Authored by Chris Menahan via Information Liberation,

A black woman who sparked a nationwide manhunt by claiming she was kidnapped in Alabama by a white man with “orange hair” admitted through her lawyer on Monday that she made it all up.

From The Independent, “Carlee Russell claimed she was kidnapped by a man with orange hair. It was all a lie”:

Carlethia “Carlee” Nichole Russell seemed to vanish on 13 July after calling 911 to report she had seen a toddler walking on the side of Interstate 459 in Alabama.

The 25-year-old told dispatch she stopped her car to check on the child, and called a family member before losing contact, according to the Hoover Police Department.

By the time officers arrived five minutes later, Ms Russell had seemingly disappeared, with her car engine still running, and the toddler was nowhere to be found.

Law enforcement and family members mounted a desperate search for the missing woman and pleaded with the public for help.

Then just over 48 hours later, police were notified that Ms Russell had returned home on foot.

She told detectives that she had been kidnapped by a white man with “orange hair”, and held captive in a semi-truck trailer and house before escaping.

However, less than two weeks after making headlines for a harrowing tale of disappearance, child neglect, and kidnapping, the Alabama woman admitted on 24 July it was all a lie.

NBC News reported that police said “Russell told them she was forced into an 18-wheeler truck and taken to a home where a man and a woman told her to get undressed and then took photos of her.”

The Independent continues:

She told detectives she was placed in a car, and was able to escape and flee into woods and came out near her home.

Detectives noted she had a minor injury in her lip, and a torn shirt. They also found $107 in cash tucked in her right sock.

“Out of respect for Carlee and her family, detectives did not press for additional information in this interview, and made plans to speak with her in detail after giving her time to rest,” Mr Derzis said following her return.

The Secret Service analysed her phone and computers, and found internet searches that are “very relevant to this case,” Mr Derzis said.

On July 11, Ms Russell searched: “Do you have to pay for amber alert or search.”

On the day of her alleged abduction, she searched “how to take money from a register without being caught”. She also searched for a one-way bus ticket from Birmingham to Nashville departing that day, Mr Derzis said.

She searched for Taken, a 2008 thriller about an abduction starring Liam Neeson.

“There were other searches on Carlee’s phone that appear to shed some light on her mindset, but out of respect to her privacy we will not be releasing the content of those searches at this time,” the police chief said.

On Sunday, Ms Russell’s boyfriend Thomar Latrell Simmons claimed that she had barely survived her ordeal after being kidnapped.

“She was literally fighting for her life for 48 hours, so until she’s physically & mentally stable again she is not able to give any updates or whereabouts on her kidnapper at this very moment,” Mr Simmons wrote.

{…] “There was no kidnapping on Thursday, July 13. My client did not see a baby on the side of the road,” according to a statement from Ms Russell’s lawyer. “My client apologizes for her actions to this community, the volunteers who were searching for her, to the Hoover Police Department and other agencies as well, as to her friends and family.”

“My client did not see a baby on the side of the road,” the statement continued. “My client did not leave the Hoover area when she was identified as a missing person. My client did not have any help in this incident, but this was a single act done by herself.”

The Alabama woman asked the public for forgiveness and prayers as she continues to “address her issues.”

Police have yet to say whether Russell will face charges for filing a false police report but her lawyer said “he is expecting charges to be filed against her,” The Independent reports.

Perhaps instead the state should pay her to rest?

Initial jobless claims were expected to rise modestly last week – after hitting 2-moth lows the prior week – but instead they tumbled further to 221k (the lowest since Feb 2023)

Source: Bloomberg

Non-seasonally-adjusted claims plunged from 6-month highs to 2-month lows.

New York saw the biggest drop in claims, followed by California (with only Vermont seeing a rise, and that was tiny). We have never seen a distribution of states’ claims that is as skewed as this… something is afoot.

Continuing Claims also dropped to 1.69mm Americans – the first time back below 1.7mm since Jan 2023…

Source: Bloomberg

Does any of this smell like The Fed’s 500bps of hikes had any impact at all?

Orders for Durable Goods in America were expected to rise for the 4th straight month in this mornings preliminary June data and it did…bigly.

The headline orders printed a 4.7% MoM surge (almost 4x the expected 1.3% rise) – that is the biggest monthly rise in durable goods orders since July 2020.

Source: Bloomberg

Excluding transportation, orders climbed only 0.6%, which makes sense given the 69.6% surge in non-defense aircraft orders…

The 9.3% YoY rise in durable goods orders is the largest since June 2022.

The value of core capital goods orders, a proxy for investment in equipment that excludes aircraft and military hardware, increased 0.2% last month after a downwardly revised 0.5% gain in May.

Of course, this data is nominal – not adjusted for inflation – but still, does any of that sound like a disinflationary economy ‘impacted’ by 500bps of rate-hikes?

The ECB has hiked its three key interest rates by 25 basis points (the interest rate on the main refinancing operations and the interest rates on the marginal lending facility and the deposit facility will be increased to 4.25%, 4.50% and 3.75% respectively) all of which was expected; the ECB reiterated that future decisions will ensure that the key ECB interest rates “will be set at sufficiently restrictive levels” for as long as necessary to achieve a timely return of inflation to the 2% medium-term target.

More importantly, in its statement the ECB said this about its future actions:

• The Governing Council’s future decisions will ensure that the key ECB interest rates will be set at sufficiently restrictive levels for as long as necessary to achieve a timely return of inflation to the 2% medium-term target.
• The Governing Council will continue to follow a data-dependent approach to determining the appropriate level and duration of restriction.
• In particular, its interest rate decisions will continue to be based on its assessment of the inflation outlook in light of the incoming economic and financial data, the dynamics of underlying inflation, and the strength of monetary policy transmission.

Here, traders noted a small language tweak: the statement now says “decisions will ensure that the key ECB interest rates will be set at sufficiently restrictive levels for as long as necessary to achieve a timely return of inflation to the 2% medium-term target” (previously it said it would be brought to sufficiently restrictive)

Some other highlights from the statement, first on PEPP: the ECB reiterates PEPP reinvestments of the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the programme until at least the end of 2024.

