BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Blessings on you and your family from all the Huckabee staff!
Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Breaking News: Hunter Biden gets a deal
Fox News reports that Hunter Biden has agreed to plead guilty to two counts of willful failure to pay income taxes and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
This is part of a sweetheart plea deal that will (of course) result in no jail time, just “diversion programming” and probation. It’s a diversion, all right. Sources say this is intended to bring an end to Hunter’s potential legal liability in all matters being investigated by federal authorities, including his shady foreign deals, Burisma money, bribery and influence peddling allegations, etc. etc. etc.
But other sources said all that is excluded from this deal.
The DOJ must be hoping that this mild slap on the wrist will make a loud enough noise to divert the public’s attention from all the other potential Biden charges they’re trying to sweep under the rug. I wouldn’t count on that. All this will do is make it even clearer than before that we have a two-tiered, politicized justice system where political opponents like Donald Trump face dozens of federal charges over paperwork disputes while Democrats can be up to their eyebrows in sleaze and slime away scot-free. I hope they are proven wrong by a massive uprising of outraged voters at the polls.
UPDATE: US Attorney David Weiss said that the plea deal given to Hunter Biden on tax and gun charges does not close the investigation of his other issues, which is "ongoing." This contradicts an earlier statement to CBS News by Biden's attorney Chris Clark that it was his “understanding that the five-year investigation into Hunter is resolved.”
The Bret Baier interview with President Trump
Last night, Fox News aired a wide-ranging interview with former President Trump. Here is one of the most headline-making segments about how Trump would have prevented and now would stop the Russia-Ukraine war:
But the part getting the most attention is Trump’s exchange with Bret Baier about the federal charges against him and whether he had classified documents or tried to hide them or showed them to anyone who didn’t have a security clearance:
Trump claimed he had every right to have those boxes, and he needed time to go through all the boxes which were filled with personal items, from magazine clippings to golf shirts, when the FBI raided his home and took everything. He also suggested that left-wing radicals could be putting classified documents into the boxes to frame him, since they carried them away without letting his lawyers be present or see what was in them.
As for the audio tape that the FBI claims shows he was displaying a classified document to someone else, Trump said “Bret, there was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else, talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not. That was not a document. I didn’t have any document per se. There was nothing to declassify, these were newspaper stories, magazine stories, and articles."
While I understand his eagerness to deny charges that he believes (I think with good reason) are politicized and bogus, the fact is that he’s facing 37 federal charges pressed by people who unfortunately have a lot of power and have proved they’re willing to abuse it. Just ask all the people who now have prison records for walking past the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. A number of commentators have jumped on Trump’s remarks and noted that the prosecution can use that tape in court to point out any inconsistencies in his defense and paint it as a self-incriminating statement. Here are a couple of takes from a Trump detractor and supporter:
There’s a reason why the Miranda rights warn people, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,” and that goes triple for Trump, whom they’re literally trying to imprison for things he’s said.
As Bonchie at Redstate.com puts it, “Trump is going to be Trump” so there’s no use getting upset about it, and that Trump seems to believe that if he wins the PR battle, he wins the case. But that’s not necessarily true, and every time he gives an interview like this, he hands ammunition to his enemies while causing new headaches for his own lawyers.
You know, when someone asks you to comment on a pending legal case against you, there’s nothing wrong with saying, “On advice of my counsel, I’m not allowed to talk about that. But I’ll tell you all about it after I’m fully exonerated. Next question.”
America the Beautiful
God's creation is all around us. We are blessed with his bounty. Take a moment to enjoy it.
Trump preliminary trial date is set
In more breaking news, Judge Aileen Cannon set August 14th as a surprise preliminary trial date for President Trump in the “classified” documents case, but that’s likely to change, so don’t cancel any appointments over it. She also ordered all pre-trial motions to be in by July. Most analysts expected this to be drawn out and not start until 2025, but it sounds as if the judge wants to get it over with fast. That could be arranged by throwing it out completely, which is the decision I think should be reached. This is a developing story, so we’ll have to wait and see, but it sounds as if we might not be waiting as long as we expected.
SCOTUS throws out lower court ruling
Tuesday morning, the US Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling blocking South Carolina from ending public funding of Planned Parenthood and sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider.
I am always amazed at the hubris of federal judges telling elected representatives of the voters that they aren’t allowed to NOT give taxpayer money to some group or another. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says Planned Parenthood is a necessary arm of the government.
In fact, I’ve been making the argument for years that it not only shouldn’t be getting hundreds of millions of our tax dollars, it shouldn’t even be a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit, since it routinely engages in banned anti-Republican/pro-Democrat political activities that should’ve gotten that status yanked long ago. Athena Thorne at PJ Media summarizes that argument.
Sucking up to China
Yesterday, I wrote about the shameful pandering and kowtowing to China that this Administration is displaying, but at that time, I didn’t even have the worst example of it. To put the cherry on top of this manure sundae, Secretary of State Antony Blinken sucked up to China by stabbing our longtime ally Taiwan in the back, declaring, “We do not support Taiwan independence. We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.”
