Posted: January 26, 2018 Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Law & Justice, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, DOJ, Donald Trump, FBI, FISA, James Comey, Steele Dossier
From Release the Memo: Let’s See What’s in It
Andrew C. McCarthy writes:
… First, the main questions that we need answered are:
- Were associates of President Trump, members of his campaign, or even Trump himself, subjected to foreign-intelligence surveillance (i.e., do the FISA applications name them as either targets or persons whose communications and activities would likely be monitored)?
- Was information from the Steele dossier used in FISA applications?
- If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it so central that FISA warrants would not have been granted without it?
- If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it corroborated by independent FBI investigation?
- If the dossier’s information was so used, was the source accurately conveyed to the court so that credibility and potential bias could be weighed (i.e., was the court told that the information came from an opposition-research project sponsored by the Clinton presidential campaign)?
- The FBI has said that significant efforts were made to corroborate Steele’s sensational claims, yet former director James Comey has acknowledged (in June 2017 Senate testimony) that the dossier was “unverified.” If the dossier was used in FISA applications in 2016, has the Justice Department — consistent with its continuing duty of candor in dealings with the tribunal — alerted the court that it did not succeed in verifying Steele’s hearsay reporting based on anonymous sources? Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: November 6, 2016 Filed under: Breaking News, Crime & Corruption, Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Politics, White House | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Department of State, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, James Comey, United States Department of Justice
Read more here….
Posted: September 29, 2016 Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Politics | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Classified information, Defendant, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal crime in the United States, Freedom of Information Act (United States), Gross negligence, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton email controversy, Interrogation
…Gowdy’s point is the same now as it was then. Isn’t destroying evidence and then lying about it the best evidence of criminal intent insofar as it reveals a guilty mind? Because that’s what we have here — deleted emails, wiped servers, and then a series of public lies by Hillary about whether she’d ever dealt with classified information on her private system. What more would you need to have seen from her by way of suspicious behavior, he asks Comey, to conclude that she really did know all along that she was mishandling classified information and therefore is guilty even under Comey’s own standard of intent? Comey … has no good answer. Yes, he says, it’s true that concealing evidence is a strong indicator of bad intent, but we need to look at what the suspect has said, too. Which is Gowdy’s point: The false exculpatory statements Clinton has made publicly are further proof that she’s concealing the truth. We also need to look at whether anyone’s been prosecuted for this particular crime before, notes Comey.
That’s all that seems left of his decision not to charge her now. He’s not forcefully disputing Gowdy’s claim that Hillary knowingly, not just negligently, mishandled classified information. All he’s saying when you boil it down is that if no one’s gone to prison for this before, it’d be unfair to send Clinton to prison for it now. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: December 1, 2015 Filed under: France, Law & Justice, Politics, Terrorism, Think Tank | Tags: Al-Nusra Front, Andrew C. McCarthy, Apple Inc, Data Collection, Hebron, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, National security, NSA, Palestinian people, Paris terrorist attacks, Pentagon, Surveillance, West Bank
In the surveillance area, I believe the public is mostly wrong.
Andrew C. McCarthy writes: Should private companies that provide users with encryption technology be required to assist law-enforcement and intelligence services to defeat that technology? This question is a more pressing one in the wake of November’s Paris terrorist attacks. But it is a very tough question that has vexed both the government and providers of communications services for years.
“The problem is that encryption technology has gotten very tough to crack and very widely available. Consequently, if terrorists or other high-level criminals are using it to carry out schemes that endanger the public, government agents cannot penetrate the communications in real time.”
Part of what makes it so difficult is the new facts of life. As I noted during the debate over the NSA’s bulk-collection of telephone metadata, we are operating in a political environment that is night-and-day different from the aftermath of 9/11. Back then, a frightened public was demanding that the government do a better job of collecting intelligence and thwarting terrorist plots. Of course that sentiment was driven by the mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans, coupled with the destruction of the World Trade Center and a strike against the Pentagon. But it also owed in no small measure to the fact that government had done such an incompetent job gathering and “connecting the dots” prior to the attacks. There was a strong public sense that intelligence agencies needed an injection of muscle.
“That they have a legal basis to conduct surveillance is beside the point; all the probable cause in the world won’t help an agent who lacks the know-how to access what he’s been authorized to search.”
