正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
“𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤” ~ Justice Paul Smith AM A Supreme Court of Queensland decision handed down on Friday, 3 October 2025 has made history, in the worst of ways. His Honour 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐌 has permanently stopped—or stayed—the prosecution of an Australian taxpayer and citizen... show more
40 条评论
Judgement:
Important from @Grok
@Peter_Fox59 Accountability rarely applies to institutional corrupt like this. Are political and corporate landscape is full of it. And people wonder why there is no faith in the integrity of ‘the system’ - it’s ’the system’ that is criminal. Robodebt 2.0.
Great support for the poor unjustly accused woman Richard. It seems you opened a small crack that runs deeper than we could have imagined. I don’t know how you do it, but keep up the good fight you absolute legend! 💪
If a bent copper is identified, every case they participated in (& more) comes under scrutiny Why not @ato_gov_au operatives? #NACC #Robodebt
It’s a shocker - well done on supporting Julie. The Bureaucrats are really out of control & the endless spend of taxpayers’ money in pursuing people or forcing people through the courts is such excessive waste. They’re not in the real world.
The Australian Taxation Office is registered with Blackrock. They were also never gazetted, they are unlawful and stealing our money through extortion.
Julie Clark’s case is similar to mine. I need a judge like Justice Paul Smith in the NSW Supreme Court to make a fair and correct ruling.
It's almost like there's something rotten with the #ATO If only there was some sort of clue that this sort of thing has being going on for a while #auspol
Great work mate
thanks buddy.
I hope she sues this shit out of the ATO. Are government and public service our out of control! They are there to serve, seems to have been forgotten. Gangsters!
Hopefully more Aussie small business owners that have recently been antagonised and bullied by the ATO step up too.
Looking at him, looks ex AFP or Intelligence. Ones who are used to being unaccountable battering rams fixing up targets they want to blackmail or control with false evidence, or targeting a nuisance the government want silenced Probably wants to sieze patent for weight loss drug
Anthony Rains now in the intelligence department? Thank you your Honour and deservedly so Justice Paul Smith AM, Justice is served and has been seen to have been done Take a good hard look Anthony Albanese.
AFL Richard 👊🏽
@CheadlerobRob 😆
I think he might be “John Smith”.
?
A close resemblance to my case.
A case for a private prosecution of the commissioner and everyone else involved.
Sounds like the bloke needs 'reining' in Richard...
The problem goes far beyond one isolated ATO investigator. There are more who are involved in the same misconduct. The net needs to be widened out if you want to get rid of the rot.
Are there people wrongly in prison in Australia? YES. Most definitely #DavidMcBride is another example of a compromised government imprisoning someone wrongfully for doing his duty in the public interest. Then theres Dan Duggen. I know theres other examples of political prisoners
Why they won't do anything: They all have dirt files on one another. Pollies fear retaliation by the public service. Exposing this scandal could reveal several others.
Thank you @Richard_D_Boyle for your persistence and bravery in this matter.
The circle of injustice. Trust no one.
The ATO needs to be investigated! Disgusting
Damn straight. ⚖️
@DavidGLongmuir Illuminate
Sounds like rains is a spook if he gets no disciplinary action Intelligence agents get inserted into every niche where power can be leveraged see @ColonelTowner Research #OperationGladio
Crooked government office in a highly corrupted country, perfectly normal.
Different issue, but Dan Duggan has been in prison for years, & not charged. Who cares apart from a few?
bullying .. would you agree @JasonClareMP !! G'Day
Is she a sovcit??
No.
@kezza512 What is a sovcit?
@Richard_D_Boyle Sovereign citizen.
@Richard_D_Boyle Ahh of course. At first i thought Soviet Citizen lol Made no sense
@Richard_D_Boyle Someone posted that she is not but I heard in conversations with Richard Fidler & Ariel Bogle about her new book Conspiracy Nation: Exposing the Dangerous World of Australian Conspiracy Theories a name like that. Apparently they are choking our legal system with litigation.
