In the first of several bombshells that dropped as the first official day of the Democrat’s “Impeachment Inquiry” into President Donald J. Trump began on Monday, we have learned that Adam Schiff’s and his “hit squad” have subpoenaed Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
Just before 4PM in Washington DC on Monday, the Democratic chairmen of three House committees subpoenaed Giuliani for documents related to the President’s request for an investigation by Ukrainian officials into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings cited Giuliani’s cable news appearances, saying that the former New York City mayor admitted on national television that, while serving as the president’s personal attorney, he asked the government of Ukraine to “target Biden.”
In addition to this stark admission, the chairmen wrote, “you stated more recently that you are in possession of evidence — in the form of text messages, phone records, and other communications — indicating that you were not acting alone and that other Trump Administration officials may have been involved in this scheme.”
Then, just minutes later, a second bombshell. At 4:04 p.m., the Wall Street Journal reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was among those who listened in on Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky which is the basis of the latest brouhaha.
Last week, when Pompeo was interviewed by ABC News, he denied having any firsthand knowledge about what Trump and Zelensky discussed.
Durham Probe Does Involve Ukraine and Other Countries
Meanwhile, as Democrats were salivating over this breaking news, at the behest of AG William Barr, John Durham’s probe into the unravelling origins of the Mueller Probe is continuing. Fox News has learned that as part of the investigation, Trump had directed Barr to contact other countries, including but not limited to Ukraine, to make them aware that the US was actively investigating the events surrounding the creation and acquisition of the so-called “Steele Dossier” that launched the Mueller Probe.
Barr described his communications with UK, Australia and Ukraine on the matter, as being at the behest of the President, but there was no pressure put on the dignitaries with whom he had contact.
A person familiar with the situation, agreed with Barr’s assessment, telling Fox News, that it would be wrong to say Trump “pressed” the Australian prime minister for information that could have discredited former Special Counsel Mueller’s now-completed probe, as The New York Times reported earlier Monday.
“The countries have been helpful,” the source said. “There was no pressing required.”
A senior Australian diplomat told Fox News, “After the President said what he said – we initiated the contact. There was no pressure — we acted in order to help.”
In issuing his directive, the President was letting the heads of other countries know that the attorney general would be contacting the appropriate law enforcement entities in each country, according to the DOJ official. When Barr was in Italy last week, he did talk to law enforcement officials there about Durham’s review, Fox News was told.
President reached into my neck of the woods to nominate another great judge for a lifetime appointment to the United States Federal District Court for southern Florida. In fact, he plucked his choice from the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic Broward County.
The nomination of Anuraag “Raag” Singhal – who currently serves as a Circuit Court judge – has previously served as an assistant state attorney and a criminal defense lawyer. He had previously served as president of the Broward Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (BACDL). Singhal is a first generation American. His parents migrated to the United States from India.
In view of the bogus racist narratives being flung at Trump, the appointment of a minority is likely to conflict the politically correct Democrats in dealing with this nomination. Even so, the hardcore left will do everything they can to destroy the reputation of Singhal. It will not be easy.
Singhal has earned a primo reputation within the legal community – including from Democrats. That is significant since the judge is considered politically and judicially conservative. For conservatives, Singhal is a diamond among political cinders.
Singhal has been a member of the Federalist Society – an organization that vets and recommends highly qualified conservative judges for high court appointments. He is also a member of another conservative legal professional organization, the Thomas More Society.
This has not stopped the local legal establishment – mostly Democrats – from heaping high praise in Singhal. The man who succeeded him as president of BACDL, Democrat State Representative says Singhal is “a “lawyer’s lawyer” who represented his clients with “intensity and integrity … no theatrics, just true grit.”
The former mayor of Ft. Lauderdale, Jack Seiler, referred to Singhal a “a very thoughtful, intellectual judge. He treats everybody with respect, whether you’re a lawyer, a juror, a party, a witness,” – adding that “Integrity again comes to mind when thinking of his career as a judge.”
Singhal has handled several very controversial cases. He ruled that deposed Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes had broken the law when she prematurely destroyed thousands of ballots during a challenge. He was assigned to handle the risk assessment of those who were subjected to the new Red Flag law enabling law enforcement to seize weapons from those believed to be potentially dangerous. The law was enacted after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
As a District judge, Singhal will not make determinations of constitutionality. He will basically deal with matters of fact in civil and criminal cases. But this is a guy who could easily rise to the Appellate and even the Supreme Court. We should keep an eye on Singhal when there is another vacancy on the highest court in the land.
