Biden Administration Refuses to Provide Robert Kennedy, Jr. with Secret Service Protection. Robert Kennedy, Jr. announced Friday on Twitter that the Biden Administration has still not provided his campaign with Secret Service protection. Robert says after several requests they have received no response after 88 days!
Thanks Joe Biden. Confidence in U.S., U.K. Governments Lowest in G7.
For decades, much has been made of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. But in 2022, the national governments of both nations shared a somewhat less special accomplishment: earning the least confidence from their constituents of any G7 member country.
When Gallup first measured national confidence in governments around the world nearly two decades ago, both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were well into their terms in office. The governments they led retained extensive confidence domestically — far more so than for almost all the rest of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy).
Fast forward to 2022, and the tables have turned. Roughly one in three adults in the U.K. (33%) and U.S. (31%) say they have confidence in their national governments: putting them at the bottom of the G7 countries.
As governments on both sides of the Atlantic have struggled, other administrations in G7 nations have solidified their positions among their electorates. In Europe, confidence in Italy’s government has almost doubled since 2019 (from 22% to 41% in 2022). Similarly, confidence in the French government has increased steadily since French President Emmanuel Macron came to power: rising from 37% in 2017 to 46% in 2022. In Olaf Scholz’s first full year as chancellor of Germany, he has continued Angela Merkel’s trend of high German confidence (61%) in government — the highest confidence level in the G7.
Even though confidence in the Canadian government has slipped from its highs under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a majority (51%) nevertheless retain faith in it. In Japan, which ranked last among G7 countries between 2007 and 2012, confidence in government has since more than doubled to 43% in 2022.
The U.S. has seen a sharp decline in the public’s confidence in the national government over the past couple of years. In 2020, almost half (46%) of U.S. adults expressed faith in their government, likely boosted by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
But after President Joe Biden took office, confidence in government slipped to 40% in 2021 and again to 31% in 2022. This is on par with the lowest rates of confidence measured in the U.S. government since Gallup started tracking it globally in 2006 — with the other lows measured in 2013, 2016 and 2018 under former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Declining domestic confidence in the U.S. government has occurred alongside declining approval ratings on the world stage. Median global approval of U.S. leadership slipped to 41% in 2022, down from 45% in 2021 during Biden’s first year in office.
Across the Atlantic, Britons’ confidence in their national government has been relatively low since 2019. But as is true for the U.S., confidence in the U.K. also reached a near-record low in 2022, on par with its level in 2008 during the financial crash (32%).
The U.K. political system has been rocked by several major events in recent years, including Brexit, the “Partygate” scandal and frequent turnover among its prime ministers. Since 2019, the U.K. has had four prime ministers in as many years.
For countries across the globe, leadership approval and confidence in government are highly related.
The same relationship is present in the U.K., where since 2006, confidence in the government has been far higher among those who approve of the U.K.’s leadership. But this changed dramatically in 2022, as the Partygate scandal intensified and numerous stories of alleged governmental wrongdoing dominated the headlines.
In 2022, confidence in the government collapsed, especially among Britons who approved of their country’s leadership (38%). This is the lowest level of confidence in the world among people who approve of their leadership — tied with Lebanon.
After years of clear distinction, the line between governmental confidence and leadership approval in the U.K. is now blurred. This may be a concern for the conservatives — in power since 2010 — ahead of the general election likely to be held at the end of next year.
Much has changed since Gallup surveyed G7 countries in 2022, and recent events could have shifted these trends even further — including the political fallout from Trump’s legal troubles and former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation from parliament in recent weeks.
The U.S. and the U.K. face crucial elections around the end of 2024. On both sides of the Atlantic, the election results will likely prove decisive in whether the public’s faith in their governments can be rebuilt in coming years or will erode yet further.
Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a Twitter Files-like thread Thursday, where he revealed what he called a Facebook censorship operation by President Joe Biden’s White House.
Jordan’s “Facebook Files Part 1” alleged the White House and administration officials pressured Facebook to censor Americans with “unconstitutional” force, including work to block “a meme” about vaccination, and a Tucker Carlson video.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595375875760128?s=20
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595379176718336
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595380770541568
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595382871785472
Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.
