First Liberty sent a demand letter to Oakland University in Michigan on behalf of Inara Ramazanova. The university wrongfully evicted the recent graduate from campus housing because she shared information on social media about how to request a COVID-19 vaccine religious accommodation. The university accused her of “conspiracy or collusion” under its code of conduct.

The eviction from campus housing forced Inara to spend her final semester at home. It placed a disciplinary record in her student file, which could potentially affect her future academic or professional pursuits.

We’re asking the university to apologize to Inara for discriminating against her, and to vindicate her record and her name. This action is critical in our ongoing fight to hold colleges and universities around the nation accountable.

We explain in our letter:

“Oakland University’s disciplining and evicting Ms. Ramazanova because she shared about her religious convictions regarding vaccination and about how she sought and received a religious accommodation from Oakland University—all in an effort to more effectively exercise her civil rights and aid others in doing the same—violated Ms. Ramazanova’s rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech and religious exercise, and the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits both religious discrimination in housing and taking actions against a person for aiding others in having their religious rights in housing respected.”

Evicted for Sharing Religious Information

Last summer, Oakland University granted Inara a religious accommodation from the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The accommodation would have allowed the Russian immigrant to reside on campus for the 2021–22 academic year.

However, Oakland University then evicted Inara from campus after she shared about her request and accommodation in a Facebook group with the hope that it would be useful to others. In fact, many members in the group had already asked questions on how to best express their sincerely held religious beliefs and obtain a religious accommodation.

Though Inara merely shared her story to lend a helping hand to others in the group, the University Conduct Committee claimed her posts amounted to “collusion or conspiracy.”

Justin Butterfield, Deputy General Counsel at First Liberty, said that’s unconstitutional and illegal:

“The university violated Inara’s Constitutional rights and the Fair Housing Act. They owe it to her to clear her record”.

Unfortunately, Inara’s case is not the first of its kind, as students, employees, and even military service members continue to be discriminated against for living out their faith and engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

That’s why our legal term is leading this crucial effort to stop discrimination against Inara and people of all faiths across the country. Religious students should not be treated as second-class citizens. It’s wrong and unlawful to punish them, threaten their careers and even tarnish their record simply because they shared their beliefs with others.

Please give now and join First Liberty in this fight. Your support is critical to help Inara vindicate her record and clear her name, so she and millions of Americans don’t have to face unjust punishment for living out their faith.

https://firstliberty.org/news/college-student-evicted/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=story-1-button&utm_campaign=fli-insider

We all know the gas crisis was caused by the Biden administration. He might be blaming Putin, but we know the truth.

His administration reversed Trump’s pro-energy agenda. And the severe limits Biden set on oil companies triggered this runaway crisis.

Months ago, Biden depleted our strategic oil reserve to “fix” the problem. Then he bragged that gas dropped two cents.

INSERT TWEET

Pathetic. But even that flex was pointless. Because now, as we enter summer, the national average is higher than ever.

From Townhall:

Yet again on Thursday, the national average price for a gallon of unleaded gas set a new all-time high at $4.715…

Now, six months after Democrats were thanking Joe Biden for a two-cent savings at the pump, gas is up $1.337 per gallon. Thursday’s record-setting average price is more than a dollar more than the top of the chart the DCCC used to make its claim.

In some states, gas prices are higher than the hourly minimum wage.

From Townhall:

According to GasBuddy, there are 15 stations where gas costs more than $7.25

Didn’t Biden promise to “build back better”? I guess not our energy sector, huh? (Or the border, jobs, economy, inflation, or foreign affairs.)

Gas prices are reaching record highs. The national average is a staggering $4.715. But that is only part of the picture.

The average in some states is much higher. In Illinois, it’s $5.262. In California, it’s $6.213. Some gas stations, depending on local fees and taxes, have prices higher than the federal minimum wage.

Can Biden still blame Putin with a straight face? This is largely thanks to a variety of policies his Energy Department enacted.

Biden banned drilling for oil on federal land. Even after court decisions, he still refuses to lease the land.

On top of that, he implemented harsh emission and refining fees and regulations, increasing the cost companies must spend to provide energy to consumers.

The sanctions on Russia were only the straws that broke the camel’s back. If we had the same policies from Trump, those sanctions would have hardly done a thing.

Meanwhile, Biden’s Energy Department does nothing. Its head literally laughed at a reporter when asked about fixing gas prices.

Biden and his administration are in the hands of radical environmentalists. The last thing they’ll do is lower gas prices.

Key Takeaways:

• Biden once bragged about lowering gas prices by 2 cents.
• Gas prices are now higher than ever, the average being $4.715
• At some stations, gas costs more than the minimum wage.

https://thepatriotjournal.com/months-dem-brag-gas-2-cent/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=actengage&seyid=4716

A lawyer representing Democrats proposed alterations to an FBI statement on the hacking of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to avoid undermining the narrative from his clients, according to emails released as part of the trial of former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann.

FBI officials in mid-2016 were drafting a statement regarding an alleged intrusion into the DCCC network and sent the draft to Sussmann, a lawyer representing the DCCC, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and other Democrats.

Jim Trainor, assistant director for the FBI Cyber Division, wrote to Sussmann on July 29, 2016: “Michael—our press office is once again getting a ton of calls on the DCCC matter. A draft response is provided below. Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out.”

Sussmann zeroed in on the first sentence, which he said seemed to undermine what the DCCC was saying about the reported intrusion.

“The draft you sent says only that the FBI is aware of media reports; it does not say that the FBI is aware of the intrusion that the DCCC reported. Indeed, it refers only to a ‘possible’ cyber intrusion and in that way undermines what the DCCC said in its statement (or at least calls into question what the DCCC said),’” Sussmann said.

Sussmann proposed changing the press release from saying the FBI is aware of reporting on “a possible cyber instruction involving the DCCC” to saying the bureau “is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media and the FBI has been working to determine the nature and scope of the matter.”

Trainor said the proposed alterations were fine.

“We try to really limit what we see and not acknowledging too much but the below edits are fine and we will send out,” Trainor said.

The bureau ended up using language similar to that offered by Sussmann, telling news outlets that it was “aware of media reporting on cyber intrusions involving multiple political entities, and is working to determine the accuracy, nature, and scope of these matters.”

The emails were introduced as exhibits during Sussmann’s trial and obtained by The Epoch Times. Sussmann was acquitted on May 31 of lying to the FBI.

According to notes taken by then-CIA Director John Brennan, President Barack Obama received a briefing on July 28, 2016—one day before Sussmann’s email to Trainor. Brennan told Obama of an intelligence intercept showing that Russia was aware of a plan approved by Clinton to “vilify” her rival, Donald Trump, by “stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

Days later, the CIA informed the FBI of intelligence suggesting that Clinton’s plan was meant “as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

According to the indictment of several Russian nationals brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, the alleged Russian conspirators gained access to the DCCC network on April 12, 2016. That same day, then-FBI Director James Comey held a meeting with senior FBI officials to discuss how to execute a “credible … conclusion” of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to conduct government business.

The DCCC and the DNC hired CrowdStrike, a private cybersecurity firm, to investigate and remediate the network intrusions. The FBI conducted its own investigation, relying on server images and reports produced by CrowdStrike, with Sussmann playing as the singular point of contact representing the DNC and the DCCC, according to another email introduced during the trial.

The CrowdStrike reports sent to the FBI were partly redacted. An email addressed to Sussmann by an FBI agent indicated that receiving the nonredacted versions of the reports was the top priority for the bureau. According to a previous filing by the Department of Justice in the case against Trump associate Roger Stone, the bureau never received the unredacted reports. The FBI has rejected Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents.

Other missives entered during Sussmann’s trial showed the lawyer becoming upset after the bureau announced that it was investigating the reported intrusion into the DNC network.

Sussmann messaged Trainor, questioning the “significance of this announcement” and requesting the bureau consult with him before making public statements about the DNC case.

Trainor apologized, agreeing that when the FBI makes statements “we need to be in lock step with victims and partners.”

Trainor said the statement was an attempt to “respond in a more authentic way” and that the bureau intended to “be equally cooperative partners as we navigate this matter.”

“Thank you for that explanation. You can understand how the statement was confusing to us,” Sussmann said. “Please try to keep us informed if the FBI says anything else publicly about its investigation.”

Sussmann was the FBI’s point of contact on the investigations into the intrusions into the DCCC and DNC network, according to an email that FBI agent Jennifer Frasch sent in August 2016.

Sussmann was close to the FBI for years and had a badge that allowed him access to the bureau’s headquarters. Sussmann used the badge to gain entry on Sept. 19, 2016, when he handed over sketchy allegations against Trump to FBI lawyer James Baker.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-altered-statement-on-intrusion-into-democrat-network-based-on-input-from-lawyer_4505749.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-02-2&utm_medium=email&est=i74gktmQj7QZ4Mu2w67mrrCjl%2Bfor8dC62ve7v4XlhAUKU1X%2FnIzJsBZfD%2FxbEesfg%3D%3D

Friend,

Our country is currently facing a great threat. A new enemy has emerged from the shadows that seeks to destroy and intimidate their way to a transformed state, and country, that you and I would hardly recognize.

This enemy is the radical vigilante woke mob that will steamroll anything and anyone in their way. Their blatant attacks on the American way of life are clear and intensifying: stifling dissent, public shaming, rampant violence, and a perverted version of history.

A group that will, literally, tear down monuments and buildings but — perhaps in an even more sinister way — tear down the American spirit itself. They go after the family unit, parental rights, traditional moral values, the church, and fact-based education.

Over the past few years, we’ve watched horrified as this group has attempted to brainwash our children into thinking we live in an evil, racist, irredeemable country.

We listened to them deny science and data to exert political theater all the while trampling over personal liberties enshrined in the Constitution.

We saw them take to the streets for an entire summer like outlaws burning, looting, and destroying everything in sight while being told they were “mostly peaceful” and “passionate.”

We watched Big Tech moguls in Silicon Valley be the arbiters of truth – deciding who gets to speak and who gets silenced through the digital public square.

We listened to the legacy media muffle legitimately verifiable news stories that didn’t align with their preferred narrative, only to watch the truth trickle out months later at a more politically expedient time.

Well, friend, the time for listening and watching from the sidelines is over.

This enemy has taken over media, educational institutions, corporate boards, professional sports, foundations, and professional institutions. They have left no corner of our lives untouched. But all hope is not lost.

We The People still have a say. We know the truth, you and I, about America and the country she is and can be. We must fight to defeat these false pretenses and predetermined narratives.

I am choosing to counter this enemy with faith, with reason, and with freedom. As Governor of the Free State of Florida, I have chosen to lead with a vision that builds America up rather than tears it down.

Together we can ensure that our children are raised to know they live in the greatest state in the nation, the greatest country in the world and that they have an opportunity to continue making them even greater.

If you’ve been waiting for the right time to get off the sidelines and fight for the rights you know were given to man by God Himself – the time is NOW.

If you’re with me, friend, chip in any amount to help me defeat this enemy. I can’t do it without you. I promise you; I will never stop fighting.

Sincerely,

Ron DeSantis

Paid by Ron DeSantis, Republican, for Governor.

President Donald Trump on May 31 said the legal system isn’t working properly after a jury in Washington acquitted a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who had been charged with lying to the FBI.

“Our Legal System is CORRUPT,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, adding that “our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised, or just plain scared” before lamenting that Michael Sussmann, the lawyer, was found not guilty.

Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign aide, also reacted to the verdict, writing on Gettr that Sussmann admitted to giving opposition research to the FBI and not telling the bureau that the research was conducted for Clinton.

“How did Sussmann get off??? RIGGED SYSTEM!!!” Miller wrote.

Sussmann was accused of lying to the FBI because he said in writing that he wanted to meet with a bureau official to deliver information but that he was not acting on behalf of a client.

Prosecutors said Sussmann was acting on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and a client named Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who has said he was promised a position in the government if Clinton won the 2016 election.

The defense said Sussmann was not acting on behalf of a client, even though Sussmann previously told members of the House of Representatives under oath that he was. The defense also said that even if Sussmann was representing a client when he met with the bureau official, the statement was not material because the bureau was aware Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee and other Democrat persons and entities.

Federal law prohibits making a false statement or representation to the government. The charge carries up to five years in jail, or up to eight years if the lie is related to international or domestic terrorism.

The jury unanimously found Sussmann not guilty.

“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” one juror told reporters. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”

Trump has regularly posted on Truth Social, a social media platform he started, since earlier this year. The former president was removed from Twitter and Facebook in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Executives at the companies accused Trump of inciting violence, while he argued that he was not doing so.

Trump told a rally in Wyoming over the weekend that he would not return to Twitter, even if he is allowed to if Elon Musk’s purchase plans come to fruition.

“Get off Twitter and go Truth Social,” Trump said. “We have truth on our side.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-responds-after-former-clinton-lawyer-is-acquitted_4502955.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-31-3&utm_medium=email&est=YynB3FTGN16PBQMSBfXztVz7glYNZO7CUWo2XW%2FdtqsqnFICMDKY3n7V0APkq1tPaQ%3D%3D

U.S.-proposed amendments to the international health regulations which govern response to pandemics and the new global pandemic treaty, both on the agenda of the World Health Organization’s general meeting, pose a threat to countries’ sovereignty, said journalist and author Nick Corbishley.

The amendments proposed in January by the Biden administration will give the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) unilateral authority to declare a public health emergency in any nation based on whatever evidence the director chooses.

The WHO’s International Health Regulations were introduced in 2005 and were “stimulated a bit by the SARS outbreak in 2003, Dr. David Bell, an expert in global health and infectious disease who previously worked at the WHO, told EpochTV’s  “American Thought Leaders” program.

The 13 amendments put forward by the Biden administration were on the agenda of the 75th World Health Assembly held last week in Geneva, Switzerland. The World Health Assembly is the decision-making body of the WHO and is attended by delegations from all member states, according to the organization’s website.

The assembly also started deliberation on what the newly proposed global pandemic treaty might include.

The global pandemic treaty is a parallel mechanism of the WHO. It will have force under international law and is very similar to the International Health Regulations’ amendments, but it will give far more power to the WHO and its director-general, Bell said.

Corbishley believes that the assembly will focus more on compliance of WHO member states with regulations adopted by the organization. The Biden administration mentioned setting up a compliance committee that will ensure that WHO participants follow its regulations, Corbishley told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.

Currently, the WHO “only has an advisory role. It’s only able to make recommendations to member states and it is up to the participating nations to decide whether and how they implement those recommendations,” Corbishley explained. “That is likely to change if there is a global pandemic treaty. ”

He pointed out that the concept of a compliance committee if implemented, will be “almost like to police the actions of each member state.

“The countries that are most at risk of losing the most sovereignty in this sort of scenario are likely to be poorer, smaller countries.”

Similar cases have been observed within the last 15 to 20 years in the World Trade Organization, where global corporations can sue national governments in an international court for infringing on their profits or even threatening their future profits, Corbishley said. “It hits poor countries, smaller countries much more because they don’t have the money to be able to pay off these kinds of lawsuits.”

“They don’t have the diplomatic clout on an international level to be able to resist these things.”

Impact of  Global Pandemic Treaty

Every country that signs on to the pandemic treaty instituted by WHO will lose some degree of sovereignty, but it is hard to tell to what extent because the treaty is at the beginning of its development, Corbishley said.

“If [the WHO] does gain the power to declare a public health international emergency in a country without even consulting or reaching an agreement with the state in question, then that is a massive shift in the power balance between states and a supranational organization like the World Health Organization,” Corbishley said.

If the treaty can enforce a certain amount of compliance on states in the area of public health policy, a new trend of the “balkanization of globalization” could begin, Corbishley noted. “Globalization is beginning to look a lot more fragile than it did five to 10 years ago.”

For example, Russia, which has a large population and a reasonably large economy, recently floated the idea of withdrawing from WHO, he said. Although Corbishley doubts that the United States or the European Union will oppose the treaty, if some other big countries start expressing their concerns that the treaty is not in their interest, “then it could become impractical as a document,” he pointed out.

An initial working document toward this global pandemic treaty is called the zero draft report and it was also on the agenda of the last World Health Assembly, Bell said. The treaty is supposed to be discussed and agreed at the World Health Assembly that will convene next year and would then come into force upon ratification by the participating countries, he added.

To adopt the treaty, two-thirds of WHO members have to agree, while amending the existing international health regulations requires approval by only half of the participating countries, Bell said.

There are no clear proposals for the global pandemic treaty because the work on the draft has just started, Corbishley said, adding that some draft documents could be available in August.

Private Funding of WHO

Corbishley emphasized the issue of the private funding of the WHO, which in his view leads to the semi-privatization of global health. This trend is consistent with the strategic partnership agreement between the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, which represents the semi-privatization of certain global policies including health.

The WHO is influenced by the countries which comprise its assembly and by the private and corporate donors who fund a lot of its programs, Bell said. “So it responds to those who directed.”

“It certainly is pushing a very new way of managing health and of managing decision making in health, particularly in outbreaks, that is clearly to the advantage of these donors of WHO,” Bell explained.

He also noted that there is a possibility that countries would take advantage of this whole situation to further their strategic interests over the interests of rival countries. “The world is a diverse place. Not all countries agree with each other.”

About 80 percent of funding for the WHO, comprised of 194 member states, comes from private companies and private foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—the second largest overall contributor after Germany. The United States is the third-largest contributor.

Germany, the top donor to WHO, is also the biggest exporter of pharmaceutical products in the world, Corbishley pointed out. Moreover, the WHO has a contract with T-Systems, a subsidiary of German company Deutsche Telekom AG, to build a global interoperable system of vaccination passports, according to a company statement.

Considering “how pharmaceutical companies have managed to capture—to a certain extent or to a great extent—our governments and regulatory bodies and academia,” it begs the question: “to what extent [is the WHO] reflecting the interests of the global public, and to what extent do they represents the interests of the pharmaceutical companies that whether directly or indirectly through their the member states are funding the WHO,” Corbishley said.

He also encourages people on the left or the center of the political spectrum to pay more attention to the amount of private funding the WHO receives. Right now it seems people on the right are deeply concerned about how giving more powers to the WHO might pose a threat to sovereignty, Corbishley noted.

Jan Jekielek and Mark Tapscott contributed to this report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/far-reaching-us-amendments-to-who-regulations-global-pandemic-treaty-raise-concerns-journalist_4498789.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-30-1&utm_medium=email&est=FiydAr7Nict6QseJhnnxBtZ4bmLfRaS5ykjLEarnUeJWj6OmELF3mENiqHdRnqor3A%3D%3D

A top Republican said on Friday that President Joe Biden is raising gas prices on purpose.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made the remarks when he was asked on Fox Business’s “Wall Street with Maria Bartiromo” to respond to Biden’s recent comments where he said raising gas prices is part of “an incredible transition.”

“I think that’s the main takeaway from his statement, that he is telling the American people they’re doing this to you on purpose, that the transition period is being imposed by policies coming from the Biden administration,” he said.

“This is a conscious effort by the Biden administration to destroy fossil fuel production in the United States, to get away from fossil fuels, and you’re living this experience. This is an irresponsible shutting down of oil and gas production in America, making us more dependent on oil and gas from bad actors, and it’s destroying the American economy,” he continued.