Today, the public’s sense tends in the other direction. There have been spectacular abuses of government power (e.g., IRS scandal), and intrusive security precautions infused by political correctness (e.g., airport searches). Americans understandably suspect that government cannot be trusted with enhanced authorities and that many of its tactics are more about the appearance of security than real security.
[Read the full story here, at PJ Media]
It is, moreover, no longer sufficient for the national-security right to posit that security measures pass legal muster. The public wants proof that these measures actually and meaningfully improve our security, regardless of whether they are justifiable as a matter of law.
This makes it a very uphill environment in which to suggest, as FBI Director Jim Comey has recently done, that communications providers should provide the government with keys to unlocking their encryption technology – encryption-key repositories or what is often called “backdoor” access.
The problem is that encryption technology has gotten very tough to crack and very widely available. Consequently, if terrorists or other high-level criminals are using it to carry out schemes that endanger the public, government agents cannot penetrate the communications in real time. That they have a legal basis to conduct surveillance is beside the point; all the probable cause in the world won’t help an agent who lacks the know-how to access what he’s been authorized to search. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: October 27, 2015 Filed under: Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Politics, Self Defense, Think Tank, White House | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Charles C. W. Cooke, Civil Rights, Foley & Lardner, Gun laws, Gun rights, Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch, National Review, NRA, Police state, Progressivism, Tom Fitton, United States
“Seductive as it might be, there is little within the facts to recommend this approach. As Gallup confirmed just this week, the NRA is not a fringe organization that has managed somehow to impose a greatly undeserved octopus’s grip, but a mainstream plank of American civil society with approval ratings of which the vast majority of national politicians could only dream. ‘Despite a year of blistering criticism,’ the polling firm notes, ‘58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion” of the NRA — a number that “includes the highest recording of ‘very favorable’ opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989.’ That trend line is moving upwards.”
— Charles C.W. Cooke
Source: National Review Online
Posted: October 22, 2015 Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Mediasphere, White House | Tags: al Qaeda, Andrew C. McCarthy, Andrew McCarthy, Beirut, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, J. Christian Adams, Judicial Watch, National Review, Tom Fitton, United States, United States Department of State, YouTube
“Your experts knew the truth, your spokesperson knew the truth, Greg Hicks knew the truth,” Jordan said during a House Benghazi Committee hearing. “But what troubles me more is I think you knew the truth.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) relentlessly questioned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday over why she and other administration officials initially blamed a YouTube video for the Benghazi terror attacks, a claim contrary to available intelligence at the time.
“The American people want to know why. If you look at the statement that I made, I clearly said it was an attack. Calling it an attack is like saying the sky is blue — of course it was an attack.”
“Your experts knew the truth, your spokesperson knew the truth, Greg Hicks knew the truth,” Jordan said during a House Benghazi Committee hearing. “But what troubles me more is I think you knew the truth.” Jordan accused Clinton of telling the president of Libya, Egyptian prime minister and even family members that terrorists were behind the attack, but later suggested an anti-Muslim video sparked the attack.
[Read more here, at The Corner, National Review Online]
“The American people want to know why,” Jordan added. “If you look at the statement that I made, I clearly said it was an attack,” Clinton replied. “Calling it an attack is like saying the sky is blue — of course it was an attack,” Jordan shot back.
At one point, Clinton looked visibly annoyed by Jordan’s line of questioning….
Posted: May 23, 2015 Filed under: Breaking News, Law & Justice, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Data Collection, GOP, media, National Review, National security, news, NRO, NSA, Patriot Act, Twitter
Read it here, at National Review Online
Posted: March 30, 2015 Filed under: Breaking News, War Room | Tags: Ace of Spades HQ, Albert Jay Nock, Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, Jonah Goldberg, Left-wing politics, National Review, Republican Party (United States)
Go here, to Ace of Spades HQ for clickable links. The top story, “The Bergdahl Affair…” by Jonah Goldberg, is our recommended highlight.
Posted: January 9, 2015 Filed under: Breaking News, Mediasphere, War Room | Tags: al Qaeda, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Charlie Hebdo, France, Islamic state, Islamism, Middle East, Muhammad, Muslim, Syria, Western world
“What is so important about this is the origin of the four killers, the brothers and the couple. They were born in France. I think we’re now in sort of the third stage of the jihadist war against us.”
