FBI seized top secret documents in Mar-a-Lago search
The FBI recovered “top secret” and even more sensitive documents from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, according to court papers released Friday after a federal judge unsealed the warrant that authorized the sudden, unprecedented search this week. A property receipt unsealed by the court shows FBI agents took 11 sets of classified records from the estate during a search on Monday. The seized records include some marked not only top secret but also “sensitive compartmented information,” a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets that, if revealed publicly, could cause “exceptionally grave” damage to U.S. interests. The court records did not provide specific details about information the documents might contain. The warrant says federal agents were investigating potential violations of three different federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation, or removal of records and the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations. The property receipt also shows federal agents collected other potential presidential records, including the order pardoning Trump ally Roger Stone, a “leatherbound box of documents,” and information about the “President of France.” A binder of photos, a handwritten note, “miscellaneous secret documents,” and “miscellaneous confidential documents” were also seized in the search. Trump’s attorney, Christina Bobb, who was present at Mar-a-Lago when the agents conducted the search, signed two property receipts — one that was two pages long and another that is a single page. In a statement earlier Friday, Trump claimed that the documents seized by agents were “all declassified” and argued that he would have turned them over if the Justice Department had asked. While incumbent presidents generally have the power to declassify information, that authority lapses as soon as they leave office, and it was not clear if the documents in question have ever been declassified. And even an incumbent’s powers to declassify may be limited regarding secrets dealing with nuclear weapons programs, covert operations, and operatives, and some data shared with allies. Trump kept possession of the documents despite multiple requests from agencies, including the National Archives, to turn over presidential records in accordance with federal law. The Mar-a-Lago search warrant served Monday was part of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into the discovery of classified White House records recovered from Trump’s home earlier this year. The Archives had asked the department to investigate after saying 15 boxes of records it retrieved from the estate included classified records. It remains unclear whether the Justice Department moved forward with the warrant simply as a means to retrieve the records or as part of a wider criminal investigation or attempt to prosecute the former president. Multiple federal laws govern the handling of classified information, with both criminal and civil penalties, as well as presidential records. U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the same judge who signed off on the search warrant, unsealed the warrant and property receipt Friday at the request of the Justice Department after Attorney General Merrick Garland declared there was “substantial public interest in this matter,” and Trump said he backed the warrant’s “immediate” release. The Justice Department told the judge Friday afternoon that Trump’s lawyers did not object to the proposal to make it public. In messages posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, “Not only will I not oppose the release of documents … I am going a step further by ENCOURAGING the immediate release of those documents.” The Justice Department’s request was striking because such warrants traditionally remain sealed during a pending investigation. But the department appeared to recognize that its silence since the search had created a vacuum for bitter verbal attacks by Trump and his allies and felt that the public was entitled to the FBI’s side about what prompted Monday’s action at the former president’s home. “The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing,” said a motion filed in federal court in Florida on Thursday. The information was released as Trump prepares for another run for the White House. During his 2016 campaign, he pointed frequently to an FBI investigation into his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, over whether she mishandled classified information. To obtain a search warrant, federal authorities must prove to a judge that probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed. Garland said he personally approved the warrant, a decision he said the department did not take lightly given that standard practice, where possible is to select less intrusive tactics than a search of one’s home. In this case, according to a person familiar with the matter, there was substantial engagement with Trump and his representatives prior to the search warrant, including a subpoena for records and a visit to Mar-a-Lago a couple of months ago by FBI and Justice Department officials to assess how the documents were stored. The person was not authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. FBI and Justice Department policy caution against discussing ongoing investigations, both to protect the integrity of the inquiries and to avoid unfairly maligning someone who is being scrutinized but winds up ultimately not being charged. That’s especially true in the case of search warrants, where supporting court papers are routinely kept secret as the investigation proceeds. In this case, though, Garland cited the fact that Trump himself had provided the first public confirmation of the FBI search, “as is his right.” The Justice Department, in its new filing, also said that disclosing information about it now would not harm the court’s functions. The Justice Department under Garland has been leery of public statements about politically charged investigations, or of confirming to what extent it might be investigating Trump as part of a broader probe into the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The department has tried to avoid being seen as injecting itself into presidential politics, as
AG Merrick Garland asks to unseal warrant for Mar-a-Lago search
The Justice Department is asking a federal court to unseal the warrant the FBI used to search the Mar-a-Lago estate of former President Donald Trump, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday, acknowledging extraordinary public interest in the case about classified records. The request is striking because such documents traditionally remain sealed during a pending investigation. But the Justice Department appeared to recognize that its silence since the search had created a vacuum for bitter verbal attacks by Trump and his allies, and Garland wanted to provide the FBI’s side for what led to the action. “The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing,” said a motion filed in federal court in Florida on Thursday seeking the unsealing. Should the warrant be released — the request is now with the judge, and Trump can object — it could disclose potentially unflattering information about the former president and his handling of sensitive government documents right as he prepares for another run for the White House. During his successful 2016 campaign, he pointed frequently to an FBI investigation into his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, over