Justice, Politics, Society

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Trump Attacks Barr On Not Disclosing Ongoing Biden Investigations

This morning, Brian Kilmeade did an excellent interview with President Donald Trump and pressed him on issues like a possible floor challenge to the certification of the 2020 election under what I have called a “Death Star” strategy.   Trump notably refused to answer that question and whether he would attend the inauguration by saying “I don’t want to talk about that.”  What he clearly wanted to talk about was Attorney General Bill Barr, who is facing calls to be fired for his maintaining confidentiality over ongoing federal investigations linked to Hunter Biden. Kilmeade pressed Trump on the attacks on Attorney General Bill Barr and quoted me as saying that Barr acted correctly in declining to reveal ongoing investigations related to Hunter Biden.  Trump responded that he is only asking for what Special Counsel Robert Mueller did in correcting a false news story in 2019. I disagree with the analogy with that clarification, which presented a very different ethical and factual situation.  Barr did exactly what he had to do to protect not just the integrity of these investigations but the integrity of the Justice Department as a whole.

In the interview, the President slammed Barr after Kilmeade noted that he is obviously “disappointed” in Barr not disclosing the investigations. Trump responded by saying that “everybody is …who is not disappointed?”  The President then cited the occasion when Special Counsel Bob Mueller went public to correct a story that ran in BuzzFeed as untrue. President Trump declared “when Buzzfeed put out a phoney article, Bob Mueller stood up and he interjected that this article was false. Bill Barr should have done the same thing…”

Kilmeade then told the President that “Jonathan Turley said he had no choice . . . it would have been like James Comey again.”  However, the President repeated the BuzzFeed point and his point that “All he had to do is say that an investigation is going on . . . Bill Barr frankly did the wrong thing.  Bill Barr had an obligation to set the record straight just as Mueller set the record straight.”

 

Kilmeade is correct that I have defended Barr on his actions on Hunter Biden investigation as well as past actions. For full disclosure, I have known Barr for decades, represented him in a past case, and testified in support of his confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The criticism of Barr shows how no good deed goes unpunished in this Administration. There were a host of reasons for Barr not disclosing the ongoing investigations.

First, there is a long standing policy not to issue indictments or make public comments before an election. While I have discussed that vague policy in the past, I wrote before the election that Durham and Barr should wait until after the election to avoid their work being used for political purposes.  Notably, even without such formal confirmation, many of us had already written about the obvious investigations into Hunter Biden. While the media had a blackout on coverage to protect Biden before the election, it was clear that there was a federal investigation in the field from the prior subpoena and other information. Many of us also wrote on the ludicrous assertion of Joe Biden that “no one has suggested my son did anything wrong.” The problem was not the lack of express confirmation by Barr. The problem was that the media was (and continues to be) in the bag for Biden. If Barr confirmed an investigation, the Biden campaign would do what it just did last week in declaring that this was about “tax affairs.”

This was a good deed by Barr. Not only do the DOJ policies and rules discourage such public statements before an election, Barr would have pulled a Comey. This is precisely what President Trump and both Republicans and Democrats criticized James Comey for doing before he was fired. Indeed, it figured prominently in the scathing review of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in his Comey memo.

There is also the separate policy not to discuss ongoing investigations. Such disclosure is left to the U.S. Attorney and local prosecutors in how they proceed in investigations to avoid or reveal their work. Confirmation of an investigation can undermine the investigation by alerting possible targets.  It is also unfair to targets like Biden who might not be ultimately charged.

What is astonishing about this attack is that Barr’s actions guaranteed the continuation of these investigations despite calls by Democrats for the investigations to be scuttled by a Biden Justice Department. If Barr did what the President demanded, it would have given the Democrats exactly what they wanted as an excuse to close the investigations. He would have pulled a Comey and they would have pulled the plug on the investigations.

Now for the BuzzFeed claim. The President’s point is a fair one but I believe that it falls far short of being a convincing basis for Barr violating these policies.

First, the facts. BuzzFeed ran a false story that President Trump ordered his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was prosecuted.  Democrats and various legal experts ran with the story to demand impeachment.  The date is key. That was January 2019.  That was roughly two months before the release of the Mueller Report when the Special Counsel’s office was preparing to disclose its findings.

I was frankly surprised by the clarification at the time but there were a couple of obvious distinguishing factors. First, the Mueller investigation was public as was its focus in terms of crimes.  The Hunter Biden investigation and its focus was not public information. Second, the clarification dealt with Michael Cohen who was sentenced in December 2018. His case was over. This was a comment not on the ongoing Mueller investigation but more about the closed Cohen case. Third, the delay in releasing the report raised calls for clarification of the Cohen statements shortly before his testimony in Congress. Mueller clearly decided that, given the plea by Cohen and the tangential aspect of the story, a public clarification was warranted. Accordingly, the office stated “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

That is vastly different from revealing ongoing investigations before anyone has been charged, which was the question facing Barr.  In fact, Hunter Biden has not and is still not formally accused of wrongdoing in terms of a federal indictment. He is at most a target or subject of a federal investigation. For any public statement of Barr to satisfy the President, he would have had to go into details on allegations that were still be investigated and not confirmed. Otherwise, he would issue a statement that would have been radically misconstrued. That is pulling a Comey.

That is why Bill Barr did the right thing. Yet, as the poem by by Franklin Piece Adams is entitled, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished (So Shines a Good Deed in a Naughty World)”

I have previously said that Barr spends a great deal of time thinking about doing the right thing and little time thinking about how it will be perceived. However, history will vindicate this and other decisions that he has made as Attorney General.

As I have previously argued, the media has run proven false accounts against Barr, including the false claim that he cleared Lafayette Park for a presidential photo op.   History will show, to take a line from King Lear, that Barr remains “a man more sinned against than sinning.”

 

195 thoughts on “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Trump Attacks Barr On Not Disclosing Ongoing Biden Investigations”

  1. Joe Biden has an Instagram account for his dogs, and they posted pictures of their dog chewing on a Trump doll/chew toy. His granddaughter Naomi joked about it on her Instagram. Sure, tell us all again how Joe Biden is going to ‘heal the soul’ of our nation. What a load of garbage.

  2. Barr confirmed my opinion of him. I find him to be a straight shooter with the professionalism missing during the tenures of Holder and Lynch. Also, unlike Comey he realizes that his role is not one of a king maker.

    1. That will be what’s written on our country’s tombstone:

      At least they were straight shooters. Regrettably, their enemy was crooked. Rest in peace.

  3. Rumor is that the Trump’s plan to stay in Washington DC so that their 14 year old son, Barron, can finish high school with his friends. The Trump’s will rent a mansion in the Kalorama neighborhood, just a mile down the road from the White House where they will set up headquarters of their shadow government plotting sabotage of their successor’s agenda and their takeover of the White House in 2024.

    Oh wait, that was Barack Obama’s plan.

  4. A recent survey showed that around 17% of the people surveyed would not have voted for Biden if they knew then what they know now. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Barr did effect the outcome of the election.

    1. Except that we know nothing. It is only the start of an investigation. Also, Trump benefited from the Comey letter in 2016, which did turn out to be nothing. So all these attempts to weaponize the DoJ needs to stop. Kudos on Barr from stepping back from the edge.

  5. JT is correct in this post. Barr was right to keep it under wraps. Otherwise it would open the door wide for weaponizing the DoJ against ones political opponents during an election.

  6. First, there is a long standing policy not to issue indictments or make public comments before an election. While I have discussed that vague policy in the past, I wrote before the election that Durham and Barr should wait until after the election to avoid their work being used for political purposes.

    JT continues citing legal theory in a war (yes, this a war) where only one side is principally constrained by the theory. How long has he been pumping this blog with warnings about the erosion of our 1st amendment rights? Has the situation improved? If not, why not? Because we are not fighting to win the same way. This war will be lost as long as only one side marches according to the equivalent of Robert’s Rules of Order.

    1. I am not that fluent in crazy conspiracy talk. You are going to have to clarify which side you are ranting against.

      1. If I need to clarify it for you, then your lack of fluency is not your biggest problem. And given your history here, it’s not ever going to improve by dialogue.

        1. Of course it wont’ be improved by dialogue cause I don’t do crazy, but I really don’t know what you are yammering about. I think you may be bringing in a new one that I have not hear. I don’t watch OAN or Newsmax 24/7 so I sometimes don’t know about the newest nutty stuff.

          1. I don’t watch it either, MollyG. Causing a (dis)advantage in the Turley cesspool, certainly.

            Elvis Bug

          2. There’s a lot you don’t know and it’s not because of your news sources. You, bug and the rest of your ilk are devoted to your truth and not to observable facts and evidence. It’s not a correctable condition.

              1. “I am a scientist, observable facts and evidence is my lifeblood. ”

                Since you wish to bring your expertise into the discussion it seems appropriate that you tell us how you have such expertise and what you do that gives you that expertise.

                The way you talk sounds as if you have none of that expertise you claim to have.

              3. MollyG: “[T]he little “evidence” has has emerged was easily debunked.”

                The following fact has been “debunked?” Please show me where. I’d love to read it. (And I mean that seriously.)

                In the *fall of 2020*, UBS Securities LLC — which is 75% owned by the Chinese government — invested $400 million in Staple Street Capital. Staple Street Capital owns Dominion Voting Systems (DVS). Dominion’s machines were widely used in the election.

                Dominion’s corrupt Security Chief (now former), Eric Coomer, is a passionate defender of Antifa, and loathes Trump. He said to Antifa members: “Don’t worry about the election; Trump’s not gonna win. I made f***ing sure of that!”

                1. Sam, I’ll debunk it.

                  The Georgia vote – which included some Dominion machines – was confirmed by the paper ballots which backed up the system.

                  Across the swing states in question, counties using Dominion machines went more for Trump than Biden, so if the Chinese are somehow using Dominion to try and game our election, this further proves they are trying to help Trump, just like he asked them to do.

                  Here’s Croomer writing in the Denver Post 3 days ago:

                  “All claims that someone recorded me on a call, or even overheard me saying, “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made (expletive) sure of that!” are wholly fabricated. Moreover, I do not have the capability to do such a thing. I have not written a single line of code in the Dominion Voting Systems product.

                  It is unconscionable that certain fringe media personalities looking to increase personal notoriety, website traffic, and ad revenue would continue to prey on the fears of a public concerned about the safety and security of our electoral system. Additionally, any posts on social media channels purporting to be from me have also been fabricated. I do not have a Twitter account and my Facebook account is not active. These individuals are impersonating me.

                  While the personal attacks that have no basis in fact are disturbing, I am increasingly distressed by the willingness of so many to embrace these lies with such enthusiasm — calling out openly and loudly for the demise, and even death, of a fellow American who is dedicated to upholding the right of every citizen to express their voice at the ballot box. It isn’t right. It must stop….”

                  https://www.denverpost.com/2020/12/08/dominion-voting-systems-fraud-claims-false-election-2020/

                  1. Eric Coomer, Dominion’s (former?) Security Chief: “[M]y Facebook account is not active.”

                    “I don’t have a gun,” said the suspected murderer, after throwing his gun into a lake.

