Marching Orders: White House Letter Tells Media To “Ramp Up Their Scrutiny” In Response to Impeachment Inquiry

I have previously written how the level of advocacy and bias has created a danger of a de facto state media in the United States. It is possible to have such a system by consent rather than coercion. Given that long concern, a letter drafted by the Biden White House Legal Counsel’s Office was striking in a call for major media to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans “for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.”

The message is curious and concerning, particularly in the aggressive role being played by the White House Counsel’s office under Stuart Frank Delery.

First, as I have previously noted, the White House is now actively involved in pushing narratives and denying factual allegations linked to the Biden corruption scandal. That could create Nixonian-type allegations of the abuse of office in the use of federal employees to counter impeachment efforts.

Second, the letter was drafted by Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office. So White House lawyers are now enlisting the media in a counter media campaign against impeachment? The letter removes any pretense of separation between the Biden personal legal team and the White House Counsel’s office. Sams has been the most aggressive White House official in actively swatting down allegations of corruption as well as the President’s documents investigation.

Third, the letter calls for the media to actively support the White House account. The draft of the letter is a call for what I have previously criticized as “advocacy journalism” where reporters frame stories to advance their own viewpoints or values.

Sams wrote “[c]overing impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable.” In other words, media should (and it has for years) decline to give equal attention to allegations against the Bidens and instead tell the public what the truth is.

It is a call for media to tailor the coverage to push the position of the White House against this effort to ramp up the investigation into corruption. It is an approach that is already embraced by many in the media. That was evident in the meltdown of Washington Post columnist Philip Bump recently when he was confronted by countervailing evidence in the Biden scandals.  Before storming out, Bump chastised the interviewer for not just taking his work as the “putative expert” and said that he had enough “because you don’t listen to the press. I’m sitting here and I’m telling you, you’re wrong about these things, and you don’t listen, and you continue to insist upon things that are, you know, parsing of language.”

That appears the approach pushed by Sams, who specifically references Facebook and Fox as enemies of the truth: “in the modern media environment, where every day liars and hucksters peddle disinformation and lies everywhere from Facebook to Fox, process stories that fail to unpack the illegitimacy of the claims on which House Republicans are basing all their actions only serve to generate confusion, put false premises in people’s feeds, and obscure the truth.”

The letter has an uncomfortable feeling of marching orders to the media.  This is a media that followed the lead of Biden associates in spreading the false story that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation.

This is the media that refused to acknowledge the authenticity of the laptop until only recently — long after the presidential election.

This was the media that only recently admitted that President Biden has been lying about denials related to his son’s influence peddling.

Yet, the White House is now calling for the media to again form the wagons around the President and attack the impeachment effort as it did the laptop and the corruption investigation.

Once again, what is most disturbing is that the White House shows no reluctance or concern in making such an open pitch to the press. There is a sense of license in using the media as an extension of the White House press push. The fact that this is a representative of the White House counsel’s office is particularly chilling. This is not the press office but the counsel for the President calling on media to form a unified front against the Republicans and the impeachment inquiry.

The letter is an alarming erosion of separation of the White House Counsel’s office from the Biden defense team. It also confirms an active and aggressive role of White House officials in swatting down allegations against the President. While the staff obviously is not expected to be neutral on impeachment, there is a careful line that past White House counsels have walked between fulfilling their duties to the office as opposed to the officeholder.

267 thoughts on “Marching Orders: White House Letter Tells Media To “Ramp Up Their Scrutiny” In Response to Impeachment Inquiry”

  1. Off topic: I was just reading an article at the Fox website about Nancy Pelosi refusing to endorse Kamala Harris as Joetard’s running mate in 2024, and it suddenly hit me (like a tooth ache) what might happen:

    It could be — (cue the Phantom of the Opera horror music) — the unprosecuted multiple felon formerly known as “Hillary in a landslide.”

    Postponing the decision (or the announcement of the decision) would be brilliant, since Hillary tends to LOSE votes the longer she’s making public appearances and reminding people how obnoxious she is. And the garbage media wouldn’t need to be told how to react since they’re already trained to support her. And as a political spectacle, Hillary v Trump would be like the Rumble in the Jungle and the Thrilla in Manila rolled into one.

    I’m not saying it WILL happen. I just think it COULD happen, especially since Joetard is SO lame, Kamala adds nothing to the ticket, and Hillary has the insatiable ambition and name recognition. Plus, if they’re gonna pull the plug on Kamala, they’d better come up with another female, because that’s how democrats think. And bottom line: I just don’t see who else they’re gonna get, especially given the expectation that Joetard will only be there for purposes of the election, and be disposable to democrats by the day after the election.

