Maureen Dowd can't seem to figure out who the liar-in-chief is - Jack Hellner

 

by Jack Hellner

Joe Biden has lied continuously throughout his Washington career.

 

Whenever I see a column in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd, writing about our liar-in-chief, I assume that she is talking about the current commander-in-chief, who has been a congenital liar his entire life. 

The Moment of Truth for Our Liar in Chief

After all, Joe Biden has lied continuously throughout his Washington career.

He lies about big and little things.

Here is a small sample:

He lied about his college rank and grades at law school. 

He plagiarized a speech as he ran for president in 1988.  The media chased him from that race. 

• Joe Biden has plagiarized from speeches, essays, and policy positions throughout his entire life
• As a student at Syracuse Law School in 1965, Biden plagiarized 5-pages from a law review journal "without quotation or attribution"
• During his failed 1988 presidential campaign, Biden plagiarized from speeches by British politician Neil Kinnock, Robert Kennedy, and President John F. Kennedy

He continues to lie about what Trump said in Charlottesville to gin up racial hate and division.

He lied when he said Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation during a debate with Trump.  (He clearly knew the truth.)

He continues to lie that no one in his family ever made money from foreign sources and that he never talked to Hunter or anyone in his family about their business dealings.

He continues to lie that he inherited a bad economy.  The economy was growing rapidly when he took office. 

He lied that there were no vaccines available when he took office.

He lied that inflation was caused by Russia and the supply chain when inflation took off as soon as he forced his radically destructive government spending on the American people. 

He lied that the border was under control.

And he continues to lie that his policies cut the deficit in half. 

But nope, the column in the Times was talking about Trump, not Biden.

Maybe Maureen Dowd also thinks Trump won in 2020 and is still the chief. 

Here are a few excerpts from Dowd's column: 

A man is running to run the government he tried to overthrow while he was running it, even as he is running to stay ahead of the law.

Would Trump have authorized National Guard troops to the Capitol if he really wanted to overthrow the government?  Sadly, House speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't do her job to secure the Capitol, and sadly, the media never cared about the truth. 

A Capitol Police timeline of the days and weeks surrounding Jan. 6 shows former President Donald Trump's Department of Defense (DOD) offered the National Guard's assistance in the days leading up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, validating claims from Trump administration officials that were said to be false by liberal fact-checkers.

Would Trump have told the people at his January 6 rally to march peacefully and patriotically if he wanted the rally to be violent?  The media and other Democrats, along with some Republicans, also bury that truth.

I do not recall the media saying that Democrats wanted to overthrow the government when they challenged the 2000, 2004, and 2016 election and supported riots.

Dowd then asks:

The question now is: Has Trump finally run out of time, thanks to Jack Smith, who runs marathons as an Ironman triathlete? Are those ever-loving walls really closing in this time?

Dowd loves all the leaks and charges from Smith's office but doesn't care that the current commander-in-chief illegally took classified documents and mishandled them.  Why are there no leaks and charges from Biden's special counsel, since no one is supposedly above the law, and everyone is treated equally by this "independent" Justice Department?

We were expecting an epic clash when Robert Mueller was appointed in 2017 as a special counsel to head the investigation into ties between Trump's campaign and Russia and his potential obstruction of justice. It was the flamboyant flimflam man vs. the buttoned-down, buttoned-up boy scout.

Mueller, who had been a decorated Marine in Vietnam, was such a straight arrow that he never even deviated to wear a blue shirt when he ran the F.B.I.

Amid the Trump administration chaos, Mueller ran a disciplined, airtight operation as special counsel, assembling a dream team of legal talent. But regarding obstruction of justice, the final report was flaccid, waffling, legalistic.

And Dowd loved Mueller's dream team, filled with Hillary-supporters, who did a two-year witch hunt on Trump searching in vain for fictional Russian collusion.

After all, the media, Justice Department, and other Democrats had spread the lie to the public that Trump had colluded with Russia, and surely these leftists could find it or create it.

Trump always told the truth that it was a hoax, yet he is called the liar.

The reason the Mueller dream team didn't leak is because the leaks would have had to be how many Justice officials had lied to the FISA court and that Hillary and the DNC had perpetuated a massive fraud on the American people with the fictional Russian dossier.

What this article does not show is any lies by Trump.

Anyone who believed the Russian collusion story probably still believes that Biden never talked to Hunter about his business dealings.  Such people must be toting off the same bong as Hunter's friend and benefactor.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0.

Jack Hellner

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/maureen_dowd_cant_seem_to_figure_out_who_the_liarinchief_is.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Israel Medical Association has infected what was once a sterile environment - Sheri Oz

 

by Sheri Oz

Why are Israeli doctors putting their politics in my face?

