If it's accurate, it doesn't just involve Joe Biden.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) wrote to
Gestapo chief Merrick Garland and his henchman, FBI top dog Christopher
Wray, on Wednesday with some allegations that were positively explosive.
Grassley and Comer say
that they’ve “received legally protected and highly credible
unclassified whistleblower disclosures” regarding a “criminal scheme
involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to
the exchange of money for policy decisions.” Would anyone really be
surprised if it were positively determined that Old Joe Biden was paid
off by foreigners to set policy in a way they dictated?
🚨🚨🚨@RepJamesComer & @ChuckGrassley reveal the existence of an FBI record alleging then-VP Biden engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national.
According to a whistleblower, this record details an alleged arrangement involving an exchange of money for policy decisions.… pic.twitter.com/6yLwPLi8Hw
If this is accurate, it would involve not just Biden but Barack Obama
as well. This is because the vice president doesn’t have any
Constitutional authority to make policy decisions, and quite aside from
the Constitution, Obama, who famously said,
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up”, is unlikely to
have given Old Joe any real authority to do anything. So if a foreign
national was paying Old Joe to make policy decisions favorable to
himself, they would almost certainly have had to have the approval of
the Man Whose Tan Suit Was His Only Scandal.
The implications of this cannot be understated. It would be no
surprise if Old Joe were confirmed as the corrupt kleptocrat he has long
been reputed to be, but if this bribery scheme did end up reaching
Obama, it could have a serious impact on the Democrats’ present
electoral chances and even upon their continued ability to sew up
elections left and right by means of ballot harvesting, mail-in ballots,
and other present-day chicanery. The only problem is that the very
agencies that ought to be energetically pursuing this issue are part of
the same corrupt Leftist establishment that dominates Washington.
Consequently, it’s not at all clear that the truth about this will ever
come out.
Grassley and Comer are trying their best, however. They continue by
indicting Garland’s Justice-For-Leftists Department and Wray’s
politicized and compromised FBI, stating that “based on the specificity
within the document, it would appear that the DOJ and the FBI have
enough information to determine the truth and accuracy of the
information contained within it. However, it remains unclear what steps,
if any, were taken to investigate the matter.” Given the fact that
Biden, Garland, and Wray are all part of the same hypocrisy, it’s
virtually certain that no steps at all were taken to investigate the
matter.
Consider for a moment what would have happened, by contrast, if a
Democrat senator and congressman had uncovered some “legally protected
and highly credible unclassified whistleblower disclosures” regarding a
“criminal scheme involving then-President Trump and a foreign national
relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.” We would be
hearing about nothing else from the establishment media for weeks on
end, impeachment proceedings would be swiftly begun, and Democrats and
their media propagandists would be waxing self-righteous every hour on
the hour about the dangers of bribery. But Old Joe is their guy, and so
expect fifty intelligence professionals to come out soon and brand this
whole thing “disinformation” and the media to go into their tested and
perfected hands-over-the-ears “La la la I can’t hear you” act.
Grassley and Comer add that “the significant public interest in
assessing the FBI’s response to this information, as well as growing
concern about the DOJ and the FBI’s track record of allowing political
bias to infect their decision-making process, necessitate exacting
congressional oversight.” Indeed. How Garland and Wray will manage to
dodge this remains to be seen, but they will have a great deal of help.
Comer declared,
“The American people need to know if President Biden sold out the
United States of America to make money for himself. Senator Grassley and
I will seek the truth to ensure accountability for the American
people.” All patriots should be hoping that they succeed. It certainly
would explain a great deal of the madness that is going on in this
America-Last regime if its corrupt figurehead were being paid off to
ensure that policy was being made in the best interests of a foreigner,
rather than with the well-being of the American people in mind. And
given the sorry career of Old Joe Biden, no one would really be
surprised at all.
Ex-CIA boss Morell wrote colleague that the Hunter Biden laptop letter was a "talking point" to help Joe Biden at debate.
In
a rare and candid email exchange between two former CIA bosses, Michael
Morell told John Brennan in October 2020 that he was organizing a
letter of 51 intel experts claiming the emergence of the Hunter Biden
laptop was a Russian influence operation because he wanted to give Joe
Biden's campaign a "talking point to push back on" Donald Trump during
the last presidential debate of the 2020 election, according to
documents obtained by Just the News.
Brennan, who served as CIA director under President Barack Obama,
willingly agreed to sign the letter after being told of its political
intentions. "Ok, Michael, add my name to the list," Brennan wrote Morell
on Oct. 19. 2020. "Good initiative. Thanks for asking me to sign on."
The email exchange provides damning new proof supporting House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan's explosive revelation last week
that the now-infamous intelligence letter — which was portrayed by news
media, fact checkers and Big Tech as an independent and organic
initiative by security experts — was in fact a political effort by U.S.
spies instigated and assisted by Biden's campaign in an effort to
influence the 2020 election.
Intelligence professionals reacted swiftly to the news Wednesday
night, saying the revelation that two former CIA chiefs used their
professional credentials to influence the 2020 election was troubling.
"This wasn't a 'talking point' to toss back at Trump, it was a
premeditated and admitted lie to the American people designed
specifically to deceive and hide the truth," retired FBI intelligence
chief Kevin Brock told Just the News. "And for what? To help elect a
politician? What a steep and sad cost to the soul for such a meager
goal."
Morell testified to Jordan's committee that a conversation he had
with current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, then a Biden campaign
adviser, "triggered" his effort to organize the letter, that his
intention was to help Biden win the election and that the Biden campaign
provided assistance spreading the letter to news media.
Blinken has since tried to minimize his role in the letter, insisting
it wasn't his idea. But he has not denied having the conversation with
Morell or sending a subsequent email to the former CIA boss containing a
USA Today article that provided the key passage in the letter claiming
the laptop was possible Russian disinformation.
That claim proved untrue. The FBI had the laptop since December 2019,
and U.S. intelligence had no evidence the laptop was a Russian
disinformation operation, officials have admitted.
The new email to Brennan obtained by Just the News shows Morell had a
more specific intention to help Joe Biden and his campaign to discredit
the laptop during the final presidential debate.
"Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on
Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue," Morell
wrote Brennan.
The email also shows at least one signatory of the letter, Brennan,
knew of the political intentions of the project before adding his name
to it.
