Tag Archive for: New York Times

ENEMIES OF THE STATE: Four New York Times Reporters Subpoenaed on National Security Leaks

Four New York Times journalists have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday.

Julian E. Barnes. Eric Lipton. Tyler Pager. Eric Schmitt.

The subpoenas are connected to the leaking of confidential information involving Air Force One.

This is not about the First Amendment. It’s about accountability, the facts, and protecting the President and those serving in his Cabinet.

National security must always come first.

The Trump administration hit four New York Times journalists with subpoenas on Friday, after the outlet published a story outlining risks involving President Trump’s Qatar-gifted Air Force One plane that recently entered into service.

The Times reported that the refurbished jet lacked some of the advanced security measures of the older aircraft used to transport the president.

The reporters include Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt. They also wrote earlier this week that a security precaution forced Trump to depart to the NATO summit in Turkey on the old Air Force One, were called to testify next week before a federal grand jury in Manhattan “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.” The switch-up also raised red flags around potential threats against the president from Iran after the U.S. launched fresh strikes on the Islamic Republic earlier this week.

Trump admin subpoenas NY Times reporters after claiming prez swapped out $400M Air Force One jet during trip to Turkey

By Geoff Earle, NY Post, July 11, 2026:

The Trump administration subpoenaed several New York Times journalists after the newspaper reported that the president swapped the White House’s newly refurbished $400 million jet gifted by the Qataris while on a trip to Turkey over a “security precaution.”

The subpoenas, issued Friday, order the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday.

The paper blasted the move as anti-free press and said it should “shock the conscience.”

The Trump administration subpoenaed New York Times journalists following the paper’s report on the security capabilities of the new Qatari-gifted Air Force One.

It comes days after publication of the report, which questioned whether the new plane, a Boeing 747-8 featuring expansive room and luxury finishings, had been “retrofitted with sufficient security measures” during the rush to get it in the air.

It cited lawmakers’ concerns about whether the job allowed for adding “an advanced missile defense system and other modifications.”

President Trump flew out of Turkey on the old Air Force One jet Wednesday night as a security precaution as the new, Qatari-gifted plane still lacks all the features of the previous model, according to a new report.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Islamic Republic of Iran celebrates Graham’s death, publishes hit list of targeted foes

Critically Thinking about WW III

TRUMP’S LAST WILL Leaves Doomsday Orders: If Iran Kills Me, ‘Bomb Them Like Never Before’

RELATED VIDEO: The Left’s Lust for Blood Sacrifice

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Rape Dogs Claim Lands NYT in Defamation Lawsuit

Israel announced it will pursue a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times following the publication of an opinion piece by columnist Nicholas Kristof that alleged Israeli forces trained dogs to rape Palestinian women.

“Today I instructed my legal advisers to consider the harshest legal action against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof,” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on X. “They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers. Under my leadership, Israel will not be silent.”

“We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law, truth will prevail,” the head of state continued.

Critics have said Hamas has engaged in a propaganda war intended to “provoke outrage, shift public opinion, and pressure Israel through foreign governments and media.”

Danger of Defamation in Media Reporting

The Israeli Foreign Ministry did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

The dispute comes amid heightened tensions following Israel’s military campaign against Hamas and Hezbollah after Hamas terrorists killed, raped, and or tortured over 1,000 Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023.

The American Jewish Committee has reported a 400% increase in antisemitic incidents in the United States since the attacks.

While The New York Times has not directly responded to Israel’s legal threat, the newspaper defended Kristof’s column on X after Israeli officials described the essay as “blood libel.”

In a statement, the outlet said the op-ed “draws together on-the-record accounts and cites several analyses documenting the practice of sexual violence and abuse conducted by various parts of Israel’s security forces and settlers.”

The paper added that the “deeply reported piece of opinion journalism” begins with Kristof’s assertion that “whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.”

“The accounts of the 14 men and women he interviewed were corroborated with other witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in—including family members and lawyers,” the statement said. “Details were extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys, and in one case, with U.N. testimony.”

The United Nations has acknowledged that Hamas committed acts of sexual violence during the Oct. 7 attack and released a report describing bodies with “genital injuries” found near the Nova Music Festival, which was overrun by Hamas terrorists. The U.N. has not formally condemned Hamas for those acts.

American politicians and commentators have sharply criticized the op-ed.

“Claiming Israel trains dogs to rape Palestinians is modern-day blood libel—propaganda pushed as more horrific details emerge about Hamas’ systematic torture on Oct. 7,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley wrote on X. “Distracting from these atrocities and smearing Israel while victims still fight for acknowledgment is sickening.”

Political commentator David Collier, who has more than 270,000 followers on X, accused major news outlets of amplifying Hamas propaganda.

“Since Oct. 7, Western media sources like @nytimes have become Hamas propaganda agents—dressing up Hamas lies as ‘investigative pieces’—and helping to fuel hatred of Israel and violent antisemitism around the world,” Collier wrote. “Seems like Israel has had enough.”

Who Is Nicholas Kristof?

Nicholas Kristof is a longtime New York Times columnist and self-described liberal or progressive commentator known for his focus on human rights, poverty, and social justice. A frequent CNN contributor, Kristof has won two Pulitzer Prizes for commentary.

In 2022, Kristof attempted to run for governor of Oregon as a Democrat but was disqualified by the state Supreme Court, which ruled he did not meet the state’s three-year residency requirement.

Following the ruling, Kristof said he planned to remain politically engaged, writing that he would “keep fighting” on issues, including homelessness and mental health.

“I want to be clear that I’m not going anywhere,” Kristof said.

New York Times’ Rebuttal

A spokesperson for the New York Times told the Daily Signal that “the Israeli Prime Minister has threatened to file a libel lawsuit against The New York Times regarding Nicholas Kristof’s deeply reported opinion column on sexual abuse by Israel’s prison guards, soldiers, settlers, and interrogators.”

“This threat, similar to one made last year, is part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative. Any such legal claim would be without merit,” she continued.

The spokeswoman pointed out that “Nick’s column starts with a proposition to readers: ‘Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.’ Nick writes about the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel.”