He laid out the sequence: “The first [stage], of course, is 9/11 — all of the attackers were from the middle east. And then, for the last year or two, we have seen the ‘lone wolf’ attacks — usually homegrown, but fairly unstable and one-on-one, and it looks as if fairly disorganized or acting out of inspiration, but not on instruction or with training. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: December 16, 2014 Filed under: Breaking News, Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Arthur J. Schwab, Barack Obama, Enforcement discretion, Executive (government), Judicial opinion, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Substantive rights, United States district court, United States federal judge
Andrew C. McCarthy writes:
“I wonder how the Republican establishment will take this: A federal court has the gumption to declare the obvious — namely, that Obama’s immigration policy is unconstitutional, just as Republican candidates argued while seeking votes during the recent midterm election campaign — only three days after 20 Republican senators astonishingly joined with the Democrats to endorse Obama’s policy as constitutionally valid.”
[Also see – Chris Christie Prediction: ‘In 2017, there won’t be an Obamacare‘]
From Jon Adler‘s analysis on Judge Schwab’s opinion at the Volokh Conspiracy…
Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.
According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
This is the first judicial opinion to address Obama’s decision to expand deferred action for some individuals unlawfully present in the United States. [I’ve now posted the opinion here.]
The procedural background of the case is somewhat unusual. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: November 20, 2014 Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Think Tank, White House | Tags: Americans, Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Constitution, Democratic Party (United States), Harry Reid, National Review, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Congress
Obama’s planned action perverts the meaning of the legal doctrine
“As you listen to the president try to explain himself tonight, you are going to hear a lot about how his plan is just a sensible exercise of prosecutorial discretion — how he is just using the sparse resources Congress gives him to enforce the law in more efficient ways. It will sound unobjectionable — even appealing.
But understand, it will be lawless and an invitation to waves of law-breaking. Obama is not merely prioritizing crimes; he is equating his non-enforcement of congressional statutes with the repeal of those statutes. He is not merely ignoring some lawbreakers so he can pursue others; he is declaring that categories of non-Americans of Obama’s unilateral choosing have a right to break our laws and be rewarded for it.”
National Review Online
Posted: July 30, 2014 Filed under: Education, Mediasphere, Think Tank, White House | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Crime, Democratic Party, High crimes and misdemeanours, National Review, Obama, Republicans, White House
“Such misconduct need not be an indictable wrong. It could involve dereliction of duty, lies to Congress or the public about serious matters, the failure to honor an oath.”
For National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy writes:
…Today, according to the Wall Street Journal, it was Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s turn. On impeachment, Ryan reportedly said:
I see this as sort of a ridiculous gambit by the president and his political team to try and change the narrative, raise money, and turn out their base for an upcoming election that they feel is not going to go their way… [The Republicans’ differences with the White House do] not rise to the high crime and misdemeanor level.
Wrong. To repeat, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a British term of art borrowed by the Framers, does not refer to penal offenses. It refers to what Hamilton called “the misconduct of public men, or in other words . . . the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Such misconduct need not be an indictable wrong. It could involve dereliction of duty, lies to Congress or the public about serious matters, the failure to honor an oath (such as the oath to execute the laws faithfully), and any conduct that intentionally undermines the governing framework that safeguards our liberties and security (the president, of course, takes an oath to preserve the Constitution).
- The border is being overrun and the president, far from taking action to stop it, is encouraging it.
- Illegal aliens are being smuggled throughout the country by the federal government without notice to the states.
- The president refuses to enforce the immigration laws. The president is usurping the power of Congress to confer federal benefits on aliens.
- The president is unilaterally rewriting Obamacare, the drug laws, and other congressional statutes that are inconvenient to him.
- The president willfully lied to the country to get Obamacare enacted and to get reelected.
- The commander-in-chief took no meaningful action to protect Americans before and during the terrorist siege of Benghazi, and then he and his administration willfully lied to the country about the cause of the massacre in order to get reelected.
- The president has used the federal bureaucracy to harass and punish his political opponents. Evidence of the IRS’s wrongdoing has been destroyed.
- Evidence about the Justice Department’s Fast & Furious scandal, which resulted in the murder of a Border Patrol agent, has been withheld from Congress — with the attorney general held in contempt.
- The VA cooked its books to conceal the mistreatment of our veterans, some of whom died.
