Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! Today's newsletter includes:
- NBC reports on Hunter Biden's finances, foreign deals
- Day 4 of Sussmann trial: Baker treated him as "confidential
- And much more...
1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
2. NBC reports on Hunter Biden's finances, foreign deals
You might want to sit down, lest you faint from shock –- NBC News has actually reported on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
At this point, the fact that a major news outlet like NBC reported on this at all is perhaps even more newsworthy than the laptop story itself. What next? Blizzards in July?
Their headline from Thursday: “Analysis of Hunter Biden’s hard drive shows he, his firm took in about $11 million from 2013 to 2018, spent it fast.” They reported that almost $6 million of that, more than half, came from two Chinese deals. Of course, you and I have known about this for a long time --- never mind that Joe Biden, just over a week before the 2020 election that put him in office, said Hunter had not profited.
“My son has not made money,” he said, “in terms of this thing about...what are you talking about...China.” (You know, the thing.) Of course, he had also said he'd never even spoken to Hunter about his foreign business dealings, so after all this time, one has to wonder, how did he know that?
But this is still NBC. According to FOX News, “NBC’s report emphasized the documents and hard drive do not indicate that Biden was acquiring money to give to his father or other members of his family.” Really? Did they READ the emails? Are they sure they were looking at the right laptop?
When NBC finally did some reporting, just a year-and-a-half late, they managed to find the evidence of China’s payments to Hunter while his dad, the “Big Guy,” was Vice President. Reading their “news” story is downright hilarious, as they seem to just now be realizing that there is nothing, in their words, “to show what he did to earn millions from his Chinese partners.” (Answer: That’s because he DID nothing! Except maybe arrange a meeting or photo op from time to time with the Vice President of the United States.)
They said this “raises questions about national security, business ethics and potential legal exposure.” Only now?? The NEW YORK POST broke this story in October of 2020. Hunter’s former partner in the Chinese deals Tony Bobulinski verified it. We’ve been reporting it all along, including Hunter’s association with Ye Jianming and the Chinese oil and gas company CEFC. That was the deal broken down in Hunter’s email as giving 10 percent of the spoils to “the Big Guy,” JRB.
All the questions about Hunter being asked so earnestly now should have been asked BEFORE THE ELECTION. But no, the media couldn’t possibly have done that, because everything on the laptop was falsely dismissed as ‘Russian disinformation” or “a Trump campaign product.” Fifty-one former intel officials signed a letter saying the laptop had the “earmarks” of Russian disinformation, when they knew no such thing. Miranda Devine’s story in the POST was censored on social media. The shutdown of communication on this story in October 2016 was MAJOR election interference, a fraud perpetrated on American voters.
NBC also reported that Hunter spent more than $200,000 a month on luxury hotels, cars, drugs and hookers. Also, extensive dental work, apparently to repair the damage that drugs had wrought on his teeth.
FOX News’ Jesse Watters reported on this Thursday night, saying that his sources are telling him the federal investigation in Delaware into Hunter’s finances is close to wrapping up and making its report.
So, the big question: With the premise that NBC suddenly deciding to cover this story is no accident --- I doubt anyone disagrees with that --- who flipped the switch, and why? Who said, “Okay, after all this time, NOW we’ll be real journalists and report it”? Hannity’s theory is that with the investigation nearing its end, the media realize an indictment is “a real possibility,” and they want to do whatever they can to make us forget that they helped with the cover-up all those many months.
That makes sense and surely is a factor, but what do you bet there’s more to it? Someone’s pulling the strings, and we’re likely to start seeing a lot of media attention paid to Hunter and his family’s foreign deals.
3. Day 4 of Sussmann trial: Baker treated him as "confidential
Day 4 of the Michael Sussmann trial brought more testimony from former FBI General Counsel James Baker, who said under oath that when the FBI completed their look into the so-called evidence Sussmann had brought of the alleged tie between Trump and Alfa Bank, as he understood it, “there was nothing there.” That’s consistent with earlier testimony from one of the FBI agents who examined it, who said they realized that very day that there wasn’t anything to it.
Baker also said he recalled with 100 percent certainty that Sussmann told him during their meeting, likely towards the beginning, that he wasn’t acting “on behalf of any particular client.” So after the meeting, he vouched for Baker in a briefing to Bill Priestap, then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. Priestap put in his own notes (this is new), “Said not doing this for any client.”
The defense had told the jury Tuesday in its opening statement that Sussmann’s alleged lying would be “impossible” to prove, as there were no other witnesses, no notes taken, and Baker’s memory was “clear as mud.” I’d say that is some clear mud. Plus there’s Priestap’s note. Another FBI official briefed by Baker, Trisha Anderson, took a similar note: “No specific client.” Not so impossible, eh? Still, on Wednesday, during cross-examination, the defense did present other notes made by Baker suggesting that at some point he might have thought data came from Sussmann’s clients.
In October of 2016, no such concern stopped the media --- and even some in the FBI --- from running with the phony story, which we later learned was absolutely paid for by Hillary For America and the DNC.