Biden characterized the soaring cost of gasoline in the United States as an “incredible transition” on Monday while taking questions from reporters during his trip to Japan.

“When it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” he said alongside Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

The comment came as the national average cost of a gallon of gas sat at a record-high $4.596, with several states paying more than $6.00.

Biden went on to take credit for gas prices not being “even worse.”

“What I’ve been able to do to keep it from getting even worse—and it’s bad,” he said.

His comments were widely denounced by Republicans.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) criticized Biden for being “completely out of touch with everyday Americans.”

Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel released a statement the following day blaming the Biden administration for the continually elevated cost of gas.

“Another day, another new record high gas price in Biden’s America,” the statement reads. “Joe Biden doesn’t care about the historic inflation and skyrocketing gas prices families are facing every day as a result of his failed agenda. The pain is the point for Biden and Democrats, and Americans will continue to suffer as long as Biden is in charge.”

Biden and other senior administration officials have continually blamed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the inflated gas prices. In response to the invasion on Feb. 24, the United States and many of its Western allies put a halt to all imports of Russian oil and gas.

While the cost of gas did spike dramatically after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, it had already been rising steadily throughout Biden’s first year in office. After the sanctions, the price leveled off before increasing to new record highs in recent weeks.

Nick Ciolino contributed to the report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-raising-gas-prices-on-purpose-top-republican-says_4497948.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-28-4&utm_medium=email&est=xXRLGdzynM3K%2FEiosQTiDNJip9nCVlN4kd6cDwITr6GxKnFRhe6SpNlhDdkVQsBg9A%3D%3D

Column: The president’s budget doesn’t match U.S. commitments

War was in the background of President Biden’s trip to Asia last week. He redeployed U.S. forces to Somalia before he left. He signed into law $40 billion in financial and military assistance to Ukraine during his visit to South Korea. Then, in Japan, a reporter asked Biden if he was prepared to “get involved militarily to defend Taiwan.” Biden’s answer was succinct. “Yes,” he said.

Forget the clumsy White House reaction to Biden’s moment of lucidity. Leave aside the question of whether the United States should move from a policy of strategic ambiguity, where our response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is left undefined, to a policy of strategic clarity where we let China know the direct consequences of such an attack.

Consider instead the following: Does the Pentagon have the resources to defend democracies from autocrats in two hemispheres?

Afraid not. The Pentagon ditched the “two-front” war preparedness strategy under Barack Obama. Meanwhile U.S. defense spending as a percentage of the economy has been in decline for decades. Biden has shown little interest in changing its downward course. Indeed, the one place where he’s been reluctant to spend money is national defense.

Biden’s fiscal year 2022 request of $715 billion was too small even for the Democratic Congress. It ended up authorizing $728.5 billion. Biden’s fiscal year 2023 request is for $773 billion. Maybe that seems like a hefty sum. It’s not. Biden’s defense budget is meager compared with the tasks the president has set out.

Why? Part of the reason is inflation. The Biden budget request paints a rosy—and inaccurate—scenario. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Mackenzie Eaglen has run the numbers. She begins with the $773 billion marked for the Pentagon. “Using a more honest 7.46 percent CPI [Consumer Price Index] estimate (the FY22 average so far) for military personnel raises the topline to $794.5 billion needed next year,” she writes.

That still isn’t enough, however. “$846 billion in FY 2023 is a more realistic down payment on matching defense investments against national security threats,” Eaglen concludes, “and should be the starting point as Congress builds a more accurate defense budget.” In other words, Eaglen recommends a 9 percent increase in the Biden administration’s topline before Congress and its appropriators become involved. Her proposal makes sense. It’s necessary. And it won’t happen.

It won’t happen for several reasons. The first is inertia. None of the threats we encountered or fear we might encounter in the post-Cold War world have provoked the people’s representatives to increase defense spending to Reagan-era levels. The political willpower doesn’t exist. Entitlements and interest on the debt act as additional constraints. We’ve muddled through for 30 years, this thinking goes. No need to stop now.

The second brake on defense spending is the Progressive bias against hard power. By the 2024 election, America will have been governed by presidents skeptical of defense spending and the military for 12 of the past 16 years. Such leadership has an effect not only on materiel but also on the culture of the national security establishment. Progressives under Obama and Biden see the Pentagon more as a vehicle for social policy and geopolitical featherbedding than as an instrument of deterrence and the national interest. Left-wing taboos against nuclear weapons, nuclear power, oil and gas, and the warrior mindset take precedent over military readiness and lethality. The president overrules the secretary of defense and joint chiefs. America grows weaker even as its leader calls for greater global activism.

Noninterventionism and restraint on the foreign policy right creates a bipartisan reluctance to spend more on defense. President Trump increased defense spending, but not by enough. His administration was filled with skeptics of American engagement and foreign intervention who wanted to reduce not only the Pentagon’s budget but also its influence throughout the world. Republican voices in Congress promote an “America First” foreign policy that would constrict U.S. deployments, aid, and partnerships.

About a quarter of the House GOP and a fifth of the Senate GOP, for example, voted against the latest aid package to Ukraine. Granted, this batch of aid seemed designed to split conservatives, who have a longstanding aversion to unconditional economic assistance. The vote stands as a warning for both liberal and conservative internationalists, nonetheless. The bipartisan consensus over Ukraine may not survive a prolonged war of attrition.

You correct a mismatch between resources and commitments by increasing resources or decreasing commitments. President Biden resists increasing resources for national defense, while powerful elements of both left and right work to reduce American commitments. Neither strategy makes America safer. Someone needs to make the case for a major U.S. defense buildup in response to the challenges of China, Russia, and Iran. And they need to do it soon.

https://freebeacon.com/columns/biden-defines-defense-down/

WASHINGTON—Testimony that suggested the Donald Trump-Russia claims given to the FBI by a Hillary Clinton lawyer may have been fabricated will be struck from the record, along with mention of the email that triggered the testimony, a judge has ruled.

On Tuesday, FBI agent Curtis Heide was presented with an email sent by Rodney Joffe to researchers with the Georgia Institute of Technology dated Sept. 14, 2016. Joffe discussed one of the white papers Michael Sussmann, a lawyer representing both Joffe and the Clinton campaign, later handed over to the FBI alleging a secret link between Trump and a Russian bank.

“Please read as if you had no prior knowledge or involvement, and you were handed this document as a security expert (NOT a DNS expert) and were asked: ‘Is this plausible as an explanation?’” Joffe wrote. “NOT to be able to say that this is, without doubt, but to merely be plausible.”

DNS stands for Domain Name System, or the type of information that Joffe and the researchers said linked Russia’s Alfa Bank and Trump’s business in the papers they compiled. Sussmann gave those papers to the FBI shortly after the September email.

Asked about the language in the message, Heide said that “it appears, from this email, that this report may have been fabricated.”

Sean Berkowitz, a defense lawyer, said while the jury was out of the room that the answer was “prejudicial” to his client.

“I did not want to draw attention to it. But given the parameters of the court’s prior ruling and the way that they went through that, I think that was improper to elicit, and nonresponsive,” Berkowitz said.

Jonathan Algor, a prosecutor with special counsel John Durham’s team, said asking Heide about the email was “legitimate” because it followed a series of questions from the defense about David Dagon, one of the researchers Joffe emailed, and the source for the paper in question.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, the Obama appointee overseeing Sussmann’s case, on May 24 ordered Heide’s quote struck from the record. His justification was that the answer was “at odds” with his earlier ruling that prosecutors could not delve into whether the data was concocted or “spoofed” because Sussmann was said to not be involved in the research itself.

On Wednesday, Cooper said the email itself can no longer be an exhibit.

Cooper had allowed the document to be admitted because he said it was not hearsay since it had a statement and a question.

Berkowitz, Sussmann’s lawyer, argued the “fabrication” quote from Heide had been reported by some media outlets and the only remedy would be to strike all mention of the email in addition to the email itself, as well as forbid prosecutors from bringing it up again.

“We think the probative value of that document at this stage is minimal, and I expect that if it is published to the jury and used in any way, the jurors will associate it with the fabrication comment,” he said.

While “the bell can never be unrung,” jurors “should not be reminded” of the email and the comment, he added.

DeFilippis noted that the court had cleared the document before prosecutors presented it to Heide. He also said prosecutors had never shown Heide the email prior to when it was presented, and “did not anticipate that he was going to speculate that it could be fabricated.”

“So we think the appropriate remedy here, Your Honor, is to cut off the response—the speculation—but not the document itself, which is highly probative” because of when it was sent—just days before Sussmann met with Baker, and on the same day Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for drafting a white paper.

Cooper sided with the defense, citing how Joffe and the three researchers he emailed have not testified in the trial. Dagon and colleague Manos Antonakakis were on the prosecution witness list, but were never called. According to the judge, that means there is no basis to admit the document. He said the government, which has spent years on the investigation, had plenty of time to interview the researchers and call them as witnesses.

Cooper previously barred prosecutors from introducing emails from Fusion GPS, a firm that specializes in opposition research. Fusion operatives helped promote the Alfa Bank-Trump allegations to media outlets, and were part of the team that compiled the Trump-Russia dossier known as the Steele dossier. He also turned down a request from prosecutors to introduce other messages, including one that featured Joffe saying he was promised a position in the U.S. government if Clinton won the 2016 election.

The string of unfavorable rulings for the prosecution has led some legal observers to say the treatment of Sussmann differs from past high-profile cases, such as that against Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

“While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said in a recent op-ed. “Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in ‘A Tale of Two Cities,’ for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-strikes-email-testimony-suggesting-trump-russia-claims-may-have-been-fabricated_4491341.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-27&utm_medium=email&est=flN%2FrQKry13R8zxoqUBd1i%2Fi0oMMuugwwTIOm9xsKS7QHvs9n0A8fsAjCwq5VoWkXQ%3D%3D

An interesting pattern emerged at the trial of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. While we may have expected special counsel John Durham to challenge the official media and establishment narrative that the Trump-Russia investigation was properly predicated and carried out, it is Sussmann who is now challenging that narrative, not Durham.

In fact, Durham made it clear from day one of the trial that he is running with the opposite narrative, that the FBI was a victim. In essence, Durham has forced Sussmann’s team to attack the FBI in order to exonerate their client—and Sussmann’s team has embraced the challenge.

In possibly the biggest bombshell admission of the past year, Sussmann’s team revealed an internal FBI text message that proves that FBI leadership was vigorously pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax despite the flimsiness of the evidence.

It is the first public acknowledgment backed by documentary evidence that FBI leadership was focused on taking out Trump.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-internal-fbi-text-message-reveals-fbi-leaderships-desire-to-get-trump-truth-over-news_4492007.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-26-4&utm_medium=email&est=%2BOQFe%2Fs2necxfrFHAy1h0iHK1d46sV8dNBC%2Ft43HqGhrUVYpR5OgnuRp8JVOXBQadw%3D%3D

Top House Republicans are demanding answers from the FBI after court-ordered information came to light showing that the federal agency had collected the information of over 3 million Americans without a warrant.

In a May 25 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Turner (R-Ohio) asked Wray to explain why his agency had wiretapped and gathered personal information on over 3.3 million Americans without a warrant (pdf).

Limited authority to gather foreign intelligence information is granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Specifically, section 702 of the bill says: “the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) may jointly authorize the targeting of (i) non-U.S. persons (ii) who are reasonably believed to be outside of the United States (iii) to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

However, this power can grant an expanding circle of possible searches to the FBI and other intel agencies, who can use the same power against American citizens who had any interaction with targeted foreigners.

Historically, insight into how FISA has been used against American citizens has been limited and hidden behind classified reports.

However, a November 2020 decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)—which serves as a watchdog for U.S. intelligence agencies—required that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report “the number of U.S. person queries run by the FBI against Section 702-acquired information.”

In accordance with these new requirements, ODNI’s recently-released Annual Statistical Transparency Report included data on how often the FBI gathered information on American citizens using section 702 in 2021.

In total, queries against U.S. citizens came out to a jaw-dropping 3,394,053 searches. By comparison, only 1,324,057 such queries were made in 2020, representing around a 250 percent increase during President Joe Biden’s first year in office.

According to ODNI more than half of these queries—approximately 1.9 million—were part of the larger investigation of alleged Russian attempts to target or weaken U.S. critical infrastructure.

The ODNI report also admitted that on at least four occasions, the FBI failed to get FISC approval before accessing the contents of information collected under section 702.

This is not the first time the FBI has been caught red-handed overstepping its legal authority under section 702.

In November 2020, the FISC announced that “the government … reported numerous incidents” in which the FBI reviewed information gathered under section 702 without obtaining proper permission from the court.

On other occasions, the FISC noted, the FBI used section 702 for issues entirely unrelated to foreign intelligence. These included queries for criminal investigations about healthcare fraud, transnational organized crime, violent gangs, domestic terrorism involving racially motivated violent extremists, as well as investigations relating to public corruption and bribery.”

“None of these queries was related to national security, and they returned numerous Section 702-acquired products in response,” the FISC noted.

“Rigorous Congressional oversight of the FBI’s Section 702-related activities is essential given FBI’s track record utilizing its FISA authorities,” Jordan and Turner ruled in view of the FBI’s past overreach.

In their letter to Wray, Jordan and Turner laid out a laundry list of questions about the report, demanding further transparency and explanations on the revelation that the FBI has often overstepped its legal authority to spy on American citizens.

Among other questions, they requested a full accounting of all 3,394,053 citizens who showed up in FBI queries and “[the] number of preliminary or full investigations into any U.S. citizens the FBI has initiated as a result of information obtained through any of these U.S. person queries, and the nature of the predication for each such investigation.”

They also asked for information on the 1.9 million Americans queried over alleged Russian efforts to compromise U.S. critical infrastructure. Specifically, they asked for, “The rationale for why these queries were found to be compliant with the FBI’s Section 702 querying procedures [and the] total number of U.S. citizens the FBI identified as victims of these compromises(s) pursuant to these queries.”

In addition, they demanded “A detailed statement about the FBI’s investigation, including the status of the investigation and any information uncovered about the identity of the Russian actors and their involvement with or connection to the Russian government, if any.”

Additionally, they asked for information gathered under FISA rules in the years between 2015 and 2020, as well as for an explanation of the FBI’s overreach of authority on various occasions.

The letter demands that Wray provide a written response by no later than 5 p.m. on June 7.

FISA Section 702 was last authorized by Congress for a six-year period in 2018 and will be up for reauthorization in 2024.

The FBI could not be immediately reached for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/report-shows-fbi-spied-on-3-3-million-americans-without-a-warrant-gop-demands-answers_4487840.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-25-1&utm_medium=email&est=vli%2F%2BW%2FgQrRjLIdkkxbFMyzxKpcA%2BDebemQsdj4sQOEpQoPOVavfXJGhd2ry63Fvhg%3D%3D

 Joe Biden appeared to try to put a positive spin on skyrocketing gas prices Monday while taking questions from reporters during his trip to Japan.

When asked about the economy, inflation, and the record prices Americans continue to pay at the pump, Biden characterized the increased cost of gasoline as an “incredible transition.”

“When it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” Biden said alongside Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishid.

The comment came as the national average cost of a gallon of gas sat at a record-high $4.596, with several states paying more than $6.00.

Biden went on to take credit for gas prices not being “even worse.”

“What I’ve been able to do to keep it from getting even worse—and it’s bad,” he said.

Speaking to broader concerns about food shortages, inflation, and other poor economic indicators both domestically and abroad, Biden suggested the problems will likely persist when he said, “This is going to be a haul.”

But when asked if he thought the United States would soon be entering a recession, the president responded “no.”

Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel released a statement the following day blaming the Biden administration for the continually elevated cost of gas.

“Another day, another new record high gas price in Biden’s America,” the statement reads. “Joe Biden doesn’t care about the historic inflation and skyrocketing gas prices families are facing everyday as a result of his failed agenda. The pain is the point for Biden and Democrats, and Americans will continue to suffer as long as Biden is in charge.”

Biden and other senior administration officials have continually blamed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the inflated gas prices. In response to the invasion on Feb. 24, the United States and many of its Western allies put a halt to all imports of Russian oil and gas.

While the cost of gas did spike dramatically after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, it had already been rising steadily throughout Biden’s first year in office. After the sanctions, the price leveled off before increasing to new record highs in recent weeks.

In an apparent attempt to rein in the cost of gas back in March, Biden announced the release of an unprecedented 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“It’s helped, but it’s not been enough,” Biden said Monday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-rising-gas-prices-an-incredible-transition_4487226.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-24-3&utm_medium=email&est=3b7il14J3LFrjW5SqS7XgLecQfP5JIZthgP6dOgCzrKT%2B92x7W35UcwPPsDsHHs0Eg%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—Then-FBI Director James Comey and other bureau leaders were “fired up” in 2016 about allegations that Donald Trump’s business was secretly communicating with a Russian bank, according to internal FBI messages revealed in court on May 23.

“People on the 7th floor to include director are fired up about this server,” Joseph Pientka, an agent based in Washington, told Curtis Heide, a colleague working from the bureau’s Chicago office, in a message dated Sept. 21, 2016.

“Reachout [sic] and put tools on,” Pientka added. “Its [sic] not an option—we must do it.”

The message was sent just days after Michael Sussmann, a lawyer representing the campaign of Hillary Clinton—Trump’s rival for the presidency—met with an FBI lawyer and passed along information that he alleged showed a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

Even as FBI cyber experts deemed the allegations false within a day—and the CIA would later do the same—the bureau’s counterintelligence arm continued to probe the claims, a move backed by senior bureau officials such as Comey.

James Baker, the former FBI general counsel who met with Sussmann in 2016, quickly handed the information to higher-ups and personally briefed Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, both of whom were eventually fired by Trump’s Justice Department.

“It seemed to me of great urgency and seriousness that I would want to make my bosses aware of this information,” Baker said.

He recounted that both men were “quite concerned” about the allegations.

Pientka’s message was made public for the first time in federal court during the trial of Sussmann, who is charged with lying to the FBI for saying he wasn’t bringing the allegations on behalf of a client. Prosecutors say he was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign in a bid to influence the 2016 presidential election. Clinton campaign officials have testified that they didn’t approve Sussmann taking the allegations to the bureau; they preferred to have them promoted in media reports.

Bill Priestap, who was on the stand when the message was read, said he hadn’t seen it before.

Priestap was the FBI’s assistant counterintelligence director in 2016. He retired in 2019 and founded Trenchcoat Providers, which bills itself as helping safeguard businesses against cyber intrusions.

Priestap testified that he “does not recall” why there was “no choice” but to begin an investigation, and was unsure whether the bureau did open a probe. The only reason he knows they did is that there was an official file opened. The file said the probe was approved by four officials, including Daniel Wierzbicki, an official at the FBI’s Chicago office.

Priestap was the first person Baker spoke with after meeting with Sussmann and receiving the Trump–Russia allegations. Priestap claimed not to remember taking notes of the conversation, but, while on the stand, he was presented with notes he had taken.

The notes show that Priestap wrote that he was told that Sussmann wasn’t representing any clients in bringing the information to the FBI, bolstering special counsel John Durham’s case.

The motivation of the person bringing allegations is of interest, but isn’t the only factor the FBI uses to assess what steps to take regarding information, Priestap said. The bureau would want to know if a political campaign was behind any allegations, and if a confidential FBI source was behind them.