Here’s a news flash that you’d think the US Secretary of State would have already heard: the “status quo” is that Taiwan is an independent nation. It has been for decades now. Try to keep up.
Nobody knows less about guns than Joe
For years now, I’ve been asking why the people who want more gun laws seem to be the people who know the least about guns. It’s now obvious that nobody wants more gun laws than Joe Biden, and nobody knows less about guns. Brace yourself...
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg about what Joe thinks he knows about guns that is stunningly false, from common misconceptions like claiming that the ‘90s “assault weapons” ban worked to reduce crime (it didn’t) to headscratchers like saying his legislation would limit a “round” to only eight bullets. That’s incoherent even by Joe Biden standards.
Ironically, as Catherine Salgado at PJ Media reminds us, then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1985 voted for the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), saying, “During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
So for those who fear Joe’s memory has been slipping of late, you don’t know the half of it.
DA Alvin Bragg is facing two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits
Remember the partisan indictment of Donald Trump on dozens of felony charges over a bogus paperwork dispute? No, not that one, the earlier one filed by Manhattan Democrat DA Alvin Bragg. Well, it turns out that Bragg himself is facing two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for refusing to release documents that critics suspect would show he was coordinating or at least communicating with Trump’s political opponents or that he’d cut side deals for legal services.
Mike Howell of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, which filed the lawsuits, called Bragg a “hypocrite” and “a weaponized actor who’s going after the former president on a loony theory about his document retention, whereas the DA can’t even keep his own documents, and it’s in violation of the information laws he is bound by…He’s wasting an exorbitant amount of New York’s taxpayers’ dollars to defend this now and delay it and obstruct it when he could’ve just turned it over.”
I guess it’s a good thing for Alvin Bragg that he isn’t a Republican or he might charge himself with a few dozen felonies.
Today’s Huckabee Video Links:
I appeared on “John Bachman Now” on Newsmax, talking about the bribery allegations against President Biden. You can watch it online here:
And another appearance on Newsmax to talk about how John Durham should have taken his investigation to the next level.
And here's my appearance with Sean Hannity last night, on the odds of Joe Biden actually being the Democrat candidate next year.
Finally, on this edition of "Live With Mike," I talk about the "Pride Day" at the White House fiasco, the unexpected group that's pushing back against woke indoctrination in schools, and more.
All Muslim Michigan City Council teaches the Biden Administration and liberals everywhere a lesson
I linked yesterday to an article in the leftist Guardian newspaper, expressing shock, dismay and almost lethal levels of huffiness that the all-Muslim city council of Hamtramck, Michigan, that leftists had championed voted to ban the LGBTQ “Pride” flag from public property. I pointed out that they were shocked to discover that Islam is a religion (they like to treat Muslims as a racial minority so they can play the politics of racial division to get their votes.)
But there was much more that could have been said about this story, from the bubble that liberals live in (they seemed shocked that the all-Muslim council is also all-male and socially conservative) to the fact that the Muslim council members were actually being more inclusive than the liberals (they said the only flag allowed on public property is the American flag which represents everyone – someone tell Joe Biden that!) Someone might have even pointed out to the leftists that in the Middle East, Islamic nations throw gay people off of buildings and crush them under stones, and they never say a word about that, but they’re horrified that they don’t want to fly a rainbow flag over a city hall In Michigan?
There’s more to be said about this latest clash between liberalism and reality, but fortunately for me, Robert Spencer at PJ Media said it already.
Special Counsel Durham testifies this week, in both open and closed hearings
John Durham is scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee at 3 PM on Tuesday, but it will be behind closed doors. Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the committee, is eager to ask him about “serious errors and shortcomings” in The Durham report, not to mention the very real misconduct it documents.
“The report confirms that FBI personnel repeatedly disregarded critical protections established to protect the American people [editorial aside: even President Trump] from unlawful surveillance,” Turner said in May, referring to abuses of the FISA court. “Such actions should never have occurred, and it’s essential that Congress codifies clear guardrails that prevent future FBI abuses and restores the public’s trust in our law enforcement institutions.”
Durham is also scheduled to testify, this time in an open hearing, before the House Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday at 9 AM. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs that committee, said he reached out to Durham immediately after the report was released more than a month ago to testify the following week, but it’s taken this long to get him in. Jordan wants to focus on what’s in the report, he says, and to use the power of the purse --- that’s their superpower --- to limit the power of the FBI.
Recall that after an exhaustive and extremely drawn-out investigation, Durham concluded that “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” The report said, “FBI records prepared by [Peter] Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.” In other words, they had no proper basis in fact to launch their investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia. In still other words to put it as simply and starkly as possible, THEY FRAMED HIM. And that effort started with the Clinton campaign.
You’d think people would lose their law licenses and go to jail for falsifying evidence to frame an innocent person for a crime. Mainstream media outlets that insist the Durham Report found nothing of importance are lying to you.
