“Secretly” Brought To You By Bill Gates: Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act

“Secretly” Brought To You By Bill Gates: Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act


“Secretly” Brought To You By Bill Gates: Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act

BY TYLER DURDEN

The Democrats’ “Inflation Reduction Act” – which according to the Congressional Budget Office will raise taxes on the middle class to the tune of $20 billion – not to mention unleash an army of IRS agents on working class Americans over the next decade, was made possible by Bill Gates and (in smaller part) Larry Summers, who have been known to hang out together.

Pals hanging out

The bill, of course, was signed yesterday.

In a Tuesday Bloomberg article that reads more like a newsletter for the Gates fan club, the billionaire Microsoft co-founder recalls how earlier this year, as moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema continued to block the tax-and-spend legislation over concerns that it would raise taxes on the middle class (it will), Gates says he tapped into a relationship with Manchin that he’d been cultivating since at least 2019.

Gates was banking on more than just his trademark optimism about addressing climate change and other seemingly intractable problems that have been his focus since stepping down as Microsoft’s chief executive two decades ago. As he revealed to Bloomberg Green, he has quietly lobbied Manchin and other senators, starting before President Joe Biden had won the White House, in anticipation of a rare moment in which heavy federal spending might be secured for the clean-energy transition.

Those discussions gave him reason to believe the senator from West Virginia would come through for the climate — and he was willing to continue pressing the case himself until the very end. “The last month people felt like, OK, we tried, we’re done, it failed,” Gates said. “I believed it was a unique opportunity.” So he tapped into a relationship with Manchin that he’d cultivated for at least three years. “We were able to talk even at a time when he felt people weren’t listening.” -Bloomberg

We know, gag us with a spoon.

Apparently Gates and Manchin’s bromance began when the billionaire wooed the West Virgina Senator at a 2019 meal in Seattle, in an effort to garner support for clean-energy policy. Manchin at the time was the senior-most Democrat on the energy committee.

My dialogue with Joe has been going on for quite a while,” said Gates.

After Manchin walked (again) on the bill last December over concerns that it would exacerbate the national debt, inflation, the pandemic, and amid geopolitical uncertainty with Russia, Gates jumped into action. A few weeks later, he met with Manchin and his wife, Gayle Conelly Manchin, at a DC restaurant, where they talked about what West Virginia needed. Manchin understandably wanted to preserve jobs at the center of the US coal industry, while Gates suggested that coal plant workers could simply swap over to nuclear plants – such as those from Gates’ TerraPower.

Manchin apparently wasn’t convinced, announcing on Feb. 1 that “Build Back Better” (the Inflation Reduction Act’s previous iteration) was “dead.”

In an effort to convince him otherwise, Democrats pulled together a cadre of economists and other Manchin influencers – including former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who convinced Manchin that the bill wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, or add to the deficit.

Collin O’Mara, chief executive officer of the National Wildlife Federation, recruited economists to assuage Manchin’s concerns — including representatives from the University of Chicago and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware brought in a heavyweight: former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who has spent decades advising Democrats. 

The economists were able to “send this signal that [the bill’s] going to help with the deficit,” O’Mara said. “It’s going to be slightly deflationary and it’s going to spur growth and investment in all these areas.” Through this subtle alchemy, clean-energy investments could be reframed for Manchin as a hedge against future spikes in oil and gas prices and a way to potentially export more energy to Europe. -Bloomberg

Gates also sprang into action again on July 7, when Manchin was spotted at the Sun Valley media conference in Idaho – which Gates also attended.

“We had a talk about what was missing, what needed to be done,” Gates said. “And then after that it was a lot of phone calls.”

Gates looks back at the new law with satisfaction. He achieved what he set out to do. “I will say that it’s one of the happier moments of my climate work,” Gates said. “I have two things that excite me about climate work. One is when policy gets done well, and this is by far the biggest moment like that.” His other pleasure comes from interviewing people at climate and clean-tech startups: “I hear about this amazing new way to make steel, cement and chemicals.” -Bloomberg

I don’t want to take credit for what went on,” says Gates – in the article about how he gets credit for what went on.

**********

(TLB) published this article from ZeroHedge as compiled and written by Tyler Durden

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Gates/Manchin/from orginal ZH article/ assembled by (TLB) staff

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Top Biden Adviser Anita Dunn Divulges Massive Conflict Of Interest: She Worked For Pfizer

White House Senior Adviser Anita Dunn’s newly released ethics disclosure reveals serious conflicts of interest — namely, she consulted for Pfizer.  

As the founding partner of the Democratic consulting powerhouse SKDKnickerbocker, now known simply as SKDK, Dunn advised several major corporations on government business for years, including Pfizer, AT&T, Lyft, Micron, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Salesforce, and Reddit, according to the disclosure

During that time, Dunn worked as a senior adviser to Biden from January 2021-August 2021, after working as Biden’s campaign manager during the 2020 election (Dunn bragged that while she developed campaign strategy, SKDK created the campaign’s vote-by-mail effort in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona). She came back to the White House as a full-time adviser in May 2022. 

Given the nature of Dunn’s role, Jeff Hauser of the Revolving Door Project told Politico Dunn is “too senior at a cross-cutting job” to recuse herself in a meaningful way from all matters involving SKDK and past clients. 

Because of Dunn’s employment classification and salary level in 2021, she dodged the traditional ethics disclosure requirement government officials usually must submit (publicly disclosing past consulting clients, investments, and other possible conflicts of interest). Dunn was able to keep her firm’s clients private, especially clients that had a particular interest in access to the Biden White House, such as Pfizer.

Of course, the major pharmaceutical company would desire access to the nation’s chief executive, especially as the administration devised its messaging on the Covid jab, kept up its health “emergency” facade, determined vaccine approval, and issued mandates requiring large swaths of Americans to get the shot or else risk losing their jobs.

But now that Dunn’s financial disclosures have been made public, Dunn and her husband, attorney Bob Bauer, must divest their massive investment portfolio worth between $16.8 million and $48.2 million. Dunn must also recuse herself from all matters involving SKDK and her past clients, though as Hauser noted, that’s functionally impossible.

“We’re confused how you could possibly serve in the White House with just a Pfizer relationship given … Pfizer’s ubiquity across the top issues for the administration — let alone the others,” Hauser said. 

Dunn’s conflicts of interest extend beyond Pfizer. Last week, Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law, and the same day, Micron announced it would invest $40 billion between now and 2030 to manufacture chips in the United States. Micron is also one of Dunn’s former clients.


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

Former FBI 2nd in Command Says ‘Handful In Leadership’ Are Politicizing Bureau

Former FBI 2nd in Command Says ‘Handful In Leadership’ Are Politicizing Bureau


Former FBI 2nd in Command Says ‘Handful In Leadership’ Are Politicizing Bureau

Comments come Following Mar-a-Lago Raid

Post by Tyler Durden | Written  by Scott Wheeler via The Epoch Times

Years of investigations have led to claims by Republicans of partisan political power plays at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice.

A raid on former President Donald Trump’s home on Aug. 8 has sharpened the nation’s focus on what many Republicans have been raising alarms about for years—the politicization of the Justice Department (DOJ) and its law enforcement arm, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Republican U.S. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has been demanding answers about alleged politicization well before the raid.

Former FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin R. Brock testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill Dec. 3, 2020 in Washington (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
.

“Unfortunately, a growing number of Americans have lost confidence in the bureau based on its inconsistent handling of politically sensitive investigations, its lack of cooperation with legitimate congressional oversight inquiries, and its failure to hold its own people accountable for their misconduct,” Grassley told The Epoch Times.

Late in July, Grassley sent a searing letter (pdf) to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray that stated that if allegations the senator has received from FBI whistleblowers are true, “The Justice Department and the FBI are–and have been—institutionally corrupted to their very core”.

But not all agree. In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, former Assistant Director for Intelligence of the FBI Kevin Brock said Grassley’s statement didn’t “fit the facts” and that “it is dangerous to plant seeds in the minds of the American people that the FBI is corrupt.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers a statement at the Department of Justice in Washington on Aug. 11, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
.

Partisanship at the Top

While Brock said that Grassley’s claims about the FBI went too far, he is also highly critical of the actions of what he refers to as a “handful in leadership” who he said are politicizing the bureau and doing damage to its image.

In response to the raid on former Trump’s residence at Mar-A-Lago, Brock told Epoch Times: “The use of armed agents to execute an invasive search warrant does not match up with the relatively low-level offense—for anyone—let alone a former and possible future president. Most Americans recognize this extraordinary search for what it is: an attempt by one political party that temporarily controls the DOJ to eliminate an adversary from the other party.”

When asked how the FBI and DOJ could become politicized, Brock said, “When justice is captured by the Democrat Party, it seeks to find criminality on the right,” while “Republicans have less of an appetite” to reciprocate.

At a press briefing about the raid on Aug. 11, Attorney General Merrick Garland confirmed that he had approved the search warrant and further stated, that the DOJ had filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to unseal the search warrant that was executed. Garland added that the department did not take the decision to seek a search warrant lightly.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies during a hearing before Senate Judiciary Committee at Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on Aug. 4, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
.

Similar Cases Involving Democrats

The raid at Trump’s home in search of classified documents reveals what some consider a clear example of that which Grassley and Brock are referring—a heavy Democrat Party influence at the DOJ. To some, the raid at Trump’s quarters is reminiscent of a similar case.

In 2015, former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came under FBI investigation for concealing classified information on an unauthorized email server she kept at her home. During that investigation, Clinton deleted emails that were under subpoena. The FBI, which was in charge of the investigation of Clinton, did not conduct raids at any time and allowed Clinton and her attorneys to negotiate what evidence Clinton would turn over to the bureau and dictate the terms in which Clinton would be interviewed.

Just prior to the conclusion of that investigation labeled “Midyear Exam,” then-Attorney General Lorretta Lynch announced, after it had been revealed that former president Bill Clinton had met with her in secret, that she had appointed a “career prosecutor” to make the decision as to whether Hillary Clinton would be charged with a crime.

The Epoch Times has learned that the career prosecutor who made that decision was Richard Scott, then Deputy Chief of Counterintelligence, who had previously been an associate at the law firm of Williams and Connelly, the same firm that was representing Hillary Clinton in the matter. In 2018 former FBI attorney Lisa Page testified to the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI was inclined to prosecute Clinton for “gross negligence” in handling classified information on her private email server.

Former FBI Director James Comey. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
.

Separately, you know, we had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge,” Page told the committee in July 2018. Page went on to testify that it was Richard Scott who made the decision not to charge Clinton with a crime. Scott left the DOJ in 2018 and could not be reached for comment.

About the same time the DOJ decided not to pursue charges against Clinton, the now infamous “Crossfire Hurricane” probe was being opened against then-candidate Trump. While the predicate for that investigation has been debunked, the claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin preferred Trump over Clinton is frequently referenced as fact by Democrats and some in the news media. Former Assistant FBI Director Brock disagrees with that conclusion, citing eight years of Obama and four years of Secretary of State Clinton’s appeasement of Putin.

“If Putin preferred Trump over Clinton he’s a bigger idiot than anyone thought,” Brock said, referring to a list of things the Obama Administration did to appease Putin and Russia. The list included Clinton’s “reset” with Russia, withdrawing missile defense systems from strategic allies Poland and Czech Republic, the return of ten Russian spies in 2010 before the FBI could interrogate the sleeper cell, and being conciliatory following Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea.

Brock says “it is in the face of all that it is beyond the scope of imagination” that Putin would have preferred Trump.

Read more here…

*********

(TLB) published this article  as posted by Tyler Durden and written  by Scott Wheeler via The Epoch Times

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Brock/FOX News screen shot

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Scalise: Dems ‘Guaranteed’ Non-Wealthy Will See Increased Taxes and Voted Against Preventing It

Scalise: Dems ‘Guaranteed’ Non-Wealthy Will See Increased Taxes and Voted Against Preventing It

On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “America Reports,” House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) reacted to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating that the increased IRS enforcement in the Inflation Reduction Act will result in people making less than $400,000 paying $20 billion in new taxes by pointing out that Senate Democrats rejected an amendment to prevent increased audits of people making less than $400,000 because it’s “their intention” to raise taxes on those making less than $400,000.

Scalise said, “[J]ust look at what CBO has said so far. They haven’t evaluated the whole bill. They have said this army of 87,000 new IRS agents, more than doubling the size of the IRS, that they will be going after people making less than $400,000. That would break President Biden’s pledge. They said, by the way, that lower-income families will be paying $20 billion in new taxes just from the IRS agents.”

He added, “There was an amendment to make sure that would not apply to people making under $400,000, and every Democrat in the Senate voted against it, so the amendment was defeated. So, clearly, their intention is not the millionaires and billionaires. Their intention is this 87,000 army. Think of an NFL stadium, any NFL stadium in America, completely filled with new IRS agents going after people making less than $400,000, in violation of President Biden’s promise. It’s been guaranteed. We know that it will happen. CBO confirmed it today.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Source

CBO: Democrat Deal Takes $20B from Working, Middle Class Americans with New IRS Audits

CBO: Democrat Deal Takes $20B from Working, Middle Class Americans with New IRS Audits

The Democrats’ “Inflation Reduction Act” is set to squeeze $20 billion from working and middle class Americans with new funding for increased Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.

On Friday, House Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act after Senate Democrats passed the bill earlier this week.

Hours before its passage in the House, lawmakers received the bill’s CBO score — revealing that billions will be taken from working and middle class Americans as a result of billions in new funding for IRS audits.

Specifically, the CBO estimates that the Democrats’ $80 billion for new IRS audits will take at least $20 billion from working and middle class Americans earning less than $400,000 a year. These billions are in addition to the billions already taken from this income group via IRS audits.

The revelation comes as Democrats and President Joe Biden’s administration have falsely claimed that the Inflation Reduction Act does not go after Americans earning less than $400,000.

In fact, no such language exists in the bill prohibiting the IRS from going after working and middle class Americans with the new funding. This has resulted in Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen begging the IRS not to use the $80 billion to target Americans earning less than $400,000.

Senate Democrats actually voted down an amendment by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) that would have banned the new IRS funding from being used to go after working and middle class Americans — ensuring that additional audits would only target high-income earners.

The Democrat deal is seemingly a violation of a promise Biden made to American taxpayers in his State of the Union (SOTU) address in March.

“And under my plan, nobody earning less than $400,000 a year will pay an additional penny in new taxes. Nobody,” Biden said at the time.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here

Source

87,000 new IRS Agents Will Join Union That Gives 100% of PAC Funds to Democrats

87,000 new IRS Agents Will Join Union That Gives 100% of PAC Funds to Democrats

Democrats just doubled the size of a major Democratic war chest.

Yes, remember those 87,000 new IRS agents that will be added to the federal payroll thanks to the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (a misnomer if there ever was one)? The vast majority of those agents will likely join and pay dues to the IRS’ public sector union, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).

Per Americans for Tax Reform, the union gave 100% of its Political Action Committee (PAC) funding to Democrats for the 2022 cycle, including $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and $30,000 to the DNC Services Corporation, a group dedicated to “coordinating party organizational activities.”

It also gave 98.79% of its federal candidate spending for the 2021-2022 cycle to Democrats, most notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The NTEU specifically prioritized donating to key Democratic battleground races, such as donating $5,000 to Raphael Warnock’s Georgia Senate race and $10,000 to Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). 

And that’s not all. In 2019, it was reported that IRS employees spent 353,820 hours of taxpayer-funded union time (TFUT) on the job. That means during a normal workday, instead of assisting taxpayers with filing their taxes, IRS agents spent hours working for an entity that spends 100% of its PAC funding on Democrats. This is an organization where if you call them, you have a 1-in-50 chance of reaching an actual human being. Those 353,820 hours could have been used to help taxpayers instead of strengthening a public sector union. 

As Aaron Withe, CEO of Freedom Foundation, put it, taxpayer dollars are being used to “double the size of an agency that has already weaponized itself against those taxpayers it deems its political opponents.”

By doubling the size of the IRS, Democrats are doubling the number of dues the NTEU receives, dues that will be funneled to bankroll Democratic political campaigns. NTEU dues range from $16 to $23 per pay period. If all 87,000 new IRS agents were forced to unionize, the number of dues collected would amount to at least $33,351,168 per year — all ripe for the taking by Democrats. How clever.


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

Trump Is The Only Possible GOP Candidate For 2024

Trump Is The Only Possible GOP Candidate For 2024

There are several undeniable conclusions one should reach about the FBI’s raid on former President Donald Trump’s Florida home.

First, the FBI and Department of Justice are notoriously corrupt and filled with partisan actors (although this has been obvious for quite some time). Second, such “Regime apparatchiks” are doing everything in their power to disqualify Trump from running for president ever again. Third — and perhaps most important — Donald Trump is the only possible candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

While leftists pat themselves on the back for their ingenious plan to take down the former president with a carefully engineered bureaucratic scheme — never mind that violations of the Presidential Records Act are common, rarely prosecuted, and never used against the regime’s darlings themselves, i.e., Hillary Clinton — they have no idea they just poked a sleeping bear. Or, as Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto put it in the 1970 film “Tora! Tora! Tora!,” “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

In other words, if Democrats thought Trump’s base was fired up — thanks to record inflation, skyrocketing gas prices, rampant crime, and a non-existent border, not to mention a well-supported conviction that the 2020 election was indeed “rigged” — the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago just poured fuel on that fire.

As a legal expert told Politico, “If they raided his home just to find classified documents he took from The White House, he will be re-elected president in 2024, hands down. It will prove to be the greatest law enforcement mistake in history.”  

The regime’s decision to take out Trump Banana Republic-style was woefully miscalculated. The GOP base has never been more unified against the establishment and its security-state minions as it is now — and never more sympathetic to Trump. For years they’ve watched Trump be targeted by the intelligence community, from the FBI falsifying FISA warrants to spy on his campaign to the DOJ peddling the Russia collusion hoax before and during his presidency. Thankfully, all these efforts have not worked, but its latest effort to disqualify him from running for president is the final straw. 

With the raid on Mar-a-Lago, the regime made Trump a martyr. To his base, Trump represents a symbolic repudiation of the partisan hacks that make up the intelligence community. The more the FBI and DOJ go after Trump, the more his base will invoke his name as a rallying cry. 

And therein lies the reason why Trump is the heir apparent to the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination. Trump didn’t start the fight with the intelligence community, but he intends to finish it. None of the presidential hopefuls such as Kristi Noem, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, and, yes, even Ron DeSantis, bear the same battle scars as Trump with the intelligence community. The fight is his alone. And Americans of all stripes will rally to his cause.


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

4 Times Democrats And Their Media Allies Said Siccing The Cops On Political Opponents Is For Banana Republics

4 Times Democrats And Their Media Allies Said Siccing The Cops On Political Opponents Is For Banana Republics

Following the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump’s private home, Democrats and their media allies who once self-righteously condemned weaponized investigations and the use of law enforcement against political enemies have a lot to answer for. Now that the party in power has spent a year and a half conducting show trials to disparage the entire Republican Party over a riot that happened on Jan. 6, 2021, and has brazenly escalated its persecution of Republicans, conducting surprise raids against people like Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark and now the former president himself, silence or even approval from Democrats shows their contemptuous dishonesty. Here are four examples of leftists decrying the threat of prosecution against political opponents, while they tacitly endorse the Biden Justice Department’s attempt to hamstring Trump’s opportunity for re-election.

In a New York Times guest essay in June, Richard L. Hasen wrote that “‘Lock her up!’ chants against Hillary Clinton at 2016 Trump rallies for her use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state were so pernicious because threatening to jail political enemies can lead to a deterioration of democratic values.” In a piece dedicated to arguing for the prosecution of former President Trump — a far more serious step than chants at a rally — he admitted, “If each presidential administration is investigating and prosecuting the last, respect for both the electoral process and the legal process may be undermined.”

In a New York Times article in February, German Lopez criticized authoritarian regimes for jailing opponents to interfere with elections. “Authoritarians have also abandoned pretenses of democratic norms,” Lopez wrote. “Putin, as well as rulers in Nicaragua, Venezuela and elsewhere, once tried to at least maintain the appearance of free and fair elections. But now they regularly jail political opponents, denying the opposition the ability to campaign.”

Dave Aronberg, a Florida state attorney and former Democrat state legislator, said on MSNBC in October 2020 that Trump was “going into that tyrant mode” by calling for his opponents to be arrested. “It’s actually pretty common in countries that have dictators to jail their political opponents,” he said. “Remember, he has an affinity for Erdogan in Turkey. … In Russia, Vladimir Putin does it all the time. Kim Jong-Un jails them and kills them.”

On CNN last June, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself criticized the Trump Justice Department over allegations that prosecutors “subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of House Intelligence Committee Democrats along with their staff and family members as part of a leak investigation.” Pelosi said that this went “even beyond Richard Nixon.” Regarding claims that Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr at the time did not know about the investigations, she said that was “beyond belief” and “another manifestation of [the Trump Justice Department’s] rogue activity.”

“This is just out of the question,” Pelosi said, painting the leak investigation as “undermining the rule of law.” “No matter who’s president, whatever party, this cannot be the way it goes.”


Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Subscribe

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)