Tomorrow (Wednesday), the House Oversight Committee will hold a public hearing at 1pm ET, gathering information from two IRS whistleblowers who have come forward with evidence the DOJ and FBI pressured them to stop the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden and their alleged bribery schemes.
Essentially, large payments were made by foreign governments, and affiliated businesses within China and Ukraine, to Joe and Hunter Biden in exchange for political policy. The IRS agents investigating the case were blocked by DOJ and FBI officials during their investigation of the criminal activity. Both IRS agents are going to testify publicly.
In advance of the testimony, a senior FBI supervisory special agent has now corroborated the claims made by both whistleblowers.
“Today, a former FBI supervisory special agent assigned to the FBI’s Wilmington office and the Biden criminal investigation confirmed key portions of the IRS whistleblower’s testimony. The night before the interview of Hunter Biden, both Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were tipped off about the planned interview. On the day of the Hunter Biden interview, federal agents were told to stand by and could not approach Hunter Biden—they had to wait for his call. As a result of the change in plans, IRS and FBI criminal investigators never got to interview Hunter Biden as part of the investigation.”
“The Justice Department’s efforts to cover up for the Bidens reveals a two-tiered system of justice that sickens the American people. The Oversight Committee, along with the Judiciary Committee and Ways and Means Committee, will continue to seek the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people demand and deserve.” (more)
In addition to officials from the DOJ serving in both the Trump and Biden administrations, AG Bill Barr and AG Merrick Garland respectively, the US attorney in Delaware is also now implicated in a cover-up effort to protect the Biden family.
With corrupt officials inside federal Law (DOJ) and Order (FBI) now accused of participating in the criminal conduct and coverup, congress remains the only viable mechanism for evidence and information to reach the public.
[Via Daily Mail] – […] The House Oversight Committee, led by James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, said the FBI agent’s testimony was shocking.
They said the Biden transition team was given advance warning that Hunter Biden was about to be interviewed regarding his tax affairs and the gun charge, and Hunter then refused to speak to them.
He was charged with possessing a handgun, a Colt Cobra .38 Special, for 11 days in October 2018 despite knowing he was a drug user.
Last month Hunter agreed a plea deal on both separate charges, and will appear in court at the end of this month.
‘Today, our committee staff conducted a transcribed interview with a former FBI supervisory special agent assigned to the FBI’s Wilmington office and the Biden criminal investigation,’ the Committee tweeted.
‘The agent CONFIRMED key portions of the IRS whistleblowers’ testimony, including that both Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were TIPPED OFF about the planned Hunter Biden interview.
‘In fact, on the day of the Hunter Biden interview, FEDERAL AGENTS WERE TOLD TO STAND BY AND TO NOT APPROACH HUNTER BIDEN— they had to wait for his call. As a result of the change in plans, IRS and FBI criminal investigators never got to interview Hunter Biden as part of the investigation.
‘The former FBI supervisory special agent told committee investigators he had never been told to wait outside to be contacted by the subject of an investigation.
‘The agent’s testimony is sickening and reveals the lengths to which the DOJ is willing to go to cover up for the Bidens. The Oversight Committee, along with the @JudiciaryGOP and @WaysandMeansGOP, will continue to seek the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people demand and deserve.’ (read more)
Obviously, we are at an inflection point within our Republic. The corruption is visible and well documented, yet the gatekeeper media are trying to protect their allied Biden administration.
WASHINGTON—The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability today released a timeline of the Biden family’s influence peddling schemes. The timeline includes significant dates beginning in the Obama-Biden Administration, including when then-Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine, Romania, and China on official business and Biden family influence peddling schemes in those countries. President Biden has repeatedly denied knowing anything about his family’s business dealings despite evidence to the contrary. The timeline contains important dates as to when Joe Biden knew and lied to the American people about his family’s business schemes.
The Complicated Web of Biden Family and Associates’ Companies: Biden family members and business associates created a web of over 20 companies—most were limited liability companies formed after Joe Biden became Vice President.
The Biden Family Received Millions of Dollars from Foreign Sources:Bank records so far show the Biden family, their business associates, and their companies received over $10 million from foreign nationals and their related companies. The Committee has identified payments to Biden family members from foreign companies while he served as Vice President and after he left public office.
The Biden Family Used Business Associates’ Companies to Receive Foreign Funds: Despite creating many companies after Vice President Biden took office, the Biden family used business associates’ companies to receive millions of dollars from foreign companies.
Attempts to Conceal Large Financial Transactions: After foreign companies sent money to business associates’ companies, the Biden family received incremental payments over time to different bank accounts. These complicated financial transactions appear to be meant to conceal the source of the funds and reduce the conspicuousness of the total amounts made into the Biden bank accounts.
CCP-Linked Chinese Nationals Hid the Source of the Money: CCP-linkedChinese nationals and companies with significant ties to Chinese intelligence and the Chinese Communist Party hid the source of the funds paid out to the Bidens by layering domestic limited liability companies. The Biden family and associates’ activities, in coordination with Chinese nationals and their corporate entities, appear to be an attempt to engage in financial deception. Multiple Biden family members received money from the Chinese after it passed through an associate’s account. Additionally, Hunter Biden received money directly into his company’s account from a Chinese-controlled entity.
Biden Family and Associates’ Activities in Romania Indicate Influence Peddling Scheme: The Biden family and associates’ activities in Romania bear clear indicia of a scheme to peddle influence from 2015 to 2017. While Vice President Biden lectured Romania on corruption and ethics, the Bidens received over a million dollars from a company controlled by a Romanian individual accused of corruption, Gabriel Popoviciu, through a Biden family associate.
FBI’s Biden Bribery Record Mirrors Evidence Obtained by the Oversight Committee: The Oversight Committee has reviewed the FBI’s unclassified FD-1023 form that memorialized a trusted confidential human source’s conversations with a Burisma executive who claims Joe Biden demanded $5 million and then was paid in exchange for certain actions. The Burisma executive stated that he did not pay “the big guy” directly but used so many bank accounts to hide the money. It is unclear what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify the allegations contained within this. (link)
I think it is safe to assume the Biden administration will deploy a big distraction to take attention away from the hearing Wednesday at 1pm ET.
House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan and two other House Republicans sent four letters to the heads of massive companies such as BlackRock and Vanguard, calling on them to explain corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) efforts that could violate federal antitrust laws.
The Daily Caller first obtained copies of the letters, which were sent Thursday to the heads of Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street. Jordan was joined by Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop and Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
In all of the letters, the lawmakers say the companies appear to have potentially violated U.S. antitrust law by coordinating and entering into collusive agreements to “decarbonize” assets under management and reduce emissions to net zero.
GFANZ “is the world’s largest coalition of financial institutions committed to” net zero, and it “(c)oordinate(s) commitments and actions across the sector.” Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) is a sector-specific group within GFANZ that supports net zero goals and has more than 300 asset manager members, as well as over $59 trillion in assets under its management.
BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard are three of the world’s largest asset managers. BlackRock and State Street are members of both NZAM and a company named Climate Action 100+. Vanguard was also a member of NZAM until December 2022. Lawmakers say these companies appear to have colluded “to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner across all assets under management.”
“We write because BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock) is potentially violating U.S. antitrust law by entering into agreements to ‘decarbonize’ its assets under management and reduce emissions to net zero — with potentially harmful effects on Americans’ freedom and economic well-being,” the lawmakers wrote in one of the letters. “Accordingly, to advance our oversight and inform potential legislative reforms, we write to ask BlackRock to produce relevant documents and information.”
The letter claims Ceres — a sustainability organization — appears to “facilitate collusion” through Climate Action 100+. Jordan and lawmakers compared Climate Action 100+ to a “cartel” that gets businesses to take action on climate change.
The Caller contacted GFANZ, Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street. The companies were given until “no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 20, 2023” to “produce the requested information to the lawmakers.”
After publication, Vanguard responded with the following statement: “As an asset manager owned by the investors in our funds, our unique, independent approach is focused on helping everyday retail investors achieve their long-term financial goals. We look forward to reviewing and responding to the Committee’s request.”Tags : blackrockenvironmental social and governanceesghouse judiciary committeejim jordanvanguard
There’s a lot of background discussion about this latest issue created by Elon Musk signing a pledge to support the socialist (communist) economic enterprise systems under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.
Most of the current discussion is focused on the weak ideological ‘free-market and democratic’ commitment exhibited by Musk’s adherence to the rules and dictates of the Chinese state. However, I’m staying far outside the esoteric and nuanced implication of this. The reality is much simpler.
Elon Musk is in a dire financial situation; he cannot afford to be high-minded and ideologically connected to free-speech and free-enterprise right now (if he ever was).
The Musk empire is in a very weak financial position; these decisions made, while China is holding such financial leverage over him, are made without option. Ironically, Twitter is banned in China. lolol
(Via Daily Mail) – […] Elon Musk’s Tesla was the only foreign company in the lineup of 15 other automakers to sign the letter. Part of Musk’s pledge was a promise to support China’s ‘core socialist values’ and bear ‘the heavy responsibility of maintaining steady growth.’
The automakers also agreed not to ‘exaggerate or use false publicity and disrupt fair competition with abnormal pricing,’ according to Bloomberg.
China accounts for one third of Tesla’s annual sales, reports the FT. The communist country is Tesla’s second-largest market after the U.S. and the Shanghai plant is the electric car maker’s largest production hub.
Yaqiu Wang, senior China researcher with Human Rights Watch, criticized Musk’s moves, telling the FT: ‘Failing to comply with ‘core socialist values’ has been frequently used by authorities to punish speeches that are critical of the Chinese government.’ (read more)
Once you strap onto the ride with the dragon, you don’t get off until the ride’s over.
When the Turkish government told Musk to block the political opposition to the Turkish government, Musk complied.
When the French government told Musk to block and remove content adverse to their domestic interests, Musk complied.
When China says support Communism in our country, or else…. Musk adheres.
I’m not going to say I toldyaso; I’m just smiling.
