Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic Censorship Commentary Corruption COVID Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Medicine Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Science Uncategorized WOKE

The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court.

Hits: 6

The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court.

By Rikki Schlott.

This is a continuation/follow up to an article from Phoenix.

Judge: Biden Admin Violated Doctor’s First Amendment Rights – Looking at today’s world (

A federal court of appeals ruled earlier this month that the White House, surgeon general, CDC and FBI “likely violated the First Amendment” by exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics — including Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“I think this ruling is akin to the second Enlightenment,” Bhattacharya told The Post. “It’s a ruling that says there’s a democracy of ideas. The issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right. The question is who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?”

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

Joe Biden in a mask
The Fifth Circuit court found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies pressured social media companies to censor dissenting views on COVID-19.
Getty Images
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
A court found Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was among those indirectly censored by the Biden administration for his views on COVID-19.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag

“We were just acting as scientists, but almost immediately we were censored,” said Bhattacharya, director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. “Google de-boosted us. Our Facebook page was removed. It was just a crazy time.

“The kinds of things that the federal government was telling social media companies to censor included us — along with millions of other posts from countless other people who were criticizing government COVID policy,” he added.

A New Orleans-based three-judge panel found that the federal government “likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content” by vaguely threatening adverse regulatory consequences if social media companies did not suppress certain viewpoints on the pandemic.

Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, and Sunreta Gupta
Dr. Bhattacharya (from right) co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration with Oxford researcher Sunreta Gupta and Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff.
Stanford campus
Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, where he serves as director of the Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.
Getty Images

“The government had a vast censorship enterprise,” Bhattacharya said. “It was systematically used to threaten and coerce and jawbone and tell all these social media companies, ‘You better listen to us: Censor these people, censor these ideas, or else.’”

It was later revealed that then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called for a “swift and devastating takedown” of Bhattacharya and his co-authors — whom Collins dubbed “fringe epidemiologists” — in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Subsequent reporting from Elon Musk’s so-called Twitter Files — internal documents and communications released by Musk, after he bought the platform, to expose Twitter’s inner workings — revealed that Bhattachrya’s profile was being suppressed on the platform.

“It’s akin to the efforts by governments to suppress the printing press when it first was invented, when books represented an enormous threat to power,” Bhattacharya said, referring to efforts by King Henry VIII and the Catholic Church to curb use of the printing press in the 16th century.

“There’s an analogous fight that’s currently going on with social media, which makes it vastly easier for anybody to express their ideas, and very powerful people find that incredibly threatening.”

The September 8 ruling affirmed but narrowed a lower court order, issued on July 4 by US District Judge Terry Doughty, which found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints” and that “the platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.”

Francis Collins
In an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins (above) referred to Bhattacharya and his co-authors as “fringe epidemiologists.”

Bhattacharya says the first victory, although in a lower court, was the most exciting to him.

“I was just absolutely thrilled, especially to have it on July 4th,” he said. “I think that judge was sending a message by issuing this ruling on July 4th that we’re going to restore free speech in this country.”

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday — a move that Bhattacharya anticipated.

Judge Terry A. Doughty
Judge Terry A. Doughty declared the Biden administration’s actions “Orwellian” in a July 4th ruling.

But he believes it’s “unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

He feels his is a landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media — on matters that extend far beyond just COVID-19 and lockdowns.




Back Door Power Grab Corruption Crime Elections Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Democrat Mayoral Candidate John Gomes Files Lawsuit to Block Certification of Stolen Connecticut Primary Race That Was Caught on Video

Hits: 13

Geter-Pataky dropped stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box

On Monday, Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes filed a lawsuit challenging the results of his party’s primary in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and requesting a new Democratic primary.

This comes after a video surfaced showing a Democrat clerk inserting illegal ballots into a drop box, which prompted an investigation by the Bridgeport Police Department for “possible misconduct.”

The Gateway Pundit reported that Gomes’ campaign released a damning video on Saturday showing evidence of election fraud in the recent Bridgeport Democratic primary.

The video posted on Gomes campaign’s Facebook page shows a woman dropping stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box outside the Bridgeport government center, where the city’s Registrar of Voters office is located, CT Mirror reported.

The Gomes campaign was able to identify the woman in the footage as Wanda Geter-Pataky, the Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic Town Clerk and a vocal supporter of incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, who is seeking reelection.

Geter-Pataky sent one of her employees to make the fourth ballot drop while she watched

Gomes’ campaign claims that the video shows Geter-Pataky dropping off stacks of absentee ballots ahead of the September 12th primary.

“Video surveillance proving that the mayoral election was unequivocally stolen through corruption within City Hall by tampering with absentee ballots,” John Gomes said in a statement.

“This is an undeniable act of voter suppression and a huge civil rights violation. It’s time to restore lasting credibility to our city’s democracy. Once and for ALL. Enough is enough!” he added.

Gomes lost to incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim in the Democratic primary by a narrow margin of 251 votes, according to the most recent preliminary count posted on the Secretary of the State’s website. Ganim won the absentee vote tally 1,545 to 779, while Gomes led on the voting machines.

