Senator Murphy’s Defense Of Hunter Biden Conspicuously Leaves Out One Word . . .

If, as expected, the House impeaches President Donald Trump on the basis of the Ukrainian controversy, the contract of Hunter Biden with the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, will likely be a focus of the defense. That has made some members uneasy since the $50,000 paid every month to Biden is widely viewed as a classic scheme to influence his father, who was the key official in charge of Ukrainian aid and assistance. For that reason, the defense of the Bidens by Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) on CNN’s “State of The Union” drew many Beltway insiders. Murphy however may have highlighted the problem with the omission of a single word.

I have previously criticized the Biden contract as a glaring example of influence peddling. I have written for decades about this common practice where companies give windfall contracts or payments to the children of powerful U.S. politicians to evade bribery and corruption statutes. The Burisma contract was as flagrant an example of such corruption as you can possibly get.

So when Murphy was asked about the contract, many of us leaned forward to hear how Democrats might thread this needle. His response was telling for what it did not say:

“Well, I think in an interview Hunter Biden, himself, admitted that he had possibly made a mistake.But let’s be clear, Hunter Biden didn’t do anything illegal and his father, the vice president, didn’t do anything illegal or unethical.”

There was no follow up on the glaring omission of the word “unethical” with reference to Hunter Biden. Thus, for Joe Biden, Sen. Murphy insisted that everything he did was legal and ethical. For Hunter Biden, he only said it was legal. It is indeed legal . . . and corrupt. Such positions for spouses and children is the main way companies can still enrich politicians and buy influence. Members of both parties have benefitted from this practice. It is not however ethical under any plausible interpretation of that word. Hunter Biden cashed in on his father’s position and diplomats like George Kent flagged the glaring conflict of interest. Kent was reportedly blown off by Biden’s staff in the Vice President’s office. Thus, while we were clamoring for anti-corruption measures (and Biden was withholding over a billion dollars in aid for that purpose), Ukrainians were pouring 50K a month into the pocket of Biden’s son.

There is also a second problem for Joe Biden. The former Vice President has stressed that he never spoke to his son about this foreign dealings. Hunter Biden contradicted that statement and said that he did speak with his father about Burisma. However, even if true, why is that an ethical approach to your office. You know that your son is cutting foreign deals but you do not question him on possible conflicts of interest? Ethics often demand preemptive not just responsive efforts. Joe Biden appears to believe that he was ethical so long as he did not learn of conflicts. Most of us maintain that you have to actively protect against such conflicts, particularly when you represent this country.

Democrats cannot have it both ways. You cannot call for scrutiny of Trump family contracts in foreign countries while twisting yourself into a knot to avoid acknowledging the obvious about the Hunter Biden contract. It was unethical and corrupt. Omitting the word is not a profile in courage. If politicians are truly opposed to such influence peddling, they will have to say so expressly and not simply by subtle omission.

106 thoughts on “Senator Murphy’s Defense Of Hunter Biden Conspicuously Leaves Out One Word . . .”

  1. From Turley’s Zen post:
    If one concludes that the Hunter Biden contract was indeed corrupt influence peddling, then the demand for an investigation takes on a slightly different cast, even if many of us view that demand as inappropriate, given its focus on a political rival.

    From this post:
    The Burisma contract was as flagrant an example of such corruption as you can possibly get.

    Democrats cannot have it both ways.

    Apparently they can try to have it both ways, especially if you write two separate posts but only one of them is your column for The Hill.

  2. Political Overreach
    _______________

    “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”

    “In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.

    In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.

    Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.”
    _________________________________________________________________________

    “You can’t handle the truth!”

    – Colonel Jessup
    _____________

    The truth is that the Founding Fathers, who are now controverted by the Demolishing Children, provided individuals maximal freedom while severely limiting and restricting government, including restrictions on and penalties for treason, bribery and other crimes of high office. The absolute right to private property and Article 1, Section 8, restrict government from claiming or exercising dominion over the private property of individuals, from taxing to pay for individual welfare and redistribution of wealth, and from regulating anything other than “…money…” and “…commerce among the several States.” No redistribution. No social engineering. No regulation. Government exists solely to serve and facilitate the maximal freedom of individuals. The terms of public servants were to be categorically honorable, brief and temporary. Corruption constitutes grievous and reprehensible political overreach.

