Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

Corruption

OpEd: No Due Process for Those Who Would Challenge the Ruling Class
How liberal advocacy groups and partisan judges are trampling the Constitution and weaponizing the Justice System to "protect their democracy"

By ,

Just as Donald Trump rises to his highest polling of the 2024 election cycle and as Biden’s approval is at an all-time low, a state court in Colorado filled with Democrat-appointed judges has ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot.

 

The ruling stands on the idea that DJT is guilty of being an insurrectionist, and is thereby unable to run for the presidency, citing the 14th amendment.

As we shall demonstrate, this decision’s legal reasoning is riddled with glaring flaws; however, its most egregious error can be discerned without a law degree: Trump has never been charged with, much less convicted of, the offense of insurrection, notwithstanding his indictment in four distinct jurisdictions.

It’s true that both DOJ special prosecutor Jack Smith and the Democratic Party prosecutor in Atlanta have indicted Trump on multiple felonies, and despite having the ability to do so, neither of them chose to file charges against Trump for participating in or even instigating an uprising.

Without the due process required to find someone guilty of a crime, these four state court judges have ruled that he is guilty of a crime for which he has never been charged and, as such, has never been afforded the opportunity to assert all of the constitutional protections that are afforded to those who are charged with a crime.

Is that indicative of a functioning democracy?

 

The True Meaning Behind the Mockingbird Slogan, ‘Danger to Our Democracy’

In the weeks preceding the recent controversial and highly partisan court ruling in Colorado, the mainstream media ramped up its usual assurances that Donald Trump is a tyrant, a crook and an insurrectionist who the Democrat establishment needs to eliminate at all costs in order to ‘protect our democracy.’

But is Donald Trump the real threat to Democracy?

Assigning culpability to an individual who has not even faced charges let alone been convicted of insurrection for the purpose of disqualifying them from running for president … is that really ‘protecting our democracy,’ or is it setting an extremely dangerous precedent?

It’s a rhetorical question, the obvious answer is that the deep political establishment is prepared to burn ‘our democracy’ to the ground if it means stopping Trump, and that’s exactly what they are doing.

In order to use the pretext that Donald Trump incited violence with his speech on January 6th, you would have to completely trample the precedents of both Brandenburg and Claiborne, two seminal first amendment cases of the latter half of the 20th century.

So I ask you, what’s the bigger ‘danger to our democracy’: an orange man who has yet to be charged with insurrection despite the claims leveled against him, or a deeply-embedded political establishment that will raze the constitution in order to maintain control of the executive branch?

If by chance you are unaware of what we mean by the term “mockingbird media” and the phrase “danger to our democracy,” I’d recommend watching the following video:

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the democracy in question is not ‘ours,’ it’s ‘theirs.’

Their endangered democracy is merely a veneer employed to obscure the relentless growth of socialist bourgeois statism and the velvet fascism that is skillfully infiltrating the culture and society.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election is legally untenable, illogical, and a direct assault on the nation’s entire constitutional premise.

Regardless of whether or not one likes Donald Trump, this twisted form of lawfare undermines the fundamental right of the people to elect their own leader, and should deeply trouble every citizen in this country.

This undermines the concept of a governmental system consisting of three branches exercising equal authority. This was historically one of the primary reasons why, until yesterday, judges had virtually never entered election-related cases.

Indeed, the assertion that ‘Trump lost every challenge he presented in court regarding the 2020 election’ is accurate, as courts made every effort to prevent the hearing of those cases three years ago, including obstructing the proceedings on grounds of standing, scheduling, and, well, what else could they possibly do? Request a fresh vote?

The precedent established is disastrous.

President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador was correct when he tweeted that “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy’.”

Why these Judges are Wrong

Earlier I mentioned that you would have to violate Brandenburg and Claiborne to criminalize Donald Trump’s January 6th speech by claiming, legally speaking, that it was anything other than free expression.

You might abhor Trump’s speech that day. One might argue that his words and actions regarding the postponement of the election result and the promotion of nonviolent protest marches to the Capitol were repellent. But regardless of one’s perspective, it is indisputable that Trumps words on January 6th fall squarely within the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, as the Supreme Court has primarily defined it in those two cases and subsequent precedents.