It is perfectly understandable — indeed, it is wise — for Republicans to explain that there is no prospect of removing President Obama from power because you’d need lots of Democratic votes in the Senate and the Democrats will protect President Obama no matter how lawlessly he conducts himself. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: July 14, 2014 Filed under: Law & Justice, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Attorney general, Barack Obama, Congress, Eric Holder, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, National Review, Smidgen Report
Don’t hand the IRS investigation over to a special prosecutor.
“Let’s talk reality. As a matter of constitutional law, there is no such thing as an independent counsel. In our system, prosecution is a plenary executive power. All federal investigations and prosecutions proceed under the authority of the president; neither the Congress nor the courts have police powers. Any prosecutor, regardless of how “independent” we’d like him to be, would have to serve at the pleasure of the president, and would report to Eric Holder…”
(read more) National Review Online
Posted: May 1, 2014 Filed under: Censorship, Politics, War Room, White House | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Benghazi, Jay Carney, Obama, Rice, Susan Rice, United States, White House
The e-mail revelations and the Obama administration’s lies
For National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy writes: Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here repeatedly (see here and here), the Obama administration’s “Blame the Video” story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later.
We’ll come back to that because, once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration’s derelictions of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see. But let’s begin with Jay Carney’s performance in Wednesday’s exchange with the White House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Mr. Carney was grilled about just-released e-mails that corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along: “Blame the Video” was an Obama-administration–crafted lie, through and through. It was intended, in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the president’s foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre; (b) the president’s reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya policy as a success — and, again, they invited the jihadist violence that killed our ambassador and three other Americans; and (c) far from being “decimated,” as the president repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in Egypt and Libya), al-Qaeda and its alliedjihadists remained a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim countries — indeed, they had been strengthened by the president’s pro-Islamist policies. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: November 18, 2013 Filed under: Law & Justice, Mediasphere, Politics | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Andrew McCarthy, Barack Obama, Health Insurance, National Review, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President, United States
Be sure to read Andrew McCarthy’s latest piece (“Obama’s ‘5 Percent’ Con Job”) on how more people will see their health-care plans canceled than is currently being reported.
National Review Online
Posted: November 9, 2013 Filed under: Politics, U.S. News, White House | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Bernard Madoff, fraud, Health Insurance, Insurance, United States, United States Department of Justice
If he were a CEO in the private sector, he’d be prosecuted for such deception.
Andrew C. McCarthy writes: ‘If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.” How serious was this lie, repeated by Barack Obama with such beguiling regularity? Well, how would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?
Fraud is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: October 26, 2013 Filed under: Mediasphere, Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Charles Krauthammer, Constitution, Jon Stewart, New Deal, Welfare, Welfare state
The establishment GOP’s embrace of progressivism’s central premise.
Dr. Krauthammer sings the praises of liberalism’s primary domestic policy ideals, waxing lyrical about the virtues of the modern Welfare State, to the delight of noted Socialist, Conservative-mocking clown John Stewart
Andrew C. McCarthy
writes: Charles Krauthammer
has come to my rescue. You see, I’ve been on the receiving end of some spirited reaction since asserting in last weekend’s column
that what we commonly call the Republican establishment — i.e., not all individual Republicans but GOP leadership — “is more sympathetic to Obama’s case for the welfare state
than to the Tea Party’s case for limited government and individual liberty
.” The statement may have been provocative in the sense of expressing a truth that people on the political Right prefer not to talk about. But it was not controversial because it is indisputably true.
This week, Dr. Krauthammer, Washington’s most influential expositor of mainstream GOP thought, obligingly spared me the need to prove my point. He gave as clear an account of the modern Republican conception of “conservatism” as you will find. Fittingly, he did it on the program of progressive commentator and comedian Jon Stewart. Today’s smartest Republicans, self-aware enough to know their core views deviate significantly from those of conservatives in the tradition of Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan, are more likely to say what they think to Jon Stewart. His audience is apt to be receptive, maybe even won over, by a mature progressivism portrayed as what conservatives really think. It is not likely to go over as well with, say, readers of National Review.
Stewart claimed that conservatives are anti-government. Initially, Krauthammer appeared to reject this caricature, replying, “The conservative idea is not that government has no role.” But, alas, when he got around to what the proper role of government is, Krauthammer sounded more like Stewart than Buckley.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: September 28, 2013 Filed under: Politics, Think Tank | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Lee, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Ted Cruz, United States
How to Constitutionally Fund the Government
It’s the House’s prerogative to supply funds, or not, for Obamacare.