After a full media cycle of apoplexy and pearl-clutching, which included Andrew Weissmann appearing on MSNBC to declare “It’s the end of Trump,” CBS is now reporting there is no Defense Department memo about attacking Iran – the foundation of the media claims surrounding the leaked audio tapes from Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Worse still, and exactly as CTH previously outlined, despite the claims by CNN about how this audio would be used as the “central element” by the prosecution of Trump, the audio and mysterious memo are not part of the Special Counsel case.
So, why was the transcript of the audio recording used by Jack Smith in the indictment if the audio and nonexistent memo were never going to be used? Because it’s Lawfare, that’s why. Everything, yes including the specific language being deployed (ie “documents containing classification markings“), is hype for public consumption.
(Via CBS) – The Defense Department memo on Iran — at the heart of the now-public audio recording that captured a July 2021 meeting with former President Donald Trump — is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News.
[…] The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith’s team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with “a writer, a publisher, and two members of” Trump’s staff, “none of whom possessed a security clearance.” But according to a source familiar with the matter, Trump was not charged with unlawfully holding onto the Iran-related document discussed in the recording.
[…] Multiple sources familiar with the investigation previously told CBS News that defense attorneys were not certain the Iran memo in question was ever recovered and returned to the government. (read more)
There never was an Iran memo document. President Trump was discussing newspaper reports, “newspapers” and stacks of “papers”, as he originally told Brett Baier. Duh.
“There was no document… That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn’t have a document per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles.”
Watch til the end… very important. There is NO IRAN DOCUMENT! Trump was showing newspaper and magazine articles.
Jack Smith is going to have to produce this document, he can't, and he's scared shitless, so he leaked the audio tapes. WE WILL ALL GET TO SEE SMITH'S DOCUMENTS!… pic.twitter.com/pK3dGedLBQ
IT WAS ALL A LIE: Dirty Jack Smith Leaked Trump Milley Audio to Fake News to Taint Jury Pool and Smear Trump – But It IS NOT Part of Bogus Indictments Against President Trump
For weeks Special Counsel Jack Smith has been leaking allegations to the lemming media on alleged ‘classified’ information on a report discussed by President Trump to his associates and written by dummy Mark Milley, who surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban and turned over $80 billion in US weapons to the terrorist group.
Milley wrote a report on his invasion plans into Iran that included the deployment of a “massive number of troops” into the Islamic State. This was obviously not taken seriously by President Trump or his staff. Trump was the first US president in decades to keep the US out of any new wars.
This recent leak by dirty Special Counsel Jack Smith involved Mark Milley and some nonsense he wrote about invading Iran.
The DOJ has been leaking the so-called classified information on the case to the mainstream media for weeks.
I’m beginning to read the indictment against Trump. But even three pages in, it’s clear that the leaks that preceded the indictment are far too close to what is actually being pleaded by DOJ to be a coincidence.
And now, according to CBS News, the Milley memo on Iran is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president.
Washington — The Defense Department memo on Iran — at the heart of the now-public audio recording that captured a July 2021 meeting with former President Donald Trump — is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News.
In the recording of the meeting at Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey golf club, the former president can be heard apparently showing and discussing what he described as “highly confidential, secret” documents with aides. Sources say the documents were related to plans for a potential U.S. attack on Iran.
“It is like highly confidential, secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump said in the audio tape obtained by CBS News. “See, as president I could have declassified, but now I can’t, you know…Isn’t that interesting? It’s so cool.”
The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith’s team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with “a writer, a publisher, and two members of” Trump’s staff, “none of whom possessed a security clearance.”
On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that the judge who has to approve of Hunter Biden’s plea deal needs to call Attorney General Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney David Weiss, and the six witnesses who whistleblower Gary Shapley’s legal team say can corroborate his statements before accepting the deal.
Dershowitz said, “[T]he judge who is sentencing Hunter Biden and who has to approve of the plea deal, must call Garland, must call Weiss, must call these six witnesses, and must say, look, Hunter Biden’s lawyers, we know you want the deal to go through. Justice Department, we know you want the deal to go through. But I’m a judge, I represent the people of the United States of America.”
He added, “The law provides that a judge need not accept a plea bargain agreed to by both sides if there is a problem here, and if he concludes, for example, that Weiss was denied the ability to investigate beyond Delaware, then the deal’s off. Because the deal probably ends any possibility of prosecution in the District of Columbia or in Los Angeles, and if those were foreclosed in violation of what Garland said would be available to Weiss, then the deal’s off, and you have to go back to square one, you have to conclude the investigation, and then you decide whether or not to make a plea bargain. Right now, the judge should not accept this plea bargain without hearing from Garland, Weiss, and the six witnesses.”
IRS whistleblower says he witnessed interference by Biden’s DOJ in the Hunter Biden criminal investigation.
WATCH: Sen. Cruz’s full line of questioning and AG Merrick Garland’s under oath testimony that is now contradicted by an IRS whistleblower. pic.twitter.com/qUAn52ggQj
The implications of the “Clinton Sock Drawer” case, laid out in my op-ed “Clinton’s Sock Drawer and Trump’s Boxes” (June 14), shouldn’t be derided. The Constitution and the Presidential Records Act aren’t as simple as former Attorney General Bill Barr and letter writer James Wendel (June 20) think.
Not every record created by a federal agency is an “agency record.” As then-Judge Merrick Garland and two of his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit concluded in 2013 (in another Judicial Watch case, concerning White House visitor logs maintained by the Secret Service), records created by an agency for the president and intended to be controlled by the president aren’t agency records. Why not? Separation of powers. As Judge Garland explained, if records requested and intended to be controlled by the president were agency records, “a potentially serious congressional intrusion into the conduct of the President’s daily operations” would exist.
The recent indictment implies that Donald Trump received the 31 records when he was president and that he intended to control them because he placed them in boxes, retaining them. At this point, only the government knows whether those records were created for President Trump. But that fact probably doesn’t matter. Another D.C. Circuit panel in 1993 explained that the purpose of the “agency record” exception in the Presidential Records Act was to prevent a president from defining “presidential records” as “all records produced or received by, or in the possession or under the control of, any government agency or employee of the United States.”
SYNCHRONIZATION BEFORE THE START OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN: THE BURISMA CASE IN UKRAINE AND THE HUNTER BIDEN CASE IN THE U.S. ARE CREATED ACCORDING TO THE SAME SCHEME
In order to get Hunter Biden out from under attack the Biden family successfully adopted the Ukrainian experience: as a result, the Ukrainian Burisma case and the American Hunter case are closed under the same scheme – by changing the charges, striking a deal with the investigation, pressuring judicial authorities and fictitious conduct of criminal investigations.
The intensified activity of the Oversight and Accountability Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by James Comer, and the emergence of more and more evidence of corruption schemes involving the president’s family seem to have forced Biden to act unconventionally.
Earlier this week, Hunter Biden, in particular, cut a deal with the investigation and agreed to plead guilty in the federal case opened as a result of a years-long investigation into his tax fraud. It would first appear that justice had been served and the guilty party will be punished. But upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that instead of a huge sentence on dozens of episodes involving influence peddling, money laundering and pure corruption in Ukraine, Romania, China and Myanmar, Hunter Biden, and with him his father, will actually get away with it.
Under the influence of the elder Biden, the U.S. Judicial System, the FBI and the Department of Justice repeated the technology he successfully tested in Ukraine: there a top manager of Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a board member, was caught trying to give the largest bribe in Europe in cash at $6 million, but instead of imprisonment he got 1 year probation and was freed.
Let us repeat – 1 year on probation for the most serious criminal offense for which the punishment in Ukraine is imprisonment for up to 8 years with confiscation of property. This clever combination of substitution of charges, quick organization of the trial, signing a deal with the investigation and no less quick closing of the case is certainly not a know-how of the Biden family, but in fact it was used at this level for the first time.
US Attorney from Delaware David Weiss signed a June 7 letter claiming he had been granted “ultimate authority” over the Hunter Biden case.
“Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss told the House Judiciary Committee he had “been granted ultimate authority” over prosecutorial decisions related to the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden in a June 7, 2023, letter obtained by The Federalist. However, Weiss’s letter to Congress — and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s earlier testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Weiss had “full authority” to charge Hunter Biden — directly conflicts with statements Weiss made to senior members of the team investigating the Biden son.” – The Federalist reported.
Who told Weiss to sign the letter?
New whistleblower evidence, including multiple contemporaneous e-mails from IRS investigators, strongly suggests that Weiss lied to Congress in that letter.
So who told Weiss to sign that letter, and who actually wrote it for him and made him send it? https://t.co/ngOckUk7f8
This contradicts what an IRS whistleblower heard David Weiss say during one of his in-person meetings with the prosecutor.
Mark Lytle, an attorney for IRS whis told Fox News host Martha MacCallum that US Attorney David Weiss, the Trump-appointed Delaware prosecutor assigned to Hunter Biden’s case, said he had no power to bring charges against Hunter Biden.
Whistleblower Gary Shapely said David Weiss disclosed this to him on one of his in-person meetings with the US Attorney.
“United States Attorney Weiss was present for the meeting. He surprised us by telling us on the charges, quote, ‘I’m not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,’ unquote.”
US Attorney General Merrick Garland however has insisted David Weiss had full authority to bring charges against Hunter Biden.
In March Garland said under oath that Weiss had full authority to charge Hunter Biden.
“The U.S. Attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority … to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary,” Garland said.
“Weiss said he tried to go to the DC US Attorney’s office and they wouldn’t approve it. And he was trying to go charge it elsewhere in California – and he was trying to seek special counsel authority and that got denied and so this was a shocker to the agents who were present,” Mark Lytle told Fox News.
Merrick Garland last Friday said during a press conference that Weiss had full authority to make a decision to prosecute in any district he wanted to.
“As I said at the outset, Mr. Weiss was appointed by President Trump as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and assigned this matter during the previous administration and would be permitted to continue his investigation and to make a decision to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to,” Garland said on Friday.
WATCH:
BREAKING: Garland avoids key question and issues non-denial of allegations that Hunter (and Joe) Biden prosecution obstructed by Biden political appointees.pic.twitter.com/qmeb4FYwyO
House Speaker McCarthy on Monday appeared on Fox & Friends and said House Republicans will start an impeachment inquiry on Merrick Garland if what Weiss said is true.
