Calif. Dems Putting Price Tags on Kids By Scuttling Child Trafficking Bill

Mark Pellin
-
0
Calif. Dems Putting Price Tags on Kids By Scuttling Child Trafficking Bill

(Mark Pellin, Headline USA) California Democrats have again refused to advance legislation that would have strengthened the state’s child-trafficking laws, backtracking on their assurances that it would be approved after a titanic backlash when they originally blocked its enactment.

The bill would classify “trafficking of children and teenagers younger than 18 years old as a serious felony on par with murder, arson, and rape.” Under the state’s three-strikes law, anyone convicted of at least three serious felonies faces a prison sentence of between 25 years to life in prison.

The state’s Democrat-led General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee on Wednesday shuttled the bill to “the suspense file,” which one legislator described as “”legislative purgatory,” where bills are sent to die on the vine.

The suspense file is stuffed with targeted bills that have a fiscal impact of more than $150,000, and are held by the committee chair, in this case a leftist Democrat, while its fate is decided based on the cost.

Public backlash was fast and ferocious, with critics noting the Democrats’ actions sending it to the appropriations committee were tantamount to putting a price tag on children.

“As the Appropriations Committee is evaluating the cost of incarcerating traffickers, I hope they will also take into account the basic services associated with the life-long rehabilitation of victims and survivors of this brutal crime,” said Republican Sen. Shannon Grove, who sponsored the bill.

“There is no price tag that can be placed on a victim of human trafficking, especially a child. Selling a child to be raped over and over again is a crime so grotesque, immoral and barbaric it should be prevented and stopped at any cost.”

Not according to the radical leftists controlling the state’s General Assembly.

“The notion that it isn’t a serious crime to traffic children for sex or labor is so absurd as to be laughable if it weren’t for the gravity of the situation,” Emily Hoeven wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.

“This reasoning — child trafficking should only be considered “serious” if the victim endures additional horrifying circumstances on top of being trafficked — illuminates how far some Democrats are willing to go to uphold ideological principles that, when carried to their logical extreme, are no longer morally defensible,” Hoeven wrote.

Legal Trouble? White House Counsel Jumps Ship Amid Multiple Criminal Investigations of Biden Inc.

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Legal Trouble? White House Counsel Jumps Ship Amid Multiple Criminal Investigations of Biden Inc.

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) President Joe Biden announced that the White House counsel will step down next month after nearly three years of working for the Democrat administration.

Stuart Delery’s departure comes at a critical time for the White House, notably as House Republicans ramp up their investigation into the Biden administration’s actions, including damning allegations of bribery and political corruption.

The announcement of Delery’s exit coincided with the House Oversight Committee revealing Thursday that one of its investigations had uncovered yet another fake alias Joe Biden likely used to launder funds from Hunter.

In a press release, Biden himself thanked Delery for his service. “Stuart Delery has been a trusted adviser and a constant source of innovative legal thinking since Day One of my Administration,” Biden stated, before listing Delery’s role in major controversial initiatives led by the Biden administration.

“From his work during those early days on COVID-19… to the implementation of major legislative accomplishments such as the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, he has been an integral part of my team and will be missed throughout the Administration,” Biden added in the statement.

Delery first joined the Biden team as deputy counsel for the transition team following the contentious 2020 presidential election. As reported by Fox News, he was promoted to a high-level job at the White House when Dana Remus, the first Biden counsel, exited the administration.

The timing of Delery’s exit raised eyebrows, coinciding with mounting pressure from the GOP following testimony and evidence of misconduct, particularly tied to the allegations of political protection of the embattled First Son Hunter Biden.

Rep. Greg Stuebe, R-Fla, introduced impeachment articles against Biden on Aug. 11, citing mounting evidence that Biden played an active role in an alleged bribery scheme when he served as vice president.

“It’s our obligation as members of Congress to stand up for America when we see crimes being committed by the President,” Stuebe said earlier this week in an interview with Fox News. “That’s why I filed articles of impeachment against Joe Biden.”

Republican-led criticism has fueled up following the abrupt failure of what Biden’s critics described as a “sweetheart” plea deal between federal prosecutors led by U.S. District Attorney David Weiss and Hunter, who had been under criminal investigation since 2018.

The deal’s failure prompted Weiss to successfully request special counsel status from Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The Bidens are now facing two special counsels, one related to President Biden’s potential mishandling of classified documents and the second related to Hunter.

It is not immediately clear whether Delery was involved in those two legal scandals.

