Looking east towards 6th Avenue along north (48th Street) side of Fox News building on a snowy afternoon. [Photo Credit: Jim.henderson, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons]
Fox News has invited Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to participate in another debate before Americans cast their ballots.
Fox has offered the candidates the opportunity to debate each other in Pennsylvania on two potential dates: Thursday, Oct. 24 or Sunday, Oct. 27. Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum would moderate the proposed debate.
The network claimed in a statement addressed to the Trump and Harris campaign that the final debate would be an “opportunity for each candidate to make his or her closing arguments” before November. And they referenced a New York Times op-ed which called for Harris to debate on Fox News.
“As made clear in The New York Times on Monday: ‘Harris Should Offer to Debate Trump Again – On Fox’ — this would present an opportunity for each candidate to make his or her closing argument,” said Fox News Media president and executive editor Jay Wallace in a statement.
Wallace added, “We’re including proposed criteria and format, which mirror those of the CNN & ABC debates; as well as data on our broad audience reach. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to the opportunity to foster informed political dialogue at this pivotal moment for our nation.”
The rules proposed by Fox states that it will mute a candidate’s microphone when the time belongs to the another candidate. Moreover, Trump and Harris will not be permitted to interact with their campaign staff during commercial breaks
CNN has offered to host another debate on Oct. 23 — with the Harris campaign accepting the offer.
On Thanksgiving Day, three House Democrats reported receiving bomb threats prompting law enforcement to investigate the concerning trend.
In each case, Reps. Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Jim Himes (D-CT), and John Larson (D-CT) reported they were threatened with explosives early in the morning. After police got involved, each was deemed safe and the threats did not appear to be credible.
This morning, I was notified of a bomb threat targeting my home where I was celebrating Thanksgiving with my family. Thankfully, after a swift and thorough response from the United States Capitol Police, the Greenwich Police Department, and the Stamford Police Department, no evidence of a bomb was found. Mary, Emma, Linley, and I extend our utmost gratitude to our local law enforcement officers for their immediate action to ensure our safety. There is no place for political violence in this country, and I hope that we may all continue through the holiday season with peace and civility.
At 7:47am I was notified by Chief Edward Stephens of the Wolcott Police Department that they received a threatening email stating a pipe bomb had been placed in the mailbox at my home. State police, U.S. Capitol Police, and the Sergeant at Arms were immediately notified. The Wolcott Police Department and State Police responded and no bomb or explosive materials were discovered and the scene was cleared.
At this time the investigation is ongoing. I thank law enforcement for their swift attention to this matter, their actions demonstrate there is no place in our country for political violence. On this Thanksgiving, I am grateful for my family and loved ones. I plan to spend the day with them and hope you all do the same. May you have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
Larson said in a statement he was visited early Thursday at his home by officers in East Hartford.
“The police determined no bomb was present at the property and the Larson family is safe,” the congressman said. “I would like to thank the East Hartford Police Department for their swift and professional response in ensuring the safety of my family. I am grateful that my colleagues in the Connecticut Congressional Delegation, who received similar threats, are also safe. Thanks again to law enforcement at every level, from local, to state, to federal.”
The trio of threats comes days after incoming White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported that multiple Trump Cabinet nominees have also received death threats.
Nearly a dozen of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees and other appointees tapped for the incoming administration were targeted Tuesday night with “violent, unAmerican threats to their lives and those who live with them,” prompting a “swift” law enforcement response.
The “attacks ranged from bomb threats to ‘swatting,’” according to Karoline Leavitt.
“[Tuesday] night and this morning, several of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees and administration appointees were targeted in violent, unAmerican threats to their lives and those who live with them,” she told Fox News Digital on Wednesday. “In response, law enforcement acted quickly to ensure the safety of those who were targeted. President Trump and the entire Transition team are grateful for their swift action.”
[Photo Cred: Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro recently made some potentially damaging accusations about Jared Kushner, former President Trump’s son-in-law and longtime White House adviser.
As reported by Mediaite, Navarro recently bashed Kushner about his portrayal of several dramatic actions he allegedly took while working at the White House.
“Appearing on Newsmax, Navarro addressed Kushner’s claim in his recently-published book that he was treated for thyroid cancer while serving in the White House.
Host Chris Salcedo flagged the excerpt from the book and stated Kushner “withheld a cancer diagnosis during tense negotiations with communist China.
Navarro addressed Kushner’s book.
“It’s fiction,” he continued. “And the thyroid thing, that came out of nowhere. I saw the guy every day. There’s no sign that he was in any pain or danger or whatever. I think it’s just sympathy to try to sell his book now.”
Salcedo asked if Kushner is “worthy” of Trump’s trust.
“No,” Navarro replied. “Time after time, whether it’s mismanagement of the campaign, mismanagement of the pandemic, taking too much credit for NAFTA, taking too much credit for the Abraham Accords. I mean, the guy was just a one-man wrecking crew, 36 years old I think when he got in there with no training. His only qualification was that he was the boss’s son-in-law.”
Notably, Navarro is dealing with a few of his own issues at the moment. A few days ago he was sued by President Biden’s Justice Department for refusing to hand over emails from his personal accounts which were used to conduct official White House business. Earlier this summer, he was criminally charged for ignoring a subpoena from the Jan. 6 Committee.
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith said this week that while he remains sharply critical of President Donald Trump’s behavior, he believes the tens of millions of Americans who voted for the president should not be condemned simply because of their political choice.
Smith made the remarks during a conversation with Barrett Media CEO and founder Jason Barrett at the Barrett Media Audio Summit in New York City, where he discussed his growing role in political commentary alongside his longtime career in sports media.
Barrett noted that Smith’s political commentary has drawn attention from Trump himself. The president has publicly suggested Smith should consider running for office while also dismissing him at other times as a “low IQ individual.”
Smith said he was unfazed by the insult.
“I’m in good company,” Smith said. “He’s called quite a few people low IQ.”
The ESPN personality added that criticism from within the African American community has been more difficult for him to deal with than Trump’s comments.
Criticizes Trump while defending his voters
Smith made clear that he strongly disapproves of Trump’s public conduct.
“I’m utterly disgusted with how he behaves,” he said.
At the same time, Smith argued that opposing Trump does not mean dismissing every person who voted for him. He noted that more than 77 million Americans cast ballots for Trump and said it is unfair to treat those voters with the same hostility directed toward the president.
According to Smith, many people vote based on policy priorities rather than personal loyalty to a candidate.
“I don’t have to like you to vote for you,” he said, explaining that elections often require voters to choose between imperfect options.
Smith also stressed that he does not oppose every Trump policy, despite his criticism of the president’s rhetoric.
Says voters consider a range of issues
Smith pointed to the economy, immigration, abortion, and border security as examples of issues that can drive voting decisions.
Someone may favor stricter immigration enforcement, support a pro-life position, or believe one candidate is better equipped to handle the economy without endorsing every statement or action that candidate makes, he said.
Smith argued that reducing millions of voters to a single label ignores the complexity of political decision-making.
He recalled an episode of his program, “The Straight Shooter,” when he abruptly ended a call after a caller claimed that everyone who voted for Trump was racist.
Smith said he refused to entertain such a sweeping accusation because it ignored the many reasons Americans cast their ballots.
Two-party system forces difficult choices
Smith also argued that America’s two-party system often leaves voters choosing between candidates they do not fully support.
Many Americans, he said, identify more closely with one party’s priorities than the other’s, even if they disagree with certain positions or aspects of the nominee’s personality.
For that reason, Smith said it is “incredibly unfair” to attack or stereotype millions of people based solely on the candidate they supported.
He maintained that political disagreements should not automatically become personal attacks and urged people to recognize that voters often weigh a variety of competing issues before making their decision at the ballot box.
A reclusive billionaire from a storied American family with a legacy dating back to the Gilded Age has made one of the largest political contributions in the history of American politics.
Mr. Mellon is now the first donor to give $100 million in disclosed federal contributions in this year’s election. He was already the single largest contributor to super PACs supporting both Mr. Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running as an independent. Mr. Mellon has previously given $25 million to both.
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Democrats have sought to portray Mr. Kennedy as a spoiler supported by Republicans, in part by emphasizing Mr. Mellon’s dual contributions and seemingly split loyalties. The pro-Kennedy super PAC has distributed quotations from the hard-to-reach Mr. Mellon, and for a blurb that appears on the cover of Mr. Mellon’s upcoming book, Mr. Kennedy called the billionaire a “maverick entrepreneur.”
It is not clear what Mr. Mellon’s mega-donation means for his support of Mr. Kennedy going forward. He has so far toggled between giving to support both candidates. His most recent donation to Mr. Kennedy’s super PAC was a $5 million contribution in April.
But Mr. Mellon’s $50 million gift will significantly help pro-Trump forces narrow the financial advantage that President Biden and his allies have enjoyed so far. Miriam Adelson, the casino billionaire and widow of Sheldon G. Adelson, who died in 2021, has also made plans to fund a pro-Trump super PAC with at least as much money as the $90 million that her family gave in the 2020 campaign, although much of the cash has yet to arrive.
Critics argue that the case is politically motivated and based on an overly broad interpretation of campaign finance laws. They add that such payments are common among public figures seeking to avoid public scrutiny.
The Mellon family‘s wealth started when an Irish immigrant named Thomas Mellon founded T. Mellon & Sons’ Bank in Pittsburgh in 1869. His sons, Andrew W. Mellon and Richard B. Mellon, later grew the bank into a strong financial institution. This bank eventually became Mellon Financial Corporation, one of the largest banking institutions in the United States.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Andrew Mellon played a crucial role in financing and supporting key industries such as aluminum, oil, and steel, contributing to the growth of major corporations, such as Gulf Oil, and Union Steel. As secretary of the Treasury from 1921 to 1932, his influence shaped the economic policies of the 1920s, known as the Mellon Plan, which contributed to the economic boom of the decade.
National Photo Company Collection, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In 2007, Mellon Financial Corporation merged with The Bank of New York to form BNY Mellon, one of the world’s largest asset management and securities services companies, preserving their 150-year legacy in banking and finance.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
Georgia National Guard from United States, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) has officially entered the race for governor, setting the stage for a competitive Republican primary to succeed outgoing Gov. Brian Kemp (R), who is term-limited. In a two-minute campaign launch ad released Wednesday, Raffensperger portrayed himself as a principled conservative willing to take tough stands, vowing to uphold the Constitution and defend Georgia values.
“I’m a conservative Republican, and I’m prepared to make the tough decisions,” Raffensperger declared in the ad. “I follow the law and the Constitution, and I always do the right thing for Georgia, no matter what.”
Watch:
The announcement pits Raffensperger against prominent GOP contenders including Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who has received former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, and Attorney General Chris Carr, both of whom have strong support among grassroots conservatives. The winner of the GOP primary will likely face a high-profile Democratic opponent next November.
Revisiting the 2020 Election Clash With Trump
Raffensperger became a household name during the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, when Georgia became a critical battleground. After President Trump narrowly lost the state to Joe Biden by just under 12,000 votes, Trump and his allies raised concerns about election irregularities and widespread allegations of voter fraud. Raffensperger, as the state’s chief elections officer, found himself at the center of the storm.
Despite mounting pressure from Trump and many Georgia Republicans to challenge or overturn the results, Raffensperger maintained that his office’s audits and recounts showed no evidence of widespread fraud that would change the outcome. In a now-famous phone call, Trump urged Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to change the result — a conversation that later became a flashpoint in national debates over election integrity and presidential power.
While Raffensperger’s stance drew praise from Democrats and corporate media, it also alienated many in the Republican base, who felt he failed to investigate potential irregularities aggressively enough. That divide has lingered within Georgia GOP politics and is certain to shadow his gubernatorial campaign. Many grassroots conservatives remain skeptical of Raffensperger, while others credit him for adhering to the letter of the law during an unprecedented political firestorm.
A Crowded Field on Both Sides
The Republican primary is shaping up to be one of the most watched in the nation. With Raffensperger, Jones, and Carr already in the race, GOP voters will have a clear choice between different brands of Republican leadership — from establishment-minded governance to more populist, Trump-aligned approaches.
On the Democratic side, the field is also taking shape. Declared candidates include former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, former GOP Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, former state Sen. Jason Esteves, state Rep. Derrick Jackson, former DeKalb County CEO Michael Thurmond, and former pastor Olu Brown. There is also persistent speculation that Stacey Abrams could enter the race again, potentially setting up a dramatic rematch after her narrow 2018 and 2022 defeats.
Georgia has transformed into a true political battleground over the last decade, with Republicans still holding most statewide offices but Democrats making steady gains. The 2026 gubernatorial race will be pivotal in determining whether Georgia remains under GOP control or flips blue.
The nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report rates Kemp’s seat a “toss up.”
Can Raffensperger manage to make peace with Trump and secure his endorsement? Tell us what you think in the comments below!
The 2024 Pennsylvania Senate race is emerging as one of the most closely watched and pivotal contests in the nation, with significant implications for the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. Incumbent Democrat Senator Bob Casey Jr. is seeking reelection for a fourth term, while Republicans are coalescing around David McCormick, a former hedge fund executive.
Both candidates are gearing up for what is expected to be one of the most expensive and competitive Senate races in the country…
Bob Casey Jr.: The Incumbent
Bob Casey Jr., son of the late Governor Bob Casey Sr., has served Pennsylvania in the Senate since 2006. Casey has built a reputation as a pragmatic legislator who prioritizes health care, jobs and labor rights.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the Senate, Casey has leveraged his seniority to secure key committee assignments, including on the influential Senate Finance Committee.
However, the political climate in Pennsylvania has become increasingly polarized in recent years, teeing up a more challenging electoral environment for the seasoned politician this year. With the Keystone State narrowly voting for Joe Biden in 2020 after flipping to Donald Trump in 2016, Republicans see this as an opportunity to unseat Casey.
David McCormick: The Challenger
David McCormick, a former hedge fund CEO and Army veteran, is a prominent figure in Pennsylvania politics and business. McCormick served as the CEO of Bridgewater Associates, one of the world’s largest hedge funds, from 2020 to 2022, where he gained a reputation for strong leadership in the financial sector. A West Point graduate, McCormick also served as an Army officer during the Gulf War, earning a Bronze Star for his service.
National Archives at College Park – Still Pictures, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In public service, McCormick held senior economic positions in the George W. Bush administration, including Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. His platform emphasizes economic growth, job creation and strengthening national security. McCormick is also focused on fiscal conservatism, advocating for reduced government spending and taxes.
McCormick previously ran for Senate in 2022, narrowly losing the Republican primary to Mehmet Oz, who ultimately lost to Democrat John Fetterman in the general election. Since then, McCormick has remained active in Pennsylvania politics, positioning himself as a fiscal conservative and critic of the Biden administration’s economic policies.
McCormick’s background in business and finance has appealed to Pennsylvania’s suburban voters, while his military service has resonated with the state’s sizable veteran population along with Donald Trump’s MAGA base.
Key Policy Issues
In his 2024 campaign, McCormick has focused on national security, economic freedom and his status as a business leader and political outsider, in stark contrast to Casey’s long tenure in Washington. This dynamic has brought the race to a near tie.
I retired from the Army as a captain after a combat tour in Iraq, but I've never stopped serving my country.
I'm a seventh-generation Pennsylvanian, political outsider, & PA job creator.
Bob Casey is a weak, liberal, 30-year career politician who has failed our commonwealth. pic.twitter.com/NnuK1F25Su
McCormick’s platform focuses on reducing government spending, boosting economic growth and opposing progressive policies that he argues have hurt the state’s energy sector, particularly coal and natural gas.
Fundraising and Campaign Spending
The Pennsylvania Senate race is expected to be one of the most expensive in the nation, with both candidates benefiting from substantial outside spending.
According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, Bob Casey has raised more than $21 million, thanks to strong support from labor unions, healthcare groups, and Democrat super PACs such as the Senate Majority PAC. Casey’s deep connections with national Democrats and his long-standing relationships with Pennsylvania’s organized labor groups have made him a fundraising powerhouse.
On the Republican side, David McCormick has raised over $17 million with significant support from national conservative groups such as Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity.
Endorsements and Support
Donald Trump: Former President Donald Trump officially endorsed McCormick’s Senate bid last April during a Pennsylvania rally.
“I am officially giving my endorsement to David McCormick tonight. He’s a good a man. He wants to run a good ship. He’s a smart guy, who was a very successful guy. He’s given up a lot to do this,” Trump told supporters at a rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania.
“I’ll tell you what: He’s the nominee of the Republican Party, David McCormick. Go out and vote for him because Casey doesn’t do a damn thing,” Trump said.
Pat Toomey: Former Senator Pat Toomey praised McCormick’s economic expertise and commitment to conservative values, saying he’s the right leader to represent Pennsylvania.
