Thomas Dissent Rips into Kavanaugh SCOTUS Opinion – over Racial Politics

There have been 783,453 homicides in this country since the black-robed masters “allowed” us to continue our constitutional heritage of meting out capital punishment for murderers. Yet despite the raucous debate surrounding its use, just 1,500 individuals have been executed in 43 years. That is because the worst, most cold-blooded murderers have many ways to overturn capital convictions even when the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt. In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts has been joining the Left in opening up a new avenue to disqualify such convictions: namely, tainting the jury pools as racist. With today’s opinion, it’s clear he now has a companion in Justice Kavanaugh.

In Flowers v. Mississippi, Kavanaugh wrote a 7-2 majority opinion overturning a sixth conviction of a cold-blooded murderer who was convicted of killing four people 23 years ago. Although he was convicted with evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, in Kavanagh’s view the jury pool was racist. Overturning state due process: This is yet another example of the growing trend of the federal courts taking over state criminal law procedures and according the worst criminals a degree of process that would confound our Founders. And it’s most often because of racial politics.

Nobody disputes the fact that the Mississippi courts convicted Curtis Flowers for the murders based on solid eyewitness and physical evidence and that the jury’s verdict itself was impartial. However, Kavanaugh and the other six justices believes that the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in ruling that one particular peremptory (discretionary) strike conducted by the prosecutor against someone in the jury pool at jury selection for the original trial was animated by “discriminatory intent” and therefore entitles Flowers to a seventh trial!

“In sum, the State’s pattern of striking black prospective jurors persisted from Flowers’ first trial through Flowers’ sixth trial,” concluded Kavanaugh in an opinion that was tinged with racial overtones about the suspect being black and the witnesses, prosecutors, and victims being white. “In the six trials combined, the State struck 41 of the 42 black prospective jurors it could have struck. At the sixth trial, the State struck five of six.”

Justice Thomas shot back in his dissent and noted that not only does he disagree with the underlying premise and recent precedent (in Foster v. Chatman) that such facts would be grounds to overturn a conviction, but he disagrees with the notion that there was discriminatory intent. “The only clear errors in this case are committed by today’s majority,” wrote a clearly irate Thomas, who is getting tired of these cases.

Confirming that we never should have taken this case, the Court almost entirely ignores—and certainly does not refute—the race-neutral reasons given by the State for striking Wright and four other black prospective jurors. Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers’ family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture—the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers’ sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers’ family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented. The state courts’ findings that these strikes were not based on race are the opposite of clearly erroneous; they are clearly correct.

In Thomas’ view, “Today’s decision distorts the record of this case, eviscerates our standard of review, and vacates four murder convictions because the State struck a juror who would have been stricken by any competent attorney.”

Thomas accused the court of granting appeal “because the case has received a fair amount of media attention” and charged the majority with replacing careful trial records of the facts with “entertaining melodrama” that will result in “the litigation and relitigation of criminal trials in the media, to the potential detriment of all parties.”

He concluded, “Any competent prosecutor would have struck the jurors struck below. Indeed, some of the jurors’ conflicts might even have justified for-cause strikes.”

Thomas went on to say that under the Batson v. Kentucky (1986) precedent of invalidating convictions based on charges of discriminatory intent by the prosecutor in jury selection, the standard the Supreme Court must use is “whether the state courts were clearly wrong.” Thomas believes the answer is “obviously no,” based on a wealth of counter-evidence he cites in his lengthy dissent. “Yet the Court [majority] discovers ‘clear error’ based on its own review of a near-decade-old record. The majority apparently thinks that it is in a better position than the trial court to judge the tone of the questions and answers, the demeanor of the attorneys and jurors, the courtroom dynamic, and the culture of Winona, Mississippi.”

Thomas ended his dissent by essentially accusing the majority of ignoring the facts in order to engage in race-based virtue-signaling: “Although the Court’s opinion might boost its self-esteem, it also needlessly prolongs the suffering of four victims’ families.”

Justice Gorsuch joined this part of the dissent, which once again demonstrates that we only have two originalists on the court, not five. Yet, still, Thomas stands in a league of his own. He seems to be the only one willing to consistently follow the Constitution. Gorsuch did not join “part IV” of Thomas’ dissent, in which Thomas declares his disdain for the entire premise “that a duly convicted criminal go free because a juror was arguably deprived of his right to serve on the jury,” in Thomas’ words, established in the “sacred” Batson v. Kentucky case.

