Latest

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 7

    McCarthy Tells GOP Opponents to ‘File the F*cking Motion’ to Remove Him

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    7
    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy delivers remarks at the 2021 Capitol Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Washington DC, December 1, 2021. USDA Forest Service photo by Tanya E. Flores.

    ANALYSIS – Some of the Republican Party’s more ‘firebrand’ conservatives are trying to bully and threaten House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Many in the media have tried to paint the battle in ways that discredit the GOP. 

    I support vibrant debate within our party, but constantly undermining the leadership when the GOP has a slim majority is getting old. And McCarthy is clearly getting sick of it too.

    Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz bashed McCarthy on Tuesday, giving him a list of demands while threatening a motion for McCarthy to vacate the chair, essentially to remove him as Speaker.

    This came just after McCarthy announced the Republican Party will move forward with an impeachment inquiry into Biden. However, Gaetz said that is not enough.

    The Daily Caller reported:

    “Now moments ago, Speaker McCarthy endorsed an impeachment inquiry. This is a baby step following weeks of pressure from House conservatives to do more. We must move faster. Now I will concede that the votes I have called for will likely fail. Term limits, balanced budgets, maybe even impeachment. I am prepared for that eventuality because at least if we take votes the American people get to see who’s fighting for them and who’s willing to tolerate more corruption and business as usual,” he said. 

    This all sounds good, but Gaetz seems to admit that it’s all more show than substance. The votes aren’t here. The GOP barely controls the House, and Gaetz is just posturing like he usually does.

    So, McCarthy did something I highly respect. He told Gaetz and his allies: “If you want to file the motion,” adding: “File the fucking motion.”

    Enough with the petty posturing, Gaetz. Work with the leadership to get real things done, and hopefully gain seats in 2024 to get more done.

    The House GOP was expected to vote on the impeachment inquiry, but McCarthy did not mention a vote to move forward with the inquiry. This follows the precedent set by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the first Trump impeachment in 2019.

    The Daily Caller noted that:

    The speaker said he now believes there is enough evidence stemming from the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee to move forward with an impeachment inquiry into the president.

    McCarthy said in July that an impeachment inquiry would help Republicans better access documents detailing alleged misconduct from government officials benefiting Hunter Biden. Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik has endorsed McCarthy’s’ position, which Democrats adopted in 2019 during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.

    Asked Tuesday whether he was being hypocritical, McCarthy referred back to Pelosi: “I’m not, because she changed the precedent,” reported The Hill.

    “I warned her not to do it that way in the process. And that’s what she did; that’s what we did,” McCarthy said.

    As The Hill further noted:

    Moving forward on an inquiry without a vote allows swift action on a priority for conservatives who have been pressuring the House Speaker. McCarthy’s decision also protects moderates — particularly those who represent districts President Biden won in 2020 — from having to take a tough vote. 

    What McCarthy is doing is real and will be able to succeed. Let him get on with it, or “file the f*cking motion.”

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

    Biden Buddies at DOJ Refused to Help Fellow US Attorney on Hunter Case

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    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 – FBI agent bombshell – Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, now a Special Counsel, was the lead prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden for alleged tax offenses. 

    He is accused of slow-rolling the investigation, and he contrived a sweetheart plea deal that would have essentially given Hunter nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

    That deal blew up in June, as I have written previously, TWICE, thanks to both GOP pressure and an astute judge who questioned the shady deal.

    Now it turns out, his fellow U.S. Attorneys for D.C. and the Central District of California at the Department of Justice (DoJ), also refused to work with Weiss in his investigation of the First Son. 

    This, according to an FBI agent who recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

    It is bad timing for Hunter, coming as a Delaware grand jury has finally indicted Biden Jr. on felony gun charges, right before the statute of limitations, like those on two years of tax evasion, ran out (as was previously intended?).

    It also shows that the Hunter buck stopped with Merrick Garland, the Biden Attorney General, not Weiss.

    The FBI agent corroborated IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s earlier testimony about how the Hunter investigation was mishandled at DoJ.

    Based on transcripts of his testimony, the agent reportedly stated that Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for D.C., and E. Martin Estrada, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, “refused to work” with Weiss on charges against Hunter Biden in their jurisdictions.

