“
—-
“This should matter to all Americans, regardless of their politics,” Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky says of special counsel John Durham’s court filing. Pictured: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks July 13, 2018, at the annual convention of the American Federation of Teachers at Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh. (Photo: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Electronic political espionage that allegedly infiltrated White House computer servers “should shock everyone regardless of who controls the White House,” and the crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
The recent court filing by special counsel John Durham alleges that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign hired a technology company to access information from computer servers used by Donald Trump’s business headquarters at Trump Tower in New York City and then, perhaps more seriously, to access servers inside the White House after Trump assumed the presidency in January 2017.
“If any of the communications that were intercepted were classified, that opens up the cyberoperatives to even more serious criminal charges,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.
Durham made the filing in his case against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who is charged with lying to the FBI. Sussmann, who has pleaded not guilty, is contesting the charges.
In December 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr named Durham as special counsel after he already had begun investigating the matter as U.S. attorney for Connecticut.
Durham’s filing Friday alleges that Clinton campaign lawyers enlisted a technology executive’s help to assemble various corporate and university researchers, including a cybersecurity company with a government contract that was able to access White House information.
The cybersecurity company accessed computer servers for information to establish an “inference” and “narrative” of a plot between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government, in order to spark a federal investigation.
In his long-awaited 2019 report, then-special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Heritage’s von Spakovsky answered five questions from The Daily Signal to put the new allegations from Durham’s investigation into perspective. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)
The Daily Signal: Why should allegations that lawyers from the Hillary Clinton campaign paid a firm to infiltrate the servers of Trump Tower, and later the White House, matter to Americans? Should this matter to those who aren’t Trump supporters?
Hans von Spakovsky: This should matter to all Americans, regardless of their politics. Privacy in our internet communications is important to everyone and is protected by law. If these allegations are correct, not only was federal criminal law violated by this electronic espionage, but it was profoundly wrong—a political campaign using its political allies and cyberoperatives to target an opposing candidate and a sitting president, actually infiltrating the White House computer servers, something that should shock everyone regardless of who controls the White House.
The Daily Signal: Based on the information in the Durham filing, would you anticipate this leading to additional indictments in the case? How far up could this potentially go? And does it seem as though Michael Sussmann is a lower-level figure charged as a means to access information about other potential defendants?
Von Spakovsky: Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030), intentionally accessing a computer including “any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States [which would include the White House] without authorization” can get you up to 10 years in prison. And it is a violation when someone “exceeds authorized access,” which would certainly apply to what was happening as described in Durham’s motion.
Indictments will depend on the evidence that Durham develops and whether the applicable statute of limitations has expired. We don’t know how far up this went in the Clinton campaign, although the internet executive who orchestrated this electronic spying told Durham he did it to impress “VIPs” in the Clinton campaign.
If any of the communications that were intercepted were classified, that opens up the cyberoperatives to even more serious criminal charges.
The Daily Signal: Former President Trump has called this action against him “worse than Watergate.” Better or worse is generally subjective, but both operations would appear to be a form of domestic political espionage. As a legal matter, how could this allegation of accessing servers, if true, be similar and different from Watergate?
Von Spakovsky: The burglary and wiretapping that occurred in Watergate were criminal violations of the law. The type of unauthorized access to computer systems as described by Durham is also a criminal violation of the law. If found to be true, this would be the worst political scandal since Watergate, which resulted in the downfall of a president.
But what makes it arguably worse is that 1) they infiltrated the White House, 2) the amount of data they gathered was potentially voluminous and sensitive, and 3) the Watergate burglars were caught in the act before they could install their bugging equipment; these guys succeeded in getting the information they sought, using it to smear a president and get an extensive federal law enforcement investigation against the [Trump] administration that caused it all kinds of problems.
The Daily Signal: What type of legal liability could the person identified in the court filing as “Tech Executive 1,” as well as the person identified as a federal cybersecurity contractor, be subject to?
Von Spakovsky: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act specifies different levels of fines and prison time for various violations of the law. This is a very serious allegation and could result in very large fines and extensive jail time, depending on the extent and breadth of violations of the statute that can be proven by the government. And as I said, if any of the communications that were intercepted were classified, that opens up the cyberoperatives to even more serious criminal charges.
