MONOKULTUR

Joe Biden bliver ikke USAs næste præsident. Pressen vender sig i disse dage imod ham i erkendelse af de nærmest håbløse meningsmålinger. Det sker samtidig, som nettet strammes om familien Bidens massive korruption, som pressen får stadigt sværere ved at negligere og som ‘the interagency consensus’ ikke længere formår at skjule. Imens fortsætter forsøget gennem retssystemet stadig mere desperat på at forhindre Trump i at være opstillingsberettiget. 

“An ABC panel on Sunday openly discussed Joe Biden, the most popular president in US history, stepping aside and being replaced by another Democrat after a new NYT poll shows Trump leading in 5 crucial swing states.” skriver Gateway Pundit 

Based on New York Times/Siena College polls of 3,662 registered voters from Oct. 22 to Nov. 3

ABC’s “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos said of the new poll: “This is probably going to lead to a lot of Democrats increasing chatter that Joe Biden should step aside and make room for another Democrat.”

“Voters are just plain frustrated across the board — 76% of adults in this poll say the country is headed in the wrong direction,” Stephanopoulos said.

Den Demokratiske strateg David Axelrod, der bl.a har hjulpet Barak Obama med sin valgsejr i 2008, mente at tiden var inde for Biden at smide håndklædet i ringen, skriver New York Post

Axelrod wrote on X that the data “will send tremors of doubt thru the [Democratic] Party” and will create “legitimate concern” about having the president seek re-election.

“Only Joe Biden can make this decision,” he said of having the president run in 2024.

“If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party,” he posted.

(…) “But there is a lot of leadership talent in the Democratic Party poised to emerge,” he wrote.

“The POTUS is justly proud of his accomplishments,” Axelrod said before bashing Trump as a “dangerous, unhinged demagogue whose brazen disdain for the rules, norms, laws and institutions of democracy should be disqualifying.

The rules… Bidens problemer er ikke bare, at han ældes som et skiveskåret æble efterladt i Solen, som Gutfelt sagde, eller at hans politik er et kæmpe fallit, på alle parametre. Biden kan heller ikke længere beskyttes af the interagency consensus og medierne, fra hans galoperende og landsforræderiske korruption

Kanakoa The Great, der absolut er ‘følg-værdig’ på X spørger stilfærdigt “Shouldn’t this be the biggest story in the world?”

In other words, President Joe Biden attended meetings and received money from his family’s business deal with CEFC China Energy, a company where his brother and son collaborated with individuals they described as “the spy chief of China” and “a protégé of President Xi.”

This raises the question: why are most of the corporate media and the politicians in Washington D.C. utterly silent about the President of the United States receiving money from a Chinese energy company tasked with spreading China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Why is everyone pretending like the President of the United States wasn’t working with Chinese intelligence officials on spreading China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Andrew C McCarthy, der var en af de oprindelige NeverTrumpere, spørger i National Review om amerikanerne ville have stemt på Joe Biden “if it had been widely understood that Biden was bought and paid for by the Chinese Communist regime?” Mere om ‘valgsvindel senere. McCarthy, der skrev en hel bog om det i 2020, skriver videre i sin læsværdige grundige artikel

This scandal was right there for all to see in October 2020. Not just the prosecution of Patrick Ho, not just the fact that after his arrest, his first call was to Jim Biden, but also the fact that right after the government’s FISA surveillance was disclosed in court, Xi’s regime disappeared Ye and allowed CEFC to go bust.

It was all there for anyone to see. But Americans didn’t see it, and many who saw it didn’t believe it, because the 2020 Biden campaign and congressional Democrats — aided and abetted by allies in media, the tech giants, law enforcement, and the “community” of current and former intelligence agents — insidiously portrayed evidence of the Biden family influence-peddling business as “Russian disinformation.”

It was a patently empty claim. It was obvious that the evidence was authentic. The proof amassed by Senators Grassley and Johnson was in the form of financial records, often triggered by suspicious-activity reports from banks. Not only was the Hunter Biden laptop evidence authentic on its face; a principal on the Biden side of the CEFC scheme, Tony Bobulinski, attested to the authenticity of the laptop data pertaining to the scheme — and he had a cache of texts and other documents to back up his account.

The story was buried by the press in the run-up to the election, and then by the Justice Department once Biden was safely ensconced in the White House. David Weiss, the so-called special counsel, never investigated it. Whistleblower agents have come forward with revelations that they were instructed not to pursue leads or even ask questions that might implicate Joe Biden. Bobulinski has related that, after being interviewed by the FBI when he went public in October 2020, he was ignored by the Biden Justice Department and never called to testify before the grand jury. Weiss’s studious inaction while the statute of limitations lapsed has sabotaged the case — as you read the latest accounts of information the House committee has turned up, bear in mind that it has been more than five years (the legal limit for bringing charges) since CEFC last paid the Bidens.

What are the committee’s new revelations?

