Article by Matt Vespa in Townhall

 

Uh Oh: Here's Why the FBI Is Now Investigating Hunter Biden's Emails

Well, I’m sure you all know the October surprise by now. Hunter Biden is back. We have emails. And it looks like former Vice President Joe Biden has been exposed as a total liar regarding his son’s shady business dealings. The New York Post had the scoop. They’ve been churning out stories about Hunter’s business arrangements, which was never asked of Joe Biden during his town hall event with ABC News. Talk about safe territory. 

The elder Biden has said that he didn’t know anything about his son’s business ventures. Well, that’s just not true Joe. Hunter was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. Hunter knew squat about energy but was put there in 2014—earning $50k/month. He was there to sell access, allegedly, to top Obama officials. Burisma got that (via NY Post):

Among the emails on the hard drive was one which indicated Hunter Biden introduced his father to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm who was at the time under investigation before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire that prosecutor a year later.

The emails were on Hunter’s MacBook Pro, which he dropped off at a repair shop in Delaware in April of last year. He didn’t pick it up, so the owner made copies and also turned the computer over to the FBI, who had this for months. What were they doing, especially since we have reports that the FBI is reviewing the emails as part of a possible foreign spy operation (via the Hill):

 

Biggs/GOPers to Wray: Was the FBI in possession of the laptop and hard drive that was documented in the New York Post article?
2. Did the FBI take any steps to authenticate the laptop, hard drive, and data that was uncovered?

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 15, 2020

 

Federal authorities are investigating if emails allegedly discovered on a laptop at a Delaware repair shop discussing Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine were connected to a foreign intelligence operation, NBC News reported Thursday night. 

Two people familiar with the matter told the network about the federal investigation.

The FBI took the laptop and a hard drive through a grand jury subpoena that was later published by the New York Post, a conservative newspaper

The FBI declined to comment to The Hill on the reported probe, citing its standard practice of not confirming or denying an investigation.

[…]

The New York Post said the repair shop owner, identified by the Daily Beast as John Paul Mac Isaac, informed the FBI and a Giuliani associate the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden because of a sticker on it for the Beau Biden Foundation, a charity for his deceased brother. 

“Before turning over the gear, the shop owner says, he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello,” the Post said. “Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday.”

Regarding the emails’ authenticity, well, not even the Biden camp can outright deny it as fabrications. They’re probably not. Hunter is a swamp creature—and that aspect got a lot of sunshine over the past 24 hours. 

 

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
Politico: "Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi" pic.twitter.com/iLyozrUvrv

— Matt Wolking (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@MattWolking) October 14, 2020

Politico: "Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi..."

🧐🚨🧐🚨

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 14, 2020

 Yet, we might have a spy operation now. We’ll keep you posted. 

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/10/16/uh-oh-heres-why-the-fbi-is-now-reviewing-hunter-bidens-emails-n2578207

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Article by Pat Buchanan in Townhall

Can Trump Pull a Second Rabbit Out of the Hat?

"Apres moi, la deluge," predicted Louis XV after his army's stunning defeat by Prussia's Frederick the Great at the Battle of Rossbach in 1757.

"La deluge," the Revolution, came, three decades later, to wash the Bourbon monarchy away in blood and to send Louis XV's grandson, Louis XVI, and his queen, Marie Antoinette, to the guillotine.

Donald Trump is issuing similar warnings for the republic if Joe Biden wins the presidency and Democrats capture the Senate. And the stakes, given the magnitude of the chasm that divides us, are indeed high.

The Democrats are out to remake America, and, 17 days from the election, a Democratic sweep remains a real possibility.

Early turnout is already at record numbers. According to most polls, Biden is ahead in almost all of the major battleground states -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arizona. To win, Trump must carry six or seven of those states.

In national polls, Trump is further behind, in some by double-digits, reflecting the mammoth Democratic majorities in populous and deep-blue California, New York and Illinois.

Still, this thing is not over.

For, at this stage of the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton was showing equally impressive poll numbers, and she would go on to lose all eight of those battleground states in the greatest upset since Harry Truman defeated Tom Dewey in 1948.

Can Trump repeat the miracle of 2016?

Perhaps. When it comes to energy, excitement, enthusiasm and a capacity to bring out crowds of loyalists, even in this the worst of pandemics, Trump is unrivaled.

