Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 39

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

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    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.

    Amanda Head: NPR Now Labeled “State-Affiliated” Propaganda On Twitter!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

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

    Hunter Biden’s Sweetheart Criminal Plea Deal ‘Implodes’ – Twice

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    Gavel via Wikimedia Commons Image

    ANALYSIS – After reportedly imploding earlier Wednesday, Hunter Biden’s sweetheart criminal plea deal then appeared to be ‘back on’ after being revised. 

    But then the revised deal imploded again when it was blocked by the federal judge overseeing the case.

    It now may be on life support.

    Prosecutors said in court that Hunter Biden failed to pay between $1.1 million and $1.5 million in taxes when they were due.

    Questioning from Judge Maryellen Noreika, a Trump appointee, during Biden’s hearing, uncovered that the Department of Justice (DoJ) and Biden’s legal team were not on the same page regarding the scope of the deal.

    Biden’s team believed it was more sweeping than it was intended.

    Hunter Biden had been expected to plead guilty to 2017 and 2018 misdemeanor tax charges Wednesday in a Delaware court, in part it seemed, to avoid jail time on a separate felony gun charge.

    Under an earlier agreement with federal prosecutors in Delaware, the First Son has entered a pretrial diversion program for the gun charge, which allows defendants to avoid a conviction or prison time.

    Noreika said she had “concerns” about the parties seemingly linking the tax plea agreement to resolving a felony gun charge.

    However, the deal was then revised.

    The new deal was going to cover Biden’s drug use and tax-related conduct from 2014 to 2019 (not just 2017-2018) but would not cover Biden for any other matters or crimes.

    This is critical since the GOP-led House Oversight Committee is currently investigating Biden’s shady foreign business dealings and how Joe Biden is connected to the money that came to Hunter from overseas sources including Ukraine and China.

    News of the sweetheart deal in June sparked accusations of favorable treatment for the president’s son from Republicans who have accused the younger Biden of a myriad of crimes and improprieties, including influence-peddling abroad.

    Under the revised deal the DoJ could now charge Biden in the future for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) since he lobbied on behalf of foreign governments without registering as a Foreign Agent under FARA.

    America First Legal (AFL) is suing the DoJ for allegedly failing to require the president’s son to register for FARA during the Obama administration.

    Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told CNN that court proceedings today on Biden’s plea deal shows that the deal was always flawed and that additional charges could be coming. 

    CNN reported:

    “It’s very telling that the judge intervened here and said basically, ‘No, I’m not going to approve some sweeping blanket deal,’” the Republican from Missouri said. “I mean, that tells you the court has serious concerns about other potential charges here, and also the scope of the deal, which has seemed outrageous from the beginning.” 

    He added, “This, I think, signals that they’re still very much as potential for prosecution forward.” 

    Hawley said that Biden should not receive special treatment, as whistleblowers have alleged. “He should be treated like any other person under the law. That’s my view on him.”

    But the judge wasn’t satisfied with the revised deal either. “What if it is unconstitutional?” Judge Noreika asked. “I’m trying to exercise due diligence and consideration to make sure we don’t make a misstep.”

    The tax charges could carry a sentence of up to 18 months, but Hunter Biden is unlikely to face prison time because he lacks a criminal history and has accepted responsibility for his actions.

    As part of the deal, prosecutorsare recommending probation, but ultimately the judge has the sole authority to decide his punishment.

    The hearing ended with Biden pleading not guilty ‘for now’ with the judge asking both sides to file additional briefs explaining the plea deal’s legal structure. 

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

    Amanda Head: Is Bud Light Feeling Enough Pain?

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1
    Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Bud Light’s latest partnership with transgender activist and influencer Dylan Mulvaney has proved to be a public relations nightmare for the brand. Will Bud Light recover?

    Watch Amanda explain the situation below:

    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.

    Amanda Head: Pam Anderson Is Uncomfortable With Nudity

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    2

    Oh, the irony…

    1990s sex icon Pamela Anderson is releasing a new memoir where she describes an uncomfortable situation involving “Home Improvement” star Tim Allen.

    Let Amanda explain the controversy below.

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

    Should the Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Less is Best

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    6
    Image via Pixabay free images.

