POLL: Both Sides Skeptical of U.S. Spying Practices after Years of FISA Abuse

(Headline USA) As it pushes to renew a cornerstone law that authorizes major surveillance programs, the Biden administration faces an American public that’s broadly skeptical of spying practices and of the need to sacrifice civil liberties for alleged security.

Congress in the coming months will debate whether to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702 authorizes U.S. spy agencies to collect large amounts of foreign communications for intelligence purposes ranging from stopping spies to listening in on allies and foes. Those collection programs also sweep up U.S. citizen communications that can then be searched by intelligence and law enforcement officers.

The new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that Democrats and Republicans have similar views on surveillance tactics, while Republicans have become substantially less likely over the last decade to trust a government caught repeatedly abusing FISA authority at the expense of sacrificing freedom because of alleged threats.

U.S. intelligence officials say Section 702 is necessary to protect national security and to counter China, Russia and other adversaries. They credit the program with better informing U.S. diplomats and enabling operations like last year’s strike to kill a key plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

But officials will have to overcome sharp divisions in Congress and bipartisan anger at the FBI, though most observers still believe Section 702 will be renewed in some form.

Driving a political shift is increasing skepticism among Republican elected officials of the FBI and intelligence agencies. Conservatives have battered the FBI for misleading the primary surveillance court in its investigation into former President Donald Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump and other top Republicans often accuse the so-called government “deep state” of using its powers to target conservatives.

Historically, “the left flank has been the more vocal objector to government surveillance on privacy and civil liberties grounds,” said Carter Burwell, who was chief counsel to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, when the law was last renewed in early 2018.

”Over the past five or 10 years, with the rise of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, call it the antigovernment wing of the Republican Party, that is an equally vocal and powerful plurality,” said Burwell, now a lawyer at the firm Debevoise & Plimpton.

The poll asked U.S. adults whether they support several practices authorized by Section 702. It found that 28% of adults support the government listening to phone calls made outside of the U.S. without a warrant, while 44% oppose the practice. Views are similar about the U.S. reading emails sent between people outside of the U.S. without a warrant.

The public was more receptive to surveillance of activity outside of the U.S. a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. That shifted significantly by the 20th anniversary of the attacks in 2021.

In the latest poll, 48% of Americans this year said they believed it necessary to sacrifice their rights and freedoms to prevent terrorism, down from 54% in 2021 and nearly two-thirds in 2011. That shift was especially dramatic among Republicans, with just 44% saying that’s sometimes necessary compared with 69% in 2011. Among Democrats, 55% still say so, similar to the 59% who said so in 2011.

Sarah Apwisch, a 57-year-old from Three Rivers, Michigan, described herself as somewhat opposed to the monitoring of foreign emails and phone calls. A Democrat, Apwisch said she was “mostly pro-FBI” but concerned after years of negative stories about the bureau.

“Honestly, I don’t want to hear anything about the FBI,” she said. “I want the FBI to go do their business and not be in the news because they’re doing their job well and not doing things that make waves. How they do that, I don’t know.”

Apwisch also said she supports the FBI and other agencies trying to hunt down enemy spies, but was uncertain about whether the FBI should also use foreign intelligence to investigate other U.S. crimes.

White adults were somewhat more likely to say they were opposed to various forms of surveillance — 48% said they opposed the government listening to foreign calls without a warrant — than black or Hispanic adults, each at 34%.

In Congress, some Democrats and Republicans have found common cause over their complaints about Section 702. Two lawmakers earlier this year issued a statement calling for an end to U.S. surveillance without a warrant. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chairs the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus, while Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, is a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

“We must take this opportunity to reform Section 702 and overhaul privacy protections for Americans so that they truly protect the civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy rights that are foundational to our democracy,” Jayapal and Davidson said.

Previous lawmaker efforts to require warrants for searching intelligence databases have failed. Intelligence officials argue they have ramped up training for agents searching the databases and tightened requirements to consult with lawyers on sensitive queries.

Supporters of Section 702 argue most U.S. adults want the government to stop foreign adversaries even if they state misgivings about how American intelligence operates.

