The Daily Signal - Was It Terrorism in Pensacola? What We Know, and What’s Next

Episode Date: December 10, 2019

Family members are grieving after a shooter killed three Navy servicemen at a Pensacola, Florida, Navy base. Details are just starting to emerge about the shooter, 2nd Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi Arabian air force pilot training in the U.S. Heritage Foundation scholar Cully Stimson discusses possible motives and the FBI investigation. We also cover the following stories: ·      The Justice Department’s inspector general issues a report about the surveillance of Trump aides during the 2016 election. ·      House Democrats hold another impeachment hearing. ·      Sports Illustrated makes Megan Rapinoe “Sportsperson of the Year.” The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, December 10th. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. Family members are grieving after a shooter killed three Navy servicemen at a Pensacola Navy base. Details are just starting to emerge about the shooter, who was a Saudi Arabian Air Force pilot training in the U.S. I'll speak with heritage expert Koli Stimson to discuss possible motives and the FBI investigation. Plus, we'll share a conversation that I had with a doctor turned a state senator. who's working to stop Medicaid from expanding in Missouri.

And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and please encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. The report from the Inspector General of the Department of Justice looking at surveillance requests is out. The executive summary states, our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are scrupulously accurate. We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application

were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation. Based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. Was there political bias? The report states, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations. Attorney General William Barr was highly critical in a statement, saying, The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinness of suspicion. that in my view were insufficient to justify the steps take it. And, in the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates,

FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory, while most of the misconduct identified by the insufficiency, Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now former FBI officials. The malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General's report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.

Members of the House held another round of impeachment hearings on Monday, and as you may expect, there were fireworks. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Gerald Nadler, opened the hearing with this. The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump the president of the United States has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath. I will undermine.

If you would honor yours, then I would urge you to do your duty. The ranking Republican on the committee, Doug Collins, also gave his peace. Today, what we were supposed to get was like I love my friends on the majority of this committee, said Mueller. When we got the Mueller report, it didn't go real well. So we had a lot of hearings, didn't go real well. Then we finally got Bob Mueller, and they said, this is going to be the movie version. In fact, what happened?

They did. My colleagues on the majority had live readings from Capitol Hill. They made dramatic broadcast. They even wrote a comic book rendition that breathed life into the Mueller report. And it didn't work. So they brought Bob Mueller. This was the movie version. They told us Robert Mueller's testimony would be the thing that people watched and would be convinced.

Guess what? They wasn't convinced. In fact, it fell flat. But you know, today, I guess, is the movie version of the Schiff report. Except one thing, the star witness failed to show up. Mr. Nunez is here. His staff is here. The leading headline is there, shift report.

But where's Mr. Schiff? Temper's also flared over the committee's rules. And at one point, Congressman Matt Gates spoke up. The gentleman will suspend. We are doing what we have to do under the rules. We will now hear presentations of evidence. Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen is not recognized.

We will now hear presentations of evidence. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I haven't removed my objection. I will not recognize the parliamentary inquiry at this time. We will now hear presentations of evidence from counsels to the judiciary. Is this one we just hear staff ask questions of other staff and the members get dealt out of this whole hearing? The next four hours, you're going to try to overturn the result of an election with unelected people giving gentlemen.

The gentleman will suspend. Paul Volker, a key figure in modern economic monetary policy, has died at the age of of 92. Volker was the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987, steering the Fed during the tumultuous high inflation period of the late 70s and early 80s. Current Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in a statement, I am deeply saddened by the passing of Paul Volker. He believed there was no higher calling than public service. His life exemplified the highest ideals, integrity, courage, and a commitment to do what was best for all Americans. His contributions to the nation left a lasting legacy.

