AS YOU RECALL FROM THE BANKSTER REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND 'CREDIT CARD' JOE BIDEN, IT WAS BIG PHARMA THAT WROTE THE OBAMACARE HOAX.
As a senator, Biden vigorously voted for several similar bills. In short, based on his voting record, Joe Biden is not (and never was) a champion of disadvantaged Americans, unless you consider multi-billion-dollar credit card corporations and millionaires “disadvantaged.” Chris Talgo
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania
I’d be inclined to disagree with Don except for one thing: Biden has proven to be a very adept criminal mastermind. For decades, he has funneled millions of dollars to his children and siblings and, especially, to his debauched, deviant son, Hunter.
ANDREA WIDBURG
Guess who gets to pay for Joe Biden's self-touted lower prescription drug costs?
While Joe Biden's out lounging somewhere on St. Croix, whoever it is who's tweeting for him has kept busy, spinning a narrative about all of Joe's supposed achievements from his grossly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act and congressional omnibus act, complete with sleek, possibly Photoshopped glamour shots of doddering old Joe.
Here are a few of the whoppers:
BLOG EDITOR: WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TOUT EXPANDED HEALTHCARE IT'S ONLY BECAUSE THEY'VE PILED ON TENS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS!
Biden keeps touting prescription drug costs going down and access to health insurance expanding based on his efforts, but the exact opposite is the case for millions of Americans.
Get a load of this from two writers at Reuters:
Drugmakers including Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca PLC and Sanofi SA plan to raise prices in the United States on more than 350 unique drugs in early January, according to data analyzed by healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors.
The increases are expected to come as the pharmaceutical industry prepares for the Biden Administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which allows the government's Medicare health program to negotiate prices directly for some drugs starting in 2026. The industry is also contending with inflation and supply chain constraints that have led to higher manufacturing costs.
The increases are on list prices, which do not include rebates to pharmacy benefit managers and other discounts.
In 2022, drugmakers raised prices on more than 1,400 drugs according to data published by 46brooklyn, a drug pricing non-profit that is related to 3 Axis. That is the most increases since 2015.
The median drug price increase was 4.9% last year, while the average increase was 6.4%, according to 46brooklyn. Both figures are lower than inflation rates in the United States.
So while prices for a few select special interests on a few medications are going down, everyone else gets to "pay for" them through price hikes on their own prescriptions. Sure, they may be lower than the overall rate of inflation, but price hikes are higher prices, as if everyone hit by inflation in other things has plenty of cash to spare.
And yes, those price hikes are linked to Biden's omnibus and "Inflation Reduction Act."
Here is the money quote, emphasis mine:
Antonio Ciaccia, president of 3 Axis, said that drugmakers have focused on launching their drugs at higher prices because of the attention paid to annual price increases. The IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] should further this dynamic, he said.
"Drug makers have to take a harder look at calibrating those launch prices out of the gate ... so they don't box themselves into the point where in the future, they can't price increase their way back into profitability," he said.
More drug prices are likely to be announced over the course of January - historically the biggest month for drugmakers to raise prices.
Well, lucky us. If you're old and already on Medicare, you might see lower costs on some items. The costs of other drugs, and odds are high that you may be taking a few, will be up, though, so all those savings Joe is touting would save you nothing.
Worse still, if you aren't old, you pay full fare, plus the premium tacked on to pay for the more politically favored patients. Got some extra money to pay for those life-saving drugs? Cough up, Joe's got discounts to give to others.
The crux of the problem comes from the $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act (see the second paragraph in the first Reuters passage cited above), which has a shakedown clause for Big Pharma described a few days ago by Mark Hemingway in an article for Real Clear Investigations here:
As of Oct. 1, the new law requires drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if the costs of certain drugs rise faster than annual inflation. If the government determines that the price of a drug increased 6% and the inflation rate that year was 4% – regardless of how or why the price rose – the manufacturer will be required to pay the government back the 2% difference in the price. The law does not provide an appeals process.
And starting in 2026, the IRA permits the government to “negotiate” a “maximum fair price” for certain prescription drugs purchased by the Medicare program. Under the new law, “negotiation” means the HHS determines the price it wants to pay for a specified medicine. Drug manufacturers can counteroffer, but if HHS doesn’t budge, the pharmaceutical company has no choice but to accept that price. Otherwise, the IRS will be empowered to slap the company with a “noncompliance” excise tax of up to 1,900% of the medicine’s daily U.S. revenue until the manufacturer sells the drug at the price HHS has set or withdraws from the market.
So the government will muscle Big Pharma into taking its dictated "fair price" and drug manufacturers will have to eat the costly losses, or pay the hefty fines, unless they pull out of the market for those drugs altogether.
Now, some will "Go Galt" and pull out of these markets, setting the stage for shortages, which is what always comes of price-fixing. All you have to do is ask the Cubans or Venezuelans, or even Canadians about that one.
But Big Pharma is not stupid. The drug manufacturers being hit by Joe's dictated price hikes have come up with a way to negotiate this no-win proposition for them, given that they do need to make a profit in order to keep bringing forth newer and more effective drugs to market, as well as attract top talent to do the research. Big Pharma figured out that its way of getting around this profit-free (but not tax-free) future is to pass the costs of the drugs onto other consumers who take other drugs, let those guys pay for the cheaper drugs for the special interests.
That's where at least some of the price hikes are coming from -- from costs passed on to other customers who take other drugs.
So the sick people who are generally out of commission as they seek to recover from their less politically attractive illnesses and who are least able to pay, are the ones who get stuck with the bill, paying through higher costs on their drugs as a few favored interests pay less.
All of this, by the way, comes on top of health insurance price hikes set to go into effect this year, averaging around 3.9%, a doubling of the cost rise, and going as high as 14%, as I noted here on my own health insurance bill.
How's that for lower health care and prescription drug costs? And, this, on top of all the other inflation that Joe Biden has brought us.
It just goes to show that Joe Biden's meddling in the health care industry merely shifts costs from one group to another, like a game of unlucky musical chairs, helping no one in the end as consumers get inundated by more rising costs.
