Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Lies Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Documents Reveal Biden WH Worked With Archives on Trump Case.

Views: 25

Documents Reveal Biden WH Worked With Archives on Trump Case.

By Julie Kelly, RealClearInvestigations
May 2, 2024

AP
Jack Smith, special counsel: Opposed releasing files on the handling of Trump’s documents case.

Top Biden administration officials worked with the National Archives to develop Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Donald Trump involving the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified material, according to recently unsealed court documents in the case pending in southern Florida.

More than 300 pages of newly unredacted exhibits, containing emails and other correspondence related to the early stages of the hunt for presidential papers, challenge public statements by Joe Biden about what he knew and when he knew it regarding the case against his political rival.

LinkedIn
Jonathan Su, White House lawyer: In regular touch with National Archives.

The new disclosures indicate the Department of Justice was in touch with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during much of 2021, undermining the DOJ’s claims that it became involved in the matter only after the Archives sent it a criminal referral on February 9, 2022, based on the findings of records with “classified markings” in 15 boxes of materials Trump gave to the Archives a month prior.

The court exhibits, which were compiled by Trump’s defense lawyers and kept under seal until last week, also show that Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Su regularly communicated with Archive officials.

Although Biden himself is not mentioned in the exhibits, the active participation of Su and other high-ranking White House officials raises questions about whether Biden was forthright when he told “60 Minutes” he wasn’t involved in the investigation.

“I have not asked for the specifics of those documents,” Biden told Scott Pelley in the Sept. 17 broadcast, “because I don’t want to get myself in the middle of whether or not the Justice Department should move or not move on certain actions they could take. I agreed I would not tell them what to do and not, in fact, engage in telling them how to prosecute or not.”


Trump’s lawyers first filed the heavily redacted material in a January motion, under a standing protective order issued by the court to initially conceal potentially sensitive information. His team then asked U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over the matter in southern Florida, to remove many of those redactions based on her review.

Southern District of Florida/Wikimedia
Aileen Cannon, presiding judge: Unseal the files, she ruled..

A protracted battle ensued as Smith fought to keep large portions of the motion and accompanying exhibits from the public. Smith told Cannon that disclosing the material would jeopardize the investigation and expose potential witnesses and government employees to “significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment.”

But Cannon, arguing the need for public transparency, authorized the unsealing of the files, which were posted in mostly unredacted form on April 22. A comparison of the redacted and unredacted material shows the Archives acted in concert with several Biden administration agencies to build the case — coordination that included the DOJ, the Biden White House, and the intelligence community.

The Trump case prompted revelations that both Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence had also retained classified documents – in Biden’s case for decades, stretching back to his time in the Senate. But while the Archives’ outreach to Biden and Pence consisted of requests, the agency took a more assertive stance with Trump.

National Archives
Gary Stern, National Archives lawyer: Some two dozen boxes of files missing.

Within weeks of Trump’s leaving office in 2021, employees with Biden’s Office of Records Management and the Archives began coordinated demands to Trump’s transition team, including former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

Gary Stern, the Archives general counsel, noting “several conversations” with records office employees to discuss “concerns” about material in Trump’s possession, emailed Trump’s team in May 2021 and asked them to account for “roughly two dozen boxes of original Presidential records [that] have not been transferred to NARA.”

Stern did not specify the files the Archives wanted beyond “original correspondence between President Trump and North Korean Leader Kim Jung-un” and “the letter that President Obama left for President Trump on his first day in office.” An unsealed FBI report indicated the Archives also sought the so-called “Sharpiegate” map of Hurricane Dorian that the former president used during a 2018 televised briefing on the track of the storm.

Despite Trump’s cooperation, David Ferriero, the national archivist appointed by Barack Obama in 2009, warned the transition team a month later in June 2021 that he was running “out of patience.”

TK

Before-and-after illustration 1: Unredactions on the National Archives’ early and aggressive focus.

By August 2021, Ferriero and Stern were in contact with DOJ officials and at least one White House attorney to develop what initially appeared to be a records destruction case against Trump. According to White House visitor logs, Stern met with Su on August 12 at the White House.

National Archives and Records Administration/Wikimedia
David Ferriero, national archivist: In touch with Justice Department.

