Tucker puts together the long list of political arrests in Biden's America

 We've all been aware of the stories about the FBI arresting conservatives — and by that, I don't mean the way the FBI has hunted down every granny and veteran who, made ignorant by the systematic removal of "no trespassing" signs and fencing, and the Capitol Police holding open doors, entered the Capitol and wandered around reverently.  That's bad enough.  But the FBI is also going after high-level, high-profile political operatives (advisers, politicians, journalists) who have dared challenge Biden's rise to the White House.  On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson finally put together a list of the brutal, humiliating, seemingly lawless arrests, and it's really shocking.

What you see in Tucker's opening monologue is something I don't believe we've ever seen before in America: a presidential administration is systematically using its police power to intimidate the political opposition at the highest levels.  As Tucker points out, Democrats have declared every successful Republican presidential election illegitimate since Bush in 2000, but no Republican administration has ever used its police power to silence these people.

Democrats, though, are enamored of the police state.  Obama spied on both the Senate and journalists.  Then, probably heartened by the minimal pushback, he authorized spying on a presidential candidate — and got away with it.

No wonder, then, that the Biden Department of Justice feels that it can raid the homes of politicians, political operatives, and journalists, smashing their doors, leaving them humiliated on the sidewalk, tossing the contents of their houses, and stealing all of their electronic devices, or that it can arrest people close to Trump, always making sure to do so in the most humiliating, demeaning way possible, and without even bothering to show the warrants authorizing this police activity.

And that's how we end up with this:

A friend and I routinely have the same conversation. Whenever we hear about these illegal and unconstitutional actions, he says, "It's not enough that these things make the news.  We need to name the names of the people behind this stuff.  And then the people involved need to be fired and, if possible, prosecuted."

I invariably respond, "Who's going to do it?  Merrick Garland's DOJ?"

To which he inevitably replies, "Well, I know nothing's going to happen now, but when Trump or DeSantis is in the White House, they need to do something."

At which point I offer one of two responses.  Either "Republicans never do anything, so don't hold your breath" or "That's assuming there'll ever be another Republican president.  This is Stasi stuff (or, maybe, I'll say Maoist or Stalinist stuff) and it's the road to a permanent hold on power."

And then I always add, "God forbid.  I hope that never happens here."  But frankly, when you see all the arrests and harassment laid out as Tucker did, it really does seem as if it could happen here.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/06/tucker_puts_together_the_long_list_of_political_arrests_in_bidens_america.html

Another shocking random killing in Manhattan, and Eric Adams blames the gun

 In New York, there's a lot of horror at a seemingly random killing of a 20-year-old woman pushing a baby stroller with her three-month-old infant on an Upper East Side street.

According to CBS News:

A 20-year-old woman died after being shot in the head while pushing her 3-month-old in a stroller in Manhattan's Upper East Side Wednesday night. The toddler [sic] wasn't injured. 

New York City Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said in a news conference that the victim was pushing the stroller when a man approached from behind and "fired a single shot into her head from a very close range," then fled.

The victim was rushed to a hospital and pronounced dead about an hour later, Sewell said. Her name wasn't immediately released.

The suspect remains at large. There was no word on a possible motive.

Now, we still don't know much about what happened.  Was it a boyfriend issue?  Did she know the killer?  Was there a racial component?  Was the woman killed for being Asian, or white, or some other "wrong" color?  Was it really the Upper East Side, as reported, given that it's two blocks from Spanish Harlem on the map?  

Or was it the same kind of nightmare crime that is increasingly happening in New York, where a random passenger is pushed in front of a moving subway, or a random person on the subway gets stabbed, or a college student walking to class or from the park is randomly shot from behind for no apparent reason?  All of these things have happened, recently, in the increasingly "Shattered" New York City.

This callous crime, though, is making waves, because such crimes are not expected to happen on the corner of Lexington and East 95th, seven blocks away from the Guggenheim Museum.  The perception is that broad-daylight murders like this don't happen, at least outside some of the outer boroughs.  Manhattan is supposed to be the safe place, especially the Upper East Side, where all the social climbers Tom Wolfe used to write about live.  This killing is enough to make anyone feel unsafe — if it happens there, who will be next?  Based on press accounts, it seems some kind of bottom has dropped out.  The mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, after all, rushed to the scene, given the high impact of the crime.

