Follow the Money: Banking, Criminality and the US FinCEN Files

It was all a fitting reminder of Bertolt Brecht’s remark that bank robbery lies in the province of amateurs.  The real professionals of plunder establish banks.  Last month, the labours of Buzzfeed and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed just that.  Centre stage: international banking misbehaviour. And my, was there much to go on. 

The journalists had been combing through leaks comprising 2,121 suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed with the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) between 2000 and 2017.  The relevant amount in terms of transactions: somewhere in the order of $2 trillion.  It was awfully good of the banks themselves to be filing such reports with the US Treasury.  But such matters are mere formalities; there is no incentive for the bank in question to stop trading with a shady client, despite what is suspected in the report.  The point is to merely keep an account of it. 

The criteria for an SAR are not sharply defined.  Matthew Collin of the Brookings Institute suggests a few: unclear sources and ill-defined beneficiaries; a nexus with a jurisdiction historically noted for financial crime and irregularity.  Another “common sign of suspicion is one in which a client attempts to avoid attention from the authorities by making several deposits below $10,000, which is the automatic reporting threshold.” 

The FinCEN Files highlight five stellar performers in the movement of illicit cash: JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York Mellon.  A few instances are worth mentioning.  Despite being fined $1.9 billion in the US for money laundering, HSBC moved money through its US operations to accounts in Hong Kong in 2013 and 2014.  Central to this was a Ponzi investment scam known as WCM777. 

The brainchild of Chinese national Phil Ming Xu, self-styled “Dr Phil,” the World Capital Market scheme promised returns of 100 percent profit in 100 days.  Xu vigorously promoted this version of monetary paradise through social media, webinars and seminars.  Gullible investors obliged, seduced by a rather grotesque combination of God and Mammon.  (Xu was courting the evangelical market.)  $80 million was raised and, for the unsuspecting investors, lost. 

In the aftermath of the losses, direct physical harm resulted.  Santa Rosa investor Reynaldo Pacheco extolled the virtues of WCM777 to family and friends.  One acquaintance Pacheco had recruited to the scheme took umbrage at having lost $3,000.  Taking matters rather seriously, she enlisted the services of three men in April 2014.  They kidnapped the doomed Pacheco and bludgeoned him to death with rocks, leaving his remains in a creek bed in Napa, California. 

Despite such events, and the knowledge that WCM was the subject of investigative interest in three countries, HSBC continued moving money for the investment fund.  As the ICIJ describes it, over “$30 million tied to WCM flowed through the bank in 2013 and 2014 – at a time when HSBC was under probation as part of its deferred prosecution deal with America authorities.”

Not to be outdone, JP Morgan is also revealed to be more than the obliging middleman in dirt-caked transactions.  An SAR filed by the bank in 2015 reveals that its London office might have assisted moving some of an amount totalling $1.02 billion. JP Morgan had provided services to ABSI Enterprises, a shady offshore company, between 2002 and 2013, despite being unclear of the firm’s provenance and ownership.  The filed SAR disclosed how the parent company of ABSI “might be associated with Semion Mogilevich – an individual who was on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list”.  Such relationships demonstrate that capitalism lacks nationalist allegiances: Mogilevich is, after all, the emperor of Russia’s organised crime network.

JP Morgan’s reaction to such unmasking was an excuse all the banks have used at some point.  “We follow all laws and regulations in support of the government’s work to combat financial crimes.  We devote thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to this important work.”

The amounts involved boggle, but they really ought to boggle more.  Minds have been tasked with trying to comprehend the deep sea of money laundering, and they have been left baffled in the drowning.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has an estimate: each year, between 2-5 percent of global GDP, or $800 billion to $2 trillion – is laundered.  In all this we see the tarnished, and, in banking circles, the acceptable fruits, of globalisation.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime puts it down to various vectors: the development in financial information, the innovation of technology, the advance of communications.  All “allow money to move anywhere in the world with speed and ease.  This makes the task of combating money-laundering more urgent than ever.”  Using the image of depth, “dirty money” becomes more difficult to identify as it plunges into the system, being rinsed and laundered.

The root of the problem is a deeply conventional one.  Money is to be made.  Banks make money handling money.  Rinsing and washing, they still earn fees for the service.  They are also encouraged by their staying power as indispensable international citizens.  Politicians of various shades come and go.  They occasionally spout demagogic promises about reforming and regulating the banking sector, but these voices will eventually pass.

Mechanisms are also in place that serve as damp slaps on the wrist than genuine incentives for reform.  The deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is a central part of the US government’s approach to induce change within a bank’s transaction practices.  The reporting system is also feeble.  Banks often filed SARs months after the suspicious transaction, often several with the same client.  No action would be taken.  A corollary of such filings is the value of such SARs.  In the hope of preventing regulatory consequences, banks may issue an avalanche of them for regulators at FinCEN to investigate.  Since 2003, the number of SARs from banks has quadrupled.  FinCEN’s staffing has not kept the pace 178 in 2001; 300 in 2020.

This is not to say that kid gloves have always been the order of the day.  Penalties have resulted.  Since 2008, $36 billion worth in financial institution fines have been issued, with the bloc of North America taking about $27.9 billion. But such punishments have done little to chasten the sinners.  Like thorny flagellation for the pious, the expectation of such treatment is built into the belief system. The sin is permitted to continue. 

This is the institutional understanding that permeates the regulators and the regulated.  Little wonder that FinCEN was unimpressed by the leaks.  “As FinCen has stated previously,” the body asserted in a statement, “the unauthorized disclosure of SARs is a crime and can impact the national security of the United States, compromise law enforcement investigations, and threaten the safety and security of the institutions and individuals who file such reports.” 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Source

Internet Resources Become Weaponized

The current electoral campaign differs from that of 2016 in that the media, both conventional and online, has realized its power and has been openly playing a major role in what might well prove to be a victory across the board for the Democratic Party. At least that is the expectation, bolstered by a flood of possibly suspect opinion polls that appear to make the triumph of Joe Biden and company inevitable while at the same time denigrating President Donald Trump and covering up for Democratic Party missteps.

Most Americans no longer trust what is being reported in the mainstream media but when they look for “real” information they frequently turn to online resources that they believe to be more politically objective. That has never been true, however, and what most newshounds are actually seeking is commentary that reflects their own views. In reality, the news provided is almost always either spun or distorted and sometimes completely blocked, note particularly the resistance to reporting the tale of the shenanigans of Hunter Biden.

The New York Post is claiming that a trove of emails from a laptop reveals that “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.”

The emails include a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the oil company Burisma’s board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads. An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The correspondence, if authentic, disproves Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings.” One would think that the story would be a real blockbuster, welcomed by self-respecting journalists but the reality has been that the mainstream media is doing its best to kill it. Facebook and Twitter have both blocked it though Twitter has since relented, and much of the rest of the liberal media is regarding it as a hoax.

Facebook has in fact become something of a leader in reversing its self-promotion as a site for free exchange of ideas. It has removed large numbers of users and alleged suspect sites and has blocked any “denial or distortion” of the so-called holocaust in response to what it regards as a surge in anti-Semitism. It has hired a former Israeli government official to lead the censorship effort on the site.

As Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they can legally do whatever they want to set the rules for the use of their sites, but when the two most powerful social media companies choose to censor a major newspaper’s story about a presidential candidate’s possibly corrupt son less than three weeks before the election it suggests a more sinister agenda. They are quite likely banking on a Democratic victory and will expect to be rewarded afterwards.

Indeed, it should be assumed that Facebook and the other social media giants are reconfiguring themselves for the post-electoral environment in expectation that they will be more than ever politically and economically indispensable to aspiring politicians. This willingness to engage with politically powerful forces has led to increased involvement in the various mostly left-wing movements that have shaken the United States over the past five months. Television and radio stations as well as corporations and local businesses have rushed to endorse and even fund black lives matter without considering the damage that the group has been doing to property and persons that have had the misfortune to cross its path, not to mention some of the group’s long-term more radical objectives. Individuals identified as blm leaders have demanded mandatory training to reprogram whites as well as punitive reparations, to include “white people” turning over their homes to blacks.

Some of the developments are quite dangerous, most notably the compiling of lists of organizations and individuals that are considered to be “enemies” of the new social justice order that intends to take over the United States. One has noted the desire for revenge permeating many of the comments on sites like Facebook (which claims to delete “threats” from its commentary), to include some material in recent weeks that has called for the “elimination” of Americans who do not go along with the new normal.

One of the most invidious steps taken by any of the corporate social media is a recent decision by Yelp to allow Antifa to compile the raw material on so-called “fascist businesses” that will be included on a list of “Businesses Accused of Racist Behavior Alerts.” The list itself was set up to appease demands coming from the blm movement.

Yelp is a review site that provides grades and commentary on a broad range of goods and services, to include many businesses that cater to the public. The potential for abuse is enormous as Yelp is an information site that has no capability to investigate whether complaints of “racism” are true or not and Antifa, which is recognized as being at least in part behind the devastating Portland riots, is far from an objective observer. In fact, this is what Antifa has tweeted about its new role, which will allow group members to submit names of “non-friendly” businesses, defined as “also known as (AKA) any company that’s hanging blue lives garbage in their store or anything else that’s anti the BLM movement.”

The Antifa intention is clearly to put unfriendly shops and restaurants out of business, so it will not exactly be interested in engaging in constructive criticism or changing behavior through negotiation. Using the intimidation provided by the “Alerts” list and direct threats of violence from Antifa and blm, businesses will be coerced into supporting radical groups lest they be targeted. It is somewhat reminiscent of the old Mafia protection rackets, and who can doubt that demands for money will follow on to the verbal threats?

The rise of the internet oligarchs might indeed do more serious damage to the freedoms that still survive in the United States than will victory by either Biden or Trump. What Americans are allowed to think and how they perceive themselves and the world have taken a serious hit over the past twenty years and it can only get worse.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Source

Exclusive — Bevan Cooney Moved from Prison Cell after Providing Email Account Exposing Hunter Biden

Bevan Cooney, the former business associate of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden who flipped on the Biden family, has been moved from his cell, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to Breitbart News.

On Tuesday, several days after emails Cooney provided to Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer and journalist Matthew Tyrmand became public, federal agents moved him from his cell to protect him. Tyrmand, who is in contact with members of Cooney’s family, told Breitbart News that Cooney was moved from his cell in a federal prison in Oregon around 11:00 a.m. local time on Tuesday. Tyrmand said that Cooney spoke with family members multiple times on Tuesday, which he said is “much more than usual.”

“Bevan could sense that things had changed with the rise in visibility of his story,” Tyrmand said.

Cooney’s family stressed to Tyrmand they are “extremely concerned given the nervousness gleaned from Bevan’s reaction this morning and they would appreciate a sign from the powers that be that Bevan is in protective custody.” It is unclear where Cooney has been moved to, and in whose custody he currently is.

The federal Bureau of Prisons, which falls under the Department of Justice, has not replied to multiple requests for comment on this front. Breitbart News had sent in a request earlier this week to interview Cooney in prison, but that request was denied, as all media interview requests with federal prisoners are currently being denied due to restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic.

“They [the Cooney family] believe that alerting the family is the moral thing to do if anyone in government knows anything regarding Bevan’s immediate situation,” Tyrmand told Breitbart News. “They are hopeful he is fine and permanently out of the Oregon facility in which he had been detained for over a year. They know he has been highly motivated in bringing transparency to all of the things that he was exposing by sharing his emails directly with me and Peter [Schweizer]. Given that he was supposed to be released in the coming weeks, although that had been recently pushed back without explanation, his motivation lay purely in seeing justice delivered and warning America about what he had had a front row seat to witness.”

Cooney provided Schweizer and Tyrmand with written authorization to access his Gmail account, and to publish all newsworthy information from his trove of 26,000 emails. Some of them are personal and unrelated to the Biden corruption, but many of them—including ones already published last week and this week on Breitbart News and elsewhere—demonstrate a culture of corruption surrounding the Biden family.

The first story published on Breitbart News last week, by Schweizer and author Seamus Bruner, detailed how Hunter Biden and his associates secured high-level White House meetings for Chinese Communist Party-connected elites visiting Washington from China. That included, per those Chinese elites, a secret unreported meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden himself. Other emails that surfaced on One News Network showed a deeper relationship between the Bidens and the ex-wife of the former Moscow mayor Elena Baturina. More emails surfaced Monday in another Breitbart News report showing how Hunter Biden’s business associate viewed his relationship with his father, Joe Biden—a “direct administration pipeline”—as a form of “currency” to trade on and make more money. More stories are in the works.

Source

FBI, DOJ Concur: Hunter Biden Laptop, Emails NOT ‘Russian Disinformation’

The FBI and Justice Department concur with Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails are not part of a Russian disinformation campaign, a federal law enforcement official told Breitbart News on Tuesday.

In addition, the FBI has possession of the laptop in question, the official confirmed.

The FBI and DOJ’s concurrence with Ratcliffe was first reported by Fox News’ Jake Gibson.

The concurrence follows Ratcliffe’s statements on Sunday that the intelligence community does not believe the laptop and emails are part of a Russian disinformation campaign despite the claims of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Ratcliffe said on Fox Business Network’s Mornings with Maria Sunday:

It is funny that some of the people that complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing intelligence. And, unfortunately, in this case, it is Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who, as you pointed out, said on Friday the intelligence community believes that Hunter Biden’s laptop and the emails on it are part of some Russian disinformation campaign.

Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. We have shared no intelligence with chairman Adam Schiff or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It’s simply not true.

A senior intelligence official told Breitbart News: “Ratcliffe was right. Schiff was wrong. In other words, it was a typical Tuesday.”

Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on Twitter or on Facebook.

Source

Hunter Biden Was on Payroll of Credit Card Company that Benefited from 2005 Bill Pushed by Dad

Hunter Biden got a five-year gig starting in 2001 worth at least half a million dollars with credit card company MBNA Corporation when his-then U.S. senator father, Joe, was pushing for passage of bankruptcy legislation that ended up benefiting his son’s employer.

After it became law in 2005, the year that Hunter’s work for MBNA ended, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act made it difficult for Americans to get rid of credit card and student aid debt when declaring bankruptcy.

The bill pushed by now Democrat presidential nominee Biden ultimately helped the MBNA Corporation, one of the largest members of the credit card industry at the time, and reportedly helped fuel the student debt problem. It made private student loans one of the ten debts that cannot be forgiven during bankruptcy.

Recalling the arrangement between then-Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-DE) son and MBNA, the largest employer in Deleware when the bill became law, the New York Times suggested in 2008 that Hunter’s five-year (2001-2005) consulting job with the corporation created a potential conflict of interest for his father. Still, aides to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) presidential campaign in 2008 defended the Delaware-based MBNA’s $100,000 a year retainer paid to Hunter, who was 31 when he got the job, the newspaper added.

The aides did admit it was “one of the most sensitive issues they examined while vetting the [Delaware] senator for a spot on the ticket,” the Times reported in its 2008 article, adding:

Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, received consulting fees from the MBNA Corporation from 2001 to 2005 for work on online banking issues. Aides to Mr. Obama … would not say how much the younger Mr. Biden, who works as both a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, had received, though a company official had once described him as having a $100,000 a year retainer. But Obama aides said he had never lobbied for MBNA and that there was nothing improper about the payments.

Joe reportedly denied any wrongdoing linked to his son’s business dealings with MBNA, the Times pointed out.

Citing the Obama campaign aides, the newspaper reported in 2008:

Senator Biden’s goal was always to strike a workable compromise between the competing interests on the bankruptcy bill, and that he was not influenced by his son’s work for MBNA or the campaign donations.

Hunter’s work for MBNA while his father was writing and promoting the bankruptcy bill in the early 2000s did not become public until the law passed in 2005, Breitbart News recalled.

As the Democrat senator for Illinois, former President Barack Obama opposed the bankruptcy changes and attacked the now-late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who became the Republican nominee, for supporting the bill pushed by his own VP pick, Biden.

“Consumer advocates and other Democratic allies remain sharply critical of Mr. Biden’s actions, saying in recent days that they could hamper the campaign’s efforts to attack the Republicans over their handling of the nation’s credit crisis,” the Times noted in 2008.

Hunter’s business dealings, particularly overseas, have come back to haunt Democrat presidential nominee Biden more than once.

Alleged bombshell emails recently obtained by the New York Post indicate the senior Biden may have lied about never speaking to Hunter about his overseas business dealings.

Reportedly, Hunter briefly worked for MBNA in 1996, soon after he graduated from Yale Law School around the time he was 26. He was promoted to senior vice president by early 1998, but that year Hunter left to go work for at the U.S. Commerce Department. MBNA rehired him as a consultant in 2001.

Source

Trump Confirms More Federal Judges in First Term than Any President in 40 Years

President Donald Trump often boasts of his accomplishments in nominating federal judges, and for good reason: at the close of his first term, he will have confirmed more judges to the federal judiciary in one term than any recent U.S. president.

As of October 5, according to the Heritage Foundation, Trump has confirmed 218 judges to Article III courts — that is, the “Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. courts of appeals, the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of International Trade.”

On October 26, that number will rise to 219 with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

No president in the past four decades has appointed more judges in a first term. The only one who appointed more was Jimmy Carter, who appointed 248 — but he had the advantage of an expanded federal judiciary.

Under Carter, Congress added 152 new judgeships — nearly one-third of the previous total — and Carter filled them quickly. (Democrats want to expand and “pack” the Supreme Court if Joe Biden wins the 2020 election — not because of a backlog in the courts, which Carter faced, but for ideological reasons.)

Trump has also appointed 53 appellate judges, leaving no vacancies on that level.

Currently, Trump has appointed more than one-fourth of active federal judges. That is a large proportion — but Barack Obama’s appointees still account for nearly 40% of the federal bench, according to the Pew Research Center.

That means Trump will need a second term if he is to establish a solid “constitutional conservative” foundation for the federal judiciary.

There are three things that make Trump’s judicial appointments special. The first is the timing.

Trump won the 2016 election as Senate Republicans were blocking the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Had Trump lost, the Court would have had a liberal majority — perhaps for decades.

By filling the empty seat vacated by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, Trump preserved a nominal conservative majority. He will expand it with Barrett’s confirmation.

Second, Trump has appointed an unusually large number of appellate judges. These are among the most powerful judges in the system, and they form the primary pool of candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Trump has created a deep bench from which Republican presidents can draw in the future (including himself, if he wins a second term in office).

Third, President Trump’s judicial appointees have been vetted by conservative legal authorities, including the Federalist Society, which promotes the originalist school of constitutional interpretation. Thus, Trump’s appointees are considered more reliably conservative than the nominees of a typical Republican president.

The gains Trump has made could quickly be reversed if Biden wins — not least because his party intends to expand the Supreme Court for the first time in 150 years.

In fact, despite the rapid pace of Trump’s appointments, new vacancies keep opening up on the federal bench. Currently, there are 64 vacancies on the federal bench — over 7% of the total seats. 40 nominations are still pending in the Senate.

A New York Times poll released last week revealed that 58% of likely voters believed the Supreme Court should not be expanded. A majority (57%) of Democrats agreed with the idea of packing the Court; 89% of Republicans opposed it.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Source

President Trump Make America Great Again Rally – Erie, PA – 7:00pm Livestream…

Tonight President Trump heads to Erie Pennsylvania for a campaign rally at Erie International Airport. Originally First Lady Melania was scheduled to attend, however she has cancelled due to her virus recovery. The anticipated start time is 7:00pm ET [Livestream Links Below]

Trump Campaign Livestream LinkRSBN Livestream LinkFox News Livestream

[embedded content] [embedded content]

.

[embedded content]

.

Source

Janice Dean Leads An Army Of New Yorkers Who Want Cuomo Held Accountable For Deadly COVID Decisions

Janice Dean began this year as Fox News’s senior meteorologist, but she’s emerging from 2020 with another title: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s biggest critic. In the last few months, Dean has devoted herself to writing, tweeting, giving speeches, and imploring officials and the public to do something about the lives lost to COVID-19 due to Cuomo’s reckless policies.

Her newfound passion for this accountability mission, while a public endeavor, is personal. At the beginning of the coronavirus lockdowns in March, Dean lost both of her New York in-laws, one in an assisted living facility and the other in a nursing home, to coronavirus.

“They died of coronavirus alone,” Dean explained on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “We never had a funeral…we weren’t able to see them before they died.”

Dean believes Cuomo’s policies mandating that hospitals return infected COVID-19 patients to nursing homes caused her in-laws’ sudden deaths. On March 25, Cuomo mandated that hospitals discharge elderly patients with COVID-19 back to nursing homes, like the ones where Dean’s in-laws were staying. The order extended for more than a month, leading to the infection of thousands of vulnerable people in close quarters with contagious co-residents.

While New York’s nursing home death count policy is under scrutiny for potentially underestimating the number of actual infections and deaths, at least 6,660 people have died since the beginning of the pandemic in New York nursing homes and assisted living facilities. It is estimated that there are now 49.2 COVID-19 deaths per 1,000 residents in New York nursing homes

This frustrated Dean. Not only did she lack answers about her family members’ deaths, but the corporate media wasn’t covering it and no one was holding Cuomo accountable.

“I have not seen the coverage of this,” she said. “This should be one of the biggest stories of this pandemic, of 2020. Twenty percent of our lost loved ones are from nursing homes. And, it’s because Governor Cuomo, and several other Governors, by the way, in different states, forced COVID-recovering patients into nursing homes.”

Dean’s loss and frustration was heartbreaking, and she quickly found she wasn’t alone. Using her platform on social media and at Fox News, Dean quickly rose to be one of the most prominent and proactive voices calling for answers from Cuomo about his fatal mistake. Not only has Dean spoken out on broadcast television, press conferences, and to other people who lost loved ones, she also wrote an article in USA Today expressing her outrage at Cuomo and calling for a “non-partisan investigation into his deadly policy failures.

“The man who said, ‘I assume full responsibility’ and ‘If you are upset by what we have done, be upset at me,’ has never taken that responsibility,” Dean noted.

“The fact that this governor refuses to accept responsibility for his actions makes our grief and anger far worse,” she wrote. “I know I speak for many when I say we need a non-partisan investigation on both the state and federal level so that this never happens again.”

The recent release of Cuomo’s “fictional” book, Dean said, simply added to the afflicted families’ grief.

“What governor has the time to write a book if we’re in the middle of a pandemic…to profit off of the 30,000 plus that have died?” Dean said, speaking to a crowd of people advocating for their dead loved ones in Brooklyn in October. 

While Dean has made headlines with her outspokenness, her journey hasn’t been easy. In early October, Dean’s USA Today article was censored by Twitter’s new retweet policy, which urges users to read an article before sharing it.

“I couldn’t believe that an article I wrote, promoted by me, was flagged by Twitter warning people ‘THEY SHOULD READ IT’ before retweeting,” Dean told The Federalist.

“I feel like there are so many other people Jack Dorsey and his Twitter police could be slapping warnings on or giving tickets to instead of someone who lost family members to COVID, thanks in part to the governor’s deadly policies,” she added.

She also faces a risk of backlash due to her position and vocal criticism of the governor. Despite this risk, Dean says she won’t “stop fighting.” For her, it’s personal.

Dean’s fight, she says, is not political. She simply wants answers.

“It doesn’t matter where I work. It doesn’t matter who I voted for. It doesn’t matter who my in-laws voted for. They are in New Yorkers,” she said.

“The fact that [Cuomo] is going on every single program and barely gets asked the question about the nursing homes makes our grief worse,” she explained. “I am not here because of where I work or who I voted for. I am here to support all of these wonderful people that are now part of my family because we need answers as to what happened and why it happened.”

“This is not political. It’s about accountability,” Dean repeats.

Because of her efforts to raise awareness and spark an investigation into Cuomo’s handling of COVID-19,  several prominent New York Republicans hope that Dean will consider running for office in the future.

Source

President Trump Shares a Tarmac Debate Prep Session – Video and Transcript…

The new White House communications group is making a big mistake by delaying the uploads of the impromptu pressers.  The problem started about two weeks ago, and has continued to worsen.  This recent example was from yesterday and took 28 hrs to surface.

In this tarmac presser President Trump outlines how the impromptu pressers are part of his debate prep.  He then gives a real-time example.  WATCH:

[embedded content]

.

[Transcript] –  THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. You know our senator. You know our governor. They’re great — both of them. And they’re doing a terrific job.

We have a big — two speeches today. And we have thousands and thousands of people waiting. There’s never been anything like this, I will say that, with — I’m being very humble. I’ll say that, Jeff. Is that okay? But there’s never been anything like it. We have tremendous crowds. You saw the lines. They formed two days ago.

So we’re going to make two stops. And you’re going to be with us a little bit, and I know you’re going to be with us a little bit.

And we have a very exciting election coming up. We’re doing very well in North Carolina, very well in Florida, very well pretty much everywhere. We’re looking — we’re doing very well. And when people find out really what we’ve done and how good the economy is and how it’s coming back, the numbers are fantastic. So we — we seem to be in very good shape.

Any questions?

Q Stimulus. Can you give us the latest on stimulus talks? On stimulus talks.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we’re having talks today. We’re discussing it today, very solidly. We’ll see what happens.

Q Have you talked with Leader McConnell?

THE PRESIDENT: Nancy Pelosi, at this moment, does not want to do anything that’s going to affect the election. And I think it will affect the election negatively for her.

So we’ll see what happens. But there are talks going on as we speak.

Q Have you talked with Leader McConnell about this?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to comment on that. But the Republicans will come along.

Q Mr. President, why did you criticize Dr. Fauci? Does it have anything to do with his high standing in public sentiment?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think, really, Dr. Fauci is a very nice man, but we let him do what he wants to do. He gets a lot of television. He loves being on television, and we let him do it. Sometimes he says things that are a little bit off, and they get built up, unfortunately.

But he’s a nice guy. I like him. But he’s called a lot of bad calls. He said don’t wear a mask and he said don’t ban China. They were bad calls. He admits that. And I don’t hold that against him. If I did, I wouldn’t have him. I think he’s a nice a guy.

Q Why don’t you fire him?

THE PRESIDENT: Huh?

Q Why not fire him?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to. I don’t want to hurt him. He’s been there for about 350 years. I don’t want to hurt him.

Q You’ve been saying that Dr. Fauci said not to wear a mask, but he’s been saying to wear a mask for months.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, he used to say don’t wear a mask. So, you know, you have people on both sides of it. But I’m okay —

Q So why are you still quoting that?

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. I’m okay with masks. I like it. I think it’s good. A lot of people like it. This gentleman has done an incredible job in Arizona, and he’s taken a very tough stand. But he’s let his economy grow. And, frankly, if they would’ve done that in Michigan and various other places, where the governor just shut it down for everybody except for her husband.

His attitude — you know, they had a spike, and he let the spike play. And they were careful. And now your state is really in great shape.

GOVERNOR DUCEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: What a job. So proud of him.

Q Your Chief of Staff said today that there will be a lawsuit filed on Section 230 on the tech companies. Is it your —

THE PRESIDENT: Who said that? Who said that?

Q Mark Meadows said that, as soon as today, there could be a lawsuit filed.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know —

Q Is that from the White House?

THE PRESIDENT: — they’ve given — they’ve been given great protection. And when they take down people like Charlie Kirk — you know, Charlie Kirk is a terrific person. And I was — I just heard that he was taken down. And how can you take down Charlie Kirk? He’s mainstream conservative but solid as a rock. He represents a point of view, and he’s putting up something from the New York Post, which is a respected newspaper. I’ll tell you what: The biggest winner in this whole thing is a newspaper called the New York Post, the oldest paper in our country.

So what they have done is really — I’m very proud of them.

Q Are you filing a lawsuit? Or is the campaign filing a lawsuit?

THE PRESIDENT: You’ll be seeing very soon.

Q Mr. President, do you understand that when it comes to the science and a new virus, things change; scientists learn new things and that’s why Fauci and some scientists changed their recommendations?

THE PRESIDENT: You don’t understand. I understand well. You don’t understand, and you never have understood.

Q Is this election going to be a repeat of 2016, given the polls?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so. I think we’ll do better than 2016. We’re way ahead of where we were in 2016, and I’ve done things that nobody has ever done. We built the greatest economy in the world, and we’re building it rapidly again.

If you look at Arizona — you look at the job they’ve done. And I’m just leaving other states. I mean, every one of these Republican-run states are doing phenomenally. The Democrat-run states are not, but they’re not going to affect our numbers very much. I think they’re going to open up on November 4th. They’ll be opening up on November 4th.

And, by the way, the fact that Kristen Welker is, you know, a dyed-in-the-wool radical-left Democrat, or whatever she is —

Q It’s not true, Mr. President, and you know it.

Q That’s not true.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Okay. And then ask — why are you defending her?

Q That’s not true, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then ask her: Why did she delete her account? Would you please have her put her account back?

Q Mr. President, you’ve dealt with her, and you know she’s a fine journalist.

THE PRESIDENT: And you know what? It’s not going to affect — I know you want to stick up. It’s not going to affect me. I’m going to be there. But, you know, I told you about the last one, and I was right. And I told you about Savannah Guthrie, and I was right. And I’m telling you about Kristen Welker. Kristen Welker should put all of her statements back on. She deleted her entire account. She shouldn’t do that.

Q What are they going to do with the mics? Are they trying to have —

THE PRESIDENT: The what?

Q Are they trying to have the moderator be able to turn off the mics? Is that what —

THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea.

Q Mr. President, what are you doing to prepare for the debate, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m doing this.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: What am I doing to prepare? I’m doing this. I’ve done — I’ve done very well in debates. And, you know, you do what you do. You just do what you do.

The last debate, I had two on one. I usually have two on one, at least. And I did well in the last debate, and we did well with Savannah Guthrie, based on reports. But all you can do is — look, you know, you go around; we do interviews with you. This is like — I call this “debate prep.” This is actually tougher than a debate, if you want to know the truth.

Q Will you do the testing before the debate? And will you authorize your —

THE PRESIDENT: Say it?

Q Will you do the testing before the debate? And will you au- —

THE PRESIDENT: The testing?

Q Yes, the COVID testing. Will you authorize your doctors to tell us when —

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I would have no problem with it.

Q — the last negative before you —

THE PRESIDENT: I’m — not only am I free — positive, or whatever — what would you call it? I’m totally free. Right? Not only am I free, I’m immune, they say. They say if you’ve had it, you’re immune. Now, the question is, are you immune for four months or for the rest of your life? That’s the only thing we don’t know.

Q Will you authorize your doctors to tell you when you tested negative last, before the last event?

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Is that very important to you?

Q Yes, sir, it is.

THE PRESIDENT: You seem to be so intent. But if it’s so important to you — why is it so important to you?

Q Because we want to know how long you may have been —

THE PRESIDENT: I know. But why? Why?

Q We want to know if you followed the rules from the debate commission.

THE PRESIDENT: I know. But why is it so important to you?

Q Will you authorize your doctors to release that information?

THE PRESIDENT: Look at the dedication. Yeah, my doctors have already given it. You know, my doctors have given more information than has been given on any human being in the history of the world.

Q But have not given that detail, Mr. President.

Q Mr. President, can you tell us why — what your campaign strategy seems to be to call Biden a “criminal”? Why is that?

THE PRESIDENT: He is a criminal. He’s a criminal. He got caught —

Q He was the Vice President of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Read his laptop. And you know who’s a criminal? You’re a criminal for not reporting it. You are a criminal for not reporting it.

Q I’m asking your strategy.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you something: Joe Biden is a criminal, and he’s been a criminal for a long time. And you’re a criminal, and the media, for not reporting it. Good luck, everybody. Have a good time. Have a good time.

END 11:44 A.M. MST

Source

McConnell Announces Full Senate Vote on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Monday Oct. 26th…

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced the full senate vote for Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, will take place next Monday October 26.  The nomination is expected to be voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Tuesday that the Senate will vote to confirm President Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, Oct. 26.

With a 53-47 majority, and just two Republican senators opposed, Trump’s nominee is on a glide path to confirmation that will seal a conservative hold on the court for years to come.

Without the votes to stop Barrett’s ascent, Democrats have few options left. They are searching for two more GOP senators to break ranks and halt confirmation, but that seems unlikely. Never before as a court nominee been voted on so close to a presidential election.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer decried what he called the “farcical” process to “jam” through Trump’s choice, even as the coronavirus outbreak sidelined GOP senators. (more)

Source