But Baker said in court that he wouldn’t have met with Sussmann if he’d known Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
“That would raise some very serious questions,” Baker said, “certainly in my mind, about the credibility of the source and the veracity of the info --- heightening, in my mind, whether we were going to be played or pulled into the politics.” He went on: “We were very wary of being played --- having the fact of the investigation being the thing to enable the press to report on something flawed or incomplete.”
WERE they played? Or was it more like "wink-wink, nudge-nudge"? Baker did say that Sussmann’s claim to be acting on his own caused him to treat the attorney “like a confidential source.” But did other FBI officials such as Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and James Comey just not care where the “evidence” came from because they wanted so badly to use it against Trump? They didn’t seem at all wary. And surely they were confident that their friends in the media would play along, wanting to use the “evidence” just as much.
To us, the fact that Sussmann was being treated by Baker as a confidential source seems significant. Why keep him anonymous? FBI agent Scott Hellman testified Tuesday that he was “frustrated” at not being able to ID who had provided the thumb drives to Baker. “HE WAS NOT WILLING TO TELL ME,” Hellman testified about Baker (emphasis mine). It’s hard to say without having worked at the FBI, but this just seems odd.
Jerry Dunleavy at the WASHINGTON EXAMINER has an excellent summary of Baker’s testimony.
Alina Habba, attorney for President Trump in his broadly targeted Russia Hoax lawsuit, was in the courtroom Thursday and told Sean Hannity she’d heard a lot of information that was “frankly, shocking” to her but that would be “incredibly helpful” to Trump’s case. “Basically, everybody is finger-pointing,” she said, “which is exactly what you would expect.”
She pointed out that even though Sussmann said he wasn’t coming forward on behalf of any client, he and Baker were friends, and Baker was aware that he did represent the DNC and was general counsel for Hillary’s campaign. (Of course, Sussmann’s defense will use that to try to minimize the impact of Sussmann’s lie.) She also reminded viewers that Baker didn’t take notes of the meeting –- another thing we find curious, considering the FBI is downright obsessive about taking notes, and the nature of the meeting had been said by Sussmann to be “sensitive.”
So, even though FBI agents who’d examined the so-called evidence thought it was bogus, Baker apparently handed it over to Peter Strzok, the man perhaps most responsible for the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. (NOTE: As we’ve reported, the judge in this case, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, has huge Democrat ties, not the least of which is his attorney wife’s representation of Lisa Page –- you can’t make this stuff up –- Strzok’s paramour at that time and deeply involved in Crossfire Hurricane. That he hasn’t had to recuse himself from this case is bewildering.
One especially stunning piece of information (and this is new): According to Baker’s testimony, when he had to leave his job at the FBI because he was under investigation by the Durham team, he went to Sussmann and actually tried to get a job at Perkins Coie. We did know what happened after that: he got the job of general counsel to Twitter, the social media platform that’s working constantly to stop the flow of whatever it deems “disinformation.” Never mind the role played by Baker in the biggest disinformation campaign ever –- the Trump-Russia Hoax!
Gregg Jarrett said one example here of unequal justice under the law is James Comey. “There’s no question in my mind,” he said, “that James Comey lied and deceived the FISA court, and, you know, that’s obviously a crime, defrauding the court. He should have been held in contempt of court by the FISA judges, but he wasn’t.” Well, let's hope Durham isn't done.
“Sussmann really has no defense whatsoever,” Jarrett said, “but he can still get an acquittal. How? Because it’s Washington DC.” He went on to quote the same 2020 election results in DC that we did yesterday, noting that the people selected for this jury are “Hillary Clinton supporters, even donors, and they universally loathe Donald Trump.” This is why, he said, the defense specifically asked the judge to TELL the jury, ‘Oh, by the way, the defendant was fighting against Donald Trump.’ (And did he? Can anyone say, "mistrial"?)
With a jury like this, Durham is no doubt worried about jury nullification. They might just choose to not care about any of the evidence and acquit the defendant no matter what.
Here’s another take on Marc Elias’s testimony, from Matt Margolis at PJ Media. Elias testified that he shared among senior Clinton campaign officials “the fruits of his work” with Fusion GPS. Robby Mook, John Podesta, Jake Sullivan (now Biden’s national security adviser) and Jennifer Palmieri were in that loop. Can anyone say with a straight face that Hillary wasn’t?
Finally, the NEW YORK POST has a superb editorial about the larger picture of the DC swamp being painted by Durham with this one narrow indictment.
4. Oklahoma leads the way to ban abortion
Thursday, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill that would ban all abortions from the moment of conception, with the exception of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. The Governor has indicated that he will sign it, which would make Oklahoma the first state to ban abortion entirely before Roe v. Wade is even overturned.