Thomas believes that Batson was “a departure from the previous century of jurisprudence” causing the court for the next few decades to move “its focus from the protections accorded the defendant to the perceptions of a hypothetical struck juror.” He accused Batson of disregarding “Article III’s limitations on standing by giving a windfall to a convicted criminal who, even under Batson’s logic, suffered no injury” and of forcing “equal protection principles onto a procedure designed to give parties absolute discretion in making individual strikes.”

What’s the bottom line for originalists? We only have one solid originalist on the court. Gorsuch is a very reliable ally of Thomas in most cases, but he often won’t go as far in rolling back existing bad precedent, depending on the issue. Alito has become unreliable on many issues, even as he remains quite solid on others. In this case, he indicated that while he normally doesn’t like overturning such convictions, he felt this case was “likely one of a kind.” And Kavanaugh is the new Roberts.

The Left has successfully enmeshed its entire agenda into racially sensitive jurisprudence, wrapping its abortion, election law, immigration, sexuality, and criminal law agenda in an identity politics juggernaut that only Thomas seems to be willing to confront head-on. If you think for a moment that there exists anywhere near a majority to stop the expansion of bad precedents – especially when they intersect with race-baiting politics – you are living in a conservative dream world. (For more from the author of “Thomas Dissent Rips into Kavanaugh SCOTUS Opinion – over Racial Politics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Congress Won’t Fund the One Thing We Need to Enforce CURRENT Law

We don’t need more “border funding” to fix a policy problem at our border, one which could be solved with the military and proper use of current law. However, we do need more funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to compensate for years of not enforcing existing law, which has created a backlog of illegal aliens, often dangerous ones, in our country with no ability to deport them. Yet, that is the one funding request Republicans refuse to push.

The border problem itself is very simple. The two problems are district court lawfare inviting millions of people to our border and the refusal of our government to treat the cartels as a national defense issue and deploy the military to hold the line at the border the way we secure parameters of other countries’ borders. None of these require funding, but policy changes. We already spend $716 billion on the military every year, much of it to secure other countries. There’s no reason we can’t secure our own border with that type of exorbitant budget.

The issue, then, is lack of interior enforcement. Thanks to endless lawfare and lack of resources, illegal aliens, including other countries’ most violent criminals and drug traffickers, remain here indefinitely. Congress addressed the lawfare in 1996 by unanimously passing a bill that ensured that any illegal immigrant caught within two years of coming here is deported immediately under “expedited removal” without any review by an immigration judge, much less a federal judge. Yet, because every administration has refused to implement that law, illegal aliens have been allowed to stay indefinitely and go through the endless lawfare system, creating a resource problem that our laws were designed to prevent.

Still, there are over 1 million illegal aliens who have already received final deportation orders, with another 1.5 million having already received deportation orders but are in the process of seeking an appeal the 1996 law was designed to foreclose.

If we can’t remove even those at this stage, then our laws are a joke. Unfortunately, there are only roughly 6,000 ICE agents available to do the removals and they are averaging just 7,000 interior deportations a month so far this year. And thanks to the border surge itself, ICE resources are being diverted to serve as babysitters at the border along with Border Patrol. Bryan Wilcox, acting director of ICE’s Seattle field office, said on my show Thursday that “better than 10% of my officers are currently on detail either to the border or to other parts of the country in support of the border.” He noted that “if we really want to make a dent on this problem, we need significantly more resources.”

Even if we focused solely on the bad guys, we lack the resources to make a dent. Think about it: as early as 2013, DHS estimated, based on ICE programs in local jails, that there were 1.9 million criminal aliens in this country and that 900,000 aliens were arrested every year. Chillingly, the report noted that “550,000 criminal aliens convicted of crimes exit law enforcement custody every year” and that “this population of criminal aliens poses a major threat to public safety.”

That was before the entire wave of Central Americans and the massive influx of gangs it has brought in. This is a prima facie public safety threat, yet it is so redressable because, unlike with American criminals, they can all be removed from society so that we don’t have to deal with their almost certain recidivism. But thanks to years of disregarding the law, there are too many of them in the country for the resources we have to deport them.

Yet, deportations are the only thing Congress will not fund amidst the bipartisan effort to fund legal aid and more amnesty programs for illegals. They will not provide the funding to enforce the laws passed by people like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Biden in 1996.

It’s truly hard to understate the importance of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Most other law enforcement only have authority to apprehend. The rest is out of their hands. The prosecutor must then land a conviction, and in our weak-on-crime system, most violent criminals are back on the streets within short order. With ICE, you get the best bang for your buck because these foreign criminals are removed from the country given that they have no affirmative right to be here.

