Friday, November 21, 2025

Why Defending Your Home Now Makes You a National Villain


It’s a frustratingly familiar story of American crime. Following an incident last July, Michigan resident Dayton Knapton was charged with manslaughter and faces up to 15 years in prison for the death of teenager Sivan Wilson.

Wilson and six friends were attempting to break into Knapton’s garage when Knapton fired two shots from outside. As the group tried to flee, he reportedly fired five more rounds, returned home to reload, and stepped back outside.

Knapton argues he was acting in self-defense, the shooting took place on his property, and he is clearly protected under Michigan’s Self-Defense Act of 2006.

Prosecutors counter that Knapton crossed the line when he fired at the seemingly fleeing teens, and he “potentially endangered the surrounding community by firing his weapon into the night.”

Knapton had reason to suspect the thieves would return. His garage had been robbed twice before, allegedly by some of the same teens. One of the suspects had previously appeared in a police report involving a stolen dirt bike, and Knapton stored several dirt bikes in the same garage.

In an earlier era, this would have remained a local story. Burglary gone wrong, thief dead, details at 11. In today’s hyper-national and hyper-partisan environment, cases like this quickly become emblems of national dysfunction.

This case highlights the tension between order and societal breakdown, and raises the basic question of whether a man may defend himself and his property from bad actors without ending up in prison.

Knapton appears to be a responsible citizen and gun owner. He had never been arrested, seemingly owned his firearm legally, and instructed his girlfriend to call police when the garage alarm went off. All things law-abiding people do.

Wilson, by contrast, was confirmed to have been shot inside the garage. At a minimum, he was trespassing. More likely, he was participating in a planned burglary, given the presence of a repeat offender among the group. 

Yet some claim Knapton is the villain for defending his home and loved ones. State prosecutors clearly reached that conclusion by charging him, and some leftist commentators demanded that he be jailed.

Self-proclaimed communist Evan Loves Worf posted a meme featuring Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech, captioned, “I think you should go to prison for blindly gunning down a teenager.”

But savvy Internet sleuths noted that, in addition to self-ascribing as a communist, Evan also identifies as a prison-abolitionist. Which is a bit strange, given a quick search of his X feed shows he’s more than willing to jail people who disagree with his political agenda. When people pointed out this incongruence, Evan changed his X bio to an ad hominem attack on The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh.

Very classy.

Rational people can disagree on whether Knapton’s actions were completely justified, as some on the Right even do. But it’s become wildly apparent that the Left’s calculus for whether or not someone should face consequences is entirely reliant on factors entirely disconnected from the crime.

Indeed, critics argue Knapton fired as the thieves fled and thus he’s guilty, but the thieves had already been inside his garage, some for the third time. This pattern repeats: leftists will endlessly go to bat for criminals while consigning law-abiding citizens to second-class status. 

Cities dominated by progressive prosecutors cycle criminals in and out within days, sometimes hours, only for them to commit the same crimes again. The steep cost is felt by ordinary people living with a justice system excusing agents of chaos. 

It is baffling that the Left continuously dies on this hill. There can be legal argumentation all day long, but it is surreal that a serious political alignment seems hellbent on defending the scum of society over honest Americans.

Daniel Penny very nearly suffered a similar fate as Knapton after he witnessed a mentally ill man menacing a woman on the New York subway and acted. He was also summarily dragged through the courts by leftists and smeared as evil for serving society. 

It would be better if government enforced public order so consistently that the aforementioned cases became outliers. But currently, law-abiding citizens are left with no other choice but to defend themselves and their communities and to resist those who profit from disorder.

A society that scorns a man protecting his castle and mourns thugs returning to burglarize his home is a broken one. Knapton’s case is yet another example of a deeply disturbing reality whereby the just are punished for the sins of the unworthy.

Knapton and Penny serve the forces of order. Leftist prosecutors, activists, and criminals serve chaos. It’s that simple. 

Pick a side.




Entertainment and podcast thread for Nov 21

 


Nothing interesting to say.

What Is an American?


