FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A watchdog group is pushing Bank of America to conduct an inquiry in light of revelations from a House panel probing weaponization of government that financial institutions are providing customers’ information to the FBI and Treasury Department.  The National Legal and Policy Center submitted a shareholder resolution asking that the Bank of America’s board conduct a review. The bank, NLPC proposed, should provide a public report “concerning the legality and judgment of management’s decision-making, and insufficient disclosure specificity, regarding the dissemination to government agencies of customers’ personal information.” “If Bank of America was more transparent about how they disclose information, at least customers could look and say, ‘I want to do business with Bank of America,’ or ‘I don’t feel comfortable doing business with Bank of America,’” Paul Chesser, director of the corporate integrity project for the National Legal and Policy Center, told The Daily Signal on Wednesday.  Last week, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released a report critical of numerous financial institutions, Bank of America among them.  ??? ??????: ??? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????????Think your finances are private? Think again.https://t.co/Tifps0897q pic.twitter.com/nhRqN4JRsL— Weaponization Committee (@Weaponization) December 6, 2024 The House’s Dec. 6 report, titled “Financial Surveillance in the United States: How the Federal Government Weaponized the Bank Secrecy Act to Spy on Americans,” follows an interim report March 6 from the House.  “The FBI has manipulated the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing process to treat financial institutions as de facto arms of law enforcement, issuing ‘requests,’ without legal process, that amount to demands for information related to certain persons or activities it considers ‘suspicious,’” the new report says.  The report refers to the protest and riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as lawmakers certified the November 2020 election. “In the days and weeks after Jan. 6, 2021, the FBI coordinated with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to encourage financial institutions across the country to scour their data and file SARs on hundreds of Americans, if not more, without any clear criminal nexus,” the House report continues.  The federal government’s “access to Americans’ private data is widespread and virtually unchecked,” it adds. The NLPC submitted the shareholder resolution to Bank of America last month for its annual shareholder meeting, typically held in April. The center shared the resolution with The Daily Signal.  “Where else did this happen? There are FBI offices across the country with cases not as high profile as Jan. 6,” NLPC’s Chesser said.   A Bank of America spokesperson had no comment for this story for The Daily Signal.  But in reported statements last year, Bank of America said it followed all applicable laws in interacting with the Treasury Department and law enforcement.  The bank also reportedly said the interactions began when the Treasury Department urgently gathered major banks and law enforcement Jan. 15, 2021, and shared information regarding potential criminal activity that could disrupt the upcoming inauguration of Joe Biden as president.  “We have cooperated with the committee as they evaluate whether the laws we complied with should be changed,” Bank of America previously said. In an email statement to The Daily Signal, the FBI said it protects the rights of Americans, but declined to comment on the House report. “While we have no comment on the report, as a general matter the FBI frequently receives information from the private sector about possible criminal activity,” the FBI statement says. It adds: Financial institutions are required under the Bank Secrecy Act to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARS) on activity they deem reportable, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) shares the information with law enforcement. The FBI cannot open an investigation without evidence of a federal criminal violation or a threat to national security. We follow the law and the facts, and we never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment activity.” However, the National Legal and Policy Center’s shareholder resolution says the information shared with government falls outside the scope of what is required by law.  The proposed shareholder resolution also refers to the Capitol protest and riot on Jan. 6, 2021. “As BofA’s release of customer data relate[d] to the findings in the Weaponization Subcommittee report, the evidence shows no firearms were used at the Jan. 6, 2021 incident, and no one at the U.S. Capitol was injured or killed with one, except one woman protester by an officer,” the shareholder resolution says.  “Thus,” it adds, “the company’s actions fall outside the scope of U.S. disclosure laws, and are incongruent with BofA’s assurances that it keeps customer information private. As a result, the company deceived its customers and betrayed their trust.” The NLPC’s shareholder resolution also says of Bank of America: “The company’s customer privacy and security disclosures are weak and vague as they pertain to release of data to authorities, stating only that it shares personal information with ‘government agencies as required by laws and regulations.’” The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act, aimed at preventing money laundering or terrorist financing, authorizes the Treasury Department to impose reporting obligations on financial institutions. The law requires banks to file reports, such as Suspicious Activity Reports, or SARs, and Currency Transaction Reports, or CTRs, with the federal government reflecting customers’ financial activities. The House report asserts that the FBI “gets around the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act.” It says that at least one financial institution requested a legal process from the FBI for information sought by the bureau, but adds that “all too often the FBI appeared to receive no pushback.”  “In sum, by providing financial institutions with lists of people that it views as generally ‘suspicious’ on the front end, the FBI has turned this framework on its head and contravened the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause,” the House report says.  The National Legal and Policy Center’s shareholder resolution cites the March interim report from the House, which concluded that Bank of America “voluntarily and without legal process, provided the FBI with a list of names of all individuals who used a BofA credit or debit card in the Washington, D.C. region between the dates of Jan. 5 and Jan. 7, 2021.” The post Weaponization Panel’s Findings on Financial Institutions Prompt Privacy Resolution appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I Hear or Read Things, and Have to Remind Myself This Is Supposed to Be the United States

"Lived experience" is a favorite phrase in the liberal lexicon. As a certified member of the liberal media, Joe Scarborough has surely heard "lived experience" countless times from his woke cohort. So why would Scarborough profess ignorance of it? The question arises because professing ignorance was precisely what Scarborough did on today's Morning Joe. The show aired a clip of Luigi Mangione, the accused killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, as he was being led away by authorities in Pennsylvania. Mangione yelled at reporters: "It's completely out of touch, and an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and its lived experience!" To which Scarborough responded: "What does that mean? Lived experience. What's that?" Ever since Donald Trump's resounding victory on November 5th, Scarborough has been conducting a campaign of distancing himself from his hyper-liberal anti-Trump persona. (MSNBC has touted how Kamala Harris has employed her "lived experience" as a prosecutor on the world stage.) The morning backtracking began on the very day after the election, when, as we noted at the time, rather than reacting with gnashing of teeth and renting of garments like others in the "MSM," Scarborough spoke in measured tones and acknowledged the scope of Trump's win. Then, just days later, Joe and Mika famously visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago. They hotly deny having kissed the ring, and say they were just doing what any journalist would do, given the opportunity.  But while Mika said that she and Joe would continue to "speak truth to power"—another favorite lib phrase—she also conceded that "hyperbole and personal attacks will not work. My hair on fire doesn't work." This from a co-host of the show that's made its stock in trade accusing Trump of being a Hitler knock-off and an "existential threat to American democracy"--yet another liberal catchphrase! Seen in this light, Scarborough's feigning not to know "lived experience" can be seen as one more step in the show's long march in shedding its woke hysteria. But why? Why not continue to condemn Trump as a "fascist" at every turn, and smear his supporters as "freaks" who are "crazy as a sh--house rat?" The likely answer: Scarborough has read the ratings. Like the rest of the MSNBC line-up, since the election, Morning Joe has suffered a precipitous plunge in the show's audience. Couple that with the news that MSNBC's owner, Comcast, is planning to spin off the network, and Scarborough seems to understand that continuing on the path of Trump-hatred-all-the-time is the road to oblivion. Seen in that light, Scarborough's pretending not to comprehend "lived experience" can be understood. That said, Morning Joe must walk a fine line. On the one hand, to survive, it must forsake it's all-out-assault on Trump and his supporters, and its embrace of liberal lingo. On the other hand, it doesn't dare go so far as to alienate its viewer base, which remains overwhelmingly liberal. So Morning Joe must continue to throw some regular bits of red meat to its audience. Thus, for example, Scarborough today went on a rant against Pete Hegseth, calling him "woefully ill-equipped to be Secretary of Defense," knocking the nominee on everything from his experience to his personal character, to his views on women in combat. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 12/11/24 6:02 am ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The man accused of killing UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson, fighting extradition to New York. That decision was made during the hearing he is facing charges for forgery and carrying a gun without a license. Mangione was arrested in the Commonwealth on Monday, ending a five-day manhunt. A judge denied bail for the 26-year-old suspect, who is now expected to remain in custody at a state prison in Huntington.  Before his hearing yesterday, the suspect shouted this to reporters. LUIGI MANGIONE: It's completely out of touch, and an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and its lived experience! MIKA: The Manhattan district attorney's office says it will now seek -- JOE SCARBOROUGH: What does that mean? Lived experience. What's that? . . . .  