They are significant, even given how much eye-popping information was already public. For starters, the Bidens’ dealings with CEFC were already under way in 2015, when Joe Biden was vice president. The committee relates that Jim and Hunter Biden did not take CEFC money during the Obama years because the optics would have been awful. But they were miffed that CEFC was already using the Biden connection to further its — China’s — objectives. They believed CEFC owed them, and they expected to be paid.

That was in the works: James Gilliar, a former British military official with intelligence connections, messaged Bobulinski on Christmas Eve 2015 to explain that he needed help working a “deal between one of the most prominent families from US” and China. Another key Biden partner in the venture, Rob Walker, told investigators (in one of the few interviews they were permitted to do) that Hunter arranged for Vice President Biden to show up at a lunch meeting — at the Four Seasons in Washington — just to say hello and bolster the prospects for a deal that, of course, was based on his political clout.

It has long been known that, in February 2017 (i.e., right after Joe Biden left office) Hunter met with Ye in Miami, where he was presented with a pricey diamond and a couple of potential business propositions. In one, CEFC would pay the Bidens just for “introductions” — a three-year contract for $10 million annually. In the other, there would be a joint venture focused on infrastructure — the Bidens helping China score the energy resources it craves, including in the United States.

There was more than planning, though. There was also payback for the degree to which CEFC had already exploited the Biden relationship. On March 1, 2017, a CEFC-tied business wired $3 million to Walker — who later told investigators this exorbitant payment represented a “thank you” from CEFC. In the pattern the committee has seen repeatedly, the windfall was divvied up three ways: Walker kept a third, a third went to Gilliar, and a third — $1,065,000 — went to the Bidens. As the committee illustrates with a chart in its memo, the Bidens’ cut was dribbled out in smaller portions over a roughly two-month period (March 6 through May 18), with payments going to Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, Hallie Biden (Hunter’s then-paramour and the widow of his brother Beau), and an additional Biden family member who has not yet been identified.

Meantime, the Biden side of the venture went to work on its substance and structure. Jim Biden conducted meetings with Louisiana officials toward the goal of constructing a massive liquified-natural-gas facility. On May 2, Hunter invited Bobulinski to meet his father in Beverly Hills, where Joe Biden was speaking at a Milken Institute conference. At the meeting (which is confirmed by text messages) Joe discussed the CEFC venture with Hunter, Jim, Bobulinski, and others. With Trump in office, Joe Biden’s coming 2020 presidential bid was already a front-of-mind concern, so Bobulinski later asked Jim Biden whether there weren’t concerns about his brother’s participation in financial transactions with Chinese government-affiliated entities. Jim replied that they were careful to maintain “plausible deniability” about Joe’s involvement. It was obviously a worry: Gilliar later messaged Bobulinski, “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.”

On May 13, 2017, Gilliar sent Hunter the now famous email that sketched out the structure and splits in the CEFC scheme — including “10 percent for the big guy.” The Biden side believed the deal had momentum. Hunter Biden’s discussions with Ye indicated that, at least for starters, there would be a quick $10 million infusion of capital. Interesting, then, that when Joe Biden bought his Rehoboth Beach manse less than a month later, he paid $2.74 million in cash rather than taking a mortgage. (The dedicated career public servant said he and his wife were using proceeds from a book deal for the purchase.)

There was a problem, though. As the calendar flipped from May to June, and then to July, the CEFC funds did not materialize. By late July, desperation set in on the Biden side. Thus it was that on July 30, Hunter sent the infamous WhatsApp threat message to CEFC executive Raymond Zhao (whom he calls “Z”):

(…)

In the United States, we spent three years in a frenzy over a false allegation that the then-sitting president was bought and paid for by a hostile foreign power. And now we have spent three years in a slumber despite mounting evidence that the currently sitting president was bought and paid for by a hostile foreign power.

Derfor prøver man desperat at forhindre Trump i at stille op, ved at belaste hans renomme med allehånde retssager, med det bonus-håb, at man helt kan slette ham fra stemmesedlen, hvis en korrupt domstol, skulle finde ham skyldig i at være god for USA og Verden. 

“Former President Donald Trump is being prosecuted for following the advice of his counsel, who are now effectively saying that he should not have believed what they were telling him.” skriver Jonathan Turley, der synes at acceptere den besynderlige og pludseligt opståede kriminalisering af, at mene at et valg var stjålet. Anklagen imod Trump, og tre af hans advokater, der har tilstået at give dårlig juridisk rådgivning fordi Trump anglede så stærkt efter det, forsøges løftet, som en større konspirations-sag i stil med dem man bruger mod mafiaen

However, the question is whether a client should be subject to criminal prosecution in following such advice. These lawyers were not just confident but enthusiastic after the election in pursuing the claims they now repudiate. Moreover, their plea agreements had a number of notable omissions. First, none pleaded guilty to a conspiracy with Trump or to racketeering. Second, none will face jail time, and the prosecution has agreed that they did not commit crimes of moral turpitude. All three could keep their licenses.