As for Inflation, the ECB said it continues to decline but is still expected to remain too high for too long:

• The rate increase today reflects the Governing Council’s assessment of the inflation outlook, the dynamics of underlying inflation, and the strength of monetary policy transmission.
• The developments since the last meeting support the expectation that inflation will drop further over the remainder of the year but will stay above target for an extended period.
• While some measures show signs of easing, underlying inflation remains high overall. The past rate increases continue to be transmitted forcefully: financing conditions have tightened again and are increasingly dampening demand, which is an important factor in bringing inflation back to target.
• The Governing Council is determined to ensure that inflation returns to its 2% medium-term target in a timely manner. It therefore today decided to raise the three key ECB interest rates by 25 basis points.
• The Governing Council’s future decisions will ensure that the key ECB interest rates will be set at sufficiently restrictive levels for as long as necessary to achieve a timely return of inflation to the 2% medium-term target.

Full statement here, and here is a redline comparison to the previous statement.

Commenting on the statement, ING said that “Today’s first announcement keeps the door to further rate hikes wide open. The mention of inflation coming down but staying above target “for an extended period” does not sound as if the ECB is yet willing to stop hiking rates.”

In kneejerk reaction, the EURUSD dropped back near session lows after the ECB said that inflation will drop lower, but the move was contained and merely reversed an earlier gain.

Talk of de-dollarization has long been in the air, particularly in the lead-up to BRICS nations gathering in South Africa in August, with the question high on the agenda.

Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova on Wednesday issued a direct, provocative challenge to Washington and its dollar dominance, asserting that Moscow will work with African leaders to weaken the US dollar.

Zakharova, per remarks cited in RIA Novosti, denounced the United States’ using it as a tool for global hegemony, and as “a means of realizing its aggression.” The foreign ministry comments came just ahead of the high-level summit of African leaders set to be held in St. Petersburg at the end of this week.

African leaders have begun arriving in Russia Wednesday for what is the second Russia-Africa summit since 2019, set to kick off Thursday and go through Friday.

Proposals for ending the Ukraine conflict will be discussed, but also alternatives in the wake of the collapse of the UN-backed Black Sea Initiative grain deal. 

While President Putin is also hosting individual meetings with key head of states such as the Ethiopian and Egyptian leaders, there’s a degree of disappointment given the low attendance this year, clearly a result of the Ukraine crisis and the West’s pressure campaign and sanctions against Moscow.

The Associated Press noted that “the number of heads of states attending shrank from 43 then to 17 now because of what the Kremlin described as a crude Western pressure to discourage African nations from attending it.”

In light of this, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has highlighted “unconcealed brazen interference by the U.S., France and other states through their diplomatic missions in African countries, and attempts to put pressure on the leadership of these countries in order to prevent their active participation in the forum.”

“It’s absolutely outrageous, but it will in no way prevent the success of the summit,” Peskov told reporters.

Official delegations from #African countries are arriving to 🇷🇺 St.Petersburg to participate in the Second #Russia–#Africa Summit.#RussiaAfrica #Summit2023 pic.twitter.com/39O8yT0g7t

— Russia in South Africa 🇷🇺 (@EmbassyofRussia) July 26, 2023

However, many more countries will be represented even if not through their heads of state, with the Kremlin underscoring that 32 other African countries will send senior government officials or their ambassador for the major summit, which Putin will oversee.

Via Remix News,

The release of money is being held up due to bureaucracy and political pressure, while interest on the loans used to finance the fund has spiked dramatically…

As many as nine EU member states have yet to receive a cent from the Recovery Fund created by the European Union to provide financial aid to countries following the coronavirus pandemic.

The Recovery Fund was supposed to be a quick injection of funding for EU economies in the aftermath of the pandemic; however, just €150 billion of the €800 billion aid package has been distributed across the bloc to date, reaching just 18 countries.

In Brussels, it is increasingly heard that the implementation of some investments before the expiration of the Recovery Fund in 2026 may prove impossible.

To receive money, a country must submit a payment request to the European Commission. However, this is only possible after achieving so-called milestones for a given tranche after meeting specific investment conditions. In the absence of their fulfillment, the European Commission blocks the payment.

This happened in the case of Italy, which, according to the Commission, has problems with fulfilling commitments. Rome received two installments of funds, but a third installment was frozen by the Commission because the so-called milestones were not met.

Some EU countries have already submitted revised investment plans to the Commission, and officials in Brussels assume that others will join them in the coming weeks. The Commission promises to do everything it can to issue an assessment on their case as soon as possible.

So far, not a single euro from the Recovery Fund has been received by Poland, Germany, Hungary, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland.

“As a result of the war in Ukraine, there has been massive inflation, energy price hikes, and the cost of living for the average EU resident has increased. Meanwhile, the European Commission, in its plans concerning the Recovery Fund, did not take into account such a scenario at all,” said Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) MEP Bogdan Rzońca, a member of the European Parliament’s budget committee.

“Some of the goals that the Commission set for the EU were unachievable from the start,” he added.

In his opinion, funds should have simply been allocated to those areas that suffered the most as a result of the pandemic, for example, toward improving healthcare, fighting unemployment, and assisting businesses. “There were simple solutions, but the Commission went for unrealistic ambitions,” he said.

This is not the only trouble for Brussels. To finance the Recovery Fund, the European Commission borrowed on behalf of the EU via the capital markets. The problem now is the sharp increase in the cost of servicing these loans, which are covered by the EU budget for 2021-27.

When the fund was established, it was assumed that the average interest rate would gradually rise from 0.55 percent in 2021 to 1.15 percent in 2027. As a result, €14.9 billion was allocated in the 2021-27 budget for the repayment of interest on Recovery Fund loans.

Meanwhile, rates are significantly higher today.

This means that the €14.9 billion will be used up by the summer of 2023, more than four years ahead of the original plan.

“Simulations show that loan servicing costs will reach €34 billion for the period 2021-2026,” revealed the Commissioner for Economy Paolo Gentiloni at a recent meeting of the European Parliament budget committee.

Update (1332ET): In yet another wild turn of events, today’s court session ended with Hunter Biden’s plea deal placed on hold, and Hunter pleading not guilty for the time being.