“He then chronicles 14 on-the-record victim accounts and cites eight independent human rights reports documenting the practice of sexual violence and abuse conducted by various parts of Israel’s security forces and settlers,” she added. “Nick has covered sexual violence for decades, and is widely regarded as one of the world’s best on-the-ground journalists in documenting and bearing witness to sexual abuse experienced by women and men in war and conflict zones.”

The NYT spokesperson concluded: “The accounts of the men and women he interviewed were corroborated with witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in, including family members and lawyers. Details were extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys and in one case, with U.N. testimony. Independent experts were consulted on the assertions in the piece throughout reporting and fact-checking.”

AUTHOR

Pedro Rodriguez

Pedro Boccalato Rodriguez-Aparicio is a journalism fellow at the Daily Signal. Follow on X pedrobrodrigue7.

RELATED ARTICLE: The FBI is offering a $200,000 reward for information leading to the apprehension and prosecution of Monica Witt

RELATED VIDEO: NYC’s Targeted Antisemitic Marches, Open Borders Fallout, and the Four Horsemen of Antisemitism

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Israel to Sue New York Times for Defamation

The just-published New York Times piece by Nicholas Kristof, accusing Israel of horrific crimes, including the sexual abuse of “Palestinians” in Israeli prisons, with victims said to include men, women, and children, and of “training dogs” to rape “Palestinians” as well, has quite properly enraged the government and the people of Israel. The Office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in a Thursday, May 14 statement that Israel will take legal action against the Times over Kristof’s column.

More on this welcome news can be found here: “Israel to take legal action against ‘New York Times’ over claims of ‘dog rape’ of Palestinians,” by Shir Perets, Jerusalem Post, May 14, 2026:

Israel will take legal action against The New York Times over a column penned by Nicholas Kristof, which included allegations of serious sexual abuse of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, the Prime Minister’s Office said in a Thursday statement.

The PMO, which referred to the accusation as “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel,” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar instructed officials to begin preparing a defamation lawsuit against the publication.

“They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers,” Netanyahu wrote on X/Twitter….

The planned lawsuit would focus on whether statements in the article crossed the legal threshold from opinion or criticism into actionable defamation. It was not immediately clear where the lawsuit would be filed, what damages would be sought, or whether Israeli state institutions or individual officials would be listed as plaintiffs.

On Wednesday, the New York Times issued a statement affirming its support for Kristof’s controversial op-ed, saying he “draws together on-the-record accounts and cites several analyses documenting the practice of sexual violence and abuse conducted by various parts of Israel’s security forces and settlers.”

His “deeply reported piece of opinion journalism starts with a proposition to readers: ‘Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape,’” the news outlet stated.

“The accounts of the 14 men and women he interviewed were corroborated with other witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in – that includes family members and lawyers,” the outlet said.

Kristof’s sensationalist charges, including the charge that the IDF deliberately has trained dogs to “rape” “Palestinian” prisoners, has spread around the world, causing untold harm to Israel’s image. Kristof relied on “Palestinians” for this malignant misinformation, apparently unaware that “Palestinians” have a long history of lying, and he never bothered, prior to publication, to obtain a comment, and rebuttal, from Israel that he might at least have included in his piece; he might even have checked with canine trainers who, to a man, have now publicly spoken about the impossibility of training dogs to rape humans.

This isn’t the only part of Kristof’s hit piece that is blatantly false, but it is the most outrageous and unbelievable of his many outrageous and unbelievable claims. When Israel did respond to the piece, and denounced its wild fabrications, the NYT doubled down, claiming that it stood by Kristof’s piece, and by the “Palestinians” upon whose testimony he relied.

This was too much for the government of Israel to let pass with just a denunciation of the New York Times and Kristof. It knew his piece damages Israel’s reputation around the world, and not just among those who are always prepared to believe the worst of the Jewish state. That preposterous charge about that canine corps of doggy rapists, and other bizarre charges, too, which Kristof made, will now become the stuff of approving comments from Hamas, CAIR, the Iranian government, and of course wsuch people as Francesca Albanese, Roger Waters, Susan Sarandon, Rashida Tlaib, Wally Shawn, Zohran Mamdani, and others of that silly-sinister ilk, whose name, alas, is legion, will pick them up and repeat them.

Now the New York Times will be sued for defamation by the State of Israel. How much will it ask for? Let it be Trumpian in size — a billion dollars, or two, or more. How do you measure the cost of such lies being made and disseminated across the globe, to the reputation of the Jewish state? How many more attacks on Israelis or Jews will be the result of those baseless kristovian charges?

Israel thinks that the New York Times will rue the day it published Kristof’s hit piece, not because it will have come to its senses, morally — the New York Times long ago lost that sense when it comes to its reporting on Israel — but because having to pay a billion or two for having published Kristof’s calumny, which is a kind of updated version, applied to the Jewish state, of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, will be painful. Does anyone doubt that the State of Israel will be able to call on the best defamation lawyers in the world, no matter where the suit is brought?

But here is another question. Why should Israel limit itself to suing the Grey Lady? Shouldn’t the onlie begetter of this defamation, the egregious Nicholas Kristof, with his long history of anti-Israel animus, also be sued? Let his days be full of exhausting testimony, both his own and that of others, and of withering cross-examinations, as lawyers for the plaintiff make mincemeat of him, and when the verdict comes down, he who is morally bankrupt will now be personally bankrupt as well.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Antisemitic Violence in Europe and North America

Enraged Qatari officials bash Trump: ‘The world’s greatest and most dangerous criminal’

Signs of Creeping Islamization in France

Hamas-linked CAIR lashes out at Sharia-Free America congressional hearings scrutinizing it 

UK: Muslim independents take over 100 councillor seats in England

Spain: Police fear jihadis will exploit leftist prime minister’s decision to open door to 500,000 unvetted migrants

Italy: Head of Islamic Community of Rome makes mosque speech that sparks fear of ‘political Islam’

8 in 10 Germans believe that Germany has failed to solve its crisis of mass Muslim migration

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ex-FDA Commissioners Against Higher Vaccine Standards Took $6 Million From COVID Vaccine Makers

Ten of the twelve former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioners and acting commissioners opposed to the Trump administration’s stiffer standards for vaccines quietly disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry, a Daily Caller News Foundation review shows.

The FDA old guard criticized the new leadership in a Dec. 3 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) letter over a higher regulatory bar for vaccines, namely the expectation that most new vaccine approvals will require randomized clinical trials, arguing it could hamper the market.

