Red Blue Divide

“White supremacy kills.”

That was Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s online reaction to a shooting at a grocery store in New Jersey in which four victims were fatally shot:

The issue with her response is that, according to NBC News, authorities are investigating the tragedy as a “potential act of domestic terrorism fueled both by anti-Semitism and anti-law enforcement beliefs.” Also, it was later revealed that the two deceased shooting suspects are black.

The Michigan Democrat has since removed her Twitter post, replacing it with the following:

It was beyond heartbreaking to learn of what appears to be another anti-Semitic act of violence. The hate growing in our country is toxic. https://t.co/UuRANNA9ZZ

— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) December 11, 2019

In addition to 24-year-old Moshe Deutsch, other victims included fellow Hasidic Jew Mindy Ferencz, 31, Douglas “Miguel” Rodriguez, a 49-year-old Ecuadorian immigrant, and New Jersey Police Detective Joseph Seals, who was gunned down in a cemetery before the shooters terrorized the kosher grocery store.

Gurbir S. Grewal, New Jersey’s Attorney General, described the suspects Francine Graham, 50, and David Anderson, 47, as having “views that reflected the hatred of the Jewish people as well as the hatred of law enforcement.” He continued: “We are still working to determine how they selected their particular targets for these attacks, specifically both the JC Kosher Supermarket and Detective Joseph Seals.”

After what NBC describes as an “hours long standoff and intense shootout” in the supermarket, police broke through the store’s front door via armored vehicle. It was then that law enforcement found the dead bodies of Graham and Anderson.

Grewal also informed the public that the authorities have what they believe to have been the firearms used by the suspects, two of which were purchased in Ohio by Graham.

Sources: NBC, New York Post

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff

Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder is letting everyone know precisely what he thinks of the current leader of the justice department, William Barr.

In an op-ed penned for The Washington Post, Holder attacked Barr both professionally and personally. In part, he wrote: “Barr has made a series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate for America’s chief law enforcement official that they demand a response from someone who held the same office.”

Holder served as former President Obama’s high-profile AG from 2009 to 2015. For a time, it was being speculated that he was considering throwing his hat into the 2020 presidential race. While that never transpired, Holder has made headlines for his behind-the-scenes political work. An an active part of the National Redistricting Action Fund, Holder and his team work to alter “…manipulated electoral maps that were drawn by Republicans.”

In his WaPo op-ed, Holder also expressed fear that Barr’s alleged fecklessness could have ramifications for years to come: “Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage.”

The Daily Mail notes the rarity with which former government criticize those who later fill their posts. However, given the hyper-politicized nature of modern-day politics, it probably comes as a surprise to few. Holder acknowledged this sentiment as he claimed, “I am reluctant to publicly criticize my successors.”

Barr’s most recent egregious offense, according to Holder? His commenting on John Durham’s ongoing investigation following the release of Michael Horowitz’ IG report: “It was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report — based on an exhaustive review of the FBI’s conduct — using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered.”

Although Holder stays active working to bring out the goals of the National Redistricting Action Fund, one can almost be sure he will come forward again regarding the findings of the Durham report–whatever they may be.

Source: Daily Mail, Washington Post

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

In perhaps his most unabashed criticism of Donald Trump to-date, “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace claimed that the First Amendment has never before endured anything quite like the president’s “direct” attacks.

Wallace’s remarks were made during his well-received speech to before a crowd at Newseum, the Washington D.C. media museum, The Guardian reports. “I believe that President Trump is engaged in the most direct sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history,” the Fox anchor proclaimed to much applause.

Wallace was invited to speak at Newseum as part of a farewell event, for the museum is shutting down its location in America’s Capital nearly 12 years after opening its doors.

During his address, the Fox News host conceded that the president’s harsh criticism of the press had, at least in part, been effective: “Let’s be honest, the president’s attacks have done some damage. A Freedom Forum Institute poll, associated here with the Newseum, this year found that 29% of Americans, almost a third of all of us, think the first amendment goes too far. And 77%, three quarters, say that fake news is a serious threat to our democracy.”

Wallace’s remarks were in response to the following sort of sentiments expressed by President Trump:

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017

Wallace has specifically been on the receiving end of Trump’s attacks. Recently, the president referred to him as both “nasty” and “obnoxious,” additionally claiming that Wallace would never live up to the legacy left by his father and iconic reporter, Mike Wallace.

During his speech, Wallace further claimed that Trump’s “clear” goal of attacking the media is done for his own personal benefit, so that the public will doubt the veracity of critical news reports, thereby by fostering a general sense of mistrust regarding the press as a whole.

Source: The Guardian

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff

They now both belong to an exclusive club of being named Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year,” but President Donald Trump isn’t exactly extending congratulatory messages to teen climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Quite the opposite, in fact, as reported by the Daily Mail.

