Advertisement

Political correctness

Why are media reporting on the Bidens' China ties NOW?

December 12, 2020

Mike Huckabee

Now that media interest is finally building about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the financial ties between China and the Bidens, every conservative with a brain is asking the question, “Why are we suddenly hearing about this??"

Hunter said in a statement Wednesday, “I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs.”

"Yesterday”?

There are reports that the Justice Department started looking into Hunter’s “tax affairs” in 2018, a year before his dad even announced his presidential campaign.

Apparently “two sources familiar with the investigation” told CBS that it began in 2018 but “went quiet during election season” because of Justice Department policy concerning “overt investigative action that could impact [an] election.”

Ah, I see. That explanation is pretty inconsistent with leaks about Trump and “Russia Russia Russia!” before the 2016 election, but okay. And it seems to have been kept quiet even before election season. I don’t recall it ever being a real story.

Thursday, FOX NEWS reported that it had reviewed a report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee detailing Hunter’s business dealings with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and “other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army” that “resulted in millions of dollars of cash flow.” Stunning details of some of the financial transactions involving the Biden family are at the link.

The report says these associations began in 2015, while Hunter’s dad was Vice President. (Joe Biden was not a target of the investigation, according to a FOX NEWS source.) It says Joe’s brother James was an associate of Ye’s as well. As we mentioned yesterday, James is also involved in a hospital business currently under criminal investigation.

According to the report,”there exists a vast web of corporate connections and financial transactions between and among the Biden family and Chinese nationals.”

You know, it would have been really good if they’d told us about this BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

The curious thing is that this is a Senate committee, as in Republican-led. How long have they been investigating? Maybe I’m missing something, but did it really have to take them this doggone long to get their report to FOX NEWS?

Sparked in part by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe’s recent observations about China, reports on the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover Hunter Biden specifically and the Chinese influence in general exploded all over conservative media on Thursday. I could link to countless segments on just about every show in TV and radio. Lt. Col. Oliver North, who has a well-timed new book, “AMERICA’S #1 ADVERSARY, And What We Must Do About It –- Now!,” joined Chris Salcedo on NEWSMAX to say the threat posed by China is “nothing new.”

He explained that back in the old days, our intel used to find out about relationships like Eric Swalwell's with "Fang" and take a proactive role, confronting the agent and inducing that person to "flip." Col. North said they need that kind of policy now to deal with such an adversary, who is, in this case, “a Communist Chinese special agent of their intelligence service, who is not only romancing a U.S. congressman; she’s been all over the place.” We would learn a lot by “turning” her and finding out who she’s working for and what she knows.

"Their goal is domination of the world,” North said of the Chinese. “Not just us, but the rest of the world.”

And why was she allowed to get the heck outta Dodge when she was discovered? “In large part [it was] because Donald Trump was right.” North said, “There IS a swamp. Washington DC is full of swamp monsters, many of whom stand to gain by improving the relationship with Communist China.”

So there it is. It’s not just in government, either, but in Big Tech, the entertainment world and other industries. They’ve essentially made a deal with the devil, looking at today’s bottom line and not the possibility of tomorrow’s utter domination by China. And that meant doing their bidding: helping Biden win to get Trump out. (As we’ve reported, after-election polls show that keeping Biden voters in the dark about Hunter’s China deals worked.)

Mollie Hemingway dared to say what we all know: that the Biden-China connection was deliberately downplayed to help Biden win. In an appearance on THE INGRAHAM ANGLE Wednesday, she said, ‘Nobody meddled in the 2020 election like Big Media and Big Tech, and both of those things you saw with the Hunter Biden story.”

She recalled that the laptop story broke in October with the NEW YORK POST’s report but that the POST was drastically censored by Facebook and Twitter. An eyewitness who came forward on his own, Hunter’s business associate Tony Bobulinski, was interviewed by Tucker Carlson but ignored by mainstream media. “He [Bobulinski] said himself he was interviewed by the FBI,” Hemingway said. “We knew that was happening. For people to pretend like this is brand-new news –- it’s not. They just went out of their way to suppress it when it broke on October 29th when it broke, and it’s really disgusting what we’ve seen the media do.”