![The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)
![Why Did Jack Smith ignore Biden family scandals when he was head of DOJs Public Integrity Section, tasked with investigating political corruption? In May 2014, the Obama/Biden White House was scrambling to deflect questions related to Hunter Biden’s new gig as a board member at Burisma, the compromised Ukrainian energy conglomerate; the news came just a few weeks after Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev and promised Ukrainian leaders that the U.S. was “ready to assist” the country’s efforts to accelerate natural gas exploration. (At the time, Burisma was Ukraine's biggest natural gas producer.) The day after Burisma issued a public statement boasting about their latest hire, White House press secretary Jay Carney ducked questions about the younger Biden during a May 13, 2014 briefing: Reporter: On another subject, Hunter Biden has now taken a position with the largest oil and gas company--holding company in Ukraine. Is there any concern about at least the appearance of a conflict there--for the Vice President’s son to take a- Carney: I would refer you to the Vice President’s office. I saw those reports. Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens and where they work does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the Vice President or President. But I would refer you to the Vice President’s office. Kendra Barkoff, a Biden spokeswoman, offered the same talking points in a terse statement to the media. “Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer. The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company." During a State Department briefing later that day, Jen Psaki smirked away one question about the vice president's son, insisting it was of no concern to the agency. Nevertheless, major news outlets here and around the world continued to raise the improper, if not brazenly pay-to-play, nature of the arrangement. “Vice President Joe Biden's youngest son Hunter Biden has joined the board of directors of Ukraine's largest oil company at a time that the U.S. is urging Ukraine to develop energy independence from Russia and just days after the vice president visited Ukraine,” ABC News reported in May 2014, noting the fortuitous timing of the announcement. “The appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst,” Adam Taylor, Washington Post foreign affairs reporter, surmised in a May 14, 2014 article. “No matter how qualified Biden is, it ties into the idea that U.S. foreign policy is self-interested. [You] have to wonder how big the salary has to be to put U.S. soft power at risk like this.” And despite Psaki’s spin, State Department officials soon after expressed concern about the “perception of a conflict of interest,” even taking those concerns to Vice President Joe Biden’s office in early 2015. But one person in official Washington seemed uninterested in the shady deal between a corrupt international gas company operating in a notoriously unstable country and America’s most troubled nepo-baby: Jack Smith. Smith—appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland last year to take over DOJs dual investigations into Donald Trump for alleged mishandling of classified documents and the events of January 6—was named chief of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, or PIN, in August 2010. Operating within the criminal division, PIN maintains broad purview over public corruption investigations on the federal, state, and local level including cases tied to “a government official…or someone associated with such an official,” according to the office’s annual report. Smith held that powerful position until February 2015—meaning Hunter Biden’s years-long board position with Burisma ultimately resulting in a $4 million windfall for the vice president’s son began right under Jack Smith’s nose. This is certainly contrary to what the public has been told about Jack Smith. The news media, “legal experts” in particular, insist Jack Smith is a no-nonsense federal prosecutor with unmatched integrity and devotion to the rule of law. Smith, according to his former DOJ colleague Andrew Weissmann, is a “consummate professional” and a “skilled and fast prosecutor who does not let the grass grow under his feet." So, what happened? How did the keen-eyed, apolitical Smith and his 30-plus lawyers miss what was happening just blocks from their DOJ offices? Perhaps Smith truly bought Burisma’s spin that the company selected Hunter based on his “expertise” in foreign policy and the law. Or perhaps Smith believed Hunter Biden when he said he would consult Burisma on matters relating to “transparency, corporate governance, and responsibility.” 😂 Maybe Smith was too busy prosecuting Republican governor Bob McDonnell and his wife at the time—a case later overturned by the Supreme Court—that he missed the international headlines of how a British government agency had seized $23 million in assets belonging to Burisma’s owner amid suspicions of money laundering the very same month Hunter was appointed to the board. Maybe Smith was just a tender heart who thought Hunter quickly turned over a new leaf. After all, Hunter had been discharged from the Naval reserves just three months before the Burisma appointment was announced. Hunter’s misadventures were among the worst kept secrets in Washington but maybe Smith was still reeling from his unsuccessful prosecution of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards to pay attention to Biden family gossip. And it wasn’t just the Burisma gig that somehow evaded Smith’s attention; Hunter made his overseas business dealings well known. He, along with fellow nepo-baby Christopher Heinz, stepson of then-Senator John Kerry, launched Rosemont Seneca in 2009. “Over the next seven years, as both Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities secured a series of exclusive deals often with those same foreign governments,” investigative reporter Peter Schweizer wrote in his 2018 book. (Schweizer also noted that the private-equity firm did not open an office in New York City, the financial capital of the world, but in Washington, D.C., “just two miles from both Joe Biden’s office in the White House and his residence at the Naval Observatory.”) Multiple deals were cut as Smith led the government’s most powerful “public corruption” unit. And some of the most lucrative arrangements were with Chinese businesses tied to the Chinese Communist Party, partnerships that just happened to coincide with Hunter’s trips to China with his father. “[The 2013 trip to China] was a triumph for Hunter, who walked away with his first big deal in China—the Bohai Harvest Rosemont investment partnership,” Miranda Devine wrote in her 2021 book, “Laptop From Hell.” Devine explained the deal was consummated on December 16, 2013, “twelve days after he flew into Beijing on Air Force Two. Hunter officially became a shareholder and member of the BHR board.” Smith probably missed the July 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal touting the private equity partnership with the vice president’s son aimed at enriching the CCP. “The funds are raising a combination of yuan and U.S. dollars. The effort is the latest example [of] private equity pushing boundaries in an area that China hopes will help drive the country's economic transformation.” Now, perhaps there was nothing untoward about Hunter Biden’s sudden interest and success at global private equity. But surely the use of Air Force Two to conduct personal business—Hunter accompanied his father on 70 overseas trips including six trips to China on Smith’s watch—should have caught someone’s attention at DOJs “public integrity” unit, no? The answer, of course, is no. Was Smith asleep at the switch or intentionally ignorant or once again doing the dirty work of the Democratic Party? Smith have put a stop to the Biden family international shakedown nearly a decade ago--why didn't he? At what risk did he put the country by turning a blind eye to this egregious level of influence peddling in nations hostile to American interests? As Smith eagerly prepares to sign his name to another criminal indictment against Donald Trump for the events of January 6, Hunter Biden’s plea deal with Smith’s employer is falling apart along with further confirmation of how the younger Biden hauled in millions from countries such as China and Ukraine by leveraging his last name to support himself, his addictions, and his family—including, quite possibly, his father as well. All of this could have been halted in its tracks long ago. And the person primarily responsible for letting it get to this point is none other than Jack Smith.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1684638849543098368/ext_tw_video_thumb/1684635684290646016/pu/img/I4qaa2S07VyMB48v.jpg)