“By July 6, because of the allegations from the IRS, because of the whistleblowers and the DOJ – Garland, what he is saying, and what David Weiss are saying privately are two different things, and if it comes true what the IRS whistleblowers are saying, we’re going to start impeachment inquiries on the Attorney General,” McCarthy said.
New York Post columnist Miranda Devine and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer appear with Maria Bartiromo to review the whistleblower evidence against Hunter and Joe Biden.
The House Ways and Means Committee has evidence from the IRS investigators turned whistleblowers, not only about the Hunter Biden criminal conduct, but also about how the DOJ ran a coverup operations to protect Joe and Hunter Biden from criminal accountability surrounding bribery and government corruption.
Schweizer also notes there is another AT&T phone number from the Hunter Biden laptop material that connects to Joe Biden. WATCH:
Byron Donalds (R, FL) and Nancy Mace (U, SC) appear with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the Biden bribery and money laundering evidence. {Direct Rumble Link}
Within the interview both members contrast the DOJ political indictment against Donald Trump with the DOJ and FBI effort to hide Hunter Biden and Joe Biden criminal activity. WATCH:
Things are getting spicy in/around Main Justice in DC. On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco denied any involvement interfering with the decisions made by USAO David Weiss regarding the investigation of the Hunter and ¹Joe Biden bribery and tax fraud scheme. However, in response, the IRS whistleblower is now naming additional witnesses to Weiss’s statements.
Through his attorneys, whistleblower Gary Shapley is now naming additional witnesses to the statements of USAO Weiss:
“In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10, following p. 148 of his testimony transcript.
Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss’s would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress.” (source)
Someone is lying, and the whistleblower appears to have all his information well documented and cited. Mr. Weiss, Mr. Garland and Mrs. Monaco have some explaining to do.
¹An interesting thought ran through my head last night as I was thinking about the Hunter Biden IRS agreement. If Hunter Biden was caught not putting the foreign payments on his U.S. tax returns as income, and we know Joe Biden received the same payments, well, did Joe Biden list his portion on his income tax returns?
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) called on Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on allegations made by an IRS whistleblower that Weiss told a meeting of investigators that he was being blocked from pursuing charges in the Hunter Biden investigation. McCarthy said if the allegations are proven true they will be part of an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “weaponization of DOJ” (The Department of Justice.)
File screen image.
The whistleblower, Gary Shapley, memorialized the staff meeting with Weiss in an email and gave the names of those in the meeting to House Way and Means Committee investigators.
Weiss and Attorney General Merrick Garland have denied that Weiss was blocked from pursuing charges against Hunter Biden and that Weiss asked to be appointed special counsel. Garland reiterated his denial at a Justice Department press briefing at noon Friday.
Garland responds to the IRS whistleblower who said U.S. Attorney David Weiss was told not to bring charges against Hunter Biden:
“I don’t know how it would be possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution.” pic.twitter.com/jz80vl9Id6
McCarthy’s statement: ” We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee. If the whistleblowers’ allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland’s weaponization of DOJ.”
We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee.
If the whistleblowers’ allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into… https://t.co/Q3LLeJhW85
McCarthy was responding to a statement by Shapley’s attorneys that was released Friday afternoon within hours of Garland’s comments at the Justice Department press briefing that named those in the meeting with Weiss after Garland told reporters he had given Weiss full authority to bring charges against Hunter Biden in whichever jurisdiction he desired.
June 23, 2023 “In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six witnesses include Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, who also independently and contemporaneously corroborated Mr. Shapley’s account in an email, now public as Exhibit 10, following p. 148 of his testimony transcript. Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr. Weiss’s would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false. That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress.” – Mark D. Lytle, Nixon Peabody LLP & Jason Foster and Tristan Leavitt, Empower Oversight
Statement from IRS Agent Gary Shapley’s legal team: “In an October 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney David Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status. Those six… pic.twitter.com/hMKhCQfDo6
Jason Foster, one of Shapley’s attorneys, responded to McCarthy Sunday afternoon, “No “if” needed. Gary Shapley provided documents to support his testimony. @TheJusticeDept, @JusticeOIG, the IRS, and its IG have much more corroboration in their files. Gary told the truth, it’s verifiable, and no one has offered a shred of evidence contradicting any of it.’
No “if” needed. Gary Shapley provided documents to support his testimony.@TheJusticeDept, @JusticeOIG, the IRS, and its IG have much more corroboration in their files.
Gary told the truth, it’s verifiable, and no one has offered a shred of evidence contradicting any of it. https://t.co/T7y30fNaOk
On Friday, Foster posted the Exhibit 10 email dated October 7, 2022 that included corroboration by Shapley’s boss (on October 11) who also attended the meeting, “Big problem for @TheJusticeDept: its “Weiss was the decider” talking point is merely a bald assertion. But, Gary Shapley and his supervisor both confirmed in a now-public email at the time that Weiss told 7 senior officials he was *not* the decider. Email below…See bold/underline: “Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed.”
See bold/underline: “Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed.” pic.twitter.com/NK0nE5KGwU
Your May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was forwarded to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department. While your letter does not specify by name the ongoing investigation that is the subject of the Committee’s oversight, its content suggests your inquiry is related to an investigation in my District. If my assumption is correct, I want to make clear that, as the Attorney General has stated, I have been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations.
…In February 2021, I was asked to remain as United States Attorney for the District of Delaware to continue my oversight of the matter. Since that time, I have fulfilled my responsibilities, consistent with Department practices and procedures, and will continue to do so. Throughout my tenure as U.S. Attorney my decisions have been made– and with respect to the matter must be made– without reference to political considerations.
As previously noted, following the release of explosive testimony and documentary evidence delivered by IRS whistleblowers to the House Ways and Means Committee, the media have been given the green light to begin the Biden removal process.
Some will attribute the shift in corporate media position to a choice made to no longer defend the Biden administration from the transparent and corrupt Joe and Hunter Biden bribery schemes; however, don’t give the corporate suites that much credit. Instead, look at the House evidence released and remind yourself the mechanisms of the DC media are completely enmeshed with the operational institutions of the DOJ and FBI. What the media know is that all of the whistleblower evidence is supported by supplemental attribution.
The media’s “sources”, who have direct pipeline contact from the DOJ and FBI into the media executive suites, have told those executives the whistleblower accounts are supported with evidence that is not yet public. The reality of their inability to hide what is coming is the reason why the media are now positioning to give the illusion of investigative journalism. Examples below:
If you accept a very specific outlook into the mindset of the Lawfare operatives (Weissmann, Eisen, Berke, McCord et al) as strategic thinkers -the brain trust- behind the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecution, then you might see the dynamic in this story.
Previously, amid his grand prose and proclamations outlining his spectacular and magnificent legal constructs, wunderkind Jack Smith was so confident in his case he strategically announced he would demand a “speedy trial” in order to preserve the great American democracy.
If you see Lawfare as a narrative construct, the pontification made sense.
However, less than two weeks later, suddenly the ever-confident Jack Smith is reversing his position and asking Florida Judge Cannon to delay the trial.
(Via NBC) – Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case to delay the start of his criminal trial until December.
The request came in a series of new motions filed late Friday by the special counsel.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had set a tentative date of Aug. 14 for the start of the trial. (more)
Remember, Lawfare is first and foremost a narrative construct intended for public media consumption. Lawfare originates from the perspective of an established legal goal, and then all of the activity is structured around supporting that goal. [A version of find me the man I’ll find you the crime.]
Lawfare is the opposite of following evidence. In fact, in its purest and most visible form, political Lawfare actually requires the ignoring of evidence.
♦ Why the delay?
I think the prosecutors got tripped up by their first motion.
Knowing how Weissmann, Berke, Eisen and McCord think, which is likely similar to how the lesser strategic Jack Smith thinks, the prosecution brain trust likely anticipated a counter motion to their first submission to the court restricting Trump’s access to the evidence being used against him.
The originating defense counter motion, if it had been filed based on substantive grounding around presidential power and ownership of the documents now cited as evidence, legally there would have been a very large constitutional argument sucking up months of court and litigation time.
I think the prosecution team was caught off guard when Trump’s lawyers just simply agreed to the terms and conditions. That has thrown the prosecution strategy into a timeline crunch they didn’t expect.
The DOJ crew were likely prepared to litigate a VERY big hurdle, and whether by accident or defense strategy when Trump’s lawyers acquiesced, they mooted the anticipated prosecutorial hurdle Smith was expecting.
While I don’t personally agree with that Trump defense team approach (if intended), the outcome of their agreement puts the more substantive pre-trial motions on a fast track to the judge.
Regardless of Trump’s defense team intent or strategy, apparently Jack Smith was caught off guard.
Jack Smith wouldn’t ask for a delay, essentially like putting egg on his own face given his prior statements, if he didn’t need the delay. Smith needs the delay.
The DOJ is Helping the CCP Persecute Their Opposition: Falun Gong, Guo Wengui, Others
(Note: This is a sponsored post from NewNoah. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Gateway Pundit)
by Kelly John Walker
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated time and time again that it will bribe and manipulate U.S. officials across multiple agencies. They are committed to destroying all opposition to their autocratic rule, no matter where their critics reside. The CCP relies on deception, propaganda, bribery, and extortion to achieve their aims in the U.S. and around the world.
And some within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including the FBI, have been helping them succeed.
We already know that various efforts by the CCP have progressed due to corruption and/or incompetence within this U.S. agency and others.
In a letter to Representative Mike Gallagher, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) wrote,
“One of the most disturbing allegations uncovered by these DOJ investigations is the continued existence of Operation Fox Hunt- a Chinese covert global operation to harass and intimidate Chinese dissidents living abroad to attempt to forcibly remove them to China. According to the recently unsealed indictment, one of the tactics used by the Chinese government was to sue the victim in New York state court, turning our judicial system in to a weapon.
Another target of Chinese operation Fox Hunt, businessmen and dissident Guo Wengui (also known as Miles Guo), was uncovered during a 2017 indictment for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act against DOJ Senior Congressional Affairs Specialist, George Higginbotham, former Finance Chairman of the RNC, Elliot Broidy, and American businesswoman Nickie Lum Davis. The three were charged with unregistered lobbying on behalf of the Chinese government in exchange for millions of dollars. One of their goals was to facilitate the illegal removal of Guo. Although many individuals involved in the 2017 scheme were caught and charged, other American proxies continue to work for the CCP.