whether she mishandled classified information. It’s unclear at this point how much information would be included in the documents, if made public, or if they would encompass an FBI affidavit that would presumably lay out a detailed factual basis for the search. To obtain a search warrant, federal authorities must prove to a judge that probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed. Neither Trump nor the FBI has said anything about what documents the FBI might have recovered. But the former president complained anew on Thursday about the search. Trump, who for years has lambasted the FBI and sought to sow distrust among his supporters in its decisions, said the warrant was served, and the search conducted despite his cooperation with the Justice Department. In a post to his Truth Social platform, Trump said that his “attorneys and representatives were cooperating fully” prior to the search and that government officials “could have had whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, if we had it.” FBI and Justice Department policy cautions against discussing ongoing investigations, both to protect the integrity of probes and to avoid unfairly maligning someone who is being scrutinized but winds up ultimately not being charged. That’s especially true in the case of search warrants, where supporting court papers are routinely kept secret as the investigation proceeds. In this case, though, Garland cited the fact that Trump himself had provided the first public confirmation of the FBI search, “as his right.” The Justice Department, in its new filing, also said that disclosing information about it now would not harm the court’s functions. Even so, Garland, in a hastily scheduled public statement delivered from the Justice Department podium, appeared to acknowledge the unusual nature of the department’s request as he declined to take questions or provide any substantive details about the FBI’s investigation. “Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations,” he said. “Federal law, longstanding department rules, and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time.” He said he personally approved the search warrant, a step he said was part of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into the discovery of classified White House records recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida, earlier this year. The National Archives had asked the department to investigate after saying that classified records were found in 15 boxes of records that it retrieved from the estate. The attorney general condemned verbal attacks on FBI and Justice Department personnel over the search. Some Republican allies of Trump have called for the FBI to be defunded. Earlier Thursday, an armed man wearing body armor tried to breach a security screening area at an FBI field office in Ohio, then fled and was injured in an exchange of gunfire in a standoff with law enforcement. “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked,” Garland said of federal law enforcement agents, calling them “dedicated, patriotic public servants.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Florida judge who approved FBI warrant for raid on Mar-a-Lago was assigned to Donald Trump lawsuit against Clintons
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the Florida judge who approved the warrant for the FBI raid of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was formerly assigned to oversee a lawsuit in which Trump sued Hillary Clinton. He also previously represented former convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s employees in a sex trafficking case. In the case of Trump v. Clinton, Trump sued Hillary Clinton on March 24, 2022. He also sued the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan Jr., Jakes Sullivan, John Podesta, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, and many others. The lawsuit alleges that Clinton “and her cohorts … maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent [Trump] was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” The scheme included “falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly sensitive data sources,” and was “conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level officials at the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.” Reinhart was assigned to the case on April 6, 2022, after the previous magistrate judge, Ryon McCabe, was recused. On April 15, Reinhart conducted a scheduling conference in the case, according to court documents obtained by The Center Square. He oversaw scheduling of a June 2 status conference on May 4 and 31 and oversaw the actual conference. Reinhart also signed another order on June 14, setting another status conference for July 6, but by June 22 Reinhart canceled the conference and recused himself. Less than two months later, on Monday, August 9, he signed a warrant for the FBI to raid Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate over an alleged dispute over White House documents. The search warrant remains under seal, and Trump’s attorney has told news outlets that they don’t know what the probable cause was to justify issuing the warrant, also maintaining Trump’s innocence and that he didn’t commit a crime. Many officials have called for the warrant to be unsealed, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, has called for a congressional investigation into the raid, also saying the FBI’s tactics were like those of a third-world dictatorship. Rubio said, “the Justice Department under Joe Biden decided to raid … the home of the former president who might … be running against him … This is what happens in places like Nicaragua where last year every single person who ran against Daniel Ortega for president, every single person that put their name on the ballot, was arrested and is still in jail. That’s what you see in places like Nicaragua. We’ve never seen that before in America. You can try and diminish it, but that’s exactly what happened.” Gov. Ron DeSantis said the raid was a “weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents.” The White House has declined to comment on the raid, saying it was not made aware of it before it took place. The document dispute stems from a disagreement over which documents in Trump’s possession are presidential records or not. Under the Presidential Records Act, some records in question should have been transferred to the National Archives in January 2021 when Trump left office, the institution said in a statement at the time. Instead, Reinhart authorized the FBI to execute the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, which Trump said was “prosecutorial misconduct.” According to a report by the New York Post, Reinhart previously represented several of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s employees in a sex trafficking investigation. His ties to Epstein’s employees was first reported on by the Miami Herald, with whom he confirmed that clients were Epstein’s pilots, his scheduler, Sarah Kellen, and a woman Nadia Marcinkova. Reinhart also donated to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Post. Prior to becoming a magistrate judge in 2018, he spent ten years in private practice, according to Bloomberg News. He previously worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. According to Law.com, the Palm Beach Federal Court removed Reinhart’s contact information from the court’s website Tuesday. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s Florida estate: Why now?