The email also reveals some of the other experts whom Morell was
trying to get to sign the letter, including former CIA Director Leon
Panetta, former Homeland Security Chief Jeh Johnson, current Deputy
Attorney General Lisa Monaco and former National Security Agency
Director Mike Rogers.
Some, like Panetta, signed the letter, while others, like Rogers, did not.
Former CIA Moscow station chief Daniel Hoffman recently revealed he
was approached and asked to sign the letter but chose not to sign
because he knew of no intelligence or evidence to back up its claims
Former Assistant Secretary of State Robert "Bobby" Charles, a former
Naval Intelligence officer, told Just the News that the belated
revelation that the 2020 letter was a political operation and not a
intelligence warning would cause even greater distrust among Americans
of their intelligence community, a trust already tarnished by the
discredited Russia collusion probe an election earlier.
"The notion that you would just somehow overnight gather 51
intelligence officers to attest to something that was uncorroborated and
turns out to be utterly untrue leads you to the question: Why and how
did those intelligence officers — most of whom were all Democrats — why
did they step up and do that?" said Charles, now the national spokesman
for the conservative senior group AMAC.
"And what these emails seem to be showing us is that it was a
coordinated effort to damage the Republican and to defend and to support
the Democrat," he added. "And that is a scourge on those particular
individuals' reputations. It's also a scourge on the campaign of Joe
Biden."
Former FBI agent and whistleblower Kyle Seraphin said some
intelligence leaders have become increasingly politically brazen because
there has been no significant consequence for people who were found to
have committed wrongdoing in earlier controversies like the discredited
Russia collusion narrative.
"I think it's arrogance,” he said. "And I think it's the arrogance
that we've seen from the people who are in the upper reaches of whether
the FBI or any other part of the intelligence community. They don't see
anyone falling on this stuff. You know, they're able to retire, they're
able to walk away from it without any shame, they go get high paid
corporate jobs when it ends."
Missouri Rep. Jason Smith "has identified that their committee on House Ways and Means is committed to thoroughly hearing these allegations, and so we look forward to a process," said whistleblower counsel Tristan Leavitt.
The
legal counsel for an IRS whistleblower who has alleged that the
Department of Justice has been working to undermine an investigation
into Hunter Biden said Friday that he expects his client "will be able
to share his allegations with Congress."
In late April, Just the News reported
that an IRS whistleblower was alleging that federal prosecutors had
engaged in "preferential treatment and politics" to prevent tax charges
from being filed against the president's son.
The whistleblower's allegations appear to contradict sworn testimony
from Attorney General Merrick Garland that Delaware U.S. Attorney David
Weiss, who has been heading up the investigation, had full authority to
pursue the case without fear of political interference.
Speaking on the "Just the News, No Noise" television show on Friday,
Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt, who is representing the
anonymous whistleblower, revealed that congressional leaders have
received the allegations with interest and are likely to hold hearings
to air his client's claims.
Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith "has identified that their
committee on House Ways and Means is committed to thoroughly hearing
these allegations, and so we look forward to a process," Leavitt told
host John Solomon and cohost Amanda Head. "We are engaged with both
sides of the aisle, and we anticipate that ultimately, our client, a
very, very courageous and well-respected whistleblower, will be able to
share his allegations with Congress."
In a letter to congressional oversight leaders outlining the allegations, co-counsel Mark Lytle wrote:
The protected disclosures: (l) contradict sworn testimony
to Congress by a senior political appointee, (2) involve failure to
mitigate clear conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition of the
case, and (3) detail examples of preferential treatment and politics
improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be
followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar
circumstances if the subject were not politically connected.
Head pressed Leavitt on the prospect of retaliation against the
whistleblower, citing comments from IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, who
told Congress recently, "I can say, without any hesitation, there will
be no retaliation for anyone making an allegation or a call to a
whistleblower hotline."
Leavitt warily noted the narrow wording of Werfel's assurance. "Well,
the proof's in the pudding, right?" he said with a chuckle. "If you
notice, even in his comment, he specifically said, anyone who makes a
disclosure to a 'whistleblower hotline.' And the law that protects
whistleblowers — going back to the Whistleblower Protection Act, 1989,
and before that — is much broader than that.
"So IRS whistleblowers, just like other title 5 employees in the
federal government, have protection for a broad variety of disclosures
whether or not they go through the IRS' hotline. Certainly, we will be
very vigorously watching to ensure that there is no further retaliation
of our client.
"Again, he's doing the right thing for the right reasons, and we're
going through the process that is absolutely the way Congress intended
it to be followed. And so, you know, we'll be watching closely to see
what the IRS does at this stage."
Seizing on Leavitt's reference to "further retaliation," Solomon
asked whether his client had already suffered any negative consequences
for coming forward.
"I'm not authorized to fully speak about that," Leavitt replied.
"What we really want to focus on is the substance of the disclosures
that he wants to make. That's the first thing foremost. He's not coming
to Congress in order to pursue any personal agenda, and, really, he's
setting aside any considerations about his own career."
He did, however, put down another marker signaling that the
whistleblower's legal team will be on the alert for any signs of
professional reprisals against their client.
"So, in the course of this, as with any whistleblower, we anticipate
that his supervisors are aware of what he's doing, and when you have a
situation like that, then it can sometimes have ramifications," Leavitt
admitted. "So there will be more to come on that in the future. But for
right now, we really just want to focus on ensuring he's able to get in
to the relevant committees, and be able to share the information that is
so significant."
Ben Whedon is an editor and reporter for Just the News. Follow him on Twitter.
Hunter Biden is 53 years old. He can handle his legal issues without his father.
The overall theme of the Axios post is to emphasize “division”
between the Biden administration, whose appointees will make the final
decision on whether to take action against the president’s son, and
Hunter’s lawyers. What it actually reveals is that the White House is coordinating with Hunter’s lawyer.
Top aides to President Biden have clashed with Hunter
Biden’s team over strategies for dealing with the legal battles and
Republican attacks that surround the president’s son…
Longtime Biden lawyer Bob Bauer, who is married to White House senior
advisor Anita Dunn, had recommended Hunter’s previous lawyer for the
congressional investigations, Josh Levy. But Bauer had no role in hiring
Lowell…
In January, Lowell — who recently represented Republicans such as
Jared Kushner, former President Trump’s son-in-law — met privately with
Bauer and top White House officials, including Dunn and special counsel
Dick Sauber, to clear the air and discuss the new strategy.
Why is this even happening?
Hunter Biden is 53 years old. 53!. He’s not a child. He’s a father
with kids. He is capable of handling his legal issues without involving
the Biden administration. The administration is choosing to be involved.
Hunter’s lawyer meeting with top White House officials is coordination
and while we know how this will play out, it’s more obvious than ever
that they’re hardly even bothering to avoid the appearance of
corruption.
Biden can’t have his people coordinate strategy with his son’s lawyer
and then pretend that his administration has no involvement in the
case.
It’s like hiring the partner of the head of the DOJ’s criminal division to handle Hunter’s case.
A top official at the U.S. Justice Department was a law
partner with Hunter Biden’s attorney Chris Clark, raising serious
concerns about potential conflicts of interest as the years-long federal
probe into the president’s son has reportedly reached a critical stage.
Clark, a partner at New York-based firm Latham & Watkins, worked
with Nicholas McQuaid on at least four different cases when he was also a
partner at the practice, court records indicate.
The cases were high-stakes commercial litigation where the pair regularly defended clients facing multimillion-dollar lawsuits.
McQuaid was named acting head of the Justice Department’s criminal
division on Jan 20, 2021 — the day President Biden was inaugurated.
Clark started representing Hunter Biden a month before.
Lowell and Chris Clark, who is representing Hunter in the
Justice Department probe, declined to comment on their financial
arrangements with the president’s son. The White House declined to
comment.
Last week, Clark met with Justice Department lawyers about that
investigation, amid speculation that a decision on whether to charge
Hunter could come soon.
Give your boss my regards.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is
an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
Islamic terrorism.
It was necessary to have at least 40 senators on board to ensure that the GOP can sustain a filibuster of a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling.
Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has signed onto a letter
backing House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who last month passed a bill in
the House authorizing a debt ceiling limit increase but only if it is
accompanied by budgetary restraints and other reforms which the Biden
administration has so far refused to even consider.
McConnell and more than 40 members of the Senate GOP conference say
in the letter that they will not back "any bill that raises the debt
ceiling without substantive spending and budget reforms," according to The Hill.
The letter, which is addressed to Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer (D-N.Y.), is McConnell's clearest statement to date about what
he is willing to support, in advance of the May 9 meeting called by the
White House to discuss the issues involved. The Biden administration's
position is that Congress must pass a clean debt ceiling hike to avoid a
national default in June when the federal government is projected to
run out of money.
Despite the claims that failure to raise the debt ceiling limit would
automatically lead to a national default, it actually could only occur
if the U.S. fails to continue to pay the interest on the national debt.
Delayed payment of other expenses and obligations could be problematic,
but they would not result in national default.
"The Senate Republican conference is united behind the House
Republican conference in support of spending cuts and structural budget
reform as a starting point for negotiations on the debt ceiling," the
letter states.
"As such, we will not be voting for cloture on any bill that raises
the debt ceiling without substantive spending and budget reforms," it
warns.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is the lead senator on
the letter. It was necessary to have at least 40 senators on board to
ensure that the GOP can sustain a filibuster of a clean bill to raise
the debt ceiling.
McConnell has said the current negotiations should be handled entirely by President Biden and Speaker McCarthy.
"In this situation, and I've been a through a few of these
debt-ceiling dramas, there is no solution in the Senate. We have divided
government," he told reporters this week. "The American people gave the
Republicans the House, the Democrats have the presidency."
"The president and the Speaker need to reach an agreement to get us past this impasse," he added.
The Iranian regime, probably because it knows that the European Union will not take any action, is ratcheting up its engagement and weapons exports to Russia.
The beneficiaries of EU's
increased trade with Iran are most likely the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The EU's
trade with Iran, which helps increase the Iranian regime's revenue, is
doubtless making it easier for the theocratic establishment to provide
weapons to Russia...
The Iranian regime has, in fact, set up a specific route across
the Caspian Sea in order to supply large quantities of munitions to
Russia... "posing a growing challenge for the U.S. and its allies as
they try to disrupt cooperation between Moscow and Tehran," according to
the Wall Street Journal.
The Iranian regime, probably because it knows that the European
Union will not take any action, is ratcheting up its engagement and
weapons exports to Russia.
The Iranian regime is simultaneously profiting from its trade with the EU and from its weapons sales to Russia, thereby empowering Putin to escalate his war against Ukraine.
The Iranian regime is simultaneously profiting from its trade with the EU and
from its weapons sales to Russia, thereby empowering Russian President
Vladimir Putin to escalate his war against Ukraine. Pictured: Putin and
Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi hold a meeting in Tehran on July 19,
2022. (Photo by Sergei Savostyanov/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)
In spite of the Iranian regime's increasing involvement in the war
against Ukraine, the European Union appears more than happy to continue appeasing the Iran's ruling mullahs, which should officially be considered an accomplice to war crimes committed by Russia.
While the mullahs has been busy supporting Russia against Ukraine, the EU has also been busy increasing its trade with Iran. According to the latest report by the Financial Tribune:
"Iran and the European Union's 27 member states traded
€5.23 billion worth of goods in 2022, registering a 7.95% rise compared
with the year before.
"New data released by Eurostat show Germany was the top trading
partner of Iran in the EU region during the period, as the two countries
exchanged €1.86 billion worth of goods, 8.56% more than in 2021.
"Italy came next with €713.17 million worth of trade with Iran to
register a 13.32% rise. The Netherlands with €445.57 million (down
7.61%) and Spain with €378.46 million (up 12.67%) were Iran's other
major European trade partners.
"Croatia registered the highest growth of 48.84% in trade with Iran
during the period under review and was followed by Bulgaria with
44.13%."
What is crushing is that the EU is cognizant of the fact some of its technology exports to Iran can be used for dual purposes: military and civilian. As the Jerusalem Postreported:
"Germany exported €1.2 billion worth of goods to Iran
from January to the end of October in 2022. Germany exported €275
million worth of machines and engineering technology to Iran in 2021.
Germany's non-transparent export regulations do not permit disclosure of
the nature of the goods and material sold to Iran - some of which has
been used for dual-use purposes (military and civilian aims) over the
decades."
