Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

DOJ reaches settlement with ex-FBI ‘lovebirds’ caught in anti-Trump text scandal

DOJ reaches settlement with ex-FBI ‘lovebirds’ caught in anti-Trump text scandal

Former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have settled with the Justice Department over alleged privacy rights violations after the release of their disparaging text messages leveraged by former President Trump to challenge the Russia investigation during his presidency.  The settlement is still pending finalization and approval from a judge. A tentative agreement was filed Tuesday resolving Page’s 5-year-old lawsuit against the FBI for releasing text messages with Strzok — with whom she had an affair — that were critical of the former president. Strzok’s lawsuit seeking backpay and reinstatement remains unsettled. Page sought $1,000 in compensation following the leak of her text messages to the media. Additional details about the settlement were not immediately available. COULD VERDICT IN TRUMP CRIMINAL TRIAL UPEND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? In 2019, Strzok argued in a court filing in Washington, D.C., federal district court that his politically charged anti-Trump messages were protected by the First Amendment even though he sent them on bureau-issued phones while playing leading roles in the probes into both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Strzok, once the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, said he was entitled to “develop a full factual record through discovery,” and that it would be premature to dismiss the case at this early stage. He went on to argue that the DOJ’s position would “leave thousands of career federal government employees without protections from discipline over the content of their political speech.” NY V. TRUMP: FORMER PRESIDENT UNLEASHES SOCIAL MEDIA FIRESTORM AHEAD OF JURY DELIBERATION Page also filed suit against the FBI and Department of Justice, alleging the government’s publication of her salacious text messages with Strzok constituted a breach of the Federal Privacy Act. Page’s complaint also sought reimbursement for “the cost of childcare during and transportation to multiple investigative reviews and appearances before Congress,” the “cost of paying a data-privacy service to protect her personal information” and attorney’s fees. In a later filing, according to CNN, Strzok’s lawyers wrote that the defendants “should not be heard to complain about the notoriety and putative damage to the FBI’s reputation from Strzok’s speech when it was their own illegal disclosures, magnified and distorted by the false attacks made by the President and his allies, that placed a spotlight on Strzok’s opinions.” The two were involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election and later served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team. In 2020, the spotlight was on the lovers’ scandal during a live performance titled “FBI Lovebirds: UnderCovers” at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which was based on the anti-Trump text messages shared between the former agents. Trump has called the couple the “FBI lovebirds” during his rallies.  Fox News’ Gregg Re and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Texas Republican takes aim at Biden’s ‘unconstitutional attack’ on Americans’ gun rights

Texas Republican takes aim at Biden’s ‘unconstitutional attack’ on Americans’ gun rights

FIRST ON FOX: A Texas Republican is taking aim at President Biden as an enemy of Americans’ gun rights with a resolution he’s introducing Thursday in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Roger Williams, chairman of the House Small Business Committee, says his resolution highlights support for the Second Amendment’s “guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and opposes “the Biden administration’s efforts to undermine that guarantee at every opportunity.” The resolution takes aim at the Biden administration’s actions related to the Second Amendment in recent years, saying it has a “stated goal” to “restrict, burden, and undermine the ability of ordinary law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.” The resolution comes amid the implementation of an interim final rule (IFR) by the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to amend the DOC’s licensing policy for exports of guns, ammunition and related components under its jurisdiction. BIDEN ADMIN TO TIGHTEN RESTRICTIONS ON FIREARM EXPORTS, OFFICIAL SAYS That regulation goes into effect Thursday and was highlighted in Williams’s resolution, which said BIS “has restricted the fundamental Second Amendment right enumerated in the Bill of Rights by implementing policies that limit commercial firearm exports without providing adequate reasoning to why such a prohibition is necessary.” In an April press release, the DOC said the changes were “intended to reduce the risk of legally exported firearms and related items being diverted or misused to fuel regional instability, drug trafficking, human rights violations, political violence, and other activities that undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.” The DOC issued a pause on nearly all gun exports in October, claiming it needed to assess the “risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities.” That pause will be lifted Thursday when the new rule goes into effect. In addition to the new rule, the DOC said “BIS will revoke currently valid licenses that authorize exports of firearms to non-government end users in the destinations identified by the State Department” on July 1. BIDEN ADMIN SKEWERED BY GOP FOR RULE DESIGNED TO ‘INTENTIONALLY HARM’ GUN INDUSTRY With its text cited in the resolution, the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “Our founding fathers envisioned a country where every citizen has the right to protect themselves, their property and their family. The Biden administration has gone to extreme lengths to criminalize law-abiding gun owners, ignoring Congress, and using federal agencies like the DOJ and ATF to abuse the rule-making process,” Williams told Fox News Digital. “I am proud to reaffirm my strong support for the Second Amendment and condemn Biden’s unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners and buyers.” Additionally, the resolution calls out President Biden for signing “multiple Executive orders directing federal agencies to act far outside the scope of their constitutional and statutory authority to dramatically expand restrictions on the lawful purchase and possession of firearms by ordinary civilians.” Williams’s resolution goes on to highlight the “number of rules issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in recent years aimed at restricting Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.” If passed, the resolution would declare the House of Representatives “reaffirms the support for the Second Amendment and the Constitutional guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” “disapproves of President Biden’s gun control agenda and hostility towards the lawful gun industry,” “disapproves of President Biden’s gun control efforts,” “opposes the Biden administration’s continuous abuse of executive branch authority to restrict citizen’s fundamental Second Amendment right,” “disapproves of recent administrative rule and policy changes by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to restrict citizen’s Second Amendment right,” and “disapproves of the Bureau of Industry and Security policies to limit lawful firearm exports and bad-faith attacks on civilian gun ownership.” Williams’ resolution, according to the congressman’s office, has received support from several gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). “Time and time again, the Biden Administration has overstepped its authority to attack the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA thanks Rep. Roger Williams for his resolution affirming the U.S. House of Representatives’ support of the Second Amendment,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch. Lawrence G. Keane, the senior vice president and general counsel for NSSF, also commended Williams’ resolution and insisted the Biden administration has “heaved on nearly every government lever to attack” the industry that provides means for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. “The U.S. Constitution’s precepts of certain inalienable rights being granted to us by our Creator and not a government are no less important today than they were when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Our freedoms are worthy of our defense, and the Second Amendment guarantees that no law-abiding citizen will be deprived of the natural right of self-defense or the rights to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and preserve those liberties,” Keane said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. “The Biden administration has heaved on nearly every government lever to attack the industry that provides the means to exercise our Second Amendment rights,” Keane added. “The strong and principled stand by these members of Congress, led by Representative Roger Williams, in keeping with our American traditions protecting those freedoms from an overreaching government that shows flagrant disregard for the rights of ‘We, the People.’” Last week, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, led 22 other Senate Republicans in calling on the Biden administration to withdraw what they considered to be the “deeply misguided rule and its

