freebeacon--2020-05-03--Continetti: Trump Is Finding His Footing on Coronavirus Messaging

Washington Free Beacon founding editor Matthew Continetti said Sunday that President Donald Trump is finding his footing on how to talk to his base about the coronavirus .
`` Trump 's political strength is to define himself against the cultural or educational elites in this country represented by the media .
So I expect him to do more of this to solidify his base in the coming months , '' Continetti said during an appearance on MediaBuzz .
Continetti discussed a news conference clash between Trump and a Yahoo !
News reporter who later apologized to the president after making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
Continetti added that while Trump will keep clashing with the media , the White House will also look to `` shift toward a more positive message '' on the coronavirus .
`` The daily coronavirus briefings brought a lot of bad news and there is a lot of bad news in this country right now , but President Trump always , I think , wants to think positively and that 's why he 's always talking about possible cures , he 's talking about reopening the country , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows him to get more sure-footed on his messaging , which he wants to be more optimistic even though he needs to confront the pretty dismal realities of both the virus and the economy . ''

Washington Free Beacon founding editor Matthew Continetti said Sunday that President Donald Trump is finding his footing on how to talk to his base about the coronavirus.
"Trump's political strength is to define himself against the cultural or educational elites in this country represented by the media. So I expect him to do more of this to solidify his base in the coming months," Continetti said during an appearance on MediaBuzz.
Continetti discussed a news conference clash between Trump and a Yahoo! News reporter who later apologized to the president after making a false claim about coronavirus testing in the United States.
Continetti added that while Trump will keep clashing with the media, the White House will also look to "shift toward a more positive message" on the coronavirus.
"The daily coronavirus briefings brought a lot of bad news and there is a lot of bad news in this country right now, but President Trump always, I think, wants to think positively and that's why he's always talking about possible cures, he's talking about reopening the country," Continetti said. "This new shift allows him to get more sure-footed on his messaging, which he wants to be more optimistic even though he needs to confront the pretty dismal realities of both the virus and the economy."


freebeacon--2020-05-04--Harvard Canceled Human Rights Event as Its President Met With Xi Jinping

Harvard University canceled a panel discussion on Hong Kong protests because the event coincided with the university president 's meet-and-greet with Chinese president Xi Jinping , according to a former university scholar .
Teng Biao , a former fellow at Harvard Kennedy School 's human rights center , attempted to host a panel discussion on Chinese human rights issues in 2015 .
A vice dean at Harvard Law School , however , ordered him in February of that year to cancel the event because it would have been `` embarrassing '' for the university , according to Teng .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told me that the Harvard president was meeting Chinese president Xi Jinping , '' Teng told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` It seems that for Harvard leaders , it was very embarrassing if we had a talk at Harvard about human rights issues in China when the Harvard president just came back from China after meeting with the Chinese president . ''
Teng is a human rights lawyer who fled China after authorities kidnapped and tortured him for his participation in the 2014 Hong Kong protests .
Professor William P. Alford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law School , played a role in bringing Teng to Harvard .
He also ordered Teng to cancel the event , according to the Harvard Crimson .
Alford confirmed with the Free Beacon that he told Teng to postpone the event , a decision he made on his own accord , rather than at the administration 's urging .
He said that he allowed Teng to host other events during his time at Harvard .
While Teng did participate in other events , he said the panel discussion was never re-scheduled .
Alford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he did not want to endanger the university 's Chinese operations .
`` I did ask that an event Mr. Teng planned to hold to coincide with a meeting between this university 's President and the Chinese President be postponed until after her short Beijing visit because I thought that timing might have an impact on university activity there ( regarding academic , scientific , humanitarian and rights matters ) , '' Alford said .
`` As the person who first invited Mr. Teng to spend a year here , I felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have for others at the university . ''
As China grew wealthier in the 21st century , its state-backed institutions targeted higher education , seeking access to cutting-edge research and high-quality education .
Western universities , in turn , looked at China as a lucrative new revenue stream , partnering with Chinese universities and cashing grant checks from controversial Chinese firms such as telecommunications giant Huawei .
The regime 's ties with these elite institutions , however , have gradually eroded the principles of free inquiry , academic freedom , and free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the erosion , which has only accelerated since 2015 .
`` Academic freedom should be an important principle of Harvard or any universities , '' Teng said .
`` I was shocked when I saw this obvious self-censorship by Harvard .
The Chinese government 's increasing influence on American universities is really alarming . ''
China has spent eye-popping sums of money on elite Western universities .
Chinese companies , universities , and nationals have gifted more than $ 900 million to U.S. universities since 2013 , according to the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , nearly 10 percent of all grant money of Chinese origin .
Those figures , however , may be underestimating the degree of financial dependence between elite schools and the Chinese regime .
The Education Department launched a probe into Harvard and Yale University in February , citing concerns that the two universities might have failed to report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign gifts and contracts .
Harvard did not respond to a request for comment .
While university administrators are quick to defend the Chinese grant money as benign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grants as a national security risk .
A 2019 Senate report concluded that recruits of China 's flagship Thousand Talents Program , a state-backed initiative that offers grant money for researchers , are illegally stealing U.S. funded research .
The controversial program 's reach extended to Harvard , where Professor Charles Lieber , the chair of the chemistry department , was arrested this January for concealing his ties to the Thousand Talents Program to federal agents .
Teng , now a professor at Hunter College , said that these sorts of ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence on Western institutions , compromising their commitment to academic freedom as scholars censor themselves out of deference to Beijing .
`` That kind of self-censorship is everywhere among scholars in universities , think tanks , '' he said .
Teng said this was not the only time Harvard canceled one of his events .
In June 2015 , he tried to host an event commemorating the 26th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre at Harvard .
The university told him one day before the event , however , that the room was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They said there was an audio problem in the classroom , '' Teng said .
`` I 'm very skeptical and I think Harvard Kennedy School got pressure from Chinese student organizations or the Chinese consulate . ''
Teng 's difficulties continued after he left Harvard .
In 2019 , Columbia University also canceled one of his events on protests in Hong Kong .
The university told the Free Beacon that the event was canceled not for political reasons but because the student organizers failed to complete the proper paperwork .
The American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal to write about the experience of human rights lawyers but rescinded the offer in 2016 because the book might upset the Chinese government .
Thor Halvorssen , president of the Human Rights Foundation , slammed Harvard 's censorship of Teng , arguing that it exemplifies the `` gutless venality , greed , and censorship that pervades so much of academic administration . ''
`` It is so inappropriate for a U.S. university to restrict Teng Biao 's academic activities out of deference to the CCP , and even more outrageous given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffered under the hands of this Chinese regime , '' he said .
`` This is the sort of situation that perfectly captures the degradation of fundamental principles in the academy .
The priority of a murderous regime comes above the need to support human rights . ''