The beneficiaries of EU's increased trade with Iran are most likely
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The EU's trade with Iran, which helps increase
the Iranian regime's revenue, is doubtless making it easier for the
theocratic establishment to provide weapons to Russia as well. Iran also
reportedly sent troops to Crimea to assist
Russia in its attacks on Ukraine's infrastructure and civilian
population, and to increase the effectiveness of the suicide drones Iran
supplied to Russia.
The Iranian regime has, in fact, set up a specific route across the Caspian Sea in order to supply large quantities of munitions to Russia. An April 25 report by the Wall Street Journalstated:
"Russian ships are ferrying large
quantities of Iranian artillery shells and other ammunition across the
Caspian Sea to resupply troops fighting in Ukraine, Middle East
officials said, posing a growing challenge for the U.S. and its allies
as they try to disrupt cooperation between Moscow and Tehran.
"Over the past six months, cargo ships have
carried more than 300,000 artillery shells and a million rounds of
ammunition from Iran to Russia..."
The Iranian regime, probably because it knows that the European Union
will not take any action, is ratcheting up its engagement and weapons
exports to Russia. Sky News also reported on this issue in March, writing:
"Iran has secretly supplied large quantities of bullets,
rockets and mortar shells to Russia for the war in Ukraine and plans to
send more, a security source has told Sky News.
"The source claimed that two Russian-flagged cargo ships, departed an
Iranian port in January bound for Russia via the Caspian Sea, carrying
approximately 100 million bullets and around 300,000 shells.
"Ammunition for rocket launchers, mortars and machine guns was allegedly included in the shipments.
"The source said Moscow paid for the ammunition in cash."
The Iranian regime is simultaneously profiting from its trade with the EU and from its weapons sales to Russia, thereby empowering Putin to escalate his war against Ukraine.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and
advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of
Harvard International Review, and president of the International
American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
Despite one of New York's largest utility companies citing the green agenda for a proposed 17% rate hike, the state's Democratic governor is doubling down on her renewable agenda.
It turns out that when New York banned gas stoves it was just warming up.
Just days after the state outlawed the natural gas hookups,
Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul announced her plan to require "modern
zero-emission new homes and buildings" in less than two years.
Hochul's $1.5 billion green energy package is included in her
state budget for fiscal year 2024. She touted the funding as "one of the
most extensive climate packages in recent history."
The plan for sustainable buildings,
also known as "building decarbonization," requires new homes and
buildings seven stories or less to be emissions-free by December of 2025
and "all other new buildings" by 2028. The mandate allows a range of
exceptions, including for large industrial/commercial buildings.
"Additionally," the announcement reads, "New York State is ...
calling on the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to complete
decarbonization action plans for 15 of the highest emitting state
facilities." Such plans "will accelerate our progress towards a cleaner
building sector" and "move the State closer to reaching our climate
goals," said the governor's office.
The package includes $400 million for the state's Environmental
Protection Fund, an additional $400 million for so-called energy
affordability, $500 million for "clean water infrastructure" and $200
million for state parks.
The announcement of these massive green initiatives comes days after
one of the state's largest utilities, National Grid, said it's eyeing a
17% natural gas rate hike for New York City and 16% for residents of
Long Island. If the increases are approved, city residents would pay an
additional $371 annually and Long Islanders an additional $342 per year
in gas bills, the utility estimates.
According to Fox5 New York, National Grid New York Deputy General
Counsel Phil DeCicco cited the state's green agenda as one of the key
drivers for the rate hike.
"We've tried hard to manage our costs, but we're seeing external pressure on our rates," he said.
New York just became the first state in America to issue a ban on gas stoves
for new buildings. New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
has famously proposed a Green New Deal, a plan to fundamentally
transform America's energy infrastructure that could cost up to $93
trillion, according to a study coauthored by a former director of the
nonpartisn Congressional Budget Office.
Studies have warned that
shifting from fossil fuels could result in more energy poverty.
Germany, which just recently shut down its last nuclear plant and is
committed to eliminating fossil fuels, has seen gas costs shoot up as
much as 540%.
Many have warned that should the U.S. abandon fossil fuels, it will
become reliant on China to power the nation's energy grid since the
communist nation is the world's dominant supplier of the rare earth
minerals and products integral to the green enrgy industry
Dozens of med schools make MCAT optional or exempt HBCU applicants. "They are seriously trying to kill us," comedic actor Rob Schneider fumes.
Medical schools were warned last year they could face accreditation probes for failure to train students in antiracism "competencies."
Starting next summer, they may feel compelled to treat student and
employee applicants differently based on race to reach amorphous
diversity targets.
Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Higher Education
Subcommittee Chair Burgess Owens (R-Utah) want to "confirm your
commitment to ensuring that medical schools are preparing future health
care professionals to provide health care free from racial
discrimination," their May 4 letter says.
They seek "all communications regarding racial diversity that LCME
has published or sent in the past three years" and how it pursues
"racial diversity in its own operations," including antiracism efforts
and the percentage of its budget spent on diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives.
The independent body is cosponsored by the American Medical
Association and Association of American Medical Colleges. Recognized by
the U.S. Department of Education, LCME controls access to some federal funding for med schools and determines who can receive medical licenses in most states.
Medical associations beyond colleges are also incentivizing members
to get involved in DEI. The American College of Obstectrics and
Gynecology told members they can win free registration for its Maui
conference by joining its "systemic equity" initiative and taking an
evaluation.
The forthcoming accreditation standards, made public in March, say a
medical education program "recognizes the benefits of diversity." This
is defined as "the facts [sic]" that having students and faculty from "a
variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, racial and ethnic groups, and
other life experiences" can improve student interactions and build a
workforce that's "more culturally aware" and able to "address current
and future health care disparities."
Accredited med schools engage in "ongoing, systematic, and focused
recruitment and retention activities" to achieve "mission-appropriate
diversity outcomes" for students, faculty, "senior administrative staff"
and unspecified "other relevant" academic community members.
"These activities include the use of programs and/or partnerships
aimed at achieving diversity among qualified applicants for medical
school admission and the evaluation of program and partnership
outcomes," the standards say.
They define mission-appropriate diversity as including "persons from
different racial, ethnic, economic, and/or social backgrounds and with
differing life experiences to enhance the educational environment for
all medical students," based on "the program's mission, goals, and
policies.