    All politicians and elected officials who have engaged in corruption and violated the constitutional limitations and restrictions on the power of government have committed the most essential and egregious form of treason and must be sentenced to the most severe penalty, which for treason in Great Britain, until 1870, was Drawing and Quartering.
    _________________________________________________________________

    “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

    – John F. Kennedy

  3. Will there is one witness that needs to be called & testify under oath

    That would be Glorious Supreme Dear Divine Leader, Kim Jong-un…Aka Rocket Man.

  4. The Libs didnt mind when Barry abused his Executive Powers but now they are concerned about Trump & alleged Presidential Abuse of power?

    Bwahahahahahahahahaha

    😂

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency

    Top 10 Ways Obama Violated the Constitution during His Presidency

    The Obama administration has been the most lawless in U.S. history. I don’t mean that in the Nixonian sense of personal corruption, whereby the president is personally above the law, although the idea that Barack Obama’s tenure has been ethically pure is laughable.

    No, my accusation rests on the 44th president’s seeing himself as professionally above the law, ignoring the executive branch’s legal limits and disrespecting constitutional bounds like federalism and the separation of powers.

    But don’t just take it from me. Liberal law professor Garrett Epps (a professional acquaintance) admits that “even for those like me who admire Barack Obama, the constitutional record is disturbingly mixed. Obama leaves the Constitution weaker than at the beginning of his terms.” Epps labels Obama’s posture to be one of “aggressive compliance,” torturing statutory language as far as it can go in order to avoid constitutional claims.

    Obama Only Furthered the Imperial Presidency

    He points first to the 2011 Libya intervention. It involved neither a congressional authorization of the use of force, nor compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires at least congressional notification of troop commitments and affirmative permission after 60 days. Every president since the WPA’s enactment has claimed that it’s an unconstitutional limit on inherent executive authority over military power. Obama instead claimed that hundreds of missile strikes and dozens of air missions didn’t trigger the WPA because they only constituted “kinetic military action” rather than war.

    It just doesn’t pass the smell test. Neither does at least some of the National Security Agency’s robust program of domestic surveillance, about which Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has lied to Congress. And then there’s the aggressive posture towards and persecution of journalists. It’s as if the goal was to show Donald Trump how it’s done.

    This is all a world away from candidate Obama, who said this on the campaign trail in 2008: “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president.” As George Mason law professor David Bernstein quipped, foolish voters thought that Obama was taking issue with the imperial presidency, when really he was only complaining that the wrong man occupied the throne.

    How Obama Ignored Constitutional Checks and Balances

    Indeed, once he lost the congressional majority that allowed him to sign breathtakingly unconstitutional legislation like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, Obama began using his pen in other ways. Hearkening to Woodrow Wilson’s progressive view of the administrative state, President Obama steadily took out his frustrations with the checks and balances that inhibited his ability to “fundamentally transform” the country.

    A lack of congressional acquiescence didn’t stop this president. Even in Obama’s first term, the administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And when the reelected President Obama announced his second-term economic plans, he said that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

    But no matter how much you hold it up to the light—and no matter what textual penumbras you induce—there’s no “gridlock clause” in the Constitution by which the president’s power increases to the extent Congress doesn’t support him. Indeed, gridlock is a feature of our system, not a bug, meant to check executive abuse and majoritarian populism both.

    As we mark another peaceful transfer of power, let’s pause to note the 10 most significant ways in which Barack Obama violated the Constitution, in rough chronological order.

    1. The Chrysler Bailout

    Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

    This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

    2. Obamacare Implementation

    One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:

    The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
    Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
    The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
    A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
    Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
    The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
    HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
    3. Political Profiling by the IRS

    After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

    4. Recess Appointments

    In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

    5. DACA and DAPA

    Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

    Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

    6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses

    In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

    As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

    7. The Clean Power Plan

    In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

    The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

    8. The WOTUS Rule

    In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

    The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

    9. Net Neutrality

    In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

    The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

    That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

    10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade

    In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.

