Okay, we’re back live for today’s BradCast after a much-needed holiday break! Thank you for your patience. Of course, on Day One of our return, breaking news overnight shakes up our best-laid return plans. Welcome back. [Audio link to full story follows this summary.]
Among our coverage today…
- Before leaving for our Thanksgiving holiday, we had been covering, in some detail (see here and here for a start), concerns by longtime computer scientists and cybersecurity and voting systems experts about the accuracy of the results of the 2024 Presidential election. The bulk of their concerns center around unprecedented breaches of proprietary voting system software by Trump supporters in several different battleground states after the 2020 election. Systems were unlawfully breached and its software copied and distributed via the Internet to MAGA “Stop the Stealers”. The experts have been calling on [PDF] Vice President Harris to seek hand-counts or partial hand-counts in several battleground states to confirm the accuracy of reported results. While we were off last week, another expert rang in. Jacqueline Singh served as the Lead Incident Response and Threat Analyst for the 2020 Biden-Harris Campaign. Last week she penned a brief, open letter to President Biden and Vice President Harris, urging them to seek “a comprehensive forensic audit” of the 2024 results, based on a number of issues that she argues “undermine confidence in the election results.” Singh, “the cybersecurity lead” on Biden’s 2020 campaign, explains why such an audit would “not only verify the accuracy of the vote count but also identify vulnerabilities that could threaten future elections.” That said, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence that the Biden-Harris Administration, the Harris-Walz Campaign, or any other official body is even considering such a post-election audit beyond the few, minimal spot checks run by several states, much less a full or partial hand-count of paper ballots in states won by Biden in 2020 but reportedly lost by Harris in 2024.
- Over the weekend, Donald Trump appointed the fathers-in-law of his two daughters to top positions in his upcoming Administration. Tiffany‘s billionaire father-in-law Massad Boulos was named as Trump’s senior White House advisor on Arab and Middle Eastern Affairs. Trump didn’t bother to note his familial relation when making the announcement. The day before, Ivanka‘s father-in-law, convicted felon Charles Kushner (Jared‘s dad), was tapped to become the next U.S. Ambassador to France. In 2005, Kushner pleaded guilty to 16 counts of tax evasion; one count of federal witness tampering; and one count of campaign finance violation. His prosecutor, then-US Attorney (later NJ Governor and Trump ally) Chris Christie has described the case as “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he had ever prosecuted. Tune in to find out why. That said, Trump pardoned Jared’s dad and his daughter’s father-in-law for all of those crimes before leaving office in 2020.
- Also over the weekend, Trump announced plans to appoint longtime loyalist and MAGA merchandiser Kash Patel as the next FBI Director, even though the current Director, Christopher Wray (also appointed by Trump), still has three years left in his current term. The announcement suggests that Wray will be fired upon Trump taking office, unless he resigns first. FBI Directors serve 10 years in office in order to span Presidential administrations, in order to prevent the position from being politicized. Patel has vowed to weaponize federal law enforcement by bringing retribution against the so-called “deep state” and to prosecute Trump’s perceived enemies at the DoJ, FBI and the federal government as a whole. He has also vowed retribution against Trump’s perceived political enemies, promising to “go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media…who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig Presidential elections.” Whatever, dude.
- And with all of that for context by Sunday night, President Biden issued a full pardon for tax and gun charges faced by his son Hunter Biden, despite previously vowing he would not do so. In his statement announcing the pardon, the President explained (correctly) that his son was selectively targeted by a Trump-appointed prosecutor for six years. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” Biden explained. “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”
So, did Joe do the right thing in pardoning Hunter, as many are arguing today? Or did he set a troubling “precedent” for pardoning family members that Trump will subsequently abuse when he returns to the Oval Office, as others have argued? Even as they apparently failed to notice that Trump already did that when he was in office the first time, issuing pardons to his daughter’s father-in-law and dozens of other personal cronies.
Listeners ring in on all of the above on today’s BradCast…
(Snail mail support to “Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028” always welcome too!)
|
(Comments are now closed.)