Foxx and Owens asked LCME more than a dozen questions about the new
standards, including whether they require or encourage med schools to
"treat applicants differently" or award scholarships based on race or
would penalize them for race-neutral treatment.
Racial discrimination in the medical school admission process is blatantly unfair and puts the quality of our nation's healthcare system at risk. We must ensure equal opportunities for ALL Americans. https://t.co/nnu52niRu9
— Rep. Burgess Owens (@RepBurgessOwens) May 4, 2023
The
lawmakers also want to know how the new standards affect instruction,
whether, for example, they require or encourage schools to teach that
"it is preferable for doctors and patients to be the same race" or that
"the American health care system is systemically racist." They asked for
LCME's view on these questions and whether "members of a particular
race [are] inherently racist or privileged" or oppressed.
LCME "will be responding directly to the members who sent the
letter," AAMC spokesperson John Buarotti, who also represents LCME,
wrote in an email. He pointed to an AMA Journal of Ethics essay
from December 2021 by LCME co-secretaries Barbara Barzansky and
Veronica Catanese, to whom the congressional letter was addressed.
The accreditation standard on diversity "neither mandates which
categories of diversity medical schools must use nor defines
quantitative outcomes they should achieve," they wrote. It simply
requires them to "identify diversity categories that motivate its
mission and reflect its environment" and "use those categories to
implement programs to promote diverse representation of students and
faculty."
LCME evaluations look at "single point-in-time diversity numbers,
trends in student and faculty diversity, and outcomes of programs
implemented by the school to promote diversity in the categories it
identifies as key to its mission," the essay says.
In
2020, the LCME re-accredited Oregon Health and Science University
(OHSU) but deemed the med school lacking in faculty diversity.
The school responded with a comprehensive DEI plan, designed “in alignment with accreditation requirements.” pic.twitter.com/yGcW81VyqW
Med schools are increasingly shying away from more objective measures
of academic preparedness, potentially threatening the quality of
healthcare Americans receive, often with the express or implied purpose
of increasing the proportion of "underrepresented" races and ethnicities
in the profession.
At least 40 schools don't require the Medical College Admissions
Test, administered by AAMC, to enroll in combined bachelor's and medical
degree programs, according to admissions consulting firm Inspira Advantage.
The University of Pennsylvania med school selectively exempts MCAT submission for participants in its Penn Access Summer Scholars Program, which partners with five historically black colleges and universities.
Medical educators also recently denounced objective measures in a Journal of the American Medical Association "viewpoint" essay behind a paywall. According to Fox News,
they wrote that looking "solely" at MCAT and GPA scores "is a troubling
and regressive way to assess" the excellence and "potential" of
would-be doctors "whose identities reflect those of the public."
"The authors attributed their findings to biased evaluators, racist
tests, or worse training, but if you put ideology aside, the more likely
conclusion is that lower standards for students leads to worse
performance by residents," Chair Stanley Goldfarb wrote in Newsweek.
Some faculty at elite med schools also promote racial separation.
University of California Berkeley and UC San Francisco medical faculty
touted "racial affinity group caucuses" as a "key supplement to
antiracism curricula" in the New England Journal of Medicine April 27.
Do No Harm scolded NEJM
for publishing "divisive and highly politicized pieces" that may both
worsen a doctor shortage and push "medical education toward
segregation."
The transgender movement claims that its members identify in some
intangible way as being members of a different sex and that ‘feeling’
should override mere biology and science.
But as is usually the case with the Left, the goalposts don’t stay there, they move dramatically.
Attempts by Republicans and liberals to restrict the use of
destructive forms of “gender-affirming care” from puberty blockers to
radical surgery on minors have been met with hysteria and threats by
everyone from Biden on down. 16-year-olds and then 12-year-olds, and
then 8-year-olds, we are told, can meaningfully change gender and
consent to drastic surgical procedures. But the goalposts keep moving
down from there.
Duke Medicine opened its Gender Clinic in 2015 to offer a
wide variety of services under one roof. The clinic treats children as
young as two for gender dysphoria.
Dr. Deanna Adkins, a transgender activist who runs the clinic, said
this about her toddler trans patients in an interview with the Charlotte
Observer in 2016:
“They are not old enough to consciously just choose to do that. … It is not a choice in any of my patients.”…
A few miles down the road, at UNC Health, children as young as three
can be evaluated for gender dysphoria. The clinic states it practices
“gender affirming care” (gender transitioning) on its intake form:
Interested parents are assured on UNC’s website that a team of
psychiatrists, endocrinologists, family doctors, and surgeons will
collaborate to “affirm” their child’s gender.
How eager is UNC Health to “affirm” gender (i.e chemically sterilize and castrate)?
So eager that its medical school residents offer cross sex hormones for free every third Wednesday.
There’s plenty more at EdFirstNC’s site, but the upshot is that the
transgender mutilation movement is well past the notion of any kind of
meaningful choice, it’s just a supposed observed innate reality.
The transgender movement began by claiming that the ‘feelings’ of its
members trumped biology and then went on to describe this sense as
‘gender identity’ and as being so innate that it can be detected in
2-year-olds.
There’s no actual science in this mix. It’s a grotesque set of abuses
that in predictable fashion began with affirming choices to imposing
them on the most vulnerable population…toddlers.
On the one hand, the transgender movement claims to be driven by the
need to validate choices, and on the other, in a familiar narrative
within the LGBTQ movement, claims that there are no actual choices, but
that its form of identity is innate and all that’s left is to accept it
or to discriminate against it, choice does not enter into it.
Who then determines that a 2-year-old is transgender? Transgender
activists like Adkins, Muchaunsen-by-Proxy mothers who thrive on the
attention (and I suppose grotesquely mutilating your children beats
chopping them up into pieces and burying them Lori Vallow Daybell style,
but not by that much) who track that unfortunate child into a life of
dangerous drugs and unnecessary surgeries that will doom his chance of
living any kind of normal life and vastly increase his chances of dying
in his twenties or thirties of suicide or medical problems.
That an entire cultural and political movement and party have gone
all in on this may be one of the most frightening things in American
history.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is
an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
Islamic terrorism.
In the old days, television and movie studios wanted to know what you watch; today, everybody wants to know what you watch, what you like, what you do, where you go, and with whom you go there. In turn, all this information is ultimately used to manipulate human behavior.
