Some aging cells heal wounds, others cause harm: how to distinguish

 Lengthening life by eliminating old, inflammatory cells is a tantalizing idea, but anti-aging researchers suspect it's oversimplified. Now, University of Connecticut researchers confirm in an article published in the Nov. 13 issue of Nature Aging that aged, inflammatory cells are diverse, and some play important roles in the body.

Scientists call aging, inflammatory cells senescent cells. Senescent cells no longer reproduce, have damaged DNA, and tend to create inflammation. It's well known they contribute to aging-related diseases such as diabetes, dementia, and cardiovascular disease. And researchers at the UConn School of Medicine and elsewhere have found that periodically purging them from animals such as mice considerably lengthens their lives.

But senescent cells aren't useless. Other research has found that they encourage wound healing, for example.

Now, UConn School of Medicine gerontologist Ming Xu and MD/Ph.D. student Nathan Gasek, graduate student Junyu Zhu, and postdoctoral researcher Pengyi Yan describe how to distinguish between senescent cells that speed wound healing and senescent cells that hinder it. Their report shows detailed evidence that not all senescent cells act the same.

The researchers looked at two populations of senescent cells: one set highly expresses the gene p16 and the other highly expresses p21. Past experiments have shown that if you purge either of these senescent cell populations, mice live longer. But another study has shown that p16 cells help mice heal cuts on their skin. However, the role of p21 cells in wound healing is largely unknown.

Xu's lab took young adult mice with a cut in the skin on their backs and selectively removed p21 cells from these mice. They found that the wounds healed about 25% faster in female mice (though not in males.) That's the opposite effect of p16 cells. Additionally, they found that p21 cells tend to be cell types from connective tissue, skin, and the immune system, and have a distinct pro-inflammatory profile, all of which is distinct from p16 cells.

"Senescent cells are not homogenous. They have different characteristics and functions, and might be very different in many ways," Xu says. He serves as assistant professor in the UConn Center on Aging and the Department of Genetics & Genome Sciences.

The investigators hope their study can bring attention to others in the field about the diversity of cellular senescence and the importance of thoroughly evaluating the roles of various senescent cell populations across a broad spectrum of conditions. The next step in this research will include investigating the role of p21 cells in wound healing with diabetes or aging, as well as developing new drugs to target specific senescent cells to treat specific conditions.

More information: Nathan S. Gasek et al, Clearance of p21 highly expressing senescent cells accelerates cutaneous wound healing, Nature Aging (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s43587-024-00755-4

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-12-aging-cells-wounds-distinguish.html

Light-induced gene therapy disables cancer cells' mitochondria

 Researchers are shining a light on cancer cells' energy centers—literally—to damage these power sources and trigger widespread cancer cell death. In a new study, scientists combined strategies to deliver energy-disrupting gene therapy using nanoparticles manufactured to zero in only on cancer cells. Experiments showed the targeted therapy is effective at shrinking glioblastoma brain tumors and aggressive breast cancer tumors in mice.

The research team overcame a significant challenge to break up structures inside these cellular energy centers, called mitochondria, with a technique that induces light-activated electrical currents inside the cell. They named the technology mLumiOpto.

"We disrupt the membrane, so mitochondria cannot work functionally to produce energy or work as a signaling hub. This causes programmed cell death followed by DNA damage—our investigations showed these two mechanisms are involved and kill the cancer cells," said co-lead author Lufang Zhou, professor of biomedical engineering and surgery at The Ohio State University. "This is how the technology works by design."

Zhou collaborated on the research with co-lead author X. Margaret Liu, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Ohio State, who developed the particles used to precisely deliver the gene therapy to cancer cells. Zhou and Liu are also both investigators in The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The study appears in the December issue of the journal Cancer Research.

Mitochondria, the primary producers of energy that fuels cell functions, have been considered an attractive anti-cancer therapeutic target for years, but their impermeable inner membrane complicates these efforts. Zhou's lab cracked the code five years ago by figuring out how to exploit the inner membrane's vulnerability—an electrical charge differential that keeps its structure intact and functions on track.

"Previous attempts to use a pharmaceutical reagent against mitochondria targeted specific pathways of activity in cancer cells," he said. "Our approach targets mitochondria directly, using external genes to activate a process that kills cells. That's an advantage, and we've shown we can get a very good result in killing different types of cancer cells."

Zhou's earlier cell studies showed the mitochondrial inner membrane could be disrupted by a protein that creates electrical currents, and researchers activated that light-induced protein with a laser. In this new work, the team created an internal source of light—key to translating the technology for clinical use.