The Bridgeport Police Department confirmed that they are actively investigating the actions shown in the video.

“The Bridgeport Police Department are actively investigating information regarding possible misconduct based upon a video that has surfaced on social media,” the department told CT Mirror.

The police department is investigating how the video was obtained and released to the public.

“The Bridgeport Police Department immediately initiated an investigation to determine if any criminal wrongdoing has occurred. In addition, an internal investigation is being conducted to determine if any possible breach to our security video management system has occurred,” it added.

Bridgeport Police Chief Roderick Porter said the department takes “these actions seriously and we will pursue possible criminal prosecution and/or administrative discipline as it relates to any such security violations.”

In a press conference held on Monday, Christine Bartlett-Jose, the campaign manager for Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes, laid out a compelling case for why the recent Democratic primary election results in Bridgeport should be scrutinized and possibly invalidated.

“In this primary alone, the city of Bridgeport received over 4,000 absentee ballot applications, an unprecedented number in the city and possibly the state,” said Bartlett-Jose. She pointed out that the city had a lead of 470 votes based on incoming results on primary night. However, as absentee ballots were tabulated, their lead dramatically eroded, resulting in a two-to-one loss margin with an ultimate election difference of 251 votes.

Bartlett-Jose stated that the campaign has gathered evidence indicating voter suppression and absentee ballot fraud. “Multiple complaints have been filed with the State Election Enforcement Commission, including the most recent and irrefutable piece of evidence—an incriminating video from City Hall security footage showing Wanda Gita Pasky, the vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee, depositing absentee ballots,” she said.

Gita Pasky’s involvement in this election is deeply concerning, according to Bartlett-Jose.

“She has been named in various complaints across many districts related to harassment, bullying, promises of Section Eight, rent rebate, groceries, just to name a few,” she added.

Gita Pasky was recommended by the State Election Enforcement Commission to the State’s Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation regarding the alleged misuse of absentee ballots in the 2019 primary election.

The campaign will be petitioning the court to file an injunction against the primary election results, which have yet to be certified by the Secretary of State.

“This step is essential to prevent potential tainted results from being finalized,” Bartlett-Jose emphasized. They will also be seeking a restraining order against the distribution of any additional absentee ballot applications from the Town Clerk’s Office.

John Gomes, the Democratic challenger, said, “Right now there is a black cloud over Bridgeport, there is no trust. We walk around and I don’t know what to tell the people.”

He added that the evidence is overwhelming and speaks for itself, especially the video footage. Gomes and his campaign are filing a lawsuit, not only seeking a judge to prevent last week’s election results from being certified but also asking for a new Democratic primary.


So, if they (Conn State Election Enforcement Commission) recommended a prosecution regarding absentee ballots for an election in 2019, doesn’t that suggest that Trump was correct about the 2020 election? — TPR


Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Law Uncategorized White Progressive Supremacy

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

Hits: 10

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign. Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.

That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.

So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”

Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.

Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.

“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.

“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”

The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.

The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”

The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.

Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.

Article first found at the The Daily News of Newburyport.


America's Heartland Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Emotional abuse Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Racism Reprints from others. Uncategorized White Progressive Supremacy

Democrats beware: These Black voters are fed up, and looking for a political home.

Hits: 20

DUQUESNE — Nine years ago Leo Beatty was in his early 30s and working for U.S. Steel when president Barack Obama came to the Mon Valley plant. The visit was a post-State of the Union opportunity to sign an executive order authorizing “myRA,” a new retirement savings option for people who lacked an employer-administered account.

Mr. Beatty, then a registered Democrat who voted for Mr. Obama twice, said it was a thrill: “I really liked him then so it was exciting,” even though his presidency wasn’t always what he had expected. “I still like him. I am just not sure how much he did for the middle class Black community, or middle class white community either for that matter.”

Today Mr. Beatty is no longer a Democrat, nor after thirteen years on the job does he work for U.S. Steel. And that “myRA” program was shuttered only three years later.

Mr. Beatty voted for Joe Biden in 2020, but that has become even more of a disappointment.

“Biden dropped the ball for me on inflation, so no I don’t think he’s doing a good job — not just because I don’t think he has the cognitive ability to do it effectively, but because he knows no one like us. And by that I mean middle-class America,” said Mr. Beatty, who is now a registered Independent.

When asked to expand about his problems with Mr. Biden’s presidency he said, “Well, how much time you got?”

Mr. Beatty said it is insulting for Mr. Biden and the Democrats to keep saying how great the economy is. “Maybe for his friends. It is about the rich getting richer and putting us working class people against each other instead of looking at the real problem. The real problem is the rich people against poor people. It’s more classism than racism,” he said.

Mr. Beatty, who has earned multiple degrees and certificates in the trades, criminal justice and leadership, said the media tries to divide people on the basis of skin color.

“But we have a lot more in common than we have different. All of us want to be safe. All of us want our kids safe. All of us want to live a decent life. That’s all we want.”

