Saturday, July 22, 2023

Doubts and Questions About Biden Will Only Grow


Wow, big news broke Tuesday – President Biden’s campaign is officially going to be headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. For months nervous Democrats have wondered why Biden only had four full-time staffers devoted to his reelection effort and why the campaign wasn’t yet located anywhere.

This development will do absolutely nothing, however, to stop the panic within the party that Biden is too old to run for reelection and could easily lose to former President Donald Trump. Sorry, Team Biden, these fears will not be put to rest; they are going to persist and grow.

Though the White House and the Democratic National Committee may be trying to ignore it, there is suddenly a constant stream of stories in the media about doubts that Biden can make it across the finish line 16 months from now. Though Frank Bruni noted it’s probably too late, he encouraged Democrats in a New York Times column to talk about Hunter Biden, and suggested Biden should step aside: “It might be best, for him and for continued Democratic control of the White House, if he let Democrats choose a different 2024 nominee.”

And CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere’s reporting last week went there – top Democrats and donors continue to “reach out to those seen as possible replacement presidential candidates. Get ready, they urge…” Democrats, Dovere wrote, worry about Biden’s weak small-dollar fundraising – which shows diminished energy from the grassroots – as well as his light schedule, which they believe will only exacerbate the perception that he is too old to campaign or be president. A Democrat who had a senior role in Biden’s 2020 campaign is quoted saying “If Trump wins next November and everyone says, ‘How did that happen,’ one of the questions will be: what was the Biden campaign doing in the summer of 2023?”

In a recent New York Times report about how impressive Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s polling and campaign war chest is, and what that says about Biden’s weakness as an incumbent, Julian Castro, the former housing secretary, said “It’s clear there is a softness that perhaps is born out of a worry about electability in 2024.”

Biden’s polling is not soft, it’s terrible and has worsened over time. The age liability and concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness loom large across all surveys and voter groups. In some general election surveys, he loses to Trump. It’s hard to imagine next year, when he is older, that his standing will improve.

It’s not just that critical parts of the Democratic coalition are disappointed and apathetic and may not turn out to vote – but data shows some Asian, Hispanic, and black voters are beginning to support Republicans instead. John Della Volpe, polling director at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics and an expert on youth voting, recently wrote that young voters are increasingly identifying as independents, not Democrats, and are becoming disillusioned with politics as a means to create change. “Nearly every sign that made me confident in historic levels of youth participation in 2018, 2020 and 2022 – is now flashing red,” he wrote.

Biden also appears to have forgotten that, in an election he only won by fewer than 44,000 votes in three states, the support of Never Trump Republicans was critical. Recent reporting by NBC News shows the Biden White House has ignored many of those Republicans who stepped up to endorse him (except for Cindy McCain and former Sen. Jeff Flake who both became ambassadors in his administration) and that they aren’t interested in supporting him again next year.

The Biden inner circle seems to be confident his age is a smaller political problem than the many ones Trump has. They also seem to be in denial that some of the Hunter Biden business dealings revelations are really bad, and that his father refusing to acknowledge his love child is terrible.

The campaign will remain focused mostly on the economy – there are plans for the president to embark on an “investing in America” tour this summer to tout the historic investment in manufacturing, infrastructure, and jobs that his administration has secured.

But it may be too late for Biden to toot his horn.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Austin Davis was recently quoted by the New York Times, talking about how poorly the administration has communicated its accomplishments to the public. “They’ve done a pretty bad job of telling the American people and Pennsylvanians what they have done,” he said.

No good economic news – there is much of it and more could materialize – seems able to eclipse the sting of inflation and sink in with voters when 74% of Americans believe we are on the wrong track. Voters give Biden poor ratings on the economy despite record job growth and – as David Brooks recently noted in the New York Times – a lower misery index (inflation rate added to unemployment rate) than Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama had when they were reelected.

And it’s clear that Republicans will pummel Biden over his unpopular vice president throughout next year’s campaign. “I think that we can all be very clear and say with a matter of fact that if you vote for Joe Biden you are really counting on a President Harris, because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something I think is likely,” Nikki Haley said, which is only the beginning of this refrain.