The FBI’s unprecedented search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence ricocheted around government, politics, and a polarized country Tuesday, along with questions as to why the Justice Department — notably cautious under Attorney General Merrick Garland — decided to take such a drastic step. Answers weren’t quickly forthcoming. Agents on Monday searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, which is also a private club, as part of a federal investigation into whether the former president took classified records from the White House to his Florida residence, people familiar with the matter said. It marked a dramatic escalation of law enforcement scrutiny of Trump, who faces an array of inquiries tied to his conduct in the waning days of his administration. From echoes of Watergate to the more immediate House probe of the January 6 Capitol insurrection, Washington, a city used to sleepy Augusts, reeled from one speculative or accusatory headline to the next. Was the Justice Department politicized? What prompted it to seek authorization to search the estate for classified documents now, months after it was revealed that Trump had taken boxes of materials with him when he left the White House after losing the 2020 election? Garland has not tipped his hand despite an outcry from some Democrats impatient over whether the department was even pursuing evidence that has surfaced in the January 6 probe and other investigations— and from Republicans who were swift to echo Trump’s claims that he was the victim of political prosecution. All Garland has said publicly is that “no one is above the law.” A federal judge had to sign off on the warrant after establishing that FBI agents had shown probable cause before they could descend on Trump’s shuttered-for-the-season home — he was in New York, a thousand or so miles away, at the time of the search. Monday’s search intensified the months-long probe into how classified documents ended up in boxes of White House records located at Mar-a-Lago earlier this year. A separate grand jury is investigating efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and it all adds to potential legal peril for Trump as he lays the groundwork for a potential repeat run for the White House. Trump and his allies quickly sought to cast the search as a weaponization of the criminal justice system and a Democratic-driven effort to keep him from winning another term in 2024 — though the Biden White House said it had no prior knowledge and current FBI Director Christopher Wray was appointed by Trump five years ago. Trump, disclosing the search in a lengthy statement late Monday, asserted that agents had opened a safe at his home, and he described their work as an “unannounced raid” that he likened to “prosecutorial misconduct.” Justice Department spokesperson Dena Iverson declined to comment on the search, including whether Garland had personally authorized it. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the West Wing first learned of the search from public media reports, and the White House had not been briefed in the run-up or aftermath. Jean-Pierre refused to say whether Biden wanted the attorney general to explain publicly the rationale for the search amid the concerns about politicization of the probe. “The Justice Department conducts investigations independently, and we leave any law enforcement matters to them,” she said. “We are not involved.” About two dozen Trump supporters stood in protest at midmorning Tuesday in the Florida summer heat and sporadic light rain on a bridge near the former president’s residence. One held a sign reading “Democrats are Fascists,” while others carried flags saying “2020 Was Rigged,” “Trump 2024,” and Biden’s name with an obscenity. Some cars honked in support as they passed. Trump’s Vice President Mike Pence, a potential 2024 rival, tweeted Tuesday, “Yesterday’s action undermines public confidence in our system of justice, and Attorney General Garland must give a full accounting to the American people as to why this action was taken, and he must do so immediately.” Trump was planning to meet Tuesday at his Bedminster, New Jersey, a club with members of the Republican Study Committee, a group headed by Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana that says it is committed to putting forth his priorities in Congress. The FBI reached out to the Secret Service shortly before serving a warrant, a third person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press. Secret Service agents contacted the Justice Department and were able to validate the warrant before facilitating access to the estate, the person said. The Justice Department has been investigating the potential mishandling of classified information since the National Archives and Records Administration said it had received from Mar-a-Lago 15 boxes of White House records, including documents containing classified information, earlier this year. The National Archives said Trump should have turned over that material upon leaving office, and it asked the Justice Department to investigate. There are multiple federal laws governing the handling of classified records and sensitive government documents, including statutes that make it a crime to remove such material and retain it at an unauthorized location. Though a search warrant does not necessarily mean criminal charges are near or even expected, federal officials looking to obtain one must first demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause that a crime occurred. Two people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said the search Monday was related to the records probe. Agents were also looking to see if Trump had additional presidential records or any classified documents at the estate. Trump has previously maintained that presidential records were turned over “in an ordinary and routine process.” His son Eric Trump said on Fox News on Monday night that he had spent the day with his father and that the search happened because “the National Archives wanted to corroborate whether or not Donald Trump had any documents in his possession.” Trump himself, in a social media post on Monday night, called the search a “weaponization of the Justice System,
Parroting Donald Trump, GOP primary losers cast doubt on elections
It was no shock that state Rep. Ron Hanks and Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters handily lost their recent Republican primaries in Colorado for U.S. Senate and secretary of state. Hanks was outspent 14-to-1 by his rival. Peters, who was vying to become Colorado’s top elections official, had been indicted on seven felony charges alleging she helped orchestrate a breach of her voting system’s hard drive. But this past week, both candidates formally requested recounts of their primary elections from June 28, suggesting widespread irregularities seen by no one other than their own campaigns and allies. “I have reasons to believe extensive malfeasance occurred in the June 2022 primary,” Peters wrote in her recount request, “and that the apparent outcome of this election does not reflect the will of Colorado voters not only for myself but also for many other America First statewide and local primary candidates.” America First is a coalition of conservative candidates and officeholders who, among other things, promote the falsehood that Democrat Joe Biden did not win the 2020 presidential election. This idea has seeped deeply into this year’s Republican primaries, which have revealed a new political strategy among numerous candidates: running on a platform that denies President Donald Trump’s defeat two years ago. As some of those candidates lose their own races, they are reaching new frontiers in election denial by insisting that those primaries, too, were rigged. “There’s a clear reason they’re doing it, and it’s a much broader, coordinated attack on the freedom to vote across the country,” said Joanna Lydgate of States United Action. Her group supports election officials who recognize the validity of the 2020 election. Noting that she coaches youth basketball, Lydgate added another reason: “Really, what this is is people who are sore losers, people who don’t want to accept defeat.” The primary losers have an obvious role model: Trump himself. After his first election loss during his 2016 run for the White House, in the Iowa caucuses, Trump baselessly claimed fraud and demanded an investigation. When he was elected president later that year, he claimed that fraud was the reason Democrat Hillary Clinton won more votes than he did. Trump set up a commission to try to prove that. That commission was