US District Judge Maryellen Noreika said she was not ready to accept the plea deal, and has asked both sides to file additional briefs explaining the legal structure of the revised deal.

The hearing was temporarily derailed when judge Noreika said she didn’t understand what Hunter Biden could still be charged with. She asked questions that exposed a difference of understanding between Justice Department prosecutors and Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark.

“I don’t really understand the scope” of the agreement, Noreika said. She noted that Biden has had numerous foreign business dealings. At one point, she raised a hypothetical as to whether Biden could be charged as acting as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. –Bloomberg

She also called the deal federal prosecutors reached with Hunter over his gun possession offense “unusual,” and that it contains some “non-standard terms,” such as “broad immunity” from other potential charges.

“We don’t usually make diversion agreements public,” she said.

DEVELOPING:With Hunter Biden’s plea agreement torn up &his immunity from further prosecution no longer guaranteed, it potentially exposes Hunter to charges he acted as an unregistered FOREIGN AGENT,which opens up a broader foreign influencing-peddling probe of entire Biden family

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 26, 2023

Leo Wise, an assistant US attorney representing the government at the hearing, said that Biden could still be charged with a FARA violation. His statement prompted Clark to object to the scope of what Biden could still be charged with.

Noreika asked the prosecutors and defense lawyers to resolve their differences about the plea agreement and temporarily adjourned the hearing.

When the hearing resumed, Wise and Clark said they were in agreement that the non-prosecution aspects of the deal will be limited to only tax violations, drug offenses and a firearm violation during the years 2014 to 2019. Biden can still be charged for crimes outside the scope of the deal. -Bloomberg

Under the original plea agreement, Biden intended to plea guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes committed in 2017 and 2018, and would avoid prison on the gun possession charge.

As part of the conditions for Hunter’s release, he must not consume alcohol or prohibited drugs, or possess a firearm, must submit to random drug tests as required, must actively seek employment and not violate any laws.

Hunter Biden’s conditions of release include: he must not consume alcohol or prohibited drugs, or possess a firearm, must submit to random drug tests as required, must actively seek employment and not violate any laws. pic.twitter.com/bw0uFH67EI

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) July 26, 2023

The Biden DOJ and Hunter had an even sweeter secret deal than the written sweetheart deal.

They were going to end all charges against Hunter.

But they couldn’t write that down.

Too much political blowback.

And they could rebuff Congress by claiming “an ongoing investigation.”

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) July 26, 2023

*  *  *

Update (1258ET): Hunter Biden pleaded guilty in federal court on Wednesday to tax offenses, after accepting a revised, more limited plea deal with the government after the judge expressed concerns over the time frame that the original agreement covered.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers and federal prosecutors came to an agreement during the hearing to limit the plea deal to apply to only tax crimes, drug offenses and a firearm violation between the years 2014 to 2019. Under the terms of the deal, the government won’t prosecute Hunter Biden for those offenses during those years. -Bloomberg

According to prosecutors, there is still an ongoing investigation which may carry future charges outside the scope of the plea deal.

Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes, and will avoid prison charge for possessing a gun while addicted to an illegal drug.

The deal sought to cap a five-year investigation into Hunter’s tax affairs and business dealings, which federal prosecutors say Hunter failed to pay over $100,000 of income tax on at least $1.5 million in income between 2017 and 2018.

The proposed agreement has become a lightning rod for conservatives who claim the Justice Department failed to fully investigate the business dealings of the Biden family, including President Biden, and gave Hunter Biden politically favorable treatment.

On the eve of the plea hearing, House Republicans asked the judge to throw out the agreement reached with prosecutors, an unusual step of seeking to intervene in the case. Representative Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, filed a brief urging the judge to consider the testimony of two IRS workers who during a panel claimed that Hunter Biden received preferential treatment from the Justice Department, according to the filing, a copy of which was seen by Bloomberg.

And of course, nothing about Hunter operating as his family’s international bag man or selling access to his father.

*  *  *

Update (1240ET): It appears that Hunter Biden’s plea deal is back on the table, after the defense agreed to a limited agreement which covers 2014 to 2019 and only includes conduct related to tax offenses, drug use and gun possession.

Hunter will still plead guilty to tax misdemeanors for 2017 and 2018, however the agreement will also cover his tax-related matters for the preceding three years.

Both sides agree that this deal doesn’t shield Hunter from future charges.

As CNN reports;

*  *  *

Update (1200ET): Hunter Biden’s plea deal with the Justice Department fell apart on Wednesday, according to federal prosecutors and the defense. The First Son had been expected to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and for not paying federal taxes on crime.

NBC’s Tom Winters says on MSNBC the plea deal is in jeopardy after Hunter Biden’s legal team demanded the deal also cover *future* prosecution of the First Son, even if they’re not directly related to the charges filed thus far.

Obviously, the judge & prosecutors disagree. pic.twitter.com/KIf7T2PXFn

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 26, 2023

NBC’s Tom Winters notes on MSNBC that, if the differences can’t be resolved between prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s legal team, “the trial clock is on” and, as he left the courtroom, the judge was talking “as if there was no plea agreement at all.” pic.twitter.com/eSQjhW9a44

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 26, 2023

According to journalist Paul Sperry, Hunter “had hoped to convince court & media scrum after pleading that the only reason he evaded paying millions in taxes was b/c of his drug-addled grief over his brother’s death in mid-2015; however, he failed to pay hundreds thousands taxes on Burisma $ in 2014.”

DEVELOPING: Hunter Biden had hoped to convince court & media scrum after pleading that the only reason he evaded paying millions in taxes was b/c of his drug-addled grief over his brother’s death in mid-2015; however, he failed to pay hundreds thousands taxes on Burisma $ in 2014

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 26, 2023

Regime media, meanwhile, is having a meltdown.

CNN melting after their favorite drug-addled artist gets smacked down in court:

“I cannot begin to understand how Hunter Biden’s lawyers walk him into that courthouse without knowing exactly what the constraints, what the limitations of that deal are!” pic.twitter.com/CIo8dmLgIq

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 26, 2023

*  *  *

Hunter Biden’s lawyers face sanctions after they were accused on Tuesday night of an ethical violation by impersonating a government attorney in order to try and have an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief removed from a filing in his criminal tax case.

