The Republican National Committee (RNC) released a new ad on Tuesday afternoon that highlighted scandals from the Obama-Biden administration after former Vice President Joe Biden, currently the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, has claimed on numerous occasions that the administration had no scandals.
The video highlights the following scandals from the Obama administration:
<ul>
<li>The administration&#8217;s <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-benghazi-report-slams-administration-response-to-attacks">response</a> to the Benghazi attacks.</li>
<li>Former President Barack Obama being <a href="https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">awarded</a> the &#8220;lie of the year&#8221; for falsely claiming that &#8220;if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.&#8221;</li>
<li>The Obama administration&#8217;s IRS <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups">investigating</a> conservative groups.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-made-1-7-billion-transfer-to-iran-in-foreign-cash-treasury-says">Sent</a> pallets of cash to Iran, which is the world&#8217;s leading state sponsor of terrorism.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fast-and-furious-hearing-rips-holder-doj-for-deception-in-gun-running-scandal">Armed</a> Mexican drug cartels with weapons that were used to kill U.S. federal agents.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/shinseki-resigns-amid-va-crisis-1401463093?mod=article_inline">Attempted</a> to hide long wait times across the VA health system.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/remember-solyndra-loss-of-taxpayer-millions-seems-forgotten-expert-says">Funded</a> Solyndra by giving the struggling company, which eventually collapsed, hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funded money.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/06/05/us-army-commander-approves-bergdahl-sentence-no-prison-time/">Traded</a> <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/30/5-freed-from-gitmo-in-exchange-for-bergdahl-join-insurgents-in-qatar-taliban-says/">five terrorists</a> for a U.S. soldier who &#8220;abandon[ed] his post in Afghanistan.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
&#8220;The Biden campaign, along with their friends in the media, repeatedly try to whitewash the scandal ridden Obama/Biden administration, but the American people know the truth,&#8221; RNC Rapid Response Director Steve Guest. &#8220;From the IRS investigating conservative groups, to sending pallets of cash to the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism, arming drug dealers, and lying about the Benghazi terrorist attack, Obama-Biden continuously put their political interests ahead of the American people and Joe Biden would do so again if given the chance.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Obama-Biden, Scandal Free?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PEwkgKDX8I0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The examples highlighted by the RNC are by no means exhaustive as there are numerous other scandals that occurred during the Obama-Biden administration.
Another major scandal was the revelation that the Obama-Biden administration had “prosecuted more whistle-blowers for leaks and gone after more journalists than any of its predecessors,” according to The New York Times. By going after journalists, The Times is referring to the Obama-Biden administration <a href="https://apnews.com/ffc60235c26c470c9047e0da6ff19f95/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Obama-doesn%2527t-always-tell-the-straight-story">spying</a> on reporters and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/08/seizing-journalists-records-an-outrage-that-obama-normalized-for-trump/">seizing</a> their records.
There was also a bombshell Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/">report</a>, which most of the mainstream media largely ignored, that revealed that Obama killed a massive federal investigation into the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, which allowed the group to expand and continue to engage in trafficking narcotics into the U.S.
Currently, another scandal is being unraveled from the Obama-Biden administration that involved allegedly using law enforcement and intelligence agencies that Attorney General William Barr <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ol0bKk7kZo">said</a> last year amounted to “spying” on the Trump campaign. In an <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/">interview</a> with CBS News earlier this month, Barr said that he believes that the activities that the FBI was engaging in “was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation.” The criminal investigation, dubbed “the Durham investigation” for U.S. Attorney John Durham, is on going but is reportedly looking at a “pattern of conduct” that includes “a number of related acts” that targeted the Trump campaign. Barr has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/attorney-general-barr-what-obama-admin-did-to-trump-with-russian-collusion-actions-is-unprecedented">said</a> that actions that were taken by Obama-era officials against the Trump campaign were “unprecedented in American history” and represented a “grave injustice.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Attend The South Carolina Convention

RNC Releases Ad Highlighting Scandals From Obama-Biden Admin After Biden Claimed They Didn’t Have Any

Barack Obama

Joe Biden

Obama Administration

Republican National Committee (RNC)

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany shredded journalists during Friday&#8217;s press briefing for not questioning former Obama administration officials over the Flynn unmasking scandal, saying that if the Trump administration did what the Obama administration did, journalists would be all over it.
McEnany’s comments come after it was revealed last week that numerous former top officials in the Obama administration unmasked then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn and someone appeared to have illegally leaked his name to the media.
“I laid out a series of questions that any good journalist would want to answer about why people were unmasked and all sorts of questions, and I just wanted to follow up with you guys on that,” McEnany said. “Did anyone take it upon themselves to pose any questions about Michael Flynn and unmasking to President Obama’s spokesperson?”
“Oh, not a single journalist has posed that question?” McEnany continued, as ABC reporter Jonathan Karl tried to interrupt. “Okay, so I would like lay out a series of questions and perhaps if I write them out in a slide format, maybe we&#8217;re visual learners, and you guys will follow up with journalistic curiosity.”
“So, number one, why did the Obama administration use opposition research funded by a political organization and filled with foreign dirt to surveil members of the Trump campaign?” McEnany said. “Number two, why was Lieutenant General Michael Flynn unmasked, not by the Intel community entirely, but by Obama&#8217;s chief of staff? By the former Vice President Joe Biden? By Susan Rice? By the Treasury Secretary? I mean, this is extraordinary and, you know, if it were political appointees in the Trump administration, I can guarantee you, I&#8217;d have questions in my inbox right now, but apparently Obama&#8217;s spokesperson does not.”
“Why was Flynn&#8217;s identity leaked in a criminal act?” McEnany continued. “It is a criminal act to leak the identity of Michael Flynn to the press, but it happened. Where are the questions to Obama’s spokesperson? Because my team would be running around this building should this have happened under the Trump administration.”
“Why did the DOJ’s Sally Yates learn about the unmasking from President Obama?” McEnany continued. “So much for going ‘by the book’ as Susan Rice said three times, thou doth protest too much, Susan Rice.”
“And then finally, question number five, why did James Clapper, John Brennan, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice privately admit under oath they had no evidence of collusion while saying the opposite publicly?” McEnany concluded. “It&#8217;s a long weekend, you guys have three days to follow up on those questions, and I certainly hope the next time I ask some hands go up because Obama’s spokesperson should be asked those questions because President Trump’s spokespeople certainly would be.”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kayleighmcenany</a> brought visual aids today to assist the White House Press corps in what questions they should be asking Barack Obama about why General Flynn was unmasked.
🔥🔥🔥🔥 <a href="https://t.co/FQ475dZOJt">pic.twitter.com/FQ475dZOJt</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1263901535462928386?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

President Trump Holds Press Briefing

Kayleigh McEnany Uses Slide Show To School Reporters On Obama Admin’s Flynn ‘Unmasking’ Scandal

Kayleigh McEnany

Michael Flynn

A video clip from March 22, 2017, recirculated on social media early this week shows Obama national security adviser Susan Rice denying in an interview that she knew anything about the Obama administration&#8217;s unmasking of any Trump associates, which would include then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn.
&#8220;So, we invited you on to talk about several things but in the last few hours we&#8217;ve been following the disclosure by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition after President Trump had been elected that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed,&#8221; PBS News Hour host Judy Woodruff said. &#8220;Do you know anything about this?&#8221;
Rice responded, &#8220;I know nothing about this.&#8221;
Rice&#8217;s 2017 claim has come under renewed scrutiny in light of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-government-declassifies-susan-rice-email-on-obamas-oval-office-meeting-discussing-flynn">newly declassified documents</a> that were made public on Tuesday that show, by her account, that she was present for an Oval Office meeting with former President Barack Obama and other top Obama administration officials where they discussed Flynn&#8217;s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Rice has come under fire <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/susan-rice-is-a-liar-now-even-the-liberal-media-is-starting-to-admit-it">repeatedly</a> for her long &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/susan-rice-lies-will-haunt-liberals/">record of deceit</a>.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Susan Rice on Nunes allegations: &#039;I know nothing about this&#039;" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5f3ScOY5FJY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>HOST JUDY WOODRUFF: Susan Rice, welcome to the program.
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SUSAN RICE: Good to be with you, Judy.
WOODRUFF: So, we invited you on to talk about several things but in the last few hours we&#8217;ve been following the disclosure by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition after President Trump had been elected that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?
RICE: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.
And let&#8217;s back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we have heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen.
That can only come from the Justice Department, with the approval of a FISA court. So, today, I really don&#8217;t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.
SUSAN RICE: And I think it&#8217;s important for people to understand what incidental means. That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation, and that the Americans who were talking to those targets may have been picked up.</blockquote>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.  
<blockquote>&nbsp;</blockquote>

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice Interview

WATCH: Resurfaced Susan Rice Comments From 2017 Show She Denied Knowing Anything About ‘Unmasking’