One day after Thunberg was selected by Time, the president took to Twitter to sarcastically troll the radical environmentalist:

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill! https://t.co/M8ZtS8okzE

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2019

As a means of responding to public criticism and to presumably illustrate they do not bother her in the slightest, Thunberg is known for taking attacks hurled against her and incorporating them into her Twitter biography. Shortly after Trump’s trolling, Thunberg responded by updated her bio to read: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

At 16 years of age, Thunberg is the youngest person to be featured as Time’s “Person of the Year.” However, President Trump is not the only world leader to be critical of her efforts or character. A couple of days prior to Trump’s insult, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro referred to the environmentalist teen as “a brat,” as reported in the New York Post.

Bolsonaro’s attack came in response to Thunberg’s description of the alleged plight facing the indigenous peoples of Brazil: https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1203732257401380869?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1203732257401380869&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredbluedivide.com%2Fa-brat-environmental-activist-greta-thunberg-insulted-by-president-of-brazil%2F

While speaking to journalists after Thunberg’s online post, Brazil’s president said, “Greta said that the Indians died because they were defending the Amazon. It’s impressive that the press is giving space to a brat like that.”

No one ever said that being a worldwide activist (or Time’s “Person of the Year”) would be easy.

Sources: Daily Mail, New York Post

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

It appears that President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are of different minds when it comes to a prospective senate impeachment trial.

As pointed out in the Associated Press, the president views the looming senate trial not only as a means of clear vindication, but as a vehicle for political retaliation. Furthermore, team-Trump believes they could turn the tables on Democrats by calling their own witnesses, perhaps even the likes of Hunter Biden, Congressman Adam Schiff, the anonymous whistleblower, and Democratic front-runner Joe Biden, all of which could potentially turn voters against Democrats in 2020.

However, all of this sounds far too chaotic for the likes of “The Turtle,” aka McConnell. The Republican leader is even said to have referred to such a scenario as “mutually assured destruction” during a private lunch according to the Daily Mail. In lieu of political theatrics, McConnell wants a trial that is short and sweet; a trial that ends with a quick acquittal of the president.

The Kentucky politician’s apprehension regarding a full-blown senate trial is not without good reason. As noted in the Daily Mail, McConnell is concerned that, in order for the senate to grant the defense its desired witnesses, Democrats may also fight to have witnesses of their own testify. The resulting back-and-forth could result in unforeseen, potentially damaging developments, and could obviously drag along the process much more than would be necessary for a simple acquittal.

Asked by reporters to speculate on the likely trial, McConnell responded: “Here’s what I would anticipate: The House managers would come over, make their arguments, the president’s lawyers would then respond,” the majority leader predicted. “And at that point the Senate has two choices: It could go down the path of calling witnesses and basically having another trial. Or it could decide — and again 51 members could make that decision — that they’ve heard enough.”

Lindsey Graham has issued similar statements in favor of a quick process. “Here’s my advice to the president,” opined the Senate Judiciary Chairman. “If the Senate is ready to vote and acquit you, you should celebrate that.”

Sources: Associated Press, Daily Mail, Fox News

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

It appears as though James Comey’s initial celebration has been cut short. Following release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ probe into the beginnings of the controversial Russia probe has been cut short, the former FBI director proceeded as though all of the controversies surrounding his tenure as head of the bureau were simply a thing of the past.

After its findings were made pubic on Monday, the former head of the FBI aired his thoughts on his Twitter page:

So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America. https://t.co/9nurCaIBq2

— James Comey (@Comey) December 9, 2019

However, during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the inspector general strongly indicated that the matter may not be as simple as Comey would like the public to believe, as detailed a report on CNBC. Following a line of questioning from Chairman Lindsey Graham regarding Comey’s remarks, Horowitz responded simply: “The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody.”

Graham made it clear during the hearing that he intends to hold the FBI, and those who allegedly abused their intelligence powers pursuant to the Russia investigation, accountable. “My goal,” Graham proclaimed “is to make sure when this is over… you look at this as more than a few irregularities. What happened here is the system failed. People at the highest level of our government took the law into their own hands.”

The definitive ramifications of Horowitz’ report are still rather elusive. During the hearing, he reiterated that neither “documentary or testimonial evidence” was uncovered that proved political bias to be the driving force behind the the Trump-Russia probe.

It also must be remembered that unlike the to-be-released findings of U.S. attorney John Durham’s investigation, Horowitz’ undertaking was not the same sort of criminal inquiry, nor was it as wide ranging in its scope.

Who knows–By the time Durham’s findings are made public, very few people may even remember the name ‘Horowitz.’

Sources: CNBC, New York Post

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.