    1. I dont hate this line of thinking. The dogs have been turned loose on Joe. Even morning Joe is calling for him to step aside. Gavin isnt far enough removed from the french laundry, much less his failing state. Who else they got??? They also know that if they arent careful, there will be a no labels ticket (Manchin/Gabbard?) and if that happens, they lose Bigly to whoever the R candidate is.

      1. It’s also risk free to Hillary and her enormous ego (not to be confused with her enormous behind), because if a Joetard/Hillary ticket loses, it will be Joetard who gets tagged with the loss — but if they win, all eyes will be on Hillary, and the entire story would be about her remarkable comeback and road to becoming the first female president, etc. etc. etc.

  2. Gigi, Dennis, fish wings, lawn boy

    “It was, like, a U.N.-related conversation,” Archer told congressional investigators about the Naval Observatory breakfast.

    “Who was present?,” Archer was asked.

    “A gentleman named Marc Holtzman, myself, Hunter, and the Vice President,” he answered

  3. First, at the end of the Obama administration, the Deep State used Hillary’s fabricated Russian Collusion allegations against Trump and his administration. The still corrupt FBI, DOJ, State Dept., CUA, and other government entities have surpassed exponentially the crimes committed by members oil f Nixon’s administration.
    Joe Biden’s money grubbing, influence peddling and national security violations surpass the Tea Pot Dome scandal exponentially as well.

    1. I recall Howard Hughes loaned money to Nixon’s brother, the press had a field day reporting that. NY Times, WP, all the liberal papers dis. Modern liberal papers and the reporters that write for the papersswwm to belkieve there is nothing “wroing” about all this graft the Biden’s are collecting. If you got a “D” before your name corruption is A-Okay., according to the Times and the Post. Never have I seen such awful reporting coming from NY Times and the Post. The papers are shills for Biden; is it any wonder adminstration officials are cheering them on to continue the blackout the papers are doing on Biden family corruption.

  4. Newsweek says it right out loud…

    “Without an inquiry, hearings, and then an impeachment debate and trial, there’s simply no way to break through the liberal corporate media’s refusal to substantially cover the issue of Biden family corruption.”

    1. Frankly, it’s difficult to believe this event….if such orders are given (and I feel they occur), they wouldn’t be delivered in such a public way.

      1. Biden is a scapegoat…

        That was always his role. He doesn’t know this, of course, but it is true nonetheless. Consider it from the perspective of the Deep State: Their puppet takes all their heat for turning their decisions into our government policy. And Biden makes it easy. But that heat comes only as an impeachment for bribery and corruption — personal faults and failings — not repudiation of damaging policies and deep state minions wagging the dog.

  5. Well, there it is. The white house counsel said that CNN has “already fact checked” the evidence. Now we know that Gigi is actually Bump. She/he got the email, and thats why he/she posted that exact BS today.

    So just one question for Gigi. And Dennis, Fishwings, or that lawn mowing guy that fantasizes about me, can feel free to chime in.

    Who did Hunter and Zlovchevsky call from Dubai in December 2015 and why?

  6. Come on, the WH already knows well they have a de facto state media working for them and they’ll be damned if they won’t call on it to do it low-life job!

  7. Publi. The big guy has the news media on his side, I don’t think it would be smart to fall into that trap. Just let Biden be Biden And let giggles keep looking stupid. This seems to be working.

  8. Jonathan

    What do you think about Dennis’ assertion that booger picking is a right enshrined in the bill of rights and that Alito and Thomas are wring in the subject?

  9. Jonathan: Speaking of “Marching Orders” Justice Sam Alito marches to a different drummer. He thinks he can take fishing tips with billionaires, fly there on a billionaire’s private jet, and not have to account for such largesse. He doesn’t even think he has to recuse himself when those same people have cases before the SC. And he doesn’t think Senator Whitehouse can tell him what to do when it comes to ethics reform.

    In a recent WSJ interview Alito said this: “Congress did not create the Supreme Court. I know this is a controversial view, but I’m, willing to say it. No provision of the Constitution gives them [the Senate] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court–period”.

