Good morning! Here are the top stories from this week that I think you will want to read. Hint: One story dominated my website all week! Topics include:
- 2,000 MULES update: Big audience despite media blackout
- 2,000 MULES --- gaining interest, fending off critics
- 2,000 MULES: What must be said about media blackout
- Did you see 2,000 MULES this weekend?
- Hunter's "sugar brother" pays his taxes and bills
- And more
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
2,000 MULES update: Big audience despite media blackout
This article was published on May 11.
I’d venture to say that someone who watches only mainstream media might not have even heard of the eye-opening new film, 2,000 MULES. Sorry to say, that’s likely true even if they watch FOX News and Newsmax, as those audiences are hearing nary a mention of it, either. (That perplexing fact might be a story for another time. Needless to say, the left is loving it.)
But even with that, Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary, which disrupts the mantra that the 2020 election was ‘the cleanest, safest and most secure election in American history,’ has been doing gangbusters business at the box office and on home video since its debut.
If you haven’t yet seen it, this link will tell you all the ways you can. It is an absolute must-see, as anyone who has watched it and is not an idiot will tell you.
On Rumble, even though it premiered at noon on Saturday, May 7, it did well enough to be in the top ten for the weekend of May 6 to May 8. That is marvelous for a production that's considered a "niche" movie --- even one that HASN'T been suppressed on social media the way this has.
My writing team tried to see it in a theater in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, where it debuted the previous week, but it was largely sold out, and they had to wait till Saturday for the streaming premiere.
The so-called “fact”-checks released by the propagandists at Politifact and the Associated Press have been --- to phrase our assessment with a politeness they don't deserve --- remarkably inadequate. But, yes, that’s the absolute best they or any debunker can do. They must be ripping out their hair in fistfuls, because when confronted by evidence like this, there’s only so much they can do to try to tear it down. In case you missed our commentary about that, here’s the link.
Speaking of election fraud –- and, by the way, we intend to speak of it many times before the next election –- we came across a news story from the New York Post in August 2020 (note: WELL BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION) called “Confessions of a Voter Fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots.” Viewed in light of the revelations in 2,000 MULES, this story really comes into focus now.
Reporter Jon Levine interviewed a top Democrat operative who said he’d been doing it on a grand scale for decades. This person, speaking anonymously because he feared prosecution, said fraud was “more the rule than the exception.” And in the months leading into the 2020 election, with mail-in balloting being greatly expanded, (ostensibly) because of COVID, this meant there would be much more fraud.
“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes --- it can make a difference,” this tipster said. “It could be enough to flip states.”
It’s a big operation. He said he had not only altered ballots himself but had led teams, mentoring at least 20 operatives who were active in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, which, of course, would turn out to be one of the battleground states at issue on Election Day 2020.
This operative, who said he'd been a Bernie Sanders supporter and no longer had a stake, said he’d come forward in the hope that states would fix their glaring security problems with mail-in ballots, because November 3 was going to be “a (bleeping) war.” I wonder if he had any idea then how bad it was going to get.
The Post includes his descriptions of how election-riggers do their stuff. For example, they can just make copies of the ballot itself, but they have to collect actual envelopes, because it's not possible to recreate those. That’s where vote harvesters come in, going from house to house, “helping” people by mailing their ballots for them, but steaming them open and using the real envelopes to mail the phony ballots. These they would “sprinkle” around numerous mailboxes in town.
He said sometimes postal employees are in on it. If they don’t like Trump, for example, and they work in an area that’s predominantly GOP, they can just “lose” those ballots. They can either dump all the mail in the trash or, if they have time, sift through their mail for ballots, and throw the ballots in the trash. (Or I would think they could take them to be steamed open if more envelopes are needed.)
Then, of course, there are the nursing homes. We’ve discussed how that works, but the Post article provides details.
Sometimes, if they’re in a state that doesn’t require ID, operatives will even go to polling places and vote in person. They go through publicly available information to find the names of registered voters who routinely skip elections, and vote using those names.
They also buy the votes of homeless people. This tipster went on to say that Michael Bloomberg's campaign spent roughly $174 per vote to win his third term as New York mayor. He likened this effort to a mafia organization, with the candidate himself typically kept in the dark about the details, to maintain “plausible deniability.”
This particular political insider even took credit for a helpful little idea that he says was put into practice: bending one corner of the ballot, where the signature appeared, to signal to Democrat Board of Election counters that this was one of “their” ballots and to let it go through.
We learn from this story that systemized election fraud has been going on for a very long time, mostly to affect smaller and/or close races, but also that now, with the expanded use of mail-in ballots, the problem is growing, affecting elections on a larger scale. Just this weekend, Christina Repaci was walking her dog in East Hollywood and came upon something interesting sitting on the sidewalk: an entire box full of ballots.
These 104 unopened mail-in ballots were in a U.S. Postal Service box, just abandoned there on the sidewalk. Sacredness of the vote, indeed.
Ms. Repaci didn’t know what to do about this; it was only thanks to her persistence that an official picked up these ballots from her. Of course, the chain of custody had long since been shot. The registrar’s office said not to worry, they’ve reissued ballots to all the people affected. But what if someone not quite as conscientious as Ms. Repaci had found the ballots and used them for, I don’t know, bird cage liners?
“Early signs indicate that this was an incident of mail theft and not a directed attempt at disrupting the election,” the registrar’s office said in a statement. To that I say, “How do you know?” I also say, So what?” because either way, a box of votes that doesn't get counted can affect the outcome of a close election. Doesn't say much for mail-in voting.
And neither does 2,000 MULES. What if that box HAD been part of a scheme to commit fraud? An entire box of mail-in ballots can go missing, and no one will be the wiser. Steam open the official envelopes, stuff them with copied ballots marked with your candidate, hand them over to paid "mules" who don gloves to avoid transferring fingerprints and "sprinkle" them in mailboxes or dropboxes all around the county. In some states, even the late-arriving ballots will still count as long as they're postmarked on Election Day.
If this tipster is correct, the process has been honed to a fine art. The art of the steal.
2,000 MULES --- gaining interest, fending off critics
This article was originally published on May 12.
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.
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.
2,000 MULES: What must be said about media blackout
This article was published on May 13.
On May 5, when Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote went on Tucker Carlson’s FOX News show to discuss election fraud, she very strangely did not mention the name of the movie, 2,000 MULES, she had produced with Dinesh D’Souza. The movie she thought she was there to promote, the one premiering that week.
Apparently, she’d been instructed not to.
The resulting conversation was bizarre. According to D’Souza, just before the interview, Tucker and producer Justin Wells quickly got with Engelbrecht and, incredibly, told her she couldn’t say the name of her film on the air. And she was forbidden to say the election was stolen. So if her speech during this interview seemed a little halting and unsure, it’s likely because she was self-editing on the fly.
The caption appearing onscreen was just “A Look Into What Happened in the 2020 Election.”
D’Souza himself has a similar story: he’d been booked on Grant Stinchfield’s Newsmax show but was abruptly canceled. “...why isn’t this a legitimate news story?” he tweeted. “How can so-called news networks pretend it doesn’t exist?”
Unlike FOX News, Newsmax did respond, with this statement:
“Newsmax has covered ‘2000 Mules,’ including airing its trailer dozens of times, airing President Trump’s comments on it, and featuring ‘2000 Mules’ in our daily podcast. Also covered it on Newsmax.com.
We’ve allowed the for-profit ‘2000 Mules’ to run their ads on @Newsmax. We’ve extensively covered the 2020 election, its results, and President Trump’s challenges to the race. Voter integrity issues are of national importance.”
Why, yes, they are. Still, it would’ve been nice for them to explain the cancelation.
Needless to say, the left is loving this. I’ll spare you links to stories from Newsweek, The Daily Beast and other leftist outlets that call D’Souza a “far-right conspiracy theorist” (and worse) and his movie a “bizarre flick that baselessly claims the 2020 election was stolen,” and a “propaganda film peddling a wholly flawed and faulty premise about ballot fraud in the 2020 election.”
Really? We’ve read the so-called “fact”-checks and found them to be amusingly insufficient. Word to the not-wise: SAYING a claim is “debunked” is not the same as actually debunking. Some left-leaning news outlets are linking to the “debunk” from PolitiFact as if it were definitive. Their “fact”-check is laughable.
Yes, there are questions we’d ask about the claims in the film. We’d like to get experts on to go on record about how closely the geospatial cellphone tracking corresponds to a person’s movements. We’d also like to know if the filmmakers ever got security video of the same person at multiple drop boxes and if not, what the explanation for that would be. Of course, the same story is told when one cellphone ID shows up at different locations, but think how effective it would’ve been to see one person show up repeatedly!
If there weren’t such a media blackout on the movie, all this could be discussed in the light of day, on, say, FOX News. (Full disclosure: I’m a FOX News contributor.) That’s what the producers of this movie wanted. But as David Burge (Iowahawk) famously tweeted, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”
My understanding is that most –- perhaps all? –- states require security cameras at drop boxes, but that many states ignore that requirement. Some states that do have cameras are withholding their video. And Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests are being ignored, as is typical.
But in other states, such as Arizona, there’s action. The sheriff of Yuma County, who was in the film, says his office is teaming with the county recorder to investigate 2020 election fraud. They announced Wednesday that as of March, they had 16 open voter fraud cases. Not only are they looking at 2020, but they’ve seen evidence of a “pattern” of fraudulent voter registration forms ahead of the 2022 primary election. Engelbrecht at True the Vote is encouraged.
“What has been happening in Yuma County is happening across the country,” she said. “The targeting of vulnerable communities and vote abuse must be stopped.”
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has already indicted half a dozen people for illegal ballot harvesting. And D’Souza told investigative reporter John Solomon that the alleged Yuma County “mule” interviewed in the movie is cooperating with authorities. “It seems to be a direct response to the work of both True the Vote and the movie,” D’Souza said.
Solomon goes on to report that despite the lack of media and being relegated to alternative platforms such as Locals and Rumble, 2,000 MULES has made over $10 million. D’Souza told him that in just five days, a million people have seen it, “which, for a political documentary, is like downright insane.”
Finally, for weekend reading, David Horowitz and John Perazzo have a must-read article about Mark Zuckerberg’s funding of that tax-exempt foundation, the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), largely to pay for drop boxes. For Biden to win, by the teensiest margin in history, all they needed to do was spend his strategic influx of cash on “harvesting” ballots and getting them dropped into artfully-placed boxes. $350 million went to their “Safe Elections” Project --- as in, safe for the Democrat candidate? --- and another $69.5 million went to the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), whose founder had been a director of People For The American Way. The money to both these foundations was funneled through yet another one, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which supports get-out-the-vote campaigns for the Democrat Party.
The article goes into much more detail about how they use these funds. They claim to be nonpartisan, but, clearly, that is a joke. In 2020, it was easy to use COVID as an excuse to do elections the “safe” way, which coincidentally made cheating safe, too, as easy as pie.
Read the whole thing and be shocked. The list of grants goes on and on, obviously targeted to help Democrats. As The Federalist has noted, “The practical effect of these massive, privately manipulated election-office funding disparities was to create a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias that systematically favored Democratic voters over Republican voters.” It “essentially created a high-powered, concierge-like get-out-the-vote effort for Biden...”
And as the Internal Revenue Code unambiguously states, partisan political activity by non-profits is illegal.
This is the sort of conversation a movie like 2,000 MULES should be sparking in TV newsrooms. That would be real reporting, the lack of which is shameful. The political hacks at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS won’t permit it, and now we see they’re not the only ones who won’t. If this is some sort of “collusion” or “conspiracy” or “joint venture” among the powers that be, to maintain the illusion of an honest election process when we have something very different, then a REAL newsroom would distinguish itself by refusing to be a part of that.
Did you see 2,000 MULES this weekend?
This article was published on May 9.
The new Dinesh D’Souza documentary film on the 2020 election, 2,000 MULES, premiered online this weekend. As you know, it was made in collaboration with an organization called True the Vote, which has done a monumental amount of research on the stuffing of unsupervised ballot boxes in battleground states. His movie lays out their findings.
It opens with an orderly in-person election scenario --- the way Election Day is supposed to be --- with a lofty voiceover from Ronald Reagan. The contrast between this and what comes later in the film is dismaying. Whether or not it can be conclusively proved the 2020 election was rigged, we’ve got a BIG problem with our elections.
The film transports us back in time to Election Night, with stories from puzzled reporters of vote counts being stopped in the middle of the night and, the next morning, battleground states that had been solidly in Trump’s column being miraculously flipped for Biden, by razor-thin margins. Afterwards, reporters with their marching orders repeat the same mantra over and over: “The 2020 presidential election was the cleanest, the safest and most secure election ever in American history!” (Sorry, but whenever someone says that, I'm reminded of the line from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”) Anyone who questions this is supposedly perpetuating “the Big Lie.”
This movie shows how geopositioning technology was used by True the Vote to track the movements of ballot-box stuffers and –- most compelling –- how security cameras clearly show the (alleged) stuffing itself, done with gloves that were peeled off after each drop-off and placed in nearby trash cans. Traffickers photograph the ballots before dropping them in, presumably so they can get paid later.
But you don’t have to be a tech wizard to understand what went on. D’Souza includes a roundtable discussion with Larry Elder, Sebastian Gorka, Eric Metaxas, Charlie Kirk and Dennis Prager, who announced at the outset that he’s “agnostic on this question.” Others, such as Metaxas, professed to be extremely skeptical of how the election turned out and believed most of America is, too. (Polls bear that out.) It just never made sense to them that a weak candidate who campaigned from his basement and had so little enthusiasm from his party got more votes than Barack Obama did. But all they had seen so far were, as Kirk put it, “crumbs,” nothing cohesive.
“If I thought the President were a Nazi, I might steal the election,” Gorka said. And people on the left definitely had been brainwashed to think Trump was one. Still, as Gorka pointed out, Trump had built more support from the black and Hispanic communities than any Republican President since the 1960s. And Biden STILL got more votes overall; how does that happen?
Larry Elder also brought up the media suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, which, as we all know, was de facto election interference. “That alone altered the election,” he said. But, of course, that story would need a documentary of its own.
They agreed that the people who say we have to “move on” are those in the elite who think Trump was an anomaly. Hugh Hewitt insisted, “Show me the proof and I WILL speak up, but I’ve not gone on board with ‘I know this was a fraud.’”
But then the evidence is presented, and it’s compelling. Just see the film; so much is visual. And afterwards, take a look at Politifact’s laughable “fact”-check of the 2,000 MULES trailer. It’s just what you’d expect from those Poynter Institute propagandists.
Their headline says the premise of the trailer is ‘faulty.’ But it goes on to refute that premise by stating a faulty premise of its own, that the 2020 election, with its widespread use of mail-in voting and lax security laws (thanks to Marc Elias), was the most secure in history. They must've heard that from some CNN reporter.
“Many states have laws allowing people to return completed mail ballots on behalf of others, such as family members,” Politifact states. “Ballot drop boxes are more secure than standard mail boxes.” But returning a ballot on behalf of a family member is not what this documentary is about AT ALL. And, as one can see from the video, a drop box being tamper-proof has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ballots being dropped into it. No one is there to ask, “Is this your ballot? Is this the ballot of a family member? Do you have...seven...registered voters in your household? Why are you here at 3AM? And, uh, why are you wearing surgical gloves and carrying a camera?”
“The 2020 presidential election was secure and evidence from state and federal officials and courts shows no indication of widespread fraud,” Politifact states. (Again, I'm reminded of “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest warmest...”) Actually, this is incorrect. Recall that courts refused to look at evidence, citing it as “moot,” or even to grant standing to sue. And in Wisconsin, to cite just one example, an investigation is currently underway into organized illegal vote harvesting in nursing homes, statewide.
“Experts say the evidence D’Souza points to is inherently flawed,” according to Politifact. But they do not adequately explain how it's flawed. Then they go on to smear D’Souza personally, as if that disproved the allegations made here.
They accuse D’Souza of using an out-of-context quote from Biden to make it seem as though he was admitting election fraud. I know that quote, and interpreted its inclusion as just a touch of humor and irony; does anyone think from it that Biden was actually admitting election fraud? I’m not sure even Biden’s shriveled brain would come up with that.
Anyway, the “fact”-check goes on, but there is nothing in it that discredits what True the Vote has put together.
One “expert” they talked with, a political scientist from the University of Florida, was doubtful because if there were such a scheme, it likely would have come to light by now. That’s no reason not to take seriously the evidence that IS coming out now.
Another political scientist –- are these really the “experts” on interpreting cellphone data? –- from the University of Wisconsin-Madison accuses True the Vote of “conspiracist” thinking. “They are interpreting data that confirms their pre-existing conclusions.” Does he not realize that’s exactly what Politifact is doing?
But D’Souza and True theVote are just getting started. They have much more. Their documentary didn’t name any names or give addresses, but they say they’re “pulling the ripcord” very soon and releasing all their evidence, including the identities of over 2,000 ballot-trafficking mules and the addresses of all the ballot stash houses they located. They’re putting it all online.
And D'Souza has responded to Politifact's "fact"-check.
The Associated Press also did a "fact"-check on 2,000 MULES; this one was laugh-out-loud funny, specifically in its lame attempt to explain away the gloves being worn. We were going to fact-check the AP "fact"-check as well, but someone beat us to it, and this one is magnificent.
America The Beautiful
God's creation is all around us. To learn more about Lake Clark National Park & Preserve, visit its website here.
Hunter's "sugar brother" pays his taxes and bills
This article was published on May 10.
Recent stories about the investigation in Delaware into Hunter Biden’s finances have mentioned that Hunter paid his huge delinquent tax bill with help from a loan. Until now, however, the details of this arrangement weren’t known. Now they are, at least the essentials.
According to the New York Post, which broke the original laptop story that was suppressed by the media prior to the 2020 election, Hunter has a “sugar brother” –- that’s what Hunter’s friends call him –- who paid it all off. And the bill wasn’t $1 million as first reported, but more like $2 million.
This generous friend is mega-rich Hollywood entertainment lawyer and novelist Kevin Morris. The firm he founded has represented numerous A-list celebrities such as Matthew McConaughey and Scarlett Johansson. This man represented Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of SOUTH PARK, negotiating blockbuster deals for them reportedly worth nearly $1.5 billion, and he also co-produced their hit Broadway musical, THE BOOK OF MORMON.
So out of his pocket change, Morris has apparently been covering Hunter’s $20,000-a-month rent and other living expenses. He lives there in Malibu near Hunter. His office told CBS that he’s helping Hunter with his “legal and image problems.” Reportedly, it was Morris who advised him on how to structure the sale of his “art” so it would be sold to “anonymous” (mm-hmm) donors.
It’s likely that having a paid-up tax bill will cause a grand jury to look more favorably on Hunter, if not on the question of guilt or innocence, then at least on the severity of punishment, and that surely was the idea. Will they assume this reimbursement was done on Hunter's own initiative, or will they be told the truth: that it was a fabulously wealthy friend covering for him by bailing him out?
According to FOX News, Morris is a big Democrat who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat Super PACS and candidates since 2007.
He has even been producing a documentary film on Hunter’s life, which I seriously doubt you'll want to take your kids to. And CBS News reports that Morris is serving as Hunter’s “attorney and trusted adviser” to investigate how his all-too-revealing laptop became public. (Hunter’s criminal defense is being handled by another attorney, Christopher Clark.) Morris reportedly is conducting a forensic investigation of the laptop, while, in interviews, Hunter has seemed utterly clueless about what happened to it, or even if the one being investigated was really his. Why, sure, maybe it WAS Russian disinformation! Golly, who can say?
Has Hunter been feigning ignorance about the laptop all this time, trying to weasel out of answering questions about it? That’s likely. On the other hand, according to computer shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac, Hunter reeked of alcohol when he brought it in, so that might explain his mental blank.
The New York Post has more details on the Hunter documentary. Morris wants to tell the story of Hunter’s life since he came under scrutiny for his lifestyle and controversial overseas business dealings while “dad” was Vice President.
Finally, there’s a senior Department of “Justice” official whose conflicts of interest should, at least in a sane world, keep him far away from the Hunter Biden case. But since the world we’re currently living in is certifiably insane, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have been looking into the issue
Nicholas McQuaid, head of the DOJ Criminal Division, used to work with Hunter’s criminal attorney, the above-mentioned Chris Clark, at...(drum roll, please)...Latham and Watkins.
Last year, Grassley and Johnson wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland three times about McQuaid’s possible recusal from the case, and he ignored all three letters. So they wrote to U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the presiding judge in the Biden financial case, to try to find out if McQuaid has recused himself. They also asked for copies of communications between the office and McQuaid, plus information on whether any employees of the U.S. attorney’s office in Biden’s home state of Delaware had recused themselves.
As of this writing, Weiss has not responded, and AG Garland still ignores them. I expect they'll hear from Judge Weiss, but Garland is much too busy tracking the movements and communications of "domestic terrorists" in MAGA hats to deal with this.
I Just Wanted to Say:
Thank you for reading the Sunday Standard.