Volker also served later in life as an advisor to former President Obama, who tweeted that because of him, our financial system is stronger and safer for the American people. The Supreme Court is letting a pro-life law stand in Kentucky. The court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a Kentucky law that requires doctors to describe ultrasound images and play a fetal heartbeat sound for mothers seeking an abortion. Defenders of the law said that it was straightforward and simply part of an informed consent process. Challengers argued that it violated the women's First Amendment rights by forcing them to see and hear things they may not want to. The court rejected the legal challenge

without comment and without dissent. Sports Illustrated sports person in the year 2019 is U.S. women's soccer player, Megan Rapino. Rapino refused to meet with President Trump at the White House, used to kneel instead of stand for the national anthem, and advocated for women's soccer players to be paid more. Here's a clip from the Video Sports Illustrated made. This was a vehicle to talk about equal pay in your workplace. This was a vehicle to talk about, you know, racial inequities in your workplace. Be more, be better, be bigger than you've ever been before. Up next, I'll speak with Cully Stimson about the shooting in Pensacol.

What the heck is trickle-down economics? Does the military really need a space force? What is the meaning of American exceptionalism? I'm Michelle Cordero. I'm Tim Desher. And every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we break down a hot-button policy issue in the news at a 101 level. Through an entertaining mix of personal stories,

media clips, music, and interviews, we help you actually understand the issues. So do this. Subscribe to Heritage Explains on I-Earitage Explains on iTunes, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcast today. Joining me now to discuss the recent shooting at a naval base in Florida is Cooley Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a veteran who served in the Navy for 27 years. Coley, thanks for your time today.

It's always a pleasure. So last Friday, a Saudi airman shot up a U.S. Navy base in Pensacola and killed three people. What do we know so far about the suspect and a possible motive? Well, number one, he's dead. Number two, he was part of an international coalition of people who we routinely have in our military bases across all the services. And he was attending with other Saudi pilots, basic pilot training at Pensacola, which is the heart and soul of naval aviation in the United States Navy. And any early indications of potential motive? It's a little too early to tell.

The FBI has the con here. and having worked as a former federal prosecutor, I can tell you the FBI is very thorough, and they're not going to get out in front of the facts. But from what has been publicly reported so far, we know that this young lieutenant went back and forth to home, as all international and domestic students do during breaks, that he had been a student for a while in this basic aviation course, that there had been a report of a complaint he had filed against one of his instructors, because in the naval aviation community,

they're sort of bawdy, and they come up with nicknames for people. So when you saw Top Gun, for example, you saw one of the pilots was named Goose, and another guy was named Mustang. And so one of the instructors allegedly had given him a nickname, which he didn't find acceptable.

So he filed a complaint against the instructor, and months went by, during that time after he filed the complaint, but nothing had happened, he had gone back to Saudi Arabia, as I'm sure many of his colleagues had. And then he came back to the United States for training, and then he got a 9-millimeter pistol and shot up students in the basic training course classroom. Should this be considered an act of terrorism?

Well, it should if the facts show that there was a connection to terrorism. And right now the facts don't show that. What the facts show is that a person who, who is a Saudi, got a gun, and killed people. And he was killed as a result of it by the Ascambia police department or somebody in law enforcement. The facts that are also, well, the allegations are that he had written some things on social media, which were anti-American. That doesn't necessarily mean it's connected to terrorism. There is also an allegation that he had said something positive about Osama bin Laden. I can't imagine anything positive anyone who wanted to.

say about that person who's fortunately dead. And so maybe he was motivated by some jihadi tendencies. But I think it's really important that when we have an incident like this, number one, we express our condolences to the people who died. Their lives and their family's lives will never be the same, obviously. Secondly, it's important not to jump to conclusions that because he's a foreign national and because he's serving with our military and because he says stupid things on the internet, that he's a terrorist. We need to reserve that label for people who are terrorists, who are motivated by, directed by, inspired by other terrorists, and then who commit terrorist acts. Now, if he is, and that's what the facts show, well, then we can label this an act of terrorism.