Meanwhile, the vast spending in the omnibus act and the "Inflation Reduction Act" will add more inflation fat to the fire just by the virtue of all the money-printing those billions and trillions entail, particularly with wages falling.
It shows what a liar Biden is. His toutings are disgusting prevarications and spin, nothing but gaslighting in the sleight of hand that goes with price-fixing and cost-shifting.
If incoming congressional Republicans don't call this scam out, denounce the Biden lies, and end the inflationary clauses of these miserable bills immediately, they'll be worthless to voters by 2024.
It's time for the incoming House to seize this issue and rectify the coming disaster of unintended consequences from this charlatan now.
Image: Screen shot from live television broadcast, filtered with FotoSketcher.
JOE BIDEN HAS BEEN CORRUPT FOR 50 YEARS AND NOT ONE INVESTIGATION. DOESN'T THAT SHOW YOU HOW UTTERLY CORRUPT THE RULING CLASS IS?
Schweizer: ‘It’s Going to Be Business as Usual’ for Hunter’s Dealings
Joe Biden, the corrupt, unaccomplished 47-year career politician, with a reputation of having been a proud segregationist, an unabashed plagiarist and liar, a resolute tale-teller, and a serial flip-flopper, is pretending to head up a radical social-democratic ticket for President of the United States that includes as his running mate the ambitious, disagreeable junior senator from California: Kamala Harris.
I’d be inclined to disagree with Don except for one thing: Biden has proven to be a very adept criminal mastermind. For decades, he has funneled millions of dollars to his children and siblings and, especially, to his debauched, deviant son, Hunter.
ANDREA WIDBURG
There it is. That's the issue. To begin, you have the corrupt family Biden. They've been scamming us and our system well for almost fifty years. The man is supposedly worth over 250 million dollars. How is this possible on his salary? It's not. So where did his wealth come from? Not from being a brilliant businessman. DAVID PRENTICE
The book is a devastating chronicle of political corruption. From Ukraine to Mexico to China, Hunter Biden's private correspondence shows how he and his family leveraged his father's position to win high-paying, low-work gigs with shady foreign actors—and how Joe's official actions at times directly benefited his family's financial backers. ALANA GOODMAN
The fact that Hunter's market value was derived from his father's position seemed to be a source of resentment for the younger Biden, even as he continued to cash in on the name. Hunter complained in texts to his daughter that he had financially supported the Biden clan for three decades and that "pop" takes a cut of "half [my] salary." Financia records and correspondence reported on by Devine indicate that money from Hunter's business accounts was used to cover Joe's AT&T bill and home maintenance expenses and that a portion of at least one major China deal was earmarked for the elder Biden. ALANA GOODMAN
Joe Biden didn’t do anything wrong? A time-honored method of taking bribes is having them paid to a family member, usually in exchange for nominal or nonexistent services. It is comical to watch “reporters” pretend not to understand this.
MONICA SHOWALTER
There’s also the little problem of Hillary’s incredible corruption (making her and Biden birds of a feather). And of course, the fact that Hillary’s unsecure server damaged national security in a way that would have seen an ordinary, politically unconnected person spend the rest of her life in prison—which, not coincidentally, is where Papa Joe belongs for using his debauched son Hunter as the bagman for decades of anti-American corruption
ANDREA WIDBURG
From April 2020 to April 2021, more than 100,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics. An overwhelming majority of those deaths came from opioids, and fentanyl smuggling has surged at the southern border since the start of Joe Biden's presidency.Joseph Simonson and Collin Anderson
“Joe Biden is great on immigration. I guess depends on your perspective. If you’re a human trafficker, or drug dealer, you’d give him an A-plus, but theAmerican people would give him an F. The crisis at our border was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted. I predicted that if you campaign all year long on open borders, amnesty, and health care for illegals, you’re going to get more migrants at the border. That’s what’s happened since the election.” SEN. TOM COTTON
Many Democrats understand that the welfare checks for foreign children will encourage more illegal immigration, he said:
They know what’s going on. But they know that they can’t say what
their true goal is, which is actual open borders with open, uncontrolled migration both ways. And this is a step toward getting rid of borders.
“It’s a globalist mindset and it welcomes anything that moves toward
open borders,” he concluded. NEIL MUNRO
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
What’s really baffling is Hunter’s success with women. Despite being a total loser with a terrible drug habit and some weird sexual perversions, Hunter managed to seduce his brother’s widow, her sister, a stripper, and the woman he married, all over the course of four years. It’s enough to make one think that Hunter’s charm had less to do with the man himself and more with the benefits flowing from the Biden family cartel.
ANDREA WIDBERG
As a senator, Biden vigorously voted for several similar bills. In short, based on his voting record, Joe Biden is not (and never was) a champion of disadvantaged Americans, unless you consider multi-billion-dollar credit card corporations and millionaires “disadvantaged.” Chris Talgo
Nancy Pelosi, a horrid woman equally as without heart and soul, on Tuesday refused to have the names of the thirteen soldiers killed in Kabul read out on the floor of the House. That should permanently indict her for being the wicked witch she is. She is more devious, more calculating than the irresponsible Biden but every bit as beyond redemption as he is. She will do anything to try to convince the American people, for whom she has only contempt, that whatever she and her party do is righteous no matter how loathsome and totalitarian. PATRICIA McCARTHY
Biden lied about his undergraduate degree and his majors, lied about his rank in law school, lied aboutscholarships and educational aid he had received, lied about his stance toward the Vietnam war while in college, lied about his plagiarism of other politician's writings and speeches, lied about the circumstances around his first wife's fatal accident, lied about how he met his second and current wife, and lied about the affair they were having when they were both married. MARK CHRISTIAN
Most recently and dramatically, Biden lied about his knowledge of his son's shady dealings, lied about his own involvement in corruption and ribery, and lied about his current presidential agenda and what he wants to implement in regards to energy, fracking, court-packing, health care, education, and COVID among other issues.
MARK CHRISTIAN
THE BIDEN KLEPTOCRACY
American people deserve to know what China was up to with Joe Biden, especially when Beijing had already shelled out millions of dollars to Biden family members — including millions in set-asides for “the big guy.” What else is on that infamous Hunter Biden laptop? The conflicted Biden Justice Department cannot be trusted to engage in any meaningful oversight on this issue. We need a special counsel now.
TOM FITTON - JUDICIAL WATCH
’Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER.com
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration (JOE BIDEN WAS OFF SUCKING OFF BANKSTERS AND BRIBES)." PATRICIA McCARTHY
Likewise, the Biden-Harris plan for national immigration policy — which seeks to drive up legal and illegal immigration levels to their highest levels in decades — offers a flooded labor market with low wages for U.S. workers and increased bargaining power for big business that has long been supported by Wall Street. JOHN BINDER
By failures of border security, a lack of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and huge numbers of visas for high tech workers, the lives and livelihoods of Americans and their children, are being stolen by America’s corrupt political elite who are doing the bidding of those who provide them with huge “Campaign Contributions” (Orwellian euphemism for bribes) pursue legislation that is diametrically opposed to the best interests of America and Americans.
MICHAEL CUTLER
Joe Biden is on record that illegals are “already Americans,” and under Alejandro Mayorkas, the Biden Department of Homeland Security is effectively the Department of Human Trafficking. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute makes a strong case that “operational control of the border is no longer in American hands,” and under the control of Mexican cartels. These are criminal organizations but behind the scenes, a more powerful dynamic is in play. Lloyd Billingsley
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania
Robert Califf, Joe Biden’s Nomination To Head The FDA, Is Tied To Big Pharma
By Greg Daniels
The Biden administration has nominated Dr. Robert Califf to head the Food and Drug Administration. Peter J. Pitts, a former FDA Associate Commissioner, had published at the International Business Times an enthusiastic essay about Califf’s nomination because Califf is a proponent of accelerated approval for drugs. However, that one factor, while it can be beneficial, ignores myriad other problems with Califf.
You can read the IBT article here, which focuses on Califf’s approval history. This essay is about all the problems with the rest of Califf’s history.
COVID has revealed that the FDA, the CDC, Fauci, the White House, and “science” are at odds with each other. The FDA desperately needs major reform and transparency surrounding hiring, drug safety, and new drug approvals. As commissioner under Obama, Califf made few or no noteworthy changes to the FDA and shows no signs of improving the record if re-appointed.
Califf arrived at the FDA in 2015 determined to modernize how the agency reviewed drug and device study data, but there is little evidence he achieved that goal:
· When he learned that Obama had proposed him as commissioner, Califf removed his name from scientific articles he had written. Even if they were controversial and assuming they were truthful, he should have stuck by them. America needs an FDA commissioner who will stick to evidence-based science, even in the face of controversy.
· Dr. Califf currently works full-time for Google’s “Alphabet” company (Google being the most evil company in the world, according to Ted Cruz). In 2019, he became head of medical strategy at Google parent company Alphabet Inc.
Dr. Califf in Bed With Big Pharma:
· Dr. Califf has deeper ties to the pharmaceutical industry than any FDA commissioner in recent memory, and he lacks a public health background.
· Dr. Califf founded the Duke Clinical Research Institute, which runs research trials for pharmaceutical companies and today has more than 1,200 employees.
· At Duke, Dr. Califf actively solicited funding from Big Pharma and no record exists of Dr. Califf ever saying “no” to any pharmaceutical company that offered him money. America needs an unbiased, science-based commissioner without these conflicts, and someone who can stand up to Big Pharma and say “no.” Some of the drug companies he accepted money from have FDA violations and questionable or even upsetting behaviors when it comes to their claims and when it comes to their safety /regulatory records.
· Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation have been heavily criticized for doing the same thing. She solicited significant donations as Secretary of State from anyone and everyone. Some of the countries from which Hillary Clinton accepted donations have appalling human rights records and even ties to terrorism. The Republicans threw a fit about Clinton but they didn’t seem to care about the appointment of Califf the first time around and haven’t yet raised these issues since his second appointment was proposed.
· Bernie Sanders is opposed to Califf’s appointment because of his Big Pharma ties.
· More than half (~63%) of Califf’s $320 million funding at Duke came from Big Pharma and has had decades-long ties to almost every big pharma company.
· He has served as a paid consultant with (1) Merck Sharp & Dohme, (2) Johnson & Johnson, (3) GlaxoSmithKline, (4) AstraZeneca, (5) Eli Lilly (6) Amgen, (7) F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, (8) Janssen Pharmaceutica, (9) Daiichi Sankyo, (10) Sanofi-Aventis, (11) Bristol-Myers Squibb, (12) Proventys, Inc, (13) Regado Biosciences, Inc, and (14) Corgentech Inc. (15) Genentech
· Forbes wrote that his close ties to the drug industry were the reason for him not being nominated for the FDA Commissioner position in 2009.
· Due to Califf’s big pharma conflicts, he would be unable to serve on an FDA advisory committee, yet democrats are proposing Calif for a third tour of duty at the FDA, where he previously served as the deputy commissioner and then the commissioner.
Image: Robert Califf (cropped). Public domain.
Califf and the Opioid Epidemic—Bipartisan Disapproval
· Given the pressing need for a permanent commissioner, Califf is expected to again win confirmation. This is despite the fact that he has presided over highly questionable approvals at the FDA (including high-dose highly addictive hydrocodone preparations, Oxycodone use in children as low as 11, and female sexual dysfunction drug Addyi among several others). On every single one of these FDA approvals, the FDA decided to override its own advisory committee of experts, yet Califf still gave his approval.
· Joe Manchin has repeatedly stated that he would refuse to support Janet Woodcock’s appointment as FDA commissioner because of her inaction of the opioid epidemic. Under Woodcock, the FDA allowed Purdue to claim on Oxycontin’s insert that its delayed absorption was “believed to reduce the abuse liability.” The drug’s label declared that addiction “is rare.” That freed Purdue’s marketing team to push their drug as much safer than any opioid competitor. While OxyContin’s maker Purdue hadn’t performed clinical trials to prove that the drug was less addictive than other opioids, the FDA allowed the drug to carry a label that said addiction ‘is rare.’ Califf permitted the use of OxyContin in little kids as young as 11 years old.
· Moderate West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin called Biden’s choice of Califf an “insult to the many families and individuals who have had their lives changed forever as a result of addiction.”
· Califf was a cheerleader for Vioxx, which was reported to have caused 50,000 heart attacks.
· It has been reported by Freedommag.org that “while at Duke, the research operations over which Dr. Califf presided resulted in major fraud.”
Ineffectual assistance to terminally ill patients:
· Right-to-Try legislation exploded under Califf’s last FDA appointment because terminally ill American patients could not obtain access to potentially life-saving drugs that they needed. Right-to-Try now exists in 41 states.
Today’s FDA is not the same FDA of 20 or even 10 years ago. The FDA has become a lot more political and has made some highly questionable approvals and safety decisions in the very recent past which include, but are not limited to, vaccine/booster approvals. The FDA and CDC regularly ignore their own independent expert panels’ advice which they solicit and that includes, but is not limited to, decisions related to Covid-19 vaccines and boosters.
While Califf has put out voluminous amounts of research, he has a list of conflicts dozens of pages long. He clearly knows a lot about drug development and drug research but there are other individuals who are equally or more qualified than he is out there who don’t have Califf’s conflicts and baggage.
It is even further evidence of Joe Biden’s presidency being nothing more than an Obama 3rd term.
CUT AND PASTE YOUTUBE LINKS
Gravitas Plus: How Big Pharma pushes dangerous drugs and reaps profits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCciAJJMt9Q
Big Pharma - How much power do drug companies have? | DW Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z_W3yRA9I8
Big Pharma - How much power do drug companies have? | DW Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5722_XclQkY
Dying for Drugs (Pharmaceutical Investigation Documentary) | Real Stories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n6xI8g5-Gw
Multinational Corporations Claim Challenging Monopoly Power Hurts Small Business
Multinational corporations, including big banks and big businesses represented by the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying against a plan by New York State legislators to take on concentrated corporate monopoly power by claiming it will hurt small businesses.
The legislation, known as S.B.933A, would amount to the “most significant legal challenge to big tech monopoly power in the country,” according to Matt Stoller, the Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project.
“Right now, to be considered subject to monopolization law, a firm has to have 70 to 90% of a market, plus it has to engage in egregious behavior that economists measure as inefficient,” Stoller wrote of the legislation last year:
This bill would blow up that entire framework. First, a firm would only have to have 40% of a market to be considered dominant. Plus, firms that are powerful enough to set wages across an industry, ahem Amazon, would also be considered dominant. It wouldn’t be illegal to be dominant, but under this legislative framework, dominant firms would no longer be allowed to engage in predatory conduct or block competitors from the market. [Emphasis added]
A group of multinational corporations and various Chamber of Commerce branches, represented by the Partnership for New York City organization, wrote a letter to New York legislators and Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) — using allegations that small businesses will be hurt to lobby opposition against the legislation.
“This legislation purports to curb the excesses of the largest companies, particularly ‘big tech,’ but would instead create a new level of risk, cost, and potential liability for all New York state businesses, large and small,” the heads of various corporations write:
If enacted, this law would make New York far less attractive for business investment and job creation, since it will put restrictions on New York firms that their competitors in other states and most countries would not be subject to. It would also discourage competitive business activities that benefit consumers with lower prices and innovative products. Ultimately, the result of this legislation will be lost jobs and reduced tax revenues. [Emphasis added]
…
The implications of these changes would be significant. New York would be an outlier in its antitrust enforcement posture not only in the U.S., but internationally. Moreover, the new rules will not improve the ability of state authorities to prosecute bad business conduct that hurts consumers. New York already has effective antitrust laws that are vigorously enforced by the Attorney General’s Office, often in close coordination with the federal antitrust enforcement agencies and sister agencies in other states. [Emphasis added]
The anti-monopoly legislation, though, is only likely to affect corporations with concentrated market power, many of whom signed onto the letter — including American Express, Condé Nast, Pfizer, McGraw-Hill Education, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
American Economic Liberties Project details that “only a small proportion of firms will have any changes to their legal obligations, as most firms do not have market power” as a result of the legislation.
“Large corporations are using small businesses as a shield to protect their own anti-competitive behavior, but most small and medium firms simply do not have enough market power to fall under this bill’s purview,” the group notes.
As data has long revealed, a handful of corporations dominate vital markets in the American economy from retail to pharmaceuticals — often outsourcing the manufacturing and production of their products to foreign countries.
According to the Open Markets Institute, corporations like “Worldwide Nike controls almost two-fifths of the sports shoe business, a number that has grown since its two main rivals, Adidas and Reebok, merged in 2005” while “Amazon sells 74 percent of all e-books sold online, and it sells 64 percent of all print books sold online.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Although mortality from drug overdose tragically afflicts all sections of the population, there have been numerous media articles highlighting the disproportionate toll this scourge is inflicting on the white American male population.
If a young man grows up being told by the Left’s education mill that he is despised for his patriarchal power (though he has none), that he is a rapist at heart (though he may even be shy with women), that he must yield priority to girls, women, non-white men and LGBT+, because they are morally superior – what can he think? If his father is a flawed role model, then those accusations by the ranting Left are not countermanded. If he loses his job, has not graduated from college and does not belong to a “successful” family or community, he feels the scorn of a culture obsessed with frivolous, material possessions and swaggering ostentation. And if his family does not withstand the Left’s attack on God, then he is without spiritual guidance. Any one of these factors can pre-dispose a human to protest, “Stop the world. I want to get off.” In combination, they have precipitated a vulnerability, that has given ingress to criminal exploitation, moral subversion and premature death.
The grim despair of males today has been documented and meticulously analyzed by scholars such as philosopher and psychologist Jordan Peterson and anti-radical feminist professor Janice Fiamengo.
