USC: Dept. of Education -Office for Civil Rights to Investigate Anti-Semitism at Campus

Gary Fouse

We have been following the ongoing story of Rose Ritch, a Jewish student at the University of Southern California who has been the target of the pro-Palestinian mob on campus because she supports the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Therefore, she is considered a Zionist, which to the pro-Palestinian mob is a dirty word. Ritch was driven from her position in student government due to the attacks against her, many of which were flat-out anti-Semitic. 

When USC President Carol Folt issued a statement expressing sympathy for Ritch over her ordeal and condemning anti-Semitism in general, the Middle East Studies Association jumped in to criticize Folt. You can read the background of the Ritch story here.

Now the Office for Civil Rights within the US Department of Education has decided to investigate the matter as to possible violation of Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act. I am cross-posting an announcement by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which filed a complaint to the DOE/OCR.

This is a positive step although I have been critical of DOE/OCR's resolution of the UC Irvine investigation several years ago as to complaints of anti-Semitism at that university. Hopefully, the investigators will realize that this goes far beyond the free speech right to criticize Israel. All too often, criticism of Israel, which is legitimate in itself, has crossed the line into insults directed at Jewish students and Jewish people in general on US university campuses. I know that from my own personal observations. I have seen it and heard it.

Are We Watching Trump Impeachment 3?

Gary Fouse

Let me rephrase the title of this piece: Are you watching Trump Impeachment 3? I am not.

Oh, I am following the progress of the proceedings, but after the two impeachment trials against Donald Trump, the second of which was after he left office, I am really skeptical as to the objectivity of this proceeding. Not that I defend what happened on January 6, I don't, but given the make-up of this panel, seven Democrats (including the ubiquitous Adam Schiff) and two Trump-hating RINOS, it's hard to put much faith in this show trial. (House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy originally chose Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana, both of whom were rejected by Nancy Pelosi, at which point the Republicans declined to participate, and Pelosi named Lynn Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Delaware, both Trump-haters.)

Nor am I swayed by this latest appearance of a lady named Cassidy Hutchinson, who has testified to hearsay statements made about Trump while riding in the presidential limousine, the so-called "beast" on January 6 when video shows he was riding in an SUV on January 6. In addition, Miss Hutchinson's hearsay statements are contested by the Secret Service agent who reportedly made them. There is also the question of a handwritten note that Hutchinson claims was written by her but may have been written by someone else. At least she didn't testify to Russian hookers peeing on Trump's bed.

Of course, the mainstream media, from the New York Times to the LA Times, thinks that this is the bombshell witness who will finally bring down old Trump-just as they called Michael Avenatti, "Trump's worst nightmare" not to mention a serious possible presidential candidate in 2020. Well, Trump's worst nightmare (Avenatti) is now in jail though I'm not sure it's a NY jail or an LA jail, but no matter.

As we recall, Trump Impeachment Trial Number One centered around his alleged collusion with foreign powers in the 2016 election. It centered largely around his phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It came in the backdrop of all the charges of Trump having colluded with the Russians to sway the 2016 election in Trump's favor. Remember all that? The Steele Dossier about those Russian hookers with loose bladders, the Carter Page wiretaps under a FISA court order, based largely on the Steele Dossier, which the FBI brass knew was questionable and unverified-not to mention paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. That sordid mess involved Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and the whole gang. The setting up and the railroading of Michael Flynn. It was not the FBI's proudest moment. Now we know that if anybody colluded with the Russians, it was Hillary Clinton and her gang. It was they who paid for the Steele Dossier.

There was so much made of Trump's conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine asking for an investigation into what happened when then-Veep Joe Biden got the then-president of Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the corrupt energy company that had Hunter Biden on its board of directors at a salary of tens of thousands of dollars a month. Nobody ever tried to impeach Joe Biden for that even though they have the smoking gun video of him bragging in a speech how he successfully got the prosecutor fired by threatening to block a foreign aid package to Ukraine.

Impeachment Trial Number 2 accused Trump of inciting an insurrection on January 6, 2021. The trial was actually held after he had left office. It ended in another thud.

So now we have Trump and others allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election based on reports that there were suspicious goings-on at election centers in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Was there hanky-panky going on in those cities on election night? I'm not sure. William Barr has testified that whatever election fraud might have occurred, it was not enough to affect the outcome of the election. I take him at his word. I would also add that I am not comfortable with the tape of Trump's telephone conversation with the Georgia secretary of state as to "finding 11,000+ votes" that would put him ahead. In that same conversation, however, Trump speaks extensively about hundreds of thousands of suspicious ballots cast. Was Trump soliciting fraudulent votes in his favor or asking that suspicious Biden votes be investigated? In that same vein, I was never comfortable with what Al Gore and his lawyers tried to do in Florida in 2000. But this is the reality: If it's a close election, there will be recounts. And yes, I do believe that election fraud does exist in general.

As for the January 6 hearings, we will have to see if Ms Hutchinson's words are true or rebutted by others in the White House and/or Secret Service. Of course, no matter what comes out of the hearings, this is about preventing Trump from running in 2024 and-if they can- getting him indicted for his post-election actions including on January 6. Did Trump actually incite a riot on January 6, 2021? You may argue that his take-no-prisoners stump speech riled up the crowd, but he told them to march "peacefully and patriotically" down to the Capitol to make their voices heard. Legally, that's pretty exculpatory.