Susan Rice

Two Senate committees are expanding their investigations into the Obama-era scandal that involved surveilling members of the Trump campaign, which Attorney General William Barr has said amounts to &#8220;spying,&#8221; saying that they have reason to believe that they are becoming increasingly concerned that the surveillance started before the FBI&#8217;s &#8220;Crossfire Hurricane&#8221; investigation.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson and Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley wrote a letter to Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell asking for the declassification of &#8220;additional information related to the unmasking of Americans around the time of the 2016 election, but also to expand the scope of our request to include information as early as January 2016.&#8221;
&#8220;Based on our investigation and recent press reports, we are increasingly concerned that the surveillance of U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign began earlier than the opening of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation in late July 2016,&#8221; the letter continued. &#8220;It has become evident that the FBI, and possibly members of the U.S. Intelligence Community, were focused on U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign in early 2016, if not even earlier.&#8221;
&#8220;Again, the best way to resolve these issues is to determine the truth, and to make clear to the American people what did and did not occur,&#8221; the letter concluded. &#8220;For these reasons, we respectfully request that you make available to us, as soon as possible, all information regarding the “unmasking” of U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign requested by members of President Obama’s administration from January 2016 through January 2017.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Grassley and Johnson are dramatically expanding their request for Obama era unmasking records. 
They want records on all Trump associates from Jan. 2016-Jan. 2017, saying they are &quot;increasingly concerned&quot; that surveillance began before Crossfire Hurricane<a href="https://t.co/KO2r72RmyC">https://t.co/KO2r72RmyC</a> <a href="https://t.co/RNtnuOk9Ss">pic.twitter.com/RNtnuOk9Ss</a>
&mdash; Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1262880972531474433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The demand for more information comes after last week&#8217;s bombshell revelation that numerous Obama officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, unmasked then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grenell-releases-list-of-officials-who-sought-to-unmask-flynn-biden-comey-obama-intel-chiefs-among-them">reported</a>:
<blockquote>
The list was declassified in recent days by Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and then sent to GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, who made the documents public. The roster features top-ranking figures including then-Vice President Joe Biden &#8212; a detail already being raised by the Trump campaign in the bare-knuckle 2020 presidential race where Biden is now the Democrats&#8217; presumptive nominee.
The list also includes then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Obama&#8217;s then-chief of staff Denis McDonough.</blockquote>
Obama officials, including disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, thought that there was something wrong with Flynn&#8217;s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Attorney General William Barr debunked that notion earlier this month, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/">saying</a> that Flynn made “a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition.”
“Let me say that, at that point, he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration,” Barr continued. “And it is very typical, very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders.”
“And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration’s policies,” Barr concluded on the matter. “And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, ‘Don’t escalate.’ And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn’t remember that.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.  
&nbsp;

PERU-APEC-SUMMIT

Senators ‘Dramatically Expanding’ Probe Into Obama-Era Scandal, Think Surveillance May Have Started ‘Even Earlier’ Than 2016

Charles Grassley

Richard Grenell

Ron Johnson

U.S. Senate

On Tuesday, the U.S. government declassified a suspicious email from Obama national security adviser Susan Rice dated on the day of President Donald Trump&#8217;s inauguration that memorialized a January 5 meeting that Rice and other top Obama officials had in the Oval Office about incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The email revealed that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey allegedly suggested to then-President Barack Obama that he should &#8220;potentially&#8221; not give &#8220;sensitive information related to Russia&#8221; to Flynn because of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Comey said that he had no indication that Flynn had passed any classified information to Kislyak but claimed that &#8220;the level of communication is unusual.&#8221;
Attorney General William Barr debunked that notion earlier this month in an interview with CBS News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/">saying</a> that Flynn made &#8220;a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition.&#8221;
&#8220;Let me say that, at that point, he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration,&#8221; Barr continued. &#8220;And it is very typical, very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders.&#8221;
&#8220;And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He&#8211; and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration&#8217;s policies,&#8221; Barr concluded on the matter. &#8220;And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, &#8216;Don&#8217;t escalate.&#8217; And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn&#8217;t remember that.&#8221;
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the document and sent it to the Department of Justice. Herridge was the first to report the declassified email.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Flynn?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Flynn</a> Triangulate records: Rice “by the book” email memorializes 1/5/2017 WH meeting but time stamp 1/20. Acting AG Yates tells FBI she first learned Flynn calls during same meeting. Comey transcript “..in the course of that conversation, the President mentioned this(redacted.) <a href="https://t.co/jHoCl37irm">pic.twitter.com/jHoCl37irm</a>
&mdash; Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262794149918642179?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One thing in the email that stuck out to top lawmakers and journalists was Rice&#8217;s insistence that everything was done &#8220;by the book,&#8221; a phrase she mentioned three times in the short email.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is the weird Rice email memorializing the infamous Jan 5, 2017 meeting at which Flynn was discussed and insisting all was done &quot;by the book.&quot; We will hopefully find out more of what was discussed/done.
&mdash; Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) <a href="https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1262807164206215168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In Star Trek II (Wrath of Kahn &#8211; the best of the series), when Kirk says “by the book” it’s code to mean he’s lying. 🤔🤔 <a href="https://t.co/fNXzC49sWa">https://t.co/fNXzC49sWa</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1262840515202080768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Susan Rice sent an email on Inauguration Day to let everyone know that everything was completely legit, and Obama definitely did not order the Code Red. Not weird at all!
&mdash; David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1262834439979184128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Obama-era scandal has grown to the point that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is now looking for records from 53 Obama-era officials, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-senate-judiciary-to-vote-on-subpoenaing-53-obama-era-officials-over-crossfire-hurricane-scandal">including</a>, “Trisha Anderson, Brian Auten, James Baker, William Barr, Dana Boente, Jennifer Boone, John Brennan, James Clapper, Kevin Clinesmith, James Comey, Patrick Conlon, Michael Dempsey, Stuart Evans, Tashina Gauhar, Carl Ghattas, Curtis Heide, Kathleen Kavalec, David Laufman, Stephen Laycock, Jacob Lew, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Mary McCord, Denis McDonough, Arthur McGlynn, Jonathan Moffa, Sally Moyer, Mike Neufield, Sean Newell, Victoria Nuland, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Stephanie L. O’Sullivan, Lisa Page, Joseph Pientka, John Podesta, Samantha Power, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Sarah Raskin, Steve Ricchetti, Susan Rice, Rod Rosenstein, Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, Nathan Sheets, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Glenn Simpson, Steve Somma, Peter Strzok, Michael Sussman, Adam Szubin, Jonathan Winer, Christopher Wray, and Sally Yates.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Ambassador Susan Rice, former U.S. National Security Adviser

U.S. Government Declassifies Susan Rice Email On Obama’s Oval Office Meeting Discussing Flynn

William Barr

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as AMLO, has requested information from the U.S. government on former President Barack Obama&#8217;s &#8220;Fast and Furious&#8221; illegal gun running scheme where the Obama administration allegedly instructed gun store owners to break the law and sell firearms to suspected criminals.
Obrador urged on Friday that &#8220;the United States to shed light on a gun-running sting that caused bilateral friction under the Obama presidency,&#8221; Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-politics-idUSKBN22K2UR">reported</a>. &#8220;Setting out to stop cross-border gun smuggling, the U.S. scheme allowed people to illegally buy arms in the United States and take them to Mexico so that the weapons could be tracked and lead law enforcement officials to drug cartel bosses.&#8221;
&#8220;How could this be?&#8221; Obrador said at a news conference. &#8220;A government that invades in this way, that flagrantly violates sovereignty, international laws.&#8221;
Obrador brought up the illegal gun running scheme, which was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/operation-fast-furious-brian-terry-death.html">tied</a> to the deaths of U.S. federal agents during the Obama administration, during a press conference while &#8220;discussing the case of Genaro Garcia Luna, Mexico’s security minister from 2006-12, who was arrested in the United States in December and charged with drug-trafficking offenses,&#8221; Reuters added. &#8220;Roberta Jacobson, a former American ambassador to Mexico appointed under U.S. President Barack Obama, had suggested both governments knew about possible corruption by Garcia Luna in an interview with Mexican magazine Proceso published at the weekend.&#8221;
During the press conference, Obrador <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-corruption-idUSKBN22G2SK?taid=5eb0d5b461019300012709ce&amp;utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&amp;utm_medium=trueAnthem&amp;utm_source=twitter">urged</a> that the probe should cover &#8220;all those who intervened during this period, because without a doubt, there was cooperation&#8221; and noted that &#8220;criminal&#8221; behavior could be uncovered from officials from both the Mexican and U.S. governments.
&#8220;Lopez Obrador said U.S. officials at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who cooperated with Garcia Luna should be investigated,&#8221; Reuters added. Lopez Obrador has continued to ask &#8220;for U.S. officials to be investigated for their ties to Garcia Luna, saying &#8216;cover-ups&#8217; during the era were not the work of just “one government.&#8221;
The calls from Obrador for investigations into U.S. officials under the Bush and Obama administrations who had ties to Luna comes as former Obama officials are coming under increasing scrutiny over a major political scandal that is unfolding in the U.S.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876">writes</a>:
<blockquote>When news stories appeared in early 2017 about Michael Flynn’s conversation with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., these columns wondered how Mr. Flynn’s call was so widely known. The names of private U.S. citizens caught on tape by U.S. intelligence are supposed to be “masked” so their privacy is protected.
Well, now we know. GOP Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson on Wednesday released a declassified list of Obama Administration officials who in their waning days in power “unmasked” the conversations of Mr. Flynn, who was set to become President Trump’s National Security Adviser. It seems everyone but the night janitor wanted to know who Mr. Flynn was talking to.
&#8230;
The list includes then White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, then Vice President Joe Biden, and then Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew. Ambassador to the U.N. and Obama confidante Samantha Power made no fewer than seven requests, though she told Congress she had no recollection of unmasking Mr. Flynn.</blockquote>
Continue reading <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876">here</a>.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

President Lopez Obrador Daily Morning Briefing

Mexico’s President Is Looking Into Obama’s ‘Fast And Furious’ Illegal Gun Running Scheme, Requests Info From U.S.

