I Did The Goodest Job As I Know I Can Do...,

The Wages Of Presidementia

 

The Blob REALLY Doesn't Want The American People To Hear Putin's Voice

azerbaycan24  |   The former Fox News host has questioned why ‘you’re not allowed to hear’ the Russian president’s voice Former Fox News television personality Tucker Carlson speaks to guests at the Family Leadership Summit on July 14, 2023 in Des Moines, Iowa

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has alleged in a recent interview that unnamed figures in Washington obstructed his attempts to interview Russian president Vladimir Putin.

“I tried to interview Vladimir Putin, and the US government stopped me,” Carlson claimed in an interview with Swiss publication Die Weltwoche published on Thursday. He also explained that he felt let down by the lack of support for his situation that he says he received from US news media.

He said: “I don’t think there was anybody who said ‘wait a second. I may not like this guy but he has a right to interview anyone he wants, and we have a right to hear what Putin says’.” The 54-year-old added: “You’re not allowed to hear Putin’s voice. Because why? There was no vote on it. No one asked me.”

The often-controversial media personality didn’t elaborate on the circumstances under which he says there was government intrusion into his plans to interview Putin but it appeared to suggest that it was the current Biden administration which was behind the meddling. Carlson also didn’t mention when the interview with the Russian leader was supposed to take place.

Tucker Carlson blasts ‘creep’ US ambassador

“I’m an American citizen,” Carlson told Die Weltwoche. “I’m a much more loyal American than, say, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, who didn’t even grow up in this country; she grew up in Canada. And they’re telling me what it is to be a loyal American?”

Carlson –previously Fox News’ biggest star– parted ways with the broadcaster in April shortly after the news network settled for $787.5 million a lawsuit with voting-machine company Dominion Voting Systems. Fox News had regularly discussed claims on some of its shows that Dominion’s machines were involved in ‘rigging’ the 2020 US presidential election.

Carlson’s show Tucker Carlson Tonight, during which he frequently discussed issues like gender, race, sexuality and ‘woke’ ideology, was specifically referenced in the Dominion lawsuit.

Since leaving Fox News, Carlson has broadcast abridged versions of his news show on X (formerly Twitter) which regularly draw tens of millions of views.

Meanwhile, Russia TV news channel Rossiya 24 has aired a teaser trailer for a weekend show it says is to be hosted by Carlson. The promo was first broadcast earlier this month and again on September 22 along with the words “at the weekend.” It adds that the “high-profile American presenter is moving to another level. Here.”

Rossiya 24 didn’t state when the show will debut or if it will be original content or translated versions of Carlson’s X broadcasts. (RT)

 

 

 

Everything The Biden Administration Does Seems Designed To Give Americans The Finger

jonathanturley  |  We previously discussed the defunct Disinformation Governance Board and its controversial head Nina Jankowicz. After the outcry over the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas finally relented and disbanded the board while insisting that it was never about censoring opposing views. Jankowicz has sued over the portrayal of her views. Now, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) has exposed just how broad the scope of the censorship efforts were under the board in combatting “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM). This range of authority in what the agency called the “MDM space,” included targeting views on racial justice and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

New documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the agency could regulate speech related to “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.”

Those subjects stretch across much of the “space” used for political speech in the last few years.

Notably, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.

So DHS asserted the authority to target viewpoints on racial justice, Ukraine, and other political subjects, including views based on fact but viewed as misleading in context.

What is also troubling is the continued effort to conceal these censorship activities. Homeland redacted much of this information on a now defunct board under FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations.” That claim is itself chilling.

After the demise of the board, National Public Radio ran an interview entitled “How DHS’s disinformation board fell victim to misinformation.”

As the title suggests, NPR just repeated the view of Jankowicz despite the objections of many of us in the free speech community. Jankowicz insisted “we weren’t going to be doing anything related to policing speech. It was an internal coordinating mechanism to make sure that we were doing that work efficiently.” Yet, what were the criminal investigations, prosecutions, and enforcement efforts now being claimed as connected to this work?

Recently, a court found that the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts constituted “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Those words by Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty are part of a 155-page opinion granting a temporary injunction, requested by Louisiana and Missouri, to prevent White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship.

Langley's Mouthpiece Said Biden Should Not Run Again

WaPo  |  Joe Biden launched his candidacy for president in 2019 with the words “we are in the battle for the soul of this nation.” He was right. And though it wasn’t obvious at first to many Democrats, he was the best person to wage that fight. He was a genial but also shrewd campaigner for the restoration of what legislators call “regular order.”