    Now Alito prides himself on being an “originalist”. He seems to know what the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Along the way, though, he missed some important language in the Constitution—say Article 3 that states, in part: “…the Supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with Exceptions, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE” (emphasis added)”. Over about the last 150 years Congress has exercised its regulatory powers over the SC many times. Among those are the following:

    1. Congress controls the purse strings of the Court. It appropriates money to pay the SC Justices and other of its functions.
    2. It is the Congress that created the federal court system, including circuit and district courts.
    3. It is Congress that set the number of Justices–originally 6 before settling on 9 in 1869.
    4. It is congress, through the Senate, the approves or disapproves nominees to the Court.
    5. It is Congress that has the power to impeach SC Justices.

    Congress has all sorts of authority over the Court. Something Alito missed in his law school education. When it comes to ethics reform Congress has imposed financial disclosure requirements on the federal judiciary–including the SC. Alito has not fully complied with those requirements but he has tacitly admitted they apply to him. So much for Alito’s claim the Senate, i.e., Senator Whitehouse, has no power to impose stricter ethics rules on SC Justices. These stricter ethics rules are needed because Alito and Thomas have floated the existing rules– and this is partly why the SC has lost its legitimacy with the public–now down to only 40% approval.

    Now you are a big supporter of Alito and Thomas. What do you think of Alito’s claim that the Senate has no power “to regulate the Supreme Court–period”?

    1. To Dennis:
      The clauses of Art III, Sect. 2 to which you referred and cited (incorrectly!) relate ONLY to Supreme Court jurisdiction, and not to other issues. Why? Because the first two paragraphs of Sect. 2 relate only to jurisdiction. To claim otherwise is to cause readers to draw negative inferences about your knowledge and objectivity.

      1. Donald: To be specific my citation was from Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article 111 dealing with the “Jurisdiction” of the Court. But look also at Section 1, (Vesting clause), where it states: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (See No. 2 of my earlier comment).

        For constitutional scholars like you I probably should have been more specific. But how could “readers…draw negative inferences” from that? I didn’t misquote anything. Please explain. The point of my comment was that, contrary to what Alito thinks, the Constitution is replete with the powers of Congress to regulate the SC. Do you agree or disagree? Otherwise, I might draw “negative inferences” from your comment.

    2. Dennis- your constant call for stricter ethics rules for S.Ct. justices has no more to do with ethics than Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for handling of classified documents has to do with classified documents. You are both hypocrites. When Demo-appointed justices accepted free trips, people like you said nothing.
      For example, as to Ginsberg and Breyer, it has been said:
      “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn.
      Companies spawned by Kahn have had had business before the Supreme Court before. The high court handed Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case.
      The financial disclosures, which also reveal investments and other sources of income, offer vague information about reimbursements and gifts given to justices. They don’t include any estimated monetary value of the services provided, making it difficult to ascertain how much influence third parties could be garnering.
      “Once again, the justices took dozens of trips across the country and around the world last year in which a third party paid for their dining, airfare and accommodations, with the public left in the dark about how lavish these trips may have been,” Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, an organization that aims to bring increased transparency to the Supreme Court, said in a statement on the disclosures.
      Justice Stephen Breyer disclosed a dozen trips, three of which were supported by the wealthy Chicago-based Pritzker family. Breyer took two trips related to his position on the Pritzker Prize for Architecture jury, which honors architects each year. Breyer has served on the Pritzker jury since 2011 and became chair in 2018. He also disclosed taking a one-week trip to Ireland and Spain as part of the “Pritzker Fly-Around Program,” which paid for his transportation, lodging and meals. Breyer has taken 219 reimbursed trips since 2004, more than any other sitting justice.”
      The currrent smear campaign against Thomas and Alito is due to the sole reason that they are principled Conservatives who stand in the way of the Democratic dreams of establishing a one-party dictatorship..

      1. edwardmahl: What in the world does Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump over the docs case have to do with ethics rules for SC Justices? Conflating the two doesn’t add anything to your argument.

        Both liberal and conservative Justices have taken advantage of the current vague reporting requirements. But Ginsburg and Breyer “disclosed” and reported all their trips. Alito and Thomas didn’t do that until it was publicly reported in the media. And you can’t compare what Ginsburg and Breyer received with the largesse Thomas received from Harlan Crowe. Crowe purchased Thomas’s mother’s home, refurbished it and let her live there rent free. Thomas failed to report it. Neither Ginsburg nor Breyer engaged in that kind of corruption.

        I have a friend who is a former federal prosecutor. She had a strict ethics rule. She wouldn’t even let a party or attorney representing a defendant she was prosecuting to buy her a cup of coffee. That’s why she and the vast majority of prosecutors and federal judges think the rules that apply to them should apply to SC Justices–like Alito and Thomas. It’s not a “smear campaign”. If Alito and Thomas were really “principled Conservatives” they and you would understand that.