White males -- the supposed beneficiaries of the Great American Dream -- have become canaries in the coal mine. It is not only the pernicious orthodoxy of the Left that has despoiled them of significance and dignity. There has been a bizarre shift in the shape of society over the last several decades that has spawned an undergrowth of human throwaways -- the people of no consequence, preyed upon by maggoty, flyblown drug thugs who drive their flashy, death-delivery cars, unafraid of arrest. Clearly, without high-level protection, the illegal drug industry could not survive.
As Big Pharma internationalized its operation, so did the drug cartels. And while they both established their decentralized networks, government continued to spread its giant web of Weberian intervention, fostering dependency, smothering society in regulatory verbiage and depriving us of input into how Washington policies impact the health of local communities.
Consequently, both public and private sectors have joined forces in mutual collusion. The political administration and the shadowy, narcotic labyrinth intersect at every point. As financial expert Catherine Austin Fitts concludes, the laundering of drug money is one of the world’s most lucrative industries and there seems scarcely a major bank or financial institution or governmental agency that has not been enmeshed.
We used to believe these were “lone wolf” aberrations, but now we understand, from the recent exposure of governmental corruption, that moral corrosion is endemic. In fact, the global economy depends on the narco-dollar.
We are fortunate to have in Donald Trump a President who is hauling society back into recognizable shape. He publicly lashes the insanity of the Left. He is trying to prevent drug cartels from crossing the border, and he is bringing jobs back from overseas. Also, he is a staunch supporter of Judeo-Christian values. The drug death epidemic has been a priority for his administration from the very beginning. For this, he has been afflicted with a storm of hatred from the vengeful Left and their criminal cronies.
But one man cannot break a juggernaut. Nor can the revolving-door rehabilitation industry, despite some success, singlehandedly dry up the nation’s suppurating ulcer. Nor can the good cops prevail when their superiors subvert the rule of law. Nor can the window-dressing of government commissions allay our fear that nothing will change. And every sad addict who wishes to rehabilitate, nevertheless will not divulge his supplier, because he fears reprisal.
No child in the USA was born to end as an addict. The dead addict’s family and friends were not designed to suffer their life-sentences of grief. All boys need to be given pride in their role and responsibility as husbands and fathers, sons, brothers, workers, and friends. There is no reason this cannot be accomplished at school if we can rid academia of the Left’s rampant, invasive species of inhumane, grotesque indoctrination. At least that would be a start.
Weeds, whether they be pernicious cartels or their cowardly rich protectors, political and legal enablers, can only overrun an uncultivated, abandoned garden.
6 Drug Companies’ Role in Opioid Epidemic Scrutinized by Prosecutors
The companies, including Johnson & Johnson and McKesson Corporation, received subpoenas from Brooklyn prosecutors.
Prosecutors asked the companies to hand over documents related to the marketing and sale of opioids. Credit...Spencer Platt/Getty Images
By Nicole Hong
Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have opened a criminal investigation into whether several large drug companies intentionally skirted regulations in order to promote the sale of addictive opioids, according to corporate filings and a person familiar with the matter.
The investigation is part of a heightened law enforcement scrutiny around the country into companies that make and distribute prescription painkillers. Drug companies have faced criminal probes and multibillion-dollar lawsuits for their alleged role in the opioid epidemic.
This year, federal prosecutors in Manhattan and Cincinnati have brought novel cases against companies that distributed opioids to pharmacies, using criminal conspiracy charges typically deployed against drug dealers.
At least six companies disclosed in recent regulatory filings that they received grand jury subpoenas from federal prosecutors in Brooklyn: Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Mallinckrodt PLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation and McKesson Corporation.
The subpoenas were sent out as recently as August, according to the filings. The criminal investigation was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York asked the companies to hand over documents related to the marketing and sale of opioids, the filings said. The subpoenas also sought information about the companies’ internal programs and policies to stop the abuse of opioid medications.
Prosecutors are examining whether the companies violated the federal Controlled Substances Act, a broad statute that regulates drug distribution and possession, according to corporate filings and a person familiar with the investigation. The law has been used to impose penalties against pharmacies that failed to adequately control prescription painkillers from reaching the black market.
To bring criminal charges under the statute, the government must prove that the companies or their executives intentionally avoided complying with regulations that require them to flag suspicious orders of opioid medications.
A spokesman for Johnson & Johnson said the company’s procedures for distributing opioid medications complied with the law, adding that monitoring data showed the company’s opioids were rarely abused.
Editors’ Picks
A spokeswoman for Teva said the company was cooperating with the subpoena and was confident in its monitoring policies.
A spokesman for Mallinckrodt declined to comment. Officials at AmerisourceBergen, McKesson and Amneal did not respond to requests for comment.
As deaths from opioid overdoses have surged in the past few years, law enforcement officials across the country have sought to use criminal prosecution against corporate executives accused of contributing to the epidemic. Last year, the Justice Department created a task force to pursue makers and distributors of prescription opioids.
“We will use criminal penalties,” said the United States attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions. “We will use civil penalties. We will use whatever tools we have to hold people accountable for breaking our laws.”
Opioid cases have become such a priority for the government that the United States attorney for the Eastern District, Richard P. Donoghue, has asked every prosecutor in his criminal division to take on an opioid-related case, according to people familiar with the office.
Earlier this year, for the first time, federal prosecutors in Manhattan brought felony drug-trafficking charges against a major pharmaceutical distributor and two of its former executives. Prosecutors said the former executives at the company, Rochester Drug Cooperative, or RDC, ignored red flags and shipped tens of millions of oxycodone pills and fentanyl products to pharmacies they knew were distributing the drugs illegally.
One of the former executives pleaded guilty to three criminal counts, including intentionally failing to report suspicious bulk orders of fentanyl and other opioids. He is cooperating with prosecutors. The other former executive has pleaded not guilty.
As part of the case, the company agreed to a deal in which it would avoid criminal charges as long as it pays a $20 million fine, complies with the controlled substances law and submits to five years of supervision by an independent monitor.
The company admitted in court papers that it intentionally violated federal narcotics laws by shipping opioids to pharmacies, knowing that the prescription medicines were being sold and used illicitly.