The following comes from an AP report back in August:

Donald Trump was indicted on felony charges Tuesday for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol, with the Justice Department acting to hold him accountable for an unprecedented effort to block the peaceful transfer of presidential power and threaten American democracy.

The indictment includes charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S., conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing an official proceeding and violating a post-Civil War Reconstruction Era civil rights statute that makes it a crime to conspire to violate rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution — in this case, the right to vote.

Now, some people might hear that and think, ‘Oh, that sounds like an insurrection to me,’ but it just isn’t.

Under the U.S. Criminal Code, there is a crime called ‘rebellion or insurrection’ that covers anybody who incites or engages in any insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government. It’s in the U.S. Criminal Code 2383.

If Trump were actually convicted of this statute and he was found to have engaged in or incited insurrection, you could at least make a more valid argument that he is now ineligible to run under the 14th Amendment..

Trump has never been charged with inciting an insurrection. Never.

And if he had been charged, it would trigger a whole litany of constitutional safeguards and protections that Trump, like any other criminal defendant, would be entitled to claim, such as a jury before his peers, the right of cross-examination, the right of due process, the right to an attorney—all of those constitutional rights that attach to anyone accused of committing a crime.

Nonetheless, in a state court in blue Colorado, four out of the seven Democrat appointed Judges ruled that Trump is ineligible or disqualified from appearing on the Colorado ballot.

Here’s what the New York Times reported on the day of the ruling:

The decision, the first by a court to find that Donald Trump is ineligible to hold office again because he engaged in insurrection, is likely to put a monumental case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court was the first in the nation to find that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – which disqualifies people who engage in insurrection against the Constitution after taking an oath to support it – applies to Mr. Trump, an argument that his opponents have been making around the country. The ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump’s name from the state’s Republican primary ballot. It does not address the general election.

Ideally, the only people who have standing to bring this case in Colorado are Republican voters or independent voters—namely, people eligible to vote in the primary.

The unfortunate reality is that these cases are being spearheaded by a liberal advocacy group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or ‘CREW.’

And here is the president of CREW, Noah Bookbinder, who was very eager to take credit for this ruling:

I don’t know about you, but reading this almost makes me physically ill.

People like Noah Bookbinder have been getting high huffing their own farts for years now, believing that they are the sole guardians of American democracy—that the world itself is under existential threat from Donald Trump, and therefore, everything they do from censoring the Internet to trying to imprison the man, to putting his supporters in jail and keeping them in solitary confinement for months, to criminalizing the Trump movement by calling it an insurrectionary movement and now trying to remove him from the ballot so that a majority of American voters can’t vote for him is justified.

These people are infected by a cognitive disease, one that blinds them to any perspective but the one that allows them to keep playing the part of the hero in their own delusion.

Hilariously, this form of election interference is exactly what the Liberal orthodoxy’s public enemy #2, Vladimir Putin, was guilty of when he imprisoned Navalny. Even though Putin is by far more popular in Russia than Navalny, they say, ‘Oh, Russian democracy is a fraud. Putin imprisons his main opponent and doesn’t allow him to run.’

But I digress.

So, what did these Judges in Colorado get wrong?

First, the occurrences on January 6 did not constitute an attempted insurrection.

Although in some cases individuals acted perhaps excessively or foolishly, despite being the greatest gift ever bestowed upon the Deep State and Democrats, the events of January 6th did not amount to an uprising. Historically, when attempts are made to overthrow the government, firearms are typically involved.

On that note, the claim that insurrectionists are not eligible for federal service is patently false. A few years following the conclusion of the American Civil War, Confederate veterans—individuals who partook in an ACTUAL violent insurrection—commenced their service in Congress, and Confederate soldiers began enlisting in the United States Army. Indeed, it was not an issue that dozens of former Confederates, including high-ranking officers, went on to serve in the House and Senate.

Secondly, to say that Trump directly orchestrated the events that took place at the capitol that day is also untrue.

After his speech at the ellipse, most people went home. Conversely, one could posit that Nancy Pelosi is actually even more likely to have ‘caused’ the events of that day by flatly refusing to bolster Capitol security, thus enabling malicious actors to proliferate, or even that the FBI ‘caused’ it through its embedded intelligence operatives.

Third, I’ll reiterate that Donald Trump has yet to be found guilty of a crime.