The Daily Signal: Beyond the criminal case—if the allegations in the recent filing are true—could there be future civil liability issues? Could Trump or anyone else targeted in the criminal case that ensued from a false narrative credibly sue?
Von Spakovsky: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act gives any person “who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation” of certain provisions of the law the ability to file a civil lawsuit against the violator for compensatory damages. But the lawsuit must be filed within two years of the date the violation occurred or the violation was discovered.
There are also other potential causes of action under statutes such as 42 USC 1985, [covering] conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, which includes conspiring to prevent someone from holding public office or discharging the duties of public office.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
The Honorable Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, Washington D.C.
Dear Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler,
I noticed that you are a pro-life representative that has a long record of standing up for unborn babies! It was in the 1970’s when I was first introduced to the works of Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop and I wanted to commend their writings and films to you.
I recently read about your impressive pro-life record:
Washington State Congresswoman Tells March for Life about Her Miracle Baby
At the March for Life rally on the National Mall this afternoon, Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler (R., Wash.) told the story of her daughter Abigail to illustrate the value of every unborn life.
As she stood on the stage with her husband and children, Herrera Beutler said that several years ago, her unborn daughter had been diagnosed at 20 weeks’ gestation with a fatal deformity. The doctor told her and her husband Dan that their child had no kidneys and would miscarry or suffocate at birth because her lungs could not develop.
Their doctor told them, too, that, when women received this type of news, they would immediately head across the street to schedule an abortion procedure. “The sooner you start over, the better off you will be emotionally,” the doctor told them.
But Herrera Beutler and her husband did not choose to “start over” in that way. They chose, instead, to hope, and pray, and even work for a miracle. They found doctors willing to believe that their unborn daughter could be saved and who tried experimental medical procedures to save her life. And, as Herrera Beutler addressed the crowd, her daughter Abigail stood beside her, holding her hand, smiling, and waving.
“I was told there was no chance of survival, but they were wrong,” Herrera Beutler went on. “And they weren’t bad people. They just had never seen a baby with this condition survive. But that’s the point. What if they’re wrong about others, too? What if, together, we can break new ground and find new treatments that will benefit more than just our own families? What if every baby was given at least a shot to reach their true potential?”
Herrera Beutler continued:
Who would we be as a nation? What richness would we get to see? Instead of the equivalent of two generations missing because of that choice. Would we have already witnessed one of these individuals finding a cure for cancer or the key to eradicating extreme poverty? What if we had spent the last 45 years pouring that time and that money into finding cures in the womb for medical conditions like spina bifida or microcephaly or congenital heart defects? What if that money was used to end the baby’s disease, and not the baby’s life?
. . . Today, we have come together to say, ‘There’s hope for every expectant mother who has been given a devastating diagnosis, for every woman who feels fear, or anger, or anxiety because she doesn’t know how she can afford care for that child, for every woman that feels hopeless: Jesus loves you. And for every baby that has been given up on by the status quo: Jesus still does miracles.
We must recognize the unborn child as the miracle that he or she is, a person developing with extraordinary potential and purpose, who deserves a fighting chance to live and just maybe reach that extraordinary potential. I believe it’s the only way our society is ever truly going to reach ours.
It seems you have a grudge against President Trump while our freedoms under President Biden are being taken away. I recommend to you the article below:
The January 6 Insurrection Hoax
• Volume 50, Number 9 • Roger Kimball
Roger Kimball
Editor and Publisher, The New Criterion
Mr. Kimball concludes his article with these words:
That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.
Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”
Bingo.
You can google and get Roger Kimball article “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”
NOW WHAT DID YOU DO TO TURN YOUR BACK ON OUR LIBERTY AND PERPETUATE THE HOAX THAT JANUARY 6TH WAS AN INSURRECTION? Read below!!
9 Republicans voted to hold Trump aide Bannon in contempt of Congress
There were a few Republicans Thursday who surprised observers when they voted in support of holding former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress and referring him to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
Prior to the vote, four Republicans were considered a lock to approve the criminal referral, according to Capitol Hill sources: Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Fred Upton of Michigan and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.
