Trending
Pfizer Aggressively Campaigned for Pregnant Women to get Vaccinated After Knowing Side Effects
Published
1 year agoon
Dr. James Thorp interviewed Dr. Naomi Wolf on this subject. Transcript below:
Dr. Naomi Wolf:
Hey everyone. It’s Dr. Naomi Wolf. I’m here with one of my personal heroes, Dr. James Thorp. Welcome Dr. Thorp.
Dr. James Thorp: Thank you, Dr. Wolf. It’s an honor and a privilege to work with you.
Dr. Wolf:
Thank you. Dr. Thorp is a distinguished, board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine physician. He has over 44 years of obstetrical experience while serving as a very busy clinician his whole career. He’s also been very active in clinical research. This just goes to show that the people who are the bravest dissidents are some of the most credentialed.
Dr. Thorp has 224 publications, including 28 on COVID-19. He has seen over 27,500 high-risk pregnancies in the last 4.5 years, served as a reviewer for major medical journals, and served on the board of directors for the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine for three years. He also served as an examiner for the American Board of OB/GYN. He served in the US Air Force. Thank you for your service.
Dr. Thorp testified in the US Senate under the Bush Administration in 2003 on treating the fetus with in-utero therapies. He testified in the Senate more recently with Senator Ron Johnson and others. Dr. Thorpe has focused his research efforts on the Covid 19 pandemic and published over 32 scientific publications, and a book documenting the dangers of the mRNA vaccine to women of reproductive age and to pregnancy.
Dr. Thorp, given all the credentials that I’ve just shared, there’s no way anyone can call you a marginal person in the world of maternal-fetal medicine. You’re a peer reviewer. You’ve overseen thousands of high-risk pregnancies. You’ve also been way out front as the first obstetrician-gynecologist to raise an alarm about the harms to women and babies from the mRNA vaccines. You’ve been relentless.
Also, you’ve been in the news recently for having been punished for your courage and your accuracy. Please share with us what the latest is.
Dr Thorp:
Sure. I was recently fired. All of the patients in my prior service area were under the Sisters of St. Mary’s Health System, one of the largest Catholic health systems in the country. They’re based in St. Louis, as well as in service areas in five different states. I worked in two different states for them: Missouri and Illinois. What I want to say to your listeners and to my former patients – to all patients globally — is this: the most important question you need to ask your nurse or your doctor, whether it’s in a hospital or in an office, is: Nurse, Doctor, are you willing to lose your job to save my life?
And they must answer that. Because I’m telling you that 95% of the physicians and nurses are captured by their paycheck.
What happened at S S M Health? I was a model physician there, as described by the CEO who fired me. I got a call from Mr. Kevin Elledge, a CEO at SSM. (NW: SSM’s motto is:
“Through our exceptional health care services, we reveal the healing presence of God.”)
He scheduled a call with me, allegedly just to meet me. I was very suspicious of this. So, of course, I had an attorney. I took copious notes. The conversation was on June 29th at 1:05 pm.
The conversation lasted 45 minutes. For 30 minutes, Mr. Elledge honored me: called me a model physician for the system, didn’t quite understand why they were having to fire me, except they were having financial difficulties. But multiple sources in the system tell me that I was the number one money producer for the system in the department.
Several have told me that I’m the number one researcher and publisher in the department and have published more than most of the rest of the department combined.
[Mr. Elledge] honored me as being of unparalleled ethical, moral, and intellectual integrity. These are words that that he used. And after 30 minutes of this, he said, “We need to terminate you. And we’re invoking the no cause termination, which is in your original contract. So we’ll give you 120 days. You can continue to work and wind down your practice, but you need to take this large sum of money and sign the documents that I’m going to send you.”
I didn’t even see the documents. I said, “Obviously I want you to continue your mission. I don’t want your money. I don’t need your money, so please just keep it and try to make ends meet and try to take care of my patients as best you can.”
He got progressively threatened as he kept trying to force me to sign that document, which he hadn’t even sent me yet. I was very kind and respectful to him and just said, “No, I’m not [signing it]. I don’t want your money. I don’t need the money.”
He said, “Just look at it. You have the option of working for another 120 days.” That conversation ended at 1:57 PM.
He sent out an email to the entire system firing me, saying, Dr. Thorp is, effective, immediately, not seeing patients.
Which is really a slam. And very injurious. It’s libel, because that [implies] that I’m a horrible person – that I did something horrible to one of my patients or to one of the staff, and everybody knows that’s not the case.
Were flabbergasted. And I’m locked out of the system. And that’s behind me.
You know as a woman of faith, that when Yahweh closes one door, he’s got much bigger plans for you.[
In terms of SSM], I think they mean well, but I think they’re captured by the system. The people up there love me. I don’t think that it was their decision. In my opinion, somebody came in, — from the swamp in DC or from one of the medical boards or one of the organizations that I’ve been attacking — and said, “Thorp’s got to go. He’s getting too loud.”
Dr. Wolf:
I may be cynical, but I’m hearing that that call began in a friendly and flattering way, because the goal of the institution was to get you to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which I’m guessing is the unseen document that they never bothered to send you because you said you wouldn’t accept it.
Dr Thorp:
They ended up sending it to me. My wife’s an attorney. Maggie [Thorp] looked at it, and she’s never seen such an extensive non-disclosure agreement. it went not only to the effect of non-disparagement, but [also stated that] I would’ve been responsible for any other independent source — like you, or somebody on Twitter — that was disparaging them for what they did, and [it would have] held me responsible for that.
Dr. Wolf:
So, thank God for Maggie Thorp. This is just one more piece in the puzzle of trying to criminalize the speech of people like you and me, or to entangle us in lawfare if we tell people the truth. The other piece of this story that I find super concerning is that they were trying to buy your silence.
You don’t have to disparage your former employers, but I will. As a woman and as a mom, I’m just thinking of all the women who were your patients who suddenly got an email saying their doctor is gone, or who were informed by whoever took your place, that their doctor is gone.
If you have any patients who are pregnant, it would be incredibly concerning to be left in the middle of one’s pregnancy without an obstetrician. I do agree with you that it’s libelous or defamatory that this email went out, because it does appear to smear your reputation. Dr Peter McCullough has also had to fight legal battles. Dr Sherri Tenpenny’s license was suspended. One of our Pfizer documents analysis volunteers, Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan in Australia, was also threatened by a licensing board there. Doctors who tell the public the truth are being menaced with “lawfare” or threats of losing their licenses.
Dr Thorp:
Dr Renata Moon was just fired too. Dr. Moon had an academic appointment and was a very valuable employee. What they did to her was worse. They drummed up totally fraudulent allegations and fired her for cause. They smeared her.[2]
Many if not most of the hospitals are doing that. Dr. Rennie Moon is an incredible pediatrician and has testified in the Senate with me and with Dr. McCullough and many others. She has a very prominent voice. Pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology are the most brainwashed, targeted groups of all of medicine.
Dr. Wolf:
Let me go to why you’re such a threat. You were early on confirming what we [the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers] were also finding at the same time: damage to women’s reproductive systems, reproductive cycles, damage to babies in utero, and damage to the placenta via the mRNA injections.
I want you to talk about the calcified placentas that you were seeing.[3] Is there anything new or different in the kinds of pregnancies, you were seeing, anything new regarding placentas or the babies themselves, any change in outcomes regarding deaths of mothers in childbirth [which are up post-years of mrna vaccination by 30%, per CDC], that you’ve seen?[4]
Dr Thorp:
You’re a hundred percent right. This entire vaccine went after women. It went after women’s health. for two reasons.
Number one: Every man and woman in medicine knows women make all the healthcare decisions for all members of the family. So that if they could capture the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 60,000 obstetricians, and then they got all the women, they captured the population.
The second issue is more ominous if they can fraudulently – and make no doubt about it, this was fraud, right? Conspiracy, this was collusion — a RICO violation. The second reason that they targeted women is this: if they can prove that the vaccine is safe, effective, and necessary in the most vulnerable population, which is pregnant women, pre-borns and newborns by vertical transmission — then every other human being on earth needs to be vaccinated.
Number one, women make the healthcare decisions. Number two, if we can convince the world that it’s safe, effective, and necessary in pregnancy, they’ve won the entire game for vaccinating the entire human population on the planet. And that’s what they did.
Maggie [Thorp], as I mentioned, is an attorney. She has a keen eye for sniffing out fraud in larger corporations, which she’s done in other industries successfully.
So, we launched a FOIA. We strongly suspected that this vaccine, just like I got done saying, was a fait accompli. It was always pre-planned. Prior to 2020, it was pre-planned to target women.
And we proved that this was the case.
We submitted an airtight Freedom of Information Act to HHS, the CDC, and the American College of OB/GYN, and ACOG.
ACOG and the American College of OB/GYN allege themselves to be the preeminent organization for women in the world. Nothing could be more opposite to the truth.
On February 28th, 2021, the Pfizer 5.3 0.6 post-marketing data was public. It was devastating. It was proven to be, according to Pfizer, the deadliest drug ever rolled out to the human public. I’ve been saying that. And for two and a half years, not one person has challenged me. 1,223 dead within 10 weeks, and then horrible obstetrical data.
Mark Weber, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs/Human Services at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, tried to hide that damning data for 75 years. What did he do? Rolled out a $13 billion PSYOPs campaign to the entire United States of America, about 300 major organizations in influencers, including synagogues and churches, and many others, to convince the United States and the entire world that this deadly shot was safe, effective, and necessary in the most vulnerable population, pregnant women.[5]
They rolled that $13 billion out while suppressing the damning data from Pfizer.
Those who were founding members, like the American College of OBGYN, signed a contract, Naomi.
We’ve proven that [from] 1400 pages. They redacted over 50%, but they entered a contract that I have termed, the “covenant of death” [the phrase is from Isaiah 28]. I have started a Substack, on this covenant of death between HHS and CDC, and the American College of OB/GYN along with probably all the other influencers.
[NW: Isaiah 28:14 reads:
“Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
15 You boast, “We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement.
[…]
for we have made a lie our refuge
and falsehood[b] our hiding place.”’]
What’s in this covenant of death? This is hideous. This is horrifying. This is exactly what you have seen, Dr. Naomi, and what I’ve seen and what we know to be true.
They took well over $11 million; they signed the covenant with death, and they’re not allowed to deviate one iota from the lethal narrative of HHS. If they do, they will be liable for paying back every single penny, which they’ve already pocketed. So, that’s why the American College of OB/GYN, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, to this day, are the evil organizations that perpetrated this crime on the world. And I will not back down from attacking them because we have the proof.
I’ve been saying this for over a year. And if that were not true, I’d be involved multiple lawsuits.
Dr. Wolf:
If I understood what you just said, it’s a huge story.
You and your wife submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to HHS, and you have, as a result, secured a lengthy contract between HHS and influencers, including the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Do I have those facts correct?
Dr Thorp:
Not quite. Almost. We have 1400 pages of communications between the federal government and the American College of OBGYN, that oversees over 60,000 obstetrician-gynecologists on two different continents.
Dr. Wolf:
This is a huge story. So how do you know there are 300 influencers that HHS has also funded? Are they mentioned in this communication?
Dr Thorp:
Yes, we have. They’re all mentioned. And that’s well known. Assistant Deputy Secretary, Mark Weber of HHS was very proud of this newly endowed COVID 19 Community Corps.
Dr. Wolf:
I’m aware that influences were funded, but it sounds like you and your wife got the receipts in certain ways and, and these emails are unbelievably important. Now, you’ve, you are also saying that $11 million went from the federal government, from HHS to this third-party NGO, a for-profit, non-government organization, which oversees tens of thousands of obstetricians and gynecologists on two continents. Do I have that correct?
Dr Thorp:
That’s correct.
Dr Wolf:
So presumably, if they don’t stick to HH s’s script about the vaccine, they must pay back the money that they took. Is that correct?
Dr Thorp:
Absolutely correct. It is HHS and CDC.
Dr. Wolf:
Our volunteers found that a terrifying report went out on April 10th, 2021, showing damage in utero from transplacental or “maternal” exposure to vaccine, Pfizer’s words, including death. There are also convulsions and fevers and swelling of babies who are nursing vaccinated moms.[6] This report went to CDC, and three days later, Dr. Walensky gave a White House press conference telling the women of America, that especially if they were pregnant, they should take the vaccine; that it was safe and effective, that there was no bad time. Before you have your baby, during your pregnancy, after having your baby, there is no bad time to take the vaccine.
So CDC was paying obstetricians to echo this script, knowing that this injection was killing babies in utero, and poisoning them through breast milk? Is that the bottom line?
Dr Thorp:
That’s absolutely a hundred percent. We’ve arrived at the identical conclusions, and you know, Maggie and I have published extensively on America out Loud. There are a dozen articles, and they’re extraordinarily well-referenced. We have everything that you said. It is a hundred percent true, and everything that you found from your side that I wasn’t aware of it, it is absolutely a hundred percent true. We’ve documented it all.
We have clips, we have interviews; we have the Walensky interview, we have the floating lie that was put out by the powers that be in our government. And, and the American College of OBGYN starting out in late 2020 [saying], It’s never going to be mandated in pregnancy. And then it slowly morphs from that into the April 2021 interview where [she] says, okay, it is now indicated. And we were mandating it. And by July, ACOG said, yes, we’re strongly recommending it.
Dr. Naomi Wolf:
That’s unbelievable. I will move heaven and earth to get proper media attention on this story that you and Maggie Thorp have broken.
Let me just play this out to the end. This means that to this day, when a pregnant woman asks her obstetrician, her gynecologist, “Do you recommend that I take this [mRNA] vaccine or not?” That doctor has to say, “Yes, it’s recommended”? “Yes, ACOG recommends it”? Or else they are in violation in some way of some contractual commitment that ACOG has made, and they must pay back money or be penalized in some ways? Is that right?
Dr Thorp:
That’s, that’s exactly right. And, and the system will work earnestly to fire that physician if they perpetrate that truth.
Dr. Naomi Wolf:
So, you are saying that obstetricians and gynecologists, to this day, at least in the United States, cannot give their pregnant patients informed consent about what we now know to be the real significant risks of taking the URA injection during pregnancy. Is that correct?
Dr Thorp:
Absolutely. A hundred percent correct. And, and just think about it, the Mark Weber infiltrated the personal most personal relationships that a woman has. :
Going into the examination room, during the most important part of her life — she’s pregnant — she trusts her physician. With her obstetrician, whether male or female, there’s a very important trust. Mark Weber and HHS egregiously violated that trust, in the most sensitive exam ever in a woman’s life.
Dr. Wolf:
So theoretically — even though now people are fleeing the mRNA injection, as we now know from the Q1 and Q 2 economic reports of both Pfizer and Moderna – pregnant women to this day probably are being urged to take the mRNA vaccine that everyone else is racing away from. And they’re doing it because they trust their obstetricians and their gynecologists.
We need to bring every woman’s attention to this story that every woman in America — in all those other countries where this is happening. Every pregnant woman is in a state of acute jeopardy as a result of what you and Mrs. Thorp have found. What were you seeing in your practice regarding harms to women and to the fetus from this injection?
Dr Thorp:
In my vast clinical experience, I have seen massive disruption of normal menstruation patterns, which you well know. And that did not occur until after the rollout of the vaccine. I have seen a marked increase in infertility, male and female.
If the [couple] do conceive, then there’s a substantial risk of miscarriage. And I stand by what we [both] have interpreted and what I have published, there’s an 81% risk of miscarriage from Pfizer’s own data. There is an increase in malformations of all organ systems, a substantial increase in fetal death, substantial increase in severe early onset preeclampsia, in preterm premature membrane rupture, an increase in spontaneous preterm labor, an increase in indicated preterm delivery due to vaccine complications. In trying to prevent a death in utero, we are seeing an increase in cardiac anomalies, cardiac malformations, and in the early death of the fetus. I am also seeing an increase in premature delivery and death of the newborns. There is a massive increase in newborns going to the neonatal intensive care unit. There are substantial abnormalities of the placenta.
Dr. Naomi Wolf:
Stunning, terrifying. Dr. Thorp is, in his interpretation of over 80% spontaneous abortions and miscarriages in the Pfizer documents independently finding what our WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers also found in the Pfizer documents. And his description of compromised placentas, stillbirth, premature labor, and babies with malformations is independently confirmed by, and I stress this as a journalist, two midwives in two separate practices, whom we at DailyClout interviewed. Dr. Thorp’s account also confirms a new report by DailyClout’s COO Amy Kelly, showing placental problems in a pathology report of a vaccinated mother. So now we have four independent sources confirming the same serious problems for babies and moms.
Dr Thorp:
Everybody should have known I knew, before the vaccine ever rolled out: that it was going to be damaging. That’s because it is a proven principle of obstetrics in gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine, published by the world expert Roberto Romero, on the horrible adverse effects of inflammation on pregnancy. It’s devastating.
So that’s known to every OB/GYN. Every OB/GYN has had that drummed into their teaching for the last several decades.
So of course, [the inflammation caused by the mRNA vaccines] is going to cause damage: miscarriage and malformations and chromosome malformations. It’s proven: it’s the most inflammatory substance ever used in a human being.
Dr. Wolf:
It’s been known for 10 years at least that lipid nanoparticles biodistribute to every organ in the human body, and that they disrupt human reproductive capacity.
So someday, I hope that the people who formulated this injection with lipid nanoparticles will answer before Congress, if not before a jury of their peers, the question: “Why did you put this in this injection if you knew it would destroy human reproductive capacity?”
Dr. Thorp, thank God, you and your few but brave colleagues who care enough about women and babies to save lives by telling the truth.
“So there you are. We are hearing reports weekly of shrunken placentas; of babies born with breathing impairments exactly as Reort 69 showed Pfizer knew babies would be born; of placentas with calcifications; of placentas with blood clots; of babies with bizarre and appalling malformations.
Honestly, what can I say at this point except may God save us; and please tell childbearing age women everything you now know.
And please, please support the handful of brave doctors and scientists who alone will find preventions and treatments for the damage from the “covenant of death” – if preventions and treatments can be had.
Poor suffering humanity. Poor blameless babies.
Source: https://dailyclout.io/bombshell-pfizer-and-the-fda-knew-in-early-2021-that-the-pfizer-mrna-covid-vaccine-caused-dire-fetal-and-infant-risks-they-began-an-aggressive-campaign-to-vaccinate-pregnant-women-anyway/
You may like
1 Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Leave a Reply
Cancel reply
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trending
NBC News: President Biden Knew in June He Would Pardon Son Hunter
Published
3 weeks agoon
December 2, 2024NBC News has reported that President Joe Biden’s public declarations about not pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, may have been part of a deliberate strategy to navigate the political and personal fallout of the situation. According to sources close to the matter, the president had been considering a pardon for Hunter as early as June, despite repeatedly and emphatically denying it.
Following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges in June, President Biden faced mounting questions about whether he would use his presidential pardon powers to shield his son from legal consequences. At the time, Biden’s response was clear and direct: “I will not pardon him.”
This stance was reiterated by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who told reporters as recently as last month that the president’s position had not wavered. “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is ‘no,’” she stated.
However, NBC News now reports that Biden privately discussed the possibility of a pardon with senior aides shortly after Hunter’s conviction. Two sources familiar with the internal conversations revealed that while the president maintained a public stance of non-intervention, the idea of a pardon “remained on the table.”
The report suggests that the public denials were not merely a refusal to answer the question but rather a calculated move. The president and his advisors reportedly decided that maintaining a hardline stance against a pardon was politically advantageous—even if it didn’t reflect the reality of their ongoing deliberations.
For Biden, the decision to publicly reject the idea of a pardon likely served dual purposes. First, it allowed him to distance himself from accusations of favoritism or nepotism at a time when Republicans were increasing scrutiny of his administration’s alleged “two-tier justice system.” Second, it bought time for his team to assess the fallout of such a decision, all while deflecting immediate criticism.
Now, with his term winding down and no re-election campaign to face, Biden has moved forward with the pardon—a choice some critics view as the culmination of a plan to shield his son while minimizing political costs.
The revelation that Biden’s public statements about the pardon were at odds with his private considerations has sparked fresh criticism. Opponents argue that the president’s actions erode public trust, painting him as willing to mislead the American people for personal gain.
“This is a betrayal of the public’s trust,” said one Republican lawmaker. “The president’s words were clear—until they weren’t. This raises questions about what else he may be misleading the country about.”
Supporters, however, argue that Biden’s decision reflects a father’s love and loyalty, underscoring the deeply personal nature of the issue. “This is a man standing by his son during a difficult time,” said one Democratic strategist. “People may not like it, but it’s human.”
With Hunter Biden now pardoned, the president faces the challenge of addressing the broader implications of his decision. For critics, this marks another chapter in what they see as a pattern of political favoritism. For allies, it’s a reminder of the personal challenges leaders face in balancing public duty and family loyalty.
Either way, the revelation that Biden’s public denials were part of a calculated plan is certain to fuel debates about transparency, accountability, and the limits of presidential power in the months to come.
SOURCE: NBC NEWS
Politics
Adam Schiff Urges Senate to Block Kash Patel’s FBI Nomination
Published
3 weeks agoon
December 2, 2024In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.
Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.
As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.
Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.
The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.
For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.
Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.
The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.
Trending
President Biden to Issue Pardon for Son Hunter Biden Ahead of Sentencing
Published
4 weeks agoon
December 1, 2024In a surprising turn of events, President Joe Biden has decided to grant a pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, a move expected to be announced Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the matter. The decision marks a significant reversal for the president, who has previously stated on multiple occasions that he would not use his executive powers to pardon or commute his son’s sentences.
The pardon will encompass both Hunter Biden’s federal gun charges, for which he was convicted, and his guilty plea on federal tax evasion charges. The gun charge sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 12, with the tax evasion sentencing set for Dec. 16.
Sources within the administration revealed that President Biden made the decision over the weekend after extensive discussions with senior aides. The pardon comes as Biden, 82, nears the end of his presidency with no reelection campaign to consider. Publicly, the president has consistently distanced himself from the idea of granting clemency.
In June, following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges, Biden unequivocally stated, “I will not pardon him,” reiterating his commitment to letting the judicial process play out. First Lady Jill Biden echoed this sentiment during a June interview, emphasizing respect for the judicial system.
Behind Closed Doors
Despite these public assertions, insiders say the possibility of a pardon has been under consideration since Hunter’s June conviction. Two individuals familiar with the internal discussions noted that while Biden publicly denied the idea, the option remained on the table, with close aides advising against making any premature decisions.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre consistently reinforced the president’s stance during press briefings, most recently stating earlier this month that the position remained unchanged.
The pardon decision comes as Republicans continue to accuse the Biden family of corruption and allege preferential treatment by the Justice Department. GOP criticism escalated after a plea deal involving Hunter collapsed in July, leading Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel in the case.
The move to pardon Hunter Biden has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue it undermines the justice system, while supporters, including former White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, argue it’s within the president’s constitutional authority. Eggleston told NBC News, “The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden pardon.”
The president’s relationship with Hunter Biden, who has struggled with addiction and legal troubles, has been a focal point of political attacks. Biden has often defended his son, describing him as “one of the brightest, most decent men I know.”
While the pardon eliminates the prospect of prison time for Hunter, it undoubtedly reignites political controversy, especially as Republicans scrutinize the Justice Department’s handling of the case.
As the announcement looms, the decision underscores the tension between personal loyalty and public accountability, setting the stage for heated debates in the weeks to come.
NBC News: President Biden Knew in June He Would Pardon Son Hunter
Adam Schiff Urges Senate to Block Kash Patel’s FBI Nomination
U.S. Announces $725 Million Military Aid Package for Ukraine
2020 Georgia Fraud Exposed
Tennessee Woman Fired for Refusing Employer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Wins Almost $700K
mRNA Covid Vaccine Aids Development of Cancer, New Study Finds
Trending
-
Trending4 weeks ago
President Biden to Issue Pardon for Son Hunter Biden Ahead of Sentencing
-
Trending3 weeks ago
NBC News: President Biden Knew in June He Would Pardon Son Hunter
-
Politics3 weeks ago
Adam Schiff Urges Senate to Block Kash Patel’s FBI Nomination
-
Trending4 weeks ago
Kash Patel will be confirmed by the Senate as FBI Director, says Senator Ted Cruz
-
Biden Administration3 weeks ago
U.S. Announces $725 Million Military Aid Package for Ukraine
Long Hairstyles
August 30, 2023 at 4:25 pm
Excellent weblog here! Also your web site lots up fast! What host are you the usage of? Can I get your affiliate link in your host? I want my web site loaded up as fast as yours lol