This is a big week for congressional briefings that could shed some light on what the government has been hiding. But if history is any guide, they’ll continue to conceal it.
On Thursday morning, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle is scheduled to brief congressional staff after Kentucky Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, sent her a letter. Comer demanded that his committee be briefed by July 14 on the White House security failures that led to the “alarming development” of the discovery of cocaine in the West Wing of the White House.
“The incident,” Comer said, “has raised additional concerns with the Committee regarding the level of security maintained at the White House.”
Here’s that letter…
GOP senators are all over this as well. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton wrote to Cheatle, “If the White House complex is not secure, Congress needs to know the details, as well as your plan to correct any flaws.” As reported by AMERICAN GREATNESS, Cotton called for her to produce a list of every person who has access to the White House without passing a security screening. One would assume that’s a fairly short list. At the time of this writing, early Wednesday, Sen. Cotton had not received a reply.
The story of where the cocaine was found has changed so frequently that it became laughable. The internal investigation was expected to be closed this coming Monday whether or not a suspect is identified, which would make no sense in a sane world. Fingerprint and DNA analysis was supposedly done last week, but Texas Rep. Pat Fallon said on FOX NEWS Monday that the White House refused to reveal results of the fingerprint analysis, which normally takes about an hour to do. Of course, if no fingerprints were found, that brings in other considerations.
Thinking human beings can put two and two together and conclude that the Secret Service knows whose coke it was. The White House is now insulting our intelligence by saying the origin of the cocaine might NEVER be found. That’s absurd. (Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, calls the cover-up “officially ridiculous.”) The highly credentialed Kash Patel says that local law enforcement, not just the Secret Service, should be investigating this. “The White House is subject to law enforcement and we’re talking about felony levels of narcotics,” he said.
As the left are so fond of saying, no one is above the law.
Also set to testify this week, today at 10 a.m. Eastern Time, is Artful Dodger Christopher Wray, director of the FBI. When it comes to the questioning, let’s hope the House Judiciary Committee maintains the disciplined sense of direction that legal analyst Margot Cleveland has offered in her latest column.
With the “cluster bomb of scandals,” as she puts it, that has rocked the FBI --- and we deal with yet another one below --- Cleveland says Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan needs to focus today on two areas: 1) the damning conclusions in the Durham Report (ignored by most media but very real), and 2) the FBI’s involvement in the Biden family investigation.
She offers a list of questions that should be asked on the record even if Wray dodges them. And, of course, he will. He might even have a fishing trip in the Adirondacks to fly off to. On second thought, that probably only works once.
Here’s a particularly great question that should be asked both of him and of Attorney General Merrick Garland: “Why were Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys investigating a crime that connected to the President’s brother?” (And, we would add, likely to the President himself?)
The WASHINGTON EXAMINER has its own list of questions for Wray to sidestep.
C-SPAN will carry the hearing…
And no matter what comes of this meeting, it’s obvious the FBI has to be not just reined in but demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. There are now plans being floated to do just that. Here’s a proposal by Congressional Republicans to force the politics out of the FBI by moving its HQ 700 miles outside of Washington, DC.
And the Heritage Foundation just released a detailed plan for dismantling the FBI and replacing it with a reformed agency that fights crime instead of non-leftist wrongthink.
RELATED: In a must-see interview with Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of the instigators of Missouri v. Biden (begun when Schmitt was state attorney general), talked about the government’s response to Judge Doughty’s injunction against collaborating with media to censor Americans. The FBI has essentially gone on offense, he says, pushing to be allowed to continue this unconstitutional outsourcing to censor even MORE.
“So I think it’s a big win for free speech,” Schmitt says of the injunction. “It’s a crushing blow to this censorship regime that the Biden administration established, and it’s far-reaching. It almost exclusively went after conservatives, he says, dealing with origins of COVID, Hunter Biden’s laptop, mask mandates, “you name it.” The government was even threatening Big Tech companies with legal action and increased regulation.
The concern is that Biden, in the fall of ‘24, will sign on to the UN’s so-called Global Emergency Pact, which calls for control of climate “disinformation” across vast social media platforms. “They use COVID as the playbook,” Schmitt says. Once they’ve declared an emergency, he explains, they can use that as a pretense to suppress speech through executive action, censoring in ways they could never get passed in the House and Senate. This week, Schmitt has countered this threat by filing legislation that “seeks to codify the judge’s decision [in Missouri v. Biden] so this can’t happen again.”
Schmitt warns that “this is now the left’s instinct; this is what they want to do.” Instead of debating facts and ideas --- because they would lose the argument --- they demand control of the conversation.
“We’re often better when the Democrats actually get a chance to debate,” Schmitt says, “’cause the public sees how ridiculous the arguments are. But they’re afraid of it, so they want to shut it down.” That’s why they call it DANGEROUS.
The House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government issued a disturbing report on Monday based on documents subpoenaed from Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram) that showed they were pressured by the FBI and also by a Ukrainian intelligence agency [the SBU --- Security Service of Ukraine] to censor so-called “Russian disinformation.”
“In light of well-documented instances of the FBI’s civil liberties abuses,” the report reads, “this new information raises grave concerns about the FBI’s credibility as the nation’s premier law enforcement organization.” Wow, as if it were possible for the FBI’s credibility to sink any lower.
The report alleges that the “FBI violated the First Amendment rights of Americans and potentially undermined our national security.” Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, fhe SBU sent lists to the FBI of social media accounts it wanted banned, and the Bureau “routinely relayed these lists to the relevant social media platforms.” It says the censorship initiative was “compromised by a network of Russian collaborators, sympathizers, and double agents at the time of its interaction with the FBI.” Makes you wonder how anyone can get a true story.
When Meta didn’t take immediate, noticeable action against these accounts (numbering 5,165 and including investigative reporter Aaron Mate), the FBI sent a follow-up email to prod them. But the investigation couldn’t determine how Meta reacted internally to the take-down requests, as it didn’t have access to those internal communications.
The FBI also sent the SBU’s censorship requests, lots of them, to Google and YouTube. The word one senior cybersecurity employee at Google used in an interview with congressional investigators was “deluged.”
According to the report, this is still going on. “Based on open-source information,” it reads, “it appears that the FBI’s cooperation with the SBU remains ongoing.” So don’t believe what you read on social media about the conflict in Ukraine. The government is slicing and dicing the message it wants to send you and likely serving you the desired narrative on a tray.
Here’s what independent journalist Matt Taibbi, whose recent dive into the “Twitter Files” told a similar story, had to say about this. This piece is by subscription-only, but you’ll get the idea just from the part you can read for free.
And here’s the full, must-see Eric Schmitt interview…