Cheney and Kinzinger are on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and have for months stood alone as the only two House Republicans willing to speak out against former President Donald Trump’s continued lies about the 2020 election. They were the only two House Republicans to vote for the formation of the select committee on June 30.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formed the select committee after Republicans rejected a bipartisan commission that would have been evenly split between five Democrats and five Republicans. Only 35 Republicans voted for that measure when itpassed the House of Representatives, and it was defeated by a GOP filibuster in the Senate.
Upton has served in the House for more than three decades, since 1987, and will face a primary challenge next year because of his willingness to stand up to Trump.
Gonzalez is retiring from Congress next year, after only four years in the House. “While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez said in September when heannounced he would not seek another term.
The remaining five Republicans included three who voted for impeachment — Peter Meijer of Michigan, John Katko of New York and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington — and two House Republicans who did not vote to impeach Trump: Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
Do you realize that Americans rights are being taken away from them and would you like an example? I am going to quote Mr. Kimball again. You can google and get Roger Kimball article “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”
Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.
Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 plus million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively.
Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.
I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years.
Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the Oath Keepers, a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers—agents arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett traveled to Washington from his home in Florida to join the January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building.
As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.
Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have beenbranded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.
This is a rush transcript from “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” September 23, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT.
In March of 1971, a bomb went off inside the U.S. Capitol Building. There was never any question about who did it, a Marxist group called the Weather Underground immediately took responsibility for it even before the explosions.
The Weathermen were not ashamed of what they did, they planned to overthrow the U.S. government and they wanted everyone to know it, yet even at the time, many Americans were not aware of this because the media immediately began telling a very different story about what happened.
“The Washington Post” for example explained that the radical left wasn’t actually to blame for the Capitol bombings, instead the culprit was something far more general something called, quote: “The easy contagion of extremism in a time of dark frustrations and deep disillusionment,” whatever that means, it probably meant there was a Republican President at the time.
The actual bombers meanwhile remained welcome in polite society. Years later, one of them became a quote, “distinguished professor” at a supposedly prestigious American university, if you can imagine.
Even now, 50 years after the fact, the whitewash of that day continues. POLITICO just ran a long piece telling us that the real villain in the 1971 terror attack on the Capitol was Richard Nixon, who by the way was not there. But according to POLITICO, the bombing quote, “Supercharged Nixon’s paranoia,” and in the end led to Watergate.
The story ends this way, “Fifty years on, it seems remarkable how fast the 1971 attack faded from collective memory.” Oh, but is it remarkable? Maybe not so remarkable. Leftists commit violence and the media covers for them? That’s something most of us are highly familiar with. It’s been happening for a very long time.
To this day, there are still a lot of Americans who think a right-winger killed JFK. Of course, the gunman was a person so committed to communism that he actually defected to the Soviet Union, but the media told the public it was a conservative, so many believed them.
The point here, the lesson that you should remember is that the first draft of history very often is a lie, and it’s not an accidental lie, it’s intentional. Partisans understand that history is among other things, a tool and they can use it to accumulate power. So they lie about something to suit their ends, they keep lying about it and before long, their lies are recorded as truth. They’re on Wikipedia and your kids believe them.
Now, we’ve watched this happen all this year in real time, we’re living through distorted history as we watch the offense of January 6th described by everyone. Here is how the media describe what happened that day that day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That day will be another day that lives in infamy in American History similar to Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We can now add January 6, 2021 to that very short list of dates in American History that will live forever in infamy.
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: A hundred and fifty days since the worst single act of political violence since the Civil War.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: The worst attack on American democracy arguably probably since the Civil War.
SCHUMER: The greatest attempted insurrection since the Civil War.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 1/6 attacks are likely to kill a lot more Americans that were killed on the 9/11 attacks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Though there was less loss of life on January 6th, January 6th was worse than 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: For the record, we really try our hardest not to put liars, people we know who lie for a living on television because it’s irresponsible, other channels do it every day.
But because we’re literal, let’s go through the evidence here. Only one person was killed on January 6th, and that person was an unarmed female protester who was shot in the neck without warning by a Capitol Hill police officer who happens to have a publicly documented history of extreme recklessness.
The protesters meanwhile killed no one and yet, they are telling you that those protesters were worse than the Imperial Japanese Army that attacked Pearl Harbor, killed thousands of Americans and led to the Second World War, the biggest war in history. They are also by the way worse than al- Qaeda.
