LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON 

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON 

Watch now

NEWS: Kristi Noem Accused of Lying Under Oath and Trump Officials Fail to Answer Basic Questions in Explosive Hearing

Noem and senior DHS officials struggled to answer basic questions during the hearing, with Noem accused of lying to Congress under oath and Trump-era officials unable to explain anything about Antifa

Aaron Parnas Dec 11

A contentious congressional oversight hearing on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) erupted into controversy today after lawmakers accused DHS Secretary Kristi Noem of providing lying under oath and abruptly leaving the session under disputed circumstances.

The hearing on DHS operations and domestic security policy quickly escalated into a series of sharp confrontations between members of Congress and senior department officials. Before continuing, platforms such as TikTok have repeatedly restricted the circulation of this reporting. I am working intensively to ensure this Substack breaks through those barriers and reaches the widest audience possible. If you find this work valuable, please consider subscribing so I can continue producing rigorous, around the clock coverage.

Lawmakers Challenge Noem’s Claims on Deportations of U.S. Military Veterans

One of the most heated exchanges came when Rep. Seth Magaziner pressed Secretary Noem on whether DHS had deported any U.S. military veterans.

Magaziner: “How many U.S. military veterans have you deported?”
Noem: “Sir, we have not deported U.S. citizens or military veterans.”

Magaziner then introduced, via Zoom, an Army combat veteran who had been wounded twice while serving in Panama in 1989. According to Magaziner, the veteran — identified as Mr. Park — was deported earlier this year to South Korea.

Magaziner: “Earlier this year, you deported him to Korea. Can you tell Mr. Park why you deported him?”

DHS officials did not offer additional explanation during the session.

Trump-Era DHS Official Declines to Label Proud Boys as Extremists

Another tense exchange involved senior DHS official Michael Glasheen, who was questioned by Rep. Robert Walkinshaw over whether the department still considers the Proud Boys an extremist organization — a designation used by federal agencies during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Walkinshaw: “Are you familiar with the Proud Boys?”
Glasheen: “I’m familiar with the name.”
Walkinshaw: “Does the FBI still designate them as an extremist organization?”
Glasheen: “We are in the process right now of changing our, uh, categories for domestic terrorism.”

Glasheen did not directly answer whether the group remains classified as extremist, prompting criticism from several committee members.

Official Unable to Provide Basic Information After Labeling Antifa the “Number One Threat”

Glasheen faced additional scrutiny when he asserted that Antifa posed the most significant immediate threat to domestic security — yet struggled to answer basic questions about the movement.

Glasheen: “Antifa is our primary concern right now. That’s the most immediate violent threat we’re facing.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson: “Where is Antifa headquartered?”
Glasheen: (long pause) “We are building out the infrastructure right now.”
Thompson: “What does that mean?”

The exchange fueled criticism that DHS officials were relying on political rhetoric rather than defined intelligence assessments.

Noem’s Abrupt Departure Sparks Confusion Over FEMA Meeting

Midway through the hearing, Secretary Noem unexpectedly left, telling the committee she needed to chair a meeting regarding FEMA. Minutes later, Rep. Jared Moskowitz publicly cast doubt on that explanation.

Moskowitz: “Noem said she had to go chair the FEMA Review Council meeting. BUT I’m told that meeting was canceled.”

The contradictory accounts immediately raised concerns on Capitol Hill, particularly given the high-profile nature of the DHS oversight session and the ongoing scrutiny of FEMA operations.

As of this afternoon, DHS had not clarified whether a FEMA meeting had been scheduled or why the secretary departed early. The lack of transparency has prompted further questions from lawmakers and is expected to generate additional follow-up inquiries.

You’re currently a free subscriber to the Parnas Perspective. For the full experience, more content, and to support Aaron, upgrade your subscription.