Senate Republican seeks hearings for 9/11 conspiracy theory
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., the chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, is seeking information and documentation to hold hearings on the event nearly 25 years after it happened, according to Politico.
Almost 3,000 people died on that day as a result of two planes crashing into the World Trade Center Twin Tower buildings in New York City, a plane crashing into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. and another plane crashing into a field in Pennsylvania.
During an appearance on a far-right podcast hosted by Benny Johnson this week, Johnson claimed that one of the buildings around the World Trade Center complex in New York was brought down by a 'controlled demolition' following the collapse of the Twin Towers, according to Politico.
The building Johnson is referring to is 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the complex. The building was not hit by a plane but collapsed due to hours of uncontrolled fire as it was hit by flaming debris.
The building has been the subject of conspiracy theories, with people saying explosives that were planted there destroyed it.
During the podcast, Johnson went on to say the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation into the collapse was 'corrupted.'
'What actually happened on 9/11? What do we know? What is being covered up?' Johnson asked. 'My guess is there's an awful lot being covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.'
Johnson did not lay out a timetable for the hearings during the podcast. A spokesperson told Politico that the timeframe for hearings would 'depend on what information/documentation is obtained by our office.'
On the other side of Capitol Hill, Johnson's comments have drawn backlash from U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.
In a post on X on Tuesday, Lawler said that Johnson should stop peddling conspiracy theories about the attack.
'Crap like this dishonors and disrespects the innocent lives lost, our brave first responders, and all families and survivors who still carry the pain of 9/11 each and every day,' Lawler wrote.
Trump MAGA senator talks tough about Hegseth and gets put on blast
Advocates push for 'full conversation' on life without parole sentences
Could Trump's crackdown on foreign students exacerbate declining college enrollment?
Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. Could it be a weapon in its fight against Trump?
Harvard's president to talk stakes of Trump admin's demands in new NBC interview
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
34 minutes ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
34 minutes ago
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