He's a murderer, and he's a heinous, despicable individual who's fortunately dead, but that's all we know right now. Yeah, you mentioned those victims, and the three victims actually charged the shooter, right? They weren't running away. They were actually shot, and one of them ran out and gave critical details to the sheriff who ended up taking out the shooter. So definitely heroism on display. Yeah, you know, I will tell you as a Navy captain who still serves in the reserves, of course, I'm speaking as a heritage scholar, not on behalf of the Department of the Navy. The CEO of the base down there who gave a long and very eloquent press conference was so impressive. I mean, he said not only the right things that we were going to care for our families, it's going to take a long time.

time, but he really exemplified the type of leadership that we should all be proud of for men and women in our uniform. And he rose to the occasion. Obviously, it was difficult for him. But in the days and weeks to come, the FBI will work closely with the military authorities to figure out why this happened. And then the harder part, which is, is there anything that we can do to prevent something like this in the future? Now, for example, I know people have said, well, we shouldn't have military people from other countries training with our people. Well, that's just ignorant, frankly. We've been training with our allies, military officers, and enlisted for decades. And we need to do that. And one, because it makes us stronger when we fight in coalitions.

Two, because mill-to-mill relationships really matter. And three, our main adversaries, the Russians and the Chinese don't do that. They don't have the type of open, welcoming type of professional military relationships that we have established with dozens of countries, and we need to continue to do that. Does this suggest an intelligence failure in some way, any warning signs that should have been picked up on? We don't know. It could have been. But remember, for those of you who don't serve in the military, military officers today, they don't live on the ship. They don't live in a plane. they don't live on base usually.

They live out in town like this young man did, along with all the other young patriotic men and women who were attending flight school. And they lived in an apartment, just like anyone else. And so, you know, the government's not monitoring you, what you're doing in your apartment out in town, nor should they. They don't have a legal right to do that. And so whether there were warning signs that we missed, it's too early to tell. But I can be darn sure that and feel quite confident the FBI will look into that. And I'm quite confident that the Heritage's former chief of staff, Mark Esper, who's the Secretary of Defense, based on what he said in the Sunday talk shows, will do a thorough top-to-bottom scrub to see whether we missed anything and whether any vetting protocols that we have in place are sufficient or need to be tweaked. Yeah, what should the FBI's key focus in this case be?

Why it happened and can be prevented from happening again. So there's been some talk about the gun law that allowed this shooter to actually get a gun legal. There's only a handful of circumstances where a foreign national is legally allowed to purchase a firearm on U.S. soil. The governor down in Florida, Ron DeSantis, a Republican, is saying he wants to close that loophole with a new gun law. Your thoughts on that? Well, Ron DeSantis is an impressive governor. He has a very high approval rating. He happens also to have been a great Navy Jag reservist and a colleague of mine.

And I leave it to the governor as the head of a sovereign state to decide whether or not the state law that would allow for this to happen, happen. If it's a federal issue, and I suspect it may be a federal issue, I'd have to study the proposals in place. I think we have a lot of gun laws on the books, and no amount of gun laws is going to prevent some jerk from acquiring a gun and doing horrible things to people that are innocent. Well, I want to leave it by doing what you mentioned earlier, which is honoring those who passed. and Adam Watson, who's the brother of one of those who deceased, posted this.

He said, today has been the worst day of my life. Joshua Caleb Watson saved countless lives today with his own. After being shot multiple times, he made it outside and told the first response team where the shooter was, and those details were invaluable. We are beyond proud, but there's a hole in our hearts that can never be filled. Chloe Stimson, thanks for coming in. Well, God bless that young man and his family, and let's hope we get to the bottom of this.

And thanks for having me. Up next, a conversation I had with state senator and doctor Bob Onder of Missouri. We spoke at the annual gathering of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Phoenix, Arizona. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America. We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues, America faces. Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight for conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous.

But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. Well, we're coming to you from the annual gathering of Alec. That's the American Legislative Exchange Council. And I'm joined now by a man named Bob Onder. He's a state senator from Missouri and a physician who is doing lots of work on health care. Thanks for joining me. Good to be you here, Daniel. Great convention today. So I want to ask you specifically about Medicaid expansion.

Sure. A lot of states are wrestling with whether or not to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. And a lot of states have already done it. And some states, like your own, are considering it in a ballot initiative this next year. Tell me about the situation in Missouri and what this would do to health care. Yeah, well, Daniel, ever since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, Missouri has resisted the so-called free money that would come along with an Obamacare Medicaid expansion. And of course, you know, the government doesn't, money doesn't grow on trees. Yes, the federal government prints it or they borrow it from China.

but ultimately the U.S. taxpayer and Missouri taxpayers are responsible for the bill. And we have resisted Medicaid expansion for one reason because it would be fiscally irresponsible to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. It would cost Missouri taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. And then if the federal government ever backs off on that 90-10, 90-per-per-state arrangement, and it could bankrupt Missouri or any other state that's expanded Medicaid under Obamacare instantly. But the other thing is the question of whether we want to encourage more welfare dependency. Missouri is actually very generous in most categories of Medicaid eligibility.

