The Weekend Dispatch
Edition For - December 16th, 2023: The NDAA, Jack Smith Appeals to Supreme Court, and The Culture War Rages On
Welcome to The Weekend Dispatch. Our digital newspaper, covering a wide range of cultural & political news.
We welcome any feedback to make your experience more enjoyable.
Send any feedback to Editor@WCdispatch.com
→Investigative Journalist Exposes Border Crisis
Betrayal in the House: Weaponization Committee Members Support Unchecked Surveillance
WASHINGTON D.C. Friday, December 16th, 2023: By, Walter Curt
In a stunning display of political treachery, the House recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a behemoth over 3000 pages long, with only two days allotted for review. What's more appalling is the inclusion of a reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) within the NDAA. This move, a slap in the face to every American who values their privacy, extends the highly controversial 702 to April 2023, with the potential for extension into 2025, sans critical reforms. This section, initially set to expire at the end of 2023, has been a notorious tool for warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications under the guise of targeting foreign threats.
The most glaring hypocrisy comes from three members of the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, who voted in favor of this act. Darrell Issa, Elise M. Stefanik, and Kelly Armstrong, all part of this committee, shockingly supported the bill, thereby endorsing the very mechanisms they were meant to scrutinize. Their vote is a stark contradiction to the committee's work, which has shed light on the misuse of FISA against American citizens. It is a clear display of their true colors, aligning with intrusive surveillance policies they were expected to challenge.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, despite his previous stances favoring FISA reform, backed the inclusion of the 702 extension. This hypocrisy was not lost on whistleblower Edward Snowden, who called out Johnson for sneaking the extension into the must-pass defense bill, thereby sidestepping the much-needed reforms. In the Senate, efforts by Rand Paul and others to remove the 702 provision fell on deaf ears, as the bill passed with ease.
This blatant disregard for privacy rights and the lack of transparency in passing such a critical piece of legislation is unacceptable. It is a stark reminder of the need for vigilant oversight and accountability in our government. The actions of these committee members, in particular, demand scrutiny. Their votes betray a disconcerting willingness to maintain the status quo of unchecked surveillance, directly contradicting the evidence and findings presented by their own committee.
This episode is not just a failure of legislative diligence; it is a clear signal for the need for change. The time has come for the constituents of these representatives to hold them accountable. Their re-election campaigns must be challenged, their decisions questioned, and their commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of Americans rigorously examined. The extension of Section 702 within the NDAA is a testament to the ongoing battle for privacy and civil liberties in America, a battle that demands relentless pursuit and unwavering courage. The people must rise to this challenge and demand representatives who will truly uphold the values of freedom and privacy.
Will Republicans Make a Deal for Border Security?
WASHINGTON D.C., December 15th, 2023: By, Walter Curt
America stands at a precipice, facing an immigration crisis of unprecedented scale. The shocking revelation that over 45 million illegal immigrants now reside within our borders paints a dire picture of national security and sovereignty at risk. Amidst this alarming scenario, rumors swirl of a potential deal between Republicans and the Biden Administration on border security—a deal that, if history is any guide, may never materialize.
The duplicity of the Obama-Biden administration has been evident since 2008, dangling promises of border security only to retract at the eleventh hour. This pattern of deceit has left the Republicans, now in the majority in the House, appearing feeble and ineffective. Trust in their ability to secure a meaningful concession from the Democrats is waning, especially with the House already in recess and unlikely to address any agreement until after the holidays.
While the Senate postpones its holiday break to vote on staggering aid packages—$50 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel—the Republicans demand changes to U.S. border security policy in return. However, any deal brokered in the Senate must still win the approval of the House Republicans, a group that has yet to actually succeed on a single issue since taking the majority.
Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, following his U.S. meetings, remains optimistic about the aid measures. In contrast, Republican Senator Tom Cotton voices skepticism, highlighting the Democrats' failure to propose concrete measures in writing or to address the limitation of Biden's expansive parole authority for migrants.