Rodney Joffe, another Sussmann client, was a confidential source but, according to prosecutors, utilized Sussmann to convey the information to the FBI, as opposed to taking it himself to his handler.

Joffe was terminated “for cause” in 2021 as a source, prosecutors have revealed.

“It was not something that I was regularly briefed on, and if I recall correctly, at end of the day, it didn’t amount to much,” Priestap said regarding the allegations.

The probe of the allegations primarily took place at the FBI’s Chicago office. Ryan Gaynor, an FBI agent there, recounted on May 23 how he volunteered to track the progress of the probe for the bureau’s headquarters in Washington.

Gaynor learned that Sussmann was representing Democrats but chose to withhold that information from agents performing the analysis of the data. However, he also said that knowing Sussmann brought the data on behalf of a confidential FBI source would have likely led him not to volunteer.

Allison Sands, one of the agents who performed the analysis, determined that the data, which was contained on thumb drives that Sussmann dropped off with Baker along with several white papers, didn’t support the allegations.

Sands said she was prevented from knowing the source of the data because of Gaynor’s decision to keep it shielded. She would have wanted to speak to the source’s handlers if she knew. The team did figure out that David Dagon, a researcher with the Georgia Institute of Technology, authored one of the papers, but the team didn’t interview Dagon.

Sands said she was “either told not to, or to focus on the logs” on the thumb drives.

She said she knew only that the probe was ordered by officials from “someplace in headquarters land.”

Heide testified that the team had to open a full investigation because of demands from FBI leadership. He also said that the bureau headquarters rebuffed requests to interview the original source during the investigation. That led to frustration, and the feeling that the probe was incomplete even after being closed.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-leaders-including-comey-were-fired-up-about-trump-alfa-bank-claims-agent_4486824.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-24-2&utm_medium=email&est=th86%2F4L7GC4bzml2itPYQxTfVgz0DC9MNEFQEJKR9Q%2BRsmDVOVGkrg8fa9D6MobTPA%3D%3D

Experimental drugs aim to help treat seasonal allergies

The National Institutes of Health division led by Dr. Anthony Fauci is slated to spend nearly $2 million to force feed puppies with experimental allergy drugs, according to a government watchdog group.

NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is helmed by Fauci, allocated $1,836,453 in taxpayer dollars for a contractor to test an experimental hay fever drug on mice, rats, and dogs, including puppies, according to the funding documents, which were obtained by the White Coat Waste Project and provided to the Washington Free Beacon. The most severe symptoms of hay fever, also known as seasonal allergies, are a runny nose and sneezing.

The documents, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and are highly redacted, show that the division requested at least five separate experiments on dogs that are likely to include force-feeding them experimental drugs for several months. While the contractor conducting the tests, Inimmune Corp., said guinea pigs could be used in place of dogs for some testing, purchasing “six-month old puppies” that would be exposed to allergens and then used for testing was also proposed.

NIH’s animal experiments have become a flashpoint in Congress after it emerged earlier this year that the government spent $2.5 million injecting beagle puppies with cocaine, sparking a bipartisan investigation, which was first reported by the Free Beacon. The NIH also funds labs in Russia, even as it invades Ukraine, including one lab that conducted “horrific and barbaric experiments on 18 cats.” The disclosure of the latest funding tranche is likely to build momentum for legislation called the Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste Act that would bar NIAID from conducting these types of dog experiments.

“Fauci’s white coats at NIAID have forced taxpayers to pay millions to de-bark and poison puppies, infest beagles with ticks and flies, and, now, needlessly torture puppies to test a new drug to treat a runny nose,” Devin Murphy, White Coat Waste Project’s public policy and communications manager, told the Free Beacon. “Even NIAID’s own contractor acknowledges that the dog testing demanded by Fauci’s agency is unnecessary because alternative animal models are available.”

The latest animal experiment grant, which began on September 1, 2021, and is slated to end in August 2023, indicates that NIAID attempted to purchase “allergic dogs” from a supplier, but ran into supply roadblocks. “Unfortunately, all of the allergic dogs from the [redacted] have not been available,” the documents state. “Six-month old puppies” were proposed as an alternative solution, though it is unclear if NIH went forward with that suggestion.

NIAID’s contractor, Inimmune Corp., suggested guinea pigs be used “instead of dog studies,” according to the documents, indicating that dog experiments were unnecessary and raising questions about the government’s desire to use them as lab subjects. This proposal was under consideration as of January 2022.

White Coat Waste Project is challenging the redactions in the documents and has submitted follow-up requests to obtain information on the experiments.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R., S.C.), who is spearheading the PAAW Act and investigating NIH for its animal experiments, told the Free Beacon that U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for “unnecessary and cruel” government tests.

“Americans across the political spectrum have been horrified to learn their tax dollars are being used to subsidize NIAID’s barbaric experiments on beagle puppies,” Mace said in a statement. “I’m proud to be leading the bipartisan PAAW Act to ensure taxpayer money is not used to support outdated, unnecessary and cruel experiments on dogs.”

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/nih-to-spend-2-million-in-taxpayer-funds-experimenting-on-puppies/

WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton greenlighted the plan to give allegations against Donald Trump to a reporter ahead of the 2016 election, Clinton’s campaign manager testified in federal court on May 20.

“We told her we have this and we want to share it with a reporter. She agreed to that,” said Robby Mook, the campaign manager.

The allegations purportedly showed a secret back channel between Trump’s business and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Several stories were published about the claims on Oct. 31, 2016. Hours later, Clinton herself promoted them.

“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,” Clinton wrote in a Twitter post.

Neither she nor Jake Sullivan, a top campaign official, mentioned that the allegations were passed to the media by the campaign.

The allegations stemmed from Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who hoped to score a position in the government if Clinton won the election, researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the campaign who is on trial for allegedly lying to the FBI.

Sussmann informed his colleague Marc Elias of the allegations in the summer of 2016, who passed them on to the campaign in August of that year, Elias told the court this week.

“I thought that if there was a news account of the allegations,” it would “benefit the campaign,” Elias said.

Both Sussmann and operatives with Fusion GPS, a firm tapped by the campaign, worked to seed stories about Trump and Alfa Bank in media outlets, succeeding when Slate and the New York Times published stories that remain largely uncorrected to this day.

Mook says he was briefed by Elias on the claims, which he was told came from people with expertise in cyber matters. He does not recall being told any names and said campaign officials did not have the subject matter expertise to judge the claims themselves. He spoke with Sullivan and John Podesta, another campaign official, about spreading the allegations to media outlets.

Mook said the campaign didn’t immediately act on the allegations because of worries they weren’t credible. Officials ultimately decided, despite not being “totally confident” in the allegations, to give them to a reporter so the reporter could “run it down.”

“Our hope was they were going to run it down, that it would be substantive, and accurate,” he said.

A campaign staffer whose name Mook could not recall, with the campaign’s press department, conveyed the allegations to the press.

Mook said he couldn’t recall exactly when Clinton approved the move.

“All I can remember is she agreed with the decision. She thought we made the right decision,” he said.

According to previously disclosed declassified information, Clinton allegedly approved a campaign plan in late July 2016 to “stir up a scandal” against Trump by tying him to Russia.

Separately, in late September 2021, Sussmann handed over white papers outlining the allegations regarding Trump and the Russian bank and thumb drives with data purportedly supporting them to the FBI, a move that Elias and Mook both say was not cleared by the campaign.

Mook said he was “not aware” if Clinton approved Sussmann’s meeting. “I don’t know why” she would do so, he said.

Sussmann is on trial because he told FBI lawyer James Baker he was not bringing the information on behalf of any client.

Both the FBI and CIA determined the allegations were unsupported by the data, though that fact was not made public until this year through filings by Durham’s team.

Mooks said he was “not aware” if Clinton approved Sussmann going to FBI. “I don’t know why” she would do so, he said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/hillary-clinton-approved-giving-trump-russia-allegations-to-reporter-testimony_4479740.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-20-3&utm_medium=email&est=jC1DzD2JoiKQc58tFA2HyuRv0%2Fs8mpfyM4PfROi4Owz3VjEOlZlY%2FqTU7qajhGd5lA%3D%3D

Phelim McAleer, a producer of the upcoming independent movie “My Son Hunter” exposing alleged corruption in the Biden family, said he hasn’t “recovered from the shock” after knowing that Hunter Biden’s attorney had infiltrated his movie set in Serbia.

“Hunter Biden’s lawyer was on the set of our movie, secretly recording and interviewing people under false pretenses over several days to find out what was going on,” McAleer said in a recent interview with EpochTV’s “China Insider” program.

The lawyer that he was referring to is Hollywood attorney Kevin Morris, who won a Tony award as a co-producer of the Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon.” His law firm previously represented Hollywood celebrities including Chris Rock, Scarlett Johansson, and “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

According to McAleer, Morris and two of his associates flew to his movie set in Serbia on a private jet, claiming to be making a documentary with the aim to expose Hunter Biden’s corruption.

McAleer said he found their visit “unusual” but he didn’t question their intention during their short visit, since Morris did not conceal his name and he knows who Morris is.

However, what Morris did hide from McAleer is the fact that he was representing Hunter Biden, a revelation exposed by CBS News in early May. The outlet got confirmation from Morris’s office that he was putting together a legal and media strategy for the president’s son.

What’s more, Christopher Clark, Hunter Biden’s criminal attorney, also confirmed to the outlet that Morris is acting as an “attorney and trusted adviser” to the president’s son.

McAleer said he was stunned when he saw the CBS report.

“I did not believe it,” McAleer said. “I was thinking, like, this is a lawyer, you can’t do that as a lawyer, you can’t pretend you’re not representing your client and speak to a third party, and misrepresent that.”

He added, “There’s an actual part of the California Bar Association ethics rules that says, you’re not allowed to represent yourself as an independent person, to someone who does not have legal counsels.”

Looking back, McAleer said he had some assumptions about why Morris was at his set.

“They’re trying to get some words that they could smear and put together to discredit the movie and to discredit our project,” McAleer said.

He said “My Son Hunter,” a crowdfunded film now in post-production, will be “Austin Powers” meets “House of Cards.” The movie stars British actor and political activist Laurence Fox in the title role and “Dynasty” star John James as Joe Biden.

“It’s a great story and that’s what they’re afraid of, that the story will travel far and wide and that’s why I suppose they infiltrated our movie set, tried to spy on it,” he added.

Hunter Biden, who is currently under federal investigation for tax affairs, has been under scrutiny for his overseas business dealings in countries including Ukraine, Russia, and China, particularly during the time when Biden was vice president during the Obama administration.

For instance, he was paid over $83,000 a month for his work at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma’s board, a position he held from 2014 until 2019, according to payment records that former Ukrainian law enforcement officials provided to Reuters.

Emails unearthed from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed that he traveled to Beijing between 2014 and 2015 trying to broker a $120 million oil agreement between a Chinese state-owned oil company and Kazakhstan’s then-prime minister.

In March, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) presented bank records on the Senate floor showing CEFC China Energy, a now-defunct company, made payments to Hunter Biden.

McAleer didn’t think the infiltration has caused him or his movie any damage.

“I suspect the damage actually is going to be for Kevin Morris and Hunter Biden,” he said. “How do you hold the moral high ground when you infiltrated a movie set under false pretenses?

As for what people can get out of watching “My Son Hunter,” McAleer said he wanted people to learn.

“I wish the people learn that the Vice President of the United States was doing deals with foreign entities, Chinese entities, Russian entities, Ukrainian entities, getting tens of millions of dollars for doing nothing,” he said.

“I want them to start asking questions,” he added. “But I also want them to enjoy a really funny movie.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Morris for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/my-son-hunter-movie-producer-says-hunter-bidens-attorney-infiltrated-his-film-set_4479039.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-20-1&utm_medium=email&est=IdZF1SPppUzw6DuQihRiAr4ElRN3O7gSqZ8U223cSeqq2ZhGkKWwER%2FZ73uwn4JSwg%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—The FBI lawyer who served as a conduit for flimsy allegations against Donald Trump said May 19 he would have acted differently if he knew Trump’s rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, was behind the claims.

James Baker, who now works for Twitter, said that he likely would not have have met with Michael Sussmann, who is accused of passing on data that allegedly linked Trump’s business to a Russian bank, if he knew Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

“I don’t think I would have,” Baker said on the stand in federal court in Washington.

Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “would have raised very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the source” and the “veracity of the information,” Baker said. It would also have heightened “a substantial concern in my mind about whether we were going to be played.”

The testimony bolsters a key piece of special counsel John Durham’s case against Sussmann—that knowing the sources propelling Sussmann to meet with Baker would have altered how the FBI analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately found did not substantiate the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

“Absent Sussmann’s false statement, the FBI might have taken additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing an investigation,” prosecutors said in Sussmann’s indictment, which charged him with lying to the FBI.

Defense lawyers have argued that the impact of Sussmann’s alleged lie was “trivial or negligible.”

Sussmann met Baker in the FBI lawyer’s office on Sept. 19, 2016, just weeks before the presidential election. No other persons were present.

Baker said Thursday that would not have been the case if he knew the Clinton campaign’s involvement. He said he likely would have directed Sussmann to other FBI personnel—bureau lawyers don’t typically receive information—or would have still met with Sussmann, but made sure other personnel were present.

“I was willing to meet with Michael alone because I had high confidence in him and trust,” said Baker, who has described Sussmann as a friend. “I think I would have made a different assessment if he said he had been appearing on behalf of a client.”

Sussmann told Baker in a text message the night before the meeting that he had sensitive information he wanted to pass on but that he was doing so on his own accord, not on behalf of any clients. Baker testified that Sussmann repeated the lie during the meeting. Sussmann later told a congressional panel that the information was given to him by a client.

“I think it’s most accurate to say it was done on behalf of my client,” Sussmann said, apparently referring to Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who has said he was promised a position in the government if Clinton won the election.

While Sussmann, Joffe, and others worked on the white papers that he ultimately passed to Baker, the lawyer was billing the Clinton campaign, according to billing records. Sussmann also told the campaign about the allegations before he met with Baker, though the campaign allegedly did not approve the meeting.

Sussmann was well-known to the FBI, having worked with the bureau on multiple cases, including the alleged hack of Democratic National Committee servers. Sussmann “had a vibrant national security practice that had contact with the FBI a lot,” Baker said. Sussmann worked for Perkins Coie, which was the Clinton campaign’s law firm during the 2016 election, and has a long history of working with Democrats.

On cross-examination, Sean Berkowitz, representing Sussmann, hammered Baker over inconsistencies in his testimony and what he’s said before.

Baker, for instance, told the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General in 2019 that Sussmann said he had information stemming from “people that were his clients.” Baker said he was using a “shorthand way” of describing the cyberexperts with whom Sussman was working.

In 2018, testifying to a House of Representatives panel behind closed doors, Baker said he couldn’t remember whether he knew at the time that Baker was representing the Clinton campaign. “I don’t know that I had that in my head when he showed up in my office,” Baker said at the time.

“I just find that unbelievable that the guy representing the Clinton campaign, the Democrat National Committee, shows up with information that says we got this, and you don’t ask where he got it, you didn’t know how he got it,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) responded.

“I was uncomfortable with being in the position of having too much factual information conveyed to me, because I’m not an agent. And so I wanted to get the information into the hands of the agents as quickly as possible and let them deal with it. If they wanted to go interview Sussmann and ask him all those kinds of questions, fine with me,” Baker said.

According to Baker’s testimony and previous remarks from Sussmann, no agents ended up asking those kinds of questions.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-lawyer-knowing-clinton-was-behind-trump-allegations-would-have-changed-things_4478501.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-20-1&utm_medium=email&est=ArKq6sff9EIj3uA1BKp27aswgTL%2FO5yK8%2B9vEmjKaqzIeBuGliayP5PZlRd8WP4Tug%3D%3D

Twitter’s pick to stop the spread of misinformation in times of crisis has a history of pushing falsehoods.

Yoel Roth, the head of Twitter’s safety and integrity unit, unveiled the site’s “crisis misinformation policy” on Thursday. In a blog post, Roth outlined how Twitter will place warning labels on tweets deemed to contain misinformation and prevent them from being “amplified or recommended” in times of armed conflict, natural disasters, or public health emergencies.

Roth is a questionable pick to launch the policy, given his own track record with misinformation. Roth oversaw Twitter’s decision to block the sharing of an October 2020 New York Post report on emails from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop. Roth told the Federal Election Commission he made the decision based on “rumors” shared by the United States government’s intelligence community that the Russian government might release materials hacked from Hunter Biden.

There has been no credible evidence that Biden’s laptop was hacked, or that Russia played a role in publishing emails from it. Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later admitted that blocking the article was “a total mistake.”

Roth came under fire earlier in 2020 for referring to Trump officials as “actual Nazis” in a 2017 tweet. He also called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) a “bag of farts.”

Twitter is rolling out the policy amid a period of uncertainty for the company. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who is seeking to buy the company, has stated his opposition to censorship on the site. He has also said Twitter has “a strong left wing bias.”

The Twitter policy also comes as the federal government falters in its efforts to combat misinformation. The Department of Homeland Security scrapped its proposed Disinformation Governance Board this week following revelations that  its executive director, Nina Jankowicz, pushed conspiracy theories about both the Biden laptop and claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Jankowicz officially resigned her post Wednesday.

Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.

https://freebeacon.com/media/meet-the-conspiracy-theorist-behind-twitters-crisis-misinformation-policy/

WASHINGTON—Former FBI Director James Comey and his top deputy were briefed on claims against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump brought to the FBI by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the bureau’s former general counsel testified in court on May 19.

James Baker, who was the bureau’s top lawyer at the time, met with Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign lawyer, on Sept. 19, 2016.

During the meeting, which took place in Baker’s office, Sussmann handed over white papers and thumb drives that allegedly contained data proving a secret back channel between Trump’s business and a Russian bank—claims that were later deemed false by the FBI and CIA.

Baker, testifying during Sussmann’s trial on a charge of lying to the FBI, said Sussmann repeated what he had told his friend the night prior—that he was bringing the information on his own accord, not on behalf of any clients.

“It was part of his introduction to the meeting, ‘I’m not here on behalf of any particular client.’ I’m 100 percent confident that he said that,” Baker said.

Sussmann told Baker that media outlets were preparing to publish stories on the claims. Within minutes of getting the data, Baker picked up the phone and called Bill Priestap, a top FBI official.

“It involved Russia, and this bank had links to the Kremlin. That seemed to me, on its face, to be a potential national security threat,” Baker said, noting that the bureau was already investigating alleged connections between the Trump Organization and Russia. “It was a very high priority for me.”

During a meeting with Priestap, Baker vouched for Sussmann, who he has described as a friend. The pair met while working in the same Department of Justice division.

Baker repeated Sussmann’s claim—which led to a criminal charge against Sussmann and the trial—that he wasn’t bringing the information on behalf of a client, but noted that Sussmann had represented the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

Baker said he gave the data the next day to Peter Strzok, another top FBI official.

“I wanted to get rid of this material as quickly as possible. I hated having it on my desk. I didn’t want to have this material any longer than I needed to,” Baker said.

The FBI lawyer soon spoke to Comey, the bureau’s director at the time, and Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s deputy director, about the allegations.

“It seemed to me of great urgency and seriousness that I would want to make my bosses aware of this information,” Baker said.