Saying that ‘we all know it was an insurrection, and he did it, so we don’t need a trial’ is a slippery slope toward just being able to charge anyone at anytime with a crime regardless of whether or not they actually did anything.

And lastly, the title “Elector of President” rather than “President” appears in the clause. While these concepts may appear similar, they are in fact quite dissimilar. In the case of “officer,” the definition becomes even more ambiguous.

Those are the most glaring refutations I’ve seen regarding the ruling, and again, one need not be a law scholar to understand these simple concepts, yet the deep political establishment banks on the fact that you are lazy, uninformed, and accepting of their decrees.

The Usual Suspects are ‘Protecting our Democracy’

The current administration is propped up by a cadre of surrogate institutions like CREW and all the various organizations that make up the George Soros shadow network of NGOs, foundations, charities and advocacy groups.

CREW is yet another leftist legal advocacy group with “previous connections with political strategist David Brock,” who I spent a good deal of time on in a recent piece for Badlands titled A Cancer on Modern Journalism.

As per the immensely-useful website Influence Watch:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a legal advocacy group with previous connections with political strategist David Brock. The organization describes itself as a “nonpartisan” watchdog group directing litigation against government corruption in an effort to advance the public interest.

The group is part of Brock’s network of organizations including Democratic-aligned opposition research Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century (AB PAC) and media criticism organization Media Matters for America.

Naturally, CREW has received funding from left-of-center foundations, including philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and singer Barbra Streisand’s Streisand Foundation.

Over a decade ago, renowned Journalist Glen Greenwald spent time on the board of CREW, and, in 2010, he quit the board publicly because the head of this group had condemned Julian Assange.

In his words:

“It was supposed to be a group that defends transparency, that was its purpose, transparency and clean government and the president of the group came out and condemned Julian Assange after he had published secrets showing that the U.S. had committed war crimes under President Bush and then President Obama. And so, I quit in protest over their condemnation of WikiLeaks. I thought it was joining the board of a nonpartisan group that favored transparency.”

CREW is just one of many Liberal Advocacy groups who are leading this endeavor to remove Trump from ballots in over a dozen States, because obviously he is such a grave threat to ‘our Democracy.’

The words ‘our democracy,’ as we tend to see them in the context of current political events, appear rational at first glance, much like ‘our constitution’ or ‘our rights.’ These words invoke a sense of unity and inclusivity. Put simply, the use of ‘our’ to denote ‘everyone’ is intended to be positive, correct?

However, “our” in this case does not refer to all individuals but rather only to a subset of them—in this case, the ruling class.

The phrasing they are using is an intentional attempt to quell discussion and debate, rendering those who dissent ‘other’ and define anyone who does not subscribe to their statist, elitist, technocrat, oligarchical version of democracy as being a danger to the very idea of democracy itself.

This type of subtle, linguistic hypnotism is present in such things as the “Protecting our Democracy Act,” which sought to federalize elections and was pushed hard by progressive Democrats.

This kind of language is also on display with tech initiatives, like Microsoft’s “Democracy Forward.”

During a recent conference devoted to digital campaign security, an individual affiliated with the project known as Ethan Chumley employed a very revealing expression to describe the activities of Democracy Forward when he described what the movement does as “supporting the institutions we think (emphasis added) are fundamental to a healthy democracy.”

One “non-aligned” organization that receives funding from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and other entities is ‘Defending Digital Campaigns.’

Its ostensible objective is to enhance the security of campaign data. Former Obama administration and current DHS officials comprise its board of directors, alongside former Romney and Hillary campaign managers Matt Rhoades and Robby Mook, respectively, and the chairman of DigiDems, an organization financially supported by the Democratic Party and, of course, the law firm Perkins Coie of “Russiagate” fame.

Democracy Forward also partnered with our good friends at NewsGuard, an organization that pretends to be a media fact-checker that awards outlets who pay lip service to establishment narratives, and slams those who do not.

Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, MSNBC, AOC, CNN, Liz Cheney, and an interminable number of others have parroted the phrase “protect our democracy”; in fact, some of them may be uttering those words at this very moment. But the kind of democracy they are referring to is a dishonest and rotted western oligarchy that, for the first time in recent history is poised to fall through peaceful, legal means, be it at the hands of patriots like Donald Trump or foreign powers like the BRICS nations—maybe even both.