SCARBOROUGH: The person we're looking at right now is woefully ill-equipped to be Secretary of Defense. Does not have any managerial experience that would allow him to run the largest, the most complex, the most important, critically important, bureaucracy in the United States of America, or the world. As the Middle East dissolves and melts down, as a war in eastern Europe threatens to move towards a nuclear confrontation or a World War. That's where we start. And then you start stacking up one allegation after another, whether the allegation is about financial mismanagement. Whether the allegation is about a chronic abuse of women. That allegation, of course, underlined in a letter his own mother wrote to him. Whether you're talking about taking successful VA organizations and running them into the ground.  Whether you're talking about claim, after claim, after claim of the sort of inappropriate behavior that Joni Ernst claims to be a champion of, in stopping in the United States military. And speaking of Joni Ernst, and Tammy Duckworth, and so many other women, Willie, that have made heroic contributions to the United States of America through armed combat. He still sounds like a hard no on women in combat. This is not the 1950s.  And again, take all of that, and put it to the side. The fact that any senator could stand up and confidently say, yes, oh yes, Pete Hegseth is exactly the sort of person that should run the DoD. That says so much about the complete lack of, of, just responsibility that these senators that are saying this publicly, are taking in their extraordinarily important job.

The tone across leftwing news grew somber on Wednesday, as news broke during the 2:00 p.m. Eastern hour that FBI Director Chris Wray planned to resign from his post by the end of the Biden Administration. This announcement sparked another flurry of panic among corporate journalists, who worried that the FBI under incoming President Trump would rapidly morph into a political revenge machine aimed squarely at Trump’s perceived enemies. Within minutes of the news breaking, feckless regime apparatchik and former FBI agent Frank Figliuzzi had scurried to the nearest camera, and was proclaiming on MSNBC that this was “a sad day for the institution” of the FBI. He continued: “There’s a reason why the FBI Directors serve a 10-year term. It’s to be able to stay out and and above the political fray of Washington, D.C.” Figliuzzi later speculated that with Wray gone, U.S. Attorneys loyal to Trump might direct the FBI “to not open counterintelligence cases on Russia.” Most of the early coverage was tinged with the sort of commentary that wouldn’t pass a middle school civics class — specifically, the idea that you can’t just fire the FBI Director! Former fed and routine TV guest Asha Rangappa appeared on ABC News Live to complain that Wray had not yet finished his ten-year term: “I just want to emphasize what a departure from the norms this is. We’ve become used to Presidents firing FBI directors!” CIA stooge Ken Dilanian on NBC raised the same objection: “This is a norm-shattering event! The second FBI Director Trump is forcing out before serving a ten-year term.” Over on CNN, Evan Perez worried that Wray’s departure would “normalize” the notion that “you can just replace FBI Directors when you just don’t like what they’re doing.” (Fact check: the President can, in fact, “just replace” the FBI Director). Perez added that when Wray made his announcement, “there were some people who were seen crying in the room.”     Wray’s tenure as FBI Director was fraught with controversy. Most obviously, he notoriously co-approved the unprecedented FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago back in 2022. This marked the first time federal law enforcement had ever been sent to raid a former President’s residence. Speaking of politicization, Wray’s FBI raised eyebrows across the political spectrum when agents began investigating parents who dared raised concerns about queer marxist ideology during school board meetings. Agents were also found to have gone after traditional Catholics. Throughout his term, Wray repeatedly (and seemingly intentionally) generated quotes for Democrats and their media allies to brandish against Republicans. He once argued that white supremacy was the single greatest terror threat facing America. And back in 2020, Wray absurdly denied the existence of Antifa as a radical, left-wing extremist group: “We look at Antifa as more of an ideology or a movement than an organization.” Here’s a brief tidbit to demonstrate just how counterfactual Wray’s understanding of Antifa truly has been. When prosecutors began a case against the “So Cal Antifa” group in San Diego Superior Court, the presiding Judge, Daniel Goldstein, expressed doubt that the defendants operated as an organized group. But by the end of the case, the Judge’s mind had been changed completely, thanks to the overwhelming amount of evidence prosecutors brought. At the sentencing in July of 2024, Goldstein remarked: “I don’t have any question that this organization exists.” Considering all of his hijinks, it’s no surprise that the pro-DNC media were left devastated by Wray’s departure. At every turn, Wray went after the people they hated, while defending the left’s violent vanguard. Whenever something happens in Washington, D.C. that makes Ken Dilanian look like he’s about to cry, it’s usually safe to consider it good news.

