Daily Mail reported that David Davon-Bonilla, a 24-year-old Nicaraguan migrant, allegedly raped a 46-year-old woman near the Coney Island boardwalk on Surf Avenue and 16th Street around 9 p.m. Sunday.
The victim was accompanied by her boyfriend, who attempted to defend her but was reportedly attacked by another migrant, Leovando Moreno, a 37-year-old Mexican national. The incident has led to the arrest of both men, who have previous criminal records and entered the U.S. under unclear circumstances.
Davon-Bonilla, who entered the U.S. as an asylum seeker in December 2022, is accused of holding a knife to the woman's throat during the assault.
Her boyfriend, a 34-year-old man, was allegedly struck by Moreno with a pipe as he tried to intervene. The couple had reportedly settled under the boardwalk after arriving from out of state.
The attack occurred near a hotel functioning as a migrant shelter, close to the Brooklyn Cyclones Ballpark and Nathan's Famous Hot Dogs.
Davon-Bonilla is now facing multiple charges, including first-degree rape, second-degree assault, first-degree sexual abuse, menacing, and criminal possession of a weapon. Moreno was charged with assault and criminal possession of a weapon for his alleged role in the attack.
After the incident, the victim was taken to Coney Island Hospital and was reported to be in stable condition. Her boyfriend, however, refused medical attention. The incident has sparked concern due to the proximity of the crime scene to a location frequented by the public.
Davon-Bonilla's history of violent crimes is also drawing attention. Four months after entering the U.S., he allegedly raped another woman at a La Quinta Hotel on Third Avenue in Park Slope, which had been repurposed as a migrant shelter. He spent approximately a year in prison after a plea deal and was released in June.
Law enforcement sources revealed that the April 2023 assault at the La Quinta Hotel involved both rape and sodomy. The woman in that case was a 34-year-old who had also been assaulted in Brooklyn. This prior incident raises concerns about the handling of Davon-Bonilla's case and his release from prison.
Following the attack near Coney Island, both suspects were arrested close to the crime scene.
Their status as migrants was confirmed by sources speaking to the New York Post. Davon-Bonilla had illegally entered the U.S. via Texas, though details of Moreno's entry into the country remain unclear.
The NYPD is currently investigating the incident, and more details are expected to surface as the case progresses in court. The violent nature of the attack, combined with the suspects' criminal backgrounds, has prompted discussions about the broader implications of the U.S. immigration system.
The alleged rape and assault near the Coney Island boardwalk involving David Davon-Bonilla and Leovando Moreno have highlighted significant concerns regarding public safety and the broader implications of the U.S. immigration system. The suspects' criminal histories and their illegal entry into the country underscore the complexities of addressing crime in the context of migration. As the case unfolds, it will likely influence discussions on balancing immigration policies with the need to protect communities.
Just The News reported that former President Donald Trump announced plans to sue the Justice Department for $100 million, claiming the FBI's 2022 Mar-a-Lago raid was politically motivated and violated his constitutional rights.
The Justice Department's actions stem from an FBI raid on August 8, 2022, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida. This raid was part of a federal investigation into Trump’s supposed improper retention of classified documents following his departure from the White House. The investigation led to 37 felony charges against Trump, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all the charges levied against him. Special Counsel Jack Smith, assigned after the raid to ensure an impartial investigation, faced significant legal opposition. Eventually, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case brought by Smith, ruling that both his appointment and the funding of his office violated the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.
Trump's attorney, Daniel Epstein, filed the notice of intent to sue the DOJ. The Justice Department now has 180 days from the receipt of Epstein's notice to respond and reach a resolution, or the case will proceed to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
Epstein's filing accuses the DOJ and FBI of multiple acts of "tortious conduct," including intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Epstein alleges that decisions by Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray were politically charged and violated constitutional guidelines. He claims they bypassed established protocols that are mandatory during investigations, such as seeking consent from Trump, notifying his attorneys, and using the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Epstein asserts that the DOJ’s actions have caused Trump $15 million in actual harm due to legal costs and emotional distress. Additionally, he seeks punitive damages totaling $100 million for Trump. Epstein emphasized that his mission is broader than defending Trump; it aims to uphold the rule of law for all Americans.
"What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself – he is standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold the government accountable when it wrongs you," Epstein told Fox Business' Lydia Hu.
Epstein argued that Garland and Wray's decisions showed a "clear intent to engage in political persecution – not to advance good law enforcement practices." He described the raid's execution as "inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office."