In a similar case in Cincinnati, federal prosecutors this year brought criminal charges against a pharmaceutical distributor, Miami-Luken Inc., saying the company ignored “obvious signs of abuse.” Among other allegations, the government said the company had distributed more than 2.3 million oxycodone pills to a pharmacy in a town of approximately 1,400 people.
The company, which closed, was charged alongside two of its former officials and two pharmacists. All have pleaded not guilty.
Lawsuits around the country have also accused big opioid makers and distributors of using misleading marketing and playing down how addictive the painkillers were in order to increase sales.
Jan Hoffman contributed reporting.
The Giants at the Heart of the Opioid Crisis
The headquarters of McKesson Corporation, the drug distributing giant, in San Francisco.Credit...Anastasiia Sapon for The New York Times
By Danny Hakim, William K. Rashbaum and Roni Caryn Rabin
There are the Sacklers, the family that controls Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. There are the doctors who ran pill mills, and the rogue pharmacists who churned out opioid orders by the thousands.
But the daunting financial muscle that has driven the spread of prescription opioids in the United States comes from the distributors — companies that act as middlemen, trucking medications of all kinds from vast warehouses to hospitals, clinics and drugstores.
The industry’s giants, Cardinal Health, McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, are all among the 15 largest American companies by revenue. Together, they distribute more than 90 percent of the nation’s drug and medical supplies.
New civil suits from the attorneys general in New York, Vermont and Washington State accuse distributors of brazenly devising systems to evade regulators. They allege that the companies warned many pharmacies at risk of being reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration, helped others to increase and circumvent limits on how many opioids they were allowed to buy, and often gave advance notice on the rare occasions they performed audits.
Three-fourths of prescriptions at a Queens pharmacy supplied by Amerisource were written by doctors who were later indicted or convicted, the New York complaint said. For more than five years, Cardinal shipped to a pharmacy with the highest oxycodone volume in Suffolk County, N.Y., despite continually flagging its orders as suspicious. McKesson kept shipping to two pharmacies six years after learning that they had been filling prescriptions from doctors who were likely engaging in crimes. The shipments stopped only last year, after the doctors were indicted.
“How do the C.E.O.s of these companies sleep at night?” Bob Ferguson, Washington’s attorney general, said at a recent news conference.
Executives of drug distribution companies testified before a House hearing on the opioid crisis in May 2018. From left, George Barrett of Cardinal Health; Dr. Joseph Mastandrea of Miami-Luken Inc.; John Hammergren of McKesson; J. Christopher Smith of H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Company; and Steven Collis of AmerisourceBergen Corporation.Credit...Alex Brandon/Associated Press
Now, in what could be a test case, the United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York and the D.E.A. are wrapping up an investigation that appears likely to result in the first criminal case involving a major opioid distributor, Rochester Drug Cooperative, one of the 10 largest, people familiar with the matter said. The investigation began with an examination of possible crimes including wire and mail fraud and various drug violations, according to three people with knowledge of a federal grand jury subpoena served on Rochester in 2017, but it remains unclear what charges might be brought.
The state lawsuits also present evidence that government at all levels has been ineffective at policing the distributors. For the first decade of the crisis, the three largest companies did not even have meaningful programs to monitor suspicious orders, despite being required by federal law to track narcotics and to look out for spikes in orders and cash payments. Since then they have promised and failed to build robust systems to prevent widespread opioid abuse.
Editors’ Picks
The distributors rebutted the new allegations.
“We reject the state’s suggestion that our employees circumvented safeguards to increase sales,” Kristin Chasen, a spokeswoman for McKesson, said in a statement. Cardinal, in its statement, said it had “developed and implemented a constantly adaptive and rigorous system to combat controlled substance diversion.”
Amerisource put the onus on the D.E.A., which it said receives data on all orders shipped and notifications of suspicious ones. “It defies common sense for distributors such as AmerisourceBergen to be singled out,” the company said in a statement.
In the two decades since OxyContin was introduced in 1996, there have been nearly 218,000 overdose deaths related to prescription opioids, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While overdose deaths continue to rise, the number of opioid prescriptions has been falling since 2012.
But that is mostly because of a classification change that made drugs like Vicodin (which mix opioids with milder drugs) Schedule II narcotics, which placed more restrictions on prescribing them. Oxycodone, the powerful narcotic that is the main ingredient in OxyContin, was already a Schedule II drug and its sales have continued to rise, according to figures compiled by Iqvia, a health data provider.
The three largest distributors sold 1.6 billion oxycodone pills in New York alone between 2010 and 2018. It was distributors, said the office of Attorney General Letitia James of New York, who “jammed open the floodgates.”
Image
A page from the complaint filed by the New York attorney general’s office.
A lack of deterrence
In 2017, after years of allegedly flouting legal requirements to monitor suspicious orders of opioids, McKesson agreed to a $150 million settlement with the Justice Department, a record for a distributor.
For most businesses, $150 million would be a lot of money. At McKesson, it was less than the $159 million retirement package the company granted its longtime chief executive, John H. Hammergren, in 2013. (After a public backlash — a Forbes headline asked if it was “The World’s Most Outrageous Pension Deal?” — the company later reduced the package to $114 million.)
It was among a string of settlements, and others came far cheaper.
In 2008, McKesson, which supplies Walmart, paid $13.25 million and Cardinal, the main CVS supplier, paid $34 million to settle federal claims that they had been filling suspicious orders.
Before 2007, only two of Cardinal’s roughly 40,000 employees were dedicated to addressing the problem, according to court filings. One McKesson compliance officer complained that asking for resources was like “asking for a Ferrari,” according to New York’s lawsuit.
More settlements followed, but little changed. Cardinal paid a total of $64 million in settlements with the Justice Department in 2012, 2016 and 2017, with similar agreements struck by its rivals. The policing of opioid sales continued to be largely delegated by law to the distributors.
The companies created order volume thresholds for different drugs that would trigger reporting to the D.E.A., but some were so lofty that they resulted in relatively few such reports, the complaints said.