So as a talking point, as a political talking point, that seems a little — how do you say — over the top, actually kind of insane. But no, it’s apt. Everybody argued that what we saw on January 6th was exactly like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the Civil War, including a guy who writes popular histories for airport bookstores.
He assured us that historically speaking, those comparisons are entirely valid. Here’s that historian on NBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Think of the 6th of January, if those terrorists who committed that attack on our Capitol had been a little bit faster, they could have and probably would have executed the Vice President, executed the Speaker of the House, executed other Members and leaders of Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: They probably would have, therefore they were as bad as people who actually did. Now you look at that and you say, well that guy is stupid and that’s fair, by the way, but then you look at 15 other guys just like him saying exactly the same thing and you have to ask yourself, why are they all saying exactly the same thing? Maybe there’s a purpose here.
And that might lead you to ask, what actually happened? And how can we find out? How do we make up our minds for ourselves? It’s clearly a significant day in American History. It’s being used to change the country, so maybe we should get to the actual facts of that day, what are they?
Well, it turns out the Biden administration didn’t want to tell us what they were. They refused to release thousands of hours of surveillance footage taken from within the Capitol on January 6th. Why wouldn’t they want us to see that? Well, we’re not sure, but we know they really didn’t want us to see it. In fact they went to court to keep that footage under seal.
In one court document, the Department of Justice argued that releasing that footage from January 6 would — and we’re quoting here — “compromise the security of the United States Capitol and those who work there.” They went on to say that that footage might quote, “create a visual pathway where other bad actors could use in planning their breach point and pathway for future attacks.”
No word if ISIS-K was involved in those plans or even if ISIS-K in fact exists, but that’s not the point. The point is, they can’t let you see the video because it’s just too dangerous to American National Security.
Keep in mind, the Capitol is a public building which technically speaking you own, you’ve probably been inside because until the other day you were allowed to because it’s your country or was.
So the idea that you’re not allowed to see the inside of the Capitol is insane. The idea that the public has a clear interest in knowing what happened that day is real.
So the footage we’ve seen up to this point shot by journalists and citizens contradicted the official story line. Here for example is the Chewbacca guy wandering around the Senate, this is the dangerous terrorist, this is the al-Qaeda operative. This is the Tojo of January 6th, wandering around the senate chamber looking a lot more like a confused street performer than a dangerous terrorist.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey [bleep] man. Glad to see you guys. You guys are patriots. Look at this guy, he is covered in blood. God bless you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You good, sir? Do you need medical attention?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m good, thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got shot in the face. I got shot in the face with some kind of plastic bullet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any chance I could get you guys to leave the Senate wing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will. I’ve been making sure they ain’t disrespecting the place.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, I just want to let you guys know this is like the sacredest place.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So you look at the guy in the Viking horns, the Chewbacca guy and you may reach the obvious conclusion, maybe psilocybin mushrooms aren’t good for you, and that’s fair. But no honest person could look at that video and decide America is under attack from terrorists.
So then you have to ask, is that what the rest of the so-called insurrection look like?
Well, now we have an answer because a Federal Judge just rejected the Biden administration’s strenuous attempts to hide the surveillance footage from January 6th.
So footage was just released. It was obtained by BuzzFeed. It covers 15 minutes on January 6th from 2:25 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. Eastern and those are key moments in the so-called insurrection.
Now right now, you’re seeing images from a surveillance camera positioned at the entrance to the Senate wing of the Capitol. You don’t see people hiding bombs or using bayonets or firing weapons, trying to take over the country in an insurrection.
You see people walking around and taking pictures. They don’t look like terrorists, they look like tourists, and all of them by the way are Americans.
The rest of the footage including shots from surveillance cameras outside the crypt of the Capitol is similar to this. You can look it all up by the way, it’s online right now and you should because you will notice that contrary to what the Department of Justice, we’re going to have to start putting air quotes around that, contrary to what D.O.J. claimed, none of the footage shows a secret route into the Capitol. Oh, that ISIS-K could use.
So why did they keep this from us? Well, here is one theory. You can compare the footage released today was what Democrats showed us during the impeachment hearings earlier this year.