Trump's legal submission emphasizes his expectation of privacy at Mar-a-Lago, arguing that the FBI's actions were not in line with standard procedures for searching an investigative target's premises. Epstein also criticized the special counsel’s office for issuing what he described as a "lawless criminal indictment" against Trump.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the pending lawsuit. However, Epstein insists that the matter transcends individual grievances and involves holding the government accountable for its actions. "If someone doesn't stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to roughshod over every American," Epstein stated.
Epstein's remarks also highlighted the timing of the investigation, hinting at its political implications. He characterized the case as "very accurate and precise election interference," suggesting that the entire special counsel investigation aimed to hinder Trump’s potential 2024 presidential campaign. "The entire special counsel investigation was about interfering with his ability to get elected," he remarked.
The upcoming months will be crucial in determining the future course of this high-profile legal battle. Should the Justice Department fail to respond to the notice within the stipulated period, the lawsuit will proceed to federal court in the Southern District of Florida.
Trump’s lawsuit against the DOJ accuses the department and the FBI of politically biased actions, infringing on his constitutional rights during the Mar-a-Lago raid. His legal team, led by Daniel Epstein, is pushing for $100 million in damages, spotlighting the alleged deviation from standard procedures and the perceived political motivations behind the investigation. The lawsuit could redefine the boundaries of executive power and governmental accountability.
Fox31 News reported that the Biden administration is moving forward with efforts to protect consumers from unwanted subscriptions and memberships, responding to growing concerns about predatory business practices.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are leading this initiative, each proposing rules to make it easier for consumers to cancel services and reach customer support.
Over the past decades, aggressive business practices that trap consumers in unwanted services have increased, often making it difficult for them to opt out or get refunds. The FTC is now finalizing a rule designed to address this issue by simplifying the process for consumers to cancel subscriptions.
In a parallel effort, the FCC is proposing regulations to eliminate so-called "doom loops." These are systems that frustrate customers by preventing them from easily reaching human customer service agents. The FCC's proposed rule is part of a broader attempt to restore a balance of power between consumers and corporations.
Consumer advocacy groups, including Public Citizen, have expressed strong support for the Biden administration’s initiative. Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, has been vocal about the need for such regulations, citing the increasing use of technology by businesses to make it difficult for consumers to manage their subscriptions.
Weissman has pointed out that this trend represents a broader shift towards what he describes as a “rip-off economy.” In his words, businesses are employing new tactics to "systematically rip off consumers," making it nearly impossible for them to secure refunds or make necessary changes, such as altering flight bookings.
Despite the support from consumer advocates, not everyone is on board with the proposed regulations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce acknowledges that predatory practices exist but argues that the Biden administration's approach might backfire. A spokesperson for the Chamber has warned that imposing stringent regulations could lead to higher costs for consumers.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is particularly concerned about the potential economic impact of these regulations. The organization is wary that over-regulation could micromanage business practices to a degree that would stifle innovation and increase operational costs, which could then be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Moreover, the Chamber has been actively opposing other federal initiatives aimed at consumer protection, including a proposal to ban hidden fees. The Chamber's stance is rooted in the belief that businesses should be free to set their own pricing and service policies without heavy interference from the government.
This disagreement highlights the broader debate between those who advocate for stronger consumer protections and those who warn against the unintended consequences of over-regulation. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for how businesses operate and how consumers interact with them.
The Biden administration’s proposed regulations mark a significant step in the ongoing effort to protect consumers from unwanted subscriptions and poor customer service. With the FTC and FCC leading the charge, the new rules aim to give consumers more control over their subscriptions and ensure they can easily access customer support when needed.
While consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen are supportive of these efforts, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about the potential economic impact, warning that increased regulation could lead to higher costs for consumers. As this debate continues, the final outcome will shape the future of consumer protection in the United States.
In summary, the proposed rules by the Biden administration seek to address the rising issue of unwanted subscriptions and predatory practices, but their implementation may also bring unintended consequences that could affect both consumers and businesses alike.
According to Reuters, the FBI has launched an investigation into claims from Donald Trump's presidential campaign that state-sponsored hackers from Iran targeted it.
The probe also includes alleged hacking attempts on advisers to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's campaign, which was reported to have begun in June and was uncovered by Microsoft.
On Monday, the FBI announced it was looking into allegations of a cyber attack on Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The claims, initially raised by Trump's campaign, accuse the Iranian government of orchestrating the hack.