    3. The key phrase was “regulate.” Your first point comes under the House’s role in proposing a budget. (By the way, it set’s the president’s budget as well, but that does not mean it can regulate the president.) Numbers 2 & 3 are also within Congress’ purview. But once a lower Federal judge is appointed, he or she serves for life in during good behavior, subject to removal by impeachment, same as the Supreme Court, #3: Again, they can set the number but do not control them once set. #4 is set out in the constitution as a Senate role. This is selection, not regulation. Same with #5. Impeachment results in removal, not regulation. You are correct in your five points but they don’t address Alito’s own, which is that once selected, the Court is a separate and equal branch, and just as neither the President nor the Court can regulate the behavior of Congress, Congress cannot regulate (absent impeachment and removal or budgetary strangulation) the President of the Court.

  10. It’s fascinating how “opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies” — and calling out those lies in an appendix that Turley entirely fails to refute — leads to so many commenters spewing further bilious lies in favor of their own fascist and un-American views. Can’t attribute all these views to Prof. Turley; but it sure is telling what a magnet conservativism is for the very things that stand to destroy our great experiment in democracy

    1. Ok big mouth, you get your shot at the brass ring.

      Which of these is untrue?

      Shokin was not investigating corruption

      Shokin was not investigating Burisma

      Hunter biden was on the Burisma board at $83k/mo

      Joe was aware that Hunter was on the Burisma board

      Joe pressured ukraine to fire Shokin

      1. Yep, Pubic disappeared just like his comrades do when the questions get tough. Just parachute in, share your delusion, and ride out on their unicorn.

    2. Hunter Biden’s text to his daughter in January of 2019…
      “I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

  11. Going after Trump seems to have made him stronger. If The Big Guy is impeached, would that make him stronger? Just saying. Trump might be right, he’s one indictment away from being reelected. Trump can’t buy all this publicity. All Trump, all the time!

    1. Stronger, if you like lying criminal authoritarians I suppose. Too many so-called Americans seem so inclined.

      1. The guy who did so much for freedom and reining in the overreaching state is an “authoritarian”? In opposite world perhaps.

        So what do you think about the actual authoritarian fascists currently making up the “Joe Biden” administration? You’ll probably say they’re freedom lovers. Again, opposite world.

  12. What i find hilarious is the rush by prominent Dems to get to the left of Gavin Newsome. They see the writing on the wall for Pedo Joe, and its game on!! The NM governor is the latest, and she got shot down in a hurry.

    I wonder if she’ll appeal…

    Dennis Nostrodamus, what say you??


    1. Dont look now Gigi, your “anomaly” happened again! Inflation up AGAIN in August. But no worries, up is down in your world.

  13. Gee Dennis, did I misread this headline on NPR?

    “House Republicans start a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden”

    Its already begun, and you are still arguing that they “dont have the votes” to do it.

    Delusional is the only word I know to use.

  14. Jonathan: The MAGA House crowd’s call to impeach Joe Biden is really not about getting a conviction in the Senate. They know that’s impossible. The whole purpose is to try to tarnish Biden’s re-election bid. How do I know this?

    Last month Matt Gaetz let it out of the bag. He said: “The purpose of that impeachment, from my standpoint, is not to force a vote that loses–it’s to put on a trial in the Senate, and by the way, not for the sake of conviction…the purpose of the impeachment to me is to use the Senate as the stage, but they’re not the jury. The jury is the American people”. For Gaetz, he doesn’t care about conviction. It’s about trying to influence votes against Biden next year.

    The problem for Gaetz is that he and his MAGA Republicans in the House probably don’t even have the votes to START an impeachment inquiry. Gaetz is not deterred. He was on CNN today with host Abby Philip still making unproven claims about Biden. When Philip pushed back Gaetz asked her this Q: “Can you acknowledge that when he [Biden] calls into business deals, he’s involved?”. Phillip gave Gaetz a reality check: “It’s not about innuendo. It’s not about what I believe. It’s a question: Do you have evidence? If you had evidence that Joe Biden was linked to Hunter Biden’s business deals in a way that is illegal, we wouldn’t be having this conversation”. All Gaetz could do is to repeat the insinuations and conjecture you have been pumping out in your columns for months.

    That’s why I say the whole Gaetz, Jim Jordan and James Comer charade is a theory in search of a crime. Gaetz is in good company with Rudy Giuliani and his failed effort to find “massive fraud” in the 2020 election. And we know where that ended for Rudy–criminally indicted by the grand jury in Fulton County!