One of the more interesting footnotes to the Students for Fair Admissions case doesn’t involve what happened. It involves what didn’t happen. After the decision came down, liberals and the left voiced their dismay at the result. There was a little organized protesting, but it was nothing compared to the massive waves of mobilization that attended the Dobbs decision on abortion, despite the fact that the result was predictable in both cases.
Perhaps that’s to be expected. Dobbs is, in my view, the more consequential decision. It has the potential to directly affect far more people than Students for Fair Admissions. But I think there is another factor at play. Most people already suspected what the latter case demonstrated—that race-based affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. It was both unjust and unpopular, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. The relatively muted response from some of the left could signal a tacit decision to relinquish the legerdemain and enforced silence and bad faith necessary to keep the policy going. I can’t help but think that, whatever attitude they present to the public, some affirmative action defenders are secretly relieved that they can now turn their attention elsewhere.
Of course, I’m only speculating. And the fight over racial preferences in college admissions is not nearly over. It’s too big a business to simply vanish; elite institutions have invested too much in it to just give it up. This week’s episode features Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, the man who led the herculean effort to analyze the data that made Students for Fair Admissions’ case. As Peter says, that data is clear. Now that it’s out in the open, any of the “good liberals” who defended affirmative action as a matter of principle while privately harboring doubts as to its logical and moral coherence have an offramp. They can let it go. The questions is, will they?
GLENN LOURY: Peter was the main guy—correct me if I get anything wrong, Peter—in the data analysis marathon that had to be undertaken in order to parse through the information made available by Harvard University, quantitative information on its admissions policies, what exactly was going on. And he faced off against the estimable David Card—Nobel fame, UC-Berkeley—who was the lead witness for the defendant, Harvard University, in the litigation. And he prevailed.
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Not at first, but in the end, yes.
So what were the scientific questions, the academic questions, which you’ve been engaged with that were relevant to the litigation.
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, what was relevant to litigation was, was there a penalty against Asian Americans? And also how big the preferences were at these different schools.
JOHN MCWHORTER: There’s nothing sadder than the position of an individual Asian student today at these universities. They are so muzzled. You can often tell what they do think about all of this, but you can’t say that in their social circles. And so they don’t. I’ve seen a couple of them actually change color as they talk about it. It’s weird.
I told one of them, I’m sorry that you are in selective university at this time, because this must be a really tough thing to have any kind of constructive conversation about. Except, I imagine, among yourselves. And one of them kind of smiled. I mean, you can tell what’s going on. It’s hard, but this had to happen. It was time.
Peter, I’m glad that you did this. What in your gut got you onto this? Because, of course, some people are going to say, “Peter, it’s just racism,” and there’s a certain kind of crowd who will applaud. I know it’s not that, but what interested you about this?
PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, I think that came about through my own experience as an undergraduate and seeing how much easier the economics classes were than the chemistry classes, so then studying higher education. And then back in 2011 when there was a protest over one of my papers on this, seeing universities not really willing to engage in dialogue about how best to improve the experiences here.
That probably set me on this path. What that paper showed was, it was really about a data fact. You look at white males, they come in, those who want to do STEM and economics, they switch out at a rate of eight percent. This is at Duke. Black males interested in STEM and economics switch out at a rate of over fifty percent.
And nothing happened after that. You know, we just sort of let the protests happen, everything sort of died away, nothing changes. And I think it relates, actually—I know you wrote about this—the Georgetown Law professor who got caught on video lamenting the poor performance of her black students.
Sandra Sellers.
SANDRA SELLERS: I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh, come on. You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy
PETER ARCIDIACONO: And she got torn to pieces.
And to me, that’s a feature not a bug for affirmative action. When you come in, you’re going to be behind your peers. That’s by definition, unless we’re screening on things that we shouldn’t be screening. So that idea, you’re going to come in behind, the performance relative to your peers is going to be worse. It could still be a good thing that you’re going to the better school and have a better outcome. But it’s a definite feature of the system that you will be further down on the last rank. So now you have a system where actually they come in with the university saying, “We want you so much. We’re willing to give you big preferences.” And they come out thinking the place is racist. That doesn’t seem so good.
