Category: Corruption O’ The Day

At this point in our national politics, it’s believable.

Gingrich Makes Bombshell Allegation About Latest Trump Indictment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich revealed on Thursday that a reliable source told him that a request was made from Washington, D.C., to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis that she had to bring charges against former President Donald Trump because they needed a distraction from the “screw up” with recently appointed Special Counsel David Weiss.

“I am told—this is hearsay—but I am told by a reliable source, that Friday evening, somebody from Washington called the district attorney in Atlanta and said, ‘You have to indict on Monday. We have to cover up all of the mistakes we just made with Weiss,’” Gingrich told Charlie Kirk in an interview. “And she said, apparently, ‘My jurors aren’t coming back till Tuesday,’ and they said, ‘You didn’t hear me. You have to indict on Monday,’ And she said, ‘Well, they’re not gonna get here before noon.’ They said, ‘That doesn’t matter.’ She says, ‘This means it’s going to be eight or nine or 10 o’clock at night.’ They said, ‘It doesn’t matter.”

“Who made that phone call?” asked Kirk.

“We don’t know,” Gingrich said. “And that’s why I’m telling you upfront, this is hearsay, but it’s from a person who has remarkably good sources.”

“I totally believe it, though,” Kirk replied. “Because that would explain why they leaked and they messed up on the clerk document. Why she was exhausted and why they had the 11 pm press conference.”

DA Willis held a late-night press conference to announce that a grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump and 18 associates on multiple charges, including violating the Georgia RICO Act, solicitation of oath violation, and various conspiracy and false statement offenses. The charges had been suspiciously leaked online before the grand jury’s decision.

While Gingrich was adamant in pointing out the story is merely hearsay, it not only fits with the circumstances surrounding the indictment, but with the past indictments as well. As we’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, each of Trump’s prior federal indictments immediately followed bad news days for Joe Biden.

This even raises the question as to whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump was ordered by Washington for similar reasons. On the same day that Trump was indicted in April, Kathy Chung, a former aide to Biden, testified before the House Oversight Committee, contradicting the White House’s account of Biden’s handling of classified documents. Chung testified that the documents Biden kept were not stored in a secured closet at the Penn Biden Center.

It may be hearsay, but everything fits.

Okay, this tells us that they know SloJoe is such a liability that if he can’t be stopped, he’s going to lose.

Jake Tapper Stuns CNN’s Audience: “Trump Was Right and Joe Biden Was Wrong”

CNN’s Jake Tapper came clean and admitted that Trump was right and Joe Biden was wrong about Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in China.

TAPPER: Let’s turn to the Biden administration because Jeff you have some new reporting that President Biden might have a blind spot, according to people around him when it comes to his son Hunter Biden’s legal troubles and concerns about how this might impact his desire to be reelected. What do you got? What are you hearing?

ZELENY: Well, look, this is something that the President was hoping to put behind him. They were hoping that the plea agreement would go through, et cetera. Now there is very likely to be a trial unfolding at the same time as a presidential campaign. Even worse, a second special counsel’s investigation on top of the one that’s already investigating the President for classified documents.

So the point talking to a bunch of advisors is that this is something that is not discussed around the President in his orbit because they do not think voters care about it.

They think voters care about the economy, other matters. They’re probably right about that. However, we know that this is going to be a central piece of the Republican debate and Republican talking points next week and beyond, the Hunter Biden situation.

So what do swing voters think of Hunter Biden? As of now, they’ve never sort of drawn a correlation or blamed the President for his son’s conduct. They feel sympathy for him, et cetera.

But is there a blind spot directly around him and the campaign by not talking about this? It’s verboten. You can’t talk about Hunter Biden. We’ll see.

This is definitely going to be a topic on the debate stage this week.

TAPPER: Yes. And Kristen, Glenn Kessler from “The Washington Post” had a fact check about Joe Biden from earlier this month noting that Hunter Biden admitted in court in July that he was, in fact, paid substantial sums from Chinese companies.

Kessler wrote, Hunter Biden reported nearly $2.4 million income in 2017 and 2.2 million income in 2018, most of which came from Chinese or Ukrainian interests.

But this — and this directly goes against what Joe Biden said in the debate in 2020 with Donald Trump.

BLUF
Well, I generally believe that when government officials don’t want us to know something, it’s because they fear we would think or act in ways they wouldn’t like if we knew it.

It’s democracy in the dark without Nashville shooter manifesto’s release.

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the (sometimes ironic) slogan of The Washington Post.

But it’s also a fair description of what’s happening in Tennessee, as the state Legislature is being called to a special session even as local and federal officials withhold information that might be critical to its decision-making.

Gov. Bill Lee ordered the special session to begin Aug. 21 in response to a March 27 mass shooting in which three adults and three children at the Covenant School, a Christian school in Nashville’s Green Hills neighborhood, were killed.

The Nashville Tennessean article refers only to “a shooter.”

The shooter was a female-to-male transgender shooter named Audrey Hale, aged 28, who left a manifesto before being killed by police.

Hale had chosen to identify as a man, using the pronouns he/him.

The manifesto included detailed plans put together over months to shoot up the school, according to reports just after the shooting from police who had seen it.

Unfortunately, they’re the only ones who have seen it.

Local and federal authorities with access to the manifesto have refused to make its contents public.

Though Hale sent an Instagram message to a friend just before the shooting, saying, “One day this will make more sense. I’ve left more than enough evidence behind,” we haven’t seen that evidence.

Vivek Ramaswamy, running third in the GOP presidential primary, recently called for the manifesto’s release. He characterizes the government position as “stonewalled silence.”

Well, I generally believe that when government officials don’t want us to know something, it’s because they fear we would think or act in ways they wouldn’t like if we knew it.

They seldom keep things secret that would make them look good.

Instead it’s usually something that would reflect badly on them or someone they’re protecting.

What could that be in this case? I don’t know, and they seem determined to keep it that way.

But beyond that, the Legislature is in a curious position.

Lawmakers are being asked to debate and vote on legislative proposals being made only because of the March shooting, even as some of the most important facts are kept secret.

Gov. Lee’s office says he’s called for the release of the manifesto, and it’s the Metro Nashville Police and the FBI keeping the lid on.

Continue reading “”

There’s too much money in geoengineering for “climate change” not to turn into a business. The Biden administration is already studying blocking the sunlight. Now Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement joins Solar Radiation Modification.
-Richard Fernandez

Meta’s former CTO has a new $50 million project: ocean-based carbon removal

A nonprofit formed by Mike Schroepfer, Meta’s former chief technology officer, has spun out a new organization dedicated to accelerating research into ocean alkalinity enhancement—one potential means of using the seas to suck up and store away even more carbon dioxide.

Additional Ventures, cofounded by Schroepfer, and a group of other foundations have committed $50 million over five years to the nonprofit research program, dubbed the Carbon to Sea Initiative. The goals of the effort include evaluating potential approaches; eventually conducting small-scale field trials in the ocean; advancing policies that could streamline permitting for those experiments and provide more public funding for research; and developing the technology necessary to carry out and assess these interventions if they prove to work well and safely.

The seas already act as a powerful buffer against the worst dangers of climate change, drawing down about a quarter of human-driven carbon dioxide emissions and absorbing the vast majority of global warming. Carbon dioxide dissolves naturally into seawater where the air and ocean meet.

But scientists and startups are exploring whether these global commons can do even more to ease climate change, as a growing body of research finds that nations now need to both slash emissions and pull vast amounts of additional greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere to keep warming in check.

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) refers to various ways of adding alkaline substances, like olivine, basalt, or lime, into seawater. These basic materials bind with dissolved inorganic carbon dioxide in the water to form bicarbonates and carbonates, ions that can persist for tens of thousands of years in the ocean. As those CO2-depleted waters reach the surface, they can pull down additional carbon dioxide from the air to return to a state of equilibrium.

The ground-up materials could be added directly to ocean waters from vessels, placed along the coastline, or used in onshore devices that help trigger reactions with seawater.

Continue reading “”

Energy Sec Granholm secretly consulted top CCP energy official before SPR releases

EXCLUSIVE: Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm engaged in multiple conversations with the Chinese government’s top energy official days before the Biden administration announced it would tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to combat high gas prices in 2021.

Granholm’s previously-undisclosed talks with China National Energy Administration Chairman Zhang Jianhua — revealed in internal Energy Department calendars obtained by Americans for Public Trust (APT) and shared with Fox News Digital — reveal that the Biden administration likely discussed its plans to release oil from the SPR with China before its public announcement.

According to the calendars, Granholm spoke in one-on-one conversations with Jianhua, who is a longstanding senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, on Nov. 19, 2021, and two days later on Nov. 21, 2021. Then, on Nov. 23, 2021, the White House announced a release of 50 million barrels of oil from the SPR, the largest release of its kind in U.S. history at the time.

“Secretary Granholm’s multiple closed-door meetings with a CCP-connected energy official raise serious questions about the level of Chinese influence on the Biden administration’s energy agenda,” APT Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News Digital.

“Instead of focusing on creating real energy independence for America, Granholm has been too busy parroting Chinese energy propaganda and insisting ‘we can all learn from what China is doing,’” Sutherland continued. “The public deserves to know the extent to which Chinese officials are attempting to infiltrate U.S. energy policy and security.”

In a statement, the DOE said the meeting was broadly part of the agency’s effort to combat climate change, but didn’t share what was discussed at the meeting.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The predatory, political and contrived nature of the indictments against Trump, and the degree to which Jack Smith and his team had to strangle statutes and reality to arrive at a predetermined conclusion is not lost on Americans.
The straightforwardness of the Biden family’s influence peddling operation makes it easy for all but the most rabid Democrats to understand.

Unlike the Trump indictments, the case against Biden is straightforward.

Those of us who follow the news for a living understand the details of the three indictments to date against former President Donald Trump. The average American understands only that he’s been indicted three times and that a fourth is likely on the way in Georgia. Those who get their news from legacy media sites are told that Trump threatens the very fabric of our democracy. But from there, it gets nebulous.

On the other hand, the accusations against President Joe Biden and his knowledge of and involvement in his son’s overseas influence peddling business are far more straightforward. The average American understands bribery, greed, and lies, concepts that are as old as mankind.

Evidence is mounting that, during Biden’s tenure as vice president, his son was on a mission to exploit his ability to sway U.S. policy for the family’s financial gain. At the right price, Joe Biden’s influence was for sale.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump shows how wildly he had to wrestle with the truth to arrive at an indictment.

Smith may have jumped the shark with his latest indictment. Especially since it came the day after Hunter Biden’s former business partner and longtime friend Devon Archer reportedly confirmed that Hunter had put then-Vice President Joe Biden on speakerphone at least 20 times during meetings with his foreign business associates.

Paramount among Archer’s statements was that Hunter was “selling the brand,” meaning access to the second most powerful man in the U.S. government on a moment’s notice. Now that’s impressive.

Continue reading “”

“Nothing shady is going on with Hunter Biden and his overseas business.”

“Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation.”

“Okay, the laptop is real but it doesn’t prove anything.”

“There is no proof who ‘the Big Guy’ is.”

“Okay, the Big Guy is Joe Biden but he still didn’t do anything wrong.”

“Joe Biden never got paid for Hunter’s overseas business dealings.”

“Okay, Hunter Biden said Joe got paid but there is no proof.”

“Joe Biden had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings.”

“Okay, Joe knew about the dealings but he didn’t partake in them.”

“Okay, Joe took business calls with Hunter but they were just talking about the weather!”

You are here  👆

‘My guy’: Hunter Biden partner Devon Archer says Joe Biden was on calls with foreign patrons for ‘the brand’’

WASHINGTON —Former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer told Congress Monday that Hunter referred to President Biden as “my guy” while connecting his dad to foreign associates nearly two dozen times — as Republicans move closer to starting an impeachment inquiry.

Archer said during a four-hour House Oversight Committee interview that Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings paid Hunter up to $1 million per year to serve on its board because of his family’s “brand.”

Archer met with then-Vice President Joe Biden in April 2014, within days of joining Burisma’s board alongside Hunter, and told lawmakers that “Burisma would have gone out of business if ‘the brand’ had not been attached to it,” according to a readout from panel Republicans.

“Archer talked about the ‘big guy’ and how Hunter Biden always said, ‘We need to talk to my guy,’ ‘We need to see when my guy is going to be here,’ and those types of things,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told reporters as he left the deposition.

According to Archer, Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky —  who allegedly told an FBI informant in 2016 he was “coerced” to pay $10 million in bribes to Hunter and Joe Biden — put intense pressure on Hunter in late 2015 to enlist US support for ousting Ukrainian prosecutor-general Viktor Shokin, who had investigated Burisma, the Republican readout said.

At one point, Hunter Biden, Zlochevsky and Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi stepped away and “called DC” about the issue, Archer said.

“This raises concerns that Hunter Biden was in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” the GOP majority on the Oversight Committee tweeted.

Archer also said Hunter Biden, whose probation-only plea deal for tax fraud linked to his foreign income and an unrelated gun charge collapsed last week, put his father on speakerphone more than 20 times during business meetings to promote “the brand.”

Joe Biden was on speakerphone during a Paris dinner with reps from a French energy company, Archer said, and while his son was in China with Jonathan Li of BHR Partners, a state-backed investment fund co-founded by Hunter in 2013 — after he introduced his father to Li during an official trip to Beijing.