Kamala Snaps As Heckler Confronts Climate Change Speech

Luis Cornelio
-
0
Kamala Snaps As Heckler Confronts Climate Change Speech

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Vice President Kamala Harris snidely snapped at a protestor who interrupted her climate-focused speech at Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School on Saturday.

The protester, affiliated with the leftist environmental group “Climate Defiance,” accused Harris of not adequately addressing the wildfire crisis in Hawaii, among other issues.

A video shared by Climate Defiance captured the protester shouting, “We are in the midst of a climate emergency. 80 people have died in Hawaii. 80 people have died.”

Harris, through a rictus smile, snapped backed with a curt, “I’m speaking,” as security personnel escorted the individual out of the venue.

Harris’s encounter with the heckler happened just a day prior to President Joe Biden facing criticism for his dismissive comments during a visit to a Delaware beach.

A reporter relayed that, during an interaction on Rehoboth Beach, Biden was questioned about the escalating death toll in Hawaii due to the raging fires. Biden’s response was concise and indifferent, as he simply replied, “No comment,” without providing further details or expressing condolences.

Biden’s terse reaction triggered a wave of criticism on X (formerly known as Twitter), with notable figures chastising the president.

Harris has faced considerable backlash for emphasizing an apocalyptic vision of the future, asserting that children are grappling with so-called “climate anxiety.” She claimed, “[Children] turned me on to a term that I had not heard before. I said, ‘Tell me how you all are thinking about the climate crisis.’ And they shared with me a term – climate anxiety.”

Despite Harris’s existing left-leaning stance on climate alarmism, this failed to satisfy the activist group. Climate Defiance took responsibility for the disruption, declaring, “We significantly disrupted a speech by United States Vice President Kamala Harris.”

The group condemned Harris’s reaction to the recent tragic events in Hawaii, holding her accountable for purported “fossil fuel crimes.”

This incident transpired just two months after NBC News released a poll revealing that  Harris presently holds the highest net-negative approval rating of any vice president in the history of the poll, with an astounding 17-point net-negative rating.

Project Veritas Undergoes Mass Firings Months after James O’Keefe’s Departure

Ken Silva
-
0
Project Veritas Undergoes Mass Firings Months after James O’Keefe’s Departure

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) “SOS Hannah Giles just fired us all,” Project Veritas cryptically tweeted Thursday afternoon, before deleting the post.

The short-lived tweet about Giles, who is Project Veritas’s CEO, caused widespread speculation on social media that the undercover journalism outlet’s was going defunct in the wake of its founder, James O’Keefe, being pushed out of the organization.

Sure enough, the Post Millennial confirmed that Project Veritas indeed fired “almost all” of its employees.

“On-air talent Christian Hartsock, James Lalino were both laid off after Giles told staff that a restructuring would be underway. Kalen Eriksson, Jaime Phillips, Alyssa Dehen, were also fired. The terminations were done via a Zoom call with HR, with a few of those in the New York office. Giles did not make an appearance,” Post Millennial reported.

“Five people were let go on Monday, including the executive news producer Pam Browne. She was brought in by O’Keefe last year,” the publication added.

“Some of those who were fired were allegedly released in retaliation for their undercover work. Those who are left are primarily admin people, and about 20 people were fired Thursday.”

All indications are that Project Veritas was hemorrhaging money, resources and viewers in the wake of its star reporter, O’Keefe’s, ouster in February. A leaked email from that month showed the organization was asking its donors to “give us a chance” in the wake of his departure.

Critics have pointed out inconsistencies in Project Veritas’s reasoning for O’Keefe’s departure, characterizing the development as a coup.

Human Events editor Jack Posobiec noted on Monday that the board originally said O’Keefe was “enjoying a well-deserved vacation.”

A former whistleblower who worked with O’Keefe also pointed out inconsistencies.

“The Project Veritas company lied to me about what happened to @JamesOKeefeIII at Project Veritas,” tweeted Zach Vorhies.

“They told me this all spun out of control because the fundraising team wanted to call donors and James O’Keefe wanted to email them instead. 100% bullshit. This is a coup.”

O’Keefe, who has started a new media venture, O’Keefe Media Group, is still in litigation with Project Veritas over his departure.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.

Horrific Cartel Murder Video Released after Rifle-Toting Illegals Filmed Crossing Border

Dmytro "Henry" Aleksandrov
-
0
Horrific Cartel Murder Video Released after Rifle-Toting Illegals Filmed Crossing Border

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) A gruesome video that has gone viral showed five kidnapped young men in Lagos de Moreno, Mexico, being forced to bludgeon and decapitate one another, with bound, inert bodies lying in the foreground and “Dancing Queen” by ABBA playing in the background.

