Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! Today's newsletter includes:
- 2,000 MULES --- gaining interest, fending off critics
- Judge in Sussmann case appears to protect Hillary
- NY Post: Hunter's benefactor has even SPIED for him
- And much more.
1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE
Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
2. Sign up for Substack today
I hope you will subscribe to my Substack newsletter.
The Substack newsletter combines my morning and evening editions into one morning email AND best of all the email is ADVERTISEMENT FREE.
Join the thousands of subscribers who have signed on to pay $5 monthly or $36 annually (a $24 savings if you subscribe at the annual price!):
Once you subscribe to the Substack version, you will receive your first newsletter from me the very next day. If you already subscribe to the other versions of the newsletter, we will unsubscribe you from them so you get less email! You will still receive your Daily Bible Verse!
So please consider my Substack newsletter, and sign up here if you are interested:
3. 2,000 MULES --- gaining interest, fending off critics
Congratulations to Dinesh D’Souza and the group True the Vote, for grossing over $1 million in their movie’s first 12 hours on Rumble!
On the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) rating system, 2,000 MULES got a very respectable 7.4 audience rating on their 10-point scale.
This much interest is amazing, especially considering the current widespread media blackout. Even the FOX News evening opinion shows went another day without mentioning the documentary. At this rate, we might have to wait for Dan Bongino’s weekend show to hear anything about it. He remains undeterred.
RELATED READING: 2,000 MULES update: Big audience despite media blackout
Earlier, we offered up a spectacular refutation by Politique Republic of the laughable Associated Press “fact”-check of D’Souza’s new documentary film. In case you missed that piece, here it is on Substack.
This is a stunning take-down of AP’s hit-piece, which was a pathetic attempt to discredit the documentary. But leftist “fact”-checkers are like brain-dead zombies in horror movies --- they just keep coming no matter what weapons you fire at them. (This is why we can’t have the government taking that kind of power, as with the “Disinformation Governmental Bureau, which absolutely must go NOW.) Leftists never stop, never say they’re sorry and never admit they were wrong. So we’re going to have to hit them with a second round today, in the form of this additional critique of the AP.
Wendi Strauch Mahoney interviewed True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht about what the AP had called TTV’s “flawed analysis of cell phone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage.” They had tried to say that geospatial tracking data with cell phones was too imprecise to support the conclusions made by this study. But Engelbrecht pointed to a Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. United States from 2016, that concluded differently. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that tracking the location of a cell phone “achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”
Roberts also acknowledged the technology’s ability to “reconstruct a person’s movements...travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts.” Since location information is continually logged for everyone with a cell phone (an unsettling thought, but I digress), trackers “need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, and when.” In other words, the tracking can be done after the fact.
Justice Roberts blasts to smithereens the main premise of the AP’s “fact”-check.
In the movie, Engelbrecht and cyber expert Gregg Phillips go through the methodology of their study, showing how they limited their search to the most specific traffic patterns they found, to make sure they didn’t accidentally include “false positives,” people who had innocently been dropping off ballots. To be included, a person had to have not only visited a dropbox but also had at least five visits to one or more of the “stash houses” used by the nonprofits involved in the scheme. Heck, even three visits to one of those offices, in between visits to dropboxes, would have been a very unusual traffic pattern.
The tracking is so precise, it’s not enough for a person to drive to a drop box. He does have to get out of his car and walk up to it. As Phillips says in the film, “The fact of the matter is, these techniques are used every single day by law enforcement, intelligence community [and] Department of Defense.”
I would add that this technology was used by the government to track the movements on January 6, 2021, of hundreds of individual Capitol Hill protesters.
True the Vote was extremely conservative in deciding whom to include. In Engelbrecht’s words: “Larry Campbell, dropping off six ballots for his big family, wouldn’t be in our study. Going once to a dropbox wasn’t in our study. Our mules averaged 38 dropbox visits and 8 NGO [non-governmental organization] visits.” They didn’t even include people who traveled between NGOs and regular U.S. Postal Service boxes. “That’s how we know this was this tip of the iceberg,” Engelbrecht told the interviewer.