Ari Fleischer: The former White House Press Secretary endorsed McCormick at a September fundraiser, highlighting his strong leadership and policy experience.
Organizational Endorsements:
Senate Leadership Fund: Backed McCormick as part of their efforts to secure Republican Senate seats.
Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC): Endorsed McCormick for his unwavering support for Israel and stance against antisemitism.
“RJC trusts Dave McCormick – a 7th generation Pennsylvanian, West Point graduate, combat veteran, Bronze star recipient, Pennsylvania job creator and business leader – to be a Senator the people of Pennsylvania can be proud of.”
“Bob Casey is no friend of Israel. Where Bob Casey has failed, Dave McCormick will lead.”
Voter Sentiment and Polling
Recent polling data suggests that the race between Casey and McCormick is likely to be close, reflecting Pennsylvania’s status as a swing state. Polls indicate that Casey holds a slight lead over McCormick, but the race is expected to tighten as November draws closer. Pennsylvania has a history of closely contested statewide elections, with margins often decided by just a few percentage points.
RealClearPolitics (October 14, 2024): Casey leads McCormick 47.8% to 44.6%
Emerson College Poll (October 2024): 48% support incumbent Democrat Senator Bob Casey while 46% support Republican Dave McCormick.
Trafalgar Polling (October 2024): Casey leads McCormick 47.4% to 45.6% with 7% undecided.
Quinnipiac Univesity (October 2024): Incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey leads Republican challenger David McCormick 51% to 43%. Democrats 96% to 3% back Casey, while Republicans 88 % to 10% back McCormick. Independents are evenly split, with 44% supporting McCormick and 44% supporting Casey.
Both candidates will need to appeal to Pennsylvania’s diverse electorate, which includes rural, suburban, and urban voters. Rural parts of the state have trended Republican in recent elections, while urban areas like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh remain Democratic strongholds. The key battleground will likely be the suburbs, particularly in counties like Bucks and Montgomery, where moderate and independent voters could swing the outcome.
President-elect Donald Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon is not afraid to publicly go to battle against billionaire businessman Elon Musk, calling him “truly evil” during a recent interview.
In an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, as highlighted by Mediaite, Bannon sharply criticized Musk, who was tapped by Trump to co-lead the “Department of Government Efficiency.”
“I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day,” Bannon said. “He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down.”
Trump is set to take office for the second time next Monday. Musk’s influence in the next administration remains unclear but he has been tapped to help lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which is tasked with cutting wasteful government spending.
Bannon criticized Musk over the continued debate over H-1B visas. Musk is supportive of the work program that allows the U.S. to attract international talent. Trump’s base, however, is not supportive of the program, fueling a fight over the topic.
Musk himself was once an H-1B visa holder, as he is from South Africa.
“This thing of the H-1B visas, it’s about the entire immigration system is gamed by the tech overlords, they use it to their advantage, the people are furious,” Bannon said.
He slammed Musk’s heritage, calling South Africans the most racist people on Earth.
“He should go back to South Africa,” Bannon said. “Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on Earth, white South Africans, we have them making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?”
Bannon continued to pile on the criticism, saying Musk has a maturity of a “little boy” and only has an interest in increasing his wealth.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) may not be the only Republican planning to leave Washington soon, according to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. During an appearance Monday night on Jesse Watters Primetime on Fox News, McCarthy said Greene’s resignation could signal broader unrest within the House GOP conference.
“She’s almost like a canary in a coal mine,” McCarthy told Watters. “And this is something inside Congress — they better wake up, because they’re going to get a lot of people retiring, and they’ve got to focus.”
McCarthy did not name any specific lawmakers he believes are considering departures, nor did he detail what is motivating them. But he warned Republicans to recognize the significance of Greene’s decision and to make better use of their time holding the House majority.
“I think keeping members out of Congress, you only get two years to be in the majority,” he said. “And if the Democrats get you not to work every day for two months, that’s losing two months of the majority.”
McCarthy also remarked on Greene’s national profile, saying she fits his belief that “if you’re known by three initials, you must be effective at what you do.” He added that he does not view her departure as “the end” of her political visibility and expects she will remain active after leaving office in January 2026.