Or they worked around them. In one industry practice, known as “cutting,” Cardinal canceled pharmacy orders “that exceeded a threshold” and allowed “a subsequent, often smaller order,” Vermont’s complaint said.
Brandi Martin, a Cardinal spokeswoman, said that “cut orders are reported to the D.E.A.” and were not “a tactic to avoid reporting.”
Egregious moves spurred limited responses, according to the complaints. McKesson allowed one pharmacy a fivefold oxycodone increase over six months, then refused another request for an 80 percent increase. The company continued shipping to the pharmacy anyway, even after a rival stopped.
McKesson, in its statement, said it was continuing “to enhance and evolve” its compliance efforts.
By last year, executives were summoned by Congress. Both Mr. Hammergren, of McKesson, and George Barrett, the executive chairman of Cardinal at the time and its former chief executive, played down their roles in the supply chain.
During the hearings, Representative Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat, picked out a single drugstore in rural West Virginia that had been swamped with opioids — 4,000 pills a day at one point from Cardinal, 5,000 from McKesson.
“Don’t you take responsibility?” she asked, adding, “You saw that paying the penalties on your settlement agreements was a cost worth paying because you were making so much money?”
“I wish we had moved earlier to stop shipping to that pharmacy,” Mr. Barrett said at the hearing. Mr. Hammergren echoed that, saying, “I would have liked to have made a decision faster.”
Ms. Castor was not satisfied. “This was the opposite of due diligence,” she said.
A criminal inquiry
There was little enthusiasm for policing opioids at Rochester Drug Cooperative, New York’s complaint alleges.
Image
For years, only two people at Rochester were assigned to compliance, and one had other responsibilities. Amid discussions about hiring a compliance consultant, Laurence F. Doud III wrote in an email when he was the company’s chief executive that it was “making me ill as to how much this is going to cost.”
Mr. Doud is now suing Rochester, claiming wrongful termination and contending it conspired to blame him for conduct that the D.E.A. and federal prosecutors in New York are investigating in the criminal inquiry. (His suit was previously reported by The Democrat and Chronicle of the city of Rochester.) The current chief executive, Joseph Brennan, is on leave.
Rochester is a cooperative of pharmacies, so monitoring suspicious orders meant monitoring its own members. But it had practices that were similar to those of its larger rivals. Rochester’s upper limits on how many pills pharmacies could buy were “invariably so high that customers could not reach them unless their order volumes tripled from their historical purchasing patterns, rendering the system virtually useless,” New York alleges.
Sales were brisk. Between 2010 and 2018, Rochester sold 143 million oxycodone pills in New York.
The company added a Queens pharmacy with numerous cash buyers as a customer in 2016. The pharmacy was also filling prescriptions from out-of-state doctors and one who had been arrested over oxycodone prescribing practices, the complaint says.
In 2013, Rochester continued shipping to a pharmacy run by a pediatrician who had surfaced in headlines as running a pill mill, according to the complaint. In an email, one Rochester consultant called the situation “a stick of dynamite waiting for the D.E.A. to light the fuse.” The shipments continued.
In a $360,000 settlement in 2015, Rochester admitted that it had failed to report thousands of opioid transactions over five years. The subsequent criminal inquiry sought records including loans and lines of credit that Rochester had extended to its customers, according to people with knowledge of the 2017 subpoena.
Criminal charges are soon expected, with the company and current and former executives under scrutiny, the three people familiar with the matter said. They, like those with knowledge of the subpoena, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the developing investigation. Such a prosecution would appear to be the first time a major distributor has been held criminally responsible in connection with opioids.
The D.E.A. and the office of Geoffrey S. Berman, United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, declined to comment on the inquiry.
Jeff Eller, a Rochester spokesman, declined to answer specific questions, citing the investigation, but he said that Rochester’s compliance department is more than six times larger than it was in 2013 and that the company “will continue to make a significant investment.”
A failure to regulate
Louis Crisafi’s opioid of choice was Actiq, a powerful fentanyl lollipop.
He allegedly left wrappers around the office, which was a bad idea, since he was a senior investigator for the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, a branch of the New York State Department of Health that monitors opioid sales.
Mr. Crisafi’s fentanyl use was noticed at work by several other investigators and was among the topics of a 2008 report issued by the state inspector general that raised concerns about the bureau, where many investigators reported to a pharmacist. (Mr. Crisafi, who left the bureau at the time, said he had a legal prescription and never used opioids on the job.)
States have had trouble policing opioid use — even among their own. Like similar agencies elsewhere, the New York narcotics bureau was ill-equipped, with fewer than 20 investigators overseeing distributors and manufacturers, along with the state’s 5,586 pharmacies and more than 120,000 prescribers.
Kenneth Post, a former director of the bureau, said it does not belong in the Health Department, which has close ties with health care providers.
“They’re policing their own, and it doesn’t work,” said Mr. Post, who left the agency in 2010. The Health Department called him a “disgruntled former employee.”
A 2012 audit by the state Comptroller’s Office found that the bureau had overlooked hundreds of thousands of flawed opioid prescriptions over two years.
The Health Department said in a statement that the bureau had only “limited investigatory” power, deflecting responsibility “to federal, state and local law enforcement.”
At the federal level, the D.E.A. does not closely monitor the millions of transactions involving controlled substances, said Paul T. Farrell, a lawyer who represents municipalities in lawsuits against drugmakers.
“The D.E.A. is not the T.S.A., which is responsible for looking at every passenger going through and screening out those who are threats,” he said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration. Instead, he said that “once a tip is made,” the D.E.A. will “reconstruct what actually happened.”
In a statement, the D.E.A. said investigations are presented to federal prosecutors, who choose “the appropriate litigation strategy.”
Distributors have marshaled lobbyists, contributing $1.5 million to sponsors and co-sponsors of a 2016 law thwarting the D.E.A.’s efforts to freeze suspicious drug shipments.
Distributors have also lined up lobbyists with ties to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, where lawmakers included $100 million in opioid taxes or surcharges in two consecutive budgets, though last year’s measure is tied up in court. They have hired two firms founded or co-founded by onetime aides to former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo as well as Mercury Group, whose executives include former advisers to the current governor.