Mexico

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) explained during a Wednesday night interview on Fox News why the latest &#8220;unmasking&#8221; revelation in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn is a serious scandal for the Obama administration.
&#8220;Well, in a FISA court surveillance operation, the U.S. government can only surveil foreign people associated with terrorists,&#8221; Johnson began. &#8220;When they&#8217;re monitoring their phone calls, they will sometimes inadvertently pick up the conversation with somebody talking to an American citizen.&#8221;
&#8220;When those transcripts are released, the identity of the American citizen is masked,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;And so there&#8217;s a very limited number of people in the administration that can request that those American citizens&#8217; names be unmasked, because, again, those shouldn&#8217;t – American citizens should not be captured in these foreign surveillance investigations.&#8221;
&#8220;And it is, from my standpoint, pretty curious that the Vice President of the United States would be requesting unmasking in this case of General Flynn eight days before he left office,&#8221; Johnson continued. &#8220;This is outrageous, what the Obama administration and members of it high up in the administration were doing toward – during the election toward the tail end of their administration, and the ones that were held over, what they did in the early days of the Trump administration as well.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sen Ron Johnson shines a big ole spotlight on the unmasking scandal. This is a great breakdown. 
Some questions needing answers: What is Joe Biden hiding? What did he know? <a href="https://t.co/OpDTlVIQPH">pic.twitter.com/OpDTlVIQPH</a>
&mdash; (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1260738592701157376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: One of the senators who pushed hard for the disclosure of Michael Flynn&#8217;s &#8212; the names of the unmaskers is Homeland Security and Government &#8212; Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Republican Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
We want to talk about that. He joins us now.
Senator, thanks for being here.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Hello, Bret.
BAIER: I want to start at the beginning.
For somebody sitting at home saying, why is this important, let&#8217;s start with, what is unmasking? Explain it.
JOHNSON: Well, in a FISA court surveillance operation, the U.S. government can only surveil foreign people associated with terrorists.
When they&#8217;re monitoring their phone calls, they will sometimes inadvertently pick up the conversation with somebody talking to an American citizen.
When those transcripts are released, the identity of the American citizen is masked. And so there&#8217;s a very limited number of people in the administration that can request that those American citizens&#8217; names be unmasked, because, again, those shouldn&#8217;t &#8212; American citizens should not be captured in these foreign surveillance investigations.
BAIER: Right.
So, the ones &#8212; the administration officials who are asking, it&#8217;s not uncommon for intelligence officials to be in that list, because they want to see where the intel is and who they&#8217;re talking to. It&#8217;s a little bit more uncommon for administration officials up the chain, for example, Vice President Biden, to be on that list.
But they wouldn&#8217;t know who the American was before they requested the unmasking, would they?
JOHNSON: Again, those are some of the questions that need to be answered.
And it is, from my standpoint, pretty curious that the vice president of the United States would be requesting unmasking in this case of General Flynn eight days before he left office.
So, what I would say, what information that we released &#8212; and let me also point out, Bret, that Attorney General Barr and acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, they are heroes, they are patriots.
They&#8217;re being unfairly attacked right now, mercilessly attacked. And these gentlemen realize that this is a threat to our democracy. This is outrageous, what the Obama administration and members of it high up in the administration were doing toward &#8212; during the election toward the tail end of their administration, and the ones that were held over, what they did in the early days of the Trump administration as well.
So, these are real heroes in terms of what information they are beginning to divulge, declassify, so the American people really understand what happened.
BAIER: Senator, within the past few minutes, the Biden campaign has responded to all of this.
The common line from Democrats had been that this is all a distraction by the president to take away from COVID-19 coverage. I will get past that in this statement.
But this says that: &#8220;The documents simply indicate the breadth and depth of concern across the American government, including among career officials, over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn&#8217;s attempts to undermine ongoing American national security policy through discussions with Russian officials or other foreign representatives.
&#8220;Importantly, none of these individuals could have known Flynn&#8217;s identity beforehand. These documents have absolutely nothing to do with the &#8212; any FBI investigation, and they confirm that all normal procedures were followed. Any suggestion otherwise is flat-out a lie.&#8221;
They go on to suggest that the only people with questions to answer are you and Ric Grenell and Senator Grassley for politicizing this intelligence process.
So, your response to all of that?
JOHNSON: Well, first of all, I thought it was interesting the vice president used the word diversion.
Ever since I have been highlighting the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page on December 15 of 2016, where Strzok texts Page, saying that, I think our sisters are leaking like mad, scorned, worried and political. They&#8217;re kicking into overdrive.
What were they worried about? Obviously, they were highly political individuals, people like Brennan and Clapper and Comey.
So, I have always felt that what we witnessed with the whole Russia investigation, the hoax, the fact that the FBI knew full well by the end of January that there was nothing there, and yet James Comey set up the appointment of a special counsel, I have always thought that was a massive diversionary operation on the part of members of the Obama administration to really divert attention away from what they were doing during the campaign, the exoneration of Hillary Clinton.
Now, again, we are starting to see that, and with the revelation of the House Intelligence Committee transcripts, the fact that the &#8212; and, by the way, I also got to credit my staff members who painstakingly went down into the Senate secure area, painstakingly went through the FISA report, found those footnotes that showed that, if there&#8217;s any disinformation, Russian disinformation in the 2016 campaign, it was paid for by Hillary Clinton.
And they found those footnotes. So they called me down there. I saw that those things needed to be made public. And that really is what broke this information logjam.
Again, credit to Attorney General Barr and Ric Grenell for declassifying those footnotes, declassifying the House Intelligence transcripts, and now declassifying the members of the Obama administration that unmasked.
In this case, all we&#8217;re talking about is Michael Flynn.
BAIER: Yes.
JOHNSON: There were many, many other unmaskings which we also need to investigate.
BAIER: Well, we will follow all of it, and anxiously as well. We have got a lot of things to cover here.
Thank you, Senator, for the time.
JOHNSON: Have a good day.</blockquote>

Candidate Joe Biden Delivers Remarks On Coronavirus Outbreak

Senator Breaks Down Why The Obama Administration’s Unmasking Scandal Is A Big Deal

This week, former President Barack Obama reemerged from hibernation to lecture Americans about the threat to rule of law posed by the Trump administration.
After Attorney General Bill Barr announced that the Department of Justice would be dropping its case against President Donald Trump&#8217;s former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who had pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, Obama told his former aides, &#8220;our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.&#8221; He explained, &#8220;There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free&#8230;.And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly, as we&#8217;ve seen in other places.&#8221;
In reality, of course, Flynn was never charged with perjury. He was charged with lying to the FBI in the course of an investigation, a separate and far lesser offense, particularly given the fact that his alleged lie was immaterial to any underlying crime. In fact, as America found out over the past two weeks, Flynn wasn&#8217;t supposed to be the subject of any investigation at all: The FBI had decided to close an investigation into Flynn in January 2017, even after supposedly nefarious calls between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok — the same man who pledged to lover and former FBI attorney Lisa Page that Donald Trump would never be president and suggested an &#8220;insurance policy&#8221; against that possibility — then intervened to keep the investigation open. The next day, during an Oval Office meeting, President Obama himself asked then-FBI Director James Comey about the Flynn-Kislyak communications.
Next, Comey upped the ante: He avoided following normal FBI-White House protocols in order to interview Flynn and Comey&#8217;s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, avoided informing Flynn of his rights. Nonetheless, the FBI agents who conducted the interview suggested that they did not think Flynn was lying during that interview. As it turns out, notes between top FBI officials at the time said, &#8220;What&#8217;s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?&#8221; Flynn would later plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI — at least in part because the FBI was threatening his son with prosecution.
This should be a massive scandal. It should be a massive scandal because, at the very least, it demonstrates the nation&#8217;s chief law enforcement agencies, prompted by political actors at the very top of the government, racing to bend the rules in order to pursue a case they were convinced they would make: the case that the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government. From the purposefully botched Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to the absurdly conjured prosecution of Flynn, the most powerful institutions in American life violated the protocols meant to restrict abuse, firmly secure in their own feelings of moral rectitude.
That&#8217;s the best-case scenario.
The worst-case scenario is far darker: that by early January, with no evidence of Russian collusion, leaders of the nation&#8217;s political and law enforcement agencies decided that guilt was irrelevant, and that the Trump administration had to be strangled in the crib. This seems like a major stretch, but in a highly partisan era, such a narrative will have legs.
Meanwhile, blithe in the knowledge that they were on the side of the angels, members of the Obama-era government continue to chide Attorney General Bill Barr for ending a charade of a case. Their incredible inability to see how their conduct looks beyond the echo chamber of sycophantic media sources only undermines their credibility further.
As it turns out, President Obama isn&#8217;t wrong — at least not entirely. Our basic understanding of the rule of law is at risk, not because Bill Barr stepped in to prevent an unjust prosecution but because our institutions under the Obama administration were politicized in ways that should shock the American conscience.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