He recounted both men being “quite concerned” about the allegations.

FBI experts who analyzed the data found that it didn’t support the claims, FBI agent Scott Hellman testified earlier this week. The CIA in early 2017 determined that the allegations weren’t only “untrue and unsupported,” but that the data was “user created” and “contained gaps.”

It became clear “that there was nothing there,” Baker said.

Priestap came back to Baker, who was thinking of publishing an article, to inquire about the report and Baker reached out to Sussmann to get the identity, which turned out to be Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times.

Baker met twice with Lichtblau. During the first meeting, the reporter agreed to delay the story. In the other, FBI officials conveyed that the bureau had concluded the materials didn’t substantiate that there was a surreptitious connection between Trump’s business and the Russian bank.

“We concluded there was no substance,” Baker said.

The New York Times, in an article published on Oct. 31, 2016, said the FBI “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation” for the purported link. It hasn’t been updated to include information that has entered into the public sphere since its publishing, such as the CIA’s conclusion.

Defense lawyers after a lunch break tried to portray Baker as an unreliable witness, as they have in hearings and filings entered before the trial began.

Sean Berkowitz, one of the lawyers, pointed out that  Baker told the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General in mid-2019 that Sussmann told Baker in the meeting that he had information “that he said related to strange interactions that some number of people that were his clients, who were, he described as I recall it, sort of cyber-security experts, had found.”

Baker also told prosecutors with special counsel John Durham’s team in 2020 that the topic of Sussmann’s clients didn’t come up during the meeting.

On the stand, Baker said his statement to the inspector general’s office was mistaken and that the truth is that Sussmann told him in person that he wasn’t bringing the information on behalf of a client. He said he didn’t consult his texts or otherwise prepare before speaking to the DOJ watchdog or prosecutors.

“Did it ever occur to you … to look at your phone for any text messages?” Berkowitz wondered.

“For better or worse, it did not occur to me,” Baker said.

Prior to the trial, Durham’s team revealed that it had obtained a text that Sussmann sent Baker asking him to meet, in which Sussmann stated that he had “time-sensitive (and sensitive)” information and that he was “coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau.”

Baker also challenged notes taken of a DOJ meeting involving him and high-ranking officials in 2017, during which the Alfa Bank allegations were raised. According to the notes, said to have been taken by a DOJ lawyer, McCabe said that the allegations were sourced from an “attorney” who “brought [them] to [the] FBI on behalf of his client.”

Baker said he did not recall that moment during the meeting.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-lawyer-says-he-briefed-mccabe-comey-on-sketchy-trump-russia-claims_4477481.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-20&utm_medium=email&est=M299vLir3hQZiNeN3sklragZbFIc45LrmZGMqcXOBFUrxySxWOEjEXXh8m%2BhQxi3fg%3D%3D

Both U.S. congressional chambers in May passed a bill allocating $40 billion for Ukraine.

See how each member voted below.

Senate (86-11) 

Senators who voted for the bill:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Sen. Jon Ossoff (R-Ga.)
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators who voted against the bill:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Senators who did not vote:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

House (368-57)

Members who voted for the bill:

Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.)
Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.)
Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas)
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.)
Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.)
Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.)
Rep. Cynthia Axne (D-Iowa)
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.)
Rep. Jim Baird (R-Ind.)
Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio)
Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.)
Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.)
Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.)
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio)
Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.)
Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.)
Rep. Donald Beyer (D-Va.)
Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.)
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.)
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.)
Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.)
Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.)
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.)
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas)
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.)
Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio)
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)
Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.)
Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.)
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)
Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.)
Rep. George Butterfield (D-N.C.)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.)
Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.)
Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mike Carey (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.)
Rep. Andrew Carson (D-Ind.)
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.)
Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.)
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas)
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)
Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.)
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas)
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.)
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.)
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.)
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.)
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.)
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas)
Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.)
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah)
Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.)
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.)
Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)
Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.)
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.)
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Rep. Michael Doyle (D-Pa.)
Rep. Neal Dunn (R-Fla.)
Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-Texas)
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.)
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas)
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.)
Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas)
Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa)
Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.)
Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-Minn.)
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas)
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.)
Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.)
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.)
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.)
Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.)
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas)
Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-Ill.)
Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.)
Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine)
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.)
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas)
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio)
Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas)
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.)
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas)
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.)
Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.)
Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Calif.)
Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.)
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.)
Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.)
Rep. James Himes (D-Conn.)
Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa)
Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-Ind.)
Rep. Steve Horsford (D-Nev.)
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.)
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.)
Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Eddie Johnson (D-Texas)
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio)
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)
Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.)
Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio)
Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.)
Rep. Kaiali’i Kahele (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.)
Rep. William Keating (D-Mass.)
Rep. Fred Keller (R-Pa.)
Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.)
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.)
Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.)
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
Rep. Daniel Kildee (D-Mich.)
Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.)
Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.)
Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.)
Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.J.)
Rep. David Kustoff (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.)
Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.)
Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.)
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.)
Rep. Robert Latta (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jacob LaTurner (R-Kan.)
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.)
Rep. Al Lawson (D-Fla.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.)
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.)
Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.)
Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.)
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.)
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga)
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.)
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)
Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.)
Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.)
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Kathy Manning (D-N.C.)
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.)
Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Rep. Riordan McClain (R-Ohio)
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.)
Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.)
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.)
Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.)
Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.)
Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.)
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa)
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.)
Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.)
Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah)
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)
Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.)
Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.)
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)
Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.)
Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.)
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.)
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)
Rep. Marie Newman (D-Ill.)
Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.)
Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)
Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.)
Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.)
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.)
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.)
Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Rep. Greg Pence (R-Ind.)
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.)
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.)
Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas)
Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)
Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.)
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.)
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)
Rep. David Price (D-N.C.)
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.)
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.)
Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Calif.)
Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.)
Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.)
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.)
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)
Rep. John Rutherford (R-Fla.)
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)
Rep. Mary Scanlon (D-Pa.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.)
Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.)
Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.)
Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-N.J.)
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)
Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.)
Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.)
Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.)
Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.)
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.)
Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.)
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.)
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah)
Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.)
Rep. Van Taylor (R-Texas)
Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)
Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.)
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.)
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.)
Rep. David Trone (D-Md.)
Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.)
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.)
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.)
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.)
Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.)
Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.)
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas)
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.)
Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.)
Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)
Rep. Robert Wittman (R-Va.)
Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)

Members who voted against the bill:

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas)
Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.)
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.)
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.)
Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.)
Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas)
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.)
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kan.)
Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.)
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.)
Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.)
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.)
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.)
Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas)
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.)
Rep. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.)
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)
Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.)
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.)
Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.)
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas)
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.)
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.)
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.)
Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.)
Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas)
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.)
Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas)

Members who didn’t vote:

Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.)
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.)
Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.)
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.)

https://www.theepochtimes.com/full-list-how-members-of-congress-voted-on-40-billion-for-ukraine_4477278.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-19-4&utm_medium=email&est=CMkCpyGaviWgLWHqMBK%2FSdcaQwdS0zjwqcBG7DgFWM5jcOrvpqigy%2BYprxL2TD5IBg%3D%3D

WASHINGTON—The technology executive who was one of Michael Sussmann’s clients when Sussmann took sketchy claims to the U.S. government was terminated as a confidential informant by the FBI in 2021, prosecutors revealed during Sussmann’s trial on May 17.

Rodney Joffe, the executive, exploited his access to non-public data at multiple technology companies to conduct opposition research into then-presidential candidate Donald Trump ahead of the 2016 election, according to court filings. The firm Joffe worked for, Neustar Security Services, had a Domain Name System (DNS) contract with the office of the presidency in 2016.

Joffe was a confidential informant for the FBI but was terminated “for cause” in 2021, prosecutors said.

Brittain Shaw, one of the prosecutors on Special Counsel John Durham’s team, revealed the information during the questioning of FBI agent David Martin.

The termination was because of how Joffe was involved with the scheme to compile information on the alleged connection between Trump’s business and a Russian bank, Andrew DeFilippis, another prosecutor, said later.

Sean Berkowitz, an attorney for Sussmann, raised concerns during closed session, or without jurors in the room, with remarks about Joffe’s status, asserting they were “prejudicial,” Reuters reported.

U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper, the Obama appointee overseeing the trial, agreed.

Cooper, speaking while jurors weren’t in the room, ordered prosecutors not to discuss the topic again. He said how Joffe handled the information was not part of the trial, and noted the termination did not come for years after the events that are being explored during the trial. In 2016, Joffe was a respected expert, the judge said, echoing the defense.

Joffe was one of Sussmann’s clients, a group that included Hillary Clinton’s campaign, at the time. Joffe has said he was offered a position in the U.S. government if Clinton won the election, which she did not.

According to prosecutors, Joffe not only conducted opposition research on Trump but enlisted researchers from a university, identified as Georgia Institute of Technology, to help him.

Prosecutors said Joffe, Sussmann, and Perkins Coie, the campaign’s legal firm, engaged in a coordinated scheme to distribute the opposition research to the FBI and media outlets in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.

As part of the effort, Sussmann passed sketchy data alleging a link between Trump’s business and a Russian bank to an FBI lawyer in September 2016. Sussmann claimed he was not bringing the information on behalf of a client, which was false, prosecutors say. Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI.

Steve DeJong, an executive with Neustar, took the stand later Tuesday, telling the court that Joffe was “very well respected.” He said Joffe asked him, as a favor, in August and September of 2016 to look through data logs to find queries for names in political campaigns.

“In retrospect, it was mostly around the Trump campaign,” DeJong said.

DeJong said he was also doing things for Joffe like gathering data on “DNS traffic between utility companies during a hurricane.” Sussmann, to his knowledge, was not “in any way involved” in collecting or analyzing the data. He had never heard of Sussmann before.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/technology-executive-who-pushed-clinton-lawyer-to-go-to-fbi-terminated-by-bureau-prosecutors_4474180.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-18-2&utm_medium=email&est=PWR180bF6033mNsBkF4ujbGokX58ZPPsAE2LKn7Fftq3ZtIFWVu2ufSyFQGmh1K2dg%3D%3D

Oregon is a state that has been under progressive Democrat control for the last six administrations and its largest city, Portland, has been a hotbed for violence connected to the Marxist revolutionary group Antifa. In response to this, Kerry McQuisten, a native Oregonian and Republican, is running for governor.

She said the current generation of young people have been convinced that they are being marginalized, and this is leading them to accept socialism and eventually communism.

“You know, [Yuri] Bezmenov said that all it took was for them to get [a] hold of one generation of our children, and it would … flip us into communism,” McQuisten told the host of NTD Capitol Report during a recent interview.Play Video

She said this effort to achieve the Marxist goals in the United States requires that a generation feel they don’t have individual rights and reacts as a collective. “And that’s the first step toward communism, you know, these folks have to be a generation convinced that they don’t have these individual rights, they may not see themselves as individuals, they have to slide into this hive mentality.

“And that’s absolutely what we’re seeing in our education system here in Oregon. You know, it’s as if we’re the test run here in the United States to see how far they can push this.”

McQuisten said she is pushing back on the current administration’s effort to use the education system to indoctrinate youth to this type of thinking, and if elected would end the teaching of the critical race theory-based curriculum, which seeks to divide groups based on their race.

Other Republican governors have signed bills into law prohibiting the teaching of such ideology in schools, saying it is divisive and goes against America’s founding principles. Elected specifically on an anti-CRT platform, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, after taking office, signed an executive order (pdf) prohibiting the teaching of CRT.

CRT redefines human history as a struggle between “oppressors”—normally considered to be white people—and the “oppressed” individuals from minority identity groups, and has Marxist underpinnings.

In addition, McQuisten said the gender ideology being pushed in schools does not make sense. “Everything in Oregon is upside down at this point, from crime to education and beyond.

“So aside from critical race theory, we’re seeing right now, at the end of the last legislative session, Kate Brown, our outgoing governor, had signed into law The Menstrual Dignity Act.”

This legislation seeks to put tampons in boys’ locker rooms and school bathrooms. An Oregon Department of Education toolkit (pdf) in part states that the goal is to “provide free menstrual products for all menstruating students in public schools in Oregon.” It later continues, “Importantly, this law affirms the right to menstrual dignity for transgender, intersex, nonbinary, and two-spirit students.”

McQuisten said “what I’m looking at across the United States, and especially Oregon right now, and seeing is that assault on our constitutional rights and our assault on our representative constitutional republic.”

If elected, McQuisten would join a number of governors that are pushing back against this type of ideology.

“I think it’s great legislation,” McQuisten said about Florida Gov. Ron DeStantis’s effort to require that the history of communism be taught in schools. “We need to make people aware of this, because I’m completely aware that communism and socialism is how evil manifests itself through our political system.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the “The Victims of Communism Day” legislation (pdf), saying Florida will not “whitewash the history of communism” and will stand for liberty.

“Through HB 395 and the funding announced today, we are guaranteeing that the history of those who fled communist regimes and their experiences are preserved and not forgotten by our students.”

Brown also commuted the sentences of close to 1,000 criminals, said McQuisten. “So, the Democrats in our state have actually created this pro-crime agenda.”

Brown said she granted clemency to nearly 1,000 criminals who were “nonviolent adults” that faced a high risk of COVID-19, battled the wildfires in 2020, or are facing “unjustly long sentences they committed as youth,” in an April social media post.

Meanwhile, McQuisten said Oregon is on “the edge of a cliff” and it needs a leader to fight back against these destructive trends.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/hive-mentality-first-step-toward-communism-oregon-gov-candidate-kerry-mcquisten_4463841.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-17-4&utm_medium=email&est=paEXTth4Li4LKIxAIALXng8u8PZt97I46M4Y6MIOap23MYr7GVJI56OIM9pZBdUPRg%3D%3D

The Senate on May 16 decided in a bipartisan vote to advance a $40 billion military aid package to Ukraine, invoking cloture on debate over the objections of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The 80–11 vote included the support of vast swaths of both parties; 11 Republicans voted against invoking cloture. The bill will now await a final vote in the Senate, which may come as early as May 18.

In comments on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) decried Paul’s effort last week to block the legislation.

“Senator Paul’s obstruction of Ukraine funding is unacceptable, and only serves to strengthen Putin’s hand in the long run,” Schumer said.

“I would urge the senator from Kentucky to reconsider his objection,” Senate president pro tempore Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said later.

The bill, the latest in a series of billion-dollar aid packages to the European nation, was blocked by Paul on May 11, even though House and Senate leaders were unanimous in their agreement to proceed with passing the package.

Paul refused to advance the bill until changes were made to the legislation that would ensure an inspector general could monitor exactly how the billions of dollars were being spent. Ultimately, the Senate invoked cloture without making any changes to the final draft of the bill.

“My oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution, not to any foreign nation, and no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America,” Paul said on the Senate floor on May 12.

“We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy. … Gasoline alone is up 48 percent, and energy prices are up 32 percent over the last year. Food prices have increased by nearly 9 percent. Used vehicle prices are up 35 percent for the year, and new vehicle prices have increased 12 percent or more,” he continued.

Paul noted that inflation “doesn’t just come out of nowhere” while pointing to deficit spending, noting that the United States spent almost $5 trillion on “COVID-19 bailouts” which have led to sky-high inflation.

“Americans are feeling the pain, and Congress seems intent only on adding to that pain by shoveling more money out the door as fast as they can,” Paul said.

Following Paul’s successful effort to temporarily halt the bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Ukrainian leaders during a weekend visit to Kyiv that the bill would still pass with the support of an “overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress.”

Paul’s lone objection to the bill in the Senate was only the latest in a series of complications that have stalled its progress.

President Joe Biden originally requested a much smaller aid package on April 28.

Biden’s request included $20.4 billion in military assistance along with $8.5 billion in economic assistance. The package also included $3 billion in humanitarian assistance to address food shortages around the globe. Ultimately, the bill would have cost American taxpayers about $33 billion.

“The cost of this fight is not cheap, but caving to aggression is going to be more costly if we allow it to happen,” Biden said during a live address on April 28. “We either back the Ukrainian people as they defend their country, or we stand by as the Russians continue their atrocities and aggression in Ukraine.”

Later, lawmakers added about $3.4 billion to the humanitarian and military aid components of the bill, but the legislation quickly got bogged down in partisan disputes.

Some Democrats hoped for the addition of about $10 billion in domestic COVID relief funding, which was opposed by Republicans, who cited billions of dollars of previously-allocated relief funds that had not been used.

On the other side, some Republicans pushed for an amendment to overturn Biden’s plan to end Title 42, a Trump-era COVID emergency policy allowing Border Patrol agents to turn back many of the illegal immigrants apprehended at the border.

Still, after a period of stalling, the $40 billion taxpayer-funded relief bill is expected to head to Biden’s desk by the end of the week.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/senate-advances-40-billion-ukraine-bill-overruling-sen-rand-pauls-objections_4470036.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-17-1&utm_medium=email&est=HOGhe6HrS8VRgWlZTmp8nShIGRGYDEcF7VjhyldfOWBbMzm2pgvTQLsW97hZKiBKNg%3D%3D

‘Rodham’ imagines a political career unburdened by a horny husband

Hulu, the streaming platform behind the 2020 documentary Hillary, has rejected another project based on the life of the failed presidential candidate.

The network has officially passed on Rodham, a project based on Curtis Sittenfeld’s bestselling novel by the same name, which envisioned an alternative universe in which Hillary Rodham met and dated Bill Clinton at Yale Law School but never married the prolific philanderer.

Actors Claire Danes, 43, and Dakota Fanning, 28, have already signed on to play Hillary at various stages of her life. The project, which will be written and produced by former House of Cards writer-producer Sarah Treem, is currently being shopped to other streaming platforms.

Published in May 2020, Rodham provides an alternative history of Hillary’s life in which Bill persuades her not to marry him because he knows he could never be faithful. She goes on to become a successful law professor at Northwestern University and eventually a U.S. senator from Illinois.

The book culminates with Hillary making history as the first woman elected president of the United States in 2016 by defeating Republican Jeb Bush in the general election—with Terry McAuliffe as her running mate.

In this universe, Hillary recently attended the Met Gala, where she was photographed smiling on the red carpet as a black man in a protective face mask tended to her fancy ball gown.

https://freebeacon.com/media/hillary-clinton-claire-danes/

As the trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann approaches, The Epoch Times presents a comprehensive timeline of Sussmann’s activities before and after the 2016 election. The cybersecurity lawyer faces one count of lying to the government for allegedly claiming to an FBI official that he was providing information while not representing any clients, when in fact he was representing the Clinton campaign. As a result of the alleged lie, the FBI was put at a disadvantage in grasping “the politically-laden and ethically-fraught nature” of the information, according to special counsel John Durham, who’s been tasked to review the FBI investigation into supposed collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to sway the 2016 election. The FBI investigation, partly concerned with the information provided by Sussmann, discovered no such collusion.

Sussman joined the Department of Justice in the early 1990s and for 12 years fulfilled several roles, mostly related to prosecuting cybercrime. He then became a partner at Perkins Coie—a large law firm whose lawyers often represent the Democratic Party—where he advised tech companies mainly on cyber-related issues such as compliance with government surveillance requests. One of the companies Sussmann advised was Neustar, which used to provide Domain Name System services and had access to non-public and proprietary internet traffic data.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/infographic-durhams-first-trial_4460742.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-16&utm_medium=email&est=3tY9ugz3okSSEC0quQggLLXhbFSmIBRotJuofgVILLiHs2FhVvr1y%2BQEiDyZz1M4cQ%3D%3D

Former First Lady Melania Trump gave her first interview since leaving the White House, providing a hint that her husband may be seeking another term in office and saying “it’s sad to see” the state of the country under the current administration.