    That’s Only The Beginning

    It was obviously difficult to narrow that enumeration to just 10—and I cheated by putting all the Obamacare shenanigans under one item. Some may complain that I should’ve prioritized other kinds of executive actions, whether regarding guns or transgender bathroom access or electricity regulation. Others may prefer to invoke President Obama’s decision not to subject the Iran nuclear treaty to a Senate vote—aided by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker’s naïve complicity—or engaging in the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap without notifying Congress. Sadly, the possibilities for this parlor game are nearly endless.

    Then, of course, there’s the administration’s abysmal performance before the Supreme Court, where its win percentage hovers around 45 percent (as against a historical norm of 60-70 percent). The Justice Department has even suffered nearly 50 unanimous losses, half again as many as under George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. These cases have come in such disparate areas as criminal procedure, religious liberty, property rights, immigration, securities regulation, tax law, and the separation of powers. They have nothing in common other than incredible assertions of federal power. The government’s arguments across this wide variety of cases would essentially allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants without constitutional restraint.

    Are these really the kind of powers President Obama and his progressive enablers would want their worst enemies to have? As my colleague Gene Healy writes in the latest issue of Reason, “the very idea of ‘President Trump’ seemed like a thought experiment a libertarian might have invented to get a liberal friend to focus on the dangers of concentrated power. Now it’s an experiment we’re going to run in real life, starting January 20, 2017.”

    If you live by executive action, you die by executive action—whether that means reversing President Obama’s policies or pocketing his constitutional excesses for future use.

  5. Judges are to be held to an even higher standard: to avoid the very appearance of impropriety, yet, they engage in unethical behavior night and day. And no one does a thing about it. I have proof, Jon.

  6. Democrats cannot have it both ways.

    It is their religion. Lying is their initiation rite.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-clinton-pardons-analysis-story.html

    Clinton pardon of Rich a saga of power, money

    Los Angeles Times
    Feb 18, 2001

    Marc Rich was a multimillionaire international commodities trader who fled the U.S. for Switzerland in 1983 after being accused of failing to pay more than $48M in taxes, among other violations. Former President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich right before leaving office, a decision that came under the scrutiny of Congress in 2001.

    President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich is a saga of secrecy, tenacity, sleight of hand and pressure from Rich’s ex-wife and one of her friends, who together have steered millions of dollars to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s causes and those of fellow Democrats

    1. Lying is what the elitist Democrats have done for decades.

      Whataboutisms #1,834,923,721 follows and counting

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/15/hillary_clinton_bills_affair_with_monica_lewinsky_was_not_an_abuse_of_power_what_about_trump.html#!

      Hillary Clinton: Bill’s Affair With Monica Lewinsky Was Not An Abuse Of Power, What About Trump?

      Hillary Clinton said her husband, former President Bill Clinton, did not abuse power when he entered into a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In an interview with ‘CBS Sunday Morning,’ she said in retrospect that her husband “absolutely” shouldn’t have resigned.

      Clinton quickly changed the subject to President Trump and called for investigations into accusations made against him.

      “In restrospect, do you think Bill should have resigned in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal?” correspondent Tony Dokoupil asked.

      “Absolutely not,” Clinton answered.

      “It wasn’t an abuse of power?” the reporter asked.

      “No,” she responded.

      “There are people who look at the incidents of the 90s and they say, ‘A president of the United States cannot have a consensual relationship with an intern, the power imbalance is too great,'” Dokoupil said.

      “He was an adult,” Clinton said about her husband.

      “Let me ask you this,” Clinton, beginning to make the shift, said. “Where is the investigation of the current incumbent, against who numerous allegations have been made, and which he dismisses, denies, and ridicules?”

      1. So the whole defense of the left is “What about” followed by referencing something one of their own team of RINO agents did. That’s a defense? Notice there is no mention of China where Hunter got a free ride at taxpayer expense seated next to people of influence who aren’t named and then again seated next to Chinese of influence and Biden himself suddenly becomes a multi gazillionaire.

        Trouble with What About is too often you have to sacrifice one or more of your own that everyone knows is one of your own.

        Result. The left is more than hoisted on their own petard. more like the left confessed to their own wrong doings as if two wrongs make a right but had not any proof of the other ‘wrong’ only their own.

        Two or three points.

