Connect with us

Elections

Senate committee to investigate new Hunter Biden emails

Published

on

The Senate Homeland Security Committee has opened an investigation into the emails published by The New York Post on Wednesday morning that reveal new information about Hunter Biden‘s dealings in Ukraine while his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was the public face of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.

This exclusive front-page story details the emails that The Post obtained on a hard drive, which unveil that Hunter Biden introduced his father to an advisor to Burisma Holdings, a corrupt Ukrainian energy firm that the younger Biden sat on the board of, less than a year before then-Vice President Biden asked Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor investigating the company.

Making matters more controversial, this is the first time that the public has learned of the April 2015 meeting in Washington, DC between the current Democratic presidential nominee and this Burisma advisor, whose name is Vadym Pozharskyi.

In an interview with Fox News, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said, “We regularly speak with individuals who email the committee’s whistleblower account to determine whether we can validate their claims.”

“Although we consider those communications to be confidential,” he added, “because the individual in this instance spoke with the media about his contact with the committee, we can confirm receipt of his email complaint, have been in contact with the whistleblower, and are in the process of validating the information he provided.”

This revelation directly contradicts what former Vice President Biden stated publicly in September 2019, that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together,” Pozharskyi wrote to Hunter on April 17, 2015.

In another email to Hunter from May 12, 2014, Pozharskyi asked him “urgently” for some “advice on how you could use your influence” to “stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions” against Burisma.

More will be revealed about the story once this nascent Senate investigation yields more information.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.

Continue Reading

Elections

‘Federal Warfare is Winding Down’ as Judge Grants Request to Cancel Further Proceedings in Jan 6 Case

Published

on

“Federal lawfare is indeed winding down” now that former President Donald Trump has won the 2024 presidential election, National Review shrewdly points out. One of the most significant examples is that of Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Obama appointee who is presiding over the 2020 election interference case against President-elect Trump.

On Friday, Chutkan issued a brief order on the docket vacating all proceedings scheduled in the case. That includes any briefing on pending issues; she ordered that on or before December 2, 2024, Biden-Harris DOJ special counsel Jack Smith must file “a status report indicating [the government’s] proposed course for this case going forward.”

The course for the case is to dismiss it. Judge Chutkan’s order was a result of a brief application by Smith’s staff. The Trump camp did not oppose the application which stated:

As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.

National Review states what many in the political sphere have avowed all along: the entire thing was a theatrical and costly attempt to prevent Trump from being elected.

Judge Juan Merchan is due to rule next Tuesday on Trump’s motion to vacate the guilty verdicts. The motion includes the defense claim that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s trial presentation violated the principles set out by the Supreme Court in its immunity ruling (in the January 6 case) a month after Trump’s Manhattan trial ended.

Continue Reading

Trending