The video was the reported handiwork of brutal Mexican cartel members, part of an ongoing terror campaign to send messages to any opposition and exert their defiance of law enforcement.

The grisly video, which can be seen here with a warning of its content, has sparked concerns that the message cartels are sending have increasingly been directed toward the U.S., and gained traction after rifle-toting cartel members in body armor were recently captured on video crossing the border but eluding capture.

“The fact that we see heavily-armed cartel members that are coming across the river, across our border unimpeded goes to show you that they have become more powerful,” Texas Department of Public Safety Lt. Chris Olivarez told Fox News. “They’re more brazen now then ever.”

The video that went viral showcased Olivarez’s point. It showed a young man under life-threatening duress beating a bound man with a hammer and decapitating another victim, with the attacker being the fourth member of the kidnapped group of friends, the Independent Sentinel reported. The body police found inside a burned-out car nearby was probably the fifth group member.

“This video and the information that was made public on a social media platform is now part of the investigation,” Luis Méndez Ruiz, the Jalisco state attorney general, stated.

In the video, it is also possible to see a text written over the image that says “Puro MZ,” which is an apparent reference to El Mayo Zambada, the leader of a faction of the Sinaloa drug cartel. The Sentinel reported that it was likely a cartel member who threw one of the kidnap victims a brick and demanded he use it to bludgeon his friend.

The violent video broke in the wake of an explosive Fox News report earlier this month that showed images of three suspected cartel gunmen with body armor and rifles streaming across the U.S. southern border in the area of Fronton, Texas.

Border Patrol agents, including the agency’s BORTAC tactical unit, were deployed to the area but didn’t find anything. In June, law enforcement arrested five suspected members of the Northeast Cartel in the same area.

“Fronton, TX is a heavy cartel area with significant drug smuggling. Border Patrol sources tell me armed [men] are frequently encountered there,” Fox correspondent Bill Melugin wrote.

The incidents weren’t isolated cases. A record-high number of terrorists have been seized at the border, with untold more streaming into the country.

“But what is more worrisome is how many people on the terror watch list might be among the 1.5 million known gotaways who have entered under President Biden’s watch,” said Mehlman, who formerly worked for the U.S. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Headline USA’s Mark Pellin contributed to this report

Mike Pence Gears Up for the Debate Minefield

Wire Editor
-
0
Mike Pence Gears Up for the Debate Minefield

(By Philip Wegmann, RealClear Wire) In Milwaukee, they will all walk through “a minefield.”

“Voters need to hear how they see it, and the option that they’re trying to provide. It is very tricky territory for these candidates. They know that well,” explained Martha MacCallum, who will moderate the first GOP primary debate along with Bret Baier, during an interview with Vanity Fair.

The hazard for the eight Republicans who would become president themselves: the legal troubles of the former president. Donald Trump now faces four indictments. His competitors for the Republican nomination must address the myriad charges Trump faces without alienating Trump’s former voters.

Each campaign has been workshopping an answer to a version of the question that MacCallum and Baier will inevitably ask next week. For instance, to cut to the chase, they might press the candidates on whether they believe former Vice President Pence correctly certified the results of the 2020 election, and whether they would’ve done the same. This could be perilous for everyone except, well, Pence.

“He’s been clear that elections are about the future, not the past, and failure to recognize that was something that plagued our party in 2022. Having said that, his courageous actions on Jan. 6 will always be a differentiator between himself and Trump,” Marc Short, a senior Pence advisor, told RealClearPolitics.

“Long term, it will reflect more positively on Pence,” he added, “and will no doubt be a part of the conversation in this debate and future debates.”

For almost three years now, sometimes under oath and other times on the campaign trail, the former vice president has been answering questions about the 2020 election and the legal peril Trump now finds himself in for trying to overturn it. He had hoped it wouldn’t come to this, telling a CNN town hall in June that an indictment “would be terribly divisive to the country.” But he has consistently said the former president asked him to violate his oath of office.

And earlier this month, at the Iowa State Fair, he told reporters that “anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” It was the equivalent of crossing the MAGA Rubicon.

Pence World knew this was inevitable. A source close to the former vice president told RCP earlier this year that when voters are presented with the facts of the plot to overturn the 2020 election, “within 60 seconds,” voters will know that Pence is the most “committed constitutional conservative” in the race. And yet, after codifying his own split with Trump, Pence seemed almost exhausted with the question.