Since then, Biden has had a remarkable string of wins. He defeated President Donald Trump in the 2020 election; he led a Democratic rebuff of Trump’s acolytes in the 2022 midterms; his Justice Department has systematically prosecuted the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that Trump championed and, now, through special counsel Jack Smith, the department is bringing Trump himself to justice.

What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech. With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In sum, he has been a successful and effective president.

But I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished. But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.

Biden wrote his political testament in his inaugural address: “When our days are through, our children and our children’s children will say of us: They gave their best, they did their duty, they healed a broken land.” Mr. President, maybe this is that moment when duty has been served.

Biden would carry two big liabilities into a 2024 campaign. He would be 82 when he began a second term. According to a recent Associated Press-NORC poll, 77 percent of the public, including 69 percent of Democrats, think he’s too old to be effective for four more years. Biden’s age isn’t just a Fox News trope; it’s been the subject of dinner-table conversations across America this summer.

Because of their concerns about Biden’s age, voters would sensibly focus on his presumptive running mate, Harris. She is less popular than Biden, with a 39.5 percent approval rating, according to polling website FiveThirtyEight. Harris has many laudable qualities, but the simple fact is that she has failed to gain traction in the country or even within her own party.

Biden could encourage a more open vice-presidential selection process that could produce a stronger running mate. There are many good alternatives, starting with now-Mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass, whom I wish Biden had chosen in the first place, or Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. But breaking up the ticket would be a free-for-all that could alienate Black women, a key constituency. Biden might end up more vulnerable.

Politicians who know Biden well say that if he were convinced that Trump were truly vanquished, he would feel he had accomplished his political mission. He will run again if he believes in his gut that Trump will be the GOP nominee and that he has the best chance to defeat Trump and save the country from the nightmare of a revenge presidency.

Biden has never been good at saying no. He should have resisted the choice of Harris, who was a colleague of his beloved son Beau when they were both state attorneys general. He should have blocked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, which has done considerable damage to the island’s security. He should have stopped his son Hunter from joining the board of a Ukrainian gas company and representing companies in China — and he certainly should have resisted Hunter’s attempts to impress clients by getting Dad on the phone.

Biden has another chance to say no — to himself, this time — by withdrawing from the 2024 race. It might not be in character for Biden, but it would be a wise choice for the country.

Biden has in many ways remade himself as president. He is no longer the garrulous glad-hander I met when I first covered Congress more than four decades ago. He’s still an old-time pol, to be sure, but he is now more focused and strategic; he executes policies systematically, at home and abroad. As Franklin Foer writes in “The Last Politician,” a new account of Biden’s presidency, “he will be remembered as the old hack who could.”

Time is running out. In a month or so, this decision will be cast in stone. It will be too late for other Democrats, including Harris, to test themselves in primaries and see whether they have the stuff of presidential leadership. Right now, there’s no clear alternative to Biden — no screamingly obvious replacement waiting in the wings. That might be the decider for Biden, that there’s seemingly nobody else. But maybe he will trust in democracy to discover new leadership, “in the arena.”

I hope Biden has this conversation with himself about whether to run, and that he levels with the country about it. It would focus the 2024 campaign. Who is the best person to stop Trump? That was the question when Biden decided to run in 2019, and it’s still the essential test of a Democratic nominee today.

5th Circuit Lets Bidencorp Continue F*cking With Your Cognitive Infrastructure....,

dailycaller  |   A federal appeals court issued a temporary stay on a judge’s injunction barring federal officials from communicating with social media companies for the purposes of censoring protected speech on Friday.

Western District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty previously denied the Biden administration’s request for an emergency order pausing his injunction on July 10. In an order Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay on the injunction “until further orders” of the court.

Doughty had previously issued a preliminary injunction barring the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies to censor protected speech on July 4.

The panel of judges who hear the case for arguments on the merits will later consider the administration’s motion for a longer stay, according to the order.

NOW: The 5th Circuit has agreed to temporarily pause an injunction that blocked a wide swath of the Biden admin from contacting social media companies; appeal will be expedited, panel of judges to be assigned later will decide whether to grant the longer-term stay DOJ wants pic.twitter.com/AmQcaeatPL

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) July 14, 2023

When Doughty denied the administration’s request for an emergency order Monday, he said the injunction only bars the administration from doing something they “no legal right to do—contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. It also contains numerous exceptions.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeffrey Landry slammed the administration’s attempt to stop the injunction as asking to “continue violating the First Amendment” in a July 10 court filing.

