Remember how Biden and the Democrats claimed repeatedly that he never spoke with his son about his business, and then the House Oversight Committee revealed evidence that Joe Biden participated in phone calls with Hunter and his associates? Suddenly, they were willing to concede the point that Joe Biden had, in fact, talked business with his sonand change their story to Joe Biden “was not in business with his son.”
That was just the tip of the iceberg. The House Oversight Committee uncovered financial records, text messages, and more. They also heard whistleblower testimony and eyewitness testimony. And through it all, there were denials.
Earlier this year, when asked about the House Oversight Committee’s investigations of the Biden Crime Family, including Joe Biden’s influence-peddling and receiving millions in bribes, Joe Biden asked, “Where’s the money?”
Fair question? Sure. Even Democrats have started to concede that Hunter Biden was merely selling the illusion of access to his father while he was vice president. At the same time, they have claimed repeatedly that Joe Biden never profited from those efforts, using those claims as proof that he couldn’t have possibly been selling influence to foreign entities like China, Ukraine, and others. But the fact is that it proves that Democrats couldn’t deny that the House Oversight Committee was on the right track.
Well, the House Oversight Committee released its latest bombshell on Monday. Subpoenaed bank records show that “Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden.“
The Department of Justice is currently investigating Hunter Biden for tax evasion and other crimes connected to his Owasco PC account.
When a senator who sits on the Health Committee makes a big bet on a small, home-state medical devices company that just happens to get mucho moolah from the federal government, and then that stock goes up more than 40% in the weeks after said senator’s big bet, it’s the opinion of this mostly humble columnist that there’s some real shady stuff going on.
But it gets worse.
Earlier this month — November 8, to be exact — Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) purchased up to $250,000 in shares of Tactile Systems Technology (TCMD). TCMD shares had been on a real losing streak in 2023, down more than 60% from its 52-week high of $26.11. The price was down nearly another third, to $10.27 from $12.61, in the 48 hours before Smith made her big buy.
Buy the dip, of course. What’s remarkable is just how quickly TCMD recovered over the next three weeks — up 43% since the Minnesota senator plunked down her big bucks on a Minnesota company in an industry that Smith’s committee oversees.
That’s just one trade by one senator.
Financial analyst Quiver Quantitative called it “the most suspicious congressional stock trade I’ve seen in months.”
The sliminess is bipartisan. Here’s one example of how Quiver’s bot has performed by following the Tesla trades of one Democrat and two Republicans.
How’s your portfolio doing?
“It’s worth noting,” QQ reminds investors, “that despite the outperformance of the Congress Buys Strategy, it may still be held back by weak disclosure regulations.” Congresscritters, under the 2012 STOCK Act signed by President Barack Obama, have 45 days to disclose their stock transactions — but the penalty for late disclosures is all of $200.
So, yes, you could build a portfolio based on what people like Sen. Smith buy and sell, but you still wouldn’t do as well as they do because you’ll be up to 45 days behind their trades. Or longer if they decide to pony up the $200 for late disclosures.
But it still gets worse.
Quiver claims to have traced 7,912 STOCK Act violations, but “only a few have been investigated.” If any of those investigations have actually gone anywhere, it would be news to me. But Congress writes the laws governing Congress, so what would you expect?
That’s why, as far as I’m concerned, the most scandalous part of any of this is the mainstream media’s absolute silence on the matter.
As Bill Whittle put it to Right Angle viewers years ago, the press is supposed to act as a healthy society’s antibodies — gathering in the bloodstream at the site of any corruption to reveal and destroy it. And yet when a sitting member of the Senate Health Committee, whose “husband is an investor with a focus on medical industry stocks,” is making a killing on a volatile health company’s shares, it results in precisely zero stories in the mainstream media.
That’s despite Quiver’s revelations getting more than two million views on Twitter/X — the preferred social media platform of American journalists.
We know what Congress gets out of all this, so what’s the media’s payout?
‘mysterious’. Just may be my cynical side, but the most accurate knowledge of that would be possessed by the U.S. goobermint
Hundreds of illegal aliens” heading for the U.S. Southern border have been provided with GPS coordinates of unsecured locations to help them cross en masse, according to a new report.
The crossings are “clearly pre-planned and organized by mysterious hands,” Border Hawk reported Monday.
Border Hawk correspondent Efraín González was recently embedded with a large group of migrants making their way at night through Piedras Negras, Mexico, to the Rio Grande.
“We accompanied this caravan that walked for an hour in the darkest to reach the crossing point,” González reported. The reporter spoke with one migrant who suggested the Mexican government was directing their movements.
“The migrant said they were angry Mexican authorities sent them to cross into this dangerous area of the river at night,” González said.
“Most of these people do not know how to get to the river. However, through GPS they obtain the exact location where forklift tractors raised the razor wire in October,” he added.