    1. Dennis

      Own it, coward.

      Say it Dennis. Repeat it here.

      “Shokin had to go because he wasn’t investigating any corruption. Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma. Joe knew he was not investigating Burisma. Joe knew Hunter was on the board of Burisma. Joe wanted someone in there who would investigate Burisma.”

      Say it or forever be shown for the big mouth Liar that we all know you are.

      1. You DO realize that this is entirely refuted not only be emails that have been released from the US State Department (indicating they were pleased with Shokin’s work) but ALSO by documents from the EU….

        1. You are missing the point. This is the lefts narrative. For all of those to be true, it means Biden wanted Shokin fired because he WASN’T investigating Hunters company. This is why these jacklegs wont own their assertions. Because when u put them all together it makes about as much sense as (as senator kennedy might say) boobs on a boar hog.

    2. “For Gaetz, he doesn’t care about conviction. It’s about trying to influence votes against Biden next year.”

      Yep, because with Senate Democrats that believe your version, no matter what, it is the only recourse for him to pay for his treason.

      1. This is the difference between Gaetz and someone like your deluded friend, Adam Shcitt. He actually though he’d get a conviction in the Senate. Bwahahahaha. Idiot.

    3. No, Mr. McIntyre, the purpose of the inquiry is to determine to what extent Joe Biden used his official office to enrich his family. If Joe has not done so he has nothing to be concerned about. However, the actions of the White House are exceedingly suspicious and smack of coverup and manipulation of media. Where there is smoke there is fire…

  15. I’ll start following this story when they get a tape or recording of Biden threatening to fire someone because he/she is prosecuting a company where Hunter is on the board of directors

    1. Had you tasted and lived under the boot of Marxism, you would be singing a different tune today.

      Fact: most Americans haven’t a clue of what Communism is like, how it pits father against son, daughter against mother, extinguishes religious life, forbids freedom of thought, silences a plurality of voices, creates an envelope of fear that suffocates all citizens, and sucks the freedom out of one’s soul.

      Idiots like you can play your fiddle and pretend nothing concerning is occurring at the Executive Branch for the reasons already articulated. Wait till your relatives are put before firing squads, loved ones turn against you, or more likely you turn against your “loved” ones, joy is gone, hope is crush, dreams a thing of the past and famine spreads like fire. Been there, done that, and complacent Americans like you would do well to educate yourself with how people have suffered for 50+ years just 90 miles off of the coast of Florida, imbécil .

      1. Huh? I guess you’re having lived under the boot heel of Marxism means English is not your primary language

        1. “. . . you’re [sic] having [. . .] English is not your primary language” [sic, no period]

          Please tell me that that is an attempt at irony.

        2. Dennis Byron says:September 14, 2023 at 6:55 AM
          Huh? I guess you’re having lived under the boot heel of Marxism means English is not your primary language

          Dennis Byron says:September 14, 2023 at 7:03 AM
          Typical ad hominem whataboutism attack against a comment you are too dense to understand is irony.

          Troll harder. Your handlers are not sending their better trolls

          1. Estovir,
            And if English is not your first language, exactly what does that matter?
            You know and have seen the ill effects of Marxism.

    2. So bank records and shell companies and witnesses aren’t enough for you? Yet I bet you were on board with the impeachment of Trump based on true lies, falsehoods, and innuendos. If brains were neurons would you have enough to feel pain if someone punched you in the forehead?

      1. Typical ad hominem whataboutism attack against a comment you are too dense to understand is irony. But if you have a link to the bank records and a list of the shell companies you refer to I’d like to look at them. I tend to follow things like this and Watergate, and Irangate, and all impeachments in very great detail. But I deal only in primary sources (witnesses are only useful if they release related source material)

    3. >”I’ll start following this story when they get a tape or recording of Biden threatening to fire someone because he/she is prosecuting a company where Hunter is on the board of directors”

      Here it tis .. .–dj2-CY

      *Poreshenko said .. . ‘you have no authority, you’re not the president. And I said call him. Well, son of a biotch, they fired him .. . and the best part is they put in someone solid’ ~ VP Biden

      1. There is an excellent article at a Jewish online magazine authored by Chris Rosen that applies to apologists like “Dennis”, a George Soros paid DNC troll

        Criminals and Their Apologists: From tough on crime to tough on victims

        It applies to Biden apologists, particularly as we learned today that the US – Mexico border has been declared by the UN as the most dangerous immigrant track in the world. Naturally the Left do not care about the dead bodies of adults and children, as S. Meyer stated earlier.