The real threat to establishment control isn’t just Donald Trump; it is you, and I, and everyone else who reads and contributes to Badlands Media. We are the danger to their democracy, and we should wear that designation as a badge of honor.

What’s Next?

This ruling will almost certainly now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s why they stayed the order until January 4 to give the court time to say whether it will rule on it or not.

This is especially so since the same liberal advocacy groups that spearheaded this case in Colorado have done the same in at least 14 other states where they’re trying to block the presidential frontrunner—meaning the person who more Americans say they want to be president next year—from even appearing on the ballot.

Yet again, what we have here are the very same people, in politics and media, who endlessly glorify themselves as the Sole Guardians of American Democracy, relying on classically anti-democratic weapons to try to cling to political power while deluding themselves that they are saving Democracy.

Beyond this ruling, Trump has been charged with felony counts in four other cases, the first one brought by a liberal prosecutor in Manhattan, the other state case brought by the Democratic Party machine prosecutor in Atlanta and then, the two federal cases brought by a special prosecutor under the auspices of the Biden Justice Department.

Regardless of one’s views on January 6 and Trump’s conduct concerning it, it is beyond dispute now that the primary tactic of the Democratic Party and their media allies for winning in 2024 is not to convince voters to vote for them, but instead to imprison their chief political opponent and to forcibly prevent American citizens from voting for him.

Whatever else this is, “saving democracy” most definitely has nothing to do with it.

Quite the contrary: on top of the ongoing attempts to impose increasing levels of constraints on the expression of political speech, it is genuinely hard to imagine a more glaring and more dangerous full frontal assault on democratic values than what American liberals in the Democratic Party are doing to prevent Trump from running, or even remaining free.

Suspicious Israeli Stock Market Activity Suggests Possible Foreknowledge of Conflict

By ,

The results of a recent academic study are startling and controversial, to say the least. The precarious Israeli stock market activity observed in the days leading up to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7 suggests that a specific, nameless entity possessed knowledge of the impending assault and exploited the ensuing hysteria for personal gain.

The paper, authored by Robert J. Jackson Jr. and Joshua Mitts of New York University School of Law, concludes that unidentified individuals were cognizant of the impending operation and intended to illicitly profit, as evidenced by a “significant spike” in short selling of listed Israeli companies. By short selling, or shorting, investors wager that a particular stock will underperform and profit if their prediction is accurate.

Contrary to conventional trading, shorting is an exceedingly uncommon practice, and justifiably so. Numerous investment advisors caution against the practice under all circumstances, as breaches of projected poor performance can result in enormous losses. Remarkably, the researchers discovered that the volume of short selling on Israeli companies in the days leading up to October 7 “far exceeded short selling that occurred during numerous other periods of crisis, including the recession following the financial crisis, the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Now, Israeli authorities are investigating the allegations made by the U.S. researchers.

As per Reuters:

Research by law professors Robert Jackson Jr from New York University and Joshua Mitts of Columbia University found significant short-selling of shares leading up to the attacks, which triggered a war nearly two months old.

“Days before the attack, traders appeared to anticipate the events to come,” they wrote, citing short interest in the MSCI Israel Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that “suddenly, and significantly, spiked” on Oct. 2 based on data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

“And just before the attack, short selling of Israeli securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) increased dramatically,” they wrote in their 66-page report.

The TASE subsequently directed Reuters to the Israel Securities Authority, which issued the following statement: “The matter is known to the authority and is under investigation by all the relevant parties.”

The securities regulator’s spokesperson refrained from providing further details, and the Israeli police did not respond promptly either.

They wrote that Leumi (LUMI.TA), the largest bank in Israel, generated profits of $3.2 billion shekels ($862 million) from the additional short-selling of 4.43 million new shares sold short between September 14 and October 5.

“Although we see no aggregate increase in shorting of Israeli companies on U.S. exchanges, we do identify a sharp and unusual increase, just before the attacks, in trading in risky short-dated options on these companies expiring just after the attacks,” they said.

“Our findings suggest that traders informed about the coming attacks profited from these tragic events, and consistent with prior literature we show that trading of this kind occurs in gaps in U.S. and international enforcement of legal prohibitions on informed trading.”

The academics concluded: “Our evidence is consistent with informed traders anticipating and profiting from the Hamas attack.”

Aside from concerns regarding the paper’s potential to skew profit totals, this finding is exceedingly persuasive. A multitude of datasets examined extensively demonstrate that there was, in fact, a “significant spike” in short selling immediately preceding Operation Al-Aqsa Flood – and one that was extremely dubious, to say the least.

Prior to the attack, the shorting of dozens of Israeli companies listed on the Tel Aviv stock exchange “significantly increased.” From September 14 to October 5, 4.43 million new shares were shorted on a single company. Additionally, just prior to the attacks, there was an “abnormal and sudden increase” in U.S. exchanges in the volume of extremely risky short-dated options placed on Israeli equities. These options expired almost immediately after the attack began.

A graph showing shorting of the Israeli stock exchange ETF pre-Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, as part of the wider market

In a similar vein, the shorting of the MSCI Israel Exchange Traded Fund (ETF), which is a passive investment vehicle that mirrors the overall performance of the Israeli stock exchange, “suddenly, and significantly, spiked.” on October 2. In the 3,570 trading days preceding Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, this was the 30th-highest daily shorting volume ever witnessed by the ETF, according to the authors. In other terms, it was one of the largest wagers placed since 2009 on the underperformance of the Israeli stock exchange.

Israeli stock shorting at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which momentarily precipitated one of the largest global stock market catastrophes in history, was “significantly” dwarfed by this shorting. A “largest intraday trading decline ever recorded” occurred in March 2020, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 2000 points, evaporating trillions of dollars from the global economy.

The authors’ conclusion is unsurprising.

“It is extremely unlikely that the volume of short selling on October 2nd occurred by random chance.”

The identification of “similar patterns” in the trading of the Israeli ETF in April 2023, precisely when Hamas was reportedly preparing to launch a similar attack, is an additional compelling finding. The strike, which had been scheduled to closely mirror the events of October, was canceled when Tel Aviv publicly issued a national alert level in response to Israeli intelligence agencies gaining advance notice.

Shorting activity on the Israeli ETF since October, 2022

The attack was timed to start on the eve of Passover, April 5. Two days earlier, the shorting of the Israeli ETF “peaked…at levels very similar to those observed” on October 2. The recorded volume “was far higher (by an order of magnitude) than other days prior”:

This evidence strengthens the interpretation that the trading observed in October and April was related to the Hamas attack, rather than random noise.”

At Least Six Suspicious Activity Reports Were Lodged by Banks with Joe Biden’s Residence Listed, According to Senator

By ,

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin spent years investigating the first family’s finances and now claims that banks submitted a minimum of six reports pertaining to Hunter Biden’s international business dealings. These reports highlighted the Delaware address of President Joe Biden and sparked concerns regarding potential criminal activity such as money laundering and even human trafficking.

Thursday night, as the ranking Republican on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Johnson disclosed to John Soloman’s outlet Just the News that the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARS) documented transactions totaling approximately $12 million over multiple years, with a portion of those funds traversing Joe Biden’s residence in Wilmington, Del., where he had granted permission for his son to reside.

Johnson stated that Joe Biden would have undoubtedly detected his son’s use of his residence as a business and banking address, if only by observing the mail that arrived at the address. Further, he stated that there are ample reasons for House impeachment investigators to suspect Joe Biden of collusion in his son’s international dealings. Next week, the House will consider whether to formally authorize an impeachment investigation.

“There’d be so much activity coming into his address, in this case, Hunter Biden’s businesses, that he obviously would have to be aware,” Johnson claimed. “So, again, I just use the word obvious, It has been so obvious for so long, that Biden Inc. is a corrupt enterprise. And that this president is corrupt, that he is compromised.

“And he fully was aware of this, that he fully benefited from it. The members of his family benefited from all these millions of dollars flowing in from countries that are adversarial to America,” he added.

A few hours prior to the unsealing of a nine-count indictment against Hunter Biden in federal court in California by Special Counsel David Weiss, Johnson made this revelation. The indictment accuses Biden of engaging in a years-long tax evasion scheme, wherein he avoided paying $1.4 million in federal taxes on millions in foreign incomes originating from countries such as China, Ukraine, and Romania.

According to the indictment, “Rather than pay his taxes, the Defendant spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle.”

Johnson, in conjunction with OG Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), conducted a two-year investigation into the Biden family scandal. The investigation concluded in 2020 that Joe Biden’s family amassed millions of dollars in foreign currency from adversarial nations, thereby jeopardizing the first family’s national security. Johnson is one of the most knowledgeable members of Congress regarding the matter.

Since then, revelations from House investigators, IRS whistleblowers, and subpoenaed documents have only served to heighten Johnson’s concerns, he stated on Thursday.

“They (Biden family) did nothing for it (the money) other than they had the right name. And they were influence peddling. And the people paying these millions expected favors in return, some kind of public policy coming from the former vice president and maybe even a potential president of the United States. Now they got him. Now he’s compromised.”

Johnson stated that his team has been assisting House impeachment investigators and will provide the SAR-derived information regarding Joe Biden’s residence.

“We found six of the Treasury reports on Hunter Biden, listing his suspicious activities,” Johnson said. “The money flows in those reports are over $12 million. Now, there might be double counting in there, you just don’t really know exactly what the activity is. These reports are really meant to obviously raise awareness to prompt further investigation, which of course this Department of Justice, FBI, I don’t think did an honest job of doing.”

“But it does point out we know what’s suspicious about them and there are terms like money laundering, human trafficking, those types, that that’s why these transactions raise suspicion,” he continued. “I mean, Hunter Biden has dozens and dozens and dozens of these Treasury reports that are concerned about suspicious activities he’s undertaking in terms of money transfers. I mean, this is, again, it’s just to me, it just underscores and confirms the criminal nature, the corrupt nature of Biden family, Inc.”

Inquirers from Congress claim they have not identified over 150 SARs that have been lodged involving Biden family businesses and associates for nearly a decade. While Hunter Biden has faced charges related to firearms and taxes, it is noteworthy that neither he nor his father have ever faced formal accusations in court regarding money laundering or human trafficking. However, IRS witnesses have testified before Congress that concerns about a foreign human trafficking operation prompted the tax investigation into Hunter Biden.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) states that a Suspicious Activity notification is submitted “to report known or suspected violations of law or suspicious activity observed by financial institutions subject to the regulations of the Bank Secrecy Act.”

Prior to the September 2020 presidential election, it was reported that Senate committees chaired by Grassley and Johnson had obtained SARs detailing concerns raised by FinCEN regarding a number of foreign transactions involving companies connected to Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden’s work for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma and the millions of dollars he was paid for his board seat were detailed in the report by Grassley and Johnson. The Senators emphasized in particular how Hunter Biden’s work intersected with his father’s, then-Vice President Joe Biden’s, administration of official U.S. policy in Ukraine.

A $3.5 million wire from the widow of a Russian oligarch and Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ye Jianming, an energy executive with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, were also detailed in the report.

The Daily Mail had previously reported that it had reviewed Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) issued by the Treasury Department. These SARs allegedly indicate that payments from Hunter Biden’s personal and business accounts were monitored as late as December 2019 and that payments from those accounts were linked to an “Eastern European prostitution ring.”

Wells Fargo identified 25 individuals associated with the foreign prostitution operation and approximately $7 million in suspicious transactions, including checks from Hunter Biden that “could have been forged to conceal his payments to prostitutes from his business account,” as reported by the Daily Mail.

In addition, documents from IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler that were made public by the House Ways and Means Committee revealed that Hunter Biden spent money on escorts and claimed tax deductions for a portion of those payments. An investigator conducted an interview with one of Hunter Biden’s accountants and an alleged escort who described an encounter with the younger Biden for these documents.

Furthermore, it was testified by the IRS whistleblowers that they informed the Justice Department about a possible Mann Act violation while investigating Hunter Biden’s tax evasion. The Mann Act prohibits the interstate transportation of females “for the purpose of prostitution, debauchery, or any sexual activity that may result in criminal liability for any individual.”

Joe Biden’s residence has been linked to Hunter Biden’s dubious transactions on multiple occasions for this reason. Hunter Biden received two wire transfers from China in 2019 totaling $250,000 and $10,000, according to records of bank wires obtained by the House Oversight Committee in September.

James Comer, R-Kentucky, chairman of oversight, stated that two wires originating from China designated the Wilmington address of Joe Biden as the recipient. These payments were transmitted during Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

“Bank records don’t lie, but President Joe Biden does,”  Comer said in a press release at the time. “In 2020, Joe Biden told Americans that his family never received money from China. We’ve already proved that to be a lie earlier this year, and now we know that two wires originating from Beijing listed Joe Biden’s Wilmington home as the beneficiary address when he was running for President of the United States.”

