Morning Wire XX
[0] The missing Biden corruption witness has released a video while still in hiding, accusing the Biden DOJ of harassing and targeting him.
[1] Perhaps the most alarming information I revealed was of a mall within the DOJ who shared classified information with Hunter Biden and his Chinese partners.
[2] Is Dr. Gall -Loofed a credible witness, and what are his accusations against the president?
[3] I'm Daily Wire, editor -in -chief John Bickley, with Georgia Howl.
[4] It's Friday, July 7th, and this is more.
[5] After several conservative -leaning Supreme Court rulings, progressives are demanding reform.
[6] The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and frankly dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court, which is what we are seeing now.
[7] Why is the left targeting the court and what changes do its critics want to make?
[8] And the Lancet Medical Journal published and then quickly pulled a study on COVID vaccine -related deaths.
[9] We reveal the findings of the unpublished study.
[10] Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
[11] Stay tuned.
[12] We have the news you need to know.
[13] A former advisor to a Chinese energy company has come forward accusing the Biden family of corruption in a video statement released on Wednesday.
[14] Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce.
[15] So Tim, first off, who is Dr. Gahl Luft?
[16] Lufth has an impressive resume.
[17] He's a former Lieutenant Colonel in the Israeli Defense Forces, who became a respected expert in energy security.
[18] He holds a doctorate in strategic studies from Johns Hopkins and has authored books on energy security and the international monetary system.
[19] He is currently serving as co -director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington -based think tank focused on energy, security, and economic trends.
[20] The Department of Justice indicted Luft on charges of arms dealing, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, and lying to the FBI earlier this year.
[21] He was arrested in Cyprus in February, escaped and is now in hiding.
[22] But he released a video to the New York Post Miranda Devine, claiming he is being pursued by the DOJ in an effort to cover up Biden corruption related to CEFC.
[23] Here's Luft.
[24] My ordeal goes back to a fatal decision I made in March of 2019 to share with the U .S. government my knowledge about the Biden family's relations with CFC.
[25] As I said, it was in March of 2019.
[26] in a two -day session at the U .S. Embassy in Brussels.
[27] I insisted that the meeting take place in March because at the time there were rumors that Joe Biden was planning to run for president.
[28] I saw it as my civic duty to alert the government beforehand and give it enough time to probe the issue.
[29] I want to be clear, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, I have no political motive or agenda.
[30] I did it out of deep concern that if the Bidens were to come to power, the country would be facing the same traumatic Russia collusion scandal, only this time with China.
[31] Sadly, because of the DOJ's cover -up, this is exactly what happened.
[32] The DOJ sent to Brussels a delegation of six people, two prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, by the names of Daniel Reikenthal and Catherine Gauch, and four FBI agents.
[33] One of them was Special Agent Joshua Wilson from the Baltimore Field Office, which also happens to cover the state of Delaware.
[34] He said he gave the DOJ dates and names and even exact figures of how much money was changing hands between CEFC and the Bidens.
[35] He said everything he gave the DOJ was later corroborated by information found in Hunter Biden's laptop that was abandoned in a Delaware computer repair store.
[36] Luf said the DOJ went radio silent after the Brussels meeting.
[37] So if this information is true, the Justice Department knew about hunters' dealings with CEFC much earlier than previously reported, potentially weeks before Joe Biden announced his run for president, correct?
[38] Yes.
[39] But the central question is, how credible is Luft?
[40] Some parts of a story appear to check out.
[41] Divine has published a copy of a letter from U .S. Attorney Jeffrey Berman to Lufz attorney working out the details of the Brussels meeting.
[42] But a major question that needs to be answered is the validity of the charges against Lufth.
[43] Lufth says the charges are overblown and a clear case of malicious prosecution.
[44] But the indictment isn't public, so we can't judge the evidence for ourselves.
[45] Luft approached the DOJ in 2019, but we're only hearing about his allegations now.
[46] Why is that?
[47] Well, Luf said he wasn't going to make any more of it after the Brussels meeting, but the DOJ indictment forced his hand.