The crux of the issue lies in the hands of Border Chief Alejandro Mayorkas, who is purportedly offering Republicans a deal to cap illegal migration at an astounding 1 million people per year, in exchange for a staggering $61 billion in aid for Ukraine. This number, albeit a reduction from the current influx, would still double pre-2021 immigration levels, a scenario far from acceptable. Mayorkas' proposal to expand "Expedited Removal" and detention powers, while ignoring existing loopholes, is criticized as both harsh and ineffectual.
Republican Senators like Lindsey Graham, Tillis, Cotton, and Lankford, each with varying stances on legal immigration, are united in their insistence that border issues must be prioritized before approving aid for Ukraine. Graham's call for "outcomes, not timelines" echoes the frustration and urgency felt by many.
In summary, we are witnessing a political charade where Mayorkas negotiates a woefully inadequate deal to modestly limit illegal immigration, all while dangling billions in military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip. The skepticism among Republicans is justified, as the offer does little to remedy the core issues plaguing America's border security. This situation demands more than political posturing and half-hearted proposals—it calls for decisive action to secure our borders and safeguard the nation. The time for meaningful reform is now, and the American people must demand it.
Jack Smith's Desperate Gamble: Rushing to the Supreme Court in the Trump Immunity Case
WASHINGTON D.C., December 15th, 2023: By, Walter Curt
In a bold yet seemingly desperate move, Special Counsel Jack Smith has escalated his pursuit of former President Donald Trump to the highest court in the land. Smith is seeking a rapid resolution from the Supreme Court on whether Trump has presidential immunity for his actions related to the 2020 election. This urgent appeal to bypass the traditional legal process reveals not only Smith's impatience but also his keenness to convict Trump before the 2024 election, a strategy perceived as benefiting the Biden administration electorally.
Smith's request for the Supreme Court to intervene and decide on Trump's claim of immunity, bypassing the appeals court, is unprecedented in its urgency. He is pushing for a definitive resolution before the scheduled criminal trial against Trump on March 4th, 2023. Trump's defense maintains that his actions surrounding the 2020 election are shielded by presidential immunity, a stance that has now prompted a high-stakes legal showdown.
Adding to the complexity, prosecutors are also querying if Trump is safeguarded from the charges by the principle of double jeopardy, given his previous Senate acquittal. Smith's reference to the Supreme Court's rapid involvement in the Watergate tapes case underscores his belief that only the highest court can conclusively address Trump's immunity claims.
The special counsel has requested Trump's response by December 18th, followed by an expedited Supreme Court briefing schedule, should the court agree to hear the case. However, in a twist of irony, Smith's strategy might have inadvertently stalled his own efforts. The Supreme Court's decision to take the case, if it does, could lead to months of deliberation, potentially pushing any substantive legal proceedings to the next term.
Should the Supreme Court decline this urgent petition, Smith has requested the appeals court to swiftly deliberate on the immunity issue, aiming to bring the matter to the Supreme Court through regular channels if necessary.
In essence, Smith's actions paint a picture of a prosecutor racing against time, eager to secure a conviction against Trump. This legal maneuvering, perceived as driven by electoral motives, adds another layer of controversy to the already heated political landscape. The outcome of this legal gambit could have significant implications, not just for Trump, but for the broader political dynamics leading up to the 2024 presidential election.
Supreme Court Challenge: The Questionable Use of 'Obstruction' in January 6th Cases
WASHINGTON D.C., December 16th, 2023: By, Walter Curt
The Supreme Court's decision to hear a case challenging the use of the “obstructing an official proceeding” statute in January 6th cases marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal saga surrounding the Capitol riot. This pivotal case could reshape the legal landscape for hundreds of defendants, including former President Donald Trump, who are embroiled in charges stemming from that day's events.
At the heart of the controversy is the broad interpretation of the obstruction statute, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was originally enacted in response to the Enron scandal to regulate financial records and prevent the destruction of documents. However, prosecutors have extended its application to over 300 January 6th defendants, including Joseph Fischer who briefly returned to the Capitol for four minutes during the riot.
Critics argue that this expansive use of the law to encompass actions beyond its intended scope of preserving financial investigation evidence is a misapplication. This Supreme Court hearing will delve into whether the statute's interpretation in these cases is legally sound or an overreach.
