Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

    Pro-Lifers Bash Trump ‘Terrible’ Abortion Comments – But Was He Wrong?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    ANALYSIS – During his recent NBC interview, former president Donald Trump called Florida’s recently passed six-week abortion ban “terrible.” The ban was signed into law by his 2024 Republican campaign rival Florida governor Ron DeSantis.

    Trump believes that picking six weeks as the line to draw for abortion banning is not politically viable nationally. He argued that both liberals and conservatives should agree on a compromise solution — a compromise number of weeks.

    And to clarify, Trump said the six-week ban was: “terrible. A terrible mistake.”

    He was saying that, politically, passing a six-week ban was a mistake, because it charges up the pro-abortion activists, and alienates moderate women needed to win nationally.

    Like it or not, exit polls in 2022 showed that the rush to ban abortions outright by some states just after Roe vs Wade was reversed, scared away a lot of independents and moderate suburban women, contributing to the extremely weak results for Republicans in the last midterm elections.

    Trump, the ever-ready wheeler dealer, also predicted that: “both sides are going to like me,” adding, “What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy.”

    Here I think Trump made a terrible choice of words. You don’t want the left to like you, even if you are trying to disarm them. But that’s the way he thinks and speaks.

    The former president also said that he would be “a mediator” between both sides to come up with a policy that is “good for everybody.”

    I take that to mean a compromise timeline on the number of weeks for banning abortion nationwide, and what exceptions to make.

    Some pro-lifers immediately bashed Trump for his comments. The Christian Post reported on the backlash:

    Trump’s criticism of Florida’s law that bans abortion once a heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks of gestation, did not sit well with pro-life activists

    Lila Rose, the founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action, took to X to describe the former president’s remarks as “pathetic and unacceptable.”

    “Trump is actively attacking the very pro-life laws made possible by Roe’s overturning,” Rose wrote. “Heartbeat Laws have saved thousands of babies. But Trump wants to compromise on babies’ lives so pro-abort Dems ‘like him.'” 

    And then there was conservative culture warrior Matthew Walsh, with whom I usually agree, who called Trump’s remarks as “an awful answer from a moral perspective” and “also stupid politically.” 

    In his post on X (formerly Twitter) Walsh said that “there is no compromise on abortion that everyone will like.”

    “It’s delusional to think otherwise. And contrary to Trump’s claims, almost all Democrats are indeed extreme on this issue,” he added. “You will be hard pressed to find more than maybe two or three on the national stage who don’t want abortion until birth or beyond. You can’t win over Democrats by going squishy on this issue. Republicans have tried that brilliant strategy for decades and accomplished exactly nothing by it.” 

    But is Trump wrong? 

    A six-week ban based on a fetal heartbeat sounds very reasonable to me. And is fine for Florida.

    But I know that won’t wash with many other folks across the country who aren’t extreme but prefer another timeline for banning abortion. GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who is staunchly pro-life, doesn’t believe a 15-week national ban is realistic either.

    As governor of South Carolina, Haley signed a 20-week ban, joining 12 other states back then with bans.

    Polls have shown that many, if not most, Democrats believe in some restrictions on abortion. Most, if not all Republicans will make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Many would be happy with any reasonable ban, whether six, eight or ten weeks.

    And Trump isn’t the only one who argues that taking a strident no compromise stance on abortion will hurt Republicans nationally. As the Christian Science Monitor reported:

    At a closed-door conference meeting in the Capitol earlier this month, a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave Senate Republicans a briefing that seemed intended to serve as a wake-up call. The Dobbs decision has “recharged the abortion debate and shifted more people (including some Republicans) into the anti-Dobbs ‘pro-choice’ camp,” the political action committee’s report stated. Some senators reportedly left the meeting brainstorming potential new labels, such as “pro-baby,” that could replace the increasingly fraught “pro-life.”

    Unlike in the past, when conservative candidates could simply identify themselves as “pro-life” without having to be specific, they are now being peppered with questions about real policy choices: Should abortion be banned at the state or federal level? After how many weeks? With or without exceptions? What about abortion pill restrictions?

    At one end of the 2024 spectrum are Vice President Mike Pence and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who have strongly leaned into an anti-abortion message. Both candidates have endorsed a national 15-week abortion ban.

    By contrast, Mr. Trump, in his “Meet the Press” interview, declined to explicitly endorse a 15-week ban, drawing a rare rebuke this week from Senator Scott. Ms. Haley has outright dismissed a national 15-week ban as unrealistic – one of the “hard truths” that she has been delivering to voters across New Hampshire and Iowa. She says the Supreme Court was “right” to send abortion back to the states.

    While I understand and appreciate the 100% pro-life stance, I also want to win the White House and Senate, and expand our lead in the House, so conservatives can keep pushing on this and other issues important to us.

    So, Trump may not be wrong. We need to be more tactically flexible to win the bigger war.

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

    Dowdy Jill Biden Graces Cover Of Vogue, Supermodel Melania Trump Shunned

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2

    ANALYSIS – Totally tone deaf. Just a little reminder of how ridiculously biased, partisan and idiotic our mainstream media has become, including the fluffy fashion forums.

    First Lady Jill Biden, the incredibly unstylish, power-hungry, social climbing, faux intellectual with an unserious Doctor of Education (EdD), has again graced the cover of Vogue magazine.

    This, her third time, right before the upcoming election. (RELATED: Poor Sign Placement Haunts Jill Biden At Hunter High School)

    The New York Post noted how remarkably out of touch the Biden White House is:

    After Biden’s horrific debate performance on Thursday, much of the media world reluctantly conceded that our 46th president looks like a lost toddler.

    And then there’s Vogue — which literally couldn’t stop the presses. The fashion-bible-turned-Dem-PR-machine was already rolling out its July issue, with cover model Jill Biden in a silk cream Ralph Lauren dress that retails for $4,990.

    Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    The magazine landed on the internet Monday morning with a resounding, wincing thud.

    It was tone deaf. It was tacky — but this shoot and interview, conducted months ago, would have been messy even if the debate disaster had never happened.

    Fox News host Jimmy Failla on X had this to say about the horrible caregiver of the elderly and frail Joe Biden:

    Melania Trump is an actual super model who speaks 5 languages but she’s NEVER been on the cover of Vogue. Jill Biden commits vicious elder abuse on the world stage and now has two Vogue covers to show for it. Congrats Jill, you’ll be great in “The Devil Wears Depends.”

    Newsweek noted the backlash:

    Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”

    C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”

    Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”

    Dr. Jill, as she insists on being called, first appeared on a Vogue cover in 2021 right after Joe Biden was inaugurated. She later appeared on the cover of the digital Winter 2023 issue. 

    Meanwhile, Melania Trump, an actual former supermodel who speaks several languages, and was exemplary, and always stylish and immaculately attired, as first lady is still shunned by the fashion world.

    Back in 2005, when she was getting married to The Donald, and well before Trump became president, Melania did get her own Vogue cover as Trump’s new bride. But oddly, she never again got a cover for Vogue or any other fashion, or mainstream magazine. (RELATED: Melania Trump Addresses Jan. 6 for First Time)

    Newsweek noted the backlash:

    Former NBC senior executive Mike Sington said, “First Lady Jill Biden appears on the cover of Vogue magazine, which seems like a good time to remind you that Melania Trump never appeared on the cover of Vogue when she was First Lady.”

    C.J. Pearson, a co-chair of the GOP Youth Advisory Council, said: “Outside of how tone deaf this following Joe Biden‘s disastrous debate performance, it is even more absurd that Jill Biden somehow graced the cover of Vogue and @MELANIATRUMP was never given the opportunity. Asinine even.”

    Another user on X noted: “She will NEVER be Melania.”

    The fact that she never landed a Vogue cover in her White House years was such a point of consternation that the former First Lady Trump criticized Wintour, who also serves as Condé Nast’s chief content officer, for it during a 2022 Fox News interview.

    WWD reported:

    As Jill Biden‘s role in encouraging President Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race — despite his lackluster performance in Thursday night’s debate with Donald Trump — continues to be hashed over in the media and around the globe, Vogue debuted its August issue with the first lady on its cover.

    In this already deeply divided country, the Condé Nast fashion magazine — intentionally or not — has ratcheted up the public dispute about Biden’s full-steam-ahead plans. As of Monday afternoon, Vogue‘s post of the first lady’s cover had 51,960 likes and 5,286 comments. The first lady donned an ivory Ralph Lauren Collection dress for the Norman Jean Roy-shot cover that accompanied Maya Singer’s interview.

    Of course, Vogue’s editorial direction is strongly liberal. WWD added:

    Requests for comment from Vogue’s global editorial director Anna Wintour and Singer through a Vogue spokesperson were declined. The company spokesperson said, “It’s no secret that Anna has been a supporter of Democratic campaigns for decades. Our August cover story is a look at the tremendous work Dr. Biden has done, and the most urgent issues in 2024 and beyond.”

    Meanwhile, a parting comment: Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt wrote, “Nice puff piece on the most valueless person in America and her bid to keep her corpse-like husband into the White House to stay relevant.”

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

    Final Bit of Democrat Insanity at End of 2022

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Pixabay free images

    ANALYSIS – As we end yet another crazy year, we have a new report on how Democrats continue to be the crazy party. 

    Despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary, a majority of Democrats still favor masking toddlers to battle the spread of COVID.

    A recent I&I/TIPP Poll showed this mass insanity when 56% of Democrats said they believed masking children under the age of 5 is still a good idea.

    In contrast, only 24% of Republicans and 31% of independents believed that masking toddlers is a good idea.

    When asked if masking toddlers was a bad idea, as much of the scientific evidence now shows, 58% of Republicans and 38% of independents said they think it is a bad idea.

    And only 24% of Democrats thought the same way.

    But the divide goes deeper, with ideology, race, and ethnicity playing big roles as well.

    The Blaze reported:

    When respondents were grouped by ideology rather than party, there was a similar divide: 56% of conservatives thought it was a bad idea; 31% of alleged conservatives supported the initiative. Liberals again majoritively (54%) supported covering children’s faces.

    Ideology and party were not the only differentiators.

    Only 33% of white Americans said it was a good idea, whereas 48% of black and Hispanic respondents supported masking kids. On the other hand, 44% of white respondents and 28% of black and Hispanic respondents were opposed.

    When it came to opposing the idea, 39% of women were opposed — two points higher than their male counterparts.

    The Blaze continued:

    I&I intimated that what might partially account for the significant ideological split between the right and the left on the matter of masking kids is media and activist suppression of legitimate medical studies putting the efficacy of masking children in doubt.

    Numerous studies questioned the effectiveness of masking in protecting from serious COVID effects.

    As The Blaze explains, these studies highlight the adverse impact masks have on toddlers’ communication skills and the relative unlikelihood of children becoming severely sick from COVID.

    The Blaze also notes that neither the World Health Organization (WHO) nor the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends masking little kids.

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

    Amanda Head: Top LA Lawyer Warns Of Hollywood’s Future

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1
    Austin Green, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Will the Screen Actor’s Guild writing stroke be the beginning of the end of Hollywood as we know it?

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

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

    ‘Top Gun’ Blowback – Pentagon Won’t Help Hollywood if They Submit to China

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1
    Austin Green, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – In an unexpected, but long overdue move, the Pentagon has stated it will no longer work with directors if their movies will be censored by Beijing. This follows directly on the heels of Vietnam banning the movie ‘Barbie’ over its inclusion of a China-friendly map of the South China Sea.

    That movie’s producers apparently caved to Chinese pressure and included the map showing China essentially owning the South China Sea, which it does not, despite its claims. And Vietnam wasn’t happy.

    But, as I previously wrote, this Chinese censorship problem really exploded with last year’s release of Tom Cruise’s blockbuster “Top Gun: Maverick.” 

    And now the Pentagon, thanks to GOP Senator Ted Cruz, has made it clear it now bans any military assistance to directors who plan to comply (or will likely comply) with censorship demands from the Chinese regime in order to distribute their movie in China.

    In trailers for the ‘Maverick’ film shown in 2019, the flags of Taiwan and Japan had been removed from Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell’s flight jacket worn by Cruise in the 1986 original “Top Gun” movie.

    The flags were part of a Far East Cruise patch commemorating the 1963-64 deployment by the USS Galveston off Japan and Taiwan. In the preview clip for the movie in 2019, those two historically accurate flags were replaced by generic nonsensical symbols.

    This shameless kowtowing was an apparent attempt to appease Chinese investor Tencent. But after serious blowback in the U.S. — and after Tencent reportedly dropped its investment in the film – the flags were restored in the final version of the film.

    In another example, Chinese government censors actually pushed the producers of “Spider-man: No Way Home” to remove the Statue of Liberty, according to Puck. This, likely due to its association with the Tiananmen Square protests.

    Thankfully, the studio did not comply, and that movie wasn’t shown in China.

    The Defense Department updated its rules for working with movie studios after Cruz (R-Texas) inserted language, known as the SCRIPT Act. into the fiscal 2023 defense policy bill.

    Cruz has strongly condemned Beijing’s censorship of Hollywood films.

    “What does it say to the world when Maverick is scared of the Chinese communists?” he said at the time.

    tweet

    The latest Top Gun movie also reportedly showed us a peek at what might be the SR-72 – the super-secret experimental hypersonic spy plane under development by Lockheed Martin. It was called the ‘Darkstar’ in the film.

    Providing more context, Politico reported:

    According to a new Defense Department document obtained by POLITICO, filmmakers who want the U.S. military to help with their projects must now pledge that they won’t let Beijing alter those films.

    The DOD “will not provide production assistance when there is demonstrable evidence that the production has complied or is likely to comply with a demand from the Government of the People’s Republic of China … to censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the People’s Republic of China,” the document reads.

    Hollywood and the Defense Department have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship for decades. The Pentagon has allowed filmmakers to shoot their projects on military bases, Navy ships, or other locations, and weighs in on filmmaking processes. The military benefits from positive portrayals of service members, and moviemakers benefit from authentic settings and technical expertise.

    But as China’s ruling Communist Party has developed increasingly advanced censorship and surveillance tools, countless American companies — including Hollywood studios — have sought to comply with Beijing’s demands while attempting to dodge stateside pushback.

    However, from now on, producers of films greenlighted by the Defense Department must notify the Pentagon “in writing of such a censorship demand, including the terms of such demand, and whether the project has complied or is likely to comply with a demand for such censorship.”

    But not just that. DoD will also weigh any “verifiable information” from people not involved in the production who indicate that producers could comply with a censorship demand.

    So, hopefully Hollywood will stop caving to China’s blackmail, or risk losing access to their much-loved Pentagon collaboration.

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

    Amanda Head: More Biden Docs…More Biden Corruption?

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0
    President Joe Biden delivers remarks in National Statuary Hall on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, January 6, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)

    FBI agents descended on Joe Biden’s beach home in Rehoboth Beach, DE on Wednesday as the Justice Department continues its search for classified documents…

    Watch Amanda explain the latest developments below:

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

    Stunner: Documents Many Prove Top CIA Employees Plotted to ‘Take Out’ Trump

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    2
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to “get rid of” and “take out” President Donald Trump.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for “reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to ‘get rid’ of then-President Trump.”

    “The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”

    In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:

    Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.

    Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues…

    At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.

    “After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”

    Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary…”

    Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.

    “It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”

    In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:

    Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.

    Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.

    All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.

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

    Did Trump Threaten to Execute Gen. Mark Milley for Treason?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4
    Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Michael J. McCord provide testimony at a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2023. (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)

    ANALYSIS – Words matter. In a post on his Truth Social platform last Friday, former President Donald Trump suggested that outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley deserved to be executed after speaking with China’s top general during Trump’s final months in office. 

    Trump said Milley’s “treasonous act” was “so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

    Clearly, Trump wasn’t threatening to do so but saying that Milley’s actions could have been punished by death in a prior era.

    I condemned Milley’s actions at the time because they seemed to give the Chinese Communist regime a promise that they would be given a warning prior to any attack under Trump.

    While Milley claims his actions were a normal part of his duties, I disagree. 

    They appeared to be more a normal part of the mission that he took upon himself, which was to counter Trump when Milley believed the president had crossed some line only Milley could see.

    Some argue that Milley’s actions were not only disloyal to the president but also borderline ‘treasonous.’

    Milley contends that he was behaving appropriately to avert an accidental war. He responded to Trump’s comments on CBS:

    He also assured viewers that he had adequate safety measures for himself and his family.

    The two backchannel calls to China’s top general, Li Zuocheng, that Milley made, and at the center of all this, were revealed in the 2021 book “Peril.”  

    As CNN reported:

    In October 2020, as intelligence suggested China believed the US was going to attack them, Milley sought to calm Li by reassuring him that the US was not considering a strike, according to the book. Milley called again two days after the January 6 riot at the US Capitol to tell Li that the US is “100 percent steady” even though “things may look unsteady.”

    How much of this reporting in the book was accurate, is hard to say. But Trump sees things very differently. 

    Trump said that Milley “turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States.”

    And Trump may be right. For Milley to do that could be seen as highly inappropriate, if not exactly ‘treasonous.’

    Still, Trump, a former president, and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, is way out of line. No American political leader should be using that kind of language against any American military official or political leader.

    In today’s volatile climate, it is extremely dangerous.

    Yet few in the GOP will condemn Trump’s statements. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is one of those willing to take aim at the Republican frontrunner. Politico quoted Hutchinson as saying:

    To suggest that Gen. Milley should be executed is inexcusable and dangerous. While some will excuse this latest outrage as Trump just being Trump, the fact is that his statement endangers people and is an insult to those who serve in the military.

    Perennial Trump critic, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, had stronger words, calling Trump an “absolute child” for the “reprehensible” remarks. 

    But it is part of a disturbing pattern by both sides to use dangerously inflammatory rhetoric at the highest levels against the other side.

    Democrats raised the political temperature considerably against Trump, calling for, or at least condoning the calls for, his beheading and death on many occasions. 

    The demonization of Trump by the left and Democrat Party was more than I had ever seen in over thirty years in and around U.S. politics. 

    It was, and still is, outrageous.

    But Trump isn’t helping things with his own dangerous rhetoric.

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

    Congressional Committee Accuses Hunter Biden Of Lying Under Oath

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    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)

    President Joe Biden’s troubled adult son Hunter Biden lied under oath to Congress, which is a prosecutable crime, congressional Republicans accuse in a new release of documents and evidence.

    The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee “voted to release over 100 pages of newly obtained evidence, provided to the Committee by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, showing Hunter Biden was not truthful during his sworn testimony before Congress on February 28th, 2024,” Committee Republicans announced in a statement.

    “In addition to the evidence showing Hunter Biden’s repeated lies under oath before Congress, the Ways and Means Committee voted to release additional documents that affirm the credibility of the IRS whistleblowers’ sworn testimony and evidence previously released by the Committee, as well as more evidence of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) obstruction of the IRS investigation into Hunter Biden,” the statement reads.

    “Hunter Biden has shown once again he believes there are two systems of justice in this country – one for his family, and one for everyone else. Not only did Hunter Biden refuse to comply with his initial subpoena until threatened with criminal contempt, but he then came before Congress and lied,” said Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO.) 

    “The Ways and Means Committee’s investigation, and the documents released today, are not part of a personal vendetta against Hunter Biden, but are meant to ensure the equal application of the law,” Smith added.

    Smith then noted if Biden lied under oath, he may be criminally prosecuted.

    “Lying during sworn testimony is a felony offense that the Department of Justice has prosecuted numerous individuals for in recent years, and the American people expect the same accountability for the son of the President of the United States. Hunter Biden’s lies under oath, and obstruction of a congressional investigation into his family’s potential corruption, calls into question other pieces of his testimony. The newly released evidence affirms, once again, the only witnesses who can be trusted to tell the truth in this investigation are the IRS whistleblowers,” said Smith.

    The Committee notes they are releasing:

    Complete versions of communications between Hunter Biden and his business associates, thus showing that previously released IRS agent summaries were accurate. You can find the new material here.

    Evidence of Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Wolf informing IRS investigators’ that they were unable to pursue Kevin Morris as a witness in the Hunter Biden investigation after receiving a classified briefing at CIA headquarters. The new evidence shows that despite requests from investigators to understand the reason why they were unable to pursue Kevin Morris as a witness, DOJ never provided investigators with the requested information.