According to Border Hawk, “GPS-guided mass crossings into Eagle Pass” increased in November.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Biden regime in October after federal agents were seen removing the razor wire barriers. Paxton’s lawsuit accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of interfering with state efforts to secure the border.
On October 30, U.S. District Judge Alia Moses issued a temporary restraining order blocking the regime from using federal agents to interfere with the razor wire barriers.
“The Court grants the motion for a temporary restraining order until the parties have an opportunity to present evidence at a preliminary injunction hearing before the Court,” Judge Moses said in her ruling.
The order was to last until November 13th, but was extended to Monday, November 27.
In the meantime, the Texas governor had storage containers installed to fill gaps in the U.S.-Mexico border.
As a more permanent solution, Texas is also building its own wall in the area.
BLUF
Post-Bruen, just as what happened after Heller, many federal courts are trying to stymie the obvious results of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions. A continued effort by Second Amendment advocates will be required to ensure proper enforcement of these landmark rulings.
At this point, gun owners and other productive Americansdon’t anticipate much good news out of Chicago. On November 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit lived up to those expectations when it upheld Illinois’ ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms in Herrera v. Raoul.
In early 2023, Illinois enacted the ill-titled Protect Illinois Communities Act. That legislation, among its numerous anti-gun provisions, prohibits commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 and ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Current owners of prohibited guns are only permitted to retain their property if they register their firearms with the government. The plaintiffs in the present case challenged Illinois’ statute on Second Amendment grounds.
This may have seemed like an open-and-shut case to some who follow Second Amendment jurisprudence.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects ownership of arms “in common use” for lawful purposes. In case there was any confusion about what “arms” that might entail, Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia cleared that up in 2015 when he signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained,
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.
Commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms have only become more common since Heller and the Highland Park case. In 2022, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the firearm industry trade association) estimated that since 1990 more than 24 million modern sporting rifles (their term for commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles) have entered circulation in the U.S. A 2023 Washington Post poll found that “6 percent of Americans own an AR-15, about 1 in 20.” Given compelling research finding that polling systematically undercounts the number of gun owners in the U.S., that number may be far higher.
The standard capacity firearm magazines Illinois prohibits are not just common, but ubiquitous. Many of the most popular handguns and rifles in America are designed to use magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Americans own hundreds of millions of firearm magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds.
If Heller weren’t enough, in 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion made clear that in order for a firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster it must fit within the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right. As the dissent in the present case noted, “’in common use’ is a sufficient condition for finding arms protected under the history and tradition test in Bruen.” However, for a firearm restriction to be permissible it must meet that further burden.
Specifically, the Bruen opinion explained,
[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
Given that the concept of an “assault weapons” ban targeting semi-automatic long guns came about in the 1980s only after gun control advocates failed to ban their preferred target (handguns), such prohibitions have no place in the American tradition.
To uphold the Illinois ban, the Seventh Circuit set about contending that the AR-15 falls outside the definition of “bearable arms” discussed and protected in Heller. According to the Judge Diane Wood,
the definition of “bearable Arms” extends only to weapons in common use for a lawful purpose. That lawful purpose, as we have said several times, is at its core the right to individual self-defense.
Wood contended that firearms that are prominent in military purposes fall outside this definition and are therefore not arms covered by the Second Amendment. Wood then claimed that the AR-15, despite its solely semi-automatic function, resembles the fully-automatic military M16 sufficiently for it to also fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection.
On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.
What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas? Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets? Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.
AP: Photojournalists or Infiltrators?
Four names appear on AP’s photo credits from the Israel-Gaza border area on October 7: Hassan Eslaiah, Yousef Masoud, Ali Mahmud, and Hatem Ali.
Eslaiah, a freelancer who also works for CNN, crossed into Israel, took photos of a burning Israeli tank, and then captured infiltrators entering Kibbutz Kfar Azza.
HonestReporting has obtained screenshots of Eslaiah’s now-removed tweets on X in which he documented himself standing in front of the Israeli tank. He did not wear a press vest or a helmet, and the Arabic caption of his tweet read: “Live from inside the Gaza Strip settlements.”
You know why? Because the Nashville Manifesto doesn’t follow the narrative that white people are evil bigots and trans people are oppressed. They would rather keep it under wraps that white kids are being hunted down. Because Biden said this a few months after the shooting: pic.twitter.com/0rcdNaWkyZ
Partisan politics in Washington, D.C. are hindering the government’s ability to function effectively.
The investigations into former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden are causing serious division and tearing the country apart.
A Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll found that roughly half of Americans believe the investigations into Donald Trump are politically motivated.
Republican lawmakers argue that these investigations are necessary to root out corruption, while Democrats make similar claims about Trump.