On Wednesday afternoon, ABC and NBC broke in with network special reports to share that FBI Director Christopher Wray told employees he’d be resigning prior to President-Elect Trump’s inauguration on January 20.  This left journalists like NBC’s Ken Dilanian despondent, blasting Trump’s “controversial,” “hardline,” and “provocative” selection of Kash Patel to replace him after he did “more...than” anyone to force Americans to distrust the bureau. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt tossed to the one-time Fusion GPS tool, lamenting Wray is stepping down and might lead the way for the “controversial” Patel.  Dilanian first kvetched that Wray gave into those who “counselled Mr. Wray that it would be better for the FBI workforce if he left on his own accord” and not those “urg[ing]” him “to force Mr. Trump to fire him, to reinforce the idea that this is a norm-shattering event.”     Citing the January 6 investigations and both Jack Smith probes — on classified documents and January 6 — that pulled in FBI resources, Dilanian lamented “Mr. Wray couldn't avoid crossing Donald Trump” before his thesis that distrust in law enforcement is Trump’s fault: Mr. Trump said in that interview that he had a lot of respect for the FBI, but the FBI's respect had gone way down over the last number of years. And he's right about that. Polls show that around half of Americans don't trust the FBI, although trust is higher among Democrats than Republicans, but perhaps no one is more to blame for that than Mr. Trump himself who has baselessly accused the bureau of conducting witch hunts against him. In fact, outside reviews found that the FBI had ample reason to open its investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in 2016 and, of course, the FBI uncovered significant evidence of wrongdoing in the January 6 classif — and classified documents investigation[.] As for Patel, Dilanian whined he “got his start as a firebrand congressional aide” and has “a history of making inflammatory and controversial statements, even promising to use the FBI and Justice Department to go after Mr. Trump's enemies, to go after journalists.” He concluded with this unintentionally hilarious claim from anonymous sources that Patel supporters could use to argue this is why he deserves confirmation: NBC's Ken Dilanian declares that "many current and former senior officials" inside the FBI "have said that there's really nothing in [Kash Patel's] background that qualifies him to" be their boss (and thus tell them what to do pic.twitter.com/VHgt5Mt1cj — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 11, 2024 Over on ABC, longtime Justice correspondent Pierre Thomas worried any lag time by Wray’s departure could spell doom for the country’s security: ABC's Pierre Thomas laments FBI Director Chris Wray resigning before Trump takes office will come in "one of the more" "critical" and "vulnerable times for the country" given the "elevated threat environment" pic.twitter.com/fzZW37SGhK — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 11, 2024 CBS didn’t break in, so its correspondents were left to fire off hot takes on their free streaming platform, CBS News 24/7. Justice reporter Nicole Sganga called Patel “a hardline critic of the bureau” who “has echoed claims of witch-hunt from President Trump,” but “has a less robust portfolio when it comes to law enforcement and management experience, typical of an FBI director.” As for Wray, she gushed he “loves the FBI, as he put out in the statements here, you know, feels like he does not want to abandon the men and women on the front lines” and “wanted to, you know, break this news to them, which is why he chose to say this at an FBI town hall, directly to the workforce before, perhaps, it was leaked in some other way.” January 6-obsessed correspondent Scott MacFarlane weighed in from the Capitol, decrying the likely ascension of such “a provocative figure and a controversial figure” and surrounded by concerns “he is too loyal, too beholden to Donald Trump to operate an independent FBI, one that operates outside of the interest of the president of the United States and in the interest of the American people.” “If there’s going to be a political hill for Democrats to try to die on, this would be one...There is concern about his independence about his devoted loyalty to Donald Trump at an agency that shouldn’t be devotedly loyal to a president,” he added. To see the relevant transcripts from December 11, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was heavily criticized after it apologized for an "administrative error" about Pete Hegseth to the investigative outlet ProPublica. The error was revealed when Hegseth, the nominee to head the Department of Defense, lambasted ProPublica about an investigative report meant to show that he had not been accepted into West Point. Hegseth was able to produce incontrovertible evidence that he had, in fact, been accepted to West Point. 