                    Coomer’s lie by omission destroys his credibility. Up until recently, his Facebook account was active. And on that account, he did post rabidly pro-Antifa statements, along with vile anti-Trump condemnations.

                    For a highly intelligent person, Coomer is not very bright. He’s attempting to scrub his history from the internet, i.e., to cover his tracks. But it’s too late. People as skilled as he is have already captured the evidence.

                    That pro-Antifa/anti-Trump evidence, along with his position as *Security Chief* at Dominion, his access to their machines, and his programming experience — means that he hits the trifecta: motive, means, and opportunity.

                    A brief note about the death threats that he, and those investigating him, are allegedly receiving: They are vile and barbaric. They have no place in a civilized society. Rational individuals settle disputes by persuasion and debate — not by using threats of violence.

                  1. You expect confirmation. Courts confirm fraud so the comment you are making is one that just takes up space and is a waste of time.

        1. we goyim do not know how to blow the shofart properly, it’s true… but it shows that goys are very unhappy that they are praying that Jericho will happen. Somewhere, where? DC maybe? Just speculating.

          you know what happened at Jericho, right?

          “They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. … And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had.” Joshua 6.21-25

          I really enjoy the Old Testament stories, soaked in blood though they may be. See, the God of Israel, He commanded it!

          I’m not a Jew and not a very good Christian, either, I guess. Lots of angry peasants like me out there. When the project to destroy Christianity has gone this far, you get people who aren’t very forgiving. Maybe that was not the plan, but it is the result.

          Saloth Sar

    3. The Obama Admin. didn’t issue indictments before the 2016 election, and the public statements by Comey harmed Clinton. He was silent about the investigation into Trump and people working for Trump’s campaign.

  7. Trump is just playing his “game”, which never stopped since 2016 (especially since he was certain of defeat). He is a businessman, first and foremost. Running for president was going to be good for business. Sure, he was wrong about that, but he is right that being a “loser” is the worst possible thing for business. Now he knows his job is to keep making money, and with his enormous base, he’s in good shape got keep them flocking to his properties and hotels. But “loser” will never sell. Now, since he can’t sell winning again, his best bet is that he really did win, but the system was “rigged”. That means blaming anyone he can get away with saying was the cause of defeat, even true professional supporters like Barr.

    1. Aninny:

      If they really are after you, it’s not paranoia. Any objective look at the past four years of Dim politics and corporate media prejudice will prove it.

  8. Barr let a lie be perpetrated on the American people before an election and may have saddled us with a Manchurian candidate. Regardless of some DOJ guidelines, he swore a sacred oath to the Constitution to defend it. How does permitting the MSM to defraud scads of people further that oath?

    It is said in Virgil’s Sinon, that the Trojan horse was invited into the city by Trojan bureaucrats seeking to disprove the Greek challenge that the structure was too big to move into their courtyard. That was Troy’s undoing. It’s big picture stuff that most poli-crats like Barr never see or heed. — and nations suffer for it.

    1. The criticism of Barr shows how no good deed goes unpunished in this Administration. There were a host of reasons for Barr not disclosing the ongoing investigations.

      First, there is a long standing policy not to issue indictments or make public comments before an election. Every day for more than 200 years has been “before an election”. If Turley means SHORTLY before an election (as he undoubtedly does), he should define “shortly”. This investigation has been ongoing for almost a year, has it not?

      2. The FBI never “announces” investigations. They began investigating the Trump campaign in July, 2016 and never “announced” it and it remained a secret to voters in that years election.

    2. a good point Mespo though I don’t like to hear a compare of Democrats to the Achaeans. The Greeks were powerful, vain, proud, and violent, but they were much like every group of king and heroes in that respect, throughout history

      Today’s Democrat leadership has all their faults and precious few of their virtues.

      One day Odysseus is coming back to Ithaca, and he’s going to clean house

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0_A9XWxV0Q

      Saloth Sar

  9. It’s rather comical to see Turley strongly defend Barr’s decision to keep details of ongoing investigations hermetically sealed during an election campaign while insisting the media blackout is clear evidence they are in the bag for Biden. Turley is well aware the source of the NY Post/Hunter Biden story is Giuliani, who has spent the past 5 weeks filing lawsuits to try to invalidate millions of Biden ballots. JT is outraged that the media would be skeptical of President’s Trump’s personal attorney being the prime source for a story released a few weeks before election day about the son of Trump’s opponent.

    Turley attacks Joe Biden for a comment he made one year ago & lambastes the media for running proven false accounts while gliding past Trump’s much more recent proven false accounts. Trump claimed voting machines switched millions of Trump votes to Biden votes. He fired & publicly attacked Homeland Security’s cyber chief for confirming the 2020 election is the most secure election in US history. He relentlessy attacked Georgia’s Republican Governor & Sec. of State for certifying Biden as the winner in their state. He wanted to fire Barr for announcing the Trump Justice Department has yet to find any evidence of massive voter fraud. He attacked the Supreme Court for not invalidating millions of votes from American citizens.

    JT will undoubtedly keep trying to make his case that the Hunter Biden investigation is the biggest news story right now while Trump, 108 Republican House members, 18 state AG’s try to overturn election results in 4 states where Hunter Biden’s father has been certified as the winner.

  10. I ignore the trolls too. Post all you like, we are free to scroll through, and many if us do. I also have nothing but respect for the folks running this blog in spite of differences of occasional opinion. That is how it’s meant to be. I have no time or patience for feedback that amounts to a schoolyard chant.