Unfortunately, more than half of ICE’s human resources are drawn off for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which often does good work, but often gets distracted. When the investigators from the old U.S. Customs Service merged with INS deportation officers under the newly created Department of Homeland Security, many of its leaders made it clear they wanted nothing to do with immigration work. Thus, they were given a fiefdom to “conduct investigation.” Often, they have nothing to do with the homeland or immigration or overlap with DEA and FBI. Recently, they celebrated an investigation combating trademark theft in NBA memorabilia.

With the entire agency smaller than the NYPD to begin with, why is more than half diverted away from what is the ultimate resource problem and the ultimate success for public safety? ERO officers are often regarded as low-level work by the HSI leaders who seem to influence much of ICE’s broad vision. That’s why we are left with about as many removal officers as the size of Houston’s police department and less than half the size of Chicago’s police department.

If we would only have more ERO agents and give them the necessary resources to enforce CURRENT law, so much of the human and drug trafficking would not exist and there would be no need for much of the HSI investigations. This is not to say there aren’t some really dedicated and talented HSI agents who are working some worthy investigations. It’s just that the balance of resources, focus, and esteem must be recalibrated more in favor of ERO than it is today because they have the tools to protect Americans from so much harm by simply removing the threat without any lawfare. The rest of HSI should be focused more on multiplying deportations of gangs and criminal networks.

Rather than the politicians and the media scoffing at President Trump’s attempt to enforce our laws by noting how we lack the resources to fully implement it, they should be outraged that those resources have never been allocated. (For more from the author of “Congress Won’t Fund the One Thing We Need to Enforce CURRENT Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ilhan Omar Makes Horrifying Remarks About Concentration Camps

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) made shocking remarks about concentration camps on Friday, stating that she does not “even know why” it is “controversial” to compare immigrant detention facilities run by the U.S. government to concentration camps.

Omar’s comments came in response to a question from a reporter at The Rebel, who asked Omar: “Do you agree with AOC that ICE is running concentration camps on the border?”

“There are camps and people are being concentrated,” Omar responded. “This is very simple. I don’t even know why this is a controversial thing for her to say.”

“We have to really, truthfully speak about what is taking place and this is why it’s really important for us to abolish ICE and make sure that we have an agency that is accountable to the people.”

. . .

Many condemned Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, noting that her comments amount to Holocaust trivialization, which is on the spectrum of Holocaust denial and is a form of anti-Semitism.

(Read more from “Ilhan Omar Makes Horrifying Remarks About Concentration Camps” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Donald Jr. Goes After Roy Moore: He’s Doing a Disservice to All Conservatives and Spreading Fake News

. . .Roy Moore has decided to cross President Trump and virtually the entire Republican Party by once again running for US Senate in Alabama. Moore infamously managed to lose Jeff Sessions’ old seat to a Democrat last year, squandering what should have been a slam dunk in a state Trump carried over Hillary Clinton by nearly 30 points. GOP voters in the state ignored the president’s endorsement, and multiple warnings from the national party, in the previous primary process, resulting in an electoral catastrophe. Moore was a disastrous nominee, combining strident extremism and prejudice with a cringeworthy scandal about which he lied and misdirected. Liberal Doug Jones won the special election, thanks to quite a lot of anti-Moore crossover support.

Jones is highly likely to lose in 2020, an outcome that could help Republicans retain the Senate, which is very much undetermined. Perhaps the only way Jones could cling on is if the fatally-flawed Moore somehow persuades Alabama Republicans to once again endanger a Senate seat by selecting him as their standard bearer. President Trump has very explicitly urged Moore not to run this time (Moore didn’t even concede his last race, making him the Stacy Abrams of the Right, except his loss was in a crimson red state), but the twice-suspended ex-judge evidently doesn’t care. And he’s trying to pretend that he’s not flouting the president’s wishes with his newly-announced campaign, but Don Jr. is having none of it:

Other elements of the party are similarly uniting against Moore, a crank who has already directly proven that he’s capable of handing this “safe” seat to the Democrats. Much like his effect on high school girls, Moore would yet again make this seat unsafe:

(Read more from “Donald Jr. Goes After Roy Moore: He’s Doing a Disservice to All Conservatives and Spreading Fake News” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Will He Be Dragged for Treason? Obama Accepted Unsolicited Intelligence from a Foreign Source During 2016 Election

The liberal media went nuts. The Democrats had what was to be their 10,000th meltdown over something President Trump did or said. In this case, it would his remarks about accepting dirt on his opponent from foreign sources, which he said during an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton political operative. Trump said it’s called opposition research. This isn’t anything new. It’s amazing, the gaslighting effort the Left is deploying on this front. It’s not shocking because…Hillary Clinton did it. The Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS, who then hired ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile the document known as the Trump dossier; Democrats footed the bill for this operation.