We urge the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to investigate the infiltration of the DOJ, SEC, and the U.S. legal system by the CCP. The root cause of this weaponization, across multiple agencies within the Executive Branch, has always been the CCP.
Recent Example: Bribe Offered Against Falun Gong
On May 24, FBI Special Agent Christopher S. Essick filed a Sealed Complaint in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against John Chen, also known as Chen Jun, and Lin Feng over allegations they supported the PRC as unregistered foreign agents. Chen and Lin attempted in 2023 to bribe an undercover federal agent acting as a U.S. tax official to advance a complaint that would strip a Falun Gong entity of federal tax exemption.
The department described this scheme as part of a broader campaign by China’s government to target U.S.-based critics. The charges were announced a month after federal agents arrested New York residents accused of operating a clandestine Chinese “police station” in Manhattan’s Chinatown district.
FBI Refuses to Respond to Questions About Secret CCP “Police Station”
In a May 23 hearing, Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) and House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) complained that the FBI had not answered a letter seeking answers to multiple questions, including when the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were notified of the Chinese police station in New York.
“In addition to the Chinese police station operating in Manhattan, New York, there are allegations of these illegal organizations operating in a separate location in New York, NY, Los Angeles, California, San Francisco, California, Houston, Texas, as well as cities in Nebraska and Minnesota,” the letter says. “What is DHS and the FBI doing to combat the malign influence occurring in these additional locations and across the homeland?”
“It’s now been over two weeks past that deadline that we asked for,” Pfluger told Jill Murphy, deputy assistant director of counterintelligence at the hearing, “So I would ask you, please, to respond to that letter in writing,”
Murphy gave a vague and non-committal response: “The threat from China is complex and vast. So, when we talk about universities, or researchers, or academics, or innovation, China proliferates all those spaces to include in our communities where Chinese Americans live as a way to influence those communities. And we work actively to identify those and investigate that.”
FBI leadership has not only been evasive, but they’ve also been soft on these CCP spies, presenting a breathtaking example of the “two-tiered justice system.” These agents of the CCP, whom we can only assume pose a risk of being recalled to China by the PRC to avoid trial, were released on bail. Yet, Miles Guo and Yvette Wang—who have been residing in the U.S. to seek protection from international CCP efforts to extradite them back to China and destroy them—are being held without bail.
Now, we know without a doubt that the CCP is behind all of this, pulling every string they can; the FBI even admitted in federal court that they have been “working with China” to prosecute Guo and Wang.
Congress knows that all of this is going on, but has yet to intervene on behalf of Guo, Wang, and the large population of Chinese Whistleblowers—and now increasing numbers of Americans—joining in the rallying cries to “Free Miles Guo” and “Free Yvette Wang.”
Thus far, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Arizona), Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), and Rep. George Santos (R-New York) have officially expressed a commitment to investigating the infiltration of the DOJ by the CCP and persecution of the Chinese Whistleblowers.
“I have met with representatives of the Chinese Whistleblower group, whose mission it is to help the U.S. dismantle the CCP’s infiltration of our most sacred institutions,” reads a letter from Rep. Crane’s office. “This whistleblower group has presented a number of representatives with a packet of important information that I believe warrants further investigation.
“There is ample documentation verifying that the CCP is exploiting the U.S. justice system to advance its own hostile agenda to destroy America. This ‘lawfare’ weaponizes our own legal system through infiltration of Federal agencies like the DOJ, FBI, SEC as well as judges and law firms. The DOJ has already identified and convicted several key players working to carry out the CCP’s agenda: the same people who have been trying to silence whistleblowers through bribery, extortion, and espionage.
“Would you say that they’re using every available tactic, technique, and procedure to infiltrate American national security interests and interests writ large?” Pfluger asked Murphy about the CCP.
“I would say that their attack surface is large,” responded Murphy, “and they are using all the tools in their toolbox to gather information, whether it’s classified, intellectual property, sensitive, unclassified, anything that they consider [of] value.”
Knowing that the CCP is an enemy of the U.S., with abundant tools and impetus to silence and hunt down their critics, why is the DOJ imprisoning the whistleblowers and releasing the spies? What do they have to hide, and who are they protecting? The American people deserve to know, and Congress must continue to demand that these agencies clean house and answer to the People.
P.S. The good people of America, the New Federal State of China Whistleblowers (NFSC), the Falun Gong, and myriad others say:
Dear DOJ and FBI: STOP HELPING THE CCP!
Kelly John Walker is an American statesman, writer, branding professional, and entrepreneur. He is the founder of FreedomTalk, host of FreedomTalk TV, and a freelance writer.
So either a senior IRS official is lying under oath and has been planning to do so since last year when he began writing emails saying the same things he’s said under oath or Merrick Garland and Joe Biden are lying. Which seems more likely? An IRS official is willing to go to… https://t.co/qajXD6RxrO
While obituaries this week will rightfully laud Daniel Ellsberg for his disclosure of the lies and deceptions behind the Vietnam War, two ideological descendants of the Pentagon Papers, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, remain unfree.
This weekend marks 11 years since Julian Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and began his confinement as a political prisoner. The torture that he has endured is not just an attack on his rights of free expression and journalism; it is an assault on your right to be an informed citizen.
His persecution was a harbinger for the merger of state and corporate interests, the increased suppression of dissent, and the dual system of law that indemnifies the powerful and punishes dissidents.
War hawks have weaponized the financial system against their political opponents. The Justice Department and Intelligence Agencies look to kill a man for exposing their crimes. And an obsequious press corps dithers as the most influential journalist of the century rots behind bars.
Behind the tragedy and persecution of Assange as an individual is a broader societal narrative. The most powerful groups in the country don’t believe that you have a right to know their crimes or protest their policies.
Forget any preconceptions you may have about Mr. Assange’s character. The bogus “rape” charges and media smear campaigns are distractions from the meaning of his work. Authorities have persecuted Assange because he published information that they wished to keep secret. He committed the crime of journalism in an era of corporate press releases.
Consider the importance of just one story that Assange broke thirteen years ago:
In 2010, Wikileaks released “Collateral Murder,” a 38-minute video of American soldiers killing a dozen Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists. The recording remains available online, showing two Apache helicopter pilots unleashing fire on the men below as if it were a videogame.
“Look at those dead bastards,” one killer says. “Nice,” his co-pilot responds.
There was no strategic basis for denying American citizens the right to view the video; the coverup was a public relations maneuver designed to evade blowback from the apparent war crimes.
The response was a scandal in itself. No American soldiers or commanders were held accountable for the killing. Instead, the publisher is dying in a prison cell. For four years, Assange has been held at Belmarsh Prison, “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay,” where he awaits the United States’ motion for extradition.
After Collateral Murder, Senator Joe Liberman successfully pressured Amazon to remove Wikileaks from its server and convinced companies including Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal to deny financial services to the platform. Later, the CIA plotted to assassinate him in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Assange and Wikileaks continued to serve as the most influential publishers in recent history. They uncovered 500,000 documents from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that showed the truth about civilian deaths in the United States’ military campaigns. They published the US Army manual for Guantanamo Bay, which outlined isolation tactics for prisoners. They revealed US State Department Cables detailing a secret campaign of drone strikes in Yemen. They released emails from the Democratic National Committee that showed a coordinated effort to favor Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders in the primary elections.
Now, Assange faces 175 years in prison for charges under the Espionage Act, a 1917 law used to jail President Woodrow Wilson’s political opponents and critics of US involvement in World War I. Presidential candidate Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years in federal prison in 1918 for telling a crowd of followers, “You need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”
A century later, Assange faces death in an American prison for exposing the cannon fodder of the War on Terror.
“Assange is not persecuted for his own crimes, but for the crimes of the powerful,” writes Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and author of The Trial of Julian Assange. “The persecution of Assange establishes a precedent that will not only allow the powerful to keep their crimes secret but will even make the revelation of such crimes punishable by law. Let us not fool ourselves: once telling the truth has become a crime, we will all be living in tyranny.”
Once Covid emerged, the established precedent was used against the citizenry at large, and the tyranny was suddenly obvious.
PayPal and GoFundMe used Senator Liberman’s strategy to punish critics of the Covid regime like the Canadian truckers’ convoy. Corporate media dithered as the Biden administration actively censored critical journalists. The mass surveillance that Edward Snowden revealed was used to usurp Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights under the pretext of public health. And our legal system became increasingly warped to insulate the powerful and deny justice to the masses.
The meaning of Julian Assange is simple: should the powerful be able to indemnify themselves from legal and reputation recourse, or do citizens have a right to hold their officials accountable? His case represents more than his right to publish information – it is a question of whether we have a right to the information necessary to expose the crimes and corruption of our leaders.
Assange did not use his knowledge of government secrets to profit or influence peddle; that could have landed him a partnership at Kissinger Associates or a board seat at Lockheed Martin. Instead, the Biden administration looks to jail him for life because he exposed international crimes and corruption to the public for free.
Now we can observe the long trajectory of history. It did not begin three years ago. The groundwork for the censorial technocracy we face today was laid with a series of targeted hits that created enemies of the state. They did great things for the public well-being but were brutally punished for it. To this day, these people languish in an imprisoned state, martyrs for the freedom we once took for granted and the rights we hope to regain.
WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. More PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016, and a set of additional 995 emails was imported up to February 2, 2018.
The evidence released by the House Ways and Means Committee today is quite astonishing in detail. In any normal political world, the transcripts, testimony and statements that were released today would destroy the top-tiers of any administration, including the President.
