Ukraine Orders Investigation Into Biden Controversy After Release Of Tape

220px-Biden_2013Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced that a formal criminal investigation has been launched into then-Vice President Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine’s former president, Petro Poroshenko fire the country’s lead prosecutor in exchange for U.S. aid.  Critics, and President Donald Trump has long argued that Biden was seeking to end an investigation into Burisma, an oil company that gave his son, Hunter, highly suspicious payments as a board member.  The investigation will now go forward as the Senate issued the first subpoenas of its own on the Biden-Burisma scandal.

Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s parliament, released the recordings. The tapes show Biden stating

“It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage that Shokin did. And I’m a man of my word. And now that the new prosecutor general is in place, we’re ready to move forward to signing that new $1 billion loan guarantee. And I don’t know how you want to go about that… I’ll leave it to you to how you want it done and where you want it done.”

The tape confirms what is already known from Biden himself who bragged that he got the prosecutor canned. Biden maintains that he demanded the firing out of a commitment to fight corruption in Ukraine:

 

I have previously said that I am still not convinced that Biden made this quid pro quo demand to protect his son. There is no question in my mind that Hunter Biden’s contract was raw and open influence peddling.  However, there is still no direct evidence that this action by his father was taken to shield his son.  I am still inclined to believe Biden’s account.

Yet, I have always favored investigations into the matter.  Indeed, I testified at the Trump impeachment that I believed there was ample reason for the House to investigate Trump’s alleged quid pro quo.

The Hunter Biden contract was a form of corruption, a classic example of influence peddling. Even if it is shown that his father’s actions were unrelated, it would be good to establish the full facts, just as I favored the investigation of Trump on Ukraine.  Yet, Democrats have long opposed any inquiry.

Zelensky stated at a press conference that the new tape triggered his response:  “As to Poroshenko and Biden, yes, I have heard, I will comment. I think it’s not the last sign that Ukrainians will see. The prosecutors, law enforcement bodies should react. The prosecutor general of Ukraine registered criminal proceedings at the request of deputy [Andriy] Derkach yesterday. They will investigate.”

It is hard to gauge what information the Ukrainians have, but Trump was seeking access to such information in his controversial call with Zelensky.  Despite Trump’s call for an investigation, Zelensky did not order such an investigation.  Now he has.  With the new Senate investigation (as well as possible disclosures through John Durham;’s ongoing investigation) there may be a great deal of new information.

I tend to favor transparency on such issues, particularly when there is a clearly corrupt contract at issue.  While the Burisma contract with Hunter Biden may prove unrelated, few people other than Joe Biden are saying that there is no question of wrongdoing. As I have written previously, this is not solely a criminal but an ethical question.  Thus, I have no problem with these investigations. As a long critic of such sweetheart deals for the families of powerful American politicians, the more light on this transaction the better for the country.  It may even offer a small degree of deterrent in the absence of any willingness from the Congress to do anything meaningful in addressing this common form of corruption and special dealing.

 

75 thoughts on “Ukraine Orders Investigation Into Biden Controversy After Release Of Tape”

  1. ” Even if it is shown that his father’s actions were unrelated …” I guess bubbles are a real thing. You cannot show the impossible as true.
    The “fired” by resignation demand prosecutor and his boss both admit it was over Biden and his son Hunter.
    There simply isn’t any question in the matter. I’ve heard the screeching winds, blind to their own world tyrannical presumptions, and of course easily led and leading about the required denouncements, like global warming consensus and 2000 ex gov hatchet men, the “prosecutors corruption was unquestioned and supported by all.” Big on bravado, totally devoid of substance, and self answering with just declaration, the same old playbook. The machines blabbering lies trump 1st person testimony and statements, much like illegally desired amicus briefs to prove the innocent a criminal when all evidence corrupted and non corrupted points otherwise.

  2. “I am still not convinced that Biden made this quid pro quo demand to protect his son.”
    ***************************************************************************************************
    Really? Seems to me, Res ipsa loquitor.

  3. Republicans should demand that the Biden Gang release its personal financial timelines, IRS records and tax returns so that they might be juxtaposed with developments in and related to Ukraine, China, etc.

    1. Obama’s campaign of unmasking didn’t target Gen. Flynn as the “main focus” either, right?

      The Obama Coup D’etat in America co-conspirators were going after Kislyak, right?