    When asked specifically about Graves, the agent said: “I remember learning at some point in the investigation that Mr. Weiss would have to go through his other processes because the U.S. Attorney’s Offices had, I guess, in that sense, using that terminology, wasn’t going to partner.”

    Both these federal prosecutors were proven partisan Democrats. One was a Biden loyalist.

    Graves was appointed D.C. U.S. Attorney by Joe Biden in November 2021. Previously he worked for Biden’s presidential campaign and donated to it repeatedly as well.

    Estrada was appointed U.S. Attorney for California’s Central District in September 2022. Previously he had made donations to Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democratic Senate campaign.

    This is serious stuff.

    It could also show that Weiss lied to, or at least misled, Congress when he said in written testimony to Senator Lindsey Graham July 10 that “I’ve never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.”

    The blatant ‘obstruction’ by these partisan Democrat hack prosecutors should cause concern and raise questions about the integrity of the Justice Department under Biden.

    It is also adding more damaging evidence of Biden’s corruption as the Hunter prosecution continues, and the House launches its impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden.

    But it says a lot more. By refusing to press charges in their respective jurisdictions, these Biden buddies passed the buck to their boss, not Weiss.

    And who is their boss – Merrick Garland, Biden’s Attorney General.

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

    White House Pressuring Top News Execs to Bash Impeachment Inquiry

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds a press briefing on Friday, July 30, 2021, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)

    ANALYSIS – In yet another egregious case of “what if Trump had done this?” and “Biden doesn’t care,” the White House is blatantly pressuring major news media executives to toe the Democrat line on the Biden impeachment process. 

    Just as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Tuesday that he’s directing House committees to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden over his family’s shady overseas business dealings, the White House sent a letter to major news outlets telling them how to cover it.

    Essentially insisting that they should bash it.

    CNN reported that Ian Sams, spokesperson for the ‘impeachment war room’ in the White House Counsel’s Office sent the offending letter to the heads  of news organizations such as The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS News and others.

    “It’s time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies,” Sams wrote.

    The letter, which said an impeachment inquiry with no supporting evidence should “set off alarm bells for news organizations,” is only the most recent example of how shameless Democrats are about abusing their power and manipulating the media.

    McCarthy on Tuesday said the House Oversight Committee’s investigation found a “culture of corruption” around the Biden family dating back years, especially to Joe Biden’s time as Vice President under Barack Obama.

    “These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption, and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives,” McCarthy said. “That’s why today I am directing our House committee to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.”

    CNN, apparently already following the White House lead, ‘reported’ on the outrageous letter:

    In its letter Wednesday, the White House asked news organizations to be more clear-eyed in their coverage of the impeachment inquiry, and not to fall prey to the traps of false equivalency in reporting.

    “Covering impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable,” Sams wrote.

    “And in the modern media environment, where every day liars and hucksters peddle disinformation and lies everywhere from Facebook to Fox, process stories that fail to unpack the illegitimacy of the claims on which House Republicans are basing all their actions only serve to generate confusion, put false premises in people’s feeds, and obscure the truth,” Sams added.

    McCarthy launched the impeachment inquiry Tuesday without a formal House vote in a bid to appease Republicans on his far-right, including those who have threatened to oust the California Republican from his speakership if he does not move swiftly enough on such an investigation.

    The discredited left-leaning cable network then repeated the false, boilerplate talking point that: “The Republican House-led investigations into Biden have yet to provide any direct evidence that the president financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s career overseas.”

    In doing so, it ignored the mountain of evidence pointing to the likelihood that Joe Biden did benefit financially, and avoided the fact that this is the reason an inquiry is needed to demand the documents that may prove it.

    As Newsmax properly reported:

    “This is not OK,” journalist Matthew Keys tweeted. “The White House should not be encouraging, influencing or interfering in the editorial strategies of America’s newsrooms, including CNN and the New York Times.”

    “Now, any time the media DOES try to hold Republican lawmakers to account, those lawmakers can simply counter by questioning whether it’s actual journalism or something encouraged by the Biden administration,” Keys wrote.

    “All this demonstrates is that the Biden administration has lost confidence in the news media – which I guess mirrors public sentiment over the last few years, too.”

