And we’re up to four and counting. David Weiss stymied on Hunter Biden tax crimes. We now have four IRS employees (two workers and two managers) who have claimed that there was hanky panky going on in the Hunter Biden saga.
IRS Director of Field Operations Michael Batdorf and DC IRS Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon detailed how Weiss’ probe was thwarted in recent testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Garland has repeatedly insisted to lawmakers — most recently on Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee — that Weiss, the US attorney for Delaware, had “full authority” to bring cases against Hunter Biden anywhere he wished and that Garland would not personally interfere in the probe.
Batdorf recalled sitting in on a June 2022 meeting involving Weiss, IRS criminal investigators, and FBI officials at which DOJ Tax personnel pushed back against charges for the first son — at the same time they were holding conferences with Hunter Biden’s legal team.
When asked how many times the two sides met, Batdorf could not recall specifically, but said there had been “more than two” meetings and possibly as many as four. CPA Academy
“Is it typical in a tax investigation to meet with defense counsel two, three, four times?” Batdorf was asked, to which he answered: “No.”
.IRS Director of Field Operations Batdorf also said he had signed off on a report recommending felony and misdemeanor tax charges dating back to 2014 against Hunter, now 53 — including counts related to income from the first son’s position on the board of Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings
Share the post "And we’re up to four and counting. David Weiss stymied on Hunter Biden tax crimes."
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.
“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.
“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.”
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.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border. Texas National Guard installing more razor wire. The Governor has claimed that the Biden thugs turn around and cut the wire. So more National Guardsman have been sent to replace the wire.
Texas installed razor wire in Eagle Pass to stop illegal crossings.
Today the Biden Admin CUT that wire, opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants.
In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas for installing a buoy barrier, which was designed to curb illegal immigration, on the Rio Grande. The barrier was developed as part of Abbott’s Operation Lone Star.
A federal judge initially told Texas to move the buoys, but the U.S. Court of Appeals stayed that decision. The case is still being deliberated through courts.
Share the post "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border."
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.
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
Share the post "Democrat Mayoral Candidate John Gomes Files Lawsuit to Block Certification of Stolen Connecticut Primary Race That Was Caught on Video"
With talk of impeaching President Biden in the air, the media’s fake history this week is: Voters punished Republicans for even thinking about impeaching President Bill Clinton!
Even the casual news consumer will hear this lie at least 20 times this week.
“If the inquiry does lead to an impeachment vote, history suggests it won't necessarily be helpful for the impeachers. House Republicans lost five seats in the 1998 election a few weeks before impeaching President Bill Clinton. Democrats made those surprising gains even though the party that controls the White House usually struggles in midterm elections.”
“Politically unpopular impeachment hearings have hurt the party before. Republicans lost seats in the 1998 midterm elections following the impeachment proceedings into then-president Bill Clinton.”
The Financial Times:
“Rather than being damaged by the impeachment proceedings against him in late 1998, Clinton is widely seen to have benefited politically, including with a better than expected performance in that year’s midterm election.”
“Following the Republican-backed impeachment probe into Clinton, a Democrat, Republicans lost House seats in the 1998 midterm elections.”
“None of the scandals from Obama’s time in office ever hit the impeachment threshold, not when there were enough senior GOP members around who knew that impeaching Clinton hadn’t worked out for them politically.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
That was pure White House spin, from a man willing to defend himself by smearing Thomas Jefferson. (See above.)
Let’s play back the tape.
Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the average midterm loss for the president’s party has been 27 house seats. But in 1994, Clinton lost an astounding 54 House seats – ushering in a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years. Districts that had not voted for a Republican congressman since 1950 went Republican. The GOP was bound to lose some of those seats in the next few cycles.
Merely to maintain the historical average, Democrats should have gained at least two dozen House seats in 1998. In fact, they gained only five — and not a single senate seat. Indeed, the 1998 election was the first time in 70 years Republicans had won majorities in the House three elections in a row.