So, there ‘tis.
There are gaffes and then there are career ending gaffes. Even the normally left-friendly Washington Post, has been forced to admit that, former Vice President Joe Biden’s “record player” remark during the most recent Democratic Presidential Debate, was one of the latter.
Writing in the WashPo, columnist Hugh Hewitt says that Biden will likly never live down the record player kafuffle, and I agree. Hewitt says, “This was more than a gaffe that causes eye rolls. It was one of those gaffes that underscores a candidate’s central weakness and continues to bleed away votes long after its utterance.” Yep.
To remind you of what Hewitt is talking about, let’s look at the incident verbatim. Debate moderator Linsey Davis asked the 76 year-old former Veep, “In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, ‘I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.’”
“You said that some 40 years ago,” Davis continued. “But as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?”
Biden replied, “Well, they have to deal with the — look, there’s institutional segregation in this country. From the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Redlining banks, making sure we are in a position where — look, you talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend from $15 to $45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise, the equal raise to getting out — the $60,000 level.”
Biden’s seeming non-sequitur rant went on, “Number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy. The teachers are — I’m married to a teacher, my deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. Make sure that every single child does, in fact, have 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds go to school. School. Not day care. School. We bring social workers in to homes and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children.”
And then this happened, Biden continued, “It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t — they don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the — the — make sure that kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school — a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.”
So the moderator asked about America’s original sin — slavery — and Biden somehow got to “turning on record players,” which, says Hewitt, “wasn’t an effort to coax the hipster vote away from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) no matter how much the millennials love vinyl.”
Rather, Biden’s response was an incoherent, rambling, illustration of Biden’s key weakness — his age. Former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro, during the debate, and Sen. Cory Booker, afterward, made this argument, first indirectly, then directly, but they didn’t need to. With this single response, which is going to stick to him like flypaper, Biden indicted himself on the age question.
Desperate to press any advantage they can find to maintain control of the House, and limit the Republican majority in the Senate, the Democrats have launched a futile bid for statehood for Washington D.C.
The Democrats that are behind the efforts say it is because “the people of the District of Columbia” lake representation in Congress. However, their motivation for statehood for D.C. couldn’t be more obvious. If it were to become the 51st state — Democrats would likely gain two new senators and one House representative — a reality which has played into the political motivations behind supporting or opposing the idea.
However, political agendas aside, Republicans oppose the measure because of concerns about reports of corruption and the scandals involving local officials that have rocked the District in recent months.
For example — Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said he wanted the hearing on the matter to delve into the ongoing scandal involving D.C. Councilman Jack Evans.
Evans resigned from his role as the chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority board this summer after an internal investigation determined that he failed to disclose a profitable conflict of interest.
“Sadly the allegations against Mr. Evans are just the latest in a series of local D.C. political scandals,” Jordan said, ticking off several former D.C. city officials embroiled in past scandals. “We cannot and should not ignore these unpleasant facts.”
However, Jordan said that Committee Democrats denied his request.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the sponsor of the D.C. statehood bill and the district’s non-voting House representative, pushed back against the argument.
“The allegations against Mr. Evans have nothing to do with D.C. statehood,” she said.
Not a Single Republican Supports Statehood for D.C.
The D.C. statehood bill has more than 200 co-sponsors and the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, both Democrats. No Republicans in Congress have signed on to the legislation.
The bill calls for districtwide elections of two senators and one House representative. It says all district territory would be included in the declaration, save for specific exclusions of federal buildings and monuments, such as the White House and the Capitol.
Democrats argued that statehood is needed because D.C. residents lack adequate representation in Congress.
“D.C. residents have all of the responsibilities of citizenship but they have no congressional voting rights and only limited self-government,” the Democratic committee chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, said in a prepared statement, which was read by Holmes Norton at the hearing.
But, in opposition, the Republicans said that the framers of the Constitution intended for the nation’s capital to be a federal district.
“This is not what the Founding Fathers intended,” Jordan said. “They understood and they carefully crafted the Constitution so that the seat of the federal government would purposely and specifically not be within a state.”
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has vowed to oppose the statehood bill.