        President Trump is not a career politician.
        President Trump assumed their was some modicum of honor, morals, and ethics
        President Trump applied the assumption of the left beyond politics to employees.
        President Trump was a Convenience Democrat a requirement in NYC to suceed.
        President Trump left that situation when he no longer needed them not a DINO

        President Trump went GOP as the only viable route and having won was rejected by the RINOs when he won against all of the others by a democratic vote of the citizens as he was and is Constitutionalist not a socialist of any kind

        Taxes. His tax write off was the one passed into law and used by the Clintons and his taxes have been accepted by the IRS after intensive and lengthy inspection by agents of that agency.

        His inherited war president record inherited from Obama surpassed that of the left in most cases and the war was not started from his desk but the desk of others.

        His economic policies far surpass those of the left has not shown a single sign of the debt repudiation used by Obama that led to a 20 trillion dollar debt and a 30% reduction in the value of the dollar with no COLA adjustments for our elderly, retirees and future retirees.

        and President Trump unlike Comrade Pelosi has the protection that all President’s have and used such as “I think I did a good job” by Obama.

        That bit of protection cannot be refuted or used by the socialist eft or the RINOs .
        It comes from the Presidential Oath of Office and since the left has zero familiarity with Our Constitution, Our Constitutional Republic or their own oath of office I’ll finish with the six words in the Presidential Oath

        “to the best of my ability.”

        Never mind…. of what use would the socialist left have for such a phrase?

      2. But she never denied the culpability of Billyum and her own culpability in the victimization of women nor the continuing victimization of women by the socialist triad. Thus declared herself guilty the voters and those who still wonder why the left voted against the first civil rights bill or against The Equality Act and much more that is dear to the hearts of Constitutional Centrists and hateful to the socialist fascist left.

      3. Hell I dont even think Nixon should have resigned. Nor Clinton.

        He should have just copped to the BJ in the dep and then it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

        Out of all the many bad things Bill did, I think lying under oath was far worse than getting a BJ from an intern, but even that I find questionable ground for impeachment, given that the act of perjury was regarding something that in terms of the life of the nation, was inconsequential, in itself, except in how it became revealed.

        This is largely due to the salacious tenor of the mass media, who find complicated things like the Whitewater frauds and mischief too complicated to see their lame newspapers, but who doesn’t like a good BJ story, eh?

        In retrospect a thing that had the support of both parties, NAFTA, and countless free trade dogmatists, ended up being one of the most harmful choices of his presidency, considering all the displaced industry going abroad, and all the displaced people coming here, that came out of it.

        The key thing to understand, is that Bill Clinton’s friends on Wall Street made gazillions from it. Which is what drives a lot of choices the American leadership makes over the past century.

  7. With today’s public testimony, this is all you have to write about? How about Republicans in Congress attempting to trash Vindman as a “never Trumper” with absolutely no evidence? Vindman is a true American patriot, unlike draft-dodging Trump. And, by the way, where has he been since Saturday, when he was taken to Walter Reed Hospital? Since the WH lies about everything, most of us don’t believe he was there for routine testing.

      1. According to Natacha, we need to observe Whataboutism Day

        Thank you Natacha

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/01/monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton-abuse-power

        Monica Lewinsky has called out Clinton’s abuse of power. Why haven’t we?

        1 Mar 2018 00.59 EST

        The former White House intern has found truth and understanding – two qualities she was never shown at the time

        It’s 2002 and I am in TK Maxx in Blackpool, trying to get away from the Blairite zeal of the Labour party conference, when I bump into a minister who is similarly unenamoured. “Bill Clinton is here,” he tells me. “They don’t know which woman to sit next to him at the fundraising dinner. Can’t be young. Or attractive. Because of … well, you know.” We do know. There was not a sexual encounter between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (whom he “did not have sexual relations with”) that we had not pored over years earlier.

        Later that evening,in swooshed the known liar. But no one seemed to mind. I saw cynical hacks behave like daft groupies.

        Clinton schmoozed everyone, with the famous grabbing your hand and then moving up your elbow trick that Joe Klein had chronicled. He spoke off the cuff on global politics for an hour or so. Brilliant, obviously. There was no doubting his immense charm. Later that night, Clinton was seen wandering around in search of a Big Mac with a mate he had brought along for the ride: Kevin Spacey. Hilarious!

        Alastair Campbell was said to be there too, hanging on the coat-tails of the Hollywood glamour. Oh, the pulling power! Though in 2018 we might call Clinton and Spacey predators. Well, I would.

