Republicans Announce Investigation Into Joe Biden, Allege He Was Directly ‘Involved’ With Hunter’s Dealings

House Republicans announced they were launching an investigation into President Joe Biden at a press conference Thursday, alleging that the elder Biden was “involved” in his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings.

Republican Reps. James Comer of Kentucky and Jim Jordan of Ohio, citing unnamed whistleblowers, alleged that Joe Biden was the “chairman of the board” of the Biden family empire and oversaw Hunter’s business activity, claiming to find evidence of conspiracy to defraud the United States and money laundering. Hunter Biden currently holds a minority stake in a Chinese private equity firm responsible for investing in a previously sanctioned technology company that committed human rights violations against Uyghurs, and the new accusations point to involvement in the energy industry.

“This is an investigation of Joe Biden,” Comer said. “I think we’ve laid out the evidence as to why we feel it’s important, and we’re going to move forward with that.”

The lawmakers allege that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden participated in “waste, fraud, and abuse” relating to business dealings and plan to release a report Thursday to outline their claims.

“We find evidence that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were involved in a scheme to try to get China to buy liquified natural gas. People are in outrage over China buying farmland in the Dakotas. What about China starting to buy into our American energy industry?” Comer added.

Comer was referring to documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop that showed he was engaged in business talks with Chinese companies to sell American natural gas.

“Was Joe Biden directly involved with Hunter Biden’s business deals and is he compromised? That’s our investigation,” Comer said. The Representatives hope to find “why [Biden] lied to the American people about his knowledge and participation in his family’s international business schemes”

Hunter has been under federal investigation since 2018, after he allegedly failed to pay taxes and lied on a firearm application. U.S. Attorney David Weiss has conducted the investigation and would be the person who levies the charges.

In September, over 30 Senate Republicans called for U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to grant special counsel protections and authorities to Weiss as he continued to investigate Hunter Biden. The request stemmed from a letter that claims Hunter Biden has a growing amount of evidence against him relating to federal crimes, including, but not limited to, tax fraud, money laundering and foreign-lobbying violations.

The request for counsel follows a September claim by one of Hunter Biden’s former business associates, Tony Bobulinski, that former FBI agent Timothy Thibault worked to conceal relevant information about the Biden family, particularly his relationship with the Bidens. Legislators alleged that Thibault attempted to halt the FBI’s investigation into Hunter Biden.

In October, Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley called on law enforcement to release records detailing “potential criminal conduct” committed by Biden’s sons after leaked emails pointed to a Biden owned real estate company receiving a $40 million investment from a Russian oligarch.





Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Has Concerns FBI Agent Hid Info In Investigation: REPORT

Biden Administration Sends FBI After Incoming Netanyahu Government

U.S. rabbis blast Biden’s handlers for funding ‘Palestinian’ jihad terrorism

FBI top dog refuses to answer whether bureau had sources dressed as Trump supporters on Jan. 6

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Waters: ‘You Cannot Object’ to FTX Donations if They’re Legal

UPDATE: REAL AMERICA – Dan Ball W/ Marc Morano, Breaking Down The Ties Between The WEF & FTX

Thursday on CNBC’s Closing Bell, House Financial Services Committee Chair and anti-Trump hysteric Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) denied that there was a failure to provide oversight and regulation of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX because of his campaign donations and said that “those contributions may have been done in an attempt to influence” but if people follow laws governing campaign donations, “then you cannot object to the fact that they give contributions.”

The host asked, “What do you say to the cynics that are looking at all those campaign contributions that he made, including many to Democrats, 40 million in the midterms, which made it the Democrats’ second-largest donor, and wonder if there wasn’t oversight and regulation of him and his firm because he was such an important donor to your party?”

Waters replied, “No. What we understand about the election systems in this country is there are rules to giving donations, and when one follows those rules, then you cannot object to the fact that they give contributions and they followed the law in the way that they give them. But, as I understand it, without the investigation having gone on, that there were contributions made to Democrats and Republicans, and certainly, those contributions may have been done in an attempt to influence. But of course, we have to deal with that as regulators and as members of Congress with the responsibility for oversight. And so, we will be a part of what is going on with these hearings and investigations and we will do everything that we can to expose any violations that were obviously made.”

Translation: We will overlook any violations involving contributions given to Democrats.


FTX funneled $27 million to these Democrat candidates before it imploded

Political Ponzi Scheme: Biden to Ukraine—Ukraine to FTX—FTX To Fund Democrat Candidates

Elon Musk Connects the Dots on the FTX Ponzi Scheme

FTX CEO Who Stole Billions in Crypto Ponzi Scheme Is DEMOCRATS’ Second Largest Donor After Soros


EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

2020 Election Fraud and National Security Breach Case No. 22-380 now on the the U.S. Supreme Court docket

The American Media Group’s Medeea Greere in a November 17th, 2022 article titled Uh, Guys… A Supreme Court Case Regarding The 2020 Election Just Hit The Docket reports,

A Supreme Court Case Regarding The 2020 Election Just Hit The Docket

> It involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress.

> This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”)

> Also, it is about the congress ignoring over one hundred claimants, on J6, that the election was rigged. They did not investigate the claim, as they should have, and installed Biden. Under the constitution this is treasonous, as they were aiding the enemy.

When the allegations of a rigged election came forward the Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office. [Emphasis added]

Click here to read RALAND J BRUNSON, Petitioner, v. ALMA S. ADAMS, et, al., Respondents.

Trevor Winchell reported,

Supreme Court case No. 22-380 regarding the 2020 election just hit the docket… (Response due November 23, 2022)

It involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States, along with members of the United States Congress.

This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”).

Check the document for the full list. Also, it is about the congress ignoring over one hundred claimants, on J6, that the election was rigged. They did not investigate the claim, as they should have, and installed Biden. Under the constitution, this is treasonous, as they were aiding the enemy.

When the allegations of a rigged election came forward, the respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office.


A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.

This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States. In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Is Big Tech Censoring Child Trafficking?

It would seem that one of the most uniting causes in the world would be to protect children. Specifically: children who are being trafficked, exploited, and abused sexually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

A recent increase in awareness about the prevalence of child trafficking has led to a concerning counter-movement by large, public platforms. There seems to be a concerted effort to squash the voices of organizations and individuals who are speaking out against child exploitation and sex trafficking.

If children are being trafficked in any significant quantities in our country, shouldn’t the public be made aware? Shouldn’t action be taken, policies changed, and justice served?

Or, what motive would there be to censor people who are raising awareness and demanding action?

Should Big Tech companies have the power to control what information or opinions citizens are allowed to speak about on public platforms?

Is this an intentional effort to suppress or censor this information from being shared with the public? Or are these large platforms simply guarding their users from misleading information?

Let’s discuss the facts.

What Is Child Sex Trafficking?

According to the United States Department of Justice:

“Child sex trafficking refers to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”

According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC):

“While any child can be targeted by a trafficker, research, data and survivor lived experience and expertise have revealed traffickers and buyers often target youth who lack strong support networks, have experienced violence in the past, are experiencing homelessness, or are marginalized by society.  Traffickers are masters of manipulation and prey upon vulnerabilities using psychological pressure and intimidation to control and sexually exploit the child for their benefit.

The issue of child sex trafficking is complex. Understanding the various forms of child sex trafficking and indicators can create opportunities for prevention, identification and response. Most importantly NCMEC embraces and encourages all efforts on this issue to be survivor-informed, child-centered, and trauma-informed.

Below are some examples of child sex trafficking:

 Pimp-Controlled Trafficking

Child is trafficked by an unrelated individual, male or female, who often develops an intentional relationship with the child which is later used as leverage in the exploitation.

 Familial Trafficking

Child is trafficked by a relative or a person who is perceived by the child to be a family member such as individuals referred to as “auntie” or “uncle” but are not directly related to the child.

 Gang-Controlled Trafficking

Child is trafficked by a member of a gang or trafficked by the gang.  Gangs leverage their organizational structure, violence, and local, national and international networks to instill fear and loyalty in the child victim.

 Buyer-Perpetrated Trafficking

Child is being trafficked but does not have an identified trafficker.  Instead, the buyer is directly exploiting the child’s vulnerabilities by offering money, food, and/or shelter in exchange for the sexual exploitation.

Child sex trafficking can have devastating immediate and long-term consequences, including health impacts, psychological and physical trauma and even death.”

How Many Children Are Trafficked Every Year in the USA?

No one knows the real numbers of trafficked children, because most of it is not reported.

Child trafficking can happen to any child, regardless of race, gender, education, citizenship, and socio-economic status. Most people think of child trafficking as children bound and beaten in hidden bunkers in 3rd world countries. While that is a reality for many children around the world, most people don’t realize that child trafficking is rampant in the USA and that the victims and perpetrators may be right in front of them.

The USA is one of the main destinations and sources of child trafficking.

It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of children go missing in the USA every year.

Child Trafficking is estimated to be a $38-50 BILLION dollar a year criminal enterprise in the USA alone.

Why is Child Trafficking Censored on Social Media?

Despite surmounting evidence of child trafficking in all 50 states and every major city, large social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok seem to suppress, censor, and/or remove posts on the topic.

In 2020, hashtags such as #SaveTheChildren and #SaveOurChildren were banned or censored on most big social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. This seemed to be in response to the influx of people who were made aware about the massive scale of child trafficking in America and the amount of posts, questions, and concerns that ensued.

While some theories about certain public figures being involved with child trafficking have yet to be proven, the evidence and prevalence of child trafficking in the USA are undeniable.

The viral impact of these awareness campaigns arms the public with the information they need to safeguard children and help prevent this gruesome crime from thriving in their communities. It even resulted in hundreds of organized rallies and marches all over the USA, from Washington, to Tennessee, to Michigan to California. Increased public awareness also funds the nonprofit organizations who are taking action to protect and rescue children.

Why would anyone want to sabotage efforts to raise awareness about child trafficking?

As of the writing of this article, the following hashtags are censored – meaning, banned – on Instagram.

  1. #ChildTraffickingAwareness
  2. #ChildTrafficking
  3. #ChildSexTrafficking
  4. #EndChildTrafficking
  5. #ProtectChildren
  6. #ProtectOurChildren
  7. #ProtectTheChildren
  8. #SaveChildren
  9. #SaveOurChildren
  10. #SaveOurChildrenFromPedophiles
  11. #SaveTheChildren
  12. #StopChildTrafficking
  13. #StopChildAbuse

What’s even stranger is: hashtags about human trafficking, such as #HumanTrafficking / #EndHumanTrafficking / #StopHumanTrafficking hashtags are NOT censored.

#ChildAbuse and #ChildAbuseMaterial are not banned. #StopChildAbuse is.

It’s almost as if it’s an intentional effort to ignore, suppress, or deny this industrial scale harm to children!?

Why The Censorship? Who Does It Benefit, and Who Is It Hurting?

Big social platforms are known to remove or censor posts and hashtags, shadowban accounts, or even delete or permanently ban accounts who post about child trafficking. When the account creators appeal the platform’s decision, it often leads down an endless maze of unclear responses, such as “We removed this post because it violates our community guidelines.” More often than not, even if the post is factual and does not violate their posted community guidelines, the platform will still refuse to reinstate the content or accounts.

As of the writing of this article, Veterans For Child Rescue and the founder, Craig “Sawman” Sawyer have been banned or deleted multiple times from the following platforms:

  1. Instagram
  2. LinkedIn
  3. Twitter
  4. GoFundMe
  5. YouCaring

Below are some examples of the recent Account Warnings and censorship on TikTok, as well as the responses to our appeals to restore the content.


Why Do Some Think Child Trafficking is a Conspiracy Theory?

Some reasons may include:

  •  High level customers in elite positions of power actively work to enable this criminal industry and keep their behaviors a secret.

