America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Monday, August 7, 2023
THE BIDEN REGIME OF LAWLESS GAMER LAWYERS - Biden’s Assault on the Constitution
Getting Biden Wrong
Biden’s Assault on the Constitution
The 2020 election indictment against Trump is just the latest example.
A quote by David Horowitz, the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, appears on the top of the webpages of the Freedom Center’s online publication Frontpage Magazine: “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out.”
The left-wing progressive Biden administration has proven Mr. Horowitz correct time and time again. It is on a mission to stamp out political dissent that deviates from the progressive Democrat party line, trampling on the First Amendment and a fair election process.
But this is nothing new for progressives who believe they have a monopoly on truth.
Progressives’ attack on the cornerstone of Americans’ fundamental rights, the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, dates back to Democratic President Woodrow Wilson’s administration. Wilson was an early leader of the Progressive Movement more than a century ago. He disdained the limits placed on government by the Constitution.
After the United States entered World War I during the Wilson administration, Woodrow Wilson launched an unsparing attack on dissenters who dared to freely express their views on the war and other public policy matters. “Woodrow Wilson set the tone,” Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone declared, “of an utter intolerance for dissent and disagreement.”
With the passage of the Sedition Act of 1918 in hand, the Wilson administration went after political dissenters with a vengeance.
Wilson’s Attorney General Mitchell Palmer had thousands of American citizens and immigrants rounded up and detained without a warrant upon the general suspicion of being associated with alleged subversives, in what became known as the “Palmer Raids.”
President Wilson called Eugene Victor Debs, a Socialist leader who spoke out against the war and the draft, a “traitor to his country.” Debs was charged with sedition and imprisoned.
Fast forward to the Biden era. As a presidential candidate Joe Biden said that if he were to be elected, he would be the “most progressive president in history.” President Biden has kept that promise – so much so that even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is pleased with Biden’s progressive agenda and has said that he will support the president for re-election.
In keeping with the progressive example set by Woodrow Wilson’s administration in stamping out dissent, the Biden administration has been putting the First Amendment on the chopping block.
For example, the Biden Department of Justice, headed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, has labeled parents expressing their concerns about woke public school curriculums at Board of Education meetings as domestic terrorists, subject to possible criminal prosecution. It charged a peaceful pro-life protester, who clashed with a Planned Parenthood escort outside an abortion clinic because the escort was harassing the protester’s son, with a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The protester was acquitted of the charge, for which he could have been imprisoned for eleven years if convicted. With armed FBI agents arresting the peaceful protester at his home in front of his family, the Biden administration meant to send a message of intimidation to pro-life protesters. The FBI on President Biden’s watch is also reported to have targeted traditional Catholics for surveillance, including those who recite mass in Latin. You cannot even be safe in a place of worship without the Biden law enforcement agents keeping an eye on you.
And let us not forget how Biden administration officials colluded with high-tech companies to censor the posting on social media platforms of content they claimed was misinformation.
However, the progressive Biden administration’s worst attack on the First Amendment was yet to come. On August 1, in a blatant attempt to interfere with next year’s presidential election, Merrick Garland’s handpicked Special Counsel, Jack Smith, filed an indictment against former President Donald Trump whom Joe Biden may face again in 2024.
President Biden had previewed his intent to deprive the American people of the opportunity to vote for Donald Trump in 2024 during a press conference he held last year. Referring to Mr. Trump, President Biden said that “we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power … if he does run. I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.”
That is what elections are for, Mr. President. Not your Department of Justice.
Less than nine months after President Biden gave the signal of what he wanted to be done to Donald Trump, Special Counsel Smith filed a shaky four-count indictment against President Biden’s chief political adversary. The indictment seeks to criminalize Mr. Trump’s constitutionally protected political speech. The indictment also seeks to criminalize the constitutionally protected actions he took on the advice of legal counsel to petition government officials at the federal and state levels for a redress of his grievances concerning the 2020 election.
Whatever opinions some lawyers, including Special Counsel Smith or even Mr. Trump’s own Attorney General Bill Barr, may have of Mr. Trump’s position on the outcome of the election and the actions he took in support of his position do not matter. Mr. Trump had the right to pursue all peaceful avenues to challenge the declared results of the 2020 presidential election right up to the day that the results were officially certified. That does not constitute, as the indictment alleges, a “conspiracy” to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”
If Donald Trump was abusing his office as president in an effort to remain in power for his own personal benefit, the Constitution provides the remedy of impeachment and removal from office. The Democrat-controlled House did impeach Mr. Trump. But the Senate acquitted him. Now the Biden Department of Justice is seeking another bite of the apple.
Special Counsel Smith is claiming that Mr. Trump obstructed Congress’s certification proceeding with fraudulent objections to the certification of the election results declaring Joe Biden the winner, including trying to enlist then-Vice President Mike Pence’s assistance in this effort. Following Mr. Smith’s logic to its absurd conclusion, what should we make of all the Democratic House members who challenged the certification of Donald Trump as the winner of the 2016 presidential election on spurious grounds? Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern objected to the certificate from Alabama on the grounds that the “electors were not lawfully certified, especially given the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” He was not even censured for his attempt to obstruct those certification proceedings based on the fraudulent Russia hoax.
The indictment alleges in detail episodes in which Donald Trump and his unnamed co-conspirators are accused of trying to “influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.” They are also accused of being involved at the state level in “a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.” These conclusory assertions hold little water in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of specific corrupt intent to defraud. Moreover, there is no allegation that Donald Trump or his co-conspirators tried to bribe anyone or threatened anyone.
The indictment alleges that Donald Trump knowingly spread lies that the 2020 election results were fraudulent, and that he deserved to be declared the winner. The criminal purpose, the indictment alleges, was to “create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.” Mr. Trump’s pronouncements, including his criticism of Mike Pence for not suspending or delaying the Congressional certification proceeding in his role as president of the Senate, allegedly stirred then-President Trump’s supporters to riot at the Capitol on January 6th.
Mr. Smith is not only a courtroom warrior using lawfare to carry out President Biden’s direction to ensure that Donald Trump is kept out of the White House this time. Evidently, he also fancies himself as a mind-reader, who can decipher what the former president was really thinking and believed when he claimed that he was the rightful victor in the 2020 election and sought redress.
In any event, even if Mr. Trump knew that what he was saying about the election was untrue, Mr. Trump’s repeated public expression of an opinion – whether disinformation or not – is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Lying under oath or lying to federal agents is a federal crime. Politicians lying to the public is not a federal crime. If lying to the public were a federal crime, then Joe Biden would be guilty of that crime many times over. Biden repeatedly lied about virtually everything, especially concerning his knowledge of his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings.
The indictment notably does not charge Mr. Trump with inciting the January 6th Capitol riot nor with being part of a sedition conspiracy leading up to the violence on January 6th. That would have been hard to do since, in his speech at a rally earlier on January 6th, Mr. Trump specifically asked his supporters to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to make their voices heard.
The Special Counsel conveniently left out of his indictment any mention of Mr. Trump’s exhortation to his supporters to conduct themselves peacefully on January 6th. Mr. Trump certainly did not come anywhere close to encouraging or inciting violence. In the end, there was an orderly and peaceful transfer of power.
Nevertheless, according to the Special Counsel, Mr. Trump is guilty of multiple crimes by virtue of what he said and what he did in reliance upon the advice of legal counsel while still president to challenge the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
This travesty of justice is a crude attempt by the Biden administration to distract attention away from its failures and from the Biden family syndicate’s corruption scandal that is reaching closer and closer to Joe Biden himself. It jeopardizes voters’ chance to decide for themselves whether Mr. Trump is worthy of another term as president, a violation of the civil rights of voters who would want to have the opportunity to vote for Donald Trump.
From time to time the progressives’ totalitarian streak comes out in full display. It happened during the Wilson administration. And a century later, the totalitarian streak has emerged again during the Biden administration. It is time to drive a stake through the heart of left-wing progressive tyranny once and for all to preserve America’s constitutional republic.
Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer, and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, The United Nations & Radical Islam.
Reader Interactions
As we stand right now, the federal government functions as an extra-constitutional and largely illegitimate system that usurps the individual states' respective sovereignties, infringes the American people's personal rights, and betrays the spirit of our country's foundations in liberty.
JUDICIAL WATCH’S TEN MOST CORRUPT LIST
President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. JUDICIAL WATCH
The Worst President in the Last 100 Years" - Victor Davis Hanson
On August 4, Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social an all-caps message: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.” The DOJ’s response is both dangerous and illuminating, especially when you consider that the entire case is an attack on Donald Trump’s right to free speech.
Following Trump’s Truth message, the response across the political spectrum was predictable. Trump supporters interpreted the message to mean that, to the extent he is the victim of illegitimate lawfare when he regains the White House, he will begin prosecuting Democrats for their open legal violations. In other words, what he said was political speech, which is absolutely protected under the First Amendment.
Meanwhile, members of both the Uniparty and the radical left clutched their pearls at the horror of seeing his intemperate response to the latest in the government’s official and unofficial attacks on him over the last seven years:
(Keith Olbermann, by the way, reposted that message or some variation thereof hourly, just to be sure everyone understood what he had to say. In my humble and non-medical estimation, the poor man is not well.)
President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is seeking to silence former President Donald Trump because of his Truth Social post in which Trump stated, “If you go after me, I’m coming for you!”
The DOJ appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith argued on Friday that Trump needs to have a strict court order to silence him about court proceedings.
The motion for a protective order is a sneaky effort to extort Trump into silence. What it says is that it has all sorts of evidence that Trump needs to have for his defense against the charges in the indictment against him, but that the DOJ won’t produce it unless Trump is gagged about the case. When you consider that the entire case is a blatant attack on Trump’s First Amendment rights, the effort to muzzle him adds insult to injury…and reflects the left’s terrible fear of Trump’s words.
The implication is that Trump, like some mafia don, is ordering hits on witnesses. Of course, all the Democrats involved in this case understand that Trump’s speech is intended to show that the case is corrupt.
For example, the judge, Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, worked for Boies Schiller Flexner, a Democrat-party-connected firm. This is the same firm for which Hunter Biden held an “of counsel” position in 2014 when Joe Biden was Vice President that once listed Hunter Biden as a former counsel. She was the judge who forced Trump to produce records to the House’s kangaroo January 6 committee, and she is the hangingist hanging judge when it comes to January 6 defendants. You can probably sense the bad smell wafting off your computer as you read these words.
Trump has openly shown his distrust for Chutkan’s impartiality:
The attorneys on the case are equally biased, which, when you’re dealing with the DOJ, is itself a form of corruption. While attorneys in private cases or defense counsel are expected to have biases, the government is supposed to stand for justice, not partisanship. Nevertheless, the DOJ justices, through their actions, appear to be Democrat hacks whose sense of right and wrong is dictated not by the law, but by partisan interests:
Jack Smith is no better. Famously, he went after former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Democrat, only to get reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court. However, Smith had the last laugh because he destroyed McDonnell’s political career. Clearly, he intends to do the same here to Donald Trump. Whatever else Smith is, he’s loyal to the Democrat party, as are the people assisting him.
Trump has called them out, just as he has called out the judge:
What one can divine from all this is that these DOJ attorneys fully understand that, when Trump says that he’s coming after them, this is not the equivalent of his placing a horse head in their beds. Instead, he means that he will subject them to legal processes.
Trump made a terrible mistake when he didn’t direct his DOJ to prosecute Hillary Clinton, who had openly violated national security laws. Her conviction would have been a slam dunk, for she had no defense for her actions. It would also have announced that (a) Republicans are not pushovers and (b) all political figures must answer for actual crimes, as opposed to the Lavrentiy Beria-style attacks on Trump and other Democrats (“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”)
Thinking about it that way, it’s no wonder the Biden administration is so desperate to silence Trump and keep him from office. From Biden on down (heck, maybe from Obama on down), they’ve been able to run roughshod over the law for a long, long time.
I don't think the federal government will exist in its current form much longer. The reason is simple: if Marxist globalists get their way, then sovereign U.S. powers will continue to be unlawfully delegated to the U.N., the WHO, and other international monstrosities until some Obama-type tyrant is ruling over us all from Turtle Bay or a stately castle outside Brussels. If freedom-minded people succeed in reining in the federal government and reimposing the Constitution's limited delegation of powers, then the monstrosity that is already with us will radically diminish or disappear. Either the current beast lording it over us will transform into something even more menacing, or it will be sapped of its blood-thirst for unconstitutional overreach and brought to heel. For what it's worth, my vote is for the Price Is Right option: the whole D.C. menagerie should just be spayed or neutered.
As we stand right now, the federal government functions as an extra-constitutional and largely illegitimate system that usurps the individual states' respective sovereignties, infringes the American people's personal rights, and betrays the spirit of our country's foundations in liberty.
Our Union came into existence only because the former colonies were assured that they would maintain their freedom and independence. Had the Articles of Confederation or their successor, the U.S. Constitution, sought to extinguish the individual states' inherent sovereignties by replacing their discrete political powers with those of a single new nation, then no agreement to form a Union would have ever been reached. The colonies did not fight a war for their independence from an empire only to squander their victory and become part of another empire.
Quite the contrary, the individual states maintain a political stature on par with foreign nations such as France and Spain; it is only in the specifically enumerated powers delegated to the federal government that federal authority supersedes the states' own. That word "delegated" is important. The federal government's power does not spring from thin air, but rather is derived from specifically listed authorities delegated to it from the states and the people. The American people and the individual states are the origin of all legitimate power, and the federal government exists only so long as the people and the states continue to lend their own innate powers to breathe life into an otherwise powerless system. Before the Civil War, the idea that an American was a citizen of the United States would have been as absurd as an American today being a citizen of the United Nations. Americans are citizens of their respective states, and the states belong to the Union.
Because history and civics are no longer taught in school, the federal government has worked a self-serving linguistic voodoo that has allowed it to pretend that the birth of the United States was the birth of a brand new nation. In actuality, we are a federation of independent states that magically became a single nation before inexplicably becoming a borderless empire.
If we were still abiding by the Constitution, then 99% of today's federal government would be chucked to the bottom of the Potomac. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers (No. 45):
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
In other words, the individual states and the American people delegated a small number of powers (there are only eighteen enumerated legislative powers in Art. I, Sec. 8) to a jointly directed government that would provide for the states' common defenses, represent the states in negotiations with other nations, and regulate foreign commerce among the states. That's it. All other powers, as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make clear, remain with the individual states and the people.
The plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers' copious essays and personal correspondence all attest to their intention to keep the federal government small, limited in authority, and deferential to the states. Instead, we have today the largest, most expensive, most powerful central government that has ever existed on Planet Earth. No detail of an American's life is too small for the federal government not to regulate; no nuclear confrontation is too risky or military alliance too great for D.C.'s permanent "ruling class" not to unilaterally undertake. The federal government insists on controlling the rain puddles on our land, the political speech that we may voice, the health care we may receive, the appliances in our homes, and the fruits of our labor. The Constitution vests none of these powers in the federal government; they represent illegitimate power-grabs, yet the government has legalized its illegitimacy anyway.
The idea was simple: divide the federal government into three branches that would compete against one another, let the state legislatures control the U.S. Senate, and let the people choose their representation for the House. Instead, the branches conspired with one another to become bigger and more powerful, the Seventeenth Amendment turned the Senate into a ruling aristocracy, and the imposition of political parties gave private corporations control over who would pretend to represent the people. In order to sidestep the Constitution's limitations completely, the federal government invented a fourth branch — the administrative State — that acts with the combined powers of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches while operating beyond the reach of the people. In order to preserve these illegitimate powers, the federal government then invented an unaccountable Intelligence Community that spies on and bullies ordinary Americans.
Within the Constitution's "checks and balances," the people have three principal powers to use against the federal government: their vote, their free speech, and their Second Amendment right to defend themselves against tyranny. Today, elections are not trusted, the federal government censors political speech and dissent, and there is an ongoing effort to deprive Americans of their firearms. The federal government has stolen the people's power.