“I’ve written a book, I’ve done more interviews than I can remember, and as I’ve said, the American people deserve to know the truth,” Pence told RCP in a March interview, adding that he believes “history will hold the former president, and all those directly involved, accountable.” Then Pence changed the subject.

The legal drama, however, has turned the national discussion back to the frontrunner in the race who made history as the only former president to be indicted. Though he’d rather focus on the future, Pence hasn’t been afraid to talk about, or fundraise on, the past.

When Pence was mentioned in the second federal indictment for rejecting Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, his campaign rolled out merchandise referencing the former president’s gripe that his No. 2 was “too honest.”

Pence received more than 7,400 donations as a result, contributions that came in the nick of time. Candidates needed at least 40,000 individual donors to qualify for the first RNC debate, and while an advisor said the indictment swag didn’t put Pence over the top, it didn’t hurt either.

While three different courts will decide whether Trump broke the law, as a political question, the Republican electorate has already weighed in. The conservative base does not see his actions before or after the 2020 election as disqualifying. He has a nearly 40-point lead in the RealClearPolitics Average.

The New York Times reported earlier this summer that Republican pollsters and strategists had written Pence off. That was June 7, the day before the first federal indictment. More legal trouble followed. What’s more, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, once touted as Trump’s only serious competitor, has since tumbled in the polls. Pence allies see an opportunity, even if the timing is incidental.

“Ron DeSantis is flopping. Donald Trump is getting indicted. People are taking a closer look at Mike,” said Bobby Saparow, executive director of the pro-Pence super PAC, Committed to America. “He is right in the mix,” the GOP operative, who helped Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp fend off a Trump-backed challenger last year, told RCP. “It’s a way to get earned media attention, but he is resonating and climbing because people are looking for an alternative.”

The Trump indictments keep Pence in the news, and as Saparow sees it, that gives the former vice president an opportunity to pivot to other issues like how he’d handle the economy or foreign policy.

The cynicism surrounding the Pence candidacy is sharp. “Why does he think the people who wanted to kill him will vote for him,” conservative writer Jonathan Last recently asked in the pages of the Atlantic, a reference to rioters who chanted “Hang Mike Pence” as they stormed the capitol. But the first contest of the Republican primary remains months away, and allies of the former vice president still remind reporters that national polls don’t determine state contests. They say things can, and do, change.

“I don’t see a route for Pence, to be honest. But then again, he’s not unique in that – I don’t see a path for most of them,” Scott Jennings, a longtime adviser to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told RCP. “But it’s never the wrong day to do the right thing and he’ll always be remembered for doing the right thing when it mattered most, whether this campaign works out or not.”

For now, at the very least, Pence has made the debate stage where he will navigate the minefield, the one which worries other candidates, with ease.

Yes, Section 230 Allows Social Media Platforms to Moderate Content Subjectively

Wire Editor
-
0
Yes, Section 230 Allows Social Media Platforms to Moderate Content Subjectively

(By Isaac Schick, FEE) Recently the Supreme Court avoided deciding on where the limits of Section 230 were concerning content algorithms. Many have interpreted this as a positive sign that Section 230 will continue to protect private platforms’ ability to moderate content as they see fit.

Some Republican lawmakers have attacked tech platforms for holding political biases and advocated for state-enforced “neutral moderation.” These critics of supposedly biased content moderation assume that a “neutral” political stance exists and would not simply be a stand-in for the state’s bias.

Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 protects online entities from liability for user-generated activity on their site. It allows businesses and platforms to interact with others online without fear that something a third party did or said could make them liable. Ironically, without Section 230, content moderation would be far greater to prevent potentially liable comments and activity.

Despite how some politicians feel, section 230 protections apply to all forms of online entities, including some that we may not consider, like retail product reviews and comments on personal blogs.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made the implication while questioning Mark Zuckerberg before the Senate that because Facebook was not “content-neutral,” it violated a tenant on Section 230 protections. The accusation stems from a notion, popular in certain political circles, that online platforms only receive Section 230 protections if they remain politically neutral in content moderation.

As legal experts have clarified, the suggestion has no basis in the law. Section 230 empowers online platforms to moderate their content in “good faith,” which includes any content the provider or users deems “objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Despite the absence of a “content neutrality” clause in the text of the law, some Senators have proposed adding it, such as Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. The Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act of 2019 would have mandated online platforms apply for government certifications of content neutrality before receiving liability protections. Though the act received little support, it is clear that a portion of Republican lawmakers believes in curtailing liberal content moderation on “Big Tech” platforms through state intervention.