The evidence provided by direct testimony and through transcripts, emails and documents that support the testimony is comprehensive in scope. The White House and DOJ claimed that US Attorney David Weiss was able to conduct his investigation of Hunter Biden however he needed, but consider this revelation of how much Main Justice intervened to protect Hunter Biden:
“U.S. Attorney of Delaware David Weiss tried to bring charges in District of Columbia around March 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought special counsel status from DOJ in the Spring of 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought to bring charges in the Central District of California in the Fall of 2022 and had that request denied in January 2023.” (link)
It’s not preferential treatment that is outlined in the way the DOJ handles and interfered in the Biden investigation. The evidence outlines something far beyond disparate treatment. The transcripts for the whistleblower testimony are at the following links:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Ways and Means Committee executive meeting resulted in a vote to release to the public whistleblower testimony of two different IRS employees who worked directly on the tax evasion case of Hunter Biden. That testimony outlines misconduct and government abuse at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the investigation of Hunter Biden. The allegations point to a steady campaign of: unequal treatment of enforcing tax law; Department of Justice (DOJ) interference in the form of delays, divulgences, and denials, into the investigation of tax crimes that may have been committed by the President’s son; and finally, retaliation against IRS employees who blew the whistle on the misconduct.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) released the following statement:
“Today, the Ways and Means Committee voted to make public the testimony of IRS employees blowing the whistle on misconduct at the IRS and the Biden Department of Justice regarding unequal enforcement of tax law, interference and government abuse in the handling of investigations into criminal activity by President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and retaliation against IRS employees blowing the whistle on this abuse.
“The American people deserve to know that when it comes to criminal enforcement, they are not on the same playing field as the wealthy and politically connected class. The preferential treatment Hunter Biden received would never have been granted to ordinary Americans.
“Whistleblowers describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging, and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes. The testimony shows tactics used by the Justice Department to delay the investigation long enough to reach the statute of limitations, evidence they divulged sensitive actions by the investigative team to Biden’s attorneys, and denied requests by the U.S. Attorney to bring charges against Biden.
“IRS employees who blew the whistle on this abuse were retaliated against, despite a commitment IRS Commissioner Werfel made before the Ways and Means Committee to uphold their legal protections. They were removed from this investigation after they responsibly worked through the chain of command to raise these concerns.
“The Committee has acted in good faith with participation from both Democrats and Republicans, as the issues raised today ought to be a bipartisan concern. Hopefully we can find a path forward to continue to go where the facts lead us. If the federal government is not treating all taxpayers equally, or if it is changing the rules to engineer a preferred outcome, Congress has a duty to ask why and to hold agencies accountable and consider appropriate legislative action. The scales of justice must not be skewed in favor of the wealthy and the politically connected.”
The federal government is not treating all taxpayers the same – and providing preferential treatment to the wealthy and well-connected, including the son of the President of the United States.
♦ Despite the fact that IRS officials recommended that Hunter Biden be charged with criminal activity that includes attempts to evade or defeat taxes, fraud and false statements, and willful failures to file returns, supply information, or pay taxes for over $8.3 million in income, Mr. Biden received preferential treatment in the course of the investigation, and has struck a plea deal that will likely keep him out from behind bars. Meanwhile…
♦ In 2014, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida announced that a man was sentenced to 13 months in prison to be followed by a year of supervised release for failing to file an income tax return, the same misdemeanor tax offense that Hunter Biden was charged with.
The Department of Justice interfered in the investigation into Hunter Biden’s clear tax issues with a “Delay, Divulge, and Deny” campaign – that ultimately shielded him by allowing the statute of limitations to pass on his tax crimes.
♦ DELAY: Recurring unjustified delays pervaded the investigation, including in authenticating the message between Hunter Biden and Chinese officials. Investigators were told by U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf that “there is no way” a search warrant for evidence would get approved because the evidence of interest would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden.
♦ DIVULGE: Investigators found out that attorneys for Hunter Biden were tipped off about actions relating to the investigation in advance. For example, even as investigators had probable cause to search a Northern Virginia storage unit in which Hunter Biden had stored files, attorneys for Biden were tipped off.
♦ DENY: U.S. Attorney of Delaware David Weiss tried to bring charges in District of Columbia around March 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought special counsel status from DOJ in the Spring of 2022 and was denied. Weiss sought to bring charges in the Central District of California in the Fall of 2022 and had that request denied in January 2023.
IRS employees worked through the chain of command to blow the whistle on this misconduct – only to be met with hostility and retaliation, leading them to come to the Ways and Means Committee.
♦ Actions were taken to cut the IRS investigative team out of the process after they raised concerns up their chain of command. One whistleblower was not selected for a position, when he was more qualified than the candidate who was selected. Limits and pauses have been placed on other, unrelated investigations that the whistleblowers are working on – which hamper the investigators’ ability to do their work or advance. The whistleblowers and their entire team were removed from the investigation on May 15, 2023, after blowing the whistle to Congress. (link)
On Monday, I ripped through the Halderman report, and what its unsealing means for the future of elections in Georgia and beyond. The report itself, and Halderman’s commentary on it, is a two-edged sword; it cuts the concept of electronic voting, and Georgia’s specific systems, to the core, criticizes Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s inattention in fixing these glaring deficiencies, then shows serious mercy, by saying there is still “no credible evidence” supporting Georgia’s 16 electoral votes were misallocated to Joe Biden.
Is Halderman trying to remain credible as a scientist, or perhaps seeking to maintain “welcome” status at local social gatherings, by not going there and getting political? Without further digging, one may consider that a wise strategy for having the report taken more seriously. When I was drafting my analysis of the unsealing of Halderman’s report, I noticed a real gem from 2016 and composed it like this:
In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, a group of scientists led by Halderman admonished the Clinton camp to challenge election results over something the media would slam me as a conspiracy theorist for saying. From CNN:
“Halderman…told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners…”
The Midwest had been on a Republican trend for six years when Trump flipped Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Georgia, on the other hand, had been won by Trump in 2016 with little effort and money, and then experienced one of the largest Republican vote gains in one election cycle in history in 2020, only to be lapped by a Democrat performance exceeding Barack Obama’s vote gain in 2008. Halderman appears to be quite selective when it comes to his suspicions if he thinks there’s nothing to see here regarding Georgia’s curious 2020 result, especially after The New York Times needle had Georgia going to Trump on election night with 98% certainty.
A true political guru from Michigan, where Halderman works as a professor, would understand that his state had been trending heavily in favor of not only Trump, but the GOP in general, under Obama’s presidency. Trump turbocharged that trend and managed to flip the state just eight years after it went “blue” by more than 16 points. I have explained these coalition shifts in great detail, and they bear out the likelihood that Trump would have carried Michigan by 8.5% in a fair election, at minimum. Furthermore, believable Trump margins in Wisconsin (7.8%) and Pennsylvania (6.4%) represent a substantial continuation of these Midwestern white working class trends that began in the 2010 midterms.
Thanks to the stagnation or decline of population in a huge chunk of counties in those states, the pronounced movement of voters from one side to the other (coalition shift) resulted in a loss of votes for the Democrat Party in 2012, and even more severely in 2016, as the white working class began to disassociate from the “party of the people.” Trump’s gains in 2020 were even steeper than his gains in 2016, yet they were cancelled out by counterfeit Biden votes in every single county in that critical trio of states.
Still, Halderman saw no issue with analyzing basic statistical data in 2016, when Barack Obama’s absence atop the ticket, and the presence of a diabolical scold, blew the floodgates open in favor of Trump’s flanking maneuver. Perhaps Mr. Halderman would like to have a look at some of Georgia’s abnormalities andirregularities, as our tone-conscious country club GOP friends might call them.
Biden Popularity in Comparable Metros
Joe Biden exceeded Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote total by 2.3% in Baltimore City, a Democrat stronghold with a heavily black voting base that goes almost 90% for whoever the Democrats field. Is there cheating in Baltimore City? Certainly. Is there an indication that any special spin was put on the 2020 election? None at all. In addition, Biden, with his 81 million vote stunner of a performance, failed to grow by even 1% over Clinton’s vote total in heavily blue Bronx County, New York, and lost a lot of margin to President Trump there.
Well, Captain, those are northern areas, nowhere near Georgia. Why should we care?
Painting the picture in greater detail and moving to comparable southern metros, we also find that Hinds County, the home of metro Jackson, Mississippi, saw a Biden gain of just 8.8% over Clinton, and Orleans Parish, Louisiana, home to the Big Easy, grew by a modest 10.3% in support of Biden over Clinton. Those numbers give us baselines.
Given that Biden hardly campaigned in Georgia or spent money in a state Trump was expected to win comfortably, one might think we could expect gains in metro Atlanta of 10%, or maybe even 15% factoring in population growth. Four big counties give the Democrats lots of votes. They are Fulton and DeKalb, home to urban Atlanta, and Cobb and Gwinnett, the two oldest suburban counties that have only flipped “blue” since the 2016 election. What kind of growth did Biden have in those counties?
Ah, yes. The safest and most secure election ever strikes again, and would you look at that? Just enough to get a win of 11,779 votes in the state, with Trump having one of the steepest GOP vote gains in the history of Georgia, and the highest since 2004.
For what it’s worth, I have crunched the numbers in these four counties and believe there are approximately 130,215 fictitious votes for Biden between them, even as I afford generous Biden gains in all four that are likely not reflective of reality, in which Trump had the strongest Republican black vote performance since 1960 and gained over 11 million votes nationally.
Special Counsel John Durham testifies before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, June 21, 2023. (Video screenshot)
The FBI was, in fact, biased in its attack on President Donald Trump during the 2016 election, when the bureau worked with the DOJ and Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign to falsify the “Russiagate” collusion claims against him.
That’s according to Special Counsel John Durham, whose recent report concluded the investigation was based on zero evidence, and the FBI didn’t even follow its own procedures in its pursuit of Trump.
.@RepMikeJohnson: "You said that your findings and conclusions are sobering…Why?"
DURHAM: "I have had any number of FBI agents…who have come to me and apologized for the manner in which that investigation [Crossfire Hurricane]… pic.twitter.com/3kdf4RE8II
He, in fact, affirmed there were FBI officials, “key officials in charge,” who deliberately withheld critical evidence from other investigators in the case.
A report from the Daily Caller News Foundation said Durham, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, explained during his review there was an FBI agent who “became emotional” when presented with a memo about the Clinton campaign’s efforts to promote the idea Russia was supporting Trump.
Then-FBI chief James Comey, who had exonerated Clinton earlier after she was caught posting national secrets on an unsecure email server, did not share that information about the campaign’s agenda with agents.
