Susan Rice Can’t Recall Much About Benghazi Cover-Up

Records reflecting the dates and locations of travel, international and domestic, for Hunter Biden while he received a USSS protective detail. In your response, please note whether his travel was on Air Force One or Two, or other government aircraft, as applicable and whether additional family members were present for each trip.

The burden of providing a photo ID … in order to vote is a minimal burden on Alabama’s voters—especially when Alabama accepts so many different forms of photo ID and makes acquiring one simple and free for voters who lack a valid ID but wish to obtain one.

The District Court in this case properly focused on Appellants’ [Greater Birmingham Ministries] failure to show a discriminatory “result”… let alone a discriminatory impact sufficient to rise to the level of a denial or abridgment of an equal opportunity “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of choice.”

A racially disproportionate impact is not enough; nor is a history of discrimination; nor are the two in combination. Quite simply, the challenged ID procedure must be shown by plaintiffs to cause discriminatory results in order to prove a Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] “results” [disparate-impact] claim.

In this case, there is no evidence that the challenged law either “resulted in” the denial or abridgment of the right to vote or that any such denial or abridgment of the right to vote was “on account of race or color” under Section 2(a). Lacking a showing of evidence necessary to demonstrate the “sort of causal connection between racial bias and disparate effect necessary to make a vote-denial claim” dooms Plaintiff’s claims. 

Judicial Watch readers have been closely following President Trump’s efforts to promote hydroxychloroquine (HC), the anti-malaria drug that has shown promise in the fight against Covid-19. Trump has encountered fierce blowback from the media, the medical community, and even from within his own administration. Still, he persists. “I happen to be a believer in hydroxy,” he told reporters on July 29. “I used it. I had no problem. I happen to be a believer.”

There are other believers too. The Second Opinion Project today will deliver to the White House a letter from over 700 doctors asking that HC be made widely available. The doctors target the Food and Drug Administration’s erratic regulation of HC availability to medical professionals and the public.

“You do not need initials after your name to understand that if you restrict a life-saving medicine, more patients will die,” the doctors write. “And then, if you un-restrict it, fewer patients will die.”

As in-depth clinical studies of the drug grind on, so does the war over HC. Sources tell Judicial Watch that resistance to HC inside the Trump Administration is strong, with ongoing battles between the White House and several government agencies—particularly the FDA.

A look at the FDA timeline on HC shows why it is coming under fire.

On March 28, weeks after the president began promoting HC, the FDA issues an Emergency Use Authorization, allowing doctors to use HC to treat patients with Covid-19.

On April 9, with pushback from the media and medical community mounting, the Centers for Disease Control remove from their website guidelines indicating HC has some success in treating HC.

On April 24, as rushed early studies raise questions about HC but anecdotal reports continue to suggest some success, the FDA warns against its use outside of a hospital setting.

On May 22, the prestigious medical journal Lancet publishes a blockbuster study of more than 96,000 patients saying HC does not help in the fight against Covid-19 and might increase patient deaths. News of the study reverberates around the globe.

On June 5, the Lancet retracts the HC study, citing serious flaws in the data. “We deeply apologize,” the Lancet writes.

On June 15, the FDA revokes its Emergency Use Authorization. Curiously, one of the reasons for the revocation appears to be the discredited Lancet study, which the FDA refers to as “recent data from a large randomized controlled trial show[ing] no evidence of benefit for mortality.”

On July 1, the FDA again warns against the use of HC outside a hospital setting.

On July 29, the FDA chief backs away from a definitive HC warning. There is “some risk” associated with HC, Dr. Stephen Hahn tells NBC. But that’s “a decision between a doctor and a patient.”

The 700 doctors signing the Second Opinion Project letter aren’t claiming that the drug is a miracle cure—and neither is Trump. They want clarity from the FDA and wide access to the drug.

Second Opinion is also promoting a second, similar letter from everyday Americans supporting HC access. Americans should “have access to a safe, generic, widely-available drug that is routinely given to pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, the elderly and the immune compromised since it was FDA-approved 65 years and billions of dosages ago,” the letter states. “In order to clarify the public perception of HC and to restore the doctor-patient relationship, the FDA should immediately authorize an [Emergency Use Authorization] stating that doctors are allowed to prescribe HC for outpatient use to treat or prevent Covid-19.”

Read the full letter here.

Government documents already provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to lawyers defending 9/11 terrorists continue to be withheld from survivors of the attacks and family members of those who died. The DOJ claims the roughly 25,000 pages of files are “State Secrets,” even though 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s (KSM) attorneys have been granted access. KSM is incarcerated at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and faces a death sentence. His victims and their family members claim in a federal lawsuit that Saudi Arabia helped carry out the 2001 attack and they need the U.S. government documents to help prove it.

A few weeks ago, thousands of 9/11 family members wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr demanding access to the protected intelligence files that could help determine if Saudi Arabian officials are responsible for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Fifteen of the 19 Islamic terrorists who hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field were from Saudi Arabia. Besides KSM, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi helped organize the deadly event. Relatives of the victims assert that the documents being withheld by the U.S. government identify multiple witnesses who transported two of the hijackers to Los Angeles International Airport as well as information involving a terrorist support cell in California and photos identifying members of the support cell.

“This situation is reprehensible and unacceptable,” states the letter, which is signed by 3,361 family members. “How can it be that the mastermind behind the deadliest attack on American soil is somehow entitled, under your DOJ’s direction, to relevant U.S. government investigative documents about the 9/11 plot, yet the families whose loved ones were wrenched from us so painfully and ruthlessly that day are prohibited from seeing this same information?” They proceed to accuse the DOJ of manipulating and blocking their pursuit of justice into one of the most significant events in U.S. history. “The FBI, the DOJ, and you, Mr. Barr, turned your backs on the 9/11 community when you chose to side with Saudi Arabia, the sponsor of the 9/11 attacks, over the American people. Your continued misguided and inappropriate obstruction of the 9/11 community’s lawsuit against Saudi Arabia is an affront to the judicial system and justice itself, and a betrayal of the American people you are duty-bound to serve.”

The records requested by the family members include a once-secret FBI probe into Saudi Arabia’s role in the 2001 attacks. It is known as Operation Encore and a Florida nonprofit journalism conglomerate exposed it back in 2016 after suing the government for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A once censored FBI report revealed that in 2012 federal prosecutors and FBI agents in New York planned to charge a suspect for providing material support to Saudi-born hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who helped crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The suspect’s identity was censored in the report, which also listed three “main subjects.” They include a Saudi diplomat and imam at a Los Angeles mosque as well as a Saudi agent named Omar al-Bayoumi and a third man who had “tasked” them with helping the future hijackers. The third man’s name was initially censored, though the FBI inadvertently released it in court papers that became public. He was identified as Musaed al-Jarrah, a former Saudi Foreign Ministry official who worked at the Saudi embassy in Washington in 1999-2000.

Family members of the 9/11 victims end their letter to Barr by writing that they will hold him accountable for the surreptitious and continuous action to derail their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. They also demand that all relevant documents that were improperly labeled as “State Secrets,” with no outside oversight or accountability, be independently reviewed by their investigators and released to the American people. “Your repeated, unjustified, and meritless obstructions to justice for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history must end immediately,” they write. “The time for you to right this wrong has long passed, and we demand that you stand up for Americans and side with the 9/11 community and join the right side of history.”