Dismissing Harris’ abysmally low approval rating, which makes clear she is a liability to an 80-year-old Biden running to be president until he is 86 years old, as racist and misogynistic won’t help make her more popular or help Biden win the electoral college.

The Biden campaign can raise a lot of money and hold lots of ribbon cuttings at factories and try to rehabilitate Harris – but nothing will calm the jitters building in the party about the increasing likelihood of a second Trump term.



GAF August schedule update, Red Pill news, and more- July 22

 



Got a nice update on GAF's August schedule:

The Pure Flix movie, An Unlikely Angel, will air Saturday, August 12 (it's main actress was in last year's A Brush with Christmas):


And Dream Wedding has a premiere date: August 26.

Following Affirmative Action’s Demise, Slay the DEI Leviathan


On Thursday, Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez announced that its embattled associate dean for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), Tirien Steinbach, has resigned. Steinbach’s all but assuredly forced “resignation” followed an outpouring of disgust from Americans revolted by her disgraceful antics during the Stanford Federalist Society student chapter’s attempted hosting in March of a speech by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, which was constantly disrupted by outlandish student behavior and ultimately canceled. Steinbach’s resignation represents a modicum of justice following a grievous wrong. Now, Steinbach will have plenty of time to mull over whether the “juice” of her abetting an obstreperous law school student woke mob was worth the “squeeze” of her eventual dismissal.

Steinbach’s overdue “resignation” is the latest domino to fall in a rapid succession of righteous pushbacks against the roving academic and corporate diversitycrat commissars who collectively comprise America’s DEI regime. Perhaps not coincidentally, these dominoes have all fallen after last month’s landmark vindication of constitutional colorblindness, and defeat for race-conscious affirmative action programs, in the consolidated U.S. Supreme Court cases of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. Following the demise of affirmative action at the Court, the next goal for proponents of colorblindness and foes of racial determinism is clear: Slay the DEI Leviathan.

Last Thursday, a coalition of 13 Republican state attorneys general, led by Kansas’ Kris Kobach and Tennessee’s Jonathan Skrmetti, sent a letter to the CEOs of all Fortune 100 companies “to remind (them) of (their) obligations as … employer(s) under federal and state law to refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or otherwise.” The attorneys general cite numerous laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to bolster their anodyne contention that racial discrimination in the workplace is “both immoral and illegal.” While the Court’s opinion in SFFA did not directly touch on Title VII, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion correctly noted that Title VI, a sister provision of Title VII, demands the same colorblindness that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause demands. Naturally, therefore, so too does Title VII.

The result: Fortune 100 CEOs are now “on notice of the illegality of racial quotas and race-based preferences in employment and contracting practices.” An employer’s subjective intent, whether invidious or purportedly benign, is irrelevant. Fortune 100 DEI commissars, consider yourselves warned.

Similarly, on Monday U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent a letter to 51 of the largest global and national law firms to put them on notice that the “same principles” the Court relied upon in SFFA and the “plain text” of both Title VI and Title VII “cover private employers” just as clearly as Chief Justice John Roberts held the Equal Protection Clause covers universities. Accordingly, Cotton, himself a lawyer and former Fifth Circuit law clerk, warned the Big Law juggernauts that “Congress will increasingly use its oversight powers — and private individuals and organizations will increasingly use the courts — to scrutinize the proliferation of race-based employment practices.” Cotton ended his missive by specifically flagging DEI programs, whether those operating at law firms’ corporate clients or in-house at law firms themselves, as implicating these same legal concerns.

The upshot could not be clearer: Following the legal triumph of genuine human “equality” and the defeat of vogue leftist notions of “equity” in SFFA, DEI apparatuses nationwide should tread extremely carefully. Better yet, leading state attorneys general and members of Congress will be watching corporate diversitycrats like a hawk, threatening to sue, investigate or subpoena them if they stray too far and engage in race-conscious hiring, firing or other personnel decisions. Considering that the entire raison d’etre of the DEI regime is to do precisely this, the Republican attorneys general and members of Congress should find themselves with an overabundance of possible legal targets.

