Interesting that Reuters would outline the walk-backs. Even more interesting that the details of the walk-backs seem to prove the DOJ never actually intended to win any of these cases, but rather wanted to advance a political narrative about extremists through their earlier statements.
The approach of building a political narrative through false accusations and over-charging in the DOJ is the essence of Lawfare. The government has endless taxpayer resources to fuel their political weaponization of the judiciary.
The process of the charges then becomes the punishment by design. The targets are drained financially, sometimes physically detained under false pretense, and then the DOJ walks backwards when the judges finally ask for proof.
The process is the punishment for political affiliation. The DOJ is fully weaponized. The majority of Americans can clearly see this taking place.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Prosecutors made some serious claims after the deadly U.S. Capitol attack, saying they had evidence rioters planned to kill elected officials, suggesting a Virginia man at the building received directives to gas lawmakers, and accusing another suspect of directing mayhem on Jan. 6 with encrypted messages.
But the Justice Department has since acknowledged in court hearings that some of its evidence concerning the riot – carried out by a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump to try to overturn his election loss – is less damning than it initially indicated.
[…] On Jan. 19, prosecutors said they believed Thomas Caldwell, a retired U.S. Navy officer from Virginia, had a “leadership role” within the Oath Keepers. The FBI, in a criminal complaint, described Facebook messages Caldwell allegedly sent and received “while at the Capitol,” including one urging him to turn on the gas and tear up the floorboards.
“‘All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,’” it read.
A prosecutor in Florida read those words aloud in February in a bid to convince a judge to detain two of Caldwell’s co-defendants. Prosecutors now acknowledge that Caldwell was not even a dues-paying member of the Oath Keepers and that they lack evidence he ever entered the Capitol.
There also are questions about the Facebook messages. Caldwell’s lawyer said in a March 10 court filing those messages were sent by two men who were more than 60 miles (100 km) away at the time and had no connection to the Oath Keepers. The comments were apparently satirical, albeit “tasteless,” his lawyer said, and Caldwell never responded to them. (read more)
This pattern of Main Justice overcharging based on fabricated or overblown claims is consistent with their exact same activity in the Trump-Russia investigation. DAG Rosenstein charged fictitious characters in Russia and then buried the entire indictment of a dozen people in the National Security Division, never to be heard from again after July 13, 2018…. Of course, just from the indictment itself, the media had the talking points they needed.
If you are old enough to remember the Soviet-era propaganda approximately five years prior to the Polish solidarity movement, you are old enough to have a solid frame of reference for July’s 2018 announcement from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
{GO DEEP}
But then Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa walked into a Boulder, Colorado supermarket — reportedly having traveled 25 miles to find a supermarket that caters to Jewish shoppers — and killed 10 people with a Ruger AR-556.
After initial efforts attempting to extend the “white male mass killer toxic supreme masculine male superiority” ran into a Syrian roadblock, the press narrative dutifully — and the fact that there were no dead minorities to martyr inside the supermarket
the stories pushed by the gun grabbers and Second Amendment deniers were all about the need to ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and impose a litany of government regulations on the sale and possession of firearms.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals joined in with the chorus yesterday with a truly amazing decision in a long-pending en banc case, ruling 7-4 that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees citizens the “keep and bear arms” within the confines of your house.
So much for the 2nd Amendment rights of the homeless — or does a tent pitched on a public sidewalk qualify? A deeper dive on that decision — all 215 pages of it — will have to wait another day.
Almost as quickly as the press narrative changed and the calls for more gun control legislation grew after “someone did something bad” in Boulder, Democrat Senators from red and purple states suddenly realized that blowing up the legislative filibuster would mean that the gun grabbers in their own party would be able to pass such legislation without them by picking off a couple of RINOs to take their place in voting “Yes” in order to get to the 50 needed. And just like that, we get this today from CNN:
The push by liberal Democrats to enact President Joe Biden’s sweeping agenda is running into problems beyond just Sen. Joe Manchin: A handful of Democrats are not falling in line and could limit the scope of the party’s ambitions on an array of critical issues.
Some Senate Democrats like Sen. Jon Tester of Montana are not yet sold on the House-passed bills to expand background checks on gun sales. Eight Democrats are resisting calls to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.And it’s more than just Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema who are opposed to changing Senate rules so a filibuster can be defeated by 51 votes, rather than 60: The two New Hampshire Democratic senators are resisting those calls as well, in addition to several others who are not yet persuaded that such a change is necessary.“No,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, told CNN when asked if she would support eliminating the 60-vote threshold. “I think we should look at ways to reform the filibuster, but I don’t think getting rid of it is the best approach.”New Hampshire’s junior Democratic senator, Maggie Hassan, who faces a tough reelection bid next year, also has “concerns about eliminating the filibuster,” a spokesperson said, though backs some reforms.
Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.
Manchin and Tester would both lose re-election in their home states if federal gun control legislation passes.
Beating Sinema might only depend on the GOP finding a solid opponent to run against her.
Maggie Hassan will likely face an opponent who will be favored to beat her — thrice-elected Governor Chris Sununu, who opted to not run for Senate in 2020 against Dem. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who managed to win a third term in 2020 with 57% of the vote. But Hassan was first elected in 2016 with only 48%, beating GOP incumbent Kelly Ayotte by .2% of the vote, and is a much more inviting target if Sununu decides he wants to follow in the footsteps of his father to the Senate.
If the blowing up the filibuster is now off the table, the writing is on the wall for HR1.
Manchin, a conservative West Virginia Democrat, told CNN repeatedly in an interview that “no,” he will not cave to pressure to gut the 60-vote threshold, even if Republicans block a voting rights bill. Democrats had hoped that a likely GOP filibuster on their party’s bill to expand voting access and overhaul the elections would be enough to convince Manchin and others to do away with the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold — given the onslaught of Republican-led efforts on the state level to impose new restrictions.But Manchin made clear that a Republican blockade of a voting bill won’t change his mind.“No, it will not, no, no,” said Manchin, who also wants changes to his party’s election bill, S.1., before considering supporting it. “They are reading that totally wrong.”
Manchin has always known — but the reaction to the Boulder shooting drove home the point for good measure — that if he causes the legislative filibuster to cease being a brake on bad legislation, that is going to include bad legislation that his constituents in West Virginia won’t like. With a “D” after his name on the ballot, his career will be at an end when he is next up for re-election.
The others identified in the CNN story are just as vulnerable as Manchin. The conservatives in Montana won’t continue to give Tester a pass because he’s a “moderate” who seeks to protect many aspects of Montana’s rural heritage. All democrats will be tarred by any legislation from Congress that interferes with gun owners’ rights in Montana.
“I mean, look, I’m from Montana. I’ve got more than I need and fewer than I want, but background checks are important,” Tester said. “I do believe that. But you can go too far on that ship pretty fast too.”
New Hampshire has gravitated closer to other New England states in recent years, but it is still the “Live Free or Die” state with a substantial libertarian contingent who would not react well to 2nd Amendment limitations.
I suspect this is the death knell for ending the legislative filibuster. The horrific episode in Boulder, and the immediate turn by the Democrats to the ethos of “let no crisis go to waste” in pushing gun control in its aftermath, caused the light-bulb to go on in a few Democrat Senators’ heads.
VATICAN CITY—Pope Francis said today that God has informed him of a new requirement to enter Heaven: everyone must now receive the COVID-19 vaccine before entering the pearly gates.
"This is very important for the salvation of all people on Earth," Pope Francis explained. "We know that God lets everybody into Heaven because He loves us all and He doesn’t really care what kind of mischief we get ourselves into in this life, but we must be wary of the greatest earthly sin of all: not getting the COVID-19 vaccine. God has informed me that He will not let you into Heaven unless you have received BOTH DOSES of this very safe vaccine."
The Pope’s announcement comes as leaders worldwide push for citizens to receive the vaccine. Scientists have claimed the vaccine is in no way harmful to anyone, and it cannot possibly turn you into a zombie or anything weird like that.
Pope Francis also stated that receiving both doses of the trustworthy vaccine will “immediately release your deceased relatives from purgatory" and "could even cut your time there in half.” To drive his point home, he has commanded the Catholic church to deny communion to any unvaccinated members.
At publishing time Pope Francis had received an initial dose of the vaccine and had to be strapped down in a bed for an exorcism before the second dose.
https://babylonbee.com/news/pope-francis-says-covid-vaccine-will-now-be-required-to-enter-heaven
A recent Time article, “On the Hunt for Hate,” describes the Biden administration’s approach to “defeat far-right extremism.” Other titles that would fit the article include “Playbook for a New Red Scare,” or “Lessons Revisited: The Palmer Raids.”
The Biden administration seems to have missed those history lessons in high school, and the Time article explains as much:
Biden has asked senior advisers to do something no previous Administration has attempted: refocus the network of U.S. security agencies to help combat domestic extremism …
In “normal times,” the article continues, “a new Administration would be focusing on dire foreign threats like transnational terrorism, Chinese cyberespionage, or North Korean nuclear proliferation.” Instead of focusing on those things, however, good ol’ Joe is focusing on you and your neighbors.
