The U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 incident announced on Monday that it requested a meeting with Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05). The committee called cooperation “a patriotic duty.” They asked that Biggs meet with them as soon as next Monday.
In a letter, the January 6 Committee informed Biggs of four of an undisclosed number of issues it wished to discuss.
The first issue concerned his participation in meetings to reject the election results, citing one House Freedom Caucus meeting which discussed a plan for former Vice President Mike Pence to refuse certain states’ electoral votes. The second issue concerned claims from Ali Alexander — an organizer of Stop the Steal, a campaign to resist the 2020 election results — that Biggs helped organize the January 6 protest. The third issue concerned Biggs’ communications with former President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that reportedly marked efforts to persuade elected officials in overturning the 2020 election. The fourth issue concerned Biggs’ name appearing among those requesting presidential pardons for involvement in election overturning efforts.
The committee said that it would use Biggs’ cooperation to “make informed legislative recommendations.”
In raising each issue, the committee associated Biggs’ relation to Trump’s attempts to undermine American democracy and the Constitution, as well as Alexander’s calls for violence preceding January 6.
Biggs hasn’t issued a statement on the committee’s letter.
The committee also requested cooperation from Congressmen Mo Brooks (R-AL-05) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX-13). Each congressman received a letter tailored to their involvement in the January 6 rally and Capitol breach.
The Select Committee has requested cooperation from three additional members of the House of Representatives: • Rep. Andy Biggs • Rep. Mo Brooks • Rep. Ronny Jackson pic.twitter.com/ioB1rGxAG5
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) May 2, 2022
Brooks’ letter concerned his public remarks on a televised interview with CBS News and a press release in March. He claimed that Trump asked him to rescind the 2020 election results. Brooks said that he refused. The committee wanted to glean from Brooks additional evidence that Trump intended “to restore himself to power through unlawful means,” in a manner adverse to the Constitution.
Jackson’s letter was the lengthiest. It included encrypted text messages from the founder and various members of Oath Keepers, a right-wing militia organization formed to defend the Constitution against perceived violations from government. Those messages asked members that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6 to locate and protect Jackson because he had “critical data to protect.”
The committee asked Jackson why those charged with seditious conspiracy were attempting to protect him. Additionally, they asked Jackson to expound on his participation in the rally preceding the Capitol breach and efforts to barricade the House Chamber during the breach.
Like Biggs, neither Brooks or Jackson have issued statements on their committee letters.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) and State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) will not be disqualified from the upcoming midterm elections for organizing the January 6 protest, a judge ruled on Friday.
The question before the court was whether the three candidates violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the “Disqualification Clause.” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right of action to determine such a violation under the Constitution or supporting law.
Coury explained that the lawsuit’s argument for exercising the 14th Amendment contradicted legal precedent: the 1869 ruling for In Re Griffin, for example. Coury wrote that precedent, coupled with context of the amendment within the article, empowered Congress to exercise the 14th Amendment — not individual states or the people.
“[T]he Constitution provides legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause. Aside from criminal statutes dealing with insurrection and rebellion which Congress has enacted (lawsuits which require the government, not private citizens, to initiate), Congress has not passed legislation that is presently in effect which enforces the Disqualification Clause against the Candidates,” wrote Coury. “The text of the Constitution is mandatory. It sets forth the single arbiter of the qualifications of members of Congress; that single arbiter is Congress. It would contradict the plain language of the United States Constitution for this Court to conduct any trial over the qualifications of a member of Congress.”
The judge also rejected the argument that Arizona law enabled a private right of action to enforce the Disqualification Clause where the Constitution and federal law didn’t. Coury distinguished the term “prescribed” from “proscribed,” ruling that the Arizona law in question encompassed requirements for holding office, not disqualifications. Coury added that his interpretation was consistent with state and federal precedent.
Coury also noted that none of the three men were charged with or convicted of insurrection or rebellion. He refused to rule on the merits of the allegations of insurrection made against Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem.
The lawsuit was filed by Free Speech For People, a Democrat-backed, progressive nonprofit. The organization was ruled against last month as well in a similar lawsuit against Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R-NC-11). Another one of their similar lawsuits against Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) had a hearing on Friday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and the rest of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform are probing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision last fall to ban media outlets’ drones from flying over the southern border.
On Monday, the committee announced that its ranking member, Congressman James Comer (R-KY-01), sent a response letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson. According to their press release, “heavily redacted documents” provided by the FAA in response to an initial committee letter revealed that an FAA headquarters manager believed that banning drones would be illegal initially. However, an “unknown U.S. Customs and Border Protection official” called the manager and convinced that person to change their mind.
“The FAA’s decision to abruptly reverse course on the legality of banning media drones raises questions about potential political interference at the agency to hide President Biden’s border crisis from the public,” read the letter. “That telephonic or other assistance apparently changed FAA’s opinion on the legality of issuing a TFR. Ultimately, the TFR was issued later that evening, raising concerns about its legality and FAA’s rationale for changing its position. These emails call into question FAA’s conduct, particularly where a TFR may have been issued improperly and for the purpose of disrupting media attention related to the border crisis. The American people have a right to transparency when it comes to President Biden’s failed border and interior enforcement policies.”
The FAA banned media drones from covering the border crisis in September.
The American people have a right to transparency when it comes to President Biden’s failed border and interior enforcement policies.
The FAA first announced its ban in mid-September of last year. At the time, media outlets were informed that the ban was a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) of two weeks. It’s now been a little over six months.