‘History of anger problems’: Jill Biden mocked for hyping president as ‘calm’ and ‘steady’

‘History of anger problems’: Jill Biden mocked for hyping president as ‘calm’ and ‘steady’

First lady Jill Biden was blasted on social media on Wednesday after she said during an interview that President Biden is “calm” and “steady” compared to former President Trump, who represents “chaos.” “We have a choice, this is what I’m out there saying. We have a choice we can have my husband who is calm, and steady and strong and has character and integrity or we have the other choice, which is chaotic,” Biden told “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. “We have to decide. Democracy or chaos.” The comment drew immediate criticism on social media from conservatives skeptical of the portrayal of Biden as “calm” and “steady.” “This doesn’t work this time. Does anything feel calm?” conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller posted on X. JESSE WATTERS: BIDEN IS AN ANGRY RECLUSE OBSESSED WITH HIS LEGACY “Narrator: He’s incredibly weak, has a history of anger problems, and has so little integrity that he can’t give a simple speech without telling multiple, already-debunked lies,” Red State writer Bonchie posted on X. Biden has often been criticized for seemingly losing his cool in recent years. In 2019, he appeared to call an Iowa man “fat,” and a “damn liar.” He later denied calling him fat, claiming he was saying “facts” instead. Since becoming president, there have been multiple reports of him being prone to angry outbursts at staff and others when not in the public eye. A report last year detailed how he had referred to former President Trump as a “f—ing a–hole” and a “sick f—“ An Axios report detailed how Biden has such a temper that aides try not to meet him alone, in fear of facing his wrath. His admonitions reportedly include “”Godd— it, how the f— don’t you know this?!,” “Don’t f—-ing bulls— me!” and “Get the f— out of here!” “No one is safe,” one administration official told the outlet. Biden’s tactics generally came in the form of “angry interrogations” until it became apparent to others in the room that they did not know the answer to a question. It allegedly became so routine that staff named it “stump the chump.” In March, the White House pushed back against an NBC News report that said Biden is growing anxious and angry about his re-election bid. “There’s a report that when President Biden was told his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas was starting to affect his poll numbers, the quote is he began to shout and swear. So when he does that, is he shouting and swearing about Netanyahu or about Hamas or about his poll numbers?” Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. “This is the ‘when did you stop beating your spouse’ question because I don’t think he ever did that,” Sullivan responded.  BIDEN BECOMING INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED AND WORRIED OVER RE-ELECTION EFFORTS: REPORT “Excuse me?” Doocy interjected, before Sullivan continued.  “Well you use that as the premise of your question, which is when he does that. He – I’ve never seen him do that shout or swear in response to that. So from my perspective, that particular report is not correct,” Sullivan said.  Biden’s anger was on display in February when he reacted to a special counsel report about his mishandling of classified documents. He called some assertions “plain wrong.” “There’s even reference that I don’t remember when my son died. How the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damned business,” he said. “I am well-meaning, and I’m an elderly man and I know what the hell I’m doing,” he said. CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP He also was not keen on some questions from reporters. “My memory is so bad, I let you speak,” he snapped at Doocy. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

New Louisiana law criminalizes approaching police after being ordered to stay back