That was where the understanding of the event ended.  Adams's response was absolutely hideous:

New York City Mayor Eric Adams also spoke at the news conference and pointed to the "problem of the over-proliferation of guns on our streets."

"When a woman is pushing a baby carriage down the block, and is shot at point-blank range, it shows just how this national problem is impacting families," Adams said. "It doesn't matter if you are on the Upper East Side, or East New York, Brooklyn. The oversaturation of guns endangers people."

He blamed the gun.  He waxed eloquent about "ghost guns," even though there have been no reports of the murder weapon being recovered.  According to Adams, the gun did it, not the guy in the hoodie who snuck up on the woman from behind.  Take the guns off the street, and problem over.  It's all so easy.

Feel safer now?  That's what's going to make people feel unsafe in New York.

The problem in that city is that monstrous amounts of "minor" crimes of lawlessness and disorder have been allowed to flourish, supposedly in the name of targeting only major crimes.  It's the broken-window theory in reverse.  The bums, the shoplifting, the smash-and-grab robberies, the muggings, the subway assaults, the car break-ins, the random vandalism, the transit fare jumping have all been left to flourish as somehow not important enough by the city's leftist district attorney, despite the havoc they wreak on the sense of order in the city, and that has created a Petri dish for this kind of murder to happen.  Criminals are criminals, and the message they get is that anyone who commits a crime gets away with it. 

Adams was elected as the great crime-fighter for New York after the monstrous free-for-all unleashed by failed far-left mayor Bill de Blasio.  He was the supposed to be the good guy, the man who didn't want to defund the police, the guy who listened to the poor areas where the crime is most hellish. 

What is he now?  A fool who blames guns instead of criminals, who see themselves with a city-issued "Get Out of Jail Free" card. 

That kind of crap leadership is what creates the fear in New York City.  That's what drives more people to buy guns — for self-defense, and it probably has.  It's actually worse than the fear of a random gunman killing even a mother pushing a stroller on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Former mayor Rudy Giuliani understood this 25 years ago, and the renaissance results seen in New York during his mayoralty spoke for themselves.

It's time for this idiot to wake up and put some Giuliani on.  All we hear from him on that is nasty talk about prosecuting the former mayor and a continued clinging to the old failed narrative on guns.  New Yorkers can see right through it and aren't going to be applauding much longer.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/06/another_shocking_random_killing_in_manhattan_and_mayor_adams_blames_the_gun.html

The Evidence Trump Requested 10,000 National Guard Troops on January 6th That “Fact Checkers” Are Ignoring (Three parts in one)

 Why is the Garbage J-6 committee not looking into why this was blocked by Pelosi and Bowow???

They knew what was up and the extra security would stop it? 

With the anniversary of January 6th having passed earlier this month, Donald Trump’s claim that he requested national guard troops ahead of that day has been scrutinized by the so-called “fact checkers” once again. While a number have been published in recent weeks, I’ll be addressing Politifact’s from last year, as I’ve made a habit of specifically going after their godawful “fact checks.”

Sports reporter turned pretend fact checker Tom Kertscher attempted to fact check Donald Trump’s claim that he “requested 10,000 national guard troops for January 6th, which Pelosi denied.” Trump first made the claim during a February 28, 2021 interview on Fox News. When asked if he thought there was anything he could’ve done differently by host Steve Hilton, Trump replied “We said to the Department of Defense, the top person, days before we had the rally … I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

Sportsball’s rebuttal is as follows:

• He quotes an article in far-left Vanity Fair quoting then acting defense secretary Christopher Miller met with Trump on the night of January 5th, and Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy to D.C. the next day, but “There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops.”
• He says “a Defense Department spokesman said the department ‘has no record of such an order being given’ by Trump. This quote is anonymous and unsourced, and I cannot find it in any publication besides the PolitiFact article quoting it.
• In a February 23, 2021 Senate hearing, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said he met with the former House sergeant-at-arms Paul Irving (who reports to Pelosi), and former Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael Stenger, and that he requested the National Guard deploy troops on January 6th. Irving testified that he didn’t “take the discussion as a request,” and that the three men agreed there was no need for troops.

Now unlike most of my fact checks of fact checks, this isn’t a case where there’s a clear verdict. In fact, whether or not you believe Trump’s claims boils down to which officials you happen to trust. Kertscher is only quoting those who contradict Trump, but there are others who seconded his claim.

Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell blasted the “fact check,” stating that Kertscher is focusing on the lack of a formal request, “But the leaders of the Pentagon then made clear they offered Pelosi and she said No.”

 

Kash Patel, who served as acting United States Secretary of Defense, also supported the “10,000 national guard” claim, explaining to Hannity earlier this month:

Iwas in the Oval Office on that day, days prior to January 6, with the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others and President Trump.

And he authorized, as the law requires, 10,000 to 20,000 National Guardsmen and Women to be utilized around the country. But the second part of the law requires a federal agency or governor or mayor, such as the United States Capitol Police or Mayor Bowser to make a request, otherwise, the National Guard cannot be deployed legally.

…….

Biden’s DOD inspector general himself said the Trump administration DOD did not delay or obstruct their response to January 6th and Mayor Bowser and the Capitol police repeatedly in writing refused to request the National Guard. And that’s in the report and it’s in the DOD records, and I wonder why so many people aren’t asking for it.

 

Hannity asked “for the National Guard to have been called up, that had to be approved by Nancy Pelosi. Is that the correct chain of command?” and Patel clarified: 

Well, Nancy Pelosi supervises the United States Capitol Police. That’s the federal agency and Mayor Bowser who would have requested the National Guard. So I can’t imagine the universe where the United States Capitol Police didn’t consult with their chain of command to make that request.

…..

It’s backed up by writing; Mayor Bowser’s written refusal, the communications between the leader of the Capitol police and their chain of command to the DOD refusing our request to allow National Guardsmen and Women to stage on January 4 and January 5, before January 6. That’s in the timeline.

Watch below:

So we have a case where it’s Patel and Grenell’s word against Miller’s and Sund’s. An honest “fact checker” would rate this sort of claim “disputed,” yet PolitiFact opted for a “false” rating because their goal is to silence the narrative, not actually discover if it’s true or not. Kertscher writes there’s “No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it” – but there’s certainty evidence for it – evidence that was conveniently ignored.

https://bongino.com/the-evidence-trump-requested-10000-national-guard-troops-on-january-6th-that-fact-checkers-are-ignoring

Jan. 6 Committee Called Out for Altering Evidence and Lying About It

The Jan. 6 Committee has a well-established credibility problem. The committee released various text messages that have actually exonerated Donald Trump, but they falsely characterized the messages as incriminating. And when the truth wasn’t incriminating, they doctored text messages to make them look so.

Now Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is calling out the committee for its deceptions, and he promised an investigation during an appearance on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo.

“I want to see all the depositions,” Rep. Jordan said. “I want to see all the documents. And ranking member Rodney Davis has already sent a preservation letter to the committee, saying, preserve all this information, so we can look at it, and the American people can get the full story, not just this one-sided, choreographed presentation we got — excuse me — we got the other night. But when you think about what this committee has done, never in the history of this country, in the history of the House of Representatives, has a minority leader not been able to put on a select committee that [sic] individuals he or she has selected.”

“We also know that this committee has altered evidence and lied to the American people about it, so much so that they had to issue a statement which says ‘we regret the error,’ which is government-speak for, we got caught lying,” Jordan continued.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/06/12/jan-6-committee-called-out-for-altering-evidence-and-lying-about-it-n1605016

Committee of Lies: Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony Collapses in Record Time

As has seemingly been the case a near infinite amount of times already, the media assured us once again yesterday that the walls were finally closing in on Donald Trump as Cassidy Hutchinson delivered what we were told was *bombshell* testimony. 

Among the *bombshell* revelations was that Trump wasn't afraid of the Jan 6 protesters (why would he have been?) and "knew they were armed." The allegation that got the most attention was when Hutchinson claimed that Trump became incensed when he wasn't allowed to go to the Capitol on January 6, and then lunged at the steering wheel of the Presidential limo, and then at the agent who grabbed him arm to try to take it off the steering wheel. It's a cartoonish picture for sure, and one there was no reason to trust in the first place.  

Dan Bongino pointed out major problems with the non-bombshell on his podcast earlier today that the entire mainstream media missed. As he points out, upon departing his rally on January 6, Trump didn't get into the Presidential Limo (often called "The Beast" in the media), he got in an SUV, meaning the story can't possibly be true. Dan also pointed out that Hutchinson recalled secret service agent Tony Ornato as telling her that the "president got in The Beast," but that no Secret Service agents call the Presidential Limo that. 

Watch his full analysis below (if you're familiar with the background info, skip ahead to 3:50): 

https://bongino.com/committee-of-lies-cassidy-hutchinson-s-testimony-collapses-in-record-time

Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger Testified that Paid Professional Agitators Were Operating at Jan. 6 Riot — NOW HE’S DEAD (VIDEO)

 

 Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger

As The Gateway Pundit’s Kristinn Taylor reported on Monday — Michael Stenger, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot that saw the Senate chamber occupied by protesters, is reported by Hill reporters to have died. A cause of death has not been reported.

Then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) asked for and received Stenger’s resignation the day after the riot.

Politico’s Katherine Tully-McManus broke the news of Stenger’s passing Monday afternoon, “Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger died this morning. He joined the SAA team in 2011 after a career with the Secret Service and was appointed SAA in 2018.”

TRENDING: MORE LIES: Cassidy Hutchinson ALSO Lied about Handwritten Note in Testimony -- And Liz Cheney KNEW IT WAS A FALSE because the Actual Author of the Note Testified It Was His!

Stenger later testified on the January 6 protests and riot.

He told investigators that “paid professional agitators” were operating on January 6th in Washington DC.

Michael Stenger: we have an opportunity to learn lessons from January 6th. Investigations should be considered as to the funding and traveling of what appears to be professional agitators. First Amendment rights should always be considered in conjunction with these investigations.

Ray Epps, anyone?

Now, Stenger is dead.

Here is Stenger’s earlier testimony on the paid agitators.

Via the Storm Has Arrived.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/former-senate-sergeant-arms-michael-stenger-testified-paid-professional-agitators-operating-jan-6-riot-now-dead/

-

FBI Lies And Entrapment Result In Probation Sentence For Former Republican Congressman

 

The FBI and the DOJ are guilty of doing exactly the things with which they charged Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. 

 Former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Nebraska, has been sentenced to probation for lying to the federal government. But the only things we know for certain are that the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) lied to entrap Fortenberry, and used two men who broke campaign finance laws to betray the congressman in his zeal to help persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

A Los Angeles jury convicted Fortenberry in March on three felony counts of lying to the FBI and scheming to cover it up. The congressman faced a maximum sentence of 15 years — five years for each count. The prosecution had sought a six-month prison sentence. Tuesday, however, U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. sentenced the former congressman to two years of probation, as well as a $25,000 fine and 320 hours of community service.

In handing down his sentence, Blumenfeld said that everyone, including the prosecution witnesses, attests that Fortenberry is “a man of exceptional character.” Fortenberry and his defense team are appealing the convictions.

Under 18 U.S.C. §1001, it is a federal crime to tell a government official or agency a “material” lie. That means a lie that, if the government were to believe it, would have the tendency of affecting an official’s or agency’s course of conduct. Ironically, the FBI and the DOJ are guilty of doing exactly the things with which they charged Fortenberry. 

Would I Lie to You?

The case stems from a February 2016 fundraiser in Los Angeles in which Fortenberry participated. Toufic Baaklini, a U.S. citizen, Maronite Catholic, and advocate for Christians in the Middle East, used the fundraiser to channel the money of a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire, Gilbert Chagoury, to Fortenberry’s campaign. Campaign donations from foreign nationals are illegal.