When Trump calls, his followers come. Not in living memory has there been a president who could bring out such vast crowds with such consistency as Donald J. Trump.

By contrast, Biden's meager gatherings seem to evoke as much excitement as a seniors bocce ball tournament.

His appearances, reading from teleprompters and spewing canned attacks written by others, produce polite applause. Rarely does a day goes by that Biden does not mumble and misremember something or lose his train of thought.

The essence of the Biden campaign is the avoidance of actual campaigning. And it has worked. On some days, the campaign "puts the lid on" -- has no more news events today -- by 9 a.m.

The question this has raised is no longer whether Joe has "lost a step" -- few deny that -- but whether he retains sufficient mental acuity to be a decisive leader of the free world for the next four years.

Two weeks out, however, voters seem not to care, or rather not to care enough to reject the Biden-Harris ticket.

The issue has been Trump. And the imperative for the president and his campaign remains to persuade the nation of several truths:

Biden is not physically or mentally up to the job. He will not be able to stand up to the radicals in his party who have extensive plan to enact in the next two years and a real possibility of doing so.

If Biden wins, they will insist that the Senate do what Barack Obama told them to do: Abolish the "Jim Crow relic" known as the filibuster, and use 50 Senate Democrats to enact an agenda more sweeping than FDR's New Deal.

Of what does that agenda consist?

To shift the goal from equality of opportunity in race relations to equality of results -- in income, wealth, power. Reparations for slavery. Pursue the Black Lives Matter demand to "reimagine policing" and to "defund the police."

On immigration, open an immediate path to citizenship and the ballot box for DACA "Dreamers." End deportations. Grant amnesty to all 11 million to 22 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Abolish ICE. Open America's borders to new and higher waves of immigration to make America the most racially, ethnically, socially and culturally diverse society in the history of man.

Pack the Senate by extending statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C., adding four new Democratic senators and making us a bilingual nation.

Pack the Supreme Court by adding two new justices. Raise taxes on payrolls, personal incomes, corporations, capital gains and estates.

Accelerate an end to carbon emissions by halting all offshore drilling and ending any reliance for energy, on coal, oil, gas or fracking.

Free education for all from prekindergarten through college.

On and on the agenda runs. But again, without the abolition of the filibuster, a GOP Senate minority could block this agenda that is designed to create a new American nation unlike the one we have known.

No, this is not the French Revolution.

But nor is it the country that evolved over two centuries out of the American Revolution. The antifa and BLM radicals remind us of this as they go about smashing icons and statues of the men who brought the Christian faith and Western civilization to these shores and founded the republic that may now be fading away.

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2020/10/16/can-trump-pull-a-second-rabbit-out-of-the-hat-n2578186 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Hawaii reopens to domestic travelers

 

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 3:05 PM PT – Friday, October 16, 2020

Hawaii has rolled back some of its travel restrictions. On Thursday, the state opened its doors to domestic visitors who tested negative for the coronavirus prior to their flight.

The state has been under strict lockdown orders since the beginning of the pandemic. Prior to this week’s reopening, incoming visitors were required to quarantine for two weeks upon arrival.

 

Customers may now either take a test at a designated testing location or, for an extra fee, take a pre-flight rapid test at the airport.

“We have two different options, one is a drive through 72 to 48 hours prior to the flight,” explained California United Airlines President Janet Lamkin. “Otherwise, we have an onsite (test) for those who want to come day of flight, you can get your results in 15 minutes.”

 

 With the new rules in place, state leaders are hoping to slowly reopen and revitalize the economy, which is heavily reliant on tourism.

 

https://www.oann.com/hawaii-reopens-to-domestic-travelers/ 

 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

 

Stabbing attack reported near Paris

 

A man has been stabbed in a suburb west of the French capital Paris, media reports say, with the attacker shot dead by police.

Reports suggest the victim in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine was beheaded but police have not confirmed this.

The French anti-terrorist prosecutor has been called in to lead an investigation.

The attack occurred at about 17:00 local time (15:00 GMT),

France's Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin, travelling to Morocco, is returning urgently to Paris.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54573356 

Florida city sells swans after Queen's gift leads to overpopulation

 A Florida city is selling dozens of its beloved swans to the public, after birds donated by Queen Elizabeth II in 1957 led to overpopulation.