Following the abolition of the affirmative action regime in SFFA, the Right must now prioritize the abolition of the DEI regime. The two regimes, after all, are but two sides of the same coin: Affirmative action and DEI both place a premium on something as arbitrary as one’s race, which Justice Clarence Thomas correctly noted in his SFFA concurring opinion is an artificial “social construct.”

Whatever DEI commissars’ subjective intentions may be, the truth is that America endured a bloody, horrible Civil War to definitively settle the question of whether race is inherently determinative (a la Chief Justice Roger Taney in the infamous Dred Scott case) or, per Thomas, a mere social construct. The answer provided by the tragic death of 618,000 Americans in the Civil War, to say nothing of America’s second founding via the Reconstruction Amendments and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is clear: Our nation is colorblind to its very core. Race, accordingly, is just what Thomas says it is: an artificial social construct.

DEI, like all other forms of race-centricity or race-consciousness, is cancerous to a free people. It must be destroyed.



ODNI Releases 2023 FISA Court Compliance Audit, Opinion and FISC Reauthorization – 117 Page PDF



If anyone else wants to climb in here and read this report [pdf DATA HERE], drop your review notes in the comments.  It’s going to take me a day or two to finish making all my notes.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence [ODNI] has released a 117-page April 2023 order/opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] about the compliance audit conducted by internal review as the U.S. intelligence agencies seek reauthorization.   Everything FISC happens in secret, and the report is heavily redacted; however, some interesting information can be obtained if you read the report carefully.

Here’s an example.  The FISC is now agreeing with the NSA and FBI that all search logs and audit trails should be erased after 10 years from query.  That means every audit trail from the period up to August 2013 is about to be erased.  That means almost all of the Obama era search queries will disappear before the next administration takes office.

They are not erasing our data; they are erasing the logs of their search inquiries into our data.  FU!

[Source, page 27 – FISC opinion, 2023]

Readers here know my position.  I do not believe the FISA court is needed; nor do I believe the NSA, FBI, NCTC or CIA should have any search access to the metadata [full scope electronic records] of American Citizens without a court order.

The DOJ and FBI should go to the ordinary federal courts for search warrants.  The CIA and National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) both have foreign service missions, so they do not need access to American citizen metadata (702 acquired).  Why would the CIA and NCTC need to snoop into the private data of American citizens when their legislative authority forbids them from conducting domestic surveillance?    Additionally, the NSA should not contain a lifetime repository for all electronic records of American citizens.  That’s my opinion.

[Review the FISC Opinion Here]



10 Media Hack Factories That Pooh-Poohed The Biden-Burisma Scandal As A Conspiracy Theory


Here are some of the best examples of media hackery about the Burisma-Biden scandal that aged like fine milk.



The head of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, who paid Hunter Biden handsomely to sit on the company’s board, told an FBI source he has 17 recordings proving he was “coerced” into giving the Bidens millions in return for Joe Biden getting rid of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma, according to an explosive FBI document Sen. Chuck Grassley made public on Thursday.

The four-page form documents testimony from a trusted confidential human source (CHS) based on conversations with Burisma chief Mykola Zlochevsky. In the source’s telling, Zlochevsky told the CHS he had 17 recordings, including two of Joe Biden, that prove he “was somehow coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired” after he hired Hunter Biden to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems.”

A scandal involving our now-president selling out his country for foreign dollars is nothing less than earth-shattering, but the biggest scandal of all is the coverup being run by everyone from the Justice Department and FBI to the compromised corporate press.

In any country with a free press that sees itself as a government watchdog and not a government lapdog, this would be a news cycle to make Watergate look like a case of stolen lollipops. Instead, the explosive developments have been making their way to Americans directly from the mouths of brave whistleblowers and in documents pried from FBI fingers by Congress. For good reason, Grassley didn’t give the FD-1023 form to gatekeepers at The New York Times or The Washington Post; he released it straight to the American public.

Why? Because the corporate media have spent years actively trying to shut the story down, in service of the Biden dynasty. Here are some of the best examples of media hackery about the Burisma-Biden scandal that aged like fine milk.

1. The New York Times

In October 2019, Davey Alba in The New York Times called the allegation that “while Mr. Biden was vice president, he pushed to have Ukraine’s top prosecutor removed for investigating a company connected to Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma” a “prominent falsehood.”

