The Future We Deserve

If we are not interested in the responsibilities of citizenship, we must not be interested in freedom or security.

by Vincent McCaffrey for American Greatness

This is not a difficult equation, even for those who are as math challenged as I am. Perhaps you are an anarchist, and this might be a bit over your head. But if you think, as I do, that government is necessary and the least amount of government possible to maximize both the freedom and the security of the individual citizen is best, then this is the equation for you. 

F + S = C 

Now, it is very telling that Wikipedia (as of June 20, 2023, given the fungibilty of most online information) defines citizenship as “an allegiance of person to a state.” In other words, the state comes first. The state defines what a citizen is or can be. “Each state determines the conditions under which it will recognize persons as its citizens, and the conditions under which that status will be withdrawn.” 

The current Merriam-Webster definition is closer to my own heart: “The status of being a citizen . . . membership in a community . . . the quality of an individual’s response to membership in a community.” The American Heritage Dictionary says, “The status of a citizen with its attendant duties, rights, and privileges.” And the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica describes citizenship as, “[a] relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities.” 

Though I rebel at the attitude of Wikipedia, I am copacetic with the others. The need for citizenship is the same as the need for government. Without it, you have nothing—potentially less than nothing in that your life is in danger. 

But in the equation “F + S = C,” the state is not mentioned. Properly viewed, the “state” is a sum, a result, an aggregate, of the equation that freedom and security equal citizenship. Without those elements, the “state” comes first. 

The “state” might be a king, or a dictator, or an oligarchy. As Max Weber noted, “A government is an institution that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.” That is why we need a state derived from the individual citizen. If citizenship is derived from the king, then you get serfs. This statement might not cover all the permutations of power, especially in an age of bureaucracy, but it does cover the basic use of force. A better society is guided by common law and consent.

All right, what’s all this then? In less Pythonesque terms, what do we have here? Common law is in tatters, reformed by the whim of the mob, judges, and politicians. The bureaucracy of the state has its own rules, its own priorities, and its own means of enforcement. Even the president is a pawn in this game of ‘“deep state.” The Constitution is now a matter of interpretation by judges who have no army but understand that their own power is dependent on the bureaucracy of that state. A mob can and will show up at their homes if they turn their heads the wrong way. 

I am tempted to say we are ruled by an oligarchy of special interests, the leaders of multinational corporations, unions, and political parties. I have said just that before. But I am also aware of the mob. Even Robespierre could not control the mob. As a result, France turned to dictatorship, the military turned to Napoleon, and a generation of Frenchmen was lost to war. 

The equation is freedom and security equal citizenship. If we are not interested in the responsibilities of citizenship, we must not be interested in freedom or security. As the Britannica says, “citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities.” What are we responsible for? 

In ancient times, as late as my grammar school days of the 1950 and ’60s, citizenship was a course of study. Every public school taught this. I am aware that the semblance of such courses still exists. However, they spend more time now instructing students on woke behavior and political correctness. The reasons for our responsibilities and whence they come (e.g., the Constitution) are seldom taught. The idea that proper pronouns are more important than civic duties and the reasons for that says much about why the mob now rules. 

Civic duties, including voting (unenforced), paying taxes (enforced, selectively), attending school or select committee hearings (only necessary if you are aiming for higher office), or the duty to serve on juries and to appear as a witness (mostly enforced), and signing up for selective service (somewhat enforced), are seen as punishments to be avoided. The facts are that most people find ways around these civic responsibilities. 

What we have here is “failure to communicate,” as Strother Martin once told us. If civic duties, as derived from the Constitution, are no longer taught, then we can understand why those duties are ignored and the mob rules. 

The proposition is that all men are created equal, but if that is not taught or enforced, practically speaking, it is null and void. And this is now. Not sometime in the foreseeable future. Our failure to communicate our values as citizens of a republic resulted in the failure of that form of government and the rise of the oligarchic state we now have. As the structures of the old republic fall into ruin (think Rome, if you like, or New York City, or San Francisco), they will be replaced by something more appropriate to postmodern mediocrity, such as yet another Chinese urban center for the tens of millions. 