Along with Big Tech and Big Media, China has infiltrated higher education as well, warned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday in an address to the Georgia Institute of Technology. Americans colleges are becoming “hooked on Chinese Communist Party cash,” he said, while our cutting-edge research goes to China. “Americans must know how the Chinese Communist Party is poisoning the well of our higher education institutions for its own ends, and how those actions degrade our freedoms and American national security,” he said. This report from THE EPOCH TIMES is a must-read.

Finally, Dan Bongino’s podcast is always good, but Thursday’s (Episode 1412) is a must-see, along with the articles in his show notes (“Dan’s News Picks”).

Perhaps the most important item in his recommended reading is the article by Glenn Greenwald, who (for someone whose politics are to the left of mine) shows incredible insight on what the media have been doing with this story and why. We’ve been following his writings at Substack.com and suggest you do, too.

Greenwald analyzes that lecture we commented on by Chinese professor Di Dongsheng, who is candid about how China benefits from associations within the U.S. government and on Wall Street. The Biden relationship figures in, big-time.

One chilling observation in light of the hammer starting to come down on Biden’s finances: according to CNBC, Wall Street cheered the selection of Kamala Harris for Biden’s ticket. During her brief presidential campaign, she was deluged with “contributions from executives in a wide range of industries, including TV, film, TV, real estate and finance” –- industries, I would add, where China has made huge inroads. I’m sure I’m not alone in theorizing she’s their ultimate pick, and that the chess pieces are being moved around the board right now to make that happen if Biden is inaugurated. Why else would the media start exposing the Bidens' China ties now?

SCOTUS declines Texas case; state legislatures must do right thing

December 12, 2020

Mike Huckabee

After the Supreme Court denied a hearing for the Texas lawsuit that was backed by 17 other states and 126 Houses Republicans, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said it’s not over.

"The case wasn’t rejected on the merits; it was rejected on standing,” he said late Friday on NEWSMAX. And that is true.

Giuliani said the case can be brought to district court by the President and by some of the electors themselves, “alleging some of the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.” Electors can argue that THEIR constitutional rights have been violated.

"Basically, the courts are saying they want to stay out of this and they don’t want to give us a hearing; they don’t want the American people to hear these facts," Rudy said. "I think that’s a terrible, terrible mistake. These facts will remain an open sore in our history unless they get resolved. They need to be heard, they need to be aired, and somebody needs to make a decision on whether they’re true or false. Some court’s going to have to have the courage to make that decision.”

This is a terrible mistake indeed, and I don’t have to tell you that Supreme Courts have been known to make them now and then. As Rudy said, this comes down to the issue of standing. Personally, it seems to me that Texas would have standing, as what other states do unconstitutionally to affect the outcome of a federal election will effectively disenfranchise them. The question of standing, of course, is a legal one with much precedent, and I am not a lawyer. But it makes sense to me; I thought this was a brilliant argument that nailed the problem with what several Democrat-run states did. Texas has been damaged. In fact, all Republican states have been damaged, as their power is diminished with a wrongly-elected Democrat Vice President breaking ties in the Senate.

It also seems to me that by refusing to at least hear this case, the justices are in effect saying that each state can do ANYTHING, violate the U.S. Constitution all it wants --- even if its unconstitutional rule changes result in widespread fraud. Sure, state officials, go ahead and violate your own state constitution in a way that changes the result of federal elections. Just because your state legislature doesn’t want to change the law doesn’t mean you can’t do it anyway. Why, you can keep “finding” and counting votes clear up to December 14 if it helps you get your desired outcome. Texas and all the other states will just have to live with the results of what you do.

The ruling from SCOTUS was terse: “The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

See, I would consider Texas’s interest to be, to borrow a term from the Declaration of Independence, “self-evident.” So it comes down to whether their interest is “judicially cognizable.” Translation: “understandable by a judge.” I'm not a judge, but what’s to understand?

The vote was 7-2, with Justices Alito and Thomas saying they thought the case should be heard while expressing the lack of intention to supply any relief. (That is not “cognizable” to me; they decide this before hearing the case? Then why hear it?) Trump appointees Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh simply said no with the rest. But some legal actions remain.

Trump says he’ll keep fighting. “The Supreme Court let us down!” he tweeted. “No Wisdom, No Courage! So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far --- and you purportedly lost...A Rigged Election, fight on!”