Moms and kids, pregnant women, the elderly, the disabled. Missouri is actually quite generous on eligibility criteria. What we have resisted is expanding Medicaid for AIDS. able-bodied working-age adults. And we already have 900,000 people on Medicaid in Missouri. We do not need to encourage more welfare dependency. Ronald Reagan once said that the greatest welfare program ever devised by man is a job. And I agree with that.

We need to encourage people to get off the welfare roles, get beyond that poverty cliff created by welfare programs, and get a job with health insurance. and that way really better their lot in life. So at the legislative level, you've been successful in holding this off. How did this ballot initiative come about? Yeah, there was a lot of talk about Medicaid expansion in my first year in the Missouri Senate, which was 2015, and it was just a non-starter. We really, there were some senators who were terming out who had opposed Medicaid expansion previously,

and they said, well, with this new crop of senators, for sure Medicaid is going to expand. Now, little did they know that one of the physician legislators would be one of the strongest opponents to an Obamacare expansion. So in Missouri, unfortunately, Daniel, we have a very liberal initiative petition process. Really, any special interest with a few million bucks can get the signatures, can pay signature gathers to get popular sounding issues onto the ballot. And if there's not an organized opposition campaign against whatever that is, they not only pass a new law in our state, but they put it into our Constitution so the legislature can't change it. And that's exactly what's going on. Progressive left-wing Obamacare groups from out of state, and then I hate to say it, but the Hospital Association, it's really corporate greed.

You know, hospitals have put more people into bankruptcy courts than casinos and drug dealers and paid-eaters. loan put together. And the reason, Daniel, we give hospitals nonprofit status and that they don't have to pay income tax, corporate income tax and property tax, is that they're supposed to be charities and do free care. But all you hear from the hospitals is, oh, we're doing too much charity care. We need to expand Medicaid so we can do less charity care. That's ridiculous. So, but we have powerful, well-funded groups arrayed against us. But we have, we're going to. We are going to fight, and I believe when the people of the state of Missouri really think about whether they want to expand Obamacare more in our state, they're going to reject this really bad idea. So you're a physician, and you still practice, even though you're a state senator now.

I do. I do. So how have you seen Obamacare change the health care system as you see it up close and personal? Well, yeah, I think Obamacare has been a disaster for patients. It's been a disaster for physicians. been a disaster for the practice of medicine. I have a patient, premiums have skyrocketed, and deductibles and co-pays and co-insurance have skyrocketed. Because of all the Obamacare mandates, the only way to keep premiums halfway affordable,

they're not affordable, they've skyrocketed, but the only way to keep premiums halfway affordable is to up and up and up deductibles. So I see patients, patients, small business people, with $10,000 deductibles. I have one patient, a small business woman, she and her family, the only insurance that they could get had a $3,000 month premium. Think about it, $36,000 a year with a $25,000 deductible. So she was self-insuring for $60,000 before the first penny of money would be paid by insurance. So she just decided not to, she talked to me and said, Dr. Onder, how much would it be to take care of my asthma and my daughter's asthma? and it was a pittance compared to what she was paying to the insurance companies.

But this is what Obamacare has done to us. Health care has become less affordable, less available to the middle class and to small business people. And at the same time, it's promoted this consolidation of medicine, destroyed independent private medical practices that in many ways were closer to their patients and furthered this consolidation into big hospital systems where, quite frankly, patients too often get overcharged. So Obamacare has been a disaster.