The amicus in question is 448 pages of congressional testimony from IRS whistleblowers.

Earlier Tuesday, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith filed the brief with the court, which suggests that the judge, Maryellen Noreika, toss Hunter’s ‘sweetheart’ plea deal with Delaware prosecutors due to preferential treatment.

Later that day, someone from Hunter’s attorney Chris Clark’s former law firm called the Delaware clerk, allegedly pretending to be from the office of Chairman Smith’s attorney, Theodore Kittila, asking the court to remove the original filing – and the attached 448-pages of Congressional testimony from the whistleblowers.

The documents were then taken down and sealed.

The real Kittila quickly filed an outraged letter with the court, asking for a reversal.

“We promptly contacted the clerk’s office, and we were advised that someone contacted the court representing that they worked with my office and that they were asking the court to remove this from the docket,” wrote Kittila, adding “We immediately advised that this was inaccurate.”

BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s lawyers are facing sanctions after they allegedly lied to the Delaware clerk in his criminal tax case.

The Biden Crime Family is at it again.

According to the Daily Mail, someone from Hunter Biden’s attorney’s law office called the Delaware clerk… pic.twitter.com/eiJS7KWYSz

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 25, 2023

More via the Daily Mail:

In a fiery email exchange with Kittila about the apparent skullduggery, Hunter’s lawyer Clark hit back, denying any improper conduct and claiming ‘the clerk took the filing down on their own accord’.

But the top Republican’s lawyer included in his filing a copy of an email from the Delaware clerk, backing up his claims.

‘The woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,’ he wrote adding her phone number.  

‘She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately,‘ the clerk, Sam Grimes, wrote to Kittila.

According to Grimes’s email, the alleged trickster is New York-based Latham & Watkins litigation services director Jessica Bengels.

Bengels’ LinkedIn page says she has been ‘litigation services counsel’ at the firm since January 2023, and has worked there since 2006. She went to Brown University then Fordham law school.

Clark worked for Latham & Watkins up until April this year. –Daily Mail

Hunter’s lawyers, meanwhile, claim that the filing contained “personal tax information,” and should therefore be sealed, despite the fact that the House Ways and Means Committee released the same documents publicly a month ago.

“Your attempts to publicly file my client’s personal financial information with no protections are improper, illegal and in violation of applicable rules,” Clark wrote to Kittila, adding “I stand by my statements.”

Judge is pissed

In a Tuesday afternoon order, Judge Noreika demanded Hunter’s lawyers explain themselves.

“It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk’s office to remove the amicus materials from the docket,” reads the order. “Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, on or before 9pm today on July 25, 2023, counsel for defendant shall show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the court.”

Hunter’s lawyers responded, claiming it was nothing more than a “an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication.”

“The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation,” wrote Hunter’s Latham & Watkins lawyer Matthew Salerno in response – blaming a convoluted game of telephone tag.

“We stand prepared to address any inquiries of the Court to rectify this misunderstanding. Should the Court consider this letter and the accompanying materials to be an insufficient explanation for this misunderstanding, we request an opportunity to more fully brief and be heard on the issues of concern to the Court,” the response continues.

BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s attorneys respond after they allegedly lied to the Delaware clerk to get key documents against Hunter retracted.

Hunter’s plea deal is now in jeopardy.

According to Hunter’s lawyers, the situation is just one big misunderstanding.

“We stand prepared to… pic.twitter.com/78f99KQ5gw

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 26, 2023

Includes a declaration from Jessica Bengels – the attorney accused of misrepresenting her firm.

“At no time during any call with the Court today or ever did I misrepresent my firm affiliation.”

What will the court do? Probably nothing. pic.twitter.com/7zdBPUa49Z

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 26, 2023

As Jonathan Turley notes;

The entire matter could be a misunderstanding, but the clerk clearly did not think so. The problem for Hunter could be a delay in accepting the plea bargain. It is not clear what additional evidence the Court could secure on the issue, but it could want interviews on the record.

I still believe that it is unlikely that the court would refuse to sign off on the plea bargain. Most judges are leery of demanding more charges against a defendant. That is a matter usually left to the discretion of the prosecutors. The investigation and implications of this dubious deal will ultimately be left to Congress.

covered.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers and federal prosecutors came to an agreement during the hearing to limit the plea deal to apply to only tax crimes, drug offenses and a firearm violation between the years 2014 to 2019. Under the terms of the deal, the government won’t prosecute Hunter Biden for those offenses during those years. -Bloomberg

According to prosecutors, there is still an ongoing investigation which may carry future charges outside the scope of the plea deal.

Biden pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes, and will avoid prison charge for possessing a gun while addicted to an illegal drug.

The deal sought to cap a five-year investigation into Hunter’s tax affairs and business dealings, which federal prosecutors say Hunter failed to pay over $100,000 of income tax on at least $1.5 million in income between 2017 and 2018.

The proposed agreement has become a lightning rod for conservatives who claim the Justice Department failed to fully investigate the business dealings of the Biden family, including President Biden, and gave Hunter Biden politically favorable treatment.

On the eve of the plea hearing, House Republicans asked the judge to throw out the agreement reached with prosecutors, an unusual step of seeking to intervene in the case. Representative Jason Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, filed a brief urging the judge to consider the testimony of two IRS workers who during a panel claimed that Hunter Biden received preferential treatment from the Justice Department, according to the filing, a copy of which was seen by Bloomberg.

And of course, nothing about Hunter operating as his family’s international bag man or selling access to his father.

*  *  *

Update (1240ET): It appears that Hunter Biden’s plea deal is back on the table, after the defense agreed to a limited agreement which covers 2014 to 2019 and only includes conduct related to tax offenses, drug use and gun possession.

Hunter will still plead guilty to tax misdemeanors for 2017 and 2018, however the agreement will also cover his tax-related matters for the preceding three years.

Both sides agree that this deal doesn’t shield Hunter from future charges.