We’re all familiar with the Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case. Why hasn’t the client list been released? Why have none of their clients been brought to trial? Why is there no justice for the countless victims?

  •  As the fastest growing and 2nd most profitable criminal enterprise in the world, there is big money protecting the secrecy of it.
  •  Most large online platforms suppress information about child trafficking awareness. They also suppress and censor the messaging and reach of organizations like Veterans For Child Rescue who are dedicated to countering child trafficking and making the USA a safe place for children.
  •  Some political and religious groups mixed some truth with some un-factual stories or exaggerations that resulted in misinformation. This has unfortunately caused some to categorize child trafficking as a theory or political talking point.
  •  There is a massive lack of public awareness and education on this matter. Most people don’t know what to look for or how to help, and therefore, many victims and situations are overlooked.
  •  The reality of this evil is simply too harsh for people to face. If they accept its existence, they’re left with 2 choices: do something, or do nothing. Unfortunately, many people choose to pretend it doesn’t exist so they do not feel responsible to take action.
  •  Survivors are often threatened, coerced, slandered, or shamed into silence. Child abuse and trafficking is difficult to prove, and even more difficult to prosecute. Many antagonists will use gaslighting tactics, call the victims liars, and cause them unwanted attention and negative press. This can cause a domino effect of traumatizing experiences and even put the victim in danger.
  •  Most child abusers and traffickers are not convicted. Despite solid evidence, many abusers go unpunished, or only serve light sentences.

What Can We Do to End Child Trafficking?

1. Raise Awareness

Awareness reduces the predator’s ability to operate. 



  •  CONTRALAND: a shocking documentary exposing child trafficking and predators in the USA

2.     Get Involved in Your Community

  •  Attend local events, school board meetings, elections, and get to know who is running your town.
  •  Write your elected officials and demand harsher punishments for predators, laws to protect children, and support for victims and survivors.
  •  Volunteer at shelters, after school programs, and community events.

3.     Refer

  •  Connect Veterans For Child Rescue with donors, District Attorneys, elected officials, media, and any businesses, groups, or entities willing to stand with us.

4.     Shop & Support

  •  Purchase V4CR merchandise – guaranteed conversation starters! 100% of the proceeds support our mission.
  •  Shop on and choose “Veterans For Child Rescue” as your charity. Amazon will donate a percentage of your purchase to our cause.⁣⁣

5.     Donate


EDITORS NOTE: This Veterans 4 Child Rescue column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘So Pissed Off, I Cannot Even See Straight’ — Ted Cruz Blames Mitch McConnell For GOP Midterm Losses

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell during a Monday podcast, saying the GOP should have won the majority of the upper chamber and blamed McConnell for not supporting Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters.

Cruz released an episode of his podcast, titled Verdict with Ted Cruz, where he and co-host Ben Ferguson discussed the midterm elections and the GOP’s failure to recapture the Senate. Cruz mentioned his frustration, saying there was no excuse for McConnell to abandon Masters, calling it “indefensible.”

“Well, Ben, let me start off by saying I am so pissed off, I cannot even see straight,” Cruz said.

“We had an extraordinary opportunity. We had a generational opportunity. This should have been a fundamental landslide election. We should have won the House and the Senate. We should have a 30, 40, 50 vote majority in the House. We should have 53, 54, 55 Republicans in the Senate,” Cruz continued.

McConnell’s PAC reportedly yanked $8 million in campaign spending from Arizona after Masters won his primary election, according to Fox News.

Cruz was also asked if McConnell would donate to Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker’s campaign in a run-off. Cruz replied he likely will, but said he believes the GOP could have won Arizona.

“Oh, look, I’m sure he will raise money and invest in the race … But if you look at this last cycle, Mitch McConnell pulled the money out of Arizona. We could have won — won Arizona. We nearly won Arizona and abandoning Blake Masters was indefensible,” Cruz said.

“Explain to me, Senator, why in a race where the polling showed that we had a legitimate chance of winning there. Why did he pull out that money from Masters who desperately needed it?” Ferguson asked Cruz.

“Because Masters said he would vote against Mitch McConnell, and so Mitch would rather be leader than have a Republican majority. If there’s a Republican who can win, who’s not gonna support Mitch, the truth of the matter is he’d rather the Democrat win. So he pulled all the money out of Arizona,” Cruz responded.

Cruz also said that “the country is screwed for the next four years” due to the GOP’s failure to regain the majority, saying “because of this, we’re gonna see horrible Left-wing judges confirmed for the next two years, because of this. We’re gonna see judges taking away our free speech rights, our religious liberty rights, our Second Amendment rights. It is an enormous missed opportunity. And I gotta say, it is hard to describe my feelings as anything other than rage,” Cruz concluded.

Cruz’s criticisms follow former President Donald Trump’s criticisms of McConnell over the Blake Masters campaign. Trump’s critics have responded that the former president did not use the $100 million his PAC has collected to support GOP candidates in the midterms.

“McConnell allied groups spent $13.1M in Arizona,” a One Nation spokesperson told the Caller.

“During the summer, Steven Law, the head of a McConnell-aligned super PAC, told the financier Peter Thiel, who had spent millions supporting Mr. Masters, that Mr. Masters had scored the worst focus group results of any candidate he had ever seen,” The New York Times reported.

The Daily Caller contacted McConnell’s office about Cruz’s comments.



Senior Congressional correspondent. 


‘We Didn’t Pick Up A Single Seat?’: Watters Blasts Trump, McConnell Over Campaign Spending In Senate Races

Blake Masters: Mitch McConnell ‘Doesn’t Deserve’ Leadership Post

ANALYSIS: Election Night Was Good For Conservatives. They Just Don’t Know It Yet

Rep. Bob Good Says Republicans ‘Got Rolled’ In Midterms, Blames Kevin McCarthy At Conference Meeting

Fox News Hires Tulsi Gabbard

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Election Problem Deniers, Take Note

Today, I start a series on problems with our election system.  The election problem deniers will tell you ‘nothing to see here, move along,’ but there’s no shortage of undeniable problems.

Let’s start with stories about courts and government officials who rectified a number of problems in the days and weeks running up to the election.

The Delaware Supreme Court struck down no-fault absentee balloting and same-day voter registration because they violated the state constitution.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the use of drop boxes which the state elections commission had instituted without authority.

Elections officials in Pennsylvania were allowing mail-in ballots returned with missing or incorrect dates on the envelope, but the state Supreme Court put a stop to it.

A Virginia judge ordered county election officials to follow state law and assign the main poll workers from different political parties in each precinct.  I’m in touch with activists from all over the country and ‘party parity’, as it is called, remains a problem in many places.

Hmm… I detect a pattern here, so far.  The problems I’ve mentioned came about because Democrats broke the law.  They’re scofflaws.

That means they have a lot in common with people recently charged with voter fraud.  Arizona indicted two people with illegal ballot harvesting last month.  They collected ballots from early voters and put them in a drop box.  That’s illegal in Arizona, but remains a problem in states like Virginia where the practice is legal.  It’s a bad practice.  Ballot harvesters have been known to pay people for votes, as in a ballot harvesting scheme just uncovered in Florida.  Also, nothing prevents fraudsters from stealing mail ballots, say, from apartment building lobbies, filling them out themselves, and dropping them in a ballot box.  There are too many loose ballots floating around before election day to think ballot harvesting is a good idea.  Ballot harvesting is a Democrat idea.  No wonder they don’t want to talk about it, or the unsecured drop boxes that enable ballot harvesting schemes.  The Chester County Pennsylvania elections board settled a lawsuit by agreeing to secure their drop boxes after activist surveillance video showed people dropping multiple ballots into the boxes.  Voters can only put their own ballot into the boxes, not ballots collected from others.  The board agreed to put up cameras and staff the boxes.

Democrats are still trying to hang on to changes made to the electoral process because of COVID, but a state judge ruled New York can no longer use COVID as an excuse for emergency rules and knocked down absentee voting rules that had been expanded during the pandemic.  Fewer loose ballots floating around – sorry, Democrats.

For the Democrats to sustain their phony election denier and voter suppression narratives, they’re going to have to prove that all the courts, law enforcement and elections officials I mentioned here today are election deniers who are trying to suppress the vote.  They’re all part of a vast conspiracy trying to deny people their civil rights. Good luck with that.

The correct analysis is the Democrats caused a bunch of problems, they won’t talk about the problems they themselves created, and they won’t fix them until forced to.  Fine, they’re on notice: the process of fixing our elections has begun and we won’t stop until we are confident we have free and fair elections once again.  Don’t mess with OUR right to vote.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays


Watch: Alleged Illegal Election Activity by Dems Caught on Camera in Pennsylvania

Major Election Reversal – Republican Declared Winner in Crucial Race After a ‘Computer Glitch’ Is Corrected

NH Democrat Governor Maggie Hassan Gets 1100 Votes in NH Town With a Population Under 700?

Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Investigates Bag Full of Ballots Found In California Mountains

FIX WAS IN: Arizona Ballots Make Stop at Printing Company to Scan Ballot Envelopes Before They Are Sent to County — WITH NO OBSERVERS


Elon Musk Connects the Dots on the FTX Ponzi Scheme

FTX was created as a Ponzi scheme to launder American taxpayer money through the Ukraine in order to fund the campaigns of Democrat politicians. FTX CEO became the second largest donor to Democrats and the Democrat Party.

FTX, having served its political purpose, is now bankrupt and “under investigation.”

Well, Elon Musk began tweeting about the links between Sam Bankman-Fried, CEO and founder of FTX, Gary Gensler the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a former MIT professor, Glen Ellison a Professor of Economics and the former boss of Gary Gensler at MIT and Caroline Ellison the CEO of Alameda Research the trading arm of FTX, who is the daughter of Glen Ellison and dated Bankman-Fried.

Here is a video and tweet with information about Caroline Ellison the CEO of Alameda Research thru which FTX laundered money from the Ukraine.

The tweet below, in reply to Elon’s tweet, gives readers an understanding of the timeline of the creation of FTX. It also shows links between Sam Bankman-Fried and his mother Barbara Fried who happens to head two Democrat Party political fundraising organizations: the left-wing super PAC Mind the Gap and the non-profit Center for Voter Information.

Here is another tweet in response to Elon’s tweet,

Influence Watch’s review of Mind the Gap reported,

In 2018, the PAC created a statistical model which attempted to score the impact each dollar donated would have on Democrats winning back control of the House of Representatives. The group ultimately raised more than 20 million dollars in its successful attempt to win back control of the House for Democrats.

MTG is known for its secretive operations where it attempts to quickly gather and coordinate donations over a short time to prevent Republicans from mobilizing donors in response. The PAC is managed by Stanford Law professors Barbara FriedPaul Brest, and researcher Graham Gottlieb. Of the three, only Gottlieb has political experience, having served former President Barack Obama as a staffer during his 2012 re-election campaign and in the White House.

Read more about Mind the Gap.

Influence Watch has this on the Center for Voter Information (CVI)

The Center for Voter Information (CVI) is a left-of-center voter registration and outreach group that is permitted to take positions on candidates that works alongside its nominally nonpartisan and charitable “sister,” the Voter Participation Center (VPC). While both organizations run general get-out-the-vote campaigns, the CVI runs targeted voter outreach campaigns for candidates. Both organizations are left-of-center, and the VPC’s political spending exclusively goes to supporting Democratic candidates or opposing Republicans. CVI shares its 501(c)(4) tax status with another voter registration activist group, Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund (WVWVAF), which the organizations treat as separate groups but are a single entity.

As of September 2020, CVI and VPC have generated 939,000 registration applications and 2 million vote-by-mail applications for the 2020 election. [1] These applications are generally targeted towards demographic groups which tend to support the Democratic Party, and have been extensively criticized by state-level officials.