 

 

What The NYTimes Wrote About A Judge Protecting First Amendment Rights

startribune  | A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about broad swaths of content online, a ruling that could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues.

The order, which could have significant First Amendment implications, is a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.

It was a victory for Republicans who have often accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube of disproportionately taking down right-leaning content, sometimes in collaboration with government. Democrats say the platforms have failed to adequately police misinformation and hateful speech, leading to dangerous outcomes, including violence.

In the ruling, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, could not talk to social media companies for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech."

In granting a preliminary injunction, Doughty said that the agencies could not flag specific posts to the social media platforms or request reports about their efforts to take down content. The ruling said that the government could still notify the platforms about posts detailing crimes, national security threats or foreign attempts to influence elections.

"If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history," the judge said. "The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition."

Courts are increasingly being forced to weigh in on such issues — with the potential to upend decades of legal norms that have governed speech online.

The Republican attorneys general of Texas and Florida are defending first-of-their-kind state laws that bar internet platforms from taking down certain political content, and legal experts believe those cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court. The high court this year declined to limit a law that allows the platforms to escape legal liability for content that users post to the sites.

The ruling Tuesday, in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, is likely to be appealed by the Biden administration, but its impact could force government officials, including law enforcement agencies, to refrain from notifying the platforms of troublesome content.

Government officials have argued they do not have the authority to order posts or entire accounts removed, but federal agencies and the tech giants have long worked together to take action against illegal or harmful material, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse, human trafficking and other criminal activity. That has also included regular meetings to share information on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.

The White House said the Justice Department was reviewing the ruling and evaluating its next steps."Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present," the White House said in a statement.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, declined to comment. Twitter did not have a comment, and Google did not respond to a request for comment.

Jeff Landry, the Louisiana attorney general, said in a statement that the judge's order was "historic." Missouri's attorney general, Andrew Bailey, hailed the ruling as a "huge win in the fight to defend our most fundamental freedoms." Both officials are Republican.

Is The Biden Family Crime Syndicate Finally Running Out Of Safe Harbor?

jonathanturley  |  In 2018, Hunter Biden’s world was collapsing.

The New York Times had run a story on one of his shady deals with the Chinese and his father, then vice president, was pulled into the vortex.

It appears that Hunter was in a free fall and his uncle Jim Biden reportedly reached out in newly discovered messages to offer him a “safe harbor.”

The exchange is an insight into a train wreck of a life of the scion of one of the most powerful families in the country.

However, it is also insight into a world of influence peddling where millions simply evaporated in the coffers of the Biden family.

On their face, the messages seem to contradict public statements from President Biden on the foreign-influence peddling that was used to fund Hunter’s drug-infused, self-destructive lifestyle.

The Times story caused a panic in the Biden family.

Despite a largely supportive media, the Bidens have long been known for influence peddling.

Jim Biden has been repeatedly criticized for marketing his access to his brother in pitches to clients.

Hunter knew that the Times story was only the tip of an iceberg.

There were deals all over the world with foreign figures worth millions and some of these figures had close ties to foreign intelligence or regimes.

As revealed recently by the House Oversight Committee, the Bidens constructed a labyrinth of corporations and accounts to transfer millions from these deals to a variety of Biden family members, including grandchildren.

Free fall

Nevertheless, Joe Biden repeatedly claimed as a presidential candidate and as president that he had no knowledge of any foreign dealings of his son.

Those denials now appear patently false.

The laptop includes pictures and appointments of Hunter’s foreign business associates with Joe Biden.

It also includes a recording concerning a Times report on Dec. 12, 2018, detailing Hunter’s dealings with Ye Jianming, the head of CEFC China Energy Company.

Ye would later be arrested for corruption.

As Biden associates pushed the Times to change aspects of the story, Joe Biden called to report on the results.

In his message, Biden ends his call to Hunter with the statement “I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance, give me a call, I love you.”

The new messages indicate that the Bidens were worried that Hunter was in a free fall as these dealings were becoming known and revenue was declining.

Jim Biden appears to be rushing to get Hunter to work the problem with the family.

He assures him that they can find him “a safe harbor” and that “I can work with you[r] father alone!”

Hunter previously complained that he was giving as much as half of his proceeds to his father and was now facing towering financial demands.