Rep. Virginia Foxx, (R-N.C) said, “The sequence of events that led to the firing of Viktor Shokin, and the subsequent comments by then-Vice President Biden, raise serious concerns as to what machinations were really at play — and were purposefully concealed from the American people. No matter how you slice Hunter Biden’s involvement, it screams public corruption at the highest levels and must be fully investigated.”
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana) added, “The calm, judicious, steady reveal of incredibly condemning evidence that clearly incriminates the Biden crime family will eventually alarm even the most ardent supporters of this WH occupier.”
‘Our president is compromised, he should resign and be forever condemned, and the Democrat Party should begin rebuilding itself.”
“Everything we are uncovering points to Hunter Biden using his name and his father’s position to get rich,” said Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.).
“It’s bribery — and it is both wrong and illegal. House Democrats, the legacy media, and even top brass at the FBI and DOJ failed to do their job and investigate all the literal and figurative smoke that clouds Hunter Biden. House Republicans will do our job and uncover the truth.”
Beginning on January 20, 2011, then-Vice President Joe Biden wrote a personal letter to Archer to thank him for the business opportunity. The smoking-gun evidence has been analyzed and authenticated.
“What was he thanking you for?” political commentator Tucker Carlson asked.
“It was kind of the beginning of our partnership, and he was thanking me and thanking Hunter,” Archer said. “I think, at the end of the day for bringing this idea of this government regulatory strategic advisory business into the private equity world. And I think he was excited about the prospects for Hunter, and he was just thanking me. I think it was a nice gesture.”
Archer testified at the House Oversight Committee and confirmed that Hunter put his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, on speakerphone while meeting with business partners at least 20 times. “Archer described how Joe Biden was put on the phone to sell ‘the brand,’” Archer explained in his testimony.
Archer’s testimony is corroborated by Hunter Biden’s texts and emails. In 2019, a text message from Hunter to his daughter revealed that his father, Joe Biden, takes half of Hunter’s business salary stemming from their work together. This illegally and unethically exploited Biden’s power and position while working as vice president in the Obama administration.
By now you’re likely aware that Hunter Biden listed his father’s Delaware home as the ‘beneficiary address’ in the process of receiving two wire transfers, totally more than $250,000, from Beijing in 2019. Fox News Digital published the scoop on Wednesday, writing that “the first wire sent to Hunter Biden, dated July 26, 2019, was for $10,000 from an individual named Ms. Wang Xin. There is a Ms. Wang Xin listed on the website for BHR Partners. It is unclear if the wire came from that Wang Xin. The second wire transfer sent to Hunter Biden, dated August 2, 2019, was for $250,000 from Li Xiang Sheng—also known as Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR Partners—and Ms. Tan Ling. The committee is trying to identify Ling’s role.” We’ll return to the role of Mr. Li below. There’s also this significant detail: “The beneficiary for the wires is listed as Robert Hunter Biden, with the address “1209 Barley Mill Rd.” In Wilmington, Delaware. That address is the main residence for Joe Biden.”
Would this be even more ‘no evidence‘ of Joe Biden being intertwined with his son’s various overseas business dealings? The White House, having abandoned previous talking points Biden had dishonestly advanced about his knowledge and involvement in this family enrichment scheme, recently shifted to claiming that the elder and younger Bidens were not “in business” together. I’ve argued that quite a lot of evidence suggests otherwise. Much has been made about Joe Biden’s false, categorical denials on this front (eg “I have never discussed with my son, or brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their business, period”) which have blown up in his face. But there was also this lie, told to the American people from a 2020 presidential debate stage (Biden also used the 2020 debates to broadcast his false ‘Russian disinformation’ spin about his son’s authentic and damning laptop):
“My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, uh, what are you talking about? China…Nobody else has made money from China.”
Biden told this lie shortly after his son was wired $260k from China, with Joe's Delaware home listed as the beneficiary address. pic.twitter.com/pWNaugmItq
Biden flatly denied that Hunter had made money from China, saying that the ‘only’ person who had done so was Donald Trump. In fact, bank records show that Hunter and Jim (Joe’s brother) Biden had made money from China. Millions of dollars worth, some of which was allegedly ‘held for the Big Guy,’ according to Biden family emails. Hunter had even drummed up business in China after flying to that country with his father aboard Air Force Two, when Joe Biden was Vice President. The Washington Post fact-checker eventually slapped a Four Pinocchios rating on Biden’s debate assertion, albeit nearly three years after he made it.
The Democrats and the mainstream media have been tirelessly claiming that there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing by Joe Biden to justify an impeachment inquiry—a blatant denial of the fact that the House Oversight Committee has the receipts, including eyewitness testimony and financial records.