Baaklini, then a long-time friend of the congressman, testified at Fortenberry’s trial that he knew such conduit donations were illegal, but he misled Fortenberry by having $30,000 of Chagoury’s money divided among a number of people at the fundraiser so no red flags would be raised regarding the contributions.

Dr. Elias Ayoub, another Maronite Catholic who helped organize the L.A. fundraiser, also admitted in court that he has made a number of illegal campaign contributions using Chagoury’s money, including to U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, and Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. In addition, both Baaklini and Ayoub testified that Fortenberry didn’t know the contributions had come from Chagoury, and Baaklini testified that Fortenberry raised that very issue early in the fundraising process.

As KOLN-TV in Lincoln, Nebraska, reported this past March, Baaklini made a stark admission in court to John Littrell, Fortenberry’s lawyer, saying he didn’t want Fortenberry to know about the illegal nature of the contributions, even when the congressman specifically asked if there was anything wrong with the fundraiser.

“You lied to protect him, didn’t you?” Littrell asked Baaklini. Baaklini replied yes.

So why isn’t Baaklini facing possible prison time, as well as Ayoub? Because the FBI and the DOJ wanted a bigger fish—a sitting U.S. congressman—and used Baaklini and Ayoub as witnesses at Fortenberry’s trial.

A Man of Good Character

In serving Nebraska’s first congressional district since January 2005, Fortenberry has distinguished himself as a man of integrity in both his personal and professional life. In sworn testimony, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California, a liberal Democrat and Chaldean Catholic who has worked with Fortenberry on aiding Christians in the Middle East, affirmed her Republican colleague’s character.

“I think he brings honor to what he does because of the individual he is,” Eshoo said. “He’s faith-filled, he’s honest. His word is always good, and I can’t say that about all members of Congress, and you find out the hard way.” Eshoo added that Fortenberry had a reputation of being a rule-follower.

Also, Fortenberry had been regularly targeted by opponents in his reelection campaigns, including because of his defense of the unborn and women harmed by abortion, yet he easily won reelection term after term. So if Fortenberry is known by Democratic colleagues as being honest, and he directly asked Baaklini if the 2016 fundraiser in L.A. was tainted and was told everything was fine, how did the government make their case against the congressman?

Anatomy of an Abusive Prosecution

Even though the DOJ had zero evidence that Fortenberry had committed any crime, they had Ayoub tape a June 2018 conversation with the congressman. After the call, Fortenberry was concerned enough to tell his wife, his chief of staff, and his lawyer that he had renewed concerns about the 2016 fundraiser.

Then, in March 2019, the FBI came to Fortenberry’s home in Nebraska and deliberately lied to him and his wife, saying they were there for a national security issue, not a criminal matter. That lie disarmed Fortenberry, striking him as believable because of his service on a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee whose work deals with U.S. foreign relations.

The FBI agents also quizzed Fortenberry on various matters, and later said Fortenberry lied about not knowing Ayoub. In fact, the congressman didn’t recognize a 10-year-old photo of Ayoub, as it showed him with dyed-black hair and black eyebrows, whereas, Ayoub, now 77, has silver hair and silver eyebrows.

An FBI agent did ask Fortenberry whether he knew that lying to a federal agent was a crime. The congressman responded that he did. His recollections of his unbeknownst-taped conversation with Ayoub the previous June were sketchy, not because he lied, but because of faulty recall and Fortenberry’s tendency to multi-task during fundraising calls, as his wife Celeste testified, because he didn’t enjoy doing them.

In the process, Fortenberry missed Ayoub’s point that Chagoury had likely contributed to the 2016 fundraiser. His failure to recall that was another instance, the DOJ argued, which showed the congressman’s intent to deceive, as well as Fortenberry’s assertion on the same call that he’d be interested in doing another fundraiser with Ayoub.

In a July 2019 interview in Washington, D.C., the FBI also lied to Fortenberry and his attorney, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman from South Carolina. Gowdy specifically asked the FBI agents whether Fortenberry was a target of their investigation. They said he wasn’t.

