t easily “snag” the nomination regardless; however, the date isn’t just the worst possible outcome for the Republican Party, it’s the worst possible outcome for America. While for most Republicans, the endless legal attacks against Mr. Trump have turned into the “same ole same ole,” and for Democrats, it’s a nonstop ticker tape parade for Biden administration stooges – the people who will care are Independents.

POLL: Do you think Trump will be found guilty or not guilty?

By voting, you agree to receive email communication from The Political Insider. Click HERE for more information.

Presidential campaign consultant Dave Carney backs this assertion, stating that the trial before the election will:

“…impact Independent voters in the fall.”

RELATED: WATCH: Somebody Mentions The Clinton Body Count And Anthony Weiner Loses His Mind

Earlier this month on Sean Hannity’s show Mark Levin laid out how the left-wing establishment is orchestrating a takeover:

“This is a disgusting, disgusting mark on American history for the future to come by these bandits in the White House, by the Democrat Party that don’t play fair anymore. They don’t want to just win elections. They want to take control of this country. They want one-party rule.”

With the help of the leftwing corporate media, the left believes they will be able to manipulate and lie their way into another four years thanks to the malleable minds of the Independents. 

It can happen to you

I spent 20 years in the United States military. Like many who wore the uniform or worked in federal service, I had to take copious amounts of classified document handling training.

The military,  at least back in my day, seemed to take mishandling of classified information very seriously; God help you if some shmuck accidentally sent you an email without the correct classification markings. An act done by someone else could land your entire workstation covered in investigative tape and your security clearance in suspension.

So, believe me when I tell you I take the mishandling of classified documents seriously. What I find abhorrent is the faux outrage by left-wing media and the liberal establishment over what the former President did or didn’t do.

As Mark Levin described earlier about the current President:

“This is a guy that’s got documents from the time he was in the U.S. Senate, for God’s sake, in his garage.”

Will President Trump serve jail time? Hard to say if you ask me, but the fact that “the book” is being thrown at him when perennially failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the current President isn’t even having “the book” cracked in their direction shows how far our country has fallen.

I’ll leave you with this bit of wisdom from Mr. Levin:

“The Biden regime, the Democrat Party and their prosecutors, and the Democrat Party media understand that this next election may well be the make-or-break election of our time, for our country.”

If the government can weaponize the justice system against a former President and its chief executive’s political opponent, they can do it to you, too. And this next election will show if, as Americans, we will say no to the dissolution of our republic or consent to our downfall.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Mark Levin Expertly Eviscerates Florida Judge for Aiding in ‘Election Interference’ Against Trump appeared first on The Political Insider.

Parnas dismisses Oversight GOP bribery investigation as ‘a wild goose chase’

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Lev Parnas, once a right-hand man to Rudy Giuliani, asked the GOP’s top congressional investigator to abandon efforts to uncover wrongdoing by the Biden family in Ukraine, calling the matter “nothing more than a wild goose chase” that has been “debunked again and again.”

Parnas’s Tuesday letter to House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), obtained by The Hill, notes that Parnas and Giuliani's repeated efforts to dig up dirt on President Biden or his son Hunter yielded nothing and confused Ukrainian prosecutors.

It also recaps the efforts taken by the Trump team that resulted in the launching of the first impeachment inquiry into former President Trump. Democrats alleged he withheld aid from Ukraine in an effort to pressure officials there to provide incriminating evidence on the Bidens.

“Throughout all these months of work, the extensive campaigns and networking done by Trump allies and Giuliani associates, including the enormously thorough interviews and assignments that I undertook, there has never been any evidence that Hunter or Joe Biden committed any crimes related to Ukrainian politics,” he said.

He said Giuliani and all others involved in the matter “knew that these allegations against the Bidens were false.”

“Never, during any of my communications with Ukrainian officials or connections to Burisma, did any of them confirm or provide concrete facts linking the Bidens to illegal activities. In fact, they asked me multiple times why our team was so concerned with this idea.” 

Comer dismissed the contents of Parnas’s letter.

“Now there's somebody that Giuliani was running around with and says we should drop investigations because Giuliani and him already looked into it. I mean, I don't think that that's credible,” he said.

“We're starting to see money from Ukraine coming in on some of these bank statements that we're going to release later,” he added, a reference to his investigation into Biden family finances.

Comer has based much of his investigation on an unverified tip to the FBI from a source who heard secondhand allegations Biden accepted a bribe. The bureau was unable to corroborate the tip.