The dossier was trash. The Mueller report debunked it, but at the time, it was a political opposition research document. It also cited sources still active in the Kremlin. And this information, shoddy and unverified, was used to secure a FISA spy warrant against Carter Page, a former foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign. So, no, accepting dirt on your opponent from a foreign source did happen. It does happen. And even Obama accepted unsolicited advice from a foreign source during the 2016 election relating to Trump-Russia collusion. John Solomon of The Hill has more:

In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Though Downer’s claim was reported two-plus months after the alleged event, and was only hearsay gathered at a London tavern, the Obama administration gave it to the FBI which, in turn, thought it was weighty enough to justify opening a counterintelligence case against the lawfully elected Republican nominee for president. . .

In October 2016, less than three weeks from Election Day, the Obama Justice Department approved a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on the Trump campaign through its former adviser, Carter Page. The primary evidence supporting the warrant? A dossier written by a foreign friendly named Christopher Steele, a retired MI6 intelligence agent from Great Britain. Of course, the Justice Department and the FBI forgot to tell the courts that Steele actually was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, but that’s a small detail for the purpose of this column.

(Read more from “Will He Be Dragged for Treason? Obama Accepted Unsolicited Intelligence from a Foreign Source During 2016 Election” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bernie’s Medicare for All Plan Just Got More Radical

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) claimed on Friday at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Presidential Candidate Forum in Miami that healthcare is a human right that should extend to everyone in the nation including illegal aliens.

Sanders discussed his view that everyone in the nation has a right to healthcare and his goal of establishing Medicare for All.

“Now to answer your question, I will not deny that every country on earth that has a national healthcare program all have problems, that’s the nature of healthcare and a changing technology,” Sen. Sanders said.

“But what I want everybody to understand, is literally starting yesterday, the insurance companies and their drug companies are starting to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to fight against Medicare for All,” he continued. “And we will organize the American people around the concept that all people in this country have the right to healthcare. And at the end of the day, we are going to win that struggle.” . . .

“We need the best-educated population in the world, and that means we’re gonna make our public colleges and universities tuition-free and open that to the undocumented as well,” the 2020 presidential candidate said.

(Read more from “Bernie’s Medicare for All Plan Just Got More Radical” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Shocking Admission from Witness at Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher’s Trial Just Changed Everything

By Townhall. During the trial for Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher Thursday afternoon, who is accused by the government of committing war crimes and improperly killing an ISIS terrorist, a medic who worked on SEAL Team Seven said that he is the one who is guilty of murder. Gallagher pleaded not guilty to all charges.

“On the stand this morning was SEAL Team Seven member Corey Scott. He served with Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher in Iraq in 2017 and was there when that ISIS fighter died. He first testified this morning for the prosecution that yes, he saw Chief Gallagher stab the ISIS fighter, the wounded ISIS fighter, in the neck. But then in cross-examination, he said that he did not believe that that stabbing killed the ISIS fighter,” Fox News’ Jonathan Hunt reported from San Diego.

“In fact, he went on to say that he as a combat medic was holding that ISIS fighter after the stabbing and he, Corey Scott, then put his thumb over a breathing tube that had been inserted into the ISIS fighter’s mouth. He covered that breathing tube with his thumb until the ISIS fighter asphyxiated. In other words, this witness, Corey Scott, says he was the one who caused that death of that wounded ISIS fighter,” he said.

(Read more from “Shocking Admission from Witness at Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher’s Trial Just Changed Everything” HERE)


Medic Says He, Not Navy SEAL Accused of War Crimes, Killed Injured ISIS Teen in Stunning Turnaroud

By RT. A high-profile court case against decorated SEAL Eddie Gallagher, accused of killing an ISIS teen fighter and shooting at civilians in Iraq, has taken a sudden twist: the medic witness claimed responsibility for the boy’s death.

The testimony of Special Operator 1st Class Corey Scott, deployed to Mosul, Iraq with the Navy Seal medical team in 2017, has the potential to turn the premediated murder case against Gallagher upside down. . .

The ISIS fighter, reportedly 15 years old, was treated for shrapnel wounds and breathing difficulties by the Navy SEALs medical team, who were supposed to hand him over to the Iraqis. When asked by Gallagher’s attorney why he did it, Scott implied that he was putting the teen out of his misery, as he “wanted to save him from what was going to happen next to him.”