    “The problem is they’re trying to influence coverage. The government should never do that. It is inappropriate,” Keys wrote.

    Of course it is inappropriate. Highly inappropriate. And if Trump’s team had done this during either of his TWO partisan impeachments, all hell would be breaking loose. But Team Biden just doesn’t care.

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

    Retired Generals Bash West Point for Betraying Core Values, Instilling Socialism

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    10
    Daniel Ramirez from Honolulu, USA, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Two retired generals, and a retired colonel, all three graduates of the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, have signed a statement, nominally representing the long list of West Point graduates known as the ‘Long Gray Line,’ accusing the academy of violating its core values.

    And also of imposing socialist, anti-American indoctrination.

    When you wonder why so many of our military commanders are involved in scandals, and accused of moral and ethical lapses, and even crimes, look no further than West Point, and the other national military academies. 

    In their August 17 missive emailed to a long email list and posted on the website of the MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates, the senior officers, LTG Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret), MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret), and Col Andrew O’Meara, US Army (Ret), argue that the academy no longer truly enforces the proud institution’s Cadet Honor Code. 

    Despite West Point’s motto being “Duty, Honor, Country,” and that motto forming the basis of the Cadet Honor Code, it is now enforced less than half the time.

    Rather than resulting in expulsion as in the past, the officers note that “today, the Academy’s website makes the casual web disclaimer that over 50% of convicted violators [of the honor code] are excused and allowed to graduate.”

    But the rot goes far further and deeper than just letting unethical cadets graduate to form the backbone of the Army’s officer corps. These cadets are increasingly being indoctrinated in neo-Marxist socialist ideology “that runs counter to the noble principles of the Constitution.”

    They add that: “The corruption of cadet instruction with socialist doctrine is further demonstrated by a pronounced bias in selecting guest speakers, who have been almost exclusively liberal.” 

    [I would argue they are leftist not liberal]

    “We could not identify any conservative speakers in recent years,” they noted. The officers continue:

    Specifically, they argue, the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) at the Academy, or ideas derived from that theory, “severs the ties of every cadet to the defense of the Constitution, thereby nullifying the oath cadets have sworn to uphold.”

    They explain that: “Critical Race Theory now replaces Duty, Honor, and Country,” at West Point.

    And CRT is a cancer.

    Critical Race Theory considers the founders evil, the Constitution illegitimate, and the Republic systemically racist. It abolishes the Declaration of Independence that declares all men are created equal. It brands the population as racist, privileged, and unfit to enjoy citizenship rights.

    The writers add: “Officers and enlisted troops must sit through leftist indoctrination sessions that portray America as an inherently racist nation, white troops as genetically bigoted, and minority troops as hopeless, lifelong victims.”   

    And the authors specifically single out Joe Biden and his team of leftists for accelerating this indoctrination and subversion at the academy, and throughout our military:

    The Biden Administration seeks to divorce military service from the defense of the Constitution by replacing allegiance to the Constitution with Critical Race Theory. This prepares the military for its role in support of an overthrow of the government and the Constitutional order. By forcing the military to undergo liberal socialist indoctrination, they sever the linkage between US military service and support for the Constitution. 

    To these senior retired officers, the goal is nothing less than the overthrow of our Constitutional system from within. 

    Using the manufactured threat of ‘white extremism,’ as the excuse, the left is forcing Critical Race Theory indoctrination on our military to prevent any internal military opposition to the increasingly anti-constitutional actions of this, and other, far-left administrations.

    Ultimately, they note: “The cumulative impact of these changes has so altered the Military Academy that USMA betrays the purpose for which it was founded in 1802 – defense of our Constitution and maintenance of individual freedom.”

    And I will add – If we don’t remove this rot very quickly, our Republic is truly doomed.

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

    US Navy Vet Back Online as Pro-Russia Disinformation Queen

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0

    ANALYSIS – Just months after the Department of Justice (DoJ) opened an investigation on her for posting leaked Pentagon intelligence on Ukraine, a US Navy veteran-turned-pro-Russian propagandist is back online. 

    Sarah Bils, a divorced 38-year-old New Jersey native, and former Navy technician, was unmasked in April after falsely posing as a Russian Jew reporting from occupied Ukraine. And deplatformed shortly thereafter by X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube.

    But the attractive Bils, who had a security clearance while in the Navy, is back online on both platforms, as well as Telegram, spewing anti-American and pro-Putin propaganda under the name ‘DD Geopolitics.’ 

    She has repeatedly posted since the relaunch faithfully parroting the Kremlin line. Bils has also encouraged followers to donate to the Russian army and the brutal Wagner Group mercenaries.

    In a bizarre rant on September 4, she lashed out at the United States, blaming it for ‘constant meddling’ and provoking the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Pekka Kallioniemi, an expert on Russian disinformation at the University of Tampere in Finland, questioned how Bils was able to restart her pro-Kremlin operations so soon after the opening of that DOJ probe.

    ‘I find it surprising that the FBI appears to be turning a blind eye to the online activities of people who are clearly working on behalf of America’s enemies,’ he said.

    Well, it is called freedom of speech, and as we have seen under the Joe Biden regime, one person’s disinformation is another’s strongly held political convictions. 

    The best way to combat false information in a free society is with truth, not government or social media censorship.

    Meanwhile, as the Daily Mail reported:

    It comes after a ten-month investigation into her online activities by volunteers from the pro-Kyiv open-source intelligence group, ‘The UnIntelligence Agency.’

    She has already garnered more than 200,000 followers across X – formerly known as Twitter – YouTube, and the social media messaging platform, Telegram, which draws in a wide range of guests.

    They include Moscow’s envoy to the UN and Alexander Dugin, a far-right political philosopher, described as the Russian president’s ‘brain’ on foreign policy.

    ‘Donbass Devuskha hasn’t pulled a disappearing act, she’s just had a fabulous makeover,’ Bils wrote earlier this summer. 

    Bils began her rise as the preeminent English-language pro-Russian disinformation queen just eight months before she was demoted and discharged from the Navy in November 2022. She had been serving since 2009.

    While the Navy hasn’t provided reasons for her demotion and discharge, divorce papers filed in the state of Washington show that prior to her discharge she had been suffering from a variety of health problems.

    Still, many suspect that her pro-Russia postings, and possible connections to Jack Teixera, the ex-U.S. Air National Guardsman who leaked a treasure trove of highly classified materials online, were related to her being demoted and dumped from the Navy.

    Soon thereafter, DoJ opened an investigation into Bils earlier this year when she distributed stolen, classified documents about U.S. arms deliveries to Ukraine.

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

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

    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.

    Biden Under Pressure to Fire Energy Secretary After Alleged Ethics Violations

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    4
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm should be removed from her position amid a “litany” of alleged ethics violations, a group of conservative leaders report.

    More than a dozen conservative leaders, including Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, sent a letter to President Joe Biden requesting Granholm’s resignation “based on a series of violations of federal ethics laws and regulations,” the MRC reports.

    “In light of the repeated ethical lapses, as well as the apparent tolerance of a lax culture of ethical compliance at the Department of Energy, it is crucial for ensuring the trust of the American people that Secretary Granholm be immediately relieved of her duties,” the letter to Biden states.

    The letter lists a “litany of abuses of public trust,” including:

    Failure to accurately report financial holdings

    Participating personally and substantially in matters directly benefiting a company in which she had a financial interest

    Inappropriately using her official position to promote products for multiple companies in which she had a financial interest or covered relationship

    Abusing her position of authority and misusing government resources to advance partisan activities in violation of the Hatch Act

    Signaling to career civil servants and senior political leadership under her command that policy objectives take priority over basic compliance with ethics and legal obligations.

    The letter also accuses Granholm of using her office to boost the value of her stock in Ford Motor Company.

    “The recent revelations about Secretary Granholm’s continued financial ownership of Ford stock while acting to enrich – and at times even publicly endorse – the company is egregious,” the letter read. “However, it is simply the latest incident evidencing recklessness at best and intentional disregard for the law at worst.”

    The leaders also demand Granholm’s resignation for engaging in prohibited partisan political activity noting the Office of the Special Counsel found Granholm violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using their positions to engage in some forms of political activity, in an October 2021 interview.

