joe biden

Feb. 3 (UPI) — U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Monday said she attended an FBI search of election offices in Georgia last week at the request of President Donald Trump, defending her and the Trump administration’s role in the law enforcement action against mounting Democratic criticism.

Gabbard has come under growing scrutiny since photographs surfaced showing her with FBI agents executing a search warrant at the Fulton County elections hub, where authorities seized documents related to the 2020 election.

Democratic concerns about alleged Trump administration efforts to undermine the upcoming midterm elections have been stoked by Gabbard’s unprecedented involvement in the raid at Fulton County, prompting House and Senate Democrats on their respective intelligence committees to demand she explain her role.

In a Monday letter addressed to Rep. James Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard said she accompanied FBI personnel “for a brief time” while they executed the search warrant.

“My presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence, foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity,” she said.

“ODNI’s Office of General Counsel has found my actions to be consistent and well within my statutory authorities as the Director of National Intelligence.”

In the letter, she told the Democrats that her office “will not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments,” but she would share them with Congress once they are completed.

Fulton County was the focal point of Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, which he lost to President Joe Biden. Trump and 18 others were later charged in Georgia for their alleged efforts to overturn the state’s results, a racketeering case that was dropped late last year following Trump’s return to the White House.

The letter came as The New York Times reported Monday that a day after the Wednesday raid, Gabbard arranged a phone call between the involved FBI agents and Trump.

“Tulsi Gabbard has no legal role in domestic law enforcement, yet 5 days ago she participated in an FBI raid of Fulton County, Georgia’s election office — the center of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracy theories,” Warner said on X on Monday.

“And now we find out that she orchestrated a call between Trump and the FBI agents conducting the raid? Something’s not passing the smell test…”

Gabbard confirmed the call in her letter Monday, stating: “While visiting the FBI File Office in Atlanta, I thanked the FBI agents for their professionalism and great work, and facilitated a brief phone call for the President to thank the agents personally for their work.”

“He did not ask any questions, nor did he or I issue any directive,” she added.

Jan. 31 (UPI) — Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul lost their bid to have a federal court order the Department of Homeland Security to end its immigration enforcement effort in the state.

U.S. District Court of Minnesota Judge Katherine Menendez on Saturday denied a motion to enjoin the federal government from continuing its immigration law enforcement surge in the Twin Cities.

“Even if the likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harms each weighed more clearly in favor of plaintiffs, the court would still likely be unable to grant the relief requested: An injunction suspending Operation Metro Surge,” Menendez wrote in her 30-page ruling.

She cited a recent federal appellate court ruling that affirmed the federal government has the right to enforce federal laws over the objections of others.

“The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a much more circumscribed injunction, which limited one aspect of the ongoing operation, namely the way immigration officers interacted with protesters and observers,” Menedez said.

“The injunction in that case was not only much narrower than the one proposed here, but it was based on more settled precedent than that which underlies the claims now before the court,” she explained.

“Nonetheless, the court of appeals determined that the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the government because it would hamper their efforts to enforce federal law,” Menendez continued.

“If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” she concluded.

Menendez said her ruling does not address the merits of the case filed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on behalf of the state and two cities, which are named as the lawsuit’s three plaintiffs.

Those claims remain to be argued and largely focus on Ellison’s claim that the federal government is undertaking an illegal operation that is intended to force state and local officials to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

Menendez said Ellison has not proven his claim, which largely relies on a 2013 ruling by the Supreme Court in a case brought by Shelby County, Ala., officials who challenged the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The act placed additional restrictions on some states based on “their histories of racially discriminatory election administration,” Menendez said.

The Supreme Court ruled a “departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” requires the federal government to show that geographically driven laws are “sufficiently related to the problem that it targets” to be lawful, she wrote.

Ellison says that the ruling “teaches that the federal government cannot single out states for disparate treatment without strong and narrowly tailored justification,” according to Menendez.

But he does not show any other examples of a legal authority applying the “equal sovereignty ‘test'” and does not show how it would apply to a presidential administration’s decision on where to deploy federal law enforcement to “enforce duly enacted federal laws,” she said.

“There is no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions,” and she can ‘readily imagine scenarios where the federal executive must legitimately vary its use of law enforcement resources from one state to the next,” Menendez explained.

Because there is no likelihood of success in claims based on equal sovereignty, she said Ellison did not show there is a likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed in their federal lawsuit, so the motion to preliminarily enjoin the federal government from continuing Operation Metro Surge is denied.