“We interviewed the first supervisor…the operational person. We showed him the intelligence information. He indicated that he’d never seen it before. He immediately became emotional. Got up and left the room with his lawyer. Spent some time there before he came back,” Durham explained.
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked, “He was ticked off, wasn’t he? He was ticked off because this was important information that he should have had working on the case…that the FBI director kept from him while working on the investigation.”
Durham affirmed, “The information was kept from him.”
He also explained other FBI agents expressed regret over the investigation.
Durham told members of the committee reviewing the case that FBI agents “apologized” to him for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the bureau’s code name for its look into those Democrat claims that Trump’s campaign was working with Russia.
The facts now reveal the allegations being made by the Clinton campaign and the FBI were themselves linked to Russian sources.
Durham said some of the agents were ashamed of their work on the investigation.
“Let me give you some real-life views: I have had any number of FBI agents…who have come to me and apologized for the manner in which that investigation [Crossfire Hurricane] was undertaken. These are good, hard-working, decent people,” Durham said.
A report from the Daily Mail said the interview came a month after Durham released a “scathing report” that found the DOJ and FBI had “no basis” to investigate Trump.
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump walk across the South Lawn of the White House Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2020, before boarding Marine One to begin their trip to Florida. (Official White House photo by Andrea Hanks)
He said the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated” claims to attack Trump.
Even further emphasizing the partisan status of the FBI, the report said, was the fact that the FBI later raided Trump’s home in Florida over the custody of papers from his presidency.
Some of them were classified, and Trump now has been charged with a long list of counts over the dispute.
However, similarly classified documents have been found in Joe Biden’s garage, stashed next to his Corvette, and there have been no similar counts filed against him.
Durham warned the bureau’s bias means it will “take time to rebuild the public’s confidence in the institution.”
At the time, the collusion to spread false information about Trump went as high as the Oval Office, as then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed Barack Obama about Clinton’s scheme to link Trump to Russia.
Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Comey also were at that meeting.
In other comments, Durham dropped the hammer on Rep. Steve Neguse, D-Colo., who brought up the issue of GOP hopes to defund the FBI and DOJ because of bias.
“That doesn’t make sense to me. But I’ve only been at this for 40 years,” Durham said.
Durham also shot down claims by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that Durham’s reputation was damaged by his report.
“My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, and my family, and my Lord, and I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir,” Durham shot back.
The Mail reported, “At one point Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked Durham about the meeting Donald Trump Jr. took with Russian agents claiming to have ‘very high level and sensitive information’ that would be incriminating to Hillary Clinton.”
Durham said those types of calls are common.
The Mail then reported, “Schiff was one of Trump’s most outspoken critics and spent years trying to prove collusions between him and Russia. In 2018 DailyMail.com revealed that Schiff had been spoofed by Russian comedians posing as Ukrainian officials offering him ‘compromising’ dirt on Trump – including nude photos.”
Representative Andy Biggs and Representative Matt Gaetz both confronted John Durham about his role in covering for a politically corrupt and weaponized Dept of Justice and FBI.
Matt Gaetz specifically confronts Durham over his lack of holding people accountable. The confrontation between Matt Gaetz and John Durham should have been the tone of the entire hearing. WATCH:
You can like or dislike the approach by Matt Gaetz, personally I appreciate it, but what Gaetz says in this confrontation is factually accurate and true.
Today, for the first time, the broader American public met the face of the four-year investigation into the origin of the Trump-Russia hoax. Special Counsel John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee.
What a larger audience is now recognizing is what people on these pages have been discussing for quite some time. John Durham was/is the institutional preservation officer hired by Bill Barr to carefully navigate the corruption of the DOJ and FBI without actually holding anyone accountable for the corruption within the DOJ and FBI. Put succinctly, Bill Barr was the Bondo application and John Durham was the spray paint.
The rotting and corrupt carcass of our justice system is what remains hidden underneath the efforts of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham. This is their legacy. Congressman Tom McClintock asks high-brow questions of John Durham, WATCH:
The US House is scheduled to vote to censure Adam Schiff on Wednesday night.
Earlier today, the bill to censure Adam Schiff for repeated lies about Trump-Russia collusion survived a motion to table. The vote will now go to the House Floor.
The House of Representatives has voted 213-209 to censure Adam Schiff “for abusing and exploiting his official position and bringing dishonor to the House of Representatives.”
Serial liar Adam Schiff will now face an ethics investigation.
213-209: The House votes to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) over his handling and public statements regarding the Trump-Russia investigation and Trump’s first impeachment.
The vote makes Schiff just the third congressperson this century to face that formal rebuke from the House. pic.twitter.com/f8vSJAlrrX
We live with a new type of tyranny, where we find ourselves dissidents. It is not like any previous tyranny. It is not revolutionary in nature. Instead, it operates very scientifically and technocratically by convincing those it tyrannizes to demand their own enslavement, under the guise of comfort.
Prior dissidents were at least dissidents of a tangible, kinetic revolution. We are dissidents of what the willfully tyrannized perceive as their secure position within the rightful order of things. This needs to be factored into how we think about “converting” and “awakening” others amid the ongoing insurgency.
(Via Daily Mail) – A Fox News producer who resigned over a chyron that described Joe Biden as a ‘wannabe dictator’, has broken his silence.
Alexander McCaskill posted a photo of himself on Instagram holding a cardboard box outside the corporation’s New York offices.
He told his followers ‘Today was my last day at Fox’ and described his time there as a ‘wild 10 years’.
McCaskill is thought to have been responsible for the chyron which claimed President Biden was intent on locking up his 2024 rival, Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Fox had it on screen for less than 30 seconds, and then apologized. Dailymail.com has approached Fox News and McCaskill for comment.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed the producer had resigned during his new show, now being broadcast on Twitter, on Thursday.
He did not name the producer but The Daily Beast reported that it was McCaskill, who worked with Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight for many years.
McCaskill seemed to confirm news of his resignation on his private Instagram account in a lengthy post.
‘Today was my last day at FOX. It was a wild 10 years and it was the best place I’ve ever worked because of the great people I met,’ he wrote.
‘But the time has come. I asked them to let me go, and they finally did. To all my friends there: I will miss you forever.’ (read more)
Tom Van Hoose, the owner of Highwood Creek Outfitters (MTN News)
In an unprecedented move, twenty armed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents carried out a raid on a gun store in Great Falls, Montana, seizing all Form 4473 – documents that record buyer’s information during firearms transactions.
Tom Van Hoose, owner of Highwood Creek Outfitters, alleges that he has been under constant surveillance by state and federal agencies for over two years, KRTV reported.
On Wednesday, the gun shop owner reported an unexpected visit from 20 heavily armed IRS and ATF agents at his store.
The agents reportedly arrived at the shop early in the morning, as Van Hoose was opening for the day.
“We have now confirmed that both the IRS and the ATF were at Highwood Creek Outfitters in Great Falls around 7 am this morning. Both the IRS and ATF would not say why they were there,” KMON Radio reported.
“A spokeswoman for the IRS would only say they were there on official IRS business. The ATF says it was providing assistance to the IRS. We attempted to enter the store today and were stopped by agents at the door who would only say that the gun store is closed and will reopen tomorrow,” the news outlet added.
According to Hoose, the federal scrutiny began two years ago and has involved various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and now, the Internal Revenue Service.
“They must think we’re making a fortune in the gun business to investigate us like this, assuming we’re hiding thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. However, anyone familiar with gun business profit margins would know that’s not the case,” Van Hoose told MTN News.
Van Hoose claims that he was simply told his business had been reported, although he remains in the dark about who reported it or why. He believes the whole episode was politically motivated.
“I can only assume that it’s because of the style of weapons that we have and the press that’s so against them,” said Van Hoose. “The current administration seems to be hell bent on getting those guns out of the hands of average Americans.”
The day’s operations were disrupted, leading to a significant loss of revenue.
“I had about 30 minutes to operate, making just a single $16 sale,” Hoose said.
Highwood Creek Outfitters is America’s largest online firearms and accessories mall, according to its website. The store is known for selling what Van Hoose calls “fun guns,” including AR-15’s and AK-47s.
WATCH:
caution language
The Great Falls Police Department confirmed it was informed about the investigation and provided security, according to KRTV.
Although the Montana Department of Justice claimed no involvement in the incident, an IRS spokesperson confirmed their presence at Highwood Creek Outfitters but refrained from providing further details.
The recent incident has attracted political attention, with Congressman Matt Rosendale expressing his concern over the IRS and ATF’s actions, interpreting them as another example of the Biden regime’s weaponization of federal agencies against hardworking Americans.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by initial reports that the IRS and ATF closed Highwood Creek Outfitters without any warning today,” said Rep Rosendale in a statement.
“This is yet another example of the Biden Administration weaponizing federal agencies to target and harass hardworking Americans. We cannot allow Biden to continue expanding these agencies to infringe on our liberties,” he added.
On Friday afternoon, the congressman announced he sent a letter to ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, asking for answers.
“The weaponization of our government must be STOPPED, which is why I sent a letter to ATF Director Dettelbach and IRS Commissioner Werfel demanding answers about this outrageous attack and have used every tool available to me to remove funding for the 87,000 additional IRS agents!” Rep. Rosendale said.
Rep. Matt Rosendale joined Chris Salcedo to discuss the incident.
“Here’s what they took out. IRS – financial records, accounting, making sure what transactions were taking place. No, they took all of the 4473 forms. The 4473 forms are what everyone fills out when they go to purchase a firearm,” said Rosendale.
“And it’s just a big disclosure to make sure that you don’t have a criminal background or other reasons where you should not be purchasing a firearm. So the IRS took every single one of the 4473s that Tom Van Hoose had in his possession there at Highwood Creek Outfitters,” he added.
20 armed IRS agents raid Great Falls gun store.
They didnt take any financial records, accounting or tax statements.
But they did take all the 4473 forms. (Buyer’s Information)
Rep. Rosendale tweeted a photo of himself with Hoose, who confirmed that all 4473 forms were confiscated by federal agents.
I met with Tom Vanhoose this morning after 20 armed IRS agents raided his store in Great Falls earlier this week.