“Insisting on long, expensive outcomes studies for every updated formulation would delay the arrival of better-matched vaccines when new outbreaks emerge or when additional groups of patients could benefit,” the former commissioners wrote. “Abandoning the existing methods won’t ‘elevate vaccine science’ … It will subject vaccines to a substantially higher and more subjective approval bar.”

But while the former commissioners disclosed their conflicts of interest to the medical journal — per standard practice in scientific publishing — reporters didn’t relay them to the broader public in reports in the Washington PostSTAT News and CNN.

The headlines about a bipartisan rebuke from former occupants of FDA’s highest office give the impression that the Trump administration is contravening established science, but closer inspection reveals a revolving door between pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies overseeing them.

Three of the signatories have received payments totaling $6 million from manufacturers or former manufacturers of COVID vaccines.

Scott Gottlieb has received $2.1 million in cash and stock from his position on the Pfizer board of directors, where he has advised on ethics and regulatory compliance since 2019, according to company filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stephen Ostroff has received $752,310 from Pfizer in consulting fees since 2020, according to OpenPayments.

Mark McClellan has received $3.3 million from Johnson & Johnson as a member of the board of directors since 2013, SEC filings also show. McClellan also consults for the new pharmaceutical arm of the alternative investment management company Blackstone, which invested $750 million in Moderna in April 2025.

Gottlieb and McClellan did not respond to requests for comment. Ostroff could not be reached for comment.

FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad outlined the higher standards and shared the results of an internal analysis validating 10 reports of children’s deaths following the COVID-19 vaccine in a Nov. 28 memo to staff. He called for introspection and reform at the agency.

The NEJM letter criticizes Prasad for cracking down on a practice called “immunobridging” that infers vaccine efficacy from laboratory tests rather than assessing it through real-world reductions in disease or death. The FDA under the Biden administration expanded COVID vaccines to children using this “immunobridging” technique, extrapolating vaccine efficacy from adults to children based on antibody levels.

Norman Sharpless — who in addition to previously serving as acting FDA commissioner also served as the head of the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute — consults for Tempus, a company that collaborates with COVID vaccine maker BioNTech. He has helped steer $70 million in investments in biotech through a venture capital firm he founded in November 2024. Sharpless also disclosed $26,180 in payments in 2024 from Chugai Pharmaceutical, a Japanese pharmaceutical company that markets mRNA technology among other drugs, on OpenPayments.

“I was grateful for the opportunity to serve as NCI Director and Acting FDA Commissioner in the first Trump Administration, and strongly support many of the things President Trump is trying to do in the current Administration,” Sharpless said in an email.

Margaret Hamburg, another former FDA commissioner and signatory of the NEJM letter, has since 2020 earned $2.8 million as a member of the board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which markets RNA interference (RNAi) technology.

Hamburg did not respond to a message on LinkedIn.

Most signatories disclosed income from biotech companies testing experimental cancer treatments. These products could face tighter scrutiny under Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist long wary of rubberstamping pricey oncology drugs — which Prasad points out often cause some toxicity — without plausible evidence of an improvement in quality of life or survival.

The former FDA commissioners disclosed ties to Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; OncoNano Medicine; incyclix; Nucleus Radiopharma; and N-Power, a contractor that runs oncology clinical trials.

Andrew von Eschenbach, who like Sharpless formerly served both as FDA commissioner and the head of the National Cancer Institute, disclosed stock in HistoSonics, a company with investments from Bezos Expeditions and Thiel Bio seeking FDA approval for ultrasound technology targeted at tumors.

Some FDA commissioners who signed onto the letter opposing changes to vaccine approvals have ties to biotechnology investment firms, namely McClellan, who consults Arsenal Capital; Janet Woodcock, who consults RA Capital Management; and Robert Califf, who owns stock in Population Health Partners.

Califf did not respond to an email requesting comment. Woodcock did not respond to requests for comment sent to two medical research advocacy groups with Woodcock on the board. Eschenbach did not respond to a LinkedIn message.

The two signatories without pharmaceutical ties may find their judgement challenged by the FDA investigation into COVID-19 vaccine deaths, having either implemented or formally defended the Biden administration’s headlong expansion of vaccines and boosters to healthy adults and children.

David Kessler executed Biden’s vaccination policy as chief science officer at the Department of Health and Human Services, helping to secure deals for shots with Pfizer and Moderna.

Meanwhile Jane Henney chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report published in October 2025 that praised the performance of FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine surveillance during the pandemic — underwritten with CDC funding.

That assessment clashes with that of a Senate report, citing internal documents from FDA, finding that CDC never updated its vaccine surveillance tool “V-Safe” to include cardiac symptoms, despite naming myocarditis as a potential adverse event by October 2020, and that top officials in the Biden administration delayed warning pediatricians and other providers about the risk of myocarditis after their approval in some children in May 2021, months after Israeli health officials first detected it in February 2021. The Senate investigation named Woodcock, a signatory of the NEJM letter, as one of the FDA officials who slow-walked the warning.

AUTHOR

Emily Kopp

Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

FDA Chief Medical Officer Demands ‘Introspection’ By Staff After Report Tracing 10 Children’s Deaths to COVID Vaccine

Biden Admin Spent Weeks ‘Downplaying’ COVID Vaccine Risks Before Issuing Formal Warning, Senate Report Alleges

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Repeatedly Ignored Warnings About Border Crisis, Feared Backlash From Left, Insiders Say

President Joe Biden reportedly ignored early warnings from advisors that his immigration platform could create a border crisis and dragged his feet on solutions as crossings reached historical levels.

Before Biden was sworn in as the 46th president of the United States, experts were already cautioning his transition team that his immigration positions would likely stir chaos at the Mexico border, according to administration insiders who spoke to the New York Times. Biden and his team rebuffed these warnings, concerned they would lose Latino support and underestimating how much Americans would care about the issue.

“A potential surge could create chaos and a humanitarian crisis, overwhelm processing capacities, and imperil the agenda of the new administration,” read a memo created by several aides before the 2020 presidential election, which was obtained by the NYT.

That memo proved prophetic after Biden immediately got to work on dismantling the border enforcement apparatus established by the first Trump administration and overseeing the largest spike in illegal immigration.