That wasn’t true, and the FBI and DOJ cobbled together a case, saying that Fortenberry had not only lied but had deliberately tried to deceive the FBI. Part of making their case was that Fortenberry’s former lawyer testified she couldn’t recall the contents of her June 2018 conversation with Fortenberry, but she said she would’ve definitely remembered had he mentioned anything about possible illegal donations.

A Stickler for the Law Who Also Deliberately Deceives?

Never mind that this same attorney testified that Fortenberry was in the habit of calling her a lot—a virtue that affirms Eshoo’s assessment that Fortenberry is committed to adhering to the law. Nevertheless, based on the attorney’s testimony, the DOJ argued that Fortenberry had further willfully withheld self-incriminating evidence about the fundraiser, even though, again, Baaklini had testified that the congressman had directly asked whether the contributions were illegal early in the process and he—Baaklini—had lied to Fortenberry in saying they weren’t.

In addition, Fortenberry’s alleged crimes took place while he was on the phone in his Nebraska home. Nevertheless, because the prosecution argued his actions had relevance to their investigation in California, they succeeded in changing the legal venue to Los Angeles, a well-known leftist region where seating a jury unfavorable to the congressman was much more likely than in Nebraska, Fortenberry’s congressional home.

The venue issue is a likely ground for Fortenberry’s appeal, as is the argument that Fortenberry didn’t materially lie to the FBI.

Lying Is Okay if the Government Does It

Meanwhile, the government’s conduct in this case is very disturbing. An FBI agent admitted at the March trial that he had lied to Fortenberry at his home in March 2019, but he said that is part of the FBI’s normal tactics to extract the truth.

However, the DOJ and the FBI, both agencies of the executive branch of the U.S. government that includes the president as chief executive, had no substantive basis to pursue a criminal investigation of Fortenberry, a sitting congressman who had a sterling reputation for integrity. Instead, even though they knew that Baaklini and Ayoub had clearly violated the law, and despite Baaklini’s admission that the congressman had directly asked him whether the L.A. fundraiser was tainted, they pursued Fortenberry.

In short, they went on a legal fishing expedition to concoct a case against the congressman. Fortenberry’s failure to be attentive during his fundraising calls, and errors in his recall, are evidence of personal imperfections. But they are certainly not the basis of a legitimate criminal prosecution, let alone convictions.

A Disturbing Legal Precedent

Our federal government, based on a system of checks and balances that the founders established almost 250 years ago, presumes that the respective branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—will conduct themselves with integrity in interacting with each other. When trust is undermined, our system of government is jeopardized. By abusively wielding power to intimidate a legislator, the FBI and DOJ threaten that delicate balance. 

Unhealthy competition between the branches will consume them and devour any chance that public officials will rise above petty bickering and destructive partisanship to cooperate in the best interests of the country. By enlisting the judiciary to turn that threat of prison into a potential reality, the FBI and DOJ have turned the system on its head.  What the founders intended as an aggressive but civil competition is now in danger of becoming a deadly serious game which menaces the civil liberties and freedoms of those who dare to undertake public service.

This episode should be especially disconcerting to all faithful Catholics and other Christians concerned about their place in a society that is increasingly hostile to religion. Indeed, Fortenberry ended up a prosecutorial target precisely because of his work defending the right of Middle Eastern Christians to live and practice their faith. Christians especially must answer the call, and stand up against this most troubling evolution in the DOJ and FBI’s battle with Congress.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/29/fbi-lies-and-entrapment-result-in-probation-sentence-for-former-republican-congressman/

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/29/democrats-are-fooling-themselves-on-the-popularity-of-abortion/

Joe Biden’s Voicemail To Hunter Means It’s Time To Appoint A Special Counsel

 This latest development in the Biden family pay-to-play scandal provides further proof a special counsel is needed to oversee the ongoing criminal probe.

In 2018, while Hunter Biden was reportedly under investigation for his dealings with Chinese businessmen, Joe Biden left a voicemail message telling Hunter: “I think you’re clear.” This latest development in the Biden family pay-to-play scandal provides further proof a special counsel is needed to oversee the ongoing criminal probe.

