Yesterday, we mentioned that Hunter Biden business partner Eric Schwerin didn’t just visit the White House 19 times; he had another 8 confabs for a total of 27. But what we didn’t know then about those later visits is perhaps even more significant.

According to visitor logs obtained by FOX News, two of the other eight visits –- all in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration –- were with the then-Vice President’s chief of staff, Steve Ricchetti, who went on to be President Biden’s White House counsel and assistant to the President.

But if Breitbart News is correct, Ricchetti also happens to be...(drum roll, please)...a former president of Rosemont Seneca Partners, Hunter and Schwerin's firm.


We’ve tried to verify this amazing statement but have found no mention of it anywhere else. Of course, for all we know, it’s been expunged, as when Wikipedia recently took down its entry for Rosemont Seneca entirely. (Someone at Wikipedia actually told the Post that “keeping it around” ran the risk of the page becoming “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.” I’m serious.) The Post managed to resurrect the brief entry, which mentions Hunter, Devon Archer and Chris Heinz but does not include Ricchetti.

Wikipedia does have an entry for Ricchetti, which lays out his extensive career in lobbying and in the Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations. We found out that before joining VP Biden in 2012, he was on the board of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and that he'd had his own pricey lobbying firm, Ricchetti Inc. This entry doesn’t mention Rosemont Seneca, either, but, unfortunately, in this day when information can just be dropped down the memory hole, we never know when we’re being lied to by omission.

We did more digging and found a worthwhile Politico article about Ricchetti, “The Man Plotting Biden in 2016,” from the days when Biden was contemplating getting into the presidential race against Hillary. (It was written in September of 2015, long before then-FBI Director Comey let Hillary skate in his July 5, 2016, “no reasonable prosecutor” speech.) Lots of history on Ricchetti, but no mention of Hunter or Rosemont Seneca.

The NY Post speaks of Schwerin as the president of Rosemont Seneca, at least in 2010. But Breitbart describes Ricchetti as “the president of the investment firm Schwerin and Hunter managed, Rosemont Seneca Partners.

So, we’d like to know how closely, if at all, Ricchetti was involved in Rosemont Seneca. It’s already absurd for the President to maintain he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. How much more ridiculous will that be if it turns out that even his long-long-longtime top aide and counsel had been the president of his son’s business? Under those circumstances, if Biden still didn’t know anything about Hunter’s exploits, he had to be even more out to lunch than he is today, and that hardly seems possible.

We’ll leave that question for now. The Daily Mail story has an intriguing timeline for Schwerin’s visits between 2009 and 2015. On November 17, 2010, he had an in-person meeting with VP Biden himself. Read on, and the article also offers a good refresher on the whole laptop story.

We do know for sure about another Rosemont Seneca connection in the White House. According to the Daily Mail, Schwerin met with another assistant in Biden’s office, Anne Marie Person, who had previously worked at there.

When asked about Schwerin’s trips to the White House, press secretary Jen Psaki dismissed them as “visits from more than 10 years ago.” She's not very good at math, as the last ones were in 2016, and most voters are not so dismissive. As Breitbart News reports, a Harris poll taken Monday says that:

58 percent believe Joe Biden played a role in his family’s business

60 percent say Hunter was selling “influence and access” to his father

67 percent say President Biden should be impeached if he “secretly participated and facilitated” in the family’s business

It was great to hear from Elon Musk that Twitter’s deep-six-ing of the laptop story before the 2016 election was “inappropriate,” but polls such as this one show that it was way beyond that –- nothing less than election interference.

“Look, nobody on the left is going to admit that you now have a corrupt family with a lying President, even though it’s patently obvious,” said Newt Gingrich Wednesday night on INGRAHAM ANGLE. Joe Biden did not put $800,000 into paying his son’s legal bills with no knowledge. There weren’t 27 different occasions where business associates of Hunter Biden were in the Obama White House. This isn’t just Joe Biden --- it’s also Barack Obama.” He doesn’t believe that there were 27 of these visits and “Obama didn’t notice it was on the schedule.”