It is also not clear that these attorneys would implicate Trump if called. They could prove more damaging to other defendants such as Rudy Giuliani, or they could still prove harmful to the prosecution’s overall theory. They secured no jail deals, but only agreed to testify truthfully. Some, like Ellis, may now have animus but lack evidence against Trump in establishing a conspiracy or racketeering claim.

Both the federal and state prosecutions are premised on the claim that Trump never believed what he was saying about a stolen election. If Trump actually did believe he had viable claims in the courts or Congress, the prosecutions would collapse. Even Smith admits that Trump’s early election claims were protected political speech, but at some point became a criminal conspiracy when Trump had to know that his claims were baseless.

Baseless… Når man slipper af sted med sine forbrydelser, bliver man gerne sjusket. Just The News skriver om en 2000 Mules lignende sag, som er faldet en dommer for brystet

A new primary election has been ordered by a Connecticut state court amid alleged fraud, while Democrats in Massachusetts and New Jersey are also accused of or charged with election fraud. This brings the total of election-related criminal cases across the country to at least three.

Democrats in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are facing various allegations of election fraud, as two instances are related to this year’s elections while two more are with regard to prior elections.

On Wednesday, Bridgeport Superior Court Judge William Clark overturned the results of a Democratic mayoral primary and ordered a new election in connection to allegations of absentee ballot abuse. 

The judge made the decision after a video was posted online that appeared to show a supporter of incumbent Democratic Mayor Joe Ganim stuffing stacks of papers into a ballot drop box, according to WNPR Connecticut Public Radio. 

Men det er utænkeligt, at nogen kunne finde på at svindle, hvis Orange Hitler var på stemmesedlen mod “Joe Biden, the most popular president in US history”. Og “since when are clients criminally culpable for following the advice of a team of lawyers?”. Og der blev snydt i det åbenlyse. Ikke blot løj ‘the interagency consensus’ om Bidens bærbare computer, med alle beviserne på familiens korruption, som medierne begravede og de sociale medier censurerede, men konservative stemmer blev tillige heftigt censureret på nettet op til valget i 2020, som Post Millennial skriver

The report reveals that alongside Posobiec, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, President Donald Trump, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Thom Tillis, conservative commentators Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, Michelle Malkin, and Mollie Hemingway, Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and “an untold number of everyday Americans of all political affiliations” were targeted.

The report, released on Monday, has brought to light the intricate workings of this initiative. It exposes how various government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Global Engagement Center (GEC) within the State Department, joined forces with academic institutions such as Stanford University, as well as other entities, to establish the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP).

The primary purpose of this partnership was purportedly to curtail the freedom of speech of American citizens in the run-up to the 2020 election. The goal of these elite “disinfo” monitors was to prevent information they believed was harmful, “including true information, jokes, and opinions” from being public on social media.

“This is a big deal” skrev Musk. Tilbage til Turley

Both the federal and state prosecutions are premised on the claim that Trump never believed what he was saying about a stolen election. If Trump actually did believe he had viable claims in the courts or Congress, the prosecutions would collapse. Even Smith admits that Trump’s early election claims were protected political speech, but at some point became a criminal conspiracy when Trump had to know that his claims were baseless.

The most dangerous aspect to the federal indictment is that Smith leaves the line entirely undefined for future cases. If Trump crossed the Rubicon into criminal conduct in his election claims, Smith should be able to point to the river on the map. Instead, Smith offers no limiting principle on when election claims move from the sensational to the criminal.

That is particularly concerning, since many election claims in the courts or Congress have been unfounded. For example, Marc Elias, who served as general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and played a key role in its secret funding of the infamous Steele dossier, challenged past elections on such grounds. After the 2020 election, he challenged a New York election by claiming that voting machines had flipped the results in favor of the Republicans through mistabulations.

Likewise, leading Democrats such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of Donald Trump’s 2106 election victory despite lacking any evidence of fraud or legal or factual basis. None of these challenges were raised as potential crimes or even considered unethical.

Smith and Willis are seeking to use Trump’s own counsel to prove that he eventually knew that the election claims were bogus. This remains uncharted territory. Presidents often make unconstitutional claims.

Indeed, President Joe Biden admitted that, in seeking to reinstate the flagrantly unconstitutional national eviction moratorium, his White House counsel and every other lawyer told him that it violated the Constitution.

Ted Cruz gætter på, at det bliver Michelle Obama, der svinger ind og meddeler sit kandidatur, når Biden tvinges væk. “‘The reason I say Michelle Obama is, if Biden gets out of the way next is Kamala Harris and she’s a very flawed candidate,” argumenterer senatoren fra Texas og giver ikke Californiens guvernør Gawin Newsome, der ellers er manges favorit, chancen. Man kan ikke erstatte ‘sorte’ Harris med en hvid kandidat i Demokraternes farve-orienterede univers.