Perhaps the recent failure of the public health community concerning COVID restrictions and vaccines, or the disasters of foreign policy that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands, or the Department of Education and the fact that Johnny can’t read this, or pick your own favorite government program will be an opportunity for productive argument.   

The future is being made now. We will get the future we deserve, and this will only be the future we make. If we want it to be better, we have to engage in our government as citizens. We cannot withdraw or capitulate. We cannot dictate, or bribe, or threaten. We must communicate. 

Red Pill News and badlands Media- June 24

 

Controversial take (only if you're a liberal who believes in crap like 'people can be born gay or trans and never ever be straight'):

I believe that a person is not 100% defined by whoever that person is living with and whatever that person's gender is. I believe that a person can be rightly defined by the good deeds of that person and if lots of other people think that person is actually quite sweet.

If that person is good all on his or her own, then why the living, breathing hell should it matter who that person is living with regardless of gender? And why should we be forced to let whoever that person is living with ultimately define him or her?

If you believe that we need to ultimately let whoever 1 person is living with and is supposidly married to to define who that person really is and should ONLY care about that 1 fact, then you're a fucking idiot who thinks we should all be ultimately defined by who we choose to be with instead of our good deeds.

Don’t Let Hunter’s Plea Deal Distract From the Real Biden Problem: Ukraine

Really, how stupid do our rulers think we are?

posted by Josh Hammer at American Greatness

In today’s America, it sure is nice to be a Biden.

Presidential prodigal son Hunter Biden’s transparently sweetheart plea deal consummated this week with his daddy’s Justice Department encapsulates, in many ways, the two-tiered system of justice that conservatives have been decrying at least since then-FBI Director James Comey let then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton off scot-free for her infamous email server because, in his words, “no reasonable prosecutor” would have brought the case. 

After a five-year Department of Justice criminal probe, which was rocked in recent months by an IRS whistleblower coming forward to sound the alarm on the feds’ all-too-predictable kid-gloves treatment of Hunter, the ex-crack addict and foreign influence-peddler will escape jail time and avoid any punishment at all (other than a two-year probation period) for having brazenly lied on a federal firearms background check form.

It is easy to envision how this whole sordid business may very well have gone down.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss—a Trump appointee, presumably retained after the 2020 presidential election to give Uncle Joe a pretense of “apolitical” legitimacy in the Hunter probe—calls Attorney General Merrick Garland to report his findings, given the closely scrutinized nature of the investigatory subject. Garland, like any good henchman, then calls his superior—the “Big Guy”—at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the “Big Guy,” in turn, then calls his wayward son, last seen in an Arkansas courthouse for a paternity/child support hearing, to request a favor. “Hunter, I love you and I’ll always be proud of you,” one imagines how this call from the guilt-ridden, senile, octogenarian commander in chief might have gone. “But I need you to take this slap on the wrist so that our troubles go away.”

And so the deed was done. But what “troubles,” exactly?

Well, as it turns out, Don Corleone—the “big guy” of his own crime syndicate family—had nothing on Joe Biden. And Corleone certainly had nothing on Biden if the latest scuttlebutt of Biden family venality and quid pro quocorruption to the tune of millions of dollars, pertaining to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky’s alleged 17 recorded phone calls with Joe and Hunter, bears fruit. I predict it will. After all, Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma, was unceremoniously sacked by the parliament of that notoriously corrupt country around the same time of the recorded Zlochevsky phone calls. Recall also that then-Vice President Joe Biden, at the time, was the Obama Administration’s designated point man on all things Ukraine.

That scuttlebutt, incidentally, does not come courtesy of a young, frivolous, “MAGA-ite” elected official. It comes from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who will be 90 in three months and has been in Washington, D.C., only two fewer years than Uncle Joe. Grassley’s allegations, stemming from a FBI document that the senator claims he has seen himself, cannot be easily dismissed. 

And given the current stakes of open-ended U.S. foreign entanglement in Ukraine, of all countries, the prospect of Joe Biden’s being financially compromised when it comes to that particular country starts to look quite a bit darker. That is doubly so when one considers the appalling idiocy of America’s approach to the Russo-Ukrainian War to date, which has focused almost exclusively on mindless escalation without so much as considering off-ramps and exit strategies.

It is only in that broader context that we can interpret Hunter’s plea deal with David Weiss. The regime seems to think that by dropping the news of Hunter’s sweetheart deal now, five years into the Justice Department probe but a mere week after former President Donald Trump’s arraignment for his own unprecedented federal indictment, the American people will cease their caviling. No more kvetching about our two-tiered system of justice, they think, now that Hunter has confessed his guilt of federal crimes to a United States attorney. No more Republican fixation on Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky, the feds speculate—or on the Ukrainian boondoggle in general, for that matter.

Do not fall for this cynical trap. The latest Burisma quid pro quo allegations—which, while thus far uncorroborated, are eminently plausible and match the timelines for both Shokin’s firing and Hunter’s well-known largesse sitting on Burisma’s board—are a matter of profound national interest and concern, not least because they cut to the very heart of America’s current most entrenched and expensive overseas escapade: Ukraine. 

If the current Oval Office occupant and his degenerate criminal son are somehow personally compromised when it comes to the Zelenskyy government in Kyiv, we need to know that. And we need to know that now—before the threat of a direct, broader conflagration with the Russian Federation becomes even more likely than it already is. Senate and House Republicans, aided by any remaining intellectually honest Democrats, must focus on that intently right now.

David Weiss, Merrick Garland, and Uncle Joe himself have dangled in front of us all a very shiny object: the prodigal son has pleaded guilty to federal offenses. “You see, the system really is fair!” they claim. How patently silly. Really, how stupid do our rulers think we are? 

New FBI Whistleblower Says Deputy Director Threatened Agents Uncomfortable With J6 Investigations

A whistleblower claimed Abbate threatened FBI employees concerned about the bureau’s overblown response to the Jan. 6 riot.

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

An independent nonprofit government watchdog that specializes in whistleblower protection sent letters to Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) this week with more evidence of misconduct by FBI leadership.

On Thursday, Empower Oversight submitted an affidavit of a new FBI whistleblower who came forward with allegations of improper intimidation by FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate. The whistleblower claimed that shortly after Abbate’s appointment in February 2021, Abbate threatened agency employees concerned about the bureau’s overblown response to the Jan. 6 Capitol demonstrations that same year.

During a secure video conference, said the unnamed employee, Abbate called on agency staff with concerns about the bureau’s approach to the Jan. 6 riot to meet with the deputy director personally so he could, in the whistleblower’s words, “set them straight.”

“I have witnessed hundreds of Director [Secure Video Teleconference]s and have never seen a direct threat like that any other time,” the whistleblower said in the affidavit. “It was chilling and personal, communicating clearly that there would be consequences for anyone that questioned his direction.”

In May, House lawmakers on the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government heard from several other FBI whistleblowers who made similar claims about the conduct of agency leadership.

Former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend, who filed for whistleblower protection in August, told the committee he raised concerns over the FBI’s reaction to the Capitol riot, which he thought “could have undermined potentially righteous prosecutions and may have been part of an effort to inflate the FBI’s statistics on domestic extremism.”

“I also voiced concerns that the FBI’s use of SWAT and large-scale arrest operations to apprehend suspects who were accused of nonviolent crimes and misdemeanors, represented by counsel, and who pledged to cooperate with the federal authorities in the event of criminal charges created an unnecessary risk to FBI personnel and public safety,” Friend said. “At each level of my chain of command, leadership cautioned that despite my exemplary work performance, whistleblowing placed my otherwise bright future with the FBI at risk.”

Garret O’Boyle, another former FBI special agent who filed for whistleblower protection, told lawmakers how he moved his family “halfway across the country” before the FBI suspended him for speaking out.

“They allowed us to sell my family’s home. They ordered me to report to the new unit when our youngest daughter was only two weeks old. Then, on my first day on the new assignment, they suspended me; rendering my family homeless and refused to release our household goods, including our clothes, for weeks,” O’Boyle said.