From that point on, the collaboration between the White House and Archives accelerated. On Aug. 30, 2021, Ferriero, making unfounded accusations that 24 boxes of materials were missing, warned Trump’s team, “At this point, I am assuming [the boxes] have been destroyed. In which case, I am obligated to report it to the Hill, the DOJ, and the White House.”

A Trump staffer whose name remains redacted responded, “To my knowledge, nothing has been destroyed.”

The archives, with apparent guidance from top White House lawyers, pressed forward. On Sept. 1, Stern sent an email to Ferriero and deputy archivist Debra Wall with the subject line, “Draft Letter to AG re Missing Trump Records.” In the Sept. 1, 2021 email, Stern disclosed that he already had “reached out to DOJ counsel about this issue,” and that “WH Counsel is now aware of the issue.”

An attachment to the email included a draft letter from Ferriero to Attorney General Merrick Garland to notify him that presidential records “may have been unlawfully removed from U.S. government custody or possibly destroyed.”

On Sept. 2, presumably with the draft letter in hand, Ferriero met with White House Counsel Dana Remus in her office, according to visitor logs. The draft letter was not sent as the Archives and White House continued to advance the case behind the scenes.

TK

.Before-and-after illustration 2: Unredactions suggest early coordination with the White House and DOJ.

On Sept. 9, 2021, both Ferriero and Stern met again with Remus and possibly White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain. (A Sept. 8, 2021, email from Stern referred to a meeting beforehand with “Ron and Dana,” possibly referencing Klain.) The same email indicated plans to also meet with Su.

White House/Wikipedia
Dana Remus, White House counsel: Met with national achivist Ferriero in her office.

An Oct. 2021 letter to Ferriero from Remus referred to a “notification on September 8” related to the January 6 Select Committee’s request for Trump’s records. In the letter, Remus denied Trump’s claims of privilege in preventing the committee from early access to his papers.

But the email chains do not reflect any mention of the January 6 Committee’s demands; to the contrary, emails between the White House and Archives repeatedly reference the “Trump boxes.”

In fact, a Sept. 15 email disclosed that Stern spoke to Su to “get him up to speed on the issue and the dispute whether there are 12 or 24 missing boxes.” A few weeks later, Stern told his colleagues that “WHCO [White House counsel] is ready to set up a call to discuss the Trump boxes.”

TK

Before-and-after illustration 3: Unredactions on cooperation between the Archives and White House counsel.

On Jan. 18, 2022, following roughly seven months of negotiations, Trump’s team delivered 15 boxes to the Archives. In a matter of hours, the Archives’ White House liaison director said he conducted what he described in an email to Ferriero, Wall, and three undisclosed recipients as a “high level overview” of the contents.

Department of Justice
Lisa Monaco, deputy attorney general: “Instructed” National Archives lawyer Stern on how to proceed.

While admitting that most of the material consisted of “newspapers, magazines, and printed news articles,” the official claimed the boxes contained “lots of classified records.”

That assessment triggered deeper involvement by the DOJ. An unsealed FBI interview with an Archives official indicated that on Jan. 22 Su directed Stern to contact the office of Lisa Monaco, the current deputy attorney general and a longtime former adviser to Obama, to lay the groundwork for a criminal referral. It would represent the first time the Archives had ever sent a referral to the DOJ asking for an investigation into the retention of classified records.

Two days later, Monaco’s office “instructed” Stern on how to proceed. For guidance as to how a criminal investigation would proceed, two Monaco associates told Stern to notify the inspectors general for both the Archives and the intelligence community as well as DOJ National Security Division Chief Jay Bratt, now the lead prosecutor for Jack Smith in the classified documents case, and the chief of the DOJ’s public integrity unit.

According to the unredacted defense motion, Stern followed the DOJ’s guidance and sent information about the 15 boxes to the Archives’ inspector general, who then notified the intelligence community’s inspector general about a “very high level potential spillage and records management issue.”

The email chain then made its way to Thomas Windom, a prosecutor now tasked to Smith’s team on the Jan. 6 case against Trump, on Feb. 1. A criminal referral was officially sent to the DOJ on Feb. 9.

Two months after the archives received Trump’s boxes, which he produced voluntarily, the FBI opened on March 30, 2022, what it named the “Plasmic Echo” investigation, according to an unsealed FBI document. The probe centered on the “mishandling of classified or national defense information.”

TK

Before-and-after illustration 4: Unredactions on top-level DOJ involvement before receiving criminal referral.

A grand jury and the FBI summoned Mar-a-Lago employees to testify. In May 2022, at the same time Biden officials were scouring Biden-related locations including the Penn-Biden Center in Washington for classified documents in advance of a potential GOP investigation into the same matter if Republicans won the House, the DOJ issued a subpoena for more classified records.

Not satisfied with the result – that Trump’s lawyers produced 38 more files to investigators in June 2022 – Garland authorized and the FBI executed a nine-hour raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022. After seizing more than 13,000 pieces of evidence, prosecutors claimed agents found another 102 records with classified markings.

In June 2023, Smith, appointed in November 2022 to take over the existing investigation, charged Trump with 32 counts of “willfully” retaining national defense information, representing a shift from the premise of the original investigation into more serious Espionage Act crimes. (Visitor logs show that Stern met with Biden’s special counsel Richard Sauber at the White House the day before Smith announced the indictment.)

Smith has also indicted Waltine Nauta, Trump’s personal aide, with obstruction, for moving boxes within Mar-a-Lago in an alleged attempt to conceal materials from investigators, and another Mar-a-Lago employee, Carlos DeOlivera, for allegedly attempting to erase security video at the property. All have pleaded not guilty.

Another Special Counsel, Robert Hur, was subsequently named to investigate Biden’s retention of classified material, dating as far back as 1977. Although Hur reported that Biden had willfully retained state secrets in unsecured locations and illegally shared them with a ghostwriter, he concluded that Biden should not be prosecuted for these violations.

Trump and his co-defendants have filed motions to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution; Cannon has not yet ruled on those motions.

A May 2024 trial date in Florida has been postponed in light of Trump’s other legal entanglements, which the former president has described as a partisan witch hunt to interfere in the 2024 election.

Loading

105
Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Biden’s team bracing for special counsel’s report on classified docs.

Views: 7

Biden’s team bracing for special counsel’s report on classified docs.

President Biden‘s team is concerned that special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents will hurt his re-election campaign.

Why it matters: Biden aides don’t expect criminal charges in the case, but they believe Hur’s report will include embarrassing details — possibly with photos — on how Biden stored documents.

  • In late 2022, Obama-era classified documents were discovered in Biden’s garage at his home in Delaware and in a private office he used.

Zoom in: Hur, a former U.S. attorney nominated by Trump in 2017 and a former clerk for conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, is required to write a report about the investigation.

Even if there are no criminal charges, Biden aides expect the report’s details to be politically damaging.

  • Biden has defended storing documents from his vice presidency in his garage, saying: “By the way, my Corvette is in a locked garage, so it’s not like they’re sitting out on the street.”

Zoom out: Garland’s appointment of Hur added to the tension between Biden’s team and Garland that’s been fueled by Garland’s appointment of the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden. Feelings that Garland was too slow to investigate Trump over Jan. 6, and other frustrations.

Some in Biden’s orbit have unflatteringly compared Garland to former FBI Director James Comey. Referring to his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

  • Comey ultimately cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing. But damaged her election campaign against Trump in July 2016 by making a public statement that she had been “extremely careless” in her security protocols.

What they’re saying: The White House and a spokesperson for Biden attorney Bob Bauer declined to comment.

 

Loading

129
Categories
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Tony the Fauch

Fauci’s Damning Testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Views: 23

WASHINGTON — Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) issued the following statement after day one of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s two-day, 14-hour transcribed interview:

“Dr. Fauci’s testimony today uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems. While leading the nation’s COVID-19 response and influencing public narratives, he simultaneously had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID. Dr. Fauci signed off on all domestic and foreign research grants without reviewing the proposals and admitted that he was unaware if NIAID conducted oversight of the laboratories they fund. Clearly, the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies.

It is also concerning that the face of our nation’s response to the world’s worst public health crisis ‘does not recall’ key details about COVID-19 origins and pandemic-era policies. Nearly 1.2 million Americans lost their lives to a potentially preventable pandemic. I look forward to asking Dr. Fauci further questions about mandates, his role in prompting the ‘Proximal Origin’ publication, and his policy positions related to masks and lockdowns. Tomorrow’s testimony will continue the Select Subcommittee’s effort to deliver the answers Americans demand and deserve.”

DR. FAUCI DAY 1 TAKEAWAYS

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci for seven hours yesterday (Jan 8, 2024) about his role during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Fauci’s testimony uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems.

Key highlights by the Select Subcommittee from Dr. Fauci’s testimony:

  • Dr. Fauci claimed he “did not recall” pertinent COVID-19 information or conversations more than 100 times.
  • Dr. Fauci profusely defended his previous testimony where he statedthat NIH does not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
  • He repeatedly played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function in an attempt to avoid conceding that NIH funded this dangerous research.
  • Dr. Fauci testified that he signed off on every foreign and domestic NIAID grant without reviewing the proposals.
  • A 2020 email, previously released by the Select Subcommittee, proved Dr. Fauci was aware of dangerous gain-of-function research occurring in Wuhan, China. Today, he backtracked by arguing he should not have stated that as “fact.”
  • Dr. Fauci was unable to confirm if NIAID has ANY mechanisms to conduct oversight of the foreign laboratories they fund.
  • Clearly, the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies. More accountability coming soon!

Why is this guy NOT in jail? — TPR

 

Loading

108
Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Emotional abuse How sick is this? Reprints from others. Stupid things people say or do.

Dementia Joe Posts Thanksgiving Guide of How to Respond to “Crazy MAGA Nonsense”

Views: 18

The Biden-Harris reelection campaign shared a “handy guide for responding to crazy MAGA nonsense” for supporters heading into the holidays with Trump supporting family members.

The guide shared talking points to respond to conservative rhetoric about subjects from immigration to the economy. One slide included responses to when someone claims “Trump secured our border!” to reply with a “No he didn’t,” followed by claims that “All he did was separate families, put children in cages, and leave behind a broken immigration system for Joe Biden to clean up.”

Critics across social media shredded the list of talking points, arguing it takes an especially insufferable kind of person to approach the Thanksgiving table looking forward to an argument rather than eating with family.

“Democrats literally publishing a script of how to be the worst person at Thanksgiving,” Republican digital strategist Alec Sears wrote.

“Imagine needing political talking points for a holiday encounter with loved ones,” podcast host Siraj Hashmi wrote.

“Reminder to all political persuasions: Preparing political talking points to use against family members on Thanksgiving is a form of mental illness,” author John Durant wrote. “Show some maturity, speak with the right tone, or change the subject.”

Other commentators accused Biden-Harris campaign of pushing “propaganda.”

“Biden-Harris putting out propaganda scripts to defend their campaign is… gross,” conservative radio host Jason Rantz wrote.

“All this gaslighting would make North Korean state media blush,” Twitchy’s Doug Powers wrote.


Dementia Joe’s handlers strike again.

Loading

144
Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Elections Free Speech Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election.

Views: 16

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election.

New emails show officials at the Department of Homeland Security created a Stanford University “disinformation” group that censored Americans’ speech before the 2020 election, according to a House Judiciary Committee report exclusively obtained by The Post.

The House panel’s 103-page staff interim report says never-before-seen emails and internal communications were obtained from the group, known as the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), and show how it worked with DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to flag, suppress and remove online speech in coordination with big tech companies.

One of EIP’s founding partners — the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab — described CISA’s central role in the alleged censorship effort in a July 31, 2020, email.

“I know the Council has a number of efforts on broad policy around the elections, but we just set up an election integrity partnership at the request of DHS/CISA and are in weekly comms to debrief about disinfo,” the lab’s senior director Graham Brookie wrote.

The staff report says, “[T]he federal government and universities pressured social media companies to censor true information, jokes, and political opinions.

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

A report from the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), says new emails show officials at the Department of Homeland Security created a Stanford University “disinformation” group that censored Americans’ speech before the 2020 election.Getty Images

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, described a federal agency’s central role in the alleged censorship effort in a July 31, 2020, email.Atlantic Council

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Here is a related email from Atlantic Council DFR Lab Senior Director Graham Brookie.NY Post

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

The online posts labeled “misinformation” were made by public officials such as former President Donald Trump.Getty Images

“This pressure was largely directed in a way that benefitted one side of the political aisle: true information posted by Republicans and conservatives was labeled as ‘misinformation’ while false information posted by Democrats and liberals was largely unreported and untouched by the censors.”