And so, how did True the Vote know these people were cheating on behalf of Democrats? Maybe the cheaters were those “ultra-MAGA domestic terrorists" we’ve been hearing so much about. Well, considering many of these mules have been identified as participants in the violent Antifa riots in Atlanta earlier in the year, that seems extremely unlikely. When they looked at their 242 mules in Atlanta, “dozens and dozens and dozens of our mules showed up on the ACLED databases.” (ACLED is the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.)
Engelbrecht had perfectly reasonable answers to the AP’s other criticisms as well. Her organization didn’t set out to litigate or change the election outcome, she said. They wanted to make a stringently controlled scientific inquiry into the question of drop-box security. And they ended up with evidence of “election fraud on an astonishing scale” in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona. If True the Vote uses the “lower bar” of five drop-box visits and three ballots per drop to determine how many votes were fake, Trump would have won all these states, with the final electoral count 305 to 233.
Paula Bolyard at PJ MEDIA has a piece that addresses the challenge of proving the fraud. “It’s the perfect crime,” says Sebastian Gorka in the film, “...the evidence has no connection to the person who’s meant to be voting. That’s the problem. As soon as it gets taken out of the [security] envelope, the identity disappears.”
But D’Souza has the answer: True the Vote has the cell phone identification of every one of these mules. So law enforcement needs to step up and interview them. Who paid them? Where’d they get the money? That seems like a lot of effort, but look at the manpower they put into tracking down and investigating people from the January 6 rally who didn’t even go inside the Capitol building. If we had someone running the Department of “Justice” who wasn’t a political hack, the FBI might be tracking down those vote traffickers. If they don’t pursue this –- if they just let it go –- we won’t be a real democracy. We’ll just be going through the motions, pretending to be one.
4. Judge in Sussmann case appears to protect Hillary
In our May 9 report on the judge’s latest rulings in the Michael Sussmann trial, we mentioned the following:
“On the downside, this judge doesn’t want to bring in evidence of the ‘joint venture’ among Sussmann, Joffe and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with the Alfa Bank story, because Sussmann hasn’t been charged with conspiracy. The judge said he doesn’t want to ‘confuse the jury’ and ‘distract from the issues at hand.’”
At the time, we didn’t buy his excuse—I mean, reason. And sure enough, it’s this ruling that has Margot Cleveland concerned about how politics might be playing a part with this judge, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. This judge, she said, “let politics trump the law.” Though she finds his “baseline” to be apolitical, mostly even-handed, sometimes he veers from that. We, too, notice that this happens when the facts at issue tend to get too ‘warm’ –- that is, too close to Hillary and her campaign.
Durham had argued that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were still admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But to rule in Durham’s favor, the judge would essentially be acknowledging that Hillary For America was a co-conspirator.
As Cleveland explains this, a “conspiracy” isn’t necessarily criminal, and that this is why Durham is giving it the more benign term “joint venture. But to make an exception to the hearsay rule, the judge would have to find that “a preponderance of the evidence” supported a conspiracy or joint venture.
Judge Cooper balked at this. He said that for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage of the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”
Cleveland explains why, given the witnesses from Georgia Tech who are slated to testify at the trial, there would be no need for an “extensive evidentiary analysis.” Durham’s office had even suggested in their brief that the judge could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” In other words, just wait and issue the ruling during the trial. She thinks the evidence of the joint venture is overwhelming, “easily satisfying the preponderance of evidence test.
She says Judge Cooper’s unwillingness to do this suggests politics at work. He’s not touching the issue of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax. He’s even questioning the whole “joint venture” theory, saying the “contours” of it and its participants are “not entirely obvious.” Cleveland senses that this case “is political to its core,” just like the entire Russia Hoax.
I forgot my magic mind-reading cap today, but it sure looks as though this judge is protecting the Democrats, and, specifically, Hillary Clinton, the queen mother of scandal.
The Washington Times got the same impression.
A while back, we reported on the stunning conflicts of interest this judge has, including the fact that his wife, Amy Jeffress, has represented one of the people most closely involved with the Russia Hoax, Lisa Page. We thought then, how does this judge get this case? How can this judge NOT be political?
5. NY Post: Hunter's benefactor has even SPIED for him
Hollywood attorney-to-the-stars Kevin Morris, a pal to Hunter Biden, is the individual who paid Hunter’s approximately $2 million IRS bill and who funds his extravagant lifestyle in Malibu, including his $20,000-a-month rental. This “sugar brother” reportedly has been developing a legal and media strategy for Hunter and also helped structure the plan for selling his “artwork” to anonymous (“anonymous”?) buyers.