 

 

Swans have lived in Lakeland, Florida, since at least 1923, according to the city, but by 1953 had all been eaten by alligators or fallen prey to dogs.

A Lakeland woman who was living in England at the time wrote to the Queen to ask for a gift of swans.

The given pair bred, and now 36 mute white swans are being sold.

The city, which has a swan as its symbol, did a "wellness check" on their entire flock prior to the sale. Proceeds of the sale will go towards their $10,000 (£7,700) annual feeding budget.

 

 

"It'll be hard to say goodbye," Parks and Recreation Supervisor Steve Platt, who is known as "The Swanfather", told the Lakeland Ledger newspaper.

The swans all live around Lake Morton in the city of 112,000 people, about 35 miles east of Tampa.

The city is charging $400 per swan. The buyers were chosen via raffle, and were contacted on Friday to arrange for pick up.

 

 

What is the history of the swans?

According to historians, a woman who was living in England while her husband was stationed there for the US Air Force, wrote to Buckingham Palace asking the Queen for a donation from her royal flock.

She agreed, as long as the Floridians raised the $300 to capture and safely import the breeding pair. While awaiting transport, a barge sank in London's Thames River, covering the pair in oil and delaying their journey.

After they were cleaned off, they were successfully delivered to Lakeland on 9 February 1957. But within a week, the pair had gone missing, triggering a frantic helicopter search before they were safely rediscovered.

There have been other swan sales previously held in 2014 and 2011. Anyone who lives near a fresh body of water is welcome to apply for the lottery, officials add.

 

 

Most swans in Britain are technically property of the monarchy. Until 1998 it was considered treasonous to kill one. One of the Queen's royal titles - in addition to Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith and Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces - is Seigneur of the Swans.

Mute swans, which are the type being sold, are identified by their "deep red bill and jet black feet", the city said, and are those descended from the Queen's royal flock.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54572788 

The Hunter Biden corruption story now comes with receipts.

analysis by Eddie Scarry for Washington Examiner

Because the latest information linking Joe Biden to a corrupt scheme involving his son Hunter Biden comes from Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, the national media will immediately write it off as suspect.

The problem there, though, is that the documents on Hunter Biden that Giuliani provided to the New York Post come with receipts, including an official U.S. court filing and embarrassing photographs.

But here's an idea: Instead of debating whether Giuliani provided solid information, how about a smart reporter simply ask the former vice president about it? Maybe two reporters could do it, or even three.

Yes, a spokeswoman for Biden did say that his team reviewed his "official schedules" from back when he was vice president and found nothing about that supposed meeting. But that's not exactly the same as Biden himself having to answer for the evidence that it did, i.e., the email sent to Hunter by the Ukrainian.

Admittedly, it's a challenge asking Biden any questions at all, even on a basic policy position, such as whether he would try to add more seats to the Supreme Court. He either refuses to answer, or he's simply not available.

But there are still almost three weeks until the election, and there should be at least a couple opportunities to get those questions in. It could also come up at the final presidential debate.

Biden could be asked about the email published by the New York Post purporting to show a Ukrainian having thanked Hunter Biden for giving him the "opportunity to meet your father." The Ukrainian, an executive at the shady Burisma energy company where Hunter Biden was paid for unknown services, said it was "an honor and pleasure."

Joe Biden could be asked about that supposed meeting, given he has denied having any involvement at all with his son's overseas business dealings, especially as they pertained to the Obama-Biden administration's successful attempt to pressure Ukraine's government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

Biden could be asked about the video provided by Giuliani allegedly showing his son engaged in a "sex act" while smoking crack, but that one might not be totally necessary.

The New York Post reports that the information all comes from a laptop that was dropped off at a Delaware-based repair shop, only never to be retrieved by the man who brought it. The shop owner reportedly made a copy of the hard drive, alerted the FBI to the contents, and then handed over the copy to Giuliani.

The owner could not say whether the man who brought in the computer was Hunter Biden himself, according to the New York Post.

Sure, it all sounds crazy, though no more crazy than a dossier with claims about President Trump visiting a foreign hotel wherein he watched Russian prostitutes urinate on a bed for his own enjoyment. The difference, though, is that the Hunter Biden story now comes with receipts. Joe Biden could be asked about it.

