Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    Teen Accused Of Using Weapon To Intimidate Voters

    By
    admin
    -
    1

    Florida law enforcement officers apprehended a teenager for threatening voters with a machete.

    Caleb James Williams, 18, was arrested after two women called the Neptune Beach Police Department when he allegedly brandished the weapon against them at an early voting polling station.

    Authorities say he stood inside the parking lot posing in pictures with the machete with several other male juveniles who were chanting in support of former President Trump.

    “The investigation revealed that the group arrived to protest and antagonize the opposing political side,” Police Chief Michael Key told reporters at a briefing, saying the incident, which comes amid rising fears of political violence surrounding the 2024 election, “escalated into a verbal disturbance.”

    Williams, the only individual over 18, was also the only one arrested. He was charged with aggravated assault on a person 65 years of age or older and improper exhibition of a firearm or dangerous weapon.

    Law enforcement said the other individuals’ actions did not warrant criminal charges.

    “The group was there for no other reason but for ill intentions to cause a disturbance,” Key said. “This is not an incident of solely a First Amendment protected right, but rather one where they were simply there to cause a raucous. Voting in our country is one of the most sacred and protected rights we have. Ensuring everyone’s right to vote is crucial, and it will not be impeded upon in Neptune Beach or Duval County.”

    Williams was given a GPS monitor and freed on $55,006.00 bail according to Mediaite.

    Fears of violence or other forms of voter intimidation have been running rampant in the months leading up to Election Day. (RELATED: Woman Arrested For Alleged Terroristic Threats Against Trump Ahead Of Penn State Rally)

    A Pennsylvania woman was arrested earlier this week after allegedly making threats against former President Donald Trump before a planned rally at Penn State University.

    Paul J. Gavenonis, 74, a registered Democrat and resident of Spring Township, reportedly made alarming comments while purchasing a parking pass at the university’s transportation office. According to witnesses, Gavenonis, who identifies as transgender, expressed hostility toward Trump, stating, “I hate Donald Trump. I’d like to shoot that guy,” while making a gesture that resembled cocking a gun.

    The remarks prompted the transportation office staff to alert authorities. According to The Daily Wire, Gavenonis also allegedly referenced climbing a building in the area but expressed concern over being spotted by students if carrying a firearm.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News

    It’s Time To DRAIN THE SWAMP! Stop Supporting Career Politicians – Elect Dave McCormick! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT! Help us win back the Senate.

    Amanda Head: Poll Shows Patriotism, Faith In Sharp Decline

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Have you seen the results of this poll? Are you concerned?

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    Growing Number of Americans Support War on Woke

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    ANALYSIS – The war against woke is raging across the nation. From school districts to corporations and even the Pentagon, conservative Republicans are on the front lines to get America to wake up to what woke really is. 

    And it’s not the dictionary definition of the term.

    As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis battles Disney over its woke policies, and both he and the Texas legislature dismantle neo-Marxist Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives statewide, liberals still try to focus on the textbook description of woke, as being ‘socially conscious’ rather than the radical concept it is.

    This, as a growing majority of Americans are supporting the war against woke, and saying that if you “go woke, you go broke.” Budweiser is certainly learning this lesson right now.

    Bud Light is facing a massive boycott over its partnership with transgender influencer (aka man who is trying to look like a woman) Dylan Mulvaney. And thankfully, it’s hurting the company.

    But it isn’t the only one – Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Miller Lite are also being hit by outrage over their woke advertising.

    Still, in a Newsweek piece, the writer, Aleks Phillips, makes every effort to focus on the dictionary definition of woke, even in a report about how their recent poll shows that Millennials favor the expression “go woke, go broke.” 

    Phillips writes:

    The term ‘woke’ is a colloquialism that has emerged in recent years. Its definition is to be “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

    That’s the thoroughly watered-down dictionary definition. More specifically woke is an adjective derived from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning being “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.”

    But that too is less than meets the eye.

    It’s a call to social justice activism. And social justice is a code for socialism.

    Even so, the Newsweek poll contradicts the popular narrative that millennials are the most socially conscious group who care most about so-called ‘social justice’ issues.

    The poll found that of those who were aware of the phrase “go woke, go broke,” an average of 71% of 25-44-year-olds agreed with the idea.

    That’s a big chunk of adult folks who don’t seem to like woke.

    Phillips later adds an earlier Newsweek reference where a clueless (and lefty) Kelly O’Keefe, founding partner of Brand Federation, said it was “really a minority on the right” that was “concerned about even the term ‘woke’.”