SHAPIRO: How The Obama Administration Shattered The Rule Of Law

The Department of Justice dropped its case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn on May 7 after prosecuting the former national security adviser for nearly 18 months for lying to the FBI.
Attorney General William Barr ended the DOJ&#8217;s pursuit of Flynn after a review of the case turned up evidence that the FBI investigation into Flynn was carried out on unjust grounds, and that Flynn&#8217;s statements did not have a &#8220;material impact&#8221; on the Justice Department&#8217;s investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election.
“It&#8217;s on the question of materiality that we feel really that a crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on,” Barr said in a May 7 interview with <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/">CBS News</a>. “They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition.”
Barr&#8217;s decision to drop the case is the likely end of United States v. Flynn. The following timeline highlights some of the case&#8217;s key moments:
2016
Nov. 18: Trump names retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as his national security adviser. Flynn had joined Trump’s campaign in February as an adviser on national security issues.
December: Flynn holds a series of phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kisilyak. The incoming national security adviser tells Kisilyak that the Trump administration will review sanctions that will soon be placed on Moscow by the Obama administration. The conversation presumably causes Russia to give an uncharacteristically muted response after sanctions are <a href="https://apnews.com/9ccb9a5ab1394a168db8b8362d94790d/US-punishes-Russia-for-hacking-presidential-campaign">announced</a> on Dec. 29.
Unknown to Flynn, U.S. intelligence agencies are spying on Kisilyak and, through the course of that surveillance, gain recordings of the Flynn-Kisilyak phone calls. Those recordings are later used to charge Flynn with lying to the FBI.
2017
Jan. 4: The FBI&#8217;s Washington Field Office prepares to close an investigation into Flynn launched as part of a larger FBI probe into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, known as Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The field office’s investigation into Flynn, dubbed Crossfire Razor, found “no derogatory information” and drafted a memo to close the case file.
FBI special agent Peter Strzok intervenes before the case is officially closed, texting the FBI case manager on the day the memo to close Crossfire Razor is drafted, “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” Strzok said that FBI leadership are involved in the case and that he needs “to decide what to do with [Flynn with respect to] the [REDACTED].” 
The messages are published in <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/459199066/us-v-flynn">court documents</a> unsealed on April 30, 2020.
Jan. 12: David Ignateus at The Washington Post writes a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html">column</a> revealing Flynn spoke to Kisilyak in December and openly speculates whether those phone calls were the reason for Russia&#8217;s response to President Obama&#8217;s sanctions.
Jan. 15: Vice President-elect Mike Pence appears on <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcript-january-15-2017-pence-manchin-gingrich/">CBS’s Face The Nation</a> and other networks and denies that Flynn spoke with Kisilyak about sanctions on Russia, citing conversations the incoming vice president had with Flynn.
 “[Flynn] had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence tells host John Dickerson.
  Jan. 24: FBI director James Comey sends two FBI agents, including Strzok, to the White House to interview Flynn about his conversations with Kisilyak. Comey, by his own <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxNhjFrjXqI">admission</a>, skirted normal FBI-White House protocols and communications channels to get the interview. Strzok and the other FBI interviewer have already been briefed on the contents of the Flynn-Kisilyak calls.
After the interview, Strzok and the other FBI interviewer “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying,” according to an FBI summary of the interview.
FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was central to setting up the FBI-Flynn interview, urging Flynn in a phone call that morning to meet with the FBI agents without a lawyer. McCabe said that recent leaks about Flynn’s phone calls made the interview necessary and that the fewer people involved, the faster the investigation into Russian election meddling could move on, according to December 2018 court <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.56.0_1.pdf">filings</a>.
McCabe and others made the decision not to warn Flynn that lying to the FBI is a crime. They “wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport,” according to FBI documents.
Feb. 13: Flynn resigns as national security adviser, admitting that he misled Pence about the full extent of the conversations with Kisilyak.
“I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology,” Flynn writes in his <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/flynn-resignation-ltr.pdf">resignation letter</a>.
May 17: Robert Mueller is appointed as special counsel and takes over the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Dec. 1: Mueller’s team charges Flynn with lying to the FBI. Flynn pleads guilty and faces up to five years in prison. According to the charging documents, Flynn’s “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI&#8217;s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia&#8217;s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”
Flynn begins cooperating with federal investigators on the Russia probe and other DOJ investigations.
2019
April 18: Attorney General Barr releases a redacted version of the Mueller report, which says in part, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” 
May 29: Mueller announces an end to his investigation and closes the special counsel’s office. Brandon Van Grack, who served as Mueller’s senior assistant special counsel, takes over the Flynn case from Mueller.
June 6: Flynn fires his legal team at Covington &amp; Burling.
June 12: Flynn hires attorney Sydney Powell, an outspoken critic of the Mueller investigation. Powell starts aggressively defending Flynn, and Flynn’s cooperative relationship with federal investigators begins to break down.
Aug. 30: Powell accuses Van Grack’s team of violating her client’s civil rights and withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of the Brady rule. Powell demands the DOJ turn over more documents such as unredacted texts between Strzok and DOJ attorney Lisa Page and summaries on FBI interviews with DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
Oct. 1: Van Grack <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.122.0_3.pdf">insists</a> the government has turned all relevant materials and calls Powell’s accusations “an effort by the defendant to have his case dismissed.”
“Since the beginning of their involvement, the defendant’s new counsel, have sought to get the charges dropped, professed their client’s actual innocence, and perpetuated conspiracy theories, all while stating that the defendant does not intend to withdraw his guilty plea,” the prosecution writes.
 2020
Jan. 14: Flynn files a<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.151.0_1.pdf"> motion</a> to withdraw his guilty plea. 
Feb. 14: Barr taps U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeff Jensen, to work alongside Van Grack and review Flynn’s case.
April 29: Unsealed <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/459057200/doc-188">court documents</a> reveal handwritten notes <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-flynn-fbi-handwritten-notes-get-him-lie-fired">reportedly</a> made by FBI&#8217;s former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap. The notes, purportedly written by Priestap after a meeting with Comey and McCabe, suggest that the FBI intended to set a trap for Flynn. 
“What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” the notes say.
“I don&#8217;t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him,” the notes continue. “If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide.”
April 30: Strzok’s messages to keep the FBI investigation into Flynn open past Jan. 4 are published in more unsealed court documents. 
May 7: DOJ drops its case against Flynn.
“The Government has determined, pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution and based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice,” the <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_6.pdf">filing</a> says. 
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

The DOJ Just Dropped Its Case Against Flynn. Here Are Some Of The Key Moments

Department of Justice

Last week, the founder of the #MeToo movement, Tarana Burke, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/metoo-movement-founder-on-biden-sex-assault-allegations-he-can-be-accountable-and-electable">declined to back Tara Reade</a>, a former staffer for presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who says Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked in his Senate offices in the mid-1990s.
Now, &#8220;Time&#8217;s Up&#8221; the organization developed from the #MeToo movement and charged with providing financial and legal assistance to women who accuse high-powered men of sexual harassment and assault has declined to provide that assitance to Reade. Instead, it&#8217;s CEO, Tina Tchen, praised Biden for his &#8220;transparency.&#8221;
Tchen, of course, worked alongside Biden as a senior advisor to the Obama administration. She&#8217;s been active in a number of causes since leaving the White House, including Time&#8217;s Up, and even, last year, acted as a go-between, delivering messages from the family of Jussie Smollett, who was then accused of staging his own hate crime in Chicago, and the Cook County State&#8217;s Attorney, urging prosecutors to drop the case against Smollett or refer it to the FBI.
Reade sought help from Tchen and Time&#8217;s Up but was refused, <a href="https://freebeacon.com/democrats/times-up-ceo-praises-biden-after-declining-to-aid-accuser-tara-reade/">according to the Washington Free Beacon</a>.
&#8220;Formed during the #MeToo movement to help victims of sexual assault with legal fees and public relations, the Time&#8217;s Up Legal Defense Fund declined to assist Reade in her case against Biden, claiming his presidential candidacy would threaten its nonprofit status,&#8221; the outlet reported. Experts dispute that excuse, per the WFB, noting that so long as the organization applied &#8220;neutral criteria&#8221; that &#8220;its non-profit status would not be threatened.
Tchen wasn&#8217;t asked about Time&#8217;s Up&#8217;s decision on MSNBC, but did show strong support for Biden.
&#8220;Biden has called for full transparency, he&#8217;s called for records to come out—that&#8217;s what needs to happen every time these issues come up, and I would suggest that it needs to happen with other candidates who are running for president,&#8221; Tchen said in an interview Friday.
Biden&#8217;s behavior is difficult to label as &#8220;transparent.&#8221; The candidate, Free Beacon notes, did at least eighteen interviews before being asked a single question about Reade&#8217;s claims and, until last Friday, refused to address the subject directly. The campaign referred any reporters raising questions about Reade&#8217;s allegations to a statement made earlier in April by Biden&#8217;s campaign director.
Tchen also insisted that the media did not employ a double standard when it declined to pursue the Reade&#8217;s allegations against Biden after doggedly pursuing every lead alleging sexual misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. She said, instead, that the media has done its job investigating claims of sexual assault, and giving women a &#8220;forum&#8221; to raise their allegations.
&#8220;I think the media, throughout the movement for the last two years, I have to say, investigative journalism has done an incredible job in digging into claims and believing women and giving them at least a form in which their allegations can be heard and listened to and investigated,&#8221; she said.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Times Up

Time’s Up Declined To Assist Biden Accuser Tara Reade, CEO Praised Biden Instead

2020 Election

MeToo

Sexual Assault

Sexual Harassment

Attorney General William Barr had harsh words for the Obama administration and its Department of Justice in an interview with Fox News&#8217; Laura Ingraham, warning that there was &#8220;no basis&#8221; for opening a probe into whether the Trump presidential campaign and the Trump transition team improperly collaborated with Russian officials to impact the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
Barr even went so far as to suggest that there was something more sinister behind the probe.
“My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,&#8221; he told Ingraham. &#8220;And if people broke the law, and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted.&#8221;
Last week, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his own report on the Obama administration&#8217;s &#8220;Crossfire Hurricane&#8221; investigation into Trump campaign-Russia connections, and revealed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) program rife with abuse of power, with warrants issued on faulty evidence and inaccuracies.
This week, Barr told Fox that concerns about the &#8220;Crossfire Hurricane&#8221; investigation go even deeper than requests made to execute surveillance on Trump campaign officials.
&#8220;I think the president has every right to be frustrated because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history,” he said. “Without any basis, they started this investigation of his campaign and even more concerning actually is what happened after the campaign, a whole pattern of events while he was president.”
Barr even went so far as to suggest that the Obama administration&#8217;s investigation was designed to &#8220;sabotage&#8221; President Donald Trump&#8217;s tenure before he even took office.
In 2019, the Justice Department charged John Durham with compiling a report on how the &#8220;Crossfire Hurricane&#8221; investigation came together. &#8220;The review upgraded into a criminal investigation in the fall,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-says-evidence-from-durham-investigation-is-far-more-troubling-than-mistakes-or-sloppiness">Washington Examiner</a> adds, &#8220;giving the prosecutor the power to impanel a grand jury and hand down indictments. The attorney general told Durham to focus just as much on the time period after the 2016 election as before it.&#8221;
Barr says that Durham&#8217;s investigation is likely to conclude soon &#8212; but that it may not produce an official report, at least not as a primary product. Instead, Barr seems to believe Durham&#8217;s own probe will produce indictments.
&#8220;I think a report may be and probably will be a byproduct of his activity but his primary focus isn’t to prepare a report. He is looking to bring to justice people who were engaged in abuses if he can show that they were criminal violations and that’s what the focus is on,” Barr said.
“And as you know, being a lawyer you yourself,&#8221; Barr added, referring to Ingraham&#8217;s background, &#8220;building these cases — especially the kinds of sprawling case we have between us that went on for two or three years here — it takes some time — it takes some time to build the case. So, he’s diligently pursuing it.&#8221;
That, of course, suggests that Durham&#8217;s evidence is compelling, to say the least.