Biden undertook a total of 296 executive actions on immigration in the first year of his presidency, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute. Of these executive actions, 89 reversed or began the process of reversing President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

The Democrat scrubbed major initiatives undertaken by the first Trump administration, such as ending border wall construction, the shutdown of the Remain in Mexico program and ending the COVID-era Title 42 health order that quickly expelled migrants.

Those actions quickly paved the way for a flood of illegal migrants descending into the country.

There were roughly 8.5 million southern border encounters during Biden’s time in the White House, with fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 being the worst years for migrant crossings in history. These numbers not only overwhelmed federal immigration officials and border states, but also became a problem for local officials in the interior of the country, forcing leaders in New York City, Denver and elsewhere to get tougher on illegal migrants.

As the situation at the border continued to escalate, the Biden administration reportedly kept rebuffing proposals to stem the situation out of political fears.

“They were a little too sensitive to criticisms from the left,” Cecilia Muñoz, who oversaw domestic and economic policy for the Biden transition team, said to the NYT.

The crisis dramatically changed Americans’ outlook on immigration enforcement, with polls at the time showing illegal immigration to be a top concern for Americans and more voters believing Trump would better handle the issue than Biden. A February 2024 YouGov survey found a mere 31% of Americans believing Biden to be the better candidate to fix the border, compared to 45% for Trump.

By the summer of 2024, a majority of Latino voters supported mass deportation of illegal migrants, smashing the Biden administration’s assumption that hawkish border policies would alienate the constituency.

In the waning days of their administration, both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris — who eventually became the Democratic presidential nominee — campaigned heavily in favor of a Senate border bill that, they argued, would’ve solved the border crisis. While Biden blamed Trump for not supporting the bill, insiders say the Biden White House initially wanted nothing to do with the legislation.

Democrat Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and GOP Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, the bipartisan pair of lawmakers behind the Senate border bill, said the Biden White House refused to get involved when negotiations first began to gain momentum, according to the NYT.

“We don’t want our fingerprints on these negotiations,” Lankford recalled the White House saying to him, according to the NYT. It was reportedly only after border crossings continued to surge did Biden’s team finally get on board. However, by that time Trump had firmly established himself as the Republican presidential nominee and made clear he did not support the bill, tanking any chance of GOP support.

By the summer of 2024, Biden finally issued an executive order that restricted the number of border crossings, a move that ultimately helped drive down the border crisis, but came too late for an electorate that had already decided Trump was the better candidate on immigration enforcement.

The Biden administration “had no strategy, because they had no goal,” Scott Shuchart, who joined the Biden White House in 2022 as a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the NYT.

“All they had was wishing the problem would go away so that they could focus on the things they cared about,” Shuchart continued.

AUTHOR

Jason Hopkins

Immigration Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pennsylvania officials just admitted they let non-citizens vote for decades through this Bill Clinton program | 247 Politics

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin Launching New Vetting Unit In Wake Of National Guard Attack

PERKINS: Supply, Demand, and The War on Drugs

Emerging Facts Shift Focus of Drug Boat Strike Controversy

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CIA Analysts Who Helped Cook Up Phony Russiagate Intel Still Thriving In Deep State, Former Spy Says

Two analysts who helped Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan discredit President Donald Trump through weak or phony intelligence on Russian election interference continue to cash paychecks from the agency, according to a former CIA operations officer.

“At least two still do work there. That doesn’t mean that all of the other people have left. Those are just the two that I’m aware of,” former CIA Operations Officer Bryan Dean Wright told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

One of former authors remains in possession of a “blue badge,” meaning they remain a CIA employee, while another possesses a “green badge” and continues to do work for the agency as a contractor, Wright said. Others may retain their security clearances.

Wright has not held back his opinion about his former boss: He said in a recent op-ed that he should “rot in prison” for undermining the integrity of the Republic.

“These men thought they knew what was best for America, and they didn’t give a damn what voters like you thought,” he wrote.

Brennan — whose tenure at CIA spanned decades — likely cultivated generations of like-minded CIA employees, Wright said. The former CIA director’s influence probably continues to shape the agency’s culture by way of mentorships, friendships, promotion panels and hiring offices. 

The CIA did not respond to requests for comment. A request for comment from Brennan through his consulting firm WestExec Advisors did not receive a reply.

Documents declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in recent days have revealed that President Barack Obama’s intelligence chiefs spun, cherrypicked and in some cases wholly manufactured raw intelligence reports to support the narrative — predetermined in leaks to the media — that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “clear preference” for Trump and “aspired to help his election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.”

The resulting 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment touched off years of Russiagate media frenzy. Though technically endorsed by the “big three” — the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency — just five CIA analysts under Brennan wrote the assessment, according to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report declassified on July 23. The analysts were plucked from a “Fusion Cell” Brennan had formed months earlier to examine Russian election interference, according to a CIA self-assessment declassified on July 2.

Those analysts worked hand-in-glove with Brennan, churning out an assessment in less than a week in the days leading up to Christmas. Brennan hid the “sensitive intelligence” — the unverified, slanted and irrelevant raw intelligence reports — from other elements of the intelligence community until a two-day review process. The review happened using a card copy that was shuttled between Langley, Washington, DC, and Fort Meade, the report indicates.

Despite the revelations, there have been few assurances that analysts whose names are unknown and may remain embedded in the Deep State no longer play a role in U.S. national security.

It’s not atypical for the CIA to conduct internal investigations of its personnel, from audits of timecards to counterintelligence probes to ensure foreign spies do not infiltrate U.S. intelligence, Wright said.

Yet the CIA assessment of its own “tradecraft” in assembling the ICA omitted full details about the significant flaws of the raw intelligence reports underlying its judgements. The deputy director of CIA for analysis, who is unnamed in the report, wrote that CIA analysts were subject to “procedural anomalies” and Brennan’s outsized influence. The CIA assessment also concedes its ICA was weakened by the inclusion of the Steele dossier, a salacious Democratic opposition research file on Trump. Yet the report also claims the ICA had “analytic rigor” which “exceeded that of most IC assessments.”

The report conceded that the CIA’s “high confidence” that Russian authorities “aspired” for Trump to win was unwarranted given it was based in only one report. But the CIA’s self-assessment did not give full insight into the weaknesses of that report.