Here’s more from NEWSMAX, including an update on the resolution by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna to censure California Rep. Adam Schiff for lying outrageously on the floor of Congress about having evidence of Trump’s “collusion.”
Sometimes we write out a long list of questions that would be fun to see asked in these hearings. But this time, they tend to fall into just a few general categories. Durham should be asked why, after finding out what he did about the FBI, he thinks no official changes should be made in how they handle these investigations. Yes, the culture has to change, but it should be reflected in policy. And there have to be some teeth.
Durham should also be asked why more charges weren’t brought against those who obviously framed Trump, why he didn’t ask for a change of venue from the DC court, and if he thought it was even possible for Trump or any Trump associate to get a fair trial there.
Also, BIG QUESTION: since Durham prosecuted Michael Sussmann, who as the DNC’s attorney personally hired CrowdStrike to analyze the so-called “Russian hack” of the DNC and DCCC servers, which arguably was the foundation for the whole Russia Hoax, why on earth didn’t he use his authority as special counsel to look into that? Wasn’t he curious why the FBI failed to insist that CrowdStrike turn over the hard drives? Did Durham intend to look into this, only to have Merrick Garland, in a manner of speaking, shoot him down? Was there any evidence whatsoever that Russia hacked those servers, or was that as much of a fraud as the Russia “collusion” story was? And if Russia didn’t hack the servers, then how did those thousands of emails find their way to Wikileaks?
Finally, let’s talk about Bill Barr. Trump’s former attorney general, who has made it clear he doesn’t care at all for his former boss and even holds him “responsible in the broad sense” for January 6, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that even though he doesn’t expect to be called as a witness in Trump’s “classified documents” case, he would testify if asked to.
Barr said Trump had “no legal right” to the documents and applauded the government’s effort to get the materials back “quietly and with respect.” We assume he’s not talking about the FBI’s unprecedented raid of Mar-A-Lago over land, sea and air, involving approximately 30 armed agents and a nine-hour search of essentially the entire estate, during which his attorneys were not allowed near the home. According to Trump, this happened out of the blue while negotiations with the National Archives were still going on and while he was out of town.
In his interview, Barr wasn’t offering new facts but mostly spouting his personal legal opinion. The prosecution has one opinion of how the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act “interplay,” and the defense has another. Since Barr can’t read Trump’s mind and know if he meant to cause harm to the United States (!) and violate the Espionage Act, and, as far as we know, has no X-ray vision to see the contents of all those boxes, what would he be testifying about? If he were there to testify dispassionately as an expert witness about these laws, Trump’s attorneys should bring up the extremely hostile and petty things he’s said about the former President --- rivaling what Trump has said about him for hostility and pettiness.
As I often point out, neither I nor my staff are attorneys. But because of the above considerations, we agree with him that he’s not likely to be called. Still, you know CBS was giddy to have him on to say this stuff. Read the full transcript only if you have a strong stomach. There’s obviously something very personal going on here.
RELATED: Speaking of Barr, he turns up in the new column from legal analyst Margot Cleveland. If anyone knows how the facts in a case can be twisted by the FBI (with help from their friends in the media) it’s Bill Barr, as he personally had to make the interview rounds recently to correct a deceptive narrative, the seeds of which were planted in THE NEW YORK TIMES in December 2020, about Biden information that had come to U.S. Attorney Scott Brady’s office in Western Pennsylvania. The NYT had falsely reported that it had amounted to nothing and had come from Rudy Giuliani, no doubt to discredit it as politically motivated, and that Barr had shut it down.
Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin has been telling that lie; thus Barr’s need to correct the record. It seems Russia Hoaxer Adam Goldman and the two other NYT reporters who will probably win a Pulitzer Prize for their fake story didn’t talk to Barr before writing it. But as we know today, their story was incorrect --- yes, there was other information passed along by Giuliani, but this was not that. This is the one alleging that Joe and Hunter Biden took $10 million in bribes from the Ukrainian founder of Burisma.
It wasn’t publicly known then, but the not-from-Giuliani information included the bombshell “1023” from June of that year that we now know the FBI has kept squirreled away ever since. A whistleblower told Congress about it, and they finally had to resort to a subpoena to see this report from a highly regarded confidential human source. Cleveland’s piece has more detail on how it got buried, how the NYT reporters/scribes, just a few weeks before Joe Biden’s inauguration, were told by their FBI sources that the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware had turned up nothing on Hunter and money laundering. The piece was timed to hit a few weeks before Joe Biden’s inauguration as President and “within days” of the announcement that Hunter was being investigated for alleged tax crimes. Highly recommended if you like to get a little farther into the weeds.
It’s Funny Because It’s So Incredibly True:
The Babylon Bee imagines the way Democrats would celebrate Juneteenth if they were honest.
So does this mean Fox News gets its money back?
For those who have stopped shopping at Target and are looking for an alternative, here’s what’s going on at Macy’s.