The chaotic confrontation in Dearborn, Michigan, on Tuesday -- when a demonstrator attempted to burn a Qur'an and Muslim counter-protesters surged -- was more than a brief flash of drama. Along with other recent controversies in Arab-majority Dearborn, such as when the Muslim mayor told a Christian minister he "was not welcome here" and was an "Islamophobe" for objecting to renaming a local street after a Hezbollah-supporting journalist, this latest cultural skirmish yet again underscores longstanding concerns about America's immigration regime -- and, above all, the nature of American identity itself.

What, exactly, is an American? It's a question that was increasingly on my friend Charlie Kirk's mind in what tragically proved to be his final months. And in light of the Dearborn fracas and the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the next mayor of America's most iconic metropolis, it's a question that has never been more pressing.

The narrow, legal answer is straightforward: An American is a citizen of the United States, born or naturalized. That definition undergirds equal protection, sets the parameters of the franchise, and helps define the various obligations citizens owe and the rights we enjoy.

But that technical legal definition is unedifying and wildly insufficient. A passport can inform which government recognizes us on paper. But it doesn't tell us what holds the nation together, what binds disparate strangers into a people, and what shared implicit assumptions make the American experiment workable rather than a "Groundhog Day"-style recurring melee of clashing worldviews.

Since the origins of the republic, the United States has always had a legal identity and a cultural one. The legal identity is broader, permitting more inclusivity. New arrivals on our shores can relinquish foreign allegiances, acquire American citizenship, and become part of "We the People," much as the biblical figure Ruth left the nation of Moab thousands of years ago to join the children of Israel. As Ruth said: "Your people shall be my people and your God my God."

But the cultural identity of the United States -- the religiously imbued habits, values and expectations that enable our national creed, "E Pluribus Unum" -- has never been infinitely malleable. America has always had a dominant public ethos shaped by a historical Protestant-majority culture. This culture emphasizes individual responsibility, industriousness, respect for the rule of law, the dignity of conscience, and the limits of liberty rightly understood.

The two identities are connected. As President John Adams famously said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Conscience and freedom of religion must be wholly protected and secured in one's private life, but the very nature of American citizenship and American community are shaped and guided by the inherited tradition of the Protestant majority.

It was true at the time of founding, and it's still true today. Take it from me: I'm an observant Jew who cherishes the fact that America has always been exceptional not in spite of but in large part due to that culturally dominant Hebrew Bible/Old Testament-heavy Protestant inheritance.

The United States was never a "blank slate" society. Like any nation, it has a distinct inheritance, and it has always relied on a broad cultural consensus: Someone can bring their own private customs and traditions to America, but they are expected to assimilate into the public framework that has always made the country coherent -- "out of many, one." And that public framework is not merely a technical or legalistic one but a "thicker" one where acceptance of such notions as the proverbial "Protestant work ethic" constitutes a core part of American citizenship.

The challenge in Dearborn -- and elsewhere -- is that too many distinct cultural communities now reject this framework. It wasn't always this way. My own ancestors, Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, readily understood that they had to learn the English language and acculturate themselves to the nation's longstanding Protestant-informed public ways of life. Laws alone cannot create broad solidarity; only culture can do so.

We should also not be hesitant to say that American Muslim assimilation, specifically, is not going well at this time. A poll of American Muslims taken less than three weeks after the barbaric Oct. 7 Hamas pogrom in southern Israel found that 57.5% of American Muslims believed the atrocities were at least "somewhat justified." Plenty of other shocking examples abound -- including the aforementioned troubling antics of Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud. The truth is that values such as support for Hamas or Hezbollah are simply incompatible with Americanism -- period.

So once again, then: What is an American? It is someone who holds citizenship under our law, yes -- but also someone who adopts, respects and participates in the civic, religiously imbued dominant culture that founded and still sustains the republic. That culture is neither rigid nor intrinsically hostile to reasonable diversity, but it is certainly not infinitely elastic either. And it requires conscientious assimilation into a framework that alone makes ordered liberty possible.