JOHN MCWHORTER: It’s not so good. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s one of the aspects of all of this that really is as peculiar as discussions medieval Europeans had about matters of religion and philosophy, where again, you have to be very careful to understand what the terminology is, what things you’re not supposed to look at and why. Truly peculiar that you have that kind of preference, and yet the stylish attitude by the time you’re finished is that you’ve just gone through some sort of racist hazing.
And it really will perplex people in say a hundred years, maybe even in fifty, to look back on the state of our discussion with this and to see something like what Sandra Sellers was lamenting. And for the good thinking idea to have been that there’s nothing wrong with that, that that’s not something that we need to try to fix, and it doesn’t matter.
Yes it does. And I think that everybody will understand why a few of us weird renegades back in the early twenty-first century thought it did. It does.
I think it’s going to happen a lot quicker than fifty years. I think it’s happening before our very eyes. I mean, Peter pointed out that this decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not engender the same kind of backlash from the left of revulsion and political determination to do something about it that the Dobbs decision on the abortion question did, even though it is resolving in a “conservative” direction of one of the big questions of constitutional law of the last half-century. It is historic in representing a kind of transformation of the law in its way, as was the Dobbs decision. It didn’t engender the same kind of backlash.
And I think this house of cards which Peter described—I mean, the Sandra Sellers thing is a predictable consequence. As he says, it’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a predictable consequence. And then you’re going to have a witch hunt and you’re going to go around and cut people’s heads off if they observe that it’s true. And then everybody can see it. It’s not like it’s not common knowledge that there are these implications of preferences. It’s corrupt.
I think Justice Clarence Thomas deserves to be recognized here as, for decades, having made this argument about the affront to the dignity of the beneficiaries of preference, the fact that they’re not being taken seriously as persons of whom it is reasonable to expect performance like anybody else. You’re patting the beneficiaries on the head. You’re turning them into baubles to wear on a charm bracelet around your wrist, representing the various colors of the demographic universe. You’re not taking them seriously. That’s what I would say.
California Travel Ban Stalls Students’ Hopes to Contend in National Chemical Engineers Competition. California students denied.
A group of chemical engineering students was denied state funding to participate in a national competition in Florida because of California’s travel ban to certain states that don’t allow biological male athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports.
The ban, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2019, was recently expanded to include three new states, boosting the total to 26.
As a result, Will Donahue, College Republicans of America president, told the Epoch Times the Chem-E-Car team at California Polytechnic State University—Pomona, was denied state and university funding to participate in the prestigious national American Institute of Chemical Engineers conference in the fall.
“It’s a ridiculous reason why they can’t have state-funded travel,” Mr. Donahue said.
The students, he said, have worked hard to earn their spot in the competition after defeating other California college teams at the Western Regional Conference in the spring.
“It’s a talented team—really smart engineers, and it’s unfortunate that the state is not sponsoring them,” he said.
The cost of travel for the team is estimated at about $6,500 for airfare, hotels, and restaurants, he said.
California lawmakers imposed the initial travel ban in 2016 with the passage of Assembly Bill 1887, a law that prohibits employees of state agencies to travel to any state that has enacted laws California deems discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. It also prohibits state-funded travel for employees and students to states on the list.
Legislation targeting the transgender community is part of a “concerning trend of discriminatory practices in states across the country, aiming to roll back hard-won protections,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a July 14 press release.
The law, authored by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), requires the California attorney general to post and update a list of states that have been targeted under the ban.
Brittani Daniels, vice president of public affairs for the College Republicans, told The Epoch Times that as a former track-and-field athlete, she is “appalled at the unfairness” of letting biological males compete in girls’ and women’s sports.
“It is insane to me that we’re acting like there’s really a debate whether or not boys and girls [should] compete in the same sports [teams],” she said.
Just as athletes compete in national championships, the Chem-E-Car competition is important to chemical engineering students.
“It’s national,” she said. “This is a big deal … and they’re missing out on the opportunity because Governor Newsom wants to let boys play with girls.”
The Cal Poly Pomona team stands a good chance of winning the competition, according to Ms. Daniels, who added the event can open up job opportunities for students after graduation.