The Times admitted Biden pushed for the prosecutor’s firing but insisted “there is no evidence he did so to benefit Hunter Biden or the oligarch who owns Burisma.” The Times also chastised then-President Donald Trump for calling foul on the Bidens’ suspicious Burisma connections, and characterized Trump’s decision to question the Ukrainian president about the Bidens’ dealings as a “crisis.”

2. The Washington Post

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius insisted Hunter’s shady association with Burisma “isn’t a scandal about his father, as the Trump campaign claims, but part of a personal tragedy for the vice president’s son, compounded by this week’s dissemination of what looks like disinformation about Joe Biden’s role.”

Ignatius concluded that “the notion that the Burisma affair undermines Joe Biden’s case to be president is, as he would say, malarkey.”

3. The New Yorker

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker derided what she called “a repeatedly discredited conspiracy theory involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s work in Ukraine” in a 2019 piece.

Under the headline “The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine,” she promised to demonstrate “How a conservative dark-money group that targeted Hillary Clinton in 2016 spread the discredited story that may lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment.”

4. The Intercept

“Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden Scandal in Ukraine Is ‘Absolute Nonsense,’” wrote Robert Mackey in The Intercept in 2019. He cited a Ukrainian “anti-corruption activist” to counter the accusation that Biden got prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired “to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.”

“[T]he false nature of the allegation about [Biden’s] role in Ukraine won’t stop Trump and his supporters from treating it like a major scandal,” Mackey fretted.

5. CNN

CNN “fact-checked” Trump for his assertions “that Joe Biden was improperly trying to help Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, when Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the country’s prosecutor general.”

“[T]here are significant holes in Trump’s story. Some of his allegations have been false. Others have been missing important context,” CNN blubbered.

6. NBC News

“Senate Republicans aim to turn Biden-Burisma conspiracy theories into 2020’s Benghazi,” wrote Kurt Bardella for NBC News, calling the story a “baseless political scandal” that Republicans were “engineering.”

“Republicans claimed that Joe Biden pushed to remove Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to protect Hunter Biden from an investigation into allegations of corruption at Burisma,” he continued. “But there has never been any evidence that the elder Biden acted inappropriately.”

7. ABC News

Even after news broke of the existence of the FD-1023 with its allegations, ABC News kept running cover for the Biden family business. In a section titled “The unproven Biden bribery claim,” ABC’s Lucien Bruggeman simply regurgitated talking points from congressional Democrats and the Biden White House without substantively responding to the FD-1023’s assertions that “a foreign national who brokered the alleged $10 million bribe had made 17 audio recordings of his discussions with the Bidens.”

8. Slate

“’Tis the Season to Debunk Your Family’s Hunter Biden Conspiracy Theories,” Molly Olmstead wrote for Slate in December 2022.

“It’s fair to say (to Uncle Bob, or whoever else needs to hear it) that claims that Joe Biden protected Burisma to safeguard his son’s interests are politically motivated, and constitute misinformation,” she continued.

9. The Daily Beast

“Trump’s Big Lie About Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Ukraine Falls Apart,” headlined a September 2019 piece in The Daily Beast by Casey Michel. Michel reassured his readers that ackshully, Biden strong-arming Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma was an example of how “Biden did the right thing, no matter the personal cost.” Because Shokin wasn’t doing enough to root out corruption and his investigation into Burisma had stalled, getting rid of him was really not doing Burisma a favor, the talking point went — despite the fact that Shokin reportedly claimed he backed off of investigating Burisma because of threats from the United States in 2015, roughly a year before he was fired.

10. USA Today

“Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son,” USA Today insisted in October 2020.



Photo of Hunter’s Lawyer at Home Is Raising Big Questions About Hunter's 'Recovery'

Photo of Hunter’s Lawyer at Home Is Raising Big Questions About Hunter's 'Recovery'

Nick Arama reporting or RedState 

It’s been a very bad week of scandal for the Bidens. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released the FD 1023 form, in which a trusted informant alleged that Hunter and Joe Biden received millions of dollars in bribes from the Burisma owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. An FBI official revealed the FBI knew the laptop was real—even as the laptop was being suppressed back in October 2020, but they stopped their people from revealing that, making them say, “no comment.” I am guessing that Friday’s news likely won’t help Hunter Biden and certainly capped off the bad week.