Mr. Beatty is one of six middle-class Black voters, including his wife Crystal, who sat with me for hours last Sunday discussing the state of politics. What was most interesting is their shared belief that neither party is listening to them, with the Democrats taking the brunt of their criticism for promising change that never comes and taking them for granted, while Republicans struggle — sometimes comically — to give them a reason to support the party.

Missing middle class

My interviewees are optimistic about their lives and their communities, but very disappointed in this administration. In their eyes, Mr. Biden and the Democrats have failed their children and grandchildren by overreaching on cultural issues and underperforming on the basics of governance. Specifically, they are very frustrated over how inflation and crime remain serious problems in their daily lives.

Image DescriptionDonna Lee of Wall re­tired from theAl­le­gheny County Health Depart­ment. She says her big­gest con­cerns are what chil­dren are be­ing taught in school and out-of-con­trol-crime.
Tap or slick for larger image.

Donna Lee said she doesn’t consider herself a member of either party. “But I do my civic duty and vote in every election,” the retired Allegheny County Health Department employee said.

Ms. Lee said locally she mostly votes Democrat, but won’t discuss her 2020 vote. “I’ll pass on that question,” she says smiling. The grandmother said she is frustrated with the Biden administration for challenging the removal of sexually explicit books in schools — so much so that she sent the president a letter about the affect these curricula are having on children.

“Oh he wrote me back alright, about immigration,” she said, throwing her hands up in the air.

Image DescriptionChester Harper of Duquesne, afa­cil­i­ties man­ager at a uni­ver­sity in Oak­land, says he is a reg­is­teredDem­o­crat but con­sid­ers him­selfin­de­pen­dent.
Tap or slick for larger image.

Dressed in a dark navy suit, Chester Harper cuts a dapper figure all the way down to his leather briefcase. A lifelong Democrat and facilities manager at Carnegie Mellon University, Mr. Harper grew up in McKeesport and now calls Duquesne home. He says he voted for Mr. Biden — then makes a face and shakes his head when asked to give his assessment.

“He is not looking out for the needs of the common man. He has this agenda that is out of sorts with the average voter. He says all the time he knows middle class voters and he has their back — but no, he doesn’t, because he hasn’t been out there. He’s not in our world and [he hasn’t] listened to us,” Mr. Harper said.

Out of touch

Crystal Beatty, Leo’s wife, said she is a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t determine her votes. “Truly I’m more of an Independent because I want to vote for the person who’s most like me — and not necessarily the color of my skin, but the values I believe in,” she said.

Ms. Beatty cringes at the reminder of Mr. Biden telling a Black radio host in 2020 that Black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t Black.” “Let me put it this way, so I am not rude, the person who most represents my values wouldn’t even consider thinking that, let alone saying it out loud,” she said.

As for local Democrats U.S. Rep. Summer Lee and U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, she is unimpressed with them as well. “Have you seen Braddock, it’s like you have proof of what you’re not doing and how much you care,” she said of Mr. Fetterman, who lives there, and Ms. Lee, who represented it in the state house.

Image DescriptionWini­fred Wash­ing­ton, a reg­is­tered Dem­o­crat, said she is dis­ap­pointed in Joe Biden. She be­lieves if he came to her neigh­bor­hood he wouldn’t un­der­stand the prob­lems it is fac­ing.
Tap or slick for larger image.

Winifred Washington said localism is something Democratic politicians have forgotten to focus on. “Take something as simple as Duquesne High School. That school was the center of the community and children attending school in their hometown are a visual reminder that our future will be better,” she said.

In 2007 the state Department of Education split Duquesne’s high school students between West Mifflin and East Allegheny high schools. It was a move that fractured the community and took away a storied football program that drew people together.

“It is not that I expect that Joe Biden would understand or deal with that kind of displacement and the impact it would have. His problem is he doesn’t know how to relate to anyone who has had that happen to their community,” she explained.

“Democrats used to be all about this kind of situation — they used to fight for it— now they have turned to fight for things I often don’t understand.”

She voted for Mr. Biden. Is she happy about it? “No,” she said. “Its just sad, he’s too old and he is out of touch.”

Image DescriptionArdell Mar­tin of Duquesne says the Demo­cratic Party has taken Blackvot­ers for granted for too long and no lon­ger rep­resents mid­dle class Black peo­ple; she is un­happy with Joe Biden and has no in­ter­est in Don­ald Trump.(Salena Zito)

Pathetic president

Ardell Martin, who spent most of her career working for community newspapers, said she even looking at Mr. Biden makes her so uncomfortable. “I think he’s pathetic. In a way, I feel bad for him. I really do. I think he’s lost.”

Her problem with him is the problem she has with all politicians, “You may say I’m cynical, but I don’t think they care. They don’t care about anybody. A lot of them are in it for the pension plan that they’re going to get after their terms are up. Some of them, it’s an ego thing.”

Still she says she dutifully votes, “I honor my obligations. I wish that they would remember that they’re working for us people I think they have lost empathy for.”

