Tuesday AM ~ TheFrontPageCover

CatQ-QY3I6NRR7Q4FQRVR8ujQHTL7ikk6tPRwtH6AYoYciXRvpwd0s8qOg8W7koJkviOdlgW8PsHjSfQbMOoMLYvY2uMFiYi3eWyF8vCux9cAMd-Khk3VP2Dn-qIj5y_Fo88czRGZaRGnrAwh13syW5QnL75gbrALW9o7xw=s0-d-e1-ft#<a href=

TheFrontPageCover

~ Featuring ~

Big Tech's Corrupt Censorship

DOUGLAS ANDREWS

Here’s How You Know the Hunter Biden Emails Are Real

by Bonchie

{ redstate.com } ~ The scandal surrounding Hunter Biden’s emails has only grown in proportion over the last three days, yet you wouldn’t know that from the near blackout media coverage they are receiving...Apparently, pay to play schemes and influence peddling are only a bad thing when the accusations are being leveled at the Trump family. Of course, the latter never actually did any of that while we have direct, documentary evidence that the scumbag drumbling lips liar-Bidens are as corrupt as they come. The latest revelation on that front even showed that scumbag drumbling lips liar-Joe Biden was possibly getting a percentage of Hunter Biden’s ill-gotten proceeds from places like Ukraine and China. Meanwhile, the then vice president was glad handing in his associates from Burisma. Later he would claim to have no knowledge at all about any of his son’s dealings. In short, the entire thing stinks to high heaven. That means the response has to be to try to proclaim the story is “Russian misinformation.” But there’s a very big tell coming from the scumbag drumbling lips liar-Biden campaign that shows the emails are absolutely real, and they know it. Rather than say the emails are fake, the scumbag drumbling lips liar-Biden campaign has put out several carefully worded statements which make sure to not deny things that will likely be shown to be true in the near future. Meanwhile, surrogates of the campaign are also playing a delicate game where they claim that social media’s preemptive censorship is proof of the story’s lack of veracity. Yet, again, they are very careful to not actually deny the story is correct. Why? Because they know the emails are absolutely real. In fact, Hunter Biden’s lawyer attempted to get the laptop back at one point, something you’d only do if the actual ownership was assured. This is a point the media have steadfastly ignored, instead seeking to muddy the waters with wild proclamations from figures like scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff. That’s the facade, but it’s completely transparent at this point. On the other hand, we see some ostensibly on the right making posts like this. Note that both these people absolutely lapped up the false “losers” story from The Atlantic which purported that Trump had slandered dead soldiers and purposely missed a ceremony in France. Even John Bolton, who wrote an entire anti-Trump screed of a book, said the story was bogus. But notice how suddenly, as if we haven’t suffered through four years of garbage, badly sourced pieces targeting Trump, French and Goldberg raise their standards to levels where even the Post’s releasing of the actual emails is not enough verification for them that’s more than the Times did with Trump’s tax returns, another story The Dispatch crew loved. Weird, right? Or it’s not weird at all if you assume the obvious, which is that they hold two completely two standards for journalism that targets Trump vs. scumbag drumbling lips liar-Biden. Again, it’s completely transparent. The emails are real. They aren’t a Putin operation. They are the work of an idiot, drug addicted son who is corrupt to his core and whose father was well aware of, and possibly participating in what was going on. Those are the inconvenient facts for the media, whether we are talking about CNN or The Dispatch. https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/10/18/heres-how-you-know-the-hunter-biden-emails-are-real/?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=7220442bc3498cb5e2d68f3cb4d11680

Democrats creating new 'rule' for Supreme

nominees based on how they MIGHT vote

by wnd.com ~ Democrats are creating a new "rule" for confirming Supreme Court nominees based on how lawmakers think he or she might vote, writes George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley...Calling it the "Barrett Rule," he says it "would allow not only for the packing of a court but the packing of the court with guaranteed ideological drones." "It is court packing without any pretense. Like our current politics, it would finally strip away any nuance or nicety. The court, like Congress, would become subject to raw and brutal politics at its very worst," Turley writes on his website. As the Senate Judiciary Committee interviewed Judge Amy Coney Barrett this week, there were "a host of legitimate questions to be raised." But "the thrust of the entire hearing was that Barrett was unqualified due to her expected vote in the upcoming case on the Affordable Care Act (ACA)." "Various senators directly stated that they would vote against Barrett to protect the ACA. That is what is so unnerving about the Barrett confirmation hearing," he writes. Barrett's confirmation hearing "could easily have been mistaken for the sentencing hearing for John Wayne Gacy." "Surrounding Barrett were huge pictures of sick individuals. One would think that Barrett was being confronted with the faces of her victims. In reality, the pictures perfectly captured a far more important message. Senators had finally broken free from any pretense of principle in reviewing the qualifications of a nominee. Indeed, many are about to create a new rule, the Barrett Rule, allowing conditional confirmation voting. The pictures were meant to pressure Barrett to either satisfy senators that she would vote against an Affordable Care Act challenge or they would vote against her confirmation. "Turley argues the Constitution allows senators to vote for or against a candidate for any reason "or no reason at all." But in the past, a "lack of qualifications" often has been the reason for opposition. This year, Democratic members "have struggled with changing rationales for voting against Barrett, who has impeccable credentials as an accomplished academic and respected jurist."... https://www.wnd.com/2020/10/democrats-creating-new-rule-supreme-nominees-based-might-vote/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=%5B-MD5-%5D

Kyle Rittenhouse won't face charges for gun offense in Illinois

By Louis Casiano

{ foxnews.com } ~ Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen accused of fatally shooting two protesters and wounding a third in Wisconsin over the summer, will not be charged with a gun offense in his home state of Illinois, prosecutors said Tuesday...The 17-year-old remains jailed in Lake County, Ill., pending extradition to Wisconsin, where he faces multiple criminal charges in Kenosha. A statement from the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office said an Antioch police investigation determined the firearm used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased and stored in Wisconsin. "There is no evidence the gun was ever physically possessed by Kyle Rittenhouse in Illinois," a news release said. Rittenhouse is charged with first-degree intentional homicide; one count of first-degree reckless homicide; one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide; two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment and one count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, all felonies. Prosecutors said he shot two protesters in Kenosha and wounded a third on Aug. 25 as demonstrations flared over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He was arrested at his home in Antioch a day later. Messages to his lawyers from Fox News were not returned. Rittenhouse’s lawyers are fighting his extradition to Wisconsin. Last week they filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that extraditing him "would be to turn him over to the mob.” They have portrayed their client as someone acting in self-defense. He is due back in court Oct. 30 for an extradition hearing.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-charged-gun-offense-illinois

The US is taxing expatriates out of their citizenship

by Alice Calder & Ann Marie Miller

{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ You might not know it, but U.S. citizens are ditching their status as Americans in droves. “Citizide” is a dramatic term for what’s really just renouncing one’s citizenship...a step that a rapidly increasing number of U.S. citizens living abroad are taking to avoid the complicated and expensive tax burdens imposed on them by their home country. In the first half of 2020 alone, almost 6,000 people renounced their U.S. citizenship, a tenfold increase from one year prior. It’s unclear whether this surge is due to the pandemic, political uncertainty, or to something else, but it's clear that having citizens abroad who remain U.S. citizens is beneficial, enriching the lives of those at home through the exchange of ideas and cultures. With the inevitable rise of virtual work and education, and with many countries now offering remote work visas for U.S. citizens, tax code innovation must keep up to avoid punishing those who choose to roam. Failure to do so will only increase citizide. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world the other is Eritrea that uses citizenship-based taxation. This means that U.S. citizens living in any country are subject to U.S. taxes on income earned anywhere in the world. Most other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, use residence-based taxation, where residents only pay taxes on the income earned from the country in which they are living. U.S. citizens, on the other hand, are often subject to double taxation, as well as complicated reporting measures. Those living abroad must also pay capital gains tax on property sold, which, if they get caught on the wrong side of an unfavorable exchange rate shift, can lead to even greater losses. Imagine paying taxes for gains you never actually made. These policies provide a harsh reality for Emilie Dye, a U.S. citizen living in Australia. Emilie graduated from college in 2019 and moved to Australia with the intention of only staying a couple years before returning to the United States. However, after falling in love with an Australian, her future remains uncertain. "I love the United States and want to remain a citizen. However, if I do choose to stay in Australia long-term, that may not be financially viable." She told us, "Taxes more than any other factor influence personal decisions like how I will save for retirement, where my partner and I will purchase a home, or choose to raise kids." The U.S. benefits from having citizens abroad, and citizens benefit from having the option, but this is lost if a burdensome tax system causes them to renounce their citizenship or to avoid making the move abroad altogether. Knowledge and wealth generated abroad often find their way back to the U.S. Many expatriates are working for American businesses, from investment banks and tech giants to hotel chains and media companies. Their support helps these U.S. companies expand internationally. Having an international presence is hugely beneficial for these companies, which in turn brings innovation and wealth back to the U.S. Working for a U.S. company abroad leads to knowledge sharing between foreign and local workers and the generation of new ideas and insights that benefit both countries... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-us-is-taxing-expatriates-out-of-their-citizenship?utm_source=WEX_News%20Brief%20-%20YouTube%20_10/18/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_News%20Brief&rid=5261

Federal Judge Orders Justice Department to Explain Why Awan Documents Are Being Kept Secret

By MARK TAPSCOTT

{ theepochtimes.com } ~ An apparently frustrated federal judge ordered attorneys for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appear Jan. 15 for a “snap” hearing to explain...why the government isn’t producing documents sought by Judicial Watch concerning former Democratic information technology aide Imran Awan. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta’s unusual order followed a sealed submission by DOJ attorneys Jan. 10 in the case prompted by the nonprofit government watchdog’s November 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. Such hastily convened hearings are extremely unusual in a federal judicial system so jammed that months can pass before cases are litigated in courtrooms. “In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay,” Judicial Watch said in a statement Jan. 14 about the snap hearing. “Instead, the Justice Department made its filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to produce records as promised to the court,” Judicial Watch said. Federal attorneys previously said in December 2019 that they were unable to provide the documents sought in the Judicial Watch FOIA requests because they include materials from a “related sealed criminal matter.” The lawsuit was prompted by DOJ’s failure to produce documents sought by Judicial Watch in two separate FOIA requests in the Awan scandal. Awan, a Pakistani national, and several members of his family and friends were IT aides to more than 40 Democratic members of key national security and foreign policy committees in the House of Representatives. Their positions gave the aides access to all of the members’ digital communications and documents... https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-to-explain-why-awan-documents-are-being-kept-secret_3204055.html

Sen. Ron Johnson presses Wray on validity of Hunter Biden laptop claim

By Ronn Blitzer, Evie Fordham & Brooke Singman

{ foxnews.com } ~ Sen. Ron Johnson is calling on FBI Director Christopher Wray to confirm or deny details regarding a laptop said to have belonged to Democratic presidential nominee scumbag drumbling lips liar-Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden...Johnson, R-Wis., said in a letter to Wray obtained by Fox News that a whistleblower contacted his committee on September 24, claiming to possess a laptop that Hunter Biden left at his business, and that he had turned it over to the FBI. Johnson noted that staff immediately asked the FBI to confirm certain details in order to validate the claim, but the bureau said they would not confirm or deny any of the information included in their request. "The FBI has a duty to inform us. If they believe this was maybe Russian disinformation, they should give us a defensive briefing,” Johnson told “Sunday Morning Futures.” “If, for example, they also believe that what information this whistleblower gave us is fraudulent, that would also be a crime, and FBI should tell us that.” Johnson is chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Johnson said his questions about what the FBI knew about Hunter Biden and when they knew it speaks to a “larger issue.” “Why did they sit on it? Are they covering up just because Hunter Biden might be engaged in things that also maybe should have been investigated and possibly prosecuted? Do we have two systems of justice: one for Democrats and one for Republicans? One for the well-connected versus one for the rest of the Americans?” he asked. Johnson added that he found the scumbag drumbling lips liar-Biden campaign’s response to claims that alleged Hunter Biden’s emails show his father met with a Burisma executive “pretty odd.” “The scumbag drumbling lips liar-Biden campaign, all they've done to refute or deny any of this is to say that the meeting one of these emails revealed that Vice President scumbag drumbling lips liar-Biden had with the No. 3 in control of Burisma never showed up on his official calendar,” Johnson said. “There's all kinds of meetings that didn't show up on his official calendar. This wouldn't surprise me if this one didn't.” "I have a responsibility to validate and verify the contents of any information produced to my committee," Johnson said in his letter. "The committee must know if it receives information that could be fraudulent or not accurate." Johnson mentioned the possibility that the information could be the result of foreign election interference, in which case a defensive briefing would be appropriate. He also acknowledged that if the whistleblower knowingly provided false information, that could be a crime. "For these reasons, the committee must know whether the FBI has assessed the validity of materials the whistleblower has provided, and what, if any, actions the FBI has taken since obtaining this information," Johnson continued... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-johnson-presses-wray-on-validity-of-hunter-biden-laptop-claim

VIDEO: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6202171246001#sp=show-clips

Big Tech's Corrupt Censorship

DOUGLAS ANDREWS If the troubled son of a sitting vice president accepted a lucrative do-nothing job with a notoriously corrupt foreign company, that’d be a big deal, right?

And if the father, who later decided to run for president, categorically denied having had any knowledge of or involvement with his son’s efforts to peddle influence using his famous surname, that’d be a big deal, too, right?

And if it turned out that the father was lying about that knowledge, that’d be, as someone once said, “a big f—ing deal,” right?

Wrong. At least not if you’re Twitter or Facebook and you’re hell-bent on dragging scumbag drumbling lips liar-Joe Biden’s carcass across the finish line on November 3. In that case, it’d be a big ol’ nothingburger. But just in case, the story would also be censored for its “lack of authoritative reporting” and for having run afoul of your “Hacked Materials Policy.”

But how much more authoritative can reporting be than that which simply publishes the email communications of the aforementioned troubled son? And as for “hacked materials,” where was this self-righteous standard a couple of weeks ago, when these same Big Tech platforms were gleefully helping The New York Times publish information about President Donald Trump’s private tax returns?

If ever there were an October Surprise, yesterday morning’s New York Post exclusive was it. The story — which is still coming out — presents damning evidence of influence peddling at the highest levels of the scumbag/liar-nObama administration. And yet the most powerful media megaphones in the world suppressed it. Heck, Twitter even locked Donald Trump’s press secretary out of her account to keep her from sharing the story.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Big Tech is corrupt, even evil. It is the enemy of conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, and honest liberals everywhere.

“In case there was any doubt that Facebook and Twitter are corruptly partisan,” writes the New York Post’s Miranda Devine, “the social-media giants censored The Post’s story Wednesday on Hunter Biden’s e-mails suggesting he took cash for access to his father, scumbag drumbling lips liar-Joe Biden. The bombshell exclusive was trending all Wednesday morning on social media platforms until Big Tech stepped in to run protection for the Democratic presidential candidate.”

Perhaps realizing that by censoring the story so close to a presidential election he was actually amplifying its importance, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey came out with a warm-spit statement of regret: “Our communication around our actions on the nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable.”

“Not great” and “unacceptable” didn’t sit well with Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who tweeted back: “Jack this is not nearly good enough. In fact, it’s a joke. It’s downright insulting. I will ask you — and Facebook — to give an explanation UNDER OATH to the Senate subcommittee I chair. These are potential violations of election law, and that’s a crime.”

Of course, we’ve been hearing this sort of indignation from Republicans for years. And to what end? Wash, rinse, repeat.

As the editors at National Review point out, “Twitter has offered no evidence that any of the information was illegally obtained. No similar standard was applied when the New York Times published Trump’s tax returns, even though anyone who had legal access to them is likely to have broken the law in sharing them with the Times. The newspaper reports that Hunter Biden’s emails had turned up in the hard drive of a laptop that had been dropped off at a repair shop last year. … Whatever the case … it’s certainly not the job of giant tech companies who claim to function as neutral platforms to decide what news consumers can or can’t handle.”

The editors think Big Tech’s media malfeasance will backfire, but we’re not so sure. These companies have yet to be punished for their repeated encroachments on the marketplace of ideas, and they continue to take full advantage of the special treatment they’ve enjoyed from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act since 1996, when the Internet was in its relative infancy. The law protects these hyper-partisan Big Tech platforms from liability for their users’ posts, and, they claim, it allows them to suppress or censor their users’ content without being treated as publishers.

Clearly Section 230 is in dire need of an update. Our very Liberty is at stake. What on earth are Republicans waiting for? ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/74176?mailing_id=5369&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5369&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

Forum

Tuesday AM ~ TheFrontPageCover

Replies