Gingrich brought up another scandal: the “millions and millions” of dollars given by the CCP to the University of Pennsylvania, where Joe Biden had established “a little school” (the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, which opened in February 2018). This apparently has been under wraps, and the university has denied soliciting or receiving foreign money, though the Post reports that “records show” they’ve received millions in anonymous Chinese gifts. This story in the New York Post is a must-read, as it opens up a whole new area of shade in Biden family finances.

The Bidens were vacuuming up money from China, Russia and Ukraine. ‘It’s amazing to look at the footprints around the world,” Gingrich said, “as the Biden family business –- and that’s really what it’s not just about Hunter Biden, but it’s about the current President of the United States, who I think clearly has lied to the country over and over and over about this issue.”

It’s preposterous to think that father and son didn’t talk about business when Hunter was along on Air Force Two, headed to China. “They want to tell us that on a 14- or 16-hour flight, Joe never said, ‘Gee, Hunter, what are you doing over here? How’s the business going?’

“They think we are SO STUPID, and they are so confident that they’ll be protected by the elite media the Justice Department,” he said. I would add that for a long time, that’s exactly what happened. Even Bill Barr kept quiet when he knew Biden had lied about the laptop during the debates.

“It’s amazing to me,” Gingrich said, “that you could have this blatant level of, literally, taking foreign money in an illegal way, by the Vice President of the United States and his family, who are running a family business...It’s clearly the exploitation of his public office in order to enrich the family.”

He called this “a study in corruption.” It was the Clintons, by the way, who showed how this can done. Gingrich theorizes that the Bidens saw Bill and Hillary enriching themselves through their Clinton Family Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative, and thought, “Why not us?”

During his testimony before the House Wednesday, Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas revealed that the DHS is creating a “Disinformation Governance Board” to police “disinformation” and “misinformation” before the 2022 elections.

If Republicans weren’t already laying the groundwork for impeaching Mayorkas for numerous other reasons, this would be enough. In fact, if President Biden doesn’t kill this idea immediately, I would argue that it is grounds for impeaching him for gross violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution. I have never endorsed treating impeachment lightly or using it as a political weapon. But I agree with Tucker Carlson, who called this “one of the most brazen assaults on the First Amendment in over a century.”

This unconstitutional and Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” will be headed by so-called “disinformation expert” Nina Jankowicz. You can tell she’s an expert on disinformation because last year on Twitter, she personally shared some disinformation that caused extensive real world harm when she promoted the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. I guess Mayorkas figured it takes one to know one.

Jankowicz also falsely claimed in 2017 that the now-discredited Trump “Russian dossier” was funded by Republicans. So we can tell just how "objective" she'll be in assessing what is "disinformation."

She’s even entering into this new job by spewing more disinformation, claiming that “one of the key reasons the Board was established is to maintain the Dept.’s commitment to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights and civil liberties.” Well, naturally, why else would you create a government office to monitor and police speech if not to protect free speech?

Incidentally, as recently as April 16th, Jankowicz said this to NPR about Elon Musk buying Twitter: “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities all around the world.” I feel as if I'm now part of a "marginalized community" because I believe in protecting the First Amendment.

Bear in mind that the DHS is the same federal department that’s mischaracterized parents who object to radical race and gender politics in schools, and citizens who question the government’s pandemic policies or voice concerns about vote fraud, as domestic terrorist threats.

I hope that some conservative legal foundation will immediately file a lawsuit to block this shockingly unconstitutional assault on freedom of speech and get an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court killing it before it takes root and becomes harder to get rid of than the Left-Handed Screw Thread Commission. Killing the Speech Police Agency before it gets started is the only example of abortion that I would wholeheartedly endorse.

The giant meltdown/tantrum of the left over the idea that there will be even one media outlet where people who disagree with them have free speech rolled on yesterday, and they're getting even more unhinged with each passing day. Ben Shapiro compiled a few of the more fevered comments.

Simply for wanting to restore free speech to Twitter, Elon Musk went from being an Obama-supporting electric car messiah and ACLU member to a white supremacist who probably supported South African apartheid and maybe a pedophile (groundless name-calling being what passes for intellectual arguments in Left World these days.) The British government even had to shoot down questions about whether Musk will be arrested if he allows speech that "distresses" people. (Note: This is why we fought the American Revolution.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren emerged from her luxury teepee to rail against the dangers of free speech to “our democracy” (the left’s latest euphemism for “our media monopoly”) and propose her favorite prescription for every problem: taxing away other people’s money.

Fellow Democrat Sen. Ed Markey attacked the scary idea of free speech on Twitter with a favorite hilarious tactic of the left, taking some current buzzword and attaching the word “justice” to it. In his case, passing laws to promote “algorithmic justice,” to protect “the children” (children justice!) by preventing billionaires from having “dangerous influence” over powerful online platforms.

This is such a dire emergency that no Democrat gave a hoot about it until one of those billionaires actually suggested allowing Republicans to have free speech, too.

But the glass-like transparency of their hypocrisy was best demonstrated by MSNBC’s Ari Melber, who wailed about billionaires owning social media platforms, “You could secretly ban one party’s candidate, or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the elections.”

Really, that could happen?! I have three words for you, Ari: “Hunter Biden’s laptop.”

As Ben Shapiro rightly says, if Musk wants to restore trust in social media, his first actions at Twitter must be “to release information about its prior practices, make any new algorithms far more transparent and fire employees who object to such practices, of whom there are many.”

Don’t worry about them; I’m sure they’ll find there are lots of other companies out there that let their junior employees run the company through temper tantrums and drive away half their customers by forcing their radical political views on them.

Oh, wait: there aren’t…

The Biden “Justice” Department is asking Congress for a $2.63 billion increase in its budget, supposedly to help cities deal with the huge jump in crime and murder rates. Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland tried to convince the Senate Appropriations Committee that the money was justified, but Republican Sen. John Kennedy grilled him like a cheap steak on that.

Kennedy started by saying he believes this DOJ is losing on crime, drugs, immigration and Chinese espionage, and demanded to know whether they would use this money to fund procedures that we know work, like to “stop and frisk” known gang members. Of course, Garland couldn’t endorse that because it’s been demonized as racist, so he tried to wiggle out of saying what the money was actually for.

Garland said there is no federal “one solution fits all” for state and local law enforcement, and that he believes local officials know what works best, while “We provide our technical expertise.” Click the link for video of the entertaining exchange.

Just a few points: if state and local leaders in blue areas (because that’s where the crime surge is, and we all know why) know “what works best,” then why is what they’re doing obviously not working at all? In fact, the local leftist prosecutors’ policies are making crime exponentially worse. If the DOJ can’t even tell them that hogtying police while providing a revolving door to criminals is their problem, then what “technical expertise” do they have that’s worth spit, much less an extra $2.63 billion of our money?

Here, I’ll tell those localities how to solve their crime problem: “Start arresting criminals, and once you do, keep them in jail!” That’s all the “technical expertise” they need, and I just saved the taxpayers $2.63 billion. You’re welcome.

Look for a detailed update tomorrow on John Durham’s special counsel investigation and the Michael Sussmann trial. In the meantime, here’s a piece of not entirely unexpected news: The presiding judge, Christopher Cooper, has ruled Hillary’s tweet, which says that “Donald Trump has a secret was set up to communicate privately with a Putin-tied Russian bank.,” and a follow-up tweet linking to a four-paragraph missive from her campaign, are inadmissible as evidence.

The judge excluded this as “hearsay” and said it’s “likely duplicative of other evidence” related to demonstrating the attorney-client relationship. Recall that Sussmann faces one charge of lying to the FBI about that attorney-client relationship; specifically, whether or not it was the reason for his visit.

As Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner explains, “The special counsel argued the tweet is not inadmissible hearsay “because it is not being offered for its truth ---emphasizing that the prosecutors actually believe its claims were false.” In other words, if they were actually trying to prove the Alfa Bank scheme was true, Hillary’s tweet about that would be inadmissible hearsay. But they want to use the tweet to help prove something else: the attorney-client relationship between Hillary For America and Michael Sussmann.