North Side native Salena Zito is a national political reporter for The Washington Examiner, a New York Post columnist and co-author of “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics”


Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Uncategorized

Eastman explains it all. He did not urge Vice President Pence to reject electors whose certification was still pending.

Hits: 33

Eastman explains it all. He did not urge Vice President Pence to reject electors whose certification was still pending. Eastman was on with Laura  Ingraham the other night and explained exactly what he told Mike Pence. Here’s part of his discussion with Ingraham.

“Several things,” Eastman replied. “Some people had urged that Vice President Pence simply had power to reject electors whose certification was still pending.” “I don’t believe that,” Ingraham shot back. “That’s one thing I don’t agree with.”

“I don’t either,” the lawyer said. “And I explicitly told Vice President Pence in the Oval Office on January 4th, that even though it was an open issue, under the circumstances we had, I thought it was the weaker argument and it would be foolish to exercise such power even if you had it.”

“What I recommended, and I’ve said this repeatedly,” he continued, “is that he accede to requests from more than 100 state legislators in the swing states to give them a week to try and sort out the impact of what everybody acknowledged was illegality in the conduct of the election.”

And from Eastman asking Pence to wait a week the far left took that to mean Pence needed to rig the election.

The full interview below.




Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case.

Hits: 20

Raffensperger Testimony Supports Trump Defense in Georgia Case.


Testimony this week in federal court by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reportedly contradicted claims that former President Donald Trump insisted he violate his oath of office by fabricating enough votes to win the state.

As Breitbart News has long noted, the media have misrepresented the January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger, quoting Trump as telling Raffensperger that he should “find” the votes necessary for him to win. In fact, Trump said “I just want to find” the votes, referring to his own state of mind. Moreover, the context was that Trump believed he actually had won the state of Georgia, and the votes simply had not been properly counted yet.


Raffensperger took the stand in a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia as part of a hearing on a motion by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who is one of Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia. Meadows argued that the case should be removed to federal court, because he was just working for the president, and therefore cannot be tried in state court under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Meadows stunned many observers by testifying in his own defense. Raffensperger was subpoenaed to testify by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. According to George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, Raffensperger testified that the call, while “extraordinary,” was a “settlement negotiation” in the context of an argument over whether to pursue another recount of votes — not a demand to make up new votes.

Turley wrote:

The call was misrepresented by the [Washington] Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings.

Raffensperger described the call in the same terms. He correctly described the call as “extraordinary” in a president personally seeking such an investigation, particularly after the completion of the earlier recount. That is manifestly true. However, he also acknowledged that this was a “settlement negotiation.”

So what was the subject of the settlement talks? Another recount or further investigation. The very thing that critics this week were apoplectic about in the coverage. That does not mean that Trump had grounds for the demand. Trump’s participation in the call was extraordinary and his demands were equally so. However, the reference to the vote deficit in demanding continued investigation was a predictable argument in such a settlement negotiation. As I previously stated, I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. Unsupported legal claims may be sanctionable in court, but they have not been treated as crimes.

If Meadows succeeds in his bid to have the case removed to federal court, other defendants will do the same, and may ague that the charges should be dismissed because of the Supremacy Clause and on other grounds. However, Raffebsperger’s testimony could also be used to dismiss at least some of the Fulton County indictments, particularly regarding “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer,” in reference to the phone call with Raffensperger.



Liberal Dies On Toilet While Awaiting CDC Guidance On How To Wipe.

Hits: 33

SEATTLE, WA — Liberal man Jonathan Seymour passed away, dying on the toilet as he awaited instructions from the Center for Disease Control on how to wipe his own butt.

“I kept telling him to just go for it,” said housemate Ronald Mills. “Jonathan just wouldn’t take the risk.”

Officials say Mr. Seymour became severely dehydrated as he refused to move from the toilet for either food or water. “What am I supposed to do??” cried Mr. Seymour, desperate for guidance. “I can’t do this alone! Front to back? Back to front? Folded or unfolded? How many squares? Speak to me, Fauci!”

Sadly, bereft of instruction from the CDC, Mr. Seymour remained on the commode until his untimely passing. “It’s really tragic,” said Mr. Mills. “No one should ever die because they don’t know how to wipe. I promise you this, I will not rest until the CDC issues guidance on how a person is supposed to wipe their butt. If I can save just one person from dying on the toilet, it feels like Jonathan’s death will have meant something.”

At publishing time, a nearby liberal woman had reportedly passed away while awaiting CDC guidance on what to do after exhaling.



Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Jack Smith Caught Colluding with Biden Staffers Behind Closed Doors

Hits: 25

Jack Smith Caught Colluding With Biden Staffers Behind Closed Doors

Jack Smith Caught Colluding with Biden Staffers Behind Closed Doors© Provided by America Insider

An investigative report from the NY Post discovered that Jack Smith’s office met with staffers for President Joe Biden just weeks before charging former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents.

Legal experts have argued there is no legitimate purpose for these meetings to occur during an active investigation into President Biden’s likely 2024 Republican opponent.

Smith’s criminal indictment against Trump has been widely condemned as election interference and political weaponization of the U.S. justice system.

“Jay Bratt, who joined the special counsel team in November 2022, shortly after it was formed, took a meeting in the White House on March 31, 2023, with Caroline Saba, deputy chief of staff for the White House counsel’s office, White House visitor logs show,” the report found.

“They were joined in the 10 a.m. meeting by Danielle Ray, an FBI agent in the Washington field office,” the report added.

Trump was indicted nine weeks later on June 8, 2023.

The White House logs offer no information about what Biden’s office discussed with Smith’s team at the meetings.

The White House logs offer no information about what Biden’s office discussed with Smith’s team at the meetings.

“There is no legitimate purpose for a line [DOJ] guy to be meeting with the White House except if it’s coordinated by the highest levels,” said former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani says the White House and special counsel were coordinating the prosecution of Trump.

“You’re damn right I do,” he said in response to whether Smith’s office was colluding behind closed doors.

“What’s happening is they have trashed every ethical rule that exists and they have created a state police. It is a Biden state prosecutor and a Biden state police,” he continued.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said, “There is no reason why the Justice Department should not be able to confirm whether this meeting was related to the ongoing investigation or concerns some other matter,” he said.



Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Winning. SUNY Buffalo State Expels Migrants from Dorms.

Hits: 26

Winning. SUNY Buffalo State Expels Migrants from Dorms.

SUNY Buffalo State University decided to expel 44 migrants from its dorms after parents voiced concern over student safety following two alleged sexual assaults by migrants.

According to The Daily Wire, the university abruptly canceled an agreement with a local community group that placed the migrants in the student housing.

“As we are welcoming our students back to campus Tuesday, we wanted to ensure the best possible learning environment for our students and smooth functioning of our university operations,” Buffalo State President Bonita Durand said in a statement. “I made the difficult decision to discontinue the revocable permit and want to reassure our university community that, as our students return to campus Tuesday, they will find their learning environment as they expected.”

Dr. Myron Glick, Jericho Road Community Health Center’s founder and CEO, told The Buffalo News that SUNY Buffalo State had agreed to shelter migrants in dorms beginning in May because Jericho Road’s migrant shelter was over capacity.

“We live in a community where there’s prejudice,” Glick told The Buffalo News. “And this decision was made, really, in my opinion, as – what’s the right word? – in reaction to that prejudice.”

The school’s decision comes after parents expressed alarm about two separate alleged sexual assaults that involved migrants in the nearby town of Cheektowaga.

“I felt compelled to speak out about this action by Buffalo State because it was discriminatory against these asylum-seekers who are human beings just like you and me,” Glick said. “We do worse by the families we are serving if we don’t speak up for them. They need to know we stand with them as fellow human beings. We cannot be silent in the face of injustice.”

Durand did not mention the alleged sexual assaults in commenting about the decision.

Authorities announced on Aug. 8 that a Venezuelan migrant was charged with raping a woman in front of a 3-year-old child. The alleged incident occurred after the suspect had traveled to Erie County from New York City.

Three days later, a second migrant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was arrested and charged with sex abuse and unlawful imprisonment for allegedly sexually assaulting a 27-year-old woman who had been working with a community group to aid the migrants.

In the wake of the alleged sexual assaults, Erie County, which includes Buffalo, demanded New York City Mayor Eric Adams stop transporting migrants to the area.

Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said the Democrat mayor “agreed and informed me they will not send any additional persons to Erie County at this time.”

The two New York officials also reportedly discussed “the need for a new and improved security plan.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office said this month that Erie County will receive more New York National Guard personnel and assets to help with the migrants. More than 1,800 National Guard members are already deployed across the state to assist with the migrant crisis, according to the governor’s office.

Approximately 540 migrants have been relocated to Erie County thus far.

Roquishia Lewis stepped in front of a row of TV cameras Monday and braced herself to talk about her only child, Tyler, who was stabbed to death in October on the University at Buffalo North Campus.




Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Inside the Collapse of Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal.

Hits: 10

Inside the Collapse of Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal.

There were signs, subtle but unmistakable, that Hunter Biden’s high-stakes plea agreement with federal prosecutors might be on shaky ground hours before it went public in June, according to emails sent by his legal team to the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware.

When one of Mr. Biden’s lawyers sent over the draft of the statement they intended to share with the news media, a top deputy to David C. Weiss, who had overseen the inquiry since 2018, asked to remove two words describing the status of the investigation, according to interviews and internal correspondence on the deal obtained by The New York Times. “Concluded” and “conclusion” should be replaced with the weaker “resolved,” the deputy said.

Six weeks later, the federal judge presiding over a hearing on the agreement would expose even deeper divisions and the deal imploded, prompting Mr. Weiss to seek appointment as special counsel with the freedom to expand the inquiry and bring new charges.

The deal’s collapse — chronicled in over 200 pages of confidential correspondence between Mr. Weiss’s office and Mr. Biden’s legal team, and interviews with those close to Mr. Biden, lawyers involved in the case and Justice Department officials — came after intense negotiations that started with the prospect that Mr. Biden would not be charged at all and now could end in his possible indictment and trial.