 

Doctors Protest                                                                                                           Evgeny Reider

I would never ask what party my doctor votes for, nor what he or she thinks of the judicial reforms that are currently rocking the country. It is none of my business. So why are they making it my business? Why are doctors putting their politics in my face?

Even with the inconvenience it causes, I support it when doctors and nurses strike because of their working conditions – number of hours per shift and shifts per week, salaries, number of beds in a ward, and other elements directly affecting their ability to do their jobs effectively and to maintain their good mental health in a demanding field.

But when I am suddenly told not to come in for an important medical examination because the Israel Medical Association (IMA) has decided on a 24-hour strike in response to judicial reforms bills before the Knesset, does that make sense? The first reform to have passed and aroused the ire of the IMA is the Reasonableness Clause, which stipulates that the courts cannot overrule political decisions based solely on their own subjective world views, leaving in place, according to legal experts, other legal tools for this when necessary.

I visited Rambam Medical Center late that same morning to ask hospital spokesman David Ratner about the strike. There was only one question I was interested in, a question raised by blogger, Forest Rain Marcia: How was it possible that a government hospital did not prevent its doctors from striking in response to government policy having nothing to do with medical care? Not only having nothing to do with medical care, per se, but, in fact, preventing many, like me, from getting the care we were supposed to get on that day.

Ratner responded that the “medical association is a representative organization and as soon as it issues an official directive to the doctors belonging to the organization, we relate to it as a legal mandate. At the same time, if a doctor decides to work despite the strike – it is his or her right to do so and the hospital will, of course, honor that decision."

The IMA apparently organized transportation so the “white coats” could demonstrate in Tel Aviv to encourage the Histradrut (National Trade Union) to also strike against the new law, and to the Labor Court asked to weigh in on the question of the strike’s legality. A few hours later, after what the coalition ministers who filed the request considered inordinate delay, the Labour Court ordered doctors back to work immediately. Not so legal, after all.

While Rambam’s administration remained neutral regarding the strike, hospitals such as Hadassah Ein Kerem worked as if there was no strike, and I was told that others, such as Ichilov’s administration took an active part in the protests.

I discovered that some hospitals or medical clinics have/had signs up protesting the government’s judicial reforms and at others, including Rambam, some medical staff treat patients wearing stickers or red shirts with the words: “There is no health without democracy.” That is clear support for the anti-reform protests and does not take into consideration what it feels like for a patient who is in favor of the government’s judicial reforms to be treated by someone donning such a message.

That is what I meant above when I wrote about the doctor’s politics being in the patient’s face. Can this distract the patient from hearing what the doctor is saying about his or her medical condition?

Hadas Ziv, vice president for content and ethics at Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, is not bothered by this. In her article about the strike, she writes that patients are being held hostage by the government’s political games. She further argues that not only does the strike not violate the Hippocratic Oath but, rather, it protects patients -- and it is the government that has “abandoned” them. I wonder if Ziv thinks someone should accompany the public to the polling station on election day to make sure they put the “correct” ballot into the box.

I spoke with Dr. Bella Smolin, Senior Physician in Internal Medicine at Rambam, one of those who did not observe the IMA strike. We did not talk about her personal opinion regarding the judicial reforms but, only her attitude toward the strike. I have no idea to what degree she opposes or is in favor of the reforms. I only know that she has strong opinions regarding the means applied by the leadership of the anti-reform protests and the decision of the IMA to declare the doctors’ strike.

In introducing herself, she said:

“I am not right wing and I am totally secular – not close to tradition at all. I am over 50 years of age and have been in Israel for 30 years. I remember from childhood that my parents taught me to think independently, not to let propaganda affect me. I remember my grandmother listening to German radio and my father listening to Voice of America. They taught me about basic principles used by totalitarian regimes that are unacceptable, such that the end justifies the means.

I saw that the IMA is convinced that they are right and, with that belief, they broke a rule that should never be broken – not to bring politics into medicine.

I am a third-generation doctor and my kids are learning medicine too. My mother’s stepfather treated German prisoners of war and he was asked how he could treat them and he said ‘I’m a doctor. They are my patients like all other patients. It’s a sacred principle.’”

That does not surprise Israelis where terrorists are treated in Israeli hospitals. Smolin continues:

“Now they broke this principle by trying to bring politics into medicine. As individuals, each doctor can protest, but as a group, the IMA cannot.

This bothers me more and more as the protest grows. I notice more signs of Bolshevism on the part of the protest leaders. In addition to “the end justifies the means,” if your opinion does not correspond with ours, your opinion does not matter. I see the lying and catastrophizing used to get people out to demonstrate. Saying things like judicial reform hurts the health system is unfounded. It is unconscionable.

