Connect with us

*Headline

Biden Bought Chinese Drones for Secret Service From Manufacturer Blacklisted by Trump

Western Journal

Published

on

Let me tell you something. And I am dead serious here.

I have, for some time, had the distinct impression that President Joe Biden is going out of his way to fulfill all of his critics’ most far-fetched warnings about how his presidency will turn out.

I know, I know, that sounds real tinfoil-hatty and crazy, and I’m not going to present to you any real exhaustive conspiracy theory here; given the current state of media and discourse on current events, I’m sure you can use your imagination.

I certainly won’t wander down any rabbit holes right now — but I am here to tell you that if President Joe Biden were going out of his way to appear to be every single thing that virtually anyone who opposed his presidency feared he would be, it’s hard to imagine what he’d be doing differently.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

You know?

After all, what other halfway rational explanation could there possibly be for his administration to proceed with the purchase of drones produced by a company that has been blacklisted by the federal government for, and even admitted to, having close ties to the Chinese Communist Party?

Can you think of anything?

The Biden administration has, yes, ignored a July warning from the Pentagon about Chinese drone manufacturing giant Da Jiang Innovations, which both the Trump-era Departments of Homeland Security and Defense also deemed a possible national security threat.

Axios reported in September that procurement documents show the Secret Service purchased eight commercial DJI-made drones just three days after the Department of Defense released a statement affirming its position that that “systems produced by Da Jiang Innovations (DJI) pose potential threats to national security.”

In 2016, The New York Times reported that DJI admitted that it might share data with the Chinese government. And in 2020, the cybersecurity firm River Loop Security found that one DJI product was sending much of its user data to a data analysis firm that directly cooperates with Beijing, The Washington Times reported.

The outlet noted that in 2017, the DHS determined with “moderate confidence” DJI was indeed conveying critical government intelligence to the CCP, and in 2019, the Department of the Interior grounded its entire drone fleet, which included DJI products, over the same concern.

In 2020, the Trump administration added the company to the Commerce Department’s “Entity List,” banning Americans from investing in the firm.

When Biden entered office, his administration at first pledged to expand, rather than diminish, former President Donald Trump’s federal restrictions on Chinese entities suspected to be providing intelligence to Beijing.

And yet, even after his DoD stated that it was maintaining its prior position that DJI posed a national security threat on July 23, the Secret Service went ahead and purchased equipment manufactured by the firm, according to procurement documents.

The documents reviewed by The Washington Times and Axios reveal that the agency, which falls under DHS, went ahead with plans to purchase the DJI Mavic 2 Pro and DJI Phantom 4 Pro drones.

Official procurement documents also show that the FBI sought to purchase DJI drones around the same time, although its purchase was completed prior to the Pentagon’s statement.

This all happened, by the way, at the same time that Biden was ignoring the sound advice of his top security entities on Afghanistan, and the world would watch the fruition of his terrible leadership on this count in horror the following month.

The Secret Service has declined to comment on the reported purchase, although the heat is increasing from Republican lawmakers who are slamming the administration for ignoring the blatant security threat.

Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, who has advocated for a federal ban on Chinese drones for years, wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding an explanation for the agencies’ purchases, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told Axios there was “no excuse” for the Biden administration to procure equipment from a company that could easily be sharing data with China.

And that’s exactly it. There’s simply no excuse and no good reason, at all, for the Biden administration to ignore its own national security officials to proceed with these purchases.

Do you see why I’m resorting to half-baked conspiracy theories here?

What other explanation could there possibly be than that this administration is committed to vindicating all of its critics’ worst nightmares?

If there’s one thing that’s difficult to dispute, it’s that Biden is certainly turning into exactly what we warned he would be all along: a boon to our enemies and a massive threat to our own national security and future as a nation.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

*Headline

Harris’ 2024 Chances Sink After Ex-Staffer Reveals Her Cruelty Behind Closed Doors

Western Journal

Published

on

Earth to Democrats: Vice President Kamala Harris is not your savior.

It’s not that her poll numbers are low just because her personality is grating and she’s been ineffectual whenever she’s been given the opportunity to lead. Both of those are true, but there’s another factor that needs to be looked at: Harris’ inability to come to grips with the organizational side of politics.

Mainstream media outlets didn’t want to pay attention to this when she was running for either president or vice president — even though the evidence is there. (This is the kind of ugly media bias we fight every day here at The Western Journal. You can help us in our fight by subscribing.)

The most damaging aspect of this has been speculation regarding her staffers — how she treats them, how many of them end up quitting and what they say to the media after they walk out. Over the course of her vice presidency, there’s usually been someone in her office who defended Harris against this. Thus far, it’s typically been Symone Sanders, Harris’ chief spokeswoman.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

She wasn’t available this time, given that she was the one who quit.

But seriously, guys — she didn’t quit because the vice president’s office is more dysfunctional than the weekend Charlie Sheen gets supervised visitation with his kids! Why, just listen to the reason she gave The Washington Post for why she left the office after two years of working for Joe Biden and one for Kamala Harris.

“I’ve been with the president since before he announced his run for president. I staffed him on the road. I traveled with him for nearly two years and during that time, there were days when on Monday I would get on a plane with Joe Biden. And then the plane would land in Delaware I would drive from Delaware to Washington DC. And Tuesday morning, I would be on a plane with Kamala Harris,” Sanders told the Post.

“I’m getting married next year. I would like to plan my wedding. You know, I have earned a break. So me deciding that I’m leaving has absolutely nothing to do with my unhappiness. I feel honored every single day to work for the vice president who gave me an opportunity to be her spokesperson at the highest levels.”

The problem for Harris with that carefully drafted statement is that it was appended onto the end of another nightmare piece about how Harris treats her staff — including more anonymous quotes to those who have left the office behind and attributed quotes from those who say they know how toxic the dynamic is.

The headline should say it all: “A Kamala Harris staff exodus reignites questions about her leadership style — and her future ambitions.”

But there were plenty of details inside the Saturday report from Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Tyler Pager, painting the picture of a domineering boss who abuses her staff.

For instance: “Staffers who worked for Harris before she was vice president said one consistent problem was that Harris would refuse to wade into briefing materials prepared by staff members, then berate employees when she appeared unprepared,” the Saturday report stated.

“It’s clear that you’re not working with somebody who is willing to do the prep and the work,” a former staffer told the Post, describing Harris’ behavior outside the public eye.

“With Kamala you have to put up with a constant amount of soul-destroying criticism and also her own lack of confidence. So you’re constantly sort of propping up a bully and it’s not really clear why.”

One source named in the article was blunt.

“One of the things we’ve said in our little text groups among each other is what is the common denominator through all this and it’s her,” former Democratic strategist and Harris aide Gil Duran told the Post. He quit working for her after five months in 2013.

“Who are the next talented people you’re going to bring in and burn through and then have [them] pretend they’re retiring for positive reasons?”

What’s the defense against this? Misogyny and racism, of course.

Usually, when pieces like this come out against Harris — such as a damning June article published by Politico — it was Symone Sanders picking up the pieces. She would parrot the same lines that Wootson and Pager described in their piece: that “criticism against her is often steeped in the same racism and sexism that have followed a woman who has been a first in every job she’s done over the past two decades.”

“Her selection as President Biden’s vice president, they say, makes her a bigger target because many see her as the heir apparent to the oldest president in the nation’s history. They also say Harris faces the brunt of a double standard for women who are ambitious, powerful or simply unafraid to appear strong in public.”

Calling unnamed sources in the summertime Politico article “cowards,” Sanders noted, “We are not making rainbows and bunnies all day … What I hear is that people have hard jobs and I’m like, ‘welcome to the club.’”

In that piece, here’s how one individual with knowledge of how Harris ran her office described it: “People are thrown under the bus from the very top, there are short fuses and it’s an abusive environment. It’s not a healthy environment and people often feel mistreated. It’s not a place where people feel supported but a place where people feel treated like s***.”

Sanders is now out of the club, so the defense — at least for the Post’s article — fell to Sean Clegg, a partner in a political consultancy who advised Harris when she was a California state politician. He could have used a bit of brush-up on his “rainbows and bunnies” talk, however.

“People personalize these things,” he said. “I’ve never had an experience in my long history with Kamala, where I felt like she was unfair. Has she called bulls***? Yes. And does that make people uncomfortable sometimes? Yes. But if she were a man with her management style, she would have a TV show called ‘The Apprentice.’”

At National Review, John McCormack may have put it best: “It’s hard to tell what’s worse for Vice President Kamala Harris in this Washington Post story—the comments from anonymous former staffers trashing her management style or the on-the-record comment defending her management style by likening Harris to Donald Trump.”

Whatever, the case, Harris burns through staffers like a tech startup burns through money — although the end product tends to be better in Silicon Valley than what we’re seeing inside the veep’s office. The problem is that Harris was given the second-in-command role with the knowledge she was heir apparent. Over the past few months, it’s become apparent the heir will be needed sooner rather than later.

Biden’s poll numbers are in the toilet, with a RealClearPolitics polling average of 42.3 favorable and 52.2 unfavorable as of Dec. 2. Given his advanced age — not just 79 but a high-mileage 79 — he would ordinarily be passing the mantle on to the vice president.

Except Harris’ poll numbers are even worse than Biden’s; her RCP average, as of Nov. 30, was 40.2 favorable and 51.6 unfavorable. She’s come through on none of the leadership opportunities she’s been given. And, as yet another departure has proved, she still doesn’t have the organizational chops to make a run at the presidency in 2024.

None of this, obviously, is good for the United States of America. In a dangerous world, with rivals like Russia and China increasingly belligerent, the country needs stable, competent leadership in the Oval Office.

Unfortunately, thanks to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and the current deranged state of the Democratic Party, that’s not in the cards for another three years, at least.

From a political perspective, however, the only people benefiting from the dysfunction of the Biden-Harris administration are those who are or support politicians with the “R” after their name.

As disastrous as it is for the county, Republicans will have an opportunity in 2024 to exploit the double-bind the White House is in: Run a senescent president who has neither the energy nor the initiative to do the job, or hand the reins to a vice president whose office seems to be imploding under the same mismanagement her presidential campaign did.

That’s the choice Democrats are stuck with at the moment. Fortunately, the country as a whole has other options.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Earth to Democrats: Vice President Kamala Harris is not your savior. It’s not that her poll numbers are low just because her personality is grating and she’s been ineffectual whenever she’s been given the opportunity to lead. Both of those are true, but there’s another factor that needs to be looked at: Harris’ inability to come to grips with the organizational side of politics. Mainstream media outlets didn’t want to pay attention to this when she was running for either president or vice president — even though the evidence is there. (This is the kind of ugly media bias we fight every day here at The Western Journal. You can help us in our fight by subscribing.) The most damaging aspect of this has been speculation regarding her staffers — how she treats them, how many of them end up quitting and what they say to the media after they walk out. Over the course of her vice presidency, there’s usually been someone in her office who defended Harris against this. Thus far, it’s typically been Symone Sanders, Harris’ chief spokeswoman. She wasn’t available this time, given that she was the one who quit. But seriously, guys — she didn’t quit because the vice president’s office is more dysfunctional than the weekend Charlie Sheen gets supervised visitation with his kids! Why, just listen to the reason she gave The Washington Post for why she left the office after two years of working for Joe Biden and one for Kamala Harris. “I’ve been with the president since before he announced his run for president. I staffed him on the road. I traveled with him for nearly two years and during that time, there were days when on Monday I would get on a plane with Joe Biden. And then the plane…

Continue Reading

*Headline

Dirty Money: JP Morgan Official Rats Esptein Out, Says He Wired Ghislaine Maxwell Over $30 Million

Western Journal

Published

on

Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal strategy in her sex trafficking case could be described as a #MeToo defense: Sure, Jeffrey Epstein had plenty of victims, and she was one of the first.

Though she’s now on trial in federal court on a slew of charges related to facilitating Epstein’s sexual relations with underage females, her defense is apparently trying to suggest different picture:

She wasn’t a procurer or a pimp, but merely someone who got caught up in the machinations of the world’s most infamous degenerate. And, according to the New York Post, the defense argues Maxwell is simply being targeted because Epstein is no longer alive to prosecute.

If that’s the case, her defense team will have to explain why she was one very well-remunerated victim.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In testimony Monday, according to Just the News, a banker with JP Morgan said that Epstein wired over $30 million to Ghislaine Maxwell over a period of eight years. Some of that money may have been spent on a private helicopter and a townhouse worth nearly $5 million, according to the U.K. Daily Mail.

(We’ve stuck with the Epstein/Maxwell legal saga since the beginning here at The Western Journal — and we’ve highlighted many of the sordid details and big names that the mainstream media and Big Tech don’t want to focus on. You can help us continue our fight to bring readers the truth, no matter what the cost, by subscribing.)

According to the Daily Mail, JPMorgan Chase executive director Patrick McHugh told the court that $30.7 million was transferred from Epstein to Maxwell between 1999 and 2007.

Prosecutors also introduced documentation to back up the testimony, the paper reported.

“A bank statement from August 1999 showed the Financial Trust Company, a company Epstein controlled, selling $18.3 million of shares which were transferred the same day into a bank account owned by Maxwell,” the Daily Mail’s Daniel Bates reported.

“The reason for the transfer was unclear, but in October 2000 Maxwell paid $4.9 million for a townhouse on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.”

A further $5 million was transferred into Maxwell’s account in September of 2002, again from selling off shares.

The final transfer took place in June of 2007, the Daily Mail reported. In that transfer, $7.6 million was wired from one of Epstein’s bank accounts to Maxwell — who transferred it to a company she controlled called Air Ghislaine, and then wired money to helicopter-maker Sikorsky for one of its S76C aircraft and a “down payment on executive finish,” according to the Daily Mail.

Maxwell’s lawyers countered by arguing such transfers were normal for someone with Epstein’s wealth.

“Isn’t it true that high-net-worth individuals like this have lots of assets?” said Maxwell lawyer Christian Everdell, according to the Daily Mail.

“They could,” McHugh responded, adding that transferring the money didn’t necessarily indicate illegal behavior.

Still, the transfers weren’t a good look on a bad day in court for Maxwell.

Earlier, the Daily Mail reported, a witness using the pseudonym “Kate” said she had been introduced to Epstein by Maxwell when she was 17. She told the court that when she visited Maxwell’s townhouse in London, she found Epstein dressed in a robe. Maxwell said his massage therapist had canceled and asked her to substitute. Furing the massage, she alleged, Epstein began to make sexual contact.

She said that after the massage, Maxwell said, “How did it go? Did you have fun? You’re such a good girl.”

“She sounded really pleased, and I was pleased that she was pleased,” the witness said, according to the Daily Mail.

While “Kate” was over the age of consent and isn’t part of the charges against Maxwell, her testimony demonstrates a pattern — and it also raises new questions about the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell.

“There are no indications that Ghislaine directly helped Epstein with financial matters. Instead, Maxwell, who grew up in British high society and graduated from Oxford University, introduced Epstein to the global elite, including politicians and royalty,” noted Patricia Hurtado and Sophie Alexander in a Bloomberg piece about Maxwell when she was arrested last summer

Maxwell’s father was the powerful British publisher Robert Maxwell, whose death in 1991 set off a series of revelations that “his wealth was an illusion: He had diverted hundreds of millions of pounds from his companies’ pension funds to prop up his empire,” as NBC reported in November.

Hurtado and Alexander noted that Maxwell’s lawyers are suggesting that Maxwell is “less wealthy than many believe.”

“After arriving in New York in the wake of her father’s death and ensuing scandal, she grew tight with Epstein in the 1990s,” they wrote. “They were initially romantically involved, but remained close, and Epstein called Maxwell his ‘best friend’ in a 2003 Vanity Fair article. A trained helicopter pilot, she even transported him to his private island.”

Maxwell’s wealth and where she got it are in question, as well. As the Bloomberg report noted, she claimed to be worth less than $1 million at the time of her arrest, something prosecutors called “implausible.”

After all, she received over $30 million in transfers from Epstein alone, evidence he could have bought her silence or participation — or both.

A former housekeeper testified that she was “lady of the house” around Epstein’s mansion, producing a 58-page book of rules that was entered into evidence.

Even beyond that, Maxwell’s constant presence around the late financier and convicted sex offender was indicative of a relationship that goes far beyond being a simple victim.

If this is the tack Maxwell’s defense intends to take after she was the recipient of a vast fortune in just eight years of financial transfers from Epstein, her case is in trouble.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal strategy in her sex trafficking case could be described as a #MeToo defense: Sure, Jeffrey Epstein had plenty of victims, and she was one of the first. Though she’s now on trial in federal court on a slew of charges related to facilitating Epstein’s sexual relations with underage females, her defense is apparently trying to suggest different picture: She wasn’t a procurer or a pimp, but merely someone who got caught up in the machinations of the world’s most infamous degenerate. And, according to the New York Post, the defense argues Maxwell is simply being targeted because Epstein is no longer alive to prosecute. If that’s the case, her defense team will have to explain why she was one very well-remunerated victim. In testimony Monday, according to Just the News, a banker with JP Morgan said that Epstein wired over $30 million to Ghislaine Maxwell over a period of eight years. Some of that money may have been spent on a private helicopter and a townhouse worth nearly $5 million, according to the U.K. Daily Mail. (We’ve stuck with the Epstein/Maxwell legal saga since the beginning here at The Western Journal — and we’ve highlighted many of the sordid details and big names that the mainstream media and Big Tech don’t want to focus on. You can help us continue our fight to bring readers the truth, no matter what the cost, by subscribing.) According to the Daily Mail, JPMorgan Chase executive director Patrick McHugh told the court that $30.7 million was transferred from Epstein to Maxwell between 1999 and 2007. Prosecutors also introduced documentation to back up the testimony, the paper reported. “A bank statement from August 1999 showed the Financial Trust Company, a company Epstein controlled, selling $18.3 million of shares which were transferred the…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week