      I’ve got some ocean-front property in Arizona, if you’re interested in “real” property.

  4. There is an issue that Prof. Turley and everyone else is overlooking. Under international policy, it is improper, if not illegal, for a country to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. In short, regardless of Biden’s intentions, he and the United States have no legal right to tell the president of another country he must fire the country’s chief prosecutor in order to receive a favor from the United States. This is a quid pro quo of the highest order and is unethical if not outright illegal.

    1. Your claim that “Under international policy, it is improper, if not illegal, for a country to interfere in the internal affairs of another country” is mistaken, as it’s way too broad. In international negotiations, it’s quite common for two countries to agree to some exchange, where country A does X in return for country B doing Y. Often it’s totally legal and ethical (e.g., “we’re giving you these funds and you commit to using them to fight human trafficking”), though not always. In this case, it was done in the open and to work against corruption, and it’s not an illegal or unethical quid pro quo.

      “regardless of Biden’s intentions, he and the United States have no legal right to tell the president of another country he must fire the country’s chief prosecutor in order to receive a favor from the United States” is false.

      If you want a comprehensive timeline with lots of links to relevant evidence: https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

  5. Either all allegations of a QPQ need to be thoroughly investigated or none of them. If you are justice focused, then you’re at peace with investigations. If you are politics focused, then you’re never at peace when you don’t control the levers of power. It’s not difficult to determine who on this blog is in that latter group.

    1. “Either all allegations of a QPQ need to be thoroughly investigated or none of them.”

      Your claim exemplifies a common logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy or false dilemma: https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#FalseDichotomy

      One could reasonably argue for other options, such as investigating quid pro quo only when it’s like to be corrupt QPQ, recognizing that lots of quid pro quo isn’t corrupt at all (e.g., you choose to pay $x in exchange for dinner).

      1. Not a logical fallacy at all. Thoroughly investigated means to examine objectively to a reasoned conclusion. That might require a minute of thought to closure, or it might require months/years and criminal trial to get closure. Or anywhere in between.

        1. Yes, your “all … or none” claim is a false dichotomy, as “all” and “none” aren’t the only two options.

          1. You are daft. Not Paint Chips daft, but somewhere between him and 0’fer.

            All or none has to do with the determination that a QPQ is a legal concern or it is not. If the answer is yes, then each occurrence should be objectively and thoroughly investigated. How long that takes and what that outcome will be is irrelevant.

            1. Your original claim was “Either all allegations of a QPQ need to be thoroughly investigated or none of them,” but now you’re saying “All or none has to do with the determination that a QPQ is a legal concern or it is not. If the answer is yes, then each occurrence should be objectively and thoroughly investigated.”

              Your new claim implies that a non-empty proper subset of “allegations of a QPQ need to be thoroughly investigated” (i.e., only those allegations for which the answer to “is it a legal concern” is “yes”), contrary to your original “all … or none” claim.

              1. Typical poster insults here. Tried to engage Olly few times and always ended the same – with him denouncing me as beyond one pale or another.

              2. Not contrary all all. Well, contrary to your original incorrect assumption. Something you could have easily avoided if you’re operating with a commitment to Honest Discussion, by simply asking for clarity on my original post. Oops, too late.

                1. “Not contrary all all.”

                  Sure it is. For the sake of simplifying the discussion, let’s say that there are 6 total allegations of QPQ in the entire world: A, B, C, D, E, and F. Let’s further suppose that 3 of them — B, C, and F — are legal concerns, and the other 3 aren’t.

                  Your original claim was “Either all allegations of a QPQ need to be thoroughly investigated or none of them.” That translates to “Either all of A, B, C, D, E, and F need to be thoroughly investigated or none of them.”

                  But your new claim is “If the answer [to ‘is QPQ … a legal concern’?] is yes, then each occurrence should be objectively and thoroughly investigated.” That translates to “B, C, and F should be objectively and thoroughly investigated,” which is neither all (i.e., A, B, C, D, E, and F) nor none.

                  “your original incorrect assumption”

                  You haven’t quoted anything you assert is false, much less provided evidence that it’s false. But if you do, and if you’re correct, I’ll have no problem owning that I said something incorrect.

                  1. I applaud your tenacity. Keep trying. Hint: Let’s further suppose that 3 of them — B, C, and F — are legal concerns, and the other 3 aren’t. Wait for it…

                    Wait for it…

                    How were B, C and F determined to be legal concerns?