[48] Over the past four years that followed, me, my family, my friends, my associates, We're all harassed, intimidated, and finally, I was prosecuted.
[49] Morningwire spoke with Seamus Bruner, the associate director of research at the Government Accountability Institute.
[50] He said that the DOJ, if it is corrupt like Luft alleges, could accomplish a couple things by indicting Luft.
[51] The charges, whether they're true or not, discredit Luft as a witness, and it could give the DOJ cover to keep certain documents away from Congress through court gag orders and other tools.
[52] Now, how is Congress going to get information or testimony?
[53] from Luft if he's on the run.
[54] Bruner said that Congress has a few options.
[55] Staff could visit Luft wherever he isn't hiding, or if Luf doesn't want to share his location, he could share documents and information through intermediaries.
[56] Well, certainly intriguing at the least, and we're going to have to see what else he can share.
[57] Tim, thanks for reporting.
[58] Coming up, progressives target the Supreme Court after several conservative rulings.
[59] Last week, the Supreme Court came down with three major rulings that have sparked a backlash from progressive lawmakers.
[60] All of the decisions came as wins for conservatives and resulted in increasing calls from the left to reform the court.
[61] Here to discuss the decisions and the reaction to them is Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus.
[62] Hey, Dave.
[63] So first, which cases have sparked so much anger from the left?
[64] Morning.
[65] The three big decisions were one that found a web designer did not have to make websites for gay weddings, another invalidating Joe Biden's student debt forgiveness.
[66] And finally, the court ruled against affirmative action, finding that race alone cannot be used as a factor in college admissions.
[67] These were all six -three decisions with the trio of liberals in dissent, and they were all wins for conservatives.
[68] This has caused no shortage of consternation among progressives who are once again calling for drastic measures to curtail the court's power.
[69] Yeah, who exactly are we talking about here?
[70] Who on the left is calling for reform of the court, and what is it that they would like to see changed?
[71] One of the loudest voices has been Representative Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez.
[72] who, along with others, has called for the court to be expanded, presumably to get more liberal justices on the court.
[73] There have also been vague calls for greater oversight, but, you know, it's interesting.
[74] AOC said on a Sunday show that the court is, quote, unchecked.
[75] And her critic's reaction to that assertion is basically that there is a check on the Supreme Court.
[76] It's called amending the Constitution.
[77] Right.
[78] But obviously, that has a really high bar in terms of the popular support needed.
[79] And none of these issues have that kind of broad support one way or the other.
[80] Is it surprising that these three decisions all came down within about a day of each other?
[81] And did that have an impact on this reaction?
[82] I don't know if it was a surprise, but I think it was wise of the court to do it this way.
[83] We all saw what happened after the Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade last year.
[84] I mean, it was a little scary, right?
[85] Protests outside of Justice's homes.
[86] One guy showing up with weapons on a mission to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
[87] I mean, look, I wouldn't be surprised if the court reasoned that by dumping all of these at once, it could blunt some of the impact by not giving the left three bites at specific apples.
[88] Chief Justice Roberts has tried very hard to maintain a good reputation for the court, but in these polarized times, that's no easy trick.
[89] Yeah, no, it's not.
[90] In all of these cases, there are already workarounds being discussed by Democrats to limit what they view as the damage done by the decisions.
[91] What are those and are they likely to work?
[92] No, you're right.
[93] So with affirmative action, for example, colleges can still use admissions criteria that are more likely to produce a diverse student body, including income level or zip code.
[94] On student loans, Joe Biden is working on what the White House calls Plan B. They can give some relief to those burdened with such debt.
[95] As far as the web design case goes, there's no shortage of web designers who would be more than happy to design a website for a gay wedding.
[96] So in reality, the real -life impact of these decisions are not as dire or drastic as those gnashing their teeth and wailing their wells make them out to be.
[97] And finally, what about public perception of the court?
[98] How is it doing in terms of popularity and trust?
[99] Relatively recent polling shows that about 47 % of Americans have trust in the Supreme Court.