The “misinformation” posts were made by public officials such as former President Donald Trump, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), media outlets such as Newsmax and The Babylon Bee and many conservative commentators.

The Judiciary report also found that while under the purview of CISA’s Countering Foreign Influence Task Force, the central focus of the feds’ effort was to “censor Americans engaged in core political speech in the lead up to the 2020 election.”

DHS acknowledged that it could not “openly endorse” a centralized portal to flag information in a May 2020 email released in the staff report, which cleared the way for Stanford’s EIP to take up the effort in July of that year.

The task force used a tactic known as “switchboarding” to refer to removal requests from state and local officials to Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites, which CISA-CFITF Director Brian Scully confirmed in testimony in the bombshell case Missouri v. Biden.

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Brian Scully, a figure in the controversy, gave testimony in the bombshell case Missouri v. Biden.New Civil Liberties Alliance / Youtube

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Emails in the interim staff report show Scully informing members of the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State that he had flagged parody accounts to Twitter.NY Post

Emails in the interim staff report show Scully informing members of the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State that he had flagged parody accounts to Twitter and advised Facebook to take down a post about the election that was deemed misinformation.

The exchanges show that CISA recognized it was on shaky legal grounds by participating in the effort and chose to add a disclaimer beneath many emails that its requests were “voluntary” and the agency “neither has nor seeks the ability to remove what information is made available on social media platforms.”

However, those emails also included a line that the “information may also be shared with law enforcement or intelligence agencies,” implying those agencies could take action if the posts weren’t removed.

Former CISA Director Chris Krebs, who was fired by Trump after the 2020 election, testified to the subcommittee that “switchboarding” was done before his agency was created as well.

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Exchanges show that group recognized it was on shaky legal ground by participating in the effort and chose to add a disclaimer beneath many emails that its requests were “voluntary.”NY Post

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Former CISA Director Chris Krebs, who was fired by Trump after the 2020 election, testified to the subcommittee.Jim LoScalzo / Greg Nash / Pool via CNP / SplashNews.com

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July that the agency no longer participates in the practice.

The Judiciary staff report also discloses that Stanford students were working at both CISA and EIP simultaneously.

“Not only were there a number of university students involved with the EIP, at least four of the students were employed by CISA during the operation of EIP, using their government email accounts to communicate with CISA officials and other ‘external stakeholders’ involved with the EIP,” it states.

In a statement given to The Post on Monday, CISA Executive Director Brandon Wales said the agency “does not and has never censored speech or facilitated censorship.

“Every day, the men and women of CISA execute the agency’s mission of reducing risk to U.S. critical infrastructure in a way that protects Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy,” Wales said.

“In response to concerns from election officials of all parties regarding foreign influence operations and disinformation that may impact the security of election infrastructure, CISA mitigates the risk of disinformation by sharing information on election literacy and election security with the public and by amplifying the trusted voices of election officials across the nation.”

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election

New emails show DHS created Stanford ‘disinfo’ group that censored speech before 2020 election© Provided by New York Post

Alex Stamos, who previously served as chief security officer at Facebook, said the idea was to create a “one-stop shop for local election officials, DHS, and voter protection organizations” to coordinate with social media platforms in the censorship effort.REUTERS

The “disinfo” organization was led by Stanford University’s Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) and founded with the help of other academics who communicated directly with Homeland Security officials and members of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), the report said.

SIO was conceived as a “one-stop shop for local election officials, DHS, and voter protection organizations” to coordinate with social media platforms in the censorship effort, according to its director Alex Stamos, who previously served as chief security officer at Facebook.

In June, Stamos testified to the House subcommittee that CISA’s coordination with the FBI came across as a threat.

“[D]ealing with a law enforcement agency that has coercive powers is just a risky thing to do if you’re part of some big organization and some other — there might be some investigation involving the organization that you don’t even know about,” he said.

“I think all executives of all public companies understand that there’s lots of parts of the government that can punish you for activity that you thought was appropriate.”