                    1. Unfortunately, I’m not at all surprised that you won’t provide any evidence of what you allude to as my “original incorrect assumption”

                      As for your question, you referred to a “determination that a QPQ is a legal concern or it is not.” So the “how” is for you to specify, not me.

              3. Investigation is thorough once it has reached a conclusion.
                You’re splitting word hairs unfairly.

  6. Wow.

    Mr. Turley claims “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced that a formal criminal investigation has been launched into then-Vice President Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine’s former president, Petro Poroshenko fire the country’s lead prosecutor in exchange for U.S. aid.”

    I’ve now looked up a bit more info, and that claim is false, and Turley is either lying, or he totally shirked his duty to learn what Zelensky actually did before choosing to write about it.

    Zelensky did NOT launch an investigation into “Biden’s demand.”

    From the Washington Post:
    “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on his law enforcement agencies Wednesday to investigate leaked audio of private phone calls several years ago between Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, and said that the conversations ‘might be perceived, qualified as high treason [by Poroshenko].’ …
    “The Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office announced Wednesday that it has opened an inquiry on counts of high treason and abuse of power or office based on lawmaker Derkach’s allegation that the tapes point to Biden’s influence on Poroshenko. …
    “The recordings showed that Biden, as he has previously said publicly, linked loan guarantees for Ukraine in 2015 to the ouster of Viktor Shokin, then the country’s prosecutor general. But Derkach, an independent member of Ukraine’s parliament who previously aligned with a pro-Russian faction and has past links to Russian intelligence, used the new clips to make an array of accusations not proven by the tapes. Derkach said he received the tapes from ‘investigative journalists’ and alleged they were made by Poroshenko.
    “‘The audio samples published by Derkach, a pro-Russian MP, were fabricated to discredit Ukraine and artificially pull in the American electoral campaign,’ Poroshenko’s European Solidarity party said in a statement. ‘In essence, this is a Russian provocation that has nothing to do with reality. Its goal is to undermine the United States bipartisan support of Ukraine that had been built up for over five years by President Petro Poroshenko and to return our state to the sphere of Russian influence, as well as to weaken the international pro-Ukrainian coalition.’ …
    “Rudolph Giuliani, who serves as Trump’s personal attorney, met Derkach during a trip to Kyiv in December. The tapes released offered no evidence to back Giuliani’s long-standing accusation that Biden pushed for Shokin’s removal to help his son, Hunter Biden. …”

    If you don’t like the Post, here’s a discussion from the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, a Ukrainian human rights organization: http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1590003720

    What a surprise that Giuliani is involved, and that Derkash has links to Russian intelligence. /s

    Mr. Turley, if you are in any way trying to be an honest discussant here, you will retract your false statement and post a correction.

    1. Your whole write-up depends on what the meaning of the word “demand” is. Just like Clinton with the “is” word.

      1. Nonsense.

        In what I wrote, the word “demand” is a quote from Turley. So you’re actually suggesting that his “whole write-up depends on what the meaning of the word ‘demand’ is.” More to the point, is anyone questioning that Biden made that “demand”? Not that I know of. The question is whether it was a corrupt “demand” — and whether Zelensky is asking that “Biden’s demand” be investigated, or is instead asking that Poroshenko’s actions be investigated — not whether Biden made a “demand” in the first place. [RME]

        1. More to the point, is anyone questioning that Biden made that “demand”?
          ____________________________________________________________________

          Seems perfectly reasonable to question Biden’s story that he got the prosecutor fired in 6 hours in exchange for one billion dollars. For one thing Biden was not in Ukraine when the parliament accepted Shokin’s resignation or at any time close to that event and there was no one billion dollars in loan guarantees that were given as a result the prosecutor’s resignation. The only part of the story that can be verified is that Biden told it.

    2. More disturbing and dishonest posting by JT. I came here originally thinking this would be a place for interesting discussion about posts from a neutral observer. That illusion ended after column after column about Hillary and MSNBC, as if they were important major players on the domestic and international scene. OK, well at least the propaganda will be based on facts. A guy with a reputation will be responsible at least. Uh, no. Not sure what he’s done with that reputation, but I think it’s headed for being a reliable shill for Trump, and now with almost Trump like disregard for what words mean and what facts are.