'Officials at the US Military Academy should not be feeding lies to left-wing reporters about President Trump’s nominees.' "We understand that ProPublica (the Left Wing hack group) is planning to publish a knowingly false report that I was not accepted to West Point in 1999," wrote Hegseth in a post on social media Wednesday. "Here’s my letter of acceptance signed by West Point Superintendent, Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army."When his missive led to condemnation against ProPublica, editor Jesse Eisinger explained on social media the process the outlet used to develop the story and why the team there decided not to publish the report. Eisinger said West Point initially responded to a request about Hegseth with the following statement:“According to the admissions office — Hegseth had not applied for admission to the U.S. Military Academy.”When ProPublica asked for confirmation that he had never been accepted, West Point offered a statement on the record saying, “Absolutely 100%. Because he never opened a file.”After the controversy erupted, West Point apologized and issued another statement to ProPublica. "An incorrect statement involving Mr. Hegseth's admission to the United States Military Academy was released by an employee on December 10, 2024. Upon further review of an achieved [sic] database, employees realized this statement was in error," read the statement. "Mr. Hegseth was offered acceptance to West Point as a prospective member of the class of 2003. USMA takes this situation very seriously, and we apologize for this administrative error."While many continue to criticize ProPublica, some of the scrutiny has now fallen on West Point. "Officials at the U.S. Military Academy should not be feeding lies to left-wing reporters about President Trump’s nominees," read a statement from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. "West Point needs to thoroughly investigate this egregiously bad judgement [sic] and potential violation of the Privacy Act immediately," he added. Hegseth's nomination became precarious after several accusations of alcohol abuse and sexual impropriety were made against Hegseth. He denies the allegations, and President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his belief that Hegseth has enough support to be cleared by the Senate. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

All across the United States, pro-Palestinian protesters are continuing to organize marches to express solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza, who they think are being victimized by the Israelis. Some of these marches are taking place in Jewish neighborhoods with the intent of terrorizing innocent Jewish Americans. Mark Levin plays a clip of one such march, during which the protesters were claiming that the streets belonged to them. Although the footage is recent, it’s reminiscent of “Skokie, when the Nazis marched through a Jewish neighborhood in Chicago” in 1977, says Levin. “Our nation's being populated with terrorist-supporting thugs like this. Our universities are graduating them, and they're being funded by foreign sources,” he says, calling it “the enemy within.” “My great fear is that domestic terrorism will be on the rise,” Levin confesses, pointing to the “open border,” “the immigration policies of this current administration, and this homegrown crap” as the gasoline fueling the fire. To see the harrowing footage of the march and hear more of Levin’s commentary, watch the clip above. Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Despite heaps of ambition and a decent slate of content, things haven’t been easy for Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown since it launched a few months ago. However, the arrival of Season 2 could be the turning point for the racing game, as it adds several new cars, quality of life improvements, and a second open-world location to race in - and fans of the Test Drive series will recognize it immediately. Continue reading Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown Season 2 and its nostalgic Ibiza map are here MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best racing games, Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown review, Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown cars

Sanity Restored: Northern Ireland Set to Permanently Ban Puberty Blockers

That 'But' Is Doing Some HEAVY Lifting: Watch Elizabeth Warren Justify Shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO