Category Archives: Federalist

In a town hall in Queens, New York, on Wednesday night, self-proclaimed socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is up for re-election, responded to her enraged constituents in a fake Latino accent: All right, all right, listen! All right, listen! Listen OK, listen! The congresswoman also danced mockingly to the beat of angry voters chanting, AOC has got to go!

Its unclear whether the dancing was meant to be funny, cute, or dismissive. Her furious constituents,concernedabout crime rates and gender-bending craziness, continued to heckle.

Its also unclear if using the accent was meant to mock herpredominantlyHispanic constituency, or if she was trying to garner Latino cred. This wouldnt be the first time AOC has used fake accents. The congresswoman has used ablaccentin the past, perhaps taking a cue from another Democrat superstar,Hillary Clinton.

AOC really likes using race to her advantage. In a 2020 interview during the Black Lives Matter race riots when left-wing attention was centered on black Americans, AOCsaid,I always say Latinos are black, causing many to speculate the comment had to do with her desire to be the biggest victim. And in a recentGQinterview, AOC tried to brandish her victim status by claiming she may not be alive by September due to the countrys hatred for women of color such as her.

In a surprising turn for New Yorks liberal 14th District, AOCs constituents have been unafraid to show their dissatisfaction with her. At yet another town hall in the Bronx, she was lectured by constituents for voting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Liz Cheney to send yet another$725 millionto Ukraine on top of the billions in taxpayer dollars the U.S. has already sent. Youre voting to start a nuclear war, her constituents told her. Rather than giving an explanation for her vote, AOC scolded her constituent for supposedly speaking out of turn.

Another constituent called her a sell-out and a war hawk: Tulsi Gabbard, shes left the Democratic Partybecause theyre a bunch of war hawks. You ran as an outsider, yet youve been voting to start this war in Ukraine. Youre voting to start a third nuclear war with Russia and China. Why are you playing with the lives of American citizens?

The lefts radical agenda isnt working for Americans. Whether you are on the right or the left, families are feeling the 40-year record-high Bidenflation. Every day its harder to afford gas, groceries, and heating bills. On top of all that, millions are terrified of our reckless and self-interested leaders risking nuclear war with Russia.

When people are this angry and scared, sassy dance moves, fake accents, and dismissive narcissism only stoke the flames. AOCs tired tricks arent working anymore, even in New York.

Evita Duffy is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

Link:

Fake Accents And Sassy Dance Moves Won't Save AOC

>The Federalist Papers is a treatise on free government in peace and security. It is the outstanding American contribution to the literature on constitutional democracy and federalism, and a classic of Western political thought.

The Federalist Papers were written in support of the ratification of the Constitution. While modern-day readers might see it as inevitable, the Constitution was a revolutionary step. In Philadelphia, the delegates rebelled against the existing Articles of Confederation and looked to the states, not the existing government, for ratification and approval of the new government. Because of the revolutionary nature of the new Constitution, arguments were necessary to rationalize it as a response to new emergencies. After the convention, Tench Coxe became the coordinator in Philadelphia for those who supported the Constitution, while George Mason became the coordinator for New York for those who opposed it. Hundreds and hundreds of letters were written regarding the Constitution; "Cato" and "The Federal Farmer" attacked while "Caeser" replied. Both George Washington and Ben Franklin, probably the two most influential men in the country at the time, supported the Constitution.

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were the states critical to the success or failure of the Constitution. Of these four states, New York by far was the state where the success of the Constitution was in the most doubt. The state's delegation did not approve the draft in Philadelphia because two of its three delegates left during the protest and abandoned Alexander Hamilton without a vote. Governor Clinton, the leading figure in New York politics, opposed the new government because New York had become an independent nation under the Articles of Confederation, making itself rich through tariffs on trade with its neighboring states.

Quickly, Alexander Hamilton decided that a massive propaganda campaign was necessary in New York, more so than in any other state. This new plan entailed a sustained barrage of arguments appearing in newspapers four times per week. Because of the massive amounts of work, he decided that he needed two co-authors to help him write under the pseudonym of "Publius." He originally had asked others to assist him in the project, but, luckily for him and future generations, James Madison, a Virginia citizen, was available because the Continental Congress was sitting in New York during that period. John Jay was also asked because of his vast foreign diplomatic service. Unfortunately, John Jay got sick shortly after the project commenced and was able to only complete six different papers. That left Hamilton and Madison to finish the rest, a task they were able to complete only because they relied heavily on notes they had used in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia earlier.

Eventually, the books were published serially in different newspapers in New York (four out of five of the major newspapers of the time) and were republished in book form near the end of the run. Unfortunately, the ratification vote in New York failed and New Yorkers only ratified the Constitution later, becoming the 11th state to do so. James Madison, however, took the published books to assist in the ratification debate in Virginia, and the papers survived to serve a far greater purpose than mere propaganda. The Federalist Papers are the single greatest interpretive source of the Constitution of the United States, widely considered one of the best explanations of what the Founding Fathers' purpose was in the passage of the document that governs the United States of America.

Philosophically, The Federalist Papers should also be considered in the context in which they were written. The revolutionary era was characterized by a quest for security from foreign nations, for peace in America, and for individual freedom. These values, it was hoped, could be achieved by united action. Whereas earlier plans for union were largely motivated by a desire for security and peace, those of the period under consideration were the first appearance of the "freedom motif." That motif came to the fore during the colonists' struggle with England and was recognized by the Articles of Confederation. In the arguments in Philadelphia and the subsequent Federalist Papers, this same motif held force. Arguments of unity and security, which could seem absurd to readers only familiar with the power of the modern United States, were sincere concerns and problems at that time.

Read more from the original source:

The Federalist Papers Study Guide | GradeSaver

Corporate media outlets were abuzz with excitement on Thursday morning over the scientific confirmation that babies in the womb visibly recoil at the taste of leafy greens such as kale.

The English study in question, published on Wednesday, found that babies in the womb have strong, physical reactions to the flavor profiles of the foods their mothers ingest.

Thanks to previous scholarship, scientists already knew that unborn infantstaste buds develop anatomically at 8 weeks gestation and can detect tastants from 14 weeks gestation. There is also significant evidence that by 16 weeks in utero, babies regularly swallow and taste amniotic fluid.

Researchers for this particular study, which was conducted on 100 babies between32 to 36 weeks gestation, took the in utero taste consensus one step further when they determined that unborn infants are capable of detecting, analyzing, expressing preference for, and classifying the chemosensory information conveyed by flavor compounds originating in [the] maternal diet.

Thats why when mothers in the study were fed carrots, which were classified as tasting sweet, fruity, and woody compared to other vegetables, babies, as measured on 4D ultrasound scans, expressed a higher laughter-face than the control group, which was fed nothing. On the contrary, unborn infants that were exposed to kale through their mothers expressed a higher rate of cry-face reactions. That facial feedback was attributed to the vegetables unique bitterness flavor profile.

Since babies learn some of the most important, long-lasting physical and cognitive skills required for neonatal life in early gestation, this particular studys significance was not lost on the media.

You guys have to see this! one Today Show host exclaimed as her coworkers cooed over the amazing baby faces and adorable reactions pictured in the findings.

CBS News referred to the babies in the study as fetuses, but still highlighted the findings in a positive light.

Its hard to believe that the same outlets that published pro-abortion propaganda over Fathers Day weekend praising dads decisions to end their babys life in the womb and propel Democrats radical pro-abortion agenda to the front of their coverage are now celebrating the fact that babies in the womb are living, breathing humans capable of amazing things.

One might think that the acknowledgment of the incredible complexity and sanctity of an unborn babys life is a win, but that would be a severe misreading of just how committed media are to aiding Democrats in their quest to legalize ending life in the womb.

In the most recent example of this abortion allyship, the same media that is is hypervigilant about fact-checking Republicans let election-denier (to use the lefts ridiculous phrase) and baby-denier Stacey Abrams get away with claiming babys heartbeats in the womb are manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a womans body.

In fact, some media outlets such as The New York Times boost similar outlandish claims in their own pages.

The corrupt press doesnt just conduct slanted polls designed to twist Americans true feelings about abortion. They also let Democrats, whose abortion extremism would eliminate any legal protections for kale-resistant babies from violence, get away with prenatal murder without any scrutiny. The corrupt media cheer it.

All these editorial decisions are designed to disguise the fact that Democrats radical calls for unlimited abortion through all nine months of pregnancy dont sit well with Americans on either side of the political aisle. Thats why, when pressed, media activists hide the fact that they havent grilled Democrats about their deeply unpopular abortion positions.