    In a statement, Committee Republicans laid out the alleged lies Biden told while testifying under oath, writing:

    The new evidence indisputably shows Hunter Biden lied to Congress in at least three separate instances during his February 28, 2024 transcribed interview: 

    Lie # 1: “I sent the text to the wrong Zhao”  

    During his deposition, Committee investigators questioned Hunter Biden about the now infamous WhatsApp message he sent to a business associate at the Chinese energy company, CEFC, stating, “I’m sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.” In the months that followed, $5 million flowed from CEFC affiliates to companies connected to Hunter and James Biden, the President’s brother.  

    Hunter Biden’s Sworn Testimony: “The Zhao that this is sent to is not the Zhao that was connected to CEFC” and he “had no understanding or even remotely knew what the hell I was even Goddamn talking about.” 

    The Truth: According to phone records of Hunter Biden’s WhatsApp messages released by the Ways and Means Committee today, the President’s son communicated with only one “Zhao” – Raymond Zhao – in that exchange. Not only did the same Zhao respond, but his message indicates he knew exactly what Hunter Biden was talking about, and that Hunter Biden continued to communicate with the same “Zhao” phone number for an additional three months regarding matters related to CEFC. 

    Lie # 2: “Neither of these accounts were under [Hunter Biden’s] control nor affiliated with him”: 

    According to Hunter Biden’s business associate, Devon Archer, he and Hunter Biden were equal owners of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, and that entity was used by both individuals. According to evidence provided by the IRS whistleblowers, Hunter Biden was the beneficial owner of the entity’s associated bank account, which was used to receive Hunter’s salary from Burisma and to receive foreign wires, such as funds allegedly transferred from a Kazakhstani individual through an entity that were then used to purchase a Porsche for Hunter Biden. Congressional investigators questioned Hunter Biden during his February 28th deposition regarding his connection to Rosemont Seneca Bohai, as well as bank accounts associated with the entity.

    Hunter Biden’s Sworn Testimony: Neither Rosemont Seneca Bohai, nor its associated bank accounts, were “under my control nor affiliated with me” and Hunter, “didn’t even know that there was such a thing” in reference to a corporate secretary of the entity. 

    The Truth: Evidence obtained by the Committee and released today from IRS investigator Joseph Ziegler shows otherwise. Not only is there documentation that Hunter Biden was the beneficial owner of a bank account in the name of Rosemont Seneca Bohai,  but the Committee has obtained a signed document where Hunter Biden affirms, “I, Robert Hunter Biden, hereby certify that I am the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC” in order to enter into a contract on behalf of the entity with Porsche Financial Services.

    Lie # 3: “I’d never pick up the phone and call anybody for a visa”: 

    During his deposition, Committee investigators questioned Hunter Biden regarding what services he provided to Burisma during his tenure on the board of the Ukrainian company. One of the services that Burisma allegedly needed, was work related to obtaining a U.S. visa for the CEO of Burisma. Congressional investigators questioned Hunter Biden under oath regarding his work for Burisma, and his testimony reveals a potential attempt to conceal he was actively using his name and father’s influence to aid foreign nationals in obtaining visas from the U.S. government. 

    Hunter Bidens’ Sworn Testimony: Hunter Biden stated he was unwilling to provide “any work as it related to visas that they needed.” In fact, he stated unequivocally that he’d “never pick up the phone and call anybody for a visa.” 

    The Truth: The Committee has obtained and made public today an email communication between Devon Archer, Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian associates in which, in response to concerns about the revocation of Nikolay Zlochevsky’s, the CEO of Burisma, U.S. visa and the resulting limitations on his foreign travel, Archer stated, “Hunter is checking with Miguel Aleman to see if he can provide cover to Kola on the visa.” “Kola” being Nikolay Zlochevsky. Archer also tells Vadim Pozharskyi to “please send Hunter an email with all Kola’s passport and visa documents and evidence and copy me. We’ll take it from there.” These documents show that Hunter Biden did in fact do work on visa issues. 

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

    Amanda Head: Democrat Celebrity Calls Out Liberals

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    It’s about time…

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

    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022