Home Blog Page 3418

A China Story Bob Woodward Chose Not to Tell

In 1996 China dirty money helped reelect Bill Clinton — and Bob Woodward had a “choice” on whether to report the story.

n a just world, if the reporting of Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their new book Peril is accurate, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley would be sharpening his ceremonial sword and planning seppuku. Woodward and Costa have reported that Milley circumvented the chain of command and made unauthorized calls to CCP Gen. Li Zuocheng.

If Woodward and Costa got the story wrong, however, they should be the ones sharpening their swords. Although more reliable than most in Big Media, Woodward has reported many stories of questionable accuracy over the years. There was the dubious “potted plant” signal for the equally dubious “Deep Throat,” the imaginative deathbed confession of CIA Director William Casey, and the misinterpreted “slam dunk” quote by former CIA Director George Tenet among others.

More troubling than what Woodward may have misreported is what he did not report at all. Like so many of his colleagues, he has repeatedly betrayed the American public by ignoring stories of major consequence. As it happens, his single greatest oversight involves China, specifically its role in the 1996 presidential election.

Woodward was not lacking opportunity. He wrote a book about the 1996 election, The Choice, and had better access to key players than any reporter in Washington. Yet somehow he failed to mention that Chinese interests bought and paid for President Bill Clinton’s victory over Bob Dole. To miss the most striking feature of a campaign he covered in depth suggests not incompetence on Woodward’s part, but complicity.

There was a lot to miss. In the way of background, the Democrats got drubbed in the 1994 mid-terms and blamed Clinton for the losses. The media were as dismayed as the Democrats. Historians tracing the date of their shift from a tolerable bias to an intolerable corruption should look to this election and the two years that followed. Few reporters wanted to give the scary new House Speaker Newt Gingrich a Republican president, and many did what they had to do to prevent it. Woodward was among them.

With an approval rating at a dangerously low 45 percent, Clinton was looking at a one-term presidency. If he were to have any chance in 1996, he would have to raise money, lots of it. With the financially strapped DNC hesitant to pony up, he and Hillary promptly headed to the one place that welcomed his business, the Riady crime family HQ in Indonesia.

The ethnically Chinese Riadys, Mochtar and son James, had started investing in Clinton while he was still governor of Arkansas. More than once they bailed him out during the 1992 campaign and not just for the sport of it. In 1994, Clinton paid his Chinese loan sharks some of their vig by getting their “man in America,” John Huang, a job in the Commerce Department. In May of that same year, Clinton paid more of it by “delinking” human rights from the renewal of China’s most favored nation status.

The delinking shocked the vestigial liberals in the Democratic Party as well as Chinese dissidents at home and abroad.

They made the mistake of believing Clinton when in 1992 he blasted the Bush White House for “extending most favored nation trade status to China before it achieved documented progress on human rights.”

In December 1994, having secured the support of the Riadys and their allies in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Clinton reached out to veteran strategist Dick Morris. In his 1997 book Behind the Oval Office, the amoral Morris boasted of what Senator Fred Thompson would call “the most corrupt political campaign in modern history.” The 1998 Thompson Committee report summarized the Clinton-Morris strategy:

The president and his top advisors decided to raise money early for his re-election campaign. To accomplish their goal, the president and his top advisors took control of the DNC and designed a plan to engage in a historically aggressive fund-raising effort, utilizing the DNC as a vehicle for getting around federal election laws. The DNC ran television advertisements, created under the direct supervision of the president, which were specifically designed to promote the president’s re-election.

A shrewd observer of all things media, Morris designed a strategy that would allow journalists like Woodward an excuse to not know what was going on. From early July 1995 straight through to Election Day, he “bombarded” the public with TV commercials.

Given that this strategy flouted any number of FEC regulations, Morris  chose not to run any ads where the national media might see them, New York City and Washington most notably. “If these cities remained dark,” wrote Morris, “the national press would not make an issue out of our ads — of this we felt sure.” Morris was proved right.

The ads were problematic enough. Their funding was even more so. The Thompson Committee revealed where the money came from:

The president and his aides demeaned the offices of the president and vice president, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign sources.

The fact that Milley was calling Li Zuocheng as an equal is directly traceable to Clinton’s indebtedness to Chinese interests and their American allies. Volumes could be written about the corruption of the 1996 campaign, but one example should convince the reader of is consequences.

The story begins in February 1996 when a Chinese Long March 3B rocket crashed just after liftoff. This was the third such failure in three years involving U.S.-built satellite payloads, in this case a Loral-built Intelsat 708. Happily for Loral, however, its CEO Bernie Schwartz had a friend in the White House. In the 1996 campaign, no individual donor gave more soft money to the DNC than Schwartz.

In March 1996, Clinton overruled his own State Department and awarded authority over satellite-export licensing to the notoriously corrupt Commerce Department, temporary home of one John Huang. In April 1996, Commerce and the Clinton White House turned a blind eye when a Loral-led review team helped the Chinese military make necessary refinements in the Long March rocket.

The House Cox Committee would later describe Loral’s actions as “an unlicensed defense service for the PRC that resulted in the improvement of the reliability of the PRC’s military rockets and ballistic missiles.” The $2 million Loral and Schwartz donated to the Clinton cause made this friendly service possible.

“No one in the media really caught on,” claimed Woodward in the afterword of the paperback edition of The Choice. He admitted he “vastly underestimated the significance of money” in the campaign and conceded that the ads Morris devised “were deceptive enough to be appalling.” But this mea culpa came too late. The damage had been down.

For the next twenty-five years, Woodward managed to vastly underestimate the significance of one story after another. In the Obama years alone, Woodward, the paragon of American journalism, missed Fast and Furious, the IRS suppression of the Tea Party, the Pigford scandal, Benghazi, the Obamacare fiasco, and, incredibly, the Russia collusion hoax.

Although less of an ideologue than many of his peers, none has had the opportunity to set the historical record straight that Woodward has had. Unfortunately for America, he blew one opportunity after another. It almost doesn’t matter whether he quoted Gen. Milley accurately. That clowns like the general are running this country is a testament to Woodward’s half-century of willful blindness.

Here’s what happens when Medicare, Social Security run out of money

Changes ‘should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries’

The Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to soon be depleted, putting the health insurance and retirement income of millions in jeopardy.

Two government reports published simultaneously Aug. 31 showed that popular Medicare and Social Security programs are under serious threat of running out of money. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is expected to run dry by 2033 and the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will be depleted by 2026, according to the respective reports from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

“We can’t promise full benefits to today’s retirees, let alone our kids and grandkids,” Maya MacGuineas, the president of the think tank Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), said after the reports were published.

“Not only is this year’s outlook worse than in last year’s report, but we’ve lost yet another year from inaction,” she added. “As the Trustees explain, we should act sooner rather than later to restore solvency to these vital programs.”

The depletion projection for the OASI fund, which provides monthly benefits to retired workers and relatives of deceased workers, was bumped up by a year from 2034, according to the SSA. The projection for the HI fund, which pays for recipients’ inpatient hospital care among other services, remained in line with previous CMS projections.

More than 55 million Americans currently receive OASI payments and more than 62 million people receive health insurance from Medicare HI fund.

In 2020, the HI fund had a net income of $341.7 billion, but $402.2 billion in expenditures, according to the CMS report. The OASI fund had a slim $7.4 billion in net assets last year, but rapidly increasing costs and fewer future workers to fund the social security program will likely harm its future viability, the SSA report found.

“[OASI] cost has been increasing much more rapidly than non-interest income since 2008 and is projected to continue to do so through about 2040,” the SSA report said.

“In this period, the retirement of the baby-boom generation is increasing the number of beneficiaries much faster than the increase in the number of covered workers, as subsequent lower-birth-rate generations replace the baby-boom generation at working ages,” the report continued.

Both social security and Medicare are primarily funded through payroll taxes.

For the first time since it was implemented in the mid-20th century, social security costs are expected to exceed the program’s total income in 2021, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). For a long time, the program received more income than costs, but recently it has about broken even.

What comes next?

If the OASI trust fund were to run out, beneficiaries would immediately see an impact, according to the SSA. Social Security would be cut by approximately 21% and could see further cuts thereafter, meaning Americans who aren’t yet beneficiaries would likely receive significantly less money from the program when they retire.

“The trust funds are on course to run out of reserves when today’s 54-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 75,” a recent CRFB analysis of the social security program stated. “For perspective, the average new retiree will live to age 85, meaning Social Security cannot guarantee full benefits for many current retirees, let alone for future beneficiaries.”

There are multiple scenarios that could play out if the HI trust fund for Medicare were to run out, according to the medical journal Health Affairs.

CMS could decide to pay recipient health insurance in full, but late. The agency could also choose to pay a portion — projected to be about 83% of costs — of each covered procedure on time.

“With either choice, legal challenges would ensue, and it is likely that some hospitals and physicians would stop serving Medicare patients, leading to a potential crisis in access to care,” the Health Affairs report said.

While the outcome could be dire, the CMS has predicted the depletion of Social Security and Medicare trust funds for decades. In 1970, for example, the federal government projected that the HI fund would become insolvent by 1972, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

Congress has been able to avoid Social Security and Medicare insolvency by adjusting payroll taxes and cutting costs, according to the CRS. Both Aug. 31 reports recommended Congress takes immediate action to solve the programs’ financial woes.

“Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that will need to be addressed with further legislation,” the CMS report said. “Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers.”

Several members of Congress have attempted to reform the programs, but their legislation has made little progress.

“It has been 50 years since Congress has done anything to improve benefits,” House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John Larson said in a statement after the reports were published late last month. “Social Security is a lifeline for many beneficiaries and a program Americans pay into their entire working lives.”

“We must work to expand benefits now and strengthen the program for today’s seniors and generations to come,” Larson continued.

Experts Accuse CDC of ‘Cherry-Picking’ Data on Vaccine Immunity to Support Political Narrative

Mounting evidence shows natural immunity to COVID trumps vaccine immunity, but experts say the CDC is ignoring the long-standing science of natural immunity and manipulating data to support “what they’ve already decided.”

There is now a growing body of literature showing natural immunity not only confers robust, durable and high-level protection against COVID, but also provides better protection than vaccine-induced immunity.

Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is ignoring the long-standing science of natural immunity when it comes to COVID — while acknowledging the benefits of natural immunity for other diseases — according to an expert who accused the agency of providing contradictory, ‘illogical’ COVID messaging.

Dr. Marty Makary, professor of surgery and health policy at John Hopkins University, on Tuesday accused the CDC of “cherry-picking” data and manipulating public health guidance surrounding vaccines and natural immunity to support a political narrative.

Makary joined the “Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” to discuss the clinical impact of natural immunity as it compares to the vaccine.

During the show, Travis pointed out the CDC’s guidance on COVID is inconsistent with its vaccine recommendations for other contagious viruses, like chickenpox.

The CDC’s current guidance for chickenpox, for example, does not encourage those who have contracted it to vaccinate themselves against the virus. The CDC only recommends two doses of chickenpox vaccine for children, adolescents and adults who have never had chickenpox.

“So why doesn’t the CDC say the same thing about those of us who already had COVID?” Travis asked.

Makary called the conflicting guidance “absolutely illogical,” and accused the agency of “ignoring natural immunity.”

“It doesn’t make sense with what they’re putting out on chickenpox,” Makary said. It’s like they have adopted the immune system for one virus, but not for another virus, he said, and “cherry-picking the data to support whatever they’ve already decided.”

“They salami slice it — something we call fishing in statistical techniques,” Makary said. “That is when you look for a tiny sliver of data that supports what you already believe.”

According to a Sept. 13 article in The BMJ, when the COVID vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than a quarter of Americans — 91 million — had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to CDC estimates.

As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults between the ages of 18 and 59.

However, the CDC instructed everyone, regardless of previous infection, to get fully vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. On its website, the agency in January justified its guidance by stating natural immunity “varies from person to person” and “experts do not yet know how long someone is protected.”

By June, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found 57% of those previously infected got vaccinated.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical advisor, was asked Sept. 10 by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta whether people who have tested positive for the virus should still get a vaccine.

Gupta cited recent data from Israel suggesting people who recovered from COVID had better protection and a lower risk of contracting the Delta variant, compared to those with Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.

“I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”

The research from Israel did not address the durability that natural immunity offers. Fauci said it is possible for a person to recover from COVID and develop natural immunity, but that protection might not last for nearly as long as the protection provided by the vaccine.

“I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously,” Fauci said.

Numerous studies, however, have shown people who recovered from COVID have robust, durable and long-lasting immunity.

Evidence of natural immunity

As early as November 2020, important studies showed memory B cells and memory T cells formed in response to natural infection — and memory cells respond by producing antibodies to variants at hand.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted by the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, found “durable immune responses” in 95% of the 200 participants up to eight months after infection.

One of the largest studies to date, published in Science in February 2021, found that although antibodies declined over eight months, memory B cells increased over time, and the half-life of memory CD8+ and CD4+ T cells suggests a steady presence.

In a study by New York University published May 3, the authors studied the contrast between vaccine immunity and immunity from prior infection as it relates to stimulating the innate T-cell immunity — which is more durable than adaptive immunity through antibodies alone.

The authors concluded:

“In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects.”

The study further noted:

“Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients, clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells.”

This means natural immunity conveys much more innate immunity, while the vaccine mainly stimulates adaptive immunity — as effector cells trigger an innate response that is quicker and more durable, whereas memory response requires an adaptive mode that is slower to respond.

According to a longitudinal analysis published July 14 in Cell Medicine, most recovered COVID patients produced durable antibodies, memory B cells and durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells –– which target multiple parts of the virus.

“Taken together, these results suggest broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” the authors said.

In other words, unlike with the vaccines, no boosters are required to assist natural immunity.

In a May 12 study conducted by the University of California, researchers found natural immunity conveyed stronger immunity than the vaccine.

The researchers wrote:

“In infection-naïve individuals, the second [vaccine] dose boosted the quantity but not quality of the T cell response, while in convalescents the second dose helped neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx.”

According to The BMJ, studies in Qatar, England, Israel and the U.S. have found infection rates at equally low levels among people who are fully vaccinated and those who have previously had COVID.

As The Defender reported in June, the Cleveland Clinic surveyed more than 50,000 employees to compare four groups based on history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status.

Not one of more than 1,300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study. Researchers concluded the cohort “are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.”

In the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity gained through previous SARS-CoV-2 infection to vaccine-induced immunity afforded by the Pfizer vaccine, researchers in Israel found people who recovered from COVID were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms or be hospitalized.

“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals,” they concluded.

Experts speak out on natural immunity

In a recent letter to the editor of The BMJ, Dr. Manish Joshi, a pulmonologist at UAMS Health; Dr. Thaddeus Bartter, a pulmonologist at UAMS Health; and Anita Joshi, BDS, MPH, said data demonstrate both adequate and long-lasting protection in those who have recovered from COVID, while the duration of vaccine-induced immunity is not fully known.

The authors of the letter said the “SIREN” study in the Lancet addressed the relationships between seropositivity in people with previous COVID infection and subsequent risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 infection over the subsequent seven to 12 months.

The study found prior infection decreased risk of symptomatic reinfection by 93%.

A large cohort study published in JAMA Internal Medicine which looked at 3.2 million U.S. patients, showed the risk of infection was significantly lower (0.3%) in seropositive patients compared to those who were seronegative (3%).

A recent study published in May in the journal Nature demonstrated the presence of long-lived memory immune cells in those who have recovered from COVID-19 suggesting durable and long-lasting immunity.

“This implies a prolonged (perhaps years) capacity to respond to new infection with new antibodies,” the authors wrote.

Biden Admin Says Borders Are Not Open, 14,000 Haitian Migrants Say Otherwise

The Biden Administration stated on Saturday that “our borders are not open.” The statement comes as the number of mostly Haitian migrants being detained after freely crossing the border from Mexico rose to more than 14,000.

“The Biden Administration has reiterated that our borders are not open, and people should not make the dangerous journey,” according to a statement from U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials on Saturday morning. The comments come as part of a six-point plan to “address the increase in migrants in Del Rio.”

The statement comes as Fox News journalist Bill Melugin tweeted a new video showing hundreds of mostly Haitian migrants pouring across the border that Biden officials say is not open.

Melugin also tweeted photos showing Del Rio residents gathering to protest the Biden administration’s failure to address the “deteriorating situation at the international bridge in Del Rio.” He stated that there are now more than 14,000 migrants being held under the bridge.

Christian Medical Group Highlights There’s ‘No Good Ethical Argument’ For Biden’s Vaccine Mandates

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations declared on Wednesday that they are opposed to President Joe Biden’s recently mandated vaccine requirement for workers, even if they actually recommend getting the vaccine.

The group’s senior vice president of bioethics and public policy, Jeffrey Barrows spoke out during the Family Research Council “Pray Vote Stand” special, in which the president’s vaccine mandates were discussed.

“I think it’s very difficult to make a good ethical argument for the mandate that President Biden has announced,” Barrows said, as reported by the Christian Headlines. President Biden’s vaccine mandates require federal workers and private employers with at least 100 employees to get vaccinated or subject themselves to weekly COVID testing.

CMDA is a coalition of upwards of 19,000 members. Barrows said that while his statements represented only his opinion, he noted that the group has also released a statement opposing President Biden’s vaccine mandates.

“Anytime you are using a mandate, you are taking away the ability of the patient to give consent,” Barrows argued. “In terms of justifying it, you have to have a clear and obvious good that is achieved that outweighs the removal of patient consent.”

In theory, Barrows said that he could support a hospital requiring its medical staff who are “dealing with immunocompromised patients” to be vaccinated against COVID. However, he explained that the hospital can also “create alternatives that if one of the health care workers has an objection to the vaccine, they can be transferred to a different part of the hospital that is not dealing with high-risk patients.”

Barrow posited that one can “make an ethical argument for mandates…in those very narrow settings.” For a “very broad mandate,” such as the Democratic president’s however, “that’s an entirely different scenario.”

The CMDA statement declared, “Coerced vaccination would irreparably harm Constitutional rights and the patient-physician relationship,” adding that one’s conscience is an “individual belief influenced by many factors such as faith, culture, family, and reason” and that conscious rights must have “primary importance” and must be respected.

Barrows clarified, however, that he supports the vaccine, underscoring that “overall, the safety has been established” and that “[it] definitely is our recommendation that patients consider getting these vaccines.”

Meanwhile, companies that fall under the 100-and-up employee count category are seeking out answers to questions left unanswered about President Biden’s vaccine mandate, specifically how the costs of COVID testing for employees who refuse to get vaccinated will be covered, the Wall Street Journal reported. Companies that don’t comply will be forced to pay upwards of $14,000 worth in fees.

Robin Samuel, an employment lawyer at law firm Baker & McKenzie LLP explained that the president’s goal from the beginning was to “encourage vaccination.” COVID testing is just “an out from vaccination,” which is why the federal government may “make it more difficult for employers to choose the testing option.”

But companies now have a fallback: they can argue that the federal government is making them require vaccines, because it’s the law and they no longer have a choice.

This, of course, deprives people of their freedom – even if there are other proven effective options that are less risky than the jabs.

Trump Issues Damning Statement About ‘Justice for J6’ Rally: Patriots, Don’t Go

Even as officials talk up threats associated with Saturday’s rally on behalf of those jailed after the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion, former President Donald Trump has encouraged his supporters not to attend.

“On Saturday, that’s a setup,” Trump said in an interview with the Federalist.

“If people don’t show up they’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s a lack of spirit.’ And if people do show up they’ll be harassed,” he said.

Trump’s comments on the rally were a far cry from his support for those facing persecution for their roles in the protests that took place at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which resulted in the disruption of the counting of Electoral College votes.

“People are so disgusted with the way people are being treated from the Jan. 6 situation. It’s a combination of that compared to how Antifa and BLM were treated. When you compare the treatment, it is so unjust, it is so unfair. It’s disgraceful,” he said.

On Thursday, Trump issued a statement addressed to those who have been arrested for their roles in the incursion.

“Our hearts and minds are with the people being persecuted so unfairly relating to the January 6th protest concerning the Rigged Presidential Election. In addition to everything else, it has proven conclusively that we are a two-tiered system of justice. In the end, however, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!” he said in the statement on his website.

The Biden administration prepared for the rally by fencing off the Capitol and adding unarmed National Guard troops to Capitol police who will guard Capitol Hill, according to The New York Times.

“We are aware of a small number of recent online threats of violence referencing the planned rally, including online discussions encouraging violence the day before the rally,” Department of Homeland Security intelligence officers wrote in an assessment, the Times reported.

No violence has been reported in connection with the rally, and several Republicans are taking Trump’s advice to stay away.

Further, the security document obtained by the outlet said there was no “specific or credible plot associated with the event.”

The Guardian noted that what it called far-right groups, such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, have distanced themselves from the event.

The “Justice for J6” rally is being organized by Matt Braynard, a former Trump campaign aide, through the group Look Ahead America.

The rally’s permit expects about 700 people to participate.

In his interview with the Federalist, Trump speculated over who was actually calling the shots in President Joe Biden’s White House.

“It could be Biden’s staff. It could be Obama. It could be Obama’s people. Maybe a combination of both,” Trump said. “I see the microphones being turned off every time Biden speaks. Yesterday was crazy. He was in the middle of a sentence and they turned off the microphone and dimmed the lights. It was weird.”

“When you see that, something’s going on,” Trump said.

Trump noted that the establishment media protects Biden, who is also able to rely upon a party unity that has eluded Republicans.

“The Democrats have become radicalized, and the Republicans don’t have good leadership because they don’t fight as hard. The Republicans, the leadership, should have fought harder for the presidential election,” he said.

Durham Indictment Shows Clinton Likely Worked With Top Google Exec To Fabricate Russia Hoax, Says Google Whistleblower

Special Prosecutor Durham’s indictment alleges a Big Tech executive working for the Clinton campaign fabricated fake Trump-Russia evidence and funneled it to the FBI

In the bombshell felony indictment made public this week, Special Prosecutor John Durham alleged that agents of the 2016 Clinton campaign knowingly concocted false allegations that President Donald Trump was receiving secret hi-tech communications from the Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank. The Durham indictment further alleged that Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann intentionally spread that hoax to the FBI, Democrat-friendly media and another undisclosed federal agency under false pretenses.

Moreover, the Durham indictment identifies the mastermind of the operation to create spread and spread the Alfa Bank Hoax as a Big Tech executive, who allegedly “exploited” privately-held data of several large tech companies to create a false “narrative” about Trump-Russia collusion. This person may be Derek Schmidt, the former Chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

The conspiracy theory that Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign was secretly communicating with Russia-based Alfa Bank through a secret server has been an obsession of Anti-Trump circles for years, despite being debunked by both the FBI and the Mueller Investigation. Proponents still insist that, despite being repeatedly bound baseless, federal authorities have simply failed to muster the technical expertise to expose the dastardly Russian plot.

However, according to the Durham indictment, the team which initially drafted the white paper outlining the conspiracy theory knew full well that it was nonsense – but disseminated it anyway to craft a “narrative” to trigger a federal investigation and publicly undermine President Trump.

Shortly after the felony indictment for making false statements to the FBI went public, Sussmann’s law firm – Perkins Coie – issued this statement: “In light of the Special Counsel’s action today, Michael Sussmann, who has been on leave from the firm, offered his resignation from the firm in order to focus on his legal defense, and the firm accepted it.”

Perkins Coie represented both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2016. The firm served a vital role in the fabrication and dissemination of the debunked Steele Dossier – a document which alleged, among other things, that Trump had urinated on Russian prostitutes in a hotel room the where the Obama family stayed.

More recently, Perkins Coie represented Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) in a failed lawsuit against National File, which claimed that Kelly had not dressed as Adolf Hitler and a Perkins Coie attorney argued in front of a judge to stop the upcoming Arizona Election Audit. (READ MORE: Mark Kelly Drops Lawsuit Claiming He Didn’t Dress As Hitler, National File Report Stands)

The white paper was allegedly the brainchild of one Clinton campaign confidant, who the Durham indictment refers to as Tech Executive-1, who “claimed to have been previously offered a position in government in the event Hillary Clinton won the Presidency” and “exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump … By virtue of his position at Internet Company-1 and other companies, Tech Executive-1 maintained direct or indirect access to, and the ability to provide others access to, large amounts of internet and cybersecurity data, including DNS data,” emphasis added by National File.

The Durham indictment refers to three tech companies which Tech Executive-1 leveraged influence over on behalf of the Clinton campaign:

Internet Company-1 “offers various Internet-related services and products, including Domain Name System (“DNS”) resolution services”; Internet Company-2 “among other things, collected DNS data from various points on the internet”; and Internet Company-3 “received data that had been collected by Internet Company-2 or its parent company, and then used and analyzed that data in order to advise its private sector customers on cybersecurity and business risks.”

It is unclear who the executive is, but Eric Schmidt seems to fit the description. At the time, he was Executive Chairman of Alphabet Inc, the parent company of Google, and an unofficial advisor to the Clinton campaign, who founded start-up The Groundwork to serve as a top-tier tech contractor for the campaign.

Alphabet is the parent company of Google, which owns the largest public DNS service in the world. Alphabet also had an ownership stake in Crowdstrike, which provided cybersecurity services to the DNC and took a leading role in investigating alleged Russian cyber-attacks against the DNC as well as the Clinton campaign.

Emails from 2014 published by Wikileaks revealed that John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, believed that Schmidt “clearly wants to be head outside advisor”.

National File spoke to Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies to scrutinize the document. “I strongly suspect that ‘Internet Company-1’ mentioned in the Durham indictment is Alphabet, ‘Internet Company-2’ is Google, and ‘Tech Executive-1’ is Eric Schmidt,” said Vorhies. “That would certainly fit the facts of the indictment, but I could be wrong. And, since we are speculating, could ‘Internet Company-3’ is CrowdStrike?”

Vorhies shot to prominence when, as a Google employee, he collected and released 950 pages of documents he says prove Google’s use of an “AI-Censorship” system called “Machine Learning Fairness” that merges Critical Race Theory and artificial intelligence to shape the views of Google users on its various platforms, including YouTube and its eponymous search engine. Vorhies followed up this conversation by speaking out on Twitter:

Another key allegation, and the foundation of the Durham indictment’s sole criminal charge, is that Sussmann lied to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker by claiming not to have been disseminating this information on behalf of any client – but he was billing the Clinton campaign for time spent drafting the white paper, speaking with Tech Executive 1 and pitching the story to reporters.

Sussmann even billed his meeting with Baker to the Clinton campaign, along with the description, “work and communications regarding confidential project.”

Baker later claimed in sworn congressional testimony to not remember whether Sussmann had identified a client he was working for. Sussmann also denied this under oath to Congress in 2017, claiming to have been working on behalf of an unnamed cybersecurity expert. This may have been technically true in 2017 because, after the end of the Clinton campaign in 2016, Sussmann started billing hours worked on the disinformation project to Tech Executive-1.

Sussmann’s testimony took place on December 18th, 2017. Just four days later, Eric Schmidt resigned from his position as the executive chairman of Alphabet Inc. and, to date, nobody has given a detailed explanation why.

Regardless, the Durham indictment features an apparent smoking gun: a contemporaneous note taken by Bill Priestap, who was the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. Priestap’s notes explain that Sussmann explicitly said that he was not doing this on behalf of the Clinton campaign, the DNC or any other of his firm’s clients.

The notes further say that Sussmann identified the source of the Alfa Bank hoax as three concerned citizens in the tech sector – which was an apparent lie, as none of them seem to have had anything to do with the research or drafting of the white paper. According to Durham, the actual authors of the paper were Tech Executive-1, the originator of the hoax, two computer researchers and Sussmann himself.

The Durham indictment alleges that Tech Executive-1 assembled a massive tranche of private data from the technology companies he had influence over, then tasked researchers at a U.S. university to mine it for dirt on Trump. Tech Executive-1 also apparently leveraged his corporate authority to help the same U.S. university with a federal government contract.

Unfortunately for Tech Executive-1, the two researchers came up with nothing to substantiate the original Alfa Bank conspiracy theory and generally agreed that the specific allegations were probably nonsense – specifically, a “red herring” that should be “ignored”.

So the researchers, as the Durham indictment details, suggested by email that they could just fake the documentation to validate the Alfa Bank hoax.

On the same day, “Tech Executive-1 clarified in an email to [them] that the ‘task’ he had given them was ‘indeed broad’”, going on further to seemingly suggest that “the VIPS would be happy” for any evidence – even fake evidence – that would justify “closer examination” of an otherwise “true story”.

Excerpt from Durham indictment
Excerpt from Durham indictment

After the white paper was drafted, an email from Tech Executive-1 asked the team to review it critically from the lens of a “security expert (NOT a dns expert)”, specifying that the paper did not have to pass muster to an expert in the relevant field – let alone accurate in the first place – but simply be believable to a cybersecurity expert who didn’t have enough time to actually invest effort into researching DNS security and discovering the glaring flaws in their argument.

The respondents agreed that the white paper did a great job of falsely establishing itself as authoritative:

“A DNS expert would poke several holes to [sic] this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researchers can refute your statements. Nice!” (Emphasis in original.)

Coverage of the Durham indictment has been scant, but a few savvy commentators on the political Right, such as law professor and Epoch Times commentator Hans Mahncke, have flagged it as a bombshell.

In an exclusive interview with National File, the constitutional lawyer and former Green Beret commander Ivan Raiklin – mostly known for his plan from December to contest the 2020 election for Trump – spoke to National File about the severity of Durham’s indictment.

“Anything from John Durham needs to be looked at in the context of his relationships with current and former members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, particularly Mike Pence and Lindsey Graham – alongside his relationships with current and former officials in the FBI and DOJ: particularly Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Peter Strock, Joe Pientka, and Andrew Weissman,” said Raiklin. “His prosecution path like a ‘sacrificial lamb’ situation like with [former FBI attorney] Kevin Clinesmith where [Sussmann] is just going to get a slap on the wrist to satisfy conservatives who rightly feel betrayed.” Raiklin added:

This could be a prelude to getting [Sussmann] into a plea to cooperate against the others, but I’m not holding my breath.

At the very least, this opens up the Department of Justice and everyone named in this indictment to a lawsuit from anyone indicted as a result of Crossfire Hurricane (the federal spying on the Trump Campaign), including: Donald J. Trump, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Carter Page, General Flynn and others.

The real question I’m asking is “Why isn’t he being charged with conspiracy?” That’s what this indictment reads like. Maybe there are other conspirators who could be charged in the future and it’s worth keeping in mind that the statute of limitations for conspiracy doesn’t begin until the conspiracy is over.

National File is continuing to discuss the revelations with tech experts and top lawyers. We will continue our reporting as the story develops.

9 Reasons Rep. Dan Crenshaw Is a Globalist Shill: A Warning to American Patriots

Don’t fall for it. Crenshaw is compromised, a Deep State plant.

Reason #1: Dan Crenshaw is promoted by leftist media

  • In the article, WaPo never once refers to Crenshaw as a fascist, racist, demagogue, Hitler Doppelganger, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, WaPo describes how Crenshaw’s “adoring fans” were “trying not to shake” when Crenshaw finally appeared “striding through the (conference) ballroom to take photos.”
  • WaPo celebrates how Crenshaw touts “a million Twitter followers,” his being “described by his fans as an antidote to ‘the Squad’ — the conclave of young liberals putatively led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.),” and as “someone who makes politics relatable and understandable to a next generation of potential voters.”
  • Read how WaPo gushes over Crenshaw—though he’s a Republican—referring to him as a “war hero” and a “comic book supersoldier”: “But it’s not just his Twitter game that gets people excited,” writes WaPo. “Crenshaw is revered as a war hero, a Navy SEAL who lost his right eye to an improvised explosive device during his third deployment to Afghanistan. The eye patch Crenshaw now wears only enhances the idea that he’s a comic book supersoldier, almost like the ‘Rambo Trump’ meme come to life.”
  • WaPo flatters Crenshaw while describing a video played at the conference showing “Crenshaw escaping from antifa kidnappers and parachuting to the roof of the Hilton hotel, before rappelling down from the rafters and appearing onstage in camo pants and a tight black shirt.”
  • “The merchandise store didn’t feature mugs of Crenshaw with sunglasses,” writes WaPo, “but it did feature mugs of him with a Texas-flag eye patch and shirts featuring the congressman decked out in full combat fatigues, clutching a gun and smoking a cigar.”
  • And even though WaPo points out that Crenshaw held the conference “despite the delta surge” and points out that Crenshaw is against vaccinating young people (things that usually trigger the Covid-19 alarmist, leftist media), WaPo doesn’t critique Crenshaw for holding these positions. Rather, they finish the piece writing, “By Monday morning the kids had left, taking with them all they had taken in at the conference: talking points, punchlines, long-distance friendships and a reinforced understanding of their role in the fight for America’s future.”
  • WaPo didn’t punch back in the piece when Crenshaw said, “I follow the science (about vaccines), unlike everybody else, when it comes to covid fear porn.” The news org didn’t even call him an “anti-vaxxer“!
  • This Politico—another left-leaning outlet—article does essentially the same thing.

Reason #2: Dan Crenshaw is financed by BlackRock’s Portfolio

Where the World’s Most Powerful Meet the World’s Money: World Economic Forum & BlackRock

Reason #3: Dan Crenshaw backs “climate change” ideology

  • The Houston Chronicle reported how Crenshaw insists that conservatives “can’t ignore” climate change.
  • “We can make fun of the left’s sort of alarmist views on climate change — and we should, to an extent — but we can’t ignore it completely,” Crenshaw said during a keynote Q-and-A at the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation’s 2020 policy conference. “From a political standpoint, we cannot ignore it completely.”
  • Crenshaw believes there is “some effect on the climate from man-made emissions, and we can admit that,” and emplores we must “err on the side of caution.”
  • Note that climate change ideology is promoted by BlackRock’s “restart” and the WEF’s “Great Reset” globalist strategies.

Reason #4: Dan Crenshaw was in The World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders for the Class of 2019”

Screenshot from the World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” page taken September 17, 2021

Reason #5: Dan Crenshaw is pro-war

  • Pro-war Republicans are referred to as “neocons,” proponents of “neoconservatism.” Crenshaw is a neocon because he promotes war.
  • Crenshaw recently posted a YouTube podcast titled “The ‘No More Endless Wars’ Crowd Got Exactly What They Asked For” in which he criticized Americans who want to “bring the troops home,” even though after 20 years of occupying Afghanistan, terrorist organizations are stronger than they were before the U.S. invaded the country.
  • The Houston Chronicle also reported how Crenshaw opposed President Trump’s troop withdrawal plan in Afghanistan.
  • In the same article, U.S. Rep. Justin Amash—former Republican turned Libertarian—said that Crenshaw is “really saying…that he wants perpetual war for just-in-case reasons.”

Reason #6: Dan Crenshaw is in bed with the military-industrial complex

  • Crenshaw is directly financed by entities in the defense sector while he advocates for war.
  • Moreover, major weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon are owned by BlackRock, the financial asset management corporation that owns the companies that donate to Crenshaw (see #2).
  • This represents a conflict of interest because Crenshaw’s promotion of war (see #5) directly benefits the military-industrial complex. This benefits Crenshaw first directly because defense industry entities contribute financially to Crenshaw, but second indirectly because weapons manufacturers’ profits trickle up to their shareholders, namely, BlackRock, who owns companies in other industries that finance Crenshaw’s campaign (see #2).
Military-Industrial Complex, Big Media Owned by Same Companies

Reason #7: Dan Crenshaw is anti-Trump

  • The same WaPo article describes “the eyepatch-wearing Navy SEAL turned congressman (Crenshaw)” as someone who “could be the future of a Republican Party” and who “remains (in theory) undecided about whether to move on to its next leaders or reboot the Trump Show.”
  • WaPo describes Crenshaw as “a Republican who refuses to be completely loyal to the party’s loyalty-obsessed leader (Trump).”
  • At Crenshaw’s conference, “[Trump’s] name was hardly mentioned,” notes WaPo.
  • “They want to make the party all about Donald Trump,” Crenshaw said at the conference. “This summit is a reminder of what conservatism is, because it’s not anti- or pro-anyone.”
  • Politico refers to the conference saying, “the clear intent from the organizers was to turn a cult of Trump into a cult of Crenshaw.”
  • Crenshaw also sided with Rep. Liz Cheney‘s mission to impeach President Donald Trump.

Reason #8: Dan Crenshaw doesn’t believe the 2020 Presidential Election was fraudulent and defends Biden’s “win”

  • The same WaPo article mentioned in #1 of this article celebrates how “when 147 Republican members of Congress later voted against certifying Biden’s win, Crenshaw was not one of them.”
  • The article also celebrates how “Recently, the Texas congressman told a fundraiser audience to not ‘kid yourself’ into thinking that election fraud was the reason Trump lost the election.”
  • National File reported how Crenshaw said that Biden’s apparent win is “just something you’ve got to accept. Is there a lot of voter fraud? Yeah, there probably is. Enough that Trump won? Absolutely not.”

Reason #9: Dan Crenshaw says Jesus Christ is a mythological character

  • National File also reported how video footage shows Crenshaw appearing to suggest that Jesus Christ, like DC comics’ Superman, is a fictional “superhero archetype,” unlike “real characters” such as Rosa Parks and former President Ronald Reagan.
  • “The important thing is that we have societal hero archetypes that we look up to. Jesus is a hero archetype, Superman is a hero archetype. Real characters too, you know, I put, I could name a thousand,” Crenshaw said. “You know, know Rosa Parks, Ronald Reagan, all of these people embody certain attributes that the American people think ‘This is good.'”

Jon Fleetwood is Managing Editor for American Faith and author of “An American Revival: Why American Christianity Is Failing & How to Fix It.“

Where the World’s Most Powerful Meet the World’s Money: World Economic Forum & BlackRock

Trump: ‘Justice for J6’ Rally a ‘Setup’

Former President Donald Trump said Saturday’s “Justice for J6” in Washington, D.C., will be a no-win situation for Republicans.

“That’s a setup,” Trump said of the gathering, intended to show support for people arrested after the Jan. 6 attack, in an interview with The Federalist. “If people don’t show up they’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s a lack of spirit.’ And if people do show up, they’ll be harassed.”

Trump said the treatment of people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol violence has reinforced that a double standard exists in the country.

“There’s a discontent with everything having to do with politics,” Trump told The Federalist. “People are so disgusted with the way people are being treated from the Jan. 6 situation. It’s a combination of that compared to how antifa and [Black Lives Matter] were treated. When you compare the treatment, it is so unjust, it is so unfair. It’s disgraceful.”

Trump slammed former President George Bush, who during remarks on the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks indirectly criticized the former president and Trump supporters by claiming they were “children of the same foul spirit” that inspired the 9/11 hijackers.

“Bush now goes around lecturing everybody about all sorts of things, and he shouldn’t be lecturing anybody, because he’s the one who got us into the mess of the Middle East,” Trump said. “In the 20 years since, it’s been obliterated, and it’s probably in worse shape now than it’s ever been because of him.

“When Bush left the presidency, his approval rating was in the low-20s. I don’t know how he was that high. There must’ve been something wrong with the poll.”

Trump did compliment Democrats for remaining united to achieve their goals.

“The Democrats have become radicalized, and the Republicans don’t have good leadership, because they don’t fight as hard,” Trump said. “The Republicans, the leadership, should have fought harder for the presidential election.

“Democrats have horrible policy; they’re vicious, but they stay together.”

Trump discussed many topics in the interview published by The Federalist on Thursday.

He said he would have made some different choices for his administration if he knew then what he knows now.

“Well, you’d always do things differently,” Trump said. “I would’ve used different people in some cases. There are some people I would not have used who I didn’t think were very good, and that’s because I wasn’t a Washington person. I know everybody now.”

Trump continued to take verbal shots at Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and President Joe Biden.

“Milley’s a television general, and he’s not very good at it,” Trump said of the general, who in a new book has been accused of promising to alert the Chinese of any attacks in the final weeks of the Trump administration.

“He’s been a disaster for the current administration. He got weak-kneed.”

Trump, however, said all military leaders were not like Milley.

“We have great generals,” he said. “We took out ISIS, Soleimani, al-Baghdadi, and we did a lot of great work.”

Trump again called for Senate Republicans to fire McConnell and elect a new leader.

“I think Mitch McConnell has proven to be a disaster,” Trump said. “He’s not good for the Republican Party as a leader, and I wish I wouldn’t have endorsed him.

“The Senate has to make a change at some point. I don’t think it’s acceptable having him as a leader.”

Biden’s disastrous troops withdrawal from Afghanistan was “one of the worst things I think I’ve ever seen for our country.”

“To lose the young people [killed in the bomb blast] is so horrible,” Trump said. “It’s a horrible situation.

“What Biden is doing is grossly incompetent. It’s a disgrace.”

Josh Hawley accuses Google of ‘targeting pregnancy resources,’ pro-life org ‘for disfavor’

Called on tech giant to explain its recent censorship

Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley called on Google Wednesday to explain its recent censorship of pro-life ads.

In a letter addressed to Google Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai, Hawley called on Google to explain why ads placed by the pro-life organizations Live Action and Choose Life Marketing had been “seemingly censored.”

Among other questions, the Missouri senator asked Google what contact its executives and leaders have had with abortion advocacy organizations in the last month, and what steps it has taken to ensure that ad eligibility decisions are not affected by Google employee bias.

“When I spoke with Mark Zuckerberg about a similar issue in September 2019, he acknowledged the danger of bias on the parts of content reviewers in this area, particularly where pro-life activist groups like Live Action are concerned,” Hawley wrote. “But if your company’s behavior is any indication, those concerns have gone unaddressed.”

“Rather, ” the senator continued, “your company appears to have taken a page out of the progressive left playbook and has started targeting pregnancy resource centers and pro-life activist organizations for disfavor.”

The senator said that Choose Life Marketing, a Missouri company that works with pro-life pregnancy resource centers, found that its ads running for a client in the Washington, D.C., metro area were not running, “even though Google designated them as eligible to run.”

“Worse,” the senator wrote, “Choose Life Marketing was unable to obtain an explanation from your company. Notably, even a cursory investigation reveals numerous examples of Planned Parenthood advertising directly to internet users that it offers abortions, contrary to Google’s stated policies.”

Live Action said in a press release Tuesday afternoon that Google had banned the promotion of “all” the organization’s ads, including its “Baby Olivia” ad as well as one about the Abortion Pill Reversal hotline, which is managed by a team of medical professionals, according to the pro-life group.

Google told the Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday evening that it does not permit ads “with unproven medical claims” and that “medical experts have raised serious concerns about abortion reversal pills,” citing an advocacy post from the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists claiming abortion reversal pills are not backed up by science.

Live Action’s Baby Olivia ad did not violate Google’s policies and is “allowed to run as an ad,” a Google spokesperson told the DCNF, adding, “We have corrected the label that temporarily blocked its ability to be promoted.”

“Beyond protecting users from medical harm, our policies do not distinguish between promoting pro-choice and pro-life messages,” the spokesperson said. “Advertisers are allowed to offer either abortion or abortion-alternative services. When doing so, both must prominently disclose which type of service they offer so that users have full transparency and can make their own decisions.”

“This would not be the first time that political considerations have influenced your company’s ad eligibility decisions,” Hawley told Google. “In the summer of 2020, under pressure from the cryptic partisan organization ‘Center for Countering Digital Hate,’ Google threatened the conservative website The Federalist with removal from the Google Ads platform, based on the contents of its comments section. Something similar appears to be happening here.”

Google did not immediately respond to a Wednesday request for comment from the DCNF.

1...3,4173,4183,419...3,924Page 3,418 of 3,924
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2025 American Faith Media Network. All rights reserved.