Tom informed me that these agents confiscated all the 4473 forms, none of which contain any financial information; instead, the IRS now has access to these forms… pic.twitter.com/HPFEgZedKI
Jim Jordan and the Weaponization Subcommittee released new information on Friday night.
The House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are conducting oversight of federal agencies’ commitment to protecting civil liberties.
In the subcommittee’s latest report released Friday they discovered that the IRS is using fake names to enter taxpayers’ homes and harass homeowners.
And in this Ohio case, the IRS agent threatened police when he got caught.
Here’s the unbelievable story of government abuse from The Weaponization Subcommittee:
We have recently received allegations that an Internal Revenue Service agent provided a false name to an Ohio taxpayer as part of a deception to gain entry into the taxpayer’s home to confront her about delinquent tax filings. When the taxpayer rightfully objected to the agent’s tactics, the IRS agent insisted that he “can … go into anyone’s house at any time” as an IRS agent. These allegations raise serious concerns about the IRS’s commitment to fundamental civil liberties.
On March 27, 2023, the Committee previously wrote to you and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about an IRS agent visiting unannounced and unprompted the home of journalist Matt Taibbi. Incredibly, at the time of the visit, Mr. Taibbi was testifying before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about how the federal government pressured, coerced, and even directed technology companies to take certain actions related to digital content. The Committee is continuing to investigate the IRS’s reasons for visiting Mr. Taibbi’s home and whether the visit was conducted in an attempt to intimidate a witness before Congress.
Since then, the Committee has learned of another instance in which an IRS agent performed an unannounced field visit to a taxpayer. The details of this field visit are bizarre. On April 25, 2023, an IRS agent who identified himself as “Bill Haus” with the IRS’s Criminal Division visited the home of a taxpayer in Marion, Ohio. Agent “Haus” informed the taxpayer he was at her home to discuss issues concerning an estate for which the taxpayer was the fiduciary. After Agent “Haus” shared details about the estate only the IRS would know, the taxpayer let him in. Agent “Haus” told the taxpayer that she did not properly complete the filings for the estate and that she owed the IRS “a substantial amount.” Prior to the visit, however, the taxpayer had not received any notice from the IRS of an outstanding balance on the estate.
During the visit, the taxpayer told Agent “Haus” that the estate was resolved in January 2023, and provided him with proof that she had paid all taxes for the decedent’s estate. At this point, Agent “Haus” revealed that the true purpose of his visit was not due to any issue with the decedent’s estate, but rather because the decedent allegedly had several delinquent tax return filings. Agent “Haus” provided several documents to the taxpayer for her to fill out, which included sensitive information about the decedent.
The taxpayer called her attorney who immediately and repeatedly asked Agent “Haus” to leave the taxpayer’s home. Agent “Haus” responded aggressively, insisting: *I am an IRS agent, I can be at and go into anyone’s house at any time I want to be.” Before finally leaving the taxpayer’s property, Agent “Haus” said he would mail paperwork to the taxpayer, and threatened that she had one week to satisfy the remaining balance or he would freeze all her assets and put a lien on her house.
Following the visit, the taxpayer contacted the Marion, Ohio Police Department (MPD) to determine whether the visit was part of a scam. The MPD ran the license plate of the car that Agent “Haus” drove, and learned Agent “Haus” had used an alias. The officer called Agent “Haus” to verify his identity, and the agent who identified himself as an IRS agent admitted to using an alias. Believing Agent “Haus” was trying to scam the taxpayer, the MPD advised him not to go the taxpayer’s home again or he would be arrested. Agent “Haus” then filed a complaint against the officer with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The MPD later learned Agent “Haus” was a legitimate IRS agent after contacting TIGTA to respond to his complaint.
On May 4, 2023, the taxpayer spoke with the supervisor of Agent “Haus,” who clarified nothing was owed on the estate. The supervisor even admitted to the taxpayer that “things never should have gotten this far.” On May 5, 2023, however, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS- the first and only written notice the taxpayer received of the decedent’s delinquent tax filings addressed to the decedent, which stated the decedent was delinquent on several 1040 filings. On May 15, 2023, the taxpayer spoke again with supervisor of Agent “Haus,” who told the taxpayer to disregard the May 5 letter because nothing was due. On May 30, 2023, the taxpayer received a letter from the IRS that the case had been closed.
This behavior from an IRS agent to an American taxpayer providing an alias, using deception to secure entry into the taxpayer’s home, and then filing an Inspector General complaint against a police officer examining that matter is highly concerning. As the Committee continues to examine how to best protect Americans’ fundamental freedoms and to assist the Committee in its oversight, we ask that you please provide the following documents and information:
1. All documents and communications referring or relating to the IRS’s field visit to the residence of taxpayer [redacted] on April 25, 2023, located at [redacted], including but not limited to the IRS’s reasons for conducting the field visit and prior efforts to contact taxpayer [redacted];
2. All documents and communications between or among the IRS, Treasury Department, and any other Executive Branch entity referring or relating to the IRS’s field visit to [redacted] residence, [redacted] role as executor of the estate of decedent estate, or outstanding balances or taxes owed by decedent [redacted];
3. All documents and communications sent or received by Agent [redacted] referring or relating to the taxpayer [redacted], Officer [redacted] of MPD, the decedent [redacted], or, [redacted] estate.
Please produce all documents and information as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2023. In addition, please treat these discovery obligations as ongoing and applicable to any information generated after receipt of this letter.
Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction to conduct oversight of matters concerning “civil liberties” to inform potential legislative reforms. In addition, H. Res. 12 authorized the Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to investigate “issues related to the violation of the civil liberties of citizens of the United States.”
This is only the beginning. The Biden regime hired 87,000 new agents to harass taxpaying Americans. This is only going to get worse. Watch and see.
Why is the IRS using fake names to harass Americans?
One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review. The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.
Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him. Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured. Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.
That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.
Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it. THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE. This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.
When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense. Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic. President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.
The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is. This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge. This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.
WASHINGTON DC – The Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking to block former President Trump from releasing any classified materials that will be shared with his legal team during his prosecution for the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, noting that some are still being used in the course of their investigation.
The documents “include information pertaining to ongoing investigations” which could be used to further cases against uncharged individuals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote.
The suggested protective order, which will be reviewed by Judge Bruce Reinhart, would allow Trump to review the 31 documents the DOJ is using in the case only while in the presence of his attorneys.
“Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material. Defendants may take notes regarding Discovery Materials, but such notes shall be stored securely by Defense Counsel,” the DOJ wrote.
It also includes similar language to a protective order agreed to in another Trump case that bars the former president from disclosing evidence in the case. New York state prosecutors made that request as they pursue a 34-count indictment of Trump relating to a hush money scandal.
“The Discovery Materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,” the department wrote. (read more)
Watch this interview with Devin Nunes and Kimbery Guilfoyle – Start at 06:40 listening to Nunes:
I am correct about the nature of the DOJ/FBI intentions and motives.
I am correct about the Lawfare manipulation of the material to present the illusion of illegal where nothing illegal is taking place…
…and I am increasingly certain that Mary McCord is part of TEAM Jack Smith!
Wait for it!
The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Some baselines are needed to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what former HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes has stated about the way the language is being deployed. Now we turn to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
♦ During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:
Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval. It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un]. CNN even wrote about it HERE.
[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]
Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.
We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea. This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.
We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.
Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue. Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.” A diplomatic détente was created.
NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?
Would all of this “nuclear national defense” hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those letters as government property? NO!
♦ The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents. The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]
Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements. There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings.”
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√. Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.
♦ In a previous court ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice – National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and blocked the lower court order instructing a Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]
Essentially the order of the appellate court was based on the DOJ defining Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents as “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination said they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to how they DEFINE matters of national security.
The court (judicial branch) openly stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) regarding any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determined, on their own authority, to be identified as classified or matters of “national security.”
In the prior opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge and stop the special master review.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit is deferred to the DOJ.
The DOJ was granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
This ridiculous ruling meant the DOJ could define any document as a document of “national security interest” and there is no countervailing review of their definitions. As soon as this decision was reached the DOJ then moved to appoint a special counsel. Can you see how this works?
With this ruling in his briefcase, Special Counsel Jack Smith could now define the Mar-a-Lago documents according to the legal intention of his targeting. That’s exactly what he did. The case against Trump is not a case about classified documents, it is a case about the DOJ defining unilaterally what documents are considered “vital to national security.”
With the DOJ getting to define those documents, the special counsel then moves to claim national security threats created by Trump’s ownership. The overlay of “vital to the nuclear capabilities of the defense dept,” can then be shifted to include letters from President Obama and Kim Jong-un about DPRK nuclear capabilities.
Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.
As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents. When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process. Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.
Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part. You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment. However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.
This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment. Again, pay close attention. WATCH:
.
What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}. What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.
Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.
First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things.
Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings. Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.
Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved. In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}
Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed. Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.
♦ During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they could *KNOW* fulsome return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is enlightening:
Notice that NARA had knowledge these documents were in the possession of Trump and were pertinent to their archive retrieval. It was interesting at the time that NARA would know the content of the President Obama letter, and further interesting they would know there was more than one piece of correspondence between President Trump and Chairman Kim [Jong-un]. CNN even wrote about it HERE.
[Irrelevant note: Mr Bonsanko got the name wrong, Jong-il is dead]
Reminder, keep in mind the DOJ ferocity in not wanting anyone to know what documents they retrieved and/or defined.
We know, from President Trump describing the letter left to him by the former president, that Obama told Trump in the letter that the number one foreign policy and intelligence threat perceived by Obama (at the time of his exit) was a nuclear armed North Korea. This is where you overlay the Jack Smith writing in the indictment of national defense secrets and nuclear security issues.
We know, from President Trump speaking publicly about his communication and diplomacy with Chairman Kim Jong-un, that the two leaders exchanged letters relating to aligned national security interests that centered around DPRK nuclear ambitions and status.
Trump and Kim formed a geopolitical truce, a friendship of sorts, based on respect and trust around the nuclear issue. Chairman Kim decreased hostilities; President Trump no longer used inflammatory language about “Little Rocket Man.” A diplomatic détente was created.
NARA was looking for the letter written by Obama that described DPRK nukes, and NARA was looking for letters between Trump and Kim that touched on DPRK nukes.