He appears to have cut off the family.

That is a dangerous development for a man who had a long struggle with drugs and alcohol.

Biden Accuser Tara Reade: My Options - Live In A Cage Or Be Killed

sputnik  | Tara Reade, a US citizen, writer, and ex-assistant to Joe Biden, who has recently arrived in Russia, told Sputnik she no longer feels safe in Biden's America, adding that many Americans are ready to follow in her footsteps.

Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, came forward in April 2020 and filed a criminal complaint against then-presumptive Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden, accusing him of sexual assault in 1993. Even though some Democratic congresswomen said they believe her, not only were her claims downplayed by the US mainstream press, but she was also subjected to smears, a criminal probe, and intimidation.

 

After Biden's 2024 re-election announcement, Reade reiterated her accusations and expressed willingness to testify in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. However, in early May, Tara released a cryptic message saying that if something happens to her, all roads would lead to Biden. Reade opted to come to Russia to protect her life.

 

On May 30, Member of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Maria Butina, who herself fell victim to the US punitive machine, promised to discuss the possibility of granting Russian citizenship to Reade and ask Russian President Vladimir Putin to fast track her citizenship request.

Tara Reade is not the only American truth-seeker who has come to Russia in order to evade political persecution from the US authorities. Earlier, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden found refuge in the Russian Federation after revealing a US global spying program which targeted American citizens in sharp violation of the US Constitution. In September 2022, Vladimir Putin signed a decree granting Russian citizenship to Edward. He is now a full-fledged citizen of Russia.

As per Reade, there are a lot of people in the US who feel unsafe. Her message to them is to take action to protect themselves and their families "and to really look at who you're voting for."

"We need systemic change. So participate in that process and try to take command of your democracy if you want a democracy, because right now it's in disarray," Reade said, addressing her fellow Americans. "And that's the problem. And as far as like going to another safe haven, I mean, there are many Americans here, and I don't want to out a bunch of Americans, but there are people here that are coming to Russia - much like back in the day when Soviet Union people defected over to the US - now you have the opposite. Now you have US and European citizens looking for safe haven here. And luckily, the Kremlin is accommodating. So we're lucky."

Blinken's Stepfather Samuel Pisar Was Robert Maxwell's Attorney

Turley  |  This week, Blinken was implicated in a political coverup that could well have made the difference in the 2020 election. According to the sworn testimony of former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, Blinken – then a high-ranking Biden campaign official – was “the impetus” of the false claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story was really Russian disinformation. Morrell then organized dozens of ex-national security officials to sign the letter claiming that the Hunter laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

Morrell further admitted that the Biden campaign “helped to strategize about the public release of the statement.”

Finally, he admitted that one of his goals was not just to warn about Russian influence but “to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.”

Help it did. Biden claimed in a presidential debate that the laptop story was “garbage” and part of a “Russian plan.” Biden used the letter to say “nobody believes” that the laptop is real.

In reality, the letter was part of a political plan with the direct involvement of his campaign, but Biden never revealed their involvement. Indeed, over years of controversy surrounding this debunked letter, no one in the Biden campaign or White House (including Blinken) revealed their involvement.

Of course, the letter was all the media needed. Discussion of the laptop was blocked on social media, and virtually every major media outlet dismissed the story before the election.

That was also all Biden needed to win a close election. The allegations that the Biden family had cashed in millions through influence peddling could have made the difference. It never happened, in part because of Blinken’s work.

Once in power, Blinken was given one of the top Cabinet positions. He was now one of the “made” men of the administration.

He was not alone. The 2016 election was marred by false allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Unlike the influence peddling allegations made against Biden, the media ran with those stories for years. It later turned out that the funding and distribution of the infamous Steele dossier originated with the Clinton campaign. The campaign, however, reportedly lied in denying any such funding until after the election. It was later sanctioned for hiding the funding as legal expenses.

Those involved in spreading this false story were rewarded handsomely. For example, the second collusion story planted in the media by the campaign concerned the Russian Alfa Bank. The campaign used key Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who went public with the entirely false claim of a secret back channel between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Sullivan was also a “made” man who was later made Biden’s national security adviser. Others who were implicated in either the Steele dossier or Alfa Bank hoaxes also later found jobs in the administration. The Brookings Institution proved a virtual turnstile for these political operatives.