Propaganda works on almost everyone. There are few people, and this is not related to their intelligence, who can see through systematic propaganda unless they have been educated to do so. What is happening reminds me of what I ran away from.”

I asked Dr. Smolin why the IMA took on this task, such as organizing a rally in Jerusalem on Sunday before the fateful vote in the Knesset the next morning and then the strike when the bill was passed. She responded that IMA chair Professor Zion Hagai is a politician who was in Bogie Ayalon’s political party and, like many doctors, seems to sincerely believe that the reforms are destructive to the nation. But there have been anonymous commenters to articles on a doctors’ website who did not agree that the IMA should be acting as a political body. One should wonder why they comment anonymously.

In the beginning, Smolin was undecided about the whole issue, but when she was thrown out of a group for raising issues questioning the “party line,” she grew worried. Now she is on one of a number of Whatsapp groups of doctors who want the IMA to stay out of politics.

Will others speak up openly like Dr. Smolin about keeping politics out of medical care? Some have begun to cancel their membership in the IMA.

I am left wondering if I will be brave enough to ask a doctor or nurse treating me to remove an anti-reform sticker or to close the white coat so I don’t have to see the red shirt. After all, my health treatment is in his or her hands and I hesitate to antagonize the one upon whom I am so vulnerably dependent. I shouldn’t be put in the position where I ask myself that question.

Sheri Oz is a freelance writer whose articles appear on major websites and was a member of the Arutz Sheva news staff. She has lived in Israel for over 40 years and blogs at Israel Diaries

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/374820

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Our Government Has Been Covering Up Its Crimes For A Very Long Time - Mark Adams

 

by Mark Adams

In the early 2000s, Sibel Edmonds tried to expose what was going on, only to learn the hard way that covering up federal crimes was a “national security” issue.

 

The independently produced movie, Sound of Freedom, grossed over $85 Million in just 13 days. The faith-based thriller sheds light on America’s child trafficking crisis and quickly soared to the number two movie after its July 4, 2023, release. Regarding the tawdry subject of child trafficking and other nefarious crimes let’s pull the curtain back and take a glimpse into the government’s reluctance to address these thorny issues.

Sibel Edmonds is a former contract translator for the FBI. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11 with a top-level security clearance. Then, she revealed the scale of blackmail directed at high-level government officials. In April 2002, she was unceremoniously fired.

With people like the powerful senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, on her side, the government was forced to investigate why she was terminated. This led to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) conducting a two-year-long investigation. Finally, in July 2004, the OIG completed its report. However, before it was published and provided to the public, the FBI stepped in and declared it “classified,” preventing its release!

Image: Sibel Edmonds (edited) by RT America. CC BY 3.0.

After months of relentless pressure, in January 2005, the OIG issued a redacted, unclassified version. Even redacted, the report provided stunning vindication of Edmonds’ credibility, stating that many of her claims “were supported” and were indeed a “significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her.”

So, what was Edmond’s alleging?

Edmond’s job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. Through that work, she discovered information so shocking that then-Attorney General Ashcroft gagged her not once but twice using the cagey States Secrets Privilege. The Justice Department also took the unusual step of retroactively classifying Edmonds’ briefings, as well as FBI briefings, forcing Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.

In fact, the States Security Privilege doctrine has never been the subject of any congressional vote or statute, so it’s quite controversial. However, in 1953, in United States v. Reynolds, the Supreme Court held that some things were so privileged that even the courts couldn’t look at them:

[T]oo much judicial inquiry into the claim of privilege would force disclosure of the thing the privilege was meant to protect, while a complete abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable abuses.

However, Edmonds wasn’t revealing national security information; that is unless one considers exposing the U.S. government’s brazenly and deeply embarrassing criminal acts to be a matter of national security. We do know some of what Edmonds alleged thanks to a October 27, 2002, interview on 60 Minutes,

Edmonds said that, after 9/11, the translation unit was ordered to deliberately slow its work and let documents pile up so that the FBI could request more money! According to Sen. Grassley, who was also interviewed on the same show, other people in the FBI “corroborated a lot of her story.”

The FBI hired Jan Dickerson as another Turkish translator with a high-level security clearance. The FBI later admitted that, when it hired her, it was totally unaware she’d worked for a Turkish organization that was being investigated by the FBI’s own counter-intelligence unit! Even more astounding, the FBI apparently didn’t know she’d had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation.

When Edmonds checked Dickerson’s translations, she discovered serious flaws, including omitting the fact that the Turkish intelligence officer was running spies in the State Department and The Pentagon!!!

Edmonds alleged that, at the turn of the last century, there were “several bin Ladens” who were flying on private jets and NATO planes to places like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Chechnya. Edmonds said that “people and weapons went one way, drugs came back.”

NATO planes, said Edmonds, were being used to transport drugs to Belgium. Many drugs came to the U.S. on military planes and, from there, “went to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey.” Edmonds also asserted that Turkish diplomats were entering our country with “suitcases of heroin.”

Most people are probably unaware that, in 2007, six years after international forces invaded Afghanistan, the opium yield was the largest in human history. Opium sales increased Afghanistan’s GDP by a whopping 66%. In fact, by 2007, opium revenue constituted 40% of the entire economy!

According to a 2006 Daily Mail article, northern Afghanistan wasn’t just producing poppies and opium; it was also producing heroin on an industrial scale. This was the same region in which Osama Bin Laden was headquartered, the same man the CIA financed from 1979 to 1989 to fight the Soviets.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America engaged in air bombing raids “while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the warlord drug barons—especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance—to do the ground occupation.” After America’s initial success against the Taliban (which Biden threw away), the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. They were made ministers in the new government so that the four largest players in the heroin business were all senior members of the Afghan government.

Edmond’s duties also led to her discovering a rat’s nest of culture rot in the U.S. Congress. While translating recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts, one name stood out, a man the Turkish callers often referred to as “Denny boy.” It turns out that this was a reference to the Republican congressman from Illinois and then-Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

In May 2015, Hastert was indicted for structuring withdrawals of over $900,000 to avoid bank reporting laws. The money was used to pay off blackmailers regarding pedophilia crimes he committed while he was a high school wrestling coach. These charges were just the tip of a burgeoning iceberg. Hastert, his top aide, and other high-ranking government officials were caught up in a criminal web of pedophilia, espionage, drugs, and blackmail.

Hastert’s lawyers had no problem negotiating a plea bargain for the same reason Sibel Edmonds was gagged with the dubious States Secrets Privilege. In fact, Sibel has warned that the Hastert matter, which is “deep” and “dark,” will never be fully explored because it was a bipartisan scandal that involved “people from both sides of the aisle.”

Last August, as noted, we abandoned Afghanistan so that Taliban once again reign supreme. Before the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban had essentially eradicated opium crop production. Now that they are back in charge, what will happen to the opium/heroin yields? Will they be slashed to almost nothing, or will the Taliban be tempted to use the massive economy of scale and use heroin to fund terrorism?

Are we are witnessing the unintended consequences of a 20-year occupation of one of the most vile places on Earth, or are there darker forces at work that Sibel Edmonds has been trying to warn us about for over two decades?

 
Mark Adams

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/our_government_has_been_covering_up_its_crimes_for_a_very_long_time.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Takeaways: What the spectacle of the collapse of Hunter’s plea deal showed us - Thomas Lifson

 

by Thomas Lifson

The Democrats now know that the dam has broken on the news of the shady business dealings of the Biden crime family’s influence peddling operation

The drama that unfolded at the Wilmington, Delaware Federal Courthouse yesterday, where courageous Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected the plea deal purportedly agreed to by Hunter Biden and Delaware US Attorney David Weiss’s prosecutors, has taught the nation several important lessons.  

First of all, for Americans dependent on the bigfoot media, it was probably news that Hunter Biden, the president’s son, faces any serious legal jeopardy for serious crimes. The corporate media blackout is over, as Newsbusters reported:

All three networks ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News kicked off their newscasts with the Hunter news. On ABC, justice correspondent Terry Moran fretted that “Hunter Biden came to the federal courthouse in Wilmington this morning expecting to put his legal troubles behind him, but it was a day of unexpected courtroom drama and an unforeseen twist.”   

Of course, there was spin aplenty, of the boo-hoo Joe just loves his son variety, of the Republicans pounce school of journalism, and naturally, Trump appointed the prosecutor and the judge, for vast majority who do not understand that Delware’s two Democrat senators had de facto veto power over such presidential appointments.

Nonetheless, with wall-to-wall cable news coverage as the drama unfolded and subsequent evening news and morning show spots, the public now is aware that something is rotten in the state of Delaware as far as the POTUS’s son is concerned.

Second, the official Biden narrative (repeated by hapless Karine Jean-Pierre at yesterday’s press briefing) that Hunter is just a “private citizen” was blown to smithereens by the six-car convoy that delivered Hunter Biden to the courthouse:

 

Remember, Hunter Biden is a "private citizen" ... who keeps appointments in a six-car, taxpayer-funded motorcade, and his criminal enterprise has nothing to do with his corrupt father whose name he used to extort shakedown payments from foreign oligarchs. https://t.co/5R14rk4qp7

— Cruadin (@cruadin) July 26, 2023

Third, the rejection of the deal obviously implies that the Department of Justice wasn’t doing its job and is corrupt. It was beyond a mere “sweetheart deal,” as Iowahawk tweeted. “I wouldn't call it a sweetheart deal, it was more of a lap dance stripper deal.”

The horrifying details of the misconduct confirm corruption.  Former deputy special counsel Sol Wisenberg tweeted:

Some thoughts: Now we know why DOJ didn’t show us the plea agreement terms. What didn't they want us to know ahead of time? A) a global immunity deal for Hunter; B) A binding plea (that is, the judge must accept the specific terms if she accepts the agreement); C) Misdemeanor probation; D) Other unusual plea terms. 1. A global immunity deal for Hunter while the overall investigation is “ongoing”, is stunning—a super-sweetheart deal. 2. A binding plea is extremely unusual in the vast majority of federal jurisdictions. It means for example, that if the agreement calls for probation the judge must give Hunter probation. It is binding. 3. That the prosecution and defense would disagree about the terms of the agreement in open court is a joke. Ambiguous terms in a plea agreements are construed against the government! There should be no room for disagreement on the key terms of the agreement. So, this was either astounding incompetence or corruption on DOJ’s part. I think it is corruption. This looks like a wink and a nod deal (as @shipwreckedcrew has noted) where DOJ would have plausible deniability if the judge asked no questions and accepted the deal. The scope of immunity is the most important feature of a plea deal. It is inconceivable that the prosecutors were incompetent here. Leo Wise has an excellent reputation for competence. 4. Think about this. DOJ was about to sanction a plea deal where Hunter would get misdemeanor probation on serious tax charges plus pretrial diversion (no time served or criminal record) on the felony gun charge. Hunter would also get complete immunity on all other charges. And he would not have to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation. Totally disgraceful. Merrick Garland and David Weiss should be ashamed. And where is Lisa Monaco? Why hasn't she been called to testify? [emphasis in original]

Former federal prosecutor (and candidate for Missouri attorney general) Will Scharf explained how the feds colluded with the defense to try to hide the fact that they were giving Hunter a “Get out of Jail Free” card in return for nothing.

… Hunter's plea was structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea in return for a joint sentencing recommendation only, and contained no information on its face about other potential charges, and contained no clear agreement by DOJ to forego prosecution of other charges. Instead, DOJ and Hunter's lawyers effectively hid that part of the agreement in what was publicly described as a pretrial diversion agreement relating to a § 922(g)(3) gun charge against Hunter for being a drug user in possession of a firearm. That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere. So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings. Hunter's upside from this deal was vast immunity from further prosecution if he finished a couple years of probation, and the public wouldn't be any the wiser because none of this was clearly stated on the face of the plea agreement, as would normally be the case. Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball. Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter's lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn't going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered. DOJ, attempting to save face and save its case, then stated on the record that the investigation into Hunter was ongoing and that Hunter remained susceptible to prosecution under FARA. Hunter's lawyers exploded. They clearly believed that FARA was covered under the deal, because as written, the pretrial diversion agreement language was broad enough to cover it. They blew up the deal, Hunter pled not guilty, and that's the current state of play.

Fourth, the plea deal, if accepted by the judge, would have tied her hands, as former federal prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew tweeted:

This confirms that the written plea offer is an 11(c)(1)(C) plea. That means the Court would have to agree to the sentence that the parties stipulated in the agreement -- Probation -- no matter what the facts might be as determined by the Presentence Report. I could have predicted that would have been DOA. I don't think any federal judge would say "Yes, I'll agree to allow you to lock me into giving only probation and nothing more when I don't know anything about the facts." What a bunch of idiots.

Fifth, the corporate media now has a much harder time pretending that nothing is amiss. Everybody loves a mystery story, and now that the public knows something is up with Hunter Biden that doesn’t pass the smell test, they want to know exactly what that is. The scheduled closed door testimony of former Hunter business partner Devon Archer is expected to reveal under oath his previous statements that Joe Biden listened in to business meetings with Hunter’s dodgy foreign clients via speakerphone many times.  

The Democrats now know that the dam has broken on the news of the shady business dealings of the Biden crime family’s influence peddling operation that kicked into high gear as he was leaving the vice presidency and anticipated that he could set up himself and his family for life, never expecting that he would be pulled back from obscurity when the Democrats’ puppet masters needed someone to knock sure-loser Bernie Sanders out of the nomination in 2020.

Yesterday’s events in Wilmington set the stage for the next act in a national drama with the future of the Republic at stake.