Parnas has also previously provided a transcript of a conversation he says was with Mykola Zlochevsky, the reported source of the information, denying any improper conduct by President Biden or his son Hunter, who was serving on the board of energy company Burisma, which Zlochevsky owns. That information was turned over during the impeachment inquiry.

Parnas was convicted in court of making illegal campaign contributions to Trump.

His letter comes as Comer is under increasing pressure to advance his inquiry into President Biden, who he has alleged accepted a bribe.

Even some in the GOP have criticized his investigation, with former Trump advisor Steve Bannon saying last month Comer needed to “be prepared,” adding, “You are not serious. It’s all performative.” 

Comer acknowledged Monday the difficulties of explaining the financial crimes he has alleged.

“Two things I've learned: People don't know what a shell company is, and they don't know what an LLC is. They don't know what money laundering is. We're going to try to explain in a more simple form ‘this is what they did,’” he told reporters.

Those in Trump’s orbit have alleged President Biden sought to withhold aid from Ukraine because its top prosecutor was threatening to investigate his son. Biden, joined by the international community, actually sought to pressure Ukraine to remove the man, Viktor Shokin, over corruption charges. 

Parnas’s letter spends ample time breaking down the investigative efforts of Giuliani, which included trying to get Shokin’s replacement, Yuriy Lutsenko, to retain him for $200,000. 

It details the repeated dead ends they hit, and the numerous efforts to pressure Ukrainian officials.

“Giuliani’s message to the [then-Ukrainian] president [Petro Poroshenko], who was running for reelection, was that Trump would support him and help him win if he made an official announcement of an investigation against Joe Biden,” Parnas writes.

Parnas ends with a plea to Comer to halt his investigation.

“There is no evidence of Joe or Hunter Biden interfering with Ukrainian politics, and there never has been,” Parnas writes.

“With all due respect, Chairman Comer, the narrative you are seeking for this investigation has been proven false many times over, by a wide array of respected sources. There is simply no merit to investigating this matter any further. I hope my letter has provided you with additional clarity on this point.”

Both parties hear what they want to hear during rare Durham public hearing

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Special counsel John Durham was both lionized and scrutinized by lawmakers as he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss his probe into the FBI’s 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign. 

Durham provided little new information in his May report but confirmed a series of FBI missteps previously documented by the news media, including that the FBI failed to provide a full picture of the evidence when seeking a wiretap of Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  

In a rare public appearance Wednesday, Durham called his findings “sobering.” 

“The problems identified in the report are not susceptible to overnight fixes. … They cannot be addressed solely by enhancing training or additional policy requirements. Rather, what is required is accountability, both in terms of the standards to which our law enforcement personnel hold themselves and in the consequences they face for violation of laws and policies of relevance,” he said. 

More House coverage from The Hill

Over more than five hours of questioning, Republicans and Democrats zeroed in on the parts of the report most favorable to their positions.  

To Republicans, Durham’s scathing 305-page report supports their arguments about a Department of Justice and FBI that has been weaponized against former President Trump.  

Democrats argued the report backed the FBI’s initial decision to open a probe into the Trump campaign, something they view as significant, since Trump called for Durham's appointment with high expectations that he’d find damaging material on the FBI.  

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a chief Trump defender who has cast the FBI as “rotted to the core,” said the report served as an example that the bureau requires serious reform, as “any one of us could be next.”  

“There is [a double standard at the Department of Justice]. That has got to change, and I don't think more training, more rules is going to do it. I think we have to fundamentally change the FISA process, and we have to use the appropriations process to limit how American tax dollars are spent at the Department of Justice,” he added, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has the power to authorize a wiretap. 

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

It was a tip from an Australian diplomat that ignited the FBI’s interest. The diplomat had spoken with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who told him that Russia had damaging emails from then-competitor Hillary Clinton. It was that tip, not the later debunked Steele Dossier, that led the FBI to initiate the investigation. 

“We have many areas of disagreement across the aisle, but I am relieved that we have no disagreement about one of the fundamental conclusions of your report: that it was incumbent upon the FBI to open some form of investigation when presented with evidence that a presidential candidate and his associates are either coordinating campaign efforts with a hostile nation or being manipulated by such a hostile nation,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.). 

Several Democrats attacked Durham’s work, criticizing the report for not offering any recommendations for the FBI and calling attention to its failure to lead to criminal convictions. 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) noted that five Trump campaign associates were convicted of various crimes following the Mueller investigation.  