Beyond the First Amendment issues these attacks raise, there are practical problems. Would a mandate for content neutrality apply to every online entity, and if not, how do we determine who it applies to? Plenty of non-Big Tech sites rely on Section 230 to moderate their content, and many likely have a bias towards one political persuasion or another. It is unreasonable to expect the federal government to mandate a small retail store apply for content neutrality certification to receive liability protection from product reviews.

To assume that only large social media platforms must maintain politically neutral content moderation would codify a “big is bad” two-tier legal system. No longer would only platforms compete in a free market, but instead, policymakers would set legal applications based on company size. The “bigness” that lawmakers determine to require moderation neutrality is inherently political, as narrow limits could only affect Big Tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter, and looser limits could include Reddit, Wikipedia, etc.

Furthermore, what determines something being sufficiently politically neutral? Section 230 allows for sites to interpret “objectionable” content independently because it is an inherently subjective decision.

Comments critical of homosexuality from a biblical perspective could be viewed as “objectionable” to a site that wishes to garner a homosexual user base. Likewise, a conservative Christian site may view comments that support transgender youth as objectionable. For the government to impose a form of content neutrality would only lead to the state’s version of “objectionable” becoming the standard.

Elon Musk recently stated that on Twitter, the word “cis” would be considered a slur. Not everyone agrees that cis should be an “objectionable” word, such as Facebook, which does not view “cis” as a slur but has considered misgendering something that warrants moderation. If we imagined that Twitter and Facebook would apply for a certificate of neutrality, the political leanings of the certification committee would likely play a massive role in which content moderation was deemed “neutral” and which was “politically biased.”

For these reasons, the First Amendment is a protection from the government, not an imposition by it. The state is not an inherently neutral actor, and any action to impose neutrality will be fraught with political opportunism (likely violating the First Amendment). Though efforts to impose neutrality on online platforms have died down, they are likely not dead, as politicians will always be incentivized to exert power over the public square.

Tim Scott to Join DeSantis at Massive S.C. Event as Some See Possible Split-Ticket

Editor 1
-
0
Tim Scott to Join DeSantis at Massive S.C. Event as Some See Possible Split-Ticket

(Headline USA) Just a few days after the first GOP presidential debate of the 2024 cycle, two of the contenders will be hitting the same stage in front of the largest annual gathering of Republicans in early-voting South Carolina.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had already been set as the headliner at the Faith & Freedom BBQ, hosted by Rep. Jeff Duncan on Aug. 28.

On Thursday, Duncan told the Associated Press that Sen. Tim Scott—invited in his capacity as a South Carolina senator, not presidential hopeful—had also accepted an opportunity to speak, as he has done in years past.

The event, which takes place in a massive civic center and attracts more than 2,000 attendees, comes five days after Scott, DeSantis and others in the broad GOP field are set to participate in the first debate of the 2024 cycle in Milwaukee.

Former President Donald Trump, the current Republican frontrunner, has indicated he’s unlikely to attend and may hold a competing event of his own.

The debate also comes during a week in which Trump and the 18 co-defendants charged alongside him earlier this week in a Georgia case are required to surrender themselves to authorities on spurious allegations of meddling in the 2020 election results.

Duncan’s event, a fundraiser benefiting his reelection campaign, has long been a showcase for possible White House contenders, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, then-Vice President Mike Pence, Sens. Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst and Marco Rubio, and former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who’s now part of the 2024 field.

In a state where success has historically been a catalyst for GOP presidential nominees, the South Carolina venue provides DeSantis an opportunity to make his case in front of a large number of party activists, with whom Trump—who earlier this month headlined the state Republican Party’s annual fundraiser—remains popular.

But it’s not just the headliner who draws attention. Last year, before Pompeo’s keynote, Scott gave a rousing speech that drew thunderous applause from the barbecue crowd.

The opportunity to address a crowd of thousands in his home state—which holds the first GOP presidential primary in the South—comes as Scott’s presidential campaign prepares to kick in to high gear in the closing months before the first votes are cast next year.

On Thursday, Scott’s campaign told the AP that it had purchased $8 million in ad space in the critical early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, planning a television, radio and digital campaign that would run through the end of November.

That purchase comes on the heels of a $6 million ad buy the campaign launched as Scott kicked off his campaign in May.

It also follows major spending by a super political action committee backing Scott, which began a $7.25 million television and digital ad buy when he entered the race. When that ends on Labor Day, the group’s $40 million reservation in early-state air time will begin.