Former President Joe Biden appointed Menendez to the federal bench in 2021.

WASHINGTON — When Republican Rep. Bill Posey of Florida ended an Oct. 21 House floor speech with a fist pump and the phrase “Let’s go, Brandon!” it may have seemed cryptic and weird to many who were listening. But the phrase was already growing in right-wing circles, and now the seemingly upbeat sentiment — actually a stand-in for swearing at Joe Biden — is everywhere.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) wore a “Let’s Go Brandon” face mask at the Capitol last week. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) posed with a “Let’s Go Brandon” sign at the World Series. Sen. Mitch McConnell’s press secretary retweeted a photo of the phrase on a construction sign in Virginia.

The line has become conservative code for something far more vulgar: “F— Joe Biden.” It’s all the rage among Republicans wanting to prove their conservative credentials, a not-so-secret handshake that signals they’re in sync with the party’s base.

Americans are accustomed to their leaders being publicly jeered, and former President Trump’s often-coarse language seemed to expand the boundaries of what counts as normal political speech.

But how did Republicans settle on the Brandon phrase as a G-rated substitute for its more vulgar three-word cousin?

It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F— Joe Biden.”

NASCAR and NBC have since taken steps to limit “ambient crowd noise” during interviews, but it was too late — the phrase already had taken off.

When the president visited a construction site in suburban Chicago a few weeks ago to promote his vaccinate-or-test mandate, protesters deployed both three-word phrases. This past week, Biden’s motorcade was driving past a “Let’s Go Brandon” banner as the president passed through Plainfield, N.J.

And a group chanted “Let’s go Brandon” outside a Virginia park Monday when Biden made an appearance on behalf of the Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe. Two protesters dropped the euphemism entirely, holding up hand-drawn signs with the profanity.

Friday morning on a Southwest flight from Houston to Albuquerque, the pilot signed off his greeting over the public address system with the phrase, to audible gasps from some passengers.

Veteran GOP ad maker Jim Innocenzi had no qualms about the coded crudity, calling it “hilarious.”

“Unless you are living in a cave, you know what it means,” he said. “But it’s done with a little bit of a class. And if you object and are taking it too seriously, go away.”

America’s presidents have endured meanness for centuries; Grover Cleveland faced chants of “Ma, Ma Where’s my Pa?” in the 1880s over rumors he’d fathered an illegitimate child. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were the subject of poems that leaned into racist tropes and allegations of bigamy.

“We have a sense of the dignity of the office of president that has consistently been violated to our horror over the course of American history,” said Cal Jillson, a politics expert and professor in the political science department at Southern Methodist University. “We never fail to be horrified by some new outrage.”

There were plenty of old outrages.

“F— Trump” graffiti still marks many an overpass in Washington, D.C. George W. Bush had a shoe thrown at his face. Bill Clinton was criticized with such fervor that his most vocal critics were labeled the “Clinton crazies.”

The biggest difference, though, between the sentiments hurled at the Grover Clevelands of yore and modern politicians is the amplification they get on social media.

“Before the expansion of social media a few years ago, there wasn’t an easily accessible public forum to shout your nastiest and darkest public opinions,” said Matthew Delmont, a history professor at Dartmouth College.

Even the racism and vitriol to which former President Obama was subjected was tempered in part because Twitter was relatively new. There was no TikTok. As for Facebook, leaked company documents have recently revealed how the platform increasingly ignored hate speech and misinformation and allowed it to proliferate.

A portion of the U.S. was already angry before the Brandon moment, believing the 2020 presidential election was rigged despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which has stood the test of recounts and court cases. But now it’s more than that to die-hard Trump supporters, said Stanley Renshon, a political scientist and psychoanalyst at the City University of New York.

He cited the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Southern border situation and rancorous school board debates as situations in which Biden critics feel that “how American institutions are telling the American public what they clearly see and understand to be true, is in fact not true.”

Trump hasn’t missed the moment. His Save America PAC now sells a $45 T-shirt featuring “Let’s go Brandon” above an American flag. One message to supporters reads, “#FJB or LET’S GO BRANDON? Either way, President Trump wants YOU to have our ICONIC new shirt.”

Separately, T-shirts are popping up in storefronts with the slogan and the NASCAR logo.

And as for the real Brandon, thing haven’t been so great. He drives for a short-staffed, underfunded team owned by his father. And while that win — his first career victory — was huge for him, the team has long struggled for sponsorship and existing partners have not been marketing the driver since the slogan.