According to an exclusive report by the Daily Mail, Hunter Biden went to visit his lawyer at his home in the Pacific Palisades. His lawyer Kevin Morris is also very close to him. Morris allegedly paid off some of Hunter’s tax debt, reportedly to the tune of $2.8 million. Morris made a ton of money representing the South Park creators in a huge, $900 million deal with Viacom in 2021. So, this isn’t someone who is hurting for money.

Morris has reportedly helped Hunter with rent, and given him money to fund his lifestyle; Some of Hunter’s friends allegedly call Morris his “sugar brother.”

But while Hunter was at Morris’ house, people took pictures from the outside of the house showing the lawyer Kevin Morris standing on his balcony, seemingly smoking a bong.

It’s not clear what was in the bong. If it’s marijuana, that’s legal in California.

But that can’t help the situation with his famous client; it’s not a good look for Hunter, who is also supposed to be a “recovering addict.” His abandoned laptop is full of excesses including drugs, when he was less than “recovering.” This is going to raise questions about whether he is “recovering,” if Morris was engaging in drug use while Hunter is around. Hunter’s father has tried to sell us the story of him turning his life around, but is that like most of Joe Biden’s stories—something that’s lacking in reality?

One of the charges worked out in Hunter’s proposed plea agreement was Biden allegedly falsely claiming that he was not an illicit drug user on a gun form.

This picture also comes at a time right after cocaine was found at the White House. The White House and the Secret Service have come under heavy criticism for the Secret Service shutting the investigation down in under two weeks, saying they couldn’t find anything. As I noted earlier, former Secret Service agent and political commentator Dan Bongino dropped some inside information seemingly suggesting that the cocaine may have been dropped at the cubby in the West Wing for someone to pick up.

The Daily Mail report explains what happened when Hunter arrived at Morris’ house.

Hunter arrived in the afternoon in a black SUV, escorted by Secret Service bodyguards and dressed in a blue shirt, jeans and aviator sunglasses favored by both him and his father. He was greeted at the Los Angeles home by a woman in a yellow floral dress.

If Hunter was there to work on the whole counter-narrative to the scandal, this didn’t exactly help that counter-narrative.



Mohamad Barakat: Serious Omissions by Legacy Media

Mohamad Barakat: Serious Omissions by Legacy Media

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Last week, following a traffic stop in normally peaceful Fargo, ND, a gunman opened fire on police officers, killing one officer and wounding two others, along with a bystander. What the media coverage isn’t telling you is anything about the background of the shooter, one Mohamad Barakat.

According to this morning’s (July 21) update from Attorney General Drew Wrigley, Barakat had been researching mass attacks online and had notes from an attempted Times Square bombing attack.

Barakat had been studying mass casualty events for several years, and most recently was researching local events happening in the Fargo-Moorhead-West Fargo and surrounding areas.

And:

Forensics experts with the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation say Mohamed Barakat has no social media presence and appears to have had very little interaction with people. Wrigley and the U.S. Attorney for the District of North Dakota both said, they have no evidence at this time that indicates a further threat to the community.

Investigators say Barakat had been reading about other mass shooting events around the country, and researching local events in the Fargo-Moorhead and surrounding areas. His online searches about mass violence go back as far as 2018. The final online search Barakat made on Thursday, July 13, was about thousands of people attending the Downtown Fargo Street Fair.

Wrigley said with the evidence they have so far, they believe Barakat may have been planning to bring his guns, ammunition, and explosives to execute a mass casualty event at the Downtown Fargo Street Fair or the Red River Valley Fair. As he was heading north on 25th Street, he could have turned right to go downtown or left to go to West Fargo.

One of his research subjects was a failed car-bombing attempt in Times Square in 2010. The placement of the fuel cans in Barakat’s car presents an uncanny resemblance to the car bomb in that failed attempt (click to expand thread):

This is all the information released today about Mohammad Barakat himself:

July 21 is the first time officials have released a photo of Mohamed Barakat. Officials say he is a Syrian national who came to the United States in 2012. Barakat became a U.S. citizen in 2019. Investigators say it appears Barakat was working off and on at different jobs, and over the years he has been researching mass casualty events and collecting weaponry. His name appeared on what officials call a “Guardian Report,” but they clarified the tip received was not about a threat of violence.