NEW: We’ve learned that the FAA just implemented a two week TFR (Temporary Flight Restrictions) over the international bridge in Del Rio, TX, meaning we can no longer fly our FOX drone over it to show images of the thousands of migrants. FAA says “special security reason”. pic.twitter.com/aJrjAPO2Pz
However, the FAA reversed course again after some resistance from the media. Fox News received clearance to fly its drones the next day. In a later tweet, the FAA encouraged other outlets to apply for clearance. An FAA spokesperson later told Fox News that Border Patrol requested a temporary flight restriction because drones were interfering with those flights made by law enforcement.
. @FoxNews applied this morning and has received clearance to operate from now until the end of September in the restricted airspace linked below.
The ban occurred after media outlets filmed the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the Del Rio, Texas area of the border, especially focusing on those huddled under a bridge.
The committee requested more documents from the FAA pertaining to all documents and communications referring or relating to the day of the TFR, unredacted copies of the emails given to the committee, documents and communications from Biden’s inauguration to present regarding the legality of issuing the TFR, and an explanation of the legal basis relied on by the FAA to issue the TFR.
BORDER: Illegal immigrants wait to be transported by Border Patrol after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Del Rio.
Most are under the international bridge and out of public view.
Arizona State University (ASU) decided to cancel a prominent conservative program’s first annual fundraiser scheduled for next month, and there are conflicting explanations behind their decision. The event was arranged to honor prominent community leaders Dan and Carleen Brophy; 100 percent of the event proceeds were to go to the program.
Three different reasons for the event’s cancellation were given to different parties involved in the event. The first two related to technicalities: the uptick in COVID-19 cases, and one unnamed faculty member’s failure to follow ASU rules. The third had to do with a more contentious topic: the featured speakers.
ASU’s decision means that the program, Political History and Leadership (PHL), may not obtain funds it anticipated from the event, which was to take place at the Desert Botanical Garden. Each guest would have paid $250 for attendance, and tables of eight would’ve pulled in $2,000. The PHL Program is part of the School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies.
AZ Free News learned that ASU informed several of the featured speakers that the event was canceled due to the increase in COVID-19 cases.
Scientists hypothesize that COVID-19 likely functions as a seasonal disease. Last year, the case counts for February were nominal after the holiday spike.
AZ Free News also learned that ASU President Michael Crow wasn’t aware of the event or its cancellation, and that ASU would reschedule. However, emails obtained by AZ Free News indicated that the ASU administration was responsible for canceling the event.
ASU spokesman Jerry Gonzalez told AZ Free News a slightly different story. Gonzalez said that a faculty member broke the university’s scheduling protocol. When we asked which protocol was broken, ASU said it didn’t have any more information to provide.
“The event at the Desert Botanical Garden was canceled due to a breach of scheduling protocol by a faculty member in the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies,” said Gonzalez. “The university welcomes the opportunity for this event to be rescheduled following the required protocols.”
AZ Free News also inquired of the ASU Foundation, which was in charge of receiving the program funds earned from the event and approving any event planning. They didn’t respond to any of our emails.
A third potential reason surrounding the event cancellation had nothing to do with logistics. Some reported that they were informed that the event was canceled due to controversy over the choice of guest speakers: Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and former Utah congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz.
In a press release, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi derided ASU based on the claim that they canceled the fundraiser over Biggs and Chaffetz.
“It is outrageous that Michael Crow and ASU would cancel an ASU Foundation Fundraiser because they oppose the views and philosophy of the featured speakers attending the event. It is becoming clear that woke cancel culture has taken over every office at the University,” said Mussi. “ASU doesn’t have a problem with liberal activists and public officials appearing at the school for various events. It is well known that Democrat politicians, including US Senator Kyrsten Sinema, have in the past or currently work for the University at taxpayer expense. It only becomes a problem when the speaker is a conservative. If Michael Crow is going to surrender to the ‘cancel culture’ mob, then he is no longer fit to be ASU President and should resign.”
Those registered for the PHL event will receive full refunds.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) asserted that the left-leaning critics of comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan’s COVID-19 diagnosis reveals their true motives: vaccine mandates, with indifference to treating the infection. Biggs tweeted that the Left’s derision of Rogan for not being vaccinated was indicative of their real intentions.
“The Left’s anger that Joe Rogan used something other than a vaccine to fight Covid-19 is revealing,” tweeted Biggs on Thursday. “They don’t actually care about treating those infected. They just want to control you through vaccine mandates.”
On Wednesday, Rogan announced he’d been diagnosed with COVID-19 earlier that week. He reported feeling weary and run-down with a headache when he returned home on Saturday, and later developed a fever.
Rogan said that he felt his worst on Sunday, just before taking a cocktail of recommended and experimental treatments – including the antimalarial drug ivermectin, which has become controversial as of late for mainly being a “horse dewormer.”
“So we immediately threw the kitchen sink at it: all kinds of meds: monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pack, Prednisone – everything. And I also got an NAD drip and an IV drip, and I did that three days in a row,” said Rogan.
In response, a wide variety of outlets and leftist pundits claimed that Rogan was receiving the specific preparation of ivermectin used as a horse dewormer to treat his COVID-19. Among these critics were Yahoo! News, CNET, and CNN.
Even the FDA has mocked those considering reliance on the drug as a treatment for COVID-19. They shared an article warning against the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, discussing the differences in brief between physician-prescribed ivermectin with the preparations given to horses as a dewormer.
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” tweeted the FDA.
However, ivermectin has proven to have a growing number of life-saving uses in humans. Several researchers won the Nobel Prize as recently as 2015 for discovering that the drug proved effective against roundworm parasites and malaria.
Rogan reported feeling progressively better since his Sunday diagnosis, and “great” on Wednesday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