Earlier this year, The Times found, Mr. Weiss appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges. But the correspondence reveals that his position, relayed through his staff, changed in the spring, around the time a pair of I.R.S. officials on the case accused the Justice Department of hamstringing the investigation. Mr. Weiss suddenly demanded that Mr. Biden plead guilty to committing tax offenses.

Now, the I.R.S. agents and their Republican allies say they believe the evidence they brought forward, at the precise time they did, played a role in influencing the outcome, a claim senior law enforcement officials dispute. While Mr. Biden’s legal team agrees that the I.R.S. agents affected the deal, his lawyers have contended to the Justice Department that by disclosing details about the investigation to Congress, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.

“It appears that if it weren’t for the courageous actions of these whistle-blowers, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, Hunter Biden would never have been charged at all,” a team of lawyers for one of the I.R.S. agents said in a statement, adding that the initial agreement reflected preferential treatment.

A spokesman for Mr. Weiss had no comment. He is legally barred from discussing an open investigation, and a senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the situation pushed back on the idea that Mr. Weiss had been influenced by outside pressures, and ascribed any shifts to the typical ebb and flow of negotiations.

The documents and interviews also show that the relationship between Mr. Biden’s legal team and Mr. Weiss’s office reached a breaking point at a crucial moment after one of his top deputies — who had become a target of the I.R.S. agents and Republican allies — left the team for reasons that remain unclear.

ImageThe Internal Revenue Service building in Washington.
Two I.R.S. officials accused the Justice Department of hamstringing their investigation of Hunter Biden.Credit…Hailey Sadler for The New York Times

Above all, this inside chronicle of the agreement vividly illustrates the difficulty of the task facing Justice Department officials like Mr. Weiss, who have been called upon to investigate prominent figures at a time of extreme polarization, when the nation’s political and criminal justice systems are intertwining in treacherous and unpredictable ways.

No one supervising a comparable inquiry in recent years — like those who oversaw the investigations into Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump — managed to smoothly unwind their investigations when they chose not to indict their targets.

Precisely what happens next is unclear. Mr. Biden’s top lawyer has quit, and accused prosecutors of reneging on their commitments. And Republicans, who waged an all-out war to discredit the deal, are seeking to maximize the political damage to President Biden, seeing it as a counter to the four criminal prosecutions of Mr. Trump, their party’s presidential front-runner.

Mr. Weiss had a few reasons to ask Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to appoint him special counsel. The status could grant him greater authority to pursue leads around the country, and could provide him with added leverage in a revamped deal with Mr. Biden. But he was also motivated by a requirement to produce a report that would allow him to answer critics, according to people with knowledge of the situation — an accounting that could become public before the 2024 election.

David C. Weiss speaking into microphones and wearing a suit. The seal of the Justice Department hangs behind him.
David C. Weiss was appointed special counsel after the implosion of an agreement that would have spared the president’s son prison time.Credit…Suchat Pederson/The News Journal, via Associated Press

In January, Christopher J. Clark, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, arrived in Wilmington, Del., to push Mr. Weiss to end the investigation into the president’s troubled son that had, at that point, dragged on for more than four years.

Mr. Clark began by telling Mr. Weiss that his legacy would be defined by how he handled this decision.

If his host somehow missed the message, Mr. Clark followed up with an even more dramatic gesture, reading a quote from a Supreme Court justice, Robert Jackson, who had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials: Prosecutors could always find “a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone” but should never succumb to pressure from the powerful.

That first face-to-face interaction, between a fiery white-collar defense lawyer who has represented Elon Musk and a late-career federal prosecutor known for keeping his gray-haired head down, set into motion months of intense negotiations that led to an agreement that appeared to end Mr. Biden’s tax and firearms violations, only to derail over the extent of his immunity from future prosecution.

Mr. Biden’s foreign business ventures, especially when his father was vice president and later when he was addicted to crack cocaine, had long raised ethical and legal concerns. In 2018, Mr. Weiss was quietly assigned the Hunter Biden investigation and then kept on by Justice Department officials in the Biden administration to complete the job.

Mr. Weiss cast a wide net from the start, examining a range of Mr. Biden’s business dealings, his finances and personal conduct. But the inquiry eventually narrowed.

By late 2022, Mr. Weiss — who relied on the work of I.R.S. investigators, the F.B.I. and lawyers in the Justice Department’s tax division — had found some evidence but determined that he did not have sufficient grounds to indict Mr. Biden for major felonies, according to several people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Weiss told an associate that he preferred not to bring any charges, even misdemeanors, against Mr. Biden because the average American would not be prosecuted for similar offenses. (A senior law enforcement official forcefully denied the account.)

But in January, the two sides hunkered down on the business at hand. Mr. Clark first tried to undermine the gun case, arguing that the charge was likely unconstitutional and citing recent legal challenges after the Supreme Court’s decision last year expanding gun rights.