Photo credit: twitter video screengrab 

 

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/takeaways_what_the_spectacle_of_the_collapse_of_hunters_plea_deal_showed_us.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hunter Biden's 'sweetheart deal' unraveled in court for reasons that now seem glaring - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

Hunter had been expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and admit to a gun violation that could later be dismissed.

 

First son Hunter Biden thought he had solid deal with the U.S. federal government over tax and gun-registration charges – maybe even a "sweetheart deal" –  that would keep him out of prison and potentially secure immunity against several other potential charges.

But the deal unravelled dramatically Wednesday inside a federal courthouse in Delaware when the presiding judge ultimately delayed her approval over several concerns, including its constitutionality. 

Biden had been expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and admit to a gun violation that could later be dismissed. He would enter a pre-trial diversion program and avoid prison time under the plan, with prosecutors recommending he receive probation. 

Specifically, he was supposed to admit to not paying taxes in 2017 and 2018, with each offense carrying a maximum of 12 months in prison.

The gun charge, however, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, if a defendant is convicted. Biden was instead supposed to enter the diversion program to avoid prison and a conviction.

The agreement followed a five-year federal investigation into Biden and his business dealings.

That investigation, however, has faced allegations of political interference by the Justice Department, with two IRS agents who worked on the case coming forward to allege the agency allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the worst of the charges and that prosecutors prevented investigators from pursuing the case effectively.

Conservatives had urged U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika to reject the plea agreement – even calling it a "sweetheart deal – amid the allegations and concerns it was too lenient, arguments with which she evidently agreed.

Noreika declined to approve the plea deal, forcing Biden to plead not guilty.

Her reservations brought light on numerous unusual elements of the agreement. Here are the biggest eyebrow raisers:

The agreement was binding on the judge

While the Justice Department agreement to recommend Biden receive probation and no jail time appeared lenient, the larger concern was its binding nature.

When prosecutors agree to a plea deal, they typically recommend a sentence to the judge, who retains discretion over the sentencing. Defendants who enter a guilty plea in exchange for the sentencing recommendation may face difficulties withdrawing their plea should the judge impose a harsher sentence.

However, that judicial discretion was not in the deal because the DOJ agreement was binding.

Noreika had the choice of either accepting the agreement in its entirety, including the sentencing recommendation, or rejecting it in full.

Biden in turn entered a not guilty plea and contested the charges.

Defense attorney Sol Wisenberg said afterward the now-scuttled agreement was "extremely unusual in the vast majority of federal jurisdictions."

Noreika took issue with the pre-trial diversion program

Of the charges to which Hunter was expected to admit, the gun violation carried the longest potential prison sentence.

For that count, he was to enter into the diversion program, which attempts to ensure accountability for wrongdoing and rehabilitate the defendant without their having to spend time behind bars. 

Those who qualify for such a program may avoid charges, see existing charges reduced or dismissed, or secure more favorable sentencing terms.

“Is this even constitutional?” Noreika asked about the agreement and asked both sides to file briefs explaining its structure.

There were disputes about the scope of immunity Hunter would receive

The deal was supposed to grant Biden broad immunity from future prosecution, but prosecutors and defense lawyers were apparently in dispute over the implications.

During the proceedings, the prosecutors admitted an investigation remained ongoing.

CNN reported that Noreika had asked whether the immunity would cover potential charges stemming from a possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which prosecutors confirmed would not be included in the immunity deal.

The law essentially requires those involved in overseas deals make periodic disclosures about them.

Revelations that the DOJ intended to retain charging options over such a count reportedly prompted objections from the defense counsel and led to the collapse of any accord between the parties.

Wisenberg tweeted the parties called the sides appearing to openly disagree in court about the scope of immunity a "joke."

"Ambiguous terms in a plea agreements are construed against the government!," he posted. "There should be no room for disagreement on the key terms of the agreement. So, this was either astounding incompetence or corruption on DOJ’s part. This looks like a wink and a nod deal ... where DOJ would have plausible deniability if the judge asked no questions and accepted the deal."

Republican lawmakers celebrated the judge's decision, which will extend their efforts to tie President Biden to his son as the president seeks reelection.

Texas GOP Rep. Mayra Flores tweeted: "God bless Judge Noreika. Judge Noreika just rejected the Hunter Biden plea deal."

Ben Whedon is an editor and reporter for Just the News. Follow him on Twitter.