For now, distributors remain largely in control.
“It’s not a good system,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, an addiction expert. “It’s the fox guarding the henhouse.”
Ask Prof Wolff: Why Profit-Driven Healthcare Fails Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i62IWSw2qs0
AMERICA'S BIGGEST THREAT LIVES ON WALL STREET. WE NEED TO BURN THEM DOWN!
Gravitas Plus: How Big Pharma pushes dangerous drugs and reaps profits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCciAJJMt9Q
Big Pharma - How much power do drug companies have? | DW Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z_W3yRA9I8
Big Pharma - How much power do drug companies have? | DW Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5722_XclQkY
Dying for Drugs (Pharmaceutical Investigation Documentary) | Real Stories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n6xI8g5-Gw
Multinational Corporations Claim Challenging Monopoly Power Hurts Small Business
ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images
13 Jan 20220
4:23
Multinational corporations, including big banks and big businesses represented by the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying against a plan by New York State legislators to take on concentrated corporate monopoly power by claiming it will hurt small businesses.
The legislation, known as S.B.933A, would amount to the “most significant legal challenge to big tech monopoly power in the country,” according to Matt Stoller, the Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project.
“Right now, to be considered subject to monopolization law, a firm has to have 70 to 90% of a market, plus it has to engage in egregious behavior that economists measure as inefficient,” Stoller wrote of the legislation last year:
This bill would blow up that entire framework. First, a firm would only have to have 40% of a market to be considered dominant. Plus, firms that are powerful enough to set wages across an industry, ahem Amazon, would also be considered dominant. It wouldn’t be illegal to be dominant, but under this legislative framework, dominant firms would no longer be allowed to engage in predatory conduct or block competitors from the market. [Emphasis added]
A group of multinational corporations and various Chamber of Commerce branches, represented by the Partnership for New York City organization, wrote a letter to New York legislators and Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) — using allegations that small businesses will be hurt to lobby opposition against the legislation.
“This legislation purports to curb the excesses of the largest companies, particularly ‘big tech,’ but would instead create a new level of risk, cost, and potential liability for all New York state businesses, large and small,” the heads of various corporations write:
If enacted, this law would make New York far less attractive for business investment and job creation, since it will put restrictions on New York firms that their competitors in other states and most countries would not be subject to. It would also discourage competitive business activities that benefit consumers with lower prices and innovative products. Ultimately, the result of this legislation will be lost jobs and reduced tax revenues. [Emphasis added]
…
The implications of these changes would be significant. New York would be an outlier in its antitrust enforcement posture not only in the U.S., but internationally. Moreover, the new rules will not improve the ability of state authorities to prosecute bad business conduct that hurts consumers. New York already has effective antitrust laws that are vigorously enforced by the Attorney General’s Office, often in close coordination with the federal antitrust enforcement agencies and sister agencies in other states. [Emphasis added]
The anti-monopoly legislation, though, is only likely to affect corporations with concentrated market power, many of whom signed onto the letter — including American Express, Condé Nast, Pfizer, McGraw-Hill Education, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
American Economic Liberties Project details that “only a small proportion of firms will have any changes to their legal obligations, as most firms do not have market power” as a result of the legislation.
“Large corporations are using small businesses as a shield to protect their own anti-competitive behavior, but most small and medium firms simply do not have enough market power to fall under this bill’s purview,” the group notes.
As data has long revealed, a handful of corporations dominate vital markets in the American economy from retail to pharmaceuticals — often outsourcing the manufacturing and production of their products to foreign countries.
According to the Open Markets Institute, corporations like “Worldwide Nike controls almost two-fifths of the sports shoe business, a number that has grown since its two main rivals, Adidas and Reebok, merged in 2005” while “Amazon sells 74 percent of all e-books sold online, and it sells 64 percent of all print books sold online.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Exclusive — James O’Keefe: Pharmaceutical Companies Drive COVID-19 Media Corruption
105
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
17 Jan 20220
3:00
James O’Keefe, founder and CEO of Project Veritas and author of American Muckraker: Rethinking Journalism for the 21st Century, noted on Monday’s edition of the Breitbart News Daily podcast with special guest host Jerome Hudson that cable news networks have financial conflicts of interest corrupting their conduct regarding COVID-19 information due to their sales of advertising to pharmaceutical companies.
O’Keefe observed how many news media outlets deceptively market themselves as disinterested observers, rather than shapers, of events. In the context of COVID-19, he said news media outlets’ financial conflicts of interest related to pharmaceutical companies determines what and how they frame information.
“These network news television stations don’t want to be in an exposed position where they’re seen as affecting events rather than just reacting to them,” he stated, “and that’s partially due to the economic issues where they have advertisers that direct their editorial content, and especially pharmaceutical company advertisements.”
He added, “In a time when the number one story in the world is this COVID pandemic, we need independent journalism [that is] not at the beck and call of pharmaceutical companies.”
Project Veritas’s growing acquisition of whistleblowers across varying institutions and sectors is forging a path for journalism in the modern era amid growing corruption across government and industry, O’Keefe held.
“Whistleblowing [is] really the future of journalism,” he remarked. He added, “[American Muckraker] was my attempt to talk about how to do journalism in clown world.”
He continued, “It’s important for everyone to understand what it’s going to take to prevent the collapse of society, and the way to do that is through vis-a-vis information — truthful information — that we have to expose. … There’s a sort of a new era, and there’s a mass movement of people that we’re trying to foster.”
O’Keefe said targets of Project Veritas’s investigations do not sue whistleblowers who reveal information through Project Veritas due to fears of disclosures compelled by the legal discovery process.
He stated, “[Targets of our investigations] stopped suing us, because they quickly realized that we could depose them. So we sued the New York Times for defamation. We’ve been successful, and they do not want to be deposed. They would hate us showing the answers to these questions, and that’s why they don’t sue our whistleblowers, because they don’t want to be exposed for who they are and what they are.”
The Breitbart News Daily podcast is available for listening and download via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Amazon Music.
Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
No comments:
Post a Comment