As CNN reports;

*  *  *

Update (1200ET): Hunter Biden’s plea deal with the Justice Department fell apart on Wednesday, according to federal prosecutors and the defense. The First Son had been expected to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and for not paying federal taxes on crime.

NBC’s Tom Winters says on MSNBC the plea deal is in jeopardy after Hunter Biden’s legal team demanded the deal also cover *future* prosecution of the First Son, even if they’re not directly related to the charges filed thus far.

Obviously, the judge & prosecutors disagree. pic.twitter.com/KIf7T2PXFn

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 26, 2023

NBC’s Tom Winters notes on MSNBC that, if the differences can’t be resolved between prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s legal team, “the trial clock is on” and, as he left the courtroom, the judge was talking “as if there was no plea agreement at all.” pic.twitter.com/eSQjhW9a44

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 26, 2023

According to journalist Paul Sperry, Hunter “had hoped to convince court & media scrum after pleading that the only reason he evaded paying millions in taxes was b/c of his drug-addled grief over his brother’s death in mid-2015; however, he failed to pay hundreds thousands taxes on Burisma $ in 2014.”

DEVELOPING: Hunter Biden had hoped to convince court & media scrum after pleading that the only reason he evaded paying millions in taxes was b/c of his drug-addled grief over his brother’s death in mid-2015; however, he failed to pay hundreds thousands taxes on Burisma $ in 2014

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 26, 2023

Regime media, meanwhile, is having a meltdown.

CNN melting after their favorite drug-addled artist gets smacked down in court:

“I cannot begin to understand how Hunter Biden’s lawyers walk him into that courthouse without knowing exactly what the constraints, what the limitations of that deal are!” pic.twitter.com/CIo8dmLgIq

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 26, 2023

*  *  *

Hunter Biden’s lawyers face sanctions after they were accused on Tuesday night of an ethical violation by impersonating a government attorney in order to try and have an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief removed from a filing in his criminal tax case.

The amicus in question is 448 pages of congressional testimony from IRS whistleblowers.

Earlier Tuesday, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith filed the brief with the court, which suggests that the judge, Maryellen Noreika, toss Hunter’s ‘sweetheart’ plea deal with Delaware prosecutors due to preferential treatment.

Later that day, someone from Hunter’s attorney Chris Clark’s former law firm called the Delaware clerk, allegedly pretending to be from the office of Chairman Smith’s attorney, Theodore Kittila, asking the court to remove the original filing – and the attached 448-pages of Congressional testimony from the whistleblowers.

The documents were then taken down and sealed.

The real Kittila quickly filed an outraged letter with the court, asking for a reversal.

“We promptly contacted the clerk’s office, and we were advised that someone contacted the court representing that they worked with my office and that they were asking the court to remove this from the docket,” wrote Kittila, adding “We immediately advised that this was inaccurate.”

BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s lawyers are facing sanctions after they allegedly lied to the Delaware clerk in his criminal tax case.

The Biden Crime Family is at it again.

According to the Daily Mail, someone from Hunter Biden’s attorney’s law office called the Delaware clerk… pic.twitter.com/eiJS7KWYSz

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 25, 2023

More via the Daily Mail:

In a fiery email exchange with Kittila about the apparent skullduggery, Hunter’s lawyer Clark hit back, denying any improper conduct and claiming ‘the clerk took the filing down on their own accord’.

But the top Republican’s lawyer included in his filing a copy of an email from the Delaware clerk, backing up his claims.

‘The woman who called was a Jessica Bengels,’ he wrote adding her phone number.  

‘She said she worked with Theodore Kittila and it was important the document was removed immediately,‘ the clerk, Sam Grimes, wrote to Kittila.

According to Grimes’s email, the alleged trickster is New York-based Latham & Watkins litigation services director Jessica Bengels.

Bengels’ LinkedIn page says she has been ‘litigation services counsel’ at the firm since January 2023, and has worked there since 2006. She went to Brown University then Fordham law school.

Clark worked for Latham & Watkins up until April this year. –Daily Mail

Hunter’s lawyers, meanwhile, claim that the filing contained “personal tax information,” and should therefore be sealed, despite the fact that the House Ways and Means Committee released the same documents publicly a month ago.

“Your attempts to publicly file my client’s personal financial information with no protections are improper, illegal and in violation of applicable rules,” Clark wrote to Kittila, adding “I stand by my statements.”

Judge is pissed

In a Tuesday afternoon order, Judge Noreika demanded Hunter’s lawyers explain themselves.

“It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk’s office to remove the amicus materials from the docket,” reads the order. “Therefore, it is hereby ordered that, on or before 9pm today on July 25, 2023, counsel for defendant shall show cause as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the court.”

Hunter’s lawyers responded, claiming it was nothing more than a “an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication.”

“The matter under consideration appears to stem from an unfortunate and unintentional miscommunication between a staff member at our firm and employees of the Court. We have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is there was no misrepresentation,” wrote Hunter’s Latham & Watkins lawyer Matthew Salerno in response – blaming a convoluted game of telephone tag.

“We stand prepared to address any inquiries of the Court to rectify this misunderstanding. Should the Court consider this letter and the accompanying materials to be an insufficient explanation for this misunderstanding, we request an opportunity to more fully brief and be heard on the issues of concern to the Court,” the response continues.

BREAKING: Hunter Biden’s attorneys respond after they allegedly lied to the Delaware clerk to get key documents against Hunter retracted.

Hunter’s plea deal is now in jeopardy.

According to Hunter’s lawyers, the situation is just one big misunderstanding.

“We stand prepared to… pic.twitter.com/78f99KQ5gw

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 26, 2023

Includes a declaration from Jessica Bengels – the attorney accused of misrepresenting her firm.

“At no time during any call with the Court today or ever did I misrepresent my firm affiliation.”

What will the court do? Probably nothing. pic.twitter.com/7zdBPUa49Z

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 26, 2023

As Jonathan Turley notes;

The entire matter could be a misunderstanding, but the clerk clearly did not think so. The problem for Hunter could be a delay in accepting the plea bargain. It is not clear what additional evidence the Court could secure on the issue, but it could want interviews on the record.