But the defense still claimed that the tweet “plainly is being offered for the truth” by prosecutors. As I’ve reminded my readers many times, I’m not a lawyer, but for the life of me, I can’t see how that makes sense. Durham knows the tweet is false, and do we all at this point.

Oh, and pardon our cynicism, but we laughed out loud at the transparent attempt to protect Hillary that was made by Sussmann’s team: “There is a real danger that if the tweet were admitted, the jury would believe that Hillary Clinton herself was part of the Special Counsel’s uncharged conspiracy and that she had a direct interest or involvement in Mr. Sussmann’s efforts. Drawing the candidate herself into this matter in this way would be unfair to Mr. Sussmann.”

Get my smelling salts! Lawd, lawd, we wouldn’t want anyone having the impression that HILLARY was involved. Still, the judge, an Obama appointee with a stack of rather shocking Democrat connections and conflicts of interest, bought the defense’s “hearsay” argument.

But now, for the good stuff. I’ll have more at length about it later, but for now, read the account at ZeroHedge of what has just been revealed in this case by the sight of some documents that didn’t quite remain under seal when they got attached to another legal filing of Durham’s. While much of the material pertaining to this case has been seen in heavily redacted form, this story includes links to some unredacted communications that show how extensively Fusion GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Frietsch peddled the Trump Russia hoax. They coordinated with multiple journalists, producers and media outlets to get that story out. They were on a mission to spread what they knew to be fake anti-Trump garbage far and wide, and now we have a better idea of their phenomenal dedication.

TechnoFog examines some of these communications and shows how they blow a hole in the defense’s attorney-client privilege argument, as they have nothing to do with obtaining legal advice. Even if they did, or if lawyers were copied (they weren’t), this little army of hoaxers lost their “privilege” when these messages went out to the media.

Tomorrow we’ll have a report on Wednesday’s federal court appearance by Durham’s team and Sussmann’s defense team. The trial is scheduled to start May 16.

Just a brief update on the Durham investigation and the Michael Sussmann case today, with links to some fun reading material.

Recall that there are problems with the argument for attorney-client privilege being made by Hillary For America and the DNC. Sussmann is on trial for lying to the FBI when he denied being there as their attorney, and they want to keep their communications with him secret largely because of him...being their attorney? With an argument like that, Sussmann ought to just plead guilty and be done with it.

And now, as legal analyst Margot Cleveland explains, there’s even more of a problem with that claim of privilege. After the flurry of motions back and forth on this question was made public, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation wrote a three-page letter to Special Counsel John Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor, alerting them to key facts concerning the FEC fine levied against Hillary For America and the DNC for hiding the purpose of the over-$1 million they paid for the Steele “dossier.” The CRF should know –- they’re the group that filed the original complaint.

Getting to the meat of it, the letter says that Hillary For America and the DNC are “asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine” when they also have an agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations “had falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.”

In other words, Hillary wants to have it both ways. When she needs to say Fusion GPS is providing legal services, she says it is. When she needs to say it isn’t, she says it isn’t.

“The government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the letter concludes.

This situation is complicated by the fact that Durham has subpoenaed both the Clinton campaign and the DNC to have representatives testify at Sussmann’s trial. Of course, Sussmann’s attorneys are trying to stop that.

The irony, Cleveland says, “is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FEC’s conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.”

The head of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation told The Federalist that this is a case of the Democrats wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. For decades, Hillary’s been accustomed to arrangements like that, but this is one time when it looks as though the cake might crumble.

Bonchie at RedState commented on Cleveland’s analysis, and it makes enjoyable reading. He sees this is a trap set by Durham, to get Hillary's people under oath and make them reveal the contradiction. He’s painted them into a corner, and it's so delightful. “Either they are lying to the FEC in their prior agreement, or they are lying in the Sussmann case,” he says.