Mark Levin interviewed Schweizer on his Sunday show, and the author discussed how the Vermont socialist became [...]]]> Peter Schweizer’s new book, Profiles in Corruption, spends around 70 pages reporting on the Biden family business of using government to become rich as reported here recently, but Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is no slouch either.

Mark Levin interviewed Schweizer on his Sunday show, and the author discussed how the Vermont socialist became a millionaire by utilizing government schemes available to members of Congress and those in other powerful positions.

One Washington scam that Schweizer explained centered around media purchases. The person who acts as a candidate’s agent for buying media gets a commission —15 percent is standard — which can amount to a hefty sum in these days of big spending for campaigns. So Bernie made his wife Jane his media buyer to keep the money in the family.

He also created a job for her when he was mayor of Burlington with no authorization or budget from the city council. It’s good to be the king.

These and other government-manipulating strategies for amassing cash are how the socialist man of the people got wealthy.

Of course, such enriching opportunities are not available for ordinary citizens.

MARK LEVIN: We have Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist he’s really an out-of-the-closet hardcore socialist when you look at his career. He hasn’t done anything in the private sector that’s been productive, but he’s a multi-millionaire.

PETER SCHWEIZER: That’s right, and it’s interesting; you’re right, he describes himself and his policies are certainly hard core socialist. If you look at his investment for portfolio — this will surprise a lot of people — he’s invested in Fortune 500 companies. He’s not invested in renewable energy companies or socially responsible investment funds. And when you look at his public career since the 1980s as mayor of Burlington, and then a congressman, and then the senator and presidential candidate — it all revolves around bringing money into the family.

So take back to Burlington, Vermont, he is the mayor. One of the first things he does, Mark, as he says I’m gonna hire my girlfriend and put her on the city payroll. Jane Sanders, who’s now his wife was put on the payroll, and you go back and look at the local press accounts and you realize the city council said wait a minute: you’re giving her a job that we didn’t actually create, we haven’t funded and if this position were to exist you never advertised it. You never gave other people the opportunity to to take it, or to apply for it and Bernie just blew him off. So Jane had a paid job throughout his tenure.

When he ran for Congress, he discovered a secret that a lot of Washington insiders know, Mark, which is you can make a lot of money doing media buys for political campaigns. So for example, if you were a candidate for the United States Senate and you wanted to buy a million dollars in advertising and I did that purchase, I would get the million dollars, but the standard practice is I would get to keep about 15 percent as a commission.

She’d make a lot of money doing media buys, so what does Bernie Sanders do? He’s running for Congress in Vermont — he makes his wife Jane responsible for media buys, and we estimate based on the numbers . . . they set up an LLC which they registered at their home in Vermont and the owners were his wife Jane Sanders and their two children.

So it’s quite a cozy setup; so we estimate they probably made $150,000 off of that arrangement — he’s quite the crony capitalist. The big question mark that we don’t know the answer to but we have suspicions comes with the 2016 presidential race. We’re not talking about small media buys now, we’re talking about his campaign spending $83 million on media buys which means the commission is somewhere around $12 million. So who did the $83 million dollars? Where did that $83 million flow?

It went through this company called Old Town Media. Now you look up Old Town Media. It has no website; it has no footprint. It’s registered to a suburban Virginia home on a cul-de-sac. Then you find out who owns this entity — it happens to be two individuals who worked with Jane Sanders doing media buys when Bernie was running for Congress. Now Jane was asked about this by a progressive reporter actually from Vermont during the 2016 election — what did she know about Old Town Media? Did she have any involvement in it?

According the reporter, she hung up the phone.

So the question is, where did that money go? It certainly fits the pattern that we’ve seen with Bernie Sanders who for decades, for about 36 years by our accounts used the phrase, “Our politics should not be dominated by billionaires and millionaires.”

About three years ago he dropped the reference to millionaires because he’s now one, and I think the the big surprise that a lot of supporters will find is this is an individual who talks about socialism certainly has not conducted himself, his investments and and his family life not being interested in each other.

LEVIN: That’s typical of oligarchs in Russia. In these other totalitarian regimes and whether they’re communist or fascist or whatever, it’s one thing for the people, right, but it’s another thing for them, so this is an area the media and Bernie Sanders’ opponent should really pursue, nail it down.

SCHWEIZER: Yeah, absolutely it should, and you know the other thing that comes through in all this, Mark, is if you look in the Vermont press and a lot of the interviews, Bernie Sanders does not dislike or hate all rich people. He only dislikes and hates rich people who are opposed to his agenda.

So you find that there are very prominent wealthy people in Vermont who have vested interests who he goes to bat for all the time at the expense of local people. For example, there’s a gentleman who is creating these large-scale industrial wind farms where they put these big windmills, dozens of them, and if you live next door to it, suddenly you’ve got these huge windmills all around you.

