If Republicans return to power and don’t issue subpoenas and get to the bottom of what happened to bury the Biden laptop story before the 2020 election, they don’t deserve power.
That’s what I told Sean Hannity on FOX News Monday night, after he said he couldn’t think of a bigger “in-kind” campaign contribution the media could’ve made to Joe Biden. Republicans must show up and engage the other side so the American people can find out if the President of the United States is compromised.
As I’ve said, this isn’t about Hunter, but “the Big Guy.” If Hunter traded on his father’s powerful name to work deals with our country’s biggest adversaries, especially China, this truly is the biggest political scandal in America’s history. Perhaps the worst part, though, is the media’s role as accomplices, crying "Russian disinformation!" to hide the deeds of their political friends, at least for as long as this met the needs of those pulling the strings. I hate to say it, but what we see looks like something akin to the Corleone family.
We have to strip off layer after layer, like peeling an onion, till we expose the rotten center. And, yes, also like peeling an onion, it makes us want to cry.
On the bright side, the latest update from the New York Post suggests Durham’s grand jury is already exploring the “Big Guy” connection…
Greg Gutfeld targeted the Washington Post Monday night for offering a lame defense and semi-apology for the media’s failure to report the story. On Sunday, the unintentionally amusing WaPo Editorial Board actually asked, “Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now?”
Why indeed, WaPo Editorial Board? As if you weren’t largely to blame for that yourselves, though you tried to point fingers away from yourselves and towards Twitter and Facebook. You said you were just trying to be “prudent,” so as to not be “the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign.” (Never mind that you were for years the eager tools of Hillary’s “Russia Hoax.”) We still get the distinct impression that you shared Twitter’s goal –- that if you’d had your way, that laptop story would’ve disappeared without a trace, as the White House surely wishes the laptop itself had.
Gutfeld put it more bluntly, “The press asking why the story is only emerging now –- that’s like O.J. Simpson asking what happened to his ex-wife Nicole, or Scott Peterson putting up missing person posters of his wife all around the neighborhood. Your hands were all over this.”
His coup de grace, Line Of The Day: “There was a disinformation campaign all right, but the culprits weren’t chugging vodka in Moscow; they were sipping lattes in Silicon Valley.”
At this writing, Monday’s “Gutfeld!” hasn’t yet been posted, but do check it out if you missed it, as both the monologue and the opening discussion are about the Biden scandal and media cover-up.
As for Hillary and the “Russia Hoax,” Michael Sussmann’s attorneys have tried again to get the charge dropped against their client. They’ve come up with a novel argument that plays off some circular logic. Here’s how the reasoning goes:
Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI about whether he was there on behalf of clients (Hillary and tech executive Rodney Joffe), telling them instead that he was just there to give them a “tip” (the fake Alfa Bank story) out of his patriotic duty. His attorneys told the judge that never before, at least to their knowledge, “has an individual provided a tip to the government and been prosecuted for making a false statement that’s ancillary to the tip itself.”
Reminder to Sussmann’s attorneys, and also to the presiding judge, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper: Sussmann was not providing a “tip” to the government. That’s what he was lying about! On behalf of his clients, whom he was billing for the meeting, he PRETENDED it was a tip. We all know he was actually feeding the FBI a fake piece of evidence. So unless you’re doing a standup comedy routine, don’t use the lie that it was a tip in your argument to dismiss the charge of lying that it was a tip.
The Epoch Times has a good summary, but it’s a “premium” story. I’ll include the link, but we’ve covered the main points.
Speaking of Sussmann and the argument for dismissal, legal analyst Margot Cleveland has a detailed new piece relating to that. Sussmann’s attorney --- from law firm Latham & Watkins, whose reach extends far in this scandal --- had another argument for dismissal: that the lie wasn’t “material,” and thus not a crime. So, why wasn’t it material? The attorney, Michael Bosworth, said no one at the FBI even asked Sussmann about the source of the Alfa Bank information. “Not once,” Bosworth said. “Ever.”
Cleveland recounts from the transcript the heated back-and-forth on this point between Boswell and prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis. Boswell was arguing that Sussmann’s (alleged) lie didn’t matter to the FBI, because if the FBI had cared at all about the source of the information he had brought them, they would have asked him about it.
Now, as I’ve said many times, my research team and I are not attorneys, but it occurred to us that the FBI DID straight-out ask if Sussmann had come representing clients, so that must have mattered, and that’s what he lied about. It sure seems material to us. Bosworth was probably thinking, “Hey, it’s worth a shot.”
Still, amazingly, we learn from this that the FBI never asked Sussmann anything like, “Who are these cyber experts you talked to? Can we talk to them? How’d they get this information?” Sure enough, Cleveland had the same take-away; namely, that the FBI’s failure to ask these questions “speaks not of the unimportance of the information, but of the incompetence (or political corruption) of the Crossfire Hurricane team.” They had the same lack of curiosity about the Steele “dossier” and didn’t care if they were relying on obviously suspect information if it fit their purpose.
Finally, in an update to the FEC’s fining of Hillary For America and the DNC, Kash Patel, lead investigator for the House Intelligence Committee when it was chaired by Devin Nunes, says they’re paying their fines to bury the story.
Recall that the fines were for misreporting “oppo research” for the Steele “dossier” as “legal services” and funneling the money for the “dossier” through law firm Perkins Coie. As we’ve reported, they essentially pleaded “no contest” and are paying the fines, with Patel now saying it’s to avoid calling more attention to what they did.
Patel points out that “the Hillary Clinton campaign could’ve said, ‘We disagree with your finding. We’re going to court.’ What did the Hillary Clinton campaign do? ...They agreed to the finding of probable cause by the FEC, which means they’re basically agreeing that it happened. ...Like we’ve always said, ‘Follow the money.’”
He sees the FEC fines as “another step towards accountability,” which needs to come in the form of indictments.