But he’s done much more. When production was going on –- in Siberia –- for a biopic about Hunter’s life, Morris traveled there on a private jet with two associates and got onto the set under false pretenses, apparently to spy on them. According to the New York Post, he told the producer that he himself was working on a documentary that detailed Hunter’s corrupt business practices.
The real production was called MY SON HUNTER, an indie film produced by Phelim McAleer. Morris and his fake “production team” were given full access to the set and interviewed cast and crew over several days, even sharing meals. But…
“They seemed to never switch the camera off,” Mcleer told the Post. “Now I know why. This was an information-gathering exercise by a lawyer and his associates for their client. (Recall that Hunter has a different attorney, Chris Clark, handling the investigation into his finances.)
McAleer is described in the Post as a conservative, so it’s likely Hunter and his generous benefactor are concerned that the film might put the President’s son in a harsh light. Never mind that he's already put himself in one.
You have to give Morris one thing: for whatever reason he has to help Hunter, he’s dedicated. It’s not just that he gave Hunter $2 million and continues to pay his lavish expenses. Would your lawyer leave the beautiful Malibu beach and fly to SIBERIA for you? A place where "hanging ten" refers to the risk of toe frostbite? To go undercover and spy on your behalf? I’ve heard of attorneys lying for their clients, but, until now, not lying AND SPYING.
6. "Jane's Revenge"
A far-left pro-abortion group calling itself “Jane’s Revenge” has taken “credit” for the firebombing of a pro-life counseling center in Wisconsin.
The group issued a hyperbolic manifesto, calling the bombing “only a warning,” and vowing to commit more violence if “all anti-choice establishments, fake clinics and violent anti-choice groups” were not disbanded within 30 days. They wrote, “As you continue to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors with impunity, so too shall we adopt increasingly extreme tactics to maintain freedom over our own bodies. We are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle.”
For the record: I have always condemned violence and threats against abortion providers. I don’t believe that’s morally right, and it’s certainly not the way to win hearts and minds to the pro-life side. As for the notion that such acts are committed with impunity: of course, police investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. For example, the person who killed abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009 was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Police in Madison are still investigating, and they’re reportedly working with federal authorities to identify the source of this message and determine if it’s legitimate. If so, those behind it might find that the government does have the power to restrict their freedom over their own bodies, which may be confined to prison cells for quite a stretch.
Related: While the White House flips between encouraging and condemning threatening protests at SCOTUS Justices’ home to try to intimidate them into voting certain ways, most Americans know unacceptable behavior when they see it.
A Convention of States Action/Trafalgar Group survey asked Americans if they believe that “publishing the home addresses of the five U.S. Supreme Court Justices and calling for protests at their private homes is an acceptable way to protest” the upcoming ruling on Roe v. Wade. A lopsided 75.8% said no. Only 15.9% percent approved, and 8.3% weren’t sure. The disapproval of mob thuggery was fairly bipartisan, with the opposition of 86.5% of Republicans, 75.1% of independents and even 66.6% of Democrats.
Only one in five Democrats think that’s acceptable. I get the feeling the mobs we’re seeing on TV actually comprise the entirety of those one-out-of-five Democrats.
Also, the 20% of Democrats who don’t know that mob justice that violates federal law is wrong apparently includes the leaders of Biden’s “Justice” Department, who so far are doing nothing to stop the threats and harassment of Supreme Court Justices. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has requested local police to provide security, and he and the Governor of Maryland sent a letter to Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland, calling on him to do his job and enforce the law.
Good luck! Now they know how the Governors of Texas and Arizona feel.
7. The Party of Science
A pro-abortion activist in a “Handmaid’s Tale” costume who was protesting outside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s house claimed that Barrett doesn’t understand what it’s like “to carry a pregnancy to term.” Barrett has given birth to five children. Was "The Handmaid's Tale" a picture book?
8. Another leak
There’s yet another alleged leak of confidential discussions from inside the Supreme Court. If true, it’s good news for the pro-life side, but any leaks are bad for the SCOTUS. This needs to stop. I’m willing to wait to find out what the ruling is, if the price for a sneak peek is the destruction of the integrity of the court system.
I Just Wanted to Say
Thank you for reading my newsletter.