House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, led by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, have sought testimony from at least 16 FBI employees to probe agency misconduct related to whistleblower retaliation.

Empower Oversight made clear in a Thursday press release that “while the affiant doesn’t know and isn’t associated with Empower Oversight’s other FBI clients, the affidavit is relevant to FBI whistleblower cases that are currently under inspector general review.”

According to the affidavit, Abbate’s threat goes against the bureau’s training for new employees who are taken for a tour of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to learn about the lessons for law enforcement.

“The message was this: when orders or policies are wrong, when we are told to do things that violate core values and principles, we must have the courage to ask difficult questions and raise objections. We should be able to do that without fear of being crushed,” the whistleblower said. “The Deputy Director’s threats sent the opposite message: Dissent will not be tolerated. If you question my response to January 6, I don’t want you in my FBI.”

“Abbate’s threat to employees was witnessed by numerous other FBI employees and constitutes evidence of intent to retaliate against any dissent,” said Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt. “This evidence can be independently corroborated by dozens, if not hundreds, of other FBI employees if congressional committees and the Justice Department Inspector General would investigate and document the results.”

The FBI has spent years stonewalling congressional oversight into agency conduct surrounding the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, Jordan re-upped demands for an FBI briefing over the two pipe bombs planted at the RNC and DNC. The FBI, according to former FBI Agent Kyle Seraphin in an interview with The Washington Times, knows what car the suspect used but hasn’t pursued the individual in question.

The pipe bombs, Seraphin added, were found inoperable.

The FBI has also refused to answer Republican lawmakers’ questions about the extent of the agency’s involvement at the Capitol on the day of the riot. Three months after The New York Times ran the headline, “No, there is no evidence that the F.B.I. organized the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,” the paper followed up with another in September 2021: “Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant.”

White House Counsel Throws the Goalposts Off a Cliff With Carefully-Worded Response to Biden Shakedown Message

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden’s White House Counsel has responded to the now infamous WhatsApp message that allegedly placed the president in the room while Hunter Biden shook down Chinese officials.

As RedState reported, within 10 days of that exchange, $5.1 million was wired to Hunter Biden, of which some portion of money was then sent to James Biden, the president’s brother. Congressional investigators are still working to track down just how much deeper the money went.

When pressed on the matter, the White House comms shop refused to answer any questions. Chaos broke out in the briefing room as reporters tag-teamed to keep asking Karine Jean-Pierre whether Biden was actually in the room or not. Repeatedly, the press secretary referred the press corps to the White House Counsel’s office, who she insisted had already answered the question.

So what was that answer? It involves picking up the goalposts surrounding Joe Biden’s past statements on his son’s business dealings and throwing them off a cliff.

“The President was not in business with his son” is a huge walk down from former claims by Joe Biden that he had never even discussed with his son any business dealings. It’s also a very coyly-worded statement that seeks to provide an out when the current scandal inevitably grows larger.

For context, here’s what the president said in 2020 while running against Donald Trump.

BIDEN: I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses, period.

(second clip plays)

BIDEN: I’ve never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.

The sudden new description that Joe Biden wasn’t “in business” with his son is no accident and is, in my view, purposely worded to obscure what the real issue is. No one has ever accused him of being “in business” with his son. Rather, the accusation centers on whether money from his son’s corrupt dealings got funneled back to the current president. That’s the whole enchilada in this situation and what congressional investigators are digging into at this very moment.

Without making a definitive statement (because I can’t know for certain yet), it sure looks like Biden simply lied about his knowledge of his son’s business dealings, and he and his counsel are now trying to shift the standard to provide an out. Why else use that phraseology when past denials have been far more pointed?

Things are unraveling quickly for the Biden family, and when even the White House press corps isn’t covering for them anymore, you know things have escalated. I don’t know where this leads, but I know this is just the beginning. There’s so much more for investigators to untangle and discover, and Republicans in Congress seem bound and determined to see this through. Whether the leadership at the DOJ gains a sense of shame and actually does their job is another matter. On that, don’t hold your breath.