Many signatories on the Russian disinformation letter continue to flourish. MSNBC analyst Jeremy Bash signed the letter and was put on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board. As with Sullivan, it did not seem to matter that Bash had gotten one of the most important intelligence stories of the election wrong.

Former CIA head James Clapper was referenced by Biden on the letter and was also a spreader of the Russian collusion claims. Despite those scandals and a claim of perjury, CNN gave him a media contract.

They are all “made” men in the Beltway, but they could not have succeeded without a “made” media.

The DNC Email Leak And The Murder Of Seth Rich

moonofalabama  |   Last week we learned a new fact about the DNC email leak in 2016 and of the events that likely led to the killing of Seth Rich.

A quite aggressive Wikipedia page discusses the Murder of Seth Rich:

The murder of Seth Rich occurred on July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich died about an hour and a half after being shot twice in the back. The perpetrators were never apprehended; police suspected he had been the victim of an attempted robbery.

The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim, contradicted by the law enforcement branches that investigated the murder, that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016. It was also contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials and by the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion the leaked DNC emails were part of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org stated that the theories were false and unfounded. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post wrote that the promotion of these conspiracy theories was an example of fake news.

Well, that is not what really had happened.

Yes, Seth Rich worked as IT administrator for the Democratic National Committee. He was a fan of Bernie Sanders. During the 2016 primaries DNC functionaries did their best to work against Bernie Sanders and for Hillary Clinton. To make that public Seth Rich collected an archive of all DNC emails, copied it onto an USB stick and looked for someone who would publish them.

UPDATE 20:00 UTC

The former British ambassador Craig Murray said that he was given the USB stick by an intermediary of a disgusted Democratic whistleblower and brought it from Washington DC to Wikileaks which eventually published the emails. The data involved were not only from the DNC but also from Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta:

WikiLeaks made the DNC messages public in July and the incriminating emails from Podesta were published in October. The messages predominantly showed that DNC officials were bent on sabotaging the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton. Murray insisted that the information was leaked and not hacked by Russia.

“Neither of the leaks came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks…leakers were motivated by disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

/End Update/

Craig Murray did not mention Seth Rich. Up to last week we did not know if Seth Rich really made contact with Wikileaks.

But we did know that the DNC was never 'hacked' by anything Russia. The date/timestamps of the leaked files were consistent with local copying and inconsistent with an internet transfer. The company Crowdstrike which was hired to protect the DNC's networks and which did an investigation into the case never observed an actual 'Russian' hack or any data exfiltration from the DNC network. As ITwire wrote in May 2020:

The controversial American security firm CrowdStrike, which was called in to investigate the alleged Russian hack of DNC servers in 2016, had no proof that any emails from the system had been exfiltrated despite public assertions that this had occurred, according to the transcript of an interview released by the US Government a few days ago.

The transcript was from an interview conducted with CrowdStrike's president of services and chief security officer Shawn Henry by the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in December 2017, but only released to the US Special Counsel Robert Mueller who conducted a two-year inquiry into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential poll.

While the exfiltration of emails from the DNC server has been accepted as a proven fact, Henry's answers to queries from committee members make it clear that this was definitely not the case.

In one typical exchange, Henry was asked, "What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?" To this Henry responded, "There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence - but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

PolitiFact, Snopes and FactCheck.org are, unsurprisingly, wrong with their assertions.

Everywhere You Look Ukronazis Like Roaches In The Biden Political Kitchen

saraacarter  |  Secretary of State Antony Blinken is being investigated by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for his prominent role in persuading 51 former intelligence officials to falsely discredit the “New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation” during the 2020 Presidential election. The intelligence assessment led to a nearly blanket censorship of investigative stories exposing the alleged corruption of President Joe Biden and his family and kept the truth hidden from the American people before the election, according to a letter released Thursday night by the committees and obtained by SaraACarter.com.

During the campaign, Blinken was a senior campaign advisor to then former Vice President Joe Biden and recruited the direct assistance of then former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Michael Morell, who was one of the 51 signatories of the public statement. Biden used this false letter signed by former senior intelligence officials, including five former heads of the CIA, from both parties, on October 22, 2020 to disparage President Donald Trump During the final presidential debate.

Biden used the intelligence assessment that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation against President Trump during the campaign. Despite legitimate calls by Trump to have the FBI investigate Biden’s deeply concerning family business ties with China and Ukraine, as well as other allegations contained in the laptop that did belong to his son Hunter Biden, the Biden campaign used its connections within the intelligence apparatus to cover up the evidence, the truth and keep it from the American people.