According to Trump, Microsoft informed his campaign on Saturday that Iranian hackers had breached one of its websites. Despite the intrusion, Trump emphasized that the hackers from Iran managed to access only publicly available information.
The investigation is not limited to Trump's campaign. It also encompasses alleged cyberattacks targeting advisers of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. These attempts are believed to have started in June when Biden was still in the race for president.
The Washington Post has reported that the FBI suspects that Iran is behind these breaches in an effort to steal sensitive data from both presidential campaigns. Kamala Harris’s team has not yet responded to requests for comments regarding the situation.
Trump's campaign cited a report from Microsoft researchers released on Friday as evidence of Iran's involvement. This report indicated that hackers linked to the Iranian government had attempted to compromise an account belonging to a "high-ranking official" connected to a U.S. presidential campaign in June.
The same report revealed that the hackers had taken control of an account held by a former political adviser. They then used this compromised account in an attempt to target the high-ranking official. The report did not disclose the identities of the targets involved.
Despite these allegations and the ongoing investigation, the Iranian government has consistently denied any involvement in hacking Trump's campaign. The narrative from Trump's campaign is that these cyber activities represent a coordinated effort by Iran to interfere with the election process.
Donald Trump's assertion that hackers can only access publicly available information aims to downplay any potential damage caused by a cyber attack. However, the full scope and impact of the breach remain under investigation by the FBI.
Kamala Harris’s status in the presidential race adds another layer of complexity to the investigation. Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee following Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race the previous month. Her campaign has yet to issue an official comment regarding the alleged hack.
The FBI’s efforts will be critical in determining the veracity and impact of these hacking accusations. This investigation highlights the increasing threats of cyber intrusions in the democratic electoral process, particularly from foreign state actors.
The FBI is actively investigating allegations of hacking attempts on both Donald Trump’s and the Biden-Harris campaigns, believed to be orchestrated by Iranian state actors. While Trump asserts that only public information was accessed, the investigation’s broader implications highlight the significant impact of cyber threats on political processes.
Former President Donald Trump is preparing to file a $100 million lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) over the 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence.
According to a report by the Daily Mail, Trump's legal team is accusing Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray of engaging in "political persecution" against the former president.
The lawsuit, drafted by Trump's lawyer, Daniel Epstein, claims that the search of Trump's Florida home, which uncovered approximately 300 classified documents, was rooted in "intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process."
The legal action comes two years after the controversial raid that sparked outrage among Trump supporters and criticism from his political allies.
Trump's legal team argues that the DOJ and FBI's actions were inconsistent with established protocols for dealing with former presidents. The lawsuit contends that instead of conducting a raid, the government should have sought consent from Trump, notified his attorneys, and pursued cooperation through non-enforcement means.
Epstein, representing Trump in this matter, stated that the former president is standing up for himself and all Americans who believe in the rule of law and government accountability. The lawsuit seeks to highlight what Trump's team perceives as a departure from standard procedures in handling disputes over presidential records.
The legal action also points to Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissing a case brought by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump as further evidence of alleged impropriety in the DOJ's actions.
The Department of Justice has consistently denied that politics played a role in the investigation of Trump's handling of classified documents. Special counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Garland to oversee the case, defended the indictment last summer after a grand jury handed it down.
Smith stated:
We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone. Adhering to and applying the laws is what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more, nothing less.
The DOJ's position has been that the investigation and subsequent actions were based solely on the application of the law, regardless of the subject's political status or affiliations.
This new lawsuit adds another layer to the complex legal situation surrounding Trump as he continues his bid for the 2024 presidential nomination. The former president has faced multiple indictments and legal challenges since leaving office, consistently framing them as politically motivated attacks.
The $100 million lawsuit against the DOJ could potentially impact the ongoing appeal by Smith's team following Judge Cannon's dismissal of the classified documents case. It also comes at a time when Trump is battling legal issues on multiple fronts, including cases related to the January 6th Capitol riot and election interference allegations.
Trump's planned $100 million lawsuit against the DOJ over the Mar-a-Lago raid represents a significant escalation in his legal counteroffensive. The suit alleges political persecution and improper conduct by top DOJ officials. It comes amid ongoing criminal cases against Trump and could impact how disputes over presidential records are handled in the future. The legal battle continues to unfold as Trump pursues another presidential run, with potential ramifications for both the legal and political landscapes.
Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone stunned the world once again at the 2024 Paris Olympics, shattering her own world record in the women’s 400m hurdles.