Harvard University canceled a panel discussion on human rights issues in China because the event coincided with the university president's meet-and-greet with Chinese president Xi Jinping, according to a former university scholar.
Teng Biao, a former fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's human rights center, attempted to host a panel discussion on Chinese human rights issues in 2015. A vice dean at Harvard Law School, however, ordered him in February of that year to cancel the event because it would have been "embarrassing" for the university, according to Teng.
"He called me into his office and he told me that the Harvard president was meeting Chinese president Xi Jinping," Teng told the Washington Free Beacon. "It seems that for Harvard leaders, it was very embarrassing if we had a talk at Harvard about human rights issues in China when the Harvard president just came back from China after meeting with the Chinese president."
Teng is a human rights lawyer who fled China after authorities kidnapped and tortured him for his participation in the 2014 Hong Kong protests. Professor William P. Alford, a vice dean at the Harvard Law School, played a role in bringing Teng to Harvard. He also ordered Teng to cancel the event, according to the Harvard Crimson. Alford confirmed with the Free Beacon that he told Teng to postpone the event, a decision he made on his own accord, rather than at the administration's urging. He said that he allowed Teng to host other events during his time at Harvard. While Teng did participate in other events, he said the panel discussion was never rescheduled.
Alford told the Free Beacon that he intervened because he did not want to endanger the university's Chinese operations.
"I did ask that an event Mr. Teng planned to hold to coincide with a meeting between this university's President and the Chinese President be postponed until after her short Beijing visit because I thought that timing might have an impact on university activity there (regarding academic, scientific, humanitarian and rights matters)," Alford said. "As the person who first invited Mr. Teng to spend a year here, I felt some responsibility for whatever impact his undertakings might have for others at the university."
As China grew wealthier in the 21st century, its state-backed institutions targeted higher education, seeking access to cutting-edge research and high-quality education. Western universities, in turn, looked at China as a lucrative new revenue stream, partnering with Chinese universities and cashing grant checks from controversial Chinese firms such as telecommunications giant Huawei. The regime's ties with these elite institutions, however, have gradually eroded the principles of free inquiry, academic freedom, and free speech. Teng's case is emblematic of the erosion, which has only accelerated since 2015.
"Academic freedom should be an important principle of Harvard or any universities," Teng said. "I was shocked when I saw this obvious self-censorship by Harvard. The Chinese government's increasing influence on American universities is really alarming."
China has spent eye-popping sums of money on elite Western universities. Chinese companies, universities, and nationals have gifted more than $900 million to U.S. universities since 2013, according to the Department of Education. Harvard has received $93 million, nearly 10 percent of all grant money of Chinese origin. Those figures, however, may be underestimating the degree of financial dependence between elite schools and the Chinese regime. The Education Department launched a probe into Harvard and Yale University in February, citing concerns that the two universities might have failed to report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign gifts and contracts. Harvard did not respond to a request for comment.
While university administrators are quick to defend the Chinese grant money as benign donations, U.S. officials see some of the grants as a national security risk. A 2019 Senate report concluded that recruits of China's flagship Thousand Talents Program, a state-backed initiative that offers grant money for researchers, are illegally stealing U.S. funded research. The controversial program's reach extended to Harvard, where Professor Charles Lieber, the chair of the chemistry department, was arrested this January for concealing his ties to the Thousand Talents Program to federal agents.
Teng, now a professor at Hunter College, said that these sorts of ties have allowed China to exercise an undue influence on Western institutions, compromising their commitment to academic freedom as scholars censor themselves out of deference to Beijing.
"That kind of self-censorship is everywhere among scholars in universities, think tanks," he said.
Teng said this was not the only time Harvard canceled one of his events. In June 2015, he tried to host an event commemorating the 26th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre at Harvard. The university told him one day before the event, however, that the room was unavailable—ostensibly due to audio issues.
"They said there was an audio problem in the classroom," Teng said. "I'm very skeptical and I think Harvard Kennedy School got pressure from Chinese student organizations or the Chinese consulate."
Teng's difficulties continued after he left Harvard. In 2019, Columbia University also canceled one of his events on human rights issues in China. The university told the Free Beacon that the event was canceled not for political reasons but because the student organizers failed to complete the proper paperwork. The American Bar Association also offered Teng a book deal to write about the experience of human rights lawyers but rescinded the offer in 2015 because the book might upset the Chinese government.
Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, slammed Harvard's censorship of Teng, arguing that it exemplifies the "gutless venality, greed, and censorship that pervades so much of academic administration."
"It is so inappropriate for a U.S. university to restrict Teng Biao's academic activities out of deference to the CCP, and even more outrageous given that Teng was himself a political prisoner who suffered under the hands of this Chinese regime," he said. "This is the sort of situation that perfectly captures the degradation of fundamental principles in the academy. The priority of a murderous regime comes above the need to support human rights."
CORRECTION 5/5/20, 2:49 p.m.: This article was updated to reflect that Teng Biao's canceled Harvard event focused on Chinese human rights issues and not protests in Hong Kong.


freebeacon--2020-05-04--McGrath Edits ‘Kentucky’ Out of National Ad Campaign

Democratic Kentucky Senate candidate Amy McGrath has put near-identical ads attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R. ) on local Kentucky TV stations and on MSNBC—but the MSNBC ads omit mentions of Kentucky .
The McGrath campaign 's two ads follow the same line of attack against McConnell and the coronavirus aid package he helped pass , but the ad aired to a national MSNBC audience removes the focus from Kentucky and focuses broadly on states across the country .
`` Hundreds of billions for big corporations , $ 170 billion for wealthy investors , while small businesses suffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` And he 's refused to give more aid to Kentucky .
He said the state should just declare ‘ bankruptcy . '
'' But the national ad makes no mention of the Bluegrass State , instead saying that McConnell `` refused to give more money to states '' and believes `` they should just declare bankruptcy . ''
Unlike the Kentucky ad , McGrath 's national ad also concludes with a plea for contributions .
The $ 120,000 ad buy appeared on MSNBC from April 30 to May 1st .
The McGrath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beacon ‘ s request for comment on the editing decisions .
McGrath 's campaign to unseat McConnell has depended on contributions from outside the state of Kentucky , relying heavily on contributions from states like California , New York , and Massachusetts .
Entering the last fundraising quarter , the McGrath campaign had received just 1 percent of its contributions from inside Kentucky .
In February , the McGrath campaign also circulated national and statewide ads with key differences , promising Kentucky viewers that McGrath would oppose left-wing policies but omitting those promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McGrath 's Kentucky ad expressed opposition to free college and Medicare for All , which her national ad omitted in favor of a plea for contributions .
The language opposing free college and Medicare for All was also absent from fundraising emails at the time .
Democratic primary opponent Mike Broihier called out McGrath for altering her message in pleas for out-of-state donations .
`` In her ads here in Kentucky , [ McGrath ] says she is against free college and Medicare for All .
In her ads running in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Broihier said in a tweet at the time .
`` What does McGrath actually believe ? ''
The McGrath campaign has advertised to a national audience since its Senate bid launched in July .
McGrath did not utter `` Kentucky '' once throughout her 3-minute campaign launch video .

Democratic Kentucky Senate candidate Amy McGrath has put near-identical ads attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.) on local Kentucky TV stations and on MSNBC—but the MSNBC ads omit mentions of Kentucky.
The McGrath campaign's two ads follow the same line of attack against McConnell and the coronavirus aid package he helped pass, but the ad aired to a national MSNBC audience removes the focus from Kentucky and focuses broadly on states across the country.
"Hundreds of billions for big corporations, $170 billion for wealthy investors, while small businesses suffer," the Kentucky ad said. "And he's refused to give more aid to Kentucky. He said the state should just declare 'bankruptcy.'"
But the national ad makes no mention of the Bluegrass State, instead saying that McConnell "refused to give more money to states" and believes "they should just declare bankruptcy." Unlike the Kentucky ad, McGrath's national ad also concludes with a plea for contributions.
The $120,000 ad buy appeared on MSNBC from April 30 to May 1st. The McGrath campaign did not return the Washington Free Beacon's request for comment on the editing decisions.
McGrath's campaign to unseat McConnell has depended on contributions from outside the state of Kentucky, relying heavily on contributions from states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. Entering the last fundraising quarter, the McGrath campaign had received just 1 percent of its contributions from inside Kentucky.
In February, the McGrath campaign also circulated national and statewide ads with key differences, promising Kentucky viewers that McGrath would oppose left-wing policies but omitting those promises in the national version of the ad. McGrath's Kentucky ad expressed opposition to free college and Medicare for All, which her national ad omitted in favor of a plea for contributions. The language opposing free college and Medicare for All was also absent from fundraising emails at the time.
Democratic primary opponent Mike Broihier called out McGrath for altering her message in pleas for out-of-state donations.
"In her ads here in Kentucky, [McGrath] says she is against free college and Medicare for All. In her ads running in other states, she removed these lines," Broihier said in a tweet at the time. "What does McGrath actually believe?"
The McGrath campaign has advertised to a national audience since its Senate bid launched in July. McGrath did not utter "Kentucky" once throughout her 3-minute campaign launch video.


freebeacon--2020-05-04--FLASHBACK: Democrats Said Kavanaugh Was Undergoing ‘Job Interview,’ Didn’t Deserve Presumption of In

FLASHBACK: Democrats Said Kavanaugh Was Undergoing ‘Job Interview,’ Didn’t Deserve Presumption of Innocence

When Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault in 2018 , many Democrats said he was undergoing a `` job interview '' to explain why he did not deserve a presumption of innocence .
The talking point is worth revisiting as presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden seeks the nation 's highest office while denying a sexual assault charge made by former Senate aide Tara Reade .
Prominent Democrats now supporting Biden , including Sens .
Dianne Feinstein ( D. , Calif. ) , Mazie Hirono ( D. , Hawaii ) , Amy Klobuchar ( D. , Minn. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ N.J. ) , and Kirsten Gillibrand ( D. , N.Y. ) , suggested Kavanaugh was disqualified from joining the Supreme Court by the mere appearance of guilt .
`` It 's a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh , '' Feinstein said during the hearing in which Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford testified .
`` Is Brett Kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court in our country ?
Is he the best we can do ? ''
`` People keep talking about presumption of innocence .
That is a term one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hirono said on CNN 's New Day .
`` This is a hearing to determine whether or not Judge Kavanaugh has the credibility and character to serve on the Supreme Court .
It is a job interview . ''
`` Of course he has a right to defend himself , but this is n't a criminal trial , '' Klobuchar said on CBS 's Face the Nation .
`` This is a job hearing for the highest court in the land . ''
`` This is about whether he has the privilege to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land for a lifetime , '' Gillibrand said in a Senate floor speech .
`` This is not a court of law .
This is a job interview . ''
`` It 's not about a condemnation or a criminal trial about Kavanaugh 's guilt or innocence .
This is a job interview , '' Booker said on MSNBC 's Rachel Maddow Show .
`` No one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court .
It 's not a criminal trial , '' Sen. Chris Coons ( D. , Del .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press .
`` It 's more like a job hearing .
It 's more like a job interview . ''
`` It 's a job interview .
It 's not a court of law , '' Rep. Eric Swalwell ( D. , Calif. ) said on Fox News 's Outnumbered Overtime .
Biden has also called the process a `` job interview '' where guilt did not need to be proven to stop a confirmation .
`` [ A ] Supreme Court hearing is not a trial , '' he said last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's a job interview .
It 's a job interview , and you do n't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything as to why you should n't put so-and-so on the Court . ''
Many Democrats , including Biden , have abandoned their former mantra of believing all women who make sexual misconduct allegations , saying instead that they should have their claims taken seriously and investigated .

When Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault in 2018, many Democrats said he was undergoing a "job interview" to explain why he did not deserve a presumption of innocence.
The talking point is worth revisiting as presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden seeks the nation's highest office while denying a sexual assault charge made by former Senate aide Tara Reade.
Prominent Democrats now supporting Biden, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), Cory Booker (D., N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), suggested Kavanaugh was disqualified from joining the Supreme Court by the mere appearance of guilt.
"It's a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh," Feinstein said during the hearing in which Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford testified. "Is Brett Kavanaugh who we want on the most prestigious court in our country? Is he the best we can do?"
"People keep talking about presumption of innocence. That is a term one uses in a criminal proceeding," Hirono said on CNN's New Day. "This is a hearing to determine whether or not Judge Kavanaugh has the credibility and character to serve on the Supreme Court. It is a job interview."
"Of course he has a right to defend himself, but this isn't a criminal trial," Klobuchar said on CBS's Face the Nation. "This is a job hearing for the highest court in the land."
"This is about whether he has the privilege to serve on the highest court of the land for a lifetime," Gillibrand said in a Senate floor speech. "This is not a court of law. This is a job interview."
"It's not about a condemnation or a criminal trial about Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. This is a job interview," Booker said on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show.
"No one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. It's not a criminal trial," Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) said on NBC's Meet the Press. "It's more like a job hearing. It's more like a job interview."
"It's a job interview. It's not a court of law," Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) said on Fox News's Outnumbered Overtime.
Biden has also called the process a "job interview" where guilt did not need to be proven to stop a confirmation.
"[A] Supreme Court hearing is not a trial," he said last year on ABC's The View. "It's a job interview. It's a job interview, and you don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything as to why you shouldn't put so-and-so on the Court."
Many Democrats, including Biden, have abandoned their former mantra of believing all women who make sexual misconduct allegations, saying instead that they should have their claims taken seriously and investigated.


freebeacon--2020-05-04--Congress Launches Investigation Into Chinese Infiltration of U.S. Colleges

Leading House Republicans have launched a congressional investigation into China 's infiltration of American college campuses , according to a letter sent Monday to the Department of Education .
Rep. Michael McCaul ( R. , Texas ) , GOP leader of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , and six of his colleagues are requesting documents and information about efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate the U.S. academic system and spread its state-sponsored propaganda .
The investigation is part of a larger effort in Congress to investigate public and private institutions about their ties to China and possible state-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that China lied about the severity and spread of the coronavirus , lawmakers have launched multiple efforts to crack down on China 's foreign propaganda efforts .
`` We write to seek a better understanding of the Department 's efforts to address unreported foreign direct investment into the U.S. higher education system , '' according to the letter , which was also signed by Reps. Jim Jordan ( R. , Ohio ) , the House Oversight Committee 's ranking member ; Michael Rogers ( R. , Ala. ) , the Homeland Security Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R. , Calif. ) , the Intelligence Committee 's ranking member .
`` We have been concerned about the potential for the Chinese government to use its strategic investments to turn American college campuses into indoctrination platforms for American students , '' the congressmen write .
Since the coronavirus pandemic erupted , China has cracked down on academic research about the virus .
The lawmakers are concerned the Communist Party could pressure U.S. institutions to censor research about the virus .
`` China has strategically invested in U.S. academia to attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , and even the U.S. government , '' the lawmakers write .
`` Besides China peddling money for influence in U.S. institutions of higher education ( IHE ) , China is restricting any research regarding the origins of COVID-19 that does not comport with CCP propaganda . ''
The lawmakers are asking the Education Department to turn over all documents related to all U.S. schools that have accepted funds from China , including any investigations into American colleges and personnel who may have accepted gifts from the Chinese government .

Leading House Republicans have launched a congressional investigation into China's infiltration of American college campuses, according to a letter sent Monday to the Department of Education.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), GOP leader of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and six of his colleagues are requesting documents and information about efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate the U.S. academic system and spread its state-sponsored propaganda.
The investigation is part of a larger effort in Congress to investigate public and private institutions about their ties to China and possible state-backed espionage operations. In light of revelations that China lied about the severity and spread of the coronavirus, lawmakers have launched multiple efforts to crack down on China's foreign propaganda efforts.
"We write to seek a better understanding of the Department's efforts to address unreported foreign direct investment into the U.S. higher education system," according to the letter, which was also signed by Reps. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), the House Oversight Committee's ranking member; Michael Rogers (R., Ala.), the Homeland Security Committee's ranking member; and Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), the Intelligence Committee's ranking member.
"We have been concerned about the potential for the Chinese government to use its strategic investments to turn American college campuses into indoctrination platforms for American students," the congressmen write.
Since the coronavirus pandemic erupted, China has cracked down on academic research about the virus. The lawmakers are concerned the Communist Party could pressure U.S. institutions to censor research about the virus.
"China has strategically invested in U.S. academia to attempt to steal confidential information and technology from U.S. companies, and even the U.S. government," the lawmakers write. "Besides China peddling money for influence in U.S. institutions of higher education (IHE), China is restricting any research regarding the origins of COVID-19 that does not comport with CCP propaganda."
The lawmakers are asking the Education Department to turn over all documents related to all U.S. schools that have accepted funds from China, including any investigations into American colleges and personnel who may have accepted gifts from the Chinese government.


freebeacon--2020-05-04--Supreme Court Hears Case With Live Audio Broadcast in Historic First

For the first time in its 230-year history , the Supreme Court heard arguments by telephone with a live audio broadcast , an unforeseen if inevitable accommodation to the coronavirus pandemic .
Monday 's dispute , a good test case for the new format , asked whether Booking.com can obtain a trademark for its name .
Chief Justice John Roberts played the traffic cop , giving each justice a few minutes to question lawyers on both sides in order of seniority .
He kept an uncharacteristically tight grip on the proceedings , sometimes interrupting both advocates and justices to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ format was somewhat halting and featured a couple of technical difficulties , but was smooth on balance .
Justice Sonia Sotomayor momentarily had trouble piping in , while Justice Stephen Breyer sounded muffled at the beginning of a colloquy with one of the advocates .
The proceedings ran about 15 minutes past the allotted hour , a rare occurrence at a court that keeps strictly to time limits .
Retired justice David Souter famously told a House subcommittee in 1996 that cameras would roll into the Supreme Court `` over my dead body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostile .
Speaking to a congressional panel in 2019 , Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan said live broadcasts of Supreme Court proceedings might lead the justices to self-censor for fear their sometimes fanciful questions will be misunderstood or taken out of context .
The late justice Antonin Scalia predicted that a live broadcast would damage the Court 's prestige—the Court has always drawn some degree of power from its mystique—since news programs might only carry short clips that are not genuinely representative of the Court 's work .
As such , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will turn in part on responsible editorial choices by television news networks .
Though the Court 's arguments seldom lack for attention , the justices have never allowed cameras or an audio feed into the courtroom .
Those wishing for an account of a day 's events generally must wait for press reports .
An intrepid few might read the lengthy transcripts the Court hands down several hours after an argument concludes .
A recording of each argument is made available on the Friday afternoon following a given case .
The courtroom seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers , guests , and reporters are reserved , there are only about 50 seats left for members of the general public .
Before Monday 's historic broadcast , those wishing to watch a live Supreme Court argument had to wait outside the Court for coveted argument tickets .
For major cases , lines often form days in advance .
In many respects Monday 's teleconference was a typical argument .
Marshal Pamela Talkin cried the Court in the usual fashion , while the justices largely kept to form .
Kagan asked a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succession , while Breyer posed lengthy , open-ended questions , including one that raised four discrete issues .
One member of the Court did break with usual practice .
Justice Clarence Thomas , who is usually silent on the bench , asked several questions of each side , making Monday the first time he has spoken during arguments since March 2019 .
Thomas does not usually ask questions as a matter of courtesy , believing that advocates should be given leeway to present their cases at length .
Fix the Court , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public access to the High Court 's proceedings , said Monday 's teleconference proved live broadcasts do not impede the justices ' work .
`` The days of restricting the court 's proceedings to VIPs , the press , and a few dozen members of the public are over , '' said executive director Gabe Roth .
`` Now that we know with certainty that live audio does not impair its functioning , there 's no reason for the Court to return to its outmoded policy of week's-end audio releases once we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question in Monday 's case involved a technical matter of trademark law .
Generic terms , such as `` booking , '' can not be trademarked .
The question is whether combining a generic term with the top-level domain name `` .com '' creates a registrable mark .
The Booking.com case was argued by experienced advocates , perhaps a factor in the Court 's decision to lead with it .
Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly , who has presented over 30 cases before the High Court , represented the company , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Patent and Trademark Office .
Thomas noted trademarks are available for 1-800 vanity numbers like 1-800-Plumbing .
What 's the difference , he asked , between a phone number and a domain name ?
The Trump administration is opposing the company .
The Supreme Court held in a 19th century case that trademarks are not available where an applicant combines a generic term with a suffix like `` Inc. '' That same rule should control here , administration lawyers told the justices .
`` The addition of ‘ .com ' does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conveys only that respondent ‘ operates a commercial website via the internet , ' '' government lawyers wrote in court documents .
`` Thus , just as no company could register a trademark in ‘ Booking Inc. , ' respondent should not be permitted to register a trademark in ‘ Booking.com . '
'' The company counters that the 19th century ruling was superseded by a 1946 law called the Lanham Act .
Blatt noted that the government has registered many marks combining a generic term with the `` .com '' suffix .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this point .
`` How many marks , already registered marks , would be subject to cancellation ? ''
Ginsburg asked Ross .
`` I take it there are dozens of ‘ .coms ' that have been registered . ''
The government fears granting trademarks to applicants like Booking.com will let the company crowd out competitors such as ebooking.com .
Some members of the Court seemed sympathetic to that concern .
`` You are seeking a degree of monopoly power that nobody could have had prior to the Internet age , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for argument over the special teleconference sitting include a challenge to the administration 's conscience exemptions to the Affordable Care Act 's contraception mandate and disputes over subpoenas for the president 's financial records .
The case is No .
19-46 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com .

For the first time in its 230-year history, the Supreme Court heard arguments by telephone with a live audio broadcast, an unforeseen if inevitable accommodation to the coronavirus pandemic.
Monday's dispute, a good test case for the new format, asked whether Booking.com can obtain a trademark for its name. Chief Justice John Roberts played the traffic cop, giving each justice a few minutes to question lawyers on both sides in order of seniority. He kept an uncharacteristically tight grip on the proceedings, sometimes interrupting both advocates and justices to keep the queue moving smoothly.
The teleconference format was somewhat halting and featured a couple of technical difficulties, but was smooth on balance. Justice Sonia Sotomayor momentarily had trouble piping in, while Justice Stephen Breyer sounded muffled at the beginning of a colloquy with one of the advocates. The proceedings ran about 15 minutes past the allotted hour, a rare occurrence at a court that keeps strictly to time limits.
Retired justice David Souter famously told a House subcommittee in 1996 that cameras would roll into the Supreme Court "over my dead body." Current justices seem no less hostile. Speaking to a congressional panel in 2019, Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan said live broadcasts of Supreme Court proceedings might lead the justices to self-censor for fear their sometimes fanciful questions will be misunderstood or taken out of context. The late justice Antonin Scalia predicted that a live broadcast would damage the Court's prestige—the Court has always drawn some degree of power from its mystique—since news programs might only carry short clips that are not genuinely representative of the Court's work. As such, the long-term viability of the live audio experiment will turn in part on responsible editorial choices by television news networks.
Though the Court's arguments seldom lack for attention, the justices have never allowed cameras or an audio feed into the courtroom. Those wishing for an account of a day's events generally must wait for press reports. An intrepid few might read the lengthy transcripts the Court hands down several hours after an argument concludes. A recording of each argument is made available on the Friday afternoon following a given case.
The courtroom seats approximately 450 individuals. Once seats for lawyers, guests, and reporters are reserved, there are only about 50 seats left for members of the general public. Before Monday's historic broadcast, those wishing to watch a live Supreme Court argument had to wait outside the Court for coveted argument tickets. For major cases, lines often form days in advance.
In many respects Monday's teleconference was a typical argument. Marshal Pamela Talkin cried the Court in the usual fashion, while the justices largely kept to form. Kagan asked a characteristic series of pointed questions in rapid succession, while Breyer posed lengthy, open-ended questions, including one that raised four discrete issues.
One member of the Court did break with usual practice. Justice Clarence Thomas, who is usually silent on the bench, asked several questions of each side, making Monday the first time he has spoken during arguments since March 2019. Thomas does not usually ask questions as a matter of courtesy, believing that advocates should be given leeway to present their cases at length.
Fix the Court, a nonpartisan judicial watchdog that has long advocated for public access to the High Court's proceedings, said Monday's teleconference proved live broadcasts do not impede the justices' work.
"The days of restricting the court's proceedings to VIPs, the press, and a few dozen members of the public are over," said executive director Gabe Roth. "Now that we know with certainty that live audio does not impair its functioning, there's no reason for the Court to return to its outmoded policy of week's-end audio releases once we're past the pandemic."
The question in Monday's case involved a technical matter of trademark law. Generic terms, such as "booking," cannot be trademarked. The question is whether combining a generic term with the top-level domain name ".com" creates a registrable mark.
The Booking.com case was argued by experienced advocates, perhaps a factor in the Court's decision to lead with it. Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly, who has presented over 30 cases before the High Court, represented the company, while Justice Department lawyer Erica Ross appeared for the Patent and Trademark Office.
Thomas noted trademarks are available for 1-800 vanity numbers like 1-800-Plumbing. What's the difference, he asked, between a phone number and a domain name?
The Trump administration is opposing the company. The Supreme Court held in a 19th century case that trademarks are not available where an applicant combines a generic term with a suffix like "Inc." That same rule should control here, administration lawyers told the justices.
"The addition of '.com' does not create a protectable mark, because it conveys only that respondent 'operates a commercial website via the internet,'" government lawyers wrote in court documents. "Thus, just as no company could register a trademark in 'Booking Inc.,' respondent should not be permitted to register a trademark in 'Booking.com.'"
The company counters that the 19th century ruling was superseded by a 1946 law called the Lanham Act. Blatt noted that the government has registered many marks combining a generic term with the ".com" suffix. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed the administration on this point.
"How many marks, already registered marks, would be subject to cancellation?" Ginsburg asked Ross. "I take it there are dozens of '.coms' that have been registered."
The government fears granting trademarks to applicants like Booking.com will let the company crowd out competitors such as ebooking.com. Some members of the Court seemed sympathetic to that concern.
"You are seeking a degree of monopoly power that nobody could have had prior to the Internet age," Alito told Blatt.
Other cases set for argument over the special teleconference sitting include a challenge to the administration's conscience exemptions to the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate and disputes over subpoenas for the president's financial records.
The case is No. 19-46 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com.


freebeacon--2020-05-04--Calif. Cops Arrest and Release Man Three Times in One Day Thanks to State Bail Ban

A California man was arrested and released three times in one day for different offenses , causing consternation among the Golden State 's law enforcement community .
Dijon Landrum , 24 , was apprehended three times in one day by Glendora , Calif. , police—twice for driving different stolen vehicles and once for being in possession of stolen property .
Each time he was cited and then released with referral for prosecution .
Landrum 's serial apprehension came thanks to emergency regulations implemented by the state which set bail for misdemeanors and lower-level offenses to zero dollars , effectively mandating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early April , was meant as an emergency measure to keep jail populations low in the face of the novel coronavirus .
As Landrum 's case makes clear , however , it has permitted repeat offenders to roam free .
That reality interacts poorly with California 's preexisting attempts to soften criminal consequences , including a 2014 ballot proposition that labeled most nonviolent property and drug crimes as misdemeanors .
Police have been vocal about the unintended consequences of the emergency order .
Late last month , Los Angeles resident Eric Medina was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspicion of grand theft auto , then released each time under the zero-bail policy .
LAPD chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Times that he thought zero bail should not apply to such serial cases : `` I think repeat offenders need to be off the streets . ''
Others however , have doubled down on support for reform .
George Gascón , former San Francisco district attorney , told the Times that the coronavirus has simply forced an encounter with an important question : `` Does keeping huge numbers of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater threat to us all than letting them out ? ''
California is not the only state to see repeat offenders take advantage of newly lenient bail laws .
New York state 's hotly contested bail reform law , which came into effect in January , resulted in a Long Island man arrested for a fatal DWI telling cops , `` the law 's changed , I ’ ll be out tomorrow . ''

A California man was arrested and released three times in one day for different offenses, causing consternation among the Golden State's law enforcement community.
Dijon Landrum, 24, was apprehended three times in one day by Glendora, Calif., police—twice for driving different stolen vehicles and once for being in possession of stolen property. Each time he was cited and then released with referral for prosecution.
Landrum's serial apprehension came thanks to emergency regulations implemented by the state which set bail for misdemeanors and lower-level offenses to zero dollars, effectively mandating release.
The move, implemented in early April, was meant as an emergency measure to keep jail populations low in the face of the novel coronavirus. As Landrum's case makes clear, however, it has permitted repeat offenders to roam free. That reality interacts poorly with California's preexisting attempts to soften criminal consequences, including a 2014 ballot proposition that labeled most nonviolent property and drug crimes as misdemeanors.
Police have been vocal about the unintended consequences of the emergency order. Late last month, Los Angeles resident Eric Medina was arrested four times in three weeks on suspicion of grand theft auto, then released each time under the zero-bail policy. LAPD chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Times that he thought zero bail should not apply to such serial cases: "I think repeat offenders need to be off the streets."
Others however, have doubled down on support for reform. George Gascón, former San Francisco district attorney, told the Times that the coronavirus has simply forced an encounter with an important question: "Does keeping huge numbers of people in custody on small-time offenses pose a greater threat to us all than letting them out?"
California is not the only state to see repeat offenders take advantage of newly lenient bail laws. New York state's hotly contested bail reform law, which came into effect in January, resulted in a Long Island man arrested for a fatal DWI telling cops, "the law's changed, I’ll be out tomorrow."


freebeacon--2020-05-04--Senate Says It Can’t Release Tara Reade Records

The secretary of the Senate has `` no discretion '' to release documents pertaining to sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden , the secretary 's office said in a statement Monday .
`` Based on the law 's strict confidentiality requirements … Senate Legal Counsel advises that the Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information as requested in Vice President Biden 's letter of May 1 , '' the statement said .
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is facing scrutiny after former Senate staffer Tara Reade alleged that he penetrated her with his fingers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said she submitted a harassment and retaliation complaint against Biden 's office .
Biden , who has denied the charges , on Friday sent a letter asking Secretary of the Senate Julie Adams to `` direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search . ''
Adams 's office said that it can not do so in a statement issued Monday morning , citing confidentiality requirements from a 1991 law governing personnel complaints .
Biden has refused to release documents from his Senate career that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware , saying the archive contains policy positions that would become `` fodder in a campaign at this time . ''
He has instead said that any record of the complaint could be found elsewhere .
Biden claimed in a Friday statement that any sexual harassment complaint filed against him in the Senate would have been held at the National Archives .
He called on the agency to `` identify any record of the complaint … and make available to the press any such document . ''
A National Archives spokesman said such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the Senate . ''
`` Any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate .
Accordingly , inquiries related to these records should be directed to the Senate , '' the National Archives spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon on Friday .

The secretary of the Senate has "no discretion" to release documents pertaining to sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, the secretary's office said in a statement Monday.
"Based on the law's strict confidentiality requirements … Senate Legal Counsel advises that the Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information as requested in Vice President Biden's letter of May 1," the statement said.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is facing scrutiny after former Senate staffer Tara Reade alleged that he penetrated her with his fingers in a congressional hallway in 1993. Reade has said she submitted a harassment and retaliation complaint against Biden's office. Biden, who has denied the charges, on Friday sent a letter asking Secretary of the Senate Julie Adams to "direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search." Adams's office said that it cannot do so in a statement issued Monday morning, citing confidentiality requirements from a 1991 law governing personnel complaints.
Biden has refused to release documents from his Senate career that are currently sealed at the University of Delaware, saying the archive contains policy positions that would become "fodder in a campaign at this time." He has instead said that any record of the complaint could be found elsewhere. Biden claimed in a Friday statement that any sexual harassment complaint filed against him in the Senate would have been held at the National Archives. He called on the agency to "identify any record of the complaint … and make available to the press any such document." A National Archives spokesman said such records "would have remained under the control of the Senate."
"Any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate. Accordingly, inquiries related to these records should be directed to the Senate," the National Archives spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon on Friday.


freebeacon--2020-05-05--Poll: 78 Percent of College Students Want to Restrict ‘Threatening’ Ideas

More than three-in-four college students want `` safe spaces '' on their campuses that are free of `` threatening actions , ideas , or conversations , '' even as a majority support President Trump 's threat to withhold taxpayer dollars from universities that restrict speech , according to a new poll .
While 97 percent of college students believe that free speech is an essential pillar of American democracy , a significant majority of students also support policies to restrict specific types of speech on campus .
The poll conducted by Gallup and the Knight Foundation found that 78 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where threatening ideas and conversations would be barred .
More than 80 percent favor the establishment of a `` free-speech zone '' where preapproved protests and the distribution of literature are permitted .
In response to growing concerns about academic freedom on campuses , the Trump administration ordered all federally funded universities to protect free speech on campus .
University administrators denounced the move , with the president of Columbia University calling it a `` transparent exercise in politics . ''
Most students support the Trump administration 's decision , however , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on federal funding for colleges that do not protect free-speech rights .
The survey—which polled 3,319 college students , aged 18 to 24 , from 24 different schools—also found that 63 percent of students feel that their campus climates deter students from expressing themselves openly , up from 54 percent in 2016 .
The students say that conservative students experience greater barriers to openly expressing their opinion in public , with Democrats feeling more comfortable than Republicans about sharing dissenting views in class .
Evette Alexander , director of learning and impact at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents felt greater pressure from their peers , rather than their professors , about voicing their dissenting opinions .
`` We understand that [ pressure ] mostly comes from peers , '' Alexander said .
`` The professors would be open to hearing different thoughts , but the people who feel uncomfortable usually have a point of view that does n't align with the most vocal students in the room .
And so they feel like by speaking up , they would expose themselves to retaliation . ''
The poll 's findings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campuses where dissenters are finding it difficult to voice their opinions .
Data compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have logged seven attempts to disinvite speakers from universities in 2020 .
The targeted speakers include a wide range of figures , from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro to Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong .
Students have also occasionally mounted violent protests to shut down outside speakers , as Middlebury College students did when the school hosted Charles Murray , a libertarian social scientist , in 2017 .
Conservative student groups see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe spaces and censorship on campus .
Spencer Brown , a spokesman for Young America 's Foundation , a conservative activism group , said that universities often create safe spaces explicitly to shut down viewpoints that break from liberal orthodoxy .
`` In almost every case , safe spaces are set up in response to a conservative speaker visiting campus , '' he said .
`` The powers that be at a given school issue trigger warnings to spook students , offer them a safe space to hide from harmless words , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ youth do n't hear a conservative idea that , God forbid , might make them reconsider the leftist ideas they 're all too often force-fed in the classroom . ''
Students have an expansive understanding of speech that should be prohibited in a campus environment .
While 88 percent of students support restrictions on the use of offensive racial slurs , 71 percent of students also want restrictions on `` costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups . ''
Slightly less than half of students also want to restrict the display of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of pupils would impose restrictions on the distribution of Christian pamphlets on campus .
While students support specific policies restricting free speech , most students say they support the principle of free speech and the right to express political views on campus .
More than four-in-five students prefer a campus environment that exposes students to all types of speech while 19 percent want to prohibit `` offensive or biased '' speech .

More than three-in-four college students want "safe spaces" on their campuses that are free of "threatening actions, ideas, or conversations," even as a majority support President Trump's threat to withhold taxpayer dollars from universities that restrict speech, according to a new poll.
While 97 percent of college students believe that free speech is an essential pillar of American democracy, a significant majority of students also support policies to restrict specific types of speech on campus. The poll, conducted by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, found that 78 percent of students support "safe spaces" where threatening ideas and conversations would be barred. More than 80 percent favor the establishment of a "free-speech zone" where preapproved protests and the distribution of literature are permitted.
In response to growing concerns about academic freedom on campuses, the Trump administration ordered all federally funded universities to protect free speech on campus. University administrators denounced the move, with the president of Columbia University calling it a "transparent exercise in politics." Most students support the Trump administration's decision, however, with 58 percent of pupils supporting a ban on federal funding for colleges that do not protect free-speech rights.
The survey—which polled 3,319 college students, aged 18 to 24, from 24 different schools—also found that 63 percent of students feel that their campus climates deter students from expressing themselves openly, up from 54 percent in 2016. The students say that conservative students experience greater barriers to openly expressing their opinion in public, with Democrats feeling more comfortable than Republicans about sharing dissenting views in class.
Evette Alexander, director of learning and impact at the Knight Foundation, said that survey respondents felt greater pressure from their peers, rather than their professors, about voicing their dissenting opinions.
"We understand that [pressure] mostly comes from peers," Alexander said. "The professors would be open to hearing different thoughts, but the people who feel uncomfortable usually have a point of view that doesn't align with the most vocal students in the room. And so they feel like by speaking up, they would expose themselves to retaliation."
The poll's findings are reflective of the climate of many American campuses where dissenters are finding it difficult to voice their opinions. Data compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have logged seven attempts to disinvite speakers from universities in 2020. The targeted speakers include a wide range of figures, from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro to Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong. Students have also occasionally mounted violent protests to shut down outside speakers, as Middlebury College students did when the school hosted Charles Murray, a libertarian social scientist, in 2017.
Conservative student groups see a direct link between the push for safe spaces and censorship on campus. Spencer Brown, a spokesman for Young America's Foundation, a conservative activism group, said that universities often create safe spaces explicitly to shut down viewpoints that break from liberal orthodoxy.
"In almost every case, safe spaces are set up in response to a conservative speaker visiting campus," he said. "The powers that be at a given school issue trigger warnings to spook students, offer them a safe space to hide from harmless words, and ensure that the coddled minds of impressionable youth don't hear a conservative idea that, God forbid, might make them reconsider the leftist ideas they're all too often force-fed in the classroom."
Students have an expansive understanding of speech that should be prohibited in a campus environment. While 88 percent of students support restrictions on the use of offensive racial slurs, 71 percent of students also want restrictions on "costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups." Slightly less than half of students also want to restrict the display of pornographic posters from dorm rooms and 17 percent of pupils would impose restrictions on the distribution of Christian pamphlets on campus.
While students support specific policies restricting free speech, most students say they support the principle of free speech and the right to express political views on campus. More than four-in-five students prefer a campus environment that exposes students to all types of speech while 19 percent want to prohibit "offensive or biased" speech.


freebeacon--2020-05-05--The Hidden Victims of COVID-19: Dem Donors Forced to Spend $100K for ‘Virtual Dinner’ With Hillary

The coronavirus pandemic has unleashed tremendous suffering upon the people of earth .
Perhaps the foremost victim of this China-caused crisis is President Donald J. Trump , who has suffered horribly at the hands of the Fake News Media and its relentless barrage of unfair questions .
Many have also caught the actual virus .
Some victims are more visible than others .
Media reporters such as Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy of CNN , for example , have used public platforms to express their victimhood .
`` You really take for granted the office chair , and how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're spending hours and hours working from the dining room chair , '' Darcy wrote on popular social networking website Twitter .
Stelter , meanwhile , gave a speech about the time he cried himself to sleep , giving voice to fellow journalists suffering in silence , terrified at the thought of another month without brunch or of having to pretend to care about sexual assault allegations against a Democrat .
Among the hidden victims of the coronavirus pandemic are wealthy liberals who believe in all the right things .
Many have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see their private chefs , wondering if they 'll ever get another networking opportunity like their son 's Harvard graduation—canceled because of coronavirus .
It 's not like there are any Democratic fundraisers on the horizon .
After all these rich libs have done to make the world a better place—voting for Obama , watching Saturday Night Live , and laughing at jokes about Republicans—this is the best the Democratic Party could come up with to show its appreciation : a `` virtual dinner '' with Hillary Clinton to raise money for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fundraiser , which will take place on Zoom , start at $ 2,800 .
Hosts must shell out a cool $ 100,000 to watch Hillary Clinton eat a bowl of lentils on their laptop .
Gone are the glory days of Obama fundraisers on Martha 's Vineyard , watching will.i.am do slam poetry in Spike Lee 's basement , meeting Ben Rhodes 's Quds Force buddies , and sending daughters home before Harvey Weinstein shows up .
What a sad way to have to spend $ 100,000—almost as depressing as donating it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It might not be very fashionable to think of these wealthy liberal donors as `` victims '' amidst this unprecedented crisis , but that does n't mean it is n't true .
Ask yourself : How much would someone have to pay you to watch Hillary Clinton eat dinner for an hour ?
Exactly .
Sometimes it helps to keep things in perspective .
It 's bad enough that these people are having to throw away money on a candidate whose brain keeps malfunctioning , who might not even live long enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best their party could do .
It was the only way they could stop Bernie Sanders from taxing their yachts .
Pour one out for these hidden victims .

The coronavirus pandemic has unleashed tremendous suffering upon the people of earth. Perhaps the foremost victim of this China-caused crisis is President Donald J. Trump, who has suffered horribly at the hands of the Fake News Media and its relentless barrage of unfair questions. Many have also caught the actual virus.
Some victims are more visible than others. Media reporters such as Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy of CNN, for example, have used public platforms to express their victimhood.
"You really take for granted the office chair, and how much it helps with posture, until you're spending hours and hours working from the dining room chair," Darcy wrote on popular social networking website Twitter.
Stelter, meanwhile, gave a speech about the time he cried himself to sleep, giving voice to fellow journalists suffering in silence, terrified at the thought of another month without brunch or of having to pretend to care about sexual assault allegations against a Democrat.
Among the hidden victims of the coronavirus pandemic are wealthy liberals who believe in all the right things. Many have been cooped up in vacation homes, unable to see their private chefs, wondering if they'll ever get another networking opportunity like their son's Harvard graduation—canceled because of coronavirus. It's not like there are any Democratic fundraisers on the horizon.
After all these rich libs have done to make the world a better place—voting for Obama, watching Saturday Night Live, and laughing at jokes about Republicans—this is the best the Democratic Party could come up with to show its appreciation: a "virtual dinner" with Hillary Clinton to raise money for the Biden Victory Fund.
Tickets to the fundraiser, which will take place on Zoom, start at $2,800. Hosts must shell out a cool $100,000 to watch Hillary Clinton eat a bowl of lentils on their laptop. Gone are the glory days of Obama fundraisers on Martha's Vineyard, watching will.i.am do slam poetry in Spike Lee's basement, meeting Ben Rhodes's Quds Force buddies, and sending daughters home before Harvey Weinstein shows up.
What a sad way to have to spend $100,000—almost as depressing as donating it to charity without getting anything in return. It might not be very fashionable to think of these wealthy liberal donors as "victims" amidst this unprecedented crisis, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Ask yourself: How much would someone have to pay you to watch Hillary Clinton eat dinner for an hour? Exactly.
Sometimes it helps to keep things in perspective. It's bad enough that these people are having to throw away money on a candidate whose brain keeps malfunctioning, who might not even live long enough to be inaugurated. Joe Biden is the best their party could do. It was the only way they could stop Bernie Sanders from taxing their yachts.
Pour one out for these hidden victims.


freebeacon--2020-05-05--Former NYT Reporter Opposes Investigation of Biden Assault Claim: ‘I Want a Coronation’

A former New York Times reporter opposes an investigation of the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden , calling for a `` coronation '' of the presumptive Democratic nominee .
`` I want a coronation of Joe Biden , '' Martin Tolchin , a 40-year Times veteran who helped found Politico and The Hill , wrote to his former paper .
`` Would he make a great president ?
Unlikely … Would he make a better president than the present occupant ?
Absolutely .
I don ’ t want justice , whatever that may be .
I want a win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , and Mr. Biden is our best chance . ''
It is not the first time the veteran journalist has publicly criticized the White House .
While promoting his memoir last year , the 91-year-old Tolchin said the Trump presidency was a form of `` adversity '' that had inspired `` very good reporting . ''
Tolchin wrote in response to a May 1 Times editorial calling for the Democratic National Committee to investigate Tara Reade 's claim that Biden forcibly penetrated her with his fingers in 1993 .
Reade was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden touched them or made them feel uncomfortable , but she did not publicly make her assault allegation until March .
`` Suppose an investigation reveals damaging information concerning his relationship with Tara Reade or something else , and Mr. Biden loses the nomination to Senator Bernie Sanders or someone else with a minimal chance of defeating Mr. Trump , '' Tolchin wrote .
`` Should we really risk the possibility ? ''
Republicans have criticized members of the media for downplaying Reade 's allegation , in comparison with their aggressive pursuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh in 2018 .
A Free Beacon analysis found that Biden was not asked about Reade once in 19 interviews after the former staffer went public in March .
He denied the allegation on MSNBC 's Morning Joe on Friday .
The Times published its editorial 19 days after it published a lengthy news article headlined , `` Examining Tara Reade ’ s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden . ''
Though it did not reach a conclusion on Reade 's claim , Biden 's campaign instructed surrogates to cite it as proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement , the Times rebuked the Biden campaign for misrepresenting the article .

A former New York Times reporter opposes an investigation of the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, calling for a "coronation" of the presumptive Democratic nominee.
"I want a coronation of Joe Biden," Martin Tolchin, a 40-year Times veteran and founder of The Hill newspaper, wrote to his former paper. "Would he make a great president? Unlikely ... Would he make a better president than the present occupant? Absolutely. I don’t want justice, whatever that may be. I want a win, the removal of Donald Trump from office, and Mr. Biden is our best chance."
It is not the first time the veteran journalist has publicly criticized the White House. While promoting his memoir last year, the 91-year-old Tolchin said the Trump presidency was a form of "adversity" that had inspired "very good reporting."
Tolchin wrote in response to a May 1 Times editorial calling for the Democratic National Committee to investigate Tara Reade's claim that Biden forcibly penetrated her with his fingers in 1993. Reade was one of eight women who said in 2019 that Biden touched them or made them feel uncomfortable, but she did not publicly make her assault allegation until March.
"Suppose an investigation reveals damaging information concerning his relationship with Tara Reade or something else, and Mr. Biden loses the nomination to Senator Bernie Sanders or someone else with a minimal chance of defeating Mr. Trump," Tolchin wrote. "Should we really risk the possibility?"
Republicans have criticized members of the media for downplaying Reade's allegation, in comparison with their aggressive pursuit of allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. A Free Beacon analysis found that Biden was not asked about Reade once in 19 interviews after the former staffer went public in March. He denied the allegation on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Friday.
The Times published its editorial 19 days after it published a lengthy news article headlined, "Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden." Though it did not reach a conclusion on Reade's claim, Biden's campaign instructed surrogates to cite it as proof the charge was false. In a statement, the Times rebuked the Biden campaign for misrepresenting the article.


freebeacon--2020-05-05--Supreme Court Set for Another Fight Over Obamacare Birth Control Mandate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether a religious liberty exemption to the Affordable Care Act 's birth control mandate goes too far .
Two Trump administration rules , which provided exemptions to the mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage at no cost , are at the center of Wednesday 's case .
The rules allow any employer to self-exempt from the mandate if they object to providing contraceptive coverage on religious or moral grounds .
The new exemption is broader than its Obama-era predecessor , which allowed only certain employers to opt out , provided they first notified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Human Services so alternative coverage could be arranged .
Two Democrat-controlled states , women 's groups , and a large corporate coalition warn that up to 130,000 women will lose contraceptive coverage unless the Trump rules are invalidated .
The Little Sisters of the Poor , an order of Catholic nuns , are involved in Wednesday 's case .
The sisters hope the case will end their long-running effort to win an exemption from the mandate , though there is some question as to whether they are properly involved at this stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several religious liberty matters on the Court 's docket .
By summer , the justices will rule on the mandate exemption , the scope of a religious exception from workplace discrimination rules , and state laws barring taxpayer support of religious schools .
Though religious conservatives enjoy the real prospect of a clean sweep in those cases , the merit of such victories is questionable in a society increasingly governed by progressive social values .
Critics of the expanded Trump rule say the mandate has saved women hundreds of millions in out-of-pocket costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of contraceptives .
If the new exemption is allowed to stand , they fear women will lose educational and professional opportunities .
`` Allowing companies and universities to use religious beliefs to block employees ' and students ' birth control coverage is discrimination , not religious liberty , '' said the ACLU 's Brigitte Amiri .
`` Everyone should have birth control coverage , regardless of where they work or where they go to school . ''
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the Trump rules in federal court once they were issued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ states and issued a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the new exemption across the country .
The Third U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the states , prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court .
The states fear they will have to shoulder the cost of birth control access for women who lose coverage due to the Trump rules .
Pennsylvania and New Jersey told the justices in legal filings that they need protection from `` costs associated with providing contraceptive coverage to in-state employees and students . ''
The legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration had authority to adopt the expanded conscience exemption .
The government says its rules are allowed under the ACA and required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) .
Enacted in 1993 , RFRA seeks to strike `` sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests . ''
The plaintiffs counter that Trump 's expanded conscience exemption is unlawful for two reasons .
First , they say the government did not follow procedural requirements when the rule was adopted .
On the merits , they argue the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and RFRA .
Framing the rules in terms of regulatory overreach is meant to appeal to the conservative justices , who are often anxious about agency power .
The ACA directs the government to establish guidelines for implementing the mandate .
That means the law gives the administration power `` not just to specify what services should be covered , but also to provide appropriate exemptions , '' government lawyers wrote in legal filings .
The plaintiffs reject that reading .
They say the relevant provision only directs the government to identify what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not `` implicitly [ delegate ] limitless authority to grant non-health related exemptions . ''
The RFRA question is the most important in the case .
The administration says that without its new exemption , objecting employers will be forced to choose between their religious convictions and stiff financial penalties for noncompliance , thus infringing on religious freedom in violation of RFRA .
`` That conclusion is hardly groundbreaking , '' lawyers for the Little Sisters wrote of that point in legal briefs .
In a 2014 case , Burwell v. Hobby Lobby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate imposes a `` substantial burden '' on religious practice .
While Hobby Lobby only applied to a narrow band of employers , the administration and the Little Sisters says the new exemption is a logical extension of that decision .
The challengers disagree .
RFRA , they say , merely provides an opportunity for religious believers to challenge certain conduct in court .
Agencies ca n't use it `` as a sword to create exemptions from other laws , '' they wrote .
There could be a silver lining for the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
Should the states win , then the government would like the justices to bar enforcement of the rule with respect to Pennsylvania and New Jersey only .
In the process , the government asked the justices to `` resolve the status of nationwide injunctions , reiterating that judicial relief may be no broader than necessary . ''
Nationwide injunctions have beset the administration since the president took office .
Trial judges have issued such injunctions to block the president 's travel sanctions and the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a 2019 speech to the American Law Institute , Attorney General William Barr argued nationwide injunctions inflate the power of a single judge and turn ordinary cases into judicial emergencies .
`` According to the Department of Justice 's best estimates , federal district courts have issued more than 50 nationwide injunctions in the past three years , nearly as many as were issued in the entire history of the United States before that time , '' government lawyers wrote .
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have criticized the proliferation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision in Wednesday 's case , No .
19-431 Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania , is expected by summer .

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether a religious liberty exemption to the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate goes too far.
Two Trump administration rules, which provided exemptions to the mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage at no cost, are at the center of Wednesday's case. The rules allow any employer to self-exempt from the mandate if they object to providing contraceptive coverage on religious or moral grounds. The new exemption is broader than its Obama-era predecessor, which allowed only certain employers to opt out, provided they first notified their insurer or the Department of Health and Human Services so alternative coverage could be arranged.
Two Democrat-controlled states, women's groups, and a large corporate coalition warn that up to 130,000 women will lose contraceptive coverage unless the Trump rules are invalidated.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns, are involved in Wednesday's case. The sisters hope the case will end their long-running effort to win an exemption from the mandate, though there is some question as to whether they are properly involved at this stage.
Wednesday's case is one of several religious liberty matters on the Court's docket. By summer, the justices will rule on the mandate exemption, the scope of a religious exception from workplace discrimination rules, and state laws barring taxpayer support of religious schools. Though religious conservatives enjoy the real prospect of a clean sweep in those cases, the merit of such victories is questionable in a society increasingly governed by progressive social values.
Critics of the expanded Trump rule say the mandate has saved women hundreds of millions in out-of-pocket costs and increased access to more effective forms of contraceptives. If the new exemption is allowed to stand, they fear women will lose educational and professional opportunities.
"Allowing companies and universities to use religious beliefs to block employees' and students' birth control coverage is discrimination, not religious liberty," said the ACLU's Brigitte Amiri. "Everyone should have birth control coverage, regardless of where they work or where they go to school."
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the Trump rules in federal court once they were issued. A federal trial judge sided with the states and issued a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the new exemption across the country. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the states, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The states fear they will have to shoulder the cost of birth control access for women who lose coverage due to the Trump rules. Pennsylvania and New Jersey told the justices in legal filings that they need protection from "costs associated with providing contraceptive coverage to in-state employees and students."
The legal question in the case is whether the Trump administration had authority to adopt the expanded conscience exemption. The government says its rules are allowed under the ACA and required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Enacted in 1993, RFRA seeks to strike "sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."
The plaintiffs counter that Trump's expanded conscience exemption is unlawful for two reasons. First, they say the government did not follow procedural requirements when the rule was adopted. On the merits, they argue the government exceeded its authority under the ACA and RFRA. Framing the rules in terms of regulatory overreach is meant to appeal to the conservative justices, who are often anxious about agency power.
The ACA directs the government to establish guidelines for implementing the mandate. That means the law gives the administration power "not just to specify what services should be covered, but also to provide appropriate exemptions," government lawyers wrote in legal filings.
The plaintiffs reject that reading. They say the relevant provision only directs the government to identify what services should be covered. It does not "implicitly [delegate] limitless authority to grant non-health related exemptions."
The RFRA question is the most important in the case. The administration says that without its new exemption, objecting employers will be forced to choose between their religious convictions and stiff financial penalties for noncompliance, thus infringing on religious freedom in violation of RFRA.
"That conclusion is hardly groundbreaking," lawyers for the Little Sisters wrote of that point in legal briefs. In a 2014 case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court said the birth control mandate imposes a "substantial burden" on religious practice. While Hobby Lobby only applied to a narrow band of employers, the administration and the Little Sisters says the new exemption is a logical extension of that decision.
The challengers disagree. RFRA, they say, merely provides an opportunity for religious believers to challenge certain conduct in court. Agencies can't use it "as a sword to create exemptions from other laws," they wrote.
There could be a silver lining for the Trump administration if the Court sides with the states. Should the states win, then the government would like the justices to bar enforcement of the rule with respect to Pennsylvania and New Jersey only. In the process, the government asked the justices to "resolve the status of nationwide injunctions, reiterating that judicial relief may be no broader than necessary."
Nationwide injunctions have beset the administration since the president took office. Trial judges have issued such injunctions to block the president's travel sanctions and the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, among other policies. In a 2019 speech to the American Law Institute, Attorney General William Barr argued nationwide injunctions inflate the power of a single judge and turn ordinary cases into judicial emergencies.
"According to the Department of Justice's best estimates, federal district courts have issued more than 50 nationwide injunctions in the past three years, nearly as many as were issued in the entire history of the United States before that time," government lawyers wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have criticized the proliferation of nationwide injunctions in recent years.
A decision in Wednesday's case, No. 19-431 Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, is expected by summer.


