Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said that Hunter Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.” He told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo Monday that claims from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, among other Democrats, were not supported by any real evidence.
We’ve all seen this before and it’s how the Democrats operate. They love to accuse others of what they are doing. Schiff is the King on Capitol Hill of this very manipulative move and he loves doing it publicly.
Schiff’s push to spread the rumor came shortly after The New York Post published it’s explosive stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which contained his alleged emails connecting his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, to his work as board member of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden was being paid roughly $50,000 a month to sit on the board despite having no background in energy. The email raises serious questions as to his father’s meeting with an executive during the time President Obama charged him to oversee Ukrainian policy.
Ratcliffe told Bartiromo on ‘Mornings with Maria’ that it’s “funny that some of the people who complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing the intelligence…Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
“Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress,” he added. He said Schiff’s claims are “simply not true.”
You can follow Sara A Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC
You may like
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Biden Administration has authority to reverse Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy
The Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration In a 5-4 decision in Biden v. Texas. The Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration has the authority to reverse the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. Under the Trump era policy, migrants seeking entry into the United States had to “remain in Mexico” as they waited for their hearings.
Fox News reports “The Trump administration put the policy in place so that migrants would not be released into the U.S. The Biden administration had tried to repeal the policy but was previously blocked by a lower court. At issue was whether the Department of Homeland Security’s suspension and subsequent termination of the policy violated a federal law that requires that migrants be detained or, if they arrived from a contiguous country, sent back.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. The majority held that the Biden administration has not violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that memoranda issued by DHS in October repealing the policy represented “final agency action.”
“[T]he Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Court’s opinion. The Court has sent the case back to district court, with instructions to “consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA.”
Fox News writes:
The statute Roberts cited, 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, says that someone applying for admission “shall be detained for a proceeding” unless they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” and also says if they are from a contiguous territory like Mexico, “the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory” as they await a hearing. Texas and Missouri had pointed to this language in arguing that the Remain in Mexico policy was necessary to adhere to this law. Without the ability to detain everyone, the states argued in their lawsuit, sending them back when possible is necessary.
National Review reports on the case:
Since coming into office, President Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has twice sought to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols, which require certain non-citizens who arrive at the Southern border to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases are processed. Texas and Missouri both challenged that federal policy reversal, arguing that it was unlawful under both federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act.
You may like
Nation4 days ago
Supreme Court rules 5-4 states can be sued for discriminating against Veterans
International6 days ago
At least 20 dead bodies found in South African nightclub, with no ‘visible signs of injuries’
War on Drugs6 days ago
60-year-old CA man arrested, possessed enough fentanyl to kill 12 million people
Economy4 days ago
Chevron downsizes global San Fran headquarters, paying for employees to move to Texas office