In a dazzling display of athleticism, McLaughlin-Levrone defended her gold medal, clocking in at 50.37 seconds, a new world record, The Western Journal reported.
The 25-year-old American hurdler celebrated her birthday just a day before her race and continues redefining her sport. McLaughlin-Levrone’s victory on Thursday at the Stade de France marked her second consecutive Olympic gold in the event, but this time, she did so in front of a live audience. The 2020 Tokyo Games, where she won her first gold, were held without spectators due to the pandemic.
Setting a new standard in women’s athletics, McLaughlin-Levrone trimmed an impressive 0.28 seconds off her previous world record. Her performance left her competitors, including her U.S. teammate Anna Cockrell and the Netherlands’ Femke Bol, trailing by over a second and a half. The Olympian’s dominance in the event is a testament to her relentless hard work and dedication.
“It’s amazing to see our sport continue to grow, for people to want to watch the 400m hurdles,” McLaughlin-Levrone said after her historic win. “Just a lot of hard work put in this year. I knew it was going to be a tough race. An amazing competition all the way around.”
This race, however, was about more than just winning for McLaughlin-Levrone. Throughout her career, she has been vocal about the role her faith plays in her success. Thursday’s race was no exception. Before every race, McLaughlin-Levrone offers a prayer to God, seeking to be a vessel through which His glory is revealed, no matter the outcome.
McLaughlin-Levrone’s faith is not just a part of her private life; it is the cornerstone of her public persona. She is clear in her intentions to use her platform to glorify God, and her latest Olympic performance was another opportunity to do just that.
“I have a platform and I want to use it to glorify Him,” McLaughlin-Levrone shared after her record-breaking run. “Whenever I step onto the track, it’s always the prayer of God: ‘Let me be the vessel in which You’re glorified, whatever the result is.’”
Her ability to combine elite athletic performance with a deep sense of purpose is what sets McLaughlin-Levrone apart. This balance of physical prowess and spiritual grounding has made her one of the most compelling figures in sports today.
For McLaughlin-Levrone, this victory was about more than just a medal or a record. It was about fulfilling a purpose higher than herself. As she reflected on her win, she expressed gratitude not only for the opportunity to compete at such a high level but also for the chance to use her success as a testament to her faith.
“Grateful to God for this opportunity, grateful to be celebrating my 25th birthday like this,” she said. “It was yesterday, just a super opportunity, you can’t even imagine.”
In her view, the 2024 Paris Olympics were her first “real” Olympics. The presence of a live audience after the empty stands of Tokyo added a new dimension to her experience and underscored the significance of her achievement.
As the Paris Olympics draw to a close, Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone’s performance will be remembered for the record she set and the message she sent. Through her unmatched talent and unwavering faith, she has shown that success on the track is only part of the story. For her, it is the glory she brings to God that truly matters.
Google has acknowledged censoring search results related to an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, attributing the issue to an outdated algorithm.
As reported by The Western Journal, Google's counsel admitted during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee that the company had blocked searches for terms related to an assassination attempt against Donald Trump.
The counsel attributed this censorship to an outdated autocomplete algorithm designed to prevent searches related to political violence. The issue has raised significant concerns among lawmakers and the public about Google's role in moderating online content, particularly in the context of the ongoing presidential election.
The testimony before the Judiciary Committee brought to light other issues with Google’s search functionalities, including a bug that prevented searches for "President Donald" from showing accurate results. Instead, some users were shown news about Trump’s rival, Kamala Harris, when searching for Trump.
Google acknowledged these issues and stated that they were corrected after being reported, but the incident has nevertheless cast a shadow on the company’s credibility.
In a letter to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan expressed concern over these issues. The letter highlighted potential federal government coercion or collusion with tech companies, including Google, to moderate online content that could influence public opinion or the outcome of elections. Jordan’s letter underscores the urgency of ensuring such issues do not recur, especially during an election season.
In response to these concerns, Google's counsel provided the committee with non-public information about the search and autocomplete issues and offered a private briefing. However, the explanations provided during this briefing have been met with skepticism by some, particularly on social media, where users have questioned the sincerity and effectiveness of Google's response to the issues.
The most alarming admission during the testimony was that predictions for the assassination attempt against Trump should have appeared in search results but didn’t due to the outdated violence protections in the autocomplete algorithm. This issue, along with the bug that prevented Trump’s name from appearing in certain searches, has fueled accusations of bias and possible election interference by Google.