freebeacon--2020-05-05--Report: ICC Colluding With Terror-Tied Groups to Push Prosecution of U.S., Israeli Personnel

The International Criminal Court is working alongside several organizations and individuals tied to terrorism as it seeks to prosecute American and Israeli personnel for war crimes , according to a new report out of Israel .
The findings call into question the court 's integrity at a time when it is facing international backlash over its pursuit of politically motivated cases .
The report—from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs ( JCPA ) , an Israel-based research group headed by a former adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—concludes that under the leadership of Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda , the ICC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against American and Israeli military officials it claims are guilty of committing war crimes against civilians , including in Afghanistan and Palestinian territories .
The cases originated with complaints filed to the court by two nonprofit advocacy groups with ties to terrorism .
In its report , `` How the ICC Has Been Weaponized Against the U.S. and Israel , '' the JCPA details how two international nonprofit groups hijacked the ICC to ensure it targets the United States and Israel for prosecution on charges that both nations have called unwarranted .
Researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NGOs , some of which are affiliated with terror organizations , collaborated in promoting the complaints against the U.S. and Israel . ''
The findings are likely to stoke already mounting frustrations with the court in Congress and the Trump administration , which has repeatedly condemned the ICC 's pursuit of charges against American military personnel .
The United States is not a party to the court and has vowed to defend itself against any legal action .
Israel has adopted a similar stance on the court , which has repeatedly attempted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country 's efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism .
`` Any attempt by a renegade ICC to investigate U.S. personnel is illegitimate and unjustified , '' State Department Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus told the Washington Free Beacon .
The ICC 's case against the United States originated in complaints issued by two nonprofit advocacy groups—the International Federation for Human Rights ( FIDH ) and the Center for Constitutional Rights .
Both groups `` are closely related to the Palestinian NGOs that brought the complaint against Israel to the ICC , '' according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Al-Dameer , Al Mezan , and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights ( PCHR ) — '' maintain strong ties to the designated terror organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ( PFLP ) , '' according to a 2019 Israeli government investigation .
Further , the NGOs are tied to a network of anti-Israel activists who use the human rights community to push radical agendas at a range of international institutions , including the United Nations .
The organizations `` are far from being human rights organizations as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they maintain close ties to terror organizations designated by U.S. State Department and the European Union , '' according to the JCPA .
The executive director of the Al-Haq group , Shawan Jabarin , `` is a former senior operative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and has served multiple prison sentences for his terror-affiliated activity , '' the report discloses .
Major U.S. credit card companies shut down donations to Al-Haq due to its terrorism ties .
Jabarin also serves as the secretary general for FIDH , the umbrella @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against America .
Al-Haq , the PCHR , and Al Mezan are all members of FIDH .
`` Palestinian NGOs have similarly maintained close ties to the PFLP , Hamas , and other Palestinian terror groups , '' according to the JCPA .
`` They have been active in working against U.S. policy in the Middle East , condemning the U.S. Administration 's declarations regarding the Golan Heights , Jerusalem , and the Jordan Valley . ''
ICC chief prosecutor Bensouda has close ties with FIDH , the JCPA found .
She visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participated in the group 's 40th congress in 2019 .
FIDH says on its website that it has a `` close relationship '' with the ICC .
This has raised questions about Bensouda 's impartiality when it comes to cases that FIDH and its affiliates have promoted .
`` The particularly close relationships between the accusing organizations in both cases reveal the politicized nature of these complaints , '' according to the JCPA .
`` Moreover , the overlapping connections between the Palestinian NGOs and terror groups and between Bensouda and FIDH raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Update 7:33 p.m. : This post has been updated with comment from the State Department .

The International Criminal Court is working alongside several organizations and individuals tied to terrorism as it seeks to prosecute American and Israeli personnel for war crimes, according to a new report out of Israel. The findings call into question the court's integrity at a time when it is facing international backlash over its pursuit of politically motivated cases.
The report—from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), an Israel-based research group headed by a former adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—concludes that under the leadership of Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, the ICC collaborated with terror-tied groups to pursue charges against American and Israeli military officials it claims are guilty of committing war crimes against civilians, including in Afghanistan and Palestinian territories. The cases originated with complaints filed to the court by two nonprofit advocacy groups with ties to terrorism.
In its report, "How the ICC Has Been Weaponized Against the U.S. and Israel," the JCPA details how two international nonprofit groups hijacked the ICC to ensure it targets the United States and Israel for prosecution on charges that both nations have called unwarranted. Researchers uncovered new information indicating that "radical NGOs, some of which are affiliated with terror organizations, collaborated in promoting the complaints against the U.S. and Israel."
The findings are likely to stoke already mounting frustrations with the court in Congress and the Trump administration, which has repeatedly condemned the ICC's pursuit of charges against American military personnel. The United States is not a party to the court and has vowed to defend itself against any legal action. Israel has adopted a similar stance on the court, which has repeatedly attempted to single out Jews for prosecution related to the country's efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism.
"Any attempt by a renegade ICC to investigate U.S. personnel is illegitimate and unjustified," State Department Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus told the Washington Free Beacon.
The ICC's case against the United States originated in complaints issued by two nonprofit advocacy groups—the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Both groups "are closely related to the Palestinian NGOs that brought the complaint against Israel to the ICC," according to the JCPA's report.
The NGOs—Al-Haq, Al-Dameer, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)—"maintain strong ties to the designated terror organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)," according to a 2019 Israeli government investigation.
Further, the NGOs are tied to a network of anti-Israel activists who use the human rights community to push radical agendas at a range of international institutions, including the United Nations.
The organizations "are far from being human rights organizations as they have falsely represented themselves, as they maintain close ties to terror organizations designated by U.S. State Department and the European Union," according to the JCPA, which conducted its investigation jointly with the NGO Monitor, a watchdog group that monitors non-profit advocacy groups.
The executive director of the Al-Haq group, Shawan Jabarin, "is a former senior operative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and has served multiple prison sentences for his terror-affiliated activity," the report discloses. Major U.S. credit card companies shut down donations to Al-Haq due to its terrorism ties. Jabarin also serves as the secretary general for FIDH, the umbrella group helping the ICC pursue a case against America.
Al-Haq, the PCHR, and Al Mezan are all members of FIDH.
"Palestinian NGOs have similarly maintained close ties to the PFLP, Hamas, and other Palestinian terror groups," according to the JCPA. "They have been active in working against U.S. policy in the Middle East, condemning the U.S. Administration's declarations regarding the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and the Jordan Valley."
ICC chief prosecutor Bensouda has close ties with FIDH, the JCPA found. She visited FIDH's Paris headquarters in 2015 and participated in the group's 40th congress in 2019. FIDH says on its website that it has a "close relationship" with the ICC.
This has raised questions about Bensouda's impartiality when it comes to cases that FIDH and its affiliates have promoted.
"The particularly close relationships between the accusing organizations in both cases reveal the politicized nature of these complaints," according to the JCPA. "Moreover, the overlapping connections between the Palestinian NGOs and terror groups and between Bensouda and FIDH raise serious questions about objectivity and intent."
Update 7:33 p.m.: This post has been updated with comment from the State Department.
Update May 8, 11:27 a.m.: This post has been updated with information regarding NGO Monitor and its work with JCPA.


freebeacon--2020-05-05--FLASHBACK: Democrats Say if Kavanaugh Were Innocent, He Would Demand FBI Investigation

Top Democrats insisted in 2018 that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would want an FBI investigation of the sexual assault @ @ @ @ @ were innocent .
It is unclear , however , whether the same Democrats will demand @ @ @ @ @ a probe of Tara Reade 's allegation that the presumptive presidential nominee assaulted her in @ @ @ @ @ Biden also previously said women did not make up sexual assault claims and should automatically @ @ @ @ @ amended those comments in 2020 .

Top Democrats insisted in 2018 that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would want an FBI investigation of the sexual assault claim against him if he were innocent.
It is unclear, however, whether the same Democrats will demand that Joe Biden call for a probe of Tara Reade's allegation that the presumptive presidential nominee assaulted her in 1993.
Many Democrats supporting Biden also previously said women did not make up sexual assault claims and should automatically be believed. They have amended those comments in 2020.