    “Taken together, these episodes cast serious doubt on the Secretary’s fitness to hold a cabinet seat,” the letter reads.

    “You often speak of maintaining the highest standards for your administration’s appointees. It is past time that you demonstrate that this promise holds some meaning,” the letter concludes.

    Granholm would not the first Biden administration Energy Department official to resign in disgrace.

    Former Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Kelly Speakes-Backman amid allegations she used her office to benefit a former employer.

    Senior DOE official Samuel Brinton was also fired and later arrested for stealing womens’ luggage from airports.

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

    Investigators Swoop in on Documents that Could Show Joe Biden was in on Influence Peddling Scheme

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    6
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Congressional investigators may soon have, and could reveal to the public, hidden government documents showing how then-Vice President Joe Biden used his office and taxpayer funds to boost his family’s alleged influence-peddling business.

    U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is demanding the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) turn over records regarding how Biden’s activities as Vice President coincided with his middle-aged son Hunter’s activities in Ukraine. 

    “Comer is requesting all unredacted documents and communications in which then-Vice President Joe Biden used a pseudonym; Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, or Devon Archer is copied; and all drafts of then-Vice President Biden’s speech delivered to the Ukrainian Rada in December 2015,” a statement from the Committee announced.

    “Joe Biden has stated there was ‘an absolute wall’ between his family’s foreign business schemes and his duties as Vice President, but evidence reveals that access was wide open for his family’s influence peddling,” said Comer.

    “We already have evidence of then-Vice President Biden speaking, dining, and having coffee with his son’s foreign business associates. We also know that Hunter Biden and his associates were informed of then-Vice President Biden’s official government duties in countries where they had a financial interest,” Comer added.

    “The National Archives must provide these unredacted records to further our investigation into the Biden family’s corruption,” Comer demanded.

    “In August 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden stated that when he was Vice President there was ‘an absolute wall between the personal and private, and the government’ and ‘that is why I have never talked with my son or my brother, or anyone else in the distant family about their business interests, period,’” the Committee noted.

    But evidence, documents and eyewitnesses report otherwise.

    “Witness testimony reveals then-President Biden spoke on speakerphone with his son’s foreign business associates over 20 times, dined with corrupt foreign oligarchs in Washington, D.C., and met with his son’s Chinese business associate for coffee in Beijing. Emails in NARA’s custody also reveal how Hunter Biden and his associates were copied on official government email,” the Committee revealed.

    Below is the full text of the letter:

    The Honorable Colleen Shogan

    Archivist of the United States

    National Archives and Records Administration

    700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

    Washington, D.C. 20408

    Dear Dr. Shogan:

    The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating President Biden’s meetings and communications with certain family members and their business associates during his tenure as Vice President. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has published the Biden Vice Presidential Records Collection, which contains information relevant to the Committee’s work. Many of these records have been redacted for publication pursuant to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). To further our investigation, it is essential that the Committee review these documents in their original format.

    The Committee seeks unrestricted special access under the PRA to Case Number 2023-0022-F, entitled “Email Messages To and/or From Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden related to Burisma and Ukraine,” which has been published on NARA’s website. These records have been redacted for public release pursuant to the PRA and FOIA. For example, an email bearing the subject “Friday Schedule Card,” is withheld in part under a “P6” and “b(6)” restrictions, denoting personal information regarding the subject under the PRA and FOIA respectively.  Attached to this email, and made available on the NARA website, is a document that indicates on 9:00 a.m. on May 27, 2016, Vice President Biden took a call with the president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko. It is concerning to the Committee, however, that this document was sent to “Robert L. Peters”—a pseudonym the Committee has identified as then Vice-President Biden. Additionally, the Committee questions why the then-Vice President’s son, Hunter Biden—and only Hunter Biden—was copied on this email to then-Vice President Biden.