Glenn Gerstell, a former general counsel at the National Security Agency who is advocating for Section 702 to be extended, noted that while Congress has to be responsive to public opinion, “some of this gets pretty technical and isn’t easily understood by the public.”

He said he still believed the law would be renewed with some amendments to bolster civil liberties protections and enshrine into law changes that the FBI has made in response to a series of wrongful uses of foreign intelligence.

“At the end of the day, I think most members of Congress understand the value of the statute and understand that when we don’t have the statute, there is no substitute,” Gerstell said.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

‘Historian’ Claims Casey DeSantis Is Racist for Wearing Alligator Image on Jacket

(Ezekiel Loseke, Headline USA) Marvin Dunn, professor emeritus of psychology at Florida International University and author of several books on alleged black history, accused Casey DeSantis — the wife of GOP presidential candidate and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — of being a racist because she wore a jacket with an alligator on it.

“Black babies as alligator bait was a theme in racist Florida humor of the early 1900s. It’s an inside joke,” Dunn claimed with no evidence. “If you are not from Florida, you may not get it. She does. Do you?”

Twitter added context to the misleading tweet.

“Alligators are a prominent feature in Florida and are featured in myriad ways, none of which are explicitly racist,” the additional context read. “According to a prominent Florida tourism website, ‘Alligators and crocodiles are the Sunshine State’s most iconic animals.'”

Some Twitter users also found the claim to be absurd, with one simply asking “Where on Casey DeSantis’ jacket is the gator eating a baby, black, white or otherwise?” she asked. “Y’all Democrats be seeing stuff.”

Joe Momma, a pro-DeSantis anonymous account, responded with a sardonic, “Wow Florida is known for its gators. This is really a stretch. Is Lacoste racist also?”

“I’ve been to FL a few times. Images of gators r everywhere; pennants, t shirts etc. Major sports teams are named Gators,” wrote another commentator, referring to the University of Florida’s mascot, the Gators.  “Are they all being racist?”

Another Twitter user, Tom, summarized the twitter backlash well.

“Let’s just state the obvious,” he tweeted. “This is stupid. If this is your evidence that someone is racist, you have no evidence they are racist.”

Twitchy suggested that its readers take a nap, because “in this story, we reached, stretched, and grasped at straws,” and are worn out by Dunn’s absurdist logic.

Cops Let Top Biden Advisor off Hook after Car Crash

(Robert Jonathan, Headline USA) In what perhaps could be a form of Democrat privilege, New Orleans police neither administered a field sobriety test nor issued any tickets after a former senior White House advisor crashed his car into a tree.

Ex-U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond, who left Congress to work for Joe Biden, was behind the wheel of a Mercedes in his hometown when the April 23 accident, which is just now making headlines, occurred.

Richmond was also national co-chair of Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

The Democrat politician’s young son was a passenger in the car at the time. First responders transported both to a local hospital for treatment

Fox 8 in New Orleans reported on Wednesday that police originally clamed they had no record of the accident before admitting that it had indeed occurred.

According to New Orleans media outlets, the police report about the 9 p.m. incident in which the Mercedes was totaled indicated that Richmond was allegedly disoriented with slurred speech.

The responding officer did not smell any alcohol on Richmond, which police authorities say the presence of which is required for probable cause to subject a driver to DWI testing for suspicion of impairment.

Richmond’s son reportedly told cops that the accident happened after a Corvette swerved in front of their vehicle on what he thought was a wet road.

The police report indicated that the road was dry, however, and after reviewing surveillance camera footage, the investigating officer “saw no evidence of a speeding Corvette at the time of the crash,” CBS affiliate WWL-TV reported.

The officer nonetheless reportedly relied on the son’s statement, in part, to justify not issuing a traffic citation. He did not notice any slurred words when he subsequently met the victims at the hospital.

The officer “ultimately chalked up the former congressman’s disorientation and slurred speech to injuries from the wreck and the deployment of the car’s airbag,” the news outlet added.

