In January, multiple media reports exposed President Joe Biden for allegedly mishandling and improperly storing classified government documents at an old Washington D.C. office he previously used as well as in the garage of his home in Wilmington, Delaware.
A special counsel was appointed to investigate the matter but reports now indicate that the probe is set to conclude with little more than a final report and no criminal charges, according to Breitbart.
If those reports prove to be accurate, this is just the latest grotesque display of an egregious political double standard in the justice system, wherein powerful Democrats, like Biden, skate past accountability for alleged wrongdoing while Republicans, like former President Donald Trump, are indicted and run through the legal wringer.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Special Counsel Robert Hur, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in January to investigate President Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents found in his old D.C. office space and his Delaware home, was "preparing a report that is expected to be sharply critical of how he and his longtime aides handled the material."
However, per the Journal's anonymous sources who were "familiar" with the matter, "the probe isn't likely to result in a criminal case" against Biden or any of his current and former aides.
Similar news was reported separately that same day by CNN, which cited its own unnamed sources as claiming that Hur was "not expected to charge anyone" in relation to Biden's apparent unauthorized retention of classified government documents, but rather was finalizing a report that would provide "significant detail" about what the probe discovered over the past 11 months.
That seemed to bolster an earlier report from CNN that "charges appeared unlikely" in the case based on anonymous leaks of the "investigators’ line of questioning" as well as that there had been "no discernible grand jury activity" related to the matter.
The CNN report acknowledged that "A decision to not pursue charges is likely to draw criticism from Donald Trump and his allies," and that predictable yet prescient assertion was quickly proven true.
The Hill reported that former President Trump exploded with rage at the apparent double standard, given that he is facing multiple criminal charges pressed by Special Counsel Jack Smith over the boxes of government documents, some of which were classified, were retained when he left the White House and stored at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida instead of turned over to the National Archives.
"Wow! Fake news CNN, through a leak from the Department of Injustice, has just reported that no charges will be filed in the (much bigger than mine!!!) Crooked Joe Biden documents case," Trump said in all caps in a Friday morning post to his Truth Social account. "We are living in a very corrupt country!"
He followed that up just 30 minutes later with a second post that simply declared, "SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!!!"
To be sure, the former president and his supporters, as well as many neutral observers, will furiously decry what seems to be a blatant and obvious double standard and "selective prosecution" as Trump faces serious criminal charges while Biden appears set to dodge any consequences for essentially doing the same thing -- retaining classified government documents without authorization that should have been turned over to the National Archives when they left office.
Of course, defenders of the current president will argue that the two cases are vastly different in that Biden and his attorneys purportedly cooperated fully and swiftly with the National Archives once the documents had been found, while Trump and his people are said to have argued with and delayed responding to the National Archives when questions were raised about his documents.
None of that should matter, though -- and setting aside the fact that Biden's attorneys only came clean after they were exposed by media reports, or Trump's claim of executive authority to declassify and retain documents that Biden didn't have when he was vice president or senator -- as the underlying alleged crime is pretty much the same and both cases should have been handled similarly, meaning either both face charges or both get to go clean.
Special Counsel Jack Smith suffered a setback this week in his effort to prosecute former President Donald Trump over his alleged unlawful retention of classified government documents after leaving the White House in 2021.
Smith's prosecutors had urged the presiding judge to set a mid-December deadline for Trump's attorneys to disclose what classified evidence they may use during the trial next year, but that request was quickly rejected by the judge, ABC News reported.
Instead, the judge said she wouldn't address that particular issue until a March 1 scheduling conference, which further signals that the actual trial is highly unlikely to start in May next year, as had been originally planned when Trump was initially indicted in June.
According to the Washington Examiner, at issue here is a particular defense disclosure requirement within what is known as the Classified Information Procedures Act, which governs how classified materials are handled in legal settings with a specific multi-part sequential process that must be strictly adhered to.
Part of CIPA Section 5 is a requirement that defense attorneys notify the prosecutors of any classified materials they may use as evidence for the defense during the trial, and Special Counsel Smith's team filed a motion on Wednesday that asked the judge to set Dec. 18 as the deadline for Trump's attorneys to fulfill that mandate.
The prosecutors argued in the motion that "Providing such notice by a set, near-term date will facilitate the completion of CIPA litigation before the May 20, 2024 trial date."
Except, it was just last week that District Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order pushing back virtually all of the outstanding pre-trial deadlines, including those in the CIPA process.
That decision was made in light of the condensed timeline of the initial schedule she had set, the time-consuming nature of the step-by-step CIPA process, as well as related issues that some of the defense lawyers were having in accessing and fully reviewing the voluminous amount of evidence, some of which is classified, that was previously turned over by prosecutors as part of the discovery process.
Thus, in a "paperless order" on Thursday, Cannon ruled that she was "denying without prejudice" -- meaning the issue can be raised again at a later date -- the motion filed a day earlier by prosecutors that called for the mid-December disclosure deadline.
"To the extent the Special Counsel's motion seeks reconsideration in part of the Court's November 10, 2023, Order 215, that request is denied," the judge wrote.
She added, "CIPA Section 5 deadlines, and all other pre-trial deadlines not included in the first batch of pre-trial deadlines contained in the Court's revised schedule 215, will be set following the March 1, 2024, scheduling conference."
The Messenger reported that this latest order from Judge Cannon seems to further confirm the growing consensus that former President Trump's classified documents trial will not actually begin in May 2024, as had been originally scheduled.
Though the judge had declined a request last week from Trump's attorneys to go ahead and reschedule the trial start date, she nonetheless indicated that she would address that and several other matters during the March 1 scheduling conference.
That reality -- that Trump is highly unlikely to face trial over his retention of classified in May, and in fact may not stand trial until after the 2024 election is held -- has begun to sink in for the anti-Trump crowd, and as usual, they are aghast and furious that the former president they so despise has scored yet another, albeit temporary and minor, victory in court.
Since the Oct. 7 outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, the United States has deployed additional troops and equipment to the Middle East region, including additional U.S. Navy warships.
One of those warships, a guided-missile destroyer known as the USS Thomas Hudner, reportedly shot down on Wednesday a suspected enemy drone that was approaching the ship, according to the Associated Press.
The incident occurred as the Hudner was traversing the waters of the Red Sea and the drone is believed to have originated in Yemen, most likely launched by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, though no official blame has been assigned in that regard.
The AP reported that Defense officials said that the drone that likely originated in Yemen was believed to be targeting the U.S. warship and that it was shot down over international waters out of an abundance of caution to protect U.S. personnel.
"The USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) engaged a drone that originated from Yemen and was heading in the direction of the ship," an unnamed spokesperson for U.S. Central Command said in a statement to the Washington Examiner.
The spokesperson added, "The drone was destroyed, and there were no U.S. casualties."
This incident involving the shootdown of a drone launched from Yemen was said to be different from an incident in October in which multiple drones and missiles fired from Yemen were shot down by a U.S. warship, in that the suspected targets of the prior incident were locations in Israel while the target in this latest incident was the U.S. ship itself.
The AP reported that this latest incident came about a week after Houthi rebels had shot down a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone that the Houthis claimed had violated Yemeni airspace while U.S. officials insisted that the American drone had been operating over international waters when it was fired upon.
Per the Examiner, it doesn't appear that the U.S. military has conducted any sort of retaliatory action against the Houthis following the shootdown of the U.S. drone, which was addressed by Pentagon Deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh in a Tuesday press briefing in response to a question about whether that lack of retaliation was "inviting" more "aggressive actions" by the Houthis and other enemies.
"I wouldn't say that it's inviting more aggressive or further response from the Houthis," Singh replied. "We've seen the Houthis do this before. We've seen our -- one of our MQ-9s shot down before in the past."
