Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

In Trump v. United States, the US Supreme Court set up a three tiered system for examining claims of Presidential immunity.  The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.”  The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity.  The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. 

That case involved the indictment brought by Jack Smith in Washington DC federal District Court, which sought to criminalize former President Trump’s efforts to combat potential voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election, and his actions on January 6, 2021.  The Court found that Donald Trump’s conversations with the US Attorney General and other Justice Department officials were subject to absolute immunity, but his efforts to convince Vice President Mike Pence to delay certification of the election results may be subject to only a presumption of immunity.  Further, Trump’s comments and speech on January 6th may have been made in his capacity as a candidate for office, and not in his official capacity as President.  Therefore, the case was returned to District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin to determine which acts were official, which were not, and whether the presumption of immunity can be rebutted by Jack Smith’s prosecutors.

While we await the DC District Court’s evaluation, the Supreme Court’s decision has opened another door for the Trump defense team.  Building upon the ruling in Trump v. United States, a motion to reverse the verdict in New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Term, has been filed with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

As we recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government,  “[b]ased on my experience, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that former President Trump did not receive a fair trial from Judge Juan Merchan.  In fact…Donald Trump’s conviction is assured reversal, a reversal that will be premised upon the fundamental errors committed by Judge Juan Merchan. If I may be blunt – Donald Trump was railroaded, and Juan Merchan was the driver of that train.” 

Our statement outlined the most significant errors committed by Judge Merchan, but we also mentioned that there were other mistakes which could lead an appellate court to reverse Donald Trump’s conviction.  Now, using the language contained in the Supreme Court’s opinion, another avenue has opened up which may lead to Judge Merchan reversing the conviction himself.

Significant to our analysis here is the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case; “Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.”

The Court notes that “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.'”  In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.”

The Chief Justice explains the basis for this ruling. “If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated…[t]he President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decision making will be distorted.”

Judge John H. Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

In 2022, Bishop Garrison, the senior advisor to the secretary of defense for human capital and diversity, equity and inclusion. said the “need for diversity, equity and inclusion should be a consideration or a part of all decisions in the military.”

A Tampa Free Press story notes that he U.S. military and Pentagon have turned into a “vast DEI bureaucracy under the Biden administration. The Biden administration has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives…since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.”

The report is based on an Arizona University study which stated “The sole purpose of the U.S. Armed Forces is to defend the nation against its external enemies. The service academies train officers committed to fulfilling this mission. This mission—defense of the nation—makes the U.S. Armed Forces arguably the most important institution in the United States…Given its importance, the U.S. Armed Forces should not be a laboratory for social experimentation, especially one based on Critical Race Theory, a contentious and abstract social theory. Yet, as this Commission Report on Civic Education in the Military shows in great detail, Critical Race Theory is promoted within Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training throughout the military from the Pentagon through the ranks and in our service academies. Critical Race Theory is based on an assumption that no matter what progress is made on ensuring equal rights for minorities, ‘white privilege’ and ‘sub-conscious’ racism continues to prevail among whites, no matter their professed support for diversity and inclusion in their workplace, community, or immediate and extended families. Critical Race Theory assumes that racism is systemic from the very founding of the United States and that the U.S. Constitution was drafted to ensure the white privilege of slaveholders. Whatever the appearance of progress—constitutional amendments and legislation to protect equal rights for racial minorities—is a façade that still preserves white privilege. Critical Race Theory is based on assumptions, not empirically derived evidence, and is by nature divisive. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, which rely on Critical Race Theory, should not be seen as workplace sensitivity training.”

Its not only about DEI. In a press release issued on June 12, The Department of Defense Announced “Environmental Justice Listening Sessions…to solicit input from the public on its environmental justice (EJ) strategy. DOD is updating its EJ Strategy in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, and to pursue a whole-of-government approach to advancing EJ.” 14096 was issued by Biden in 2023.

A 2022 Federal Times study, using data from a Reagan National Defense survey, disclosed that the actions of some  presidents have predominantly caused the perception that the Defense Department is overly politicized. 