I still believe that it is unlikely that the court would refuse to sign off on the plea bargain. Most judges are leery of demanding more charges against a defendant. That is a matter usually left to the discretion of the prosecutors. The investigation and implications of this dubious deal will ultimately be left to Congress.

Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Courtney Gilardi’s 10-year-old daughter never had problems sleeping. But in August 2020, the morning after a 5G cell tower was installed within 450 feet of their Pittsfield, Massachusetts, home, she woke up complaining of headaches, dizziness, a buzzing in her head, and general malaise.

Normally, she gets up at 8 a.m. But on that day, she didn’t come downstairs till the afternoon.

“She didn’t look well, and she said that she was headachy, dizzy, fuzzy. Those are not words that she has ever used to describe how she’s been feeling before,” Ms. Gilardi said.

The girl, her sister, and Ms. Gilardi herself, who said she started experiencing sleep disturbances, rapid heart rates, and migraines, were soon diagnosed with microwave syndrome, a condition known to develop after a person is exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by wireless technologies.

The doctor’s advice was simple: Stay away from your home.

Microwave Syndrome: What Is It and How Does It Harm You?

Microwave syndrome refers to sensitivity and symptom development caused by environmental microwave radiation. This type of radiation is used to heat food in microwave ovens.

People are primarily exposed to microwave radiation through wireless devices and antennas. Cell phone towers, Wi-Fi modems, phones, tablets, smart wearables, and smart home appliances continuously emit these waves 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Symptoms of microwave radiation exposure include insomnia, headaches, fatigue, stress, pain, and even skin rashes. Individuals with chronic diseases may experience a worsening of preexisting symptoms as part of microwave syndrome, according to research.

Microwave Radiation’s Health Effects: Current Findings

Microwave radiation’s health effects have long been debated, with industry-funded studies often concluding no link between exposure and health.

Randomized human studies are lacking due to ethical considerations, but prospective studies on humans, and animal and cell studies suggest potentially harmful biological effects.

Naval Medical Research

In 1971, researchers at the Naval Medical Research Institute published a report on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, including radio frequency and microwave radiation (pdf). The report examined their effects on humans, animals, and cells.

Professor Martin Pall from Washington State University, who specializes in chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, and the effects of low-intensity microwave frequency electromagnetic fields on the human body, summarized the biological effects as follows:

• Forty neuropsychiatric effects, including changes in brain structure, brain function, psychological responses, and behavior.
• Eight hormonal effects, including hyperthyroidism and pituitary dysfunction.
• Cardiac effects, including decreased heart activity and changes in heart rhythm.
• Chromosome breaks and changes to chromosome structure.
• Histological changes to the testes.
• Cell death, an important process in neurodegenerative diseases.

Other biological effects included changes to metabolism and digestion.

The Bioinitiative Report

The Bioinitiative Report, coauthored by Dr. David Carpenter, professor of environmental health sciences at the University at Albany’s School of Public Health, investigated the correlation between EMFs and health. It found that adverse biological reactions can be triggered even at levels far below the industry standards of maximum body exposure, set at 1.6 watts per kilogram (pdf).

The current standard is based on the assumption that microwave radiation affects the body solely through heat, disregarding its nonthermal effects.

However, exposure to nonthermal EMF radiation at a chronic level of 0.00034 microwatts through mobile phones has been linked to a significant reduction in sperm count. Microwatts represent a millionth of a watt.

Furthermore, children and adolescents exposed to 0.02 microwatts for a short period reported symptoms like headaches, irritation, and difficulties with concentration in school, according to the report.

“There is really no level that you could say with absolute confidence that it was safe for everybody,” Dr. Carpenter told The Epoch Times.

He added that setting a standard with no biological effects is unrealistic given the rapid growth in wireless technology use since the report’s publication in 2007, leading to increased microwave radiation exposure for individuals.

While the report faced scrutiny for its lack of peer review, all of its included studies were subject to peer review.

The Moscow Signal

Before the introduction of cellphones and wireless devices, the Moscow Signal report documented microwave transmissions by the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1976, ranging from 2.5 to 4.4 gigahertz (GHz), which aligns with the frequency range of today’s Wi-Fi and 4G networks.

Although the U.S. government eventually determined the exposure was an espionage attempt with no significant health effects on embassy staff, this conclusion has been disputed.

In 1975, Walter Stoessel, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, became sick, experiencing bleeding from the eyes and later succumbing to leukemia. Other embassy personnel also developed cancer, fueling the controversy surrounding the link between microwave radiation and cancer.

A year later, the U.S. Department of State commissioned a study comparing the health outcomes of Moscow embassy staff and their families to counterparts from Eastern European cities, who were assumed to have not been subjected to the same exposure. The study found that the staff in Moscow suffered no significant ill effects from the microwave exposure.

A 2019 review of the epidemiological study suggested that the original findings were toned down by the Department of State and that some key questions remain unanswered.

Read more here…

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

Few political figures have done more to keep Ukrainians fighting – and dying in huge numbers – in a bloody, futile proxy war of attrition than Von der Leyen.

Last Friday (July 21), droves of high-profile international lawyers, NGO execs and politicians converged on the UN headquarters in New York to attend the closing ceremony of the 28th World Congress on Law, the flagship biennial event of the US-based World Jurists Association (WJA). During the event the King of Spain Felipe VI and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau* presented EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (whom I shall henceforth refer to as VdL) with the “World Prize for Peace and Freedom,” which she received on behalf of the institution she fronts.

VdL began her acceptance speech by outlining the EU’s long, storied history of supporting peace in Europe:

When World War II ended, Europe was in ruin and ashes, and European countries mortal enemies. Five of them decided to forgive. Not to forget, but to forgive. They stretched out their hand to Germany and others, and over time invited them back into the circle of democracies. Under one condition: to do everything necessary for a just and lasting peace, grounded on the rule of law…

The story of our Union is one of democracies, young and old, getting stronger together. It is the story of Germany’s and Italy’s rebirth after the war. It is the story of Spain’s, Portugal’s and Greece’s path from dictatorship to democracy. It is the story of democratic renaissance after the fall of the Iron Curtain. And the next chapter in this story is being written today – in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, as well as in the Western Balkans.