Ben Whedon

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/holdall-reasons-hunter-bidens-sweetheart-deal-collapsed

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Conservatives Fight Secretive Biden Voting Order as ‘Bidenbucks’ – Federal ‘Zuckbucks’ on Steroids - Ben Weingarten

 

by Ben Weingarten

The critics, including members of Congress, state officials, and government watchdog groups, say the executive branch is attempting to federalize elections with an end-run around constitutionally prescribed state control over voting

 

GOP lawmakers and other conservative critics are working to expose and fight a secretive executive order by President Biden to expand voter participation in elections, which they suspect has become a powerful government-wide complement to private left-wing election financing that could tip the 2024 campaign illegally and unfairly in Democrats’ favor.

Cast as a civil rights measure issued as the nation marked the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” police beatings of voting-rights marchers outside Selma, Ala., the president’s 2021 directive orders every federal agency, more than 600 in all, to register and mobilize voters – particularly “people of color” and others the White House says face “challenges to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” It further orders the agencies to collaborate with ostensibly nonpartisan nonprofits.  

Since issuing the order, critics claim, the Biden administration has stonewalled efforts to scrutinize its implementation by often ignoring document requests and litigating to shield relevant records. The critics, including members of Congress, state officials, and government watchdog groups, say the executive branch is attempting to federalize elections with an end-run around constitutionally prescribed state control over voting – in many cases using the resources of agencies with missions unrelated to registering voters. 

Some have labeled the president’s order “Bidenbucks,” evoking “Zuckbucks” – Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan’s funneling of some $400 million through two nonprofits into election offices across the country during the 2020 election. That money often flowed to left-leaning nonprofits managing critical aspects of election administration that were considered crucial to Biden’s winning the White House. 

In a notable recent defeat for conservatives, Judge Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court, an Obama appointee to the generally liberal jurisdiction, on July 18 dismissed Freedom of Information Act requests from the America First Legal Foundation, siding with administration arguments that the records in question were exempt as privileged presidential communications. Trying to pry strategy documents loose, America First had sued nearly a dozen non-responsive agencies, ranging from the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Health and Human Services to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Left-leaning think tank Demos, which in late 2020 drafted a blueprint for the order, estimates that if fully implemented, it could generate 3.5 million new or updated voter registrations annually. Even a far more modest increase could dramatically impact the 2024 presidential election, considering that recent contests have been decided by just thousands of votes in several states. 

Critics say the order could violate laws including the Administrative Procedure Act, barring agency actions “in excess of statutory jurisdiction” and the Hatch Act, curbing political activities by federal employees. 

Their concerns are driven in part by the fact that the directive appeared to be cribbed from the Demos white paper. Two ex-Demos executives – one of whom helped write the paper – departed for the Biden administration for roles positioning them to push for the order.  

Republican House members raised the alarm about this issue in a January 2022 letter requesting documents from administration officials, calling the order “nearly identical to a federal election takeover plan crafted by the radical left-leaning group known as Demos.” 

Months later, on the first anniversary of the order, Demos revealed it had worked extensively with federal agencies as well as state partners to implement the order, noting that it did so “in close partnership with the ACLU and other allies.” 

Conservatives say their fears of federal government collusion with supportive progressive groups appear to have already been substantiated. 

In ongoing FOIA litigation against the Justice Department, the Foundation for Government Accountability obtained an email between the White House Counsel’s Office and numerous agency officials regarding a July 2021 “Agency Listening Session” apparently led by “Civil and Voting Rights Organizations.” 

The email includes a roster of “advocates.” These include representatives from progressive groups such as the ACLU, the George Soros-affiliated Open Society Policy Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center; labor unions including the AFL-CIO and AFSCME; and a coterie of identity-focused organizations such as the Arab American Association, Black Voters Matter, and UnidosUS. 

RealClearInvestigations contacted over a dozen prominent private groups supporting the order, some of which were represented at that meeting, but only one responded to its queries. The Project on Government Oversight, a self-described “nonpartisan independent watchdog,” indicated it had not met with federal agencies regarding the executive order, undertaken any activities to advance it, nor planned to do so during this election cycle. It publicly supported the executive order, according to a spokesperson, because “access to voting is a critical way to hold public officials accountable.” 

The organizations that did not respond ranged from the Center for American Progress to politically powerful public-sector unions, including the American Federation for Teachers, the National Education Association, and AFSCME. Also not responding were Fair Fight Action, founded by unsuccessful Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. 

RCI also posed a series of questions to Demos centering on concerns expressed by lawmakers and others about its involvement in the order – including a report that it helped the Indian Health Service register and mobilize voters. It did not respond. 

“Promoting voter registration and participation – i.e., mobilizing voters – is an inherently political act for a partisan president,” Tarren Bragdon and Stewart Whitson of the Foundation for Government Accountability wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. “The resulting efforts can be directed at groups expected to vote for the president’s party and may take the form of pressure to support the party or its policies.” 