Mark Zuckerberg Pops Out Of Man's Shower To...

Babylon Bee🐝

Mark Zuckerberg Pops Out Of Man's Shower To Warn Him The Story He's Reading Is Fake News

BURLINGTON, NJ—Local man Bradley Waters was reading an interesting story he'd seen on Facebook while on the toilet this morning. He wasn't sure if everything in the story was true, but he thought it was a significant story anyway. He was about to share it on Facebook with some thoughtful comments encouraging his friends to check it out and use their own judgment to figure out if it's true. 

But just as his finger hovered over the share button, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg jumped out from behind his shower curtain to warn him the story might be fake news.

"Greetings, Facebook user! That news story may not be true!" Zuckerberg said as he threw back the curtain, startling Waters half to death.

"AHHHHHH!!!" screamed the man on the toilet as he frantically tried to cover up.

"Now, if you'll hand over your phone, I'll make sure that story is permanently blocked so you never have to see that fake news trash again."

Waters attempted to have Zuckerberg removed from his house, but the tech CEO pointed out the section of Facebook's terms of service that clearly lays out Zuckerberg's right to come into your home and correct you on fake news at any time. It also gives Zuckerberg unlimited snack privileges.

 

Article by E. Jeffrey Ludwig in The American Thinker

 

Savannah Guthrie disrespected the president at last night's town hall

On Thursday night, President Donald J. Trump arrived to participate in a town hall on NBC with questions from a variety of voters, some undecided, some committed to Joe Biden, and others who had voted for him in 2016 and planned to do so again.  The hostess for the latest series of questions from the public was Savannah Guthrie.  Instead of being a mature and reasonable facilitator of the encounter between the president and the public, Guthrie revealed herself as an updated Queen of Hearts right out of the Lewis Carroll classic Alice in Wonderland.

Who is the Queen of Hearts?  She is not as concerned with public issues and understanding policies as she is with absolute rule and execution.  The Queen has been defined in three ways. First, she is a force of fear even though she is only a playing card perpetually shouting "Off with his head!" to various citizens of her kingdom.  Second, she actually does not execute anyone when she shouts "off with his head," because her King finds ways to commute her sentences.  And third, the Queen reveals that Wonderland is devoid of substance. 

President Trump, like Alice before him, refused to prostrate himself before NBC's outrageous queen.  Just as Alice looked the Queen directly in the eye, our president looked straight at Guthrie and answered her vehement and extended vituperations and criticisms.  He did not backpedal, backtrack, hem and haw, equivocate, dissemble, evade, or distort.  He explained his views as though he were talking to an informed, temperate, and reasonable individual.

Incredibly, this woman literally debated the president for the first twenty minutes of the town hall (this writer clocked it).  In rapid order, she brought up every malicious and tendentious claim of the MSM and his woke-ocratic political opposition.

For the first eight minutes of the twenty, she insisted and argued that he had not been tested for COVID the day of his first debate with Biden.  Imagine: this president might have put Biden at risk for getting this disease, which would be one of the worst acts of negligence in the history of the world.  Imagine if he were merely working on policies that impact the lives of 340 million people and actually might have missed taking the test on one day.  This ignorant commentator literally took eight precious minutes intended for communication with the public to insist on the president's neglect in possibly not having had a test the day of the first debate, and not remembering definitely if he had had one or not.

Surely, that would have been an insidious blunder, would it not?  Fortunately, this president is unflappable; he treated her with respect though she was a whirlwind of disrespect and ill temper. "Were you or were you not tested on the day of that first debate?"  She repeated this question multiple times, becoming more fierce and disgusted with each repetition of the question. 

Finally, she moved on to such national issues as whether Trump disavows white supremacists.  Here she took a lesson from the first debate's moderator, Chris Wallace, but was even more malign in tone and persistence than Wallace.  She took it upon herself, like her colleague, to debate the president of the United States though she represented a constituency of one.  Like the Queen of Hearts, her bad temper and ill conceived, vicious partisanship clearly were coming to nothing.  She was just a cheap playing card in the game of "gotcha" dressed in a purple pantsuit trying to puff herself up with indignation, revealing the infertility of her mind.