The individual state governments, bought off or intimidated into submission long ago, have largely remained quiet. It is as if someone told the states to play dead, and they complied.
The remedy to all this nonsense has always been straightforward: nullification. In the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions arguing against the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison insisted that the states have a duty to reject acts of Congress not authorized by the Constitution's enumerated powers. "[W]here powers are assumed which have not been delegated," Jefferson wrote, "nullification ... is the rightful remedy." Alexander Hamilton — a staunch supporter of centralized government — agreed and warned that should Congress exert authority beyond its "constitutional powers," its actions are "merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such."
What we need is a movement of people who recognize that nullification is not only possible, but necessary. The problem is that Americans have been forced to choose between two private corporations posing as political parties that do not embrace a duty to protect Americans' freedom and liberty. That is perhaps the most telling symptom of our current problems. A Union that was formed to protect the people's inalienable rights and liberties has no political party addressing those foundational concerns on the national stage.
Perhaps it is time to throw all the bums out, so that we may begin representing ourselves.
Democrats and corporate media throw around terms like 'fascism' and 'dictatorship' as a means of stifling discussion of anyone they disagree with. Totalitarianism is another term along those lines, typically associated with tyrants such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
While Wikipedia is not the most reliable reference source, they have a clear and concise definition of totalitarianism:
Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life.
It employs all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.
As kids like to ask their parents on long road trips: “Are we there yet?”
When it comes to totalitarianism, I am afraid we are there. America as a beacon of freedom and liberty may be in hospice care, barely alive, with little hope of survival or healing.
COVID was a good example of “complete control and regulation over public and private life.” DEI and wokeism is much the same. Then there is political dissent.
Socialist historian Howard Zinn proclaimed, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Socialist two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton echoed, “We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” The Biden-Garland-Obama junta took a 180 by criminalizing free speech and dissent.
Former President Donald Trump is racking up indictments almost as fast as current President Joe Biden is collecting falls and face plants.
Start with the timing of these indictments. Matt Margolis provided a timeline suggesting that indictments are dropped against Biden’s political opponent whenever Biden or his family are implicated in another scandal.
This convenient distraction is actually election interference, what Trump is accused of in the most recent indictment. The party in power has arrested and wants to imprison its political opposition, banana republic-style.
The same day that the FBI released bribery allegations against Joe Biden, Trump was indicted over supposed mishandling of classified documents. When Hunter Biden’s plea deal fell apart, the next day Special Counsel Jack Smith added a superseding indictment in the classified documents case.
Then right on schedule, the day after Devon Archer confirmed Hunter Biden’s foreign influence-peddling with Father Joe’s knowledge and participation, Smith indicted Trump for challenging the 2020 presidential election results, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
What Biden’s DOJ is doing is out of the totalitarianism playbook, eliminating political opposition, outlawing opposition to the state and pushing its claims through state-controlled media.
Since when does America indict and attempt to imprison political opponents, especially former presidents? And for exercising First Amendment rights to free speech?
So what if Trump complains that the elections were rigged or fraudulent? Is that not allowed? Mind-reader Jack Smith is alleging that Trump did not believe his own elections claims. If that’s the precedent, most Republicans are next in line for arrest.
A CNN poll shows, “69% of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents view President Joe Biden's win as illegitimate.”
If this is the new normal, most Democrats should be indicted over denying election results. If Trump wins in 2024, perhaps his Attorney General Rudy Giuliani can indict these Democrats using Jack Smith’s precedent, as outlined in this RNC video montage of Democrats denying previous election results.
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Stacey Abrams, and most Democrat members of Congress and cable news anchors should be indicted for conspiracy to challenge previous elections, defrauding the U.S.
Let’s add other names of high government officials who participated in the Russian collusion hoax. Richard Nixon wiretapped DNC headquarters and was forced to resign. James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, and many others wiretapped Trump Tower, spied on an opposing political campaign, its transition team, and its administration.