Archer further confirmed that then-Vice President Biden attended an April 2015 dinner at Washington’s Cafe Milano with Pozharskyi and former Moscow first lady Yelena Baturina, as previously reported by The Post.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Maybe a few honest liberals might come out against this. But don’t hold your breath waiting on a major reaction from the Democratic establishment; unfortunately, this is the exact kind of thing they think the federal government should be doing. And that’s the truly scary part of this whole saga.

Leaked emails expose Biden White House’s attacks on the First Amendment

The “Twitter Files” reporting from last year exposed a disturbing collusion between Twitter executives and officials from the federal government to censor the public’s speech. But new revelations from Congress show that the Biden White House and Facebook have engaged in similar collusion.

On Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who leads the House Judiciary Committee, released internal Facebook emails that show the Big Tech platform was explicitly pressured by the Biden administration to take down specific posts that the president’s allies disliked.

To Win Our Nation’s Wars”?
Lions Led by Donkeys.

The 248-year-old institution that this country depends upon to fight and win our wars has lost its focus, which is, “to win our nation’s wars.”  Preparing to do that is one of the most complex tasks on earth.  There is no profession more complex, more dangerous, or more crucial to the country’s survival than the United States Army. But its focus on “woke” social solutions has diluted the necessary focus on that duty.

The Army has thousands of magnificent and highly skilled officers and enlisted men and women who perform continuously at the highest levels.  Yet, as German General Erwin Rommel said of the British after he captured Tobruk, they are “lions commanded by donkeys.”  Today’s donkeys are officers and civilians in the highest levels of the current administration, up to and including the Commander in Chief, Joseph R. Biden and a Secretary of the Army who wants to reduce recruiting from families with a tradition of service because she fears a “warrior caste.”  Donkeys indeed. And they set the tone for all their subordinates in the Army.

The latest display of the donkeys’ madness is an article on the Army’s official website, lauding another man who claims to be a woman.

U.S. Army photo by Sarah Patterson 

The first sentence of the article accompanying the photo pronounces that “Coming out as a transgender female saved Maj. Rachel Jones’ life.” It goes on to describe how an in-the-closet Jones “lived every day deeply depressed and suicidal.”  After President Joe Biden lifted the prior ban on transgenders in the military, “Jones was finally able to come out publicly as transgender.”  The Army’s article does not state that Jones had any type of so-called “gender affirming surgery,” so presumably “coming out” merely means that he announced that he now prefers to be known as “she.”  This allows “her” to “live her truth” and be “so much more comfortable with myself.”

The article claims that any thoughts of suicide are now a thing of the past.  It does not explain how an obviously unstable Jones managed to remain in the Army and get promoted to major.  Nor does it mention the suicide rate among transgenders who have “come out” or had the life-altering surgery, such as the 30+ year study that concluded that “Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”

Now, this author’s quarrel is not with MAJ Jones, who obviously is a person in need of help.  No responsible person wishes him or any other human being to suffer depression to the point of potential suicide.  No, the proper quarrel is with the donkeys leading the Army who create the command climate that tells subordinates that, in the words of West Point’s Battalion Orders in 1820, Jones is a soldier to be “venerated and emulated.”

Continue reading “”

You Will Own Nothing: Your War with a New Financial World Order and How to Fight Back

When Carol Roth first heard that one of the World Economic Forum’s predictions for 2030 was “You will own nothing, and be happy,” she thought it was an outlandish fantasy. Then, she researched it. What she found was that a number of businesses, governments, and global elites share a vision of a future that sounds utopian: Everyone will have everything they need, and no one will own anything.

From declines in home and vehicle ownership to global inflation and government spending, many of the trends of modern life reveal that a new world that is emerging—one in which Western citizens, by choice or by circumstance, increasingly do not own possessions or accumulate wealth. It’s the perfect economic environment for the rich and powerful to solidify their positions and prevent anyone else from getting ahead.

In You Will Own Nothing¸ Roth reveals how the agendas of Wall Street, world governments, international organizations, socialist activists, and multinational corporations like Blackrock all work together to reduce the power of the dollar and prevent millions of Americans from taking control of their wealth. She shows why owning fewer assets makes you poorer and less free. This book is essential guide to protecting your hard-earned wealth for the coming generations.

Feds Argue First Amendment Causes ‘Irreparable Harm’ in Bid to Save Censorship Regime
In seeking to stay the injunction against their speech policing in Missouri v. Biden, the government betrays its view that your right to speak is conditional, while its power to censor is absolute

U.S. Government Says Inability to Censor You Causes It ‘Irreparable Harm’

The U.S. government betrayed its total and utter contempt for the First Amendment in a recent filing in the landmark Missouri v. Biden free speech case.