The strategy involves delivering genetic information for two types of molecules: a light-sensitive protein known as CoChR that can produce positively charged currents, and a bioluminescence-emitting enzyme. Packed into an altered virus particle and delivered to cancer cells, the proteins are produced as their genes are expressed in mitochondria.

A follow-up injection of a specific chemical turns on the enzyme's light to activate CoChR, which leads to mitochondrial collapse.

The other half of the battle is ensuring this therapy does not interfere with normal cells.

Liu's lab specializes in targeted anti-cancer therapy development. The foundation for the delivery system in this work is the well-characterized adeno-associated virus (AAV), a minimally infectious virus engineered to carry genes and promote their expression for therapeutic purposes.

The team refined the system to enhance its cancer specificity by adding a promoter protein to drive up expression of the CoChR and bioluminescent enzyme only in cancer cells. The researchers also manufactured the AAV using human cells that encased the gene-packed virus inside a natural nanocarrier resembling extracellular vesicles that circulate in human blood and biological fluids.

"This construction assures stability in the human body because this particle comes from a human cell line," Liu said.

Finally, the researchers developed and attached to the delivery particle a monoclonal antibody designed to seek out receptors on cancer cell surfaces.

"This monoclonal antibody can identify a specific receptor, so it finds cancer cells and delivers our therapeutic genes. We used multiple tools to confirm this effect," she said. "After constructing AAVs with a cancer-specific promoter and a cancer-targeting nanoparticle, we found this therapy is very powerful to treat multiple cancers."

Experiments in mouse models showed the gene therapy strategy significantly reduced the tumor burden compared to untreated animals in two fast-growing, difficult-to-treat cancers: glioblastoma brain cancer and triple negative breast cancer. In addition to shrinking the tumors, the treatment extended survival of mice with glioblastomas.

Animal imaging studies also confirmed the effects of the gene therapy were limited to cancer tissue and were undetectable in normal tissue. Results further suggested that attaching the monoclonal antibody had the added benefit of inducing an immune response against cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment.

The team is studying additional potential therapeutic effects of the mLumiOpto in glioblastoma, triple negative breast cancer and other cancers. Ohio State has submitted a provisional patent application for the technologies.

More information: Kai Chen et al, mLumiOpto Is a Mitochondrial-Targeted Gene Therapy for Treating Cancer, Cancer Research (2024). DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-24-0984

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-12-gene-therapy-disables-cancer-cells.html

Strong cash flow but muted recovery prompt Morgan Stanley downgrade on Evonik

 Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) shifted its stance on Evonik Industries AG (ETR:EVKn) (EVK:GR) (OTC: EVKIF), moving the chemical company's stock rating from 'Equalweight' to 'Underweight'. The firm also adjusted the price target to €18.60, a decrease from the previous target of €22.00.

The downgrade was influenced by the expectation that Evonik's profit recovery may lag behind its peers despite the company's resilient performance throughout 2024. Morgan Stanley acknowledged the company's robust portfolio, recovery in specific sectors such as methionine and coatings, and strong cash flow generation.

However, the firm pointed out that the share price decline following the third-quarter results of 2024 was seen as excessively severe, and the current valuation is not considered demanding.

Morgan Stanley's analysis suggests that while Evonik has maintained a strong performance, the anticipated macroeconomic improvements in China and Europe might not benefit the company as much as others in the industry.

The factors that previously contributed to Evonik's outperforming shares, including limited exposure to China and a focus on high-value products in Europe, are expected to be overshadowed as investors shift their focus towards companies with higher beta exposure to economic recovery and the effects of stimulus in China.

The firm's revised view reflects a cautious outlook on Evonik's potential for profit growth relative to its competitors, despite the company's solid operational foundation. This adjustment in rating and price target is aimed at aligning expectations with the evolving market dynamics and investment trends observed by Morgan Stanley.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor.

https://www.investing.com/news/analyst-ratings/strong-cash-flow-but-muted-recovery-prompt-morgan-stanley-downgrade-on-evonik-stock-93CH-3765428

Steel stocks slammed on evidence of weak global market in 2025

Steel stocks plummeted after Finnish producer Outokumpu warned of earnings miss. Morgan Stanley slashed estimates for Cleveland-Cliffs

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4386558-steel-stocks-slammed-as-evidence-points-to-weak-global-market-in-2025

Psychologists and Psychotropic Prescribing: An Old Debate Heats Up

 Earlier this year, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/psychologists-and-psychotropic-prescribing-old-debate-heats-2024a1000n2l

ICYMI, It’s Probably Better To Throw Plastic in the Trash

 Millions of Americans dutifully fill their recycling bins each week, motivated by the knowledge that they're doing something good for the environment. But the sad fact is that much of what is tossed in the recycling bin is eventually heaped into landfills.