“I think we achieved a lot in four years of the Trump administration,” Melania told Fox News in a Sunday interview, adding that “never say never” when asked about whether she could be again living inside the White House.

“I like Washington, D.C. I know it operates completely different than any other city, but I really like it there. And I enjoyed living in the White House. To be first lady of the United States was my greatest honor. I think we achieved a lot in the four years of Trump administration. I enjoyed taking care of the White House. It was my home for a while. I understood it is people’s house. And it was, it was a privilege to live there,” she continued to say.

When asked by Fox host Pete Hegseth about former first ladies Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton appearing on the cover of Vogue, Melania, a former model, criticized the magazine. Melania appeared on the cover of Vogue in 2005 when she was photographed alongside former President Donald Trump in her wedding dress.

“They’re biased and they have likes and dislikes, and it’s so obvious. And I think American people and everyone sees it. It was their decision, and I have much more important things to do—and I did in the White House—than being on the cover of Vogue,” Melania told the broadcaster.

The former first lady, a native of Slovenia, weighed in on the state of the United States under the Biden administration.

“I think it’s sad to see what’s going on, if you really look deeply into it,” Melania said, adding: “I think a lot of people are struggling and suffering and what is going on around the world as well. So it’s very sad to see and I hope it changes fast,” Melania added.

Donald Trump has not definitively said whether he will run for reelection, although he has suggested in interviews that he might.

Last month, Trump, 75, told the Washington Post that his health could play a role in whether he decides to run or not. In 2024, Trump will turn 78, and should he run—and win—the presidency, he’ll be 82 when he departs. President Joe Biden is slated to turn 80 this November.

“You always have to talk about health. You look like you’re in good health, but tomorrow, you get a letter from a doctor saying come see me again,” he told the outlet in April. ‘That’s not good when they use the word ‘again,’” Trump added, saying he is currently in good health.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sad-to-see-whats-going-on-melania-trump-gives-first-interview-since-leaving-white-house_4468110.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-15-4&utm_medium=email&est=GTLeLRU4gRxAcdUeKZ%2BdqIq2O0hQAhD266NgIAko1W9GdZpDQmSFzKDDolIUmPA7JQ%3D%3D

A Russian lawmaker has issued a fiery warning that Warsaw is next in line for “de-nazification” after Poland’s Prime Minister penned an op-ed calling Russia’s imperialist “Russkiy Mir” ideology a “cancer” consuming Russian society and a “deadly threat” to other countries.

Oleg Morozov, chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee on Control, wrote in a message on Telegram on Friday that the Polish leader’s comments have essentially made Poland a target.

In his remarks, Morozov resorted to the Kremlin’s rhetoric in its military operation in Ukraine of so-called “de-Nazification,” a label Moscow has used to vilify its geopolitical adversaries and justify the war.

“With its statements about Russia as a ‘cancer’ and about the ‘indemnity’ that we must pay to Ukraine, Poland encourages us to put it in first place in the queue for de-Nazification after Ukraine,” Morozov wrote, according to a translation of his statement.

Morozov’s remarks were prompted by statements made by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Polish President Andrzej Duda, who have both been highly critical of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Duda has said Russia should be forced to pay compensation to Ukraine for war damages while Morawiecki said Russian President Vladimir Putin is “more dangerous” than both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin because he has nuclear weapons and a massive propaganda machine at his disposal.

Morawiecki wrote in a column in the British newspaper The Telegraph that “the cursed phantoms of the 20th century have risen again over Ukraine,” alleging that Russia’s invasion of its neighbor bears the hallmarks of fascism, “has already opened the gates to genocide,” and is driven by a “monstrous new ideology” that he called “Russkiy Mir.”

Morawiecki alleged that in the name of this ideology, Putin and his military entourage have ordered Russian forces into war, “convinced them of their superiority, and encouraged them to commit inhuman war crimes—the murder, rape, and torture of innocent civilians.”

“Putin’s ‘Russkiy Mir’ ideology is the equivalent of 20th-century communism and Nazism,” Morawiecki wrote, calling it a “cancer which is consuming not only the majority of Russian society, but also poses a deadly threat to the whole of Europe.”

It’s not enough to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s attack, Morawiecki argued, “we must root out this monstrous new ideology entirely.”

“Just as Germany was once subject to denazification, today the only chance for Russia and the civilised world is ‘deputinisation.’ If we do not engage in this task immediately, we will not only lose Ukraine, we will lose our soul and our freedom and sovereignty,” the Polish leader wrote.

Morawiecki argued that, unless it is opposed, Russia will not stop at Kyiv but will continue on a “long march towards the West.”

The Kremlin has denied it has any intentions of invading other countries. Putin has claimed that what he describes as a “special military operation” in Ukraine comes in response to attempts by Western powers to establish a bulwark in Ukraine that threatens Moscow’s security.

In particular, Putin has long said that NATO is trying to expand its borders to pressure Russia militarily, claims the defensive alliance has rejected as unfounded.

Another of the Kremlin’s key justifications for its operation in Ukraine has been to allege that the Russian-speaking population in the separatist-controlled Donbass and Luhansk region were being subjected to repression and what Putin has described as “genocide.”

A long list of scholars and academics has denounced Russia’s claims of genocide and “de-Nazification” of Ukraine as a false pretext meant to justify “unprovoked aggression” against its southern neighbor.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/russian-lawmaker-says-poland-next-in-line-for-de-nazification_4466668.html?utm_source=Morningbrief-ai&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-05-15-ai&est=%2BW3JIfZLO4wWsiX8Vuck7ZuWgLf7rq7Gciftt6tR8UH%2BTFN4K0zvlOicoTMKEMerqQ%3D%3D

Kash Patel: Newly Released FBI Notes Expose Their Own Lies and Conspiracy Against Trump | Kash’s CornerKASH’S CORNERKASH PATEL AND JAN JEKIELEK

Get your copy of The Epoch Times’ Spygate poster, personally signed by Kash Patel. (Subscriber-only special discount.) 

Not subscribed but want a signed poster? Subscribe TODAY for $99/year and get a FREE Spygate poster personally signed by Kash Patel with your 1-year subscription. 

“In March of 2017 … [then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe] is admitting—in a meeting with the team running the Russiagate investigation—that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower,” according to newly released FBI notes, says Kash Patel.

These handwritten FBI and DOJ notes incriminate top officials and expose a conspiracy against Donald Trump, Kash says.

“As the lead Russiagate investigator, I never saw these notes. We asked for them. And they told us—they, the Department of Justice, the FBI—told us they did not exist.”

In this episode, Kash explains what he’s found in these newly released documents and why the judge’s recent order in the Michael Sussmann case was not a huge blow to special counsel John Durham’s case, unlike what many have claimed.

Kash and Jan also take a look at the firestorm of protests occurring outside the homes of Supreme Court justices since the leak of a draft ruling on Roe v. Wade. Will the justices be influenced?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/kash-patel-newly-released-fbi-notes-expose-their-own-lies-and-conspiracy-against-trump-kashs-corner_4465416.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-13-3&utm_medium=email&est=mOXhewh%2FW0CZEgWE1wnAfIMSi69EQsbvvlzuiLV7feTyv7TYRnhmGdTZ5%2BuKmFoCsQ%3D%3D

The firm that conducted opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump for his rival Hillary Clinton must give nearly two dozen emails they claimed were protected by privilege to special counsel John Durham’s team, a judge ruled on May 12.

Prosecutors, though, cannot use the messages at the upcoming trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The firm, Fusion GPS, withheld some 1,500 documents from Durham after the special counsel in 2021 issued a subpoena as he was building a case against people involved with triggering the government’s investigation into claims Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia.

Prosecutors in April contested the withholding of 38 emails, arguing they were improperly being withheld. Clinton’s campaign, which hired Fusion through a law firm, asserted attorney-client and work product privilege over the missives.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, the Obama appointee overseeing the case, said Durham’s team was correct with regards to 22 of the emails.

Based on evidence in the case, including the judge’s closed-door review of the 38 emails, Fusion employees took part in work that does not fall under the asserted privileges, Cooper said.

“Based on non-privileged emails that Fusion did produce to the grand jury, and on the withheld emails the court has reviewed in camera, it is clear that Fusion employees also interacted with the press as part of an affirmative media relations effort by the Clinton campaign. That effort included pitching certain stories, providing information on background, and answering reporters’ questions,” he said.

“Some of the emails at issue—including internal Fusion GPS discussions about the underlying data and emails circulating draft versions of one of the background white papers that was ultimately provided to the press and the FBI—relate directly to that undertaking. And because these emails appear not to have been written in anticipation of litigation but rather as part of ordinary media-relations work, they are not entitled to attorney work-product protection.”

The emails, which appear to relate solely to spreading the opposition research Fusion compiled, also cannot be shielded by attorney-client privilege, the judge added.

He ordered Fusion to supply Durham with the documents by May 16.

Fusion did not respond to a request for comment.

Fusion does not have to produce the remaining 16 emails—eight internal Fusion communications that may be privileged, and eight emails between technology executive Rodney Joffe and Sussmann, including Fusion employee Laura Seago—because the court can’t say whether they are related to helping the Clinton campaign’s law firm or Sussmann with legal matters.

Joffe hired Sussmann ahead of the 2016 election. Sussmann brought information on behalf of Joffe to the FBI regarding allegations concerning Trump’s business and a Russian bank that were later deemed false by the CIA. Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI when he said he was not bringing the information on behalf of a client. Sussmann is set to go on trial on May 16.

Because Durham’s team waited so long to try to compel the production of Fusion’s emails—they were withheld in August 2021, and discussions on their possible production ended in January, three months before the motion to compel was filed—prosecutors cannot use the missives they will receive from Fusion in Sussmann’s trial, Cooper ruled.

“The court generally agrees with the defense that the government waited too long to compel production of the withheld emails,” he said. “Under these circumstances, allowing the special counsel to use these documents at trial would prejudice Mr. Sussmann’s defense.”

“Although these documents are relatively few in number and do not strike the court as being particularly revelatory, the court is not in the best position to predict how new evidence might affect each side’s trial strategy and preparation,” he added.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/research-firm-that-helped-clinton-campaign-must-give-emails-to-john-durham-judge_4464753.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-13-1&utm_medium=email2&est=UMYyETCyACK%2FVzsCqCNP0OcP1CZi8RMiR08TdHjGADb7w0ZozhXkxFO0HQdh0Fy7vQ%3D%3D

Alaskans dispute Biden admin claim that industry was not interested

As gas prices continue to break records, the Biden administration’s cancellation of two lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and one lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet has drawn clashing responses, including an accusation that the administration is “blatantly lying.”

One political figure who weighed in was Donald Trump Jr., who recently campaigned with successful Republican Senate primary candidate J.D. Vance in Ohio.

“Looks like Joe is doing a great job of making inflation his top priority,” he wrote in a tweet.

The Cook Inlet oil and gas lease would have covered 1.09 million acres in the Cook Inlet, a body of water connecting Anchorage with the Gulf of Alaska.

A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior told The Epoch Times the Cook Inlet sale was canceled due to a “lack of industry interest in the area.”

“I’m not sure that’s completely accurate,” Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), told The Epoch Times.

“A lot of times, companies don’t want to tip their hand about participating in lease sales. The only time you really know if there’s interest or not is when you have the lease sale.”

“As the former Natural Resources Commissioner for Alaska, I know there is no way they could have confirmed ‘no interest’ until they held the lease sale,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who said the Biden administration was “blatantly lying to the American people.”

Both he and Moriarty referenced correspondence on the Cook Inlet sale from AOGA, which represents more than a dozen oil and gas producers in Alaska, as evidence of industry interest.

“The nature by which this announcement came to news—from the White House’s ultra-left climate czar Gina McCarthy, just down the hall from the president, [and] not the Department of Interior—raises further questions over who is crafting these disastrous energy policies,” Sullivan said, referencing the accidental email to a CBS reporter from a Biden administration official that first revealed the Cook Inlet lease’s cancellation.

Moriarty told The Epoch Times that “baffling is the nicest word I can come up with” for the cancellation.

Some local environmentalists, by contrast, expressed strong support for the decision.

“I’m very excited that we aren’t going to see an oil and gas lease sale that would really hurt our local economy,” Liz Mering told The Epoch Times.

Mering is advocacy director and inletkeeper of Cook InletKeeper, an Alaskan group opposed to oil and gas leasing in the region. Its website states that it seeks to “accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to an equitable, renewable energy future.”

The Interior spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the two Gulf of Mexico leases were canceled because of “delays due to factors including conflicting court rulings that impacted work on these proposed lease sales.”

In June 2021, Louisiana federal Judge James Cain, a Trump appointee, struck down the Biden administration’s pause on oil and gas leases. That pause had commenced with Executive Order 14008.

Yet in January, District of Columbia federal Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, ruled that the November 2021 federal offshore oil and gas sale, the largest in history, was invalid. He argued it violated the National Environmental Policy Act because it didn’t take greenhouse gas emissions into account. The Biden administration didn’t appeal the ruling.

The administration announced its plans to resume lease sales in March after an appeals court ruled it could incorporate a raised “social cost of carbon” factor when assessing permits.

When he was a presidential candidate, Biden’s promises included “banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.”

The latest lease cancellations come as inflation and high gas prices wrack the nation.

AAA reported that regular gas on May 12 averaged $4.418 a gallon, the highest average price it has ever recorded.

Diesel is also at the highest price point ever recorded by AAA, averaging $5.557 a gallon.

“Prices for gasoline, diesel, and other products are high and climbing. Further, those high prices are raising the cost of other goods and services, and here we are with extraordinarily high rates of inflation at both the consumer and producer levels. The actions of this administration suggest little relief anytime soon,” energy economist Karr Ingham told The Epoch Times.

He said Biden hasn’t yet provided the next legally mandated five-year offshore leasing plan. The current plan ends in June.

“At this late hour, were they to set this new plan in motion today, it would be a year or so before it is in place. That means a significant gap in the time period during which companies may be able to reasonably make plans and allocate capital to drill new projects in these areas. So, in many respects, these canceled leases were the ‘last hurrah’ before that plan expires.”

Lawmakers in Impacted States React

Senators and representatives from Louisiana and Alaska, two states affected by the cancellations, have voiced anger and disgust.

“Pres. Biden has killed more energy lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. He’s killing jobs, has killed America’s energy independence, and is fueling inflation that is killing Louisiana families. And he’s doing it on purpose,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) wrote in a May 12 tweet.

Kennedy’s senior colleague, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), voiced his concerns in similar language.

“President Biden’s administration is actively making high gas prices worse,” Cassidy said. “When we need to unleash American energy production, the Biden administration kills opportunities at every turn.”

“Rather than using American energy sources to help solve the problem and lower prices, the Biden administration continues to carry out policies that only benefit Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other apparent allies of this White House. It is past time for the administration to put Americans first,” said Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who serves on the House Natural Resources committee.

Sullivan said: “The timing and nature of this decision display a disturbing disregard for the pain American families continue to feel at the pump, for the hard-working Americans whose livelihoods and communities depend on the American energy industry, and for the grave consequences, these policies have on America’s energy and national security. As Gina McCarthy celebrates this decision from the White House, rest assured Vladimir Putin is popping corks in the Kremlin.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) hasn’t yet commented on the decision.

The Epoch Times has also reached out to the only Democrat representing Louisiana, Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.).

Different Views From Environmental Activists and Industry

Some environmentalists in and around the Cook Inlet celebrated the cancellation.

“There’s a lot of tourism industry that would be really harmed by this lease sale,” Mering said.

She said locals have fought oil and gas activity in the area since the 1970s when Cook Inlet’s Kachemak Bay was protected from drilling enabled by state leases. Commercial fishermen helped lead that pushback.

“There has to be more and more pushback as climate change hits Alaska.”

Moriarty noted that the Cook Inlet has been producing oil and gas for six decades. It generated 293,000 barrels of oil in March. All the oil produced in Cook Inlet is refined at the nearby Nikiski refinery.

“There’s no evidence that production from Cook Inlet has hampered our ability to coexist with commercial and sport fishing interests,” Moriarty said, arguing that oil and gas had helped diversify the Kenai Peninsula’s economy beyond the norm in Alaska.

Referencing the fight over oil in the 1970s, she said that “trying to pick out one incident negates the longstanding tradition we have of coexisting in Cook Inlet.”

Yet environmental activists present a contrasting narrative.

“This news means that the waters of lower Cook Inlet, which nourish the Gulf of Alaska as well as a watershed the size of Virginia, will continue the essential ecological function they’ve served since the last ice age. The people of this region who fought this lease sale will also continue their role in the ecology of placemaking, honoring our collective dependence on clean water,” said environmental activist Marissa Wilson of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.

Josh Wisniewski, a fisherman in the Lower Cook Inlet, also praised the decision.

“Our fisheries, our quality of life, and regional economy depend on the health of this wild landscape we are privileged to live in. We now have the chance to build on this moment and seek a permanent withdrawal of this region from all future oil and gas lease sales to protect our home waters for future generations.”

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Wisniewski conceded that oil and gas are currently valuable to the larger state but argued that it “doesn’t make sense in this particular context.”

“We’ve got existing oil and gas infrastructure in different places.”

Yet AOGA’s Moriarty argued that Cook Inlet’s production is particularly critical for use within Alaska, including for jet fuel at Ted Stevens International Airport.

“We should be thinking about, ‘How do we get our next barrels of oil from the United States?’” Moriarty said, arguing that greater energy independence was vital to national security.

“The U.S. supplies the cleanest barrels of any major producer on the globe. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have been declining steadily for more than two decades now and continue to do so,” said energy economist Ingham.

“Constricting U.S. production in no way means those barrels will not be consumed—it just means those barrels will come from somewhere else, and that somewhere else will not produce that oil nearly as cleanly as the United States.”

He speculated about the motives of Earthjustice, which praised the cancellations as “good for the climate” in CBS coverage.

“Is Earthjustice in favor of acquiring America’s energy needs from countries and regions who produce dirtier barrels than the United States? Or are they simply anti-U.S. oil and gas, and ultimately, anti U.S.-consumer?”

The Epoch Times has also reached out to the Environmental Defense Fund, often seen as a left-wing environmental group, and to the Property and Environmental Research Center, a free-market environmental group.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-cancellations-draw-strong-reaction_4463768.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-13-2&utm_medium=email&est=eQCPOhyZQtYitmSHlZvE2C2tFw6OVYRtSuzfZs7eeZUgbmst8ULZANyfKj24eCbVMw%3D%3D

Special counsel John Durham filed court papers on May 10 saying that the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies are slowly producing documents related to his case against Igor Danchenko, who prosecutors say lied to investigators about how he obtained information that later appeared in the controversial and discredited Steele dossier that was used against former President Donald Trump.

Durham asked U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga (pdf) to set a new deadline for June 13, from May 13, to turn over classified materials to Danchenko’s attorneys. So far, most of the classified documents have been handed over to Danchenko’s lawyers, although Durham said that “recent world events continue to contribute to delays in the processing and production of classified discovery,” possibly referring to the Ukraine–Russia conflict.