Citizenship is a status. But being an American in its fullest sense is something much greater and more rewarding: It is partaking in a common civilization, accepting its responsibilities, and upholding the dominant inherited way of life. That doesn't seem to be happening in Dearborn -- or in far too many other places throughout the country. A free people -- and a free nation -- lets that trend fester at its own grave peril.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


New NEA Training Brands GOP As Racist Villains Blocking Trans 'Justice'


RedState 

Some things don't belong in our kids' schools. Like, say, the National Education Association, or NEA. This organization has done more to damage K-12 education in this nation than a league of communist agitators could do, probably because the NEA is made up mostly of communist agitators, and there is a lot more than a league of them.

Here's the latest in the saga of "The NEA Wants to Mess Up Your Kids." An exclusive Fox News story on Thursday has uncovered some NEA training materials that they likely didn't want to see made public - but here they are.

In a document posted on its website, the National Education Association (NEA) announced to its more than 3 million educator members a slate of training programs, including a session named "Advancing LGBTQ+ Justice," scheduled for Dec. 2-4, 2025. The union will also hold an "Advancing Racial Justice through Union Work" on Jan. 13-15, 2026.

"Understanding this community and their issues are critical to providing support and guidance that is not only inclusive but liberating," the NEA says about the LGBTQ+ training.

Goals of the training include establishing a "common understandings about the identities under the LGBTQ+ community umbrella," developing a "shared understanding of the anti LGBTQ+ policy landscape and how to develop counter narratives of inclusion and equity," deepening "skills and strategies to confront implicit bias, micro-aggressions and stereotypes in the LGBTQ+ community," and creating "a toolset of tactics for dismantling systems of privilege and oppression as it relates to LGBTQ+ educators and students."

Now that is some Looney Tunes stuff, and that's for sure and for certain. These are teachers, remember; people who stand in front of your kids every day, in a classroom, supposedly educating them. Now, we should note that the schools have no business dabbling in this stuff. There is no case in which a teacher or a school administrator, or indeed anyone involved in the school system, right down to the janitor, should have "LGBTQ+ justice" on their minds while on the job. At all. Ever. Their job is to produce young adults with marketable skills, not to indoctrinate them in LGBTQ+ propaganda.

But wait! There's more!

The guide gives "tips" for "coming out" at work and "tips" for "transitioning at work."

Why? Why is "coming out" something a teacher or school administrator should be doing? For the record, I don't want heterosexual teachers talking about who they like to sleep with, either. But here's the real laugh-inducing segment:

The literature dives into the "debate" about men in girls' sports, lamenting the fact that "our opposition wins the debate on trans youth in sports against any and all arguments we have tried for our side."

"Our base and persuadables want to support transgender student athletes, but are extremely susceptible to our opposition’s argument that excluding trans youth is necessary to protect the fairness of women’s sports," the NEA explained.

That's because 1) There are no arguments for "your side" that can't be dismantled by anyone who has taken a freshman-level Biology course, and 2) the opposition's argument that excluding "transgender" athletes - boys and men - from girls' and women's sports is because, as I mentioned above, biology. It's a horribly unfair practice, it always will be; the NEA, for all that they claim to be an organization that, well, isn't about education but does have "education" in their name, doesn't seem to understand that when one contends against reality, one always loses.

This is how the nation's largest teachers' union is training its members. This is what the nation's largest teachers' union wants our kids to be taught. 

School choice. School choice now.



Democrats Hypocritically Accuse Trump of Inciting Political Violence



New York Senator Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are accusing President Trump of encouraging political violence against Democrats. 

On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan called on America's military and intelligence community to "stand up" and "refuse illegal orders" from the Commander in Chief.

In response, President Trump on Thursday fired out two responses on Truth Social. The first read, " This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT."

A few hours later, the president wrote, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

Sen. Schumer on the floor of the Senate described the president calling "for the execution of elected officials," as "an outright threat, and it's deadly serious."

"Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely," Schumer continued. "When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline."

Rep. Jeffries wrote in a statement:

We have been in contact with the House Sergeant-at-Arms and the United States Capitol Police to ensure the safety of these Members and their families. Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed.