        She was destroyed: a blousy sexual opportunist, a blowjob queen, a girl with weight problems in Beverly Hills maxing out the credit cards on Rodeo Drive. Pushy, dumb, naive. The US academic and writer Camille Paglia said she offered herself up as a “dessert cart” to the president. This intern did a stupid a thing at 22, and the most stupid thing of all is perhaps that she wanted him to love her. She wanted to hug him so bad, “I could cry”, she wrote. She felt he had “a beautiful soul”. She wrote reams of romantic tosh, but she was pilloried as a woman with the wrong appetites. She was not a victim but a sluttish vamp.

        After such a public shaming, she has reinvented herself over the years, partly as an anti-bullying campaigner. She was abandoned by those who should have supported her. Prominent feminists, all of them Democrat supporters, dismissed her as a bit of junk sex. Clinton liked his junk food; he was, as Hillary once said, “a hard dog to keep on the porch”. Lewinsky, this narcissistic, silly girl in a stained blue dress, was punished for his sins. She was disposable. Erica Jong and Maureen Dowd, among others, made that clear.

        1. He referred to Paula Jones as white trash. A Newsweek writer, speaking on television, referred to Jones’s reputation as “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.” And James Carville, Clinton’s former adviser, made the comment: “Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find.” don’t forget Juanita Broaddrick

        2. President Trump not only did call out he seated a group of the victims front row center in Debate Number Two right in front of the eyes of the number one victimizers of women in the country. Ignored their existence and thus shamed herself betwen the entire woman population of the country.

    1. Natacha said, “Vindman is a true American patriot”…

      Sure, if you call someone who wears their military uniform as a prop, who exaggerates their CV, who leaks and lies about it, who goes outside chain of command, and someone who colluded with a CIA operative in an effort to overthrow the Commander-in-Chief of the United States, an “American patriot.”

      1. Lt. Col. Vindman is what we in the combat arms call a REMF Rear Echelon Mother Feather. Besides he needs to be on the weight control program. Not exactly a poster boy for the military services.

        1. throw insubordinate vindman in the stockade. did not follow orders, did not respect chain of command. arrogant tool of rogue CIA schemers, that’s all

          1. Jim Jordan figured out a key part of Vindman’s game here.

            Vindman refused to go to Morrison, his boss. He instead leaked to his “coordination” partners and his CIA whistleblower friend. Only after that did he go to the NSC lawyer, knowing his seeds were sown.

            Just like Christopher Steele, Vindman planted disinformation seeds all over before going through official channels, while keeping his boss in the dark. Vindman needed time for the seeds he planted to sprout.

            It’s the Russia Hoax all over again.

            @seanmdav

    2. As usual without fail Comrade Natacha offers nothing but nothing in a bimboesque parody with nothing but nothing to back up he/she/it’s comments. What happens when the left sends a machine aprt of The Collective pre programmed to a standard of nonsense and with no sign of any human presence. Thus the programmers of the socialist triad cannot write ad hominem because they cannot prove a human presence. But tje same joke over and over again. Well machinery parts are used to a regiment of repetition chunka a tah chunk a tah chunka tah chunk a tah.

    3. Where is the beef? Nothing but suppose this and maybe that and nothing to back it up except nothing but then… Natacha is a machine tool of the Collective in a group that doesn’t allow humans to think or reason. Ad Machina.

    4. Vindman is insubordinate. Throw him in the stockade. End of story. Very arrogant and disregarded his proper place and the chain of command. Punishment is in order.

    5. Natacha called Vindman a “true American patriot.” I wholeheartedly disagree.

      You know who IS a true American patriot?

      Roger Stone.

    1. If you do something crude enough (see Jesse Jackson Jr), the rules apply. If you’re a Republican, the rules apply and then some. The problem, of course, is that the federal criminal code is badly written and the Department of Justice is not politically neutral or ethical.

  8. It’s nice being a Democrat, isn’t it? Yes, we see the Democrats and their media allies have distributed the talking points: Joe Biden did nothing illegal. Hunter Biden did nothing illegal. Now let’s just leave good ol’ Joe and his family alone. Haven’t the Biden’s been through enough?

    So the Democrats and their media allies proceed to simply ignore this glaring textbook example of what “bribery” actually looks like with the Hunter Biden dealings.

    And they continue to go after Trump for what they say is a clear “quid pro quo.” Or wait, I’m confused, is it bribery now? Or is it extortion? Isn’t what Joe and Hunter Biden engaged in called “bribery”?

    Dems and their media keep telling us Trump did something very bad, but they just aren’t sure what to call it yet. Leave Lunch Box Joe and his family alone. They did nothing “wrong.” Got that? That’s the story and they are sticking to it.

    How many other “children” of members of Congress are cashing in on the energy business in Ukraine along with Hunter Biden? Let’s hear more about all the “children” cashing in, raking in the big bucks, all while VP Joe Biden was working on implementing official U.S. policy of ‘rooting out corruption’ in Ukraine. What a joke.

    Just another day in the “scandal-free” Obama/Biden administration.

    1. Consistently, Democrats project their own wrongdoing onto Republicans.

      Trump was investigated for years for colluding with the Russians, when it was Hillary who did so.

      Trump is under impeachment for a quid pro quo, when it was Biden who did that.

      Trump has been accused of trying to impose a dictatorship, when Democrat activists in government abuse their positions of authority to try to take out an American president.

      Trump was accused of inciting violence when Democrats posed with Trump’s severed head, so many threatened to assassinate him, Chelsea Handler begged the military to assassinate him, and on and on.

      I think the far Left must hate what they see in the mirror.

      1. No, Karen, this is more right-wing rhetoric. Why is Hunter Biden suddenly being investigated AGAIN. more than 3 years after his father left office? What specific crimes did Joe Biden commit? Name them. Cite the evidence. Trump DID collude with the Russians, who helped him “win the victory”, which was procured by cheating. Read the Mueller Report. How many of his associates have pleaded or been found guilty of crimes? What is the count now? Trump is not under investigation for “quid pro quo”, but for SOLICITING assistance with his political campaign from a foreign government by withholding desperately needed military assistance approved by Congress. Solicitation is enough, and the evidence is overwhelming. The aid to Ukraine was only released AFTER the whistleblower filed his or her report. Even a Trump disciple can see these facts. So, after trying to trash all of the witnesses and intimidate others, the next ploy will be to argue that trying to leverage aid to Ukraine for political purposes isn’t enough for impeachment. We smell you coming.

        Trump has abused power, and the latest evidence is that he lied to Mueller in his written responses to interrogatories. He tells witnesses not to cooperate and not to produce documents. He and Republicans are attempting to intimidate the whistleblower to prevent more of them from coming forward. He fights release of tax returns and financial records, even though these would not be released to the public. That is obstruction of justice. He has to go. Most Americans want him gone.

        1. Natacha asks, “Why is Hunter Biden suddenly being investigated AGAIN”?

          Please show us where Hunter Biden and Burisma has EVER been “investigated.”

        2. Since when does a machine part provide anything but propaganda? Comrade Natacha cannot prove she is anything more as the programmer resorts to stating unproved allegations over and over and boringly over again. Programmer. buy your tool some three in one.

        3. actually Biden’s appointment to BURISMA is noticed in the financial press long before this incident, and criticized, as obvious patronage appointment.

          i posted the article twice here before, you can go dig it up on your own this time.

  9. Cofer Black was on the Burisma board. No wonder the Democrats think they have the CIA on their side in this…oh wait Cofer still IS on the board. silly me.

  10. “There was no follow up on the glaring omission of the word “unethical” with reference to Hunter Biden. Thus, for Joe Biden, Sen. Murphy insisted that everything he did was legal and ethical. For Hunter Biden, he only said it was legal. It is indeed legal . . . and corrupt.”
    *************

    That’s it’s “legal” to pay off the family members of politicians is the real scandal. BTW, I’m not so sure it is “legal”:

    “18 U.S. Code § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

    For the purpose of this section—
    (1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
    (2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
    (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

    (…);

    (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫:
    (𝐀) 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐭;
    (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
    (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
    (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;”
    [emphasis mine]

    Public official: Joe Biden

    Accepts anything of value: Unqualified Hunter’s sinecure and dismissal of prosecutor’s investigation into his company’s actions

    Performance of an official act: release one billion in foreign aid

    Not as far fetched as some may want you to believe.