“In particular, some of the officials preparing and reviewing the documents at the FBI and intelligence agencies continue to be heavily engaged in matters related to overseas activities,” Durham wrote in the filing, adding that his team is “continuing to press the relevant authorities to produce documents in classified discovery as quickly as possible and on a rolling basis, and no later than the proposed deadline set forth below.”

Danchenko, a Russian analyst, was indicted in November 2021 for lying to the FBI as it was investigating the alleged Trump–Russia collusion probe. Namely, he’s accused of misleading FBI officials regarding the sources of information that he provided to former UK intelligence agency Christopher Steele as he was interviewed several times by bureau officials in 2017 while the agency was attempting to corroborate allegations in the Steele dossier.

Steele himself was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS to look into claims that were made against Trump and members of his campaign in 2016. Fusion GPS was retained by Democratic Party-aligned law firm Perkins Coie, which was working for the Clinton campaign.

Collectively known as the Steele dossier, the former UK spy wrote notes and documents that asserted Trump had ties to Russian intelligence officials to defeat then-candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. However, numerous claims in Steele’s work were false, triggering congressional, criminal, and inspector general investigations.

Trump has said the claims were part of a longstanding witch hunt to denigrate his administration and reelection campaign.

Durham’s team alleges that Danchenko intentionally misled the FBI when he denied in 2017 that his primary source for the Steele dossier was former Clinton aide Charles Dolan. His trial is scheduled for November.

In November 2021, Danchenko pleaded not guilty, according to his attorney Mark Schamel. At the time, Schamel said that Danchenko’s work as an analyst is “above reproach.”

“For the past five years, those with an agenda have sought to expose Mr. Danchenko’s identity and tarnish his reputation while undermining U.S. National Security,” Schamel said in a statement. “This latest injustice will not stand.”

But, according to the indictment, Danchenko’s alleged false statements to the bureau “were material to the FBI because … the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign relied” on the dossier to obtain warrants to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

“The FBI ultimately devoted substantial resources attempting to investigate and corroborate the allegations contained in” the dossier, including whether Danchenko’s sub-sources were reliable,” the indictment stated. Steele’s dossier and other information provided by Danchenko “played a role in the FBI’s investigative decisions and in sworn representations that the FBI made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court throughout the relevant time period.”

In the May 10 filing, Durham stated that the government has produced about 5,000 classified documents and some 61,000 unclassified documents to Danchenko’s lawyers. Durham said he believes he has turned over most of the classified materials.

The court filing comes as the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who had worked for Perkins Coie, is scheduled to start later in May. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI; he’s pleaded not guilty.

The United States is losing the race to remain on top as China and Russia develop hypersonic weapons, according to a top Space Force commander.

“We’re not as advanced as the Chinese or the Russians in terms of hypersonic programs,” Gen. David Thompson, vice chief of space operations, said Saturday during an appearance at the Halifax International Security Forum, according to Politico.

Noting that China recently had a successful hypersonic weapons test and Russia recently launched its version of a hypersonic missile, he said the United States has “catching up to do very quickly.”

Hypersonic vehicles travel at Mach 5, five times the speed of sound, or faster, but also have advanced maneuverability capability that allows them to dodge existing weapons systems and radar.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall earlier this fall warned that China now had the “potential for global strikes  … from space,” according to Air Force Magazine.

Black Man Acquitted on Self-Defense Same Day as Rittenhouse Busts Myth of ‘Unjust’ Justice System

Current plans call for the U.S. to have an Army hypersonic missile in 2024 and a Navy one in 2025, according to Politico.

“It should be no surprise to anyone that China is developing capabilities that would be viewed negatively by like-minded allies and partners,” Navy Adm. John Aquilino told reporters at the Halifax forum.

The U.S. Space Force is working to “figure out the type of satellite constellation that we need” to track other countries’ missiles, Thompson said.

“It’s a new challenge, but it’s not that we don’t have an answer to this challenge. We just have to understand it, fully design it, and fly it,” he said.

While Thompson noted that there is no timeline for when those satellites will be operational, he said that’s a changing process and “we’re evolving our approach and our timelines rapidly.”

A senior US General has sounded the alarm on Beijing’s recent hypersonic missile test, warning that China might be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack on America one day. China’s hypersonic advancemennts already overshadow the US. @MollyGambhir tells you more pic.twitter.com/2Fz1hIpnkq

— WION (@WIONews) November 18, 2021

The U.S. Space Force, the country’s newest branch of the armed forces, was created in 2019 under then-President Donald Trump.

Thompson, who was confirmed in his current position by the Senate in September 2020 after being nominated by Trump a month earlier, said although China can push forward with new weapons, red tape hobbles the U.S.

Are rival countries’ hypersonic weapons programs a major threat to the United States?

“The bureaucracy that we’ve built into our defense and acquisition enterprise, not just in space but in other areas, has slowed us down in many areas,” Thompson said.

“The fact that we have not needed to move quickly for a couple of decades — in the sense of a strategic competitor with these capabilities — has not driven us or required us to move quickly.”

U.S. ‘not as advanced’ as China and Russia on hypersonic tech, Space Force general warns
While the Pentagon has pushed the development of new hypersonic missiles, the Army isn’t slated to field its first missile until 2024.https://t.co/KaiH77unAN

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) November 21, 2021

Aquilino said China’s advance on hypersonic weapons is likely to be only one area where it outpaces the U.S.

Hunter Biden’s Investment Firm Helped China Gain a Strangle-Hold on 1 Precious Resource

“We should expect capabilities like that to show up, and I think the answer is our system has to be able to respond much more quickly,” he said.

The Lenin Scholar is slated for a confirmation hearing Thursday

President Joe Biden’s nominee to regulate banks stole hundreds of dollars of merchandise from a discount retail store, according to a police report revealed Wednesday.

Saule Omarova, whom Biden tapped to serve as Comptroller of the Currency, was arrested after she was caught stuffing $214 worth of clothes, shoes, cologne, and belts in her purse at a T.J. Maxx in Madison, Wis., in May 1995. Omarova was 28 years old at the time and studying for her doctorate at the University of Wisconsin.

Omarova is slated to appear before the Senate Banking Committee for her confirmation hearing Thursday. If confirmed, Omarova will oversee regulation of the country’s banking system. The police report, published by the American Accountability Foundation, could get her into further hot water with Senate Republicans who say she supports radical economic policies.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, has pressed Omarova to turn over a copy of a thesis she wrote on Karl Marx while studying at Moscow State University in the late 1980s. Omarova, who attended the school on a Lenin scholarship, scrubbed her résumé of a reference to the Marx thesis at some point over the last few years.

Omarova, a professor at the Cornell Law School, has said she wants to “end banking as we know it” by requiring bank deposits to be held with the Federal Reserve, rather than private banks. Omarova has also proposed the creation of a federal agency, the National Investment Authority, that would fulfill the goals of the Green New Deal by investing in infrastructure projects. Omarova said one goal of the National Investment Authority would be for oil and gas companies to go “bankrupt” in order to fight climate change.

Omarova will likely need unanimous Democratic support in order to be confirmed, but some moderates have expressed concern about her views. Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, said he has not decided whether he will vote to confirm Omarova. Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.) are reportedly on the fence about her nomination.

The White House downplayed the theft allegations against Omarova in a statement to Fox News prior to the release of the police report. A White House spokesperson said Omarova has been “fully transparent” about the incident by disclosing it to the Senate Banking Committee, and that her arrest was the result “of a misunderstanding and confusing situation.”

The police report contradicts that claim. According to the report, Omarova “admitted to have stolen the items,” which consisted of four pairs of shoes, two bottles of cologne, two belts, and a pair of socks.

Omarova did not respond to a request for comment.

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/saule-omarova-stole-hundreds-of-dollars-of-merchandise-from-a-t-j-maxx/

Saule Omarova, nominated by President Joe Biden for the role of one of the top banking regulators, on Nov. 18 tried to portray her recently published proposal to centralize banking as merely an outline of one among many options to consider rather than her own preference.

Her proposal, outlined in an October paper titled “The People’s Ledger,” would have the government take all bank deposits and put them in the Federal Reserve, which would then be able to control who does and doesn’t get a loan (pdf). This would drastically expand government control over finance and exacerbate a number of problems, several experts previously told The Epoch Times.

During her Nov. 18 confirmation hearing for Treasury’s comptroller of the currency, Omarova said her paper was written in the context of “academic debate” around digitizing the dollar “because this seems to be an inevitable solution.”

“The paper seeks to address the implications of that step for the entire financial system,” she said, arguing that it was her job to “expand the boundaries of academic debate and outline potential options for Congress to consider.”

However, ranking member Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) pointed out that that isn’t how she framed her ideas in the paper.

“‘This Article … advocates full migration of demand deposits onto the Fed’s balance sheet,’” he quoted from the paper. “Are you now saying you’re no longer for that?” he asked.

“Senator, what I’m trying to clarify here is the problem this paper was trying to solve,” she replied, making a point that digitization of currency would hurt community banking and give an advantage to the Big Tech and institutional players on Wall Street.

Her paper does mention digitization proposals as well as the idea of allowing people to open Fed accounts without abolishing private banking, Toomey acknowledged. But he stressed that she portrayed the centralization idea as the preferable option in the paper.

“This is what you recommended, and it doesn’t seem to be a coincidence that every one of these thought experiments or academic ideas—every one of them—involved dramatic expansion in the power and control of the central government to allocate resources, to control banking, and a corresponding diminution in the freedom of individual Americans and institutions,” he said.

Omarova also addressed her previous statements, in which she said: “The way we basically get rid of those carbon financers is we starve them of their sources of capital,” and “We want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change.” During the hearing, she said “that was a poor phrasing” and that she was actually talking about “helping workers in this sector to transition to high-paying jobs if we’re looking into the future and the rise of new technologies.”

John Berlau, senior fellow at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, was skeptical of that explanation.

“For someone who chooses her words very carefully, it’s hard to buy that she misspoke,” he told The Epoch Times, noting that Omarova has a record of advocating for such ideas.

Omarova said her previous jobs at a banking law firm and in the Treasury taught her “the invaluable lessons about how financial sausage is made and how that can lead to devastating financial crises.”

She said she would work “to guarantee a fair and competitive market where small and mid-sized banks that invest in neighbors’ homes and small businesses can thrive, and where every community, regardless of wealth geography or history, has access to safe and affordable financial services.”

She stressed that it was up to Congress to decide whether or not to implement her ideas.

Toomey addressed that argument in his opening statement.

“I suspect Prof. Omarova may claim that as comptroller, she wouldn’t have the power to act on all of her radical views. But the truth is the comptroller is a powerful regulator. It wields enormous powers through bank chartering, regulation, enforcement, and especially through its opaque supervision process. The comptroller is also a member of the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] Board and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, America’s financial super-regulator,” he said.

He called her ideas “a socialist manifesto for American financial services.”

“These are exactly the kind of socialist ideas that have failed everywhere in the world they’ve been tried,” he said (pdf).

Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) defended Omarova as “one of the most qualified nominees ever for this job.”

In his opening statement, he criticized some Republicans who questioned Omarova’s college thesis on Marxist economics during her studies at Moscow State University (pdf). He pointed out that, though born in the Soviet Union, she “renounced her communist citizenship and became an American.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/bank-regulator-nominee-tries-to-detach-from-her-bank-centralization-ideas-during-hearing_4112128.html

The Department of Justice (DOJ) must address deepening concerns that it’s not insulated from political influence, the agency’s watchdog stated in a new report.

The DOJ failed to follow policies and procedures designed to protect it from accusations that it’s politicized or partially applying the law in a number of cases, including while investigating Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election and in leaks to the media, Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted.

“Numerous national events in the past year have crystalized the urgency for the department to address this challenge in a meaningful way,” he wrote, including the discovery that the DOJ under the Trump administration obtained communications to and from members of Congress and accusations that protesters were cleared from Lafayette Square in Washington on June 1, 2020, for political purposes.

Such events “have all raised questions about the department’s objectivity and impartiality” and “negatively impacted the perception of the department as a fair administrator of justice,” Horowitz said.

As proof, the watchdog cited a 2020 poll from the Pew Research Center, which found favorable views of DOJ among Democrats dropped sharply during the Trump administration. Republican views grew more favorable during the same time.

DOJ officials didn’t respond to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.

Critics on both the left and right have said the DOJ in recent years has acted wrongfully. Democrats repeatedly criticized the department during the Trump era, including over its bid to lower the jail sentence of Trump ally Roger Stone. Republicans also found problems with the agency, in particular over its handling of the probe into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia that relied heavily on the now-discredited Steele dossier.

Just this week, fresh strong reactions were triggered after a whistleblower said internal documents showed the DOJ used counterterrorism tools against parents.

The documents “prove that the FBI was, in fact, using counterterrorism tools to investigate concerned parents who have attended school board meetings—which directly contradicts Attorney General Merrick Garland’s sworn congressional testimony,” Parents Defending Education said in a statement.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Epoch Times that the DOJ “has had a cloud hanging over its credibility for years.”

“From the [Hillary] Clinton email investigation to the Russia probe and targeting parents exercising their First Amendment rights at school board meetings, there’s not been much to boost the public’s confidence that DOJ is apolitical. The inspector general’s assessment seems right on the money to me,” he wrote in an email.

“I hope the department, and its components like the FBI, begin turning a corner to regain some of their previous non-partisan, beyond-reproach reputations. The inspector general also said that he needs testimonial subpoena authority and the ability to independently investigate attorney misconduct. Those two things will go a long way toward ensuring bad apples at FBI and the department are truly held accountable.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/doj-inspector-general-says-justice-department-must-address-concerns-about-politicization_4109873.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-17-3&mktids=d35d8fbbb78ed06b2196c19bad19302d&est=QhfJyWNj%2F09tUzRriABPLe1mbW0LHgsb4lQkLOPShdPdh1odqrphtvgSKYgBRLnF0w%3D%3D

The Federal Election Commission recently voted 4-2 that ballot initiatives don’t count as elections defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This decision opens the door for foreign nationals to potentially fund initiatives, referendums and recalls — a dangerous and perplexing decision.

There is, understandably, bi-partisan concern about the decision. It allows foreign nationals to fund signature collecting, qualify measures and financially support campaigns to amend or create statutory law. (And in some states, even amend its Constitution.) Imagine foreign nationals in China, Russia, or even Iran legally funding multiple ballot measures in battleground States in 2022 or 2024. And why? For their own financial gain and political agenda. 

I’ve spent my career running ballot measures in almost every state and several abroad. As someone who sees a lot of them – Indian and non-Indian gaming, tax increases, energy, healthcare reform, and more – an equally concerning threat is the impact on voter turnout. 

Anything that motivates turnout – even at the margins of an already historically active electorate – can have a massive impact on election results. It is a statistical fact that ballot initiatives and referenda, particularly controversial measures, can increase voter turnout by five to 10 percent. 

That’s what happened in Arizona last year. 

In 2020, Arizona’s proposition 207 to legalize the recreational use of marijuana drove more voter participation than Joe Biden and Donald Trump, as you see in the chart below. 

A closer look shows that Arizona flipped in favor of Biden on the coattails of recreational marijuana. If Prop. 207 was a “Presidential candidate” in Arizona it would have won by over 200,000 votes. The post-election analysis shows proposition 207 drove hundreds of thousands of young, Democratic voters who also cast votes for Joe Biden.

The Virginia Result Heralds The End of the ‘Obama Effect’.

Another concerning aspect is money – ballot measure committees can accept an unlimited amount.

Individuals, committees, associations and businesses are allowed to contribute as much as they want to support or oppose a ballot measure, as long as it’s disclosed on the campaign contribution/expenditure report, which most states require.

Thankfully, given the FEC ruling only applies to federal issues on individual state’s ballots, the states retain some authority and autonomy to help backstop the FEC’s decisions and mitigate the potential for Election Day manipulation by foreign actors.

Each state sets its own rules for ballot measures. That includes the process for qualifying a measure, the number of signatures required, what can and cannot be a subject on the ballot, the level of financing disclosures or transparency and more.

States must take a thoughtful look at this new FEC policy and how it might impact wider results on Election Day, particularly in Presidential election years. 

In all their various forms, ballot measures are an essential part of the direct democracy process. History has shown that direct democracy – although not perfect – has resulted in dramatic social and economic changes that legislative bodies didn’t have the courage to do themselves. But it is reserved for state and local citizens and not foreign nationals.  

Administration says it will overcome opposition

President Joe Biden’s latest some $2 trillion social spending plan will add trillions to the national debt, make inflation worse, and hurt traditional energy businesses. These were the contentions of a group of Heritage Foundation policy scholars.

During a press briefing on Nov. 12, they reviewed the president’s Build Back Better policies.

The original Build Back Better proposal called for $4 trillion in spending. Some progressives said it was not big enough. But opposition from Senator Manchin (D-W.Va.) required the proposal’s price tag come down.

Heritage Foundation experts lambasted both the recently passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and the latest $1.75+ trillion social and environmental spending proposal. The latter is pending in Congress.

“The White House’s newly released framework,” the Heritage Foundation said in a statement, “returns to a tried-and-true way to obscure the true cost of the legislation: the budget gimmick. Progressives claim the bill is a compromise when in reality, it is a profoundly radical document that would massively expand federal power, promote a variety of left-wing causes, kneecap the economic recovery, and waste a tremendous amount of taxpayer money.”

The White House Press Office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

At the same time, a high Biden administration was recently predicting the latest package would pass Congress, which might take up the issue next week. Still, Heritage Foundation officials said it would be toxic.

Katie Tubb, an energy analyst, warned that spending billions of dollars proposed for alternative energy companies would repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration, which spent billions of taxpayer dollars on loan guarantees for the Solyndra solar energy company. The company later defaulted.

“I’m not sure why we are expecting this to be any different this time around,” she said.

Tubb contended much of the economic growth over the last few years has come from traditional energy sources. This Biden plan, she added, would punish those industries.

“Why is that important? Because Americans get 80 percent of their energy from traditional sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas,” she said.

Tubb argued, “these are legal industries in the United States that contribute to the wellbeing of the United States, yet you wouldn’t know this by the way this administration talks.”

Tubb warns Build Back Better policies conflict with most of the president’s constituents “because, as you increase energy prices, you increase the cost of almost every product and service.”

She also said Build Back Better would hurt right to work states, states in which workers can’t be required to join unions.

This Biden’s original social spending proposal included $555 billion for environmental programs and $400 billion to pay for universal pre-school and cap child care costs at seven percent of income for most families and $200 billion to expand the child tax credit for families that earn up to $150,000 from $2,000 to $3,000 per child or $3,600 for those under age 6.

Several Heritage Foundation officials also complained that the five infrastructure/stimulus plans that have been passed since the outbreak of COVID last year are too much. And while one or two of these packages may have been justified, they are now excessive, they said. They are adding too much to the debt and will hurt efforts of some private sector firms to recover, especially in the energy sector, they noted.

David Ditch, a Heritage Foundation federal budget policy analyst, said the latest Biden plan is part of a number of spending plans since the start of the pandemic that have “already added $5 trillion to the national debt.”

It would also be the “greatest expansion” of government welfare programs in history, according to Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation analyst.

“The deficit spending has consequences because we have massive structural consequences that will keep growing,” Ditch contended.