.

Sources:

RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense Launches ‘Reform Pharma’ Initiative

By ,

At its second annual conference, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) announced the debut of Reform Pharma, the organization’s latest initiative. The endeavor aims to restore the integrity of healthcare by identifying and dismantling the avenues that permit corruption to seize hold of and dominate the healthcare system.

The pharmaceutical industry has been hit with fines totaling more than $100 billion since 2000 for a variety of criminal offenses, such as fraud, unsafe product claims, and off-label or unauthorized medical product advertising.

Every year, up to 220,000 people pass away on “properly prescribed” medications. Prescription medication also results in approximately 2.7 million hospital admissions and around 81 million adverse reactions per year.

Only a small portion of the 26,789 petitions for vaccination-related fatalities and injuries that have been submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) since 1988 have resulted in compensation. Nevertheless, the families of those wounded or killed after vaccination have received payouts totaling more than $5 billion, and this amount is still growing. 

“Vaccine manufacturers were granted immunity from lawsuits brought by the families of children injured by vaccines when the NVICP was established,” 

Stated Laura Bono, executive vice president of CHD.

 “Vaccine manufacturers can use the money they save by having their vaccines exempt from liability to fund advertising, lobbying, and benefits for those who are willing to turn a blind eye when citizens suffer injuries.”

According to CHD President Mary Holland, 

“One only needs to look at the handling of the Vioxx debacle to understand the type of corruption running rampant throughout this industry.” 

Merck’s anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 after it was discovered that the medication raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck sold the medicine despite being aware of these hazards because they thought the profits would more than offset the expense of settlements for drug-related injuries and fatalities. Reform Pharma wants to stop the practice of prioritizing corporate profits over the health of its customers by creating oversight and regulatory bodies that are independent of the businesses they are meant to be supervising.

“Reform Pharma will create bold campaigns to expose the corruption and conflicts of interest in professional associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),” 

Claims Justine Tanguay, CHD attorney and director of campaign and research for Reform Pharma. 

“AAP claims to be the voice for the children, but is actually the voice for Big Pharma.”

The goal of the Reform Pharma effort is to outlaw direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in the US, which is the only country that permits it other than New Zealand. It will function to:

  • Restore Medical Freedom
  • Separate Pharma and State
  • Establish Scientific Integrity in Research and Publications
  • Hold Perpetrators Accountable
  • Reinstate Vaccine Manufacturer Liability
  • Protect Doctor-Patient Relationships
  • Prohibit Gain-of-Function Research
  • Secure Affordable Drug Prices 

Holland stated, “The goal of CHD’s Reform Pharma initiative is to address the corrupt merger of government and pharmaceutical that we so vividly witnessed during COVID.” “We are thrilled to begin this vitally important targeted campaign to support and elevate CHD’s other significant work.”

No Oversight: Who Does the FBI Really Work For?

By ,

Ryan DeLarme

The FBI has had a pretty murky track record in recent years, leading many to wonder if the domestic intelligence service still works with the best interest of the American people in mind. Whether it’s hatching the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer or helping to orchestrate and execute the January 6th photo op, it’s starting to appear as though the Bureau’s become a tool of the political elite.

There’s new evidence coming out suggesting that the FBI has been warped into something far-flung from its original purpose, operating by its own rules with seemingly no oversight from anyone. Inspector General Michael Horowitz recently issued a new report on the FBI’s execution of the Woods Procedures for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications, and it has been called “damning”.

Last year, Horowitz reviewed 29 random FISA applications and found that the FBI was “not meeting the expectations of its own protocols.”

The FISA court has a questionable track record for excusing government misconduct as was recently displayed by the sentencing of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. After he went to great lengths to lie to a federal court and, when caught, lied by saying he didn’t really intend to lie; Clinesmith received only a year of probation. Many have been left wondering what such leniency says about the FISA Court’s “heightened duty of candor” If there aren’t heightened punishments for violating that duty.