A Bizarre Choice

While the EU may have played an important role in fostering peace in Europe during its formative years, today’s EU Commission makes for a bizarre choice for a peace and freedom award, given:

1. It is a participant in the proxy war taking place in Ukraine and has been directly arming the Ukrainian forces through its Orwellian-dubbed European Peace Facility (more on that later);

2. It has imposed eleven rounds of largely self-maiming sanctions on Russia that have crippled German and Italian industry and are undermining the economic health of the entire EU bloc;

3. It has also not exactly been a staunch defender of freedom in recent years. For a start, in June 2021 it implemented the “Green Pass” vaccine passport, which was used by EU Member governments to deprive millions of unvaccinated EU citizens of their basic rights and freedoms on the basis of a vaccine that did not prevent transmission of COVID-19 and which the World Health Organization would now like to turn into a global standard. It is also about to declare all-out war on freedom of speech on the Internet.

The World Congress on Law is sometimes referred to as the “Davos of Law”. Its World Prize for Peace and Freedom is the WJA’s highest honour, given to individuals or institutions that have apparently distinguished themselves in promoting “peace through the rule of law.” It is sometimes described as the Nobel Prize of international law.

That is probably less of a complement than intended. After all, the real Nobel Peace Prize has  been awarded both to peacemakers and serial warmongers alike, including, most notoriously, Henry Kissinger, for his contribution to “ending the war and restoring the peace in Vietnam.” Barack Obama also picked up a Nobel for doing literally nothing during his first nine months in office. He would then go on to sow mayhem in at least seven countries, in the process authorising ten times more drone strikes than his predecessor, George W Bush, including against US citizens.[2]

Likewise, few political figures have done more to keep Ukrainians fighting in a bloody proxy war they have zero chance of winning than VdL. As Responsible Statecraft reported last week, Kyiv simply doesn’t have the human resources or physical infrastructure to achieve its goals:

As unpalatable as it is for all supporters of Ukraine, the most prudent course for Zelensky may now be to seek a negotiated settlement that preserves as much freedom and territory as possible for Kyiv. Ending the war now would end the deaths and injuries for tens of thousands of Ukraine’s brave and heroic fighters — men and women whom Kyiv will need to rebuild their country once the war ends.

But Europe and the US are holding firm, even as the leaders of more and more non-aligned countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and China, call for an immediate ceasefire. While NATO may have no viable exit strategy, VdL fears that a ceasefire would consolidate the territorial gains made by Russia since February 2022, as if that fate were somehow avoidable at this stage. As the piece in RS notes, “Ukraine is unlikely to militarily evict Russia out of its territory, no matter how many men they feed into battle.”

VdL has other concerns too, including the threat a negotiated settlement could pose to US-EU’s grandiose reconstruction plans for Ukraine, in which, to paraphrase Julian Assange, potentially trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds will get washed through Ukraine and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. Here’s VdL from late May:

A ceasefire would be inherently unstable and destabilise the region along the contact line. Nobody would invest or rebuild, and the conflict could flare up again at any time. No. A just peace must result in the withdrawal of the Russian forces and their equipment from the territory of Ukraine.

Since VdL said those words, Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has come and almost completely gone while achieving next to nothing, apart from massively escalating the Ukrainian body count. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, “When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons, that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. They haven’t.” And yet the meat grinder grinds on.

Funding War Through the European Peace Facility (EPF)

Interestingly, the Commission’s peace and freedom prize has garnered next to no attention in Western media. Maybe the MSM thought it too farcical a story to cover. But it has been covered elsewhere, including in an op-ed by British journalist and lecturer Mark Blacklock in China’s English-language government house organ Global Times. Blacklock describes the WJA’s latest choice of recipient for the award as “peculiar”:

In her acceptance speech, [VdL] spoke of the war between Ukraine and Russia, quoting from the UN Charter to declare countries should refrain from “the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Why then has the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, deliberately concocted a method of evading its own internal checks and balances — designed to prevent the EU from distributing military aid to countries outside the bloc — in order to enable it to send billions of euros worth of weapons and ammunition from its member countries?

The disingenuously-named European Peace Facility (EPF) was created by the EU in 2021 to finance initiatives designed to avoid wars and encourage peace in other countries and strengthen international security. It was necessary because the EU is not allowed to finance military actions itself. The EPF’s original budget of 5.5 billion euros ($6.1 billion) was meant to partly reimburse its 27 member countries for the cost of lethal weapons, ammunition, and other military hardware supplied to other nations for those purposes. Now the budget stands at 12 billion euros ($13.5 billion) and has been repurposed so it can now be used to help Ukraine. Already, 4.6 billion euros ($5.1 billion) has been allocated to Kiev, and last week the EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, outlined plans to send 20 billion euros ($22.3 billion) to Ukraine over the next four years. This war marks the first time the EU has supplied lethal weapons this way to a third country.

The Commission is in the process of setting up a procurement platform for EU nations to jointly purchase weapons, arguing that pooling demand will allow EU Members to secure better terms from suppliers — just as happened with the Commission’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement platform. You know, the one in which the terms and conditions — at least those that seeped out into the public sphere despite Pfizer, BioNtech and the Commission’s best efforts — got progressively worse as time went on, even as the Commission’s orders ballooned in size. That’s right: the more vaccines the Commission bought, the more it paid per unit.

Now, EU Member States are inundated with hundreds of millions of COVID-19 vaccines that nobody wants. Germany alone has binned 83 million doses of coronavirus vaccines at an estimated cost of €1.6 billion, and has 120 million further doses sitting idle in warehouses around the country. Yet Germany, like all other EU Member States, must continue buying more vaccines until 2028. At the same time, its Health Ministry recently announced that it was dramatically scaling back a €100 million programme for research into long Covid and post-vaccination injuries, as well as support for those afflicted, as part of Berlin’s new austerity drive.

The VdL Commission’s vaccine procurement practices are now the subject of two investigations by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). As the Belgian news weekly Le Vif recently reported, in late June the EPPO took up a criminal complaint filed by Frédéric Baldan, a Belgian lobbyist, in Liège, against VdL for, among other things, “destruction of public documents” (the infamous text messages between VdL and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla) and “corruption”. For all his troubles, Baldan’s lobbying firm, CEBiz, was suspended from the European register of lobbyists, even though its accreditation had been renewed in April.