“There’s also no way to escape the fact that Build Back Better would increase deficits in the first five years. It’s really important to understand that every important economic headwind we face now would be worsened by Build Back Better,” according to Ditch.

Rachel Greszler, another Heritage Foundation analyst, said most of the Biden child care programs discourage the use of religious, or faith-based, child-care programs.

“To qualify, they would have to take most of the faith out of their programs. None of them are going to do that because the reason they set them up was to be in line with their faith.”

She also said the proposal will primarily benefit urban “high income families” at the “expense of more rural low-income areas.”

Still, a Biden administration official on Nov. 11 said the $2 trillion proposal is in good shape. Vice President Kamala Harris, in a speech in France, predicted the package “is poised to pass soon.”

“Just before I traveled here,” Harris added, “our Congress passed a landmark piece of legislation to make a historic investment in our nation’s infrastructure. Another bill that will support our nation’s working families and help us meet our climate commitment is poised to pass soon.”

High oil prices are a symptom of economic and monetary imbalances, not a consequence of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) decisions.

Throughout history, we have seen how OPEC cuts have done little to elevate prices when diversification and technology added to rising efficiency. Likewise, OPEC output increases don’t necessarily mean lower prices, let alone reasonable ones. OPEC helps but doesn’t solve price issues, even if they would probably like to.

The problem in the oil market has been created by years of massive capital misallocation and underinvestment in energy—the result of extremely loose monetary policies directed by governments that have penalized capital expenditure on fossil fuels for ideological reasons.

Misguided activism and political nudging in the middle of monetary injections have created bottlenecks and underinvestment that hinder both security of supply and a technically feasible competitive energy transition.

Massive injections of liquidity have caused a double side effect: rising malinvestment in non-productive activities and, now, a large inflow of capital into so-called “value” areas—more money directed to relatively scarce assets. Energy has gone from a consensus underweight stock rating to a large overweight, exacerbating the price increase. The marginal barrel of oil has risen almost 60 percent in a year, despite supply rising in tandem with demand.

According to JP Morgan, the required capital expenditure in energy required to meet demand is $600 billion for the period 2021–2030. This “cumulative missing capex” is part of the problem.

The other important problem is artificial demand created by chains of stimulus plans. As I explained in this column, adding enormous energy-intensive infrastructure plans to a re-opening economy where some supply bottlenecks have been worsened generates the same effect on energy prices as a huge speculative bubble.

Political intervention has also created an important impact on the price of a marginal barrel of oil. Threatening to ban domestic development of energy resources in the United States or announcing the prohibition of fossil fuel investment in some European summits makes the net present value of the long-term marginal barrel higher, not lower. Why? Because those threats aren’t made with sound technical analysis and robust supply and demand estimates, but with political agendas. Any serious engineer that understands the importance of security and supply and technology development understands that a successful energy transition to a greener economy requires solid and realistic targets and policies that avoid an energy crisis. Those have been forgotten.

OPEC is benefitting from high oil prices, but not as much as one would think. The OPEC Reference Basket average is $68.33 per barrel year-to-date, a large 68.4 percent increase over the same period last year, but still massively below the elevated levels prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Furthermore, OPEC and non-OPEC supply has risen in tandem with demand. Global oil supply in October increased by 1.74 million barrels per day to average 97.56 million barrels per day compared with the previous month. The U.S. liquids production growth forecast for 2021 has been revised up by 19,000 barrels per day and expected to be 17.57 million barrels per day in 2021. Imagine where oil and gas prices would be if the political threats to ban or severely penalize domestic production had been enforced.

Let’s not forget that OPEC has also revised down the estimates of global oil demand to 96.4 million barrels a day in 2021. Supply remains ample, and the U.S. administration should see that Russia and the United States are expected to be the main drivers of next year’s supply growth. Without Russia and the United States, production prices would soar no matter what OPEC partners or Saudi Arabia alone do.

We’re suffering the combination of misguided energy policies, excessive money creation, and ill-timed giant construction plans. OPEC and its partner Russia may alleviate this, but not change it dramatically. Furthermore, as time passes and underinvestment becomes more severe, OPEC’s ability to curb prices weakens. We can’t forget that OPEC and Russia account for less than half of the total world supply. They matter, but putting two more million barrels a day of supply into the market doesn’t solve the long-term price problem.

Energy prices will decline with more technology, investment, and diversification, not empty political threats.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opec-is-not-the-only-solution-to-high-oil-prices_4103287.html

The California Congressman has been a leading proponent of the Russiagate hoax, the impeachment hoax, and now the January 6th hoax. All after he met with a leading Chinese propagandist.

Rep. Adam Schiff met with a Chinese Communist Party official previously responsible for spearheading the regime’s foreign influence operations on a visit to Washington, D.C. sponsored by the China-United States Exchange Foundation, The National Pulse can reveal.

The foundation, known as ‘CUSEF’ for short, has been flagged by the U.S. government for seeking to “influence foreign governments to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies.”

A key promoter of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and leading member of the unconstitutional January 6th committee, Rep. Schiff met with officials from the documented Chinese Communist Party-linked foreign influence group in October 2009.

Schiff recently turned his attention to former Trump campaign chief Steve Bannon, a known “China hawk,” raising questions as to whether or not the Congressman for California’s 28th Congressional district is working to neutralize critics of the Chinese Communist Party.

The China-United States Exchange Foundation’s (CUSEF) website reveals it “sponsored the visit” of Chinese Communist Party official Xu Kuangdi to the U.S., including a stop in Washington, D.C.

The former Mayor of Shanghai, Xu also served as the Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the “highest-ranking entity overseeing” China’s controversial “United Front Work Department.”

The United Front has been described by the U.S. government as a comprehensive foreign influence operation that Beijing uses to “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party” and “influence foreign governments to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies.”

Beyond Xu’s leadership role within the United Front, his trip sponsor CUSEF functions as one of several United Front groups weaponized by the Chinese Communist Party to target American elites.

Biden’s Jamaica Ambassador Took China Trip Promising ‘Friendship’ And ‘Understanding’ Of Chinese Communist Party.

CUSEF’s website highlights Rep. Schiff as one of Xu’s key meetings during his visit to Washington, D.C.:

In Washington D.C., Professor Xu met with Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), Congressman David Wu (D-OR) and representatives of think tanks.

The National Pulse has previously revealed how CUSEF has obtained “favorable coverage” from American journalists and former Congressmen, by offering free trips to China according to Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings. The trips function as part of CUSEF’s broader effort to “effectively disseminate positive messages to the media, key influencers and opinion leaders, and the general public” regarding the Chinese Communist Party.

Media organizations are taking aim at each other over the fake news reporting surrounding the Trump Russia dossier.

Axios, one of the leading D.C.-based corporate media outlets, has admitted that reporting surrounding the now infamous Trump-Steele dossier was “one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history,” in an article slamming news-media colleagues for the years of fake news reporting.

“…the media’s response to its own mistakes has so far been tepid,” wrote Sara Fischer on Sunday morning, as it becomes increasingly clear to the nation’s journalistic class that not only were they willingly duped for years, but that they have made almost no efforts to correct their outright falsehoods.

Axios also reports:

Outsized coverage of the unvetted document drove a media frenzy at the start of Donald Trump’s presidency that helped drive a narrative of collusion between former President Trump and Russia.

• It also helped drive an even bigger wedge between former President Trump and the press at the very beginning of his presidency.

Driving the news: In wake of the key source’s arrest and further reporting on the situation, The Washington Post on Friday corrected and removed large portions of two articles.

The article also takes aim at CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and others:

• CNN and MSNBC did not respond to requests for comment about whether they planned to revisit or correct any of their coverage around the dossier
• Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn began reporting about the dossier prior to the 2016 election. Asked by Wemple whether he planned to correct the record, Corn said,” My priority has been to deal with the much larger topic of Russia’s undisputed attack and Trump’s undisputed collaboration with Moscow’s cover-up.”
• Corn did not respond to a request to speak on the record with Axios.
• The Wall Street Journal told Axios, “We’re aware of the serious questions raised by the allegations and continue to report and to follow the investigation closely.”

The Russia Lie… And How We Told You So

On Friday, The Washington Post removed massive portions of two articles published in March 2017 and February 2019.

The paper’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, said the outlet could no longer stand by those elements of the story.

More corrections and retractions are expected.

The National Pulse was one of the very few news outlets to outright challenge ‘The Russia Lie’. 

The revelation that Democratic operative Charles Dolan was one of the sources for the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele shows the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) withheld information from congressional investigators, Kash Patel said Friday.

“I’m the lead Russia guy, and I had never heard of this guy,” Patel said. “It means, to me, the FBI, DOJ under Rod Rosenstein withheld information that was critical to the Russiagate investigation that we were running in 2017, 2018. And who knows what else they’ve left out?”

Patel was an investigator for the House Intelligence Committee. He was speaking on “Kash’s Corner,” a program he hosts on EpochTV. Rosenstein was deputy attorney general under former President Donald Trump and appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the Trump-Russia collusion theories.

Igor Danchenko, Steele’s primary sub-source, was charged last week with making false statements to federal investigators. One of the counts stems from Danchenko denying he spoke with a person dubbed “PR-Executive-1” in the federal indictment.

That person is Charles Dolan, his lawyer confirmed to The Epoch Times.

Dolan has had a relationship with former President Bill Clinton and former First Lady Hillary Clinton since the 1990s. Dolan campaigned on behalf of the latter in the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton’s campaign helped pay for Steele’s dossier, which targeted then-candidate Donald Trump. The dossier has been shown to be riddled with false information.

The House Intelligence Committee, headed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) while Republicans controlled the House following the election, sent letters and subpoenas to the FBI and Department of Justice for all documentation relating to the dossier, including all the connections that he and the FBI had throughout the scandal known as Russiagate, Patel said on his show.

“Charles Dolan never came up once. Me nor not one member of my team, nor any of the Republicans on House Intel, had ever heard of Charles Dolan until John Durham’s indictment,” Patel said, referring to Special Counsel John Durham.

As further evidence of what he described as the FBI and DOJ purposefully withholding information, Patel pointed to how the indictment reveals agents interviewed Danchenko on five different occasions. According to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 examination of the dossier and related matters, only three interviews with Danchenko took place.

“They did not admit that to us when we were investigating the Russiagate investigation. I think we added at most two or three instances of an interview and we never got the full contents anyway,” Patel said. “Now there’s five. Where did that come from?”

“Why didn’t the FBI tell us this,” he added later. “Why did Rod Rosenstein withhold these documents and this information, even though Congress sent him subpoenas? They only turned over part of it, and what they did turn over, a lot of it was redacted. And that’s why we’re fighting such an uphill battle to disclose it to the American public, the full story.”

The FBI and DOJ didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Rosenstein could not be reached.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/charles-dolans-involvement-in-dossier-means-doj-fbi-withheld-information-kash-patel_4102847.html

The Washington Post on Friday corrected two articles and altered a dozen others in an attempt to respond to discrepancies that had emerged between its reporting and what was known about the dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele.

The Post, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, had long insisted that Sergei Millian, a Belrusian-American businessman, was one of Steele’s sources. But its stories, which relied on two sources it did not name publicly, were increasingly undermined as time went on, most recently a grand jury indictment against Igor Danchenko, who has been described as Steele’s “primary sub-source.”

Danchenko is accused of falsely telling FBI agents on four separate occasions that he spoke with Millian over the phone. But authorities discovered he had never spoken to Millian.

The indictment and “further reporting” drove the Post to correct two pieces—one originally published in 2017 and another in 2019, the Post said in editor’s notes appended to the stories.

A dozen others were altered to remove all references to Millian.

Sally Buzbee, the paper’s executive editor, said in a story published by the paper the indictment and other information “created doubts” about Millian’s alleged links to the dossier.

“We feel we are taking the most transparent approach possible,” Buzbee said.

Millian told The Epoch Times in a Twitter message that the correction was “long overdue.”

“Truth finally prevailed,” he said.

Jeffrey McCall, professor of communication at DePauw University, told The Epoch Times that “it’s very unusual to see a news organization step forward so plainly to correct reporting that was done, in this case, a couple of years ago.”

“This is a remarkable development,” he said.

While the corrections were a positive development, the Post should also publish the names of the sources that were relied upon and explain why they were shielded from public view in the first place, he added.

A spokeswoman for the paper declined to comment beyond the editor’s note.

Instead of naming the sources, the Post continued to cite them. In one note, the paper said one of the sources believes the new information, including the indictment, “puts in grave doubt” the claim Millian was a source for Steele. The other was said to have declined to comment.

Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, the co-authors of both corrected stories, did not respond to requests for comment. Each shared a Post story about the corrections on their Twitter feeds.

Helderman, though, has not deleted posts on Twitter about Millian, including a Feb. 7, 2019, missive that called him  “a key source for the Steele dossier.”

Media experts say the best practice is to update readers on every channel when corrections are issued.

Reporting on the dossier by the Post and a slew of other outlets, including The New York Times, has been increasingly undermined.

Steele was revealed to have been paid by Fusion GPS, a firm that was itself hired by Hillary Clinton—the Democratic presidential candidate facing off against then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election—and the Democratic National Committee. His sources have been revealed as a cast of characters with links to the Clinton network, including Michael Sussman, a Clinton campaign lawyer.

Sussman was charged last month with lying to the FBI about a claim that there were secret communications between the Trump Organization and a Russia Bank. Steele has said he received the information from Sussman, and ultimately included it in his series of unsubstantiated reports. The allegation was reported by multiple news outlets, many of which later corrected their stories.

Another source was Charles Dolan, according to special counsel John Durham. Dolan is a long-time Democrat Party operative. Dolan’s role was not previously known before.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/long-overdue-washington-post-corrects-articles-about-steele-dossier_4101456.html

Writing for RealClearPolitics, Professor Andrew E. Busch of Claremont McKenna College finds that “one reason for Americans’ increasing political discomfort—the feeling that politics has become a blood sport in which traditional protections and safety nets are no longer present—is that the nonpartisan insulation protecting the rule of law and consent of the governed has frayed. There is a broad pattern of offices that require political neutrality being converted into offices that are genuinely partisan in their operation.”

What, I wonder, was his first clue?

Understandably, Busch concentrates on the most recent examples of this creeping partisanship in places that are supposed to be non-partisan, since the Biden administration represents a quantum leap in the politicization of everything, but especially of the law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, he writes, “has already used the Justice Department to advance his own party’s version of the stolen-election story by suing to stop state legislative efforts to enhance ballot security, then threatening to sic the FBI on parents who complain to their local school boards about left-wing political indoctrination in the classroom.”

By contrast, Busch praises the non-partisan spirit of former Attorney General William Barr for resigning rather than supporting President Trump’s demand for a thorough investigation of election irregularities.

But then he can’t help noticing the concerted legal efforts by Democratic Attorneys General in swing states last year to change voting laws in order to create those irregularities—and, with them, the opportunities for cheating.

You can see why Busch wants to be even-handed and pretend that the partisan takeover of supposedly non-partisan institutions is coming from both sides, but he can’t quite obscure the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of these efforts have been made—and successfully made, thanks to the compliant media—on behalf of Democrats.

There is nothing like a Republican equivalent, for example, of the partisan takeover of the FBI under James Comey. “The course of the Russia investigation,” writes Busch, “complete with the obvious biases of Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page, implied that the bureau had picked sides.”

Implied? Can there be any doubt about which side these and others in the bureau were on? Or which side Robert Mueller and his team were on? If there were any doubt about it, it must have been dispelled by the recent revelations, and indictments, coming out of the John Durham investigation.

Busch might also have mentioned the disparity in federal law-enforcement’s treatment of the Capitol rioters of Jan. 6 as constituting an “insurrection” and its almost complete lack of interest in the hundreds of riots, the billions of dollars in property damage and the many deaths that took place around the country last summer.

You don’t have to be particularly good at spotting “implied” biases to tell that the difference between the two was that the first was in support of Donald Trump, the others opposed to him. And, violently, opposed to the police. But why would we expect the federal police, ostensibly there to uphold the rule of law, to care about that?

Also, as I pointed out last summer in these pages, General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the nation’s armed forces, traditionally our number one non-partisan institution, along with the judiciary, testified before Congress on behalf of the Democratic talking point by asserting on the basis of zero evidence that the Capitol riot was motivated by “white rage.”

Milley is also charged with weeding out of the services those identified by the extreme left as members of the “extremist right.”

But the perspicacious could have picked up hints of the erosion of the “nonpartisan insulation” of key institutions long before 2016.

The politicization of the judiciary, I would argue, began at least as far back as 1987 when a certain Joseph R. Biden, newly appointed chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, put the kibosh on President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court for transparently political reasons.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who once said of his fellow judges that “we don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” has gone to heroic lengths to keep up the pretense of non-partisanship in the judiciary, but then he is also the man who, apparently without irony, once called the U.S. Senate  “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

The politicization of the armed services began even earlier. As the late Colin Powell cheerfully put it in 2007, presumably with reference to his own military career, which started in the Vietnam era, “Anybody who becomes a senior officer had better have some political instincts or you’re going to get ground up. We are a political nation. It is not a dirty word.”

What he meant to say, perhaps, was that it is only a dirty word when applied to constitutionally non-political institutions. Like the military.

I understand that he was talking about the internal politics that are inevitable in any large organization, but in the military, whose most senior officers are appointed by civilian (and political) authority, those politics are always bound up with the other kind.

Under President George W. Bush we learned, at least if we were paying attention, of the politicization of the CIA, which regularly briefed the media (anonymously, of course) against their ostensible commander-in-chief.

Under President Barack Obama we learned, even if we weren’t paying much attention, of the politicization of the Department of Justice and the IRS.

And, as everyone now knows, under President Donald Trump we learned of the politicization not only of the FBI and (again) the Justice Department but also of the State Department. All three, while ostensibly serving the President, were actually undermining him.

It should not be necessary to point out that all of these encroachments of the political onto officially non-political territory have been in one direction and one direction only—leftwards. It’s as if there were some law of political inertia analogous to Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.”

Maybe this is what the progressives mean by saying that they are “on the right side of history,” If so, it means that the rest of us, who still treasure what we think is our right to be non-political, must be on the wrong side of history.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/americans-discomfort-non-political-offices-have-rushed-to-become-left-wing-partisans_4101401.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

Danchenko pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making false statements about the source of information that he provided to Steele for the dossier

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, had a message for those who pushed and believed the anti-Trump dossier amid recent indictments out of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe: “We told you so.”

Last week, Durham indicted the Russian national, Igor Danchenko, who is believed to be the sub-source for former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016. 

The dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie. 

Danchenko pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making false statements about the source of information that he provided to Steele for the dossier.

BROADCAST NETWORKS LOST INTEREST IN ANTI-TRUMP STEELE DOSSIER ONCE IT WAS DEBUNKED, STUDY SAYS

In an interview with Fox News, Jordan, who was heavily involved in GOP congressional investigations into the origins of the Russia probe, reacted to the developments.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, during a Justice Department oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 21, 2021.  (Greg Nash/Pool via REUTERS)

“Those of us who were in this, you know, back when no one else was, it’s sort of like, we told you so,” Jordan said. “That sounds arrogant, and I don’t mean to be, but this is what we said. This is what they were doing – what they were accusing President Trump of doing, they were actually doing – they were working with the Russians and it goes right to the Clinton campaign.” 