Context on Greene’s Resignation
Greene announced her planned resignation on Nov. 21, a move that stunned many in the Republican Party. She attributed her decision to her increasingly public split with former President Donald Trump, whom she had long supported as a prominent “day one” MAGA loyalist.
“I have too much self-respect and dignity, love my family way too much, and do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the President we all fought for, only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms,” she said. “And in turn, be expected to defend the President against impeachment after he hatefully dumped tens of millions of dollars against me and tried to destroy me.”
Her break with Trump escalated after she pushed for releasing additional documents related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — an effort Trump reportedly opposed. Tensions rose in the weeks before her announcement, culminating in Trump calling her “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene” and describing her as a “ranting lunatic” on Truth Social while withdrawing his endorsement.
Greene’s exit removes one of the GOP’s most recognizable firebrands from Congress and highlights the deepening internal divisions within the Republican Party heading into the 2026 midterm cycle
The New Headquarters Building (NHB) of the CIA. The Central Intelligence Agency, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
A nonprofit legal watchdog has filed a federal lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency, seeking documents and records over an election-year government effort to cover up reporting seen as damaging to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
In particular, the group seeks information on the agency’s role in a letter signed by 51 intelligence officials that falsely claimed the Russian government “planted” evidence of criminal activity on a laptop owned by Biden’s middle-aged son Hunter.
Judicial Watch filed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA for all “communications of the spy agency’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and ‘clear’ a letter signed by 51 former intelligence community officials characterizing the Hunter Biden laptop story as having ‘all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign,’” the group announced.
“The Deep State CIA, it seems, engaged in election interference and a political operation against the American people to help Joe Biden and hurt Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now the CIA is ignoring FOIA law to cover up its role in the scandal, censoring and suppressing the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden laptop story just before the presidential election.”
In October 2020, the New York Post broke a bombshell story revealing that Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he abandoned at a Delaware computer shop, contained photographs of Hunter Biden engaged in drug use and using prostitutes, as well as emails describing what appear to be shady foreign business deals.
Fearing the story could damage Biden’s presidential campaign, social media companies attempted to suppress the sharing of the Post’s reporting.
The Biden campaign also reached out to intelligence officials, including the CIA and FBI, seeking their help in falsely discrediting the story.
“In a May 10, 2023, report the House Judiciary Committee revealed that on October 19, 2020, three days before the second presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Joe Biden, then-Acting CIA Director Michael Morell sent the PCRB the finalized letter for review, calling it a ‘rush job,’ and quickly secured its approval,” Judicial Watch reports.
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the CIA failed to respond to a May 11, 2023, FOIA request for:
Records and communications of the Prepublication Classification Review Board, Central Intelligence Agency, including emails, email chains, email attachments, text messages, cables, voice recordings, correspondence, statements, letters, memoranda, reports, presentations, notes, or other form of record, regarding an October 19, 2020, email request to review and “clear” a letter involving the Hunter Biden laptop story potentially having Russian involvement or being a Russian disinformation plot.
An investigation by the House Judiciary Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence found that the CIA, or a CIA employee, may have helped the Biden campaign find signers for the false letter.
One former CIA employee, David Cariens, reveals that while speaking with the PCRB in October 2020 to review materials for his memoir, a CIA employee “asked” him to sign the false letter.
“When the person in charge of reviewing the book called to say it was approved with no changes, I was told about the draft letter,” said Cariens.
“The person asked me if I would be willing to sign. . . . After hearing the letter’s contents, and the qualifiers in it such as, “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement . . .’ I agreed to sign,” Cariens said.
“If accurate, this information raises fundamental concerns about the role of the CIA in helping to falsely discredit allegations about the Biden family in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch notes.
Another former CIA officer, Marc Polymeropoulos, criticized the CIA’s involvement in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in the following exchange:
Q. Does what [Former CIA official David Cariens] described there, that interaction with the [Prepublication Classification Review Board], sound like a quid pro quo to you?
A. I can’t comment on this. This is—to me, this is something that the [Prepublication Classification Review Board] in my experience would never engage in something like that. They are just straightforward back and forth in terms of approval. The idea they would have a comment on any other thing that they were working on, that to me is not even close to what I’ve experienced with them.
Q. Does that concern you?
A. If it’s true, it would concern me, for sure. But I just—I have a hard time believing that occurred. If it did, that’s incredibly unprofessional.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