Then he took on the tax case, laying out with slides how Mr. Trump’s longtime confidant, Roger J. Stone Jr., had failed to pay his taxes for several more years than Mr. Biden but had been allowed to deal with it civilly and had faced no criminal punishment. Mr. Weiss seemed noncommittal.

If he chose not to charge, members of Mr. Biden’s legal team believed Mr. Weiss still wanted something from Mr. Biden — like an agreement to never own a gun again — to show there was some accountability after his long-running inquiry. Mr. Clark would have to wait awhile to find out.

President Biden and his son, Hunter, departing Air Force One.
When Republicans took over the House in 2022, they had pledged to conduct investigations into the younger Mr. Biden.Credit…Al Drago for The New York Times

Four months later, on Monday, May 15, a familiar figure reached out to Mr. Clark: Lesley Wolf, a top Weiss deputy with whom Mr. Clark had developed a rapport over the previous two years. In a conference call with the Biden legal team, she acknowledged Mr. Clark’s core demand: that his client never be asked to plead guilty to anything.

She then made a proposition — a deal in which Mr. Biden would not plead guilty, but would agree to what is known as a deferred prosecution agreement.

Such a deal allows a person charged with a crime to avoid entering a formal plea if he or she agrees to abide by a series of conditions, like enrolling in drug treatment or anti-violence programs, relinquishing ownership of weapons or forgoing alcohol.

The agreements, widely used to avoid clogging courts and jails with low-level offenders, have legal teeth. If the terms are violated, a person can be charged with the original crimes.

Mr. Clark — knowing Mr. Biden wanted to bring an end to the investigation that had hovered over him, his family and the Biden White House — was amenable. He told Ms. Wolf he would draft language for such an agreement, an opening bid that would kick off final talks.

By Thursday, Mr. Clark and his legal team sent Ms. Wolf their version of an agreement. It made no mention of a guilty plea, but included a promise that Mr. Biden would never again possess a gun and a pledge that he would pay his taxes.

Ms. Wolf suggested additions, including a demand for a statement of facts, a detailed and unflattering narrative of an individual’s conduct that had been investigated.

The parties then turned to the most important provision of all, an issue that would ultimately unravel the deal: Mr. Clark’s sweeping request for immunity not only for all potential crimes investigated by Mr. Weiss, but also for “any other federal crimes relating to matters investigated by the United States” he might have ever committed.

Ms. Wolf appears to have discarded Mr. Clark’s language. Mr. Clark pushed back in a call with Mr. Weiss and the language was replaced with a narrower promise not to prosecute for any of the offenses “encompassed” in the statement of facts.

The end seemed in sight. When the basic outline was hashed out, Mr. Clark asked Ms. Wolf if she was serious about finalizing the agreement — if so, he would fly out to California to explain the terms to his nervous client. Take the trip, she said.

Mr. Clark ran all of this by Mr. Biden in a meeting at his Malibu house — in a garage where he works on his paintings. He approved the plan.

That Friday, Mr. Clark asked Ms. Wolf if he should stay in California to finalize the deal in Mr. Biden’s presence over the weekend.

No, she replied, it would take her a few more days.

Mr. Clark, believing that they were on the brink of a deal, flew back to New York.

Gary Shapley wearing a dark suit and yellow tie, sitting at a table to testify.
Gary Shapley, a veteran I.R.S. investigator, tried to pursue what he believed could be a major break in the Biden investigation.Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

But on Capitol Hill, the efforts to upend a resolution were gaining momentum.

While Mr. Weiss concluded that there was not enough evidence to charge Mr. Biden with major crimes, not all his colleagues shared that opinion. The perception that Mr. Biden was being treated too softly spurred resistance among some investigators who believed that his office had blocked them from following all leads.

Few were more frustrated than Gary Shapley. A veteran I.R.S. investigator, he had worked major cases and helped take on big bankers. But every time he said he tried to pursue what he believed could be a major break in the Biden investigation, he felt stymied.

When investigators went to interview Hunter Biden, they were told they couldn’t approach the house. An attempt to serve a search warrant on Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s guesthouse? Denied. The request to search a storage unit belonging to Hunter Biden? Derailed.

Finally, he reached out to Mark Lytle, a former federal prosecutor, and the men eventually connected with former Republican staff members who had worked for Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and had knowledge of federal whistle-blower protections.

Mr. Shapley had been raising concerns internally since at least the fall of 2022, but that winter, he took his allegations to the Justice Department’s watchdog, lodging a complaint in February.

By April, Mr. Shapley offered to share insider details with House Republican committee investigators, including his claim that Mr. Weiss had told him that federal prosecutors in Washington and California had refused to bring tax charges against Mr. Biden. His most startling allegation: Mr. Weiss had been so frustrated that he had considered asking Mr. Garland to appoint him as special counsel in late 2022. (Mr. Weiss and Mr. Garland have both denied that account.)

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland walking into a room, with a person carrying papers preceding him.
“I am committed to making as much of his report public as possible,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who has minimized contact with Mr. Weiss in hopes of insulating himself from the investigation into the president’s son.Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Mr. Shapley requested special protections to bypass legal restrictions on discussing ongoing federal investigations.