New Louisiana law criminalizes approaching police after being ordered to stay back

Critics of a new Louisiana law, which makes it a crime to approach within 25 feet of a police officer under certain circumstances, fear that the measure could hinder the public’s ability to film officers — a tool that has increasingly been used to hold police accountable. Under the law, anyone who is convicted of “knowingly or intentionally” approaching an officer, who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties,” and after being ordered to “stop approaching or retreat” faces up to a $500 fine, up to 60 days in jail or both. The law was signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, Tuesday and goes into effect Aug. 1. While the legislation’s language does not specifically mention filming, critics say that by default it would limit how close a person can be to observe police. Opponents have also gone further to question the law’s constitutionality, saying it could impede on a person’s First Amendment rights. ‘WE MUST TAKE ACTION’: RED STATE RISKS LEGAL SHOWDOWN WITH BIDEN DOJ OVER THIS KEY ISSUE Proponents argue the new law will create a buffer-zone to help ensure the safety of officers and that bystanders would still be close enough to film police interactions. Bystander cellphone videos are largely credited with revealing police misconduct — such as with the 2020 killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis officers — and reshaping the conversation around police transparency. An attempt to establish a specific range at which onlookers can record officers actively engaged in law enforcement duties has occurred elsewhere. In 2022, lawmakers in Arizona passed a law that would have made it illegal to knowingly film police officers 8 feet or closer if the officer tells the person to stop. A coalition of media groups and the American Civil Liberties Union successfully sued to block Arizona’s law, with a federal judge ruling it unconstitutional, citing infringement against a clearly established right to film police doing their jobs. In similar cases, half of the U.S. appeals courts across the nation have ruled on the side of allowing people to record police without restriction. The Louisiana measure’s author, state Rep. Bryan Fontenot, said the legislation was drafted to provide officers “peace of mind and safe distance to do their job.” “At 25 feet, that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest,” Fontenot said while presenting his bill in a committee earlier this year. “The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet — it sure is a lot more difficult than if he’s sitting right here.” A nearly identical bill was vetoed last year by then-Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat. Edwards called the measure “unnecessary” and said it could be used “to chill exercise of First Amendment rights.” “Each of us has a constitutional right to freely observe public servants as they function in public and within the course and scope of their official duties,” Edwards, who served in the U.S. Army and was the son of a sheriff, said in last year’s veto message. “Observations of law enforcement, whether by witnesses to an incident with officers, individuals interacting with officers, or members of the press, are invaluable in promoting transparency.” However, with a new conservative governor in office and the GOP continuing to hold a supermajority in the Louisiana Legislature, the bill had a clear path forward. Language in the measure appears to put in some safety nets, stating that an acceptable “defense to this crime” includes establishing that the “lawful order or command was neither received nor understood by the defendant.”

Biden tells Black voters he will put progressives on Supreme Court in second term

Biden tells Black voters he will put progressives on Supreme Court in second term

President Biden on Wednesday promised to nominate progressives to the Supreme Court if he wins a second term in the White House. Biden made the pledge at a “Black Voters for Biden-Harris” rally in Philadelphia, where he predicted that more than one Supreme Court justice will retire in the next four years. “The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life,” Biden told his audience.  The president’s comments emphasize what is at stake in the next election for both conservatives, who have lauded their 6-3 majority on the court in recent years, and progressives who have decried landmark rulings ending federal protections for abortion and expanding gun rights. FIRST LADY JILL BIDEN WARNS ‘THE VIEW’ ‘WE WILL LOSE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS’ IF TRUMP GETS ANOTHER SCOTUS JUDGE Biden’s remarks also serve as a reminder that several justices are in their seventies. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both conservatives appointed by Republican presidents, are 75 and 74, respectively. Sonia Sotomayor, a progressive appointed by President Obama, will turn 70 next month. TRUMP AHEAD OF BIDEN IN THESE KEY SWING STATES: POLL If one or more justices retire, the next occupant of the White House will fill that vacancy and may reshape the composition of the court for decades. Former President Trump had three such opportunities during his term in office, appointing conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barret — who solidified the current conservative majority. With the election a little more than six months away, the Biden campaign is sounding the alarm on what could happen if Trump wins as polls show a tight race.  SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ALITO ADDRESSES FLAG INCIDENTS, SAYS HE WON’T RECUSE HIMSELF IN TRUMP, JAN. 6 CASES First lady Jill Biden said Wednesday there would be disastrous results and a loss of human rights if Trump is re-elected in November. “We will lose all of our rights,” she said on “The View.” She had warned earlier that “we cannot take things for granted, and think of the Supreme Court for God’s sake. Talk about things getting worse? Can you imagine if we put any more Republicans on the Supreme Court? No!” The rhetoric from the Biden campaign echoes Trump’s 2016 strategy after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, with a pending Supreme Court appointment. Trump promised to nominate a conservative who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established constitutional protections for abortion, and he even released a list of people he was considering for the position. Biden in 2020 promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity. He did so after Justice Stephen Breyer retired at age 83, nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the vacancy. Fox News’ Alexander Hall contributed to this report.