Connect with us

Politics

Republicans vs the FBI Is Getting More Intense

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

The GOP’s feud with the FBI is escalating to absurd new heights, Politico reported.


As Special Counsel Robert Mueller pivots his investigation to focus on whether President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice after finding no “there” there during his probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, the GOP is pushing back against political bias in the FBI, triggering outrage among Congressional Democrats.


Politico pointed out that Tuesday brought several dramatic developments in the ongoing investigative saga.


The New York Times reported that Mueller had recently emailed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and last year interviewed FBI Director James Comey.


Meanwhile, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, accused FBI agents of engaging in a “conspiracy” to support Clinton and damage Trump, hinting that some of this behavior could’ve itself been criminal. Goodlatte took aim at a text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair.

Not all of the text messages have been released, but they are slowly being turned over the Congress in batches. Though the bureau recently confessed that it had lost 50,000 messages sent between the two FBI employees during a five-month period in 2016. The FBI has blamed the erasure on Samsung. The DOJ has launched a probe into the missing messages, but some Republicans, including House Freedom Caucus chief Mark Meadows, have revived calls for a second special counsel to investigate the FBI.


“Some of these texts are very disturbing,” Goodlatte said, adding, “they illustrate a conspiracy on the part of some people, and we want to know a lot more about that.”


As we reported earlier today, some of the texts that have been turned over suggested that in the “immediate aftermath” of the election, a “secret society of folks” within the DOJ and FBI came together to try to undermine President Trump.


Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson called the text messages “jaw dropping.”


But views on the FBI’s purported misconduct, unsurprisingly, diverge along partisan lines, as the Hill points out. Democrats have painted investigations of the FBI’s conduct by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Intelligence, Oversight and Government Reform, and Judiciary committees as efforts to discredit Mueller and the Department of Justice.


Democrats and the FBI have joined together in criticizing Congressional Republicans, who have so far refused to release a memo detailing what some Congressmen have described as a coordinated effort by the Obama administration to monitor members of the Trump campaign. Some conservatives have also joined in the chorus of people demanding the memo be released. But the lawmakers have so far denied a copy to everybody who’s asked – including the FBI.


Republican Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight and Government reform committee, said this refusal is justified because the memo’s contents were gleaned from documents turned over by the FBI, according to Fox News.


“To say we want to see your memo when for months and months they haven’t let us see lots of stuff we wanted to see — the memo came from what you gave us, FBI,” Gowdy told Fox News. “There is nothing new in there other than what you gave us and you showed us.”


For what it’s worth, some Republicans are still willing to give the bureau the benefit of the doubt, particularly regarding the lost text messages.


Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), whose panel is also investigating Russia’s election interference, told CNN Tuesday that the FBI had been cooperative in providing documents to Congress.


“I’m not going to read anything into it other than it may be a technical glitch at the bureau,” Senate Intel Committee Chairman Richard Burr told the Hill. “The fact that they have provided the rest of them certainly doesn’t show an intent to try to withhold anything.”

The pressure on the FBI has made even Trump allies nervous. Last night, Axios reported that Christopher Wray, Trump’s pick to lead the bureau, threatened to resign amid pressure from Trump and Sessions to fire Andrew McCabe, deputy director of the bureau and a close Clinton ally whose wife received money from the Clinton machine during a recent campaign for office.


After spending hours of closed-door Congressional testimony last month, McCabe announced that he would resign early this year.


Gowdy, who spearheaded questioning of McCabe, told reporters that his testimony contained “numerous conflicts.”


But regardless of what Congress does – or how much questionable behavior their investigations into the FBI uncover – without a special counsel, Mueller will continue to have the upper hand. After all, Mueller has the power to call a grand jury, which can approve indictments – evidenced by the charges he’s brought against at least four former Trump campaign officials. While it has subpoena power, Congress can’t arrest anybody…


…So without a special counsel, Republicans’ options for holding the bureau accountable remain limited…

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.