Then, in her twenty-minute attack-dog "debate" against the President, she raised again the question of his handling of the COVID pandemic with regard to the Bob Woodward interview that was a cause célèbre for about 12 minutes a couple of weeks ago.  Again, the President recounted that he had stopped incoming travel from the People's Republic of China and from Europe, which saved tens of thousands if not millions of lives while, at the time, he was being lambasted by Biden for being xenophobic.  She tried to castigate him for not saying how dangerous the disease was and for putting too positive a face on our ability to cope when he had been told that it was airborne and quite contagious.  He passionately held to the view that his presentation had been the right way to notify the public, to encourage people, provide hope, and not to panic the population.  In her persistent criticism, like the Queen of Hearts, she revealed herself as devoid of substance.

Lewis Carroll himself describing his nasty Queen wrote, "I pictured to myself the Queen of Hearts as a sort of embodiment of ungovernable passion — a blind and aimless Fury."  The final point of aimless fury by the Queen was her attack on the president's taxes as reported illegally by the N.Y. Times.  She had the audacity to ask him if he paid only $750 in taxes, and if he was facing incredible debts after he leaves office.  She asked him repeatedly why he did not release his tax returns, which she insisted repeatedly that he could do even if they were being audited. 

Just imagine if a total stranger started interrogating you about your tax forms in an accusatory and angry tone of voice when his knowledge about that tax return is second- or thirdhand, and when it is illegal for him even to have any access to it.  Then imagine that the tone is implying that you are a tax cheat and fraud, and that American society is being ill served by your tax form and desire for confidentiality.

The offensiveness and ignorance of Guthrie's questions were not lost on the president.  He reminded her that she and other Trump-hating colleagues ("Trump-hating" is this writer's term, not the president's) had claimed for a long time that he was lying when he said he was under audit, but at least the Times article showed that he was telling the truth about that.  While he was allowed to release his tax returns when under audit, he told her and the audience that it would be against common sense to do so because his lawyers were in regular communication with the IRS.  Further, he said he was "under-levered" and there was nothing out of the ordinary or threatening or criminal in what the Times had illegally revealed.  And although he did not use the word "emoluments," he referred to the fact that there were no improper financial revelations regarding other countries. 

The NBC Queen showed she had no heart, no love of country, and no respect for the president or for the town hall or television audience.  To suggest a pun, she was decked. 

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/10/savannah_guthrie_disrespected_the_president_at_last_nights_town_hall.html#ixzz6b2gTnpNd

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by Ryan Saavedra in The Daily Wire

 

Twitter Reverses Course Following Widespread Outrage Over Censorship, Senators Announcing Subpoenas

Twitter announced that it was reversing course on some of the extreme censorship that it imposed this week to stop the dissemination of news reports from The New York Post that were damaging to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

The censorship — which was condemned by lawmakers as election interference — came in response to news reports from The New York Post that purported to show new emails from Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings while Joe Biden was vice president in the Obama administration. Twitter claimed that the information was “hacked,” even though there was no proof of that being true. Twitter users repeatedly highlighted the platform’s hypocrisy with its policy enforcement, noting that it allowed The New York Times’ story about Trump’s taxes — which were leaked to the paper — to trend for days.

Vijaya Gadde, Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead at Twitter, announced that the platform was going to make changes to how it handles situations like this in the future. The announcement comes after the platform blocked users from sharing links to The New York Post’s reports and after top Senators on the Judiciary Committee announced that they would be issuing subpoenas for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify next week about the platform “actively interfering in this election.”

“Over the last 24 hours, we’ve received significant feedback (from critical to supportive) about how we enforced our Hacked Materials Policy yesterday. After reflecting on this feedback, we have decided to make changes to the policy and how we enforce it,” Gadde wrote. “Why the changes? We want to address the concerns that there could be many unintended consequences to journalists, whistleblowers and others in ways that are contrary to Twitter’s purpose of serving the public conversation.”

“We put the Hacked Materials Policy in place back in 2018 to discourage and mitigate harms associated with hacks and unauthorized exposure of private information. We tried to find the right balance between people’s privacy and the right of free expression, but we can do better. We’ve recently added new product capabilities, such as labels to provide people with additional context. We are no longer limited to Tweet removal as an enforcement action,” Gadde continued. “We believe that labeling Tweets and empowering people to assess content for themselves better serves the public interest and public conversation. The Hacked Material Policy is being updated to reflect these new enforcement capabilities.”