It all began to explode into public view on May 15 — the same day Ms. Wolf contacted Mr. Clark — when it was reported that the investigative team that had worked on the case, including Mr. Shapley, had been removed. The next day the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee fired off a letter to the I.R.S. commissioner demanding an explanation.

Around that time, lawyers for a second tax investigator sent a letter to the I.R.S. commissioner, claiming the team of investigators on the case had been removed after expressing concerns about political interference from the Justice Department.

The letter was quickly made public. The agents’ claims were the breakthrough House Republicans had long been seeking.

The I.R.S. investigators had given Congress something genuinely new: summaries of WhatsApp messages that appeared to show Hunter Biden involved in a shakedown in which he had invoked his father, firsthand testimony from people who had reviewed Mr. Biden’s finances and the credibility of their long careers at the tax agency.

On May 24, CBS aired an interview with one of the agents. Two days later, he testified behind closed doors before the House Ways and Means Committee, creating buzz on Capitol Hill. The second man testified on June 1. Three weeks later, the committee voted to publicly release transcripts of the testimony, leading to even more news coverage.

Mr. Biden wearing a dark suit at a gala event.
Mr. Weiss was quietly assigned to investigate Hunter Biden in 2018, and was kept on by the Biden administration.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

As the testimony from the I.R.S. agents took hold, Mr. Biden’s legal team felt the ground shift beneath them. The U.S. attorney’s office suddenly went quiet.

Early in the negotiations, Ms. Wolf included what seemed like a boilerplate disclaimer in an email, that her team “had not discussed or obtained approval” from her superiors for the terms of the final agreement.

On Tuesday, May 23, after four days of silence, Ms. Wolf delivered unwelcome news. Mr. Weiss had revised what he wanted in the deal, now demanding that Mr. Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his taxes. It crossed a red line for Mr. Clark.

Erupting in anger, Mr. Clark accused Ms. Wolf of misleading him. He renounced the possibility of any deal, but after consulting with Mr. Biden, reversed course and told Ms. Wolf that Mr. Biden was willing to go along.

Mr. Clark then went to Wilmington to meet the prosecutors, where they hammered out the details of the deal.

By the middle of June, both sides were prepared to announce a deal.

Under the agreement, Mr. Biden would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and avert prosecution on the gun charge by enrolling in a diversion program.

Mr. Biden’s legal team was eager to issue a statement claiming that the agreement represented the conclusion of the government’s investigation. That Monday, June 19, Mr. Clark sent a draft to Shannon Hanson, another Weiss deputy, which clearly stated the investigation was over.

“I can confirm that the five-year long, extensive federal investigation into my client, Hunter Biden, has been concluded through agreements with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware,” it read.

“With the conclusion of this investigation, he looks forward to continuing his recovery and moving forward,” it continued.

Ms. Hanson suggested the edit from “has been concluded” to “resolved,” and she also asked Mr. Clark to strike the phrase “With the conclusion of this investigation.”

But hours after the agreement was announced, confusion set in. In a news release, Mr. Weiss’s office said that the investigation was “ongoing,” taking Mr. Biden and officials at Justice Department headquarters by surprise.

It was at this critical juncture that Ms. Wolf began to take a significantly reduced role, although it is unclear whether that had anything to do with the Biden case.

In their testimony, the I.R.S. whistle-blowers claimed that Ms. Wolf — who had made a couple of campaign donations to Democrats — had discouraged them from pursuing lines of inquiry that could lead to the elder Mr. Biden.

Around this time, Leo Wise — a senior prosecutor who had spent nearly two decades in the Baltimore U.S. attorney’s office — was quietly transferred to the department’s criminal division, then detailed to Delaware to add legal firepower to the relatively small Delaware office.

It was his name, not Ms. Wolf’s, that appeared on the plea deal. And it was Mr. Wise who was responsible for defending the deal, one he had not negotiated, in front of a federal judge who proved to be unforgiving.

Police officers in front of the Delaware District Court. They are wearing dark uniforms.
Hunter Biden’s plea deal fell apart at the courthouse in the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Wilmington, Del.Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Hunter Biden walked into the Wilmington federal courthouse on July 26, with the expectation that his long legal odyssey was nearing an end.

But there were signs all was not well. Hours earlier, the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means committee had made one final stab at scuttling the agreement, urging the court to consider the whistle-blowers’ testimony.

It turned out to be unnecessary.

Judge Maryellen Noreika,, repeatedly informed the two sides that she would be no “rubber stamp.” She picked apart the deal, exposing substantial disagreements over the extent of the immunity provision.

Mr. Clark said the deal indemnified his client not merely for the tax and gun offenses uncovered during the inquiry, but for other possible offenses stemming from his lucrative consulting deals. Mr. Wise said it was far narrower — and suggested the government was still considering charges against Mr. Biden under laws regulating foreign lobbying.

The two sides tried to salvage it, Judge Noreika was not convinced, and Mr. Biden silently left the courthouse under a hail of shouted questions.