Speaking to Fox News’ Laura Ingraham this past summer, McConnell said Democrats want D.C. statehood so they can get “two new Democratic senators” and said “as long as I’m the majority leader of the Senate, none of that stuff is going anywhere.”
Probably because he has the writing on the wall, Bernie Sanders has just made a big change to his ground game in the crucial Democratic primary state of New Hampshire.
For months now, and especially since Elizabeth Warren’s performance in the 3rd Democratic Debate, longtime supporters of Bernie have been warning him that he could lose the New Hampshire primary.
I guess he is now listening to those concerns. On Sunday, Sanders replaced the director of his presidential campaign operations in the New Hampshire. New Hampshire as you know, holds the first primary in the race for the White House
The campaign broke the news to more than 40 members of Sanders’ steering committee. Shannon Jackson, who made the announcement, will replace Joe Caiazzo as the state director. Jackson ran Sanders’ 2018 Senate re-election campaign and was a senior adviser on the independent senator’s 2016 White House bid as well as the current campaign.
“Thank God the campaign finally figured out they had to make serious changes in New Hampshire,” a longtime Sanders backer who attended the meeting told Fox News.
The move comes as some Sanders supporters in New Hampshire are looking over their shoulders at Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – the other progressive standard-bearer in the record-setting field of Democratic presidential candidates.
Recent polls in New Hampshire have been inconsistent. A recent live telephone operator survey from the Boston Herald and Franklin Pierce University indicated Sanders at 29 percent, overall front-runner and former Vice President Joe Biden at 21 percent and Elizabeth Warren at 19 percent.
But another recent poll suggested a three-way tie between the three top-tier contenders and a yet a third suggested Sanders lagging painfully behind Biden and Warren.
Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement released to the press on Sunday that “we’ve built a great team in NH and are in a really strong position there. The campaign is now building out our operations to include Massachusetts and Maine state directors as we increase our focus in Super Tuesday states. We are running a 50 state campaign, taking no state or voters for granted and expanding our operations to secure the Democratic nomination.”
Caiazzo was moved to one of those Super Tuesday states – Massachusetts. Caiazzo served as the Sanders 2016 campaign’s state director in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Is New Hampshire a Must Win for Bernie?
While Bernie himself has indicated the contrary, a well-known New Hampshire based political scientist says that the Granite State is a “must win” for Warren or Bernie if either of them is to get the nomination. “New Hampshire is a must-win-or-place state for Senators Sanders and Warren,” said Wayne Lesperance, the vice president of academic affairs and a political science professor at New England College.
“For both candidates, there is no better home-field advantage in the early states than the Granite State.
I am not into conspiratorial theories and I do admit that the headline is a bit provocative. BUT these are unusual times and the loyal opposition – as we once called the out party – seems to have discarded the “loyal” adjective.
It started with the efforts to upset the 2016 election by having the Electoral College to break faith and elect someone other than Donald Trump as President of the United States. Failing at that, the newly formed #NeverTrump Resistance Movement tried to have Congress block Trump’s inauguration – although that is not in the purview of Congress to do such a thing. It was an act of nutty desperation.
Even before Trump took the oath of office, the calls for impeachment were voiced from the radical left within the Democratic Party. Never has it been suggested that a President be impeached BEFORE he took office. It would have been more understandable had California and New York – the epicenters of Trump hatred – led an effort to secede from the Union as the Democrats did when Abraham Lincoln was elected. Only this time there would have been no effort to stop them.
In the early days of the Trump administration, certain figures in the intelligence and law enforcement leadership elevated the Resistance Movement to the level of a bit of a d’état. Remember, former FBI Director James Comey admitted under oath that he leaked documents in order to have a special counsel named – and why would you do that unless you wanted to build a case for the removal of the President?
This led to the dubious Russian collusion investigation that fell short when Special Counsel Robert Mueller found that Trump & Co. did NOT conspire with the Russians – and he further refused to allege charges of obstruction of justice. With that strategy in shambles – and the soiled hands of the coup plotters being investigated by the Inspector General – Democrats took advantage to launch more investigations of Trump than the mythical Medusa had serpents as a poisonous hairpiece – including a faux impeachment effort.
They have called for virtually every member of the Cabinet to resign at one time or another – most recently Attorney General Robert Barr.
Having failed to block both the seating of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh as justices of the Supreme Court, they now want to reclaim a liberal majority by calling for the impeachment of Kavanaugh. There is nothing … absolutely nothing … that Kavanaugh has done since assuming his seat on the high court that would remotely justify an impeachment.