Gadde highlighted two specific changes that are being made:

1. We will no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them.

2. We will label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter.

“All the other Twitter Rules will still apply to the posting of or linking to hacked materials, such as our rules against posting private information, synthetic and manipulated media, and non-consensual nudity,” Gadde concluded. “I’m grateful for everyone who has provided feedback and insights over the past day. Content moderation is incredibly difficult, especially in the critical context of an election. We are trying to act responsibly & quickly to prevent harms, but we’re still learning along the way. We will continue to keep you all updated on our progress and more details as we update our policy pages to reflect these changes in the coming days.”

Dorsey later commented on Gadde’s tweets, writing: “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix. Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that.”

Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix. Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that. https://t.co/ZLUw3YD887

— jack (@jack) October 16, 2020

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitter-reverses-course-following-widespread-outrage-over-censorship-senators-announcing-subpoenas 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by Nicholas Fondacaro in mrcNewsBusters

 

CBS Claims Russia Stole Hunter's Emails, Cheers Twitter Censorship

After kicking off Thursday by downplaying the bombshell New York Post report exposing alleged corruption by the Biden family as just President Trump trying to rehash “an old attack line,” the CBS Evening News knew it wasn’t sticking and shifted gears. No longer questioning the veracity of the emails and other disturbing discoveries, chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes took to arguing, without evidence, that the information was stolen from Hunter Biden by the Russians to tilt the election.

On top of that, the network cheered the efforts of social media giants Facebook and Twitter to censor the story and keep it from spreading. This was how anchor Norah O’Donnell touted their efforts:

And tonight, the Trump campaign is accusing Twitter and Facebook of censorship after the social media companies blocked the spread of an unverified story about former Vice President Joe Biden's son and a laptop allegedly full of his old e-mails. It's a story raising concerns about whether it's real or just designed to sow confusion in the final weeks of the election.

At the top of her report, Cordes laid the groundwork to defend Hunter by suggesting his information was hacked. “Experts say it has all the hallmarks of information laundering and all the headaches of 2016,” she announced, drawing comparisons to WikiLeaks and Hillary Clinton. “This time, it's a tabloid newspaper dribbling out e-mails, purportedly swiped from Vice President Joe Biden's son.”

 Despite Cordes’s claims, the Post story clearly states that the information had come from a computer turned over to a repairman last year. And in interviews with Fox News, the repairman says it’s Hunter was the one who gave it to him and he failed to pick it up after 90 days.

 

From there, Cordes suggested that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had gotten the information of a Russian agent. She then brought on “a former FBI operative” to back up her argument baseless claim that the information was stolen by Russians and put on bait computers:

ERIC O’NEIL (national security strategist, VMware): Steal the information with a cyber-attack, get the e-mails from Hunter Biden's account, and then put them on these laptops that are left at a repair store, and that's how the information is now laundered into the public.

CORDES: Who do you think is behind this?

O’NEIL: Well, the Russians would be my number one guess. If I had to guess.

With her again comparing it to 2016, Cordes boasted about how “this time, social media outlets were quick to limit the spread of the story.”

She added: “Twitter briefly suspended the accounts of the Trump campaign and White House press secretary after they tried to share it. The campaign threatened to sue as allies on Capitol Hill cried censorship.”

Cordes closed out by opining that “the goal of these incidents appears to be the same” as 2016, “to cast a cloud over the front-runner in the closing weeks of the campaign using a drip, drip, drip of e-mails that create the air of scandal,” even though there supposedly wasn’t one.

 

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/10/15/cbs-claims-russia-stole-hunters-emails-cheers-twitter 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

Article by David Limbaugh in Townhall

 

Judge Barrett: An Originalist, Not a Conservative Activist

I won't pretend to be surprised by this, but Senate Democrats, knowing they don't have the power to stop Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court, have turned the confirmation hearings into a campaign platform to smear President Donald Trump.

The Democrats' approach to the hearings illustrates how disingenuous their professed commitment to preserve the integrity of "our democracy" is. Indeed, nothing better illustrates their failure to distinguish between a democracy and a constitutional republic than their misguided judicial philosophy.