“While the DA Review identified specific procedural and tradecraft issues with the one judgment, these issues should not be interpreted as indicative of broader systemic problems in the IC’s analytic processes or standards,” the CIA deputy director wrote.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford proclaimed the report a “whitewash” within hours of its release, setting in motion the declassification of his committee’s more strident report.

“The report was produced in the 116th Congress under Devin Nunes despite extraordinary restrictions placed by the CIA. Among those restrictions are a prohibition on transporting the document to secure spaces on Capitol Hill,” Crawford said.

It would only become apparent when the congressional investigation’s report was declassified three weeks later that the “aspired” judgement relied on a fragment of a sentence from a single human intelligence report.

“Putin had made this decision [to leak the DNC emails] after he had come to believe that the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [candidate Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory,” the report read.

The “aspired” judgement hinged on the clause “whose victory Putin was counting on,” which five CIA officers interpreted five different ways, the report states.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe himself called attention to a lack of accountability around intelligence failures and deceptions in a 2023 op-ed. CIA senior bureaucrats hold lifetime appointments, maintaining their rank and pay even when overseeing major failures — a practice Congress should move to end, Ratcliffe wrote.

“Officials who betray the public trust—either by bad acts in office or by politicizing their credentials after leaving—should be stripped of their security clearances,” Ratcliffe wrote.

But experts told the DCNF that Ratcliffe could encounter a hostile CIA culture in implementing any reforms.

CIA officer training includes a video of drafters of an intelligence estimate alleging Iraqi weapons of mass destruction expressing regret, according to Wright. Few analysts would want to see themselves as responsible for an intelligence failure that could set back their careers.

At the same time, a lack of accountability could contribute to a culture of stagnation and decline in professionalism in Langley.

“The CIA has become so severely politicized that it has fundamentally lowered its standards of integrity in collecting and assessing intelligence, and analysts come up with what are often very weak intelligence assessments,” said J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy. “I used to think it was grossly irresponsible hyperbole to compare the CIA to the KGB, but you really have to wonder, have the CIA and other intelligence community elements become a state within a state?”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

AUTHOR

Emily Kopp

Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tulsi Gabbard Reveals Deep State Operative James Clapper’s Russia Hoax Wasn’t His First Intel Scam — He “Manufactured” the WMD Lie That Led to the Iraq War

John Brennan, James Clapper In Damage Control After Russiagate Revelations

Top Republicans Call For Declassification Of Thumb Drives Containing Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Comer Expands Epstein Probe, Subpoenas Clintons And Trump Admin’s DOJ

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Israel Moves to Sue New York Times for $10 Billion for The Blood Libel They Spread

Israel  considering sing New York Times and the journalists who blood libel-ed Israelfor $10 BILLION for the blood libel it spread, says Israeli analyst Bardugo Jacob.

This needs to happen. The New York Times has been defaming, smearing and libeling Israel for years now and set the template for worldwide Jew hating press.

The NY Times’ Non-apology for Its Nasty Blood Libel

Nearly 25 years ago, HonestReporting began its mission by taking on The New York Times over a photo it published of a young man — bloodied and battered — crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman….

·   

Nearly 25 years ago, HonestReporting began its mission by taking on The New York Times over a photo it published of a young man — bloodied and battered — crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of recent riots — with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier was the one who beat him.The effort to fix the incorrect reporting started with the boy’s father writing a letter to the Times, explaining the truth about his son, a Jewish student from Chicago who was pulled from his Jerusalem taxi by a mob of Arabs who beat and stabbed him and his friends. A half-hearted correction was issued about “an American student in Israel” — not a Jew beaten by Arabs. Only after additional public outrage did the Times reprint Tuvia Grossman’s picture — this time with the proper caption — along with a full article detailing his near-lynching at the hands of Palestinians.Fast forward to last Thursday, when the Times put on its front page a moving photo of a skeletal child, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, cradled in his mother’s arms. The photo, taken by a photographer for a Turkish news agency, looked like a gut-wrenching snapshot of starvation in Gaza.The underlying message was that Israel was deliberately starving Gazan children.It took five days of pressure from the Israeli consulate in New York and organizations like HonestReporting for the Times to admit their mistake.“After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems,” an editor’s note added to the article said.A New York Times spokeswoman issued this statement on Tuesday night:

Children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, as New York Times reporters and others have documented. We recently ran a story about Gaza’s most vulnerable civilians, including Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, who is about 18 months old and suffers from severe malnutrition. We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems. This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of his situation. Our reporters and photographers continue to report from Gaza, bravely, sensitively, and at personal risk, so that readers can see firsthand the consequences of the war.”

In other words, the New York Times ran a picture without properly checking the truth behind it. The Times continues to stand behind the underlying message against Israel that it tried to convey by running the photo in the first place.

Instead of being self-critical about its reporters and photographers who got the story wrong, the Times praised their bravery and sensitivity.

No, New York Times, the new information does not merely add context about Mohammed’s pre-existing health problems. It proves that the way he looks has nothing to do with Israel and the war that began with the October 7 massacre.

Thank you for your non-apology, but the damage of this blood libel has already been done. It has been weaponized and used to demonize Israel around the world, resulting in dangerous policy changes by the leaders of France and the United Kingdom and the president of the United States saying “That’s real starvation. I see it, and you can’t fake that.”

The New York Times’ lies about the photograph and the resulting international condemnation of Israel led to Hamas hardening its positions in negotiations to end the war. There are up to 20 live Israeli hostages, who are actually known to be starving, whose horror has been prolonged by the irresponsibility of the Times and other media outlets that ran the photo without doing their due diligence.

There have also been antisemitic incidents throughout the world since the photo ran, and the connection between the rapid rise in anti-Jewish violence and its connection to dishonest reporting since October 7, 2023, has been well documented.

Instead of running a front-page apology online and in print and showing true accountability, the Times hid its correction by posting it on its PR account, which has 89,000 followers on X, not its regular account with 55 million followers.

The Times also has not taken back another incorrect report, published Saturday, claiming in a headline that is shameful since it’s not satirical: “No Proof Hamas Routinely Stole U.N. Aid, Israeli Military Officials Say.”

The article quotes unnamed, anonymous “military sources.” Even after official IDF spokesperson Nadav Shoshani said and proved that the opposite was true, there has still been no admission from the Times that it made yet another dangerous mistake. There has been no statement by the newspaper’s spokeswoman and no editor’s note.