Democrats have been accused of using inflammatory and violent rhetoric against President Trump for nearly a decade, and most recent instances of political violence in the United States have involved left-wing individuals targeting those on the right. Republicans have argued that this type of rhetoric fuels further violence, pointing to ongoing portrayals of Trump and his supporters as “Nazis,” as well as claims that he is a dictator and a threat to democracy.

The Democrats' latest stunt in calling for disobedience to the Commander in Chief is a direct threat to the security of the United States and cannot be tolerated. 

In military court, sedition is punishable by death. 



Democrats’ Embrace Of Violent Rhetoric Will Mark Congressional Midterms


The violent rhetoric isn’t isolated, it’s becoming a feature of Democratic primaries as the party take a harder turn left.



On Sept. 12, Rep. Eugene Vindman joined fellow Virginia congressional Democrats in condemning political violence. Said condemnation came two days after an assassin murdered conservative icon Charlie Kirk while he was speaking at a free speech event in Utah. 

“The rise in political violence … is disturbing and unacceptable,” Vindman and the Democrat delegation said. “We are unified in our condemnation of these attacks. It is critical to the safety of all Americans and the health of our democracy that we are able to approach our political differences with respect and without resorting to violence.”

Less than a month later, though, Vindman was standing by his man — leftist Virginia attorney general candidate Jay Jones. Jones’ campaign hit a speed bump after his 2022 texts fantasizing about putting “two bullets in the head” of a former Virginia Republican House speaker and wishing gun violence on his children came to light. Vindman couldn’t bring himself to condemn Jones’ violent rhetoric. In fact he re-endorsed him. 

“We’re just a month out from Election Day in Virginia.  It’s time for our Commonwealth to send a message that we’re tired of Republican chaos,” the freshman congressman urged in a X post. “VA, make a plan to vote — early if you can — for  @SpanbergerForVA@SenatorHashmi@jonesjay, and Democrats up and down the ballot.”

In other words, political violence is “disturbing and unacceptable,” but not disqualifying for a Democrat in the heat of a statewide attorney general’s race. 

Virginia Democrats must have thought as much. They overwhelmingly elected Jones, and fellow liberals Abby Spanberger, governor, and Ghazala Hashmi, lieutenant governor. 

Vindman, the former deep stater involved in the Democrats’ first bogus impeachment effort against President Donald Trump, topped vulnerable Democrats in fundraising in the third quarter. But bags of money can’t hide him and the other vulnerable liberals who have preached peaceful resistance while endorsing political violence.

‘A Step Too Far’

In New Hampshire’s open 1st Congressional District race, liberal Marine Corps veteran and former Obama administration staffer Maura Sullivan posed with a man holding a “Veterans for Democracy” sign at a “No Kings” protest in June. The sign also included the numbers “86 47,” radical left shorthand for “86-ing” (getting rid of, or killing) Trump, the 47th president. 

Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey posted on social media an image of seashells on a beach arranged to show “86 47.” He claims he had no idea what the expression “to 86” something or someone meant. Comey was questioned by the U.S. Secret Service. 

Sullivan’s campaign told Fox News that the New Hampshire candidate “believes that there is absolutely no place for violence in our politics, regardless of party or affiliation.”

New Hampshire Republicans didn’t buy Sullivan’s explanation. 

“I knew Maura was cozying up with the extreme radical left, but this is a step too far. Calls for political violence like this have no place in New Hampshire,” Granite State GOP chairman Jim MacEachern said in a statement to Fox News. 

‘Do You Condemn Political Violence?’

Sometimes, the silence is deafening. 

Sullivan’s Democrat opponent, Stefany Shaheen, has had much to say about “ceaseless gun violence” in pushing the left’s gun-control agenda. But Shaheen, the daughter of Democrat New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, couldn’t find the words to condemn political violence when asked last month. 

“I hope you have a great night,” the junior Shaheen said in response to a questioner as she walked toward her car, Breitbart reported

The questioner persisted. “Do you think the rhetoric needs to be toned down right now? Do you condemn political violence? That seems like a pretty simple question, ma’am?” Shaheen wouldn’t respond. 