Rather, the Resistance Movement Democrats want to re-do the confirmation hearings – just as they are now trying to re-do the Mueller investigation. They say Kavanaugh lied under oath – which they had alleged during the hearings. They say that the FBI failed to follow up on accusations that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a couple of drunken frat parties during his days at Yale.
(I must stop and digress. Are they kidding? We do not know if it is true or not. Kavanaugh denies it. BUT … a college kid gets drunk and whips out his wang at a frat party??? Or maybe it was just “mooning” – a kids craze as long as I can remember. Even if true, it hardly warrants even a discussion of impeachment. Oh! For the record … I never did. It is sort of like a gun. Don’t pull it out unless you intend to use it. I do have to confess, however, that a group of my classmates and I did “moon” the girls’ dorm one night. So, enough of this salacious digression.)
Kavanaugh went through one of the most thorough investigations and hearings in American history. Do you recall how the hearings were extended because the Democrats said the FBI had not finished looking into all the dark corners. The further investigation found nothing new except a phony accusation trumped up by discredited attorney Michael Avenatti.
So, now the Democrats are AGAIN saying the investigation by the FBI was insufficient. As long as they do not get the results they want, Democrats seem determined to go over the same ground in endless pursuit of something that does not exist.
The Democrats primary objective is not oversight. It is not seeking the truth. It is not upholding the rule-of-law. It is to use … abuse, that is … the power of Congress to disrupt and unseat the duly elected government of America. It is a raw and dangerous attempt to regain the power they lost in the 2016 election.
So, there ‘tis.
In a bold move Senator Lindsey Graham has pressed the Justice Department to declassify material related to Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The South Carolina Republican’s letter sent to Attorney General William Barr was discussed during a recent interview Monday on Fox News.
Asked what he wants to know, Graham said, “As much declassification as possible. I want the public to see the process in real time. I want the FISA warrant applications to be revealed to the public as much as possible.”
More than 400 pages of redacted FISA documents related to one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page were released on July 21, 2018.
Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is concerned the FBI and Justice Department misled the FISA Court in late 2016 and 2017, by relying on an unverified anti-Trump dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele to wiretap Page.
The so-called “Steele Dossier” was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Investigators into the origins of the “Mueller Probe,” say the author’s bias against President Trump were never made clear in the FISA applications, and they have demanded accountability.
Democrats countered that the FBI acted appropriately, saying the Justice Department and the FBI “met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis for probable cause.”
“Manipulation and Bias”
Graham said he is “looking for a pattern of manipulation and bias” and mentioned former FBI Director James Comey, who was strongly rebuked in an inspector general report on the handling of his memos documenting conversations with Trump.
Attorney General Barr has said he is working closely with Horowitz, whose FISA report is expected to be released very soon. The attorney general has tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham with leading a review of the origins of the Russia investigation and has been granted broad authority to declassify documents related to the endeavor.
As we reported earlier, Graham has said that he predicts that Horowitz will give “chilling testimony” in front of his committee about his highly anticipated report on potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, once the report is public.
Struggling Democratic frontrunner and former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to have a blood vessel burst in his left eye while recently participating in CNN’s town hall on climate change.
A broken blood vessel in the eye, also known as a subconjunctival hemorrhage, can be caused by several things, including high blood pressure, bleeding disorders, blood thinners, or even excessive stress.
Biden, 76, has long been plagued by health issues. In 1988, he suffered an aneurysm that burst and required him to undergo emergency surgery. The then-senator was so close to death that a Catholic priest began preparing to administer the sacrament of last rites. Months later, surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it burst. Biden then took a seven-month leave from the Senate following the surgery. Describing the operation, he once said, “They literally had to take the top of my head off.”
The former VP’s wife, Jill, said in her recently released autobiography Where the Light Enters, that at the time, she feared her husband would never be the same. “Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn’t survive surgery,” she wrote. “He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech.”
Could this be the cause of Biden’s recent spate of gaffes and verbal blunders, and does it cast troubling doubt on his fitness to be president?
Biden Has Many Reported Health Issues
Doctors removed a benign polyp during a colonoscopy in 1996. In 2003, Biden had his gallbladder removed.
He suffers from asthma and allergies and takes a prescription drug to lower his cholesterol. He has also taken medication for an enlarged prostate.