In an exclusive, The Daily Mail on Monday reported that a voicemail recovered “from a backup of Hunter’s iPhone XS,” stored on his abandoned MacBook laptop, captured Joe Biden leaving this message for Hunter on December 12, 2018: “Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you. I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance, give me a call, I love you.”

The New York Times article referenced by the now-president, entitled “A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded,” detailed the dealings of two corrupt Chinese businessmen, Ye Jianming and Patrick Ho—both of whom had connections to the Biden family through CEFC China Energy.

Ye acquired CEFC in 2006, according to the Times article, with the business focused on “securing the rights to overseas oil fields in strife-torn places like Chad, South Sudan, and Iraq.” “From 2009 to 2017, CEFC’s revenues jumped from $48 million to $37 billion,” the Times reported, noting that Ye’s first outreach to the Biden family came in 2015.

The Washington Post, which independently authenticated Hunter’s abandoned laptop months after its pre-election discovery, likewise reported that emails recovered from the hard drive showed that an intermediary for CEFC first “reached out to Hunter Biden in December 2015 to set up a meeting between the then-vice president’s son and Ye.”

The proposed 2015 dinner didn’t happen, but the Times article reported that an aide to Ye would later meet Hunter. Then, in May 2017, Hunter met with Ye in Miami. During that meeting, Hunter reportedly “offered to use his contacts to help identify investment opportunities for Ye’s company, CEFC China Energy, in liquefied-natural-gas projects in the United States.” As a thank you, Ye sent a note of gratitude and a 2.8-carat diamond to Hunter’s hotel room.

While the natural gas project discussed never materialized, in early August 2017, Hunter executed a consulting agreement with CEFC. It provided him a retainer of $500,000 and a monthly stipend of $100,000 while James Biden, Joe’s brother and Hunter’s uncle, pocketed $65,000 a month. According to the Washington Post, “over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle.”

Then in November 2017, Ho, the CEFC vice-chairman and secretary-general, transferred to one of Hunter Biden’s entities $1 million, ostensibly for “representation.” Hunter, however, seemed to have no role in defending Ho, who was charged that month for crimes related to alleged bribes to officials in Chad and Uganda and attempting to arrange for CEFC to serve as a middleman with Iran to avoid sanctions. Following his arrest, Ho also called James Biden, although James believed the call was likely meant for Hunter.

In 2018, when the article that prompted Joe Biden’s messages hit, the millions in payments from CEFC to business ventures controlled by Hunter Biden were not known. Thus, at the time, the Times merely reported, “it is unclear whether Hunter Biden struck any business deals with CEFC or Mr. Ye.” Since then, the public has learned both of the multi-million-dollar connection between Hunter and CEFC and of a video showing Hunter calling Ho “the f-cking spy chief of China who started the company that my partner [Jianming], who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing.”

Also unknown when the Times ran its December 2018 story was that Hunter Biden was himself purportedly under investigation for his business dealings with CEFC. A month after the 2020 election, however, CNN reported that federal prosecutors in Delaware were investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings, specifically his dealings in China and with CEFC. Significantly, in its report, CNN claimed that two people briefed on the Hunter Biden investigation claimed it “began as early as 2018.”

That Joe Biden told his son “I think you’re clear” in relation to reporting discussing Hunter’s connection with CEFC, and that this assurance came just one week after Ho’s conviction while Hunter Biden was reportedly under investigation for his business dealings with Ye and Ho, raises the question of whether Joe Biden had any inside information concerning the investigation of his son.

A related question concerns the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wiretapping of Ho. According to The Daily Mail article that broke news of Joe Biden’s voicemail message, the outlet had obtained a copy of a FISA surveillance order that “revealed that federal agents were monitoring Ho as a potential spy for China.” That surveillance likely continued, at a minimum, until Ho’s arrest in late 2017, meaning that the FISA surveillance likely swept up some communications with or about Hunter Biden.

Even if not, the evidence continues to mount against the Biden family, leaving two fundamental questions: What is taking the Delaware U.S. attorney so long? And why hasn’t a special counsel been appointed yet?

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/29/joe-bidens-voicemail-to-hunter-means-its-time-to-appoint-a-special-counsel/