Take a look at this. It is surveillance footage showing a squad of people dressed in all black systematically entering the Capitol and kicking open one of the exterior doors on the Senate side. These people appear to be well-trained and coordinated. They’re not high in hallucinogenic mushrooms.
The question is: who are they? And why don’t we know their names? And why aren’t they dressed like any of the other people in the footage that was just released?
Remember, we were attacked for saying this, but we’ve already been vindicated for it. We still don’t know how many Federal agents were involved in the events that day on January 6th, but we have very good reason to believe from court documents that it’s a significant number.
And here’s one clue. At a recent rally in Washington, the Feds managed to arrest one of their own undercover agents. There were so many Feds at the event that they lost track of each other and arrested one of them.
So we ask once again, how many Federal agents were there on January 6th? Why can’t we know? What is clear is that once again, this footage reveals the first draft of history was a total lie, an intentional distortion, a mirage created to control you. It was the work of a specific political party. It was the work of the Democratic Party.
So, it turns out, the vast majority of people inside the Capitol on January 6 were peaceful. They were not insurrectionists, they shouldn’t have been there. They weren’t trying to overthrow the government. That’s a total crock.
And with that in mind, some of the other lies about January 6th start to make more sense. Do you remember this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours-long attack.
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: They beat a Capitol police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.
COOPER: Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So here’s a rule of thumb going forward if you ever watch television again or read the newspaper, when they are absolutely insistent that you believe something, when they keep beating you over the head with the same talking point again and again and again, beware. There’s a reason they’re saying when all of them are using exactly the same line, maybe there’s a reason for that. Maybe it’s coordinated. Maybe they’re lying.
In this case they were lying. Brian Sicknick was not murdered. There is no evidence of that at all. The Medical Examiner said he died of a stroke.
So the reason they told you that was because they wanted to establish a storyline before all the facts were in. That’s a common theme for virtually everything that happens in the news right now, you will notice.
Something happens, you’re not exactly sure what the outline is, you don’t know all the facts, nobody does, and all of a sudden they hang a story on it that helps them politically and they ram it down your throat, day after day after day. They used to be called propaganda, now it’s so ubiquitous, I don’t know what to call it.
You remember the lies that you heard again and again about the McCloskeys in St. Louis who were white supremacists, or the Covington kids who were, of course, also white supremacists.
Remember how they claimed that George Floyd was choked to death even though an autopsy showed he was not choked to death and he had a fatal level of fentanyl in his system and zero signs of suffocation? That’s what it said. We’re not making that up.
What medical reports don’t matter anymore? That’s true.
Remember what they said about how the laptop showed that Hunter Biden was selling access to his father for years, but no it wasn’t real?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: … super spreader events and giving Russian disinformation, spreading Russian disinformation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Disinformation that he knows to be fabricated and supplied by a foreign Intelligence Service, and despite the warning, he is still doing it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have said this entire thing is so obviously a Russian plot.
JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It’s sort of a crazy quilt at this point, which has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That said, it wasn’t for lack of trying.
WALLACE: Rudy basically functioning as a Russian asset by pushing Russian disinformation.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: CNN reported on Friday, the U.S. authorities are saying, if those e-mails we just talked about are connected to an ongoing Russian disinformation effort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: These people are so shameless. They know they’re being used by liars in the Democratic Party, in the so-called Intel Community, and they just mouth the words anyway. They say whatever they’re told to say, and then of course the tech community gets involved and shuts down all conversation about it.
Facebook and Twitter censored “The New York Post” for reporting the truth. Joe Biden went on stage in a presidential debate and repeated the lie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), THEN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are in a situation where we have foreign company — countries trying to interfere in the outcome of our election. His own National Security adviser told him that what is happening with his buddy, well I shouldn’t — well, I will — his buddy, Rudy Giuliani, he is being used as a Russian pawn. He is being fed information that is Russian — that is not true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: They all knew it was true at the time. They knew within hours of the first “New York Post” story that really was the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, everybody knew it, everybody, especially, Joe Biden. His text and e-mails were all over the laptop. Of course, he knew they were real. He wrote them.
But the media lied on his behalf then Biden got elected because they covered for him and now that he is President, they can admit in fact it’s all true. Too late, it’s true.