      1. I came here originally thinking this would be a place for interesting discussion about posts from a neutral observer. That illusion ended after…

        Your original thinking was delusional because you’re not a neutral observer. You’ve allowed your political bias to obscure right reason. At some point, a rational human being would consider the possibility that a constitutional law professor, whose legal opinions are highly respected across the political spectrum, just might know something a layman like you does not. But that ain’t you, now is it? You’re narcissism is the stuff of evil dictators. And your anger is born out of being a powerless one.

        I’ll just call you 0’fer from now on.

  7. Professor Turley is correct. On it’s face along Hunter being placed on the Burisma board is a joke. He had zero experience in the energy and oil industries.
    Joe claimed his interests were with the prosecutor Shokin. Apparently the prosecutor wasn’t this rogue and corrupted official Joe was trying to portray.
    Joe is a Democrat so unfortunately these political issues won’t be vetted or investigated as they should be.

  8. A point I’ve brought up before but doesn’t seem to get much traction.

    Didn’t Biden have a responsibility to recuse himself because of his son’s close involvement in the issue. He had to know his son’s position and the Office of Government Ethics (oge.gov) guidelines indicate a recusal is necessary when situations: “affect the financial interests of the employee’s family, or involve individuals or organizations with which the employee has some past, present, or future connection away from the employee’s Government job.”

    Shouldn’t Biden have recused himself from any Ukraine issue, and certainly one where his actions directly affected the company his son worked for, based on these ethics standards?

    Why didn’t he?

    It seems black and white. Clearly his son was hired to gain some level of influence. No way Biden should have been the government’s representative in any issue related to the Ukraine.

    1. Twenty Years – Biden either does not talk to his kid or when he does, does not listen. If I got a board job with Burisma, I would pass that on to dad.

    2. Strange, you claim that “the Office of Government Ethics (oge.gov) guidelines indicate a recusal is necessary” in the situations you quote, but they don’t.

      Here’s what the OGE actually says:
      “The public may lose confidence in the integrity of Government if it perceives that an employee’s Government work is influenced by personal interests or by payments from an outside source. An executive branch employee’s Government work may have the potential to benefit the employee personally, affect the financial interests of the employee’s family, or involve individuals or organizations with which the employee has some past, present, or future connection away from the employee’s Government job. Separately, an employee might be offered a payment from a non-Federal source, such as a former employer, either before or after entering Government. Accordingly:
      * An employee may be disqualified from working on a particular Government matter.
      * An employee may be prohibited from holding specified property.
      * An employee may be prohibited from accepting a payment from a non-Federal source.”
      source: oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Financial+Conflicts+of+Interest
      Or if you’re quoting from some other OGE page, link to it so we can read the entire sentence, don’t hand-wave about the oge.gov site in general.

      “may be disqualified” is in no way synonymous with “recusal is necessary”

      Keep in mind that this also applies to Trump and others in the Executive Branch. Trump’s actions have benefited his personal financial interests more than once, but I don’t see you demanding that he “recuse” from those situations.

      The fact is that Shokin was corrupt (see some of the links I already posted), and by urging the Ukraine to appoint a non-corrupt Prosecutor General, Biden was acting in a way that would potentially harm his son’s financial interests rather than benefit his son. Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma.

    3. Hunter flew with Biden on AF2 to Ukraine many times. Biden’s own staff warned him.
      Biden claims he never knew a thing, just like he never had the January meeting with Obama and the top criminals and he never unmasked and never knew what was going on.
      Just like Lois Lerner.
      Just like Rice and Benghazi.
      Just like Schiff for 2 years of in his face secret testimony in several forums he unfortunately misinterpreted, because no means yes.
      Just like the entire MSM.
      Just like Sullivan who never knew the missing 302.
      They’re all completely clueless and thus honorable, full of integrity, worthy to lead, full of justice, and beyond reproach. Just ask Mueller, it’s in his purview.
      Also, their reputations are sterling and they are the most highly regarded for years.

      1. Hunter flew with Biden on AF2 to Ukraine many times.
        ____________________________________________________________
        Hunter must have parachuted out before he got there because Hunter has never been in Ukraine. That is the reason the Ukraine prosecutors have declined to investigate. They have no record of Hunter ever setting foot in Ukraine. The headquarters of Burisma is in Cyprus and none of the board meetings were ever held in Ukraine while Hunter was on the Board.