US-HEALTH-VIRUS-BRIEFING

William Barr: ‘No Basis’ For Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, Durham Report Will Produce Indictments

Russia

Former FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, an Obama administration official, stormed off MSNBC on Thursday during a segment on how the federal government should be responding to the coronavirus pandemic, declaring that he did not &#8220;have time to listen to bulls**t people.&#8221;
Former Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Andy Slavitt argued that the federal government needed to be more involved in responding to the outbreak while Fugate argued that state and local governments needed to take the lead.
&#8220;The myth of a single person in charge taking control and running this is a myth,&#8221; Fugate said. &#8220;This is going to be dealt with on the frontlines at local and state levels, and each state is going to be addressing this unique to their systems.&#8221;
&#8220;But I&#8217;ve always believed the best way the federal government can support our governors is to get out of their way, get them funding, use CDC to give guidance,&#8221; Fugate continued. &#8220;As we&#8217;re running out of stuff, I&#8217;m asking the question, why are we not looking at idle capabilities now and governors go contract for that resource? Why wait for the federal government? If they will go to 100% on protective measures and reimburse them, how much more can states do so we can focus the few federal resources we have on the hardest hit areas.&#8221;
&#8220;So with all due respect to your other guest, there&#8217;s not a governor in the country that&#8217;s waiting for the federal government right now,&#8221; Slavitt said, later adding, &#8220;So, what your other guest is suggesting here is not helpful. We need a great partnership between the federal and state government.&#8221;
&#8220;I don’t have time to listen to bullsh** people,&#8221; Fugate responded.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Obama-era FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate storms off MSNBC over debate on how the government should respond to the coronavirus: &quot;I don&#39;t have time to listen to bulls**t people.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/C7xu1VOfdr">pic.twitter.com/C7xu1VOfdr</a>
&mdash; (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1240804404803989504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>KATY TUR: Joining me former FEMA administrator Craig Fugate and acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Andy Slavitt. Gentlemen, thank you, so we&#8217;re hearing about FEMA taking the lead on this, Craig. What does that mean?
CRAIG FUGATE: Well, they&#8217;re not taking the lead on it. That’s going to be Health and Human Service that will the lead on the disease. What FEMA is going to be doing is supporting health and human services and the governors as we start getting more and more requests for assistance, so FEMA&#8217;s job will be coordinating on behalf of the president, federal resources in support of our lead federal agency this, for Health and Human Services as well as supporting the governors as we see these outbreaks in all of our states.
TUR: Alright, so when they start to try and coordinate the response federally and what we&#8217;re seeing is just a frantic lack of personal protective equipment. We just got this word from the CDC saying, hey, listen, if you&#8217;re out of face masks, use a bandanna or a scarf. I mean Andy, that is &#8212; that is astonishing to think that here in the united States, this first world with all of our advanced, all of our advances, all of our money, all of our resources, that here in this country, doctors and nurses are being told to tie a scarf around their face.
ANDY SLAVITT: Well, we owe them more than that. These folks, the frontline doctors and nurses and first responders, they&#8217;re going to be on the frontline for quite some time. It&#8217;s not going to be measured in days or weeks. It’s going to be measured in months and we’re already sending them into battle without the things that they need to protect us and themselves and that&#8217;s not right and that&#8217;s what happens when there&#8217;s a lack of preparation. But, you know, we can&#8217;t navigate from where we wish we were. We have to navigate from where we are and so we are going to have to do some dramatic things that so far the President has been unwilling to do. Number one, he seems to be backtracking from using the Defense Production Act, which would allow him to start making these masks in large numbers which could be done in a very short time and getting them out to people. He has to face the pressure to do that. It doesn’t make sense. If he wants to be a wartime general, he has got to arm his troops and he says he’s a wartime general. He’s got to do that. The second thing, I called for this yesterday, we need to pass a $5,000 a month payment for every frontline health care worker in the country so they can afford to take care of their family, they can afford child care, they can afford all of the things they need. We need to start thinking of them the same way as veterans and people in the military. They&#8217;re a protected class and we owe them a great deal.
TUR: Why don&#8217;t you think we are mobilizing to the extent that&#8217;s needed on a federal level? Why is the President not using all of those levers, Andy?
SLAVITT: Yeah, I think frankly &#8212; yeah, I think frankly, he doesn&#8217;t have the command and control structure in that he needs. He doesn&#8217;t have the Ron Klain. If I were him, I would call up General Dunford, I would call up General Mattis, and say I want you to come back and I want you to run this effort. You know, it’s not &#8212; it&#8217;s not very comforting to hear that HHS runs it but FEMA is helping them. That&#8217;s going to create more cooks in the kitchen. You need a very streamlined command and control structure here with one person in charge who has been in battle, commanded hundreds of thousands of people, who moved both systems and units and personnel and operations, like tented hospitals, across the country, very, very quickly and we don&#8217;t have that person in place. So I would love for President Trump to be the wartime general. As someone who&#8217;s been a critic of President Trump&#8217;s in the past, I am 100% on his side in solving this problem. But he has got to do the things he claims he wants to do.
TUR: I&#8217;m just still confused about why we are so behind in testing and this was a Reuters report out of South Korea. Craig, I’m going to give this to you. “South Korea’s swift actions stands in stark contrast to what has transpired in the United States….the Koreans have tested well over 290,000 people and classified over 8,000 infections. New cases are falling off: 93 reported Wednesday down from a daily peak of 909 two weeks earlier.” The [U.S.], whose first case was detected the same day as South Korea&#8217;s is not even close to meeting demands. About 60,000 tests have been run by public hand private labs in a country of 330 million, federal officials said Tuesday.” So, not to be too backward looking here, but if you don&#8217;t have a handle on the tests, you don&#8217;t have a handle on the infection or how to contain the infection, why is this &#8212; why is this so delayed and how can we start expediting it?
FUGATE: I think we were using hope as a strategy. It wasn&#8217;t going to be this bad, we could ease into it. We had a lot of capacity. The alarms were going off early. I think we’re slow to this. Now, we’re playing catch-up and that’s the worst position to be in. And the whole thing about having a single person in charge? I&#8217;m going to call B.S. on it. I strongly disagree that comes as a single point of failure. We actually have 50 people that are the lead and that&#8217;s the state governors and their public health departments. The biggest thing right now the federal government can do is get them money because there&#8217;s not enough federal resources to do what needs to be done. Governors need to be in power to take dramatic action to protect lives, make sure they’re doing everything to maximize their resources, start up production, and get things moving. If we wait for the federal government, we&#8217;re too late.
TUR: Well, let me ask you this. There are governors ramping things up across the country but taking different steps than other governors. This is a virus not respecting state lines. How can you have a coordinate the response if you don&#8217;t have it coordinated from the very top?
FUGATE: The myth of a single person in charge taking control and running this is a myth. This is going to be dealt with on the frontlines at local and state levels, and each state is going to be addressing this unique to their systems. There will be some variation and it gives us resiliency cause there are different ways to approach this. Hopefully they&#8217;re sharing information. But I&#8217;ve always believed the best way the federal government can support our governors is to get out of their way, get them funding, use CDC to give guidance. As we&#8217;re running out of stuff, I&#8217;m asking the question, why are we not looking at idle capabilities now and governors go contract for that resource? Why wait for the federal government? If they will go to 100% on protective measures and reimburse them, how much more can states do so we can focus the few federal resources we have on the hardest hit areas.
TUR: I just got news from Mayor de Blasio here in New York and there&#8217;s been a dramatic increase in the number of cases here in New York City: 3,615 positive cases of COVID and 22 fatalities. Currently, to spread that out, there are 980 cases in Queens, 976 in Manhattan, 1,030 in Brooklyn, and 436 in the Bronx, 165 in Staten Island. I&#8217;m struck, Andy, by how quickly this escalated. Just last week we were considering whether or not some people in this company would go to Florida to cover the primary. That was on, you know, Wednesday. On Thursday that was off the table. Friday all travel seems &#8212; was off the table. And that&#8217;s just mirroring what&#8217;s been happening across the country. At first lockdowns weren&#8217;t even considered and now we&#8217;re seeing lockdowns around the country. What we saw in China seemed so draconian and now people are wondering why we aren&#8217;t doing these fever tests for people walking into buildings? Why aren&#8217;t we going out and aggressively trying to find those who might be spreading symptoms and separating them from the population?
SLAVITT: Right. So, it&#8217;s a hard thing for people to grasp, but the number of cases we have right now and even those tragic figures you just read are going to seem minuscule in a week. The number of cases we have will double every three days. Right now it&#8217;s exceeding that and we have a large number of cases that are untested still. So with all due respect to your other guest, there&#8217;s not a governor in the country that&#8217;s waiting for the federal government right now. They are all acting. What they need is coordination because we have believe it or not we have masks, we have a lot of these things. Guess where they are? They&#8217;re sitting in the supply chain, people are profiteering off of them or they&#8217;re going to places where people are hoarding them. Now, that happens in a crisis. It&#8217;s only because &#8212; it’s only by someone looking through the entire system, and seeing where those needs are, that you can say, stop hoarding them in Texas. We need them in New York right now while we build manufacturing capability and put them in Texas. So, what your other guest is suggesting here is not helpful. We need a great partnership between the federal and state government.
FUGATE: I don’t have time to listen to bullsh** people.
TUR: Ah, Craig, you want to sit down and respond to this? I guess Craig has left. Andy, he doesn&#8217;t agree with you at all.
SLAVITT: I guess not. But look, these are trying times and everyone is trying their best, and I know Craig is &#8212; I don&#8217;t know Craig personally, but I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;s working as hard and trying his best. Everybody is. These are unprecedented times. So understandable that he&#8217;s frustrated.
TUR: Can we see if we can get Craig back? I&#8217;d just like him to respond. I never like to leave a conversation like that. Andy I&#8217;m going to say goodbye to you in the meantime. Thank you very much for joining us.</blockquote>