On Wednesday, WWL-TV aired a thorough report about the incident, which includes audio of a bystander notifying the 911 dispatcher that Cedric Richmond was the driver.

Police body cam footage was apparently also edited to remove any visuals of Richmond for purported privacy reasons.

Richmond told NBC New Orleans affiliate WDSU News on Wednesday that “I’m fine, my son is fine, and the police report speaks for itself.”

Richmond represented a New Orleans-area district from 2011 to 2021 before moving over to the White House.

In late April 2022, on the day before he announced that he was stepping down from the White House job, Richmond supposedly referred to the far-left Squad as “f***ing idiots.”

He currently works in a senior position for the Democratic National Committee.

Biden Gets Fact-Checked for Tweet about Post-Pandemic Job Creation

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) President Joe Biden was fact-checked by Twitter Wednesday after lying about his so-called job creation in the post-pandemic era.

Biden made the claim in a recent Tweet, wherein he wrote that in a mere 28 months his administration has added more jobs to the United States workforce than any other in a four year stretch.

The simplistic graph showed him far outpacing his six predecessors, with only former President Donald Trump being credited with negative job creation.

But as Twitter users pointed out in the “added context” portion of the tweet, several left-wing sites, including PolitiFact, have debunked Biden’s claim that he deserves some ownership stake in the economic recovery that occurred after the lifting of Democrat-induced pandemic lockdowns, which also were responsible for negating Trump’s historic gains.

Biden took office near the bottoming-out of employment numbers just after the height of pandemic lock downs.

In fact, just days after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Moderna both announced that they were nearing the final phases of vaccine development—which ultimately paved the way for economic recovery.

During 2020, 9.4 million jobs were cut—the steepest cut on record. This gave Biden ample opportunity for a 6.4 million job gain in 2021.

The Associated Press also noted that Biden benefited from a natural rebound, that would have taken place no matter who was in office, calling his claims “grandiose,” and saying that Biden is “taking too much credit.”

In addition to taking undue credit for the pandemic recovery, some suggested that Biden was trying to repackage his economic failures as a positive.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, millions of Americans have turned to side jobs in order to supplement their insufficient incomes as Bidenflation has overtaken the middle class.

Approximately 6% of Americans took second jobs from fall of 2021 to fall of 2022, coming out to 4.5 million people.

Many Americans did so in order to overcome the inflation that has rocked the middle class, due in no small part to President Joe Biden’s profligate spending and abandonment of U.S. energy independence, among other things.

“I had to do what I had to do to not fall behind,” said Antonio Torres, a 29-year-old full-time asphalt paver in Utah, who got a part-time washing dishes to pay for ever-mounting expenses.

Lest there be any doubt as to whether Biden was simply having a “senior moment” when he put out the misleading tweet, Vice President Kamala Harris also attempted to gaslight the public with a similar claim on Tuesday.

Judge Threatens Hunter Biden w/ 6 Mos. Jail over Child Support

(Corine Gatti, Headline USA) An Arkansas judge threatened deadbeat presidential son Hunter Biden with jail time if he did not appear in court to answer questions about his finances related to a child support lawsuit filed by his baby-mama, former exotic dancer Lunden Roberts.

Judge Holly Meyer ordered Biden to appear in court on July 10 to explain his finances and was infuriated that Biden, 53, had hidden vital information about his art sales. Roberts, 31, accused her ex of “living lavishly” and mischaracterizing his financial situation.

Meyer gave Biden an ultimatum to “show cause, if any exists, why he should not be held in contempt,” the Insider reported.

The Gateway Pundit reported Biden appeared in court in May to lower his $20,000 per month child support payments to the mother of his 4-year-old lovechild, Navy Biden.

Biden said he has since paid Robert’s over $750,000 in support payments for her. 

But the judge demanded Biden answer questions about income from his art sales and other business deals moving forward. Biden’s lawyer had told the judge that he did not know the identities of the people who had purchased his client’s art.

The judge threatened to issue a subpoena to the art gallery to find out who had purchased the art and the value of the paintings.