The White House is clearly concerned and instructed the already compliant mainstream media to attack the impeachment inquiry—as if they needed the marching orders in the first place. So far, every attempt by the media to claim the inquiry is based on “no evidence” has resulted in humiliation. Even a CNN fact check was unable to deny the key facts House Speaker McCarthy cited as justifying the inquiry.
Representative James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who is widely credited with saving Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, didn’t even try to deny the existence of evidence during his appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, and simply argued that—are you ready for this?— Republicans want to impeach Joe Biden for “being a father to his son.”
“Let me ask you about the impeachment inquiry that is going to unfold this week on Capitol Hill. I know you and your Democrats have called this pure politics,” said host Kristen Welker. “But big picture, they’re trying to see if there’s any link between Hunter Biden and the president and his business dealings. Are you comfortable with a family member profiting off their last name in this town?”
“You know, we all, to some extent, live so that our children can be proud of the name that we’ve given them. I have three daughters, and I want them to feel very comfortable being a Clyburn,” he said, clearly avoiding answering the question. “I do know that that is very, very important for going forward, but that doesn’t mean they want them to do things that are unseemly to the name. I do want them to use the name to their benefit.”
“Yet, President Biden, according to one witness testimony, was on the phone 20 times with Hunter Biden’s business associates and described as pleasantries, but is that appropriate?” she asked.
“I think it’s appropriate to be a father to your son, and if your son is having a problem, and we all know the history of the problem that Hunter has with addiction, and he is being a father to his son,” Clyburn claimed. “You don’t impeach a man for being a father to his children.”
Ahh, so that’s it. Joe Biden wasn’t using his position to help Hunter sell influence, he was being a father to his crackhead son. I can’t help but notice that Clyburn didn’t even try to claim that there is no evidence to justify the impeachment inquiry; he merely sought to downplay Joe Biden’s role by claiming he was doing what a father does—and, at the same time, effectively admitting that Joe Biden was, in fact, knowingly helping Hunter with his business, because, what are fathers for, right?
But does being a father to his son mean using his position as vice [resident of the United States to get millions of dollars funneled to his family and laundering that money via twenty different shell companies? Does being a father to his son mean using a $1 billion loan to Ukraine as leverage to get a prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because Hunter was getting $1 million a year sitting on their board?
That’s not being a father to his son; it’s being a corrupt politician.
Multiple polls have shown Americans are already convinced there was Biden family corruption. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 72% of American adults believe Hunter Biden profited off his father’s position, including 53% of Democrats and 72% of Independents. Another poll from I&I/TIPP found that 56% of U.S. voters say that it is “likely” that Biden took bribes, while only 27% say it was “unlikely.”
Question O’ The Day
"Can you explain why the president interacted with so many of his son's foreign business associates?!"
JEAN-PIERRE: "Have a great day!"
"More than half of voters told CNN that the president was involved and he lied! You can't have a response to that, Karine?!" pic.twitter.com/LjwsTQQJNY
Joe Biden is a man who likes his ice cream and routinely needs the White House to clean up his messes. He could be in diapers at this point, too. Who knows? If he is, I’m sure the White House is doing everything possible to keep that under wraps.
But I digress. According to a new book by Franklin Foer, staff writer at The Atlantic and former editor of the New Republic, Joe Biden feels like his White House staff is babying him, and he’s not particularly happy about it.
The book recalls the incident where Biden riffed after the conclusion of a speech about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, making a statement that appeared to call for Putin to be overthrown. “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Biden said. According to Foer’s account, the White House was walking back the statement by the time Biden had reached his motorcade.
“Suddenly, the press wasn’t marveling at his rhetoric or his diplomatic triumphs; it was back to describing him as a blowhard lacking in self-control,” Foer writes in his book, and Biden was deeply upset over the media coverage of the gaffe and “left for home, ending his triumphalist tour, feeling sorry for himself.” The president “resented his aides for creating the impression that they had cleaned up his mess.”
“Rather than owning his failure, he fumed to his friends about how he was treated like a toddler,” Foer writes.
Naturally, the White House disputed this story when Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked about it.
“President Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history. Why does White House staff treat him like a baby?” Doocy asked.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre might have needed a diaper of her own when she got that question, as she was none too pleased by it.
“No one treats the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, like a baby,” she insisted before adding that it was “a ridiculous claim.”
Doocy then quoted the book and asked, “Was John [F.] Kennedy ever babied like that?”
“So, look, I’ll say this,” she began. “There’s going to be a range — always — a range of books that are — about every administration, as you know — that’s going to have a variety of claims. That is not unusual. That happens all the time. And we’re not going to litigate those here. That’s something that we’re not going to speak to.”
PETER DOOCY: "Why does White House staff treat [Biden] like a baby?"
JEAN-PIERRE: "No one treats the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, like a baby. That's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous claim." pic.twitter.com/J3T4nXUaSZ