POLITICO finally got around to confirming that every bit of “The New York Post” reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop was absolutely accurate. It wasn’t Russian disinformation, it was totally real.
When are they going to admit there was no insurrection? Never.
Candace Owens is the host of “Candace,” and we’re always grateful to have her on the show. Candace Owens, thanks so much for joining us. So when are they going to — I mean, how do they explain away this footage from inside the Capitol on January 6th, our Pearl Harbor, our 9/11, our Civil War — that shows people kind of wandering around sort of wondering how they got there?
I mean, whatever these people are, they are trespassers clearly, but they’re not a crack team of QAnon insurrectionists like they’re just not.
CANDACE OWENS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, these people look like they’re walking around a museum. It is the truth. I looked at the footage and I was absolutely shocked that they went through such tremendous effort.
Talk about Russian disinformation. No. It’s Department of Justice misinformation. Our Department of Justice has really launched a concerted effort to divide the American people. They have been lying left and right, front and center from the very beginning and they have no shame.
The idea they had to lock down these tapes because of National Security — are you kidding me, Tucker — it’s not National Security, it’s fake news security, right? They have their propaganda arm. They have their MSNBC, they have their CNN, and they want to make sure that the American people believe the constant effort to psychologically brainwash the American people by saying, don’t worry about seeing anything, we’re going to tell you what happened in there.
And you know what? It’s sick that they said that this was akin to Pearl Harbor, this is akin to 9/11. How insulting to the victims that actually endured those real tragedies?
I mean, there’s no limit that they won’t go. There is no limit that they won’t go through. It’s so extreme this rhetoric, and I also want to say this. Looking beyond this entire situation, the most embarrassing thing is that they’re not thinking about internationally how embarrassing this looks for the American people.
Think about when Vladimir Putin sat down with MSNBC and they said to him, look what you do to political dissidents? And he basically laughed in their face and said, look at what you do your political dissidence. He brought up January 6th, and you know what? Vladimir Putin was right. We no longer have the moral high ground in the international community because of this, because we have made an absolute mockery in terms of January 6th, and we have locked up political dissidents and those political dissidents are Trump supporters.
CARLSON: I think poor Chewbacca guy who clearly posed no threat to anyone, maybe himself, but certainly not our Republic, I think he’s still in jail. Why is no one in Congress saying anything about that?
OWENS: Yes, and not even that. I mean, I remember reading a story about a teenager that was imprisoned for months and months. He was begging, writing to the judge, please, let me go. Think about this now weighed against the Black Lives Matter protest, right?
I lived in D.C. during this time. They burned our city for six weeks and we have people signing up saying that we have to make sure that we bail them out of prison immediately and guess what, by and large, they were bailed out of prison immediately no matter what they did, because it was considered justice. Social justice, they’re allowed to do whatever they want even the middle of a pandemic.
And then you have these people which essentially, it was a grandma selfie party. Once they got into the Capitol Building, it was a grandma selfie party. There were American flags. They were wandering around aimlessly and they left.
And you know what? There seems to be different consequences for those people when weighed against the Black Lives Matter protesters who were burning entire churches to the grounds and pulling statues down with rope in D.C.
CARLSON: We’ve been talking about this story for eight months and the phrase “grandma selfie party” never occurred to me and I’m ashamed. I’m feeling it, going forward.
Candace Owens, it is so good. Thanks a lot.
—-
I want to recommend to you a video on YOU TUBE that runs 28 minutes and 39 seconds by Francis Schaeffer entitled because it discusses the founding of our nation and what the FOUNDERS believed:
Thank you for your time, and again I want to thank you for your support of the unborn little babies!
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, AR 72002, cell 501-920-5733, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org
——————————————————————————————
——
|
C. Everett Koop
|
|
|---|---|
 |
|
| 13th Surgeon General of the United States | |
| In office January 21, 1982 – October 1, 1989 |
________________
______________________
March 23, 2021
President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view. Although we are both Christians and have the Bible as the basis for our moral views, I did want you to take a close look at the views of the pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff too. Hentoff became convinced of the pro-life view because of secular evidence that shows that the unborn child is human. I would ask you to consider his evidence and then of course reverse your views on abortion.