Meyer threatened to put Biden in jail for six months if he did not appear in court in July to answer Lunden Roberts’s questions about his finances.

It was confirmed through a paternity test that Hunter Biden was Navy’s father, although he initially denied it and petitioned the courts for her not to inherit his last name.

Navy has never met her dad, and even Joe and Jill Biden have refused to acknowledge their own granddaughter.

Roberts, a former stripper from Batesville, Ark., met Hunter while she was working at a club in Washington, DC. At that time, Hunter Biden had been dating his older brother’s widow.

Armenians Beat the Crap Out of Antifa at Calif. School Board Meeting

(Corine Gatti, Headline USA) A group of Armenian men beat up Antifa thugs and far-left protestors Wednesday outside a school board meeting in Glendale, Calif.

Residents in the area, known to have a large Armenian–Christian population, were becoming increasingly disgusted with LGBT propaganda and sexualization of their children in elementary schools.

The Gateway Pundit reported that the initial protests outside the Glendale Unified School District building were relatively peaceful, but violence between the approximately 200 protestors and counterdemonstrators erupted around 6 p.m. PST on Tuesday.

Despite the deployment of around 50 police officers, the situation soon turned into a massive brawl that officers were unable to break up.

Eventually, the officers ordered the protesters to disperse and threatened to use non-lethal force if they did not comply.

Several men were taken into custody, and there were a few minor injuries. The accused were facing charges of using pepper spray and obstructing justice, CBS News reported.

 The school district issued a statement asking for various stakeholders to come together in a spirit of cooperation.

“We work with parents as partners and encourage all parents and other caregivers to be inquisitive and engaged with what is going on in our school community,” it said. “Let’s continue to work together, commit to having difficult conversations, ask questions, and maintain a civil discourse for the benefit of all students.”

Meanwhile, disputes over LGBT instruction have become a major point of contention in California and elsewhere.

Recently, the decision to ban a book about notorious pederast Harvey Milk, a widely celebrated figure on the Left, once again brought the issue to the forefront of public attention.

At the Temecula Valley School Board meeting this month, the board voted 3–2 to reject an elementary school social studies book that mentioned the assassinated San Francisco council member and gay-rights pioneer.

That decision drew the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who personally attacked the board members in a tweet.

“This isn’t Texas or Florida. In the Golden State, our kids have the freedom to learn,” he wrote.

On the other side of the country, as the Armenian residents in Glendale were clashing with Antifa, Muslim residents in deep-blue Montgomery County, Maryland likewise stood their ground in a protest against LGBT activists.

Newsom Proposes Constitutional Amendment to Dial Back Gun Rights

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed what would be the 28th Constitutional Amendment to roll back gun-ownership rights guaranteed by the document’s Second Amendment, Fox News reported.

“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” Newsom said while making the announcement.

“So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that,” he continued. “The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common-sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support—while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

Although Newsom’s proposed amendment would ostensibly leave the Second Amendment unaltered, according to a press release from his office, states would be enabled to “enshrine fundamental, broadly supported gun safety measures into law.”

Such measures include things like universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21 and instituting a firearm purchase waiting period.

The amendment would also leave the door open for “assault weapons” bans.

Newsom’s name often has been floated as a potential plug-in replacement should President Joe Biden somehow become incapacitated or ineligible to run for re-election.

The sweeping proposal, while great for stump speeches, is far less likely to be acted upon in the near future.

The Constitution can be amended either by the U.S. Congress, or by a convention of states.

Given Republican control in the House, and the Democrats’ narrow Senate majority, proceeding through Congress is virtually out of the question for the time being.

If Newsom’s proposal were to go to a state convention, three-fourths of all states would have to approve.

Despite the fact that the proposal will almost certainly fail, California state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Democrat, praised Newsom for being a “man of action” with the “backbone to actually do something about the gun fetish culture around weapons of war.”

She also noted that, “as someone impacted by gun violence,” she has a moral obligation “to elevate the voices of victims and those of us left behind in the wake of tragedy.”