    ANALYSIS – Artificial Intelligence (AI) is basically self-learning software (algorithms) that grows smarter over time using the entire world’s ever-growing library of data as its teacher. It can learn to do myriad complex tasks in a fraction of the time humans could.

    It will revolutionize and upend entire economies, and dominate future warfare. It is also developing at an unprecedented rate. 

    Many are concerned AI will take away entire career fields and tens of millions of American jobs. AI advancements could eliminate up to 300 million jobs globally, according to Goldman Sachs.

    Fox News reported: “Up to 30% of hours currently worked across the U.S. economy could become automated by 2030, creating the possibility of around 12 million occupational transitions in the coming years, according to a McKinsey Global Institute study.”

    Others worry that it will make a few corporations extremely rich and powerful. 

    And then, many worry that Al may supersede human intelligence in just a few years and eventually make humans redundant.

    Few would deny that whoever dominates AI may dominate the world. China certainly believes this and is forging ahead to become the world leader in AI.

    The Pentagon is also looking closely at how it can use AI to more quickly make strategic or battlefield assessments and technologically leapfrog over our enemies.

    But what about our government? Should it regulate AI?

    Democrats tend to favor regulating everything. And they have shown the danger of doing so with social media. I recently wrote on how Joe Biden is already using executive power to weaponize Artificial Intelligence to be woke.

    I noted that: “The American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a government watchdog group, recently warned that Team Biden is actively using the federal government’s vast power to regulate AI to promote a “woke” ideology in the basic architecture of this revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.”

    “That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’”

    And that is a huge concern.

    Republicans tend to be more skeptical of regulation in general, especially in a dynamic, fast-moving technology that few lawmakers understand.

    “Let a bunch of guys up here that are wearing JCPenney leisure suits that still have 8-track tape players in their ’72 Vegas start talking about technology, then you got some problems,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News when asked about regulation keeping pace with the AI sector.

    “The problem with AI is that it’s advancing so fast,” Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina said. “It’s very difficult to regulate because you don’t know what the next thing is going to be.”

    Republicans, like Burchett and Mace, also worry government regulation will stifle AI innovation and put the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage, especially vis a vis China.

    “I don’t know that we need regulation,” Burchett said. “You want to stifle growth; you start putting laws on it.”

    “If you overregulate, like the government often does, you stifle innovation,” Mace told Fox News. “And if we just stop AI, nothing is stopping China. We want to make sure that we are No. 1 in AI technology in the world and that it stays that way.”

    But we may be losing that race. As Time reported:

    “The country that is able to most rapidly and effectively integrate new technology into war-fighting wins,” Alexandr Wang, the CEO of Scale AI, told lawmakers on a House Armed Services subcommittee. China is spending three times more than the U.S. on developing AI tools, Wang noted. “The Chinese Communist Party deeply understands the potential for AI to disrupt warfare, and is investing heavily to capitalize,” he said. “AI is China’s Apollo project.”

    But Republicans in Congress aren’t doing anything to take away Biden’s power to regulate AI himself. And time is of the essence.

    As a former Democrat Senator, Kent Conrad, and ex-Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss wrote recently in Fox News:

    This comes at a pivotal moment. We are on the precipice of a new tech revolution—one in which a collection of next-generation capabilities—such as AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology—promise to fundamentally upend every facet of society.

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

    Amanda Head: Hollywood Star Blasts Covid Inc!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Hollywood actor Woody Harrelson is facing intense criticism after his recent Saturday Night Live appearance…

    Watch Amanda break down the scandal below…

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

    Democrat Mayor Wanted Less White, Military Men In Police Recruiting Images

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    4

    ANALYSIS – Even though, after the recent Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action, the momentum seems to be shifting away from discriminatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts nationally, one major, crime-infested, ‘Defund the Police’ city on the Left coast hasn’t gotten the message.

    Seattle’s Democrat Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office ordered fewer White males and officers with ‘military bearing’ be shown in promotional images and videos for the city’s struggling police force.

    The controversial document appears to be part of the mayor’s Comprehensive Police Recruitment and Retention Plan passed last year which prioritizes applicants with “diverse racial and immigration backgrounds.” 

    It was first reported by My Northwest.

    Once the memo provoked a firestorm of protest, the document was quietly edited to remove the offensive verbiage. Then the mayor’s office lied about having copies of the original memo, saying the original versions were lost.

    This, according to a March 2023 memo written for the Seattle Police Department (SPD), titled “SPD Marketing More and Less,” calls for more photos and videos of “officers of color” who are “younger” and of “different genders” to be featured in the department’s marketing materials. 

    And to make the overtly discriminatory point as clear as possible, the memo also directed that there should be “less” images and videos of “officers who are white, male” and “officers with military bearing.” 

    The outrageous memo was written by Ben Dalgetty, a Digital Strategy Lead from the mayor’s office who oversees SPD recruitment. And it got the Seattle Police Officers Guild justifiably upset.

    Officer Mike Solan, president of the police union told Seattle radio host Jason Rantz in a written statement that the union cannot abide by “discrimination.” 

    “What I condemn and will forever continue to push back on is the verbiage within the recruitment document that calls for less of white male officers. Less of people in leadership positions, and less of humans with military backgrounds. This is flat-out discrimination. Period. It is an affront to decency, reasonableness and further divides our communities,” Sloan wrote.

    “It is embarrassing, shameful, and detrimental to a healthy functioning society.” But he wasn’t the only one outraged by the memo.

    According to My Northwest, police sources who spoke to “The Jason Rantz Show” were shocked that the mayor’s office would put their radical racial and other preferences for police recruitment in writing.

    “I thought, ‘Are you kidding me? You put this in writing?'” one SPD source reportedly said. “It shows not only a lack of respect for officers, but a lack of respect for the military. They have no understanding of someone willing to put their lives on the line for their fellow man. They don’t have respect.”

    Other SPD officials were “livid” with the memo. After receiving complaints from SPD, Dalgetty made several edits to the document.

    “The Jason Rantz Show” said their public records request for the original memo went unanswered for months before the mayor’s office finally provided the edited version on July 10, but wrongly claimed the original version wasn’t available anymore.

    Meanwhile, there were 52 homicides in Seattle in 2022, and last year had the highest number of violent crimes with 5,625, the most in over 10 years of Seattle crime statistics.

    And, since 2020, and the Black Lives Matter riots, the SPD has had a net loss of 325 officers. Last year, it was a net loss of 90 cops, despite Mayor Harrell’s much-publicized diverse recruitment efforts.

    At the same time, the left-wing city council and two different Democrat mayors have talked for nearly three years about forming teams of social workers or mental health counselors to respond to some calls instead of police.

    But the fact is that 300-plus cops who used to respond to an increasing number of 911 calls are gone — and haven’t been replaced with anything real. 

    Still, city officials have the audacity to discriminate against the remaining white male officers with ‘military bearing’ who remain.

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

    State Department Sued For Labeling Trump ‘Disinformation Purveyor’

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    (Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR

    The United States Department of State is being sued for documents detailing a Biden administration scheme that censored the political speech of Americans and labeled President Donald Trump a “disinformation purveyor.”

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. State Department for all records which allege President Trump or any current or former member of his cabinet are ‘purveyors of disinformation.’”

    “The Biden censorship operation was compiling files on his political enemies from Trump world. The State Department should immediately disclose the records about this abuse, as FOIA requires,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    Judicial Watch states in the complaint:

    According to media reports on April 30, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department labeled a member of President Trump’s cabinet as a purveyor of disinformation, compiling a dossier of social media posts from the unnamed cabinet member. See, e.g., “Rubio says State had dossier accusing Trump Cabinet member of disinformation,” The Hill, April 30, 2025 

    Judicial Watch reports it sued the State Department after “it failed to respond to a May 1, 2025, FOIA request for records, including those of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), about social media posts of any current or former member of President Donald Trump’s cabinet, to include Trump himself, alleged to constitute misinformation, disinformation, or malign influence. Judicial Watch also asked for any guidance or policy documents.”

    Judicial Watch notes that during an April 30, 2025, Cabinet meeting, Rubio said, “We had an office in the Department of State whose job it was to censor Americans.”

    Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee, said at a hearing in April about the center: “The GEC [Global Engagement Center] was initially authorized for the statutory purpose of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts. Despite that mandate, for years the GEC instead deployed its shadowy network of grantees and sub-grantees to facilitate the censorship of American voices …”

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

    Urgent! Stand with Trump against Impeachment! Complete the Trump audit NOW.
    1...38394041Page 39 of 41
    © Great America News Desk 2022