Biden used the assessment signed by the intelligence officials to target Trump during the campaign’s last debate.

“They have said this has all the characteristics—four—five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani,” said Biden during the debate and reiterated in Jordan’s letter to Blinken. 

The committees letter was sent to Blinken on Thursday and it contains transcribed parts of a recent interview the lawmakers had with Morell.

 

No One Fucks With A Biden

 

jonathanturley  |  “No one f**ks with a Biden.” That statement by President Joe Biden last year to a Florida mayor seems more than just a boast this week after a whistleblower at the Internal Revenue Service surfaced. The Wall Street Journal reported that a career IRS Criminal Supervisory Agent has alleged preferential treatment given to Hunter Biden in tax investigations. The whistleblower also alleges that he or she has information that contradicts the testimony of “a senior Biden political appointee.”

The timing of the letter itself was notable. For years, the Democratically controlled committees blocked any investigation into allegations of corruption and influence peddling by the Biden family. Before the takeover by the Republicans in the House, this whistleblower would have had little reason to seek protection from a Committee with demonstrably little interest in such allegations.

In fairness to the Democrats, both parties have used their power to shield presidents or political allies. However, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has now uncovered an array of new facts that are shedding light on what could be one of the largest influence peddling efforts in history.  For a city where influence peddling is a virtual cottage industry, that is saying a lot. Even in this premier league of corruption, the Biden family is the G.O.A.T.

Just this week, Chairman Comer revealed that new financial documents show six additional Biden family members may have benefited from foreign payments. That brings the total to nine Biden family members who appear on suspicious transactions or bank records. The identity of these family members and the underlying payments remain unclear, but the past disclosures of alleged influence peddling by Hunter Biden and his uncle James warrant full investigation.

The Bidens have long counted on an enabling media to tamp down coverage of corruption allegations. The most remarkable effort was successfully burying the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election. The Bidens were able to get the media to buy into the effort. For many reporters, even the acknowledgment of this corruption would be a self-indictment of their own lack of curiosity and integrity.

Yet, there has also been a notable lack of perceptible movement in any of the investigations of the Bidens.  Take the investigation of David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware. Weiss is looking into an array of possible crimes, including tax violations, unlawful work as a foreign agent, unlawful foreign transactions and other offenses. Many of these crimes are relatively easy to investigate but the investigation has moved at a glacial pace.

There is ample evidence of Hunter working for foreign entities without registering as a foreign agent — a crime that the Justice Department used liberally against other defendants like Trump’s former campaign chair, Paul Manafort. There are also clearly false statements used by Hunter in relation to his possession of a handgun that appear undeniable.

However, years have passed without any indictment from Weiss or any state counterpart. At the same time, Attorney General Merrick Garland has steadfastly ignored the obvious basis for the appointment of a special counsel despite repeated references to the President as an intended recipient of influence peddling proceeds.

Former Whitehouse Stenographer Blowing The Whistle On Biden And Jake Sullivan

NYPost  |  Then-Vice President Joe Biden visited Ukraine on a mission to bolster the country’s energy industry days after his son Hunter joined the board of natural gas company Burisma in 2014 — which a former White House stenographer claims implicates the now-80-year-old in a foreign influence-peddling “kickback scheme.”

Mike McCormick says he was with current national security adviser Jake Sullivan — then a Biden aide — in the press cabin of Air Force Two en route to Kyiv on April 21, 2014, as he outlined how the world’s wealthiest country would help the deeply corrupt post-Soviet state build its gas industry.

Giving a rundown of priorities for the trip, Sullivan — described in a transcript as an anonymous “senior administration official” — said Biden would “discuss with [Ukrainian officials] medium- and long-term strategies to boost conventional gas production, and also to begin to take advantage of the unconventional gas reserves that are in Ukraine.”

Asked for details, the Biden aide said the US was interested in providing “technical assistance to help [Ukraine] be able to boost production in their conventional gas fields, where presently they aren’t getting the maximum of what they could be” while offering “technical assistance relating to a regulatory framework, and also the technology that would be required to extract unconventional gas resources; and Ukraine has meaningful reserves of unconventional gas according to the latest estimates.”

In December of that year, amid broader Obama administration support for Ukraine, Congress approved $50 million to support the country’s energy sector, including the natural gas industry.