John Stossel brought attention to the issue in a video segment shared on X Thursday morning, to which Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk replied, “Recycling is pointless.”

While this bombshell might be jarring – especially if you’re someone who dutifully cleans their recyclables before caringly placing them in bins – Thomas Kinnaman, an environmental economist from Bucknell University, says it’s actually not as bad as you think.

As Kinnaman discovered in a 2014 study – a complete life cycle analysis of the recycling process – it doesn't make much economic or environmental sense to recycle plastic and glass in much of the developed world. Despite claims that plastics are recyclable, really only PET and HDPE (types 1 and 2 in North America) can be readily reused. In total, only 9% of plastic is melted and reformed. The rest goes into landfills or the wider environment.

City Journal science journalist John Tierney pointed out in Stossel’s segment that the economics of recycling have only worsened over time. Both plastic and glass are fairly easy on the environment to produce, but are often very tricky, costly, and intense to recycle. When you factor in all of the water used to decontaminate plastic and glass, the immense distances traversed transporting them (usually by truck, train, or ship), and the mechanical and chemical processes utilized to transform them into new goods, it becomes clear that they are better off in a landfill.

With novel technologies, this situation could very well change, but for now, most plastics should be thrown in the trash, Kinnaman says – though he cautions that his “provocative results certainly require confirmation from future independent and objective research before broad policy goals can be adjusted.”

“Also, many of the benefits and costs associated with waste disposal and recycling vary across regions of the country and world, and thus optimal recycling rates may also vary,” he wrote.

While plastic and glass should probably be crushed and buried in a landfill, aluminum, tin, and paper – especially cardboard – should absolutely be recycled. Just make sure that they’re not overly contaminated with food waste or small bits of non-recyclable waste. Such adulteration can render them unrecyclable. 

“The environmental costs to mine new alumina and bauxite to produce new aluminum from scratch are fairly substantial, so anything we can do to maximize our recycling of aluminum turns out to be a win-win. Bimetal tin cans – these are the soup cans, the vegetable cans that we buy some of our food with – those also have a very, very positive life cycle signature,” Kinnaman told Boston’s WBUR Radio.

So don’t feel bad about discarding plastics into the trash. Landfilling waste is not the evil many assume it to be. Modern landfills in the developed world are highly regulated, with sophisticated systems to protect groundwater, methods of compacting trash as tightly as possible, and even ways of siphoning off methane gas and burning it to produce electricity. Despite the myth that we’re running out of landfill space, there’s plenty of room. For the vast majority of Americans, they’ll remain out of sight and out of mind for generations. Less than 0.1% of America’s land is used to store trash. Current landfills are at just under 50% capacity – it will be decades before more need to be built.

There are two options far preferable to recycling: reducing the trash we're producing, and reusing as many goods as possible. Not only does this save money, but it is also far more friendly to the climate. Recycling only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 2-3%, while reducing consumption can slash emissions by up to 20%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/12/14/why_its_probably_better_to_throw_plastic_in_the_trash_152089.html

Report reveals that FBI spied on its likely new director, Kash Patel

 It’s going to be awkward at FBI headquarters next month when President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the bureau likely takes over. 

According to a new government watchdog report, the FBI spied on its prospective new boss, Kash Patel.

Patel has promised to “clean house” at the Hoover Building, and hold all those who “abused their power” during the Russiagate “witch hunt” accountable.

Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for director of the FBI, speaks to reporters before a meeting with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Capitol Hill in Washington, December 12, 2024.REUTERS

He might start with the officials and agents who secretly vacuumed up his phone records and emails starting in late 2017, when he led a House Intelligence Committee investigation into the FBI’s reliance on Hillary Clinton’s false opposition research to surveil a Trump campaign official as a supposed “Russian agent.”

According to a nearly 100-page report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, the FBI subpoenaed the records as part of an investigation it opened to find out whether congressional staffers leaked classified information about its Trump-Russia “collusion” case to the Washington Post and other media. 

Working with career prosecutors at Justice, the FBI compelled Google and Apple to turn over the sensitive private information of subjects the FBI identified “between September 2017 and March 2018,” a period when Andrew McCabe was the acting FBI director. (Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was out of the loop, the report said, having recused himself from the Russia probe.)

The court orders gagged the service providers from notifying Patel and other customers of the intrusion.

As chief counsel, Patel had no idea that the subject of his investigation — the FBI — was collecting his data and increasing the visibility of witnesses he was communicating with, including whistleblowers.

At the time, Patel was demanding to see FBI documents and depose FBI witnesses to find out if the bureau had abused its power in obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Trump aide Carter Page.