They lied to FISA courts for surveillance warrants, gaslit the media and American people, and are rewarded with book deals, university faculty appointments, television commentary gigs, none receiving even a slap on the wrist. They all conspired to rig or overturn an election with no special counsels and no indictments. Such propaganda and elimination of political opposition fits the definition of totalitarianism.
Don’t forget the conspiracy of 51 intelligence officials lying over Hunter Biden’s laptop being Russian disinformation. This conspiracy obstructed a presidential election, defrauding America and voters, 16 percent of whom would have not voted Biden if they were told the truth. All 51 co-conspirators kept their security clearances and their freedom.
What’s next? Will Biden’s DOJ round up and arrest the 60 percent of likely U.S. voters who, according to Rasmussen Reports, “suspect recent elections have been affected by cheating, and believe officials are ignoring the problem”? Or the 69 percent of Republican voters that believe Biden’s 2020 win was illegitimate?
Where is the GOP on this? Is there any GOP outrage or pushback? So much for checks and balances and co-equal branches of government. Where are the GOP primary candidates on this outrage that awaits them should they ever make it to the White House, and unlike the Bushes, actually push back against the deep state?
Candidate Ron DeSantis, under donor class pressure, channeling his inner Mitt Romney, declared that “claims about the 2020 election being stolen were false,” according to the New York Times.
High-minded Republicans who look down on Trump and would be happy to see him politically eliminated so they can feel good about themselves and their “principles,” fail to realize that they may be next.
Oh, I am just exaggerating, this is only about Trump. Really?
The Michigan Attorney General “filed charges against 16 people who signed paperwork falsely claiming that President Donald Trump had won the 2020 election as part of a scheme to overturn the results.”
Were any charges filed against Democrats in 2016 when, “Many Democrats, liberal activists, and Hollywood stars tried to pressure electors to reverse the results of the November election”? Or when in 1960, Democrats did in Hawaii the same as Republicans did in 2020, according to Politico. I don’t recall any indictments in 2016 or 1960.
The same Michigan AG is prosecuting her predecessor over allegedly tampering with voting machines while those scanning and rescanning ballots in the middle of the night were given a pass. Another Democrat attempting to arrest and imprison her political opponent.
If Democrats get away with this, they will double down, imprisoning their political opponents. Totalitarianism anyone?
Real election interference, in 2016, 2020, and now 2024 at the hands of the federal government is encouraged and cheered on by the corporate media. Republicans sputter and stutter. And if anyone complains or calls it out, they are indicted.
How’s that for totalitarianism?
The federal government has turned its immense powers against political rivals. They want to arrest and imprison their leading political opponent. Why? Let Trump answer that from his recent op-ed,
Seven years ago, I ran for office taking on all the most corrupt forces and entrenched interests in our nation's capital. My agenda was an existential threat to a Washington establishment that got rich and powerful bleeding America dry.
Will Trump in prison be enough for the totalitarians? How about the death penalty? One of the recent indictment charges is for violating Civil War-era laws which would normally involve only 10 years in prison, but could be extended to death if, according to the DOJ, the government “proves an aggravating factor.” That can’t happen. Or can it?
The same DOJ that is criminalizing free speech can surely concoct an “aggravating factor.” And they have a willing Obama-appointed judge overseeing the case, one who when presiding over January 6 protesters, “handed down sentences tougher than the ones sought by prosecutors.”
What if she decides to hand down a tougher than asked-for death sentence to Trump due to “aggravating factors”? Don’t think it could happen? I never thought our government would attempt to imprison a political opponent because they didn’t like his protected free speech. And at the same time, giving the current government leader and his family a pass for selling U.S. policy interests to foreign actors - bribery and treason.
If the current government wants a civil war, what would they do differently? Add that to a nation in economic freefall with no national sovereignty or pride, a decimated military, and a rotting culture. The time is ripe for foreign adversaries to put an end to America as the shining city on the hill.
Who will stop any of this? A Democrat president whose family took millions from these countries (in exchange for what?) or a MAGA president who is willing to fight back? And fight back he will. If he is charged, he has subpoena power and discovery for his defense, assuming the judge doesn’t block it all.
There must be a reckoning. Accountability now lies in the hands of the voters. The Durham Report has made the stakes abundantly clear, and now the choice is ours: either the Deep State destroys America, or we destroy the Deep State.
This is America’s last stand as a beacon of freedom and liberty. Continuing this path means America, R.I.P.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates misled the press in 2020 when he denied that a meeting between then-Vice President Joe Biden and Burisma board adviser Vadym Pozharskyi in 2015 took place — a meeting that was confirmed last week.
In October 2020, the New York Postrevealed an email from Pozharskyi on the laptop of Biden’s son, Hunter. In the email, dated April 17, 2015, Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for inviting him to Washington, D.C., to meet and spend time with his father.
The email therefore suggested that Joe Biden had lied when he told reporters in 2019 that he had never discussed his family’s business dealings. It also confirmed a link to Burisma, which the Bidens had denied during Trump’s first impeachment trial.
The Biden campaign vigorously denied that such a meeting ever took place, however, saying there was no such meeting on the “official schedules” of the vice president. Andrew Bates, then a spokesperson for the campaign, issued a strident statement:
Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as ‘not legitimate’ and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump Administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.
The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story. They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani – whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported – claimed to have such materials. Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.
However, as Breitbart News contributor Peter Schweizer noted at the time, there were gaps in Biden’s official schedule that day. And last week, Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business partner, confirmed the 2015 meeting at the House Oversight Committee.
The following exchange took place at the committee, during Archer’s testimony (via House Oversight Committee transcript):
Q — turn your attention now to spring of 2015, dinner at Cafe Milano, where I believe Vice President Biden attended as well. Can you tell us about that dinner? Who was there?
A Okay. Could you repeat the date?
Q It’s the spring or April of 2015, around —
A April 2015.
Mr. Schwartz. The second one.
Mr. Archer. Oh, the second — there you go. Yes, Vice President Biden did attend.
BY MR. MANDOLFO: Q And who else was there?
A There was two dinners. At that diner, it was Vadym, Karim Massimov — so Vadym P. from Burisma; Karim Massimov; a Greek priest, Orthodox priest; I think — I believe someone from the World Food Programme. I think that was the — and then there — do you have others?
Democrats attempted to play down Archer’s testimony, saying that Joe Biden merely discussed “the weather” with his son’s business partners. None acknowledged that the president had lied, or that his campaign had lied, about Burisma and other contacts with Hunter Biden’s business partners.
Bates has not commented on the latest revelations.
Legal analyst Jonathan Turley, commenting on the confirmation of a meeting between Joe Biden and a Burisma executive that Bates had claimed never took place, observed: “It was the same pattern that we saw with the laptop. The claims of Russian disinformation. The lack of media curiosity. The lack of coverage of the later disclosures. It is the hallmark of a state media, by consent rather than coercion. There is the denials of the incident, the dismissal of the story, and then the downplaying of the countervailing facts.”
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the new biography, Rhoda: ‘Comrade Kadalie, You Are Out of Order’. He is also the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
DOJ Prosecutor Working on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Team Is a Biden Donor
Joe Biden increased pathways for migrants into the U.S. -- only to create a new border surge
5 People Referenced Joe Biden as the ‘Big Guy’
Getting Biden Wrong
The Media Throw Hunter Biden Under the Bus To Save the 'Big Guy'
Elon Musk SHARES Evidence of Joe Biden and Barack Obama's CORRUPTION!
GLOBALIST BARACK OBAMA AND NANCY PELOSI’S CONSPIRACYTO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY AND KEEP AMERICA FLOODED WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
One of the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama administration was "Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal gun sales to go through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in order to track buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found throughout the United States and Mexico. Two of them were used to k ill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. BETH BAUMANN
The Machinery of Government is Coated with Gunk
Watters: I guarantee you Satan went to law school
Dirty Cop: Jack Smith has gotten to work with prosecutorial misconduct
Watters: I guarantee you Satan went to law school
Hunter Biden Remains a ‘Good Standing’ D.C. Bar Member
No comments:
Post a Comment