But at least with its statement about the photo, The Times did somewhat more than nothing to update its readers. Other media outlets have not even done that.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Another Photo. Another Lie.

FBI Investigating Brutal Assault on Kosher Restaurant, Attackers Screamed “Kill all the Jews” While Beating Jewish Diners

REAL GENOCIDE: Muslims Slaughter Scores of Christians in the Congo

Muslim Candidates and the Threat to American Freedom

‘JEW EXCLUSION ZONE’: UCLA Will Pay Over $6 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Anti-Semitic Discrimination: “Disgusting Breach of Civil Rights Against Students”

Harvard Offers to Pay $500 Million to Settle With Trump Administration

ABSOLUTE DISGRACE: Humiliated Starmer Lashes Out By Declaring Support for Terror State

RELATED VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump on the idea of creating a Palestinian state

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Setting the Record Straight on the Iran Nuclear Program Bombing Against Enemy Propagandists NYT – CNN

This is so excellent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump and Hegseth GO NUCLEAR on fake news reporter for insulting the troops

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times: Fighting Antisemitism is Bad for the Jews

At least when it’s leftist antisemitism.

In surprising news, the newspaper that published a list of Jewish members of Congress with yellow marks over their names during the Iran Deal vote (not in 1939 but in 2015) thinks fighting antisemitism is a bad idea.

Or at least leftist antisemitism and antisemitism from its Islamist allies.

The Times promotional headline for its op-ed by Wesleyan president Michael S. Roth is ‘Trump’s Crusade Against Antisemitism Is Extremely Bad for the Jews’. The op-ed on the site has the slightly less ironic title ‘Trump Is Selling Jews a Dangerous Lie’.

I said slightly less ironic because as “the first Jewish president of a formerly Methodist university”, Roth is the one selling Jews a dangerous lie.

Roth defends Hamas supporters who terrorized campuses and called for the murder of Jews as activists and graduates. His argument basically boils down to “First they came for the antisemites, then they came for the Jews.”

“Abductions by government agents; unexplained, indefinite detentions; the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas; lists of those under government scrutiny; official proclamations full of bluster and bile — Jews have been here before, many times, and it does not end well for us,” Roth contends.

There’s a number of problems here, but the most obvious one is that they already came for the Jews.

Threatening the Jews that they’ll be next after the Hamas supporters is a lot like saying, “First they came for the Nazis, then they came for the Jews”. The Nazis are a bigger threat than whoever they undefined ‘they’ are.

Rather than address antisemitism on the Left and on campus, Roth throws in Candace Owens (described as a Trump supporter even though she turned on him a while back), Nick Fuentes (ditto) Andrew Tate, and even Elise Stefanik, misattributes and misquotes multiple conservative figures, and wrongly insists “Shalom Columbia” is derogatory toward Jews.

And much of the op-ed is spent insisting that the handful of Jewish people who oppose Israel are equivalent to those who support it thereby actually doing what he wrongly accuses Trump of doing in Charlottesville, insisting on bothsideism.

Roth virtually offers no examples of leftist antisemitism, especially on campuses, that might have occasioned Jews to feel that “there is a great temptation for Jews to embrace anyone who denounces antisemitism, regardless of the moral contradictions.” Is he too unwilling or too afraid to do so?

“In the second and first century B.C., the Jewish kingdom of Judea aligned itself with Rome to protect itself from the domination of Greek culture. Rome obliged, and conquered Judea for itself,” Roth concludes. That’s bad history, but worse still, Roth is missing the point. He means it as a critique of Jews supporting Trump, but he might consider what if it’s really a critique of Jews supporting the Left?

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: ‘Iran is in great danger’ if talks fail, ‘because they can’t have a nuclear weapon’

NYC: Masked and armed pro-Hamas protesters shut down Grand Central Station

Pro-Hamas Brownshirts are Presenting Themselves as the True Victims of the Demonstrations at Columbia

UK: Two Muslims arrested on suspicion of being members of Hizballah and preparing for jihad massacres

France: Muslim migrant who bombed bakery says ‘As a Muslim, I have no moral lessons to receive from the French’

Sweden: Islamic Republic of Iran recruited teen members of Muslim gangs for attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets

Afghanistan: Taliban apprehend two lesbians and ex-Muslim as they tried to flee the country

RELATED PODCAST: Robert Spencer discusses antisemitism on the Never Again Is Now

EDIOTORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The New York Times’ Double Standards

In the bias and malevolence of its coverage of the IDF and Israel, the New York Times has few equals in the American mainstream media. Just now it has been reporting on those, both Palestinians and soldiers, who accuse the IDF of using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. More on the Times’ credulous coverage of this story can be found here: “Double Standards as New York Times Accuses IDF of Using Palestinians as Human Shields,” by Simon Plosker, Algemeiner, October 22, 2024:

Replete with a headline designed to tarnish Israel’s entire military, The New York Times recently published an investigation alleging that IDF soldiers were using Gazans as human shields during operations in the Gaza Strip.

The idea seems to be that the IDF uses Palestinians to accompany them when they first enter an area, and to go first into buildings that may be booby-trapped, before the IDF soldiers go in, or they are made to walk alongside IDF tanks, as a putative protection against attack by Hamas. No one has produced any evidence to support such charges.

In order to make its case, The New York Times says it “interviewed 16 Israeli soldiers and officials who knew about the practice, as well as three Palestinians, on the record, who were forced to take part in it.”

While the small number of Palestinians are named, the Israelis are not. It is always problematic to present anonymous testimony in a story where we don’t know the motivations behind those who are talking to the journalists.

Why were the 16 Israeli soldiers not named? Could it be because they knew their claims were doubtful, and didn’t want to be exposed? Some of them may have been far-left peaceniks, trying to arouse public anger in Israel against the IDF, in the hope of forcing the government to agree to an immediate ceasefire. Some may have genuinely misunderstood what the Palestinians present at IDF operations were doing. A Palestinian accompanying an IDF patrol might be voluntarily aiding the IDF to locate Hamas operatives and weapons, in the hope of sparing his home or hometown from being massively shelled.

Two of the Israelis, however, were connected to The New York Times through Breaking the Silence, whose motivations are very clear.