All three organizations share a common founder, liberal activist Page Gardner.

[ … ]

As of October 23, 2020, CVI had committed to sending 340 million pieces of mail leading up to the 2020 general election. This included sending ballot applications as well as voter registration forms. The initiative focused on over 20 battleground states. Critics argued that some of the forms contain errors or prefilled information, preventing individuals from successfully registering and influencing votes. Additionally, the mail was not always understood to be from a non-government organization and confused voters. [3]

Read more.

This is an evolving story with many, many dots to connect.

Stay tuned for more information as we seek the truth about the 2022 midterm elections and how Democrats used FTX to launder money which ended up in the political coffers of Democrat campaigns.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Political Ponzi Scheme: Biden to Ukraine—Ukraine to FTX—FTX To Fund Democrat Candidates

FTX appears to be a “Political Ponzi Scheme” in which American military aid dollars to Ukraine were funneled by the Ukrainian government to FTX and then by FTX to Democrat Politicians. 

The Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft reported,

Did you ever wonder where all those billions of dollars were going in Ukraine?  Did you ever wonder why anyone was trusting the elites in US politics like the Bidens with billions in funds going to Ukraine?

Today it turns out that these were excellent questions.

We have information that the tens of billions of dollars going to Ukraine were actually laundered back to the US to corrupt Democrats and elites using FTX cryptocurrency.  Now the money is gone and FTX is bankrupt.

Earlier today we reported that the FTX cryptocurrency appeared to be used in a ponzi scheme involving the Democrats and Ukraine.

As reported earlier, the FTX crypto company gave at least $40 million to Democrat candidates and causes in the midterms.

Sam Bankman-Fried [CEO of FTX] is Biden’s second biggest donor. 

Read more.

Here are the key points in Joe Hoft’s article,

  1. Sam Bankman-Fried, prolific Democratic donor and ex-CEO of now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, funded the campaigns of members of Congress overseeing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), one of the key bodies tasked with regulating the crypto industry and the subject of Bankman-Fried’s aggressive lobbying.
  2. Bankman-Fried’s FTX is currently under investigation by the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after Bankman-Fried allegedly moved $10 billion in client assets from his crypto exchange to his trading firm Alameda Research, and a liquidity crisis at his  exchange which prompted the company to file for bankruptcy. However, prior to the agency’s probe, Bankman-Fried aggressively courted the CFTC – and funded several key lawmakers charged with overseeing the agency, pouring cash into their campaign coffers.
  3. The Ukrainian government has gathered more than $42 million in cryptocurrency donations since Saturday, plus digital artwork including a limited edition worth roughly $200,000, according to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic. The challenge is how the country cashes in on these assets to fund its war needs.
  4. Amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the CEO of FTX, Sam Bankman Fried has come forward to help a crypto donation project. He humbly announced that FTX will be supporting the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance and other communities in collecting crypto donations for the country. The Ukrainian government has received over $60 million in crypto donations from all over the world.
  5. FTX Appears to Be a Political Ponzi Scheme Running Dollars to Politicians and Through Ukraine.
  6. The FTX collapse is just another day in the life of Democrat and RINO corruption in the US.  This scandal involves Ukraine as well.  As mentioned previously, the FTX crypto company gave at least $40 million to Democrat candidates and causes in the midterms. Bankruptcy Court Should Immediately Clawback $40 Million in Recent Donations to … Continue reading

In a November 12th, 2022 Reuters article titled Exclusive: At least $1 billion of client funds missing at FTX reported,

New York, Nov 11 (Reuters) – At least $1 billion of customer funds have vanished from collapsed crypto exchange FTX, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The exchange’s founder Sam Bankman-Fried secretly transferred $10 billion of customer funds from FTX to Bankman-Fried’s trading company Alameda Research, the people told Reuters.

A large portion of that total has since disappeared, they said. One source put the missing amount at about $1.7 billion. The other said the gap was between $1 billion and $2 billion.

As Joe Hoft wrote, “Of course, the Democrats are sending billions to themselves.  They steal elections, why wouldn’t they steal money?”

This Democrat Political Ponzi Scheme is a bigger story than Watergate. Stay tuned as more and more information is reveled.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


RELATED VIDEO: FTX Has Collapsed, Over $1 Billion in Customer Funds Lost


Ukraine ‘partnered’ with top Dem donor’s crypto company FTX as Biden admin funded war effort: report

Billions of US Dollars Were Transferred to Ukraine and then Using FTX Crypto Currency the Funds Were Laundered Back to Democrats in US

FTX’s crypto empire was reportedly run by a bunch of roommates in the Bahamas who dated each other, according to the news site that helped trigger the company’s sudden collapse

FTX CEO Who Stole Billions in Crypto Ponzi Scheme Is DEMOCRATS’ Second Largest Donor After Soros

CEO of cratering crypto firm FTX is Dems second largest donor after Soros. The Democrats are the world’s largest criminal racket. At least a billion of customer funds have vanished from failed crypto firm FTX.


Sam Bankman-Fried made donations to the Dems that totaled $39.8 million, putting him just behind George Soros and his $128 million in donations.

By: The Post Millenial,

According to Fortune, “30-year-old Bankman-Fried has been a major force in Democratic politics, ranking as the party’s second-biggest individual donor in the 2021–2022 election cycle.”

Bankman-Fried made donations to the Dems that totaled $39.8 million, putting him just behind George Soros and his $128 million in donations.

He had even promised to spend more money on Dems in the future, saying he could go “north of $100 million” with a “soft ceiling” of $1 billion for the 2024 elections.

Bankman-Fried was a significant donor to Biden in 2020. He’s the largest financial contributor to the Protect Our Future PAC, “the political action committee which endorsed Democratic candidates such as Peter Welch, who this week won his bid to become Vermont’s next senator, and Robert J. Menendez of New Jersey, who secured a House seat.”

As Bloomberg reports, Bankman-Fried had his net worth go from $15.6 billion to $1 billion in “the biggest one-day collapse it had ever seen among billionaires.”

It is expected that Bankman-Fried will go bankrupt in the face of a liquidity crunch and the abrupt change in financial status.

Reuters reports that FTX lost at least $1 billion of customer funds and that the money “vanished” casing federal regulators to look into the company. The investigation is to determine the extent of harm to clients and what laws FTX may have broken.

Jordan Schachtel tweeted, “Sam Bankman-Fried attempted to monopolize an entire industry and deploy it into the hands of the ruling class. His Ponzi blew up spectacularly after a successfully executed speculative attack. The demise of FTX should be a cause for celebration.”

Read more.

New York, Nov 11 (Reuters) – At least $1 billion of customer funds have vanished from collapsed crypto exchange FTX, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The exchange’s founder Sam Bankman-Fried secretly transferred $10 billion of customer funds from FTX to Bankman-Fried’s trading company Alameda Research, the people told Reuters.

A large portion of that total has since disappeared, they said. One source put the missing amount at about $1.7 billion. The other said the gap was between $1 billion and $2 billion.

First, read this whole thread:




Crypto Fraud Exposes Woke Capitalism As A Scam

Here are some of the biggest FTX losers — along with its biggest Democrat beneficiaries

Tens of Billions of US Dollars Were Transferred to Ukraine and then Using FTX Crypto Currency the Funds Were Laundered Back to Democrats in US

REVEALED: CEO of cratering crypto firm FTX is Dems’ second largest donor, behind Soros

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Judge Approves Restraining Order Against Lincoln Project Co-Founder Steve Schmidt

The soon-to-be ex-wife of Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt was granted a temporary restraining order against the political operative, court records obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller show.

Angela Schmidt filed for the restraining order on Aug. 15 in a Summit, Utah, state court, according to a case history of the Schmidts’ divorce. It was modified and granted on Oct. 16, according to the case history, obtained by the Daily Caller. Since the restraining order was granted, Schmidt has repeatedly accused Republican media figures and candidates of acting inappropriately towards women.

Details of the underlying behavior that led to the court issuance of the restraining order are not publicly available. However, under Utah state law, individuals going through divorce and child custody proceedings may request a restraining order with the court. The orders are only granted when the individual taking out the order will face “irreparable harm unless the court issues an order.” Judges are allowed to grant the orders at their own discretion and are not required to alert the subject of the order.

View the case history here:

Schmidt TRO Information-1 by Michael Ginsberg on Scribd

Angela Schmidt did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on the matter.

The TRO is the latest accusation of Schmidt behaving inappropriately with women. Several news outlets have reported that the longtime operative has berated reporters and campaign staffers. Schmidt drew a rebuke from the Coalition for Women in Journalism in March after he published messages with New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. Schmidt compared Haberman to former Times reporter and Soviet Union propagandist Walter Duranty, and Haberman accused Schmidt of “menacing” and “harassing” her “on Twitter and on text.”

“The Coalition For Women In Journalism condemns the incident and demands that Steve Schmidt offers an apology, not just for his unprofessional opinion but also for his latest attempt to bully Maggie Haberman on social media. CFWIJ has routinely reported on how quickly social media and digital space can be weaponized against women journalists, and Schmidt’s decision to release private correspondence in order to expose some ‘rot’ appears to be an attempt to do just that,” the organization said in a statement.

Schmidt’s organization, The Lincoln Project, was also a hotbed of harassment and misconduct, according to a report from The 19th. Schmidt reportedly believed that the campaign ad shop was a way to generate “inter-generational wealth,” but the group devolved amid infighting and allegations that cofounder John Weaver sexually harassed young men. Employees frequently referred to women as “girls,” and their enemies as “pussies,” “cocksuckers,” or “faggots,” the report adds.

Schmidt resigned from the board of the Lincoln Project in February 2021.

Steve Schmidt could not be reached for comment at phone numbers publicly listed under his name.

Schmidt turned on the late Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose 2008 presidential campaign he ran. The operative told Politico in May that he did not vote for McCain, believing him “unfit” for office. He called the senator’s daughter, conservative commentator Meghan McCain, “rotten, entitled, spoiled, cruel, mean and bullying,” and favorably contrasted his interactions with her to those between Trump White House officials John Kelly, James Mattis, and HR McMaster and the children of the 45th president.

Currently employed by Democratic Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan’s failed Senate campaign, Schmidt repeatedly accused Republican opponent JD Vance of supporting domestic abuse. Vance said during a speech to a southern California high school that increased levels of divorce stemming from the sexual revolution negatively impact kids.

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,’” Vance said, according to Vice News.

Schmidt frequently referenced the reported remarks on Twitter, including after his ex-wife took out the restraining order.

I really think most normal people don’t think women who are beaten should stay married to the men who beat, shoot, stab, burn and torture them. JD Vance  proves this theory. He wants the beaten women to stick around for the next beating. It’s extreme and sick. It’s disqualifyin[g],” Schmidt tweeted on Nov. 4.

Schmidt also referenced sexual harassment allegations levied against the late Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and other Republicans.

I used to be smuggled into Fox News for secret meetings with Ailes. Same elevator he abused the women out of,” he claimed on Nov. 2.

Violence against women is a very specific type of crime. It is almost always perpetrated by men, usually a family member,” Schmidt said in a tweet thread about Missouri GOP Senate candidate Eric Greitens.



Congressional correspondent.


MSNBC Did Not Ask Lincoln Project Founders About John Weaver Despite Booking Them 17 Times After The Story First Broke

Lincoln Project Takes Responsibility For Tiki Torch Hoax At Youngkin Rally

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Congress needs to investigate the criminal snooping of the FBI and HHS

Federal law enforcement agencies are violating the 1974 Privacy Act by gathering, storing, and demanding social media posts be throttled or censored.

The sensible ambition of every human is to feel secure. To feel safe. To be worry-free from random or intentional attacks.

We desire it so much, that most are willing to sacrifice a little less freedom to obtain it.

Normally, those precious freedoms are gobbled-up by some government agency promising to snatch only a small portion of our personal sovereignty if we allow them to act as an iron shield against organized mobsters, gangs, criminal syndicates, and terrorists.

So, track us. We don’t care. Monitor us. Listen to what we say. Put a camera on every corner. Review what we write. Frisk us. Scan us. Snoop all you want. We have nothing to hide. We know the difference between right and wrong.  After all, it’s not about us.

Heck, we hardly notice those freedoms being scarfed up. The invasion of our privacy rights is ghostly, invisible, and ethereal.

All is fine and dandy‚ until…

…the government redefines what’s right and wrong.

Then we see it.

Now, we’re the bad actor. And good luck trying to reclaim those freedoms that could have protected us in the past.

Last week, Intercept (a leftwing, online news publication) shook America with the astounding revelation that the FBI and Homeland Security are working with Big Tech to scrub the internet of information they label “inaccurate.”

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” the article reveals.

The goal of the Government is to scrub the internet of social media posts that “drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

To that end, agencies inside the FBI and Homeland Security – that previously focused on international terrorists, such as ISIS – are using their snooping tools to go after Americans who post “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.”

If any of these law-enforcement employees determine a social media post will lower the nation’s “trust in government,” the content is flagged, stored, and then sent back to the originating social media platform with the expectation the message will be suppressed, throttled, or eliminated.

The snooping tools of the FBI: Babel X, Dataminr, ZeroFox

As much as I would like to reveal more about the findings in the Intercept story, that’s not the intent of this article.

I aim to broaden the discussion on a few things the Intercept article briefly mentioned.

Intercept reports that government officials have a unique portal to Facebook to request takedowns or throttling of postings they don’t like, which means anything that harms the “cognitive infrastructure” of the United States.

(The “cognitive infrastructure” would mean everything would be game)

But one of the most puzzling questions I wanted to be answered was how the FBI has the manpower to review virtually every social media message posted on the World Wide Web.

One of the answers is Babel X.

In April of this year, the FBI spent $27 million to purchase 5,000 licenses from Babel X.

In its purchase request, the FBI notified Babel X:

“The tool shall be able to gather information from the following mandatory online and social media data sources: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, Deep/Dark Web, VK, and Telegram,” the bureau said.

But they’re hoping for a far greater reach.

The FBI also asked Babel X to give them the ability to search Snapchat, TikTok, Reddit, Gab, Parler, Discord, and others.

Bable X aside, the FBI also uses Dataminr to scour the data highway.

The FBI has 200 agents plugged into Dataminr (with its “advanced alerting tool”) to review Twitter posts that meet the bureau’s interest.

Of course, the FBI claims they need these tools to combat “terrorists and other criminals” that “communicate, recruit, and raise funds for illegal activity.”

But thanks to FBI official Laura Dehmlow [quoted in the Intercept story] we know the FBI also wants to eliminate the threat of “subversive data utilized to drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

That “subversive” information, according to Intercept and a lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, includes “malinformation” or “disinformation” of Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, Covid vaccines, the Hunter Biden laptop story, racial justice, the Ukraine war, and the 2020 election fraud claims.

The answer to how the FBI can monitor and takedown posts believed to harm “trust in government” is also found in a program called ZeroFox.

In court records, the FBI said they also monitor the Internet with ZeroFox (a $14 million contract) that surveils organizations across social media, including web domains, online news sites, blogs, forums, deep/dark web, and even email.

The “great” feature of ZeroFox is that it provides its customers with a “takedown service,” which allows the FBI to hide, delete and block posts they don’t like.

Read this from ZeroFox:

“Although ZeroFox will initiate a takedown request on behalf of a customer [such as the FBI], the social network or other online provider assesses the request against its own terms, rules and policies and decides whether to act on, or reject, the request. In other words, the third-party provider controls whether the material is removed.”

Of course, big corporations may fail to convince Facebook, for instance, to remove an unflattering post. But a request coming from the FBI?

Who wants to get on the wrong side of the FBI?

The 1974 Privacy Act protects American citizens

At one time, the FBI and Homeland Security focused their surveillance efforts on ISIS and other international, radicalized terrorist organizations and cartels.

For the most part, Americans applauded these law enforcement agencies and their zeal to protect America from another 9/11 attack. We weren’t ignorant, though. We knew it meant the FBI and DHS would resort to monitoring every crevice of the virtual world in all its forms, styles, and behaviors.

But we convinced ourselves we would never become the target of the US Government and their massive and invasive snooping tools that can collect, store, suppress or eliminate what we post.

Now, we know better.

But we can fight back.

The 1974 Privacy Act makes it illegal for the Federal Government to engage in any activity that gathers, maintains, keeps secret files, or releases to non-government parties the identity of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Here are two important sections found under 5 US 552a of the 1974 Privacy Act that we can reasonably believe are currently being violated by many federal law-enforcement agencies:

“Each agency that maintains a system of records shall maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statue or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.” (emphasis added)

“Any officer or employee of an agency…who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.” (emphasis added)

The takeaway is:

  1. It is illegal for the Federal Government to maintain, collect, or use any social media post that falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
  2. It is illegal for any federal employee to release that social media post to any person or agency (think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) that is not entitled to receive it.

In addition, the 1974 Privacy Act requires the Federal Government to explain when the information is being gathered, why it is needed, and how it will be used. They must also ensure that those records are handled only for the reasons given.

Who believes the feds, when gathering up posts on Joe Biden’s failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, are completing the process of explaining why that collection was needed and how it will be used?

America needs answers.

The way to get those answers is for Congress to immediately launch a full-scale investigation using its sledgehammer power of subpoenas to determine the numerous violations of the 1974 Privacy Act, including criminal offenses.

©Marin Mawyer. All rights reserved.

IT BEGINS: Biden Says He’ll Use Constitution to Make Sure Trump Will Never Be President Again

“We have to demonstrate that he will not take power if he does run. Making sure he under the legitimate efforts of the Constitution, become the next president again.”— Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. 

They just got away with another big election steal. Seamlessly. They stole another election and nobody was able to stop them. So now they are coming after us MAGA people and President Trump with a vengeance.

Joe Biden Holds Midterm Election Result Press Conference – Vows to Push Harder on Economic Agenda, Continue Targeting President Trump and Investigate Elon Musk

By: Sundance, Conservative Treehouse, November 9, 2022:

Joe Biden held a press conference today to celebrate the electioneering and ballot collection efforts of the Democrat party. The video and transcript of the press conference is below.

When questioned about any changes to his White House policy agenda, or what he plans to do differently, Biden said, “Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing. The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.” Current support for Biden’s economic policy agenda is around 22%, current opposition 78%.

Here’s the video:


THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Well, we had an election yesterday.  (Laughter.)  And it was a good day, I think, for democracy.  And I think it was a good day for America.  (Clears throat.)  Excuse me, I’m a little hoarse.

Our democracy has been tested in recent years.  But with their votes, the American people have spoken and proven once again that democracy is who we are.

The states across the country saw record voter turnout.  And the heart and soul of our democracy — the voters, the poll workers, the election officials — they did their job and they fulfilled their duty, and apparently without much interference at all — without any interference, it looks like.  And that’s a testament, I think, to the American people.

While we don’t know all of the results yet — at least, I don’t know them all yet — here’s what we do know.  While the press and the pundits are predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen.  And I know you were somewhat miffed by my — my obsessant [sic] optimism, but I felt good during the whole process.  I thought we were going to do fine.

While any seat lost is painful — some good Democrats didn’t win the — last night — Democrats had a strong night.  And we lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than any Democratic President’s first midterm election in the last 40 years.  And we had the best midterms for governors since 1986.

And another thing that we know is that voters spoke clearly about their concerns — about raising costs — the rising costs and the need to get inflation down.  There are still a lot of people hurting that are very concerned.  And it’s about crime and public safety.  And they sent a clear and unmistakable message that they want to preserve our democracy and protect the right to choose in this country.

And I especially want to thank the young people of this nation, who — I’m told; I haven’t seen the numbers — voted in historic numbers again and — just as they did two years ago.  They voted to continue addressing the climate crisis, gun violence, their personal rights and freedoms, and the student debt relief.

Last night, I was pleased to call Maxwell Frost, the 25-year-old who got elected — I guess the youngest man ever elected to the United States Congress.  And I told him that he — I told him that I was the first elected — the second-youngest person ever elected to the United States Senate at 29; that I have no doubt he’s off to an incredible start in what, I’m sure, will be a long, distinguished career.  And when he’s President and they say, “Joe Biden is out in the outer office,” I don’t want him to say, “Joe who?”  (Laughter.)

But the voters were also clear that they’re still frustrated.  I get it.  I understand it’s been a really tough few years in this country for so many people.

When I came to office, we inherited a nation with a pandemic raging and an economy that was reeling.  And we acted quickly and boldly to vaccinate the country and to create a stable and sustained growth in our economy; long-term investment to rebuild America itself and our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, clean water systems, high-speed Internet.

And we’re just getting started.  The interesting thing is that this is all going to really come into clear view for people in the months — in the months of January, February, March of next year.  It’s just getting underway.  So, I’m optimistic about how the public is going to even be more embracive of what we’ve done.

Historic investments that are leading companies to invest literally hundreds of billions of dollars combined to build semiconductor factories and other advanced manufacturing here in America.  It’s going to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

And, by the way, a significant number of those jobs are going to be jobs that pay an average of $126-, $127,000.  And you don’t need a college degree to get those jobs.

We’re dealing with global inflation as a result of the pandemic and Putin’s war in Ukraine.  We’re also handling it better than most other advanced nations in the world.

We’re lowering gas prices.

We looking — we’re taking on powerful interests to lower prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums and energy bills.

After 20 months of hard work, the pandemic no longer controls our lives.  It’s still a concern, but it no longer controls our lives.

Our economic policies have created a record 10 million new jobs since I came into office.  The unemployment rate is down from 6.4 when I was sworn in to 3.7 percent — near a 50-year low.  And we’ve done all this while lowering the federal deficit in the two years by $1.7 trillion.  Let me say it again: $1.7 trillion.  No administration has ever cut the deficit that much.

And reducing the federal deficit is one of the best things we can do to lower inflation.  But while we’ve made real progress as a nation, I know it’s hard for folks to see that project — that progress in their everyday lives.

And it’s hard to see the results from actions that we took while — that we have to implement what we’ve done.  But I believe we took the right steps for the country and for the American people.

In fact, if you look at the polls, an overwhelming majority — I don’t look at them much anymore, because I’m not sure how to read them anymore.  (Laughter.)  I hope you are uncertain as well.

But the overwhelming majority of the American people support the elements of my economic agenda — from rebuilding America’s roads and bridges; to lowering prescription drug costs; to a historic investment in tack- — tackling the climate crisis; to making sure that large corporations begin to pay their fair share in taxes.

And I’m confident these policies are working and that we’re on the right path, and we need to stick with them.

All these initiatives take hold as they do, from lead pipes being removed from schools and homes, to new factories being built in communities with a resurgence of American manufacturing.  It’s already created, by the way, 700,000 brand new manufacturing jobs.

You’ve heard me say it ad nauseam: I don’t know where it’s written it says we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world.  We are now exporting product, not jobs, around the world.

People across the country are going to see even more clearly the positive effects on their day-to-day lives.  But I still understand why they’re hurting right now and so many people are concerned.

As I have throughout my career, I’m going to continue to work across the aisle to deliver for the American people.  And it’s not always easy, but we did it the first term.  And I’ll be — surprised lot of people that we signed over 210 bipartisan laws since I’ve become President.  And we’re revitalizing American manufacturing; gun safety — we did it together — and dozens of laws positively impacting on our veterans.

And let me say this: Regardless — regardless of what the final tally in these elections show — and there’s still some counting going on — I’m prepared to work with my Republican colleagues.  The American people have made clear, I think, that they expect Republicans to be prepared to work with me as well.

In the area of foreign policy, I hope we’ll continue this bipartisan approach of confronting Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

When I return from the G20 meetings in Indonesia with other world leaders, I’m going to invite the leaders of both political parties, as I’ve done in the past on my foreign trips, to the White House to discuss how we can work together for the remainder of this year and into the next Congress to advance the economic and national security priorities of the United States.

And I’m open to any good ideas.  I want to be very clear: I’m not going to support any Republican proposal that’s going to make inflation worse.  For example, the voters don’t want to pay higher prescription costs for drugs.  We’ve cut that now.  We’re going to kick into gear next year — the next calendar year.  And I’m not going to walk away from the historic commitments we just made to take on the climate crisis.  They’re not compromise-able issues to me, and I won’t let it happen.

The voters don’t want more taxes for the super we- — tax cuts for the super wealthy and biggest corporations.  And I’m going to continue to focus on cost-cutting for working- and middle-class families, and building an economy from the bottom up in the middle out.

I know you’re tired of hearing me say that, but I genuinely mean it.  That’s what makes America grow.  The wealthy do very well when the middle class is doing well, and the poor have a way up.

And while continuing to bring down the federal deficit.

You know, as we look at tax cuts, we should be looking at tax cuts for working people and middle-class people, not the very wealthy.  They’re fine.

I — look, I — if you can go out and be a multimillionaire, that’s great.  Just — just pay your fair share.  That’s all.  That’s all.  Just pay your fair share.  It’s like those 55 corporations in 2000 [2020] that made $40 billion and didn’t pay a penny in federal taxes.

It’s not right.  Everybody has an obligation.  So now they have to pay a staggering 15 percent.  And you all pay more than that in your taxes.

So I’m going to keep my commitment that no one — no one earning less than $400,000 a year — and that’s a lot of money, where I come from — are going to see their federal taxes go up.

And I want to be very clear: Under no circumstances will I support the proposal put forward by Senator Johnson and the senator from down in Florida to cut or make fundamental changes in Social Security and Medicare.  That’s not on the table.  I will not do that.

I will veto any attempt to pass a national ban on abortion.

But I’m ready to compromise with the Republicans where it makes sense on many other issues.  And I’ll always put the needs and interests of the American people first.

So let me close with this.  On this election season, the American people made it clear: They don’t want every day going forward to be a constant political battle.  There’s too much that — of that going on.  And there’s too much that we have to do.

The future of America is too promising — too promising to be trapped in an endless political warfare.

And I really mean it.  You’ve heard me say it time and again for the last 20 months or so: I am so optimistic about the prospects for America.  We need to be looking to the future, not fixated on the past.  And that future is bright as can be.

We — we’re the only nation in the world that’s come out of every crisis stronger than we went into the crisis.  And that’s a fact.  I mean — I mean I literally mean that: We’ve come out stronger than we’ve gone in.

And I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future than I am today.  You know, I — particularly because of all those young people I’ve talked about, 18 to 30.  They’re showing up.  They’re the best-educated generation in American history, they’re the least prejudiced generation in American history, the most engaged generation in American history, and the most involved.

Look, after a long campaign season, I still believe what I always have: This is a great nation, and we’re a great people.  And it’s never been a good bet to bet against America.  Never been a good bet to bet against America.

There’s nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we work together.  We just need to remember who the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  The United States of America.  There’s nothing beyond our capacity.

And I’m pretty well convinced that we’re going to be able to get a lot done.  Now, I’ve been given a list of 10 people that I’m supposed to call on.  And you’re all supposed to ask me one question, but I’m sure you’ll ask me more.  (Laughter.)

And so let me start off with a list I’ve been given.  Zeke Miller, Associated Press.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have two questions for you.  As you mentioned — (laughter).  As you mentioned —

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  How come we never hold you guys to the same standards you hold us to?  (Laughter.)  But, anyway, go ahead.

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.

Q    You mentioned that Americans are frustrated.  And, in fact, 75 percent of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction, despite the results of last night.  What in the next two years do you intend to do differently to change people’s opinion of the direction of the country, particularly as you contemplate a run for President in 2024?

THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing.  The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.

Do you know anybody who wants us to get rid of the change we made on prescription drug prices and raise prices again?  Do you know anybody who wants us to walk away from building those roads and bridges and — and the Internet and so on?  I don’t — I don’t know any- —

I think that the problem is the major piece of legislation we passed — and some of it bipartisan — takes time to be recognized.

For example, you got — you got over a trillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure money, but not that many spades have been put in the ground.  It’s taking time.

For example, I was on the phone congratulating a Californian recently and then someone in — up in Scranton, Pennsylvania — the Congressman who got elected.  And he said, “Can you help us make sure we’re able to have high-speed rail ser- — rail service from Scranton to New York — New York City?”  I said, “Yeah, we can.  We can.”

First of all, it’ll make it a lot easier, take a lot of vehicles off the road.  And we have more money in the — in the pot now already — already out there — we voted for — than the entire money we spent on Amtrak to begin with.

It’s the same way — for example, I talked about, through the campaign, that we’re going to limit the cost of insulin for seniors to $35 a month instead of $400 a month.  Well, it doesn’t take effect until next year.

So there’s a lot of things that are just starting to kick in.  And the same way with what we’ve done in terms of environmental stuff.  It takes time to get it moving.

So, I’m not going to change — as a matter of fact, you know there’s some things I want to change and add to.  For example, we had — passed the most bipartisan, we passed the most extensive gun legislation, anti- — you know, rational gun policy in 30 years.  And — but we didn’t ban assault weapons.  I’m going to ban assault weapons.  They’re going to try like the devil —

So, I’m not going to change the direction.  I said I ran for three reasons.  I’m going to continue to stay where I’m — and I know — I fully understand the legitimate concern that what I’m saying is wrong.  Okay?

One is that I said we’re going to restore the soul of the country, begin to treat each other with decency, honor, and integrity.  And it’s starting to happen.  People are — the conversations are becoming more normal, becoming more — more — how can I say it? — decent.

Second thing I said is I want to build a country from the middle out and the bottom up.  And that way, everybody does fine.  I’m tired of trickle-down.  Not a whole lot trickles down when you trickle down to hardworking folks.

And the third thing — I know is still very hard — I’m going to do everything in my power to see through that we unite the country.  It’s hard to sustain yourself as a leading democracy in the world if you can’t — can’t generate some unity.

So, I’m not going to change anything in any fundamental way.

Q    And just on a different topic, Mr. President.  Russia today claimed that it had evacuated the Kherson region and the Kherson city.  Do you believe that this is potentially an inflection in that conflict?  And do you believe that Ukraine now has the leverage it needs to begin peace negotiations with Moscow?

THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I found it interesting they waited until after the election to make that judgement, which we knew for some time that they were going to be doing.  And it’s evidence of the fact that they have some real problems — Russian — the Russian military.  Number one.

Number two, whether or not that leads to — at a minimum, it will lead to time for everyone to recalibrate their positions over the winter period.  And it remains to be seen whether or not there’ll be a judgment made as to whether or not Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia.

I’m going to be going to the G20.  I’m told that President Putin is not likely to be there, but other world leaders are going to be there in Indonesia.  And we’re going to have an opportunity to see what — what the next steps may be.

Nancy.  CBS.  Nancy Cordes.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have a few questions.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Okay.

Q    I’ve been saving them up.  First of all, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said last night that, “It is clear we are going to take the House back.”  Do you think he’s probably right about that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, based on what we know as — as of today, we’ve — we’ve lost very few seats for certain.  We still have a possibility of keeping the House, but it’s going to be close.  And — for example, in Nevada, we won all three of those seats — contested seats.  I went out for each, and I spoke with each — for each of those folks.  But we won them all.  I didn’t know that last night.

So it’s a moving target right now, but it’s going to be very close.

Q    Can you — can you describe your relationship with Mr. McCarthy?  How often do you speak to him?  What do you think of him?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think he’s the Republican Leader, and I haven’t had much of occasion to talk to him.  But I will be talking to him.  I think — I think I’m talking to him later today.

Q    When it comes to your legislative agenda — when you were Vice President, your legislative agenda basically ran into a brick wall two years in when Republicans took control of the House, and that lasted for the rest of the Obama presidency.  Is there any way for you to prevent that same fate from happening this time around —


Q    — if Republicans take control of the House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, because it’s going to be much closer if they take control.

Look, the predictions were — and again, I’m not being critical of anybody who made the predictions.  I got it, okay?  This was supposed to be a red wave.  You guys — you were talking about us losing 30 to 50 seats and this was going to — we’re nowhere near — that’s not going to happen.  And so, there’s always enough people in the — on the other team, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, that the opposite party can make an appeal to and maybe pick them off to get the help.  And — and so it remains to be seen.

But, look, I doubt whether or not — for example, all the talk — I’d ask the rhet- — I don’t expect you to answer, but the rhetorical question: Do you think that, you know, Senator Johnson is going to move to cut Medicare and Social Security?  And if he does, how many Republicans do you think are going to vote for it?

So, it depends.

Q    And then, my — my final question.  (Laughs.)  Republicans have made it clear that if they do take control of the House, that they want to launch a raft of investigations on day one into your handling of Afghanistan, the border.  They want to look into some of your Cabinet officials.  They want to investigate you.  They may even want to investigate your son.  What’s your message to Republicans who are considering investigating your family and, particularly, your son Hunter’s business dealings?

THE PRESIDENT:  “Lots of luck in your senior year,” as my coach used to say.

Look, I think the American public want us to move on and get things done for them.  And, you know, I heard that there were — it was reported — whether it’s accurate or not, I’m not sure — but it was reported many times that Republicans were saying, and the former President said, “How many times are you going to impeach Biden?”  You know, impeachment proceedings against Bi- —

I mean, I think the — I think the American people will look at all of that for what it is.  It’s just almost comedy.  I mean, it’s — but, you know, look, I can’t control what they’re going to do.  All I can do is continue to try to make life better for the American people.

Okay.  Phil.  Phil Mattingly, CNN.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have 37 ques- — I’m kidding.  (Laughter.)


Q    Sir, at a fundraiser last month, you said, quote, “The rest of the world is looking at this election…both the good guys and the bad guys.”  You noted you’re going to G20 in a couple days.  You’ll come face to face with many of those leaders at the same moment that your predecessor is considering launching his reelection effort.  How should those world leaders, both good guys and bad guys, view this moment both for America and for your presidency?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, these world leaders know we’re doing better than anybody else in the world, as a practical matter.  Notwithstanding the difficulties we have, our economy is growing.  You saw the last report; we’re still growing at 2.6 percent.  We’re creating jobs.  We’re still in a solid position.  And there’s not many other countries in the world that are in that position.

And I promise you, from the telephone calls I still have and from the meetings I have with other heads of state, they’re looking to the United States and saying, “How are you doing?  And what are you doing?  What can we do together?  How…”

So I think that the vast majority of my colleagues — at least those colleagues who are NATO members — European Union, Japan, South Korea, et cetera — I think they’re looking to cooperate and wanting to know how — how we can help one another.

And what was the other question?

Q    (Inaudible) I hadn’t asked it yet.

THE PRESIDENT:   Oh, I’m sorry.

Q    No, no, no.  So, I think the — one way to follow up on that is you noted that you felt like there was a shift in terms of people being willing to show more decency in this moment.  You’ve often talked about breaking the fever or kind of a transition from this moment that we faced over the last several years.  Do you feel like the election is what represents that?  Do you feel like the fever has broken, I guess?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m not — I don’t think we’re going to break the fever for the super mega MAGA Republicans.  I mean — but I think they’re a minority of the Republican Party.  I think the vast majority of the members of the Republican Party, we disagree strongly on issues but they’re decent, honorable people.  We have differe- — differences of agreement on — on issues.

But they — you know, I — I worked with a lot of these folks in the Senate and the House for a long time.  And, you know, they — they’re — they’re honest, and they’re — and they’re straightforward.  They’re different than mine, but they’re — you know, they’re — they’re decent folks.

And so, I think that the rest of the world — and a lot of you have covered other parts of the world, and you know — the rest of the world is looking at the United States.  I guess the best way to say this is to — is to repeat what you’ve — some — some of you’ve heard me say before.

The first G7 meeting — for the public, that’s the — the seven largest democracies — when I went to — right after we got elected, in February, after I got sworn in in January.  And I sat down at a table — a roundtable with the six other world leaders from the European Union, the United — and — and Canada, et cetera, and said, “America is back.”  And one of them turned to me and said, “For how long?  For how long?”  It was a deadly earnest question: “For how long?”

And I looked at them.  And then another one went on to say — and I’m not going to name them — went on to say, “What would you say, Joe, if, in fact, you went — we went to bed tonight here in — in England, woke up the next morning and found out that thousands of people had stormed the parliament of — of Great Britain — gone down the hall, broken down the doors, two cops ended up dying, a number of people injured, and they tried to stop the co- — the confirmation of an election?”  It’s not the same situation, obviously, as we have.  And he said, “What would you think?”

And what — I ask a rhetorical question: What would you all think?  You’d think England was really in trouble.  You’d think democracy was on the edge if that happened in Great Britain.

And so, that’s the way people were looking at us, like, “When is this going to stop?”  Nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.  I don’t want to exaggerate.  But literally, nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.

And so, what I find is that they want to know: Is the United States stable?  Do we know what we’re about?  Are we the same democracy we’ve always been?

Because, look, the rest of the world looks to us — I don’t mean that we’re always — like we’re always right.  But if the United States tomorrow were to, quote, “withdraw from the world,” a lot of things would change around the world.  A whole lot would change.

And so, they’re very concerned that we are still the open democracy we’ve been and that we have rules and the institutions matter.  And that’s the context in which I think that they’re looking at: Are we back to a place where we are going to accept decisions made by the Court, by the Congress, by the government, et cetera?

Q    So the entire genesis of that G7 conversation was tied to your predecessor, who is about to launch another campaign.  So how do you reassure them, if that is the reason for their questioning, that the former President will not return or that his political movement, which is still very strong, will not —

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, yeah?  (Laughs.)

Q    — once again take power in the United States?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by — if we — if he does run.  I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  Steve, Reuters.  I’m sorry.  Steve Holland.

Q    Thank you, sir.  How do you interpret last night’s results in terms of deciding whether you want to seek another term?  Is it now more likely that you will run?  And what’s going to be your timeline for consideration?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, Jill and I have — and by the way, this is my wife, Jill — (laughter) — who’s a hell of a lot more popular than I am in the Democratic Party, too.

But at any rate, all kidding aside, our — our intention is to run again.  That’s been our intention, regardless of what the outcome of this election was.  And the fact that we won — we — I didn’t run — the fact that the Democratic Party outperformed anything anyone expected and did better than any off-year presidency since John Kennedy is one that gives everybody, like, “Hoo” — sigh of relief — that the mega Republicans are not taking over the government again, et cetera.

And so, my judgment of running, when I announce — if I annou- — now, my intention is that I run again.  But I’m a great respecter of fate.  And this is, ultimately, a family decision.  I think everybody wants me to run, but they’re go- — we’re going to have discussions about it.  And I don’t feel any — any hurry one way or another what — to — to make that judgment today, tomorrow, whenever, no matter what the — my predecessor does.

Q    By end of the year or early next year?  Or what’s your — what’s you’re thinking?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — my guess is — I hope Jill and I get a little time to actually sneak away for a week around — between Christmas and Thanksgiving.  (Laughs.)  And my guess is it would be early next year we make that judgment.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  But it is my plan to do it now.  I mean, but — you know.

Okay, I’m sorry.  Karen.  Karen Travers of ABC Radio.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  WNBA star Brittney Griner today was moved to a Russian penal colony to serve out her nine-year sentence.  Do you have an update right now on her condition?  What do you know about that?  And does this mark a new phase in negotiations with the Russians to secure her release?  Can the U.S. now fully engage in talks on a prisoner swap?

And then a follow-up, if I can.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’ve been — we’ve been engaging on a regular basis.  I’ve been — I’ve been spending a fair amount of time with — with her wife about what’s going on with her.

And my guess is — my hope is that now that the election is over, that Mr. Putin will be able to discuss with us and be willing to talk more seriously about a prisoner exchange.

That is my intention.  My intention is to get her home.  And we’ve had a number of discussions so far.  And I’m hopeful that, now that our election is over, there is a willingness to — to negotiate more specifically with us.

Thank you.

Q    And, if I can, your Press Secretary had said that the U.S. government has continued to follow up on that significant offer but also had proposed “alternative potential ways forward” with the Russians.  Can you tell us what those “alternative ways forward” are and how Russia has responded to those?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I can, but I won’t.  Okay, I can’t — I mean, you know, it would — it would not be a wise thing to do in order to see if they would move forward.

But it is my — I’m telling you, I am determined to get her home and get her home safely — along with others, I might add.

April Ryan.

Q    Of TheGrio.

THE PRESIDENT:  Of TheGrio.  Excuse me.  I beg your pardon.

Q    (Laughs.)  Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  I got it right last time we did this.

Q    Yes, you did.  Yes, you did.

Mr. President, I have a couple of questions on several issues.  One, the Supreme Court.  As you know, the Supreme Court has before it the issue of college admissions and affirmative action.  What can and are you planning in case of a rollback that is expected?

There are legal analysts that say that there will be drastic implications, there are tentacles from this, and they even say that this can impact Brown v. Board — the decision from Brown v. Board.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you know, first of all, I asked our Justice Department to defend the present policy before the Supreme Court.  And like a lot of pundits, I’m not prepared to believe that the Supreme Court is going to overrule the pre- — the existing decision.  That’s far from certain.  And I don’t be- — I don’t believe that.

But number one — so, number one, what I did to try to change it is object to it before the Supreme Court of the United States — our administration.

Number two, I — there are a number of things that we can and must do to make it — and, by the way, this is a case involving an Asian American, in terms of getting into school, and whether there’s affirmative action makes sense at all from the standpoint of those who are arguing against it.

But, you know, the fact is that we’re — we’re also in a circumstance where there’s a lot that we can do in the meantime to make sure that there’s an access to good education across the board.  And that is by doing things that relate to starting education at age three — formal schooling at age three — which it increases — not daycare, but school.  All the studies over 10 years show that that increases the prospect of someone making it through 12 years without any difficulty, no matter what the background they come from, by 56 percent.

And I also think that we should be making sure that we have the ability to provide for two years of education beyond that, whether it’s apprenticeships or community colleges.

And we also are in a situation where I think that — for example, I want to make sure we — a lot of it has to do with finances as well — that we make sure that we have help for people who come from modest means to be able to get to school.

You know, the cost of college education has increased fourfold.  And it used to be that a Pell Grant would cover something like 70 percent of the college tuition.  Now it covers significantly less than that.  So I want to increase the Pell Grants as well.

But let’s see what the Supreme Court decides.  And I’m — I am hopeful.  And our team and our — the lawyers who argued for us are not nearly as certain as the people you quoted as saying it’s going to be overruled.

Q    Next question, sir.  The issue is inflation.  TheGrio and KFF conducted a study of Black voters that said inflation was the number one issue, and we saw it in this midterm election.

What can you promise concretely in these next two years that will help turn the pocketbook for the better in the midst of staving off a recession?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, a number of things.  First of all, un- — Black unemployment is almost cut in half under my administration just since I began.  More Black businesses have opened up — small businesses — than ever before.

We’re now in a situation where we’re providing, through the Small Business Administration, down payments for people buying homes, because most people accumulate wealth in the value of their home, most middle-class families like mine.  My dad bought a home, didn’t have — just scraped together to get a home.  By the time he was able to retire, he was — he had built up equity in a home.  That’s how most people do that.

And so — but what I can’t do is I can’t guarantee that we’re going to be able to get rid of inflation, but I do think we can.

We brought — we’ve already brought down the price of gasoline about $1.20 a gallon across the board.  And I think that the — the — the — the oil companies are really doing the nation a real disservice.

They’ve made — six of them made over $100 billion in the last quarter in profit.  A hundred billion dollars.

In the past, if they had done the two things that they had done before — one, invest in more refineries and producing more product and/or passing on the rebates to the gas stations that — you know, they sell the oil at a cheaper rate than they have to — than they are selling it now, not taking advantage.  And that lowers the price of the total gallon of gas because that gets passed on.

So there’s a whole lot of things that we can do that are — that are difficult to do, but we’re going to continue to push to do them.

And the other thing is that one of the things that makes a gigantic difference is what are the costs that exist in the average family and the average Black community.  One, prescription drug costs.  Well, we’re driving those down precipitously, beginning next year.

And, you know, I’ll bet you know a lot of people in the African American and — and Caucasian community that — that need to take insulin for diabetes.  Well, we’re going to reduce that cost.  They’re not going to pay more than $35 for the insulin instead of four- — average of $400.

And I can go down the list of the things that — my dad used to say it a different way.  At the end of the month, the things you have to pay for, from your mortgage to food on the table to gasoline in the automobile, do you have enough money to do it?  And when it’s done, do you have anything left over?  And medical bills are a big piece of that, particularly in the African American community and the poor — and poorer communities.  They need help.

And so we’re driving down all of those costs.  And we’ve already passed the legislation to do that; it’s just taking effect.

So there’s a lot of things we can do to affect the things that people need on a monthly basis to reduce their inflation, their cost of living.

And so — but I am optimistic, because we continue to grow and at a rational pace, we’re not anywhere near a recession right now, in terms of the growth.  But I think we can have what most economists call a “soft landing.”  I’m convinced that we’re going to be able to gradually bring down prices so that they, in fact, end up with us not having to move into a recession to be able to get control of inflation.

Q    And, Mr. President, last question on humanity.  I know, everybody else got some.

Q    Not everybody else.

Q    Well, you’re coming.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, go ahead.

Q    Last question on humanity.  Sir, you can’t legislate and you can’t executive order out the issue of empathy or the lack thereof in the midst of this rhetoric — this heated political rhetoric.  What’s next?

THE PRESIDENT:  Part of what I think leadership requires — and I hope I meet the standard — is letting people know you understand their problem.

Again, my dad used to have an expression.  He said, “I don’t expect the government to solve my problems, but I expect them to at least know what they are, understand them.”

And like a lot of you, we’ve been very fortunate as a family, but we’ve also been through a lot of fairly tough times.  And it’s not — and I’ve had the great advantage of having a family to get through them.

When my first wife and daughter were killed when a tractor trailer broadsided them and killed my wife and — killed my — my first wife and killed my daughter, and my two boys were expected to die; they were in the — it took the Jaws of Life three hours to get them out.  They were on top of their dead mother and dead sister.

I understand what that pain is like.

And when Jill and I lost Beau after a year in Iraq, winning the Bronze Star and Conspicuous Service Medal, a major in the United States military, came home with Stage 4 glioblastoma because he lived about 200, 5- — between 2- and 500 yards from burn pit that’s 10 feet deep and as big as a football field, burning every toxic waste you could find.

You know, I think that we — we understand what it’s like to lose family members, mothers, fathers, to can- — all of you have been through that kind of thing.

We’ve been fortunate, though.  We’ve had each other.  We’ve had strong families — Jill’s sisters, my brothers, my sister.

And so what we can do to deal with that empathy is make sure there’s help available, make sure there’s people who are there to help — whether they are a psychologist or whether they’re medical doctors or whether they’re social workers — to be there to help, to help just hold a hand.

And, for example, we can do an awful lot for a lot of families, the families you’re talking about, if we re- — reinstate this Child Tax Credit.  It cut child poverty by 40 percent when it was in place.  I couldn’t get it passed the second time around.

So there’s a lot we can do.  And the empathy is not just talking about it, it’s communicating to people you genuinely understand.  And I hope a lot of people don’t understand, because they — I don’t want people having to know the pain.

But the second piece of that is: Let them know that you are there to help.  You’re there to help.

And one of the things I’ve talked with Vivek Murthy about — and a lot of you have written about it, and you’ve written it well about it — is the need for mental health care in America.  You know, when we got elected, there were something like, I don’t know, 2-, 3-, 5 million people who had gotten their — their COVID shots.

Well, in the meantime — I’ve got over 220 million people all three shots.  But in the meantime, what happened?  We lost over a million dead.  A million dead.

I read one study that for those million people, they had nine people who were — each one of them had, on average, nine people close to them.  A relative, someone they’re married to, a child — someone close.

The impact has been profound.  It’s been profound.  Think of all the people — think of all your children or your grandchildren who didn’t have that senior prom, who didn’t have that graduation party, who didn’t have all the things we had that we took for granted — the impact on their psyche.

So, there’s a lot we have to do.  And empathy reflects itself not just on what a person demonstrates they understand — of knowing what people need and helping to make it happen.  And we’re trying to do that.  And a lot of Republicans are trying to do it, too.  I don’t mean this is a partisan thing.  A lot of people are trying to do it because they know we got a problem.

Okay, excuse me.  These 10 questions are really going quickly.  (Laughter.)

Q    Stick around for more.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Well, I’ve got to meet with some of my — talk to some of the Republican leadership soon.  But — anyway.

Jenny Leonard, Bloomberg.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Two questions.  One, shifting back to your trip to Asia.  When you meet with President Xi Jinping of China, will you tell him that you’re committed to defending Taiwan militarily?  And what are you hoping to get out of this meeting that will make it a success?  Are you willing to make any concessions to him?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’m not — I’m not willing to make any fundamental concessions because what I — what I’ve told him in the beginning — and this is — we’ve — I’ve spent over 78, I think they told me, hours with him so far — 67 in person, when I was Vice President.

President Obama knew he couldn’t spend time with the Vice President of another country, so I traveled 17,000 miles with them in China and around — and the United States.  I’ve met with him many times.

And I’ve told him: I’m looking for competition, not — not conflict.

And so what I want to do with him when we talk is lay out what the — what kind of — what each of our red lines are, understand what he believes to be in the critical national interests of China, what I know to be the critical interests of the United States, and to determine whether or not they conflict with one another.  And if they do, how to resolve it and how to work it out.

And so — and the Taiwan doctrine has not changed at all from the very beginning — the very beginning.  So, I’m sure we’ll discuss China — excuse me, Taiwan.  And I’m sure we’ll discuss a number of other issues, including fair trade and — and rela- — relationships relating to his relationship with other countries in the region.

And — and so, anyway.  So there’s a lot we’re going to have to discuss.

Do you want another question?

Q    Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody else got one.

Q    You didn’t say if —

THE PRESIDENT:  Or two or three.

Q    You didn’t say if you will tell Xi Jinping personally that you are committed to defending Taiwan.

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m going to have that conversation with him.

Q    That wasn’t my second one, sorry.  (Laughter.)

Sorry, I actually have an unrelated question too.  Mr. President, do you think Elon Musk is a threat to U.S. national security?  And should the U.S. — and with the tools you have — investigate his joint acquisition of Twitter with foreign governments, which include the Saudis?

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  I think that Elon Musk’s cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at.  Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate, I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that it wor- — worth being looked at.  And — and — but that’s all I’ll say.

Q    How?

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a lot of ways.

All right.  Kristen.  Kristen Welker.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, Mr. President.  I appreciate it.

I want to follow up with you on working with Republicans.  Leader McCarthy again suggested that he is not prepared to write what he has called a “blank check” to Ukraine.  And yet, you expressed optimism that funding for Ukraine would continue, that the policies toward Ukraine would continue.  Why should the people of Ukraine and this country have confidence in that, given the comments by Leader McCarthy?

And just to follow up with you on your comments to Zeke, you said you don’t need to do anything differently.  If Republicans control the House, don’t you need to recalibrate, to some extent, to try to work across the aisle with a Republican-led House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me put it this way.  What I meant was: I don’t have to change any of the policies that have already passed.  That’s what they said they want to go after.

And so, what I have is a simple proposition: I have a pen that can veto.  Okay?  So, that’s what I mean.  I don’t have to recalibrate whether or not I’m going to continue to, you know, fund the — we’re going to continue to fund the infrastructure bill or we’re going to continue to fund the environment, et cetera.

What — we have to — I hope — I think there’s a growing pressure, on the part of the American people, expecting both parties and all elements of both parties to — to work out their substantive differences and not just, “I’m not going to do that because it would benefit that party.”  Just make it — make it personal.

So, I — and, you know, it remains to be seen what the makeup of the House will be.  But I’m hopeful that Kevin and I can work out a modus vivendi as to how we’ll proceed with one another.

Q    So, will aid to Ukraine continue uninterrupted?

THE PRESIDENT:  That is my expectation.  And, by the way, we’ve not given Ukraine a blank check.  There’s a lot of things that Ukraine wants we didn’t — we didn’t do.

For example, I was asked very much whether we prefe- — we’d provide American aircraft to guarantee the skies over Ukraine.  I said, “No, we’re not going to do that.  We’re not going to get into a third world war, taking on Russian aircraft and directly engage.”  But would we provide them with all — the rational ability to defend themselves?  Yes.

We provide those HIMARS.  Well, the HIMARS — there’s two kinds of, in the average person’s parlance, rockets you can drop in those: one that goes over 600 miles and one that goes about 160 miles.  We didn’t give them any ones that go to 600 miles, because I’m not looking for them to start bombing Russian territory.

And so, we want to make sure that there’s a relationship that they’re able to defend themselves and take on what is purely a — a — the ugliest aggression that’s occurred since World War Two on a massive scale, on the part of Putin, within Ukraine.  And there’s so much at stake.

So, I would be surprised if — if Leader McCarthy even has a majority of his Republican colleagues who say they’re not going to fund the legitimate defensive needs of Ukraine.

Q    And just quick one.  Obviously, a lot of attention on 2024 now that the votes have been cast in the midterms.  Two thirds of Americans in exit polls say that they don’t think you should run for reelection.  What is your message to them?  And how does that factor into your final decision about whether or not to run for reelection?

THE PRESIDENT:  It doesn’t.

Q    What’s your message to them — to those two thirds of Americans?

THE PRESIDENT:  Watch me.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  One more.  (Laughter.)  Very quickly.  You saw Governor Ron DeSantis with a resounding victory in Florida last night.  Who do you think would be the tougher competitor: Ron DeSantis or former President Trump?  And how is that factoring into your decision?

THE PRESIDENT:  It’d be fun watching them take on each other.  (Laughter.)

All right.  David Sanger.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I also have a question for you about China.  But before I do, I just wanted to follow up on something you said earlier when you said “it remains to be seen whether” the Ukraine government “is prepared to compromise with Russia.”  Previously, you’ve told us the only thing for the Russians to do is get completely out of Ukraine, go back to the — the lines that existed prior to February 24.  Are you suggesting with the word “compromise,” that you think that there is room for territorial compromise now?  That —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I’m not say- — that’s up to the Ukrainians.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

Q    But what kind of compromise do you have in mind?

THE PRESIDENT:  I didn’t have any in mind.  You have asked the question whether or not, if I recall — whether or not — what would happen if, in fact, after the — this — I think the context is that whether or not they’re pulling back from Fallujah.  And the — I mean, from the —

Q    Kherson.

THE PRESIDENT:  Kherson.  The — the city of Kherson.  And they’re coming back across the river to the eastern side of the river — the Russian forces.  And I said what’s going to happen is they’re going to both lick their wounds, decide whether — what they’re going to do over the winter, and decide whether or not they’re going to compromise.

That’s — that’s what’s going to happen, whether or not.  I don’t know what they’re going to do.  And — but I do know one thing: We’re not going to tell them what they have to do.

Q    You were asked before about the — your meeting with President Xi.  At this point, the Chinese government, by the estimate of the Pentagon, is getting ready to bring their force of nuclear weapons up to over 1,000 weapons.  Significant increase from what they’ve had for many decades.  You’ve seen the threats from President Putin about the use of his nuclear forces —

THE PRESIDENT:  Remember how you all went after him when I said that was real?

Q    And what — what, in your view, happened?  Do you think he — he backed off because of that, (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, I’m just saying.  I just — I just found it interesting that, “Biden is being apop- — apoc- –acop- — Biden is being extremist.”  And — and it turns out you all are writing about it now.  Kind of fascinating.

Q    So my question is: Do you think that they are putting together a real alliance, the Chinese and the Russians?  And do you believe that you need to begin speaking with President Xi about some form of arms control if he’s going to get up to a level of weapons similar to what the United States and Russia have right now?

THE PRESIDENT:  No and yes.  No, I don’t think there’s a lot of respect that China has for Russia or for Putin.  I don’t think they’re looking at it as a particular alliance.  Matter of fact, they’ve been sort of keeping their distance a little bit.

I do think that it remains to be seen whether Xi Jinping has decided that — or backed off of his initial judgment that he wanted Ukrai- — excuse me, China to have the most powerful military in the world, as well as the largest economy.

And — but he’s a long way from both.  But I think — I think — talk about nuclear weapons and location and the number of them and access is important to discuss.

Thank you all so very, very much.

(Cross-talk by reporters.)

Thank you very, very much.  We’ll do another — we’ll do another hour a little later.  Thank you so much.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.

[End Transcript]



WARNING: Legacy Media and RINOs Are Trying to Force Ron DeSantis into Fight to Dethrone President Trump

Biden vows ‘nothing’ different in next two years despite majority saying US headed in ‘wrong direction’

Arizona Announces Election Results Delayed AGAIN ….. Until Next Week, Maricopa Officials Say

Pennsylvania Elects Dead Democrat

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

COVID Amnesty? How About Unconditional Surrender?

Brown University professor Emily Oster has created quite a stir with her recent article asking for a “pandemic amnesty.” In it, she calls for “both sides” in the COVID debate to forgive each other so we can focus on solving current problems. If Oster wanted exposure, she certainly got it, with commentators far and wide responding to her plea. If she wanted to heal wounds and close chasms, however, she failed miserably. Many have told her to go pound sand.

Genuine calls for forgiveness are noble, but, Professor Oster, you (and your critics) miss a significant point here: Forgiveness does not obviate punishment. Were it otherwise, following Jesus’s “70×7” prescription would mean emptying the prisons and hurting our beloved children by never holding them accountable for misbehavior.

So I’ll do my best to forgive, Professor Oster, but forgetting? No! I speak for many in saying that your plea is rejected — and offensive. And for there to be even the beginning of a rapprochement, there are two requirements (I’ll speak in this piece of “two sides” even though, of course, there’s much variation within each):

  1. You must hand over your “leaders” for judgment and justice.
  2. You must issue a genuine mea culpa and demonstrate that you’ve learned from your mistakes.