Scott’s campaign has long stressed that his strong ability to fundraise, coupled with the more than $20 million he transferred to his presidential coffers from his Senate campaign account, would mean their candidate could stay on the air in key states in ways others might not be able to.

As DeSantis and Scott prepare to both take the stage at the event hosted by Duncan—one of only two Republicans in South Carolina’s delegations not already aligned with a presidential candidate—voters in the state are still mulling their options.

At a DeSantis event in Greenville, South Carolina, earlier this summer, businessman Dean Estep said he’s currently backing the Florida governor, and already has a running mate for him in mind.

“Tim Scott’s a first class guy,” Estep said, before the question about who he’d like to see on a ticket with DeSantis was even finished. “He’s just a picture of America.”

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Washed-Up Ex-Sen. Who Claimed ‘Biden Loves His Son’ Backstabs Feinstein

Contributing Author
-
0
Washed-Up Ex-Sen. Who Claimed ‘Biden Loves His Son’ Backstabs Feinstein

(Headline USA) Former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., claimed this week that her former colleague Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is “doing real damage to her legacy” by refusing to retire.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Thursday, McCaskill referenced reports that Feinstein, 90, has given her daughter power of attorney over her—a common precautionary practice for older people as a safeguard for making medical and financial decisions should they be incapacitated.

“This whole story makes me incredibly sad,” McCaskill said. “This is doing some real damage to her legacy, which is extraordinary as a United States senator.”

McCaskill compared Feinstein to the late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who she said became a “kind of caricature of what he former was [sic],” with his staff, eventually having to lift “his hand up” during votes in Congress due to his advanced age.

Feinstein’s staff has been reportedly running the show for the California Democrat for years, but a recent incident highlighted just how hands-on they’ve become.

During a simple procedural vote on the Senate floor this month, Feinstein appeared confused and had to be directed by her aide to “just say aye” when it was her turn to vote.

Feinstein announced earlier this year that she does not plan to seek reelection after her term is up next year—prompting a free-for-all race to replace her that currently includes 27 declared candidates, 18 of whom are Democrats.

Several Democrats have called on her to resign immediately, citing her extended absences from the chamber as proof that she is no longer capable of handling her responsibilities.

However, Democratic leadership, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have been quick to defend Feinstein, likely because Feinstein remaining in office allows Pelosi and other top Democrats to hand-select her successor, whereas California Gov. Gavin Newsom would be able to make an appointment to her seat if she left before the election.

McCaskill has tried desperately to cozy up to the Democratic establishment after being ousted from the Senate by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. Just last month, she tried to write off allegations of corruption against President Joe Biden by claiming Republicans were attacking him “for loving his son.”

House GOP Subpoenas Citibank, Widening Probe into FBI’s Collection of Bank Records

Ken Silva
-
0
House GOP Subpoenas Citibank, Widening Probe into FBI’s Collection of Bank Records

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) The House Weaponization Subcommittee issued a subpoena to Citibank on Thursday as GOP legislators widen their probe into the FBI’s collection of the bank records of peaceful protestors who were at Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Weaponization Subcommittee’s probe was initially launched in May, after it was revealed that Bank of America, provided the financial information of J6 protestors voluntarily and with no warrant.

The subcommittee’s Thursday letter said that investigators have received documents, which raise suspicions that Citibank also provided information to the FBI.

“In particular, these documents indicate that a Citibank representative was included on emails and Zoom discussions organized by the FBI and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) focused on ‘identifying the best approach to information sharing, both strategic and operational,’ in the wake of the events of January 6,” the letter said.

“These documents suggest that the executive branch was brainstorming informal methods—outside of legal process—for obtaining private customer information from financial institutions.”

The subcommittee’s subpoena seeks to discover the extent to which Citibank worked with the FBI to collect Americans’ financial data. The letter said Citibank declined to comply with the committee’s voluntary requests, which is why the subpoena is necessary.

The information about Bank of America providing information to the FBI was revealed by bureau whistleblower George Hill, who said that the financial institution “voluntarily and without any legal process” funneled to the agency “a list of individuals who had made transactions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and January 7, 2021.”

Hill also indicated that the bank investigated customers who bought weapons during that time frame.

“This information appears to have had no individualized nexus to particularized criminal conduct, but was rather a data dump of BoA customers’ transactions over a three-day period,” said Hill, who has been corroborated by his former supervisor, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Boston Field Office Joseph Bonavolonta.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.

1...1,7951,7961,797...3,884Page 1,796 of 3,884