[100] That is a historic low.
[101] And there's likely a few reasons for that.
[102] Obviously, we've had a slew of controversial decisions, at least from the left's perspective.
[103] But also, many Democrats still feel that Barack Obama was unfairly denied the ability to fill a vacancy in 2015.
[104] That was when then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's gamut happened where he just refused to seat of justice before the 2016 election, which obviously Donald Trump won and wound up filling that seat with Neil Gorsuch, one of the most conservative on the court.
[105] Many on the left still view this as something that delegitimizes the court, and I'm not sure that's likely to change soon.
[106] Yeah, wouldn't bet on it.
[107] Dave, thanks for joining us.
[108] Thanks for having me. The medical journal Lancet posted a pre -print paper reviewing autopsy findings in deaths after COVID vaccinations on Wednesday, but abruptly pulled it the following day.
[109] Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Amanda Presta Giacomo.
[110] Hey Amanda.
[111] So what do we know about this paper and why was it pulled so quickly from the Lancet?
[112] Hey, John.
[113] So this paper, which is titled A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings and Deaths after COVID -19 vaccination was published July 4 ,000.
[114] fifth in preprints with the Lancet.
[115] Now, preprints are early -stage research papers that have yet to be peer -reviewed.
[116] But according to the Lancet, these papers do undergo checks from the social science research network and the Lancet for appropriateness and transparency.
[117] There are numerous authors of the paper, including Nicholas Holscher from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, School of Public Health, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Riech, former Health and Human Services official during the pandemic, Paul E. Alexander.
[118] and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.
[119] I've obtained an archive copy of the paper, which says that there was no outside funding for their research.
[120] Now, as you mentioned, the paper was abruptly pulled.
[121] It disappeared within 24 hours after being posted.
[122] In its place is now a disclaimer that reads, quote, this preprint has been removed by preprints with the Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.
[123] Okay, so a somewhat vague disclaimer there.
[124] What does this pulled paper actually say?
[125] Well, the researchers say their aim was to investigate possible causal links between COVID vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post -mortem analysis.
[126] They reviewed 325 deaths that appeared to be connected with vaccination.
[127] The paper said that of the 325 COVID vaccine autopsies they reviewed, nearly 74 % of them were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to, by COVID -19 vaccination.
[128] It was also found that the most implicated organ system in Vax associated deaths was the cardiovascular system, and the average time from vaccination to death was an estimated 14 days.
[129] The paper adds that further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying their findings, and again, this paper has yet to be peer -reviewed.
[130] Now, as is usually the case, the paper being pulled was quite a story in and of itself, perhaps even making more noise than the paper initially did.
[131] Yeah, that seems to be the case here.
[132] Here, Twitter was a buzz on Thursday after the paper was polled with little explanation.
[133] There were accusations of censorship, and that carried over into prominent medical substacks, including from Dr. Peter McCullough, who, as I mentioned, is one of the authors of this paper.
[134] McCullough's substack said the Lancet, quote, censored the paper after a high volume of downloads.
[135] Studies have shown that since the pandemic started, there's been a decline in trust for health officials, institutions like the CDC and even scientists largely due to the suspicion or expectation of political bias.
[136] Remember, there was a lot of censorship during the pandemic relating to masks and vaccines that was then deemed misinformation and is now acknowledged as truth.
[137] I'll also add that there's still a lot of vaccine -related research being conducted.
[138] Harvard and Yale scientists, for example, are currently studying a condition dubbed Long Backs.
[139] Now, interestingly, one of those researchers, Yale University Cardiologists, Harlan Krumholtz said he was hesitant to do this research because he didn't want the anti -vaccine movement to seize on these findings.
[140] He ultimately decided it was his obligation as a scientist to have an open mind.
[141] Well, open minds in the scientific community are obviously essential.
[142] Amanda, thanks for reporting.
[143] Yeah, anytime.
[144] That's all the time we've got this morning.
[145] Thanks for waking up with us.
[146] We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.