The FISA abuse scandal isn’t the only negative press currently directed at the FBI. During a recent Senate Judiciary hearing on how the FBI failed to investigate alleged sexual abuse by former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) interrupted the proceedings when he reported that the FBI had failed to respond to the Republican Senator’s letters and also that,  they had declined to meet with him “month after month, year after year, at any time for any reason”. This is significant considering that Grassley is a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and has been for a long time.

According to Senator Grassley:

“I’ve asked Director Wray several times to meet with me relating to a very troubling briefing that I received in August 2020 from the FBI and which was later weaponized against my and Senator Johnson’s oversight. Director Wray and his staff have ignored my request to meet.”

In short, a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee can’t get the FBI to meet with him. This begs the question: does Congress have any real oversight on the FBI? Does the Bureau serve the American people or only select establishment politicians?

Senator Grassley has recently released a letter that offers some insight to the average American citizen as to how our government really works.

On August 6, 2020, we received a briefing from the FBI which, according to the FBI, was done in conjunction with the Intelligence Community (IC). This briefing was done because of political pressure from Democratic Leadership, not because of any real threat.

We have asked to meet with FBI Director Christopher Wray to discuss our concerns and have requested records relating to the briefing; however, he and his Chief of Staff, Corey Ellis, have refused to answer our communications and have failed to provide any answers or information.

FBI leadership’s failure to respond to congressional inquiries not only undermines the FBI as an institution, it also undermines the work of its dedicated agents and staff.

On July 13, 2020, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Mark Warner, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Adam Schiff sent a letter, with a classified attachment, to the FBI to express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign.

In that letter, which was publicly released on July 20, 2020, they requested a briefing on foreign efforts to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The classified attachment included unclassified elements that, among other things, attempted — and failed — to tie our joint investigation into the Biden family’s foreign financial deals to foreign disinformation.  

So, Schumer, Warner, Pelosi, and Schiff were trying to slow down Grassley and Johnson’s “joint investigations into the Biden family’s foreign financial deals.” How did the Democrats do it? By using their go-to strategy of leaking to their allies in the corporate media of course. The letter continues:

Then, on May 1, 2021, the Washington Post reported on “an extensive effort by the [FBI] to alert members of Congress…that they faced a risk of being used to further Russia’s attempt to influence the election’s outcome[.]”

This statement was attributed to “several current and former U.S. officials” who remained anonymous “because the matter remains highly sensitive.”

The article then inaccurately proceeded to link Russian disinformation attempts to our investigation, which was based on Obama administration government records and records that showed extensive financial connections between the Biden family and questionable foreign nationals, including individuals connected to the communist Chinese government’s military and intelligence services.

The Washington Post reporting purported to be based, in part, on an August 6, 2020, briefing that we received from the FBI, which, as the timeline above illustrates, happened in response to pressure from Democratic Leadership. The briefing was not specific. Moreover, it consisted primarily of information that we already knew and information unconnected to our investigation.

We made clear to the FBI briefers on August 6, 2020, that the briefing was not relevant to the substance of our work.

We also made clear our concern that the briefing would be subject to a leak that would shed a false light on the focus of our investigation. Indeed, the Washington Post article did exactly that and so did the other inaccurate media articles.

During your review of Crossfire Hurricane, you identified that counterintelligence briefings for Trump campaign officials were used by the FBI as intelligence gathering operations, concerns that we raised with the Justice Department on April 25, 2019, after we discovered text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Specifically, Peter Strzok was primarily responsible for assisting the FBI agent that would be at those briefings.

In response to your findings, Director Wray established new protocols for these transition briefings to keep potential political considerations out of the decision-making process. Specifically, Director Wray noted that these briefings “should be for national security purposes and not for investigative purposes.”

Senator Grassley and Senator Ron Johnson were credited with the discovery of the now famous text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as well as discovering that Strzok was the one of the crooked agents who used intel briefings to spy on Trump  in 2019 prior to being fired. Director Wray promised to put a stop to these phony briefings that end up getting leaked to the media, yet it happened again to Grassley and Johnson last year while investigating “the Biden family’s foreign financial dealings”.

This information is compelling regardless of which side of the political aisle one falls on. When senators start informing the people during public hearings in Congress that the FBI is setting them up with fake briefings and then stonewalling them once caught, it makes one wonder whether or not Congress is actually in charge anymore. If the FBI can engage in this sort of activity against ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, the mind shudders to think of what they might do to the average citizens of our diminishing republic.