President Barack Obama Makes Statement On Hurricane Matthew

Obama’s Top FEMA Official Storms Off MSNBC: ‘I Don’t Have Time’ For ‘Bulls**t People’

Coronavirus

FEMA

MSNBC

A former adviser to President Obama says the federal government should give $1,000 to every American adult and $500 to every child.
There are 320 million people in the U.S., of which about 75 million are children. That means the one-time payments would cost more than $282 billion.
Jason Furman, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the 2008 financial crisis under Obama, told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/top-obama-economist-coronavirus-potentially-more-serious-2008-crash-n1157301">NBC News</a> that the coronavirus now spreading across the U.S. could have a more serious financial impact than the 2008 crash.
“In this case, everyone is cutting their spending and lots of people, even if they don’t lose their jobs, will lose time at work, hours, tips, potentially a large blow to their income,” Furman said.
“The financial crisis occurred because the underpinning of the economy was bad, they say, but this is a temporary situation and eventually things will go back to normal,” said Furman, currently a professor at Harvard University.
Furman said that if the virus slows in two months — as it is doing now in China — the U.S. economy could survive. But he said that experts say “it is not realistic to expect it to go away in two months, and that if it did, it could come back even more virulently again in the flu season next year.”
State governments are ordering the closure of businesses like restaurants and bars and mandating that no gatherings more than 50 or 100 people be allowed, which will have a devastating effect on the economy. If businesses are forced to shut down for months, the unemployment rate will surely rise.
“If you look across the United States and across other countries, the unemployment rate can go up very quickly, but it can’t come back down very quickly. It never has. A business whose balance sheet is in tatters after nine months without revenues might go bankrupt, it might go out of business, or it won’t be in position to hire people back immediately even if demand returns,” Furman said.
The federal government, he said, will have to pay one way or the other.
“You should spend as much as you can in a targeted way on things like unemployment insurance, nutritional assistance, paid leave, and help for states,” Furman said.
Even if that happens, Furman said then “you’ve maxed out on health and maxed out on targeted assistance, you have two problems: One is millions, or tens of millions, of households are going to be hurting from lower incomes, lost jobs, or time off work,” he said.
“Second, just from a macroeconomic perspective, the amount of stimulus you want for the economy under that scenario is still smaller than what you need,” he added. “The only way to reach everyone you need and get to the size you need is with some broad-based tax transfer.”
In all, Furman said the federal government could need to spend about $700 billion to avert another economic crisis in the U.S.
Stocks fell sharply again on Monday, with the S&amp;P 500 dropping 11.4% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 2,700 points, or 11.7%. The Nasdaq Composite traded 11.2% lower.

$100 bills background

Ex-Obama Adviser Says Government Should Give Every American $1,000 To Stem Coronavirus Effects On Economy

Authorities have reportedly opened an investigation into the death of Obama-era Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney, who was was found dead in his California home on Friday.
&#8220;On February 21, 2020 at approximately 1012 hours, deputies and detectives responded to the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth to the report of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound,&#8221; the Amador County Sheriff&#8217;s Office said in a statement. &#8220;Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time.&#8221;
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/dhs-whistleblower-philip-haney-found-dead-police-say">reported</a>:
<blockquote>He was an outspoken <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/268282-dhs-ordered-me-to-scrub-records-of-muslims-with-terror" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">critic</a> of the Obama administration, specifically its handling of radical Jihadist elements and Islamic terrorism.
Haney, who retired in 2015, studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before becoming a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 as a Customs &amp; Border Protection (CBP) agriculture officer.
After serving as an armed CBP officer, he was promoted to its Advanced Targeting Team. He specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement.</blockquote>
Fox News contributor Sarah Carter responded by suggesting that Haney had been murdered, &#8220;Somebody I deeply respected and considered a friend Phil Haney – a DHS whistleblower during the Obama Admin was apparently killed yesterday in Southern California. Pray for his family and pray they find the person who murdered him. Still trying to get confirmation on details.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Somebody I deeply respected and considered a friend Phil Haney &#8211; a DHS whistleblower during the Obama Admin was apparently killed yesterday in Southern California. Pray for his family and pray they find the person who murdered him. Still trying to get confirmation on details
&mdash; Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1231249584925630464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Haney was known for blowing the whistle on the Obama administration, claiming that the administration shut down a program that could have prevented Islamic terrorist attacks that were carried out on U.S. soil.
In 2015, Haney told then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly that his work could have prevented the 2015 Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
“The network of individuals that we work with were tied to a large group called Tablighi Jamaat, part of a larger group called Deobandi,&#8221; Haney said. &#8220;We had thousands of organizations or individuals in the database and we tracked them as they moved in and out of the United States on the visa waiver program. That’s what first brought the group to our attention.&#8221;
&#8220;And as we developed the case and started putting the pieces in place, we gain more and more evidence of their activities,&#8221; Haney continued, adding that the mosque of one of the terrorists behind the attack was allegedly connected to the organization that he was investigating.
Haney told Kelly that had the Obama administration not shut down the investigation, which was years in the making, would have likely flagged the terrorists who carried out the attack.
<iframe title="Whistleblower Says He Could Have Prevented CA Attack If Gov&#039;t Didn&#039;t Cut Funding" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bClwr4osp50?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In 2016, following the Islamic terrorist attack on the Orlando Pulse nightclub, which at the time was the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, Haney told Fox News&#8217; Sean Hannity that he believed that the Obama administration&#8217;s decision to shut down his investigation likely prevented DHS from stopping the terrorist attack.
<iframe title="DHS whistleblower speaks out about jihad in America" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ea6pt13Jp5Q?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Philip Haney

Homeland Security Whistleblower From Obama Era Found Dead

Suicide

Terrorism

whistleblower

After the unveiling of President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan in the Middle East, numerous Senate Democrats took time out of their busy schedule to lecture him about Middle East politics. <a href="https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Van%20Hollen%20Letter%20MidEast%20Peace%20Plan.pdf">The letter they wrote</a> is historically ignorant and dangerous, which is compounded by the fact that it was signed by three leading current presidential candidates; Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
“Dear President Trump,” the letter begins, “We write to express our profound concern regarding your decision to release a one-sided Israeli-Palestinian plan forged without any Palestinian involvement or support.”
Right off the bat, Senate Democrats ignore the fact that the Palestinians have been invited to the negotiations on numerous occasions. The most prominent one was June 2019, when there was a U.S.-led peace conference in Bahrain that was boycotted by the Palestinians. They thought that a boycott would stop the conference, but Jared Kushner, the point-man for the Trump administration in this process, pushed forward.
Trump&#8217;s peace plan would ultimately give the Palestinians a state, as well as funds to help get that state up and running. The 1947 U.N. partition plan, which the Arab world outright rejected in choosing instead to declare all-out war on the nascent Jewish state, did not include $50 billion. In fact, the world mostly stood by and watched while the Jewish state was attacked from every direction.
Senate Democrats&#8217; letter espouses significant falsehoods, claiming that this plan “paves the way for full or partial Israeli annexation of the West Bank.” But there has never been much support for a call to fully annex Judea and Samaria, as that would include giving citizenship to millions of Palestinian-Arabs — many of whom call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Senate Democrats also, un-ironically, claim that this plan “undermine[s] existing U.S. policy regarding the unilateral annexation of Crimea, eastern Ukraine.” In case the Democrats forgot, Russia invaded Crimea when the Obama administration withheld crucial military aid to the Ukranians. That was not a defensive war; it was an attack by Russia. Comparing that act with Israel winning territory in the 1967 Six-Day War, which was a defensive war, is patently insane. Additionally, Russia immediately annexed Crimea, whereas Israel limited its annexation to the city of Jerusalem — the eternal capital of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hill-the-jewish-nation">Jewish nation</a>. Contrast that to 1948, when Jordan took over that same territory, annexed it, and left the Palestinian people in refugee camps to linger and suffer until Israel militarily defeated Jordan in 1967&#8217;s defensive conflict.
Senate Democrats also conveniently ignore the last 73 years of history when they claim that “this proposal violates the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.” The Palestinians could have asserted their right to self-determination any time from 1947 through today. They can declare a state and nobody will mind. In fact, many Israelis would welcome it. In 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to Yasser Arafat the Gaza Strip, 95% of the West Bank, 5% of Israel, half of Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount), and Israeli citizenship for 50,000 Palestinians. Arafat walked away without a counteroffer and instead <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-vox-lies-about-israel-again">launched the Second Intifada</a>. Democrats ignore that the Palestinians could have exercised their “right to self-determination.” Instead, they are choosing to stay as they are.
The Democrats complain about the proposed borders, referring to it as a “disconnected series of Palestinian islets.&#8221; They claim that this “would betray the vision of a sovereign Palestinian state.” Again, Palestinians could have had a say in this process. They chose not to. Additionally, the only “vision” that the Palestinians have of a Palestinian state is one that encompasses all of Israel and does not include any Jews.
The Democrats then have the audacity to accuse President Trump of interfering in the upcoming Israeli election, claiming that the timing “raises disturbing questions about [Trump&#8217;s] intention to intervene in the Israeli election process.” This accusation is audacious for multiple reasons. First, the Democratic Party at-large is currently in the middle of an impeachment of President Trump that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-impeachment-manager-admits-that-impeachment-is-about-2020-election">Democrats themselves claim</a> is intended to prevent him from winning re-election. Second, this is the third Israeli election in the last year, so this wouldn’t affect much of anything. Third, Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s chief political rival, endorsed this plan and <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/gantz-says-hell-bring-trump-peace-plan-before-knesset-for-vote-next-week/">is bringing it up for a parliamentary vote</a>. Finally, it is ironic that Senate Democrats are accusing Trump of interfering with Israeli elections when <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported">Obama did that</a> in 2015 — and nobody cared.
Democrats continue their letter with their old and tiresome “President Trump isn’t a normal president” routine. “Your administration has already reversed decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” it reads. “Previous presidents of both parties successfully maintained the respect of both Israelis and Palestinians for the United States’ role as a credible player in difficult negotiations.” But policies that haven’t worked for 50 years should be changed. Democrats think that if they try the same thing over and over — that &#8220;thing&#8221; being caving to terrorists — there will be different results. That is the definition of insanity. Trump’s only change from the standard “two-state solution” is that it recognizes the fact that Israel is the only actor that actually wants peace.
The Democrats are making the same mistakes with the Palestinians that they did with the Iranians: The assumption that everyone wants the same thing. They do not. Palestinian leadership wants to destroy Israel. Democrats either don’t know that, or simply don’t care.
 