Former Attorney General William Barr last year revealed that the sub-source, now known to be Danchenko, was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 for suspected contact with Russian intelligence officers.

Jordan, citing Danchenko’s indictment, said he was “bragging that if Clinton won he was going to get a job in the State Department.”

“This is the Clinton campaign – they orchestrated this whole thing,” Jordan said.

SCHIFF: ‘WE COULDN’T HAVE KNOWN’ ABOUT LIES BEHIND STEELE DOSSIER

Jordan also pointed out that both Danchenko and Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann were charged with making false statements to the FBI – not as part of Durham’s probe, but rather, during interviews with the FBI in 2016 and 2017.

“They are being indicted for the original lies that they told back in 2016 and 2017 to the FBI,” Jordan said.    

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the 2016 election.       

At the conclusion of Mueller’s probe in 2019, Barr appointed Durham, who at the time served as the U.S. attorney from Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the FBI’s original Russia probe, also known as Crossfire Hurricane, which began in July 2016. Durham was instructed to review that probe through the appointment of Mueller in May 2017.

Barr, before leaving the Trump administration in December 2020, tapped Durham as special counsel to continue his investigation through the Biden administration.

In the scope order, Barr stated that Durham “is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.”

DURHAM INDICTMENT OF DANCHENKO CASTS NEW SCRUTINY ON DEMOCRATS WHO HYPED STEELE DOSSIER

Jordan, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, served as ranking member on the House Oversight Committee until March 2020, and now serves as the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. 

Jordan has led the charge on a number of high-profile congressional investigations – ranging from the Benghazi probe during the Obama administration, to the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, the first impeachment of former President Trump, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more.

Jordan shares an “inside look” at those investigations and more in his new book, “Do What You Said You Would Do: Fighting for Freedom in the Swamp,” set to be released Nov. 23.

“I spent a lot of time writing about investigations,” Jordan told Fox News. “That’s by the nature of my committees – I just always seemed to be involved in all of this.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He added: “I really do think that people who read this will enjoy it,” Jordan said, noting that it’s a “fun read,” and adding that the book also focuses on his interactions with Trump.

“You know, the title, no one, no one did the title more than President Trump,” he said. “No one did more of what they said they would do than he did.”  

“We walked through all the important investigations and some fun stories are in there as well, that, like I said, I think readers are going to like,” Jordan added. “So I’m excited.” 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jordan-durham-indictments-we-told-you-so

If you have any doubt that the radical left is alive and well in the Biden administration, this should wipe it out once and for all.

Saule Omarova, the administration’s dubious pick for comptroller of the currency, is a radical by pretty much anyone’s definition. Up for a job that would put her in charge of regulating the country’s largest banks, she published a paper earlier this year with a proposal to “end banking as we know it,” as the New York Post reported.

And, as a video now circulating online shows, she’s on record desiring the destruction of the nation’s fossil fuel industries.

Scared yet?

Documents show Saule Omarova was a committed communist & planned a career as a Prof. of Scientific Communism. She hid her Karl Marx thesis and conveniently omits that she was planning to be a Professor of Marxism.

What else is her CV omitting? https://t.co/0h3Dra1UvP pic.twitter.com/PeW7pMBkSf

— BidenNoms, A Project of AAF (@bidennoms) November 8, 2021

Biden Responds to Skyrocketing Gas Prices by Thinking About Shutting Down Another American Pipeline

Whatever you think about climate change, it’s clear that political forces on the left are leveraging the idea in their bid for globalization. The COVID-19 pandemic is real, and the left politicized it in a sweeping power grab. They have no shame.

Speaking in March at a “Social Wealth Seminar” sponsored by the Jain Family Institute, according to The Daily Wire, Omarova made her feelings about the fossil fuel industries clear.

“We want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change,” Omarova said.

Biden nominee Saule Omarova saying the quiet part out loud. On the oil, coal and gas industries:

“We want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change.” pic.twitter.com/luMR2HEMK9

— BidenNoms, A Project of AAF (@bidennoms) November 9, 2021

Born and raised in the former Soviet Union, Omarova graduated from Moscow State University in 1989, as noted in an October column by Forbes magazine editor in chief Steve Forbes.

“Amazingly, she still has nice things to say about the defunct U.S.S.R., where Western-style liberties were non-existent and countless millions died from man-made famines, arbitrary executions and, of course, in the notorious Gulag Archipelago,” Forbes wrote

Forbes also noted that Omarova,  “advocates that consumer banking be taken over by the Federal Reserve and wants the government to direct where loans are made.”

Is Biden trying to ruin America?

In fact, her appearance at the Jain Family Institute seminar was to advocate the idea of a “National Investment Authority” — a top-down control of the economy that would basically implement the communist ideal of the state having the ultimate power over what, in a capitalist system, are free-market decisions.

For the record, as the Washington Examiner noted, Omarova denies having communist or Marxist sympathies (she told the Financial Times she’s an easy target for critics because she’s “an immigrant, a woman, minority”). But the names that are used aren’t nearly as important as the ideas.

And when it comes to the kind of government Omarova’s ideas conjure up, you get the picture: It’s leftist. It’s radical. And it’s a horror show.

If you have any doubt Biden is on board with Omarova’s thinking about fossil fuels,  the White House has confirmed the administration is now studying the impact of shutting down the Embridge Line 5 pipeline. The pipeline brings 540,000 barrels of oil a day — about 23 million gallons — into the United States through Michigan’s Straits of Mackinac, according to Breitbart.

If you haven’t noticed, gas prices are already sky-high. After his opening-day decision to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, why on earth would Biden consider shutting down another pipeline under the current conditions? To make fuel prices go even higher?

Is he trying to destroy what the radical left sees as deplorable middle America?

Put the coal, gas, and oil, industries out of business, nationalize the banks, and what comes next? Hand over the rest of our hard-won American freedoms to would-be globalist overlords?

Nancy Pelosi Exposes Her Political Elitism: Officiates at Billionaire Oil Heiresses’ Wedding

I don’t think so.

Omarova’s nomination is a brazen show of the radical left’s plans for America. Biden is with them.

They must be stopped.

Jack Gist

Jack Gist is an award-winning writer who has published essays, poetry and fiction in Catholic World Report, First Things, The Imaginative Conservative, New Oxford Review and others.

Conversation

Notice: Due to threatened de-monetization, we have temporarily removed commenting while we build a long-term commenting solution that allows you to voice your opinion freely and allows us to continue to publish the news fearlessly and cover topics that you care about. If you would like to personally partner with The Western Journal to help us continue publishing while under relentless assault by Big Tech, please visit our subscription page here. We encourage you to share this article and discuss with your friends.

Former Trump administration State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus clearly made House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff uncomfortable when she pressed him on Tuesday about his promotion of the debunked Steele dossier.

Last week, special counsel John Durham charged Igor Danchenko with five counts of lying to the FBI.

Danchenko is a Russian national who worked at the liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and is believed to be a primary source of information contained in the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Michael Steele.

That document was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was used to help launch the Russia probe in search of ties between the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Ortagus, who was a guest-hosting ABC’s “The View” on Tuesday, questioned Schiff about his promotion of the Steele dossier and the false narrative underlying it.

Biden Responds to Skyrocketing Gas Prices by Thinking About Shutting Down Another American Pipeline

“You’ve been really prolific over the past few years being the head of the Intel Committee. You defended, promoted, you even read into the Congressional Record the Steele dossier,” Ortagus said.

“And we know last week the main source of the dossier was indicted by the FBI for lying about most of the key claims in that dossier. Do you have any reflections on your role in promoting this to the American people?” she asked.

Schiff first responded in a reasonable fashion, saying any who lied to the FBI should be prosecuted.

Do you think Schiff knowingly misled the American people regarding Trump-Russia collusion?

He then defended his conduct.

“We couldn’t have known, for example, people were lying to Christopher Steele. So it was proper to investigate them,” Schiff said.

The congressman added that one benefit of the investigation was learning that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had given polling data to Russian intelligence.

Schiff was playing pretty fast and loose with the facts.

According to The Associated Press, Manafort gave polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant, who allegedly passed it along to Russian intelligence.

On Worst Possible Day for Russiagate Bitter Clinger Maddow, She Invites on Worst Possible Guest

“But Mueller’s team said it couldn’t ‘reliably determine’ Manafort’s purpose in sharing it, nor assess what Kilimnik may have done with it,” the AP reported.

That sort of exaggeration by Schiff was typical throughout the Russia probe.

Ortagus reminded Schiff that Manafort was removed from the campaign in the summer of 2016 when questions arose regarding his past lobbying work for pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs.

Further, it should be noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, though filled with Democratic investigators, “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated” with Russia, according to the Justice Department’s Mueller report.

Ortagus then brought the conversation back to Schiff’s role in promoting the whole collusion false narrative and the dossier.

“You may have helped spread Russian disinformation yourself for years by promoting this. I think that’s what Republicans and what people who entrusted you as the Intel Committee chair are so confused about your culpability in all of this,” Ortagus said.

“Well, I completely disagree with your premise,” Schiff responded. “It’s one thing to say allegations should be investigated, and they were. It’s another to say that we should have foreseen in advance that some people were lying to Christopher Steele, which is impossible of course to do.”

The Californian sells himself short. He was constantly out in front of the cameras claiming he was privy to intelligence that he could not share with the public validating the collusion charge.

For example in March 2017, NBC “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd asked Schiff if there was anything beyond circumstantial evidence suggesting the Trump campaign’s connection to Russia.

“I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said.

Further questioned whether he had seen direct evidence, the representative responded, “I don’t want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation.”

.@RepAdamSchiff on Trump/Russia connection: “There is more than circumstantial evidence now…and is very much worthy of investigation.” pic.twitter.com/qvw7drsqQX

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) March 22, 2017

Despite making claims like that for many months, Schiff never came forward with such evidence, even after Mueller issued his report.

On Tuesday’s showing of “The View,” the Democrat pivoted away from discussing the dossier to raising the issue of the 2019 House Democratic impeachment of Trump and the Capitol incursion to prove investigating him was justified.

You’ll recall it was during the impeachment hearing that Schiff famously made up his own fanciful version of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to build his case that the American leader conducted a shakedown to secure an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in Ukraine.

This performance was even after Zelensky himself said he felt no pressure from Trump’s call and his country launched no investigation into the Bidens.

Schiff told Ortagus, “None of that is undercut. None of that serious misconduct is in any way diminished by the fact that people lied to Christopher Steele.”

“No. I think just your credibility is,” Ortagus shot back.

Schiff then opted for the verbal attack of a schoolboy, saying, “I think the credibility of your question is in doubt.”

Having boasted about so much with so little pushback from the media, it was refreshing to see his feet actually held to the fire for once.

How much longer can this go on? As we head into the second year of the President Joe Biden “administration,” with the country in a shambles and heading no place good but full speed ahead, it’s time for all real Americans to take stock of our situation and formulate an emergency plan, with no time to spare.

Back in March, I wrote in these pages: “Biden’s Presidency Seems Ready to End.” In fact, Biden’s sham presidency never really began and whatever there was to it is now long over.

But then Brandon—excuse me! Biden!—isn’t really the president, simply the President in Name Only. Sure, he dutifully signs whatever executive order—increasingly authoritarian and blatantly unconstitutional—is put under his nose, which, at least until the next election, has the force of law until a federal court says otherwise. Even should a court block its implementation, as happened over the weekend with the illegal vaccine mandate being imposed on private industries by the Nixon-era excrescence of OSHA, the White House’s advice is to ignore it.

Biden also makes pro forma appearances on the international stage, including a mysteriously long audience with the former Cardinal Bergoglio (who’s every bit as much a pope as Biden is a president) that instantly gave rise to embarrassing rumors. And from time to time he even makes the short walk from West Wing to the Old Executive Office Building in order to stage something for the cameras in a studio-set version of the Oval Office.

But everybody in Washington knows the puppet presidency has no agency of its own, but is instead controlled from Kalorama by Barack Obama and his minions, including Ron Klain, who now serves as Biden’s chief of staff.

Meanwhile, the country he ostensibly leads is going to hell. We’ve gone from energy independence to passing the gasoline begging bowl, even as the forces behind Biden are busy choking off the domestic energy industry. Perhaps you’ve noticed the effects of this malicious policy at the gas pump.

Our long-neglected infrastructure, which is properly defined as roads, bridges, and buildings, remains a national disgrace, and the recent passage of a pork-laden $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill—with turncoat Republican help—not only won’t help a bit but will be paid for with imaginary money.

Overseas, right in Biden’s vaunted “foreign policy” wheelhouse, the Chinese are testing advanced missiles and expanding their fleet of aircraft carriers while what’s left of our Defense Department celebrates awarding four stars to a man in a skirt and hailing him as a “historic” female admiral.

A Navy sub’s trio of commanders was recently cashiered when the USS Connecticut struck an underseas mountain its crack officer corps somehow didn’t notice, while in San Diego the amphibious assault ship, Bonhomme Richard, was destroyed by an arsonist and a crew too incompetent to put out the blaze.

Oh yes, and the Marines recently got their tails kicked by the British in a desert-warfare exercise at their base at Twenty-Nine Palms in southern California. (The woke Marine Corps, of course, denies it.)

But the void in the White House is really the least of our problems, most of which we have brought upon ourselves. You get what you vote for and the American people, in rejecting Donald Trump, have voted for anarchy. As former New York City mayor Ed Koch said after being defeated for re-election in 1989, “the people have spoken, and they must be punished.”

Punishment is coming from every angle, principally from the criminal organization masquerading as a political party known as the Democrats. We now know that the vindictive but cunning loser Hillary Clinton set in motion the entire “Russian collusion”—in part with the collaboration of the Russophile leftist think tank, the Brookings Institution, and in part through the medium of a British spy channeling deliberate Soviet-style disinformation.

From the jump, it was obvious that the “Steele dossier” was a farrago of standard ex-KGB dirty tricks—in Russia and in Eastern Europe I’d seen this movie a dozen times—and I said so publicly at the time, practically from the day Buzzfeed published the “dossier.”

The American media deliberately weaponized this disinformation—which they knew at the time was false—against the lawfully elected president of the United States and crippled his presidency over it. And then they awarded themselves Pulitzer Prizes for their “reporting” of something that never happened.

Par for the course for the American version of Pravda. If you don’t think the New York Times hasn’t been in love with its Russian socialist confreres—and often actually been in bed with the KGB, its forebears, and its descendants—for the bulk of the 20th century, you need to wake up. Until the power of the Times is broken, the American Republic-as-founded will never have a moment’s peace.

But the weaponization didn’t and doesn’t stop there. “Former” members of the intelligence community now lie brazenly and openly on some of the “news channels,” such as CNN: the spooks are out of the shadows and in your living room.

The FBI is now investigating the alleged theft of Joe Biden’s daughter’s diary—a document that if genuine offers even more repellent insights into this stunningly dysfunctional family. How this is a federal matter is beyond me, unless the FBI has now become the Biden family’s private police force with a mandate to suppress bad news about the family. And if you don’t believe me, ask Hunter Biden.

Americans, quite properly, sense there’s something “off” about Biden and his crew, which is why his approval ratings continue to crater. But as long as the radical Left holds the media high ground, it’s hard for most people not obsessed by politics to grasp just how malignant these people are. For decades, they’ve made no bones about their desire to replace the United States of the founding with something “progressive.”

They’ve overtly collaborated with the Soviets, infiltrated the civil-rights movement, absorbed the legacy media, corrupted the lawmakers, overpowered academe, seized hold of the education of our children and now, in their moment of triumph, are forcing us to live in a fantasy world of their own psycho-sexual device, while their pet shrinks tell us that we’re the crazy bigots, via the media.

What are you going to do about it?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/america-needs-an-emergency-plan-right-away_4094825.html?utm_medium=epochtimes&utm_source=telegram

Sometimes you have to wonder whose team President Joe Biden is playing on.

Nearly every decision he has made since taking office in January has been to weaken the United States.

What’s shaping up to be the latest example is the Biden administration considering shutting down a vital pipeline that transports 540,000 barrels of oil per day into the U.S. from western Canada.

White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed the reports are true, saying the Army Corps of Engineers is doing an environmental impact study on the Line 5 pipeline that runs through Michigan.

Biden spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledges the Biden administration is “studying” shutting down the Line 5 Pipeline.

If Biden shuts down Line 5, Millions of Americans could face higher energy bills this winter. pic.twitter.com/7ZJoDIBd0S

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 8, 2021

Woman Nearly Dies, Then Has Both Legs Amputated After Mistaking Mysterious Infection for COVID-19

Of course, this brilliant move comes after Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office, which was slated to transport over 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to refineries in Texas.

Oh, and he halted oil exploration on federal lands just as the U.S. had reached energy independence during the Trump years, and he closed down drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska too.

The United States is producing nearly 2 million barrels of oil a day less under Biden than it was at its peak under former President Donald Trump, during whose administration the nation became a net energy exporter for the first time in nearly 70 years.

One barrel of oil refines to about 20 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Predictably, with less supply and rising demand, gas prices have risen by an average of over $1.30 per gallon nationwide.

A year ago we were energy independent, a net exporter, and a gallon of gas was 2 bucks and change. After less than a year of a war on fuel producers here and giveaways to Russia, all those gains are reversed. The surprise is how quickly everything changed. https://t.co/JD3dF4mBjg

— David Asman (@DavidAsmanfox) October 12, 2021

Perhaps, one could argue that Biden and his team have calculated if they make it painful enough at the pump, they will speed along the day when the U.S. transitions completely away from fossil fuels to wind and solar and, who knows, unicorn travel.

Obama Pulls a Biden: Thinks He’s in Ireland During Speech to Climate Change Conference in Scotland

Well, that sounds nice, but it’s contradicted by the fact that imports of Russian and Saudi Arabian oil are up. So we’re burning oil, just less of our own.

The EIA reported that the U.S. imported 24.6 million barrels in August from Russia on top of over 26 million in May. That’s nearly 5 million more barrels per month than the highest number ever recorded under Trump.

During the previous administration, the amount imported consistently ranged between 11 million and 16 million barrels per month.

Under Biden, the total has been over 20 million barrels every month, with the exception of February.

In August, Bloomberg reported that Russia had become America’s No. 2 foreign oil supplier, edging out Mexico.

Because the Biden admin would rather import more Russian and Saudi oil than Canadian…brilliant. https://t.co/Rzbfr9cR6A

— Randy DeSoto (@RandyDeSoto) November 8, 2021

Meanwhile, oil imports from Canada have stayed roughly the same between Biden’s and Trump’s presidencies.

So why are we favoring Russia over Canada?

That wasn’t the only pro-Russia move Biden has made.

In May, the president announced no sanctions would be imposed to block the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, as Trump had threatened to do. The pipeline will transport natural gas from Russia into Western Europe.

To summarize, Biden — citing climate change concerns — shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, killing American jobs, and greenlit Nord Stream 2, which benefits Russia economically and gives Russian President Vladimir Putin a leverage point over NATO allies like Germany.

And now the administration is considering shutting down another U.S.-Canada pipeline, which is almost certain to drive up prices even more.

Again, whose team is Biden on?

For all the hooting and hollering by the Democrats about Trump and “Russia, Russia, Russia,” it sure feels like Biden’s the one Putin has in his back pocket.