“In contrast to multiple Trump associates who were convicted, you brought two cases to a jury trial based on this investigation, and you lost both. So I don't actually know what we're doing here, because the author of the Durham report concedes that the FBI had enough information to investigate,” he said. 

“And thank goodness the FBI did, because vulnerable Trump associates who committed crimes were held accountable. And the best way to summarize what happened is: Thank you to the brave men and women of the FBI for doing their jobs.” 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) addresses reporters after a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2023.

Republicans pivoted between complaints over the Justice Department and the treatment of Trump to possible FISA reforms that would limit law enforcement authority for spying both in the U.S. and abroad.  

“You detail how FBI personnel working on FISA applications violated protocols. They were cavalier at best, as you said, in your own words, towards accuracy and completeness. Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons or entities and … a significant reliance on investigative and leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents were relied upon here,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 

Johnson went on to lament the involvement of Peter Strzok, previously deputy assistant director the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, who made negative comments about Trump in texts. 

“He said horrible things about President Trump, and all of his supporters by the way, how could we say he did not have political bias?” 

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.)

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) leaves a closed-door House Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2023.

Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) criticized the FISA application that allowed the FBI to wiretap Page. 

“A FISA application was pursued without disclosing some relevant information to prosecutors or the court, without following standard procedural rules, utilizing investigative techniques that were the most intrusive without first exhausting other techniques, and instead pursuing the most invasive method possible from the outset against Mr. Page,” she said. 

Durham was also at times berated for his work, including by those who said he did not do enough to probe FBI misdeeds after Trump said Durham’s report would reveal the “crime of the century.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was also gifted time by other members to question the course of the investigation.

Schiff critiqued Durham’s decision to issue a statement about an inspector general’s report on the same topic and repeatedly asked why one of the top prosecutors on the investigation resigned, a question Durham refused to answer.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Durham’s investigative trip to Italy was just “looking for authentic pasta” as he griped that the special counsel’s work was insufficient.

“It seems like more than disappointment. It seems like you weren't really trying to expose the true core of the corruption,” Gaetz said. 

“It's not what's in your report that is telling, it's the omission, it's the lack of work you did. ... You let the country down.”

Murkowski: charges against Trump ‘quite serious and cannot be casually dismissed’ 

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Friday said the charges contained in a 37-count indictment brought by Justice Department (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith against former President Trump are “quite serious and cannot be casually dismissed.”  

Murkowski, who says the Republican Party needs to move past Trump and was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict him on an impeachment charge in 2021, said in a statement that “mishandling classified documents is a federal crime because it can expose national secrets, as well as the sources and methods they were obtained through.” 

“The unlawful retention and obstruction of justice related to classified documents are also criminal matters,” she wrote. “Anyone found guilty — whether an analyst, a former president, or another elected or appointed official — should face the same set of consequences."

The Alaska senator joined Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) in being the only two Republican senators to criticize Trump shortly after news of the indictment broke Thursday evening.  

“By all appearances, the Justice Department and special counsel have exercised due care, affording Mr. Trump the time and opportunity to avoid charges that would not generally have been afforded to others,” Romney said, pushing back on criticism from other Republicans who say the DOJ is being driven by politics and unfairly targeting Trump.  

“Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents," he said in his statement, adding "but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so."

FILE - Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asks a question during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

Romney continued, calling the allegations "serious" and said, if proven, they "would be consistent with his other actions offensive to the national interest, such as withholding defensive weapons from Ukraine for political reasons and failing to defend the Capitol from violent attack and insurrection."

The Senate’s top two Republican leaders, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Minority Whip John Thune (S.D.) — who both have made little secret of their desire for the party to move past Trump and find a new nominee for president in 2024 — have stayed quiet about the indictment since it was unveiled. 

House Republican leaders, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), and other Senate Republicans, however, have slammed the Justice Department for bringing charges against a former president.  

“This is going to disrupt the nation because it goes to the core of equal justice for all, which is not being seen today. And we’re not going to stand for it,” McCarthy told Fox News in an interview Friday.   

More Trump indictment coverage from The Hill

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Daily Signal the indictment will “harm” the country.  

He warned the nation is already “dangerously polarized” and said “you are now on top of it are going to pour gasoline with an indictment.” 

Rubio also predicted that “a significant plurality of Americans, significant percentage, are going to say, ‘that’s political.’”