Moshe Hill is a political analyst and a Chovevei Zion Fellow. His work can be found on <a href="https://www.ahillwithaview.com">aHillwithaView.com</a>, <a href="https://facebook.com/aHillwithaView">facebook.com/aHillwithaView</a>, and on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TheMoHill">@TheMoHill</a>.

President Trump Meets With Israeli PM Netanyahu At The White House

HILL: Senate Democrats’ Response To Trump’s Peace Plan Is Historically Ignorant

Amy Klobuchar

Benjamin Netanyahu

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Elizabeth Warren

Foreign Policy

Israel

Jared Kushner

Middle East

In response to The New York Times reporting on the leaked manuscript from former National Security Advisor John Bolton&#8217;s upcoming book about his time working for President Trump, Bolton&#8217;s former chief of staff wrote a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ambassador-bolton-withdraw-your-book-fred-fleitz">scathing op-ed for Fox News</a> that denounced the book for setting a &#8220;dangerous precedent&#8221; while demanding he withdraw it from publication until after the 2020 election.
&#8220;It was crushing to read weekend press reports that my friend and former boss John Bolton plans to publish a tell-all book on his time as President Trump’s National Security Advisor,&#8221; Fred Fleitz begins in the lengthy op-ed. &#8220;The book reportedly will be published in March 2020. Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers, I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately.&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/critics-hammer-bolton-after-book-pre-order-goes-live-following-leaked-manuscript-published-by-nyt">reported</a> by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra on Sunday, the Times wrote that Bolton alleges in his book that President Trump told him to freeze the $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until officials agreed to investigate Joe Biden&#8217;s corruption and 2016 election meddling.
Though Fleitz commends John Bolton for his service after knowing him for 30 years, praising his work in the State Department and in the Trump administration, he ultimately feels that Bolton&#8217;s book undermines executive privilege and will ultimately discourage future presidents from discussing important matters of foreign policy in confidence.
&#8220;Presidents must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them,&#8221; Fleitz says in the op-ed. &#8220;A book by a former national security advisor ahead of a president’s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters.&#8221;
&#8220;This is why executive privilege exists: To allow the president and other senior officials to keep certain communications and internal deliberations private if disclosing them would disrupt the functions or decision-making processes of the executive branch,&#8221; he continues.
Not only does Fleitz slam Bolton for seeking to publish the book in the first place, he also takes issue with Bolton&#8217;s decision to submit it for review with the National Security Council (NSC) despite knowing how prone the agency is for leaks.
&#8220;It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process,&#8221; he argues. &#8220;Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain. If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020,  I don’t understand the need for a former national security advisor to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country.&#8221;
Fleitz concludes his op-ed by referencing former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who chose to publish his book “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War&#8221; that was critical of the Obama administration only after the 2012 election. In fact, Gates waited until January of 2014 to publish it.
&#8220;Gates established a principled precedent on how senior advisers to presidents should write about their experiences,&#8221; concludes Fleitz. &#8220;Given Ambassador Bolton’s long and distinguished record of government service, I believe it is vital that he follow this precedent.&#8221;

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton Delivers Keynote Address At CSIS Forum

John Bolton’s Former Chief Of Staff Slams Him: ‘Withdraw Your Book,’ ‘Sets A Dangerous Precedent’

2016 election

Impeachment

John Bolton

New York Times

Robert Gates

State Department

Fox News host Laura Ingraham revealed emails on Wednesday night that connected the alleged Ukrainian whistleblower with a 2016 meeting that the Obama administration held with Ukrainian officials about corruption involving Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The emails also discussed whether the role that 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden&#8217;s son, Hunter Biden, had with the company could complicate any investigation.
&#8220;The chain centers on a request from New York Times reporter Ken Vogel,&#8221; Ingraham began. &#8220;[In] May of 2019, Vogel sends an email to State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama-era meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors. In his request, Vogel mentions a name who some have reported is the whistleblower. We have not yet confirmed this name, so we are blacking it out for here.&#8221;
Ingraham read the email from Vogel, which stated:
<blockquote>We are going to report that State Department official Elizabeth Zentos attended a meeting on the White House on January 19th, 2016, with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials. The subjects discussed included efforts within the United States government to support prosecutions in the Ukraine and United Kingdom of Burisma holdings and concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.</blockquote>
&#8220;On May 1st, State Department official Kate Schilling forwarded Vogel’s email to her colleagues Elizabeth Zentos and George Kent Remember him? He was one of the House Democrats all-star impeachment witnesses,&#8221; Ingraham said. &#8220;According to Schilling’s email, Kent has previously been a source for Vogel — I wonder how many times. Follow up emails reveal the conversation ending on May 3rd when the State Department eventually declined to comment.&#8221;
Ingraham said that her show confirmed the meeting by looking through the archives of the Obama White House visitor logs, which she said showed that the alleged whistleblower &#8220;checked in numerous Ukrainian officials into the White House on January 19th 2016, the day Vogel claimed there was a meeting on the Burisma and Biden.&#8221;
&#8220;Also at the meeting were Ukraine’s lead anti-corruption prosecutor and the head of the anti-corruption bureau, both of whom were there to discuss the complications of Hunter Biden’s sweetheart gig,&#8221; Ingraham continued. &#8220;So what happened to that New York Times story about the 2016 meeting? Pretty hot, don&#8217;t you think? It was never published, we asked Ken Vogel, the reporter, why nothing ever came of it but he didn’t respond.&#8221;
Ingraham then noted the importance of the timeline of events with respect to The New York Times&#8217; looking into the meeting in May 2019.
&#8220;The timing of their request and the subsequent squashing of the story are very interesting. Biden announced his candidacy on April 25th, 2019,&#8221; Ingraham said. &#8220;The exchanges we laid out here occur the following week. Now we have some questions. Number one, why wasn’t the whistleblower concerned about Joe Biden overseeing Ukraine policy while his son was cashing in? Was it only troubling that Trump himself tried to get this thing investigated? Number two, why didn’t this story ever run? Did Biden’s team manage to put it down, fearing blowback from his son Hunter’s dirty dealings?&#8221;
It&#8217;s also worth noting that several weeks after the Obama White House met with Ukrainian officials in January 2016 to discuss Burisma corruption and Hunter Biden, then-Vice President Joe Biden <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived">pressured</a> Ukraine into firing its prosecutor, who was investigating corruption at the company.
WATCH:
<iframe title="Laura Ingraham" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i7s91dQodwc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Obama Biden

Laura Ingraham Reveals Emails Tying Alleged Whistleblower To Obama WH Meeting On Burisma Corruption, Hunter Biden

Burisma

Hunter Biden

Laura Ingraham

In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush let a multinational land invasion of Iraq. At the time, ethnically diverse Iraq — one of the sundry Middle East states haphazardly crafted by clueless Europeans in the World War I-era Sykes-Picot Agreement — was run by thuggish Ba&#8217;athist strongman Saddam Hussein. Within weeks, Baghdad was held by U.S.-aligned forces. Less than a year later, Hussein was captured.
But that was deemed woefully insufficient by Bush-era foreign policy hands. Operating under the intellectually hubristic and universal values-ridden guise of a White House &#8220;<a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/freedomagenda/">Freedom Agenda</a>,&#8221; Bush-era foreign policy was not content to engage in Israel Defense Forces-style one-off <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/a-holistic-approach-to-the-middle-east-and-our-national-security/">&#8220;strike and maneuver&#8221;</a> tactical hits against threatening jihadist outfits. Rather, the Bush administration, in tandem with its concurrent nation-building project in the third-world sharia backwater hellhole of Afghanistan, sought a more enduring physical presence in order to help birth a Madisonian republic in the war-torn, ethnically fractious Iraqi desert.
The rest — with the exception of an Obama-era full troop withdrawal between the end of 2011 and our troops&#8217; return in 2014 to fight the ascendant Islamic State Sunni death cult — is, as they say, history. In the year 2020, the U.S. retains a substantial physical military presence in Iraq.
Following the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-just-and-proper-strike-of-mastermind-iranian-jihadist-qassem-soleimani">just and proper strike</a> last week of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, it is now time for our U.S. troops in Iraq to <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/07/offing-soleimani-gives-trump-an-excellent-chance-to-exit-iraq/">come home</a>.
There is simply no longer any compelling strategic reason for the U.S. to retain a troop presence in Iraq, which is increasingly dominated by pro-Iran Shi&#8217;ite militias whose fealty is to no one other than the Quds Force and its mullah overlords. The day has long passed where true American influence in Iraq has been anything other than symbolic; the nation is, at this point, hardly distinguishable from its <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bryen-irans-imperial-overreach">&#8220;Shi&#8217;ite Crescent&#8221;</a> fellow nations of Syria and Lebanon in its status as an Iranian satrapy. It was only a matter of days ago when Iraqi security officials seemed, at best, ambivalent about Soleimani loyalist Shi&#8217;ite radicals storming the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
The true threat in the region to the United States, as it <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bryen-the-dispatch-of-soleimani-and-the-escalation-of-the-war">has been ever since</a> the Islamic Revolution of 1979, is the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-iranian-revolution-forty-years-old-stand-josh-hammer">inherently jihadist</a> regime in Tehran. Non-state Sunni jihadist actors, no matter the alphabet soup under which they organize, utterly pale in comparison. The threat of Sunni Islamist infiltration can largely be stanched by severely limiting entry visas from problematic Islamic nations, massively ramping up immigration <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-border-wall-nice-interior-enforcement-nicer-josh-hammer">interior enforcement</a>, and engaging in occasional ad hoc drone strikes based from the U.S.&#8217;s already-manifold bases across the region. The strike that killed Soleimani, after all, was launched from Al Udeid Air Base in (deeply problematic <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-terror-funding-qatar-once-again-proves-it-is-not-americas-friend">&#8220;ally&#8221;</a>) Qatar.
The issue with leaving large-scale numbers of U.S. military assets, from a hardened realist perspective, is that it is <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/death-iranian-gen-soleimani-long-overdue-justice/">actually counterproductive</a> to our over-arching goal of deterring the Iranian menace. As Daniel Horowitz quite <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/death-iranian-gen-soleimani-long-overdue-justice/">presciently warned</a> even before last night&#8217;s missile launches from Iran into Iraq, &#8220;[c]ontinuing to leave so many assets in Iraq itself will just make us vulnerable to Iran’s attacks and counterattacks in the future.&#8221; And a higher-level goal such as deterring Iran necessarily takes hierarchical primacy over a tactic such as deploying troops to Iraq. As famed Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/19042/should-israel-invade-gaza">once said</a>: First decide on one’s policy, then one’s strategy, and only then one’s tactics.
In taking out Soleimani, the Ayatollah Khameini&#8217;s most trusted servant, the Trump administration clearly communicated to the Tehran mullocracy that America will always zealously guard and defend our national interests, as we carefully demarcate and define them. We no longer need to be involved in the dreadful and feckless task of nation-building. As Lee Smith compellingly <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/07/offing-soleimani-gives-trump-an-excellent-chance-to-exit-iraq/">writes</a> today at the New York Post, &#8220;Trump carved out his own exit strategy&#8221; via the Soleimani strike.
Let&#8217;s bring our troops in Iraq home. It will only help, not hinder, our continued efforts to defiantly stand athwart Iran&#8217;s aspirational regional hegemony.