    To further our investigation, the Committee needs to review these documents in their original format. The Committee also requests access to certain other documents and information described below. Please provide these documents no later than August 31, 2023:

    Complete, unredacted versions of all documents from Case Number 2023-0022-F; 

    Any document or communication in which a pseudonym for Vice President Joe Biden was included either as a sender, recipient, copied or was included in the contents of the document or communication, including but not limited to Robert Peters, Robin Ware, and JRB Ware;

    Any document or communication in which Hunter Biden, Eric Schwerin, or Devon Archer was included either as a sender, recipient, copied, or was included in the contents of the document or communication; and

    All drafts from November 1, 2015 to December 9, 2015 of then-Vice President Biden’s speech delivered to the Ukrainian Rada on December 9, 2015.

    Special access to presidential records may be granted “to…Congress” and “to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee… if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available….” Furthermore, the PRA subjects Vice-Presidential records to its provisions “in the same manner as Presidential records.”

    The Committee’s need for these Vice-Presidential records is specific and well-documented. The Committee seeks to craft legislative solutions aimed at deficiencies it has identified in the current legal framework regarding ethics laws and disclosure of financial interests related to the immediate family members of Vice Presidents and Presidents—deficiencies that may place American national security and interests at risk. The Committee is concerned that foreign nationals have sought access and influence by engaging in lucrative business relationships with high-profile political figures’ immediate family members, including members of the Biden family. For additional information regarding the Committee’s legislative purpose regarding its investigation of the Biden family’s international business, the Committee would direct you to three bank records memoranda it has released this year.

    The Committee on Oversight and Accountability has specific jurisdiction over NARA under House Rule X. Additionally, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X. 

    To schedule the delivery of responsive documents or if you have questions regarding this request, please contact Committee on Oversight and Accountability staff at (202) 225-5074. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important investigation.

    Sincerely,

    James Comer

    Chairman

    Committee on Oversight and Accountability

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

    New Poll Exposes Democrats’ True Thoughts About Biden

    By
    Norman Leahy
    -
    1
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    There’s a wealth of new polling data on the Democratic presidential nomination contest, with polls from The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press both finding that even Democratic voters are concerned that President Joe Biden is too old to run.

    The AP/NORC poll of adults (not registered voters) found that 77 percent of respondents believed Biden was too old to serve another term.

    And for the hardened Team Blue partisans who shout “ageism!” at such findings…69 percent of self-identified Democrats said Biden’s age is a big issue (among Republicans, it was a whopping 89 percent – which shouldn’t come as a surprise).

    But this must be a fluke, an outlier, and a one-off. Surely, the age issue can’t be that big a deal for Mr. Biden. Except The Wall Street Journal poll confirmed it is.

    The Journal asked a split question – one if voters think Biden’s mental fitness is sufficient for the job, the other specifically on whether he is “too old.”

    On the mental ability, 60 percent questioned Biden’s mental ability. On age, a total of 73 percent said he is “too old.”

    What are the comparable numbers for former President Donald Trump?

    A 49-46 split says Trump isn’t mentally up for the job. On age, another spilt, with 47 percent saying he’s too old and 45 saying he isn’t.

    As always with polls, the numbers are snapshots in time and subject to change.

    What these data points do, though, is reinforce narratives that have long been whispered in Democratic circles: Biden’s time has passed, and he would be wise to bow out and allow someone else to take the fight to what looks like Donald Trump in 2024.

    But such whispers against an incumbent are very hard to translate into hard reality. What could bring them a tad bit closer to the fore are the other items in the Journal poll, particularly the sense that most people think the economy has hit a rough patch, and they are feeling the effects:

    …58% of voters say the economy has gotten worse over the past two years, whereas only 28% say it has gotten better, and nearly three in four say inflation is headed in the wrong direction. Those views were echoed in the survey by large majorities of independents, a group that helped deliver Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential race. Voters were almost evenly split on the direction of the job market.

    It’s not a wipeout for Biden, but the data are hardly comforting to an incumbent who has staked his presidency on a massive reworking of the economy, with government intervention and support leading the way. Team Blue partisans will say it’s early, these things take time, etc., etc. And they aren’t entirely wrong.

    But there’s also the iron law of politics to contend with: if you’re explaining, you’re losing. And until the data show voters are feeling better about their own particular economic situation, then Mr. Biden will need more than a slogan – “Bidenomics” – and promises of widespread prosperity to save his own political future.

    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.

    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.

    1...678...37Page 7 of 37
    © Great America News Desk 2022