Almost all private companies have now entered the "spy business."
In the old days, television and movie studios wanted to know what
you watch; today, everybody wants to know what you watch, what you
like, what you do, where you go, and with whom you go there. In turn,
all this information is ultimately used to manipulate human behavior.
US Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chair of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, recently confirmed that state and federal
governments regularly purchase Americans' personal data from private
companies, so that they may "spy on and track the activities of U.S.
citizens." No kind of personal information is off-limits. Government
agents use data brokers to collect information on an individual's GPS
location, mobile phone movements, medical prescriptions, religious
affiliations, sexual practices, and much more. It is the type of total
surveillance, Rep. Rodgers alleged, that "you would expect out of the
Chinese Communist Party surveillance state, not in America." Yet it is
all arguably legal or in an unregulated gray zone.
"A report published last month by the Brennan Center for Justice
found at least twelve overlapping DHS programs for tracking what
Americans are saying online," demonstrating that the DHS had "veered
from its original counterterrorism mission into tracking social and
political movements and monitoring First Amendment-protected activity of
American citizens." — Senator Rand Paul, April 18, 2023.
In a particularly shocking example that seemed eerily reminiscent
of atrocities committed by Hitler Youth chapters during the 1930s or
young schoolchildren during China's Cultural Revolution, Paul noted, "In
2021, DHS even put out a video encouraging children to report their own
family members to Facebook for disinformation if they challenge the
U.S. government narratives on COVID-19."
Right now... the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is busy
capitalizing on recent Pentagon leaks to advance the RESTRICT Act, a
piece of legislation that would give the Executive Branch even greater
authority to track online communication and label information shared on
the Internet as "dangerous." Known derisively as an "online Patriot
Act," that power grab would come in handy for the government's domestic
surveillance operations during an era when former FBI, CIA, NSA, and DHS
spooks are filling the ranks of social media companies and the FBI
continues to flag more words as online evidence of potential "violent
extremism."
[D]ozens of members of Congress and their families recently sold
off bank shares while they were actively meeting with regulators amid
the volatile financial climate prompted by the collapse of Silicon
Valley Bank.
As part of the military's "signature reduction" program, the
Pentagon even regularly hides forces carrying out clandestine
assignments within private companies under false names. Due to the
government's increased reliance on contractors, a small number of
corporate firms now dominate the private intelligence industry.
You put all these trends together and you get an expansive
corporate-government partnership with vast surveillance powers
conducting domestic espionage on American citizens — free from legal
scrutiny and done in the name of "national security."
US Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (pictured), chair of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce, recently confirmed that state
and federal governments regularly purchase Americans' personal data from
private companies, so that they may "spy on and track the activities of
U.S. citizens." No kind of personal information is off-limits.
Government agents use data brokers to collect information on an
individual's GPS location, mobile phone movements, medical
prescriptions, religious affiliations, sexual practices, and much more.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
"The best way to predict the future is to create it." That rhetorical
gem, credited to various scientists and political leaders, shows up on
mouse pads and posters and wherever else suitable inspiration is found
wanting. It is also a remarkably accurate mission statement for two
professions: financial investors and spies. In both occupations, a
person is rewarded for either (1) collecting and processing enough
available information to predict future events or (2) creating a set of
preconditions that will make future events all but certain.
Any financial analyst who foresaw the likelihood of a global pandemic
before the outbreak of COVID-19 could have made a fortune investing in
the right pharmaceutical companies. Likewise, regardless of Pfizer's
motivations for doing so, its funding
of numerous nonprofit organizations that actively pushed for COVID-19
vaccine mandates also benefited its bottom line. You could say that both
market mavens and intelligence operatives invest heavily in creating a
desired reality that will yield dividends. By successfully creating the
future, prophets can turn profits.
It should be no surprise, then, that intelligence gathering and
information warfare are just as prevalent in the corporate sphere as in
the covert one. Nothing benefits investors more lucratively than the
acquisition and use of market knowledge before anyone else, as can
reportedly be seen from the investments of the family of former Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul, as well as others in government (here, here and here).
In the worlds of financing and espionage, the game is the same: stay
ahead of competitors. What this means in practice is netting as much
information about adversaries and allies as possible. In order to decide
whether to double-down on an investment or run for cover, an analyst is
interested in the likelihood of a company's technological success, the
risk of other investors swooping in and staking a claim, the potential
for competing companies to introduce similar products, and the
probability that regulatory authorities might act in ways that affect
the company's future profitability. You have to keep an eye on your
company, its competitors, your rivals, and any number of government
agencies. The complexity of such an arrangement is why private
intelligence services are regularly used to monitor all these variables,
collect information, analyze risks, and propose solutions.
What might a "proposed solution" to an intelligence problem look
like? It could mean tracking the private flight paths of other potential
investors to determine whether they are making a play that could either
weaken your relative ownership share or harm its ultimate
profitability. It could mean paying close attention to arcane public
testimony delivered at some congressional subcommittee hearing involving
little-known regulatory bodies in hopes that future government
interactions with your emerging market can be lobbied or surmised.
Intelligence collection starts at this basic level and goes as deeply as
private intelligence operators and their clients are willing to go.
If information collection and analysis help to predict future events,
information warfare can then help to shape those future events. The
line separating advertising and public relations campaigns from
corporate-sanctioned propaganda is thin. Did the star of a new movie
wear a particular brand of sneakers because it is his favorite footwear
or because the company behind the sneakers has a sister company
producing the film or because the footwear firm is paying for the shot.
Did a large newspaper run front-page stories about a politician's affair
because it is national news or because damaging that politician's
credibility will make it more difficult for the committee he chairs to
hold the newspaper's largest shareholder accountable for regulatory
infractions in an unrelated industry? Do companies release "woke"
commercials that hurt their bottom lines because professional public
relations firms misread consumer opinion or because doing so shields
corporate board members from potential discrimination lawsuits?
Does the government incentivize Americans' purchase of electric
vehicles because doing so will "save the planet" or because the industry
players most likely to gain financially from environmental mandates
have filled legislators' campaign coffers and family foundations to the
hilt?