disbanded when it failed to produce any evidence. After his 2020 defeat, Trump and his supporters lost 63 of 64 legal challenges to the election. Trump continued to blame fraud without evidence, even after his own attorney general and election reviews in the states failed to turn up any widespread wrongdoing that would have any impact on the outcome. This year’s post-primary election denial may be a preview for November when Republicans face Democrats in thousands of races across the country. The GOP is expected to do well — an expectation that could set the stage for more false claims of fraud when some of those candidates lose. Still, some Republicans aren’t waiting for Democratic voters to weigh in before making unsubstantiated fraud claims. Some recent candidates who have done that are relatively marginal ones. In Georgia, Trump’s two recruits to challenge the state’s governor and secretary of state — former Sen. David Perdue and Rep. Jody Hice — admitted defeat after they lost the May primaries. But Kandiss Taylor, a fringe candidate who won only 3% of the primary vote for governor, refused to concede, claiming there was widespread cheating. In South Carolina, Republican Harrison Musselwhite — who goes by Trucker Bob — lost his primary against Gov. Henry McMaster by 66 percentage points. Still, he complained of problems with the election to the state party, as did another losing GOP contender, Lauren Martel, who ran for attorney general. The party rejected their claims. Others who have cried fraud are more prominent. Joey Gilbert, who came in second in the Nevada Republican primary for governor, posted a Facebook video days after the June tally showing him 26,000 votes short. “These elections, the way they’ve been run, it’s like Swiss cheese,” he said. “There’s too many holes.” Gilbert, who attended Trump’s rally near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riot at the U.S. Capitol, demanded a recount. The results appear unlikely to substantially change the final tally. He did not return messages seeking comment. In Arizona, former newscaster Kari Lake won Trump’s endorsement in her quest for the party’s nomination for governor, insisting that he won the presidency in 2020. This past week, she told supporters that her top opponent in the primary “might be trying to set the stage for another steal” in next month’s primary. That earned her a rebuke from Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican who has endorsed Lake’s chief rival, Karin Taylor Robson. “The 2022 elections haven’t even been held yet, and already we’re seeing speculation doubting the results – especially if certain candidates lose,” Ducey tweeted. “It’s one of the most irresponsible things I can imagine.” Lake’s campaign did not return messages seeking comment. In Colorado, county clerk Peters immediately questioned the primary results once the tally showed her losing badly in the secretary of state’s race. Claiming fraud as she trailed former county clerk Pam Anderson, a regular debunker of Trump’s election lies, Peters said: “Looking at the results, it’s just so obvious it should be flipped.” She and Senate candidate Hanks repeated Trump’s election lies, a position that had won them strong support last spring at the 3,000-strong GOP state assembly, a convention attended by the party’s strongest activists. Both candidates, in letters to the secretary of state’s office this past week demanding a recount, cited that support in explaining why they could not have lost their primaries. Hanks referred a reporter to an email address for media for the two candidates, though no one responded to questions sent to that address. The activists who attend the GOP gathering are just a small fraction of the 600,000 who voted in the June primary. According to preliminary results, Peters lost by 88,000 votes and Hanks by 56,000 votes. Their recount letters gave reasons why the candidates believed those vote tallies were “being artificially controlled.” The Colorado Secretary of State’s office said
Pressure grows for ALGOP response to Katie Britt’s alleged Democratic Party support
In a state like Alabama, the Republican Party rules supreme. Winning a primary is tantamount to winning an election because Republicans hold a supermajority in the state. “Crossover voting” during primaries allows Democratic voters to have a say in who will be the winner, given that the general election is often nothing more than a formality. Since 2010, crossover voting has not been allowed in primary runoff elections in Alabama. However, voters in Alabama are not required to register with a party prior to voting, so there is no mechanism to prevent crossover voting from happening in Republican primary elections because Alabama has open primaries. 1819 News reported that Mo Brooks has accused opponent Katie Britt of soliciting Democrat votes in last month’s primary. During a radio interview on WVNN’s “The Dale Jackson Show,” Brooks stated, “No question. Katie Britt had an activist effort, kind of behind the scenes, to encourage Democrats to crossover and to pollute our Republican primary.” Brooks also argued that she would do the same in the June 21 runoff. “It will probably happen to some degree on June 21 when we have to runoff. That’s not right,” Brooks continued. “The Democrats should never be participating in Republican primaries and vice-versa. But we’ll see how Republicans across the state react to Katie Britt’s outreach program that is coming to greater and greater light. By outreach program, I’m talking about getting Democrats to tamper in our elections.” Brooks’s accusations seem valid to some Republican leaders after Democratic Party executive director Wade Perry posted on Twitter, describing Britt as “pretty awesome” and “super helpful” during the Doug Jones 2017 win over Roy Moore. Additionally, Democrat U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith stated he supported Britt. “She’s running a great campaign,” Griffith commented last year on WVNN’s “The Dale Jackson Show.” “She’s got a lot of assets. I’ve got a Katie Britt sign in my front yard … because the Democrats cannot win in Alabama. We need good government. We’re going to have to vote for good people and start being Americans instead of Republican or Democrat, particularly in Alabama.” Michael Hoyt, the chairman of the Republican Party in Baldwin County, has called for closed primaries. During an interview on FM Talk 106.5’s “The Jeff Poor Show,” Hoyt stated, “Principally, I would be in favor of having a closed primary. I think the party and members of the party should choose who their nominees are. And that shouldn’t be people for Democrats, for Libertarians, or whatever coming over.” Hoyt also said he expected the ALGOP to look into the issue in the near future. “[I] support having a closed primary system, and I suspect that that’s something that will be addressed by the state party, perhaps even at the summer meeting this year, and certainly be taken up by the legislature,” Hoyt commented. “When you’re in an essentially one-party state, and they know the election is determined by the primary, you have to be careful of who is even running in those races, and we certainly don’t want Democrats coming in and voting in them. So, I agree with [that] 100%.” Jennifer Montrose, president of the West Alabama Republican Assembly, issued a resolution requesting the Republican Party Steering Committee conduct “a fully public hearing or meeting with notice to the public to consider the facts and potential sanctions against candidate Katie Britt.” Essentially, the resolution accuses Britt of supporting “a nominee of another political party,” an infraction that can “deny ballot access to a candidate for public office.” In February, the Alabama Republican Party’s candidate committee voted to remove three candidates from its primary ballot in state legislative races because of alleged affiliations with other parties. “[W]e take it extremely serious that we keep the Republican primary ballots pure,” ALGOP chair John Wahl stated. “And what I mean by that is we’re not going to let a Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton come in and run on the Republican ticket. It’s not going to happen. Sometimes it gets hard. It’s very hard to know who is a Republican and who is not a Republican. The candidate committee makes those decisions, and I chair that committee. I choose not to take a vote because I feel like it is important for the chairman dispense all the information to provide the body information they need to make the best decision.” During the Republican primaries, Britt led opponent Brooks by a 45%-to-29% margin in votes.