      1. Exactly what crime has Joe Biden committed? What is the evidence? And why, after more than 3 years since he left office, is this suddenly a news story? Or, do you need to tune into Hannity tonight to find out how to answer these questions? Also, why is Fox News advising Trump not to tweet during today’s testimony?

        1. “And why, after more than three years after he left office, is this suddenly a news story”?
          Most people we’re not aware of the Hunter Biden’s role and compensation as a member of Burisma’s board starting in 2014, when Joe Biden was VP and the Obama Administration’s “point man” on Ukraine.
          The public is well aware of these facts now, and it’s not a mystery why the activities of the Bidens are intertwined with the impeachment inquiry.

          1. Nothing Hunter Biden did or didn’t do mitigates Trump’s solicitation of assistance in his campaign by withholding aid appropriated by Congress. This is just a Kellyanne Pivot–since she can’t come up with any substantive response to the overwhelming evidence that Trump violated the law, so we pivot to say it was legitimate–because the Bidens are such crooks, and we need to get them investigated. Americans aren’t buying it. Why did this suddenly become important only after multiple polls showed Biden beating Trump? Trump’s had 3 + years to investigate Hunter Biden, so why now?

            1. Natacha — why wasn’t Hunter Biden investigated by the watchdog press during the Obama admin when it was first found out? Why do the media sweep Democrat corruption allegations under the rug? Do you think Joe Biden will be the Democrat nominee? Or do you think this Burisma/Hunter Biden corruption scandal will do him in? Most of us know the answer.

            2. Why not? What else are you hiding. The investigation of the Bidens is ongoing and started more than a few years ago and is the subject of some chapters in two books as a minimum. Oh I get it machines can’t read.

            3. Here’s Natacha reading her crystal ball which tells her “Americans aren’t buying it”

              by what authority do you speak for Americans, Natacha?

              1. Kurtz,
                It may be that the Americans she knows don’t actually buy anything…literally. Everything they have is provided them, including opinions.

            4. Has Natacha figured out why “this is suddenly a news story”?.
              That was the question she actually asked, and it was answered for her.
              It’s not clear that she understood the answer.

            5. We are seeing a series of “Natacha pivots” here, but there are some things she should know before she goes on to the next series of pivots.
              I don’t know if Trump ever talked directly to Zelensky’s predecessor, Poroshenko. There were large-scale protests against the corruption of the Poroshenko regime, and that’s a major reason why Zelensky won the election this spring, and consolidated power with parliamentary victories this summer.
              Zelensky is viewed as “the real deal” in his commitment to fight corruption.
              That at least partially answers the “why now” question.
              I don’t know if Trump has considered a version of the “Hillary answer” as a defense ( that there was an “obligation” for the good of the country to use foreign resourses to investigate someone who may become president), but he probably won’t need to.

          2. Because the left stream media failed to be reporters and journalists and they entwined themselves. Two books published on the subject and yhou way why suddenly? Well stupid is as stupid does in the Collective of the Stupid party. Try changing programmers.

        2. you don’t get to ask us anything until you provide proof for your own allegations instead of just evidencing a strong need for three in one oil.

      2. Natacha in one of the machine parts different roles. Stating an opinion of The Collective has nothing to do with discussion between cognizant humans.

  11. You neglected to mention the videotape of Senators Murphy, Durbin, Menendez, and other Democrats “reminding” Ukrainians that they voted on foreign aid implying that Ukraine should “play ball.”

  12. I live in Connecticut and Murphy speaks with forked tongue most of the time along with his friend Blumenthal they love to be on TV in the news

      1. Do you think TIA is making it up that Ben Shapiro, and other conservative speakers, are harassed at college campuses across America? The source of the uproar TIA referenced was that Ben Shapiro was an invited guest speaker. Activists said his opinions equated to hate speech, which is ridiculous.

        Professor Turley occasionally remarks on this phenomenon.

    1. One day, if they’re lucky, maybe they’ll be comparing their foes to Saloth Sar, as they’re handed shovels and told to start digging ditches in the desert, to start gardens for their own food.
      We may call that “continuing education” for the wonderful academic parasites, who will have a chance to work for the public good on that day, instead of against it.