But Patel remained in the dark until 2022, when Google finally was cleared to send him a copy of the subpoena. Outraged, he told me at the time: “The FBI and DOJ subpoenaed my personal records while I caught them doing this to Page back in 2017.”

He said the McCabe FBI didn’t want anybody to find out that it “literally copied and pasted” Democrat opposition research, wholesale, into wiretap-warrant applications.

He added that he hoped those behind the abuses would be prosecuted by a future Trump administration: “They must be held accountable or they’ll only abuse their power again.”

The IG probe reveals that the FBI had renewed the subpoenas each year, snooping on congressional staffers for up to five years. That means McCabe’s successor, Christopher Wray, signed off on the continued collections.

Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz found the unprecedented surveillance created “at a minimum, the appearance of inappropriate interference” by the FBI in “legitimate oversight activity” by Congress. He warned that it could have a “chilling” effect on whistleblowers coming forward.

On Wednesday, the day after the IG report came out, Wray announced he would step down at the end of President Biden’s term, clearing the way for Trump nominee Patel to head the agency.

“This [IG] report highlights exactly why Kash Patel is the perfect leader to reform and rebuild the FBI,” a spokeswoman for Patel told The Post. “Kash understands the critical balance between national security and protecting civil rights [and] will work hand-in-hand with Congress to restore trust.”

A former ally of Patel on the Hill, who was also spied on by the FBI, called the leak investigation a “fishing expedition”: Former Senate investigator Jason Foster claims McCabe used it as a “pretext” to find out what he and Patel were doing to expose FBI corruption in its Russiagate probe of Trump.

At the time, his Senate panel, the Judiciary Committee, had forced the FBI to turn over the shady Page FISA applications. Foster noted that the inspector general determined that no one was ever charged in the FBI’s years-long investigation of the unauthorized disclosures to the media, despite the wide net McCabe cast.

Foster also noted that McCabe himself was investigated for leaking to the media about an earlier Clinton-related investigation, and then lying about it to the IG, as well as FBI inspectors.

“Mr. McCabe lied about his own leaking and should have been prosecuted for it, according to the Obama-appointed Justice IG [Horowitz], but wasn’t,” he told The Post. “Now that this fishing expedition into the communications of congressional attorneys has been confirmed by the same IG, the new administration needs to finally hold people accountable.”

Currently chairing a whistleblower support group, Empower Oversight, Foster said that what the McCabe FBI did is more egregious than reported. It also swept up the phone records of spouses, including his own wife.

He said, “My head was spinning” when he found out. And he said agents and prosecutors withheld from the DC magistrate judge who approved the subpoenas and non-disclosure orders the fact that the targets were congressional attorneys.

“They misled the court,” he said. “They left out the key fact we were all congressional attorneys. They claimed over and over, with no basis, that we were flight risks or would ‘destroy evidence.’ “

IG Horowitz agreed that the language agents and prosecutors used in the subpoenas was “boilerplate,” making it more likely the judges would rubberstamp them.

As a result, “they got all kinds of information on who we were talking to, and when, with no probable cause and no notice to congressional leadership, so there was no chance for Congress to challenge it,” Foster added. 

“And they can still get that kind of information,” barring reforms to protect separation of powers in the future.

Horowitz confirmed the personal data collected from the subpoenas (including more than 75,000 text messages), along with the electronic communications documenting the opening of the investigations and the FBI interview reports, are stored at FBI headquarters.

He noted he only reviewed “a select number” of the thousands of files, which leaves loose ends for Patel to investigate.

A handful of agents and supervisors involved in the case are still employed there, the IG said, and maintain access to the files.

Bad actors remaining at the bureau could be fired, but how can those who have left be held accountable? The five-year federal statute of limitations has expired, making prosecution of suspected criminal abuses by current and former FBI officials and agents a non-starter. 

Foster suggested they still could lose their coveted national security clearance. As FBI director, Patel would have the authority to strip McCabe and other former officials of their classified credentials, making it virtually impossible for them to work again in federal law enforcement. Patel said in a recent podcast that any official involved in framing Trump as part of the “Russiagate hoax” should have his clearance revoked.

On CNN, where he works as an analyst, McCabe recently opined that Patel wasn’t qualified to lead the FBI: “He doesn’t really have a fraction of the qualifications that any former FBI director chosen by any president has.” 

McCabe says he worries Patel will turn the bureau back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when it was “essentially the enforcement arm for the president’s political activities.”

He fears Patel will trample over civil liberties? That’s rich, Patel points out, as it was “gangster” McCabe who signed one of the illegal FISA warrants to spy on Page.

Paul Sperry is a senior reporter for ­RealClearInvestigations. 

https://nypost.com/2024/12/13/opinion/report-reveals-that-fbi-spied-on-its-likely-new-director-kash-patel/