Google’s counsel acknowledged that while the company strives to provide accurate and unbiased information, bugs and unexpected issues could still occur. The council emphasized that Google takes these issues seriously and is committed to addressing them promptly when they arise. However, the revelations have done little to alleviate concerns, particularly among those who view the tech giant as having too much influence over the flow of information.
In his letter, Jordan demanded assurances from Google that similar issues would not happen again. He questioned how the American public could trust that such accidental or intentional incidents wouldn’t recur, especially given the stakes involved in a presidential election. This demand for accountability has added pressure on Google to demonstrate that it can manage its platform fairly and transparently.
Google has stated that the bugs affecting searches related to Trump were fixed as soon as they were brought to the company's attention. The company reiterated that its algorithms are designed to avoid displaying harmful or misleading content but admitted that these safeguards sometimes lead to unexpected results.
Despite these reassurances, the incident has amplified existing concerns about the power and influence of big tech companies in shaping public discourse.
In conclusion, Google’s recent admissions regarding its search algorithms have raised significant concerns about potential bias and election interference. The company’s response, while acknowledging the issues and committing to fixing them, has not fully assuaged fears about the influence of big tech on the democratic process. The House Judiciary Committee, led by Jim Jordan, will likely continue its oversight of these matters as the election draws nearer, with the American public watching closely.
Former President Donald Trump has initiated a significant legal challenge against the Department of Justice (DOJ), filing a notice of intent to sue for $100 million over the August 2022 raid on his Mar-A-Lago estate.
According to a report by The Western Journal, Trump's legal team alleges that the DOJ violated established protocols and engaged in political persecution during the raid.
The notice gives the Justice Department 180 days to respond before the case proceeds to a U.S. District Court in Florida.
Trump's attorney, Daniel Epstein, stated that this action is not just about defending the former president but about standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and government accountability.
Epstein claims that there is clear evidence of the FBI failing to follow protocols during the raid, suggesting an improper purpose behind the action.
He argues that if the government is allowed to target individuals they dislike, violate their privacy, and breach protocols for personal motives rather than justice, it sets a dangerous precedent for all Americans.
The filing against the Justice Department accuses Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray of acting in "clear dereliction of constitutional principles" and with "clear intent to engage in political persecution."
Trump's legal team contends that the raid and subsequent indictment should never have been approved, as the established protocol for dealing with former presidents involves non-enforcement means to obtain records.
According to the filing, Garland and Wray deviated from standard procedures by not seeking consent from Trump, notifying his lawyers, or seeking cooperation before conducting the raid.
Trump's legal team characterizes the classified documents case as "very accurate and precise election interference." They argue that the entire special counsel investigation was aimed at interfering with Trump's ability to run for office again.
The filing also references a recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents immunity for their official actions. Based on this ruling and Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel's appointment violated the appointments clause, Trump's attorneys argue that there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment.
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has thrown out the classified document case, citing the improper appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith. The Justice Department is currently appealing this decision.
The lawsuit filed by Trump against the DOJ marks a significant escalation in his legal battles. It challenges the legitimacy of the Mar-A-Lago raid and subsequent legal actions taken against him. The former president's team argues that the DOJ's actions were politically motivated and violated established protocols for dealing with former presidents. As this case unfolds, it may have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the executive branch and law enforcement agencies and for the conduct of investigations involving high-profile political figures.
The Biden-Harris administration has taken the rare step of pausing its CHNV immigration program, citing fears of widespread fraud after a comprehensive report by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) highlighted serious irregularities.
According to the Western Journal, the suspension follows a USCIS report revealing significant issues, including fraudulent Social Security Numbers, repeated addresses, and identical responses across thousands of applications.
The decision to pause the program stems from alarming findings in the USCIS report. The report uncovered various methods of fraud, including the use of fake Social Security Numbers—some belonging to deceased individuals—repeated phone numbers and duplicate addresses across multiple applications.
Notably, out of the 1,000 most frequently used sponsor Social Security Numbers, 24 were associated with deceased individuals. The report also highlighted that some applicants provided clearly false Social Security Numbers, such as "111111111" and "123456789."
In addition to these fraudulent numbers, the report identified that 100 specific addresses were used on over 19,000 immigration applications. Furthermore, numerous applications were submitted from unlikely locations, including mobile homes, warehouses, and storage units.