    That said, this seems a bit of a double standard. I agree with other posters – the left has done nothing but bully, fabricate, and obfuscate non-stop for four+ years. Simply having acknowledged some type of action was being taken would not have been inappropriate.

    Now to the just my opinion portion: it would seem to me that older folks who grew up in blue families and basically taught that all things blue are all things correct and noble just seem desperate that their clan will revert to what they considered its former glory. I really don’t see that happening, and what the party has morphed into is likely just the beginning. There is a cognitive dissonance there that is tough to reckon with.

  11. The Three Laws of the Swamp (with apologies to Isaac Asimov):

    First Law – The swamp may not injure a swamp dweller in good standing or, through inaction, allow a swamp dweller in good standing to come to harm.

    Second Law – The swamp must interpret all laws and regulations to give full effect to the First Law.

    Third Law- The swamp must protect its own existence notwithstanding any conflict with the First or Second Laws.

  12. Removing Barr from the equation, the problem is that the left will fight legally and illegally while the right will barely fight legally.

    There is no equality. Obama didn’t succeed at creating a more peaceful world but got a Nobel Prize before he had a chance to do much of anything.

    Trump has had his fourth country develop relations with Israel and after about 75 years of fighting Israel is at peace with most of the Arab world. Barely a peep from the MSM and others.

    Cuomo got an Emmy and another award for his actions having to do with Covid. He did nothing positive and what he did, placing Covid positive patients in nursing homes, killed thousands of Nursing Home patients.

    Trump pushed through the Trump vaccine so that instead of the expected 4 years the vaccine came through in less than one. HIV still doesn’t have a vaccine.

    What did we hear from the media? Barely a peep.

    This is the problem we face. The Chinese have been our biggest threat in recent years. The Democrats are in bed with the Chinese. The social media giants / high tech are now using their media to repress free speech in America. Before they worked for the CCP to suppress free speech in China.

    The Biden Family have been working for the Chinese and have been paid big time. A Chinese leader on a video implicated the Biden’s, but that video was removed.

    The left thinks themselves to be so smart because they are gradually creating a state where the people lose their rights which are transferred to the state that is becoming more like China than America. Take note of Chinese concentration camps and how China handles internal problems even if they involve the virus. They kill people at the drop of a hat.

    Knowing this I don’t think anyone should sleep well.

      1. Anonymous, you replied to a sensible post with ignorance and a desire to fight personalities n the blog.. A more stupid poster other than Peter Shill of WeHo is not to be found.

    2. Meyer said:

      “This is the problem we face. The Chinese have been our biggest threat in recent years. The Democrats are in bed with the Chinese. The social media giants / high tech are now using their media to repress free speech in America. Before they worked for the CCP to suppress free speech in China.”

      One must ask, threat to who?

      The CCP Chicoms are a threat to the US strategic security, and economy.

      But our native born traitors, the billionaires, the Silicon valley boys, are the real enemies. They are our lordships here, not afar.

      I am far less worried about CCP than I am the quislings they are in league with here at home

      Saloth Sar

      1. “But our native born traitors, the billionaires, the Silicon valley boys, are the real enemies. They are our lordships here, not afar.”

        True they are in lockstep with the Democrats and China. China can rule us through them. Not that long ago the social media companies and high tech were working with China to censor the entire Internet. Now after their Beta trials they are doing it here.

        We have too many people who think their freedoms exist from thin air. If they are young, they are going to be in for a shock.

        Take note many people do not want the vaccine, I think it is a good idea for older persons and the sick that are most vulnerable. Today there is a lot of talk to force the vaccine on everyone.

        1. really? why protect them. they are behind every bad thing this year.

          protect them is a joke; they are the enemy. they’re chipping away at everything we base our humble lives upon here.and they don’t need any protection., they have the enitre government in their pocket and it seems the election too.

          Mr Gates has a new vaccine waiting for you. sign up if you trust him

          and they will accept your income tax payments too, if you fear not to send them.

          They’ve added a trillion more to their balance sheets since the mess started. as we got punched in the gut

          https://www.statista.com/chart/22068/change-in-wealth-of-billionaires-during-pandemic/#:~:text=American%20billionaires%20haven't%20been,drastically%20increasing%20their%20collective%20wealth.&text=There%20were%20numerous%20impressive%20financial,March%2017%20and%20November%2024.

          Saloth Sar

    3. “The Democrats are in bed with the Chinese.”

      The Republicans have been, too.

      1. Gingrich supported NAFTA, GATT (and the entrance of China into the WTO).

        I’m annoyed with Democrats, too, and their current silence on China. Here’s a flashback to 1997:

        “”Our administration’s actions, as well as its words, have been far too weak when it comes to China,” Gephardt told the Economic Club of Detroit. “It is time for a new policy of firm engagement that finally advances our national interests and ideals. . . . It is time we revoke China’s most-favored-nation {trading} status.”

        Gephardt said the United States “has no business playing business as usual with a Chinese tyranny that persecutes Christian, Muslim and other religious leaders from many other faiths, precludes tens of millions from practicing their religion, sells the most lethal weapons to the most dangerous of nations, profits off slave labor and engages in the utter evil of forced abortion.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/05/28/gephardt-bashes-us-policy-on-china/b52b87da-3e5d-4507-b4fa-f283c7fb50c4/

        Another reason this ain’t a left vs right, Democrat vs Republican issue. Who are the authoritarians. I didn’t get a chance to agree with Anonymous from earlier that fascist most certainly describes elements of what I see. The problem is, there is no easy “group” to lump them in. Elites versus the plebians?

        1. Sometimes judgement runs afoul and sometimes what is a good idea at one time turns bad. Gingrich wasn’t bribed. Biden was. Gingrich didn’t sleep with a spy. Swalwell did. Gingrich didn’t appoint a Swalwell to the intelligence committee like Pelosi. What is your point?

          Gephardt wasn’t one of today’s Democrats, Neither was JFK.

          The left is more embedded with China than the right, but I am not in love with either party however I recognize that todays Democrat Party is a danger to free people.

          1. S. Meyer,
            I am generally the kind of person who gives people the benefit of the doubt. I cannot give Mr. Gingrich the benefit of the doubt on China. I do not trust that he was ‘mistaken’ on China (same goes for Clinton). He is intelligent and well-educated; as a very high-ranking member of Congress, he had access to and was debriefed on a great deal of intelligence and research on China; he could hear the counter-arguments; he knew that Tiannamen Square had only happened in 1989. What was the agenda? Telling Americans that allowing China into the WTO and giving them a permanent MFN status because the economic boost to their population would surely get them to stop being Communist and decide to become a democracy was the story they sold. Baloney.

            He knew this sort of stuff in 1999 because it is in the Cox Report:
            “The Communist Party has long believed that forcing technology from foreign firms is not only critical to the PRC, but also is a cost that foreign firms will bear in order to obtain PRC market entry.”

            “The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that U.S. businesses have significant concerns about arbitrary licensing requirements in the PRC that often call for increased technology transfer. The GAO has also found that transparency was the most frequent concern reported by U.S. companies.62 Because of the lack of transparency in the PRC’s laws, rules, and regulations that govern business alliances, and the dearth of accessible, understandable sources of regulatory information, U.S. businesses are often subjected to technology transfer requirements that are not in writing, or are not maintained in the field, or are contained in “secret” rules that only insiders know about.63

            The PRC’s massive potential consumer market is the key factor behind the willingness of some U.S. businesses to risk and tolerate technology transfers. Some of these transfers could impair U.S. national security, as in the cases of Loral and Hughes described later in this Report. The obvious potential of the PRC market has increasingly enabled the PRC to place technology-transfer demands on its U.S. trading partners.”
            https://china.usc.edu/sites/default/files/article/attachments/cox-report-1999-us-china-military-security.pdf

            From the citations in International Journal, Vol 57, No. 4, Autumn 2002. “Regimenting the Public Mind: The Modernisation of Propaganda in the PRC” by Dr Anne-Marie Brady:

            “Proponents of the China threat theory believe that China is becoming increasingly belligerent and will threaten the interests of the West in the future, see for example Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, The Coming Conflict with China, New York: A.A. Knopf, 1997; Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilisations and the Re-making of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.”

            “In an anonymous 1995 public opinion poll conducted by foreign and Chinese researchers, the majority of respondents preferred social order and stability to freedom. See Yang Zhong, Jie Chen, and John M. Scheb II, “Political Views from Below: A Survey of Beijing Residents,” PS: Political Science and Politics, September 1997. The results of the survey also indicated that popular support for the government is stronger than it was in the mid-1980s. See Jie Chen, Yang Zhong, and Jan William Hilliard, “The Level and Sources of Popular Support for China’s Current Political Regime”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 30, 1 1997.”

          2. S. Meyer,
            “The left is more embedded with China than the right, but I am not in love with either party however I recognize that todays Democrat Party is a danger to free people.”

            I am not convinced that the left is definitely more embedded with China than the right. That’s what’s being reported on. What isn’t being reported? I’m not confident we aren’t being played. I do agree that there are *plenty* of elements that is making the Democrat Party a hazard to free people. That being said, it seems to me that the parties trade which one will infringe on the freedoms of Americans. I don’t want to take my eye off Republicans either because they’ve proven themselves just as prone to increasing the power of the federal government.

            1. That you don’t like Gingrich is not a problem for me. Do you realize that Gingrich was in office from the 1970’s to before the 21st century. China didn’t enter the WTO or have normalized relations with the US until after Gingrich was gone

              Whenever the Cox report came out I think Gingrich was already out of office.

              You are mentioning too many things that happened after Gingrich had already left the scene for me to take what you are saying seriously.

              I do know that Gingrich and many were in favor of China joining the WTO because they thought the rules of the WTO would push China in the right direction, but I think many of them have since admitted that they were wrong and that instead of the WTO pushing China in the right direction China pushed the rules of the WTO in the wrong direction. I can’t fault anyone too badly for having that idea, but I do fault them for permitting China to twist the WTO. As China did that we should have reversed course.

              1. S. Meyer,
                “China didn’t enter the WTO or have normalized relations with the US until after Gingrich was gone”

                I’m not sure what you mean by ‘normalized’. Clinton (and Gingrich) effectively normalized relations by deciding to overlook human rights violations in how the MFN status was handled. Trade with China nearly doubled between 1996 and 2001 when they officially entered the WTO.

                “Whenever the Cox report came out I think Gingrich was already out of office.”
                It came out on the day he resigned. I think plenty of that information was already known in the halls of Congress. Not all, of course, but quite a bit. Some of it, if I recall, had even been in the news at the time.

                “You are mentioning too many things that happened after Gingrich had already left the scene for me to take what you are saying seriously.”
                Such as what? I mentioned Tiannamen Square from 1989, GATT and MFN stuff that ran up until 1995 or 96 when GATT was replaced with the WTO. The citations from the 2002 book are from prior to his resignation by several years.

                “I do know that Gingrich and many were in favor of China joining the WTO because they thought the rules of the WTO would push China in the right direction, but I think many of them have since admitted that they were wrong”

                I know that is what he said. Considering the preponderance of concerning data (and knowing about the ugly steering of America in various and sundry directions via propaganda and manipulation), I am distrustful that he was naive. I’ll tentatively consider hubris and being ideologically-possessed as possible culprits, but the information about what China was was readily available.

                “I do fault them for permitting China to twist the WTO.”

                Agree.

                “As China did that we should have reversed course.”

                After giving them permanent MFN status, choosing to overlook their systemic human rights violations, doubling our trade with them in about 5 years time, and letting them into the WTO, that would be pretty tough.

                1. “I’m not sure what you mean by ‘normalized’.”

                  I think people referred to normalization as the time when China was about to get into WTO, say around the beginning of the 21st century.

                  There were various viewpoints about China’s threats and how to deal with them. I don’t think the threats would have changed no matter how China handled human rights so I believe personal policy suggestions would have been the same.

                  You were focusing on Gingrich based on some things that were released after Gingrich was out of office. That some were before doesn’t wipe out the latter. In Gingrich’s defense he was hoping certain actions would push China in the right direction. At that time China’s economy was relatively weak. To his credit he has admitted that he was wrong. If one never made any mistakes in life one never did anything and never did anything good.

                  ” I am distrustful that he was naive. I’ll tentatively consider hubris and being ideologically-possessed as possible culprits, but the information about what China was was readily available.”

                  You have every right to dislike Gingrich and not trust him. That is your decision. I would, however, like to know what you mean by ” ideologically-possessed” with regard to Gingrich.

                  “ After giving them permanent MFN status…”

                  Prairie, it seems we are in total agreement as to the dangers of China and the missteps that were taken. Such human rights concerns tell us the nature of the country, but though I have always looked at China as the enemy I can’t argue that strongly against the attempt that was made though I don’t remember how I felt about it at the time. I certainly would not have given China such leeway either before 2000 or after and would have reversed course almost immediately.

      2. …And your point is?

        But before answering recognize that the next likely President, Biden who is a Democrat has been caught linked to the rest of the family in illegal China where at least one of those deals ended up with Chinese ownership of a company that now provides the Chinese Air Force with tools to fight ours. Take note Swalwell was in bed with a Chinese spy and instead of the FBI using the Chinese spy with is the normal way they handle things the FBI told Swalwell who told the spy who left the country. Then we have Pelosi who permitted Swalwell to be on the intelligence committee and I think the ethics committee. Swallwell’s rapid rise was due to the CCP. Of course we can’t forget Feinstein whose driver for 20 or 30 years was a spy. We have a lot more of that so I ask again…

        What is your point?

        1. S. Meyer,
          My point is that people should stop pointing fingers at “the Party at fault”. It’s people in both parties. The swamp comprises people on both sides of the political “divide”. Far too many Republicans happily supported NAFTA, GATT, and the MFN status for China. They supported the Patriot Act and NCLB. That does not equal Republicans are for a limited government, for one.

          The tarring of Party opponents to score political “points” has been of benefit for those in power or for the benefit of agendas. It isn’t for the benefit of the country.

          Keeping people divided by Party or political leanings or whatever is great way to distract us from those behind the curtain.

          1. “My point is that people should stop pointing fingers at “the Party at fault”. It’s people in both parties.”

            That is true Prairie but Trump doesn’t represent a good deal of the Republican Party and the increased numbers that follow him don’t either. He doesn’t deal with China and doesn’t have the underlying philosophy of fascism that today’s Democrats seem to have. That is dangerous so I would not want to engage in moral equivalencies. I am more classical liberal than what we see in the two major parties.

            One should also be judged not on what is known today but what was known at the time of the decision and be held to the standards of that time.

            I was a Democrat in name and now am a Republican in name as well but I strongly support much of what Trump has advocated and done. Based on this last election you might find the future for your children to be far less free than you are today. If that is desirable to you, that is your choice.

            1. S. Meyer,
              “I am more classical liberal than what we see in the two major parties.”
              Me, too.

              “One should also be judged not on what is known today but what was known at the time of the decision and be held to the standards of that time.”

              See one of my posts above. I provided several sources from the 1990s about some of the things known about China at that time.

              “Based on this last election you might find the future for your children to be far less free than you are today.”
              I am extremely worried about the future.

              1. Yes, there were debates over how China should be managed without question and they existed from the time before Nixon went to China (Good book “On China” by Kissinger). I don’t fault anyone for reasonable opinion on either side. Such opposite opinions are usual but what one goes by is not by playing Monday morning quarterback but by assessing the actual opinions and knowledge of those when the decision was made. I don’t think your sources proved that Gingrich’s idea at the time was wrong.

                As far as the children go I explained to Anonymous why I thought the Democrats were entering the realm of fascism. Many of the elements exist right now. Believe it or not our type of republican government is very fragile and depends on the good will and morality of the people. I believe the left committed substantial fraud this past election which does not bode well for a democratic republic.The left has done a number of other things including getting the media and academia to reduce free speech so that people can be brainwashed.

                How does one turn this around?

          2. Prairie Rose,
            Just a heads up that “S. Meyer” is the same person who used to post as “Allan.”

            1. Anonymous,
              Ok. But, I generally go with whatever name someone wishes to go by. I don’t want to try to sort out whether anyone is jumping around with different names; it’s troublesome and gets complicated, and, I wouldn’t want to make assumptions that end up being wrong (Darren or anyone else with a backstage view can sort through that more accurately anyway). In general, though, I wish people would just pick a name to go by and stick to it diligently. It’s better for productive conversation, too, I think.

            2. Is this an intelligent comment by anonymous? I think not. Prairie and Allan had some very good discussions. When you are unable to debate try and interrupt the debate. Is that your motto Anonymous? That is what you have done for as long as I can remember. In fact you were the discussion between Prairie and Allan a long time ago. You haven’t changed at all.

  13. “He’s in the bag!”
    Where did that phrase first get notoriety? Some movie or TV show?
    Turkey employed it in the article here.

  14. “It is also unfair to targets like Biden who might not be ultimately charged.”

    Such wide criminal actions would not have occurred but for Joe Biden where much of his support came from leftist criminals and the Chinese. That is the best we can say. The worst, which is most likely, is he is totally implicated in the illegal affairs of Hunter and is relying on plausible deniability.

  15. The problem with Mr. Turley’s position is that there should under law have been some disclosure to the President’s attorneys when he was facing impeachment for wanting Hunter Biden and Burisma looked into. The laptop contains potentially exculpatory evidence, and there was no excuse at that time of the looming election – primaries had not been yet held.

    I would love to know why Mr. Turley does not believe this should have been made public, at least some of it, back then.

  16. Prof. Turley, while I generally find solid logic in your reasoning in many articles that you write (even when I disagree with you), I have to challenge your rationale in this one. If I understand you correctly, you assert that Barr/Durham not releasing potential damaging information before an election is wise so that they will not unduly influence the outcome of that election. I contend the opposite – that timing should have nothing to do with how the public is informed. Forget the fact (that you point out) that the media put up a blanket of protection around anything even remotely anti-Biden. The facts are the facts yesterday, today and tomorrow. I too am not suggesting that the investigators/prosecutors should release info that could compromise their work. But they clearly had information contrary to the claims being made in the media and by the candidates. Letting those claims float without challenge is almost as harmful as making the claims in the first place. In fact, the media uses this silence to prop up their claims that this is a false conspiracy theory.

    Allow me to digress with a true and relevant personal story. For more than 20 years I officiated high school (and other levels) of hockey games. In our annual re-certification classes we were always told that penalties called for fouls committed near the end of a close game are heavily frowned upon unless they are egregious. The reason always given was that we (the officials) do not want to be influential in deciding the outcome of a game. Every year I vehemently opposed this rationale and was vocal in my opposition. I always used the example of the 1 – 0 super-close game between 2 evenly matched teams. Team A commits a routine infraction early in the 1st period (let’s call it “tripping”). I call the penalty, and team B is awarded a power play and scores during that man-advantage situation. The game continues back and forth and these 2 evenly matched opponents are still deadlocked 1 – 0 late in the 3rd period. Team B now commits the exact same infraction. My referee instructors (and apparently Professor Turley) would tell me to “swallow the whistle” late in the game. You see my dilemma? If I don’t call the penalty – ie., if Barr/Durham don’t give voters much-needed information, we are both guilty of the very sin others claim we don’t wish to commit – we HAVE influenced the outcome of the game!

    1. Rules/Laws/Regulations….should be fairly and equally applied and done so with consistency….to do otherwise conveys bias….even if it is unintentional.

      The rub comes when one’s actions are compared to past events where perhaps that consistency or compliance was not done properly.

      The perception of impropriety is colored by the prism through which the current event is being viewed.

      I suggest that when it comes to an Election/Appointment for President….Senator….Congressman….Judge…Justice….knowing there is an on-going criminal or counter-intelligence investigation of the Candidate…..the Voter is entitled to know that and the Candidate to be required to respond as best they can.

      We saw an example of that in the Impeachment of President Trump where he published the Transcript of the questioned Telephone Call and allowed his Staff to be questioned about it.

      Transparency never hurts us in the long run. Sunlight cures lots of ills even if it prevents a successful criminal prosecution but allows for a conviction in the court of public opinion.

    2. As a ref, you are neutral and not working for one of the teams. The AG is a partisan political appointee and thus it is wrong for them to be able to release dirt or announce investigations of political opponents right before an election.

  17. Let me see if I have this right. The Democrats can spread false stories and fake news and the Republicans can not disclose facts before an election maintaining confidentiality over ongoing federal investigations so that the public can make an ill informed vote which will result in having that investigation scuttled. Seems fair to me.

    1. The Hunter Biden case was well beyond the “investigation” stage. The IRS Criminal Division had completed its investigation and referred the case to DOJ. The DOJ accepted the case for prosecution. They also convened a Grand Jury. While the criminal tax investigation was at IRS, and the money laundering was still being investigated by the FBI, the investigations were properly confidential. And the existence of a Grand Jury is confidential. But the attorneys at DOJ are not the investigators. They are not out on the streets doing the gumshoe work. That is the role of the FBI and IRS agents. So the timeline is key. How long did the DOJ attorneys have the case? If they were sitting on an already completed investigation, that they had already accepted for prosecution, only to wait until several weeks after the election to acknowledge it, then Barr withheld material knowledge from the voting public that it had a right to know about.

  18. Integrity of a poisoned department or two really shouldn’t override the information voters need to make intelligent choices. And I am an Independent who frankly is disappointed in you and all the other lawyers who see the world from what unfortunately seems to be your own self protecting point of view.

    And way too many of you show computer illiteracy at an astounding level. Yes, you can use canned software and emails but just how many of you understand the algorithms that may land us all in that Brave New World as outlined by the WEF? Did you look at the Dominion software and understand it? 2030 is coming and that plan says no privacy at all and no personal property. How many of you who can read and write have even explained what is going on?

    Barr knew about Seth Rich’s computer for 4 years and no one has even started to look at it. And that missing Durham Report certainly belongs to the taxpayers. The fact is that Barr has indicted the lowest single branch on a very corrupt DOJ/FBI tree but surprised really that you are a fan of that management style. And do know there will be no history books if the Great Reset continues on so no one will even know Barr’s name or yours for that matter.

    Hope you and the Barrs have a coal soaked Christmas and that for your sake, Marley visits you both.

  20. Waiting for the lefty responses to Turley’s post.

    We are all guests on Turley’s blog; we all apparently enjoy the blog (certainly enough to read it, post on it, and then come back to read the responses; and we think about what Turley has written.

    As guests, we owe Turley a modicum of courtesy.

    Or if we cannot be polite, then we owe Turley silence.

    But the lefties come on here with comments like: “Turley, GFY” (joe friday who claims to be here to debate).

    When I see the discourtesy, the virulent hatred, and the bile that they spew, I realize that the posters are following the lefty playbook.

    Many on the left are bullies who come on to Turley’s site with the goal of either bullying him into submission or taking over the site for the left.

    I know that the First Amendment protects their right to spew venom, but recognize that they are bullies and thugs. They add little to discourse and damage our democratic institutions.

    1. Gainesville is using several handles, ‘Joe Friday’ among them. Repeated paroxysms of rage that the moderator picks topics he wishes to discuss but which Gainesville finds inconvenient are a signature of his. Well, that and the sock-puppetry, brazen lying, self-declared ‘victories’. etc. He supposedly has a business to run. You have to wonder what sort of per diem he’s getting for this.

    2. When I see the discourtesy, the virulent hatred, and the bile that they spew, I realize that the posters are following the Trumpy playbook.

      Many in the cult are bullies who come on to Turley’s site with the goal of either bullying him into submission or taking over the site for the right.

      I know that the First Amendment protects their right to spew venom, but recognize that they are bullies and thugs. They add little to discourse and damage our democratic institutions.

      (The lady doth protest too much.)

      1. About those vile threats…..This Democrat also threatened to kill a Democrat Governor, but…carry on

        https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-kansas-city-kansas-elections-campaigns-97855c4a3deea46d5cbd8b39489b8af7

        Kansas lawmaker-to-be under order not to contact foe’s aide

        TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A soon-to-be seated Kansas lawmaker has had a temporary anti-stalking order issued against him in court at the request of a former opponent’s campaign manager, who said he sent her harassing messages, came to her home twice and tried to get her evicted.

        State Rep.-elect Aaron Coleman, a 20-year-old Democrat from Kansas City, Kansas, will face a video hearing Dec. 16 in state district court in his home of Wyandotte County to determine whether the temporary order stays in place. The temporary order, issued by a judge Friday, orders Coleman not to communicate “in any manner” with Brandie Armstrong, also of Kansas City, Kansas, or follow her or come “on or around” her home or job site.

        It’s the latest controversy involving Coleman. Others include allegations of circulating revenge porn and threatening to shoot a student when younger and post-election criticism of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly for not being liberal enough.

        Armstrong was campaign manager for Rep. Stan Frownfelter, the veteran Kansas City lawmaker that the 20-year-old Coleman narrowly defeated in the August primary. Frownfelter and a Republican candidate also ran write-in campaigns in the November general election, but Coleman captured 66% of the vote.

        Armstrong said in her request for an order against Coleman that he repeatedly sent harassing texts and personal messages to her during the campaign, came to her home in June and October and attempted to file “false and bogus” complaints against her landlord to try to get her evicted. She declined Tuesday to comment further, other than saying in a text message to The Associated Press that she did not want to bring more attention to her case “given what Mr. Coleman and his supporters are insinuating about me,” without elaborating.

        Coleman also declined to discuss Armstrong’s allegations. He was at the Statehouse on Monday and Tuesday for meetings ahead of the Legislature convening its 2021 annual session Jan. 11.

        “I don’t want to upset any judges,” he said. “Judges don’t like it when you step on their toes.”

        Coleman defeated Frownfelter in the primary after running on a liberal platform that included providing universal health coverage, eliminating college tuition and legalizing marijuana.

        He tweeted Tuesday that he was fighting Armstrong’s order not because he wanted to contact her again but “because this order would block me from attending political meetings.” A supporter started a gofundme.com campaign Monday to raise money for Coleman’s legal defense.

    3. Amen, Brother!

      Lefties (the modern kind) cannot and will not debate or engage in intellectual argument as they are completely unarmed for such a battle of wits.

      Thus, they resort to the well known Alinsky Rules and attack, demean, insult, and hope to trivialize those who hold differing views than theirs.

      My political views tend to differ from those of Professor Turley….but my views on the Constitution and its principles pretty much coincide with the Professor.

      Thus….I very much enjoy his writings and have a genuine respect for him and his loyalty to the Constitution.

      Lately….the Professor has been very vocal about his concerns re the attack on free speech here in this country…..and as we see demonstrated here at his own personal blog.

      It has been noted that free speech includes stupid and insulting speech….which far too many have offered here of late.

      That only indicts those who do that and immediately destroys what credibility they might have hoped to have.

      The other part of free speech is we are quite entitled to ignore that which is rude, crude, and patently stupid.

      I find myself doing that quite often when confronted with some of the offerings from our dear friends on the Left.

Comments are closed.