      2. You and the other two people who replied to my comment are so blinded by something that you do not recognize satiric irony. But at least YOU dug out the tape I was referring to. Here’s my point. Why are the dumb Republicans not answering the questions from the press about “why are you inquiring about impeachment?” by simply playing this tape over and over. It’s been out there for 4-6 years yet I doubt if 1 in a hundred Americans knows it exists. It is clearly grounds for a simple inquiry.

        The bigger issue is that you and the other two people who replied to my comment and the blogger live in some bubble that seems to think people care about this crap. Real Americans care about (most important issue in order):
        – 30%: the rising price of ice cream, gas, and all other aspects of the economy
        – 22%: the incompetence of government in general at all levels and no matter ideology
        – 9%: the huge educational/depressed-wages/crime/etc. problems caused by 30,000,000 (who really knows) people unlawfully present in the United States
        – 5% or less each: other non-important-to-most issues including lack of civility in civil affairs, the environment, homelessness, the Russian Civil War, race relations, abortion, etc.

        The media as an issue (the subject of this blog post) and the issue you three and blogger obsess about do not even make the list

  16. Biden should have been impeached a long time ago. The damage that Biden’s Administration has done to Americans exceeds the damage of Obama’s 8 years of reign of terror. To wit,

    Merrick Garland is trying to add more ATF regulations to control the Gun Control Act, and thus require gun owners to possess for federal dealer licenses, per Stephen Halbook @ Reason. Here are the proposed new ATF regulations:

    Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms
    A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 09/08/2023

    Additionally, it appears DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Twitter for refusing to provide information to the Federal Trade Commission to ensure it is complying with FTC’s security requirements, per Gizmodo. Here’s the filing:


    After agreeing last year to settle charges that it once again misled consumers about the privacy and security of their information, X Corp. (formerly Twitter, Inc.) now seeks to jettison that agreement and limit further scrutiny of its data practices.

    Kevin McCarthy has allowed Biden’s Handlers to stalk, harass, abuse and violate the freedoms that Americans have been guaranteed by the US Constitution. Biden has ruled like a dictator in flagrant violation of many US laws, e.g. canceling student loans, canceling tenant evictions during COVID, censorship by proxy, etc. McCarthy could have ridded Americans of the albatross that Biden’s Leftists have shown themselves to be even prior to rigging the January 2021 election. Yet, here we are living under the heavy hand of Biden’s Communist Politburo with their incessant lust to control us, dictate to us, and monitor us 24/7. This is McCarthy’s fault.

    Clearly Merrick Garland’s tipping the “scales of justice” in the favor of the Left will not stop until Biden’s Commies are removed from office. Biden’s Attorney General planted a bullseye on the heads of parents who protested Critical Race Theory, bodily mutilation of children in the name of “gender affirming treatments” and grooming children with Far Left dogmas. As we all know, Merrick Garland did nothing to protect Catholic SCOTUS Justices from the intimidation tactics of the Left in violation of Federal Laws.

    It should surprise no one that Garland has continued his Marxist March on the backs of Americans, and only one person can stop him and Biden’s commies: Kevin McCarthy.

    Grow a pair, Kevin, cobarde!

  17. “Marching Orders: White House Letter Tells Media To “Ramp Up Their Scrutiny” In Response to Impeachment Inquiry”

    – Professor Turley

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    To which branch of government did the Founders assign the power of corrective action, aka Judicial Review. 

    Answer:  The Judicial Branch. 

    Elections have been subsumed by the communists in the guise of the democrat party. 

    Freedom of the press now means freedom of propagation of communist propaganda and indoctrination.

    The natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities revealed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been egregiously abused and turned around on Americans, to their detriment.

    It is long past time for the judicial branch to effect vigorous, real-time judicial review and to put America back on the Constitution.

    Desperate times involving desperate crimes by communists, such as fixing the FBI, fixing the free press, and fixing elections, require desperate reactions and desperate corrections.

    The MAJORITY of the Supreme Court must now ignore the minority and act, in these desperate times, as the “Constitution Faction” to re-implement American fundamental law.

    The MAJORITY of the Supreme Court must act from Albuquerque to Washington, D.C., to forcibly impose the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in America.

    The Power of Judicial Review

    The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.

    – Justia

    Judicial Review in the United States

    The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.

    The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.

    – Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs

Leave a Reply