Make no mistake: corporations are heavily invested in shaping the
perceptions, beliefs, and expectations of the public in ways that will
bring financial reward. Information warfare beyond mere advertising is
all around. That is the situation whether the product is a new line of
stealth aircraft for the next war, a new pharmaceutical product that
markets itself as essential for saving lives, or a new kind of
sugar-free cookie made popular by online "influencers" who say dessert
helped them lose weight.
If even the most harmless-sounding doll company has an incentive to
gather and shape public information, consider the incentives of
companies that generate revenue entirely from the collection and use of
personal data. Advertisers seeking to influence consumer behavior are
interested not only in a potential buyer's likes and dislikes but also
in all the life patterns that might be exploited to reach that buyer's
mind. When social media users tag everything they see, hear, and read
with actual "likes" or "dislikes," that job becomes much easier. If a
company's target demographic is middle-class moms, and social media
traffic shows that middle-class moms are primarily concerned about the
same issue, then corporate advertisers will mold commercials that
reflect concern for that issue, as well. Location data can also be
bought directly from cellular networks or messaging apps. A significant
percentage of these moms train at karate dojos. Corporate advertisers
now know the best way to influence future buying behavior is to
advertise near or in partnership with martial arts schools. Unsuspecting
martial arts mothers are flooded with targeted messaging when they
would least expect it.
Companies that collect raw data specifically so that it might be
analyzed and used to influence consumer behavior rake in big bucks as
private spies. Almost all private companies have now entered the "spy
business." What clothing fashions catch your eye? Are you more or less
inclined to make a purchase near a food court? Do your purchases, when
combined with those of millions of others, reveal that people who like
convertible cars prefer a particular brand of camping equipment?
No matter how tiny, every piece of data can be significant. That is
why data collection is not the exclusive purview of credit card, social
media, and mobile phone companies but rather part of the regular
business model of any company making a buck. In the old days, television
and movie studios wanted to know what you watch; today, everybody wants
to know what you watch, what you like, what you do, where you go, and
with whom you go there. In turn, all this information is ultimately used
to manipulate human behavior.
Corporate espionage is pervasive. It occurs between competing
companies; it is conducted against unsuspecting consumers; it has
spawned an enormously profitable market for the collection and sale of
every crumb of personal data in which even the smallest businesses
regularly engage. Just as in the world of covert spies, the tools of the
trade are (1) information gathering and (2) information warfare.
Does it then seem reasonable that so much corporate espionage could
exist without attracting the interests of government intelligence
services?
US Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, recently confirmed
that state and federal governments regularly purchase Americans'
personal data from private companies, so that they may "spy on and track
the activities of U.S. citizens." No kind of personal information is
off-limits. Government agents use data brokers to collect information on
an individual's GPS location, mobile phone movements, medical
prescriptions, religious affiliations, sexual practices, and much more.
It is the type of total surveillance, Rodgers alleged,
that "you would expect out of the Chinese Communist Party surveillance
state, not in America." Yet it is all arguably legal or in an
unregulated gray zone.
Given the government's interest in spying on its citizens without the
need for either demonstrating probable cause or securing particularized
warrants, it seems unlikely that anything will change soon. During an
April 18 hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, Senator Rand Paul accused
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of ignoring foreign threats and
abusing the agency's powers to "expand social media censorship of
Americans using third-party nonprofits as... a clearinghouse for
information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda."
Furthermore, Paul continued,
"A report published last month by the Brennan Center for Justice found
at least twelve overlapping DHS programs for tracking what Americans are
saying online," demonstrating that DHS had, "veered from its original
counterterrorism mission into tracking social and political movements
and monitoring First Amendment-protected activity of American citizens."
In a particularly shocking example that seemed eerily reminiscent of
atrocities committed by Hitler Youth chapters during the 1930s or young
schoolchildren during China's Cultural Revolution, Paul noted:
"In 2021, DHS even put out a video encouraging children
to report their own family members to Facebook for disinformation if
they challenge the U.S. government narratives on COVID-19."
Paul is right to argue
that these kinds of corporate-government partnerships used to surveil
and influence American citizens "should terrify all of us," but would
enough lawmakers ever actually agree to handcuff the government from
seeking and utilizing the enormous tranche of personal information
collected and sold by private companies and data brokers? Right now,
after all, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is busy
capitalizing on recent Pentagon leaks to advance the RESTRICT Act,
a piece of legislation that would give the Executive Branch even
greater authority to track online communication and label information
shared on the Internet as "dangerous." Known derisively as an "online
Patriot Act," that power grab would come in handy for the government's
domestic surveillance operations during an era when former FBI, CIA,
NSA, and DHS spooks are filling the ranks of social media companies and the FBI continues to flag more words as online evidence of potential "violent extremism."
Rodgers and Paul aside, neither First Amendment considerations nor
any respect for Americans' privacy and liberty appear to be of much
concern for politicians or spy agencies. Not only are most lawmakers
leery of interfering with intelligence collection practices when they
can later be condemned for having endangered American security, but also
they often find some kind of personal benefit for looking past
constitutional concerns. After all, analysis shows that dozens of
members of Congress and their families recently sold off bank shares
while they were actively meeting with regulators amid the volatile
financial climate prompted by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. When
information collection leads to power and profit, only the rare politician would dare get in the way.
Now consider just how instrumental private companies have become for
intelligence collection and analysis. The U.S. government has granted
top-secret security clearance to an astonishingly large number of
employees and contractors — over 1.25 million
as of today. Yet every private company monitoring, tracking, recording,
and influencing consumers is in the spy business just the same. The
business of data brokers is booming. Even more telling, private sector
demand for former government spies is great. The private espionage field
in which corporations and governments use operatives-for-hire under
scant regulatory oversight is growing exponentially. As part of the
military's "signature reduction"
program, the Pentagon even regularly hides forces carrying out
clandestine assignments within private companies under false names. Due
to the government's increased reliance on contractors, a small number of
corporate firms now dominate the private intelligence industry.
You put all these trends together and you get an expansive
corporate-government partnership with vast surveillance powers
conducting domestic espionage on American citizens — free from legal
scrutiny and done in the name of "national security." Every company is
an information asset. A growing industry dedicated to private data
collection accrues vast wealth and untold secrets. At the top of this
private espionage pyramid sit a small number of firms that directly feed
intelligence agencies and lawmakers with the information they will use
to interpret threats and make policy.