Those landowners sue trying to stop him from building these — which side does Bernie come down on? On the side of Mr. Blittersdorf who’s doing this why because Blittersdorf backs him and is supportive of his campaigns.

Friday’s New York Times front page included an article with the newsprint title Facing Queries [...]]]> Author Peter Schweizer has been making the media rounds doing interviews on his new book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite, and his attention focused on the crooked Biden family is beginning to have an effect.

Friday’s New York Times front page included an article with the newsprint title Facing Queries About His Son, Biden Is by Turns Calm or Curt (reprinted by MSN.com). So it appears the elite media is pulling back its support for the 2020 candidate.

What’s notable about the Biden clan is how many family members rode the gravy train to riches on the basis of the name and influence. Schweizer has dug up people beyond Hunter that most Americans have never heard of.

Below, the Biden family alleged crooks include (left to right) Joe’s brother James, son Hunter, son-in-law Howard Krein, brother Frank and sister Valerie Biden Owens.

Lou Dobbs recently interviewed the author to get a taste of the Biden family business. Dobbs seemed amazed and almost amused by the brazen arrogance of the clan.

Spare audio:

Schweizer noted how atypical it is for so many family members to be engaged in corruption-based crime:

“It’s remarkable. I mean the Biden family, you’ve got five family members involved. I call them the Biden Five; they’re like the Jackson Five but they don’t sing, it’s corruption, and I’ve never seen this before. You know we’ve talked many times, Lou, on your show about corruption involving Democrats, Republicans. Maybe there’s one family member, maybe there’s two. . .

I’ve never run across one that has five, and on top of the fact that there are five involved, it’s like a corrupt United Nations. You’ve got Hunter Biden doing deals in Ukraine, doing deals in China with state actors, corrupt old guards; you got the brother James who’s with this construction firm that’s set up by a family friend. They get the contract to build a hundred thousand homes in Iraq they get contracts to do work for the State Department’s. Then you’ve got this other brother Frank meeting with the Costa Rican president for these energy deals, and of course he has no background in energy. It just goes on and on.”

For more details on the family members, see Schweizer’s New York Post article, How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections.

The book ranked #1 on Amazon 10 days before release, surely based on Schweizer’s reputation as a thorough investigator. It won’t help Joe Biden’s faltering campaign, that’s for sure. Other Democrats get criticism as well: the table of contents shows chapters on Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

In a September 20 segment, Carlson examined the Google response to President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” (a temporary measure which was [...]]]> Good on Tucker Carlson for keeping up his investigation of Big Tech’s manipulation of what appears on people’s computer screens with the aim of affecting American elections and electing liberals like Hillary Clinton.

In a September 20 segment, Carlson examined the Google response to President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” (a temporary measure which was quite popular among GOP voters according to a Rasmussen poll). But Google employees thought that shutting the door even a little on Western Civilization’s historic enemy was just mean.

Remember that under the Obama administration, Muslim immigrants got priority, so it’s only fair for President Trump to chill in response (Chart: Obama Admin. On Pace to Issue One Million Green Cards to Migrants from Majority-Muslim Countries, Breitbart.com, June 17, 2016).

Much of this criticism is based on the work of psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein), who has penetrated Big Tech’s propensity to manipulate in favor of liberal causes and politicians. One of the worst secret influencers is what Google search turns up. See Tucker’s interview with Dr. Epstein here: Big Tech Threatens to Secretly Undermine American Elections.

Back to Thursday’s report:

Spare audio:

TUCKER CARLSON: Tonight, we have a development in our ongoing exclusive investigation into the behavior of Google. There are new emails first obtained by this show.

Now Google, as you know, is the most powerful company in the history of the world. Virtually all human information flows through its software. And for that reason, Google shapes much of how the world understands reality.

At the heart of Google’s business is its search engine which has a virtual monopoly on search in this country and others. Google search succeeds because it is blindingly efficient but also because it is perceived as honest. When you search for a term on Google, the most popular results come to the top. The process is straightforward and democratic: that’s what most people think. That’s how it’s perceived, and that’s why the world trusts Google.

But what if Google was lying to you? What if the results that you got were secretly weighted to get you to vote a certain way, to believe a certain thing? That would affect a lot of people and a lot of votes.

In fact, it would be impossible to have a real democracy under circumstances like that. A small number of incredibly rich people would be in charge of everything including your perceptions.

Well that is a major concern for all of us because Google is a very political company. We recently showed you email evidence of the Google effort to collude with a left-wing group in support of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Now tonight, we have internal documents that show that Google employees discussed corrupting the company’s search engine to push propaganda on hundreds of millions of unsuspecting users.

Here’s what happened. Shortly after taking office, President Trump issued his now-famous travel ban. Almost immediately after that, Google employees began plotting ways to undermine the President’s Executive Order. On January 29th, a Google Product Marketing Manager named Mackenzie Thomas sent an email to a group of fellow employees. “There is a large brainstorm going on throughout the marketing org” she wrote, brainstorming about how to respond to Trump’s order.

Among Thomas’ ideas was “To actively counter algorithmically biased results for search terms such as Islam, Iran, Mexico, Latino and so forth.” In other words, Google employees wanted to alter the search results to make them more positive in certain cases for political reasons. Thomas also suggested promoting links for making donations to organizations fighting the travel ban.

This, of course, would be completely dishonest and unethical behavior. But Thomas’ colleagues at Google seemed to approve of it strongly. Product Manager Rami Banna, for example, replied this way. “We’re absolutely in, Mackenzie, anything you need. We’ll put together a list of orgs with Meryl and HL team.”

Another employee named Stacey Chen added that group she thought Google should promote included the ACLU, the Immigration Defense Project, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Immigration Law Center. All of those groups were at the time agitating against the President’s immigration ban.

Even at least one person on the chain seemed to realize how dangerous and out of the ordinary this conversation was. A Google employee called Clement Wolf commented that he was “very much in favor of Google stepping up” but was wondering “How partisan we want to be on this? To the extent of my knowledge, we’d be breaching precedent if we only gave highlights access to organizations that support a certain view.”

We contacted Google about these remarkable emails and the reply to us is here in full.

“These emails were just a brainstorm of ideas, none of which were ever implemented. Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology – not in the current campaign season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration. Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

Left unanswered by Google was why anyone would believe that statement for a second. Nor did Google say anything about the employees on that email chain. Presumably, they still work at Google which is remarkable. If you ran a bank and caught your tellers brainstorming about how to rob the vault, would they still work for you? Remember that Google fired an engineer called James Damore last summer almost instantly.

The CEO flew back from family vacation to fire him. Why? Because Damore was caught expressing mildly conservatives ideas in a private memo. Here, Google employees are plotting to subvert our entire public conversation secretly. But that’s fine with Google. It shouldn’t be fine with any of us or with the U.S. Congress. Google executives are scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill next week. The scheduled topic is privacy. But it would be nice if at least one elected representative asked about this because it’s much scarier than anything Russia ever attempted.

Peter Schweizer wrote “Clinton Cash.” He now has a fantastic new documentary called “The Creepy Line” about big tech and he joins us tonight. Are you surprised by this?

PETER SCHWEIZER: Not really. It’s just further confirmation that Google has been cooking the books as it relates to search.

And you’re absolutely right. I mean this would be like a company having a brainstorming session on how we’re going to fiddle with the books in accounting. Then you’re going to step back and say “No, we were just having a brainstorming session.”

It speaks to the culture of the company. And the culture of the company is they are prepared to put their thumb on the scale and shift the debate in favor of the direction that they want to go.

CARLSON: But this is so corrupt that it’s — I was stunned by it, and I was worried that these emails were not authentic because it’s such a big . . . so search is the core of Google’s business. It’s many different things, Google, but basically, it’s a search engine. It was built on the back of one. And the promise has always been that they’re not lying to you. But they are.

SCHWEIZER: That’s right. And this is really the third strike as far as I’m concerned. The first strike, of course, is the commercial search. When travel websites and people like Yelp were complaining that they were, you know, tilting the algorithm, you know, against them to others, Google said “Absolutely not. We would never do that.”

We now know the Federal Trade Commission, the EU, and others have looked at this and said Google was fiddling with the algorithm. The second strike as far as I’m concerned was the work done by Dr. Robert Epstein which shows clearly in 2016 that search was tilted to favor Hillary Clinton. This is strike three. It shows that the culture of the company is such that they’re very happy having a free and open conversation about manipulating the algorithm on a highly political subject.

CARLSON: But I don’t understand. I mean so people go to jail for violating our campaign finance laws because they put an extra ad on some cable channel nobody watches. This is the most powerful company in the world.

How can we have a democracy in a country where Google can just get whoever it wants elected by lying to us through the search function?

SCHWEIZER: It’s a great example, Tucker, of regulations and campaign finance laws not keeping up at all with where we are in technology. Nobody could see when we pass laws about in-kind contributions to campaigns from companies that something like this would happen.

But this is the ultimate, the ultimate campaign contribution. This is not like, you know, Exxon giving gasoline to a political campaign. This is a company secretly tipping the scales in favor of candidates or causes or beliefs that they have. It’s done in secret. We don’t know how extensive it’s happening. And 80 to 90 percent of search in the world is basically done through Google, so they have complete dominance in this area.

CARLSON: And the Congress does nothing. And I can think of at least one Republican senator who I believe has been bought off by Google. I don’t think he’s alone. At some point it might be worth naming who those people are. Peter, great to see you.

SCHWEIZER: Thanks, Tucker.