Lin Wood has appealed his Georgia case to the Supreme Court. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he had the same problem everybody has been having with “standing.”

Also, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that deals with whether laws enacted by the state legislature were followed. Because the Electoral College is scheduled to meet December 14, they’re hearing it Saturday.

Of course, it doesn’t require a Supreme Court decision for state legislatures to remedy this mess themselves by appointing clean slates of electors, as a number of prominent conservatives and Republicans urged them to do in a letter. If the Electoral College meets on Monday, this would have to be done over the weekend.

There needs to be pressure, and lots of it, on state legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to make this right. (If you live in one of these states, you know what to do.) Especially in Georgia, with its razor-thin margin, they KNOW the Biden-Harris win was the result of fraud in their states. There's just too much evidence in the form of sworn affidavits and wild statistical anomalies and impossibilities for them not to know this.

Trump senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis said that “this is a moral failure across three branches of government.” They have clear evidence that the executive branch changed the rules. Many state legislators “want to do the right thing,” she said. SCOTUS is not supposed to decline to hear a case of original jurisdiction (state vs. state), and that saying the states don’t have standing is “a ridiculous political posture.” She said that “regardless of the outcome here, we’re going to continue doing the right thing.” It’s worth it, she said, to fight on.

Allen West, chairman of the Texas GOP, released a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s rejection of his state’s lawsuit. He says pretty much what I did above: that in tossing this lawsuit, they “decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law, resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. Constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic."

He ends with this: "Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution.”

Chairman Allen West's Response to SCOTUS Decision - Republican Party of Texas

Gulp. Our country truly is evolving into two distinct camps: one that cares about the law and one that doesn't, and the courts are allowing this to happen. Rudy is right: this is a terrible, terrible mistake. It has caused an open sore, as he says, one that will be getting salt rubbed in it by leftists in the coming months as they make more terrible, terrible mistakes.

New Los Angeles DA to usher in crime wave

December 9, 2020

Mike Huckabee

What's Next, A Rain of Frogs?: I have immense sympathy for the suffering of the people of Los Angeles under the thumbs of their autocratic and incompetent leaders. So I hate to inform them that it’s about to get exponentially worse.

Like too many cities around the US, they foolishly elected a George Soros-backed district attorney, George Gascon, whose idea of “criminal justice reform” is to make crime legal. Gascon was sworn in Monday, and he announced what he immediately plans to do, as recounted at the link above: “his office won’t seek the death penalty ever, no more juveniles being charged as adults, no more use of gang or gun enhancements to put violent criminals away for a longer time, no more bail, resentencing of up to 20,000 convicted offenders (with hundreds possibly being released as soon as tomorrow), and more…”

A former Deputy DA from another county commented to RedState.com, “This is going to increase violent crime in a way people in Los Angeles can’t even imagine. Full stop.”

The big question is, will the Democrat-imposed unemployment, depression, poverty and crime wave be enough to make the people finally stop voting for the idiots who are creating it? Or will they just move away to red states and vote for the same idiocy there?

Election updates

December 9, 2020

Mike Huckabee

In a surprise move late Monday night, the state of Texas filed a direct lawsuit with the Supreme Court, arguing that the election procedures in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated the Constitution and the Court must order those states to let their legislatures appoint their electors. The full text of the lawsuit is here.

Why would Texas have standing to intervene? Think of it this way: unconstitutional voting procedures can allow an illegal vote to disenfranchise a legal voter within a state. But if those procedures determine the winner of a Presidential election, then wouldn’t they also be disenfranchising the voters of other states who voted for the candidate they believe legally won the race?

Meanwhile, judges in Georgia and Michigan dismissed Sidney Powell’s cases seeking to overturn the certifications of those elections due to vote fraud. The reasons were mostly unrelated to the evidence, such as lack of standing to file the suit, filing too late or that it should have been filed in state rather than federal court. The Michigan judge did claim that Powell presented theories and conjecture of what could have happened, but not evidence that it did. Powell claims that today’s “safe harbor” deadline doesn’t apply in fraud cases and that she has until at least December 14th and will appeal.

« First < Prev Next > Last »