Medicaid expansion would be a disaster. And I think Medicaid expansion is just another step in that march of the left towards single-payer health care. We need to oppose every aspect of Obamacare. The Trump administration is giving us opportunities for more choice in health care. That's a positive step. Expanding Obamacare isn't. Well, and one of the things that the Trump administration has done, as you well know, is expanding access to short-term insurance to kind of get around those heavy regulations on regular insurance. How is Missouri taking advantage of that, or is it? Yeah, that's right. As you know, Daniel, under short-term health plans have been around a long time, but under Obama, under the Obama administration, by executive action, short-term health plans were limited.

to three months. I mean, that's just ridiculous, having to renew your insurance policy and fill out all the paperwork every three months. So the Obama administration was at war against short-term health plans. The Trump administration is encouraging short-term health plans right away, said you can do them yearly, they can be renewable, you can have premium guarantees. So so far, Missouri has not availed itself yet of that. I am filing that bill. year. It's been filed by other senators previous years. There are just one or two Democrats who just don't get it. I mean, I think they're trying to protect Obamacare. And indeed, short-term health plans are a way off of the Obamacare Island. But really, short-term health

plans offer an affordable option. No one has to look. If you have an expensive pre-existing condition, short-term health plans aren't for you. But if you're pretty healthy and what you want to do, is save some money and pay for ordinary low-cost health services out of pocket and save your premium dollars to pay for those services, maybe do direct primary care, and have a very affordable major catastrophic health plan. Short-term health plans can be an excellent option, and there's no reason consumers ought not be given that choice. Yeah, and it's definitely an option, but of course it's only a partial, not even close to a full solution. Oh, absolutely, absolutely.

So what would you say as a state lawmaker who wants to set these kind of policies at the state level? You know, I remember, you know, when Obamacare was about to pass, Massachusetts, liberal Massachusetts, didn't want Obamacare. And they like their own state system. Yes. What is the best thing that the federal government can do to enable people like yourself to set policy? in a healthy way? Well, yeah, much of health care policy is set federally because so many of health plans are, well, first of all, the attachment, the connection between employment and health insurance,

which is how most of us get our health insurance through our workplace, that's heavily influenced by the federal income tax code. So one thing the federal government needs to do is equalize the treatment of health care and health insurance premiums, whether they're provided in the workplace or whether someone buys it on their own. And the federal government needs to continue to do what the Trump administration is doing, which is give more options to Obamacare, more access to association health plans, further expand HSAs and the ability of folks to save money for their own health insurance, give more Medicaid waivers, including global waivers.

But yes, what we can do in Missouri, first of all, we can rein in some of the out-of-control and spending and waste in our Medicaid system. For instance, under a whole generation of Democrat governors, Medicaid eligibility wasn't being checked at all. So many Missourians who were on the Medicaid rolls didn't live in Missouri anymore. And yet the managed care HMO type plans just kept receiving the check month after month when the Medicaid recipient might be out of state. They might live in California or Florida or they might be dead. And yet those checks would still flow. So we have begun to check Medicaid eligibility in Illinois. Such a check identified 250,000 people who were ineligible for Medicaid.

So we need to really watch the taxpayers' money. yet we need to do what we can to direct Medicaid resources to those who really need it, like the elderly and the disabled and pregnant moms and their children. Well, I mean, this is such a live issue. Every year, just looking at the polls, this is the top issue still that people care about. It is. It is indeed. And really conservatives need not fear this issue. So many of the problems we have in American health care are the results of generations,

progressive policies that put government in charge, we need to do things to put people back in charge. And that's why we should really take ownership of this issue and have a plan. You know, of course, the Trump administration very much tried to repeal and replace Obamacare. We still need to do that. We still need to do that. We do need to get Congress back and we do need to repeal and replace Obamacare. And heaven knows we don't need to go in the direction of a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, Medicare for all. Medicare for all wouldn't even be Medicaid for all. It would be

substandard health care that would be worthy of the poorest of third world countries. We would see a rapid deterioration of American medicine that despite its problems right now is still the envy of the world. So we need to play offense, giving people more choices, but we also have to stop bad things too. So I look forward to continuing to work on this issue. Well, it's a great place for us to leave it. State Senator Bob Ondered, thanks for your time today. Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate it. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda.

In the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. That'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio

at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or Spotify, and please leave us a review or a reading on iTunes to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis.

Sound designed by Lauren Evans, the Leah Rampersad, and Mark Geinie. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.