___________________
The pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff wrote a fine article below I wanted to share with you.
Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many cases (Bernard Nathanson, Donald Trump, Paul Greenberg, Kathy Ireland) when other high profile pro-choice leaders have changed their views and this is just another case like those. I have contacted the White House over and over concerning this issue and have even received responses. I am hopeful that people will stop and look even in a secular way (if they are not believers) at this abortion debate and see that the unborn child is deserving of our protection.That is why the writings of Nat Hentoff of the Cato Institute are so crucial.
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.
__________________________
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
_____________________________________
________________
Jewish World Review June 12, 2006/ 16 Sivan, 5766
Insisting on life
http://www.NewsandOpinion.com | A longtime friend of mine is married to a doctor who also performs abortions. At the dinner table one recent evening, their 9-year-old son — having heard a word whose meaning he didn’t know — asked, “What is an abortion?” His mother, choosing her words carefully, described the procedure in simple terms.
“But,” said her son, “that means killing the baby.” The mother then explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. “But,” he said, “it doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”
Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this 9-year-old’s clarity of thought and vision.
The boy’s spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: “There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.
“That,” he continued, “was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned.”
This passionate reverend used to warn: “Don’t let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn’t a human being. That’s how the whites dehumanized us … The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do — and not even feel they’d done anything wrong.”
That preacher was Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the presidency — and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Jackson had by now become “pro-choice” — much to the appreciation of most of those in the liberal base.
The last time I saw Jackson was years later, on a train from Washington to New York. I told him of a man nominated, but not yet confirmed, to a seat on a federal circuit court of appeals. This candidate was a strong supporter of capital punishment — which both the Rev. Jackson and I oppose, since it involves the irreversible taking of a human life by the state.
I asked Jackson if he would hold a press conference in Washington, criticizing the nomination, and he said he would. The reverend was true to his word; the press conference took place; but that nominee was confirmed to the federal circuit court. However, I appreciated Jackson’s effort.
On that train, I also told Jackson that I’d been quoting — in articles, and in talks with various groups — from his compelling pro-life statements. I asked him if he’d had any second thoughts on his reversal of those views.
Usually quick to respond to any challenge that he is not consistent in his positions, Jackson paused, and seemed somewhat disquieted at my question. Then he said to me, “I’ll get back to you on that.” I still patiently await what he has to say.
As time goes on, my deepening concern with the consequences of abortion is that its validation by the Supreme Court, as a constitutional practice, helps support the convictions of those who, in other controversies — euthanasia, assisted suicide and the “futility doctrine” by certain hospital ethics committees — believe that there are lives not worth continuing.
Around the time of my conversation with Jackson on the train, I attended a conference on euthanasia at Clark College in Worcester, Mass. There, I met Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, and already known internationally as a key proponent of the “death with dignity” movement.
He told me that for some years in this country, he had considerable difficulty getting his views about assisted suicide and, as he sees it, compassionate euthanasia into the American press.
“But then,” Humphry told me, “a wonderful thing happened. It opened all the doors for me.”
“What was that wonderful thing?” I asked.
“Roe v. Wade,” he answered.
The devaluing of human life — as the 9-year-old at the dinner table put it more vividly — did not end with making abortion legal, and therefore, to some people, moral. The word “baby” does not appear in Roe v. Wade — let alone the word “killing.”
And so, the termination of “lives not worth living” goes on. 
______________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. Now after presenting the secular approach of Nat Hentoff I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith. I respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,
Related posts:
Al Mohler on Kermit Gosnell’s abortion practice
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part U “Do men have a say in the abortion debate?” (includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS and editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part T “Abortion is a dirty business” (includes video “Truth and History” and editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion supporters lying in order to further their clause? Window to the Womb (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part D “If you can’t afford a child can you abort?”Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 4 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part C “Abortion” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 3 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part B “Gendercide” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 2 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
SANCTITY OF LIFE SATURDAY “AngryOldWoman” blogger argues that she has no regrets about past abortion
Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]
“Sanctity of Life Saturday” The Church Awakens: Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (includes the video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part H “Are humans special?” includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) Reagan: ” To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all”
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part G “How do moral nonabsolutists come up with what is right?” includes the film “ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE”)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
The Daily Hatch 