The media can coo over unborn infants squirming when they eat vegetables all they want, but at the end of the day, remember that the corrupt press always sides with the people who are perfectly fine with ending those preborn lives.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Originally posted here:

Media Marvel At Prenatal Response To Flavor While Pushing Abortion

After its push to oust L.A. County District Attorney George Gasconfailedbecause nearly 200,000 petition signatures were invalidated, the campaign to recall Gasconannouncedit is filing for injunctive relief after an initial review showed 39 percent of the signatures invalidated by the L.A. County registrar were likely wrongfully rejected.

The initial review of invalidated signatures demonstrates the Registrars counting process was seriously flawed, resulting in substantial errors, the wrongful invalidation of many valid signatures, and the disenfranchisement of thousands of Los Angeles County Voters, the campaign wrote in a press release.

After the California countys registrar-recorder, Dean Logan, rejected the campaigns recall petition over an insufficient number of valid signatures (Logan determined the petition had only 520,050 valid signatures, a figure just short of the 566,857 they needed), volunteer attorneys began conducting a review of the invalidated signatures. They identified legitimate challenges for 39 percent of the invalidated signatures reviewed so far.

Examples of improper invalidation by the registrar include:

The recall campaign also claims that the L.A. County registrar placed arbitrary limits on the campaigns review process, limiting review hours, the number of reviewers, and access to information necessary to determine the validity of a signature. It will take more than a year for the volunteers to review all the invalidated signatures under those limitations, the recall effort claims. The campaign is filing for injunctive relief to seek expanded access.

In addition to claiming improper signature invalidation, the campaign also argues that L.A. Countys voter rolls were artificially inflated by 208,000 to 515,000 ineligible names at the time the number of signatures required for the recall was determined (10 percent of all Los Angeles County registered voters).

Had L.A. County been actively maintaining its voter rolls, theres a good chance the recall petition would have gone through, even with the rejected signatures.

The original requirement of 566,857 signatures to qualify (based on bloated voter rolls showing 5,668,569 active voters at the time) should have been set anywhere from 515,357 to 546,357, according to the press release. This issue alone could substantially affect the outcome of the recall given that the Registrar has already identified what it deems to be 520,050 valid signatures.

This isnt the first time L.A. County has been criticized for failing to clean its voter rolls. Back in 2019, California and Los Angeles Countyagreed to purgeas many as 1.5 million ineligible voters from its rolls after Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit arguing the Golden State and its biggest county were not complying with federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrants.

If I were interested in Los Angeles, I would be dredging the records of list maintenance through the NVRA [the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law that governs voter registration and removal] to see how responsive theyve been to the Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement, because theyre under some kind of obligation already, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation J. Christian Adams told The Federalist.

Adams has spent 10 years litigating voter roll maintenance and other election integrity-related cases. Most recently, PILF hasfiledsix complaints surrounding 515 duplicate voter registrations in six Minnesota counties. The nonprofit law group also filed a lawsuitagainst Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Bensonfor her failure to remove nearly 26,000 dead registrants from Michigans voter rolls.

Due to an11thCircuit Court decisionthat refused to accept the inflated voter roll theory, Adams recommended the recall campaign instead find the ineligible registrants duplicates, deceased, those that have moved, etc. on L.A. Countys voter rolls, just like what PILF does.

They need to be doing the analysis, and not just the math, Adams said. Because the courts have foreclosed the math part.

While it looks like many Democrat-run cities Los Angeles,Philadelphia,Detroit are plagued by inflated voter rolls (and many critics rightly blamenefariouspolitical operatives), Adams believes its because there are more renters than property owners in cities, thus more people move around and fail to change their voter registration.

The NVRA does not let you remove people who are ineligible at the pace that theyre coming onto the rolls, Adams said. That limits your ability to take people off with the same amount of speed theyre moving.

Although voter roll maintenance can be a slow and arduous process for municipalities, Adams still emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records.

This [Gascon recall petition] is the first time Ive heard of bad list maintenance potentially impacting a signature drive, Adams said. In all the years Ive worked in this space Ive never contemplated how having ineligible voters on your rolls makes it harder for people to get enough signatures in a place like California. Its a big deal.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Visit link:

Suit: Inflated Voter Rolls, Botched Review Foiled Woke DA Recall

U.S. CourtsAileen Cannon.