    “They’ve essentially weaponized the term ‘woke’—which has a dictionary definition that almost no one could disagree with: standing up for those who have been misrepresented, poorly represented etc.,” he added.

    But neither the leftist politicians and activists forcing the new wokeness, nor those suffering under the policies, see the term in such an innocuous manner.

    Being woke isn’t about simply being socially aware. Not by a long shot.

    It is a simple code word for a slew of policies based on a neo-Marxist ideology.

    These policies include pushing a radical transgender agenda on our children, racial preferences, and discrimination in favor of minorities, and against whites (in schools, government and businesses), and outright socialism under the guise of ‘equity.’ 

    To be clear – equity is the opposite of equality. It means the forceful creation of equal results rather than equality under the law, or equal opportunity. That is the textbook definition of socialism.

    And more Americans, including Millennials, are seeing through the ‘textbook definition” of woke charade, and calling it what it is – a dangerous ideology – especially damaging to your corporate bottom line.

    The outrage at woke brands like Bud Light has been sold by liberals as a reaction by a small minority of conservatives. But as noted earlier, the dramatic decline in Bud Light sales suggests that the boycott has widespread support.

    Newsweek‘s poll also suggests that the opposition to everything woke isn’t just a preserve of conservatives anymore, it’s an increasingly American thing.

    Phillips notes that:

    A majority of both those who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and those who voted for Joe Biden agreed with the sentiment of “go woke, go broke,” it found, with 71 percent of Trump supporters agreeing and 62 percent of Biden supporters.

    So even a majority of liberal Biden supporters are coming around to see woke for the extremist ideology it is. And that’s not good for Democrats leaders who still seem hell-bent on pushing that radical agenda.

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

    Yes, Biden Took Highly Classified Documents Home as VP

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    5
    President Joe Biden walks with Chief of Staff Ron Klain along the Colonnade of the White House, Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2021, to the White House Situation Room. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

    ANALYSIS – Say it Isn’t So, Joe – In what must be one of the most ironic twists of news, in a world full of twisted news, Joe Biden appears to have taken home highly classified intelligence memos and documents during his time as Vice President.

    Or, worse, took them to a private, unsecured DC office he used occasionally after leaving the White House.

    CNN reported that Rep. James Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, said he plans to “press the National Archives for information about the classified documents removed by Joe Biden during his time as VP. He said he would send a letter to the Archives — which his committee oversees — within the next 48 hours.”

    “President Biden has been very critical of President Trump mistakenly taking classified documents to the residence or wherever and now it seems he may have done the same,” Comer added. “How ironic.”

    This comes as an Attorney General-appointed special counsel investigates, among other things, former president Trump’s treasure trove of classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida.

    So, while still bad, Trump’s reckless disregard for sensitive intelligence now seems less unique, or outrageous.

    Especially considering Trump was a political neophyte, and Biden has been in national politics his entire adult life.

    To be fair, a key difference between the two cases is Team Trump’s long delay in recovering and returning the classified documents in Trump’s possession.

    Biden’s personal attorneys reportedly found the documents in a closet when packing files in November while emptying out an office that Biden used at the notorious Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C. for his nonexistent relationship with the University of Pennsylvania (U Penn).

    There he was paid handsomely (nearly $1 million over two years) as an honorary professor from 2017 to 2019, but never taught a class or saw a student.

    Instead, according to the New York Post, “Biden gave roughly a dozen lectures and talks but never taught a full semester’s course. Nor did he conduct any research or have any administrative responsibilities.” 

    This reality hasn’t kept Biden from claiming he was a “full professor” at U Penn for years.

    In response to the public disclosure, almost three months after the documents were found, the White House evaded commenting by using the Justice Department ‘ongoing investigation’ trope.

    CNN reported that nearly a dozen classified documents were found at Biden’s former office.

    The news outlet added:

    It is unclear why they were taken to Biden’s private office. The classified materials included some top-secret files with the “sensitive compartmented information” designation, also known as SCI, which is used for highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources. Federal officeholders are required by law to relinquish official documents and classified records when their government service ends.

    In response to specific questions about why the Biden team did not disclose the discovery of classified documents in November at Biden’s private office, Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, said that they are “limited in what we can say” now because the Justice Department is looking into the matter, and “further details” may be shared in the future.

    Typically, despite some of the documents being clearly labeled SCI, CNN chose to report that “two people familiar with the call say, none of which are ‘particularly sensitive’ and ‘not of high interest to the intelligence community.’”

    Yet, the designation of SCI on some of the documents says otherwise.

    Newsflash to the hacks at CNN, by definition SCI information is ‘sensitive’ as in Sensitive Compartmented Information.

    It is also always of high interest to the intelligence community since SCI always concerns or is derived from sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes. 

    All SCI must be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence. 

    While SCI is not a classification; SCI clearance has sometimes been called “above Top Secret.”

    In practice though, information at any classification level (Confidential, Secret or Top Secret) may also be considered SCI and protected accordingly.

    However, as noted above at least some of the Biden documents were Top Secret/SCI, which is fairly high.

    The U.S. government requires SCI be processed, stored, used, read, or discussed in an extremely secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

    Rep. Mike Turner, the new GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines requesting an “immediate review and damage assessment” of the classified documents Biden had left in an old private office closet. 

    So, despite the laughable mental gymnastics CNN is performing to minimize Biden’s reckless actions in taking home some highly classified intelligence – in that regard, his doing so makes him no different than Trump. 

    Just more hypocritical. 

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

    Amanda Head: Lesson NOT Learned – RNC Still Blowing Your Money On Flowers!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    11

    Will they ever listen? The Republican National Committee (RNC) has been caught red-handed yet again…

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

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

    Legal Theorists Try To Attack Trump. Their Argument May Be Dead On Arrival.

    By
    Norman Leahy
    -
    4
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.

    As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:

    On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.

    Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:

    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.

    Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”

    The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.

    Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:

    “No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.

    Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.

    And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.

    My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:

    …no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐​hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.

    Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.

    Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

    North Dakota AG Sounds Off on Concerns Facing His State

    By
    Matt Whitaker
    -
    1
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley joins Liberty & Justice to discusses challenges facing his state and the United States of America.

    Per Matt Whitaker:

    Drew Wrigley is a fourth generation North Dakotan with family roots in Walsh County and Burke County, where Wrigley Brothers Farm still thrives. Wrigley was born in Bismarck and grew up in Fargo. After graduating from Fargo South High School in 1984, Wrigley attended the University of North Dakota, graduating in 1988 with honors in economics and philosophy. He graduated from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1991, followed by a year-long judicial clerkship in Delaware. Wrigley then worked as an Assistant District Attorney for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office, prosecuting every variety of crime in one of our nation’s most violent cities.

    Wrigley and his wife Kathleen married in 1998 and moved home to North Dakota. In 2001, Wrigley was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 17th United States Attorney. Wrigley led his office’s successful efforts to combat violent crime, large-scale narcotics trafficking, illegal immigration, financial fraud and ground-breaking investigations focused on Internet crimes against children. Under Wrigley’s leadership, the office’s Civil Division worked diligently to promote and protect legal and contractual interests of the United States, while battling to ensure the protection of civil rights and the promise of landmark legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even while serving as United States Attorney, Wrigley personally tried several noteworthy cases, including North Dakota’s first federal Internet child-luring case, and the successful death penalty prosecution of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., who kidnapped, assaulted, and viciously murdered University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin. That was North Dakota’s first and only federal death penalty case, for which Wrigley served as lead trial and appellate counsel. From 2004 to 2009, Wrigley was appointed by three successive Attorney Generals of the United States to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a select group of United States Attorneys tasked with advising the Attorney General of the United States and other Department of Justice leaders.

    After stepping down as United States Attorney in 2009, Wrigley served as vice-president of a national Medicare and Medicaid contractor based in Fargo. He subsequently served as North Dakota’s 37th Lieutenant Governor, from December 2010 through December 2016. Wrigley served as the President of the State Senate, chaired the State Investment Board and its oversight of then-$11 billion in pension and other state assets, chaired the state’s International Trade Office Board, chaired the Governor’s Cybersecurity Task Force, and led the economic development efforts and oversight authority for North Dakota’s FAA-sanctioned unmanned flight systems testing facility. In 2016, Wrigley and Governor Jack Dalrymple chose to not seek re-election, and in early 2017 Wrigley once again returned to the private sector, serving in a senior advisory role for a regional healthcare, insurance, research and philanthropy enterprise, Sanford Health. In 2019, Wrigley was nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota’s 19th United States Attorney, becoming the first North Dakotan to twice serve as our state’s chief federal law enforcement officer. Wrigley stepped down in February of 2021 and worked as counsel with his family’s industrial/mechanical/commercial contracting firms, Wrigley Mechanical, Inc. and BDT Mechanical LLC, both located in Fargo. Wrigley maintains an ownership interest in both companies.

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

    This Man Stole Trump’s Tax Returns And Illegally Leaked Them. So Why Is DOJ Letting Him Off Easy?

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    8
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A former IRS consultant who stole the tax returns of President Donald Trump and thousands of wealthy individuals, then leaked them to liberal media outlets to campaign for tax hikes, has pleaded guilty to a single count of “unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information,” despite confessing in court to committing the crime thousands of times.

    The decision to charge Charles Littlejohn with a single minor crime, while seeking decades in prison for Trump and many of his supporters, has many claiming it is yet another example of a politicized Justice Department.

    Littlejohn faces a maximum of five years in prison, but will almost certainly serve far less than that, if any, time.

    Littlejohn used his access to confidential information to steal the tax returns of Trump and wealthy individuals, often saving the electronic files to personal devices like an iPad, then leaking the documents to the New York Times and the liberal activist outlet ProPublica.

    The illegal leaks set off a feeding frenzy in the media, who used the illicit disclosures to attack Trump and falsely campaign for tax hikes.

    The DOJ’s decision to give Littlejohn a sweetheart plea deal, while targeting Trump supporters with harsh charges, has some in Congress calling out what they see as a biased and two-tier justice system.

    “The defendant admitted to making two separate disclosures to two separate news outlets impacting over a thousand taxpayers, and further admitted to impeding or obstructing the investigation — yet the Department of Justice inexplicably only pursued one count of unauthorized disclosure,” the House Committee on Ways and Means Committee fumed in a statement.

    “Ways and Means Committee Republicans have pushed federal investigators for years to get to the bottom of who stole and leaked the taxpayer information of thousands of Americans – including those of former President Donald Trump. Finally, the thief has been identified, charged, and now has pled guilty to this unprecedented crime,” said Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.).

    “Unfortunately, the Department of Justice elected to charge only one count despite the more than a thousand disclosures he admitted to in open court. To restore trust in the justice system and the IRS – and to deter future thefts – there need to be significant consequences for this type of illegal, politically motivated activity,” Smith added.

    FBI Sued for Documents on Cover-up of Hunter Biden Gun Sale

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    4
    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)

    While law-abiding gun owners and sellers nationwide are targeted by the FBI and Justice Department over paperwork errors, at least one politically powerful gun owner may have gotten special treatment from the agency after his firearm was illegally left in a public trash can.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for FBI records about a gun owned by President Joe Biden’s 53-year-old son Hunter Biden, that reportedly was tossed in trash can behind a Delaware grocery store.

    “The FBI and Secret Service have both been implicated in a corrupt clean-up operation to protect Hunter Biden from the criminal consequences of his gun scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    Multiple media outlets reported in October 2020, weeks before the presidential election between Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, that in October 2018, Hunter Biden’s handgun was taken by his girlfriend Hallie Biden, also the widow of his brother Beau. 

    Hallie Biden, fearing what Hunter may do with the gun, threw it in a trash can across the street from a high school.  Realizing what she did, she later returned to retrieve the weapon, but found it missing.

    Delaware police began investigating, fearing the illegally-disposed weapon may have been taken by a high school student, or could be later used in a crime.

    But the case took a different turn when the Secret Service showed up.

    Rather than investigate the Bidens for illegally disposing of a weapon, or helping track it down, Secret Service agents showed up at the store where it was purchased and seized all paperwork connecting Hunter Biden to the gun, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.

    Judicial Watch filed suit after FBI did not comply with a January 30, 2023, FOIA request for “all records, including investigative reports, telephone logs, witness statements, memoranda, and firearms purchase documentation, related to the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of a firearm owned by Hunter Biden discarded in a Delaware trash receptacle circa October 2018.”

    In a separate FOIA lawsuit, Judicial Watch received records from the United States Secret Service implicating FBI in the unusual action to help Hunter Biden.

    In response, Judicial Watch also asked for “all records of communications of FBI officials regarding the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of the firearm,” which may detail an effort to cover up any potential Biden family crime.

    Included in those Secret Service records is a response to a February 2021 email from Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger regarding the Secret Service’s involvement in the investigation of the Hunter Biden gun incident, the Communications Department asks for “more information or documentation.” 

    “Sure thing. Agents visited StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply and asked to take possession of the paperwork Hunter had filled out to purchase a gun there. The FBI also had some involvement in the investigation,” Schreckinger wrote.

    Judicial Watch also uncovered a March 2021 email from New York Post reporter Lorena Mongelli, who reached out to the Secret Service Communications Office, asking for comment on text messages on Hunter Biden’s lost laptop.

    “It appears the text messages were sent from Hunter Biden in which he indicates that the Secret Service did in fact respond to the Oct. 23, 2018 [gun] incident. This information contradicts your previous statement relating to the incident and we would like to know whether the Secret Service would like to respond to these new findings,” Mongelli wrote.

    “We have received your inquiry, would you be able to provide copies of these alleged text messages for reference?,” replied a person from the Communications Office, whose name is redacted.

    Mongelli responds, noting the involvement of the FBI and Secret Service:

    The Daily Mail actually posted copies of the same text messages the NY Post is referencing. This is what one text message says:

    “She stole the gun out of my trunk lock box and threw it in a garbage can full to the top at Jansens [sic]. Then told me it was my problem to deal with,” Hunter wrote.

    “Then when the police the FBI the secret service came on the scene she said she took it from me because she was scared I would harm myself due to o my drug and alcohol problem and our volatile relationship and that she was afraid for the kids.”

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

    CIA Sued Over Role In Hunter Biden Laptop Election Cover-Up

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    3
    The New Headquarters Building (NHB) of the CIA. The Central Intelligence Agency, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    A nonprofit legal watchdog has filed a federal lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency, seeking documents and records over an election-year government effort to cover up reporting seen as damaging to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

    In particular, the group seeks information on the agency’s role in a letter signed by 51 intelligence officials that falsely claimed the Russian government “planted” evidence of criminal activity on a laptop owned by Biden’s middle-aged son Hunter.

    Judicial Watch filed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA for all “communications of the spy agency’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and ‘clear’ a letter signed by 51 former intelligence community officials characterizing the Hunter Biden laptop story as having ‘all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign,’” the group announced.

    “The Deep State CIA, it seems, engaged in election interference and a political operation against the American people to help Joe Biden and hurt Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now the CIA is ignoring FOIA law to cover up its role in the scandal, censoring and suppressing the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden laptop story just before the presidential election.”

    In October 2020, the New York Post broke a bombshell story revealing that Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he abandoned at a Delaware computer shop, contained photographs of Hunter Biden engaged in drug use and using prostitutes, as well as emails describing what appear to be shady foreign business deals.

    Fearing the story could damage Biden’s presidential campaign, social media companies attempted to suppress the sharing of the Post’s reporting.

    The Biden campaign also reached out to intelligence officials, including the CIA and FBI, seeking their help in falsely discrediting the story.

    “In a May 10, 2023, report the House Judiciary Committee revealed that on October 19, 2020, three days before the second presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Joe Biden, then-Acting CIA Director Michael Morell sent the PCRB the finalized letter for review, calling it a ‘rush job,’ and quickly secured its approval,” Judicial Watch reports.

    Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the CIA failed to respond to a May 11, 2023, FOIA request for:

    Records and communications of the Prepublication Classification Review Board, Central Intelligence Agency, including emails, email chains, email attachments, text messages, cables, voice recordings, correspondence, statements, letters, memoranda, reports, presentations, notes, or other form of record, regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and “clear” a letter involving the Hunter Biden laptop story potentially having Russian involvement or being a Russian disinformation plot.

    An investigation by the House Judiciary Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence found that the CIA, or a CIA employee, may have helped the Biden campaign find signers for the false letter.

    One former CIA employee, David Cariens, reveals that while speaking with the PCRB in October 2020 to review materials for his memoir, a CIA employee “asked” him to sign the false letter.

    “When the person in charge of reviewing the book called to say it was approved with no changes, I was told about the draft letter,” said Cariens.

    “The person asked me if I would be willing to sign. . . . After hearing the letter’s contents, and the qualifiers in it such as, “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement . . .’ I agreed to sign,” Cariens said.

    “If accurate, this information raises fundamental concerns about the role of the CIA in helping to falsely discredit allegations about the Biden family in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch notes.

    Another former CIA officer, Marc Polymeropoulos, criticized the CIA’s involvement in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in the following exchange:

    Q. Does what [Former CIA official David Cariens] described there, that interaction with the [Prepublication Classification Review Board], sound like a quid pro quo to you?

    A. I can’t comment on this. This is—to me, this is something that the [Prepublication Classification Review Board] in my experience would never engage in something like that. They are just straightforward back and forth in terms of approval. The idea they would have a comment on any other thing that they were working on, that to me is not even close to what I’ve experienced with them.

    Q. Does that concern you?

    A. If it’s true, it would concern me, for sure. But I just—I have a hard time believing that occurred. If it did, that’s incredibly unprofessional.

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

    READ NEXT: Longtime ACU/CPAC Leader David Keene Speaks Out After Vice Chair’s Resignation

    123...40Page 1 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022