“They can’t even go, and they’re brilliant,” she said. “It’s extremely disappointing that students—especially students of color [and] women students—[who] put so much time and energy into being chemical engineering students are not going to have the opportunity to showcase their talents and all their hard work because of a travel ban based on not allowing biological males to compete with women in sports.”
In the competition, students must build a miniature vehicle that starts and stops as a result of a chemical reaction. Each team is given a specific distance that their car must travel, with the goal of achieving as close a distance as possible to the prescribed target.
At the regionals this year, the goal was a distance of 18 meters, and the Pomona team came within 10 centimeters of the target, claiming first place by a wide margin.
The University of California (UC)—San Diego came in second, missing the target by 1.1 meters, and UC Berkeley came in third at 1.75 meters.
Mr. Donahue said College Republicans are “incredibly disappointed” and blamed the travel ban for “stifling student growth.”
“Governor Newsom is preventing Cal Poly engineers, a team comprised mostly of women of color, from competing in a prestigious student competition—at the biggest chemical engineering conference in the world—because Florida doesn’t allow men to compete in women’s sports. This is absurd,” Mr. Donahue said in a July 21 press release.
The College Republicans have started a campaign to raise the funds within the next couple of weeks to send the student engineers, Mr. Donahue said.
“If Governor Newsom doesn’t want to sponsor women of color in STEM, the College Republicans will because this isn’t about political orientation. It’s about doing right by students when radical progressive policy restricts their ability to flourish academically,” he said.
We are now being told that producing food is bad for the planet. To “save” the planet, globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the globe.
Under the guise of reducing “methane emissions,” thirteen nations have signed a pledge to engineer global famine by gutting agricultural production and shutting down farms. Announced earlier this year by the Global Methane Hub — a cabal of crisis engineers who exploit public panic to destroy the world food supply — those thirteen nations are:
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Panama, Peru, Spain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and Uruguay.
Imagine no meat production from Australia, Brazil and the USA. This is the goal of the globalists. And they admit it’s all part of the climate fraud which has been thoroughly exposed as a quack science hoax, by the way. As Luis Planas, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says, “I am glad to see the shared commitment by the international community to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture as a means to achieve the goals we signed for in the Paris Agreement on climate.”
“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” warns Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub. She is saying that farming is destroying the planet. Hence, their demand to shut down farms. Without farms, you have no food. And without food, you get exactly what Kamala Harris called for over the weekend: “Reduced population.”
And here’s their logic: FOOD = GLOBAL WARMING. So they are attacking food and shutting it down.
Enjoy the crunchy fake meat patties and Cricket McNuggets. Soon, you’ll be eating bugs because meat will be wildly unaffordable due to the governments shutting down farms and ranches. As journalist Leo Hohmann explains:
We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, meal worms, crickets, etc. The U.N., World Economic Forum and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of Illinois, in Canada and in the Netherlands, where meal worms, crickets and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating.
Hohmann also refers to the Deagel forecast which projects an almost 70 percent reduction of the U.S. population by 2025, saying:
There is no more efficient way to depopulate than through war, famine and plagues. Isn’t it interesting that all three of these time-tested methods of murder are in play right now?
In a related story, Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog writes:
Global food supplies just keep getting even tighter, and global hunger has risen to extremely alarming levels… According to the United Nations, nearly 30 percent of the global population does not have constant access to food right now, and there are approximately 900 million people that are facing “severe food insecurity”…
This should scare the crap out of all Americans. Biden sending reserves to Europe. So if war escalates, we send in our reserves?
Joe Biden issued an executive order last week approving the mobilization of 3,000 reserve troops who could deploy to Europe in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not sent any of the 3,000 reservists to Europe yet, but the move was announced as last week’s NATO summit wrapped up and comes a year after the United States deployed 20,000 troops to Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Lt. Gen. Douglas Sims, operations director for the Joint Staff, told reporters the mobilization “reaffirms the unwavering support and commitment to the defense of NATO’s eastern flank in the wake of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
Bitch slapping of the FBI director. Here’s a collection of Wray giving his spin and some outright lies.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679249760346075137
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679154390890958856
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679164288546529281
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679172019680690190
https://twitter.com/repdarrellissa/status/1679152018588585988?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1679152018588585988%7Ctwgr%5E44acfc538831c4d997814cc7a685241572569c65%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F07%2F12%2Frepublicans-slam-fbi-director-accuse-bureau-of-misusing-spy-tool-slow-rolling-pipe-bomb-probe%2F
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679149180588027904
https://twitter.com/i/status/1679156142344110080
By Jenna McCarthy for The FLCCC Alliance Community
When I was growing up, “I’m sorry,” was the requisite response to “you apologize to your sister right this minute” after you yanked out a handful of her hair or accidentally (on purpose) broke her favorite Barbie. There was no genuine remorse or promise of reform required. “I’m sorry” bought you half-hearted forgiveness, got you out of major trouble, or both.