Stamos did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump established CISA in 2018 to improve federal cybersecurity programs and protect government software from hackers.

Loading

166
Categories
Black Supremacy Commentary Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. The Courts

How can this be, a Democrat? Connecticut Judge Overturns Election Results After Shocking Videos Surface.

Views: 33

How can this be, a Democrat? Connecticut Judge Overturns Election Results After Shocking Videos Surface. I still remember when last year a lurker loon from California claimed that it checked the elections in all fifty states and only found one case of voter fraud. And it was a Republican

Well we’ve had numerous cases of voter fraud with the Democrats. Here’s the latest. It happened of all places a Blue State.

Voters in one Connecticut community are scheduled to go to the polls next week in a mayoral election for which the results of the Democratic primary were thrown out Wednesday.

Superior Court Judge William Clark tossed out the results of a Sept. 12 primary in Bridgeport after video emerged showing an individual who was alleged to have been a supporter of Democratic Mayor Joe Ganim stuffing multiple ballots in an absentee ballot drop box.

Loading

195
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Corruption Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources.

Poor baby. Maricopa County Recorder Complains That Following Signature Verification Law Will Require More Work.

Views: 14

Poor baby. Maricopa County Recorder Complains That Following Signature Verification Law Will Require More Work.

The county recorder ( a never Trumper ) is crying because he got caught taking the easy way out when he, Hobbs, and the Arizona AG took the easy way out on signature verification.

It looked as if they skirted Arizona law and decided to use any form for verification. I guess you could even use a note from your teacher and that would count ( I think you get my point. ). We have this from The Arizona Independent.

The additional responsibility for county recorders became clear after Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper declared in ruling last week that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM) by Hobbs “create[d] a process that contradicts” the law. That ruling rejected Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ motion to dismiss an Arizona Free Enterprise Club lawsuit alleging that Fontes’ interpretation and enforcement of signature verification law, which aligned with that of Hobbs, did not match the actual statute’s language.

In response to Napper’s ruling, the press raised alarm among voters in its coverage featuring Richer. Arizonans were warned their early vote may not count because election officials would be required to verify signatures using registration records only, versus signatures from other documents or past ballots. Echoing Richer, their reporting speculated signatures could be rejected en masse due to the signature on file being an older variation, or warped by MVD digitization.

That means for two major elections, an unlawful signature verification process was enforced. Napper reminded Secretary of State Adrian Fontes that he has a “non-discretionary duty” to properly instruct county recorders on lawful vote tabulation.

 

Loading

159
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Corruption Crime Facebook Faked news How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

The Most Embarrassing “Facebook Files” Revelation? The Press, Exposed as Censors.

Views: 9

The Most Embarrassing “Facebook Files” Revelation? The Press, Exposed as Censors.

The “Facebook Files” show the press is part of the censhorship establishment, but that’s not the worst part

The most embarrassing revelation of the “Facebook Files” released by House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan yesterday (described in more detail here) involves the news media:

In one damning email, an unnamed Facebook executive wrote to Mark Zuckerberg and Cheryl Sandberg:

We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.

We see repeatedly in internal communications not only in the email above, but in the Twitter Files, in the exhibits of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, and even in the Freedom of Information request results beginning to trickle in here at Racket, that the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.

In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.

If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.

Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”

This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose. Moreover, think of the implications. News outlets wail about “disinformation” when they’re aware the public has tuned them out. When people don’t listen to reporters, it’s usually because they suck. You can do the math, as to why the current crop embraces censorship. A more embarrassing outcome for our business would be hard to imagine.

Loading

181
Categories
Biden Cartel Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

Hunter Biden Admits in Court He Made $664K from CEFC China Energy, Contradicting Joe Biden’s Claims.

Views: 9

Hunter Biden Admits in Court He Made $664K from CEFC China Energy, Contradicting Joe Biden’s Claims.

By Wendell Husebø

Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark, admitted in court Wednesday the president’s son received $664,000 from CEFC China Energy Co. in 2017, contradicting President Joe Biden’s claim Hunter Biden never received money from a Chinese entity.

During a hearing before U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, Clark revealed Hunter made over one million dollars in foreign business transactions, including $664,000 from CEFC, a company linked to the CCP and Chinese intelligence. Also got money from Romania and Ukraine.