The organization, which was founded in 2004 by former IDF soldiers who are highly critical of Israel, claims to “expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories” using testimonies that are purported to be “meticulously researched” while “all facts are cross-checked with additional eyewitnesses.”…

“Breaking the Silence” is a group of former IDF soldiers who are critical of Israel, and want to “expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.” The very fact that they use the phrase “Occupied Territories” indicates their embrace of the Palestinian cause, and their willingness to blacken the image of the IDF. A number of soldiers who have provided testimonies of IDF misconduct to Breaking the Silence turn out to have been paid to provide their stories; one wonders how much was real, and how much was made up by these soldiers in order to receive payments from the group.

Yet when it comes to New York Times coverage of and investigations into the IDF, it’s impossible to ignore the Gray Lady’s wider agenda that continuously seeks to delegitimize Israeli self-defense against the terrorists who are currently attacking it from multiple fronts.

For example, only days ago, the paper published an article that accused Israel of committing war crimes and “shooting children at point-blank range.” That story also relied on questionable testimonies and even more questionable X-rays purporting to show IDF bullets lodged in the heads of Palestinian children. The very authenticity of the X-rays was called into question, as the entire story was torn apart online….

Forensic experts who examined the X-ray photographs of dead children’s heads with bullets lodged in them concluded that they were fakes. For more on that particular scandal, in which The New York Times credulously accepted the Palestinian story, and refused to accept the scathing testimony of experts that debunked the claims of “65 Palestinian doctors and nurses,” see here.

Hamas’ policy of embedding its operatives, and hiding its weapons, within areas populated by civilians, is central to its war making. It does everything it can to increase civilian casualties, because it knows that their deaths will aid its propaganda campaign against Israel. As Yahya Sinwar said, the deaths of Palestinian civilians are the “necessary sacrifices” that must be made in fighting the Zionist enemy.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Winston Marshall on the history of evil of the New York Times, Zuckerberg, YouTube, Google and the political establishment

In the aftermath of Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter to Jim Jordan and the arrest of Telegram’s Pavel Durov, renowned investigative journalist Ashley Rindsberg exposes the troubling history of media and social media bias and censorship at the highest levels.

In this interview, Ashley reveals how the New York Times has shilled for authoritarian regimes from Stalin to Hitler and again today in America.

He unpacks the troubling capture of Wikipedia by progressive interests and it’s relationship with YouTube, Google and the political establishment.

The conversation explores the broader “digital civil war” as alternative voices challenge the establishment’s grip on information control.

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Tom Cotton exposes NBC’s fake news Arlington hoax

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Constitution Comes Under Fire, Identified As Possible ‘Threat’ To American Politics

The New York Times non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed the Constitution was “frozen in amber” while reviewing a book by University of California law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky’s book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever,” released Aug. 20, argues that the United States Constitution has become a “threat to American democracy” that is “beyond redemption.” Szalai claimed that “Constitution worship” was possibly damaging the American political system in her review, citing arguments made by Chemerinsky and other liberal legal scholars, who say the document created a situation where a minority held tyrannical power to thwart.

WATCH: Socialists want to eliminate the U.S. Constition and replace it with a ‘national democracy’

“According to this line of argument, the damages of Constitution worship extend to the structure of the political system itself. National politics gets increasingly funneled through the judiciary, with control of the courts — especially the Supreme Court — becoming a way to consolidate power regardless of what the majority of people want,” Szalai wrote. “This disempowerment of majorities, combined with political gridlock and institutional paralysis outside the judiciary, fuels popular disaffection. The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings on abortion, gun rights, presidential immunity and former President Donald Trump’s eligibility that have angered liberals, who have suggested either imposing term limits on the justices or expanding the court in response.

Szalai noted that some of the reforms Chemerinsky sought could be achieved by passing a constitutional amendment, but then seemed to imply that such a change would be unlikely after dismissing the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment, claiming the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18, was the last “major” change to the document she asserted was “frozen in amber.”

Chemerinsky argued in an Aug. 23 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times Americans should look into a new governing document, criticizing the equal representation of states in the “egregiously undemocratic” United States Senate and objecting to the filibuster.

Democrats have sought to abolish the filibuster during the Biden administration, but were thwarted by then-Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Chemerinsky also argued against the Electoral College in his Los Angeles Times op-ed, citing the 2000 and 2016 elections, when Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.

AUTHOR

Harold Hutchison

RELATED ARTICLES:

Law School Dean Tells MSNBC It’s Time To Scrap Constitution

UN May Arm Governments With ‘New Weapon’ To Censor Speech, Watchdog Says

Journalist Warns Bill Maher Young Men ‘Breaking To Trump’ Might ‘Be Fatal For’ Harris’ Campaign

RELATED VIDEO: Kamala will shut down X if she wins

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

By Ignoring the Bidenites’ Advice, the Israelis Managed to Eliminate Many Hamas Jihadis

The New York Times insists that if Israel rejects the Bidenites’ advice to pull out of Gaza, it does so at its peril: “NYT admits US officials were wrong about the IDF in October, and wrong about Rafah, but thinks they are right now,” Elder of Ziyon, August 15, 2024:

So these officials were completely wrong in October. They were also wrong about Israel’s taking Rafah, which they now admit is exactly what destroyed Hamas’ supply lines from Egypt – and cost far fewer casualties thna they had confidently predicted.

By ignoring warnings from the Americans not to seize Rafah because of worries over civilian casualties, the IDF managed to kill a great many terrorists who had fled to the southernmost city in the Strip both from Gaza City and from Khan Yunis. Its control of Rafah has also made it easier for the IDF to control the Kerem Shalom crossing and to seize the Philadelphi Corridor, control of which has allowed the IDF to locate and destroy many tunnels bringing smuggled weapons from Egypt into Gaza.

But the US wants to send a message to Israel, and the New York Times is more than happy to do their bidding:

William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, is due in Qatar on Thursday. Brett McGurk, President Biden’s Middle East coordinator, has headed to Egypt and Qatar. Amos Hochstein, a senior White House adviser, landed in Lebanon. One of the messages the officials are expected to deliver is that there is little more Israel can accomplish against Hamas.

Which is the entire point. This article isn’t reporting; it is a mouthpiece for Biden administration talking points.