California state Assemblymember Reggie Jones–Sawyer also expressed his support for the governor, who refuses to “stand idly” while courts, presumably the Supreme Court, “roll back our work and diminish the ability of our Legislature to keep Californians safe.”

Republicans Urge Voters to Play by Dems’ Dirty Rulebook in 2024 Election

(Headline USA) After years of criticizing mail-in voting and ballot harvesting as ripe for fraud, Republicans leaders now concede that there is no way to beat corrupt Democrats who engage in such strategies in blue states where they have been codified into law except by winning at their own game.

They are poised to launch aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns for 2024 that employ just those strategies, attempting to match the emphasis on early voting that Democrats first exploited on a grand scale during the pandemic but had been plotting well in advance of the global health crisis, which they used as their pretense to mobilize.

It marks a notable shift from the party’s rhetoric since 2020, when then-President Donald Trump was routinely sowing doubt about mail voting and encouraging his voters to wait and vote in-person on Election Day.

As recently as last year, Republican activists were telling GOP voters who received mail ballots to hold onto them and turn them in at their polling place on Election Day rather than use mail or drop boxes.

However, the 2022 election proved that Democrats not only could manipulate the mail-in voting, they could also shut down polling places as they did in Maricopa County, Arizona, sowing chaos and likely disfranchising thousands of would-be Republican voters.

Now Trump is asking donors to chip in for his “ballot harvesting fund”—saying in a fundraising email, “Either we ballot harvest where we can, or you can say goodbye to America!”

Republicans say the shift is needed to ensure GOP victories up and down the 2024 ballot, arguing they cannot afford to give Democrats any advantage.

At the same time, they acknowledge skepticism from many of their own voters conditioned by concerns over widespread vote fraud.

The answer, it seems, may be a two-pronged approach, where able-bodied and capable GOP voters in states with election integrity intact continue to vote as the U.S. Constitution stipulates they should.

Meanwhile, in blue states—particularly the former battleground states that Trump won in 2016 but lost in 2020—Republicans can follow Democrats’ lead in seeking new sources of support in places like nursing homes, homeless shelters and others populated by nontraditional ballot-casters.

Across the country, Republican-controlled legislatures have acted against early voting—shortening windows for returning mail ballots, banning or limiting the use of drop boxes and criminalizing third-party ballot collection.

In announcing a “Bank Your Vote” initiative for 2024, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the party “has never said ‘don’t vote early,’” but acknowledged the GOP will have to work to shift voters’ perceptions.

“That certainly is a challenge if you have people in your ecosystem saying, ‘Don’t vote early or don’t vote by mail,’ and those cross messages do have an impact,” McDaniel told reporters Wednesday.

“I don’t think you’re seeing that heading into 2024,” she added. “I think you’re seeing all of us singing from the same songbook.”

The nationwide GOP plan emphasizes “in-person early voting, absentee voting, and ballot harvesting where legal,” while also pledging “to fight against bad ballot harvesting laws.”

McDaniel emphasized she remains opposed to ballot collection, and she said the party would deploy an army of poll watchers and election monitors to reassure Republican voters that their ballots will be protected.

“Do I think it’s the most secure way of voting? No,” McDaniel said. “But if it’s the law, we’re going to have to do it just like the Democrats are.”

The challenge will be providing a consistent message that reassures GOP voters.

The same day McDaniel announced her initiative, Republicans in Congress were holding a hearing considering legislation that, among other things, would ban ballot collection in the District of Columbia.

GOP state lawmakers around the country have chipped away at advanced voting opportunities since 2020. Some state and local election Republicans have gone further, advocating for just a single day of voting.

After the 2020 presidential election, the movie “2000 Mules” was a popular video that used actual cell-phone records and government surveillance footage to expose what appeared to be an illegal ballot-harvesting network in Georgia.

However, because the film exposed only the bottom rung of paid “mules” and not the ringleaders of the conspiracy, there was no way of following through. It is unclear whether Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger or other election officials investigated further the crimes that were revealed by the evidence.