Breitbart reports that “The vast majority of U.S. active duty military members believe the Pentagon has become politicized, according to data obtained exclusively by Breitbart News. Sixty-eight percent of active duty members say they have ‘witnessed a growing politicization,’ while 53 percent say the military has become ’too politicized.’  Sixty-eight percent also say such politicization would impact their decision to encourage their children to join the military.”

The politicization comes at a substantial cost. A National Review article reported that “The Department of Defense wants taxpayers to foot a $114 million bill for its ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’  programs. The FY 2024 President’s Budget request demonstrates the DoD’s commitment to DEIA and includes $114.7 million for dedicated diversity and inclusion activities.” 

The cost of politicization is also seen in discouraging enlistment in the military. In 2023, the military fell short of its recruitment goal by an astounding 41,000. A Military Times report stated that “One possibility [for missing recruitment goals]  that is increasingly resonating with veterans is that the military is too ‘woke.’ Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is among a group of Republican senators who have repeatedly blamed recruiting problems on the Biden administration for trying to build a ‘woke Army.’”

Photo: Dept. of Defense

The mission of the Department of Defense is to defend the nation. The pride of the American military is its history of not getting involved in domestic politics.

Its vital role of discouraging enemies from attacking the U.S.  has been fulfilled so far, despite budget challenges. However, many both within and close to the military correctly perceive the armed forces as being focused on and distracted by issues and programs unrelated to its mission.

The issue arose to prominence during the Obama and Biden Administrations. A 2013 Investors article   noted  that Obama cleansed the military  of any officer suspected of “disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters… An important example includes relieving General Carter Ham, who was dismissed as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi. In addition, Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to ‘assist and provide intelligence for’military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham. Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.”

Breitbart listed at least 197 officers relieved of duty by President Obama “for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given….” According to Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who stated that “He’s (Obama) [is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, [the] Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged’.”

The controversy continues under the Biden Administration, with a focus on distracting the services from their core defense mission with unrelated priorities.

Almost immediately after taking office, President Biden focused on emphasizing DEI in the military.

 In January 2021, President Biden signed multiple Executive Orders (E.O.) to advance equity across multiple focus areas:

• E.O. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, January 20, 2021, calls on Federal and DoD agencies to advance equity through identifying and addressing barriers to equal opportunity that underserved communities may face.

 • E.O. 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender – Identity or Sexual Orientation, January 20, 2021, which emphasizes the need to prevent and combat discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation and fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

• E.O. 14004, Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform, January 25, 2021, advances policy that all transgender individuals who wish to serve in the U.S. military and who meet the appropriate standards shall be able to do so openly and free from discrimination.

On June 25, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 14035 (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce), which promotes “the vital role DEIA plays in cultivating a workforce needed to mitigate the threats of tomorrow. Consistent with the government-wide priority for each agency to provide DEIA leadership at the senior-most level, DoD appointed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer (CDIO) who will provide cohesive oversight and integration for DEIA efforts. Increased cohesion and integration allows the Department to strategically approach DEIA beyond the traditional focal areas of demographic representation to better achieve DoD’s broader mission of providing the forces necessary to secure the nation.”

The article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Dept. of Defense

It is long past time for a fresh look at the role of the Democratic Party.

Democrats have engaged in suppression of news they found inconvenient.

They wholly made-up false claims about “Russian Collusion.” Despite the result of intensive investigation indicating that the whole allegation was an intentional fraud by a Democrat campaign, neither the originators of the fraud nor those in Congress who dragged the nonsense on, virtually tearing the nation apart, have ever been punished.

Despite the extreme nature of the moves against the White House since President Trump took office, Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-California 28^th District), Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, crossed a new line when he knowingly uttered blatantly false statements regarding the White House conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  When confronted, Schiff attempted to justify the false statements by calling them “a parody.”

The evidence is now undeniable and clear.  The machinery of the federal government has been hijacked for partisan political purposes by Democrats. The leaders of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI are not elected officials. They are answerable to them. They have done everything possible to stonewall investigations embarrassing to Democrats.

The DOJ as well as its subdivision the Federal Bureau of Investigation, now operates in part as a wing of the Democratic Party. The refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her wanton destruction of federal evidence, the lack of interest in Biden influence peddling, ignoring Senator Schumer’s threats against justices of the United States Supreme Court (as well as the reluctance to provide adequate protection to physically threatened conservative justices), the bizarre tarmac meeting between then-attorney general Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton regarding the Hillary misdeeds,  the extreme measures taken against Trump campaign officials, and more are all overt hits against the concept of an impartial DOJ.

That is just one part of the federal government. While in her position, the Internal Revenue Service’s former Lois Lerner used her office to discriminate and discourage conservatives.  Because of DOJ’s lack of interest, the matter was eventually settled in a civil law suit by discouraged victims.

The financial ties between China and the Biden Administration are well known. The relationship appears to have begun when Hunter Biden flew to China with then-Vice President Joe Biden aboard Air Force 2, and returned home with a vast financial gain, in return for no discernable commercial service.

As described by Sean Hannity of Fox News, “Let’s start with the obvious. We know Chinese nationals, why were they spending millions of dollars and giving private equity deals to Hunter Biden? No expertise that we can find. Nothing on his resume that stood out to us … these Chinese nationals, what were they looking for? They were buying access, meaning buying influence. The question… is, just how much access did they get?” 

Since then, Joe Biden has downplayed Beijing’s rapidly growing military and economic misdeeds and threats. Just one example: during an Iowa campaign stop, he stated, against all contrary evidence, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.”

Chinese communists have already made extensive use of the California Democratic Party to conduct surveillance on American political activity.  Senator Dianne Feinstein’s chauffeur, who according to CBS News, ”also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community (who) even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator” was a Chinese spy, reporting to the Chinese government about local California politics for 20 years. 

The Democratic Party has punished the political opponents. They unlawfully allowed in millions of people from across the world, and in some states issued drivers licenses to many of them which could allow them to register to vote.

 In a recent published article, they discussed putting Trump in a “Bullseye.”

 In Congress, they recently voted against basic legislation that simply sought to ensure that only registered voters could cast ballots.

Democrat leaders hid Biden’s incapacity from the public.

Their leadership rigged the primary system.

They have been hesitant to fully condemn antisemitism.

 They have repeatedly disparaged the Supreme Court.

Americans and in  particular, those who support the Democratic Party in 2024, must examine their conscience and decide whether they must change course.

Illustration: Pixabay

After President Joseph Biden retrieved his hat from the ring and decided not to run for a second term, Vice President Kamala Harris, now the candidate,  selected her running mate – Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. CNN reports that “[i]n a remarkable two-week period, Walz ascended from a third-tier candidate to a final contender in the view of Harris and her vetting team. He was propelled by support from across the Democratic Party, progressive and moderate groups alike.” 

Of course, such a quick vetting period could miss certain liabilities in a Walz candidacy.  For instance, according to Breitbart, Walz “has listed on his official biography a higher military rank than the one he ultimately retired with, drawing criticism from some veterans and accusations of stolen valor. Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard and retired at the rank of master sergeant, or an E-8. However, on his official website bio, he lists a higher rank that he served at for a short period that ultimately was rescinded, as he did not complete all the requirements to serve at that rank. However, his bio implies that he retired at the rank of command sergeant major, or an E-9.” 

More disturbing are the statements reported by Breitbart which are made by  retired Army Command Sergeant Majors Thomas Behrends and Paul Herr, both of whom served with Walz.  In a letter co-authored by the two, they write that “[i]n early 2005, a warning order was issued to the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, which included the position [Walz] was serving in, to prepare to be mobilized for active duty for a deployment to Iraq. On May 16th, 2005 [Walz] quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress.” 

This allegation is far more serious than the issue of Stolen Valor. According to Sergeant Major Behrends  “'[a]s soon as the shots were fired in Iraq, [Walz] turned and ran the other way and hung his hat up and quit’…Behrends, [who] replaced Walz on the deployment to Iraq after he quit,” also said, “The public needs to know how pathetic his leadership was as a National Guardsman…He abandoned us. What the hell kind of leader does that?”

Indeed.  Just what kind of a leader is Tim Walz?

Perhaps the best way to determine the man’s qualifications to be Vice President is to review his record as Governor of Minnesota.  First elected in 2018, Walz was in his first term when petty thief George Floyd met his demise while being placed under arrest by Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin.

As the riots that followed the death of Floyd are described by left leaning Vox, “[a]t least two people died during the violence in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, more than 600 arrests were made in the initial days of unrest, and the whole span of rioting and law enforcement response made it one of the most costly and destructive periods of civil unrest in US history. Minneapolis and Saint Paul sustained hundreds of millions of dollars in damage during those riots, and hundreds of buildings were heavily damaged.”  While “Walz wasn’t the main authority in charge of responding to the unrest – that was the task of local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey…[t]he main line of criticism of Walz’s response to the…riots hinges on the time it took for him to deploy the Minnesota National Guard and coordinate with other state and local officials in restoring order.” 

According to Vox, it took Walz several days to authorize the use of the National Guard to control the increasingly violent protests. “Walz…did not sign an executive order authorizing National Guard deployments until…much of the city had shut down, businesses were closed and boarded up to prevent looting, and buildings were smoldering after overnight arsons. [The] night [before Walz sent in the National Guard] saw some of the worst rioting, violence, and arson, as well as one of the indelible scenes of the protests: the breach and burning of the Minneapolis police’s Third Precinct police station. A few hundred National Guard and Minnesota State Patrol officers had been deployed to Minneapolis by then, but were charged with protecting federal buildings and downtown areas of the city, as well as escorting first responders, instead of immediately going to hot spots.”

Even Walz knew his delay in sending in troops was a mistake. “At a press conference…Walz would take responsibility for the state patrol’s mishandling of the [situation], saying, ‘There is absolutely no reason something like this should happen. Calls [for assistance] were made immediately … I failed you last night in that.’”

So far, Tim Walz’ record reveals a leader who failed to act decisively, except when it came to avoiding a call to arms on behalf of his country.  But for those concerned with whether or not a candidate for Vice President of the United States will be respectful of the civil liberties of the American people, the worst aspects of Governor Walz’ history are cause for much trepidation on this score.

In my book, Not Wasting a Crisis, The Lawless Biden Administration,   we describe the extreme responses of mostly-Democrat local and state officials to the Covid-19 pandemic. “[W]e discussed multiple violations of the Constitutional Rights of US citizens and residents by state and local authorities, all under the guise of guarding the health and welfare of their residents…too many state and local governments did not know where the powers of the state end and the rights of the individual begin.  Various ‘stay at home’ orders were promulgated, along with orders to close businesses and churches as ‘nonessential entities,’ as we discussed at length…”

In addition to being governor during the George Floyd riots, Tim Walz was also in charge of Minnesota during the pandemic, and as governor, Walz showed no respect for the freedoms and the basic civil rights of the residents of his state.

In March of 2020, Walz issued a series of Executive Orders which he describes in Emergency Executive Order 20-20; “On March 13, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-01 and declared a peacetime emergency because this pandemic…threatens the lives of Minnesotans, and local resources are inadequate to address the threat. On March 15, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-02 ordering the temporary closure of public schools. On March 16, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-04 ordering the closure of bars, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation.” 

He then went on to order that “[b]eginning on Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:59 pm through Friday, April 10, 2020 at 5:00 pm, all persons currently living within the State of Minnesota are ordered to stay at home or in their place of residence except to engage in the Activities and Critical Sector work set forth below…[a]llowed activities and work performed in the above Critical Sectors should, to the maximum extent possible, be conducted in a manner that adheres to Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Standards and the Minnesota Department of Health and CDC Guidelines related to COVID-19, including social distancing and hygiene…a person who willfully violates this Executive Order is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days.”

These orders, originally intended as temporary measures to “stop the spread,” turned into years of lock downs, mask mandates and other restrictions placed on the freedoms and civil rights of Minnesotans.  As late as May of 2021, in Executive Order 21-22, Walz continued to extend his “Emergency” Orders from March of 2020. “Even as we end public health restrictions across our State, the need for emergency response remains…the pandemic is not over and our work to protect our communities continues…I have determined that the COVID-19 pandemic…continues to endanger life and property in Minnesota, and local resources are inadequate to address the threat. The COVID-19 Peacetime Emergency must therefore continue.” 

As Governor Walz’ handling of the pandemic is described in Reason, “Walz’s coronavirus policies were extremely heavy-handed and restrictive; under his leadership, the state endured the pandemic in a fundamentally anti-libertarian fashion.”  His Executive Orders and multiple restrictions led to “one of the stupidest COVID-19 rules: Diners at restaurants had to wear masks while walking to their table and moving about the establishment but were allowed to go maskless as long as they were eating and drinking… in November and December of 2020, Walz issued and extended orders for restaurants, gyms, and other businesses to shut down. This included outdoor dining service for eating establishments. Over 150 businesses formed the Reopen Minnesota Coalition and urged the governor to relent, but Walz was unmoved.” 

In addition to his draconian Covid restrictions, the governor of Minnesota is best known for his “snitch line,” that is, “[a] hotline set up by Gov. Tim Walz’s administration to monitor compliance with his 2020 stay-at-home order [which] generated thousands of reports from Minnesotans who snitched on their neighbors for things like playing basketball in a park, walking their dogs, and throwing small parties.”  The hotline was “launched in March 2020 and law enforcement continued to monitor it until November, well after the stay-at-home order ended. In October 2020, it was used to alert authorities to a church service that didn’t fit with the governor’s ‘legal requirements.’ This type of complaint was not uncommon.” 

This hot line was not halted until the middle of 2022, long after almost all pandemic restrictions had been lifted. According to Hot Air, “[w]hy did [the snitch line] apparently stop in 2022? Walz faced voters in a re-election campaign, which probably prompted the state to quietly shut down its COVID snitch operations.” 

The use of such a hotline is particularly troubling from a civil liberties standpoint.  Hot Air continues: “If you think the comparison to the Stasi [the East German Secret Police} is overwrought, read the linked 2015 article from Der Speigel. It describes just how the Stasi managed to impose such an effective police state by deputizing everyone to rat each other out. The Stasi understood that they could manipulate slights and grudges between neighbors, co-workers, and even family members to gain leverage over practically anyone and everyone. And it didn’t cost the state a dime to employ most of its subjects as domestic spies.”

In 2023, Walz revealed a certain level of hypocrisy regarding his use of the “snitch line.”  As reported by The Daily Wire, “[t]he hotline flew in the face of the message Gov. Walz sent in 2023 regarding LGBT issues; ‘In Minnesota, we mind our own damn business. We don’t need you in the exam room. We don’t need you telling us who we can love. And we sure don’t need you attacking our teachers, students, and schools.'” 

This hypocrisy continues to the present day; consider these comments made by now-Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz in the context of “reproductive freedom”:  “Some of us are old enough to remember when it was Republicans who were talking about freedom. It turns out now what they meant was that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office. In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn’t make the same choice for ourselves, there’s a golden rule, ‘Mind your own damn business.’” 

The final evidence of Tim Walz’ disdain for the rights and civil liberties of the American people comes during an interview he gave to MSNBC in December of 2022; “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” he stated. 

Infowars puts this comment in perspective: “if the COVID pandemic taught us anything, it’s that the establishment cannot be trusted to dictate what is and isn’t ‘misinformation,’ and that their covert power-hungry motives guide their censorship efforts.” 

If we are to judge Tim Walz by his actions and words, we are left with a portrait of a cowardly, hypocritical totalitarian, someone who will use the power of the state to trample the rights and liberties of those unlucky enough to reside within his jurisdiction. Someone who will cry “freedom” and “mind your own business” when it comes to leftist causes like abortion and LBGTQ rights, but encourage Minnesotans to inform on their neighbors when Walz’ draconian Executive Orders are violated.   We are also left with the impression of someone who cannot be relied upon to either protect the lives and property of these same Minnesota residents, nor to answer the call when his country (and his fellow soldiers) require his service.

Under these circumstances, Kamala Harris has made the right choice of running mate.  She has managed to pick someone for her Vice President who will fit right in with a government that, if elected, would undoubtedly continue the lawless and repressive activities of the Biden Administration.

Judge John H. Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a joint interim staff report titled, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors Colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

We provided Part 1 of the text of the report yesterday, and conclude the report today.

In the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about Biden family influence peddling.1 In issuing a public statement using their official titles, these former intelligence officials sought to cast an explosive New York Post story and Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as “Russian disinformation.”2 President Biden even cited to the statement in a televised debate with President Trump shortly before the election to accuse President Trump of leveling false accusations. 3 As a result, the explosive allegations about Biden family misconduct were buried and millions of Americans cast their votes for president without a full set of facts. The 51 former intelligence officials’ Hunter Biden statement was a blatant political operation from the start. It originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Michael Morell. The Committees’ investigation revealed that without this outreach from Blinken, Morell would not have written the statement.4 Indeed, Morell told the Committees that the Blinken phone call “triggered” his intent to write the statement.5 The statement’s drafters were open about the goal of the project: “[W]e think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate”6 and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”7 The details as revealed by the Committees to date are concerning enough, but as the Committees have continued to investigate the origins of the Hunter Biden statement, new information has come to light. Through newly obtained internal CIA emails and testimonial evidence, the Committees have uncovered more information on the extent to which the intelligence community was involved in the statement. Specifically, the evidence shows:

High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication.8 Because several former senior intelligence officials signed the statement, the PCRB sent the draft statement to the CIA’s then-Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis, who said he subsequently informed then-Director Haspel or thenDeputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop that the statement would be published soon.9 Senior CIA leadership had an opportunity at that time to slow down the CIA’s process for reviewing publication submissions and ensure that such an extraordinary statement was properly vetted.10

Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication. 11 Throughout the course of the Committees’ investigation, the signatories claimed to not have had access to any classified information when asserting that the allegations surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation.12 However, at the time of the statement’s publication, at least two signatories—Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors. Due to purported operational concerns, the CIA declined to declassify the entire universe of signatories who were on active contract. In addition, some signatories to the Hunter Biden statement also had special “Green Card” access to the CIA at the time of the statement’s publication, allowing them to gain entry to secure CIA facilities.

After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.”13 At least one employee found it “[i]nteresting to see what was submitted and approved” when discussing media talking points that the statement’s co-author, former Senior Intelligence Service Officer Marc Polymeropoulos, submitted related to the statement.14 When discussing Polymeropoulos’s talking points, another CIA official stated, “It appears [Polymeropoulos] is actively involved in a pro-Biden campaign and may be disclosing classified information in his efforts.”15 The CIA’s internal review board, known as the Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB), determined that Polymeropoulos’s talking points contained classified information that had to be removed prior to publication.16

The new information included in this report, based on new testimony and declassified documents, shows the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community. In the waning days before the 2020 presidential election, 51 intelligence community officials rushed to draft and release a statement using their official titles, presumably to convey access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. The statement was conceived following a conversation with a senior Biden campaign official and designed explicitly to provide talking points to the Biden campaign to discredit politically damaging allegations. Some of the signatories of the statement were on the CIA payroll at the time as contractors and others had special access to CIA facilities. Even Michael Morell—before the Committees learned of his contract with the CIA—acknowledged, “It’s inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor to be involved in the political process.”

The infamous Hunter Biden statement had all the hallmarks of an intelligence community influence operation. But rather than carrying it out against our adversaries on foreign soil, this operation was directed at the American people and our democratic processes. It is impossible to know for certain how events would have played out differently if these 51 intelligence community officials never sought to influence the 2020 election. All the Committees may do now is present the facts as known to inform legislative reforms to protect our democratic ideals and prevent future abuse of the intelligence community for partisan political benefit.

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have released a joint interim staff report titled, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors Colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

We provide the text of the report:

The report reveals new information detailing how the highest levels of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” by 51 former intelligence officials prior to its approval and publication. The report reveals important new facts, such as how some of the statement’s signatories, including former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the Hunter Biden statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

“We knew that the rushed statement from the 51 former intelligence officials was a political maneuver between the Biden campaign and the intelligence community. Now with this interim report, we reveal how officials at the highest levels of the CIA were aware of the statement and CIA employees knew that several of the so-called former officials were on active contract with the CIA. The report underscores the risks posed by a weaponized federal government,” said Chairman Jim Jordan.

“The House Intelligence Committee’s work provided us with solid direct evidence that in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to falsely cast doubt on an explosive New York Post story and label Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as ‘Russian disinformation.’ The Committee worked to obtain classified documents from the CIA, including emails, and fought to include evidence of these materials in our report,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner.

BACKGROUND:

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden. Five days later, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials signed on to a public statement that stated that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” in an attempt to discredit the New York Post’s reporting.
 
Since April 2022—and renewed in January 2023, when Republicans resumed control of the House of Representatives—the Committees have been conducting oversight into the origins of this statement. The Committees wrote to all 51 former officials requesting relevant documents and testimony.

The Committees’ first joint interim staff report revealed how the now-infamous and discredited Hunter Biden statement originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell to provide talking points and cover for the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about the Biden family’s influence peddling. Morell’s testimony also exposed that the goal of the statement was to aid President Biden in the final debate of the 2020 presidential campaign.

NEW INFORMATION:

The highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement prior to its publication. CIA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis testified that he informed Director Gina Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release. This sequence of events suggests that senior CIA leadership had ample opportunity to assess the validity of the statement’s claims. Furthermore, the COO’s office appeared to signal approval of the statement in a move that departed from standard Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) protocols.

Additionally, some of the statement’s signatories were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling. Despite claiming they lacked access to classified information at the time, at least two signatories—Michael Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were actively working for the CIA as contractors. This revelation raises concerns that these officials may have abused their positions to expedite the statement’s approval and may have been earning taxpayer dollars while they did it.

Furthermore, officials within the CIA recognized at the time that the Hunter Biden statement was political and would hurt the Agency. The signatories’ decision to leverage their former intelligence community titles to promote a narrative about foreign election interference improperly embroiled the Agency in domestic politics. This report underscores the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Vice President Harris gave a vacuous, vapid acceptance speech that was almost wholly devoid of substance. She attempted to portray herself as a moderate, when in fact she has governed, through five years in the senate and almost four years as vice president, as an extreme radical. Indeed, she was designated, in 2019, as the most liberal senator, even more so than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Ignoring the fact that Democrats have controlled the White House the past four years and twelve of the past sixteen years, she blamed Donald Trump for all the nations ills.  The fact that the media gushed about the speech which was, in essence, an insult to the American people’s ability to remember recent events, is a searing indictment of the biased mainstream news establishment.

The pretension that Trump is the incumbent and she is the challenger was a staple throughout the convention, as was the repeated statements that the GOP sought to ban all abortions.  Add to that the absurd claim that Trump endorses Project 2025, which he has repeatedly and vehemently criticized. As has been widely reported, “Trump said in a Truth Social post he has ‘no idea who is behind’ Project 2025, adding he disagrees with some of the project’s proposals for the next GOP administration and ‘some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.’” There is nothing vague about that comment. The fact that shameless reporters refused to comment on the obvious falsehoods uttered throughout the four days in Chicago is despicable.

Harris alleged that she would keep America safe. How? By voting against adequate military budgets, as she has throughout her career? She pledged to secure the border. Really? As border czar, she presided over the largest influx of illegal immigrants in U.S. history.

There was barely any mention of the incongruity of her comments. 

Similarly, much was made of how Barack Obama gave a great speech.  Which part? When he made references to the penis size of the Republican candidate? Laughably, the former president exclaimed that “Our politics have become so polarized these days that all of us across the political spectrum seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue.” How did they get so polarized? Could it be the result of the false charges, commenced during the Obama presidency and extended for years, about “Russian collusion” that has been conclusively proven to be completely false? Or, perhaps, the charges levied against him when he sought to research the international corruption of Joe Biden?

Michelle Obama continued her tradition of bitterness and lies. Keep in mind that she is the woman who exclaimed that she was “never proud of her country” until they elected her husband President.  At the convention, she said that Trump was “Doubling down on ugly, misogynistic, racist lies as a substitute for real ideas and solutions that will actually make people’s lives better.” Trump’s record on black employment was one of the best in history. She also seems to have forgotten that In both 1998 and 1999, Trump was an honored guest at the annual Wall Street Conference hosted by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Jesse Jackson’ DC-based “multi-racial, multi-issue, progressive, international membership organization fighting for social change.”

A convention is the perfect time to layout the goals a presidential candidate seeks to implement, and the way they will be achieved.  That was completely missing. All that was provided was a denial of all that Harris has done and has stood for in the past. In that sense, the four day session was a complete failure, a failure that has gone wholly unreported by most of the media.

Photo: Pixabay