Biden hasn’t disclosed his medical history since 2008, when doctors found he had an irregular heartbeat.
However, despite this and the ongoing mental gaffes, his wife and others close to Biden nevertheless maintain that he is “a picture of health.”
If he were to win the 2020 presidential election, Biden would be the oldest president ever to be inaugurated.
“Ilhan Omar stole my husband!”
That is the shocking claim made by Washington DC mom, Dr. Beth Mynett. Mynett says her husband, a political-consultant, dumped her for Omar, according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The NY Post.
Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative — and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he left his wife, for the Muslim Freshman Congresswoman. This, according to the divorce papers submitted in DC Superior Court on August 27.
The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband — who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison — have a 13-year-old son together.
“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.
“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.
“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.
Omar’s own marriage has been under scrutiny amid allegations that she married her brother and committed immigration fraud. Omar called that allegation “absolutely false and ridiculous.”
The freshman Congresswoman married her husband, Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, in 2002 during a faith ceremony, but did not legally marry at the time. The couple had two children before they separated in 2008. The next year, Omar legally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. The two split in 2011. The same year, Omar and Hirsi reconciled, but did not legally divorce until 2017. Omar and Hirsi had a third child together in 2012 and legally married in early 2018.
Omar Continues to Ignite Controversy and Draw Ire of Both Parties
Omar continues to attract controversy, and she is drawing the ire of even members of her own party. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., called out members of both parties last week, claiming they helped further anti-Semitism in the nation’s “political dialogue.”
“The growing anti-Semitism in our political dialogue is repugnant,” Nadler said. He pointed to Trump’s comments about “disloyalty” in Jews who voted for Democrats, as you might expect from the long-time foe of Trump. However, Nadler also pointed to a vile cartoon forwarded by Omar and the two progressive Congresswomen, who have already been in the news for a failed attempt to enter Israel.
Omar has been criticized for tweeting in 2012 that “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
Omar and fellow freshman Muslim Congresswoman, Rashida Harbi Tlaib were also two of just a handful of Democrats who voted against an overwhelmingly approved measure opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. When Omar countered that measure with her own resolution, she likened boycotts to those against the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
That action prompted the State Department to update the definition of anti-Semitism to include “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
According to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) earlier this week, Representative Ilhan Omar violated campaign finance law by using tens of thousands campaign dollars to pursue an adulterous relationship with Tim Mynett – a married Democratic consultant.
FEC records indicate that Omar’s campaign had disbursed $223,000 to Mynett’s company, E. Street Group, LLC, between August 2018 and June 2019, mainly for fundraising consulting. However, on April 1st, records show that her campaign made payments to E. Street Group for “travel expenses.”
Less than a week later, the Democratic consultant confessed to his wife Dr. Beth Jordan Mynnet that he was having an extra-martial affair with the Somali congresswoman, according to a divorce filing that was submitted earlier in the week Mynett’s wife.
Within the divorce filing, Dr. Beth Mynett wrote that her husband’s “more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than with his actual work commitments.”
Throughout April and June, FEC records indicate that $21,547 was disbursed by Omar’s campaign to pay for ‘travel expenses’ for E. Street group.
As per business filings that were submitted to the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 38-year-old Tim Mynett is a partner of E. Street Group, LLC.
According to the FEC complaint that was filed earlier in the week by the center-right National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), the timing of Representative Omar campaign’s travel reimbursement to Mynett’s company coinciding with the beginning of the alleged affair between the two is quite suspicious.
In its complaint, the NLPC wrote: “If Ilhan for Congress reimbursed Mynett’s LLC for travel so that Rep. Omar would have the benefit of Mynett’s romantic companionship, the expenditures must be considered personal in nature.”
Also in its complaint, the NLPC mentions that FEC regulations bar the use of campaign funds for personal travel except when the candidate’s personal finances are used to pay back their campaign.
The NLPC said that “Omar’s filings do not reveal subsequent reimbursements for Mynett’s travel.”
This isn’t the first time Omar has been accused of misusing campaign funds. Just last year, a Republican state representative accused of using $2,250 in campaign money to pay a lawyer for divorce proceedings.
In recent months, Tim Mynett and Omar have been pictured together at several events. In March, Mynett was seen by the congresswoman’s side during a fundraiser for CAIR where she infamously described the 9/11 terror attacks as simply “some people did something.”