Judge Aileen Cannon said she had been a member of the Federalist Society since 2005 in her application for her position. The Federalist Society is a group of conservative judges. Cannons bias has been called into question as she was thrust into the spotlight in hearings on the investigation into former President Donald Trump and documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Cannon ordered a halt on the Department of Justice review of evidence seized from the estate on Monday, September 5, 2022, citing a possible threat caused by potential media leaks in the case. Read the full order here.

Plaintiff faces an unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public, Cannon wrote in the 24-page ruling.

Heres what you need to know:

Cannon wrote in her 24-page application for her current role as federal judge that she became a member of the Federalist Society in 2005. The application to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary for U.S District Court Judge in southern Florida position required her to list all professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or other organizations.

The other memberships she listed were the Delta Delta Delta Fraternity, the Duke University Alumni Association, The Moorings Yacht & Country Club, Order of the Coif at The University of Michigan Law School, and The University of Michigan Law School Alumni Association.

Cannon was appointed by Trump to her position as U.S. District Court Judge in 2020 following a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cannons bias has been called into question as she renders critical rulings on the investigation into evidence seized from Trumps estate.

Aileen Cannon, a 38-year old lawyer and member of the Federalist Society with no prior judicial experience, was hand-picked by Marco Rubio, further blessed by Rick Scott and then nominated by Trump. Cant imagine that was a factor when Trump went judge shopping, Peter Vroom wrote on Twitter.

The Federalist Societys website says it was founded in 1982 as a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order, the organizations page says. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

The website includes commendations from conservative leaders including former President Ronald Reagan and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Federalist Society is changing the culture of our nations law schools, Reagan said, according to the website. You are returning the values and concepts of law as our founders understood them to scholarly dialogue, and through that dialogue, to our legal institutions.

READ NEXT: Aileen Cannons Background, Husband & Family: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Link:

Aileen Cannon Joined The Federalist Society in 2005

1. Friday Open Thread  Colorado Pols
2. We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives  The Federalist
3. 'I Agree': Conservatives Say Good Riddance to 'Nationalist MAGA Right-Wingers' After The Federalist Argues For Dropping 'Conservative' Label  Mediaite
4. Driving us backwards: The Federalist's wet dream of a neo-fascist America  We Hunted The Mammoth
5. View Full Coverage on Google News

Continued here:

Friday Open Thread - Colorado Pols

When even liberals have begun noticing how insufferable their side has become, you know things have gotten bad for them to a severe degree.

The Washington Post ran a column last week by Brian Broome, a man who has literally said he hates Christmas. And even for him, his liberal friends have gone too far in their gross bitterness.

In the liberal circles in which I mostly travel, it is nothing short of blasphemy to speak a positive word about any conservative for any reason, wrote Broome. Many of my friends cant even bear to hear their names mentioned. I was reminded of this when in conversation with a friend I mentioned my approval of Rep. Liz Cheneys performance during the Jan. 6 hearings.

Broome said his friend reacted with shock, hurt and outrage that anyone would say a positive thing to him about a person who doesnt share every single one of his political beliefs.

Is anyone surprised by this? Liberals have been exhibiting this kind of intolerant, anti-social behavior for years now, though it has gotten dramatically worse, as I explained in my new book Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.

Broomes only problem is that he then tried to both-sides the matter, asserting that conservatives and Republicans are just as bad. [T]hey hate liberals with an almost otherworldly passion, he said. They like to put bumper stickers on their cars and trucks calling Joe Biden a communist; they have convinced themselves that the blue cities and states they despise are hellscapes of crime and desolation.

Well, yeah. Bumper stickers that say Lets Go, Brandon or its more explicit counterpart are really just symbols of solidarity among voters who know that the national news media are corrupt and scammy. Thats how they mock it. As for how they describe blue cities, its a point of fact that theyve become dirty, crime-ridden tent towns. I live in D.C. I know.

Yet its not right-wingers who attest to having a visceral dislike for others who have a different opinion. Its liberals who do that.

The American Perspectives Survey, conducted in May 2021 by the Survey Center on American Life, found Democrats and liberals were more likely to say they have ended friendships because of political disagreement. Among Republicans, 10 percent said they had done so. It was double for Democrats. In terms of ideology, 28 percent of liberals said they had ended friendships over political disagreements. Only 10 percent of conservatives said the same.

An NBC poll from September 2018 found just over 35 percent of Democrats said they would be uncomfortable, at least to some degree, having close Republican friends. Only 21 percent of Republicans said the same of Democrats. By contrast, 44 percent of Republicans said they would be very comfortable with a close friend who was a Democrat. Only 26 percent of Democrats would say the same for Republicans.

In July 2017, a separate Pew survey showed that 35 percent of Democrats said the previous years election put a strain on their relationships with friends who they knew voted for Trump. Only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about friends who voted for Clinton.

Sure, there are conservatives out there who would rather not associate with liberals. But can you blame them anymore?

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:

WaPo Liberal Realizes How Miserable The Left Has Become - The Federalist

Sen. Chuck Grassleys office confirmed to The Federalist that the multiple FBI whistleblowers charging misconduct related to the Hunter Biden investigation only came forward in the last two months. While the existence of these new whistleblowers proves promising, other FBI agents with knowledge of misconduct or political bias must stop hiding behind the chain of command and start blowing their own whistles.

Multiple FBI whistleblowers, including those in senior positions informed the Iowa Republican senator that Washington Field Office assistant special agent in charge Timothy Thibault and other FBI officials falsely portray[ed] as disinformation evidence acquired from multiple sources that provided the FBI derogatory information related to Hunter Bidens financial and foreign business activities, even though some of that information had already been or could be verified.

The whistleblowers further charged that in August of 2020, FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment, which was used by a team of agents at FBI headquarters to improperly discredit and falsely claim that derogatory information about Bidens activities was disinformation, causing investigative activity and sourcing to be shut down. The FBI headquarters team allegedly placed their assessment findings in a restricted access subfolder, effectively flagging sources and derogatory evidence related to Hunter Biden as disinformation while shielding the justification for such findings from scrutiny, Grassley revealed.

The significance of these developments cannot be overstated, for several reasons. First, the whistleblowers accuse supervisory bureau officials not merely low-level line agents with manipulating evidence related to an investigation of the son of the president of the United States. The ongoing investigation also implicates the president and his brother in the pay-to-play scandal of influence-peddling.

That reality alone should shock the core of the bureau, but there is more. The whistleblowers charges, when read in light of FBI leaks to the Washington Post, suggest that FBI Headquarters either improperly withheld information or presented inaccurate information to the U.S. attorneys office in Pittsburgh and possibly also Delaware, which were tasked with investigating Hunter Biden.

Further, by burying evidence about Hunter Biden, which at the time included the laptop he had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop, the FBI agents concealed a dangerous national security risk that both the intelligence community and Joe Biden needed to know, namely that Hunter believed Russians had stolen a second laptop that contained similarly compromising material.

The new information revealed by the FBI whistleblowers exposes yet a further scandal, which Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., highlighted in a letter he dispatched to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz last week. In his letter, Johnson noted that while he was investigating Hunter Bidens questionable business dealings, the FBI provided him and Grassley with a supposed briefing on August 6, 2020. That briefing was not specific and was unconnected to their investigation, Johnson noted, and he and Grassley had always assumed [it] was a set up to intentionally discredit [their] ongoing work into Hunter Bidens extensive foreign financial entanglements.

In fact, as Johnson highlighted in his letter, leakers from the FBI fed the fact of the briefing to the Washington Post. The Post then framed the briefing as an extensive effort by the [FBI] to alert members of Congress that they faced a risk of being used to further Russias attempt to influence the elections outcome. That spin worked to falsely portray Grassley and Johnsons investigation into Hunter Bidens foreign financial dealings as corrupted by Russian disinformation.

Johnsons letter to the DOJ, FBI, and OIG concisely captured the significance of these facts and the horror of the scandal: If these recent whistleblower revelations are true, it would strongly suggest that the FBIs August 6, 2020, briefing was indeed a targeted effort to intentionally undermine a Congressional investigation. The FBI being weaponized against two sitting chairmen of U.S. Senate committees with constitutional oversight responsibilities would be one of the greatest episodes of Executive Branch corruption in American history.

The FBI scandal does not end there, however, and concerns not merely the alleged misconduct by a few in the upper echelon of the bureau. Rather, the fact that the whistleblowers, including those in senior positions of the FBI, are only now coming forward to expose the malfeasance they witnessed even though the investigation into Hunter Biden has been ongoing since 2018 and the alleged spiking of the evidence occurred in 2020 renders the scandal owned by the entire agency and every member of the organization.

The failure of other FBI agents and those in senior positions to object to the shameful politicization of the bureau finds its root in the Russia collusion hoax, with agents ignoring the misconduct by the bureaus leaders, such as Director James Comey, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and FBI Special Counsel Lisa Page. FBI Special Agent William Barnett, in a detailed interview with former U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, revealed both the breadth of the bureaus partisan impropriety and the reticence of apolitical agents to challenge their bosses.

Barnett, who served as the FBIs case agent in the investigation of former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, spoke with then-U.S. Attorney Jensen after then-Attorney General William Barr tasked Jensen with reviewing the Flynn case. As The Federalist previously reported, Barnett told Department of Justice (DOJ) investigators that the handling of the probes troubled him so much that he threatened to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector General in another.

A summary of Barnetts interview noted that he believed there was never any basis for the bizarre collusion theory the agency and the special counsel relentlessly pursued, to the point that agents made jokes about how they could take any piece of information and claim it was evidence of collusion. Barnett also believed the Special Counsel Office pursued Flynn simply as a means to get Trump and viewed FBI investigators as a speed bump slowing down the work of the attorneys leading the inquisition.

Jensens comprehensive summary of his interview with Barnett revealed many more extensive problems dating from 2016 and through Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation. But it wasnt until September 2020 when Barr initiated a review of the Flynn case by a U.S. attorney outside of D.C. that Barnetts firsthand experience became known to those willing to address the corruption.

The now-former attorney general did just that when he moved to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn, concluding the FBIs questioning of Flynn that served as the basis for the criminal charge was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBIs counterintelligence investigation. The federal judge presiding over the Flynn case refused to dismiss the case, though, and with the legal wrangling continuing past the 2020 election, prompted outgoing President Donald Trump to pardon Flynn.

Beyond the numerous FBI improprieties that occurred during the Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigations including high-level leaks by agents the interview of Barnett revealed a follow-the-marching-orders mentality that cannot continue if agents want to restore integrity to the bureau.

While Barnett questioned the investigative theory, he did not think at the time the investigation was illegal, particularly due to the oversight by attorneys (i.e., CLINESMITH) and the direction being given by top FBI officials, the summary of Barnetts interview stated, with Barnett noting he was willing to follow instructions being given by the Deputy Director as long as it was not a violation of law.

The last two months seem to suggest a potential change in attitude, with FBI whistleblowers willing to work with outsiders committed to reform.

In addition to whistleblowers exposing the alleged misconduct related to the Biden family, they have also alerted Grassley to the FBIs politicizing of election crimes and campaign finance investigations. And with whistleblowers also alerting Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan that FBI leaders are instructing agents to reclassify cases to bolster the Biden administrations narrative that domestic violent extremism is a major threat, there is hope that the dedicated men and women of the bureau want to restore integrity to the agency.

It may be difficult for FBI agents, trained to trust the hierarchy, to reboot their reticence, but recent events establish that the FBI leadership cannot right itself. What the FBI needs, then, to rehabilitate itself is a cavalcade of whistleblowers exposing the rot within the bureau. Every agent at every level must join the few brave whistleblowers who have come forward.

If, knowing what they do now about DOJ and FBI leaderships inability to clean the political mess, agents remain mum, they will be complicit in the scandal, and Americans will no longer distinguish between the hardworking men and women of the FBI and the supposedly few bad apples we will view the entire bureau as bad.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continue reading here:

All FBI Agents Must Blow Whistles Or They're Complicit In Hackery - The Federalist

CNN went to the Wyoming capitals annual cowboy and rodeo festival last week to learn how voters felt about their sole U.S. representative locked in an all-out feud with former President Donald Trump weeks before the state primary.

Can I cuss? said one resident bluntly when asked if she would send Rep. Liz Cheney back to Washington for a fourth term. After a nod, it was a hell no.

Absolutely not, said another by a corn dog stand.

What are your thoughts about Liz Cheney running for a fourth term? CNNs Randi Kaye asked one woman.

Personally, I think shes had three too many, she said.

On Aug. 16, voters will decide whether Cheney will keep her seat in Washington or if another candidate will take her place on the November ballot. Trump-backed attorney Harriet Hageman is the favorite to win the primary contest in a state that voted for the Republican president by a wider margin than anywhere else in the country. Last month, a poll sponsored by the Casper-Star Tribune showed Hageman leading by 22 points.

[RELATED COVERAGE: A Farce: Heres What Wyoming Voters Really Think Of Liz Cheney And Her Sham J6 Committee]

Kaye asked voters specifically what they thought about the House Jan. 6 Committee, which Cheney leads as vice chair and has weaponized to escalate a long-standing feud with President Trump. Cheney has even used the probe to go after political opponents working to unseat her in Wyoming.

Its all a hoax, its all propaganda, said the man by the corn dog stand. Its a witch hunt.

During an interview with another voter named Brett Kupec outside the rodeo stadium, Kaye conveyed Cheneys explanations for serving on the committee.

[Cheney] says shes defending whats important to people here in Wyoming, Kaye said. Upholding the rule of law, defending the Constitution.

Kupec responded by highlighting the committees absence of meaningful opposition after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred minority appointments.

If that was the rule of law, why doesnt [Trump] have a defense team in that courtroom? Kupec said. That aint the rule of law. Thats a kangaroo court. Thats not the Wyoming way.

Labeling the committee as a kangaroo court is a phrase Hageman told The Federalist at the fair last week that she hears often from voters around the state. So far, Hageman has traveled 36,000 miles on her campaign to replace Cheney.

That really is the moniker that people in Wyoming have used over and over again, Hageman said. Its just a kangaroo court, and theyre terribly embarrassed that our representative is a part of it.

Indeed, one voter told CNN Cheney has been an embarrassment.

The network ended the segment with interviews of two Cheney supporters, the only two that Kay conceded the television crew could find at the entire event in Wyomings largest city.

Shawn McKee told CNN he stood by Cheney because she wants to maintain the integrity of the state.

She wants to make it to where its not so much federally controlled, McKee said.

Cheney, however, now the vice chair of Pelosis Jan. 6 panel, no longer serves on the House Natural Resources Committee navigating the states myriad of public land issues despite nearly half the state being under federal jurisdiction.

This is one of the first times in Wyomings history that Wyomings congressional representative is not on the Natural Resources Committee, Hageman told The Federalist at the Frontier Days festival, adding she expects an appointment if elected.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys office confirmed to The Federalist the Republican leader will back Hagemans request for an assignment to the committee but added final placement would ultimately be up to the Steering Committee after the midterms.

Trump took a victory lap over CNNs Friday segment with a press release on Monday.

ICYMI: CNN Goes to Wyoming, the former president wrote, sharing a tweet from Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Excerpt from:

CNN Struggles To Find People In Wyoming Who Like Liz Cheney - The Federalist

Amid the Biden administrations recession, Congress is reportedly planning to increase taxes. Democrats Build Back Better legislation, which would raise taxes to fund green energy subsidies, appears to be getting a second chance.

This legislation, however, contradicts advice even Democrats have repeatedly given: Dont raise taxes during a recession. Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri put together a list of times prominent Democrats have given the very advice they are now ignoring.

If were in a recession I dont think Sen. Obama or anyone else is going to raise any taxes, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said going into the 2008 presidential election. You dont want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking.

Later that year, Barack Obama won his first presidential election, and the next year, he expressed agreement with Schumer: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, the then-president said.

Yet this is precisely what Democrats in Congress are now advocating. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin has reportedly reached a deal with Schumer during the ongoing recession that would increase many Americans taxes.

Even Manchin himself said in 2010 that a recession was not the time for a tax hike. I dont think during a time of recession you mess with any of the taxes or increase any taxes, Manchin said.

Manchin has now told Fox Newss Bret Baier that the bill would only close loopholes and not raise taxes, but according to Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, the 15 percent minimum corporate tax in the bill would likely result in a tax increase for many individual Americans.

It is standard economic practice to assume that companies would pass along at least some of their tax increase to employees, Shellenberger said.

In fact, Congresss own Joint Committee on Taxation found that there would would indeed be an increase, which would be even greater for ordinary American workers than for the wealthy. Recall that this is in violation of President Joe Bidens repeated promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 annually.

As Shellenberger wrote: A new study by the U.S. Congresss nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has found that not only would the legislation increase taxes, it would increase taxes by $11 billion more on Americans earning below $200,000 per year than on Americans earning between $500,000 and $1 million, in 2023. And the legislation would increase taxes by $3 billion more on Americans earning below $200,000 per year than on Americans earning between $200,000 and $500,000 per year.

Regardless of how corporate media might try to spin it, the economy is in a recession, and Democrats are abandoning their own advice by attempting to raise taxes when America can least afford it.

Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read the rest here:

Dems Do What They Warned Against: Raise Taxes Amid Recession - The Federalist