It was basically BS.
As a mother and a career linguist, “I’m sorry” wasn’t an option if my daughters injured, outraged, or offended each other — whether carelessly or intentionally. The phrase was trite, I explained; meaningless. Instead, because I believe that words matter deeply, I chose to encourage this alternative: “I feel bad about what I did, and I’ll try not to do it again.” (Without the trying part, it would be almost as platitudinous as “I’m sorry.”)
It must suck to have a mom who’s a writer.
Like just about everything else in the world, words have gotten wonky since COVID came to town. Almost out of the gate, we were told to shelter in place, a phrase once employed only in life-or-death, bombs-are-falling, get-under-your-desks emergencies. Suddenly it meant, “You know, you should really probably stay at home unless you’re out of Pantene, your dog swallowed a sock, or someone in your circle needs a margarita to go.”
Some words saw their actual, official definitions altered to fit the emerging narrative. Merriam-Webster quietly decided that an “anti-vaxxer” was no longer simply a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, but henceforth would also describe those who oppose regulations mandating them. So basically, you can be quadruple-juiced and pro-medical freedom, and you might as well start making homemade granola and get yourself some nice bell-bottom jeans and a tie-dyed top, you dirty hippy.
When I asked ChatGPT to tell me what a breakthrough case of COVID was, it described this unicorn-level occurrence as “when a person who has been fully vaccinated against the virus later becomes infected with the virus.” The AI chat platform nearly tripped over itself to add: “It is important to note, however, that breakthrough cases are still relatively rare. Vaccines have been shown to be highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, even against new variants of the virus.” Never mind the countless analyses that have found that your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death increases with each booster. It’s just those pesky breakthrough cases. (Oh, and you’re a domestic terrorist if you say or even think otherwise.)
By literal definition, disinformation is “false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.” And yet the Center for Countering Digital Hate (the irony!) boldly baptized 12 individuals the “Disinformation Dozen” for promoting proven therapeutics, acknowledging natural immunity, pointing out the abysmal failure of the so-called vaccines, and encouraging natural remedies. A proper logophile (or domestic terrorist) might dub them the “Inconvenient to Pharma Dozen.” But semantics.
Curiously, the definition of a mandate is “an authoritative command.” A law, on the other hand, is “any written or positive rule prescribed under the authority of [a] state or nation.” It’s essentially the difference between, “Hey, kid, get off my lawn,” and, “You’re under arrest for criminal trespassing.” There was no vaccine law, I’ll remind you. And yet students, pilots, travelers, teachers, frontline medical workers, and millions of employees from countless fields lined up for an experimental gene therapy injection because they were commanded authoritatively to do so.
Is anyone else as angry about this as I am?
Last but certainly not least, we have our two best pandemic friends, “safe” and “effective”. Synonyms for safe include harmless, risk-free, trustworthy, sound, and reliable; some recommended substitutes for effective are powerful, useful, successful, valuable, and potent. If it was a known, documented fact that at least 1,553,187 people — the current number of COVID vaccine injuries reported to VAERS — lost life or limb visiting a certain theme park, would you rush to purchase an annual pass? (And also, might you briefly question why it was still open to the public?) If you discovered that a specific type of birth control actually increased your odds of becoming pregnant, would you make it your go-to contraceptive or recommend it to your child-phobic friends? These are comical things to consider — and yet you can’t drive down the highway, scroll through social media, or peruse a single mainstream news site without encountering at least a handful of helpful reminders to get your safe and effective COVID booster.