Never have the worlds of covert espionage and financial investment
been so integrated. With a shared purpose of profiting from the
collection of private information, both corporate spies and government
spooks seek to predict the future by directly shaping it. The rest of
us, however, are merely the things being shaped.
Subpoenaed memo records allegations from a confidential human source in mid-2020 about a foreign pay-to-play scheme when Joe Biden was Barack Obama's vice president. multiple officials said. They did not identify the informant.
The
hunt for answers in the long-running Hunter Biden investigation is
returning to questions that prompted the scandal four years ago: did Joe
Biden trade U.S. policy for money his family was receiving from
overseas sources like Ukraine.
Prompted by a whistleblower, House and Senate Republicans
investigators on Wednesday issued a subpoena for an FBI memo they say
documents allegations of a pay-to-play bribery scheme involving the
current president and a foreign national.
The memo, known as an FD-1023, involves allegations the FBI recorded
from a confidential human source in mid-2020, just months before Joe
Biden won the presidency. It involves transactions and policy tied to
Ukraine that date to when Biden was Barack Obama's vice president.
multiple officials said. They did not identify the informant.
Senate Budget Committee ranking member and long-time whistleblower
advocate Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Committee on Oversight and
Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) wrote in a letter to the FBI
that they learned of the document from a whistleblower and have
concerns the bureau did not fully investigate the allegations.
"The information provided by a whistleblower raises concerns that
then-Vice President Biden allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme with a
foreign national," Comer said in announcing a subpoena his committee
issued. "The American people need to know if President Biden sold out
the United States of America to make money for himself. Senator Grassley
and I will seek the truth to ensure accountability for the American
people."
Grassley said congressional investigators "believe the FBI possesses
an unclassified internal document that includes very serious and
detailed allegations implicating the current President of the United
States
"What we don't know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify
these claims or investigate further. The FBI's recent history of
botching politically charged investigations demands close congressional
oversight," he added.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a prominent member of Comer's Oversight
Committee, told Just the News that the whistleblower's allegations are
some of the most serious to emerge in the four year Biden family saga
and need to be verified.
"It doesn't get much more serious than that, that the top diplomat,
the President of the United States, is doing the bidding of foreign
countries or foreign entities on the backs of American policy and
American taxpayers, and our sovereignty," he said.
Perry also urged the Biden White House to pressure the FBI to release
the document. "What I would hope to hear is, look they're going to
cooperate fully. And they're going to urge the FBI to make sure that the
documents are released to the House, because if you haven't done
anything wrong, you certainly want that information to be out there to
prove that you haven't done anything wrong," he said.
"This is a very significant allegation the American people need to
know. But what I suspect is that the FBI is going to stonewall and not
want to provide this information," he added.
The emergence of the documents and its allegations come at a
sensitive time for the Biden White House, which is bracing for the
possibility that Hunter Biden may soon face criminal tax charges related
to his overseas business dealings. Hunter Biden also faces a demand
from a judge in Arkansas to divulge new information about the source of
his income and gifts in a paternity case.
And two Cabinet secretaries -- Attorney General Merrick Garland and
Secretary of State Antony Blinken -- also face questions about earlier
assurances they gave Congress about issues related to the Hunter Biden
were accurate. Both men deny wrongdoing.
The Biden family has faced question about alleged influence peddling
since spring 2019 when it was revealed that as Vice President Joe Biden
threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine in 2015 to
force the firing of Ukraine's chief prosecutor, who was investigating
the Burisma Holdings energy company that employed Hunter Biden, paying
the future presidential son hundreds of thousands of dollars as a board
member.
Biden admits he forced the firing of the prosecutor, but has strongly
denied it had anything to do with his son's business. He's insisted he
simply carried out U.S. policy and that he did not have any dealings
with Hunter Biden's company or his business partners. The allegations
played a central in the first impeachment and acquittal of Donald Trump.
Evidence began emerging in fall 2020 that called into question Joe
Biden's narrative, but it was contained on an old Hunter Biden laptop
that surfaced just before the 2020 election and for months was censored
and falsely portrayed as Russian disinformation.
Officials eventually acknowledged the laptop was authentic and had
been in the FB's possession since 2019. And Hunter Biden disclosed he
was under federal criminal investigation related to taxes.
That investigation has lingered for years since. Some emails have
since shown Joe Biden met with Hunter Biden business partners when he
was vice president, undercutting one of the Biden family's claims.
And an April 2014 email first reported by Just the News in
December 2020 shows Hunter Biden and a business partner sought to take
credit with Burisma for comments Joe Biden made about Ukrainian natural
gas in an official U.S. speech.
Hunter Biden suggested in the email that his father's comments about
natural gas in the speech be sent to a top Burisma official because it
"makes it look like we are adding value."
In an earlier email in April 2014, Hunter Biden even suggested his
father's trip to Ukraine was part of the consulting work he was doing
with Burisma. "The announcement of my guys upcoming travels should be
characterized as part of our advice and thinking – but what he will say
and do is out of our hands," the email stated. "In other words, it could
be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an
expectation. We need to temper expectations regarding that visit."
The White House on Wednesday dismissed the announcement by Grassley and Comer as "anonymous innuendo."
"When it comes to President Biden's personal finance, anybody can
take a look," spokesman Ian Sams said. "He has offered an unprecedented
level of transparency."
Comer's subpoena demanding FBI Director Chris Wray turn over the
document lawmakers seek by mid-May gives tantalizing hints about the
memo: its description as an FD-1023 reveals it included information from
a confidential human source and it was "created or modified in June
2020."
Confidential human sources, or informants as they are better known,
come in all shapes and sizes. They can range from foreign intelligence
operatives like ex-MI-6 agent Christopher Steele, whose dossier played a
major role in the Russia collusion probe of 2016-18, to researchers,
academics, and on rare occasion even journalists.
Congressional officials did not provide any detail about the alleged
informer or the whistleblower. But Comer and Grassley in their letter to
Wray made clear they believe the document will divulge information
about weakness in current public disclosure laws involving presidents
and vice presidents that jeopardize national security.
"The Committee’s independent and objective review of this matter will
inform potential legislative solutions that the Committee is
exploring," the lawmakers wrote. "Specifically, the Committee is
considering legislation aimed at deficiencies in the current legal
framework regarding disclosure of financial interests related to Vice
Presidents and Presidents (and the family members thereof)— deficiencies
that may place American national security at risk."