The USCIS report also revealed an alarming pattern of repetition across the data provided by applicants. For example, one phone number appeared on over 2,000 forms submitted by 200 different sponsors. Similarly, a single parolee phone number was used in 626 different forms, corresponding to 238 different last names and 142 different addresses.
Such patterns of repeated information have raised serious concerns about the integrity of the application process. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the suspension of the program is a precautionary measure to review and address these issues.
A DHS representative stated that the pause was made "out of an abundance of caution" and emphasized that the fraud appears to be concentrated in sponsor data rather than the individuals seeking entry into the United States.
Republican Representative Mark Green, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, expressed strong criticism of the CHNV program. He argued that the findings of the USCIS report validate previous warnings about the risks associated with the program.
Rep. Mark Green criticized the Biden-Harris administration for inadequate vetting in the CHNV program, asserting it was created more to prevent political backlash than to ensure a secure immigration process. He called for its immediate termination due to the risks of fraudulent data compromising national security.
In response to the USCIS findings, DHS announced that it has mechanisms in place to detect and prevent fraud within its immigration processes. Where fraud is identified, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is tasked with investigating and, if necessary, making criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Department of Homeland Security has temporarily paused the CHNV program, which permits entry to the U.S. for nationals from four countries, until it can implement the necessary safeguards following a review.
The Biden-Harris administration has halted a program designed to fast-track immigration from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, known as the CHNV program, due to concerns of widespread fraud involving identical answers on parole applications and the use of fake Social Security numbers. A report by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uncovered that the same answer was used on over 10,000 applications, and numerous applications had repeated phone numbers and addresses. Despite the pause, the Department of Homeland Security emphasized that the issue lies with the sponsors, not the immigrants, and plans to resume the program with enhanced safeguards.
Evidence has emerged in Hunter Biden's federal tax trial, raising serious questions about his past business dealings and the U.S. government’s response.
According to Conservative Brief, Hunter Biden is accused of receiving payments from a Romanian businessman in exchange for influencing U.S. policy.
The trial, which is taking place in California, is centered around allegations that Biden accepted payments from foreign governments, including Romania, in violation of U.S. law. This case has drawn attention to a whistleblower testimony from last year that accused the Department of Justice of allowing crucial evidence to lapse under the statute of limitations, shielding Biden from prosecution.
Federal prosecutors are set to introduce evidence indicating that Hunter Biden and his associates received payments from Romanian businessman Gabriel Popoviciu, purportedly to influence U.S. policy and public opinion to benefit Popoviciu, particularly in relation to a criminal case against him in Romania.
This evidence supports allegations made by whistleblowers who testified before Congress last year, claiming that the Department of Justice possessed substantial proof of Biden's misconduct but failed to prosecute before the statute of limitations expired.
Tristan Leavitt, President of Empower Oversight, has publicly voiced his disappointment with the Department of Justice, accusing it of failing to enforce the law. His sentiments reflect those of IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who asserted that the investigation into Biden was deliberately stalled, resulting in the statute of limitations running out.
The government’s legal team has clarified that they do not intend to merely reference allegations during the trial. Instead, they will present concrete evidence showing that Biden and his associates received compensation to alter U.S. policy. This strategy aims to establish a clear link between the payments and the intended political influence.
The Romanian businessman, Gabriel Popoviciu, who was under investigation in his home country, reportedly sought Biden’s assistance to end the investigation. Popoviciu was eventually sentenced to seven years in prison in Romania in 2017 for real estate fraud.
The case also revealed concerns about the potential political fallout of Hunter Biden’s father, President Joe Biden. Business Associate 1, who was involved with Biden in this venture, expressed worries about the political implications of their actions.
These concerns were significant enough to prompt the formation of a management services company, which was allegedly used to disguise payments from Popoviciu.
In a related development, Hunter Biden’s legal team requested in July that any evidence of “alleged improper political influence” be excluded from the trial. They argued that such evidence could prejudice the jury and distract from the primary issues at hand.
Despite this request, federal prosecutors have made it clear that they will present the evidence of payments from Popoviciu. This evidence is crucial to establishing that Biden’s actions were not merely unethical but potentially illegal under U.S. law.
Hunter Biden is set to face a federal tax trial in California, where evidence will reportedly show he and his associates received payments from a Romanian businessman to influence U.S. policy. This case aligns with whistleblower testimony suggesting that the Department of Justice had evidence of Hunter's involvement in crimes but did not act before the statute of limitations expired. The evidence suggests these activities were intended to affect U.S. policy and public opinion, particularly concerning investigations in Romania.