Russia Faces Either a Military Mutiny or Coup D'Etat From Wagner PMC Boss Prigozhin

streiff reporting for RedState 

Earlier on Friday, Wagner Group PMC chieftain Yevgeny Prigozhin accused Russian Defense Minister Sergei “the Plywood Marshall” Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov of deliberately sabotaging the Russian war effort. Prigozhin referred a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of Russia, demanding on his Telegram channel that Shoigu and Gerasimov “must be held responsible for the genocide of the Russian people, the murder of tens of thousands of Russian citizens and the transfer of Russian territories to the enemy. Moreover, the transfer is deliberate, just like the murder of Russian citizens and genocide. Shoigu has a genocide on a national basis.” He released an audio recording:

“PMC Wagner Commanders’ Council made a decision: the evil brought by the military leadership of the country must be stopped. They neglect the lives of soldiers. They forgot the word “justice”, and we will bring it back. Those, who destroyed today our guys, who destroyed tens, tens of thousands of lives of Russian soldiers will be punished. I’m asking: no one resist. Everyone who will try to resist, we will consider them a danger and destroy them immediately, including any checkpoints on our way. And any aviation that we see above our heads. I’m asking everyone to remain calm, do not succumb to provocations, and remain in their houses. Ideally, those along our way, do not go outside. After we finished what we started, we will return to the frontline to protect our motherland. Presidential authority, Government, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Rosgvardia, and other departments will continue operating as before. We will deal with those who destroy Russian soldiers. And we will return to the frontline. Justice in the Army will be restored. And after this, justice for the whole of Russia.”

Shortly afterward, Prigozhin accused the Russian military of attacking one of his training camps in Ukraine.

Prigozhin’s relationship with the Russian high command has been volatile for some time. He’s accused the Russian Army of killing his men by depriving them of artillery support, insulted Shoigu and Gerasimov repeatedly, and pulled his troops out of combat in Bakhmut.

In the meantime, Russia’s SSO, their strategic special operations force unit, has occupied the Russian Defense Ministry. At this juncture, no one is sure what they are doing there.

The FSB and SOBR have established roadblocks on the Moscow-Voronezh-Rostov-on-Don road. It is suspected that if Prigozhin has made a move to take over the government, these forces would be his allies.

Russian television channels have been hacked, playing Prigozhin’s call to arms. And Prigozhin has publicly urged Rosgvardiya to come to his aid.

Other standard coup behaviors were also present.

There are reports of Russian Army units and Wagner fighters engaging in firefights, and of some Russian Army units rallying to Wagner’s cause.

A rattled and somewhat inebriated former commander of Russian troops in Ukraine, Sergey Surovkin (see Week 46. Putin Shakes up the Army Command, Prigozhin Shows How It’s Done, and Western Tanks for Ukraine Are on the Way) appeared in a video appeal asking soldiers to return to their barracks.

Only minutes ago, Prigozhin announced his forces were entering Belgorod and intended to take control of Rostov-on-Don.

Curiously, no one has come to Wagner’s St. Petersburg high rise, even though he is rumored to be there.

Whatever is going on, it is not fake. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry “Porn ‘Stache” Peskov, has acknowledged the goings-on.

TASS and RIA Novosti reported that the Russian security services have started a mutiny investigation of Prigozhin.

If this drama were being carried out in English with no mention in Russia, I’d be tempted to say it was some kind of hoax. But it is playing out on Russian Telegram channels and in Russian state media, and major power players are involved. In this case, Prigozhin has said that the “special military operation” in Ukraine is unjustified and “based on lies.”

I’d be the last person to claim that I have insights into what is going on with Prigozhin and the Russian military. Whatever it is, I think it is safe to say that it is not aiding military operations in Ukraine or building public support in Russia.

Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office Buried Biden-Bribery Allegations AG Barr Sent For Investigation

When Attorney General Barr sent a report of alleged Biden Crime Family corruption to Delaware for investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office hid it instead.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

The Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office hid an FBI report that the Ukrainian oil and gas company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden each $5 million bribes, documents released by the House Ways and Means Committee reveal. That revelation eclipses the catalog of other claims of misconduct and political favoritism levied by two IRS whistleblowers, as detailed in the transcripts the House committee released Thursday — and suggests the bribery claims were never investigated. 

On Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee announced its release of the transcripts of the sworn testimony of two IRS agents who had worked directly on the criminal case against Hunter Biden. According to the press release, the whistleblowers’ testimony “outlines misconduct and government abuse at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the investigation of Hunter Biden.”

While the transcripts expose several shocking details concerning the DOJ, FBI, and IRS’s handling of the Hunter Biden criminal investigation, it is the dog that didn’t bark that should sound the alarm.

Nowhere in the transcripts did the IRS whistleblowers discuss the June 30, 2020, FD-1023 report that summarized a “highly credible” confidential human source’s claims that the owner of Burisma said Hunter and Joe Biden coerced him into paying them each $5 million in bribes. 

The whistleblowers made clear in supplemental statements provided to the House Ways and Means Committee why that was: because the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office did not inform them of the existence or content of the FD-1023. In fact, the June 12, 2023, affidavit that IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley signed establishes the whistleblowers only realized the FD-1023 had been held back after The Federalist exclusively reported two weeks ago that former Attorney General William Barr said he had sent the CHS’s reporting to Delaware for further investigation.

“Most recently, former Attorney General Bill Barr provided an interview in which he stated that information provided by a Confidential Human Source (‘CHS’) concerning an alleged bribery scheme by President Joe Biden was received through the Pittsburgh [U.S. Attorney Office] and was determined it was not likely to have been disinformation,” Shapley said in his affidavit. Barr noted the FD-1023 “was provided to the ongoing investigation in Delaware to follow up on and to check out,” the affidavit continued.

But according to the IRS whistleblower, the CHS information Barr referenced was never provided to Shapley, nor to any of the IRS agents acting under his supervision, nor to the FBI agents working with the IRS investigators. 

Shapley added that he and other IRS criminal investigators had asked to participate in the briefings the Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney’s Office was providing Delaware, but their requests were denied. Had they participated in those briefings, Shapley stressed, they would have undertaken proper investigative steps to determine the veracity of the CHS’s claims. According to Shapley’s affidavit, however, because the information was never provided to the investigators, the agents involved took no steps to determine if the CHS’s allegations could be substantiated.

The second whistleblower, Shapley’s anonymous subordinate and the case agent on the Hunter Biden tax investigation, provided a similar statement, albeit via a letter from his attorney. 

Since the second whistleblower’s testimony, the letter explained, multiple news articles reported on the existence of the June 2020 FD-1023 report of a CHS’s bribery allegations, as well as Barr’s statement that he had sent that information to Delaware for further investigation. However, according to the case agent’s attorney, “he has never seen this FBI Form 1023” and “does not recall ever hearing about this information being turned over in any meetings with the prosecution team in Delaware.”

he whistleblowers’ claims that they did not see the FD-1023 and that the investigating IRS and FBI agents with whom they worked also do not recall ever learning of the information is huge because these agents were essentially the only ones conducting any semblance of an investigation into Hunter Biden. It is inconceivable that this evidence would be withheld from the investigating agents.

Further, Shapley’s investigative team was precisely the group to investigate the allegations contained in the FD-1023, as his group is “known as the International Tax and Financial Crimes group,” and consists of “12 elite agents who were selected based on their experience and performance in the area of complex high-dollar international tax investigations.”

The question remains who within the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office withheld the FD-1023 from Shapley and his team when Barr had directed that the CHS’s reporting be sent there for further investigation. Further, Barr has recently confirmed the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office was briefed on the detailed allegations contained in the FD-1023, following then-U.S. Attorney Scott Brady’s conclusion that the CHS’s reporting did not appear to be misinformation.

The scandal is not limited to Delaware, however. A related scandal connects to another whistleblower who claims that in “August 2020, FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment which was used by a FBI Headquarters (‘FBI HQs’) team to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.” 

Every indication suggests it was the FD-1023 that the FBI HQ’s team falsely labeled disinformation, which raises the specter that individuals in the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office were colluding with FBI HQ to protect the Biden family. It is now up to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s whistleblower to close the circle.