Even the co-chair of the new GOP strategy, U. S. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., has been a critic. In November, he issued a call on social media to “End ballot harvesting.”

Nonetheless, McDaniel noted that Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, have been talking about the importance of advance voting and ballot collection.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a high-profile GOP contender, recently told a voter he planned to launch his own “ballot harvesting” effort, according to video posted online by a Washington Post reporter. DeSantis said he wasn’t going to “fight with one hand tied behind my back.”

The Trump and DeSantis campaigns did not respond to messages seeking details about ballot collection plans.

Florida is among the mostly Republican-led states that have sought to ban or limit the practice in recent years, despite the GOP’s reliance there on older, more conservative voters who prefer voting methods other than casting Election Day ballots.

While some states are silent on the issue, 31 states allow someone other than the voter to return a ballot on behalf of another voter. Nine limit how many ballots one person can return, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many—but not all—states limit ballot handling to a family member, household member or caregiver.

In California, efforts to lock in the early vote could be decisive next year in a string of U.S. House districts, most of them in the southern California suburbs, that are expected to play a pivotal role in determining control of the chamber.

California is a Democratic stronghold, but Republicans retain pockets of strength across rural and small-town areas and the Central Valley farm belt, while the state’s suburban congressional districts have yielded many tights races in recent election cycles.

As many as nine congressional seats are considered competitive, and several races will play out in districts won by President Joe Biden but where the seat is held by a Republican. Each of California’s 22 million registered voters is mailed a ballot one month before Election Day.

“In any close election, the ability to capture absentee votes becomes extremely important, especially in a state like ours, where every single voter has a ballot in their home,” conservative activist Jon Fleishman said.

Democrats were critical of the new GOP effort after years of messaging by Republicans against mail voting.

“Donald Trump and extremist Republicans have spent years telling lies about elections to justify their losses. That includes demonizing mail ballots and ballot collection,” complained Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state and head of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State. “These hypocritical extremists are only interested in spreading chaos and trying to gain power at any cost.”

Top Republicans remain determined to make the case within their own ranks, said Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C.

“We’ve got to have a change of culture among Republican voters,” said Hudson, who chairs the House GOP’s national campaign committee. “And it’s going to require us all on the same page.”

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

SCOTUS: Race-Based Gerrymandering Is OK, but Only If Blacks Benefit

(Headline USA) The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of black voters in a congressional redistricting case, ordering the creation of a second district with a large black population in Alabama.

The ruling appeared to flout recent guidance from the court that considering race as part of the redistricting process was a violation of civil rights laws. Instead, the court said, as long as blacks stand to gain politically, it would be a violation not to factor race into the process.

Centrist Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the court’s leftist bloc in upholding a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is black.

The court had allowed the challenged map to be used for the 2022 elections and at arguments in October, the justices appeared willing to make it harder to use the voting rights law to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory.

The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.”

Roberts was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021—the latter of which involved left-wing activists trying to apply the law to states like Arizona that never engaged in segregation and did not fall under its original purview.

The other four conservative justices dissented Thursday. Justice Clarence Thomas—the only justice to have personally experienced segregation at the hands of Dixiecrats in the Jim Crow South—wrote that the decision forces “Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population. Section 2 demands no such thing, and, if it did, the Constitution would not permit it.”

The current case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% black.

A three-judge court, with two appointees of former President Donald Trump, had little trouble concluding that the plan likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of black Alabamians. The panel ordered a new map drawn.

But the state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, where five justices prevented the lower-court ruling from going forward. They allowed last year’s congressional elections to proceed under the map that the lower court had said is probably illegal.

At the same time, the court decided to hear the Alabama case, and arguments were held in early October.

Louisiana’s congressional map, also identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court, was allowed to remain in effect by the Supreme Court, too.

Republicans who dominate elective office in Alabama have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning black majority, or close to one, that could send another Democrat to Congress.

The judges found that Alabama concentrated black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it impossible for them to elect a candidate of their choice.

Alabama’s black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district, the judges found.