  13. Democrats cannot have it both ways. You cannot call for scrutiny of Trump family contracts in foreign countries while twisting yourself into a knot to avoid acknowledging the obvious about the Hunter Biden contract. It was unethical and corrupt. Omitting the word is not a profile in courage. If politicians are truly opposed to such influence peddling, they will have to say so expressly and not simply by subtle omission.

    LOL

    1. Just like Republicans can’t have it both ways. Condemning Hunter Biden, yet ignoring Trump’s family activities and conflicts involving; Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, Qatar, China, Scotland, and many more. You use the “what about” strategy to give yourselves permission to ignore Trump. Forgive me, I forgot Ukraine which might be the clearest example of all.

      1. You don’t read NYT WaPo, or watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN? I believe you got caught in your own rejoinder without enough silk to hoist the petard.

        1. Those sources may call out Trump hypocrisy, none of them are Republicans though. Try to hear about it on Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, or this blog.

          1. I often tell black men who troll sites and city parks for handouts, govt programs and bring attention to themselves: you dishonor your black ancestors who died while fighting for the freedom to work for themselves, have a family living on their personal property and raising that family offspring to be productive, proud citizens of this great country. You dishonor them bigly

            1. You on the other hand are doing your white ancestors who owned slaves proud. You no doubt know exactly what Trump means when he says, “Make America Great Again.” You must long for those days.

                    1. Did you or anyone here (besides me) respond to the anonymous Quantum? If I mention race I’m a racist but those that demonstrate actual predjudice get a pass? Why is that?

                    2. Quantum’s comment was limited to a very specific subset of the black community, not the entire community. For all we know, Quantum may have been part of that subset at one time and has this as a life’s mission. Instead of challenging him on his claims, you instead chose to issue a racist insult. So no, you don’t get a pass. Own your racism, because that is your signature contribution on this site.

                    3. Actually, Quantum’s comment was directed specifically at me. Perhaps I am supposed to politely accecp his attack and be a good boy. Please explain the “racist insult?” When you give yourself the power to define racism as you see fit. Anyone else can be racist while those you like never meet the ever-changing definition.

                    4. all deez honkies is raciss! i needs mah 20 acres! i din’ lan on plymouf rock, plymouf rock done lan on me!

              1. “You must long for those days.”
                ********************
                I for one do. You wanna make it racist. It’s your problem when you see ghosts everywhere. I find in my practice that the folks who are certain everyone else is crooked are the criminals themselves. Maybe they see with blinders or just crave affirmation for their aberrant ways. Either way, it’s a sad way to live.

                    1. enigma:
                      I’m happy to condemn the stupidity of racism no matter which way the arrow goes. You’ve been around here long enough to see me cite with great frequency Burke’s immortal rebuke of collective guilt: ”I do not know a method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people.”

                  1. Enigma — how about Jussie Smollet having the audacity to sue Chicago for malicious prosecution, saying the police narrative caused him ‘humiliation’ and ’emotional distress’?

                    Dude staged the fake crime and lied on national tv trying to instigate a race war. And he still has the balls to sue Chicago for emotional distress? He’ll get a settlement, too. Just watch.

                    THIS crap is the Democrat party of today.

                    1. Your interests have a certain pattern, so, of course he asked you.

                      You might have used fewer words just answering the question.

                    2. Enigma — I had just read the galling news that Smollet was suing Chicago and was also reading your comments here regarding racist remarks. I simply asked for your opinion. Smollet faked a racist hate crime, with the intent to ignite a race war, specifically against Trump supporters. Instead of taking it as an insult, you may also interpret my asking of YOUR opinion as a compliment, as a reflection of my interest in hearing what you think.

  14. First of all, I do not believe that it was all squeaky clean. If Hunter wants a job a Burisma, he flies commercial, not on Air Force Two. You don’t get Daddy to shut down an investigation into your company. Daddy Joe is as complicit as Hunter is. BTW, I am not sure that in that infamous interview that Hunter gave, he was either clean or sober. It was clearly edited and there is a point where you can hear a minder in the background stopping a question.

  15. While I can appreciate Turley’s claim that there is a problem of ethics regarding the Bidens, that transgression is best handled at the ballot box. Had this matter been deliberated when Biden was Vice President, the idea of impeachment hearings over the matter would have been absurd.

    The same applies to the Trump fiasco.

Leave a Reply