McCormick, who worked more than a decade at the White House, told The Post this week he believes the timeline of events, featuring the unmasked longtime Joe Biden aide, demonstrates that the president used his prior position to help his son’s foreign business interests.

“Joe Biden was over there telling them, ‘You can’t be corrupt! You can’t be corrupt!’ while he was corrupt,” McCormick says. “Look, this is Air Force Two. This is Joe Biden’s plane. He’s in control of it. Jake Sullivan was in the front of the plane with Joe Biden in a meeting and then he walks back in the plane to talk to the press.”

Now, McCormick tells The Post that he wants to testify before the federal grand jury in Delaware considering charges against Hunter — saying he has relevant information that the FBI ignored.

“They’ve been looking at Hunter Biden, but this ties Joe Biden and [Sullivan] into promoting a kickback scheme with Ukraine,” he said. “It’s the timeline that does it.”

Hunter’s role at Burisma was not made public until a May 12, 2014, press release from the company.

 

Uninsured Bank Depositor Bailouts Make A Mockery Of "Too Big To Fail"

 nationalreview |  The 2008 financial collapse and resulting Wall Street bailout popularized the concept of “too big to fail” — the idea that certain institutions were so massive, and so intertwined with the rest of the financial system, that their failure could trigger a complete meltdown of the economy. 

Kinda insane that this entire debacle was potentially caused by @ByrneHobart's newsletter. Here's how the butterfly effect happened.

1) Byrne posts this article/Tweet calling out SVB's risk.
2) Pretty much every VC I know reads this newsletter
3) They all start to pay very,… https://t.co/zUSKF1ZW4J

— Evan Armstrong 📧 (@itsurboyevan) March 11, 2023

While I opposed that bailout on ideological grounds, I at least recognized the tremendous risk that the implosion of the nation’s major investment banks would pose for the broader financial system. But Sunday’s decision by regulators to bail out uninsured depositors of the failed Silicon Valley Bank would dramatically lower the threshold for federal intervention in financial markets. 

To be sure, there are reasons to believe the collapse of SVB carries broader consequences. While the FDIC guarantees deposits up to $250,000, the overwhelming majority of SVB deposits exceeded that amount. It was the bank of choice for many tech start-ups. Without access to their cash, those companies would have difficulty meeting payroll. Additionally, the sudden collapse of SVB could lead companies and individuals who have deposits in other similar financial institutions to withdraw their money starting on Monday, triggering more bank runs, and more bank collapses. 

While regulators are not stepping in to rescue SVB as an institution, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and FDIC have announced that they will make sure that all depositors at SVB as well as another failed institution, Signature Bank, will have access to their money on Monday even if those deposits exceed the $250,000 threshold. In a statement, regulators promise, “No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.”  

Defenders of this decision will try to make it seem as if it’s an extraordinary, one-off decision by regulators, but in practice, it has created a huge moral hazard by signaling that the $250,000 FDIC limit on deposit insurance does not exist in practice. The clear signal it sends is that when financial institutions make poor decisions, the government will swoop in to clean up the mess. There are plenty of ways in which poor decisions made by financial institutions could have larger implications. But in 2008, the justification for intervention was systemic risk. 

This was not a case in which the whole economy would be threatened if an intervention were not taken. There would be disruption to a number of companies in the tech sector and their employees, as well as potential problems for similarly situated financial institutions. But the vast majority of banks are well capitalized right now, and there is no credible risk of this causing a complete financial meltdown. 

In fact, it isn’t even clear that depositors were going to be wiped out, absent federal intervention. When SVB was shut down, it still had real assets that were worth money, which can be sold to pay back investors. Due to poor risk management, what they were not able to do is avoid a panic in which a large number of depositors tried to withdraw their money at the same time, which is what happened last week. Under one estimate from a Jefferies analyst, when liquidated, SVB has the assets to pay off 95 percent of deposits. This is no doubt one reason why regulators are stating so confidently that they don’t expect this to cost taxpayers money. Another reason is that they claim any losses incurred would be repaid by “a special assessment on banks” which will inevitably end up being passed on to their customers. 

Anybody who considers themselves a free-market conservative should be especially concerned about this action. Regardless of the particulars, it will just add to the talking point that when Wall Street or well-connected tech companies are in trouble, the government swoops in to the rescue. And yet lawmakers won’t eliminate student debt, give away free health care, pay for child care, guarantee affordable housing . . . and insert whatever cause you like. If you support socialism for tech companies, don’t be surprised when you get it for everything else.