Gallagher is facing life in prison for the alleged stabbing. He also posed in a photo with the lifeless body, then conducted a reenlistment ceremony next to the corpse and hovered a drone over it.

Prosecutors, however, cast doubt on Scott’s account of events, which has never been mentioned before by any of the witnesses to the incident, noting that Scott’s own previous written testimony contradicts the bombshell revelations. (Read more from “Medic Says He, Not Navy SEAL Accused of War Crimes, Killed Injured ISIS Teen in Stunning Turnaroud” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Approved Military Action Against Iran, Then Called Strike Off

President Donald Trump reportedly approved a military strike against Iran on Thursday, and, with planes in the air and ships in position, the strike was reportedly pulled back at the last minute.

“As late as 7 p.m. Thursday, military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations,” The New York Times reported.

“Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries,” The Times continued. “The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.” . . .

Navy Capt. Bill Urban, U.S. Central Command spokesman, said in a statement: “CENTCOM confirms that a U.S. Navy drone was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile system while operating in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz at approximately 11:35 p.m. GMT on June 19, 2019. Iranian reports that the aircraft was over Iran are false. This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset in international airspace.”

“Congressional Democrats emerged from the president’s classified briefing in the Situation Room and urged Mr. Trump to de-escalate the situation,” The Times added. “They called on the president to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action.”

(Read more from “Trump Approved Military Action Against Iran, Then Called Strike Off” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Wait…the FBI Was Warned Key Document Used to Investigate Paul Manafort Was Probably Fake?

We have a Department of Justice Inspector General report that’s about to drop that goes into the alleged FISA abuses. It’s one of the many areas where the investigators of the Russia collusion myth are being placed under the microscope for possible malfeasance. It’s about time. For two years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of die-hard Democrats apparently tried to prove collusion and couldn’t. His exiting presser, which was all but a red flare to House Democrats to start impeachment proceedings, only reinforced that notion. There is a massive witch-hunt aimed at getting President Donald Trump. From this Russian collusion nonsense to tax returns, they’re throwing all of it up against the wall in hoping something will stick. The collusion narrative was their best hope. It blew up in their face when Mueller report said that there was no collusion or conspiracy between the Kremlin or the Trump team during the 2016 election, the language of which Mueller tweaked to make it seem like an open-ended question. It’s not. His report is quite clear on that. . .

So, what’s the latest development? Oh, none other than the FBI being warned that the leading document used to go after Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort might have been fake, which was reported in the press in 2016 citing none other than Mr. Kilimnik. Mr. Solomon has more on the second document that now looks like it could be total trash:

…the “black cash ledger,” remarkably has escaped the same scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.

In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017 for bank records to prove he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.

There’s just one problem: The FBI’s public reliance on the ledger came months after the feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn’t be trusted and likely was a fake, according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.

(Read more from “Wait…the FBI Was Warned Key Document Used to Investigate Paul Manafort Was Probably Fake?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dem Staffer Who Doxxed GOP Senators During Kavanaugh Fight Is Going to Prison

The Supreme Court fight over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh was brutal. It was vicious. It was everything that politics is at heart: warfare. We are a nation of blue states and red states. There are Democrats and Republicans. There are liberals and conservatives. We don’t get along. We don’t like each other. And we share absolutely nothing in common. Our differences cannot be bridged. Our views of government cannot be reconciled. That was explicitly displayed as the Democrats tried to execute one of the most destructive character assassination attempts since Clarence Thomas. And the ammunition they used for this political assassination attempt was the equivalent of a .308 Winchester round: sexual assault. Most of the allegations couldn’t be corroborated. Most of them were trash. In reality, you need solid evidence, witnesses, etc., but Democrats decided to take the ‘belief is evidence’ route. That’s precisely wrong.

Throughout the battle, Republican senators were doxxed by a former aide to Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) who was sentenced to four years in jail for releasing their personal information. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Mike Lee (R-UT) were targeted in the doxxing scheme. It was the largest data breach in the Senate’s history (via Politico):

A former aide to Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) was sentenced to four years in prison Wednesday for hacking Senate computers and releasing personal information online about five Republican senators out of anger spurred by their roles in the confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan said the sentence for Jackson Cosko, 27, was needed to send a signal that criminal harassment driven by political motives would be punished severely in an era marked by extreme political polarization.

(Read more from “Dem Staffer Who Doxxed GOP Senators During Kavanaugh Fight Is Going to Prison” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE