Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg has pledged to pour $100 million dollars in Florida alone to elect Joe Biden as part of his earlier pledge to pump hundreds of millions into the election.  The role of billionaires like Bloomberg and Sheldon Adelson in pouring hundreds of millions into the election for each side remains controversial, though many past critics of such windfall campaign financing are now demanding more support.  Bloomberg however is now under fire for pledging to pay off the debts of Black and Hispanic former felons to allow them to vote. The Washington Post reported that the funding of only Black and Hispanic former felons was due in part to the fact that they are more likely to vote for Biden.  That effort has led to allegations that Bloomberg may himself be committing a felony under Florida election laws. Much of this controversy is focused on the reporting of the Washington Post and an alleged Bloomberg memo. The money is actually distributed by a Florida organization committed to restoring voting rights for former felons.

Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 restoring the right for felons to vote, except those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses. This right was later conditioned on the payment of all fees, fines, and restitution that were part of their sentence. The right to restrict such voting was uphold by the Eleventh Circuit and that order was left in place in June by the United States Supreme Court over the dissent of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Bloomberg is now moving to pay off those debts for nearly 32,000 Black and Hispanic convicted felons. Notably, while defending this effort as simply restoring the right to vote for felons, Bloomberg will only do that for Black and Hispanic voters. A Bloomberg memo first reported by the Washington Post read: “We know to win Florida we will need to persuade, motivate and add new votes to the Biden column. This means we need to explore all avenues for finding the needed votes when so many votes are already determined.” As a result, Bloomberg is only clearing the way for Black and Hispanic voters because they are more likely to vote for Biden. Thus, those former felons who might vote for Trump are intentionally left disenfranchised by Bloomberg.

That raw political calculation has led some to raise the possible violation of Florida law.  On Fox, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), stated that Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody told him that there might be a criminal investigation of Bloomberg.  As an initial matter, such discussion of a possible criminal investigation of Bloomberg by Moody would in my view be highly inappropriate.

Gaetz stated “[Under Florida law] it’s a third-degree felony for someone to either directly or indirectly provide something of value to impact whether or not someone votes.”

That is not entirely accurate. Such an investigation would be based on Section 104.061:

104.061 Corruptly influencing voting.

(1) Whoever by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any elector in voting or interferes with him or her in the free exercise of the elector’s right to vote at any election commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 for the first conviction, and a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, for any subsequent conviction.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.
Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria.  “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.
That leaves Section 2.  That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.”  Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.
The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases.  It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting. 
The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.
Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election.  That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

188 thoughts on “Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?”

  1. Everyone should vote IN PERSON if they can. Some states even have early voting in person starting in October. CHECK with your state. The democrats have been cheating and stealing votes for decades. Try to vote in person so that you don’t inadvertently have your vote STOLEN from you. This is the whole reason for the DEMS keeping the entire country locked down TO FORCE MAIL IN VOTING. That is why they are fudging the COVID numbers to their POLITICAL ADVANTAGE!

  2. Michael Rubens Bloomberg is a piece of dirt. He wants to pay off felons ($16 Million dollars) so they will vote for the Democrat swamp creatures. RELEASING UP TO 32,000 FELONS! He CARES NOTHING about the additional MURDERS, RAPES, DESTRUCTION, HUMAN TRAFFICKING and general LAWLESSNESS he is about to UNLEASH on the hard working LAW ABIDING Taxpayers that will die or be inured.
    He’s a SORE LOSER for falling on his face when he tried to join the presidential wannabes in the debate. He is short; short in stature, short on morals, short on intelligence and I am sure he is SHORT IN EVERY WAY!
    BAN ANYTHING TO DO WITH BLOOMBERG! BADMOUTH this piece of dirt every chance you get. He is worse than the criminals he is paying to have released, because he is evil enough to use his money in this DISHONEST and EVIL WAY.

    1. I am not favorably disposed to Bloombergs actions – but they are legal. If Bloomberg wishes to give fellon’s money he is free to do so.

      No one is being “released” – if you are in prison in FL or most any other state you can not vote.
      These are people who have been released and completed all aspects of parole except paying off fines and restitution.

      Bloomberg’s money will go to their victims.

    2. There should be part of OUR Constitution that protects others from vipers like Soros, Bloomberg, all Millionaires inside and foreign entities from donating anything to a politician running for a political office inside USA that would be OUR country or anyone running for an office of political agenda that is of greater importance than a head of the dog catchers . Seriously, that is why Biden and the leftists are ripping our country apart.

      1. No!!! No!!!

        Absolutely democrats have benefited more from decisions like Citizens united than Republicans.
        But it should also be clear from this election that we are well past the point of diminished returns from election spending.

        Democrats spent twice what republicans did to maybe eak out a win against Trump, to pick up one senate seat and to lose 13+ house seats.

        This occured with republicans facing an unrelentingly bad press, social media censorship, even risking violence for expressing their political views.

        This occured in the midst of an epidemic which the left successfully blamed on Trump. And in the midst of a pandemic induced economic decline.

        This level of effort by democrats is unsustainable,

        I am not a big Lindsey Gramham fan, but his observation that democrats might as well have piled up money and burned it is correct.

        The real consequence of this is that not just the left – but democrats as a whole, the press, … have all burned their credibility.

        I would further note that democrats and Biden are stick with the stench of fraud.

        Biden could have joined Trump early on and demanded that elections would be conducted in a trustworthy fashion, he could have joined Trump in demanding that every LEGITIMATE vote get counted. But by hiding he has made himself and his party complicit.

        The MSM, Social Media can not bury the fraud. Worse their efforts to do so make ALL the allegations credible.

        There are lots of claims out their. Most – not all of the ‘benford’s law” arguments are idiocy. Benford’s law does not apply where there are factors other than fraud that drive the distribution of numbers.

        There are several other claims that are large and not likely to be true. Ordinarily I would say the DVS claim is implausible.
        The only things that make it credible are that Sydney Powell is making it and DVS is not behaving as if they are an innocent party being defamed.

        Regardless, as the media – both news and social media works to supress all claims of fraud, they make the credibility of all claims the same.

        Real inquiry would prove some claims but weaken most. But it also would likely lead to reform.

        Instead even gossip about election fraud is going to be deemed true by millions of people.

        Supressing views you do not like makes them stronger not weaker.

  3. He looks like the pompous ass he is. I thought the law was the debt had to be paid by them, not by bribery. Hopefully, they will vote for Trump anyway. After all Trump running for re-election is what gave Bloomberg the idea.

  4. Voting is solemn, private, personal and secret.

    Individual Americans must make all decisions related to voting; keeping their own counsel.

    Voting in accomplished by presenting at a polling place, being identified, being certified, receiving a ballot and executing a ballot on election day.

    Election day is one day and one day only – vote-by-mail cannot be accomplished on election day and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America attempt to influence, manipulate, harvest and fix, and that is corruption; that is criminal.

    1. George, early voting is completely legal and has been for decades. The last day to cast a vote is nov 3. You can cast your vote before that time where early voting is allowed.

      Republicans have reduced the number of polling places everywhere and that makes voting that day only impossible for everyone to vote.

      Some states have only mail in voting. It’s completely constitutional. Each state has its own rules.

      1. “George, early voting is completely legal”

        It is ? The constitution sets an election DAY – not a week or month or year.

        If early voting is legitimate – please give my a ballot for 2022 and 2024 and I will vote now.

        ” and has been for decades. The last day to cast a vote is nov 3.”

        US Constitution A1 S4 C1

        “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

        One Day – throughout the whole US.

        “You can cast your vote before that time where early voting is allowed.”
        Not constitutionally for president. If you do not like that – change the constitution.

        “Republicans have reduced the number of polling places everywhere and that makes voting that day only impossible for everyone to vote.”
        More leftist nonsense blaming republicans for the failures of democrats.

        FALSE, The number of polling places and there location is set by states – and usually by local government. The federal funds for voting are allocated equally to each congressional district.

        It is absolutely true that in many democratic districts polling places are few, poorly funded and lines are long.
        That is a failure of LOCAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

        If you face long lines and remote locations to vote – confront your local government – THEY are responsible.

        I live in a suburban/rural area, in theory I should have to travel significantly to vote, and yet there is a polling place within a few miles of my home, the lines are never long.

        Yet in urban areas where people should be able to walk easily to the polls they fact long lines – and not a republican in sight.

        Fix your own houses. Quit blaming your own failures on others.

        “Some states have only mail in voting. It’s completely constitutional. Each state has its own rules.”
        States are NOT free to set their own rules for the election of the president – read the actual constitution.

        Beyond that – many things that are unconstitutional go on all the time. That does not make them constitutional.

        1. ““The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.””

          Parsing words,
          Congress MAY determine the time of chusing electors (now multiple days)
          Congress determines the day on which they SHALL give their votes, First Tuesday after first Monday in November.

          Just pointing out a loophole.

          1. Parsing words “Congress”.

            While the election process of other federal offices is left to the state legislatures – not the state governments in the constitution, with a congressional override, the election of the president is the domain of the federal government. NOT the states.

            There is no provision in the constitution conveying to states any power regarding presidential elections.

        2. I would think the founders disapproved of voting early and often. If you vote early in one polling place and get to another on voting day a state away, “early and often” applies.
          Mailing real valid ballots to people who have moved or died is a tiny window for fraud.
          I’d like to see a law that only ballots counted before midnight “count” in the chusing of electors.

          1. I would like to see the process of conducting elections setup such that they were secure, trustworthy, short and certain.

            I have specific ideas as to how elections should be conducted – but it is not important whether my specific recomendations are followed.

            Fraud is the greatest issue. What matters is not how large or small fraud actually is, but how large it could be, as well as the perception of voters regarding fraud.

            If an election is fraud free – but voters do not trust it, the government is not legitimate.

            Error is another issue. FL 2000 had this massive pissing contest over hanging chad. What mattered in 2000 was NOT whether Bush or Gore won. But that an answer was arrived at quickly that people would trust.

            In 2008 the GA senate election was won by razor thin margins.

            Instead of recount after recount, instead of election commissions and courts and lawyers, GA law required a runnoff 6 weeks later,
            That produced a certain result easily and with the least perception of corruption.

            The 2000 election brought us computerized voting machines. This was absolute idiocy. Even if the software in a computer was perfect, getting people to trust that their votes entered on a touch screen were never modified and were counted is not possible with black boxes.

            The goal is NOT to make voting easy.

            If I could I would make everyone have to brave a huricane to vote. Voting should be difficult.
            The larger portion of citizens that vote the less stable the country is.

  5. If Trump gets reelected, it’ll be a miracle. All the crap the democrats are doing to nock this guy off is unbelievable. The MSM is against him. Hollywood and the entertainment industry is against him. Bloomberg is spending $60 million in Florida to beat him. The democrats impeached him. They tried to frame him with this Russia crap. If he gets re elected, this guy might just as well walk on water.

    1. Haven’t you heard the latest? The plan is this: in battleground states with Republican legislatures, if there isn’t an obvious landslide for Biden on election night, Trump’s campaign will file lawsuits challenging the validity of mail-in ballots, which will slow down tabulation and certification of the results. Meanwhile, the December deadline for certifying the Electoral College representatives will be looming large, so they’re planning on getting the Republican state legislatures to bypass the popular vote results (because they, as of this writing, September 24, 2020, have already been deemed “invalid”, even though most of them haven’t been cast yet) and appoint pro-Trump electors. This is how they’re planning on getting around the popular vote to steal a second election.

      And you wonder why people want him gone? He didn’t win the popular vote in 2016. He has never captured even a 50% approval rate. More than 200,100 Americans are dead and more than 6.6. have contracted the SARS-Co-VID virus. Unemployment is more than 10%. Small businesses have been forced to close, and the national debt is at a record level. Plus, he’s still trying to overturn Obamacare in the midst of a pandemic and when so many people are unemployed. He’s trying to rescind the payroll tax, which means that there won’t be any money for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. By any measure, he is a total failure, which is consistent with his entire life pattern.

      Trump was NOT framed, either. Read the Mueller Report.

      1. Lets see – we know find out that Brennan not merely ignored but coerced and pressured CIA analysts who claimed that Putin Strongly Favored Clinton, and that he deliberately excluded that material for the ICA report, and that he made sure the ICA report was written by a protege who was a Clinton backer – and that the House Ontelligence committee has known this since 2018, but the Rep. Schiff has been blocking release of the report of this since 2018 and burried it completely when Democrats took over the house.

        And you want to claim that any of this has been done properly ?

        You do not need to be a CIA analyst and never did need to be to grasp that Putin was far more likely to favor Clinton than Trump.
        ALL of Trump’s platform was at odds with Russia and all of Clinton’s were in Russia’s interests.

        Only left wing idiots disconnected from reality could EVER have beleived Putin wanted Trump to win.
        That requires believing that Putin does not give a $hi!t about his own country.

        We have all listened to the “collusion delusion” nonsense for 4 years – it has come apart bit by bit – as all frauds must.

        YOU have sold and beleived this garbage.

        Yes, go READ the Mueller report – is there EVIDENCE of actual crimes in there ? NOPE!
        Biased partisan speculation, and spin is not facts. Jesse Smollet was not assaulted by MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters – no matter how much you wish it were so, and none of Mueller’s 1000 pages of vituperative regrets changes the fact that claims of Trump/Russia collusion are DELUSSION.

        Grow up. Face reality.

        I do not know who will win the election in Nov. But I can assure you of one thing – the left will fail – badly.

        Anyone familiar with the history of the left over the past 200 years can see that as obvious.

        When you call the half the country that disagrees with you – hateful hating haters – YOU are the problem – YOU are the hater.

      2. Apparently you haven’t read the Mueller report and haven’t been paying attention at all. One of the attorneys plead guilty to changing an email to read exactly opposite of what it was intended. The original email stated that Carter Page HAD served as a CIA asset but the attorney altered the email to say HAD NOT. The FISA court would have never allowed surveillance if they knew that Page had served as an asset. The FISA applications also relied on the fake dossier certifying that its contents were “true and correct” when they knew all along that it was not. Without the fake dossier and the lies, the investigation never would have happened and no american citizen was charged with anything to do with collusion. The entire mess was a set up and people will be prosecuted. It’s very telling that everyone on the left was screaming that people on the right would never accept the results of Mueller’s report but exactly the opposite occurred. Because the people on the left don’t like the results of the investigation, they choose to act like it says something different than it does. It’s been a repeating phenomenon for the last 4 years when what normal people would do would be starting to question why their media has been wrong at every turn. No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it’s still a lie.

      3. So many errors. The jobs numbers are returning since the virus, but his first 3years we had full employment. A small percentage unemployed want to be. Democrats are condoning cheating in every way possible. 3 years of investigations and an impeachment and the people still like him at the helm. Bloomberg breaking laws about bringing money from out-of-state. He wants to quit taxing to give money to someone else. Astounding, the Democrats are the dirtiest liars on the planet.after the election someone will show her lies. Supposedly half the payroll tax is from the employer. They haven’t stopped that. Many of us see Trump as the only way to keep us from Socialism, or worse Communism.

  6. Trump is going to get what he wants regarding a conservative woman on the Supreme Court. this is the fault of Right Wing bubble types.
    Maybe I need to switch teams and bat for the other side

    Democrats are said to fear that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is not up for the task of leading her party’s effort to stop Senate Republicans from confirming the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court.

    Politico reports:

    Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate, is widely respected by senators in both parties, but she has noticeably slowed in recent years. Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides show widespread concern over whether the California Democrat is capable of leading the aggressive effort Democrats need against whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. […]

    Feinstein sometimes gets confused by reporters’ questions, or will offer different answers to the same question depending on where or when she’s asked. Her appearance is frail. […]

    [A] senator said there have been discussions among some Democrats about making changes to the seniority system next year due to their concerns over Feinstein.

    “She’s not sure what she’s doing,” a Democrat senator said about Feinstein.

    Yet, in an interview with Politico, Feinstein attempted to downplay concerns about her preparedness for the third Supreme Court nomination process under President Donald Trump.

    “I’m really surprised and taken aback by this. Because I try to be very careful and I’m puzzled by it,” Feinstein said. “My attendance is good, I do the homework, I try to ask hard questions. I stand up for what I believe in.”

  7. Democrats are not going to win the election with this finding. this is not good all due to the vast right wing bubble trumpters

    Senate Report: Hunter Biden’s Law Firm Took Nearly $6M from Chinese Oligarch

    Vice President Joe Biden, center, approaches a hearse carrying a casket containing the remains of his son, former Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, funeral service, Saturday, June 6, 2015, at St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Wilmington, Del. Walking alongside the vice president are his son Hunter, from …

    Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, raked in nearly six million from a Chinese oligarch who sought power and influence in Washington, D.C.

    A bombshell report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Finance Committee details numerous cases in which Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and family members have deep ties to the Chinese communist government, Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

    One such case notes Hunter Biden’s law firm, Owasco, seemingly accepting nearly six million in consulting fees and legal representation from Chinese oligarch Ye Jianming.

    The report details:

    On Aug. 8, 2017, CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $5 million to the bank account for Hudson West III. These funds may have originated from a loan issued from the account of a company called Northern International Capital Holdings, a Hong Kong-based investment company identified at one time as a “substantial shareholder” in CEFC International Limited along with Ye. It is unclear whether Hunter Biden was half-owner of Hudson West III at that time. However, starting on Aug. 8, the same day the $5 million was received, and continuing through Sept. 25, 2018, Hudson West III sent frequent payments to Owasco, Hunter Biden’s firm. These payments, which were described as consulting fees, reached $4,790,375.25 in just over a year. [Emphasis added]

    A million of the nearly six million transferred to Hunter Biden’s law firm was then refunded, claiming that the payment was related to his firm’s representation of Jianming associate Patrick Ho — convicted of international bribery and money laundering in 2019.

    Ho’s legal representation in the case, though, did not include Hunter Biden’s law firm. Attorneys with the firms Krieger Kim & Lewin LLP and Dechert LLP represented Ho in the case, court records show.

    Source Washington Post

    1. regarding above

      The report states:

      On March 22, 2018, a $1 million payment was sent from Hudson West III to Owasco with a memo line for “Dr Patrick Ho Chi Ping Representation.” In his alternative explanation, Hunter Biden indicated that the misdirected $1 million was related to his representation of Ye’s associate, Patrick Ho. These transactions illustrate the financial connections between Gongwen Dong’s Hudson West III, Ye Jianming’s CEFC, and Hunter Biden’s Owasco. [Emphasis added]

      Biden stated that:

      Boies Schiller Flexner is co-counsel for Dr. Patrick Ho’s case. Hudson West III LLC has no involvement with Patrick Ho Chi Ping[’]s case and won[’]t expect further transaction related to Dr. Patrick Ho Chi Ping trail [sic] for Hudson West III LLC. Owasco LLC and co- Counsel Boies Schiller Flexner will represent Dr. Patrick Ho Chi Ping [at] trial. [Emphasis added]

      The report also reveals that at the same time Hunter Biden’s law firm was taking payments from Jianming, he was transferring money to the Lion Hall Group, a consulting firm run by Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden.

      “Between Aug. 14, 2017 and Aug. 3, 2018, Owasco sent 20 wires totaling $1,398,999 to the Lion Hall Group, a consulting firm that lists James Biden and his wife, Sara Biden, on the bank account. This transaction was identified for potential criminal financial activity,” the report states:

      These transfers began less than one week after CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $5 million to Hudson West III and Hudson West III sent its first payment of $400,000 to Owasco. Most of the payments from Owasco to the Lion Hall Group had vague notes in the memo lines, 15 of which simply indicated that they were for further credit to James Biden; however, the memo line for one of the payments read “HW3,” which indicates some of the transferred money could be from Hudson West III. When the bank contacted Sara Biden regarding the overall wire activity, she stated that the Lion Hall Group and Owasco provide international and business consulting and that the Lion Hall Group was assisting Owasco with an international client through a contract that had since terminated. Sara Biden told the bank that she would not provide any supporting documentation, and she also refused to provide additional information to more clearly explain the activity. Consequently, the bank submitted the account for closure. The Committees created the following chart with respect to this transaction. [Emphasis added]

      Hudson West III also sent funds directly to the Lion Hall Group. According to records on file with the Committees, James B. Biden is the principal contact for the Lion Hall Group, and between January 2018 and October 2018, Hudson West III sent the Lion Hall Group outgoing wires totaling $76,746.15 with the memo, “office expense and reimbursement.” These transactions illustrate a direct financial link between Hudson West III (which was connected to CEFC, the Chinese government, and Gongwen Dong) and James Biden. [Emphasis added]

      Similarly, as reported, Hunter Biden’s private equity firm received about $3.5 million from Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina in 2014 as part of a “consultancy agreement.”

      The report states that members of the Biden family used credit cards linked to associates with ties to the Chinese communist government and bought luxury items with the funds.

      Hunter Biden, in the report, is accused of making payments to Russian and Eastern European women linked to prostitution and human trafficking.

      1. Regarding the three Svelaz posts. I did not post those. The local troll is falsely posting under my name.

    2. “’While Republicans’ Ukraine investigation showed Vice President Biden did nothing wrong, it succeeded in implicating former Secretary Perry in a corrupt scheme to pressure the Ukrainian government to change the board of Naftogaz.’ [said Democratic Senate Finance aide]”

      Letter to the DoE Inspector General about this from Sen. Wyden in the article.

      BTW, Hunter Biden isn’t a candidate. He’s neither the first nor the last family member to profit from someone holding office, and if Congress wants to make that illegal, they should pass a law about it (I won’t object, depending on the specifics), in which case it will apply to the family of Republicans along with Democrats.

    3. read between the lines here.

      a) PRC Chinese tycoons will not make higher level actions and contacts with political implications, without approval from the CCP or MSS
      b) a chinese tycoon was grooming biden, drawing him into guanxi with easy money
      c) it may have all been perfectly legal, except this: biden did not earn the fees, it was an unethically high payment
      d) ergo they would have had at least that leverage over him, his law license, and his reputation, low though it may be
      e) later in time, we can be sure, with such an investment, that eventually the tycoon, with instructions from the CCP or MSS, would have approached Biden to take action as an intelligence asset
      f) an afterthought, but, SARs suspicious activity reports caught the swift system payments… but did they catch the hongbao paid in cash? did hunter book all those payments or “Forget” some of them? maybe tycoon would have had some tax evasion leverage against hunter too
      g) i bet they had some karaoke xiaojie get some goods on hunter too. normal “client networking” activity!???

      hence, may we speculate that hunter biden is an unacceptable liability to American national security?

      the point has thus been made by the Senate ….. not to the American people who already guessed as much,,, but to the “powers that be” inside the “intelligence community”

      or it might have been the other way around…. maybe the intel leaked the whole thing to the Senate in the first place….

  8. Since Jonathan Turley is “c”atholic in name only, invoking his Catholic upbringing only to minimize the Faith, a role model attorney like Bill Barr provides the leadership that Turley is not capable of providing.

    Our nation is in desperate need of God fearing leaders. Thankfully we have Bill Barr

    excerpt follows


    Remarks by Attorney General William P. Barr on his Acceptance of the Christifideles Laici Award at the 2020 National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

    Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, September 23, 2020

    How does religion preserve liberty? In the first place, as our Founders recognized, religion assists in the formation of virtuous citizens who are prepared to exercise liberty responsibly. Whereas in democratic times, individuals have a tendency to withdraw from public life and pursue private self-gratification, religion builds community, strengthens social cohesion, and turns our attention to the common good. At the same time, religion safeguards individual rights by warding off what Tocqueville called the “impious maxim” that “everything is permitted in the interest of society.” For all of these reasons, Tocqueville referred to Americans’ religion as “the first of their political institutions.”

    Unfortunately, in the last half century, that foundation of our free society has increasingly been under siege. Traditional morality has eroded, and secularists have often succeeded not only in eliminating religion from schools and the public square, but in replacing it with new orthodoxies that are actively hostile to religion. The consequences of this hollowing out of religion have been predictably dire. Over the past 50 years, we have seen striking increases in urban violence, drug abuse, and broken families. Problems like these have fed the rise of an ever more powerful central government, one that increasingly saps individual initiative, coopts civil society, crowds out religious institutions, and ultimately reduces citizens to wards of the State.

    1. So someone is only Catholic if *you* say they’re Catholic, Estovir?

      “secularists have often succeeded not only in eliminating religion from schools and the public square” is bullish*t. People are totally free to bring their religion into the public square, and they’re free to bring it into private schools. Religions can be discussed in public schools in any context that doesn’t preference one over the others (e.g., in a social studies class discussing the 1st Amendment, in saying “under God” in the pledge of allegiance).

      For a Catholic, Barr should take “Thou shalt not lie” more seriously.

    2. Forget religion with Judge Amy Barrett it seems she’s to rotten for the Supreme Court.

      Pro Govt Mandatory Vaccines

      Anti-1st Amd

      Anti- 2nd


      Will defer to the Pope instead of the USC.

      Legal position that supports US govt internment


      Per: Attorney Robert Barnes interview from the War Room last, later will be posted on banned.video

  9. I heard from Candace Owens today that black voters are leaving the Democratic Party and voting for Trump in huge numbers.

    So, Team Trump should be happy that Bloomberg is helping to allow this group to vote.

    (unless what Candace said was complete bs — wishful thinking – and Team Trump knows this which is why they are trying so hard to make sure black people do not vote).

    1. They are leaving in large numbers. That doesnt mean its over 50% of them though, and as long as its below 50% its still a net gain for the Dems. You should have paid more attention in maths class.

  10. The American Founders generally restricted the vote to: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

    They also restricted the vote, by restricting immigration in the four iterations of the Naturalization Acts below:

    Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

    The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect in 1860, upon the issuance of the wholly unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863, and until the tyrannical dictator and lawbreaking criminal, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, suspended Habeas Corpus, formed a violent gang, killed one million Americans and illegally commandeered the country by brutal military force.

    No law-abiding, peace-loving, patriotic American he.

    Presumably, it is fully constitutional for a president to, once again, suspend Habeas Corpus in Lincolnesque fashion, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and forcibly impose an agenda, such as the re-implementation of the original intent, the fundamental law and the nation of the American Founders.

    Clearly, America was established as a restricted immigration and restricted-vote republic not a one man, one vote democrazy.

    To wit,

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

    “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

    – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

  11. Turley has a way of misrepresenting a situation. Living in Florida I can report that the voters passed a constitutional amendment by a wide margin restoring voting rights to non-violent felons without restrictions. The Republican-controlled legislature passed a law directly opposed to the will of the people, disenfranchising those released felons on the assumption that the majority of those voters would vote Democratic. Bloomberg didn’t disenfranchise voters, Republicans did. During the appeal it was found that the State of Florida couldn’t accurately tell felons how much they owed, the intent was never to collect fines but to block voting. If Bloomberg chooses to help only those who have been historically disenfranchised most, Republicans could assist their assumed voters by getting ri9d of the law they passed for partisan purposes.

  12. No comments about the nice aspect that counties and the state will be getting revenue or what we call fast money.

  13. Another wishy-washy opinion by Turley. Glad he is not a judge. And why is it “inappropriate” to discuss this topic?

  14. Don’t have enough Supreme Court justices legislating for Liberals from the bench?

    Expand the court and stuff it with more!

  15. Don’t have enough voters?

    Democrats can always create more.

    Like their move to allow 16 year olds to vote.

  16. Meanwhile, the Kentucky A.G. announces that no officers will be indicted for killing Breonna Taylor. She was a totally innocent person, killed by police. 1 officer has been indicted for shooting into neighboring apartments, charged with three counts of wanton endangerment. They weren’t even in the right apartment, and she did absolutely nothing, but no charges in her killing. Justice has NOT been served here. We have to change the laws on qualified immunity.

      1. No, Ron, I wasn’t on the grand jury and don’t pretend to know everything they heard.

        But a grand jury doesn’t determine whether anyone is guilty. They only determine whether there is probable cause for an indictment and sufficient evidence to use at trial. Some of that evidence is that the police had a warrant for Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker for dealing drugs, but they did not live in Taylor’s apartment and were not in Taylor’s apartment and no drugs were found in Taylor’s apartment, and the warrant included her address as a secondary address for Glover and Walker anyway — apparently based on false information provided by the police — but the primary address wasn’t searched first, and the police used a battering ram to break down the door, and there’s conflicting witness testimony about whether they announced themselves, and her boyfriend who was there claims not to have heard an announcement and he fired a gun he legally possessed believing the police to be an intruder, and the police returned fire killing Taylor, and the coroner determined her death to be a homicide, and the initial police report had false info, and the police apparently made no attempt to treat her on the scene before she died. Only 9 of 12 jurors have to be in favor of indictment in KY. I’m not convinced that the cops were guilty. I’m convinced that there’s enough evidence that there should have been an indictment for at least a lesser charge like wanton endangerment or reckless homicide in her death, followed by a trial.

        1. So I wont question a decision where only 9 out of twelve have to decide if there is enough evidence and they could not get over that small hill. I have also heard much more information from various news outlets and individuals that expand on the information you wrote that gives vary different descriptions on what happened. And that seems to have been presented to the GJ and why they decided as they did.

          Might I inquire as to where you found the information you detailed on what happenned?

          1. It came from a bunch of different news reports.
            I wasn’t claiming to list all of the relevant evidence. Feel free to add more. If you want to know a source for a specific bit of evidence, specify what bit you want the source for.

            1. Not important. The same thing that drives this country in other issues will drive this one.

              One side will say that the 12 members of the GJ were open minded and based decision on evidence.
              The other side will say they were racist and would never bring charges, regardless.

              And thats how its been since before the OJ trial, just social media magnifies it and makes reactions much more intensified.

            2. And you trust the news ?

              Regardless, are there actual facts we disagree on ?

              The police were serving a warrant – correct ?

              They were fired on – correct ?

              They fired back – correct ?

              Breonna Taylor was killed – correct ?

              That is sufficient to conclude there was no crime.

              There are other facts that favor the officers even more.

              They did not write this warrant.

              Taylor’s boyfreind was a drug dealer.

              What is it you expect ? That the police do not defend themselves when fired on ?

              Grow up, The world is not perfect.

              If you wish to discuss ways to reduce the frequency of innecent people getting killed by the police – I am listening.

              But the police were enforcing a valid warrant on a legitimate suspect for an actual crime and they were fired on, injured and returned fire.

              What do you expect ? That they do not enforce drug laws ? Getting rid of bad laws is our job not theirs.

        2. Actually a grand jury absolutely decides whether a person committed a crime.

          That is their job. But they do so with different standards than trial juries. Regardless, a Grand Jury is not supposed to indict if it is not more likely than not that the person they are indicting committed a crime.

          The facts in this case are not really in question. This case is tragic. Breonna Taylor should not have died.

          But guess what the world is not perfect. Every death is not murder.

          The officer;s you want indicted were serviing a legitimate warrant they did not write, they were fired on, one was hit and they fired back

          Absent additional facts there is no crime.

    1. change law on using no knock warrants, they have lead to a lot of tragedy

      dont’ throw qualified immunity out that would be crazy, anarchist type policy

        1. I think the current system for qualified immunity which is used to parse 18 USC s. 1983 cases is sufficient. I am not going to explain it that would be too much like real work for me.

          The socalled problem of police abuse is mostly an exaggerated media phenomenon.

          No knock warrants however, show a consistent pattern of abuse going back decades.

          There are other issues which are legitimate bipartisan avenues for police reform such as ending the abuse of criminal asset forfeitures.

          Another would be the problem of police filing false probable cause affidavits. While we have heard a lot about the false FISA warrants, regular people are bedevilled by false probable cause affidavits all over the place and nobody much seems to care or ever punish the liars, least of all judges.

          One could go on and on with factually based, verifiable problems, that have real world fixes that could be implemented. But that is not what is being discussed today.

          “DEFUND THE POLICE” by contrast is a patently anarchist policy that would lead to what we have happening now in Chicago and NYC– a precipitous and immediate rise in crime.

          1. Mr. Kurtz,

            “ Another would be the problem of police filing false probable cause affidavits. While we have heard a lot about the false FISA warrants, regular people are bedevilled by false probable cause affidavits all over the place and nobody much seems to care or ever punish the liars, least of all judges.”

            Police are legally allowed to lie. The Supreme Court ruled that police can lie, deceive, and trick anyone.

            Since they have that ability which has been abused for decades they have been able take advantage of it.

            You say police abuse is exaggerated by the media , yet you point out multiple abuses that that have been exposed….by the media.

            Police file false reports all the time and lately that’s been on full display after video contradicts official statements.

            Police abuse is certainly not exaggerated. You ironically pointed out a lot of it. People who witness this abuse the most are the ones who are protesting. It is WHY they are protesting.

            The defund then police campaign has nothing to do with actually getting rid of it. It’s about limiting the resources that allow them to continue the abuses you cite.

            You cite civil forfeiture, defunding/killing off the incentive to encourage civil forfeiture is one example of what defund the police means.

            1. I seriously doubt that your pals in BLM which are seeking to receive funds diverted from normal police work are at all interested in genuine reform that will benefit anyone but their own clique.

              For years on this blog i have identified civil asset forfeiture and police lying about various things as a problem

              I am also a decades long advocate of decriminalizing marijuana and flat out legalizing sex work between consenting adults. That would “defund” a lot of police mischief right there.

              Im a Republican and always had a courteous ear given to me by other Republicans when i make these arguments. Courteous but few seem to care besides Rand Paul though I have to much credit “Institutes for Justice” a public interest law firm on the forfeitures issue.

              I have shared them with Democrats too. I usually only get smart remarks about Republicans when I say them,. From this I have learned that a lot of Democrat activists consider this all just a big game. Maybe that’s why they are better at it than Republicans in general, but I find it insincere

              I am going to point out for the tenth time or so, how sex workers have little regard for Kamala Harris, who is a liar. She is your candidate and she is not in the slightest bit a reformer. If anything she is part of the policing problem or at least she was when she was a “persecutor.”


              Go ahead progressives, hold your nose & cast your vote for Kamala, the next president if Joe wins, because he will surely be retiring inside 4 years if he does, due to dementia

            2. “Police are legally allowed to lie. The Supreme Court ruled that police can lie, deceive, and trick anyone.”

              They are allowed to lie in undercover operations. they are NOT allowed to lie to judges. And yet the often do. and judges let them get away with it.

              Article III tyrants of the federal judiciary could bring an end to this but you can see how they let it slide. It is so bad they let the FBI lie on probable cause affidavits to get illegal FISA warrants on a POTUS campaign contender’s team. For which you have apologized and applauded them. Few Democrats have seen this for the grave abuse that it is. I have to credit Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore and a handful of sincere liberals yes including Turley who have pointed out what an awful abuse by FBI that was.

              Understand this, if they can file fake warrants to tap someone as socially powerful and signficant as candidate Trump’s campaign workers, then they can easily do it to little people like you and me. Hence it was the heigth of stupidity for genuinely liberal people to approve of this FBI abuse but we have seen years of it in progress now.

              Essentially, you only disapprove of police abuses of your own clique, which includes Brionna Taylor Im sure, somehow, but not Trump.

              Nor do we hear few if any words about the most egregious example of a no knock warrant service gone wrong, the ATF raid on the Branch Dravidians, which was totally unnecessary as they could have picked Koresh up easily on his morning jog. The ATF liars omitted to explain that to the judge when they were planning the big swat team raid that was such a secret they told everyone in the press to come videotape the debacle as it unfolded.

            3. False statements in a warrants are lies under oath – the supreme court has NOT found that law enforcement can lie to the courts.

              You are correct that enforcement of the crime of lying under oath in a warrant is lax,

              I have zero problems with changing that.

              With respect to “defund the police”.

              I have no problem with trying to correct myriads of flaws in our policing.

              But you are an idiot if you think that we do not need police.

              Further you can not have less police without less laws – which are you prepared to get rid of ?

              The police are there to enforce the laws that YOU concoct.

              I will be happy to get rid of all drug laws – prohibition failed. So has the war on drugs.

              Get rid of those and we would likely need less police, and judges and prosecutors and public defenders and prisons and prison guards.

              But so long as you have lots of laws – you need lots of police to enforce those laws.

              Defund the police does NOT accomplish anything useful – it increases lawlessness to satisify a fit of pique at police.

              In the US in 2019 – White police shot 90 unarmed blacks. In the past few months, more police have been shot by rioters than that. Your cure is worse than the disease.

              Further Crime is down MASSIVELY since the 1980’s. The police are doing things wrong – but contra your nonsense – they are actually getting BETTER at their jobs, and we benefit.

              Defund the police has already increased crime including murders.

              I understand you are upset over Breonna Taylor. But how many dead preteens are you willing to trade to save her ?

              We should look to improve policing – but we should not operate under the delusion it will be perfect, or that our efforts to improve it might have negative consequences greater than the positive benefits.

              It is likely that I agree with you that there is much abuse within the police. I am probably aware of more than you are.

              And I want to fix that, as much or more than you.

              But defunding the police is stupid.

              I do not want more rape, more robery, more murder as the price for less misconduct by the police.

              I believe it is possible to get both less crime and less police misconduct – but not be stupid sloganeering sound bites like “defund the police”

          2. Qualified immunity is not specifically about policing. It applies to judges and everyone in government – it was ALWAYS a bad idea.

            QI vitiates “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

            As Madison noted in Federalist 51 – the voters are not alone sufficient.

            I have constantly argued that most (possibly all) regulation is unnecescary – because torts serves that purpose much better.
            But the same is true for government. When there is a cost associated with misconduct even government tends to behave better.

            Government is force.

            Some government is actually necescary.

            But vigilance of the power we give to government is also necescary.

            Qualified immunity destroys that.

      1. Getting rid of qualified immunity is far more important than getting rid of no knock warrants.

        Qualified immunity is a judicical creation – it does NOT exist int he constitution.
        I thought conservatives opposed reading things that were not there into the constitution.

        Getting rid of qualified immunity would merely impose the cost of reckless conduct on the municipalities that allow it.

        I would note that Qualified immunity is NOT limited to police, it applies to judges or anyone in government.

        It grants carte blanche to those in government to egregiously violate your rights – so long as they are the first in their specific jurisdiction to do so in precisely that way.

        No one in government benefits from qualified immunity UNLESS another persons rights have been violated by them egregiously.

        Government always gets the benefit of the doubt – that is not qualified immunity. Qualified immunity only applies when there is no doubt that a persons rights were egregiously violated.

    2. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

      – Robert J. Hanlon

    3. There are numerous problems with the Breonna Taylor Shooting – most of which have to do with failures of law and policy NOT of the police.

      The two officers responsible for Taylor’s death were serving a warrant they had no involvement in creating, they were fired upon one was wounded and they fired back.

      Absolutely Taylor’s death should not have happened.

      District magistrates should grant fewer warrants, particularly no-knock and after hours warrants. This is not the Gestapo.

      But these are failures of our courts – it is their job to determine when a warrant is justified and the conditions to serve it.

      Further it is my understanding that there was a legitimate basis for the actual warrant. That the boyfreind Taylor was living with WAS dealing drugs.

      Again we would all like “innocent” people never to be killed by police, But if you are living with a drug dealer and you know he is armed, you can expect violence – and possibly death – if not from the police then even more likely from other drug dealers.

      I will be happy to join you in severely restricting no knock warrants, as well as those served outside normal hours.
      There are innumerable other reforms of our judicial system I would support.

      Interestingly the majority of these have little or nothing to do with the police – the police did not legitimize no knock warrants, or “night and fog” warrants, they did not create the use of policing as a revenue center for local government. They did not create the bad laws they are called on to enforce.

      Much of the “systemic racism” in our judicial system involves the police doing exactly what we have asked of them.

      That is OUR fault – not theirs.

      Eric Garner was killed for selling loose cigarettes. If you make a law, you should own the fact that someone will likely die in the enforcement of that law – that is YOUR fault – so better make sure the law is worth it.

      The police use FORCE to enforce OUR laws.

      If you do not like that – CHANGE THE LAW.

  17. Did Trump commit a crime by putting his name on checks from the Treasury? How about having his AG designate NYC an “anarchist jurisdiction? Or using the DOJ as his private law firm? It’s amazing what crimes are ignored when committed by the DONALD but this is what you write about. It raises all sorts of question in my mind but I won’t raise them here. Although people might be saying……insert your own smear here. This really is disturbing.

    1. It’s disturbing that Portland and NYC are anarchist enclaves now just as much as Catalonia was during the Civil war. Well perhaps a wee bit less, in official form, but even more so in degree of social chaos.

      Yes, very disturbing. & the anarchists of Portland and NYC will eventually see the same fate.

      I tell you, if you wanted to stage a secession that worked, NYC would be the LAST place from which to orchestrate it.

      Surely you’ve heard of Snake Plissken?


      1. Portland and NYC are not “anarchist enclaves,” Kurtz. ~650K people live in Portland. Over 8 million live in NYC. According to you, how many people in these cities are anarchists?

        1. I dont know. Enough so that the mayors have acceded to anarchy in the streets and subscribed to patently anarchist policies.

          Beblasio disbanding plainclothes unmarked police patrols was an early stupid and wicked policy move of his that showed immediate bad consequences.

          Undercover operations are hamstrung. Corruption is on the rise. Related to that, I mean organized crime paying off cops to look the other way. So, there is not only a rise in violent street crime, there is a rise in organized crime operating flagrantly in ways that were unthinkable under Giuliani or Bloomberg. This will not make the newspapers but I know it is so. I am not guessing. I am not going to elaborate more than that on NYC.

          Portland has had an “anarchist scene” going back to the 80s when they fought it out with skinheads. The skinheads left but the antifa obviously did not. More than that I would not know.

          1. https://www.usaonlinecasino.com/casino-news/the-illegal-gambling-dens-of-new-york/

            gambling dens, lol. groceries selling bolita numbers? poker games? ha, that is just the tip of the iceberg. let’s just say, out of all the small number of casinos in new york city, there are some which are not in the phone book and do not have a proper license. yes, they’re getting away with crimes in NYC that are unimaginable in other major metros

            remember also that in every illegal gambling operation, there is also another crime of economic magnitude happening alongside– tax evasion.

            the amount of illegal gambling and corresponding tax evasion happening in NYC now is enormous

            the complaisance of local officials in tolerating it is at a level of sedition depriving the US of considerable uncollected tax revenues

            people out in “flyover” have no clue how badly they are being ripped off by the big city “denizens”

            and FBI is looking the other way!


        2. Portland, Seattle and NYC are anarchist enclaves now. The stamp has been laid upon them.

Comments are closed.