She got into the passenger side of a vehicle and left in silence. 

In Maine’s Senate race, Democrat candidate Graham Platner has suggested that violence is a justifiable means to forwarding social change. Platner, who Politico describes as an “insurgent Democratic candidate” vying to take on longtime Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, has since deleted his comments posted on Reddit. 

In 2018, the Marxist wrote, that if people “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history,” according to CNN, which broke the story. “[A]n armed working class is a requirement for economic justice,” opined Platner, who described himself at the time as a “communist” and expressed a loathing for all police officers. The posts, according to Politico, were deleted three months before Platner launched his Senate campaign. 

Platner has had a lot of explaining to do in recent months. As the leftist Guardian reported earlier this month, “there has been a steady drip of reports featuring Platner’s unearthed racist, sexist and homophobic online comments.” His tattoo (now covered) on his chest closely resembling a Nazi symbol didn’t do him any favors. Still, many national and state Democrats have rallied around the 41-year-old Platner, shru.gging off his violent comments as youthful indiscretions, even as they have skewered Republicans for much less. 

‘We Kick Them in the Teeth’

In the battle for New York’s competitive 17th Congressional District, one Democrat candidate in a crowded field vying to unseat Republican incumbent Mike Lawler has “turned up the temperature.” Leftist lawyer-turned-TV reporter Mike Sacks last month called for defunding Immigration & Customs Enforcement —  in typical radical language. 

“When I said in Clarkstown that we should not fund ICE and must continue to protest them so long as they terrorize our neighbors, Lawler ran to Politico with the same old tired attacks to divide and distract us from the fascists he cheers on,” Sacks wrote on the 17th District Facebook page. 

“When they go low, we kick them in the teeth,” Sacks added, after calling Trump adviser Stephen Miller a “fascist.”  Sacks later said he was just speaking figuratively. His campaign slogan seems to be that he’s running for Congress in part to “Unf*ck Our Country,” a similar thought for a lot of Trump voters little more than a year ago after four disastrous years of the Biden administration.

Sacks’ hostile turn of phrase is a violent twist on Michelle Obama’s positive mantra, “When they go low, we go high,” an aphorism the imperious former first lady has given up on

Jolanda Jones, a Texas Democrat state representative defeated earlier this month in a special election for the 18th Congressional District seat, took Obama’s high road to the gutter during the campaign. 

“If they go low, I’m going to the gutter,” Jones told Axios a couple of weeks before the election. She urged Democrats to “fight ugly.” 

‘Desperate to Appease’

It’s getting all too ugly for many Americans.

More than 60 percent of registered voters surveyed in a recent NBC News poll believe “extreme political rhetoric” was a key contributor in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. It’s a rare point of agreement in a deeply politically divided America. 

“Republicans blamed rhetoric by the widest margin, 73%-19%, but independents (53%-28%) and Democrats (54%-34%) were also much more likely to blame extreme political rhetoric as a factor than to discount it,” the news outlet reported

The violent rhetoric isn’t isolated, it’s becoming a feature in Democratic primaries, pressuring liberals to ratchet up the vitriol to fire up activists and voters. But they do so at their own peril in the general elections, potentially alienating more moderate swing voters in close races.

“Democrats are so desperate to appease their far-left base to squeeze through their messy primaries that they’re now normalizing disgusting and dangerous political violence,” Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, told The Federalist in an email. “Voters are waking up to just how reckless and unfit this party has become.”



GOP Leaders Grill Judge Boasberg For Allowing Jack Smith To Spy On The Senate


Calls to impeach Boasberg have been growing louder, with filing Articles of Impeachment earlier this month.



A bicameral group of Republicans in Congress is grilling James Boasberg, the U.S. district chief judge for Washington, D.C., on his decision to allow lawfare activist Jack Smith to spy on the Senate, offering him the “opportunity to explain yourself publicly” for a decision that almost certainly violated federal law.