The framers of our Constitution designed our system as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. As students of history and ancient democracies, they incorporated safeguards against pure democracy, which they knew could lead to mob rule. They aimed to maximize political liberty, and that required protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

They divided and limited governmental power, as unrestrained governments tend toward tyranny. We all know the drill. They divided power between the federal and state governments (federalism) and distributed federal power among three separate branches of government (separation of powers).

They imposed an intricate scheme of checks and balances, pitting each branch against the other two to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful at the expense of the others and of individual liberties.

They included the Bill of Rights, which contained further express limitations on government, and they created a bicameral legislature to retard the governmental process and insulate it against impassioned mobs. George Washington described the upper chamber as the "senatorial saucer" that would cool legislation passed in the more democratic House.

Just as all of these structural safeguards are essential to maintaining our liberties against authoritarianism and absolutism, so is our ongoing jealous protection of these safeguards.

We have two political branches whose members are elected, directly or indirectly, by the people and that pass laws and otherwise make policy and enforce the laws. The judicial branch is a nonpolitical branch that should interpret, rather than make, laws. Courts must not act as super-legislatures because their members are not democratically chosen, because they are more insulated from accountability to the people and because the judicial branch serves the important function of interpreting laws.

When appellate courts make laws instead of interpreting them, they thwart the will of the people who elected the political branches. They violate the separation of powers and undermine the very system that was carefully crafted to preserve our liberties. We've seen examples of this throughout history, but especially since the '60s, where the Supreme Court, by fiat, employs elaborate legal fictions to strike down perfectly constitutional laws passed by the other two branches, or to uphold unconstitutional laws.

Democrats argue that Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats in seeking to install judges who will enact their policy agenda. Many Democratic senators alleged that Republicans support ACB because they want her to advance their policy agenda. According to them, the GOP needs Barrett on the court to eliminate Obamacare, abortion rights and same-sex marriage -- and to rule in Trump's favor if a legal challenge to the results of the upcoming presidential election arises.

Sen. Chris Coons said that ACB would open up a new chapter of conservative judicial activism, but that is simply false. Republicans don't want judges to advance conservative policies but to interpret the Constitution according to its originally understood meaning. This could result in overturning liberal legislation and court-enacted laws if they are unconstitutional, but not otherwise. Liberal activists, on the other hand, do substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress and twist the Constitution to do it.

Examples of liberal activism abound, but you'd be hard-pressed to find one of conservative activism. Sen. Ted Cruz cited the example of school choice: Originalist judges wouldn't mandate that all states have school choice, but leftist judges would prevent them from having it. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, conservative judges wouldn't force states to outlaw abortions but would leave the question to their democratic determination.

Sen. Cory Booker said that replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with ACB would tilt the court further to the right. No, it would tilt the court further toward the Constitution, where it ought to be -- and there's a big difference.

It is not surprising that Democrats regard Barrett as a threat, given their reliance on unelected judges to usurp the lawmaking authority of the politically elected branches. But that is not how Republicans look at the judiciary, and if Democrats respected the separation of powers and truly wanted to protect the integrity of our republic, they would have nothing to fear from such stellar judicial nominees as ACB.

Democratic senators are campaigning from their senatorial perch instead of performing their duty of advice and consent. They are trying to scare voters into believing that ACB and other GOP-appointed judges will take away the people's coverage for preexisting health conditions. Just like they continue to falsely accuse Trump of not having denounced white supremacy, they are misleading the people on health care, knowing that even if the court strikes down the Affordable Care Act entirely, Republicans have guaranteed that any replacement bill would include coverage for preexisting conditions.

Using all relevant criteria -- judicial philosophy, qualifications, temperament and personal character -- Judge Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in our history. Adding her to the court will not threaten our liberties but rather greatly protect them.

https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2020/10/16/judge-barrett-an-originalist-not-a-conservative-activist-n2578183 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Senator Tom Cotton on Big Tech Censorship: “Winter is Coming”

posted by sundance at conservative treehouse

As we shared yesterday, the examples of Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube blocking factual information about Joe Biden’s corrupt financial engagements with foreign entities is an “all-in” election interference effort. In many ways this is an extinction level event for their business model if Joe Biden does not win the election.