But I digress. Back to the WJA’s award, which, as its title suggests, is meant not just to honour the recipient’s commitment to peace but also to freedom. And this is something else the VdL Commission has little apparent regard for. As I reported a couple of weeks ago, in exactly one month’s time (August 25) the European Union’s Digital Services Act, or DSA, is set to go fully live. From that date, all “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) and “Very Large Online Search Engines” (VLOSEs) will be obliged  to speedily remove illegal content, hate speech and so-called disinformation from their platforms. If not, they risk fines of up to 6% of their annual global revenue:

So, who in the EU will get to define what actually constitutes mis- or disinformation?

Surely it will be the job of an independent regulator or a judicial authority with at least clear procedural parameters and no or few conflicts of interest. At least that is what one would hope.

But no.

The ultimate decider of what constitutes mis- or dis-information, possibly not just in the EU but across multiple jurisdictions around the world, will be the European Commission. That’s right, the EU’s power-hungry, conflict-of-interest-riddled, Von der Leyen-led executive branch. The same institution that is in the process of dynamiting the EU’s economic future through its endless backfiring sanctions on Russia and which is mired in Pfizergate, one of the biggest corruption scandals of its 64-year existence. Now the Commission wants to take mass censorship to levels not seen in Europe since at least the dying days of the Cold War.

Late last year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that the DSA, in its current form, could have “a significant negative impact on the rights of users, in particular that of privacy and free speech.” And as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, free speech and a free press are the foundation stones of any genuine liberal democracy. And the European Commission is about to enshrine a censorship regime that threatens to put paid to freedom of speech in Europe and could even end up going global. Yet the same Commission just won the World Prize for Peace and Freedom. Once again, Orwell will be turning in his grave.

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.—”Jack” wasn’t just any house cat but Tammy’s best friend for almost two decades.

He was her rock and emotional lifeline when her parents and brother died six years apart—beside her in times of trouble when life was too much to carry alone.

“When you get ‘the one’—some people never do—they just don’t understand it,” said Tammy, a retired health care worker in Scottsdale, Arizona.

“Jack was one in a mjillion. He was just a perfect gentleman. Neat as a pin.”

Jack lived to be 18—a long life, by cat standards—succumbing to cancer in February and dying in Tammy’s arms at home.

But before Jack’s cancer diagnosis, Tammy had already decided to “clone” her beloved cat, despite the high cost and uncertainty of the procedure.

“A lot of people do cloning for themselves,” Tammy said. “I know this sounds silly—I did it for Jack,” who she had neutered when he was young.

“He deserved sons.”

The cloning procedure took place two years ago for $25,000 and produced two nearly-identical male kittens, each the spitting likeness of Jack.

Both kittens were born to their surrogate mother on Feb. 14, 2021—Valentine’s Day; both have extra toes on each paw and the same distinctive coloration that Jack had.

And both love to swim, travel, and carry socks in their mouth, just like Jack.

Tammy named her two cloned kittens, OJ and Thud, who owe their existence to advancements in cloning technology over the past three decades.

Costly and Still Controversial

Tammy said she knew the procedure was not only expensive but controversial.

She’s received many messages on Facebook condemning her decision to clone Jack as “Satanic,” “unnatural,” and unwise for her to play God.

And these people were “ungodly rude” about it, Tammy said. For this reason, she asked not to use her last name in this story.

However, she said that most people on social media tell her they’re curious about cloning and think it’s “amazing.”

Pet cloning is making a genetic copy of a living or deceased pet, usually a dog or cat. It involves extracting DNA from the host animal to produce live embryos for placement inside a surrogate mother to develop until they are born.

According to market analyst DataIntelo, pet cloning is a global market projected to grow by 9.1 percent annually between 2022 and 2030.

“The market can be attributed to the increasing demand for pet cloning services, rising awareness about the benefits of pet cloning, and technological advancements in the field of pet cloning,” the company website states.

The market goes by two types—deceased pet cloning and alive pet cloning using similar techniques.

Since the controversial birth of Dolly, the first cloned sheep in 1996, several companies have emerged to reap the lucrative commercial rewards of pet cloning.

BioVenic and Gemini Genetics in the United States and Sinogene in China are among them. Pet cloning is also big business in South Korea, fetching $100,000 for a cloned dog at some elite clinics.

For the past 20 years, ViaGen Pets and Equine in Texas has cloned horses, livestock, and dogs and cats for hundreds of clients across the United States.

“I think most clients hope to recreate that special bond [with a deceased pet]—and I certainly understand that,” said ViaGen’s client service manager Melain Rodriguez, who’s had many cats and dogs in her lifetime.

“Although you love them all, you had a special relationship with that one special [pet] that stands out. It’s so hard when it’s gone,” Ms. Rodriguez said.

In 2016, ViaGen delivered the first cloned puppy in the United States: a Jack Russell terrier named Nubia, an identical twin of its genetic donor.

Ms. Rodriguez said ViaGen cloned horses and livestock primarily before branching into cloning pets and even threatened or endangered species.

The procedure is intricate and costly—$50,000 for a cloned dog at ViaGen—and carries the potential risk of failed embryos and unwanted heritable traits.

Several nationwide polls found that most Americans in sample groups opposed cloning on moral or religious grounds.

Opponents of animal cloning cite inherent health and safety risks, flaws in the developing technology, and lack of government oversight and regulation.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has called for a moratorium on cloned and bioengineered pets.

During the moratorium, a multidisciplinary commission would evaluate existing cloning research and technology, including regulations regarding its use.

“Our current knowledge of animal cloning indicates that there are important welfare concerns at issue,” according to the ASPCA position statement. “Reports on the health and condition of mammalian animals produced by cloning have indicated a variety of anatomical and physiological problems.

“It is difficult to document fully the consequences of cloning or bioengineered applications of companion animals since many of these activities fall outside the framework of publicly funded and regulated research programs.”

Read more here…