As The Federalist reported, Boasberg approved a scheme under the Department of Justice’s Arctic Frost weaponization against Republicans in which Smith could subpoena the phone records of House and Senate Republicans and attach a nondisclosure order (NDO) so that the congressional bodies could not find out about it from the telecommunications providers being subpoenaed.

The Republican lawmakers note that of the 43 subpoenas issued to Verizon and two issued to AT&T, all had NDOs, and 19 were approved by Boasberg, including on official devices issued by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms (SAA).

The Federalist obtained a letter sent Thursday from Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to Boasberg pointing to federal law that explicitly prohibits his actions.

The letter notes that “2 U.S.C. § 6628 provides that no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process,” the letter states. “Specifically, this section states, ‘any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure” (emphasis original).

Part of the law’s purpose is to give the Senate the ability to stop any such subpoenas on separation of powers grounds. But, as The Federalist CEO Sean Davis stated, “Boasberg issued the illegal gag order precisely to prevent the Senate from going to court to vindicate its rights. … He knew the Senate would have IMMEDIATELY gone to court to nuke the Biden administration’s illegal spying against at least eight U.S. senators.”

To that end, the legislators are looking for answers about the extent to which Boasberg reckoned with that statute in his approval of the NDOs.

The only explanation, at least for the subpoena of the records for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is that Boasberg claimed he thought Cruz would destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or put “serious jeopardy to the investigation” — something the legislators called “absurd on its face.”

“Special Counsel Smith’s request for records relating to sitting Members of Congress, including SAA-issued devices, raises serious constitutional and separation of powers concerns,” the letter states. “Had the court considered the application of 2 U.S.C. § 6628, it would have seen that the clear prohibition on granting NDOs was designed, at least in part, to address such grave constitutional concerns.”

To Grassley, Johnson, and Jordan, either Boasberg was derelict in his duty as a judge or Smith was lying to the court.

The trio has given Boasberg until Dec. 4 to answer eight questions:

  1. Did the Special Counsel’s office inform you that it sought provider records for sitting Members of Congress? Please explain in detail.
  1. Did the Special Counsel’s office brief the court on the applicability of 2 U.S.C. § 6628 when it applied to the court for an NDO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705 for the Members of Congress’s records? If yes, explain in detail how that affected your analysis. If not, should they have done so?
  2. Prior to granting the NDO for SAA-issued devices, were you otherwise aware of 2 U.S.C. § 6628? Did you consider the applicability of 2 U.S.C. § 6628? If not, why not? If yes, explain in detail.
  3. In light of the volume of subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel’s office, did you question the government about whether Members of Congress would be swept up into the collection of data and information? Did you consider constitutional and separation of powers implications? If not, why not?
  4. Did the Special Counsel’s office brief the court on Verizon’s contractual requirement to notify the SAA about requests for records related to SAA-issued devices? If yes, explain in detail how that affected your analysis. If not, should they have done so?
  5. Prior to granting the NDO for SAA-issued devices, were you otherwise aware of Verizon’s contractual requirement to notify the SAA about requests for records related to SAA-issued devices? Did you consider the applicability of that contractual provision? If not, why not? If yes, explain in detail.
  6. After granting the NDOs, did the Special Counsel’s office ever present you with information concerning 2 U.S.C. § 6628 or Verizon’s contractual requirement to notify the SAA about requests for records related to SAA-issued devices? What action did you take, if any, after learning this information?
  7. Did you deny any DOJ requests for NDOs involving subpoenas related to Arctic Frost and Members of Congress before or after Special Counsel Smith was appointed? If yes, please list each subpoena and describe in detail why it was denied.

Calls to impeach Boasberg have been growing louder, with Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, filing Articles of Impeachment earlier this month. Taking it a step further, a group of Republican senators has demanded that D.C. Circuit Chief Sri Srinivasan suspend Boasberg while those efforts are ongoing, as The Federalist reported.

“We cannot tolerate rogue, self-professed prejudicial judges ruling on our nation’s most important cases,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said.

The D.C. District Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Federalist.



♦️𝐖³π πƒπšπ’π₯𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 π“π‘π«πžπšπ

 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.