Wrigley says Mohamed Barakat was not on the terrorist watch list and all of the firearms appear to have been purchased legally. Investigators say he appears to have no ties to the local Muslim community. He has family living in the United States, but not in the local area. Wrigley says Barakat’s family has been spoken to, but they do not appear to have had a lot of communication with Barakat.

The investigation is still ongoing, and no information has been released on any ties Barakat may have had with any person or persons in Syria, where he lived until eleven years ago.

Several local media outlets covered the story at the time; here are some examples.






ABC News also covered the story under the tag “Guns in America.”

The gunman who ambushed three Fargo, North Dakota, police officers in an unprovoked attack Friday had an arsenal that included 1,800 rounds of ammunition and a homemade hand grenade, the state attorney general said Wednesday.

Mohamad Barakat, 37, “absolutely ambushed” the officers, firing a .223-caliber rifle from inside his vehicle Friday as police were responding to a car accident, Attorney General Drew Wrigley said.

One officer, Jake Wallin, 23, was killed and two others were shot and wounded. Barakat was shot and killed by Police Officer Zach Robinson, officials said.

Barakat also shot a woman who was standing on the street after the unrelated car accident. She was struck twice as she ran from the gunfire, Wrigley said.

“In the wake of Mohamad Barakat’s murderous, unprovoked attack, Officer Zach Robinson’s use of deadly force was reasonable, it was necessary, it was justified, and in all ways it was lawful,” he said.

It’s impossible to disagree with Mr. Wrigley’s statement as it is; yes, the use of deadly force was not only reasonable but essential, and we should never downplay the courage and dedication of the officers who ran to the sound of the guns and doubtlessly prevented a far greater tragedy.

This isn’t the first time an immigrant, for unknown reasons, has turned out to be violent. But it’s not at all clear – yet – what Mr. Barakat’s motivation was – at least not with the information we have on him at this point. The legacy media outlets, however, at the time of the event seemed decidedly incurious.

It is certain, as we see from the ABC coverage, that this will be spun as an argument for another ill-advised “Assault Weapon” ban based on Barakat’s possession of three semi-auto rifles; grenades are already illegal, but that doesn’t seem to have stopped Barakat from possessing one, presumably home-made.

In the car that Barakat drove to the ambush scene, investigators found three long rifles, 1,800 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, a homemade grenade, a can of gasoline, explosives and other firearms, Wrigley said.

A perpetrator from a war-torn country who has kept a low profile while in the United States and about whom we still know little or nothing.

The angle the legacy media takes on this will be to blame the sword for the hand that wields it. If one wanted to arrive at the root of this incident, one might look into screening practices for admitting refugees, although in this case it’s unclear as to whether this would have set off any alarms. Barakat’s time in the United States, where he went through the process to become a naturalized citizen, seems to have been spent as a low-profile, law-abiding person. And while his choice of weapons sets hits the “assault weapon” hot-button, the facts of the matter are that he could have used a wide variety of weapons to conduct a horrific attack; his possession of improvised explosives, for example.

It’s too bad that some in the legacy media choose to wade into this to push an agenda. The only conclusion that should be drawn at this time is this: that this was an inexplicable act of violence perpetrated by a seeming loner for unknown and unfathomable reasons, and thanks to the swift and courageous actions by several Fargo lawmen, a far greater attack was averted. That’s the important takeaway, and it’s just too bad that some in the legacy media downplay that to push an agenda.



Revelations About Biden’s $10 Million Ukraine Bribery Scheme Warrant Impeachment

At no time since the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson has an impeachment been more warranted than it is now.



In Thursday, we finally got to see the document the FBI had been withholding from Congress about an alleged $10 million Ukraine bribery scheme involving Hunter Biden and then-Vice President Joe Biden, whom Burisma paid to get rid of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the energy firm. 