For the next four years, try not to worry too much about Chinese cyberespionage. No, according to Daryl Johnson, a former Department of Homeland Security senior analyst mentioned in the Time article, the real threat is “soccer moms and Joe Blow citizens showing up at the same activities as hardcore white-supremacist groups and militia extremists.”
In other words, you should be aware that your neighbor — who, yes, seems fairly normal but does post on Parler — just might be a right-wing extremist. Indeed, one of the most powerful tactics of power and oppression is paranoia.
Without a doubt, acts of domestic terrorism are absolutely and categorically abhorrent, no matter the reason, and people who commit them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Shifting a massive amount of U.S. national security resources to focus on America’s own citizens, however, is a different story altogether.
The Time article states that far-right extremism is “one of the greatest domestic threats since the Civil War.” Yet, Dale L. Watson, the executive assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Division, states that “From the 1960s to the 1980s, leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the most serious domestic terrorist threat to the United States.”
To argue that the trend of far-right domestic extremism is currently at such a high level that an administration should “attempt something that has never been done before” is simply false. Furthermore, violent political extremism is seeing a gradual uptick across most of the world, not just in the United States.
Because the Biden administration is so blatantly focused on far-right extremism, one can only assume that it’s not necessarily the domestic terrorism they want to stamp out, but the ideology of those on the right. As was the case during the Red Scares, the executive branch played a large role.
Then, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer authorized the arrests of several thousand suspected radicals. Many were deported to the Soviet Union. President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order that provided for a federal loyalty program, and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover compiled detailed information on suspected communists.
Worryingly, a similar pattern is emerging at present. For instance, after the Jan. 6 riot, the FBI worked with Bank of America to look through the banking records of people who purchased things in the Washington, D.C. region.
Yet at least one person taken into custody for questioning because of his D.C.-area purchases was found to have no ties whatsoever to the riots. Did the FBI take similar extreme measures to find those who were involved in CHAZ, an actual takeover of a U.S. city, which also involved deaths? No, they didn’t.
The party in power may change, but the Red Scare shows us that federal involvement in rooting out citizens of a particular ideology leads to tragic consequences. As the old saying goes, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
March 24, 2021
Joe Biden is scheduled to finally have a press conference. (Today at 1:15 eastern - but after last nights blank stare, we wouldnt be at all surprised if it's canceled.)
No doubt there will be efforts on the part of the White House to head off any issues and limit the damage, perhaps even limiting who gets to ask questions/calling on more friendly reporters.
But at this point, he’s delayed their ability to have real questions on a host of issues, they’re not happy and he’s set it for a day where they’re going to be asking a ton of questions about the border crisis. Now that might explain why he appointed Kamala Harris today to take over the border, so tomorrow he can say, “Ask her.” But that wouldn’t fly if he tries that tactic.
But reporters from The Washington Post are, unbelievably, urging their brethren not to be tough on him during the presser. According to Margaret Sullivan and Jen Rubin, the question wasn’t really how Biden would do in the presser but whether the media could contain themselves from going too hard at him.
It’s a major test for news organizations and reporters in covering Biden.
And Joe Lockhart, a press secretary under President Bill Clinton, fears the press corps won’t be able to resist walking in with the mentality of, “We’re gonna show all the MAGA people we can be just as tough on Biden as we were on Trump.”
Yeah, that’s exactly what media should be concerned about with over 60 days of Biden ducking media and lacking transparency on a wide variety of issues.
Now this was the same ‘journalist’ who told the media that they needed to ‘abandon neutrality-at-all-costs journalism’ and “In this new era, my prescription is less false equivalence, more high-impact language and more willingness to take a stand for democracy. With Trump unbound, the news media need to change. Yes, radically. The stakes are too high not to,” Sullivan concluded.
Yes, we get you abandoned neutrality at all costs. You just don’t seem to understand how that makes you not a journalist but a Democratic advocate.
Jen Rubin was even worse. Any concerns or questions were just things “ginned up” by Republicans, according to her. So therefore media shouldn’t be falling for all that or pressing Biden on those questions. Indeed, Biden should be fact checking the media if they dared ask. No kidding, that’s what she said.
As my Post colleague Margaret Sullivan writes, “The burgeoning number of migrants — including thousands of children — is a legitimate concern and a valid story. But much of the news media seems to be using it to show that they intend to present [President] Biden in just as critical a light as they often did Trump — regardless of whether that’s deserved.” What’s more: The media storyline has been factually misleading.
In reality, there has been no surge of arrivals outside the normal fluctuation of migration. [….]