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to “nuclear concerns” and “national security matters” make more sense?
Would all of this “nuclear national defense” hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those letters as government property? NO!
♦ The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
This language is the underpinning of the entire DOJ/FBI framework that predicated the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, neither NARA nor the DOJ-NSD requested President Trump or his team to return Classified Documents. The DOJ demanded the return of any documents that contained “classified markings.” [SEE BELOW]
Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements. There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings.”
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictment√; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described them√. Hey, wait… that’s exactly what they did.
♦ In a previous court ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice – National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and blocked the lower court order instructing a Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]
Essentially the order of the appellate court was based on the DOJ defining Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents as “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination said they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to how they DEFINE matters of national security.
The court (judicial branch) openly stated they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) regarding any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determined, on their own authority, to be identified as classified or matters of “national security.”
In the prior opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge and stop the special master review.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) does with the DOJ-NSD and any matters defined by the originating Main Justice officials as “national security.” The 11th Circuit is deferred to the DOJ.
The DOJ was granted legal benefit of the doubt on all matters of national security, which puts the DOJ-NSD in ultimate control over the star chamber they operate.
This ridiculous ruling meant the DOJ could define any document as a document of “national security interest” and there is no countervailing review of their definitions. As soon as this decision was reached the DOJ then moved to appoint a special counsel. Can you see how this works?
With this ruling in his briefcase, Special Counsel Jack Smith could now define the Mar-a-Lago documents according to the legal intention of his targeting. That’s exactly what he did. The case against Trump is not a case about classified documents, it is a case about the DOJ defining unilaterally what documents are considered “vital to national security.”
With the DOJ getting to define those documents, the special counsel then moves to claim national security threats created by Trump’s ownership. The overlay of “vital to the nuclear capabilities of the defense dept,” can then be shifted to include letters from President Obama and Kim Jong-un about DPRK nuclear capabilities.
But wait, it gets better….
♦ First, ask yourself why would President Obama write about the DPRK nuclear threat in his letter welcoming President-elect Trump to the White House? It always struck me as odd, even years ago, when Trump would talk about this issue. It never made sense why President Obama would memorialize that type of an issue in writing, until today.
Normally that type of national security policy and leadership challenge issue would be part of a conversation. “Mr. Trump, as I depart office the number one issue you might first want to deal with on a national security basis is the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, here’s my opinion“… and so it would go.
Why write it down?
Why memorialize the nuclear threat of North Korea in a letter welcoming Donald Trump? Well, if the Obama intention was to create a written record that would always mean his letter was going to remain hidden from public review, then writing about DPRK nukes would be a way to make that happen.
Lastly, who would know about the content of the letter that President Obama wrote to President-elect Trump, specifically as it centers around a national security issue? Who would know what Obama wrote to Trump?
Lisa Monaco would certainly know the content of the letter written by Barack Obama to Donald Trump; she, Susan Rice and Kathryn Ruemmler might have even assisted in the writing of it. Remember, it was Susan Rice who wrote the January 20th “by the book” memo memorializing the FBI targeting of Trump, and Kathryn Ruemmler represented Susan Rice as her lawyer when investigators made inquiry.
Lisa Monaco was previously President Obama’s senior advisor for national security. Monaco is now the Deputy Attorney General to AG Merrick Garland.
Deputy AG Lisa Monaco is the head of the DOJ operation that was targeting the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents and framing the legal issues for the DOJ to use in court. Monaco would know that any production of documents that did not include the Obama letter would mean a “national security document” remained in Mar-a-Lago.
Special Counsel Jack Smith also reports to Lisa Monaco.
Things making sense now?
♦ There is also a letter from lawyers representing President Trump to the chair of the House Intel Committee that is very interesting [pdf available here]. The letter was written to the HPSCI prior to the testimony by officials for NARA
The letter is written to HPSCI Chair Mike Turner and copied to the other seven members of the gang-of-eight in the Senate and House. The letter outlines the details of the documents that became the contested issue between the DOJ-National Security Division (‘NSD’, important distinction), specifically a DOJ-NSD official named Jay Bratt, and the attorney for President Trump, Mr. Evan Corcoran.
The letter is fascinating because it outlines how the process of moving documents from the White House was weaponized by a politically motivated National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), and the letter also gives fulsome context to the types of “classified materials” that have been insanely over emphasized by media.
[…] “Tim Parlatore and Jim Trusty, two of the undersigned counsel for President Trump, reviewed all 15 boxes at NARA earlier this year and based on that review, it is clear to us what happened. The boxes contain all manner of documents from the White House, are loosely grouped by date, and include newspapers, magazines, notes, letters, and daily schedules. Following its review of the materials, NARA inserted placeholder pages where it had removed documents with classification markings. That allowed Messrs. Parlatore and Trusty to discern what the documents were, as well as what other materials in the boxes were in the proximity of the marked documents when the White House staff packed them. The vast majority of the placeholder inserts refer to briefings for phone calls with foreign leaders that were located near the schedule for those calls.” (page 3, pdf link)
Additionally, get this part… despite the standard process that has been in place for the prior four administrations, the NARA refused to participate in the collection of any documents from the White House during the transition phase following the November 2020 election.
The NARA refused to assist in the collection of the Trump records for national archive holding and review, and then the NARA triggered a sequence of events that led to the DOJ using a reference from the NARA, to weaponize a process they refused to engage in. The NARA refused to do their specialized bureaucratic job, and then the NARA used what they defined as an incomplete job as a reason to refer the outcome to the DOJ. The details are quite interesting.
The letter details how the DOJ-NSD then weaponized the process, fought with the FBI investigative and supervisory agents who were saying Trump was doing nothing wrong, and then culminating in a documented lie to the Florida magistrate, in order to get a politically motivated search warrant.
The DOJ will not release the documents they used to convince the judge to obtain the warrant. Additionally, the DOJ will not release a list of the documents, or even describe the documents, they later claimed are classified. To this date, the Trump defense team is being told President Trump held classified documents, yet the DOJ will not describe to the lawyers who represent President Trump, what specifically those classified documents are.
I strongly urge anyone interested to read the 10-page letter. It is a key part of the puzzle being explained and outlined.
Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on a podcast yesterday to give his analysis of the political indictment of President Trump. It’s a long deconstruction of the Lawfare effort, and contains numerous defenses therein; however, it is a very good encapsulation of the ridiculous issues created by the Biden administration’s efforts to target their political opposition on behalf of the Deep State. WATCH:
Jill Biden spoke to Democrat donors at a fundraiser in New York City Monday night where she complained that the indictment of President Trump by her husband Joe’s Justice Department has not softened Republican voters’ support for Trump in the 2024 presidential race against Joe Biden. Jill’s remark saying she found GOP support for Trump “shocking” comes after Joe declined in recent days to comment on the Trump indictment.
Trump is the resounding favorite among Republican voters and has led Joe Biden in several recent head-to-head polls.
File screen image.
The event in New York kicked off a three day bi-coastal elites fundraising swing of Democrat stronghold cities: New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Jill Biden in her first solo outing of the 2024 campaign said Monday it was “a little shocking” that a sizeable number of Republicans are still thinking of voting for Donald Trump even after his federal indictment, a subject that her husband has tried to avoid speaking about.
She told Democratic donors that the 2024 election presents a choice between what she described as the “strong, steady leadership” of President Joe Biden and the “chaos and corruption, hatred and division” of “MAGA Republicans.”
The first lady, speaking to a small group of Democrats in an apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, said she was surprised to see a headline before her flight landed that described a majority of Republicans in a poll saying they were still planning to vote for Trump, who is set to appear in a Florida court on Tuesday.
“They don’t care about the indictment. So that’s a little shocking, I think,” she said.
…”We know what’s in store with the MAGA Republicans. We just know it, right? We know because we’ve lived it. We’ve seen it,” she said. “We know what it’s like to see U.S. policy tweeted out in late-night tweet-storms.”
Jill Biden could have been referring to this Axios article tweeted Monday afternoon, “Republican voters remain overwhelmingly loyal to Trump after his federal indictment, recent polls show.”
Republican voters remain overwhelmingly loyal to Trump after his federal indictment, recent polls show. https://t.co/XdIWJTQHP6
Republican voters remain overwhelmingly loyal to former President Trump after he was charged with several federal crimes related to his possession of classified documents after his presidency, recent polls show.
Why it matters: Despite the charges, Trump is still the favorite for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, according to recent polling. Even some of his fellow candidates have lent support to Trump and questioned the motivation behind the indictment.
By the numbers: An ABC News/Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 80% of polled Republicans said they believe the charges against Trump are politically motivated, while only 9% of GOP voters said they didn’t see politics in the charges.
Separately, in a CBS News/YouGov poll published on Sunday, 61% of polled Republican voters said the indictment did not change the way they viewed Trump, while 80% of Republicans said he should still be able to assume office if he’s convicted and wins the 2024 presidential election.
The CBS News/YouGov poll also found 76% of Republican voters believe the charges were motivated by politics.
CNN reported last Friday the Biden campaign plans to employ Jill as an “active fundraiser” (excerpt):
First lady Dr. Jill Biden will hit the 2024 fundraising circuit next week, marking her first solo efforts to promote her husband’s reelection campaign.
The first lady will speak at a fundraiser for the Biden Victory Fund, Biden’s joint fundraising committee, in New York City on Monday followed by a West Coast swing that includes two fundraising events in San Francisco on Tuesday and another in Los Angeles on Wednesday. She’s expected to attend more fundraisers later in month, advisers say.
The first lady’s push with donors comes as the campaign looks to scoop up cash as the fundraising quarter, the first since President Joe Biden announced his reelection, comes to an end this month. But it also showcases how the Biden team plans to utilize the first lady in the early stages of the reelection bid, courting high-dollar donors to build up the campaign’s war chest.
“In this first phase of the campaign, she will be an active fundraiser, helping to build up the Democratic Party’s resources and infrastructure for the 2024 campaign, and reminding supporters what’s at stake in the upcoming election,” said Elizabeth Alexander, a senior adviser for the Biden campaign.
Copies of invites to the San Francisco fundraisers were posted by Puck News reporter Teddy Schleifer:
NarrowPathMinistries 