Likewise, Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, recently submitted congressional testimony indicating that the kinds of activities contemplated under the Biden administration’s executive order “risk confusing and intimidating vulnerable members of the public who are applying for federal benefits into thinking they have to register and vote for the political party in control of the White House to ensure their applications for benefits are not declined.” 

In addition to its largely successful efforts in court to date to stave off greater disclosure, the Biden administration has rebuffed Republican lawmakers’ numerous oversight inquiries into the order. 

The administration has refused to produce agency-specific strategic plans that would comprehensively capture the order’s scope and has remained largely silent about which third-party groups agencies are coordinating with to execute the order, and on what grounds – a key area of concern among the directive’s critics. 

RCI asked a White House spokesperson why the administration was withholding the strategic plans. RCI also asked if the Biden administration would share details about agencies’ coordination with third-party groups, and how the administration would respond to concerns raised by critics that the order codifies a de facto Democrat get-out-the-vote effort. The White House did not respond. 

What is clear, based on the details that have emerged about the order, is that the Biden administration is proceeding with its implementation, undeterred by critics. 

In March, near the two-year anniversary of the order, the administration released a characteristic summary statement noting that agencies as diverse as the Department of Education, Defense, and the Indian Health Service have carried out efforts ranging from making voter registration information and materials more readily available on agency websites, in documents, and across their offices, to successfully designating themselves as voter registration agencies.  

Previously, agencies from the Departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture disclosed generally some of the ways they were working to comply with the order, including seeking to drive voter registration via job training centers, public housing authorities, and child nutrition programs.  

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Education, and the Department of Agriculture are exceptions in having provided cursory responses to the many questions posed by lawmakers regarding the order. 

Much of what little is known publicly about the directive has been captured in “progress reports” released by its left-leaning champions aimed at persuading the administration to accelerate and broaden its efforts to implement it.  

Myriad left-leaning organizations are urging the administration to more fully implement it in the run-up to the 2024 election. They propose, for example, that the U.S. Marshals Service provide eligible individuals in federal pre-trial detention “access to high-quality voter registration services and assistance voting”; that the Department of Education incorporate voter registration opportunities into the federal student aid process; and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services offer voter registration services “at or immediately after all naturalization ceremonies.”  

Republicans have recently advanced legislation to combat the executive order. The Republican-led House is seeking to neuter the executive order via appropriations.  

As currently drafted, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill would defund the order. Perhaps more significantly, the House Administration Committee recently introduced the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act, which it touts as “the most conservative election bill to be seriously considered in the House in a generation.”  

Among the almost 50 bills contained in the legislation is the Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act. That bill, sponsored by New York GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney, co-chair of the Election Integrity Caucus, would nullify the Biden executive order.  

Progressive supporters of the directive panned the provision. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights wrote that it “strongly object[s] to the ACE Act’s attempt to thwart implementation” of the Biden executive order.

“Voter registration remains a hurdle for many eligible voters, particularly people of color,” the group said. “Real confidence in elections comes from ensuring that all Americans have the freedom to vote unimpeded by discriminatory rules.”  

Notwithstanding such opposition, the ACE Act would seem poised to pass the House given the support shown by leadership, including its sponsorship by Speaker Kevin McCarthy and its more than one hundred other co-sponsors. But, as Roll Call noted, “its outlook is bleak in the Democrat-controlled Senate.”  

There, Republican Sen. Ted Budd or North Carolina has introduced companion legislation to Rep. Tenney’s. Any such efforts are likely to prove fraught in a divided government. Republicans’ majority in the House, however, does arm them with subpoena powers. RCI asked several relevant committees whether they might use such authority to compel the executive branch to respond to their requests.  

Wisconsin GOP Rep. Bryan Steil, Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over federal elections, told RCI that he “will continue to demand answers from the agencies on how they are implementing the [executive order]” while touting the ACE Act.  

A spokesperson for the committee told RCI its members were “not satisfied with the responses [to oversight requests] we’ve received so far” – noting that in some instances it had not received responses from agencies at all – and that the committee was planning to send a battery of follow-up requests in the near-term.  

Whitson believes that such oversight efforts could hold the key to halting the executive order irrespective of what happens with pending litigation. He argues that “Congress should use its subpoena and oversight power to gather evidence, including sworn testimony and documents” that can be leveraged by state attorneys general – many red state officials having already indicated their aversion to the order – to sue the Biden administration and seek a permanent injunction blocking it. “[I]t’s up to the states and Congress to work together to stop this unprecedented scheme before time runs out,” Whitson says. 

 
Ben Weingarten

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/27/conservatives-fight-secretive-biden-voting-order-as-bidenbucks-federal-zuckbucks-on-steroids/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter