Connect with us

Biden Administration

NARA Reveals It Has Over 5,400 Biden Emails Where He Used Fake Names to Forward Government Info & Business Deals to Son Hunter

Published

1 year ago

on

In roughly 5,400 emails, electronic records, and documents during his time as vice president, President Joe Biden may have used a pseudonym, according to a shocking letter from the National Archives and Records Administration.

The abundance of correspondence was verified after the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) requested emails associated with aliases reportedly used by Biden, including Robin Ware, Robert L. Peters, and JRB Ware, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Republicans have pushed for the release of emails they claim indicate Biden used the aliases to communicate with his son about international business and share information on the nations where he was making deals.

Vice presidents and other high-ranking government officials sometimes adopt pseudonyms to avoid being overwhelmed with spam and unsolicited emails from the general public, despite the White House’s insistence that Biden and his son were never partners in business.

Because all of the communications were stored, the Obama administration at the time denied claims that they were’secret’.

The question of whether then-VP Biden breached the “absolute wall” he claimed to have maintained between “the personal and private, and the government,” however, is raised by the sheer volume of emails.

Emails found on Hunter’s laptop also show that Biden was referred to as the “big guy” by business associates.

According to NARA, there are around 5,400 emails, electronic data, and documents that show Joe Biden utilized email aliases while serving as Obama’s vice president.

Employees used Biden’s alternate address. To arrange a meeting with Petro Poroshenko, use the email address Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov. Hunter received a copy of that email.


Hunter also urged John McGrail to apply for a position in the Treasury’s legal division in an email to Robin Ware, another of Biden’s email aliases.


The results of the FOIA request made by the SLF in June 2022 seem to corroborate that Biden used the emails associated with the identities.

From a variety of personal email accounts, Biden occasionally sent, received, and forwarded official correspondence.

All of the names are aliases that Biden used on emails pertaining to both professional and personal matters from 2009 to 2017 while he was Barack Obama’s vice president.

On Monday, the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against NARA to force the release of the records.

The Foundation claims that the documents could possibly show occasions in which President Biden communicated with his son, Hunter Biden, and other people about official business.

‘All too frequently, public servants abuse their authority by utilizing it for their own political or personal gain. Many people try to conceal it when they do. The best way to maintain the integrity of the government is for NARA to make Biden’s approximately 5,400 emails available to SLF and the general public.

Kimberly Hermann, general attorney for the SLF, stated in a statement, “The American public deserves to know what is in them.”

In addition, the Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that NARA has been using delay strategies since the initial FOIA request was made more than 14 months ago.

NARA has acknowledged the existence of emails, but no specific emails have been released.

According to the lawsuit, Stephannie Oriabure, director of NARA’s archival operations division, wrote to the Southeastern Legal Foundation in June 2022, “We have performed a search of our collection for Vice Presidential records related to your [June 9, 2022] request and have identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files, and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request.”

James Comer, a Kentucky Republican and the head of the House Oversight Committee, ordered from NARA earlier this month unredacted papers that also demonstrated Vice President Biden’s use of a pseudonym.

On that particular occasion, the goal was to investigate the part the former vice president played in his son’s cross-border commercial transactions.

As previously revealed emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed, while serving as vice president, President Biden used the email account “Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov.”

The emails also showed conversations between Hunter Biden and his assistant on Joe Biden’s daily itinerary.

John Flynn’s assistant sent Biden his daily schedule to his personal email address, Robert.L.Peters@pci.gov, along with a copy to Hunter for at least four weeks in 2016.

Hunter gave his small son the name Beau after his sibling. They joined Joe and First Lady Jill Biden at the White House for the July 4 fireworks display.

Between May 18 and June 15, 2016, Hunter was copied on 10 of these emails.

Robert Peters used a @pci.gov domain for his email account. In 2020, the Domain Name System security report from the DNS Institute classified the service as problematic.

A May 2016 email from Flynn to Joe, a.k.a. Robert Peters, that also included Hunter in the recipient list, sets a “8.45am prep for 9am phonecall with Pres Poroshenko.” Poroshenko was the president of Ukraine.

Hunter was receiving $83,333 per month at the time to serve on the board of the dishonest Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings Ltd.

A year and a half after beginning his employment with Burisma, he ultimately quit the company two months after his father’s resignation as vice president.

Only a few months prior, in December 2015, Biden had threatened Poroshenko that he would withhold $1 billion in US funding unless he dismissed Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s chief prosecutor, who was looking into Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma.

Shokin was ousted from office in March 2016 after receiving numerous accusations of wrongdoing.

According to emails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, Joe Biden would email his two sons, Hunter (on the left) and Beau (on the right), using the aliases “Robin Ware,” “Robert L. Peters,” and “JRB ware.” At Obama’s Inaugural Parade in January 2009, the couple was captured on camera.

Officials from the State Department allegedly tried to complain to Biden directly about Hunter’s participation with Burisma, but their accusations were dismissed.

On March 26, 2012, Joe Biden sent a forwarded email to Hunter and his brother Beau, who was the attorney general of Delaware, using one of his private aliases, RobinWare456@gmail.com.

Email from Antony Blinken, who is currently serving as secretary of state, was forwarded.

‘Beau visited Kyev [Ukraine] on the Friday and gave a discussion on corruption at the Hyatt… then attended reception at the residence where he met many young Ukrainian lawyers,’ read the email from US Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft. We got a lot of praise for his speech and just being honest about a subject that still affects this nation.

In 2014, Hunter began working for Ukrainian gas producer Burisma Holdings.

From Burisma, he received $83,333 per month until two months after Biden’s resignation.

In an email from a Ukrainian executive at Burisma, who stated that he had access to him through Hunter, he was referred to as “the big guy” and characterized.

Because the executive was also under investigation by a Ukrainian prosecutor, Joe’s use of $1 billion in American aid funds to remove the prosecutor generated severe concerns.

In the past, President Biden has denied ever granting any of Hunter’s business colleagues access to him or the White House.

Rep. Comer noted that while Biden has long maintained that there was a total separation between the commercial ventures of his family and his duties as vice president, the evidence appears to imply otherwise.

‘Joe Biden has claimed there was ‘an absolute wall’ between his family’s overseas business operations and his duties as Vice President, but evidence demonstrates that access was wide open for his family’s influence peddling,’ Comer noted in a statement on August 17.

“The National Archives must provide these unredacted records,” he continued. “They will help us in our investigation into the corruption of the Biden family.”

White House officials transmitted Joe’s calendar, including a conversation with the then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, to his secret email account, “Robert L. Peters,” according to a troubling May 2016 email that Comer’s letter mentions and that DailyMail.com previously reported.

Hunter, who at the time was supposedly working for the fraudulent Ukrainian gas company Burisma, was mysteriously copied on the email by the staff member John Flynn.

According to documents found on Joe’s laptop, White House employees copied Hunter on a total of 10 emails sent to alias addresses.

Another instance occurred in June 2014 where Joe and Hunter appeared to have used the then-VP’s private email to discuss official business.

On June 23, 2014, Hunter wrote to his father via his Rosemont Seneca consultant email account regarding the hiring of John McGrail, who was then the deputy White House counsel.

Hunter wrote, “J. McGrail very much wants to serve as detail for Treasury. Before you fill position, pls talk to me.”

Joe replied from the email robinware456@gmail.com, “Re: Johnny, call me right away Dad.”

McGrail received his anticipated transfer to the Treasury as Senior Counsel in January 2017 after being elevated to VP’s counsel the following year. According to his LinkedIn profile, he is the department’s Under Secretary for Domestic Finance’s Counselor at the moment.

Since 2021, Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have been requesting from NARA unredacted data pertaining to Joe’s pseudonym emails.

Additionally, Anthony Blinken utilized the Robin Ware email to inform his superior about a speech Beau gave in Kyiv in 2012 when he was serving as Biden’s national security adviser.

Related Topics:
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Biden Administration

The Biden Admin’s Attempt to Ban Cigarettes Just Days Before Trump Returns Setting Up For Boost in Criminal Cartels and Black Market

Published

1 week ago

on

January 7, 2025

By

Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?

In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.

Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.

A “Gift” to Organized Crime

Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.

Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.

Unintended Consequences for Public Health

While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.

Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.

National Security and Economic Concerns

Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.

Balancing Public Health and Freedom

The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.

As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.

A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden DOJ to Charge 200 More Individuals Involved in January 6 Riot Just Weeks Before Trump Returns to The White House

Published

2 weeks ago

on

January 6, 2025

By

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering charges against approximately 200 additional individuals for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This includes about 60 suspects accused of assaulting or impeding police officers during the riot that disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

To date, around 1,583 people have faced federal charges related to the events of January 6, with over 600 charged with felonies involving assaults on law enforcement. The DOJ’s recent disclosure marks the first time prosecutors have provided an estimate of uncharged cases, signaling the potential scope of ongoing investigations. Notably, prosecutors have exercised discretion by declining to charge approximately 400 cases presented by the FBI, focusing instead on individuals who committed multiple federal offenses.

The impending inauguration of President-elect Trump, who has indicated plans to pardon individuals involved in the Capitol attack, adds complexity to these proceedings. His statements have led some defendants to seek delays in their trials, anticipating potential clemency. Judges have expressed concerns about the implications of such pardons, emphasizing the importance of accountability for actions that threatened democratic processes.

As the DOJ continues its efforts, over 200 cases remain pending, underscoring the enduring legal and political challenges stemming from the January 6 events. The situation remains dynamic, with the potential for significant developments as the new administration takes office.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden Admin Hid Info Pointing to Lab Leak Theory From Intel Agencies

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 31, 2024

By

A newly released report alleges that the Biden administration withheld information that pointed to a lab leak in China as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic from U.S. intelligence agencies, while working with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices challenging the official narrative. According to the Wall Street Journal, the report claims that the suppression of alternative viewpoints was part of a broader effort to control the narrative surrounding the origins of the virus, particularly the zoonotic theory that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans.

The debate over the origins of COVID-19 has become a focal point for concerns over censorship and government influence. While some agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported the zoonotic theory, the FBI stood apart, asserting with “moderate confidence” that a lab leak was the most plausible origin. However, despite this assessment, the FBI was excluded from an intelligence briefing for President Biden in August 2021, leading to concerns from officials within the agency about the omission of their perspective.

The Wall Street Journal’s report highlights the role of social media platforms in silencing opposing views. Public health officials and government agencies allegedly collaborated with platforms like Facebook to remove or flag content that questioned the zoonotic-origin theory. Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the White House had pressured Facebook to censor narratives contrary to the official stance.

The report also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Adrienne Keen, a former State Department official, was involved in advocating for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) zoonotic findings despite criticism of the WHO’s reliance on data from China. This involvement has led to questions about her impartiality, with some critics suggesting that her work may have discredited the lab leak hypothesis to protect Chinese interests.

Domestic efforts to suppress the lab leak theory were also widespread. Public health officials dismissed the theory as a baseless conspiracy, and social media platforms removed content that raised doubts about the official narrative. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) later acknowledged funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which could have played a role in the virus’s development, but questions about the research were often dismissed as unscientific or even racist.

Internally, the suppression of information extended to government agencies. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) reportedly concluded that the virus was genetically engineered in a Chinese lab, but up to 90% of their findings were excluded from official reports. The DIA’s Inspector General has launched an investigation into the suppression of these critical contributions.

As more evidence supporting the lab leak theory has emerged, support for this explanation has grown. In 2023, the Department of Energy joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the most likely origin of the virus. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has also supported this view, citing the intelligence community’s access to the most information on the matter.

The growing consensus around the lab leak theory raises questions about why it was suppressed for so long. Critics argue that the censorship and control of narratives not only delayed crucial inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 but also undermined public trust in the institutions tasked with managing the pandemic.

This case highlights broader concerns about government-directed censorship and its impact on free speech. The suppression of alternative viewpoints, especially when it comes to critical issues like the origins of a global pandemic, has far-reaching implications for public discourse and democratic principles.

Continue Reading

Trending