"I'm not saying that we're not going to respond. We always reserve the right to respond at a time and place of our choosing. But I just don't have anything to forecast for you right now," she continued.
Pressed about the apparent lack of deterrence, Singh said, "Well, you have to remember that one of our ships did take action when the Houthis did fire missiles that were, you know, headed towards Israel. We did engage in that. We did bring those down."
She added, "I'm not going to get ahead of any action that the secretary or the president may or may not take. We have a very robust presence in the region right now that is sending, I think, a very strong message of deterrence. And while I certainly hear your question, we -- we always reserve the right to respond at a time and place of our choosing."
Republicans have raised legitimate concerns in recent years over the efforts of leftist billionaire George Soros to financially back the campaigns of far-left progressive prosecutors who tend to be soft on career criminals and focus more on social justice instead of actual justice.
Now one Soros-backed prosecutor in Virginia, Loudon County Commonwealth's Attorney Buta Biberaj, has been ousted from office by voters and replaced by a Republican prosecutor named Bob Anderson, according to Breitbart.
That unexpected result is all the more stunning in light of the substantial financial disparity in that county-level prosecutor's election, as Democratic Biberaj reportedly raised more than $1.1 million to fund her re-election campaign compared to just $70,000 raised by Anderson's campaign.
Outgoing Commonwealth's Attorney Biberaj was first elected to that position in 2019, and The Washington Free Beacon reported at the time that she did so with the help of nearly $1 million in contributions from Soros-funded progressive leftist entities.
That included a donation of roughly $850,000 from the Soros-financed Justice and Public Safety organization, a misnamed political action committee based out of Washington D.C. that is focused on anything but actual "justice" or "public safety."
Biberaj also received in-kind contributions totaling around $18,000 from a Democrat-aligned organization known as the New Virginia Majority, which had just been infused with upwards of $75,000 in cash from the above-mentioned Soros-funded PAC earlier that year.
The funding and support she received helped her defeat GOP-appointed Commonwealth's Attorney Nicole Wittmann by a margin of 51-48% in Virginia's 2019 elections.
Fast-forward four years, and the Loudon Times-Mirror reported that Biberaj has now finally conceded the county's commonwealth's attorney race to Republican challenger Anderson more than one week after the election.
Anderson had around a 1,000-vote lead on election night but that dwindled to just 300 votes after hundreds of absentee and provisional ballots were accounted for in the days after everybody's votes were cast last week.
In the end, Anderson was officially declared the victor with 68,068 votes, or 49.92% of the total, compared to Biberaj’s 67,768, or 49.7% of the total, with the remainder of the ballots going to candidates who were written in by voters.
The Times-Mirror reported that Anderson, who previously served as Loudon County's commonwealth's attorney from 1996-2003, said in a statement after the election results were certified, "The voters of Loudoun County have spoken loud and clear: It is time for a new commonwealth’s attorney who will focus on putting violent criminals behind bars, not on failed woke agendas."
"I will immediately begin transitioning the office to restore commonsense policies and get back to keeping our community safe. It’s time to get to work," he added and noted separately that he had received a "gracious" concession call from Biberaj, who appears to have declined to challenge the final results despite the exceptionally close margin.
The Virginia Mercury reported that the "controversial" Biberaj had faced sharp criticisms from Democrats and Republicans alike over her progressive agenda that included non-prosecution of supposedly low-level and non-violent criminals -- some of whom soon re-offend or elevated their criminality to include violence.
She also faced rebuke over her attempted prosecution of the father of a high school student rape victim who spoke out angrily about the incident at a school board meeting, only for that man to later be pardoned by Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
President Joe Biden has been credibly accused by critics of choosing many of his judicial nominees based on their "diversity" and partisan activism rather than their judicial experience and knowledge of and adherence to the nation's body of laws.
That was embarrassingly evident on Wednesday when Sara Hill, nominated by Biden to serve as a federal district judge in Oklahoma, failed to answer a question during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about basic legal terms that any first-year law student should know, Fox News reported.
The stunning failure to define what a "stay" and an "injunction" is, which some would argue is disqualifying for a would-be federal judge, came during a sort of rapid-fire quiz on basic knowledge of the Constitution and legal terms that committee member Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) likes to spring on judicial nominees during confirmation hearings.
The Washington Examiner reported that at one point during Sen. Kennedy's line of questioning for Biden judicial nominee Sara Hill -- who would be the first Native American federal judge in Oklahoma's history if confirmed -- he asked her to explain the "difference between a stay order and an injunction?"
"A stay -- a stay order would prohibit, um -- sorry -- an injunction would restrain the parties from taking action -- a stay order -- I'm not sure that I actually, can give you the -- that," Hill said in reply.
As any first-year law student could tell you -- or even modestly educated bloggers who simply pay attention to legal proceedings and court rulings -- a stay order typically places a particular court ruling on hold temporarily while the proceedings continue, whereas an injunction generally prohibits certain parties in a case from taking certain actions, either temporarily or permanently.
Judicial nominee Hill managed to answer some of Sen. Kennedy's basic legal questions but also stumbled on a few others, and after the senator's time had concluded, committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) jokingly congratulated the nominee for "surviving the John Kennedy six-minute bar exam," to which Hill replied with obvious embarrassment, "My contracts teacher is going to be appalled, and I'm gonna have to live with that."
In reaction to that moment during the hearing, conservative Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino tweeted a short video clip of Hill's inability to explain the difference between a stay order and an injunction and wrote, "How can an individual who wants to be a federal judge possibly not know this?"
She added, in reference to the Democratic chairman's joking remarks, "Senator Durbin even congratulated Hill afterward for 'passing the Kennedy bar exam' -- talk about grading on a curve!"
Severino's tweet was shared by The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway, who observed, "What Biden's judicial nominees lack in understanding of the law, they make up for multiple times over in radicalism."
Sen. Kennedy did not address that specific moment during an appearance Thursday on the Ruthless podcast but did discuss the difference in how Democrats and Republicans view the judiciary and judicial nominees, with the former looking for "politicians in robes" and partisan activists while the latter seek individuals with judicial experience and knowledge of the laws.
When Pres. Biden nominates activists to judgeships, my Democrat colleagues don’t do anything about it. pic.twitter.com/REUZtNx4jn
— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) November 16, 2023
"You see it in President Biden's nominees" to the federal judiciary at the circuit and district court levels, Kennedy said, and though he has voted to confirm a few who were clearly qualified to serve, the senator added, "Many of President Biden's appointees to the lower courts -- they're activists who happen to be lawyers."
Throughout former President Donald Trump's ongoing civil fraud trial in New York, he and his attorneys have repeatedly highlighted multiple instances of the judge and his top clerk displaying clear and overt partisan political bias against the defendant.
Those complaints of political bias and partisanship have now been formalized in a motion that calls for the case to end immediately with a declaration of mistrial, Breitbart reported.
Unsurprisingly, the chief prosecutor in this case, Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has also repeatedly displayed her partisan bias against the former president, was furious in a statement expressing opposition to the mistrial motion.
In a 30-page motion filed Wednesday, former President Trump's attorneys emphasized the importance of trials being conducted in a "fair and impartial" manner. They wrote that "there can be no doubt of the public perception of bias in this case. Even commentators who are politically opposed to President Trump have noted the biased nature of the proceedings and the astonishing departures from ordinary standards of impartiality."
"This appearance of bias threatens both Defendants’ rights and the integrity of the judiciary as an institution," the motion continued. "As developed herein, in this case the evidence of apparent and actual bias is tangible and overwhelming. Such evidence, coupled with an unprecedented departure from standard judicial procedure, has tainted these proceedings and a mistrial is warranted."
"Specifically, the Court’s own conduct, coupled with the Principal Law Clerk, Allison Greenfield’s ("Principal Law Clerk") unprecedented role in the trial and extensive, public partisan activities, would cause even a casual observer to question the Court’s partiality," Trump's attorneys argued. "Thus, only the grant of a mistrial can salvage what is left of the rule of law."
The mistrial motion proceeded to document numerous instances in which Judge Arthur Engoron and Principal Law Clerk Allison Greenfield have overtly displayed their partisan bias against former President Trump in ways that the defense attorneys assert are in violation of New York's Code of Judicial Conduct.
For the judge, Trump's attorneys pointed to his repeated posting over the past few years of biased news articles to a school alumnus newsletter he manages that were critical or disparaging of Trump, his family, his business, and his attorneys and pertained to pending or impending cases he was presiding over.
They also called out the evident "co-judging" of Engoron and Greenfield, who sit together on the bench and routinely consult with each other on virtually all matters through facial expressions, gestures, whispered comments, or handwritten notes, and observed, "While a Justice of the Court no doubt has ample discretion to consult with his or her Law Secretaries, this unprecedented arrangement exceeds the outer limits of such discretion."
In addition to that "appearance of impropriety," Trump's attorneys also took issue with Greenfield's political contributions to Democratic candidates and organizations that are publicly opposed to the defendant and that purportedly exceeded state-imposed limitations on partisan activity and donations by court staffers.
Other assorted displays of partisan bias mentioned in the motion included Judge Engoron's pre-trial judgment against Trump, his gag order silencing criticism of himself and Greenfield and enforcement thereof with summary fines, his routine rulings against defense objections, and comments made in court that demonstrated a bias against the former president.
"At this point, the taint of these proceedings is both obvious and irreversible. Worse even, the Court has abrogated its constitutional responsibility to ensure each Defendant, including President Trump, receives a fair trial free from even the appearance of impropriety and impartiality," the motion concluded. "Therefore, given the demonstrable partisan bias present on the bench at trial, the only way to maintain public confidence in a truly independent and impartial judiciary and the rule of law is to bring these proceedings to an immediate halt."
"Once again, Donald Trump is trying to dismiss the truth and the facts, but the numbers and evidence don’t lie," a spokesperson for Attorney General James said in a statement, according to Courthouse News. "Donald Trump is now being held accountable for the years of fraud he committed and the incredible ways he lied to enrich himself and his family. He can keep trying to distract from his fraud, but the truth always comes out."
The outlet further reported that Judge Engoron declined to substantially comment or rule on the mistrial motion but did give the AG's office a day to consider whether or not it wanted to file a response. According to The Hill, James sent the judge a letter on Thursday requesting a deadline of Dec. 8 for that formal response to be submitted.
Opponents of former President Donald Trump have filed lawsuits in multiple states that aim to bar Trump from appearing on election ballots due to his supposed disqualification under the auspices of the "insurrection" clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
One such lawsuit in Michigan was just dismissed by a judge who ruled that Trump could appear on the state's primary and general election ballots next year, according to The Hill.
The judge essentially ruled that Trump couldn't be removed from the primary ballot since all relevant laws were followed to place his name there as a candidate, and further declared that the broader question about Trump's eligibility for the presidency was one for Congress, and not the courts, to ultimately decide.
The Associated Press reported that a left-leaning organization known as Free Speech for People filed the lawsuit in Michigan -- as well as in several other states -- which argues that former President Trump is disqualified from being re-elected or even appearing on ballots due to the 14th Amendment.
Specifically, they point to Section 3 of that post-Civil War amendment and the disqualification for public office it meted out to anybody who previously took an oath of office prior to engaging in an "insurrection or rebellion" or providing aid and comfort to others who had done so -- a prohibition squarely aimed at former Confederate officers and politicians in the newly reunified states.
The arguments presented were deemed unpersuasive by Court of Claims Judge James Redford, however, and he cited other dismissed or defeated lawsuits on the same subject in other states as the basis for his reasoning.
In his 21-page opinion and order, Judge Redford denied the requests that he declare former President Trump ineligible to be president again under the auspices of the 14th Amendment as well as to issue permanent injunctions blocking the Michigan Secretary of State from including Trump's name as a candidate on both the primary and general election ballots in 2024.
With regard to the inclusion of Trump's name on the primary ballot, the judge determined that Trump and the Michigan Republican Party had satisfied the minimal legislatively-enacted requirements for doing so and therefore couldn't be blocked from appearing on the ballots, and cited a recent similar conclusion from the Minnesota Supreme Court.
And, like the Minnesota ruling, Redford decided that the effort to bar Trump from the general election ballot was "not ripe" or not "about to occur" and as such couldn't yet be addressed by the court.
As for the demand that former President Trump be declared disqualified and ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment, Judge Redford ruled that that was a "nonjusticiable political question" that was a matter for Congress, and not the courts, to decide.
He pointed to the "well-thought-out analysis and conclusion" of a New Hampshire court that similarly dismissed the same request and also highlighted numerous other clauses and amendments within the U.S. Constitution that made it clear that Congress and Congress alone have the right and responsibility to determine who is and isn't eligible or qualified to serve as president.
The judge further highlighted the "inappropriateness" of the judicial branch in resolving political questions, as doing so removes the decision-making from Congress and "gives it to but one judicial officer, a person who no matter how well-intentioned, evenhanded, fair and learned, cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation -- as does the House of Representatives and the Senate."
In response to the ruling, Free Speech for People's legal director Ron Fein said, "We are disappointed by the trial court’s decision, and we’re appealing it immediately," and added, "The Michigan Supreme Court should reverse this badly-reasoned lower court decision. While our appeal is pending, the trial court’s decision isn’t binding on any other court, and we continue our current and planned legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Donald Trump."
As for Trump and his campaign, spokesman Steven Cheung noted this and other losses in other states and said in a statement, "Each and every one of these ridiculous cases have LOST because they are all un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign seeking to turn the election over to the courts and deny the American people the right to choose their next president."
Multiple recent polls have shown that President Joe Biden runs a real risk of losing in a 2024 rematch against his 2020 rival, former President Donald Trump, and that has set off alarm bells for numerous Democratic strategists and Biden supporters.
Now a political statistician offering a purportedly objective view has suggested that Democrats may want to consider the admittedly risky option of replacing Biden as the party nominee if they want to better their odds of winning the presidency again next year, according to the Daily Wire.
That suggestion was based on not just the recent poll numbers but also Biden's advanced age, increasingly apparent physical and mental decline, and his reported inability to wage a "normal campaign" for re-election.
That statistician is Nate Silver, formerly of FiveThirtyEight, who took to Substack this week to argue that President Biden should "step aside" as a presidential candidate and be replaced by the Democratic Party if he is unable to run a "normal campaign" for the presidency.
"Convincing Biden to step aside would not be easy," Silver acknowledged. "Running a race against him if he didn’t step down would be messy, with little guarantee of who would emerge victorious other than that it might be Biden anyway, worse for battle wear. Then there’s the whole question of what might happen to Vice President Harris."
"Democrats would be taking a huge risk by replacing Biden -- but they’re also taking a huge risk by nominating him. There’s no getting out of this," he continued.
Silver proceeded to take stock of President Biden's abysmal approval numbers as well as his elderly status and decreased physical and mental capabilities, and surmised, "If Biden can’t keep up with the schedule of a typical sitting president running for re-election, or is prone to making errors when he does, voters and the media are going to notice that and Biden will wear his 80+ years like an albatross around his neck."
He also pointed to a recent media report detailing how Biden's campaign team knows that the president is incapable of mounting a normal re-election campaign and has instead adapted to a sort of "Rose Garden campaign" centered in the White House.
"It would be extremely foolish to nominate an 80-year-old man who is not up to the rigors of a modern presidential campaign -- even more foolish than replacing him, which just to be clear is also an extremely foolish thing to do," Silver wrote.
"If the choices are Biden running a reasonably normal campaign or a Mystery Democrat doing the same thing, I think it’s close," Silver concluded with regard to whether or not Biden should be the Democratic Party's nominee.
"But if it’s Biden running a Rose Garden campaign versus a different Democrat running a normal one, I’ll take my chances on the alternative, and Biden can join James K. Polk on the list of historically well-regarded presidents who didn’t seek a second term," he added.
Of course, as the Daily Wire noted, the Biden campaign and White House have largely glossed over or summarily dismissed the growing concerns about the incumbent president's age, declining physical and mental fitness, his reported inability to campaign like normal, and the terrible poll numbers that have come of late.
In fact, in a stunning reversal of the situation earlier this year, it is now Biden instead of Trump who is falsely claiming to hold the lead in all or most of the leading polls, which is simply no longer the case as it was previously.
As things stand now, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Trump holds a one-point margin over Biden, 45.8-44.8%, and of the nine latest polls to be included in that running average, Trump is ahead in seven of them compared to Biden holding the lead in just two of those voter surveys.
It was earlier this year that IRS whistleblowers previously involved in the years-long federal investigation of Hunter Biden came forward and alleged that Justice Department officials had inappropriately displayed political bias and favoritism on behalf of President Joe Biden's troubled adult son.
Those allegations put forward in sworn testimony by the whistleblowers were denied and disputed by the top prosecutor presiding over that Hunter Biden probe, however, according to the Daily Caller.
That top prosecutor is Special Counsel David Weiss, who reportedly denied any sort of political bias in the investigation during a closed-door hearing with the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee last week.
The Daily Caller reported that it was granted access to review the unreleased transcript of the committee's Nov. 7 interview with Special Counsel Weiss, in which he was asked about but rejected the allegations of political bias and favoritism toward Hunter Biden and any "protocols" to guard against such situations.
"I’m not aware of protocols. And look, my interest and the interest of prosecutors in my office is pursuing cases, and we should be pursuing cases based on the laws and the facts, period," Weiss reportedly said.
He then added in response to a follow-up question, "Look, no, I’m not aware of any policies, and I haven’t experienced, to my knowledge, a situation in which I had to deal with the hypothetical that you’re describing."
When pressed on the matter, Weiss further declined to address any specific details or allegations and insisted, "Again, I’m not going to comment on any aspect of the investigation or a prosecution, and from my perspective, the prosecutors who participated in this case followed the law and the facts."
Except, as was alleged previously in sworn testimony provided by two IRS whistleblowers -- who both claimed to have been retaliated against and removed from the Biden probe after raising the alarm -- investigators had been fully prepared to move forward with multiple federal charges against Hunter but were blocked from doing so by the DOJ.
They specifically alleged that senior prosecutors deliberately delayed granting approval for certain search warrants, tipped off the Biden camp about impending moves by investigators, and denied attempts to pursue certain investigative avenues that might lead to President Biden himself.
The whistleblowers also specifically called out Delaware's Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf as playing the lead role in protecting the Bidens and blocking the investigators.
"I am aware that you have two whistleblowers who have testified. That’s correct," Weiss told the committee, according to the Daily Caller, but when asked about their specific allegations, declined to do so as he replied, "It’s not something I experienced. I understand what your representation is with respect to these whistleblowers, and that would have me commenting on specifics relative to this investigation and this case."
As for the allegations against AUSA Wolf, the special counsel defended the high-ranking prosecutor and said, "Yeah, I’m not going to discuss any particular allegations. Lesley Wolf has been a dedicated public servant for more than 16 years. I believe she is an excellent lawyer and is a person of integrity."
The crux of Weiss' testimony is quite simple -- he either is completely unaware of or didn't personally experience any sort of displays of political bias or favoritism by DOJ officials toward Hunter Biden, and he is willing to defend the reputations of those officials who have been accused of doing exactly that.
Whether anyone can or should believe the special counsel in that regard is left for each individual to decide, and it remains to be seen if any serious criminal charges -- for which there is allegedly ample evidence in support -- will ever come from Weiss' probe against the president's clearly politically protected son.
Now more than two weeks into its ground invasion of Gaza, elements of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) have steadily made gains and reportedly captured key areas that are critical to the Hamas terrorist organization.
One such area is the so-called "governor's residence" in a neighborhood of Gaza City that is actually purported to be a central command and control headquarters for Hamas, according to Breitbart.
In addition to the governor's mansion, IDF troops also reportedly took control of other important government buildings, including where the Hamas legislature meets, as well as a police headquarters and an engineering institution that had been utilized as a weapons production and storage facility.
According to an IDF press release, the combined combat forces of an elite Israeli unit known as the Golani Brigade "successfully secured the Governor’s Residence, identified as a facility used by the Hamas terror organization."
"This building housed both Hamas military and police offices and the organization’s military intelligence offices, headquarters, and various outposts," the statement continued. "Some of these outposts were used by Hamas for training in preparation for the invasion into Israel on Saturday, October 7th."
לוחמי גולני הגיעו לבית המושל של עזה pic.twitter.com/O1Hh3wVodI
— איתי בלומנטל 🇮🇱 Itay Blumental (@ItayBlumental) November 14, 2023
The IDF statement also noted that troops from its 7th Brigade "secured the Hamas legislature and government building, the Hamas police headquarters and an engineering faculty used for weapons production and development."
"During the operation, the forces took control of the Gizat compound, which contains Hamas training facilities, an operational situation room, detention and interrogation facilities. Hamas weapons, as well as training and study materials, were located in the facility," the statement added.
The Times of Israel reported that an element of the Golani Brigade that took part in capturing the so-called Governor's Residence, the 13th Battalion, also discovered evidence within that mansion that directly linked it to the murderous Oct. 7 wave of Hamas terror attacks against predominately Israeli civilians in southern Israel that precipitated the current ongoing military conflict.
Specifically, in addition to finding Hamas plans and intelligence and weaponry, the IDF troops also reportedly found piles of Israeli weapons and equipment that Hamas fighters had stolen from IDF troops who had been killed in the initial terror attacks.
Troops of the IDF’s Golani Brigade’s 13th Battalion operating in the Gaza Strip found equipment taken by Hamas terrorists from their comrades during the October 7 onslaught.
The stolen equipment — and other Hamas weaponry — was found in the so-called governor’s house in Gaza,… pic.twitter.com/pS4SdoeM9e
— Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) November 14, 2023
Meanwhile, The Times of Israel further reported that as IDF troops have seized control of important governmental buildings and other facilities or institutions used by Hamas to hold sway over Gaza, the effort to encircle and also gain control of the major al-Shifa hospital has continued.
It has been alleged, and there is some evidence in support, that the al-Shifa hospital sits atop a massive underground operations command center and tunnel network that Hamas hides in while using the hospital's doctors, nurses, and patients above as human shields against Israeli strikes.
The outlet reported that at least 1,200 Israelis were killed in the Oct. 7 attacks and at least 46 IDF troops have been killed since the ground invasion started. Conversely, the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry has dubiously claimed that more than 11,240 Gazans have been killed since Oct. 7 by IDF retaliation, though that number doesn't differentiate between civilians and Hamas fighters, nor does it specify how many of those deaths were caused by Hamas itself, either through slaughtering fleeing civilians or by the hundreds of Palestinian rockets that have fallen short in Gaza.