Loading

104
Categories
Biden Cartel Corruption Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Putting the cart before the horse? The FBI is furious Chuck Grassley released an internal document that makes unverified claims about Hunter and Joe Biden accepting bribes

Views: 14

Putting the cart before the horse? The FBI is furious Chuck Grassley released an internal document that makes unverified claims about Hunter and Joe Biden accepting bribes. Just putting this out there. Republicans may have jumped the gun, but if not, this is very damaging to Joe.

The FBI on Thursday blasted two top Republican lawmakers for supporting the release of an internal investigative document that contains unverified allegations that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter accepted bribes from a Ukrainian gas company — claims the White House called “dishonest” and which even some Republicans have cast doubts on.

“The safeguards the FBI placed on the production of this information are necessary to protect the safety of confidential sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations,” the bureau said in a statement to Insider. “Today’s release of the 1023 [form] – at a minimum – unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source.”

Earlier Thursday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has helped lead the Senate’s probes of Hunter Biden, decided to publish a sparingly redacted copy of the FBI document, which details claims made by a confidential informant who said a Burisma executive boasted about how he used Hunter Biden to protect the company.

The informant also claimed that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky claimed that he was “coerced” into discussing $10 million bribes to the Bidens, though the informant was unclear if the money was ever paid or how; Joe Biden was the US vice president at the time.

The informant also claimed, without evidence, that Zlochevsky made 17 recordings and kept documents that would substantiate the bribery allegations. Last month, Sen. Ron Johnson, who has teamed up with Grassley on the Biden probes, cautioned that such recordings may not exist.

“This could be coming from a very corrupt oligarch who could be making this stuff up,” Johnson said on the Vicki McKenna Show, per PunchBowl News. “You have to suspend your judgment until you know more.”

Grassley’s office disputed the bureau’s claim that the release could endanger the confidential informant.

” Democrats and the media sought to link the FD-1023 to the Bidens’ activity in Ukraine long before this document became public, citing information that only the FBI and DOJ could have known,” Grassley spokesperson Taylor Foy said in a statement to Insider. “The FBI can’t cite risks to sources while thwarting congressional oversight in one breath and leak selective information to the news media in another.”

The release of the FBI document come days after former President Donald Trump, the 2024 GOP frontrunner, got a letter informing him that he’s a target in the DOJ’s investigation into the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

The FBI initially turned over the document to Republicans in June in response to a subpoena. At the time, House Oversight Chairman James Comer had pressured the bureau to turn over information even though it involved a confidential source.

The FBI allowed only a few lawmakers and their aides access to the document. It is unclear how Grassley obtained the copy. In a statement, the Iowa Republican said it came to him “via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers.” Both Grassley and Comer argued Thursday that publicly releasing the document was a necessary step.

“While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers,” Grassley said in a statement.

Republicans have long alleged that when he was vice president, Joe Biden inappropriately meddled in a criminal investigation into Burisma Holdings — whose board Hunter Biden served on from 2014 to early 2019 — led by Viktor Shokin, who was then Ukraine’s prosecutor general.

When he visited the country in March 2016, Joe Biden pressed hard for Shokin to be fired for corruption.

Biden represented the US’s official position on the matter, one that was shared by many other Western governments and anticorruption activists in Ukraine. But Republicans have alleged, without evidence, that Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster because he wanted to stymie the investigation into Burisma.

However, government officials and Ukrainian anticorruption advocates point out that Shokin had hampered the investigation into Burisma long before Biden even stepped into the picture, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In other words, Biden was doing the opposite of what Republicans have implied: he was trying to oust a prosecutor who was slow-walking the investigation into Burisma, rather than actively targeting the company.

Bloomberg also reported that the Burisma investigation was largely dormant when Biden called for Shokin to be fired.

The White House put out a statement after Republicans released the document, saying that the claims in it “have reportedly been scrutinized by the Trump Justice Department, a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, and a full impeachment trial of the former President that centered on these very issues, and over and over again, they have been found to lack credibility.”

“It’s clear that congressional Republicans are dead-set on playing shameless, dishonest politics and refuse to let truth get in the way,” the statement added.

Loading

124
Verified by MonsterInsights