These tech and social media companies are worth hundreds of billions and their future financial viability is now directly connected to the 2020 election. Shareholders and stakeholders will begin filing lawsuits as soon as the hammer of FCC, DOJ or legislative regulation drops to break up their previously permitted monopolies.

A Trump victory will destroy these entities; and the likelihood of a Trump victory increases in direct proportion to their efforts to advance censorship…. it is a very unique situation.

It’s important to remember… there is a pre-existing DOJ antitrust lawsuit looming that underpins the current position of “Big Tech”; and factually in June of this year we previously shared: “As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.”

CTH has discussed the likelihood of DOJ action against Google previously.  In June of this year AG Barr also mentioned in an interview with Senator Ted Cruz he was likely to have the final DOJ investigation on his desk for a decision within the next few months.

Immediately after Barr’s remarks Politico reported  on some of the background DOJ activity which aligned with Bill Barr’s statements and our own research assembly.

WASHINGTON – Justice Department prosecutors expect to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google in the coming months focused on the company’s dominance in online advertising and search, two individuals familiar with the discussions said Friday.

DOJ lawyers and state antitrust officials met online Friday and discussed contours of the expected complaint, according to the people, who weren’t authorized to speak on the record because the investigation is ongoing.

[…] The suit is expected to involve allegations that the search giant has monopolized the advertising technology market. It is also expected to include allegations that Google has taken steps to extend its monopoly over search, such as through contracts with Apple and cellphone makers who use the Android operating system that require it be the default search engine.

The people cautioned that Attorney General William Barr, who did not attend the meeting, has yet to make a final decision on whether to sue, a judgment he could make in the coming weeks. The department would also need to decide what remedy it would seek, such as trying to break up the company or placing limits on its behavior. Whether the state attorneys general would also sign on to the DOJ complaint isn’t yet determined.

Prosecutors are still discussing whether to include other aspects of Google’s conduct related to search, the people said.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment. (read more)

Anyone who has spent time on the internet already knows Google manipulates the internet based on their self-defined ideology.  In August of 2019 a Google employee and whistleblower came forward with documentary evidence explaining how they do it.

Zachary Vorhies went  public with the information in order to help people better understand the scope and scale of Google’s manipulative intent.  [Link to Documents]

Among those documents is a file called “news black list site for google now.” The document is a “black list,” which restricts certain websites from appearing on an Android Google product.  Not surprisingly CTH is listed on the black list.

On May 28, 2020, after President Trump signed an executive order targeting on-line censorship, CTH wrote a twitter thread about it.  There has to be a breaking point where the FCC or DOJ steps in to address these issues, if our constitutional republic is to survive.

[Read Executive Order Here] – In the periphery of this executive action there are indications, and a widespread expectation, the DOJ is close to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc and their affiliated companies. There is a possibility the controlling ideology of ‘big tech’ is about to merge with legal action by the DOJ.

The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.

The issue will not necessarily surface as most would think; via a bias based on conservative -vs- leftist ideology in content manipulation; though those underlying aspects are a part of the larger underpinning we will soon see surface.

Antitrust lawsuits, writ large, are based on “prices”, “costs”, and net “financial” distortions caused by corporations not competing based on open commerce. “Antitrust” in it’s structural form is based on costs and the manipulation of prices.  Essentially, controlled commerce.

In the digital sphere the targeted firms have not opened themselves to liability based on ideology; but rather Google, all subsidiaries and alliances, have opened themselves to antitrust violations through the manipulation and control of financial benefit.

Demonitization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws…. But will they take action? That’s the question.

Antitrust intervention is warranted because the content being generated on these on-line, digital platforms, is being arbitrarily valued by the media company GoogleAds and not the free market. Devaluing certain content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the control enforcer, in this example Google. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that should afford the DOJ the opportunity to step in.  Google (and all subsidiaries) will lose on the substance of their defense because ultimately their business practice has resulted in, and arguably they have engaged in, price fixing.

It will take time, but from an optimistic position if the DOJ take action eventually Google would be forced to settle a lawsuit.  There could be a massive financial settlement in addition to a negotiated Consent Decree. Within the decree terms, we could even see a break-up.

Any antitrust action is only tangentially related to President Trump’s previous confrontation with Twitter and big tech social media based on ideological lines. However, it is easy to see how the two issues will merge.  The monetary distortions are based on ideology.

As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.

This is definitely worth watching…