If you look at what Israel has actually been doing, you would see that its success is not diminishing, but increasing. As it gathers more intelligence from captured terrorists and taking materials it discovers, it is getting more and more accurate than when it started….

Consistently, Israel has gotten better and better at targeting the terrorists. The entire reason that the Palestinians made up huge casualty lies about the airstrike on the Al Taabin school is becase [sic] it was a triumph of intelligence, taking out over 30 terrorists gathered in the mosque – a proportional attack by any definition of the term under international law….

In its latest statement on the airstrike, the IDF has now identified by name 38 Hamas terrorists killed at the command-and-control center functioning inside the Al Tabin school. That means in that operation at most 55 civilians were killed, and the ratio of civilian-to-combatant deaths was 55:36, or 1:5:1, an unheard-of ratio in the annals of warfare.

Many Hamas commanders, and leaders of its “political” wing, too, are being systematically eliminated by the IDF. Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’ “political wing,” was recently blown up in at a Tehran guesthouse. Hamas’ military commander in Gaza, Muhammad Deif, was killed on July 13. A deputy commander of the Al-Qassam Brigades, Marwan Issa, was killed in March. And dozens of other high-ranking Hamas combatants have also been killed, as the IDF continues its relentless campaign of targeted assassinations.

Those in Washington who predicted last October that an Israeli invasion of Gaza to destroy Hamas would not succeed were proven wrong. Those who then insisted that the IDF should refrain from entering Rafah because it could not possibly evacuate more than a handful of its estimated one million inhabitants were proven wrong again. In May, the IDF managed in a matter of weeks to move 950,000 people out of the city.

Now the Bidenites are urging Israel to end its war in Gaza because, they claim, there is not much more of Hamas to destroy, and the IDF needs to avoid further civilian casualties. Neither is correct. Though the IDF has had a stunning success in dismantling Hamas, killing at least 17,000 of its combatants, there remain roughly the same number who, if not seriously wounded, are still capable of fighting, and they need to be smashed as a fighting force even if they cannot be entirely eliminated. As for civilian casualties, in the last three months Hamas has continued to claim roughly 38,000-39,000 casualties, as usual without distinguishing between civilians and Hamas operatives. The IDF has over the past nine months honed its ability to minimize civilian casualties, having ever greater success in warning people away from places about to be targeted, by making greater use of precision weapons, and by relying less on airstrikes and more on ground troops in its operations.

When Hamas recognizes reality, and agrees to the deal that Israel now is willing to accept, this war in Gaza will stop, and the IDF can turn its full attention to much more threatening enemies — Hezbollah and its puppet-master Iran. The IDF high command has not forgotten the Talmudic injunction: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Kamala’s Jewish Liaison: Biden Pretended to Support Israel Only to Stab it in the Back

RELATED VIDEO: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer (Who The F*** Is Allah Edition)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times hires another hater of Israel to cover Israel

Yet there are still people who think these are news organizations, and don’t realize what they really are: extremely well-heeled, sophisticated propaganda mills, buttressed by the full weight of the approval of the Western intelligentsia, which sends bogus ideologically based “fact checkers” such as NewsGuard to defame, discredit and destroy all dissent.

NY Times Hires Another Anti-Israel Extremist to Cover Israel

by Gilead Ini, CAMERA, July 5, 2024

The New York Times has a type.

It hired a reporter who once said she can’t bring herself even to look at Israelis, and who admitted that her objectivity “got thrown out the window.”

It hired another who in college was an apologist for Hamas and Hezbollah, denying that the terror organizations are terror organizations, that they are fundamentalists, and even that they have murdered Israeli civilians.

It hired another not long after she expressed outrage that Israel struck a Hamas commander after the terror group fired a barrage of rockets toward Israeli civilians — and even charged that the strike amounted to “murder.”

Shortly after the Oct. 7 massacre, the newspaper commissioned a journalist who had posted on social media, “How great you are, Hitler.”

So it is unfortunate, but hardly surprising, that the New York Times has hired Bora Erden to cover the Israel-Hamas conflict. Erden was a committed anti-Israel activist prior to joining the Times last October. In May 2021, after Hamas rocket attacks into Israel and a consequent round of fighting, Erden signed a letter supporting what was termed the “Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonial rule and its apartheid system.”…

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: New Muslim MPs have ties to Hamas and other jihad groups, call for BDS

Palestinian Authority Again Shows How ‘Moderate’ It Is

French-Israelis call on Jews to flee France and join them

UK: New Labour prime minister claims ‘urgent’ need for Gaza ceasefire

Canada: Pro-Hamas demonstrators smash windows at McGill University, scream ‘Globalize the intifada’

The Remarkable Story of Yaron Avraham: From Muslim to Jew

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Challenges Biden to a New Debate

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NY Times Reporter: ‘I Wish Somebody Would Kill Trump’

This is where we are. Reporters for the NY Times, long the newspaper of record in the United States, is calling for assassination of the political opposition. And nobody bats an eyelash.

NYT Reporter Cuts to the Chase: ‘I Wish Somebody Would Kill Trump’

By: EVOL, July 7, 2024:

A New York Times reporter has said the quiet part out loud while expressing how the Left really feels about President Donald Trump.

John McWhorter, the prominent academic, author, and New York Times reporter bluntly declared that he hopes Trump will be assassinated.

McWhorter didn’t try to mask his desires, however, and simply cut to the chase by declaring: “I wish somebody would kill Donald Trump.”

McWhorter dropped the charade during an appearance on the new episode of “The Glenn Show” podcast, hosted by Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury.

“I have taken a great deal of heat for saying, for implying, that I wish somebody would kill Donald Trump,” McWhorter said.

“That is exactly what I was implying.

“It was irresponsible of me to say that in a public space.

“I really shouldn’t have said it here.”

But then McWhorter acknowledges that it wasn’t a one-off.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Killing Trump is Deep State’s ‘Plan C,’ Warns Advisor Roger Stone

“BURN IT DOWN”: American Flag BURNING Hamas Mobs Terrorize NYC Streets on July 4th Hate March

Self-hating Jew Bernie Sanders congratulates pro-Hamas anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn on reelection

‘Is it right to think of the Nazi massacres on October 7? I think it is right to do so, because Hamas itself wanted to evoke the memory of the Shoah.’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.