Alabama argued that the lower court ruling would have forced it to sort voters by race. The state insisted it was taking a “race neutral” approach to redistricting.

The court previously forced North Carolina to redraw its maps under a different set of circumstances after claiming that it had illegally used race as a factor to gerrymander districts.

At arguments in October, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson scoffed at the idea that race could not be part of the equation. Jackson, a black appointee of President Joe Biden, said that constitutional amendments passed after the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act a century later were intended to do the same thing, make black Americans “equal to white citizens.”

Jackson and the other two leftists on the court, justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said a decision like the one issued Thursday would result in many fewer districts drawn to give racial minorities the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Comer Backs Off Contempt Charge as Wray Agrees to Furnish Redacted Biden Bribery Doc

(Headline USA) The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday called off a vote on a contempt of Congress charge against FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., accepted a last-minute offer by the bureau to allow the full committee access to a confidential document related to President Joe Biden’s acceptance of a $5 million bribe, as alleged by a credible whistleblower who had previously acted as a well-paid FBI informant.

Comer said in a statement that the committee is removing a contempt resolution against Wray from Thursday’s schedule after receiving an accommodation that would give the full committee access to the document.

“Allowing all Oversight Committee members to review this record is an important step toward conducting oversight of the FBI and holding it accountable to the American people,” he said.

The action that played out over the last month against Wray reflects a larger breakdown between Republicans and the FBI that has only intensified this year, with some conservatives talking openly about trying to defund—or at least decentralize—the deeply corrupted and politicized bureau.

It’s a rift that first opened during the Russia-collusion hoax that the FBI played a central role in perpetrating against then-President Donald Trump.

The distrust has only widened during the Biden administration, amid the FBI’s wide-ranging criminal investigation into the Jan. 6, which many Republicans view as overly zealous and politicized, as well as the ongoing attacks on Trump, and other examples of abuse of power and two-tiered justice targeting conservatives who are simply exercising their free-speech rights.

Wray—who ironically enough was appointed by Trump to replace the disgraced James Comey—has been front and center in many of the efforts to push a dubious and divisive narrative that the nation’s top security threat comes from right-wing domestic extremism.

That may have included staging what appear to many to be false-flag attacks while relying on radical leftist propaganda like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” to justify targeting law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Meanwhile, the bureau’s brazen decision to stonewall the very legislators tasked with keeping it honest has only added further insult to injury.

The FBI made the last-ditch effort to ward off the contempt vote Wednesday, offering to give every lawmaker on the oversight committee access to a redacted version of a confidential document that alleges a bribery scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national.

The FBI had called the contempt vote unwarranted considering the bureau had “continuously demonstrated its commitment to accommodate the committee’s request,” while protecting the safety of sources and the integrity of ongoing investigations.

But Comer had consistently said for the past month that the only way for the FBI to comply with the subpoena was to provide an unredacted copy of the document. It’s unclear what made him change course at the last minute.

FBI officials already showed a redacted version of the several-page form to Comer and ranking minority member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., during a 90-minute briefing Monday. The bureau described that briefing as an “extraordinary accommodation” where both men were able to take notes on the document and ask questions.

The whole contempt fight over the document moved at an unusually rapid speed for the House. Committees often battle for months with an agency or a witness before resorting to contempt proceedings, often haggling over an “accommodation” that is considered compliance with a subpoena. Republicans moved far faster, arriving at contempt a little over a month after issuing the subpoena to Wray on May 3.

It would have been the first time Republicans had used the contempt power against a federal official since taking control of the House in January, but would be far from a rare occurrence in the House.

Democrats wielded the power of contempt memorably in the last Congress as part of the partisan Jan. 6 Committee.

Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, was convicted by a jury on contempt charges last year after a referral from the House Jan. 6 committee. Another former Trump official, Peter Navarro, is awaiting trial on a contempt charge as well. He has pleaded not guilty.

The Biden document at the center of the new dispute was written up by a longtime FBI source whom both Republicans and Democrats have described as credible. In it, the source details an unverified tip received in 2020 about the business dealings of Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine. Hunter Biden worked on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press