US troops in tank in Baghdad

HAMMER: The Time Is Right For Our Troops In Iraq To Come Home

Al Qaeda

George W. Bush

Iran

Iraq

Iraq War

Islamic State (ISIS)

Qassem Soleimani

This week, President Donald Trump launched a global round of teeth gnashing when he ordered the killing of the greatest terrorist leader in the modern Middle East, Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was unquestionably responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq and thousands of others throughout the Middle East — mostly Muslim. His global terror network ran from South America to Europe to Africa to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Soleimani was an unparalleled organizer and a pitiless murderer. His death was richly earned.
But for many in the media and on the domestic and international left, Trump&#8217;s action was precipitously &#8220;provocative.&#8221; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Soleimani&#8217;s killing — which came directly after a Soleimani-approved terror assault on America&#8217;s embassy in Baghdad and amidst reported further plans for escalated terror against American targets — &#8220;disproportionate.&#8221; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested that Trump, not the Iranians, had &#8220;escalated&#8221; the situation. Former Vice President Joe Biden said that Trump had &#8220;just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.&#8221;
This reaction has been magnified by the media, many of whom have been speculating about the possibility of all-out war between the United States and Iran. Think pieces have been written about whether the United States will reactivate the draft (spoiler alert: No, we won&#8217;t). Musings have filled the newspapers about the supposed conflagration prompted not by Iranian evil but by Trumpian reactivity.
All of this smacks less of legitimate concern about what comes next than it does of sheer panic that Trump has overturned a decade of American and European appeasement of the Iranian regime. Ben Rhodes, former President Obama&#8217;s deputy national security adviser, architect of the Iran deal and an overt liar who told the American public that Iran was on its way to moderation if only the United States would loosen economic restrictions on the terror state, has placed blame for volatility squarely before Trump. Susan Rice, Obama&#8217;s national security adviser during the Iran deal and another overt liar who told the American public that Islamic terror against our Benghazi embassy was rooted in anger over a YouTube video, soberly informed Americans that &#8220;Americans would be wise to brace for war.&#8221; Biden suggested that in throwing out the Iran deal, Trump had paved the way for war — and, oh, by the way, the Iran deal was &#8220;airtight.&#8221;
This is a deliberate misreading of history designed to absolve the Obama administration of its Iran policy debacle. The administration pursued a policy of strengthening Iran economically — and did so while openly acknowledging that Iran would use that newly gained economic strength to pursue terrorism and ballistic missile testing. In speaking of the sanctions relief given to Iran, then-Secretary of State John Kerry explained in January 2016, &#8220;I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.&#8221;
That&#8217;s precisely what happened. In March 2016, then-U.S. Central Command nominee Army Gen. Joseph Votel said that Iran had become &#8220;more aggressive&#8221; since the advent of the nuclear deal. Indeed, Iran has built up Hezbollah in Lebanon, propped up Bashar Assad in Syria, increased its presence in Iraq and bolstered its war in Yemen. In the past few months, Iran and its proxies have attacked shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi oil facilities, an American drone and an American embassy, among other targets. All of this occurred while the Trump administration did little or nothing in response.
Then Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani. Suddenly, we have been informed by dishonest Democrats and their media allies, Iran has gone rogue.
Nonsense. Iran has been rogue for decades. The Iran deal was simply an attempt to whistle past the graveyard with the terror regime — to pay it off long enough so that President Barack Obama could declare the problem handled. This was, after all, the Obama strategy in Crimea and Syria: Declare a red line; run away from it; pretend that pusillanimous inaction is bravery and deterrence provocation.
Trump thought differently. Now Iran has come face to face with the prospect that actions have consequences — and those consequences don&#8217;t involve pallets of cash being shipped over to fund terror organizations that span the globe.

John Kerry meets Javad Zarif

SHAPIRO: Trump’s Iran Policy Isn’t the Problem. Barack Obama’s Was.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Nuclear Weapons

Trump Administration

The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under Barack Obama appeared on &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; Sunday to discuss President Trump&#8217;s decision to take out Iran&#8217;s top military leader, Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, who the Pentagon says was &#8220;actively developing plans&#8221; for more attacks on Americans.
During the interview, former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson torpedoed the Democrats&#8217; talking point about Trump supposedly needing congressional approval to order the strike on Soleimani. Whether or not you agree with the Trump administration&#8217;s description of Soleimani as a terrorist,&#8221; Johnson explained, the president had &#8220;ample domestic legal authority to take him out without additional congressional authorization.&#8221;
&#8220;If you believe everything our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without additional congressional authorization,&#8221; Johnson told &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; host Chuck Todd Sunday, as reported by <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/01/05/obamas-dhs-secretary-debunked-dems-claim-congress-needed-to-approve-soleimanis-killing-n2558967">Town Hall</a> (video below). &#8220;Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This morning, Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson debunked Democrats&#39; claim that Congress needed to approve Soleimani strike
Johnson: Soleimani was a &quot;lawful military objective&quot; &amp; the President had &quot;ample domestic legal authority to take him out&quot; <a href="https://t.co/1LUqYAwm9j">pic.twitter.com/1LUqYAwm9j</a>
&mdash; Zach Parkinson (@AZachParkinson) <a href="https://twitter.com/AZachParkinson/status/1213871053266673665?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The U.S. Department of Defense explained in a statement issued shortly after the airstrike that killed Soleimani that the general was &#8220;actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.&#8221;
&#8220;General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,&#8221; the Defense Department revealed in the statement. &#8220;General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.&#8221;
After he defended Trump&#8217;s authority to order the strike against the general, Johnson was promptly targeted by the left, including <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/meet-press/meet-press-doesnt-disclose-guest-talking-about-iran-lockheed-martin-board-member">Media Matters</a>, which accused both Johnson and Todd of failing to disclose that the former DHS secretary is now a board member of defense contractor Lockheed Martin – suggesting Johnson is actively attempting to promote war for his self-interest.
&#8220;Jeh Johnson, who was secretary of homeland security under President Barack Obama, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press to discuss President Donald Trump ordering the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani,&#8221; the Media Matters report reads. &#8220;Neither Johnson nor host Chuck Todd <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-5-2020-n1110181">disclosed</a> that Johnson is a board member of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, which reportedly paid him over $300,000 in 2018 alone.&#8221;
The left-wing organization also highlighted a tweet from Popular Information’s Judd Legum calling foul on the omission:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson appeared on Meet The Press and asserted Trump had &quot;ample domestic legal authority to take [Soleimani] out without an additional congressional authorization&quot;
NOT DISCLOSED: Johnson is currently on the board of defense contractor Lockheed Martin <a href="https://t.co/cimTpyolTf">pic.twitter.com/cimTpyolTf</a>
&mdash; Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) <a href="https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1213906520359997440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In its report on Johnson&#8217;s defense of Trump&#8217;s authority to order the strike, Town Hall cites a document on the &#8220;<a href="https://www.peterson.af.mil/Portals/15/documents/Units/JudgeAdvocate/AFD-160210-019.pdf">Law of Armed Conflict</a>&#8221; released by the Peterson Air Force Base&#8217;s Legal Office, which defines &#8220;military objectives&#8221; as &#8220;any object which by its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.&#8221;
In April 2019, the U.S. Department of State announced that Soleimani was responsible for 17 percent of American deaths during the Iraqi War (2003-2011) as the man in control of all Iranian and Iran-backed operations in the region.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-iraq-votes-to-kick-u-s-out-trump-drops-the-hammer-in-response">Iraq Votes To Kick U.S. Out, Trump Drops The Hammer In Response</a>

Jeh Johnson

WATCH: Obama’s DHS Secretary Debunks Dems’ Claim Trump Didn’t Have Authority To Kill Soleimani; Now He’s Under Fire From Left

Menu