William Haupt III: We need a new contract with America
“Until someone is prepared to lay out the systemic problem, we will simply go through cycles of finding corruption, finding a scapegoat, and eliminating the scapegoat.” – Newt Gingrich Bill Clinton’s first term in office marked the beginning of the Republican Revolution. His promise to reform health care was soundly defeated. His executive order lifting the ban against gays in the military failed to energize leftist activists. And a barrage of political and personal scandals plagued the Clintons during his first term. The most deleterious scandal was that Clinton illegally profited from a back door involvement in a failed savings and loan on the Whitewater River in Arkansas. But none was more injurious to Clinton than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA created a common market for goods, services, and investments with Canada and Mexico. U.S. workers were forced to compete with global competition for jobs that hurt their standard of living and threatened their future. This ill-fated agreement angered the unions and labor-friendly Democrats who needed union support. And America turned to the GOP to right the sinking ship. Prior to 1994, Democrats controlled the House for 40 consecutive years, with a coalition of liberals in the north and east with southern blue-dogs. Since Democrats held the House for 58 of the last 62 years and the Senate for 34 out of 40 years, they had no fear of Republicans in the 1994 midterms. According to the University of Colorado’s Paul Teske, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were easy campaign targets for the GOP. From Hillary Clinton’s failed health care bill to numerous corruption cases in Congress and Bill Clinton’s foray into NAFTA, America was ripe for the GOP revolution. “Every revolution seems impossible at the beginning, and after it happens, it was inevitable.” – Bill Ayers It was obvious America needed a change. Liberal Democrats in the north and the good-ol-boy-left in the south had dictated Congressional policy for almost five decades – which wasn’t working. They were about to be reminded that the “political pendulum always swings both ways if it is balanced.” The late senator Bob Dole reminded Republicans that they had been the minority in Congress for so long that they had forgotten how to take charge and govern. He said in order to win, they needed a platform that had national appeal with universal solutions for all Americans, not just Republicans. In an effort to unite Americans under a common goal, six weeks before the 1994 midterm elections, House Reps. Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey introduced a “Contract with America.” As ballots were cast, this not only gave Republicans control of Congress, it would also save the Clinton presidency. The Contract with America was a legislative agenda by the Republican Party for all of America. It detailed the actions the GOP promised to take – if they became the majority in the U.S. House for the first time in four decades. This was a true bipartisan effort to solve major problems confronting our nation. “We are in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America.” – Newt Gingrich The contract’s text included eight reforms the GOP promised to enact and ten bills they committed to bring to the floor if they took over the House. It included issues that had been polled during the first years of the Clinton administration that 60% of the American voters collectively wanted remedied. The text of the proposed bills included in the Contract was released before the election. They represented significant changes in federal policy that included a balanced budget requirement and tax cuts for businesses, families, and seniors. It also included term limits, reforms to Social Security, and tort and welfare reform. It avoided controversial matters such as abortion and school prayer. Gingrich purposely excluded how these bills and policies would be enacted and what they would cost. He did not want to distort his goals. He knew these issues concerned voters, and they wanted them fixed. And if he didn’t deliver, it would cost him his job. He only wanted to impress voters that if the GOP took over Congress, they would make changes in government that all of America wanted. Lou Cannon of the Washington Post wrote, “Democrats attacked the plan as extreme and radical, and its solutions would make America worse.” They claimed that a balanced budget, tax cuts, and welfare reform would hurt the poor and do irreparable damage to institutions that had been in place for decades.” Clinton confidant Vernon Jordan protested, “This contract is a ‘hit job’ on Americans!” Although the liberal media and the polls minimized the importance of “The Contract with America,” Election Day 1994 proved fatal for Democrats. According to Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, Gingrich was responsible for the “Republican Revolution,” with the GOP easily taking control of the House and the Senate. They also won 12 governorships and took control in 20 state legislatures. As predicted, many of the elements of Gingrich’s “contract” that passed in Congress were vetoed by Clinton, and the ones that he signed did not radically change America as the left had predicted. Although the proposed balanced budget Constitutional Amendment failed to pass, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans led the crusade to end 30 years of federal red ink and balanced the budget. Joe Biden’s regressive “contract for our nation” was to turn America into a progressive Shangri la, with no strings attached. He promised to redistribute wealth from the rich with punishing new taxes. He vowed to stop drilling for oil, increase welfare, pay people not to work, and to open our borders. “I promise that all increased spending on federal programs will be paid for by the rich.” – Joe Biden Last election, the liberal media convinced America to buy into Biden’s “contract with America” and take out Donald Trump. We are now energy dependent on rogue nations with record-high inflation, a broken supply chain, a labor shortage, and have security issues due
ALGOP Chair John Wahl stands behind ousting of three candidates; aims to keep ballot ‘pure’
The Alabama Republican Party’s candidate committee voted to remove three candidates from its primary ballot in state legislative races on Saturday, during its winter meeting. House District 10 candidate Anson Knowles, Senate District 21 candidate Tripp Powell, and Senate District 10 hopeful Teresa Rhea were removed from the primary ballot after challenges to their candidacies. The decision to drop Knowles from the ballot was connected to his prior Libertarian Party activity. For fifteen months, starting in 2015, Anson was the Chairman of the Libertarian Party in Madison County, Alabama. Additionally, after his time with the Libertarian Party, Knowles donated to a Libertarian candidate’s campaign. The decision to drop Powell stemmed from a $500 donation given to the Democratic gubernatorial primary campaign of Mayor Walt Maddox in 2018. During an appearance on Mobile radio FM Talk 106.5’s “The Jeff Poor Show”, Alabama Republican Party chairman John Wahl applauded the committee’s efforts to keep the ballots “pure”. “[W]e take it extremely serious that we keep the Republican primary ballots pure,” Wahl said. “And what I mean by that is we’re not going to let a Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton come in and run on the Republican ticket. It’s not going to happen. Sometimes it gets hard. It’s very hard to know who is a Republican and who is not a Republican. The candidate committee makes those decisions, and I chair that committee. I choose not to take a vote because I feel like it is important for the chairman dispense all the information to provide the body information they need to make the best decision.” “It’s always a hard process for both sides — the challenger and the defendees, and for us as a committee because it is an uncomfortable situation,” Wahl continued. “But it’s an incredibly important part of the ballot process. I think it is always important to respect how hard that is and know the members do the best job they can. They’re not perfect. They may make a mistake, but they do the best job they can to make sure people know the Republican Party is keeping the ballots pure.” According to party rules, if a Republican elected official donates or endorses a Democrat, there would be instant removal from the party. Wahl argued that if this rule applies to elected officials, the standard should be the same for candidates. Wah stated that there is no standard or statute of limitations, but that it was decided on a case-by-case basis. When asked if he stood by the decision, Wahl stated, “I don’t think there’s any doubt that the candidate committee worked hard to make sure they made the best decision possible for the people of Alabama.”
Luther James Upton pleads not guilty in alleged radio threat on cop
A city leader from a south Alabama town has pleaded not guilty to a federal charge of using his local radio show to threaten a police officer who pulled him over. Evergreen City Council member Luther James Upton, 74, entered the plea on Wednesday, WALA-TV reported. He was indicted on a charge of making threatening interstate communications in November. Upton, who state court records show has had several traffic tickets through the years, allegedly went on a local radio show he hosts on May 18 urging Evergreen’s mayor and police chief to “get rid” of an officer who was only identified by initials in the indictment. ’“I dare him to stop me again. ’Cuz when he pulls me over, I’m going to put him down. I’m just telling ya now, I’m tired of it.”’ the indictment quoted Upton as saying. The defense contends Upton’s statements weren’t a real threat of harm, arguing that the First Amendment protects speech that’s “hyperbolic, inflammatory, shocking, or crude.” A defense request to dismiss the case against Upton compared his remarks to those of celebrity Kanye West threatening on Twitter to beat Saturday Night Live cast member Pete Davidson, who dates West’s former wife Kim Kardashian, and former President Donald Trump implying that supporters could use a “Second Amendment” solution if Hillary Clinton were elected president. Upton could face as long as five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted, records showed. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Dem-led House, drawing a line, kicks Marjorie Taylor Greene off committees
A fiercely divided House tossed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene off both her committees Thursday, an unprecedented punishment that Democrats said she’d earned by spreading hateful and violent conspiracy theories. Underscoring the political vise her inflammatory commentary has clamped her party into, nearly all Republicans voted against the Democratic move but none defended her lengthy history of outrageous social media posts. Yet in a riveting moment, the freshman Republican from a deep-red corner of Georgia took to the House floor on her own behalf. She offered a mixture of backpedaling and finger-pointing as she wore a dark mask emblazoned with the words “FREE SPEECH.” The chamber’s near party-line 230-199 vote was the latest instance of conspiracy theories becoming pitched political battlefields, an increasingly familiar occurrence during Donald Trump’s presidency. He faces Senate trial next week for his House impeachment for inciting insurrection after a mob he fueled with his false narrative of a stolen election attacked the Capitol. Thursday’s fight also underscored the uproar and political complexities that Greene — a master of provoking Democrats, promoting herself, and raising campaign money — has prompted since becoming a House candidate last year. Eleven Republicans joined 219 Democrats in backing Greene’s ejection from her committees, while 199 GOP lawmakers voted “no.” Addressing her colleagues, Greene tried to dissociate herself from her “words of the past.” Contradicting past social media posts, she said she believes the 9-11 attacks and mass school shootings were real and no longer believes QAnon conspiracy theories, which include lies about Democratic-run pedophile rings. But she didn’t explicitly apologize for supportive online remarks she’s made on other subjects, as when she mulled about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi being assassinated or the possibility of Jewish-controlled space rays causing wildfires. And she portrayed herself as the victim of unscrupulous “big media companies.” News organizations “can take teeny, tiny pieces of words that I’ve said, that you have said, any of us, and can portray us as someone that we’re not,” she said. She added that “we’re in a real big problem” if the House punished her but tolerated “members that condone riots that have hurt American people” — a clear reference to last summer’s social justice protests that in some instances became violent. Greene was on the Education and Labor committee and the Budget committee. Democrats were especially aghast about her assignment to the education panel, considering the past doubt she cast on school shootings in Florida and Connecticut. The political imperative for Democrats was clear: Greene’s support for violence and fictions were dangerous and merited punishment. Democrats and researchers said there was no apparent precedent for the full House removing a lawmaker from a committee, a step usually taken by their party leaders. The calculation was more complicated for Republicans. Though Trump left the White House two weeks ago, his devoted followers are numerous among the party’s voters, and he and Greene are allies. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., hopes GOP victories in the 2022 elections will make him speaker. Republicans could undermine that scenario by alienating Trump’s and Greene’s passionate supporters, and McCarthy took no action to punish her. “If any of our members threatened the safety of other members, we’d be the first ones to take them off a committee,” Pelosi angrily told reporters. She said she was “profoundly concerned” about GOP leaders’ acceptance of an “extreme conspiracy theorist.” At one point, No. 2 Democratic leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland strode to the GOP side of the chamber carrying a poster of a Greene Facebook post from last year. “Squad’s Worst Nightmare,” Greene had written in the post, which showed her holding an AR-15 firearm next to pictures of three of the four Democratic lawmakers, all young women of color, who’ve been nicknamed “The Squad.” “They are people. They are our colleagues,” Hoyer said. He mimicked Greene’s pose holding the weapon and said, “I have never, ever seen that before.” Republicans tread carefully but found rallying points. McCarthy said Greene’s past opinions “do not represent the views of my party.” But without naming the offenders, he said Pelosi hadn’t stripped committee memberships from Democrats who became embroiled in controversy. Among those he implicated was Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who made anti-Israel insults for which she later apologized. “If that’s the new standard,” he said of Democrats’ move against Greene, “we have a long list.” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said Democrats were setting a precedent by punishing lawmakers for statements made before they were even candidates for Congress. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, warned, “You engage in wrong-speak, you’re in the Thunder Dome,” a term for an enclosed wrestling arena. Committee assignments are crucial for lawmakers for shaping legislation affecting their districts, creating a national reputation, and raising campaign contributions. Even social media stars like Greene could find it harder to define themselves without the spotlights that committees provide. Not all Republicans were in forgiving moods, especially in the Senate. There, fringe GOP candidates have lost winnable races in recent years and leaders worry a continued linkage with Trump and conspiracists will inflict more damage. That chamber’s minority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., this week called Greene’s words a “cancer” on the GOP and country. On Thursday, No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Thune of South Dakota amplified that thinking. Thune said House Republicans needed to issue a “really strong” rebuke of Greene’s conspiratorial formulations. Republicans must “get away from members dabbling in conspiracy theories,” Thune said. “I don’t think that’s a productive course of action or one that’s going to lead to much prosperity politically in the future.” The fight came a day after Republicans resolved another battle and voted to keep Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., in their leadership. Pro-Trump conservatives tried removing her because she supported Trump’s impeachment. The House resolution punishing Greene was barely over a page. It said House rules require lawmakers’ behavior to “reflect credibly” on the chamber and said Greene should be removed “in light of conduct she has exhibited.” News organizations have unearthed
Donald Trump pardons 15, commutes 5 sentences, including GOP allies
President Donald Trump on Tuesday pardoned 15 people, including a pair of congressional Republicans who were strong and early supporters, a 2016 campaign official ensnared in the Russia probe and former government contractors convicted in a 2007 massacre in Baghdad. Trump’s actions in his final weeks in office show a president who is wielding his executive power to reward loyalists and others who he believes have been wronged by a legal system he sees as biased against him and his allies. Trump issued the pardons — not an unusual act for an outgoing president — even as he refused to publicly acknowledge his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20. Trump is likely to issue more pardons before then. He and his allies have discussed a range of other possibilities, including members of Trump’s family and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Those pardoned on Tuesday included former Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Chris Collins of New York, two of the earliest GOP lawmakers to back Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Trump also commuted the sentences of five other people, including former Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas. Collins, the first member of Congress to endorse Trump to be president, was sentenced to two years and two months in federal prison after admitting he helped his son and others dodge $800,000 in stock market losses when he learned that a drug trial by a small pharmaceutical company had failed. Hunter was sentenced to 11 months in prison after pleading guilty to stealing campaign funds and spending the money on everything from outings with friends to his daughter’s birthday party. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the pardons for Hunter and Collins were granted after “the request of many members of Congress.” She noted that Hunter served the nation in the U.S. Marines and saw combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the group announced Tuesday night were four former government contractors convicted in a 2007 massacre in Baghdad that left more than a dozen Iraqi civilians dead and caused an international uproar over the use of private security guards in a war zone. Supporters of Nicholas Slatten, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, and Dustin Heard, the former contractors at Blackwater Worldwide, had lobbied for pardons, arguing that the men had been excessively punished in an investigation and prosecution they said was tainted by problems and withheld exculpatory evidence. All four were serving lengthy prison sentences. The pardons reflected Trump’s apparent willingness to give the benefit of doubt to American service members and contractors when it comes to acts of violence in war zones against civilians. Last November, for instance, he pardoned a former U.S. Army commando who was set to stand trial next year in the killing of a suspected Afghan bomb-maker and a former Army lieutenant convicted of murder for ordering his men to fire upon three Afghans. Trump also announced pardons for two people entangled in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. One was for 2016 campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about a conversation in which he learned that Russia had dirt on Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The president also pardoned Alex van der Zwaan, a Dutch lawyer who was sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to investigators during the Mueller probe. Van der Zwaan and Papadopoulos are the third and fourth Russia investigation defendants granted clemency. By pardoning them, Trump once again took aim at Mueller’s inquiry and advanced a broader effort to undo the results of the investigation that yielded criminal charges against a half-dozen associates. The pardons drew criticism from top Democrats. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the president was abusing his power. “Trump is doling out pardons, not on the basis of repentance, restitution or the interests of justice, but to reward his friends and political allies, to protect those who lie to cover up him, to shelter those guilty of killing civilians, and to undermine an investigation that uncovered massive wrongdoing,” Schiff said. Last month, Trump pardoned former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and months earlier commuted the sentence of another associate, Roger Stone, days before he was to report to prison. Trump has granted about 2% of requested pardons in his single term in office — just 27 before Tuesday’s announcement. By comparison, Barack Obama granted 212 or 6%, and George W. Bush granted about 7%, or 189. George H.W. Bush, another one-term president, granted 10% of requests. Also among those pardoned by Trump was Phil Lyman, a Utah state representative who led an ATV protest through restricted federal lands. Lyman was serving as a Utah county commissioner in 2014 when he led about 50 ATV riders in a canyon home to Native American cliff dwellings that officials closed to motorized traffic. The ride occurred amid a sputtering movement in the West pushing back against federal control of large swaths of land and came in the wake of an armed confrontation Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had with Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees. Lyman spent 10 days in prison and was ordered to pay nearly $96,000 in restitution. The Trump administration in 2017 lifted a ban on motorized vehicles in parts of the canyon but left restrictions in place through other areas where Lyman led his ride. Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents were also pardoned, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, convicted of shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler near El Paso, Texas, in 2005. Others on the list included a Pittsburgh dentist who pleaded guilty to health care fraud, two women convicted of drug crimes, and Alfred Lee Crum, now 89, who pleaded guilty in 1952 when he was 19 to helping his wife’s uncle illegally distill moonshine. Crum served three years of probation and paid a $250 fine. The White House
Steve Flowers: Republican majority in the U.S. Senate is more important to Alabama than the presidency
As this 2020 Presidential election year comes to a close, allow me to share some final thoughts on the results with you. As you might expect, with this being the year of one of the worst pandemic viruses in human history, it would have an effect on politics. Surprisingly, given the fact that people were told to not go out and be around others, you had a massive turnout nationwide. In Alabama, the voter turnout was unprecedented and record-breaking, especially among Republican voters. Donald Trump’s popularity in the state drove the turnout. He eclipsed his 62% landslide against Hillary Clinton. He garnered 63% of the amazing vote and provided coattails for Republican Tommy Tuberville and allowed the Coach to annihilate Democrat Doug Jones by a whopping 60 to 40 margin. This year’s vote confirms the fact that a Democrat cannot win a statewide race in the Heart of Dixie. If Democrat Doug Jones can outspend Republican Tuberville $25 million to $7 million, a 4 to 1 advantage, but only manage to get 40% of the vote, that ought to tell you something. Forty percent appears to be the maximum threshold for a well-financed, articulate Democrat in the state. Currently, we have 38 elected statewide officeholders in Alabama and all 38 are Republicans. Therefore, winning the Republican nomination for a statewide office in Alabama is tantamount to election. The nation is divided politically in a deep chasm. Most of rural, middle America in the Heartland of the country is colored Republican red. The East and West coast metropolitan states, primarily New York and California are liberal blue states. If you take out the large runup of votes in California for Democrat Joe Biden, then the race was close to being 50/50 between Trump and Biden. However, the national popular vote is irrelevant as we elect our president under an electoral college system. This election confirmed that there are 10 battleground states where the election is decided. In the other 40 states, the hay is in the barn. Alabama is reliably Republican, and California is solidly Democratic. Therefore, sophisticated, pinpoint campaigning is focused on Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and now the sunbelt states of Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia. Campaign strategists can even determine the zip codes, neighborhoods, and locales that will determine the outcome in these swing states. It was obvious that Democrats knew all along that the race would boil down to Michigan, Wisconsin, and especially Pennsylvania. Democrats had lost these three states by a razor-thin margin to Trump in 2016 and they were the reason Trump edged Hillary Clinton. The key to victory was turning out the Democratic African American vote in Philadelphia and Detroit. Early voting and especially mail-in voting helped accomplish this mission. Another proven political maxim applied, “Primarily, more people vote against someone than for someone.” More people voted against Donald Trump than voted for Joe Biden. One final thought on presidential politics. The national television networks are unabashedly and unashamedly biased. All of them, and polling may be dead. Very few people, especially Republicans, will trust poll numbers again. One final day poll had Biden beating Trump by 18 points in Wisconsin. He carried the state by less than 1%. More importantly for Alabama is that the Republican party will more than likely keep the majority in the United States Senate. In the Senate, the majority party makes the rules and gets all the committee chairmanships. Our Senior Senator, Richard Shelby, will retain the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee as well as Chairman of the subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. If you do not think federal defense dollars are important to Alabama, you best think again. No state in the nation benefits more from federal defense dollars than Alabama. Shelby’s prowess at bringing home the bacon to Alabama is legendary. His chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee is probably Alabama’s number one economic engine. Therefore, Tuberville’s defeat of Jones was good for Alabama because it allowed for a Republican pickup over a Democrat and probably insured the Republican majority in the Senate. The current Senate count is 50 Republicans and 48 Democrats. There are two seats in Georgia that will be decided in Special Election runoffs on January 5. The Republicans will be favored to keep these two seats. In closing, for Alabama’s sake economically, it is more important that the U.S. Senate is majority Republican because of Richard Shelby than who won the presidency. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
