While many still believe the Biden family profited significantly from various overseas business dealings, including alleged bribes, an FBI informant who claimed Bidens took millions from a Ukrainian oligarch has definitely changed his story.
According to the Washington Examiner, former FBI informant Alexander Smirnov agreed this week to plead guilty to lying to federal informants regarding his claim that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden received the lucrative bribes.
Smirnov's original testimony was what jumpstarted an investigation into the Bidens regarding the matter.
He admitted to evading millions in unreported income and to lying to federal agents about the Biden situation.
Smirnov has agreed to plead guilty as part of a plea struck with special counsel David Weiss.
The Examiner noted:
Weiss brought the indictment against Smirnov in February while the special counsel was also leading two prosecutions against Hunter Biden. Smirnov’s indictment, at the time, served as a massive blow to House Republicans, who used Smirnov’s claims about the Bidens to help justify their impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden.
Smirnov's original claim centered around a story he told regarding the Bidens receiving $5 million each in bribes from Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
The payments, according to his original claims, "were made in exchange for Joe Biden to use his political power to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma."
Ex-FBI informant Alexander Smirnov pleads guilty to lying about Joe Biden and Hunter bribes https://t.co/h5PnWCPR3y pic.twitter.com/TCzi6AjEy8
— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) December 12, 2024
The story he told made perfect sense, given that Hunter Biden was a board member for Burisma and his father's influence could have deterred investigations into the company at the time.
The Examiner noted:
Smirnov admitted lying about the claims, which he made on an FBI form known as an FD-1023 in 2020 while Joe Biden was running for president. In his plea agreement, Smirnov also admitted that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.
Smirnov has been in jail in California since he was charged with making the false statements.
As part of the plea deal, Special Counsel Weiss "asked the court to sentence him to up to six years in prison and force him to pay up to $675,502 in restitution."
His sentencing is set for January.
The influential conservative historian and dedicated anti-communist Lee Edwards, who helped build a memorial in Washington D.C. to the victims of communism, has died. He was 92.
A formative figure in the modern conservative movement, Edwards helped found Young Americans for Freedom in 1960 and worked as a news director for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign and the Draft Goldwater Committee.
Born in Chicago, Illinois in 1932, Edwards was introduced early to politics by his parents, who were both anti-communists.
His father, the national political reporter for the Chicago Tribune, encouraged his interest in writing.
His lifelong love of freedom was sparked by the 1956 Hungarian Revolution - which he witnessed first with admiration, and then horror as the Soviets crushed the student-let rebellion. Edwards was studying at the Sorbonne University in Paris at the time.
"Having been lifted to the heights by these acts of courage, I was furious, I was embarrassed, I was ashamed, and I became resolute,” he told the Catholic Herald in 2017.
As a young man, Edwards helped found Young Americans for Freedom in 1960 and was the first editor of their magazine, New Guard.
Young America’s Foundation President and former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said, "Dr. Edward’s dedicated his career to exposing the horrors of Communism and the stories of its victims. May he rest in peace."
After the fall of the Soviet Union, he helped co-found the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in 1994, which built a memorial in Washington D.C. to honor victims of the deadliest ideology in human history.
Dr. Elizabeth Spalding, the Chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundations and Founding Director of the Victims of Communism Museum, said, "Lee Edwards was a friend, mentor, and hero to many, including those who only know him through his works over the course of a life well lived. He was also a husband, father, and grandfather. He will be missed by all. But we rejoice that he is now at home with the Lord and is reunited with his beloved wife Anne. And we will all continue, and redouble our efforts, in the work that remains here for us."
While celebrated for his anti-communism, Edwards was also a respected academic and historian of conservative ideas, known for over 25 books on the conservative movement and its leading figures, including Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, Jr.
Edwards was an adjunct professor at Catholic University of America, where he received his doctorate in political science, and a distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation.
In a blow to Joe Biden's lame duck efforts to obstruct the Trump administration, the Senate voted 50-49 to block a Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board.
The tie-breaking vote was cast by Ohio senator and future vice president J.D. Vance, who flew to Washington D.C. to sink the nomination of Lauren McFerren, a Biden loyalist known for her pro-labor agenda.
The National Labor Relations Board has significant power to set the agenda on labor law enforcement, and under McFerren, the scales have been tipped heavily in favor of organized labor.
If she had been confirmed to another five-year term, Democrats would have retained control of the board through 2026.
"Make no mistake: This vote had nothing to do with stopping Chair McFerran’s renomination and everything to do with reversing generations of progress workers have made toward building a fairer and more just economy,” Liz Shuler, president of AFL-CIO, said.
Also helping to sink the nomination were Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who are both retiring from the Senate. The former Democrats were frequently a thorn in Biden's side throughout his term.
The duo's role in blocking McFerren sparked fresh outrage from the left, as Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-Ny.) who lost his majority in November, decried the vote as an attack on the working-class.
“It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee — with a proven track record of protecting worker rights — did not have the votes,” Schumer said.
While McFerren's failure is seen as a win for business groups, President-elect Trump is ensuring that unions have a seat at the table in his administration by nominating a union-friendly Republican to lead the Labor Department, Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
Trump's historic re-election victory was powered by a political realignment that saw him erode the Democrats' traditionally working-class base. In his latest show of support for workers, Trump said Thursday that he is siding with the dock workers' union against automation at America's ports.
"The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen," he said.
Trump's labor outreach hasn't come without controversy as some Republicans argue that embracing unions is a mistake.
In any event, the failure of Biden's push to continue controlling the NLRB will ensure that Trump is able to set his own agenda on labor relations.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the authority of the government to revoke visas for fraudulent marriages, finding such decisions fall within the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security and cannot be reviewed by courts.
The case was brought by Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen married to a Palestinian non-citizen.
Bouarfa's petition for a spousal visa was initially approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, but the agency later revoked the approval when it found her husband had engaged in a sham marriage in the past.
Writing for the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that federal law grants the Secretary of Homeland Security power to revoke an approved visa petition "at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause."
“Congress granted the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] broad authority to revoke an approved visa petition ‘at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause,’” Jackson wrote in the court’s opinion.
“Such a revocation is thus ‘in the discretion’ of the agency."
The DHS initially accepted Bouarfa's application but later found that her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, had paid his ex-wife $5,000 in exchange for a green card.
Bouarfa appealed at the agency level, to no avail, before taking the matter to the federal court system. A federal court in Florida ruled that revocation was a discretionary action that the courts have no power to review, and the 11th Circuit affirmed.
Bouarfa had argued that her case can be reviewed in court because the DHS was forced to revoke her initial approval. She argued that the agency consistently revokes applications it later finds to be fraudulent, so the issue is not really up to the Secretary's discretion.
But federal law places no such constraints on the Secretary's discretion, Jackson noted. Neither does the agency's general practice of revoking fraudulent applications tie its hands.
Discretion is a "two-way street," Jackson noted: just as the government can revoke a sham petition, it can choose to "let the error stand."
"As a general matter, then, this discretion may work to the benefit of visa petition beneficiaries, since rather than tying the agency’s hands by forcing revocation, Congress created 'room for mercy,'" Jackson wrote.
While revocations cannot be challenged in court, nothing is stopping Bouarfa from starting the process over again, and she has already done so. If the government rejects her new petition, she may seek judicial review, Jackson said.
The new CEO of UnitedHealth Group said the insurance company will keep denying "unnecessary" treatment in a video leaked to a left-wing journalist.
The comments from Andrew Witty came after the shocking execution of former UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in an apparent act of terrorism targeting the health care industry.
Some have embraced the suspected killer as a martyr against corporate greed, as the shooting fuels violent fury over denied insurance claims and the steep cost of treatment.
But UnitedHealthGroup, the parent company of UnitedHealthCare, has no plans to change its business model in response to public outrage. In a message to employees that was leaked to journalist Ken Klippenstein, CEO Andrew Witty said the company will continue to "guard against" what he called "unnecessary" and unsafe care.
“Our role is a critical role, and we make sure that care is safe, appropriate, and is delivered when people need it,” Witty said.
"We guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe care or for unnecessary care to be delivered in a way which makes the whole system too complex and ultimately unsustainable,” he added.
The CEO also warned against interacting with the media as he blasted "aggressive, inappropriate and disrespectful” coverage of Thompson's murder.
“I’d like to give you a little bit of advice around the media,” Witty continued. “My strong advice and request to everybody is just don’t engage with the media. If you’re approached, I would recommend not responding and, if necessary, simply refer them to our own media organization.”
The man charged with assassinating Thompson, Luigi Mangione, was arrested Monday after he was recognized at a McDonald's in Pennsylvania.
While much remains unclear about the suspected killer, police recovered a handwritten manifesto in which Mangione, a 26-year-old Ivy League Graduate from a prominent Baltimore family, expressed anger with the healthcare system.
"I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming," he wrote in the alleged note.
Thompson was brazenly gunned down in broad daylight outside of a hotel in midtown Manhattan on December 4. Shell casings were found with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose," sparking early speculation that the shooter was motivated by revenge against health insurance companies.
The shooting led some to celebrate the killer as other health insurance companies scrubbed information from their websites.
The Biden administration arrested somebody for alleged "climate" offenses, another dubious first in the president's legacy of politicized justice.
Michael Hart, 58, became the first person to ever be charged with a climate change-related crime when he pled guilty in September to "smuggling greenhouse gases" across the Mexican border.
The Biden regime gloated over Hart's unprecedented arrest in its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report.
The San Diego man allegedly used tarp to conceal refrigerants, known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), as he crossed the Mexican border.
The gases were outlawed by the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020, which was signed into law by President Trump in a spending package at the end of his first term.
"To achieve the AIM Act’s goal of an 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2036, EPA is acting in a number of ways, including by implementing an initiative to disrupt the illegal smuggling of HFCs through United States borders and ports," the agency said.
The Biden-appointed federal prosecutor who brought the case, Tara McGrath, gloated that it "will not be the last."
"We are using every means possible to protect our planet from the harm caused by toxic pollutants, including bringing criminal charges,” she said.
According to the EPA, there were 121 climate arrests in 2024, a Biden record, and $1.7 billion in criminal penalties brought against environmental offenders.
The report emphasized its role to protect "underserved communities," an allusion to the concept of "climate justice."
"In FY 2024, the criminal enforcement program opened 200 new cases, with 61% in overburdened and underserved communities, and charged 121 defendants. In terms of overall relief, the program secured total fines and restitution exceeding $26 million; $750,000 in court ordered environmental projects; 19.3 years of incarceration; and forfeiture of $322,706 in illegal proceeds," the EPA's report said.
Of course, the Biden administration hardly showed the same level of concern about the importation of fentanyl, to say nothing of the violent illegal aliens who crossed the border and went on to kill American citizens like Laken Riley.
By the way, how much damage did Biden cause to the environment with his open border policy? How many millions of immigrants left trash in their wake while crossing the border?
While the Biden regime may have been given legal authority to pursue this case, the regime's failure to stop years of chaos at the border speaks volumes about the regime's priorities - and proves that this case has nothing to do with the "rule of law."
Mark this down as another egregious example of the Biden regime's weaponization of government.
A bombshell case regarding Americans killed or hurt in the Middle East by terrorist attacks has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the Associated Press, the high court will soon decide if Palestinian Authorities can be sued in the United States by Americans killed or wounded in terror attacks that occurred in the Middle East.
The eventual decision will be a culmination of years of court battles regarding the situation.
Despite Congress fighting to allow those U.S. citizens to have their cases heard, a New York-based federal appeals court has already ruled in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.
The New York federal appeals court decision, which was rendered last year, shot down a previous law passed in 2019 that would have allowed U.S. citizens in that scenario to file suit.
Because a lower court invalidated a federal law, the situation made its way to the Supreme Court, which is usually the case in such scenarios.
US Supreme Court to weigh bid to sue Palestinian authorities over attacks - https://t.co/gVRnvWRcAN
Sueing you for My good home— Tony Craig Childers (@craig_to19208) December 9, 2024
The AP noted:
The question for the justices is whether the 2019 law is unconstitutional, as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found, because it denies fair legal process to the PLO and PA. The case probably will be argued in the spring.
It was reported that both the victims of such attacks and the Biden administration had urged the high court to take the case.
The AP added:
The attacks occurred in the early 2000s, killing 33 people and wounding hundreds more, and in 2018, when a U.S.-born settler was stabbed to death by a Palestinian assailant outside a busy mall in the West Bank.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) both argued that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, passed in 2019, is a violation of their due process rights.
They argued that as a result of the law passed by Congress, they were forced to consent to be sued.
Both groups claimed that the law is ultimately unconstitutional.
It'll be interesting to see how the high court decides in the matter, as high-profile figures from both sides of the political aisle support the law and believe it should remain in place.
The threat of taking down TikTok, the world's most popular social media platform that consists of short videos where many creators often find stardom, is still alive and well.
According to the Associated Press, a federal appeals court panel upheld a law that could effectively end the platform as soon as January due to national security concerns.
TikTok has been under the threat of a complete ban in the United States now for years, and the platform, which has some level of ties to the Chinese government, has spent considerable resources fighting for survival in the U.S.
Luckily for the company, its resources are deep and essentially never-ending given that it's not only one of the most popular out there, it pulls in mountains of revenue.
Speaking of resources, TikTok has spent plenty of money in its attempt to have the law that could ban the platform overturned once and for all.
The AP noted:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok’s petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company’s challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The federal appeals court held nothing back in writing its decision on the matter.
"The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States," said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, according to the AP.
It added, "Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States."
TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes released a statement in the wake of the bombshell decision.
"The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," Hughes said.
TikTok has until Jan. 19, one day until President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in, to sell to an American company or face a total ban.
However, some believe that Trump, who was once a proponent of banning the platform but now supports it and is against the ban, could throw the company some kind of lifeline.
Only time will tell how it plays out, but it'll definitely be interesting to see who takes what sides.
While nothing can be done to undo Joe Biden's corrupt blanket pardon of his son Hunter, the president is paying a steep price in the court of public opinion.
62% of registered voters oppose the pardon, including 41% who "strongly" disapprove, according to a poll from the Napolitan News Service. Just 30% agreed with Biden's move, the Washington Examiner reported.
The lame-duck Biden was already leaving office as an unpopular, failed president before he abused his authority to protect his family on his way out the door.
Hunter Biden was facing sentencing for federal tax and gun crimes when he received a lucky break from his father last weekend.
The sweeping, 11-year pardon covers any federal crimes Hunter Biden committed or "may have committed" starting in January 2014 - the same year Hunter joined the board of notorious Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings while his father was vice president.
Before pardoning his son, Biden had repeatedly said he would let the justice system prevail. His decision to break that pledge to serve his private interests has fueled backlash and anger, including from some in his own party who say he is indirectly helping President-elect Trump.
While announcing the pardon, Biden claimed that his son was the target of political pressure, echoing Trump's rhetoric about justice being weaponized against him.
"From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted," Biden said.
Despite Biden's claims that his son was treated unfairly, 54% of voters disagree, the poll found.
On the other hand, respondents were more likely to sympathize with Trump: 46% agreed that the Justice Department targeted him unfairly, more than the 42% who disagreed.
While Biden's defenders try to justify his pardon as the act of a loving father, it is clear that his decision has done grave damage to his already tarnished public image.
Indeed, pollster Scott Rasmussen said even Democrats are re-evaluating his legacy as the party reckons with Trump's 2024 comeback, which some Democrats have blamed on Biden's decision to seek re-election.
“In this hyper-partisan world, it’s stunning that only 52% of Democrats support the president’s pardon," Rasmussen said.
"This is just the beginning of partisan re-evaluation. I suspect the anger at Biden among Democrats is ready to bubble over. Over time, the party will come to believe that the only reason they lost in 2024 is because Biden selfishly tried to run for re-election,” Rasmussen continued.
An American YouTuber is feared dead after he was kidnapped in the Philippines.
Elliot Eastman, 26, of Vermont, was taken captive while living in a poor coastal town with his Filipino wife.
The police suspect he died in a struggle with his captors, although his body has not been recovered and he is believed to have been dumped in the ocean.
The man was living in Sibuco, a poor town in the southern Zamboanga del Norte province. The southern Philippines - a Muslim enclave in the mostly Catholic nation - is notoriously dangerous, and there have been instances of jihadists capturing or killing tourists.
But police say Eastman was captured by petty criminals who dragged him away on a speedboat on the night of October 17. Eastman was at home with his wife, a local Muslim woman, when four armed men barged in claiming to be police.
The former mayor of the town said Eastman's captors may have believed he was a rich foreigner or resented the Westerner's marriage to a local Muslim woman. One thing is clear: his apparent death was brutal.
A relative of one of the suspects told police that Eastman's body was thrown in the sea after a violent struggle with his captors, who shot him twice in the leg and abdomen, causing his death. Eastman's blood was found on the floor of his home with an empty M16 shell cartridge.
One of the suspects later confessed that Eastman was indeed shot dead and thrown overboard.
Regional police spokesperson Lt. Col. Ramoncelio Sawan said all indications point to Eastman's death, but his body has not been found, leaving some hope that he is still living.
While searching for Eastman last month, the police killed three suspects in a firefight in the restive southern region.
Eastman documented his life in Sibuco on his YouTube channel, and he appeared to eerily foreshadow his own demise in a recent Facebook livestream.
"As long as I'm here, my life is still at risk, you know,' Eastman said in a September 22 video.
"That's the reality, especially the area that I'm in....It's not even just the Philippines. This area that I'm in is like the most dangerous area in the country, so it's literally like the red zone."
The police have notified Eastman's family of his fate through the U.S. Embassy in Manila.