  9. FFS, Biden was publicly enacting U.S. policy. Congress was briefed on Biden’s actions at the time, and bipartisan members of Congress had previously written Ukranian President Poroshenko that “we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromaviius‎. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary” (https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help ) That Prosecutor General was Shokin.

    The push to fire Shokin for his failure to clamp down on corruption was also supported by other countries. Here’s a contemporaneous example of support from the EU:
    irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190
    And a contemporaneous example of support from the Atlantic Council:
    atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/shokin-s-revenge-ukraine-s-odious-prosecutor-general-fires-honest-deputy-before-parliament-sacks-him/
    Here’s more recent example noting EU support: ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

    Shame on you, Mr. Turley, for not mentioning this and pretending that there’s an honest question about the legitimacy of Biden pushing for Shokin’s firing.

    1. Except the very real policy could have been, in a very real way, heavily influenced to cover the corruption. I swear, people like you live in a fantasy world. I’ve seen this in the real world. I’ve seen it when I was in the military. I left law enforcement over this crap. This, while not everyday, is not uncommon either.

      Here’s a fun fact – Aloha Oil. It was Enron before Enron. George Bush was on the audit committee and knew about the scam. The DOJ had him dead-to-rights. Yet President Clinton interfered with his prosecution and the DOJ dropped the case against hiim.

      He then became President. And you NEVER heard of it. I barely heard of it.

      1. Provide a shred of evidence moze and then we can talk. There is plenty of evidence supporting VP Biden acting as directed in the national interest.

        By your standards we should combine an “investigation” with one into Trump’s grifter family which has more opportunities for corrupt financial practices. We can call it “2020 Candidates Family Feud”.

      2. He then became President. And you NEVER heard of it. I barely heard of it.

        It doesn’t occur to you that you never heard of it because there was nothing to it, just nonsense made up by Molly Ivins, whose history in the business world approximated in duration her history in the NFL.

      3. “Except the very real policy could have been, in a very real way, heavily influenced to cover the corruption.”

        No. As I already pointed out, Shokin wasn’t trying to clamp down on corruption, and Biden was pressing for him to be replaced by a P.G. who actually *would* investigate corruption. If there was something corrupt with Burisma, Biden was arguing in favor of a change that would make it *more* likely — not less likely — that it would be prosecuted.

      1. I’m totally disgusted by this column. Turley is either purposefully lying, or he’s irresponsible and willing to post false claims without bothering to inform himself first. I’m horrified that a law professor is choosing to be such an awful model when it comes to due diligence.

        1. Turley has adopted the “Barr” rule. Only point out what they want pointed out. Leave details out that would refute your given points.

    2. Pravda means truth, if I recall. Your monniker reminds me of the communist party news organ being named Pravda. Does someone pay you to spend this much time peddling propaganda? Perhaps a Soros funded organization? It may be that Shokin was corrupt, but Biden, through his unqualified son, was indirectly on Bursima’s payroll. You can create as many distractions as you want, but no one has offered a reasonable explanation of what Biden Hunter’s qualifications were other than being the son of Joe Biden and what he did for the money he was paid.

      1. It may be that Biden was acting in the national interest in getting Shokin fired. I think that charge is unproven and frankly very difficult to prove what a person’s motives are. If he wanted to represent the government at the level he did, he needed to make sure his son wasn’t getting these sweetheart deals. With respect to Biden Hunter’s deal with Burisma (and other dealings), res ipsa loquitur

        1. I’m sure that you also say “If [Trump] wanted to represent the government at the level he did, he needed to make sure his [children weren’t] getting these sweetheart deals” right? Or does your standard only apply to Democrats?

      2. If you have evidence that anything I said is false, just quote it and provide the evidence, and I’ll gladly agree that I was wrong. I doubt that you’ll do that. It seems you’d rather revert to an ad hominem fallacy than dig into facts.

        Joe Biden isn’t Hunter Biden. If you’re going to tar Joe Biden on the basis of his son’s acts, do the same thing for every other politician with kids who try to profit from their parents’ positions. Hold them all to the same standard. Are you as concerned about Trump’s kids trying to profit from Trump being President?

      3. Not that it matters, since there are no allegations of a criminal act Hal, but Hunter was probably hired as window dressing. It happens all the time in capitalist societies. You don’t think Nick Saban really knows anything about insurance, do you?