Peculiarly, Clinton’s flacks had spent the weeks before the election predicting Armageddon for the Democrats. So when they picked up a paltry five seats — instead of the two dozen predicted by history — they bellowed that they’d won a moral victory! (That’s when Republicans learned about the game of low expectations.)
Although Democrats had fallen 21 seats short of the historical average for midterm elections, they claimed the people had spoken: Voters just adored Clinton for getting oral sex from a White House intern, then committing multiple felonies!
This defies common sense. It also defies the exit polls. As Paul West wrote in the Baltimore Sun, “Only about one in five voters listed moral and ethical values as their chief concern in deciding whom to support in House races. Those voters favored Republican candidates by a 6-to-1 margin.” Thus, the Democrats’ 21-seat shortfall.
But Clinton defenders had beaten their own low expectations, and used that little theatrical performance to announce, as George Stephanopoulos did, that impeachment was “over.” (It wasn’t.)
And that’s the lie the media has been repeating ever since.
Noticeably, the Democrats’ fairy tale about the 1998 election didn’t help Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore. Thanks to Clinton, he became the first incumbent president or vice president in a hundred years to lose a presidential election in peacetime and a good economy. (Mind you, that was before we knew Gore was a deranged conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is in serious peril from cow flatulence.)
Ronald Reagan was so popular he not only won a 49-state landslide re-election for himself, but he also won a symbolic third term for his boob of a vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush (who immediately blew it by breaking his own “no new taxes” pledge).
What was the mystery factor to explain Gore’s historic loss?
The media may have lied to the public about Clinton’s vaunted popularity, but Gore’s pollsters got paid not to lie to him. And they told him the truth: His association with Clinton was killing him.
After the election, Gore pollster, the inestimable Stanley Greenberg, told Vanity Fair magazine that if Clinton had helped, he would have “had Bill Clinton carry Al Gore around on his back.” (This was when one man could still actually carry Al Gore on his back.) But his research showed that whenever Clinton was mentioned, Gore’s numbers took a nosedive.
Steve Rosenthal, political director of the AFL-CIO, also blamed Clinton for Gore’s loss, saying polls showed that voters who cared about character voted for Bush.
Poor Gore had done everything he could to distance himself from Clinton. He publicly denounced Clinton’s sexual exploits with the intern. He refused to be seen with Clinton on the campaign trail. He chose Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate — the guy who famously became the first Democrat to denounce Clinton’s behavior with Lewinsky on the Senate floor. Also, there was Gore’s huge, embarrassing smooch with his wife on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
But when voters looked at Gore they just couldn’t forget the purple-faced lecher.
And that’s the true story of how the Clinton impeachment helped Republicans hold the House through seven election cycles and defeat an incumbent vice president.
That doesn’t mean the GOP should impeach Biden (except for violating federal immigration law). But the Clinton impeachment is anything but a cautionary tale for Republicans. Unlike the Democrats, our side doesn’t impeach presidents for nonsense.
Share the post "Clinton Impeachment Revisionism Liberals can’t tell the truth about ANYTHING."
A revised version of the federal policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which prevents the deportation of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, has once again been deemed illegal by a federal judge who gave the same ruling previously.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said in his decision Wednesday that on July 16, 2021, the court vacated the DACA program created by the 2012 DACA Memorandum, which prohibited the U.S., its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees from granting new DACA applications and administering the program.
Hanen’s decision then was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wednesday, reaffirmed by him. Send them home.
Share the post "So when do we deport these criminals? Texas judge who previously deemed DACA illegal reaffirms ruling."
When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor. Recently the Governor claimed she was suspending the Constitution because Liberals were the cause of many gun crimes and drug trafficking’s.
I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution. https://t.co/kOhLMtaOl2
Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.
The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.
Fifth Circuit just unanimously affirmed Judge Doughty’s injunction against White House, CDC, FBI and others — giving Americans and #FreedomOfSpeech a major win against censorship, totalitarianism, and Biden. #FirstAmendment