The filing—a motion responding to U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s bombshell Independence Day injunction freezing federal government-led speech policing—calls for the judge to permit the federal government to continue its censorship activities while it fights the injunction.

While Judge Doughty has now smacked the federal government down, ruling against its motion for a stay, the feds’ perverse position merits scrutiny, especially given it’s likely to persist in it for as long as this case is litigated, and as high as it will reach, perhaps up to the Supreme Court.

The crux of the government’s argument for staying the injunction was this: Prohibiting federal authorities from abridging speech, directly and by proxy, could lead to “grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes,” thereby causing the government “irreparable harm.”

Another way to read the government’s argument is that if it can’t interfere in elections or engage in rampant viewpoint discrimination, that causes it “irreparable harm.”

Still another way to read the government’s argument is that your right to free speech causes it “irreparable harm.”

I explain why in a new piece at the Epoch Times.
As I conclude in part:

The government’s fight for the right to censor reveals a conception of free speech, and its own authority, that is totally backward.

The government operates as if speech is a privilege over which it holds total power, ceding to us only the ability to talk on heavily circumscribed terms—rather than that we have a natural right to speak freely, and that the government’s ability to regulate our speech is heavily circumscribed.

Government derives its powers from us, and with our consent, not the other way around.

At stake, therefore, in Missouri v. Biden is more than free speech.

At stake—and currently on display—is the very nature of what remains of our republican system of government.

Read the whole thing here.

Hunter Biden probe shows corruptness in America’s two-tier justice system.

America’s two-tier justice system keeps rolling along.

And Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, who snubbed the House’s request for documents pertaining to his probe of Hunter Biden, is the latest to show how far the Department of Justice will go to keep it rolling.

Hunter, President Joseph Robinette Biden’s black-sheep son, is facing tax and weapons charges that would represent deep hot water for most Americans. But Hunter isn’t most Americans.

He’s the president’s son, and, allegedly, bagman as well. And our Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is out to spare him the consequences of his actions.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley has come forward to report that Department of Justice officials took care to ensure that Hunter couldn’t be charged by ordering US attorneys in Washington, DC, and California not to prosecute.

Weiss didn’t charge Hunter because he allegedly said he lacked the authority to charge for things outside his home jurisdiction.

Garland could have granted Weiss the power to do so, but despite claiming that Weiss had unlimited powers, Garland never made the grant.

Hunter’s charges thus fell through a crack.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley has come forward to report that Department of Justice officials took care to ensure that Hunter couldn’t be charged by ordering US attorneys in Washington, DC, and California not to prosecute.

But hey, the tax fraud was only one of Hunter’s legal problems where the Department of Justice was happy to help out.

Hunter did get charged in Delaware, but only with two misdemeanor tax charges and a felony gun charge, for which he’ll get pretrial diversion and no prison time.

The tax charges could carry as much as two years in prison, and the gun charge could produce a 10-year sentence, but Hunter’s plea deal is expected to produce none.

Columnist J.D. Tuccille writes, “If, as expected, Hunter Biden’s plea deal on tax and firearms charges keeps him out of prison, it would be a remarkable display of leniency. . . . It’s enough to make a suspicious person wonder if the deal was meant to give the appearance that justice was done to divert attention from more serious matters. It’s also a hint of the restraint prosecutors exercise for the powerful, and which the rest of us would appreciate.”

The tax charges could carry up to 2 years in prison along with the gun charge producing a possible 10-year sentence, but Hunter’s plea deal is expected to produce none. Ya think?

As law professor Jonathan Turley notes, the charges also allow Hunter to avoid discussing the (likely unsavory) sources of the money.

How convenient.

“The House Oversight Committee has documented potentially millions in financial transfers from foreign sources to Biden family members. . . . Garland took the most important step in pulling off the controlled demolition by steadfastly refusing to appoint a special counsel. Such an appointment would allow the release of a report that would detail the alleged corrupt practices of the Biden family and the knowledge and involvement of the president,” Turley wrote.

That’s why they didn’t do it.

This seems deeply suspicious, and the House Judiciary Committee is investigating.

But Weiss, ignoring a subpoena, is stonewalling.

People used to say that it’s the coverup that gets you, not the crime, but today’s Democrats obviously don’t believe that.

It’s been obvious for a while that there’s a two-tier justice system in America.

If you’re a Jan. 6 protester who just wandered around the Capitol, you can expect solitary confinement before trial, and prosecutors who’ll throw the book at you.

But if you’re the son of a (Democratic) president, you can expect to be handled with kid gloves.

Our Constitution forbids “titles of nobility,” whereby the elite live by different rules than the rest of us.

It doesn’t seem to be working very well, does it?