Matthew Boyle


U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco Jamie McCourt told Breitbart News exclusively on Monday that the Atlantic story about President Donald Trump allegedly bashing troops is untrue.

Ambassador McCourt was there the day President Trump’s team called off the trip to the cemetery at Belleau Wood because of inclement weather. She is the latest U.S. official who was actually present at the event to publicly deny the Atlantic’s account of events, which is based entirely on anonymous sources.

“Needless to say, I never spoke to the Atlantic, and I can’t imagine who would,” McCourt told Breitbart News. “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.”

McCourt’s denial regarding the Atlantic comes after former White House deputy chief of staff Zach Fuentes, a top confidante of former chief of staff John Kelly, denied the story earlier on Monday in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News.

In addition to Fuentes, former National Security adviser John Bolton has denied the account—as has every other person who could have witnessed the president saying this: officials who were there, from former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to senior adviser Stephen Miller to advisers such as Jordan Karem and Derek Lyons. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was traveling with the president there, has also denied the report. In addition, first lady Melania Trump has denied the report and called the Atlantic article fake news.

While Kelly himself has not said anything publicly at this stage, Fuentes’s denial essentially serves as a denial from Kelly. That’s because Fuentes, in his denial, made clear that Kelly would not have stood idly by if Trump had, in fact, made the remarks that were alleged in the Atlantic story.

“Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?” Fuentes asked Breitbart News.

Now, with McCourt’s denial, along with those of everyone else who was in the president’s presence in France during this supposed episode, White House officials familiar with the matter told Breitbart News that there is nobody left who could have witnessed the president say something like this privately about fallen troops:

In other words, White House officials current and former told Breitbart News this denial from Ambassador McCourt essentially eliminates any possibility of an actual firsthand account of the president making such remarks, as everyone who was with him on this trip has denied the report except for Kelly–and Fuentes’s statement makes clear Kelly would not have stood by if the president said this.

At a news conference on Monday at the White House, the president again bashed the Atlantic report:

“The story is a hoax, written by a guy who has a tremendously bad history,” Trump said, adding, “The magazine itself, which I don’t read but I hear is totally anti-Trump—he’s a big Obama person, he’s a big Clinton person—he made up the story. It’s a totally made-up story. In fact, I was very happy to see Zach Fuentes came out and said—I think that’s now number 15. These are people that were there. That’s the 15th person—Gen. Kellogg, everybody that was there, knew what happened. So I was happy to see Zach came out and said it’s not true. He just came out. It’s a disgrace. Who would say a thing like that? Only an animal would say a thing like that. There is nobody that has more respect for not only our military, but for people that gave their lives in the military. I think John Kelly knows that. I think he would know that, and he knows that from me. But Zach Fuentes, as you know, worked for John. I think they both know that, but Zach, as you know, came out today or yesterday, last night, and said very strongly that he didn’t hear anything like that. Even John Bolton came out and said that was untrue. Now what was true is we had the worst weather. We had as bad of rain as I’ve just about ever seen, and it was a fog you literally couldn’t see. I walked out—I didn’t need somebody to tell me—I walked out and said, ‘There’s no way we can take helicopters in this.’ I understand helicopters very well. They said, ‘No, sir. That’s been canceled.’ They would have had to go—Secret Service, I have the whole list. They would have had to go through a very, very busy section during the day of Paris. They would have had to go through the city.”

Author: Matthew Boyle

Source: Breitbart: Exclusive — U.S. Ambassador to France Denies The Atlantic Story: ‘POTUS Has Never Denigrated Any Member of U.S. Military’

Deep state actors are again making moves against President Donald Trump, this time coming after the president through a line of attack against U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom Woody Johnson.

Johnson’s former civil service deputy, Lewis Lukens, who served as the acting ambassador until Johnson was confirmed, has made a number of unsubstantiated allegations against Johnson — and Trump — that even the British government has denied. Nonetheless, expect Lukens — whose history at the State Department is riddled with a history of problems, including his role in helping create former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server setup — to be a new star to the Democrats as they move, sources familiar with the matter told Breitbart News, to bring Lukens in for a committee hearing on whatever grievances he has to air against the Trump administration. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) has also called on Johnson to testify before his committee about media reports that Lukens has been at the center of in recent weeks.

The story really starts at the beginning of former President Barack Obama’s administration when Lukens was involved in the lead-up to Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State by helping set up her email server.

A May 2016 report from the Washington Examiner noted that Lukens was deposed by Judicial Watch — the first Clinton official to be deposed in the lawsuit over Clinton’s emails from the conservative group — on May 18, 2016.

“Lewis Lukens, former executive secretary at the State Department, was deposed by Judicial Watch on May 18 for his role in setting up office space and making other logistical arrangements ahead of Clinton’s transition to the agency in 2009,” Sarah Westwood wrote in the Examiner on May 26, 2016. “Lukens said he did not believe the State Department ever provided Clinton with a computer for her office, while the agency did assign former Secretary of State Colin Powell a computer. Clinton has often cited Powell’s occasional use of private email as evidence that her digital communications were similar to her predecessors’.”

Lukens had joined the foreign service in 1989 and served in a variety of roles in different places around the globe. His role from 2008 to 2011 as the Executive Secretariat at the State Department put him in direct proximity to Clinton, the woman who would later become the 2016 Democrat presidential nominee and who many on the left thought would be president.

After his time working directly in Clinton’s orbit for several years, Lukens was rewarded with the post of U.S. Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, small countries in West Africa. After serving as ambassador there for three years — from 2011 to 2014 — he was again rewarded with a plum post in London as Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy to the United Kingdom from August 2016 to early 2019. It would have been an easy move for Clinton, had she won the election, to elevate her former close aide from the State Department to be the full-time U.S. Ambassador to the U.K., but Clinton lost — and the broader international global left also lost in the U.K. in 2016 when British voters backed leaving the European Union. Both Brexit in the U.K. and Trump’s election in the U.S. upended those plans, allowing Trump to nominate his political ally Johnson to the coveted ambassadorship to one of America’s strongest and oldest allies.

In the meantime, after Trump won and before Johnson was confirmed to the role of ambassador by the U.S. Senate, Lukens served as acting U.S. Ambassador in the U.K. and regularly butted heads with Trump. Lukens, for instance, tweeted support — as acting ambassador — for London Mayor Sadiq Khan when Trump was criticizing his handling of a terrorist attack. Trump had been criticizing Khan’s handling of the attack on Twitter when Lukens decided to undercut the administration for which he was supposed to be serving as an acting ambassador and instead sent out a formal statement of support for Khan, saying, “I commend the strong leadership” of Khan.

Once Johnson, a billionaire Trump ally, co-owner of the New York Jets, and heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune, was confirmed by the Senate to be the full-time U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. in August 2017, Lukens did not leave the government but instead stayed in the embassy in London.

During the time in which he stayed — which is normal for most career foreign service officials but for someone as politically connected to Clinton as Lukens was seemed slightly odd — Lukens appears to have been attempting to undercut Trump and Johnson from the get-go.

He waited, gathered information, and then made a move in the past few months to come after Trump and Johnson with everything he could. It started with a New York Times story in July in which Lukens claimed that Johnson was told to try to pressure British government officials to secure the British Open at Trump’s Scotland golf course, Turnberry.

Maggie Hagerman, Lara Jakes, and Mark Landler wrote in the Times story in mid-July:

The American ambassador to Britain, Robert Wood Johnson IV, told multiple colleagues in February 2018 that President Trump had asked him to see if the British government could help steer the world-famous and lucrative British Open golf tournament to the Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland, according to three people with knowledge of the episode.

The ambassador’s deputy, Lewis A. Lukens, advised him not to do it, warning that it would be an unethical use of the presidency for private gain, these people said. But Mr. Johnson apparently felt pressured to try. A few weeks later, he raised the idea of Turnberry playing host to the Open with the secretary of state for Scotland, David Mundell.

In a brief interview last week, Mr. Mundell said it was “inappropriate” for him to discuss his dealings with Mr. Johnson and referred to a British government statement that said Mr. Johnson “made no request of Mr. Mundell regarding the British Open or any other sporting event.” The statement did not address whether the ambassador had broached the issue of Turnberry, which Mr. Trump bought in 2014, but none of the next four Opens are scheduled to be played there.

Still, the episode left Mr. Lukens and other diplomats deeply unsettled. Mr. Lukens, who served as the acting ambassador before Mr. Johnson arrived in November 2017, emailed officials at the State Department to tell them what had happened, colleagues said. A few months later, Mr. Johnson forced out Mr. Lukens, a career diplomat who had earlier served as ambassador to Senegal, shortly before his term was to end.

Both Trump himself and the British government have denied this all together. “No, I never spoke to Woody Johnson about that, about Turnberry,” Trump said at a press conference the next day in response to the Times story. “Turnberry is a highly respected course, as you know, one of the best in the world, and I read a story about it today. I never spoke to Woody Johnson about doing that, no.”

The British government’s Scotland Office said in a statement, too, that Johnson never made such a request. “Johnson made no request of [the official] regarding the British Open or any other sporting event,” the formal British government statement said.

Meanwhile, a CNN report released right around the time of that original New York Times story claimed that Johnson was under investigation by the State Department Inspector General for the alleged Turnberry incident that all sides deny and for alleged racist and sexist comments that he denies having made.

A couple of weeks later in early August, Lukens made an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s program on MSNBC for an interview she aggressively hyped as an “interview I’ve been looking forward to for a very long time.”

“I did not know that we were going to be able to get it, and when I found out we got it — I, anyway, I feel honored to have this interview tonight and I hope that you will watch it,” Maddow said as she brought on Lukens.

During the interview, he made basically the same claims that were made in the establishment media reports — even saying that the media reports were correct. In the second part of the interview, Maddow alleged there has been “a cover-up effort trying to keep this scandal from coming to light,” and asked Lukens if he knew for a fact if the Inspector General for the State Department was investigating it. He replied that the Inspector General’s team was there in London last October for several weeks. He said that while he did not speak with investigators, “this issue was raised with them as well as several other allegations as CNN and others have reported on.” Lukens claimed it was odd that a report from the Inspector General had not been released publicly yet, almost a year later, but that he was unsure if the delay was related to the termination of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.

A week after Lukens’ appearance on Maddow, the State Department Inspector General published the report. It turns out the report was not a formal investigation but a routine inspection of the embassy. As is standard practice, every few years the Inspector General does a scheduled inspection of every embassy. The report makes no mention of the now-denied-by-everybody alleged Turnberry request incident, and as for allegations that Johnson made sexist or racist comments, the report is fairly dismissive of that allegation in general.

What the report does make clear is Lukens’ ineffectiveness and that his replacement as Deputy Chief of Mission — Yael Lempert — is much more effective.

“When the Ambassador arrived at Embassy London in late summer 2017, he assumed responsibility from the previous DCM who had served as Chargé d’Affaires for approximately 7 months,” the Inspector General wrote. “OIG learned that the relationship between the Ambassador and the former DCM deteriorated during the year that they worked together, affecting mission morale and ending in the DCM’s reassignment. Based on interviews with embassy staff, OIG concluded that the Ambassador did not always model the Department’s leadership and management principles as contained in 3 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 1214 and, in particular, 3 FAM 1214b(4) and (6) regarding communication and self-awareness. For example, some embassy staff told OIG that when the Ambassador was frustrated with what he interpreted to be excessive staff caution or resistance to suggestions about which he felt strongly, he sometimes questioned their intentions or implied that he might have them replaced. This caused staff to grow wary of providing him with their best judgment. With the arrival of the current DCM, chosen by the Ambassador, staff generally reported to OIG that they saw better communication from the Front Office and an increased confidence from the Ambassador in the mission’s staff.”

It did say, regarding the allegations, that CNN reported the Department of State should conduct a “more thorough review” but that nothing rose to the level of warranting immediate or decisive action.

“OIG also found that some staff were impacted by the Ambassador’s demanding, hard driving work style and it had a negative effect on morale in some embassy sections,” the Inspector General wrote. “In addition, OIG learned, through employee questionnaires and interviews, that the ambassador sometimes made inappropriate or insensitive comments on topics generally considered Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)-sensitive, such as religion, sex, or color. According to 3 FAM 1526.1, offensive or derogatory comments, based on an individual’s race, color, sex, or religion, can create an offensive working environment and could potentially rise to a violation of EEO laws. Based on the information that OIG learned during the inspection, and pursuant to the requirements in 3 FAM 1526.2, a more thorough review by the Department is warranted.”

All of these allegations against Johnson and Trump collapsing is why the most interesting part of Maddow’s interview with Lukens was perhaps not what Lukens said but the fact that Maddow identified his current position as a senior partner at Signum Global Advisers now that he has left the government.

In late July, the Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles wrote a piece about Lukens that exposed the fact that Signum is deeply connected to high levels of the Democrat Party.

“Following his dismissal from the U.S. Embassy in London, Lukens became a senior partner at Signum Global Advisors,” Stiles wrote. “The consulting firm’s founder, investment banker Charles Myers, is a longtime Democratic donor who advised Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign in 2016 and is currently a bundler for the Biden Victory Fund. Myers recently expressed confidence that Biden’s efforts to court Bernie Sanders supporters would not stop a Biden administration from nominating Wall Street executives to senior cabinet positions. Last month, Lukens and Myers coauthored a note to Signum’s clients predicting that Democrats would regain control of the Senate in 2021.”

Author: Matthew Boyle

Source: Breitbart: Deep State Hatches Yet Another Plot Against Trump Starring Key Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Player

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) told Breitbart News this weekend that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would rather investigate President Donald Trump again than focus on the actual origins of the Chinese coronavirus and U.S. tax dollars that went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from which intelligence officials increasingly believe the virus leaked.

Appearing on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, Reschenthaler discussed his efforts to investigate tax dollars that flowed through a New York firm to the Wuhan lab. He said that Pelosi and House Democrats are not interested in holding the Chinese Communist Party accountable and, instead, want to focus their oversight efforts on politically harming President Trump again just like they tried and failed with the partisan impeachment last year and earlier this year.

“We should have an investigative body looking at these grants, but Nancy Pelosi is not going to do that,” Reschenthaler said. “So you have myself and House Republicans. I can tell you I’m going to continue to look into these grants. I’m going to continue to look into the Department of Homeland Security as well to see what grants are going from there to China. I’m also looking at defunding the World Health Organization and we can talk about that as well. But the bottom line of the Democrats’ behavior is this: They hate this president so badly that they would rather side with the Chinese Communist Party than defend Americans and defend our spending and spend wisely and just be honest. That is their hatred for President Trump and disdain for President Trump’s supporters.”


Reschenthaler wrote a letter this week to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper inquiring about a Pentagon grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., a New York firm that has had a history of funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology with subgrants from American taxpayers. The Pentagon grant the congressman was inquiring about was for research into bat-borne zoonotic diseases and their potential as weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons. While it is unclear if that grant saw U.S. taxpayer money flowing from it out to the Wuhan lab, it is known that another grant that EcoHealth Alliance received did partially spend U.S. tax dollars in the Chinese lab.

That grant, from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — in particular the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is run by the now-famous Dr. Anthony Fauci — saw U.S. tax dollars sent to EcoHealth Alliance for researching coronaviruses from bats flow out to the Chinese lab in Wuhan. Some of the money went to other labs around the world too, an NIH official confirmed to Breitbart News last week. But the NIH was so concerned about the money and this lab in Wuhan that the government notified EcoHealth Alliance that it would be investigating the matter and that any funds to the Wuhan lab must be halted while the investigation occurred.

“The NIH funded EcoHealth Alliance, which then, in turn, turned around and partially funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Reschenthaler told Breitbart News. “The DOD also gave EcoHealth Alliance $6.5 million in a grant, and like you said, that grant was to understand bat-borne zoonotic disease in context with weapons of mass destruction. So what I’m trying to find out is whether or not the DOD funding that went to EcoHealth also went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We know that the NIH funding did, and we also know that all money is fungible, but I want to see if we can trace that money to Wuhan to see how much and to what extent the DOD and American taxpayers actually funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

What is perhaps most interesting about all this is how little the Democrats on Capitol Hill seem to care about the origins of the virus in Wuhan, China, or about U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to this lab in China. Many Democrats have brushed off holding China accountable for the virus and, instead, intend to focus their efforts on attacking President Trump over the Chinese coronavirus. Pelosi, whose Articles of Impeachment effort against Trump failed in grand fashion this year as the U.S. Senate acquitted the president, has even launched the creation of a select committee to investigate the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic — a select committee that Republicans are considering boycotting.

The members Pelosi named to the committee last week are highly partisan Democrats. First and foremost, Pelosi named House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) — the Democrat who publicly mused that the chaos of the pandemic provided Democrats an opportunity to remake America in their vision — to chair it. Then she named several others directly involved in the failed effort to impeach President Trump, including House Oversight Committee chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and House Financial Services Committee chairwoman Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). Maloney and Waters chair two of the committees that were involved in the partisan impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

The others — House Small Business Committee chairwoman Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Bill Foster (D-IL), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) — all voted for impeachment as well. Raskin, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, gained particular prominence during hearings last year.

As such, Rep. Kevin McCarthy — the House GOP leader — has said he does not believe Republicans will participate in the sham investigation because he sees it simply as “another impeachment committee.”

Reschenthaler said on Breitbart News Saturday that if Americans want Congress to have a real investigation into the origins of the Chinese coronavirus and hearings about their tax dollars going to this lab in Wuhan, Republicans would need to retake the House majority in November and commence those hearings next year.

“It’s imperative that we as House Republicans take back the House in this next election because Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrats are thwarting everything we do,” Reschenthaler said. “I do have to say I cringe when the media says ‘Nancy Pelosi and the Squad’ because that minimizes how far left this party has gone. It’s just not the Squad. It’s not just Nancy Pelosi. It’s most of their members. Look at the Green New Deal. When that was floated, half of their co-sponsors were on the Green New Deal. Most of these Democrats vote 90 plus percent of the time with [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. This party has moved drastically to the left to the point of siding with the CCP over Americans. They don’t want to get to the bottom of these grants and they also don’t want my resolution run on the floor about defunding the World Health Organization or at least getting Dr. Tedros to resign and getting an international organization to investigate how the World Health Organization was either grossly negligent in dealing with the Wuhan virus or how they worked hand-in-glove with the Chinese Communist Party in trying to cover up the virus early on. But that’s the extent of their hatred, again, of this president and his supporters where they will not run these bills and they will not do these investigations because, again, they would rather side with the CCP than do the right thing.”

To retake the House majority, Republicans need to win just 18 net seats back from Democrats. There are 30 districts across America that Trump won in 2016 currently represented by a Democrat, so the prospect is very possible that the GOP could flip the House back. In the meantime, however, while Democrats on Capitol Hill dither in partisan politics, the Trump administration and the U.S. Intelligence Community are investigating these matters, Reschenthaler said.

“The Intel Community hasn’t ruled out the virus may have originated in the lab,” Reschenthaler said. “We know that. That’s coming from the Intel Community. We also know that the NIH in a letter to EcoHealth stated that they believe — this is again the NIH letter I’m stating — that they believe the virus may have originated in the lab. That was the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Lab IV. We know that. But I think whether or not this disease came from a bat through a wet market or it came from a lab, we’ve got to see where it originated and we’ve got to see what we can do to make sure we stop these pandemics in the future. That could be something like encouraging other nations to stop interactions at wet markets, which should be happening anyhow. If it originated in a lab and somehow leaked from the lab, we shouldn’t be funding labs that study virology and weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological weapons. We shouldn’t fund these labs unless they have procedures in place where the disease won’t leak out and kill 60,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands around the world. This is a very responsible thing to do as good stewards of taxpayer money.”

Reschenthaler also hopes to get answers as to whether the Chinese Communist Party, while it was getting these U.S. tax dollars into the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was even being forthcoming with U.S. officials about research that was compiled there on such coronaviruses, including potentially the one plaguing the planet right now.

“I’d like to add, as we get to the bottom of this, I’d like to see what information we were getting back from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan because something tells me the Chinese Communist Party was taking the money from EcoHealth Alliance — which was, again, a large part came from the United States and our taxpayers — then doing this research, and I don’t know if they were giving us any actual data or scientific findings from what we were funding,” Reschenthaler said. “They certainly didn’t allow American doctors and scientists into Wuhan at the start of this disease. They’ve kept us shut out for a large part. So I want to see if we were being taken advantage of. I suspect that we were by the Chinese Communist Party, and I want to see in the future, when we do give these grants, there is transparency and we get the research that comes from us funding these labs.”

Author: Matthew Boyle

Source: Breitbart: Exclusive– Congressman: Nancy Pelosi Blocking Investigation into Chinese Coronavirus Origins, Tax Money to Wuhan Lab

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has informed a company that used a taxpayer grant to provide U.S. tax dollars to the Wuhan lab in China–from which some authorities believe the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic emanated–that the Wuhan lab is formally being investigated by U.S. officials.

A letter from Dr. Michael Lauer, the NIH’s deputy director for extramural research, to Kevin Olival of EcoHealth Alliance and Naomi Schrag of Columbia University, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, informs them the matter is under investigation.

“EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. is the recipient, as grantee, of an NIH grant entitled ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergency,’” Lauer wrote in the letter, dated April 19. “It is our understanding that one of the sub-recipients of the grant funds is the Wuhan Institute of Virology (‘WIV’). It is our understanding that WIV studies the interaction between corona viruses and bats. The scientific community believes that the coronavirus causing COVID-19 jumped from bats to humans likely in Wuhan where the COVID-19 pandemic began. There are now allegations that the current crisis was precipitated by the release from WIV of the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. Given these concerns, we are pursuing suspension of WIV from participation in Federal programs.”

The letter continues in the next paragraph by further explaining the investigation.

“While we review these allegations during the period of suspension, you are instructed to cease providing any funds from the above noted grant to the WIV,” Lauer continues. “This temporary action is authorized by 45 C.F.R. § 75.371 (d) (‘Initiate suspension or debarment proceedings as authorized under 2 C.F.R. part 180’). The incorporated OMB provision provides that the federal funding agency, through suspension, immediately and temporarily exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently responsible where ‘immediate action is necessary to protect the public interest.’ 2 C.F.R. § 180.700 (c).”

In the next paragraph, the NIH official confirms this is under investigation formally. “It is in the public interest that NIH ensure that a sub-recipient has taken all appropriate precautions to prevent the release of pathogens that it is studying,” Lauer wrote. “This suspension of the sub-recipient does not affect the remainder of your grant assuming that no grant funds are provided to WIV following receipt of this email during the period of suspension.”

This letter has not been publicly revealed until his report here in Breitbart News. An NIH spokesman told Breitbart News about this letter: “NIH does not discuss details of the decision making process regarding specific grant awards.”

The NIH official did note that the $3.7 million grant in question has been spread over multiple installments for six years, at a wide range of sites worldwide including in China, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Myanmar.This grant in particular, the NIH official said, is a multi-site, multi-country grant to study what allows coronaviruses to evolve and infect humans–what is known as a “spillover event.”

The White House has not immediately replied to a request for comment about this NIH probe of the Wuhan lab, but at Monday’s White House press briefing in the Rose Garden President Trump–in response to a broader question from Breitbart News about China–promised “investigation” into China’s role in the spread of the pandemic soon.

There have been several reports in recent weeks about the prevailing wisdom among U.S. intelligence officials being that the virus emanated from the Wuhan virology lab rather than from a Chinese wet market, the original claim when the pandemic first broke out.

Fox News’s Bret Baier reported earlier in April, for instance:

There is increasing confidence that the COVID-19 outbreak likely originated in a Wuhan laboratory, though not as a bioweapon but as part of China’s attempt to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States, multiple sources who have been briefed on the details of early actions by China’s government and seen relevant materials tell Fox News. This may be the “costliest government cover-up of all time,” one of the sources said. The sources believe the initial transmission of the virus – a naturally occurring strain that was being studied there – was bat-to-human and that “patient zero” worked at the laboratory, then went into the population in Wuhan. The ‘increasing confidence’ comes from classified and open-source documents and evidence, the sources said. Fox News has requested to see the evidence directly. Sources emphasized — as is often the case with intelligence — that it’s not definitive and should not be characterized as such. Some inside the administration and the intelligence and epidemiological communities are more skeptical, and the investigation is continuing. What all of the sources agree about is the extensive cover-up of data and information about COVID-19 orchestrated by the Chinese government.

The U.K. Daily Mail, too, back in early April, revealed the existence of the U.S. taxpayer funds that found their way to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The Chinese laboratory at the center of scrutiny over a potential coronavirus leak has been using U.S. government money to carry out research on bats from the caves which scientists believe are the original source of the deadly outbreak,” the Daily Mail’s Frances Mulraney and Glenn Owen wrote. “The Wuhan Institute of Virology undertook coronavirus experiments on mammals captured more than 1,000 miles away in Yunnan which were funded by a $3.7 million grant from the US government. Sequencing of the COVID-19 genome has traced it back to bats found in Yunnan caves but it was first thought to have transferred to humans at an animal market in Wuhan. The revelation that the Wuhan Institute was experimenting on bats from the area already known to be the source of COVID-19 – and doing so with American money – has sparked further fears that the lab, and not the market, is the original outbreak source.

For that story in the Daily Mail, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) weighed in saying that he was appalled that U.S. taxpayer dollars went to such a thing as this. Gaetz said:

I’m disgusted to learn that for years the US government has been funding dangerous and cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute, which may have contributed to the global spread of coronavirus, and research at other labs in China that have virtually no oversight from US authorities.

The grant that the Daily Mail story uncovered is a $3.7 million grant issued to EcoHealth Alliance Inc. via HHS, specifically from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has gained enormous fame during the coronavirus crisis at President Donald Trump’s side, has been the director of NIAID since 1984. As this letter from Dr. Lauer at NIH as well as a piece in Snopes revealed, not all of the $3.7 million grant—which began in 2014 during former President Barack Obama’s administration and continued until 2019 during President Trump’s administration—went to the Wuhan lab but some of EcoHealth’s grant did end up in the hands of researchers digging into bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.

Author: Matthew Boyle

Source: Breitbart: Exclusive — Federal Health Officials Investigating Wuhan Lab Suspected of Leaking Coronavirus, Taxpayer Grants to Lab

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against CNN for a fake news story the outlet printed about him before Thanksgiving, revealing in the lawsuit that he was never as CNN alleged in Vienna in late 2018 and did not meet with the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor CNN alleged he met with there.

Nunes’s lawsuit includes revelations of key facts that undermine the case CNN made against him, severely harming the news outlet’s credibility. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Virginia, shows Nunes is seeking more than $435 million in damages from CNN over the fake news it printed against him. But more importantly, it demonstrates that Nunes was 100 percent correct when he told Breitbart News before Thanksgiving that CNN’s story was untrue–and that CNN was completely inaccurate in its reporting and had relied on a compromised source for its piece.

It remains to be seen how successful this lawsuit will be–it is very difficult for public figures to successfully sue media outlets because of a variety of protections the media are afforded–but the facts as laid out by Nunes and his attorney in this suit are particularly damning for CNN as Nunes and his team successfully demonstrate that the network engaged in printing and then disseminating demonstrably false information about him.

Back before Thanksgiving, CNN reported what would have been a big story if it were true.

“Exclusive: Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden” was the headline on reporter Vicky Ward’s piece.

The piece opened with these explosive allegations:

A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.

The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.

“Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,” said Bondy.

The CNN piece followed a previous story from the Daily Beast’s Betsy Swan, which alleged that Nunes was in regular contact with Lev Parnas–the associate of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who has since been indicted on charges unrelated to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Trump.

As Breitbart News reported exclusively at the time, these stories were untrue. Nunes did not get into specifics on the facts with his original quote on them with Breitbart News, just stating that they were false and that he intended to sue both CNN and the Daily Beast.

“These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth,” Nunes told Breitbart News after the publication of the CNN story. “Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving.”

Some in media stuck to the CNN story, including especially CNN, arguing that Nunes had not factually debunked the fake news piece. For instance, Jon Ward of Yahoo News questioned Breitbart News’s reporting on this via Twitter, saying that Breitbart News had not offered evidence that the CNN story on Nunes was false:

Others, like leftist and former Obama Department of Justice spokesman Matthew Miller, said it would be easy for Nunes to prove this story from CNN was false:

Now that Nunes has filed his lawsuit against CNN–and one against the Daily Beast is still forthcoming–showing the story to be untrue, there is ample evidence that CNN’s piece was factually inaccurate.

On the second page of Nunes’s 47-page lawsuit against CNN, he addresses a number of the factual inaccuracies in CNN’s reporting. First, the claim that Nunes was in Vienna last year–which CNN dutifully reported on behalf of its compromised source–is untrue. Nunes was not in Vienna.

“Devin Nunes did not go to Vienna or anywhere else in Austria in 2018,” Nunes’s lawsuit states on page two. “Between November 30, 2018 and December 3, 2018, Devin Nunes visited Benghazi, Libya on official business of the House Intelligence Committee to discuss security issues with General Khalifa Haftar. Devin Nunes also traveled to Malta, where he met with U.S. and Maltese officials, including Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, and participated in repatriation ceremony for the remains of an American World War II Soldier missing in action.”

The CNN piece’s claim that Nunes met with ousted Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin is also untrue. Shokin is a significant figure in that he was the prosecutor general in Ukraine that then Vice President Joe Biden pushed Ukraine to fire in exchange for U.S. taxpayer aid money, an actual quid pro quo that Biden has readily admitted on television, which has the appearance of corruption swirling around it given that Shokin’s office was investigating Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Burisma, at the time, was paying Biden’s son Hunter Biden more than $50,000 a month to sit on the company’s board. So, nonetheless, it would have been newsworthy had Nunes met with Shokin.

But, according to his lawsuit against CNN, this claim is also untrue: Nunes never met with Shokin.

“Devin Nunes has never met Viktor Shokin,” Nunes’s lawsuit states, also on the second page.

Nunes’s lawsuit also cites Washington Post reports that dispute CNN’s claims that he met with Shokin. The Washington Post quoted a source close to Shokin who said that Shokin doesn’t even know who Nunes is. “This meeting never took place. Viktor Shokin doesn’t know and hasn’t even heard of this person,” the source close to Shokin told the Washington Post.

Another central claim CNN made in its original story on this matter was that Nunes was in regular contact with Parnas around the time of that late 2018 official trip. This, according to Nunes’s lawsuit, is also untrue. “Devin Nunes did not communicate with Parnas in December 2018 around the time of the ‘Vienna trip’ (a trip that never happened),” the lawsuit reads.

Much of the rest of the lawsuit goes through how Parnas is an untrustworthy source and CNN should have known better than to trust him in the first place.

“On October 10, 2019, Parnas was arrested at Dulles International Airport on charges that he schemed to funnel foreign money to U.S. politicians while trying to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations. At the time of his arrest, he had a one-way ticket on a flight out of the country,” the lawsuit reads on page 11. “As a result of his arrest, Parnas’ position as a reliable source of information was compromised.”

It continues at the end of that page by noting that to be released from custody after his arrest, Parnas had to surrender his passport.

“On October 23, 2019, Parnas was released from custody on a $1,000,000 secured bond,” the lawsuit reads. “The Court required Parnas to surrender his passport; restricted his travel to Virginia and D.C. to meet with lawyers; placed him on home detention with G.P.S. monitoring; and imposed multiple other restrictions on Parnas. The Court’s complete lack of trust and confidence in Parnas, as evidenced by the bail disposition, was a matter of public record known to CNN.”

Then on page 12 it notes that Parnas began developing stories that were untrue–like this one on Nunes–about his various contacts in the political world to try to leverage them into some kind of deal with prosecutors or with House Democrats.

“Not long after his release from custody, Parnas began to concoct a plan to obstruct the impeachment inquiry and, ultimately, to obtain favorable treatment, concessions and/or immunity from criminal prosecution,” the lawsuit continues on its 12th page. “With full knowledge of press accounts of the impeachment inquiry, Parnas started to manufacture stories that he believed would assist him in obtaining a deal with the United States Attorney and/or Schiff. Parnas claimed that not long before Ukrainian President Zelensky was inaugurated on May 20, 2019, he (Parnas) journeyed to Kiev to deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership. Parnas stated that he told a representative of the incoming Ukraine government that it had to announce an investigation into President Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid.”

The lawsuit cites a New York Times story detailing how Parnas’s claim about Pence was “false.”

Parnas also, according to the lawsuit and press accounts, made up stories about Trump having “gave him instructions for a secret ‘James Bond mission’ to find material on Joe Biden.”

That is not what happened. In reality, they posed for a quick picture with the president–nothing else. “In truth, Parnas and Fruman, posed for a one-minute photo with the President, and walked away,” the Nunes lawsuit continues, citing Washington Times reporting debunking those Parnas claims with a quote from Giuliani saying Parnas “made it up.”

The lawsuit continues by noting that CNN knew Parnas was untrustworthy when it decided to rely on him for its now demonstrably false claims about Nunes.

“In addition to CNN’s actual knowledge (a) that Parnas had lied to the FEC (resulting in the Federal indictment and pending charges) and (b) that after his arrest, Parnas began circulating false and fantastical stories about a ‘warning’ to Ukraine’s new leadership and a ‘James Bond mission’ – stories that were demonstrably false – CNN also knew from its review of ‘court filings’ that a judgment had been entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Parnas in 2016, and that the judgment creditor had commenced proceedings in Florida in 2019 to collect the judgment,” the Nunes lawsuit says on page 13. “CNN knew from the court filings that the claim against Parnas resulted from his ‘deliberate, coercive and well-orchestrated scheme to steal $350,000 from Plaintiff by fraudulently inducing Plaintiff to enter into the Loan.’”

The lawsuit continues by laying out how, as it did in the earlier part, the CNN report from Ward was untrue in that Nunes never went to Vienna in late 2018 and he has never met with Shokin.

But then, later in the suit, it details how Ward–the CNN reporter on the byline of the fake story–is not the only person who engaged in spreading this misinformation. Anchor Chis Cuomo, who hosts CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time on weeknights, also engaged in pushing the fake news.

“On November 22, 2019 at 9:00 p.m., at the same time CNN published the CNN Article on its digital network, Ward appeared on Cuomo’s television program ‘Cuomo Prime Time,’” the lawsuit continues on page 22. “During the broadcast, Cuomo and Ward vouched for the story as if it were fact, doubled-down, and published further defamatory statements about Plaintiff [Nunes].”

The lawsuit points to a segment with Ward and Cuomo where they affirm the claims from Parnas and Parnas’s attorney as true–even though they are demonstrably false–and then also to a segment where disgraced former Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill joined Cuomo to discuss the matter further and both affirmed the now demonstrably inaccurate report as true.

“CNN coordinated publication of the false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff across each of its platforms,” Nunes’s lawsuit continues on page 25. “CNN published the CNN Article to multiple new target audiences, including CNN’s 32,000,000+ Facebook followers and CNN’s 56,000,000+ Twitter followers in Virginia and around the World.”

It is hard to see how CNN will stand by this story in response to this lawsuit, but for now the network has not yet responded to Nunes’s filing of the lawsuit. Nunes also told Breitbart News that he is demanding that every other media outlet who reprinted the fake news retract their pieces on it as well.

“I’m also demanding the immediate retraction of re-reporting of the false story and the deletion of any links to it by media outlets such as Raw Story, Daily Kos, Vox, The Week, Newsweek, Mother Jones, HuffPost, Vanity Fair, Salon, Washington Monthly, Esquire, Talking Points Memo, and Mediaite,” Nunes said.

Author: Matthew Boyle

Source: Breitbart: Devin Nunes Sues CNN: Reveals He Was Not in Vienna in Late 2018, Did Not Meet Victor Shokin

Many pundits joked that when former Vice President Joe Biden gave his final answer in the Democrat debate on Tuesday night in Westerville, Ohio, he missed an opportunity to tell the story of “Corn Pop” again.

So the story from Biden goes, gangster “Corn Pop” represented a serious threat to Biden when he was a lifeguard at a community pool. Corn Pop, who actually was real, supposedly carried a straight razor and after an altercation with young lifeguard Biden threatened to meet him in the parking lot later—so young Biden claims he threatened to wrap a chain around Corn Pop’s head.

The whole blowup was over Biden allegedly calling Corn Pop “Esther,” a derisive insult drawn from the swimmer Esther Williams that apparently was akin to calling the gangster a girl. But before things devolved into a razor-versus-chain race war in the parking lot later, Biden says he apologized to Corn Pop for the insult, which defused the situation—and the incident has become part of Biden’s political folklore storyline of being a grand negotiator who can calmly lead in tense political situations, especially those involving race.

Though it seems an incredible story, Biden included it in his 2007 autobiography and it was a central part of a dedication ceremony at a Delaware public pool at which Biden spoke in 2017. The NAACP even confirmed the details of Corn Pop and his existence for those questioning it.

So when moderator Anderson Cooper at the end of the CNN-New York Times debate on Tuesday night closed down the debate with a question about a unique and different friendship that has shaped their lives, one would have thought the moderators were teeing Biden up for a perfect Corn Pop moment.

Cooper said:

Last week, Ellen DeGeneres was criticized after she and former President George W. Bush were seen laughing together at a football game. Ellen defended their friendship, saying, we’re all different and I think that we’ve forgotten that that’s OK that we’re all different. So in that spirit, we’d like you to tell us about a friendship that you’ve had that would surprise us and what impact it’s had on you and your beliefs.

Cooper went to all 11 other candidates before getting to Biden, who closed it down at the end, giving Biden plenty of time to think about what he was going to say.

Instead of telling the story of Corn Pop, Biden opted for a more conventional and boring answer, and one already used by several of the other candidates: He talked about his friendship with the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):

This is reassuring in the fact that we’re all acknowledging that we have to reach across the aisle, get things done. No other way to get anything done in this country. The two people maybe would surprise you the most were — he’s been mentioned twice, but John McCain. John McCain worked for me when he worked in the Navy, and he was — he was my assigned to me to travel around the world. We became close friends. He became very close friends with my wife, Jill. Visited our home. He was there with his children. And on his death bed, he asked me to do his eulogy. John, I would say to John, ‘John, you didn’t see a war you never wanted to fight.’ And he’d say, ‘You didn’t see a problem you never wanted to solve.’ But he was a great man of principle. He was honorable. He was honorable.

Biden finished with typical talking points from his stump speech about why he’s running for president—nothing remarkable, nothing outstanding, and nothing memorable.

Some pundits and observers on Twitter laughed about Biden leaving Corn Pop hanging in favor of the safer McCain story, mocking Biden for being unable to read the room.

While this is more of a lighthearted ribbing of Biden, in an unserious and comedic manner—Corn Pop probably was not the right story anyway for the question—it does illustrate a larger problem with the sliding campaign of the former Vice President.

He again had no major memorable positive moments on a crowded debate stage for the fourth month in a row. Donald Trump, Jr., President Donald Trump’s eldest son, mocked Biden’s lackluster performance in a tweet by noting that, at least this time in the Ohio debate, Biden’s teeth didn’t nearly fall out—as they almost did in the previous debate.

It seems cruel, but Biden’s teeth did slip and nearly fall out of his mouth in a previous debate, and in a forum his eye exploded, bleeding on live television. Another candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), suffered a heart attack less than two weeks before this debate, pushing health questions–like whether any of these Democrats are actually healthy enough to run for and serve as president–to the forefront of Americans’ minds heading into Tuesday night. Moderators even asked several of the candidates about these concerns in Ohio’s debate.

This all comes as it has been revealed by just-released Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance reports that Biden’s campaign spent more than he raised in funds last quarter, and he keeps slipping in polls behind rivals Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and now lags in the fundraising race as well.

The bigger story that broke during the debate news cycle in its immediate aftermath is Biden spent nearly $2 million more than he raised last quarter—he raised $15.7 million and spent $17.6 million—while he had less than $9 million cash on hand at the end of September. That puts him at less than Sanders’ $33.7 million, less than Warren’s $25.7 million, less than Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s $23.4 million, and even less than the $10.5 million that the flaming-out Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) had.

At a burn rate like Biden’s running, with not much gas in the tank, the former Vice President could be in some serious trouble in attempting to remain near the front of the pack. He’s already lost his frontrunner status, as Warren has pulled ahead of him in most national polling and in almost every early and battleground state except in the South. CNN’s Chris Cillizza called Biden’s funding lapses a “bombshell” revelation multiple times in a post about the matter, writing that it represents a “SIREN” for Biden’s campaign.

Factor that together with burgeoning attacks on his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings from the White House and President Donald Trump, as well as a media beginning to be receptive to the criticisms, and Joe Biden has a tougher-than-ever road ahead. Hunter Biden’s interview earlier on Tuesday on ABC did his father no favors by most accounts, and even CNN and JournoList founder Ezra Klein of Vox are now saying there is something to all the questions swirling around him and that Democrats need to be prepared to deal with this.

CNN published a fact check after the debate contrasting Biden’s claims he never discussed Hunter’s business dealings with his son with Hunter’s claims he did discuss them with his father.

Klein, meanwhile, laid out in a Vox article how Democrats are woefully unprepared on the Hunter Biden issue should Joe Biden win the nomination, urging Democrats to learn how to talk about it, even if they don’t want to discuss the problems. Klein wrote:

A few things are true about the Hunter Biden story. One is that there’s no evidence Joe Biden did what Donald Trump has accused him of doing: pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor to protect his son from investigation. But another is that Hunter Biden poses real problems for Joe Biden’s campaign, and if Democrats pretend otherwise, they’re making a mistake. Many Democrats consider raising the Hunter Biden question unfair to Joe Biden. Why should he have to answer for the legal actions of his adult son? But no one said politics was fair. And if Democrats avoid the issue, they can be certain Trump will not. Biden’s vulnerability here needs to be tested in the primary, when Democrats have other choices, rather than in the general, when they won’t.

The debate moderators and other candidates barely touched on Hunter Biden during the debate, and only to brush it aside as a non-concern. But Hunter Biden is hardly the only of Joe Biden’s problems after the debate on Tuesday.

There was a particularly memorable moment where, towards the end of the night, both Sanders and Warren extracted a pound of flesh from Biden from the left—significantly undermining his standing with Democrats.

Cooper asked Biden to respond to the broad visions of big, bold change that Warren and Sanders respectively have been laying out:

Vice President Biden, just on either side of you, Senator Warren is calling for big structural change. Senator Sanders is calling for a political revolution. Will their visions attract the kind of voters that the Democrats need to beat Donald Trump?

Biden replied with a claim he is the only one who has gotten anything substantive actually “done” in Washington:

Well, I think their vision is attracting a lot of people, and I think a lot of what they have to say is really important. But, you know, Senator Warren said we can’t be running any vague campaigns. We’ve got to level with people. We’ve got to level with people and tell them exactly what we’re going to do, how we’re going to get it done, and if you can get it done. I’m going to say something that is probably going to offend some people here, but I’m the only one on this stage that has gotten anything really big done, from the Violence Against Women Act to making sure that we pass the Affordable Care Act to being in a position where we, in fact, took almost a $90 billion act that kept us from going into a depression, making us — putting us in a position where I was able to end roe — excuse me, able to end the issue of gun sales in terms of assault weapons. And so the question is, who is best prepared? We all have good ideas. The question is, who is going to be able to get it done? How can you get it done? And I’m not suggesting they can’t, but I’m suggesting that that’s what we should look at. And part of that requires you not being vague. Tell people what it’s going to cost, how you’re going to do it, and why you’re going to do it. That’s the way to get it done. Presidents are supposed to be able to persuade.

After a follow-up question from Cooper asking Biden to further specify exactly whom he said was being “vague,” he took a not-so-veiled shot at the Medicare-for-All vision put forward by Warren and Sanders.

Biden said:

Well, the senator said — she’s being vague on the issue of — actually, both are being vague on the issue of Medicare for all. No, look, here’s the deal. Come on. It costs $30 trillion. Guess what? That’s over $3 trillion — it’s more than the entire federal budget… If you eliminated the entire Pentagon, every single thing, plane, ship, troop, the buildings, everything, satellites, it would get you — it would pay for a total of four months. Four months. Where do you get the rest? Where does it come from?

That opened Sanders up to decimate Biden for “working with Republicans” to back endless wars in the Middle East and trade policies that hurt America’s working class:

Joe, you talked about working with Republicans and getting things done. But you know what you also got done? And I say this as a good friend. You got the disastrous war in Iraq done. You got a bankruptcy bill, which is hurting middle-class families all over this country. You got trade agreements, like NAFTA and PNTR, with China done, which have cost us 4 million jobs. Now, let’s get to Medicare for all. Let’s be honest. We spend twice as much per person as do the people of any other major country on Earth. And the answer is, if we have the guts that I would like to see the Democratic Party have that guts, to stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies and tell them that the function of health care is to guarantee care to all people, not to make $100 billion in profit.

After back-and-forth between Biden and Sanders in response to Sanders’ smack-down, Warren delivered another brutal blow to Biden. Warren’s reply focused on the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, with which she was intricately involved and for which she receives enormous credit among Democrats:

So you started this question with how you got something done. You know, following the financial crash of 2008, I had an idea for a consumer agency that would keep giant banks from cheating people. And all of the Washington insiders and strategic geniuses said, don’t even try, because you will never get it passed. And sure enough, the big banks fought us. The Republicans fought us. Some of the Democrats fought us. But we got that agency passed into law. It has now forced big banks to return more than $12 billion directly to people they cheated. I served in the Obama administration. I know what we can do by executive authority, and I will use it. In Congress, on the first day, I will pass my anti-corruption bill, which will beat back the influence of money and repeal the filibuster. And the third, we want to get something done in America, we have to get out there and fight for the things that touch people’s lives.

Buttigieg, who had sparred all night with Warren, seemed to sense what was coming next for Biden and attempted to interrupt to spare the former vice president any more pain from the socialists on either side of him. But Biden didn’t take the life raft from South Bend’s mayor, opting instead to further engage with Warren on the 2008 financial crisis. Biden, after fighting the moderators to respond to Warren, attempted to take credit for whipping U.S. Senate votes for the legislation that created the CFPB.

“I agreed with the great job she did, and I went on the floor and got you votes,” Biden said. “I got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it. So let’s get those things straight, too.”

Big mistake for Biden, as evidenced by the leftists on Twitter ripping him for “yelling” at Warren, lecturing the former college professor on her subject of expertise and claiming she couldn’t have done it without his work whipping votes for her project.

That set Warren up for the line of the night, when Cooper gave the spotlight back to her to reply to Biden.

“I am deeply grateful to President Obama, who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law, and I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law,” Warren said.

Warren thanking former President Barack Obama, but not Biden, was brutal to Biden. Obama has not endorsed his former vice president in the 2020 Democrat presidential primary, deliberately not supporting his one-time wingman. That void for Biden and lack of support from the Democrats’ most popular star, the former president—despite Biden’s best efforts to closely associate himself with Obama at every turn—cuts like a dagger into his support.

It raises all sorts of questions among Democrats, including most importantly about Biden’s electability, about why they should vote for Biden if Obama won’t even endorse and campaign with him. Making matters worse for Biden is that, the morning after this debate, Obama turned around and endorsed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s re-election north of the border—but still refuses to back his own former right-hand guy.

“You did a hell of a job in your job,” Biden interrupted Warren’s answer.

“Thank you,” Warren coolly replied to laughter from the audience. She continued:

But understand this. It was a dream big, fight hard. People told me, go for something little, go for something small, go for something that the big corporations will be able to accept. I said, no, let’s go for an agency that will make structural change in our economy.

“And President Obama said, I will fight for that, and he sometimes had to fight against people in his own administration,” Warren continued before Biden interrupted her again.

“Not me!” Biden protested, as Warren refused to credit him with any involvement in the response to the financial crisis.

Warren kept plowing through her answer, ignoring Biden’s protests.

“We have to be willing to make good, big, structural change,” she said.

By Wednesday, Biden seems to have realized just how bad Tuesday’s debate was for his campaign, as before he even left Ohio he was out ripping Sanders and Warren to anyone in the press who would listen, accusing them of “playing Trump’s game and trying to con the American people.”

He ripped Sanders and Warren for not being able to explain how they would pay for their mass increases in government benefits and claimed both were disingenuous.

Meanwhile, the establishment media keeps playing up Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) as candidates they say had big nights, as Democrats desperately look for someone to be able to effectively counter Warren’s and Sanders’ socialist vision—all while establishment-favorite blasts from the past like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the 2016 Democrat nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton are discussed as potential Democrat saviors from the leftist socialist abyss.

Author: Matthew Boyle

Source: Breitbart: Corn Pop’s Revenge: Leftists Move for the End of Joe Biden

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!