This matters immensely. Many on my side are angry, but I’ll nonetheless do what I and others did during the pandemic — not what you did, professor. I’ll react based on reason and not emotion and say that I’m not seeking retribution, viscerally pleasurable though it may be. And reason’s application informs that, as Herbert Spencer put it, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” Thus must the foolish and often fiendish pandemic puppeteers be in the dock — and thus must their erstwhile puppets demonstrate that they’ve learned from the past.

Unfortunately, though, professor, you appear to have learned virtually nothing. You speak as if the COVID battles were some kind of mutual misunderstanding that degenerated into an ugly rift. This is yet another slap in the face. There was nothing mutual about it, not in terms of misunderstandings or malevolence or power or persecution.

Though many of us counseled against COVIDian madness, my side was content to let you and your fellow travelers wear a mask, or three masks; take a genetic-therapy agent (GTA) shot, or five; social distance by six feet, or 60; shut down your businesses and lock yourselves indoors for one month, or six; and generally behave like mysophobic Chicken Littles. But that wasn’t good enough.

Not only did you impose your mask empire and distancing fancies on us, but you shut down our businesses as part of a COVID regulation regime; destroyed livelihoods; impoverished people; caused untold numbers of lockdown-induced, secondary-effect deaths; and tried coercing us into taking the GTAs under pain of career destruction, firing tens of thousands of Americans who resisted your will. Why, CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen, cheered on by millions of you and speaking for many more, actually said that people such as me, GTA realists, should be prohibited from participating in society and banished to our homes. You also censored us when we dared explain our dissent, said we were killing people and impugned our character and patriotism.

By the way, Wen more recently renounced much COVIDian theology and wrote an article about how she no longer believes in masking children because her young son suffered mask-induced developmental problems. Yet as with you, professor, she issues no apology for her ill-informed, life-rending prescriptions.

Speaking of which, Professor Oster, you wrote of our correct prescriptions that in “the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing.” “We didn’t know,” you protested. Well, speak for yourself, professor.

Of course, some did oppose COVID regulations based purely on a desire for liberty or relied on instinct. Yet a twist on a famous saying comes to mind here: The more I research, the “luckier” I get.

Was it luck, professor, when I cited Dr. Knut Wittkowski — former longtime head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at the Rockefeller University in New York City — as warning in an April 1st and 2nd, 2020 interview that lockdowns were counterproductive? He also provided sage but unheeded prescriptions for managing the disease.

Was it luck, professor, when I cited experts as saying in February 2020 that the vast majority of us will contract the coronavirus, that most cases are mild and that “vaccines” wouldn’t save us? This information, by the by, was printed in the liberal Atlantic, the very magazine that published your piece! Did you miss it?

Was it luck, professor, when I cited early data out of Italy showing that the COVID mortality victims were aged 79.5 on average and more than 99 percent had comorbidities, again indicating that it wasn’t a disease imperiling the majority? Was it luck when I, presenting research, warned in 2020-’21 of masks’ lack of efficacy and the perils they pose, especially to the young? I could mention additional data, studies and experts I and others drew upon, but the point is this:

You could have known, professor. But you didn’t show due diligence. You had your head buried in establishment media and wouldn’t pay any mind to those who dared contradict it. Hey, only Ivy League input need apply, right, professor?

This matters because the problem isn’t that you fell victim to COVID propaganda; it’s that you’re the kind of person who could fall victim to COVID propaganda. And unless this changes — unless you learn from past mistakes — you’ll just make similar ones again during a future crisis. In fact, we see the same phenomena even now with climate change.

You also say, professor, that we should be willing to move on because most of those adopting bad policy had good intentions. Yet even if this were true, it’s irrelevant. A doctor can have the absolute best intentions but still be sued into oblivion for malpractice.

What of your claim, however? Does it reflect good intentions

  • when politicians, such as Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), imposed onerous COVID restrictions on us but then arrogantly violated those rules themselves?
  • when officials said we knew little about a “novel” virus but then made continual cocksure pronouncements and, colluding with Big Tech, censored anyone contradicting them (including the aforementioned Dr. Wittkowski)?
  • when an effort was launched to turn COVID “heretics” into second-class citizens?
  • when even today some schools have GTA mandates for young people, despite the well-known health risks?
  • when Dr. Anthony Fauci and other officials continually lied to America while accusing dissenters of peddling “misinformation”?

Of course, it’s true that man is complex and people rationalize — aka, lie to themselves — perhaps more than they lie to others. But if the above is the result of good intentions, professor, who needs bad ones?

The point, however, is that these COVIDian “leaders,” such as Fauci and Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.), must be held to account and not survive, in power, to tyrannize another day. Yet our pseudo-elites instead continue to fail upwards, with your support, professor. But, then, you enjoy the same benefits, don’t you? Why, you say you’re now actually co-teaching a college class on COVID. Talk about an idiocracy!

In conclusion, Professor Oster, you opened your article mentioning that in “April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes.” This brings us to my response to your amnesty proposal: You can go take another one.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: No chance of pandemic amnesty for enforcers of false COVID narrative

Governors who care about freedom must adopt the ‘DeSantis Model’ before 2024

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” — entry in Winston Smith’s diary, from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

After the 2022 midterm elections is has become clear that there is a winning model for elections at the state level. This model is based upon understanding what people really want and then giving it to them. What people want the most is freedom. Freedom to make their personal decisions when it comes to healthcare, education, the economy, careers, investments and who represents them.

The who represents them is key in that it demands that elections from the school house to the White House be both free and fair.

QUESTION: How do we get there?

ANSWER: The DeSantis Model!

We call this back to the future model the “DeSantis Model” because it fully implements the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Founding Fathers wanted limited government at the Federal level and vast powers invested in the states and the people.

The DeSantis Model

The DeSantis Model, like the U.S. Constitution, is based upon three imperatives:

  1. Faith
  2. Family
  3. Freedom

Take away any one of these imperatives and you are violating the intent of the Tenth Amendment and thereby destroy our Constitutional Republican form of government.

Here’s how governors, using the Tenth Amendment get to the DeSantis Model in just one tweet:

Does the DeSantis Model Work?

After the midterm election results were in it was clear that the DeSantis Model is a winner. Listen to Governor DeSantis’ victory speech to understand why and how his model works and works well for the people of Florida.

It’s about freeing the people. Giving the people the power to make their own decisions, good or bad, and paying the consequences of either success or failure.

Government only exists to serve the people. Whenever government looks at the people as servants to itself then you have discord, division and conflict.

The well being of Americans has always been in the hands of the individual voter. It is critical to insure that the voters are heard.

The Bottom Line

Here’s a video titled “The ‘F’ word” given by American author, energy theorist, industrial policy pundit and founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress  Alex Epstein. It lays out why the DeSantis Model inextricably leads to human prospering, which leads to winning culturally, socially and politically.

Governors must dedicate themselves to their people and empower them to make decisions that are right for themselves, their families and the community. The key word is responsibility. Taking responsibility for one’s actions is key and this ends up in how elections are conducted and their consequences.

Live free or die is not just a slogan it’s the truth! Today telling the truth has become a revolutionary act.

Please share this column with your family, friends your elected leaders from school boards, to the City and County Commissions, to your State Legislators to your Governor, to your member of Congress in Washington, D.C. and on your social media sites.

Remember 2+2=4.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Tucker Carlson joins the STOP-MCCARTHY movement led by Florida Freedom Action

DeSantis Laughs in the Face of Reporter Trying to Tear Him Down

RELATED PODCAST: Time for DeSantis-style leadership in Congress


Free Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips

An important message from the editors of Frontpage:

It’s clear: They’ve been jailed for telling the unwelcome truth about the state of our elections today.

In yet another of the Left’s increasingly brazen miscarriages of justice, Monday, November 7 will mark a week since the leaders of True the Vote, Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, were imprisoned in Houston for refusing to disclose the identity of an FBI informant. But as is always the case with the Left, there is much more to this case than that: the imprisonment of Engelbrecht and Phillips is part of the Left’s efforts to cover up its own election crimes. Engelbrecht and Phillips are deeply committed patriots; the Freedom Center was privileged to help Catherine Engelbrecht launch True the Vote in its first promotional video, which was filmed in David Horowitz’s living room with David as its endorser.

These are heroic individuals on the frontline of the battle for American democracy, and now that they’re directly in the Left’s crosshairs, they should be supported by every patriot.

Engelbrecht and Phillips have maintained, quite rightly, that whenever they have acceded to demands to reveal their sources in the past, the Left has doxed and harassed those sources. It’s also quite clear that this legal harassment that Engelbrecht and Phillips are experiencing right now is designed to distract attention from and obscure what they’ve discovered about severe vulnerabilities in our elections process. Once again, Leftists are covering up their own misdeeds.

The Texas Tribune reported last Monday that Engelbrecht and Phillips will “remain in jail until they release the name of the man.” They’re bearing up well: on Wednesday, according to Gateway Pundit, “Catherine delivered an audiotaped message from prison to thank all of her and Gregg’s supporters for their ‘prayers and kind messages of support.’ Engelbrecht announced that they are appealing their cases to the Fifth Circuit Court and are praying for a good result. She also asked that Americans remain focused on the upcoming election and encourage everyone they know to vote. She ended her message by saying, ‘God bless America. And I’ll see you soon…’”

We hope so. They’re in prison now as the result of what they discovered about the 2020 election, and their release would be a small measure of justice amid the monstrous wrongs that were committed during that election and are still being committed today. The Texas Tribune notes that Konnech, an “election management software company,” filed suit True the Vote, claiming that its allegations against Konnech’s founder and CEO, Eugene Yu, “led to personal threats to him and his family and damaged his company’s business.” This is a familiar Leftist tactic: when exposed or even simply criticized, claim that the negative coverage has exposed you to threats of violence from the unhinged “right-wing extremists” that loom so large in Leftist propaganda but are so hard to find in real life.

What’s really going on is an attempt to cover up what Engelbrecht and Phillips have discovered. “In podcasts and interviews,” the Tribune reports, “Phillips described a dramatic night in early 2021 in a Dallas hotel, where a man he later identified as Mike Hasson revealed what True the Vote has said was hard evidence of Konnech’s alleged influence on the 2020 election.” True the Vote found evidence that Konnech “had stored American poll worker data on a server in China.”

Meanwhile, the charges that True the Vote have made against Konnech have been demonstrated to be accurate by an unlikely source: the Los Angeles district attorney’s office. Eugene Yu “is facing felony charges of grand theft by embezzlement and conspiracy to commit a crime. The Los Angeles district attorney’s office said Yu and Konnech violated the company’s contract with Los Angeles County by illegally giving contractors in China access to data that was supposed to be stored only in the United States. Yu has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that even if the charges are true, they aren’t criminal. Los Angeles prosecutors have acknowledged receiving an early tip from Phillips.”

So True the Vote uncovered evidence that China had access to American elections data. That’s the real reason why they’re in prison today, and why it is such an immense injustice that they are. Just as Leftists have woven an elaborate fantasy of a January 6 “insurrection” in an attempt to defame, discredit and destroy Donald Trump and his supporters, so also they’re doing everything they possibly can to keep the full truth about their chicanery in the 2020 election from coming out. One supporter of Engelbrecht and Phillips summed it up succinctly: “This is what tyranny looks like.”

Yes, it is. And it must not stand. Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips must be freed immediately, without being required to disclose the name of their confidential informant. The American people are watching Joe Biden’s Justice Department closely, and more and more people are realizing that there is a two-tier justice system: one to protect Leftists such as Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton, no matter how serious their crimes may be, and another to persecute patriots who still believe in the promise our free republic offers. Attorney General Garland: End this injustice now. Free True the Vote.


EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.