    3. From your AC liberal link: ” Most strikingly, Shokin failed to prosecute any single prominent member of the Yanukovych regime. Nor did he prosecute anyone in the current government. ”
      Wow, so if Obama’s regime isn’t prosecuted, it doesn’t meet the standard the fools applied overseas but demand never occur here.
      One rule for them proves corruption, the same rule for you and yours proves absolute proper justice.
      The Obama regime overthrew the Ukraine government, then installed their desired puppets. It was criminal in every aspect. Joe got his puppet to save his son. Shokin had already raided Burisma within days past. Nothing can convince anyone otherwise. Liars included.

      1. The Obama regime overthrew the Ukraine government, then installed their desired puppets.

        They didn’t and they didn’t.

  10. JT:
    “I have previously said that I am still not convinced that Biden made this quid pro quo demand to protect his son. There is no question in my mind that Hunter Biden’s contract was raw and open influence peddling. However, there is still no direct evidence that this action by his father was taken to shield his son. I am still inclined to believe Biden’s account.“
    *************************
    Given your belief that it was “raw and open influence peddling” and the fact that Hunter and Joe Magoo discussed the matter, why would you conclude that Biden is like Caesar’s wife? The opposite seems much more likely.

  11. Let me try to understand this:

    JT thinks there should be an investigation without any alleged crime and for which the President’s opponent in the coming elections position has been supported by those seeking to undermine him with released audio tapes, and which other factual information confirms from other governments and our own, none of whom give a rat’s ass about Hunter Biden, and yet he opposed the Senate hearing witnesses in the impeachment hearings, and now opposes a review of the a flip flop by the DOJ which stinks like week old “dog doo” – to quote the speaker of the House – because ………..Trump.

    Sure, lets have a circus in the Senate to drag down Biden’s name over nothing while a corrupt AG tries to spring his 2nd fellow Trump crony and dust it under the rug ASAP!!

    What a f…g hack.

    1. “JT thinks there should be an investigation without any alleged crime and for which the President’s opponent in the coming elections position has been supported by those seeking to undermine him ….l
      *********************
      Why not? Russiagate was an investigation in search of a Trump crime. Turnabout seems fair play for Joe Magoo. And, of course, everything is irony.

  12. One thing we know is that the story Joe Biden told is not the actual timeline of events. Soooooooooo, Hunter is being investigated and Joe is being investigated. Hmmm.

    1. To quote Obama and Sullivan, that’s perjury and treason, a targeted counter intelligence investigation has been underway, I’m sure. Hopefully the RNC has some overseas “former agents” that hate Biden with the blazing heat of a thousand suns, so that totally proper FISA warrants and non spying can run up the Biden’s backsides for years to come.
      Joe Biden’s brother took a 1.5 billion dollar rebuild Iraq contract 30 days after he formed his I know how to build things company. Good thing that wasn’t a Trump, since that would have made it illegal.

  13. Even Diogenes of Sinope would have a near impossible task finding a worthy candidate for a democrat presidential slot. It is quite telling that there is rarely a dem who is not surrounded by scandal or impropriety so I would imagine that slimy Joe is probably their best bet at this point. Just go with it, the nation sees who and what you are already.

    1. No he wouldn’t. The Democratic field this year included Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Yang, John Delaney, and John Hickenlooper, four men who had proven themselves in the business world. Three of them had held elective office and two had held demanding positions as public executives on top of their time as private-sector executives. The interest in these four among Democratic voters was diddly / squat. Instead, they took an interest in the senile and crooked mediocrity they’re going to nominate this summer, in a cranky old red whose time in the private sector is an embarrassment, in a mediocre resume puffing small city mayor shacked up with another dude, and in Princess Spreading Bull (who told the world her choice for Secretary of Education would be vetted by a deranged elementary school child).

      The culture of the Democratic Party could not be more rancid.

      1. DSS – just because you are autistic does not mean you are deranged. Warren is deranged, the student probably has more sense than she does. 😉

        1. The child is supposedly ‘trans’, indubitably so labeled by her munchausen-syndrome-by-proxy mother.

          1. You are probably dead on correct about the mother. There was that Australian boy whose sick mother made him dress up like a girl. He finally got emancipated and got to meet his father again.

            Sadly, some state official either have Munchausen’s or are queers and fruitcakes themselves and make it far worse.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

Leave a Reply