April 6, 2022
Mike HuckabeeNews you can trust.
April 6, 2022
Mike HuckabeeNews you can trust.
April 6, 2022
Here is today’s link to Fox News’ continually-updated Russia-Ukraine news:
To catch you up on some of the latest stories: President Biden approved an additional $100 million in military assistance to Ukraine as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken accused Russia of running a "deliberate campaign to kill, to torture, to rape, to commit atrocities." In what could be an important new development, China called the images that show a civilian massacre in Bucha “deeply disturbing” and called for an investigation; and India, which has also so far avoided criticizing Russia, said it unequivocally condemned the situation in Bucha. The Czech Republic sent a shipment of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy accused Russia of “weaponizing hunger” by destroying food depots and mining farm fields.
This is an intriguing suggestion: The president of the European Council suggested that EU member nations offer asylum to Russian military deserters who don’t want to follow Putin’s orders to kill their Ukrainian cousins. Videos have surfaced on social media, reportedly of young Russian conscripts complaining that they’re poorly trained and badly-equipped and have been ordered into a suicidal mission they want no part of. If given half a chance, they might welcome the opportunity to drop their guns and run.
And this proves that war makes strange bedfellows: Hollywood liberal activist Sean Penn was a guest last night on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. Penn admitted that he didn’t trust Hannity but thought that political differences should be put aside when facing something so terrible. He had been in Ukraine shooting a documentary about Zelenskyy when the invasion came, so he has some firsthand information and opinions to share. Penn predicts that “the Ukrainians will win this. The question is, at what cost?” You can see the interview here:
April 6, 2022
There are major updates today concerning the Hunter laptop investigation, with testimony before a Delaware grand jury, and also the Michael Sussmann case, with revelatory new court filings by special counsel John Durham. Honestly, the mountain of information grows day by day, until it seems as if we’re sorting through a stinking landfill with a teaspoon.
In the case against Clinton attorney Sussmann, Durham has seen from defense filings that a significant part of their strategy is to get evidence thrown out as hearsay or otherwise inadmissible. Late Monday, he filed a 48-page motion laying out all the arguments for allowing specific pieces of evidence, including a stunning text message from Sussmann to then-FBI general counsel James Baker that lies to the FBI a SECOND TIME, IN WRITING, about coming to the FBI on his own, not representing any clients. Sussmann apparently lied about this not just during the meeting, but to get the meeting in the first place, so he could feed them the fake Alfa Bank story in furtherance of the Trump/Russia hoax.
As you know, Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI about the fact that he was representing the DNC, Hillary For America, and tech executive Ron Joffe during his visit. Durham has billing records from Hillary’s law firm Perkins Coie that show he was.
“Jim --- it’s Michael Sussmann,” he texted Baker. “I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m on my own --- not on behalf of a client or company --- want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”
(Aside: you better believe it was time-sensitive. The 2020 election was coming up in a couple of weeks, and this story was no doubt timed to be an October surprise.)
Here’s the story from the New York Post, which includes detail about the defense’s motion to exclude some of Durham’s evidence...
Perhaps Sussmann was not forthcoming with his own attorneys about that text, as one of their arguments last year for Durham not having a case against him was that it was “a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting.” Now they find out their client committed the same lie again –- in writing? Oops!!
Sussmann has already pleaded not guilty. This could get sticky for his attorneys, but, as the saying goes, that’s why they get the big bucks.
Last October, his attorneys said they intended to call Baker as a witness, so the trial could get really interesting when Durham cross-examines. (By the way, guess who Baker works for now? That bastion of truth and free speech, Twitter.)
Durham’s motion, arguing for the inclusion of individual pieces of evidence that might be challenged, is just masterful. Here’s a link to the pdf, and if you have time to go through it and marvel at the care that went into the building of this case, you will be rewarded. Durham has to anticipate every argument the defense might make to exclude each piece and offer the judge legal precedent for including it. What will be especially interesting to the casual reader is not the specific legal precedents regarding hearsay, etc. --- as important as they are for the judge --- but the actual fragments of evidence that are written into the motion.
The motion gets really interesting when it addresses the more obscure communications between Joffe and others on his tech team. Starting on page 19, under the heading “Emails Involving Tech Executive – 1 and Internet Researchers,” the evidence shows how tenuous the Alfa Bank story really was, and how they went ahead with it anyway, without real evidence. Again, Durham has to make the case that these emails are not hearsay or otherwise inadmissible, because Sussmann’s attorneys will try to get them excluded. To that point, it might be significant that his attorneys are with the firm Latham & Watkins, which represents a number of clients tied to Hillary Clinton.
One key email is on page 25, from “Researcher – 1,” saying in part, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny...The only thing that drive[s] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]...Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision.”
There’s another email on page 27 from “Researcher – 2” that lauds the ability to fool people who aren’t tech experts: “I don’t care in the least whether I’m right or wrong...[Tech Executive – 1”] has crafted a message that could work to accomplish the goals. Weakening that message in any way would in my opinion be a mistake.”
Durham argues that these pieces of evidence are admissible because they “shed important light on the defendant’s and Tech Executive – 1’s ‘intent, motive or state of mind’ and ‘help to explain their future conduct.’” As in, LYING to get the FBI to take this piece of garbage seriously and take Trump down.
In Trump's lawsuit against Hillary, the DNC and others, Trump’s attorney has filed a six-page motion to have the presiding judge disqualified. Recall our bewilderment that a Bill Clinton-appointed judge, US. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, was given this case. Middlebrooks’ prejudice because of his connection to the Clintons is “so virulent or pervasive as to constitute bias against a party,” the motion reads, making reference to a previous case. This issue seems quite clear-cut; no word yet on when the ruling will be made.
Moving to Hunter Biden, we've known for a long time who "the Big Guy"must be, but the Delaware grand jury looking into his business affairs has finally heard testimony about it. From the New York Post...
Hunter has long been the money man. In 2012, when Joe was VP, Ron Klain, who was then chairman of the Vice President’s Residence Foundation (VPRF), went to Hunter seeking $20,000, apparently for improvements for the official residence. Klain told him to keep it on the “low low key.” Because “raising money for the Residence now is bad PR,” Klain said, he was “hitting up a few very close friends on a very confidential basis.” Just a little side story...
Also, hate to say this, but being on Hunter’s Secret Service detail is a pretty cushy job. While Hunter cools his heels at a $10,000-a-month Malibu home, his agents are staying at taxpayer expense at a $30,000-a-month beachside estate. Details …
John Solomon and Seamus Bruner at Just the News have obtained emails and court records showing how Hunter apparently sought to cash in on relationships with Russian oligarchs in 2014, during Russia’s previous invasion of Ukraine.
They write: “The delicate balancing act of cashing in on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides of the conflict left the younger Biden and his partners acutely aware that Moscow’s militry annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean region in 2014 was a wild card that could scuttle the success of their business pursuits.”
The same month that Moscow oligarch Yelena Baturina wired $3.5 million to Hunter’s company, Joe Biden was made “point man” to deal with the chaos in Ukraine. Unbelievable.
Former U.S. attorney Brett Tolman says “anybody else would have been indicted already.”
April 5, 2022
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.
April 5, 2022
Mike HuckabeeNews you can trust.
April 5, 2022
Pat Reeder, Staff writer
By “Huckabee” pop culture guru Pat Reeder (http://www.hollywoodhifi.com)
I really wish we could stop talking about this because I’m as sick of it as you are, but there have been a few more twists to the “Will Smith goes berserk at the Oscars” story. First, Smith resigned from the Academy. They were already meeting to discuss punishment, which could have included expulsion, so this could just be a “You can’t fire me, I quit!” move. Smith issued a statement acknowledging that his actions were “shocking, painful and inexcusable.”
That might be easier to swallow if the other new twist wasn’t that footage of the Oscars from different vantage points appears to show that his wife Jada was laughing as he walked back from slapping Chris Rock, that co-host Amy Schumer later joked about it (“Did anything happen while I was away?”) and Smith guffawed at that, and he was later taped after his tearful, contrite acceptance speech dancing at an after-party and shaking his Oscar like a maraca. So he really did deserve that award for Best Actor. But considering Schumer also claims she’s taking a month off to recover from the trauma of the same incident that she was joking about before everyone in the theater realized how badly it came off to us normal people, Smith is only the tip of the Hollywood hypocrisy iceberg.
Also, last night, CBS aired the Grammy Awards from Las Vegas (full disclosure: my wife and fellow writer Laura Ainsworth is also a recording artist and Grammy voter: https://shop.bandwear.com/collections/laura-ainsworth-shop)
Maybe because of the tanking ratings, or the sense that Americans are fed up with woke celebrity hypocrites, the Grammy Awards were a little better this year than in recent years. The emphasis was more on music than politics, the virtue-signaling was turned down a bit, and the major political statement was a message from Ukrainian President Zelensky with a musical salute to Ukraine and an appeal to help the refugees.
They continued the unfortunate trend of putting performers on stage during the “In Memoriam” segment, often pushing the departed honorees so far into the background that you couldn’t see them (and I don’t understand why the drummer for the Foo Fighters got a special segment while Mike Nesmith got two seconds), but at least the Steven Sondheim songs were superbly performed. And while there were the usual classless moments and too much stuff that I personally might not technically consider to be “music,” there were also more examples than in recent years of actual musical talent and diverse styles, from the ‘70s funk of Silk Sonic to Lady Gaga’s salute to Tony Bennett to Jon Batiste’s New Orleans jazz-infused R&B.
Finally, congratulations to our friends who won and were nominated in the type of indie label categories that feature the best music being made today, so naturally, they’re shunted off to the untelevised afternoon ceremony.
Even as they attack their opponents for not being woke enough
April 5, 2022
There’s a rule of thumb that wealth in a family tends to last three generations. The first generation is smart and hard-working (or creative, or ruthless) and builds a fortune. The second generation sees its parents working and struggling, and is taught how to build wealth, so they often increase the fortune. The third generation knows nothing but wealth and privilege, and grows up resentful of the success that made their lives so easy. That makes them the perfect target for leftists who persuade them to fund political agendas that previous, wiser generations wouldn’t have given a dime to.
That brings us to this story about Abigail Disney, great niece of Walt and granddaughter of his brother and business partner, Roy Disney. Heiress to a fortune reported to be over $100 million, Abigail Disney is also a prominent social justice activist, maker of leftwing documentaries and funding source for various causes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Disney)
Abigail Disney hit the news by launching a multi-part Twitter rant against journalist Christopher Rufo, who released the shocking leaked footage of a Disney Zoom meeting in which top executives openly boasted of their efforts to inject as much LGBTQ propaganda into children’s cartoons as possible. As you can read at this link…
Abigail Disney is quite incensed that what she characterizes as “rightwing” fascists dare to challenge the values pushed by Disney. She curiously seems to think that we’re the ones who are threatening people and calling folks names. She called on corporations to stop funding the “right wing” (And which big businesses are those? Twitter? Google? Microsoft? Apple? Disney?...) She claims that we are the “minority,” even though polls show a clear majority of Floridians, including Democrats, support barring schools from injecting sex and gender messages into kindergarten through third grade classes. She always gloated that corporations like Disney have the power to crush impertinent upstarts like Rufo, who dares to expose the truth about them. (Wait, I thought we were the ones who threatened people?...)
It’s valuable to read not because you learn anything from her, Heaven forbid, but because it gives you such a window into the utterly warped world view of someone who was born into so much money and privilege, and who lives in such a cast iron bubble of leftist ideology. It’s almost like reading the latest news from Bizarro World.
If you have a little time to kill and would enjoy watching someone reset this Twitter thread back to reality tweet by tweet, check out Brad Slager’s fisking of it at Redstate.com.
Incidentally, it’s a bit strange to see Abigail depicting Disney as the icon of virtue that we must all obey considering that as recently as 2020, she was blasting the company herself for allegedly giving their CEO obscene pay while underpaying park employees so badly that they were eating out of dumpsters. She said, "Disney has turned a pretty profit on the idea that families are a kind of magic, that love is important, that imaginations matter. That's why it turns your stomach a little bit when I tell you that Cinderella might be sleeping in her car." I actually agree with her: their CEO should be sleeping in his car. And the way he's running the company, he might be soon.
But then, I guess if Disney’s current ideas about indoctrinating our children with inappropriate sexual messages turn our stomachs, we’re not allowed to say so. If we wanted that kind of privilege, we should’ve picked our own parents more carefully and chosen richer ones.
Related: While Disney Corp is attacking Florida for not being woke enough, the company just announced an expansion of Disney Plus into a number of new areas, including Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen. All them outlaw homosexuality by law, with punishments ranging from fines and imprisonment to chemical castration to the death penalty.