The Biden White House and other pro-abortion forces had the expected hysterical reaction, with the Biden people immediately politicizing it by calling it an “Ultra MAGA” bill (they just keep trying to make that a thing, but aside from T-shirts worn proudly by Trump fans, it’s not going happening.) Hauling out their favorite buzzwords, they called it an “extreme” attempt by “ultra MAGA officials across the country to roll back the freedoms we should not take for granted in this country." Like freedom of speech? Oh, sorry: that’s the fundamental freedom their side wants to destroy.
Since it’s so important these days that we correct “disinformation,” allow me to correct theirs. The belief that life begins at conception is not something that arose in the wake of Donald Trump’s election to the White House. It’s what most people have believed since the beginning of time. The idea that a child in the womb is just a clump of cells that it is morally justified to destroy right up until the moment of birth is an extremely extreme extremist notion only recently adopted by their side.
In fact, it’s far more “extreme” than anything in Roe v. Wade, which only legalized unrestricted abortion in the first trimester. Or the ruling that altered it, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which allowed states to protect babies considered viable even in the first trimester.
As for which side represents an extremist minority view, the latest polls show that while only 12% of Americans believe all abortions should be banned, 28% would allow it for cases of rape or incest, and 9% to save the life of the mother. All of those exceptions are in the Oklahoma bill, which adds up to a total of 49% who would support it. Only 17% agree with the current Democrat position that unrestricted abortion should be available for all nine months.
So once again, which side represents an extreme minority view?
5. Must-See Video
Last night, Greg Gutfeld had one of his best monologues ever, and it didn’t even include many jokes. That’s because it was on the dead serious topic of how the leaders of a major political party that holds power over two branches of government have embraced shockingly racist tactics to win elections by demonizing all white Republicans (or anyone who dares disagree with them) as racists who support the actions of violent nuts like the self-described "authoritarian leftwinger" who went on a racist shooting spree in Buffalo.
This is something you must see, and if you can’t watch the video, the link has a transcript as well. I apologize for the language and the bleeps, but Greg was obviously so furious about them promoting toxic racism and exploiting tragedies for cheap political advantage that he had a hard time censoring himself.
Not included is something that Greg’s sidekick, Tyrus, said after the monologue and that deserves quoting as well. He said that when he was a kid, every time there was a news story about someone doing something bad, he used to pray, “Please don’t let it be a brother.” That’s because he knew that there were racists who would blame the evil actions of one person on everyone who shared the same skin pigmentation. And now, promoting that same attitude toward white people is the official policy of the Democratic Party.
6. The Democrats dirty tricks campaign against Elon Musk
I think that one reason the left’s favorite attack templates aren’t working so well is that they’ve become so transparent and predictable. It’s as if they’re not even trying to make them look believable anymore.
For instance, just yesterday, I reported that Elon Musk announced that for the first time in his life, he planned to vote Republican because the Democrats had become the party of hatred and division. He added, “Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold.”
Well, as predictable as a cuckoo clock, less than 24 hours later, Business Insider ran a story claiming that Musk’s company Space-X paid a flight attendant a $250,000 settlement for a claim of sexual harassment from 2016 where he allegedly exposed himself and propositioned her during a massage.
Musk called the story a “politically-motivated hit piece,” part of “their standard despicable playbook,” and added, "If I were inclined to engage in sexual harassment, this is unlikely to be the first time in my entire 30-year career that it comes to light." He later tweeted, "For the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue. But I have a challenge to this liar who claims their friend saw me ‘exposed’ – describe just one thing, anything at all (scars, tattoos…) that isn’t known by the public. She won’t be able to do so, because it never happened."
I don’t know what if anything actually happened, but I don’t think it’s likely to harm Musk with anyone who doesn’t already hate him for daring to buck the leftist narrative and defend free speech. The Democrats have already poisoned the “Me,Too” well with their double-dealing. They exploited it to attack Republicans even with dubious claims by snakes like Michael Avenatti; yet when credible claims of sexual abuse were made against Democrats like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton, the women were ignored or trashed. They love to cry “wolf,” while excusing their own wolves, and I think by now, everybody has noticed. So what else have you got?
Related: Instapundit blogmaster and law professor Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed at the New York Post on why the left hates Elon Musk so much. He’s a dangerous threat to them on two levels: he’s so wealthy that they can’t bully or control him, and he sees through their bull (BLEEP.)
7. "Honest mistakes"
It's always struck me as a strange quirk of statistics how "honest mistakes" involving the counting of ballots, etc. always seem to favor only one side: the Democrats. It's like asking what are the odds that every time you recount the same box of ballots, the Democrat gains votes and the Republican loses votes? 'Tis a puzzlement!
Well, it's just happened again. Through an obviously completely honest series of nonpartisan "mistakes," somehow, the Census overcounted the populations of some states (all but one blue) and undercounted the populations of other states (all but one red), meaning that for the next ten years, blue states will get more House seats than they deserve and red states will get fewer than they should.
I wonder how they're going to maintain this mistake in 2030, by which time I expect most blue states to be virtually empty.
I Just Wanted to Say
Thank you for reading my newsletter.