The document is damning. If there wasn’t enough evidence for the GOP-controlled House to open impeachment proceedings against Biden before, there certainly is now. Recall that former President Donald Trump was impeached by Democrats just for asking the Ukrainian President about the Biden bribery scheme on a phone call in 2019.

Now we know there was good reason for Trump to be asking about it. We also know there’s far more evidence Biden engaged in impeachable (and possibly criminal) offenses than there ever was against Trump. When Democrats first impeached Trump at the end of 2019, they claimed he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election by asking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky about the Biden bribery scheme. His questions now appear to be well-founded. They’re questions the FBI and Justice Department should have been asking back in 2017 when the informant first told the FBI what he knew.

What we’ve now learned from the four-page document — an unclassified FD-1023 form, which is used by the FBI to record credible reports and information from trusted confidential sources — is that Burisma allegedly paid $10 million in bribes to the Biden family so that Joe Biden, who at the time was vice president, would make the company’s legal problems in Ukraine disappear. Biden later bragged about how he pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, by threatening to withhold aid to the country. At the time, Biden claimed Shokin was “corrupt.”

But if what the FBI informant says is even partially true, it’s Biden who is corrupt — and on a grand scale. According to the document, a top Burisma executive said the only reason the firm hired Hunter Biden (for a mind-boggling $83,000 a month) was “to protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,” and that even though Hunter “was stupid,” they needed him “so everything will be okay.” What’s more, the firm was apparently told by both Hunter and Joe Biden that it needed to hire Hunter for this “protection.”

Keep in mind this isn’t some third-hand reporting, or some obviously fake dossier cooked up by the RNC and passed off to credulous journalists to smear Biden. This is what a trusted FBI informant says he was told directly by Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder and CEO of Burisma. 

After Trump won the 2016 election, the FBI informant asked Zlochevsky on a phone call if he was happy about the outcome. He was not. Asked if he was worried about the bribes he’d paid to the Bidens, Zlochevsky said he was “pushed to pay” them, and that he had many text messages and recordings, including two with Joe Biden himself, that show he was coerced into making the bribery payments. And anyway, Zlochevsky added, because then-VP Biden had personally gotten Shokin fired, “nobody would find out about his financial dealings with the Bidens.”

All of this and more is detailed in the FD-1023 form, which the FBI hid from Congress and investigators for years, and which Democrats lied about as recently as June, falsely claiming that Trump’s own Justice Department under Attorney General William Barr had closed down the investigation into the Biden bribery scheme. (Barr refuted that claim directly, telling The Federalist the FBI informant’s allegation “was sent to Delaware for further investigation.”)

But instead of following up on this credible informant’s claims and seeing where the investigation led, the FBI and DOJ buried the document and later defied a congressional subpoena demanding its release. They also barred investigators from questioning Biden family members, tipped off the Biden family about the investigation, and then offered Hunter Biden a ridiculous plea deal for minor tax offenses designed to shield him from future prosecution.

All that obstruction might not be enough to stop the truth from getting out. We’re probably going to learn much more in the days and weeks to come about the alleged Biden bribery scheme in Ukraine. As Margot Cleveland wrote in these pages yesterday, IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler testified before lawmakers Wednesday that they hadn’t yet seen the FD-1023 document but that it “could further corroborate other information that we might be having an issue corroborating because it could be regarding a foreign official. So if we have information regarding that in a document or a witness, we can further corroborate later evidence.”

“This testimony suggests that the IRS’s investigation likely uncovered evidence the FD-1023 corroborated,” writes Cleveland. “With that form now public, both Ziegler and Shapley can study it and assess what documentary material, such as wire transfer reports, they uncovered that is now corroborated.”

The corporate media will no doubt treat this as a non-story, but that doesn’t mean the rest of America should ignore it. As my colleague Sean Davis noted yesterday on Twitter, “This is the biggest corruption scandal in American history, and it’s not even close.”

If this is the biggest corruption scandal in American history (and it looks like it is), then it deserves a full and exhaustive investigation. And since we know a corrupt and compromised FBI and DOJ can’t be trusted to conduct an investigation into a bribery scheme they actively tried to cover up, Republicans in Congress will have to do it themselves.

At no time since the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson has an impeachment been more warranted, and never has it been as necessary as it is now.