The implications of this hearing are far-reaching. Over 700 defendants have pleaded guilty in the January 6th cases, with the obstruction charge contributing to at least 152 convictions. If the Supreme Court rules against the broad application of this statute, it could lead to a significant legal upheaval, potentially impacting the sentences and convictions of many involved, including those currently serving prison terms.
The case also intersects with the legal battle involving former President Trump. Trump faces the same obstruction charge in his upcoming trial and is concurrently asserting presidential immunity—a matter the Supreme Court is also considering. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could thus have a direct bearing on Trump's legal defense and the overall narrative of the January 6th prosecutions.
In summary, the Supreme Court's review of the obstruction statute's application in January 6th cases represents a crucial moment in American legal history. It questions the validity of its use in a context far removed from its original intent, challenging the legal underpinnings of numerous convictions and potentially reshaping the narrative around the Capitol riot and its aftermath. This decision, expected by June, holds the power to alter the course of many lives and legal cases, including that of a former president, making it a closely watched and highly consequential legal event.
Navigating Uncertainty: A Call to Faith Amidst Tumultuous Times
December 16th, 2023: By, Walter Curt
As Americans, we stand at a crossroads, sensing the winds of change and feeling the weight of a pivotal moment in our nation's, and indeed, the world's history. There's an undeniable sense of something significant on the horizon as 2024 approaches—a choice that will shape our future and define our era. This isn't just about politics or economics; it's a profound spiritual and moral juncture that touches the very soul of our nation.
The conversations we're having, the prices we're witnessing at grocery stores, and the news that filters through our daily lives—all of these elements contribute to a growing realization that something fundamental is shifting. It's a feeling that's hard to articulate, complex and multifaceted, but it's palpable and pervasive. We're not just deciding on the next electoral cycle; we're choosing the direction in which we want to steer the world.
At the heart of this existential choice lies a stark dichotomy: humanism versus what some might term as 'extinctionism.' This is no hyperbole but a reality we're increasingly confronted with. The radical left's agenda, heavily focused on climate change and transhumanism, often paints humanity as an adversary to the natural world. This worldview posits a transcendental shift, seeing humans more as a scourge than stewards of the Earth.
This battle is not just political; it's a struggle for the essence of what it means to be human. Living through such times is both fascinating and unnerving. Yet, in moments like these, when the future seems most uncertain, there is one constant that offers solace and direction: faith.
Faith is not just a refuge in times of anxiety but a guiding light, revealing the path through the storm. In faith, we find the assurance that God's plan is steadfast and true. It is a reminder that America's story is far from over and that a divine reckoning awaits those who seek destruction while we yearn for peace.
As we face these tumultuous times, let us turn to faith. For it is in faith that we find the strength to confront challenges, the hope to envision a brighter future, and the conviction that, despite the turmoil, a greater purpose is at work. We stand at a crucial moment in history, and our response will define not just our future but the legacy we leave for generations to come. Let us choose a path of faith, resilience, and unwavering commitment to the values that have long defined the spirit of our nation.
MUST SEE PODCAST & STORY
LARA LOGAN ON MONICA MATTHEWS
In a captivating session on the Monica Matthews Show, Lara Logan, renowned for her unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity, delved into a range of pressing issues. The discussion traversed the current state of our nation, the troubling aspects of the January 6th events, and the undying essence of truthful journalism. Lara, undeterred by attempts to discredit her work, stands as a paragon of bravery and resilience.
Her recent venture, 'Truth in Media,' is not just a platform but a movement deserving of attention. Yet, it's her powerful message about reclaiming our nation that truly resonates. My brief interaction with her during the show only reinforced my longstanding admiration for her tenacity and dedication. Lara Logan, alongside Monica Matthews, embodies the kind of journalism that our world desperately needs today—fearless, honest, and unyielding.
Their example serves as a clarion call for patriots everywhere to stand firm in defense of their rights, regardless of the challenges they may face. Lara's inspiring message is more than just words; it's a roadmap for all who seek to make a difference in these tumultuous times.