Andrew C. McCarthy observes: Republican leaders are right: There was a flaw in Ted Cruz’s plan to defund Obamacare: He took Republican leaders seriously. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: September 23, 2013 Filed under: Politics, U.S. News | Tags: Andrew C. McCarthy, Barack Obama, Democratic Party (United States), Obama, Obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Republican, Washington
Referring to a discussion at NRO’s The Corner: Senate GOP Con Job: Opposition to Obamacare, noting that many of the same GOP figures complaining the loudest about Cruz’s defunding gambit happen to also be supporting or sponsoring Cruz’s defunding gambit, Andrew C. McCarthy (emphasis mine) writes:
“…This is the Washington political class in sharp relief. The Republican establishment resists President Obama and his agenda only when it knows that resistance is futile, token and sure to be inconsequential — when it’s good for a campaign commercial about how hard the GOP is working to undo Obamacare, not when it’s about actually working hard to undo Obamacare. For most Senate Republicans, the vote on an anti-Obamacare amendment in the context of authorizing national defense programs that Republicans knew they were never going to block was a pose — just like the 40-odd votes to repeal Obamacare that had no chance of becoming law.
By contrast, the current defunding effort is a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is moment: Risk a government shutdown over Obamacare funding under circumstances where Republicans could be blamed, but where (a) Obamacare is very unpopular and its downside consequences are just beginning to kick in; (b) the defunding strategy includes a commitment to fund the rest of government so it can be demonstrated that Obama would really be the one shutting down the government over Obamacare; and (c) Obama himself has already unilaterally and unconstitutionally defunded aspects of Obamacare, including repugnant accommodations for big corporations, Obama insiders, and members of Congress — such that, if the government shuts down, Republicans can compellingly argue that they are only insisting that the American people get the same relief from this awful law that Obama cronies, the ruling class, and the politically-connected get. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: December 5, 2012 Filed under: Mediasphere, Reading Room, War Room | Tags: Amr Moussa, Andrew C. McCarthy, Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Mohamed ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood, Wafd
– By Andrew C. McCarthy
In Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which is generously reviewed by VDH in the current edition of NR, I argue that Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood will follow (and is following) the trail blazed by Turkey’s Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Brotherhood-influenced party, the AKP. This path is called the “Turkish Model” by enthusiasts of “Islamic democracy.” As I demonstrate in the book, the Turkish Model is actually a formula for turning a society that is pro-Western and reasonably democratic into a sharia state — the implementation of sharia, Islam’s societal framework, being the goal of all Islamic supremacists. As Erdogan put it, “Democracy is just the train we board to reach our destination” — not a way of life, but a route to Islamization.
For various reasons, I contend in the book that Egypt will descend into sharia totalitarianism much more quickly than the decade it has taken Erdogan to accomplish the still ongoing process in Turkey. That theory is borne out more with each passing day. One of Erdogan’s key tools of intimidation and the crushing of dissent is the abuse of prosecutorial authority. Mohamed Morsi is proving a quick study.
One of Morsi’s early moves was to sack the prosecutor general and appoint a Brotherhood loyalist, Talaat Ibrahim Abdallah. (See this photo of Morsi meeting with Abdallah within minutes of the latter’s swearing-in.) Today, in the middle of the debate over the new sharia constitution that Morsi is planning to ram-rod through in a referendum next week, the Egypt Independent reports that Abdallah has opened an investigation against several of Morsi’s principal political opponents — including former presidential candidates Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as Ahmed al-Zend, the head of the so-called “Judges Club” — on suspicion of espionage and sedition.
The report elaborates that the investigation is based on a lawyer’s complaint, alleging that
Moussa met with former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and agreed with her to fabricate internal crises, and that all of the politicians named in his complaint then met at the Wafd Pary headquarters to implement the “Zionist plot.” He requested that the accused be banned from travel and that the Wafd Party headquarters be confiscated for investigation. Filing criminal charges against opposition figures was a common practice during former President Hosni Mubarak’s era.
Yeah . . . and it’s a common practice in Islamic “democracies.”
via The Corner – National Review Online