The lesson here for the administration is to debunk and rebut a false Republican-driven narrative quickly. As they do with covid-19 hearings, showering reporters with data rather than debating an issue on Republican terms generally works better. It is now also incumbent on the media to review its coverage and come clean with viewers and readers. When its breathless coverage turns out to be deeply misleading, it should explain how and why they got it wrong.
This is fantasy. According to Rubin, Republicans just made up the thousands of people flooding the border and overwhelming the CBP and the ability to deal with them. How does someone live in such unreality? Has she not seen the pictures herself? Or heard from the CBP or what the poor Democrats in the area – Democrats Rep. Henry Cuellar, Mayor Bruno Lozano and Sheriff J.E. Guerra – have all said. Or even what the president of Mexico has said. Thinking maybe these people know just a little bit more than Jen Rubin. Scary ignorance and bias on her part.
Scary that either of these folks is in the position of supposedly “informing” the public.
HT: Twitchy
The Wisconsin state legislature has passed a resolution authorizing an official investigation into the 2020 election in the badger state. The resolution allows for evidence gathering and subpoena power for witness depositions.
Via Associated Press – MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Assembly passed a resolution Tuesday to authorize an investigation into the 2020 presidential election that President Joe Biden narrowly won in the state.
The resolution, opposed by Democrats, is needed to give the committee authorization if it decides to issue subpoenas to compel testimony and gather documents, said Rep. Joe Sanfelippo. He is vice-chairman of the Assembly elections and campaign committee that would conduct the probe.
The resolution authorizing the investigation passed on a 58-35 party line vote, with all Republicans in support and all Democrats against. It passed after Republicans last month ordered an audit of the election results. (read more)
Trump Rally Wisconsin, November 2, 2020
But now that’s earned him an investigation from the Government Accountability Office to “determine whether [he] broke the law by freezing the money in violation of budget rules designed to keep Congress in control of the cash flow.”
Forty Republican senators wrote a letter appealing to the GAO that this was a breach of Congress’ Constitutional authority.
“[O]perational control of our southern border was compromised and a humanitarian and national security crisis has ensued. The President’s actions directly contributed to this unfortunate, yet entirely avoidable, scenario. They are also a blatant violation of federal law and infringe on Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. We write regarding these actions. We believe they violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), as interpreted by your office, and we request your legal opinion on the matter. Prompt action to end these violations is required to restore order at the border.
60 House members and four more senators have also joined the call on Tuesday against Biden’s actions, calling for the investigation.
The senators’ letter argued that the ICA requires Biden to justify his actions in a message to Congress “that includes the amount of budget authority proposed for deferral or rescission and the reason for the proposal.” Congress approved almost $1.4 billion in border wall funding in December 2020 for Fiscal Year 2021 as part of a $900 billion coronavirus stimulus package.
The GAO has accepted the request and has now started investigating.
Biden was so anxious to do away with all President Donald Trump’s achievements at the border; now it’s all coming back to haunt him, justifiably, as doing away with those protections logically resulted in a disaster. He wanted it, now he’s gotten it, in spades.
They’ve had to open up all kinds of different facilities to deal with the flow, including the Dallas Convention Center for illegal alien teens and now even military bases. It’s gotten so bad they’re reportedly considering just releasing people in the Rio Grande Valley into the country without court dates if they claim asylum because they don’t have the room and ability to deal with them all. Congress is demanding answers on that as well. Meanwhile, Biden is under fire for the humanitarian conditions in the CBP facilities, where the kids are in plastic ‘cages’ and adult detention cells, held far longer than the law allows, without adequate showers, food, or seeing the sun for days.
There was another time in U.S. history when a president was incapable of serving. His name was Woodrow Wilson, and he had had a stroke, a debilitating one. He never recovered. For about 18 months, the nation was without a president. World War I was over, and the country was on the cusp of the Roaring 20s, so perhaps having a leader wasn’t as imperative.
Politico remembered Wilson’s October 1919 stroke in this October 2019 article.
For a time, it was one of greatest cover-ups in the annals of the American presidency. (Many more years would pass before ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, which specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of a presidential disability.) Edith [Wilson, the First Lady] would regularly review pending legislation and executive documents -- becoming, according to some historians, the de facto acting president. [Italics added]
Seem familiar? It should.
A little more than a century later, history is repeating itself -- sort of. President Joe Biden is functionally incapable of discharging his duties. Robotically signing executive orders doesn’t count. In 1919, the stroke that waylaid Wilson was covered up. Wilson wasn’t paraded before the public. Then, a measure of decorum was maintained in deference to citizens’ sensibilities. (Wilson rode with his successor, Warren G. Harding, to Harding’s inaugural, but didn’t stay.)