If we hear something often enough, it becomes accepted as fact. To wit: If you swallow your gum, it takes seven years to digest. (Altogether untrue.) Sugar makes you hyper. (Zero studies support this.) Lightning never strikes twice. (Ask this guy who’s been zapped seven times.) Iraq was teeming with weapons of mass destruction. (Whoops.)
Indeed, words and drugs can radically impact our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Let’s choose both wisely.
News. DOJ Tipped Off Hunter Biden Before a Search of His Storage Unit, IRS Whistleblowers Say. In a article printed the other day, we touched on this. Here’s Gateway Pundit’s article.
A recent executive meeting of the Ways and Means Committee resulted in a decision to release to the public testimony from two whistleblowers. The whistleblowers, both IRS employees, made shocking revelations about misconduct and abuse of power by Biden’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) during the investigation of Hunter Biden’s tax evasion case.
The whistleblowers claim that the Department of Justice (DOJ) tipped off Hunter Biden prior to a federal search of his storage unit.
The information revealed during the Ways and Means Committee’s executive meeting shows that Hunter Biden appears to have received preferential treatment in the investigation of his tax crimes.
Despite IRS officials recommending that Hunter Biden be charged with criminal activity for attempts to evade or defeat taxes, fraud and false statements, and willful failures to file returns, supply information, or pay taxes for over $8.3 million in income, the testimony alleges that Hunter Biden received preferential treatment during the investigation.
Further allegations point to the DOJ interfering in the investigation, deploying a strategy of “Delay, Divulge, and Deny” to shield Hunter Biden, according to the news committee’s press release.
Delays in the investigation were allegedly unjustified and pervasive, the DOJ was accused of divulging information about the investigation to Hunter Biden’s lawyers in advance, and there were several denials of attempts to bring charges or achieve special counsel status from the DOJ.
The Department of Justice interfered in the investigation into Hunter Biden’s clear tax issues with a “Delay, Divulge, and Deny” campaign – that ultimately shielded him by allowing the statute of limitations to pass on his tax crimes.
The testimony also details the retaliation against IRS employees who blew the whistle on this misconduct. These employees reportedly faced hostility after raising concerns up their chain of command. Actions were taken to cut the IRS investigative team out of the process, and in some cases, unrelated investigations were hampered with limits and pauses. The whistleblowers and their entire team were eventually removed from the investigation on May 15, 2023, after blowing the whistle to Congress.
The testimony of two whistleblowers puts the DOJ and IRS under intense scrutiny and highlights the urgent need for investigation and accountability within these agencies.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1671942487185952768
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) released the following statement:
“Today, the Ways and Means Committee voted to make public the testimony of IRS employees blowing the whistle on misconduct at the IRS and the Biden Department of Justice regarding unequal enforcement of tax law, interference and government abuse in the handling of investigations into criminal activity by President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and retaliation against IRS employees blowing the whistle on this abuse.
“The American people deserve to know that when it comes to criminal enforcement, they are not on the same playing field as thewealthy and politically connected class. The preferential treatment Hunter Biden received would never have been granted to ordinary Americans.
“Whistleblowers describe how the Biden Justice Department intervened and overstepped in a campaign to protect the son of Joe Biden by delaying, divulging, and denying an ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax crimes. The testimony shows tactics used by the Justice Department to delay the investigation long enough to reach the statute of limitations, evidence they divulged sensitive actions by the investigative team to Biden’s attorneys, and denied requests by the U.S. Attorney to bring charges against Biden.
“IRS employees who blew the whistle on this abuse were retaliated against, despite a commitment IRS Commissioner Werfel made before the Ways and Means Committee to uphold their legal protections. They were removed from this investigation after they responsibly worked through the chain of command to raise these concerns.
“The Committee has acted in good faith with participation from both Democrats and Republicans, as the issues raised today ought to be a bipartisan concern. Hopefully we can find a path forward to continue to go where the facts lead us. If the federal government is not treating all taxpayers equally, or if it is changing the rules to engineer a preferred outcome, Congress has a duty to ask why and to hold agencies accountable and consider appropriate legislative action. The scales of justice must not be skewed in favor of the wealthy and the politically connected.”
The transcripts for the whistleblower testimony are posted below via Ways and Means Committee:
