Opinion

Home Opinion

Are Liberals Using Tax Exempt Groups To Promote Terrorism?

5
Image via Pixabay free images

A top congressional chairman is leaning on the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of several left-wing or Islamist organizations for actively supporting deadly Islamist terrorist activity.

The U.S. House Ways and Means announced in a statement that Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) is calling on the IRS to “revoke the tax-exempt status of multiple organizations previously referred by the Ways and Means Committee for failing to operate within their stated tax-exempt purpose.

“The letter coincide(ed) with the anniversary of the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel and targets organizations with links to designated foreign terrorist groups, as well as organizations linked to violence and unrest in the United States,” the Committee reports.

“Chairman Smith previously demanded then-IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel revoke the tax-exempt status of eight organizations with ties to Hamas and terror-linked organizations, as well as entities fueling antisemitic protests on U.S. college campuses and violence in the U.S.

In the letter to the IRS, Chairman Smith wrote: “We write to request that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) prioritize examinations into the tax-exempt status of tax-exempt organizations previously referred to the IRS for revocation during the 118th Congress. In light of the anniversary of the October 2023 violent attack on Israel, along with recent acts of political violence and the continued disruptive activities of previously identified organizations that have been sowing chaos in the United States and have links to designated foreign terrorist groups, it is imperative that action is taken to ensure tax-exempt groups are operating within their tax-exempt purpose.”

Smith’s letter continues, “From the international funding sources and activities of tax-exempt entities in the U.S., and the role of certain organizations in fostering antisemitism on college campuses, the Committee has remained steadfast in ensuring that all tax-exempt organizations are abiding by their exempt status.  In September 2024, the Committee on Ways and Means (“the Committee”) sent seven letters to the IRS requesting that the IRS investigate and revoke the tax-exempt status of the referenced organizations, while also highlighting the tax-exempt organizations’ ties to Foreign Terrorist Organizations, support of illegal activity in America, and failure to operate for stated exempt purposes.  Some of the organizations, such as Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, American Muslims for Palestine, and Islamic Relief USA, are suspected of having terrorist ties to groups like Hamas, using those ties to actively support and funnel resources in support of terrorism. Other groups like the Alliance for Global Justice, WESPAC Foundation, and Tides Foundation instead fiscally sponsor projects that disrupt college campuses, incite violence and intimidation, and illegal riot across the United States—prominent projects include Students for Justice in Palestine and Samidoun. Together, this evidence strongly supported referring the groups to the IRS for revocation of their tax-exempt status.”

The committee notes “organizations for which Chairman Smith is renewing referral for revocation of tax-exempt status include: Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, American Muslims for Palestine, Islamic Relief USA, Alliance for Global Justice, WESPAC Foundation, Tides Foundation, Peoples Media Project (also known as The Palestine Chronicle), and The People’s Forum.”

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. 

Pelosi Knew – Tucker Carlson Interviews Capitol Police Chief Again over Jan 6

3
Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

ANALYSIS – The original interview Tucker Carlson did with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund about the Capitol Riot never aired on Fox News because Tucker was fired just before. Still, a lot about that interview has leaked. 

I wrote about some of Sund’s claims earlier in August. 

In that piece, I note that the Jan 6 riot was not a false flag operation, and most of the rioters were confirmed Trump supporters. However, in many ways, it was allowed to happen.

But to put the entire thing on the record, Carlson did the interview again – and posted it to X, formerly known as Twitter. And it is damning to those Democrats who benefited from the Capitol Riot.

Much of what Sund has said coincides with or dovetails with facts I have written about previously, especially how the Sergeant at Arms for both the House under Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate under Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both declined National Guard support until it was too late.

The same occurred with the Democrat Mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser who specifically stated that troops not be deployed unless the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved. 

She added that she believed her police department was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” to ensure Jan. 6 unfolded safely. They weren’t. And they didn’t.

This despite President Donald Trump offering the National Guard to them more than once.

*(Note that the graphic above is incorrect in one detail – Officer Brian Sicknick was NOT killed defending the Capitol. He died later of natural causes (a stroke) unrelated to the riot.)

In the case of Pelosi, Carlson is direct: “So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 — you know, the worst thing that’s ever happened on American soil — and she’s in charge of allowing the National Guard to come in and respond but she doesn’t for 71 minutes? What is that?”

But Sund adds more details and perspective to the event that makes the lead up even more damning for the Democrats.

The Blaze reported:

In the interview, Sund indicated critical intelligence pertaining to possible threats ahead of the Jan. 6 protest was withheld from the Capitol Police and that the absence of such intelligence was cited by the congressional sergeants at arms — who were reporting to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time — as cause not to reinforce the Capitol in advance with the National Guard and federal assets.

However, the outlet added the former Chief now understands that the intelligence was there. It just wasn’t provided to his department:

According to the former chief, “We now know FBI [and] DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seemed to have some very concerning intelligence as well,” adding that the FBI field office in Washington and other outfits “didn’t put out a single official document specific to January 6. That’s very unusual.”

During a conference call on Jan. 5, 2021, with the leaders of the Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI Washington field office along with National Guard, military officials, and others, “not one person on that call talked about any concerns from the intelligence … that was out there.”

“This was handled differently. … It’s almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason,” said Sund. “It wasn’t right the way the intelligence was handled and the way we were set up on the Hill.”

The question is – did these federal security agencies make the decisions not to forward this intelligence on their own, or where they told not to send it?

In the interview, Sund noted that then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley had “both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D.C., because they were so worried about violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

Sund added: “On Sunday and Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol hill because of the concern for violence.” 

He continued: “You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hill for demonstrations? I do. You know who wasn’t told? Me.”

This deserves much more investigation. The Jan 6 Committee was a partisan circus and designed only to blame Trump.

I have argued that the Pentagon leadership was extremely wary of bringing in the National Guard or any federal assets to DC due to the extreme overreaction by Democrats over Trump sending federal officers to quell riots in Portland a few months earlier.

Democrats also were apoplectic with rage at Trump’s actions to stop violent rioters outside the White House on June 1st. 

There was also the incessant talk in the media about Trump using the military for a ‘coup,’ which Miller has stated as a constraint several times. These all remain valid explanations for the Pentagon’s preferred inaction. 

And maybe for the Mayor’s decision to initially reject Guard troops.

But what about Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? What did they know and when did they know it? And why did they veto reinforcing the Capitol till the chaos had already begun?

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Feds to Charge Hunter Biden but Offer Sweet ‘No Jail’ Plea Deal

0
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

ANALYSIS – After an outrageously long five-year investigation, federal prosecutors are finally going to charge Hunter Biden for various crimes. He is expected to plead guilty.

The catch?

The charges are minimal misdemeanors, and Hunter will get a sweet deal that allows him to avoid any federal jail time. This is thanks to Biden’s attorneys who have been negotiating with prosecutors for a very long time.

Many will contrast this to the way former President Donald Trump is being treated by federal prosecutors and see the first son getting preferential treatment.

But don’t expect Republicans to just let things go.

Hunter has been under investigation for tax crimes related to his shady overseas business dealings and for illegally possessing a firearm, having allegedly lied about his documented illegal drug use when purchasing a handgun in 2018.

The Blaze reports:

The deal reached between U.S. Attorney David Weiss and Hunter’s attorneys, which a judge still needs to approve, will undoubtedly intensify concerns that Hunter received a sweetheart deal.

According to the Washington Post, Hunter “has tentatively agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges of failure to pay in 2017 and 2018.” Hunter is accused of not paying taxes on a liability of about $1.2 million. But instead of jail, prosecutors agreed to recommend Hunter receive only probation and pay the amount of taxes that he originally owed.

Meanwhile, Hunter will admit to illegally possessing a firearm, but he will not plead guilty to lying on the federal form. Under typical circumstances, possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs is a felony. But Hunter will technically not be prosecuted for the crime. Instead, he will be offered a diversion program and probation.

When Hunter Biden meets the conditions of diversion, the crime will be removed from his record, but he will be banned from owning firearms, the New York Times reported.

The deal would require Hunter to remain drug-free for 24 months and agree to never own a firearm again. Good luck enforcing any of that.

While the Biden’s say, ‘case closed,’ and spin it all as just a wayward son with a drug problem gone astray, it won’t end the superheated politics of the case. 

Republicans have argued for years that Hunter Biden committed an array of crimes that should put him behind bars. They have also argued that his crimes call into question the honesty of his father.

And Republicans won’t be letting go. This sweetheart deal for Hunter will just intensify their efforts. 

The New York Times reports:

Coming less than two weeks after the Justice Department indicted former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he risked exposing national security secrets and obstructed efforts by the government to reclaim classified documents from him, an agreement that allows Hunter Biden to walk free is also sure to bring a torrent of criticism from the right and intensified efforts by House Republicans to portray the Justice Department and the F.B.I. as biased.

As president, Mr. Trump had long sought to tie Hunter Biden’s business deals and personal troubles to his father. Mr. Trump’s first impeachment had its roots in his efforts to persuade the Ukrainian government to help him show wrongdoing in Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, and while in the White House he pressured the Justice Department to investigate.

Republicans still believe, notes The Times, that “the president has been complicit in an effort engineered by his son to enrich his family by profiting from their positions of power.”

The Times even admits about Hunter:

After his father became vice president, he built relationships with wealthy foreigners that brought in millions of dollars, surfacing concerns inside the Obama administration and among government watchdog groups that he was cashing in on his family name…

But the questions about what occurred during that period never led to conduct that prosecutors believed could win them a conviction in court.

Let’s see if the House investigations will find more damning evidence than federal prosecutors did.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Backlash Grows as Well-Known Conservatives Sell Out to Woke Bud Light

4
Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – Easily bought conservatives. In the aftermath of the brutal fallout from Bud Light’s woke transgender promotion fiasco with man-pretending-to-be-a-woman, ‘transgender influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney, the beer giant tried everything to woo back angry conservatives who have been successfully boycotting it. 

Bud Light sales have crashed, dropping almost over 27% in a few short months.

In a panicked response, parent company Anheuser-Busch brought back the majestic Clydesdale horses, it also highlighted its events for, and donations to, veteran’s groups. It even made a commercial with football star Travis Kelce. 

But nothing. Nada.

Videos and images of empty Bud Light venues went viral, as did shelves filled with untouched Bud Light cases being almost given away free. Bud Light kept crashing and Mexico’s Modelo beer passed it up as top-selling beer in America.

Along the way, Modelo became a sponsor of the UFC.

The only thing the American beer behemoth hasn’t done is apologize for its huge mistake. And Bud Light executives, apparently fearing a minority of leftist woke activists more than they fear losing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, stubbornly refuse to do that.

Bud Light even co-sponsored an LGBTQ+ Pride event in Arizona over the weekend.

Instead, Anheuser-Busch made a more than $100 million bet (“well into nine figures”), and essentially bought a powerful, Trump-supporting conservative personality to become its shill, and affiliated itself with one of the most conservative and masculine sports entertainment venues in the country.

The big conservative personality is UFC CEO Dana White, the organization is the UFC, promoter of mixed martial arts (MMA) fights. Both are being paid handsomely via a “multi-year marketing partnership” to promote Bud Light as the much-hated beer returns as the official beer of the sports juggernaut. 

As part of Dana White’s new job promoting his sellout, he is doing the rounds of conservative media. As part of that ‘we aren’t woke’ spin tour, he went on the Sean Hannity show to repeatedly claim – unconvincingly to me – that the UFC, Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light “are very aligned when it comes to our core values.”

That is the talking point. You will hear it a lot.

Well, apparently that’s all it took for Hannity to embrace Bud Light’s faux return to the conservative fold. After a little mild, mostly symbolic, pushback, Hannity quickly folded and said he could give the unrepentant woke beer brand ‘one more chance.’

White also went on the The Charlie Kirk Show on October 26 to push back at conservative critics calling him a sellout. He said he admired the beer company’s core values, adding: “It’s this unbelievable, powerful, American-built business…”

When discussing the deal, conservative radio hosts Buck Sexton and Clay Travis (who I generally agree with and like) also sympathized with White and the UFC, meekly saying, ‘that’s a lot of money,’ and they might take it from Bud Light too. 

One of the two also predicted that Bud Light’s huge bet with White and the UFC might pay off, and in a year the transgender boycott will be forgotten, seemingly trying to help make it so.

I hope they are all dead wrong, and their kowtowing to Bud Light just to please Dana White and his powerful organization will be condemned by conservatives. And there is evidence that a backlash against the UFC decision is now growing.

It has ignited a firestorm of criticism on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. Many fans have said they will now be boycotting the UFC and canceling their pay-per-view subscription because of the brand partnership.

As Newsweek reported:

“I’m canceling my subscription and never buying ANY PPV (pay-per-view) fights anymore until this sponsorship is gone. This is the worst business deal UFC has ever made EVER,” one angry fan wrote.

“How about you explain your pathetic Bud Light sponsorship!!?? What you doing rainbow uniforms next?? Canceling my UFC fight pass subscription,” said another.

“I just canceled my ESPN+ subscription. I used to buy every PPV but this is the last straw,” wrote another.

A fourth added: “Canceled my UFC fight pass subscription. Enjoy your Bud Light, hope it was worth it.”

But realize it’s not just Dana White and the UFC that are sellouts, it’s also conservative powerhouse commentators like Sean Hannity, and lesser ones like Buck and Clay who seem to be quickly and meekly surrendering to Bud Light and their new partners, the UFC.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Woke Pentagon Brass and Media Cheer Tucker Carlson’s Exit

2
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

ANALYSIS – I rarely watch TV news. And I didn’t always agree with Tucker Carlson. Sometimes I strongly disagreed – such as on Russia. 

But I often did agree. 

And he challenged the left AND the GOP establishment every night on Fox.

He will be missed.

He also challenged the woke leadership at the Pentagon. And for that he should be greatly applauded.

Carlson was never anti-military. 

On the contrary, he was opposed to its current emasculation by Joe Biden and his team. Carlson was also opposed to the divisive, destructive, and subversive neo-Marxist ideology being imposed on our troops.

Sadly, the lefty spinmeisters in the media and those same leftist ideologues, partisan hacks, and simply misguided folks at the Department of Defense (DoD) keep trying to paint a different picture.

Politico’s Lara Seligman tries to paint Carlson as anti-military by conflating his criticism of the woke brass with the entire armed forces. In her piece, ‘Good riddance’: Pentagon officials cheer Tucker Carlson’s ouster, she writes:

From maternity flight suits to diversity policies to Ukraine aid, the military was a favorite punching bag for Tucker Carlson. Now that he’s off the air, some Pentagon officials are quietly cheering his departure.

Her flawed journalism is also obvious as she mostly quotes a couple of unnamed (likely Biden Pentagon appointee) sources.

Per her two “DoD officials”: 

“We’re a better country without him bagging on our military every night in front of hundreds of thousands of people,” said one senior DoD official, who like others interviewed for this story was granted anonymity to discuss a politically sensitive topic.

“Good riddance,” said a second DoD official.

Seligman goes on to quote these unnamed sources, writing:

Carlson “made a mockery” of the free press and “repeatedly cherry-picked department policies and used them to destroy DoD as an institution,” said the first senior DoD official.

What nonsense. The leftist ideologies in charge are the ones destroying DoD, not a cable TV talk show host.

Still, she voids most of her own reporting when she admits that most of the American military agreed with Carlson, and it’s the Pentagon leadership that is grossly out of touch:

Carlson’s criticism of Biden-era personnel policies appealed to many of the rank-and-file, which has a large bloc of conservative members. But at the upper levels of the Defense Department, news of Carlson’s firing from Fox News on Monday was met with delight and outright glee in some corners.

Then there is the un-self-aware liberal executive editor of Defense One, Kevin Baron, who never served in the military, who absurdly claimed “Tucker Carlson Helped Turn Americans Against the Military.”He writes: “For all the ways Tucker Carlson left his mark on U.S. politics, few are as startling as helping to turn right-wingers against the troops they once revered.”He also ignorantly called the notoriously independent Carlson a “partisan firebrand” when he criticized GOP establishment politicians almost as much as the left.

Well, I can tell Baron that, as one of those ‘right wingers’ who still reveres the troops – and was once one of them – he is a lefty ideologue. 

And sadly, Baron doesn’t realize it.

That makes him a biased, partisan journalist who tries to appear not to be.

Every point he makes is suffused with his anti-Trump rancor and lefty disdain. And many of his arguments are unsupportable, false, or make the opposite case.

Baron writes:

Right-wing scholars and editorial boards interpreted the data to say that Biden’s “woke” policies were to blame, noting that half of respondents said it was a contributing factor. But that ignores the partisan cross-section: 68% of Trump voters were more upset about wokeness, while just 44% of Biden voters were. That’s the Carlson effect.

Well, that gives a cable TV talk show host with 3 million viewers a lot of sway in a country of 330 million and a dozen liberal media outlets that reach many tens of million.

But Baron best undermines his own case most when he concludes:

The most recent Reagan Forum poll found that 80% of Biden voters and 83% of Trump voters said they still have either “a great deal” or “some” confidence in the U.S. military. That shows that even his audience knows the difference between the performance art of partisanship and the apolitical service to one’s country. 

Yes, Mr. Baron, we absolutely understand. Sadly, you clearly don’t.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Biden’s DHS Misinforms Congress About its Orwellian ‘Disinformation’ Board

4
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

ANALYSIS – As Republican senators try to conduct oversight over, and gain insight into, the outrageous, and supposedly now defunct, ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Team Biden is blocking the senators at every step.

The board was dismantled under pressure in August following the recommendation of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. 

However, many are concerned that DHS will continue with its dangerously un-American efforts under a different name.

And now they are clearly afraid of what nefarious collusion with Big Tech the senators might uncover. 

So, as always, covering up is the next step when faced with hard questions and the great disinfectant called sunlight.

In this case, Team Biden is censoring its own documents which may describe its actions ‘prodding’ social media companies to censor conservative Americans under the guise of controlling ‘disinformation.’

Biden’s DHS essentially ‘misinformed’ Congress by totally redacting (censoring) large portions of documents requested by Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Josh Hawley of Missouri back in June.

These documents mostly related to the ‘Truth Board’s’ cozy relationship with social media platforms.

This issue is particularly critical now in light of recent revelations of collusion between the FBI and these same platforms, and the obscene partisan censorship done at Twitter in apparent coordination with the White House, as revealed by Elon Musk.

In a letter sent Thursday to embattled DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Grassley and Hawley said the Department of Homeland Security heavily redacted documents they had requested six months ago.

The letter read: 

Based on our review of this material, it appears that many of the redactions are applied to pre-decisional and deliberative process material. We remind you that the oversight letters we send to the Executive Branch are signed in our capacity as sitting members of Congress, a separate and co-equal branch of government.

Newsmax reported:

Grassley and Hawley then said they would formally renew their requests to the department, as it is still “impossible to know the full extent to which various DHS components and offices are engaged in DHS’s ‘burgeoning’ counter-disinformation efforts.”

“Please provide full and complete responses to all questions contained in our June 7, 2022, letter,” the two wrote, adding that they would also like “a detailed description of DHS’s policy for responding to congressional oversight requests.”

The letter comes months after the White House canned the project due to substantial backlash, officially citing a recommendation from the Homeland Security Advisory Council, according to a press release.

“With the HSAC recommendations as a guide, the Department will continue to address threat streams that undermine the security of our country consistent with the law while upholding the privacy, civil rights and civil liberties of the American people and promoting transparency in our work,” the statement read.

Let’s hope that these senators will soon get the unredacted documents, so we can all learn what was really going on inside Biden’s dark attempt to create its own Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’ 

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Amanda Head: WSJ Poll Weighs Trump 2024

3

The next presidential election is on Americans minds and pollsters are hoping to sway voters away from Donald Trump.

The Wall Street Journal is pointing Republicans toward Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, do you plan to listen?

Watch Amanda explain the latest poll results:

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

FBI Promised Twitter the Bureau Would be ‘Conduit’ to Intel Community, and Beyond

3
Photo via Pixabay images

ANALYSIS – The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) egregious overreach in manipulating Big Tech firms such as Twitter to do its bidding has now got an even more blockbuster twist.

According to Matt Taibbi’s ongoing ‘Twitter Files’ exposé, the FBI offered to be the conduit between Big Tech and the entire U.S. intelligence Community (IC) in its unconstitutional effort to censor Americans.

And it then actively became that conduit.

The Bureau also oddly referred to itself as potentially being the “belly button” of the U.S. Government (USG) in terms of interactions with Big Tech.

To keep a fig leaf of propriety, when making requests to Big Tech firms such as Twitter to censor or block accounts, the FBI ensured that the members of the IC involved in this loop would be in “listen only” mode.

In these embarrassing email releases, we see, in what was then real-time, the FBI’s growing entanglement with BIG Tech, far overstepping its legal mandate, and constitutional restrictions, and endeavoring tirelessly to corral as many other federal agencies into the effort as possible.

Beyond just looping in other intelligence agencies such as CIA, NSA, and who knows what other three-letter members of the IC’s alphabet soup, it even tried to get the State Department included in the unholy mix.

FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan reportedly pushed for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) to be included in the weekly call with Twitter.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am a former member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, having served with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as a Human Intelligence (HUMINT) collector overseas. 

I was also involved in a major Pentagon project creating news websites at our regional commands to combat anti-American and extremist narratives overseas.

All the work I did focused on fighting the war of ideas abroad – never at home. And they only involved providing accurate information to combat the lies, propaganda, and misinformation of our enemies.

Never to censor or quash stories.

The essence of counter-propaganda is to fight lies with the truth.

But, I’m intimately familiar with the agencies and techniques involved.

And never then could I have imagined some of our federal law enforcement, intelligence or other agencies being allowed, or given free reign to, suppress, censor, or manipulate news followed in America by tens of millions of Americans.

To his limited credit, even the woke and clueless Twitter Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth, pushed back on a few of the FBI’s increasingly outrageous requests.

Roth reportedly argued against including the GEC in the meetings because it was “political” unlike the “apolitical” intelligence agencies.

Roth expressed concerns about the GEC being “press happy” and said it would be a “major risk” to bring it into the weekly call, Taibbi reported.

These concerns showed Roth understood the dangers involved. Sadly, he went along anyway.

Note to Roth, it doesn’t matter if our intelligence agencies are ‘apolitical,’ they should be anywhere near domestic media outlets or equivalent ‘public square news disseminators like Big Tech social media platforms.

In a second note to Roth – you idiot, of course our intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies are no longer apolitical, to the extent they ever truly were.

The 2016 election and its aftermath made that crystal clear.

And all of those protestations appeared moot as Roth and Twitter rolled over to the massive government push.

Taibbi reported that eventually the FBI, DHS and other intelligence agencies, as well as the Treasury Department, Health and Human Services, the NSA and the State Department were among the government agencies sending requests to Twitter via Signal, a secure messaging app.

And Taibbi notes that Twitter ended up taking orders (aka requests) from every conceivable government body.

Per his tweet: “beginning with the [Democrat-led] Senate Intel Committee (SSCI), which seemed to need reassurance Twitter was taking FBI direction. Execs rushed to tell “Team SSCI” they zapped five accounts on an FBI tip…”

So, to those hacks who said these Big Tech firms were private companies following their own internal rules for restricting accounts, and not government censorship, and their actions had nothing to do with violating the 1st Amendment – these files call ‘Bullsh*t.’

Big Tech was, and with the exception of Twitter under Musk, continue to be acting in great part under orders (aka requests) from multiple agencies of the federal government, making them complicit in violating Americans 1st Amendment right to free speech.

This latest installment of the Twitter Files should be reviewed by everyone in government, Big Media, and Big Tech, as a warning of what NOT to do.

Especially, since this unconstitutional activity is still going on at the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and other Big Tech firms.

It is time for full scale Congressional investigations, and clear-cut reforms, legislation, and executive orders that will put a stop to this outrageous collusion and censorship before it gets even worse.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Biden Administration Sued Over Scheme To Revoke Trump Q Security Clearance

2
President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010

The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports they filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy for “records about the retroactive termination of former President Donald Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”

Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “cites Trump’s January 12, 2024, motion to compel discovery in his criminal prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which the former president asserts that DOE attempted to terminate his security clearance retroactively after his June 2023 indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith.”

“It looks like the Department of Energy is trying to manufacture a criminal case,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “What are they hiding?”

Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “points to the February 2024 response to Trump’s January 2024 motion in which Smith acknowledges the existence of a June 2023 memorandum prepared by an Energy Department official regarding the security clearance.”

“The Special Counsel’s office describes the memorandum’s contents and asserts that it had produced the record to Trump,” Judicial Watch reports. “Smith also acknowledges requesting and receiving additional ‘responsive’ records from DOE, including ‘approximately 30 pages of records and eight emails.’ Smith asserts that he was ‘now producing’ the 30 pages to Trump and withholding the eight emails.”

“Trump’s lawyers suggest in the January 2024 motion to compel discovery that Trump had a high-level security clearance as recently as 2023,” Judicial Watch notes.

“Lawyers for Trump say a government document from June 2023 still listed him with a “Q” clearance from the DOE. The document was dated a few weeks after prosecutors indicted Trump in the classified documents case,” Judicial Watch reports. “A ‘Q’ clearance refers to a type of security clearance handled by the Department of Energy, which holds classified information focused largely on nuclear secrets.”

Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit after the Energy Department failed to comply with a January 18, 2024, FOIA request for its records and communications concerning retroactively terminating Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

Is ‘The Fix In’ Again? What’s Up With Hunter Biden’s Legal Case?

5
President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

ANALYSIS – Federal prosecutors are seeking a grand jury indictment of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. And while the investigation is a fresh setback to his father’s 2024 re-election bid, some believe ‘the fix could still be in.’

It is unclear what charges the U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss plans to file against Hunter. 

But, according to court papers, the newly named ‘special counsel’ said he expects an indictment before September 29, which is just before the statute of limitations runs out on Hunter’s felony gun charge.

Of course, the time has almost run out because Weiss took years to complete the hyper simple investigation — and is still stalling.

And Weiss didn’t have to announce the grand jury indictment is coming. He could have just done it instead.

The court filing is related to a felony gun charge alleging that Hunter Biden illegally possessed a firearm in October 2018 while he was a drug user. He is also under federal investigation for his business dealings and failing to pay taxes on tens of millions of dollars earned mostly from shady foreign sources in 2017 and 2018.

In June, Hunter Biden agreed to a sweetheart plea deal where he would plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offences, and separately get a ‘diversion’ program for the gun charge. The plea agreement fell apart after U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, appointed by President Donald Trump, correctly questioned it during a court appearance in July.

It turned out Hunter Biden believed the deal would give him blanket immunity from any future prosecution. Federal prosecutors were forced to admit that wasn’t really the case. 

Weiss didn’t have the authority to give global blanket immunity then. But as ‘special counsel’ appointed by Joe Biden, Weiss does now.

Due to foot dragging and failures to cooperate by the FBI and other federal agencies, congressional Republicans are considering launching an impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, alleging that he had played a role in his son’s shady foreign business affairs and influence peddling scheme.

The inquiry would give the Congress full authority to force the reluctant, partisan bureaucrats to pony up all records requested.

In July, the House of Representatives oversight committee said bank records showed Joe Biden’s family and associates received $20 million from oligarchs in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine during his vice presidency from 2009-2017.

“If you look at all the information we have been able to gather so far, it is a natural step forward that you would have to go to an impeachment inquiry,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently said on Fox News.

That’s why the actions of Weiss are concerning. Many legal experts, and Republican opponents, see Weiss using the gun charge as leverage to get Hunter to renegotiate another, similarly weak, plea deal.

As the New York Post reported:

David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, told The Post that an indictment on that gun charge is “not that significant” and could be merely “a placeholder” — meaning Weiss could still potentially bring a case against Biden related to any potential illegal foreign dealings or felony tax charges.

“It’s holding in place the ability to use his leverage — a felony gun charge — in negotiations with Hunter Biden to resolve his global criminal exposure,” Weinstein said.

Cornell Law Professor Robert Hockett told The Post he agreed that an indictment on the gun charge could be used to bring about a larger settlement to shut all this down.

Weinstein added that he doesn’t believe Weiss “is going to end up playing hardball” in potential negotiations with Hunter’s legal team.

But Hockett said that Weiss would be cautious to avoid the appearance of going easy on the president’s son, especially given the barrage of criticism Weiss received on the prior plea deal.

Still, the GOP-led Congress should move ahead forcefully on an impeachment inquiry. It may be the only way to finally get to the truth about the Bidens’ shady deals.

Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.