The Case For and Against The Appointment Of A Special Counsel In The Hunter Biden Investigation

Below is my column in the Hill on grounds for and against the appointment of a Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation. By refusing address the underlying allegations, Joe Biden is magnifying the concerns over possible conflicts of interest and his own possible exposure. Biden is maintaining that he will not ask potential Justice Department nominees about the investigation but he is also refusing to answer specific questions. In the meantime, he appeared to confirm that he views the investigation to be Russian disinformation.  That is a familiar profile in a scandal at the start of an Administration and Democrats are likely to face their own prior calls to investigate the Trump family on such questions of foreign influence.

Here is the column:

While Joe Biden continues to avoid specific questions on the Hunter Bidenscandal, there reportedly are”ongoing discussions” at the Justice Department on whether to appoint a special counsel. Ironically, Joe Biden’s refusal to address specific allegations has only fueled concerns of possible conflicts for his Justice Department conducting this investigation. His stonewalling is making the best case for a special counsel — but some unknowns remain critical to the decision.

Attorney General William Barr left his position this week, following very public conflicts with President Trump, including his opposition to special counsel appointments to investigate the 2020 election and the Hunter Biden scandal. Barr clearly was not opposed to making such appointments; he converted United States attorney John Durham into a special counsel, to guarantee that Durham will complete his investigation into the handling of the Russian collusion investigation.

The question is whether such grounds could emerge with regard to the Hunter Biden investigation. Justice Department regulations allow the appointment of a special counsel when it is in the public interest and an “investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”

The case for a special counsel

Clear conflicts are present in this investigation for Joe Biden. Most obviously, it involves his son. In addition, Biden has stated repeatedly for more than a year that “no one has suggested my son did anything wrong.” That clearly is not true; many people agree that Hunter Biden was engaged in raw influence-peddling on a global scale. That may not be a crime but it certainly is ethically wrong. Nevertheless, Biden continued that claim after the disclosure that Hunter is the subject or target of a federal investigation. He has referred to the allegations as a continuation of political “foul play” targeting his family.

Previously, Democrats insisted that Trump’s public dismissal of the Russia investigation as a “hoax” supported the appointment of a special counsel. In addition, powerful Democrats like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff claimed the Hunter Biden laptop and emails discovered before the election were just “Russian disinformation” and “this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin.”

Biden himself responded affirmatively — “yes, yes, yes” — to a recent question about whether allegations against his son are “Russian disinformation and a smear campaign, like you said?” So,any criminal or other wrongdoing found by prosecutors would be an obvious embarrassment to Biden.

Further, serious apparent conflicts were revealed in the laptop and emails seized by federal investigators. Biden has refused to acknowledge that the laptop and emails are genuine. He has refused to address direct contradictions in those emails. He has declined to address accounts of key witnesses like Hunter’s business associate, Tony Bobulinski, referring to Biden’s direct knowledge or involvement — in direct conflict with Biden’s repeated denials. The emails refer to payments, office space and other benefits for Joe Biden and his family from foreign countries, particularly China.

Finally, Joe Biden has more than a son or his own credibility at stake. This investigation started in 2018 with a Treasury Department suspicious activity report. That does not mean there was a crime, but foreign financial transactions were flagged as suspicious and there are indications that money-laundering concerns may have been raised.

Repeated references to Joe Biden in these emails could create legal exposure. He could face exposure in other ways, too. One of the reasons Biden has not called Bobulinski a liar is that it likely would trigger a defamation lawsuit with sworn depositions and discovery. Biden is well aware of the perils from such civil litigation. After all, he voted as a senator in the Clinton impeachment trial, which included allegations that Bill Clinton lied under oath in his deposition.

The case against a special counsel

Much of this decision depends on the specific scope and underlying crimes of any investigations. Bill Barr knew those facts when he rejected the need for a special counsel. If this is a narrow tax investigation, then it likely is near completion. The key is not the appointment of a special counsel but the continuation of the current U.S. Attorney in his position pending completion.

During Barr’s tenure, the Justice Department handled a variety of investigations impacting Trump, from the Mueller probe to various investigations into the Trump organization and Trump advisers like Rudy Giuliani and his aides. None required special counsels; all continued without interference or manipulation under Barr’s leadership. There also is a reluctance to allow special counsels to proliferate unless there is little alternative. The potential to embarrass a president is generally not enough. After all, if everyone is a special counsel, they are no longer very special.

The biggest issue is that influence-peddling is legal. It is the favorite form of corruption in Washington. While you cannot give a politician like Biden an envelope of money, you can give his son or other relatives millions in dubious contracts, gifts and loans. The special counsel regulations involve “an investigation or prosecution” only into criminal acts. The Justice Department does not investigate politicians’ unethical conduct or simple lying. Otherwise, it would have little time to do anything else.

Notably, this argument against a special counsel appointment also is an argument for a congressional investigation. Various Democrats demanded investigations of Trump family dealings in foreign countries, including calls for a special counsel or other investigations. In 2018, Schiff wrotethat “the American people deserve to know that our president is acting in their interest and not his own financial self interest, or because he has been compromised by a foreign power.” The fear was that the Trump family was compromised or beholden to foreign interests. Those same fears exist with this scandal, and those same Democrats should support a full congressional investigation.

In the absence of a clear crime, it falls to Congress to investigate “suspicious activities” that could compromise a president or his administration. The Hunter Biden investigation may not warrant a special counsel — but the public deserves answers. The point of influence-peddling is to secure influence over powerful figures. The question is whether the Chinese, Ukrainians and other foreign actors got anything from their efforts.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

379 thoughts on “The Case For and Against The Appointment Of A Special Counsel In The Hunter Biden Investigation”

  1. I get back and see a blog overloaded with nasty anonymous comments. At the same time based on some posters it seems that Anonymous green might be the same as anonymous grey. It’s near impossible to keep up with the postings of this dull and nasty anonymous so this reply will have to cover the thirty plus I leave without a reply and I am not even done reading all of the thread.

  2. It seems another commenter has linked WeHo anonymous green with the mean spirited anonymous grey. Not important but I have noted green posting followed by grey numerous times.

    I always wondered which one was dumber and now I know they are likely the same.

  3. Will Acting AG Rosen appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? Professor Turley explores both sides of a complex question while the world carefully but willfully fords the ice-riddled late December turbulence of a 2020-2021 Biden-COVID Transition Crisis.

    As the second Roman Catholic President-elect in US history, Biden’s handling of this momentous inflection point portends more than partisan political realignment of the White House. Biblical questions of latter day faith and dread now grip every serious denomination on the planet, from life after death and COVID losses to resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict and with it the fate of long-prophesied reconstruction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem. President Trump challenged the status quo in Abrahamic relations. How will a prospective President Biden prevent regression, maintain stability and take new steps forward?

    For Republicans, the next several weeks present a clear choice between competing GOP strategies of paranoid populist vengeance, on one hand, and vigilant Senatorial compromise, on the other.

    After four years defending against allegations of Russian collusion and 2016 election interference, the opportunity to pay Democrats back with Special Counsel-supported allegations of Chinese collusion and 2020 election fraud may prove too popularly powerful for the Washington establishment to derail. If it means winning the Georgia runoffs, Senators Loeffler and Perdue will surely vote in support of President Trump’s vindictive NDAA and COVID/Omnibus vetoes. And on January 6, incoming Senator Tuberville (R-AL) could well enforce paranoid Trumpian vengeance by calling into question the Biden-winning results of the Electoral College vote.

    On the side of vigilant Senatorial compromise, Acting AG Rosen could resist populist Trumpian pressure to appoint one or both Special Counsels, assuming President-elect Biden names a reasonably independent Attorney General whom Senate Republicans will be inclined to endorse regardless of the runoff results in Georgia. Senators Loeffler and Perdue, for their part, could vote to override Trump’s NDAA and COVID Omnibus vetoes as the best way to maintain a GOP majority in the Senate. And on January 6, all Republican Senators, including Tuberville, could hold to a unified GOP position in support of the 2020 Electoral College results. Ultimately, however, the strategic long-term choice for clear-eyed Republicans is between paranoid NATO expansion in response to hegemonic Sino-Russian alliance-building, or vigilant multilateral disarmament within a reformed United Nations Security Council.

    For Democrats, the next several weeks could show signs of emergent fracture between the progressive wing of the party and its most paranoid projections of neo-feudal corporate conspiracy at the center of US and United Nations relations. Is President-elect Biden’s role in the “Great Reset” on the far side of COVID-19 (and other 21st century eco-catastrophes) part of a master plan for neo-liberal global plutocrats to rule over the neo-feudal “green communism” of the remnant masses? Or is the left wing in US politics, including the incoming Biden Cabinet, a genuine synthesis of Indigenous, European American, African American and Latin American models of middle class democratic socialism? Senate candidates Ossoff and Warnock highlight the tension between progressivism and centrism in the Democratic Party. Will Ossoff and Warnock prove too far left for Georgia, or will their wins in Georgia signal a significant leftward shift in the national center of the Democratic Party? Pelosi is set to continue as House Speaker in 2021-2022, even as Representative Ocasio-Cortez has been warned by some not to run against Senator Schumer in what could be another telling and titanic left-wing battle.

    1. the progressive left does not imagine with “paranoia” that there is a neo fuedal corporate conspiracy. they see and understand with clear eyed logic

      as does the populist right

      the “center” of both fake parties are: LACKEYS OF THE BILLIONAIRES, OUR ENEMY

      Saloth Sar

      1. I am not without some sympathy for your view, although I do not entirely subscribe to it. Billionaires are human beings like any other, may be exceptionally loyal to their countries and may demonstrate tremendous altruism.

        President Trump took a turn toward compromise last night by signing the COVID Omnibus legislation:

        Will he win on $2K relief checks and cuts to questionable foreign spending? Perhaps he can overcome the resistance in his own party by supporting loyal Republicans on their NDAA veto overrides in exchange for the $2K relief.

        1. Jonathan, the answer to your question is no.

          Also, Trump did not take a turn to compromise last night, he surrendered completely. He’s holding no cards.

          1. I agree that Trump surrendered.

            That was a mistake.

            The porculus should not have passed.

        2. “Billionaires are human beings like any other, may be exceptionally loyal to their countries and may demonstrate tremendous altruism.”

          they give away a lot of money like soros and jack dorsey not to lose power but to gain it. i don’t consider a guy like soros going from like 20 billion to 5 billion a big act of altruism. see he is no saint francis. he still had a lot left over

          and they get juice, power, from those whom they endow. it flows back to them, one hand washes another.
          in some cases charitable donations can literally be used as money laundering. I won’t name names on that, people are free to wonder, but if you dig you can find some notable historical examples. Cough, cough, Moe Dallitz just one example

          i would have to be convinced of any billionaire having altruism like Saint Francis did

          as for loyalty to nations, as a group, they seek to destroy Westphalian sovereignty at this time in history.

          nation states were the tools of the super rich circa 1800 to finish off feudalism in favor of rising capitalism, but now the capitalists ie global financiers, cast it aside, as contrary to their interests

          Soros recommends Stiglitz book and indeed it has a lot of good information about globalization process in it

          But I would have to be convinced that they care about any “nation” besides themselves

          for regular Americans, as a group, American billionaires, are the enemy. that’s my humble belief

          Saloth sar

        3. He should not have compromised.

          The Stimulus should have been separate from funding government.
          And the pork should have been removed from BOTH.

          The appropriate compromise reqarding government actions is ALWAYS less.

          Where there is insufficient agreement – what can not be agreed on can not be done.

          Many conservatives want a line item veto – which is a good idea.
          But equally important every line item should be individually stand alone approved by congress as a whole.

          Not “compromise” that means one group gets its pork in return for another getting its lard.

    2. Deuteronomy in the Old Testament mandates/not optional that any and every Ioudaios (wrongly translated “J-e-w,”) male must visit the Mosaic sacrificial temple twice annually. The penalty for ignoring and/or disobeying this clear command is to be “cast outside the gate” and ultimate death.

      Nero destroyed the last Mosaic temple in 70 AD; since that time (“the time of the end,” of the Mosaic era, not the “end of time”) every alleged Ioudaios male has wrongly failed to obey the Law of Moses, which does not allow for any excuse even if the Temple is gone.

      One may successfully argue that Nero’s destruction of the last sacrificial Temple signaled the end of the original Abrahamic/Mosaic code, the end of the polity of the Ioudaios, IOW the Mosaic religion existed at one time pre 70 AD and ceased to exist post-70 AD. If true, then even if someone made the ridiculous unproven and unprovable claim that their DNA came from Abraham, this claim holds zero water in support of any religious heritage or legal claim to a pile of Middle East dirt, which the US and League of Nations established by threat of military force.

      1. What their DNA does prove is their ethnics point of origin as it does with any other ethnic group. Of course the Romans knew who they conquered and recorded conquering Jews in the fist century. Read Tacitus. Nero died in 68 AD. The Emperor in 70 AD was Vespasian. . .

  4. I am all in for a special counsel look into influence peddling in Washington in general. It clearly, along with dark money endeavors, is the dark underbelly for which the founders couldn’t forsee at the time. Let’s see where it goes for sure..i., and let’s be bold in where we look shall we? None of this just looking at Hunter Biden. Let’s track it back to, minimally, the fact Bush jr. literally made an entire career of influence peddling when dad was president…

    I get it the repubs need something to try achieve moral equivalency on the issue since the trump administration was several notches past blatant on the dial what with the investigations into the disappearance of inauguration money for trump that was just laundered money from foreign nationals. Ditto all the scams run through trump hotels and resorts. Ditto for the trump children and the tactless nepotism the trump administration jumped in with both feet on from the their first day in power.

    It’s sort of like a climate change debate…, 98% of climate scientists are fully cognizant of climate change being real but the other 2% still get a seat at any discussion table that seemingly brings public discourse into 50/50 territory through the resulting imbalance in representation. Hunter Biden is that 2%, and the case is nowhere near as clear as with the trumps, as most likely evidenced by Barr being willing to leave investigatory efforts with the state of Delaware.

    And then there’s this…

    “The biggest issue is that influence-peddling is legal. It is the favorite form of corruption in Washington. While you cannot give a politician like Biden an envelope of money, you can give his son or other relatives millions in dubious contracts, gifts and loans. ”

    It’s the sticky wicket, Professor. Isn’t it? Come to think of it, I’d still love to know where the social media influencer money originates for your blog here. You’re a trail blazer, Jon. Of the young republican lawyers coming out of the Clinton years you’ve built a solid career on talking point disemination in a strikingly successful way. You took the ‘I’m a democrat that puts republican talking points out there’ to a fine art. I’m sort of endlessly impressed in a perverse way about you in that respect…

    But your running interference for trump the way you have puts you in really shady territory as far as history goes. You, and all the other repubs making excuses and rationalizations and trafficking in abstraction from trump puts you very close to the anti democracy camp. Maybe best to reel it in more than a little bit? Biden’s term will give you that opportunity, so there’s that to be thankful of I suppose.

    Elvis Bug

    1. What the h311 lets investigate George Washington’s foriegn influence peddling.

      Elvis – if you have credible evidence – sure lets investigate it. I have Zero love for the Bushies. But you do know that GHWB is dead ?

      Do we actually need to investigate the dead ?

      You claim that there were investigations into inauguration funds. Yet nothing came of that. Do you know something new ?
      Regardless, if you actually think you have got something – go for it.
      But FACTS this time not spin.

      If you have to go back to the Bushies – should we refit Hillary for an orange jumpsuit ? Were do we have more egregious examples of foriegn influence peddling than Clinton ?

      1. “You claim that there were investigations into inauguration funds. Yet nothing came of that. Do you know something new ?

        Fact: investigation into inauguration funds is ongoing as we speak. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it not true. Always been impressed by your deluded ability to make a sweeping false pronouncement and claim its validity.

        Elvis Bug

        1. “Fact: investigation into inauguration funds is ongoing as we speak.”
          I will have to take your word, which is hard to do as you are not trustworthy.

          So we have a 4 year old investigation that has yeilded ZIP – no indictments, nothing ?
          Not ever a press leak ?

          “Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it not true.”
          Why do you think I would have an emotional response ?

          I asked if you had anything – and your response is to claim there is a 4 year old investigation that has no results.

          Even if True that is pretty much a lack of evidence.

          So again – do you have anything ?

          1. How do you know what the results are if the principal is unable to be indicted while in office? And I’ve provided you with a written account of the investigation’s deposition action, would you also like fries with that?

            Elvis Bug

            1. “How do you know what the results are if the principal is unable to be indicted while in office? And I’ve provided you with a written account of the investigation’s deposition action, would you also like fries with that?”

              First Trump personally had little to do with this. If someone was indicted it would be someone else.

              Next I would refer you to the Watergate series of court cases – a grand jury can name Trump an “unindicted co-conspirator” if they beleive he is guilty of something. BTW that was also true of Mueller – He can not indict Trump, But he can get a GJ to say they would have indicted Trump if they could – Mueller didn;t – because he couldn’t.

              The DC AG didn’t – because they couldn’t.

              Those of you on the left seem devoid of any knowledge of the past and any critical thinking ability.

              1. Mueller’s Special Counsel staff including scum bag Attorney Andrew Weisman. Turley well documented Weisman’s long and repeated history of violating the rights of the accused, including convictions reversed because of Weisman’s wrongful prosecutions.

                Weisman was recently on NPR calmly talking the DNC talking points that all those whom Trump just pardoned can be hauled into the Grand Jury, granted immunity, and forced to testify of Trump’s crimes. This is the current DNC lie which serves only to further inflame voters to win the Senate and to convince people to donate money; it’s all a DNC dog whistle, like “Hey, we need some muscle over here!” at the U. of MO a few years ago.

                Weisman knows better than anyone what Hillary and her cadre of felons did when faced with the same situation: “I D-O N-O-T R-E-M-E-M-B-E-R…” I presume he coached their lies.

                And I really do think Trump is a scum bag. Pardoning those Blackwater civilian murderers is despicable. All the misery Trump caused vs. China and nothing shall come of it, absolutely nothing.

                1. If someone honestly answers “I do not remember,” that’s legal. If someone lies and says “I do not remember,” they can be tried for perjury. Every single one of these people has already testified about some things and their previous testimony can be read back to them to help them remember.

                  BTW, “Princess,” it’s interesting that you’re also posting under the name Archibald Banister.

            2. How do you know the principle is the president? Obviously he was not the one organizing it or they would not be deposing those who did.

          2. Yes this is going on for 4 years, with Ivanka being deposed on Dec. 3rd. It all is still allegations.

        2. Just to be clear – if you have the requisite predication to start an investigation – I do not care who you investigate.

          Just follow the law and the 4th amendment – whether democrats or republicans.

          Real evidence of real crimes – no more witch hunts.

          1. Oh, time to break out the coloring books.

            Vanks just got deposed earliere this month >> ongoing investigation. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it not true.

            “Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it not true.”
            Why do you think I would have an emotional response ?

            Because it seems you view everything through an emotional lens and aren’t so acquainted with objectivity.

            Elvis Bug

            1. “Oh, time to break out the coloring books.”
              Not an argument.

              “Vanks just got deposed earliere this month >> ongoing investigation. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it not true.”
              This is another nothing burger.

              There is no even a valid basis for this. The inauguration is purely a private event – no government money is used.
              As Trump said it is the DC AG wasting taxpayers money for nothing.
              This can not lead to criminal charges – it would not be a crime.
              It is not influence peddling – who bought influence from who ?

              It is just another lefties do not like it bit of nonsense.

              But what the h311 – let the DC AG waste taxpayers money chasing snipes.

              “Why do you think I would have an emotional response ?”
              I do not think about your emotions at all.
              I do not care about them.

              “Because it seems you view everything through an emotional lens and aren’t so acquainted with objectivity.”
              Really ? Where have I made an appeal to emotions ?

              Just stick to the facts – you have more than enough problems with them.

              1. You consistenly start with a conclusion andy cherry pick bits to support your initial conclusion. Your contriarianism leads you down a lot of dead ends and you don’t realize (if ever) until way too late. Not that contraianism is bad unto itself, but when it’s what drives your one trick pony understanding it’s a glaring weakness.

                Elvis Bug

                1. “You consistenly start with a conclusion andy cherry pick bits to support your initial conclusion. Your contriarianism leads you down a lot of dead ends and you don’t realize (if ever) until way too late. Not that contraianism is bad unto itself, but when it’s what drives your one trick pony understanding it’s a glaring weakness.”

                  I do not need an argument – you are the one claiming there is something there.

                  Really old investigation over nothing, no indictments. Nor really much possibility of any.

                  The best you might get is a forced discount.

                  Is this the best you can do ?

                  Regardless, investigate away.

      1. Also love your ability to post graphs and studies that don’t back up what your point is. I’m not sure whether it’s because you overtly lie or just don’t understand what you’re saying.

        Either way, we can appeciate your tenaciousness on the matter.

        FWIW you’ve just posted a graph that is lacking in essential context and shows 3 separate uptrends. All conclusive in your own head no doubt, but on the bigger question of whether science accepts climate change or not, worthless.

        Elvis Bug

        1. “Also love your ability to post graphs and studies that don’t back up what your point is.”

          They don’t ? Sure looks like they do to me.

          “FWIW you’ve just posted a graph that is lacking in essential context and shows 3 separate uptrends.”
          Try reading – the Read line is the average of 102 Climate models. This is the basis for Warmist projections.
          Those models predict an average 1.2C temp increase by 2025 (and not shown a 4C increase by 2100).
          The actual increase in the graph according to Satellites and Balloons is 0.3C or 1/4 predicted or about 1C by 2100.

          Put simply the models are demonstrably wrong. They are running way to hot.

          And the models are the core of CAGW.

          “but on the bigger question of whether science accepts climate change or not, worthless.”
          Very odd statement. Science does not accept things – actual science is driven by demonstrable thesis.
          When you have to accept something on faith it is called religion.

          The planet is warming – slowly, at the same rate it has been since about 1750 – 0,11C/decade.

          Could it dramatically increase or decrease shortly ? Sure. But there is no data based reason to expect that.

          1. Post your credentials for readers to compare with Dr. Ian Hutchinson of MIT. Ian: in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren one of two things shall occur (AFAIK Ian has not addressed a ratio of both items): we shall return to pre-Columbian lifestyle or 2B human beings shall die from global warming.

            1. The odds of either are very near zero.

              No Malthusian prediction EVER has come true

        2. Hear is another – this is a graph of Hansen’s 1988 predictions vs. reality

          Note we are doing much much better than Hanson’s scenario if we took drastic steps that would have destroyed the world economy and killed people.

          Science is about REALITY – not fairytales.

          Beleif in CAGW is an idiot test – if you beleive it, you are an idiot.

          1. Fascinating. The cognitive dissonance is real, clearly.
            And science…, is about science. It answers questions. Answers are accepted until proven different, and if you’ve ever been involved with experimentation in the scientific method you’d know that once an anser is generated so is the next question. Media, and it’s focus on the five W’s gives science the appearance of being about a ‘truth’ that is impossible to truly attain.

            Elvis Bug

            1. “And science…, is about science. It answers questions. Answers are accepted until proven different”

              “and if you’ve ever been involved with experimentation in the scientific method ”
              I have.

              “you’d know that once an anser is generated so is the next question.”
              Does this statement mean anything – I can not tell.

              When real world data contradicts the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be revised – that is the actual scientific method.

              In the real world the hypothesis does not produce results that match the real world.
              The planet is not even close to warming at the rate the hypothesis predicted.

              When a hypothesis can not be falsified, you are dealing with religion not science.

              Current indications are that 2020 MIGHT be 0.02C warmer than 1998.
              Though it might not. Not much warming for 22 years.

              1. ““And science…, is about science. It answers questions. Answers are accepted until proven different”

                Funny, that’s exactly how we operated in the lab I worked in at Yale. And we kind of laughed at lost souls like you who are easily duped into bad science by chasing off after isolated bits of information while missing the forest for the trees.

                Elvis Bug

                1. “Funny, that’s exactly how we operated in the lab I worked in at Yale. ”
                  Unsurprising. So you did not conduct actual science at Yale.

                  “And we kind of laughed at lost souls like you who are easily duped into bad science by chasing off after isolated bits of information while missing the forest for the trees.”

                  It does not surprise me at all that idiots like you who are clueless about science look down their noses at people who do.

                  You are the one dealing with isolated bits of information.

                  CAGW is not happening. The rate of warming is a small fraction of what is necescary for it to be a problem.

                  The current slow rate is a benefit not a harm
                  CO2 is plant food.

                  BTW real science tells you what the results will be – it does not make judgements regurading the merits of those results.

                  Any climate scientist who is making recomendations to stop Warming – is not a scientist, they are a politician.

                  Science tells you what will happen if you do nothing, and what will happen if you do X.
                  With “I do not know” being the most common correct answer.

                  I would note that less than 1/3 of all published scientific papers are reproduceable with statistical significance.

                  Probably because they were produced at places like your lab at Yale.

                2. Once again – what malthusian prognostication – ever has proved correct ?

                  The world is not coming to an end.
                  You are going to have to figure out how to live with it as it is.

                  That should not be all that hard. It is a pretty great place.
                  In fact we have pretty much the best world we have ever had.
                  And will be leaving out children a better one than was left to us.
                  Even if we completely ignore CAGW – and pretty much all of your catastrophizing.

                  Regardless, I am surprised you worked at a lab at yale.\

                  Based on your comments – I am surprised you are out of training pants.

                  You have very little experience with the real world.

          2. Overwhelming consensus of climate scientists and all National Academies of Science, and all and any relevant scientific associations are idiots then, say John Say. He’s the one who can read the data and understand it. At the link, a listing of all major scientific organizations and their statements on climate change.

            We look forward to your research being published John.

            “There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists’ opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

            Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]…..

            National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

            Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[26][27]

            No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[28] which in 2007[29] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[30]…”


            1. Science is not and never has been consensus.

              You continue to make my point. Warmism is a religion, not science.

              Regardless, you make the same error that you keep making in politics and the collusion delusion.
              You constantly prefer opinions of those you prefer over facts.

              The fact is that the earth is not behaving according to your “concensus” theory,
              It has barely warmed in 22 years. The average for the past 40 years is the same as the prior 150 years.
              At the current rate we will be lucky to see the planet 1C warmer than it was in 1980 by 2100.

                1. “In science the opinions of a thousand are not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”

                2. “Science makes people reach unselfishly for truth and objectivity; it teaches people to accept reality, with wonder and admiration, not to mention the deep awe and delight that the natural order of things brings to the true scientist.”
                  LISE MEITNER: PHYSICIST

                3. “Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.”

                4. “Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an “elegant” or “robust” theory. But it isn’t science.”
                  HALTON ARP: ASTRONOMER

                5. “Some people think that science is just all this technology around, but no it’s something much deeper than that. Science, scientific thinking, scientific method is for me the only philosophical construct that the human race has developed to determine what is reliably true.”
                  HARRY KROTO: CHEMIST

                6. “Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”
                  MICHIO KAKU: PHYSICIST

              1. The facts are not what John believes them to be, but he also doesn’t understand the relevance and importance of such complete agreement of the experts working on this complex and technical issue,a s well as that all the world’s relevant and important scientific organizations. I led him to the water, but he still insists he’s smarter and more informed on the subject.

                As to the facts:

                NOAA –

                – In 2019, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.71°F (0.95°C) above the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C), making it the second-warmest year on record.
                – The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (+0.18°C / +0.32°F) since 1981.
                – The five warmest years in the 1880–2019 record have all occurred since 2015, while nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005.
                – From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average every 13.5 years; since 1981, it has increased to every 3 years.


                1. JF – I do not need someone from NOAA – that has a reputation for jiggering with global temperature records, to tell me what is readilly apparent from data available to everyone.

                  Global tempratures are barely rising

                  2019 Was NOT the 2nd warmest year – it was not even close to the 2nd warmest year.
                  2016 was he warmest year and the 2nd warmest year was 1998
                  2020 will either be the warmest year or the 2nd warmest year.

                  But the difference between 1998 and 2020/2016 is about 0.02C.


                  With respect to your claim
                  “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).” UAH – RSS produces near identical results. Only UAH and RSS provide GLOBAL temps.

                  The planet includes the oceans – I know that is hard for you to grasp. but 75% of the planet is oceans.
                  The fact that the oceans are not warming appreciable is a real stake in the heart of CAGW.

                  That actually raises a different problem – Trenderth’s “missing heat”.

                  The energy balance of the planet – we can now make observations from space, and treat the earth as a black body measuring inflows and out flows – does not balance for warming.

                  This is why warmists have been running arround like chickens with their heads cut off looking for the “missing heat”.
                  The warmist postulate is that it is hidden somewhere in the oceans – that is of course obviously false because sea levels are rising linearly – not exponentially, and sea level accurately captures the hear stored in the ocean.

                  Basically CAGW is falling apart all over the place.
                  That has been clear for 2 decades

                  The only question is when do warmists eat their hats ?

            2. Can you name a single malthusian prognostication of any kind since …. Malthus that has ever come true ?

              Why is “this time” different ?

              1. There are no valid odds on predicting completely different events predicted at different times by different people. I thought John claimed to know something about data.

                1. I did not ask you for odds. I asked you for facts.

                  Predictions of disaster that came true.

                  As to your claim – which has nothing to do with what i asked for – it to is false.

                  I am sure you can find a sports book that will take a bet on the odds of 3 unrelated sporting events at different times.

                  But I did not ask you about odds at all.

                  I asked you what dire catastrophic predictions have ever come true.
                  Though I would narrow this to – disasters inside the control of man.

                  Catastrophic Earthquakes will happen, Volcanoe’s will happen, even asteriods striking the earth will happen.
                  But an event on the scale claimed for CAGW is unlikely any time soon.
                  But given 500million years the odds of a natural mass extinction event are large.

              2. John I suppose I am sold on “global warming” as a fact
                I am also essentially sold that anthropogenic emissions are a signficant causative factor
                though i have yet to find a precise number for that.

                as for malthus:

                that would depend on the relevant geography. there have been incidents of overpopulation in certain areas going all the way back to ancient times

                at times those overpopulations have endured because of importing food from outside the relevant areas. at other times, in some places, archaeologists tell us that the food system collapsed and then the population did too

                that is history

                the carrying capacity of a relevant geography is defined by that geography. the carrying capacity of say NYC is a lot less than its residents. if the food system collapses then eventually the population will too

                I am not a fan of “global” anything. certainly the earth has enough arable land to support a higher population but it will continue to require more resource extraction and conversion of greenspaces to arable land to do so. i find that a matter of some concern

                at the same time I am not quite ready to write off billions of people to get to the “carbon net neutral economy” and I wonder when my friends in the “global warming advocates” will come to grips with the tension between western living standards and world population. personally i do not want to see billions die off, nor my own energy consumption be required to decline 90%. And yet it seems that is supposedly what will be required to achieve that ‘carbone net neutral” economic utopia we are encouraged to desire.

                seems like a rock and a hard place to me. maybe “climate advocates” would get farther ,faster, if they would start to admit the logical conclusions that follows the premises?

                but you can’t seriously believe that there is no warming trend, do you really john? that is not really a fact in doubt

                Saloth Sar

                1. “John I suppose I am sold on “global warming” as a fact”
                  The earth has been warming at a rate of about 0.11C/decade for 250 years.
                  The current rate is 0.13C. That means since 1960 we have had 0.12C of warming beyond the norms,
                  and if current trends continue we will have another 0.18C beyond the 250 year tend.

                  Of course 250 year trends are unlikely to continue another 100 years.

                  We could spike naturally. We could drop naturally.
                  Contra warmists we do not really know what drives climate.
                  Also contra warmists the best models are SOLAR, not the CAGW crowds.
                  And the solar model predicts cooling soon.

                  Maybe, maybe not – I am not buying the solar model either.
                  But I am not going to pretend the most accurate model is inferior to the least accurate.

                  “I am also essentially sold that anthropogenic emissions are a signficant causative factor
                  though i have yet to find a precise number for that.”

                  You will not find a precise number that is trustworthy – there are too many unknowns.
                  But the real world evidence strongly suggests the human impact is small to very small.

                  “as for malthus:

                  that would depend on the relevant geography. there have been incidents of overpopulation in certain areas going all the way back to ancient times”

                  Sorry – my mistake. I use malthusian to mean any end of the world catastrophic quackery, Not specifically population based claims.

                  Specifically related to overpopulation – I would strongly suggest Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource II.
                  I would be very reluctant to beleive an archeologist making an over population claim.
                  While localized problems are always possible – and absolutely there are sometimes stresses – in population and other factors.
                  Actual human die offs are rare.

                  “the carrying capacity of a relevant geography is defined by that geography. the carrying capacity of say NYC is a lot less than its residents. if the food system collapses then eventually the population will too”

                  Nope, simon estimated the current carrying capacity of the earth are about 84B people – that is with technology that is already in use – not stuff that is coming in labs. And that would not consume significantly more land than we currently do.

                  “I am not a fan of “global” anything. certainly the earth has enough arable land to support a higher population but it will continue to require more resource extraction and conversion of greenspaces to arable land to do so. i find that a matter of some concern”

                  We are using less and less land every year to grow more and more food. Do not worry about land.

                  Even if current warming trends continue or even double. That will not produce any impact that we can not deal with WITHOUT limiting CO2. A warmer world is a better world. The biologically optimal world is about 4C warmer than today.

                  But we are not likely to get there – Please note that even warmists express temperature Rises as degreesC/doubling of CO2
                  Even accepting the Warmest number of 4C/doubling – which is an order of magnitude too large – 4C from here would take another 285 years at the current rate of CO2 increase which has been below 1.4ppm/year for the past 60 years. We do not have reliable data before that.

                  “but you can’t seriously believe that there is no warming trend, do you really john? that is not really a fact in doubt”

                  Please read what I wrote and the look at the graphs I linked.

                  Absolutely there is a warming trend – there is not really anyone who “denies” that.

                  As I noted the trend has been 0.11C/decade for about 250 years.
                  Since 1979 it has been averaging 0.13C/decade That suggests the “human” component Might be 0.02C/decade.

                  Of court the rate of warming seems to be slowing – it was running about 0.17C/decade at the end of the 20th century.

                  There is pretty good evidence the Sun is already in a quiesent state and that usually triggers global cooling.
                  And as i said – we have seen a slow down in warming over the past 2 decades.

                  Regardless, whatever the earth is going to do – it will do, and we puny humans are not going to effect that very much.

                  Warmists are full of hubris.

                  Man is an inherently religious creature. Over the past 40 years we have severely destroyed religion in the west.
                  We are seeing it being replaced by various other ism’s – progressivism. and Climatism as an example.

                  The left is drowning in religion – just without a god.

                  This is a significant part of the anti-Trump fervor – it is religious. Trump is a heretic, he does not even pay lip service to their religion and heretics must be burned at the stake.
                  Look arround at the doxing, and cancelling and censorship – this is all the manifestations of young left wing nuts trying to create a religion without a god.

            3. How did this work out ?

              In the 60’s nuns had us putting nickels in milk cartons for the starving millions in Bangledesch.
              A few years ago I was told to feel outraged because a handful of people were killed in a factor fire in Bengeledesch.

              What I felt was awe – free markets were feeding the previously starving millions in bangelesch and everywhere.

              1. Markets by and of themselves feed no one. They reflect the emotional sentiment of the people at their core, they reflect supply and demand dynamics, but they are emotionally driven financial arrangements.

                Elvis Bug

                1. Elvis, John fails to acknowledge that the Green Revolution, which has resulted in the virtual elimination of starvation in the developing world. is both a result of scientific advancement – those are the guys who are not as smart as John – promoted by the US, Mexico, and the UN and highly dependent at this point on fossil fuels to produce fertilizers (it also developed new hybrid crops). It is also dependent on naturally occurring phosphate for which we have no synthetic replacement. Florida is a main source and there are huge mines located across the state – mostly near the central “highlands” around Polk County and in the north near Lake City. “Peak phosphate” is estimated to occur around 2030 to 2100 and US production has turned us frm being the largest supplier to being a net importer

                  1. yes finally i agree again with joe on something. it’s been a while!

                    agriculture is dependent on phosphate which is mined

                    and every phase of industrial scale AG, besides the part where the little plants grow during the warm season, is fossil fuel intensive, trucking seed, trucking grain, trucking fertilizer, or sending it by rail; to say nothing of the diesel that goes in those tractors, on and on and on

                    and here our agreement ends because now i ask the provocative question i have been asking for months with no solid replies:

                    to those who seek a “carbon net neutral economy” please admit: at 8 billion population, aint gonna happen

                    so how do you fine folks decide which billions gotta go? im still waitin for an answer on that

                    saloth sar

                    1. At the current rate of Phosphate consumption – according to Wikipedia – which is prone to catastrophize we have a 345 year supply with current known reserves.

                  2. God. more leftist pablum.

                    Where is your Green revolution ?

                    The data below is for europe over the past 3 centuries.

                    You will note that per capita food consumption spikes long before your “green revolution”

                    In fact agriculural productivity throughout the world has risen over the past 3 centuries – but it has not risen at the same rate everywhere.

                    There have been some wonderful improvements in technology – but technology is not the driver – otherwise improvements would have occured at much the same time accross the world.
                    Instead different places in the world spiked at completely different times.


                    Get a clue – free markets drive technology – not the other way around.

                    I would also suggest reading Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource II” – I linked to it previously. It is free.
                    It is also a massive collection of consequential data over centuries.

                  3. As to your “peak” anything claim – AGAIN – name ONCE ever that ANY “PEAK” claim has proven true.

                    AGAIN – Read Julian Simon and his centuries of data.

                    There is absolutely no resource at all that we will ever run out of EXCEPT the human mind.

                    We have had price spikes at various times in history. The ALWAYS result in subsequent price collapses.

                    We can ALWAYS either figure out a way to produce more and more cheaply when conventional methods drive prices up – or we will switch to a substitute.

                    Gold – something that is purportedly scarce, is actually incredibly abundant – there are vast amounts in the ocean.
                    We do not recover that gold because it is currently more costly than it is worth and we have no magic technology making it vastly easier.

                    But if our need for gold ever becomes high enough we will.

                    No resource is truly limited, no resource is irreplaceable.

                    You can pretend that is not so – but world history tells us otherwise.

                    1. Interesting. Anyone more than 25 years old clearly recalls the “peak oil” BS stories of 10-15 years ago. 13 years ago I mentioned “peak oil” to a University science student who just chuckled.

                2. “Markets by and of themselves feed no one. ”

                  Adam Smit said it better than I can.

                  “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

                  ― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1

                  Markets are free people acting in their own self interest.

                  You eat because markets feed you.

                  Unless you are a farmer growing food for yourself – you are fed by free markets.

                  “They reflect the emotional sentiment of the people at their core, they reflect supply and demand dynamics, but they are emotionally driven financial arrangements.”
                  What self contradictory nonsense.

          3. Please, by all means, list your proof that Dr. Ian Hutchinson of MIT is, as you claim, an “idiot.”

            1. Phrased differetnly – people – experts, have claimed throughout human history that not merely would things get worse – an occurrence that is actually extremely rare. But that life as we know it would come to an end.

              And yet we are here. Homo Sapiens has been around 150,000 years. Homo for a couple of million. We have no exterminated ourselves yet. Nor has nature.

              The impact of natural disasters – which would include things like C19 – as bad as they are. are nowhere near apocolyptic and short lived.

              The impact of human actions is minuscule compared to natural disasters.

              Global energy product per YEAR is 6.8×10^19 J
              One Days Hurricane Energy 5×10^19 J

    2. Logic of Elvis Bug Shite For Brains: the author of anything that shines a bad light on a Dem is by mathematical deduction a Trump supporter. If true, then of course this means that award winning journalist Glenn Greenwald (also among many other things someone who literally houses, feeds, and protects about a dozen dogs he personally rescued and also helps to finance a dog rescue facility, God bless him and his) is a Trump supporter because he shines a bad light on Biden lies, corruption and war mongering and MSM for covering for Biden.

      Anyone including Elvis who claims Greenwald is a Trump supporter really does have Bug Shite For Brains.

  5. Jonathan, it doesn’t matter to the Democratic Party establishment because they will rid themselves of Joe Biden as soon as possible, and Obama’s sock puppet named Kamala will take his place.

    Harris will then don her “That was Joe, not me” China Teflon coating, and it will all fade away courtesy of the MSM ignoring the China-Biden story.

    In the outside chance that Hunter gets convicted and sent to a minimum security country club prison, he’ll know that he’s working over an eventual pardon from Kamala safety net while he works on improving his short game. And I’m sure Michael Milken will give Hunter some tips on how to arrange conjugal visits every other weekend while he’s serving his short stint.

    Meanwhile, the exact same fraud that occurred on November 3rd in the general election is being teed up in Georgia (again) for the January 5th runoff. So the USA has now officially entered into its final stage of empire, and the end result will be Balkanization.

    1. Here’s the format for all posts by Rhodesy:

      Garbage, garbage, garbage >>> and, horror of horrors!, a black woman is really close to being my president!!

      1. Rhodes is Estovir and countless other puppets parroting cringe-worthy views 12 hours per day on these threads.

      2. Kamala “Heels Up” Harris: daughter of two PhD’s, born into wealth, married into white money, no children, a real shining star confirming her ability to recover from all that black oppression in which she was raised living in mansions with attendants and privilege. Slept her way to power in Willie Brown’s bed.

        Another potential recipient of reparations, right? She also personally prosecuted countless blacks and imprisoned them for enjoying pot, something now legal.

        She can sing, “Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen” at her inauguration.


  6. Money talks, BS walks. The defining marker of BS artists like Jonathan Turley is that they exclude critical pieces of information that nullify their thesis. The planned venture with CEFC China Energy never closed and was set to close in 2017, when Joe Biden was out of office and didn’t plan on running again. Which is why his talk about influence peddling and the need for a special counsel to investigate influence peddling is BS.

  7. Funny how the left is suddenly interested in the Hunter Biden case. Why not rake up Tara Reade too while you’re at it? Does anybody want to place any bets on how long the corrupt but essentially American Biden is actually allowed to be President before he is replaced by globalist darling Harris? A week? A month? Just spare us the pretense of ethics or morals please. The left has a political aim and are willing to do what it takes to achieve that aim including first, electing a Trojan Horse candidate by shutting down any and all negative information about him and second, removing said Trojan Horse once it’s in the gates. That’s pure Machiavelli and as a martial artist, I admire it and wish the GOP were capable of it. As a human being, I find it appalling. Regarding the special counsel, it seems to me, as a “flyover” American, that all special counsels are really good for is wasting taxpayer dollars. The Mueller counsel spent years and millions investigating claims they knew were fraudulent before they started. Durham seems to view his position as a pension plan. Stop trying to pretend that special counsels actually get anything done. They don’t. I have a better idea for what to do with the money. Give 30 million dollars to whoever the AG is and next time they’re flying over the flyover country and mocking the little “ants,” throw the money out the window. It was going to get thrown out the window anyway. Might as well throw it to the people who provided it in the first place.

  8. Like a lot of people acting in good faith, Barr assumes others naturally do too. They don’t a lot of the time. And that’s what’s get you Pearl Harborized, Trojan Horseized, Iraq Curveballized and BidenIsALegitPrezized.

    1. As a teacher of logic, Big Mess, i’m impressed with your ability to bathe in fallacious syllogism with such a huge smile on your mug!!

      1. Aninny:

        ” i’m impressed with your ability to bathe in fallacious syllogism with such a huge smile on your mug!!
        Bet you can’t state the fallacy. And since the conclusion isn’t categorical (“a lot of the time”) there isn’t one. Nice try with the big words though. With all your free time, you’d think you could do better. lol

        1. I’ve had three jobs on a constant basis for 35 years, Big Messy.

          And actually, you’re right, all you’re ‘ized’ statements are true. All of them.

          1. Aninny:
            “I’ve had three jobs on a constant basis for 35 years, Big Messy.

            And actually, you’re right, all you’re ‘ized’ statements are true. All of them.”

            Two. Yellow journalist doesn’t count and to your your second point: of course they are.

            1. Good. Seems we agree that Biden is a legit president then. Let’s get this party started and start clearing up some damage.

              1. Biden is not nor will he ever be legit.

                No matter who is inaugurated this will hang on forever.

                Trump has made mistakes.
                There is zero chance Biden will do anything but make things worse.

                While I wish him luck. There is no miracle large enough to make him successful.
                I tried praying for miracles with Obama.
                Done that, did not work.

                1. Biden was elected pr esident. By a lot. Clear you don’t like that circumstance, but it doesn’t make it not real.

                  Elvis Bug

                  1. “Biden was elected pr esident. By a lot.”
                    No if every vote he received in the swing states is valid he was elected by about 40,000 votes.
                    Just as Trump was elected by 77,000 in 2016,

                    If you invalidate 40,000 Biden votes in 3 states – Trump wins,
                    IF you add 40,000 trump votes in 3 states – Trump wins.
                    If you flip 20,000 biden votes in 3 states Trump wins.

                    “Clear you don’t like that circumstance,”
                    What I do not like is lawlessness and fraud.

                    “but it doesn’t make it not real.”
                    It is real if and when the law is followed and the illegitimate votes are weeded out.

          2. More garbage.

            Announcement Anonymous had a job. He thinks that is a big feat.

      2. “As a teacher of logic”

        Anon: You are one of the reasons our children exit school uneducated.

  9. It does not matter whether Biden refrains from asking potential Justice Department nominees about any possible investigation of his son. Anyone who might become a nominee already knows the expected answers and will not support any such investigation. Biden knows that and they know that. “Just move along … nothing more to see here.”

  10. Like Turley’s now proven ridiculous claim that there was enough ” there” there for Biden to support an investigation into “voting fraud” – a 10 year old could see what 60 courtrooms saw, that it was Loser desperation based on nothing – now he beats the drum for a SP on allegations intended to road block the President-elect. But hey, that;s Turley’s job as a go to “legal expert” for the GOP and Fox News. He’s non-partisan like SEan Hannity is.

    1. Explain the Dominion machine that was proven to alter the vote count. Do we have vote tabulators or calculators.

      They have been proven to be calculators.

      1. First YOU have to provide evidence of a Dominion machine that was proven to alter the vote count.

        1. Hey, it was already proven in the Michigan county. And SOON will be in Arizona once the election board is forced to allow it. Tell me, why are they blocking the machines from being analyzed?

          That is a clear sign of something to hide.

          1. No, it wasn’t proven in Michigan. Which is why you’re only making claims and not presenting any proof.

            1. It was proven…you just need to get your head out of your arse….. assuming you are willing to see truths. The fact that the Georgia voting building in one GA county has been found unlocked and unattended is likely proof they can blame the wiping and or missing memory cards on some nefarious conspiracy type. The cheat/steal was so obvious … the late night stopping of the count and massive one way vote dumps out of thin computer driven air….. oh so silly those are that believe these are left wing miracles and not the fraud they obviously are.

            2. The process was broken by DEMOCRATS. The correct process is what provides an honest vote. Democrats broke the process in all the states under consideration. They didn’t follow the law. They didn’t permit poll watchers from the other side in the room. They counted ballots alone. The machines were improperly accessed and a whole slew of other things occurred. Process violations of that nature permit one side to illegally change the vote in favor of their side.

              Anonymous. Do you deny such process violations occurred? It’s an easy yes or no, something you are unable to do.

              As another is pointing out, all you do is litter the blog saying nothing of consequence.

            3. Indeed, the Antrim Michigan vote was recounted by hand and it changed 12 votes. Some conspiracy!

              “A hand count of paper ballots in Antrim County, Michigan, has verified the election results there, refuting a “forensics report” promoted by President Donald Trump that baselessly claimed the election equipment in the county was “designed” to create “systemic fraud and influence election results.” Experts said the faulty report showed a misunderstanding of voting system technology..”


              The Georgia recounts (3) were also of paper ballots and confirmed the results of the machine count.

              “Georgia recertified its presidential election results on Monday, again finding Joe Biden as the winner following three counts of ballots, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said.

              The recertification is a yet another blow to President Donald Trump, who has for weeks baselessly claimed a “rigged” election in the state and attacked election officials for not overturning the results in his favor. …”


              Could you losers at least keep up with the news about your BS conspiracies? Too much to ask?

        2. Already been done.

          Also as noted many times before – watch the Video from the GA legislature hearings – that will provide you with a howto guide on using DVS systems to change votes however you want and to add votes or count the same vote many times.

            1. “GA carried out a hand count. The vote count wasn’t changed.”

              So what?

              I can recount numerous times a stack of dollar bills, and come up with the same number. A recount tells you nothing about whether the bills are real or counterfeit.

              1. GA SAID they were doing a bunch of things including a hand recount.
                That is not what they did.

                They essentially did the same thing they did immediately after the election all over.

              2. Sam, that particular Anonymous is a a bit crazy. He fights with everyone over and over again for no reason and when he says something it is generally wrong. I think he has pis-sed too many people off.

                1. No, “Mel,” I argue with trolls like Allan and his socks.

                  I don’t agree with some things that Sam says, but Sam’s not a troll.

                  1. I don’t want to deal with you. You argue with everyone and have called many people Allan when it is obvious their work product is quite different. I think at one time you even called Sam, Allan. You are tiresome and a bore. You seldom say anything of value and when you do it is more frequently wrong than right.

              3. If you count by machine and then recount by hand, it tells you whether the machine count is or isn’t accurate.

                All of the people claiming that the machines are flipping votes, adding votes, etc., are wrong, because the hand counts show that that’s not happening.

                1. There are very few actual hand counts going on.

                  Only GA has done a recount – sort of. And that was not an actual hand count.

                  Even Antrim county has only done a partial hand recount and I beleive has been ordered by a judge to do a recount of every machine count.

                  I do not personally beleive that we are going to find that DVS machines deliberately flipped votes.

                  We have ONE very large instance of vote flipping in Antrim county that has STILL not been adequeately explained – there are multiple competing claims none of which are satisfactory and many of which are serious problems for DVS.

                  We pretty much know at this time that DVS was making firmware updates right up until election day and that is illegal and it is also a problem from the persepective that DVS software is so bad that it needs these updates.

                  We also know that DVS counting systems can be used to alter votes without leaving an audit trail and can be used to scan and vote blank, can scan the same ballot over and over and count it, and can be used to change the vote on ballots – all without an audit trail.
                  This is not acceptable.

                  The fact that everyone – including democrats is not up in arms over this is very disturbing.

                  We can use scanning and counting systems in elections – but NOT without better systems and most important better means of checking them and the people using them.

                  This is not acceptable.

                  The problems with DVS systems do not exactly match the claims Powell has made – but they are close enough that she is not likely to lose a defamation lawsuit.

                  I would note that I doubt these problems are unique to DVS.

                2. GA did NOT do a “hand” recount – read their own posts on it – they claim to have done a “manual” recount, which is not inherently the same thing.

                  It is trivially arguable they did not do much of a recount at all – as even reprocessing the same ballots through the machines all over would have required re-adjudicating them and that would inherently have produced small differences in results that did not occur.

                  I would note this effort at word games by various state departments of state is making things worse not better.

                  I had a debate with you or someone else here claiming that PA changed the law – passed an amendment to allow the court to change the last date at which ballots could be accpeted. This claim was based on the purported text of “act 77” as provided by the PA Dept State web site. But the actual act – as amended – as well as the PA State court decision extending the deadline are both readily available.
                  There was no change ir amendment to act 77 to grant the power to extend the deadline – even the PA supreme court in their decision recognized there was no provision in the law to do so, and then decided that they could do so anyway.

                  But my point is that PA Dept state altered the text of Act 77 on their web site, to make it appear that legislators gave the courts the power to do so.

                  You can agree or disagree with the court – that does not alter the fact that the PA dept of state is LYING about the law.

                  When the state lies about the law – they can not be trusted.

                  If you want people to tryst the results of the election – run the election in a trustworthy fashion.

                  In GA that would mean:

                  Scan the mailin ballot envelopes and make them publicly available so that the press, and researchers and other parties can determine
                  If the number of illegitimate mailin ballots accepted was large or small. Ultimately this is going to be done anyway – but it could have been done 2 months ago, as opposed to 6 months from now. BTW allowing student researchers from the University of GA to evaluate the signatures is NOT going to instill confidence. College students lean further left than Fulton county election workers.

                  Have truly independent third parties randomly audit the Voting machines. BTW this was a recomendation made to GA (and other states) PRIOR to the election. It should be standard procedure. It is not. We can use and trust voting machines, but only if we have a check on the process to assure that if Fraud either by the machines themselves or by those running the machines and adjudicating problem ballots will get caught if they engage in fraud.

                  Conduct all aspects of ballot handling during an election with 3rd party observers.

                  Again most of these should be standard procedure – they should occur ALL the time.

                  Beyond that DO NOT EVER change voting processes or deviate from the law at the last minute – NO MATTER WHAT.

                  In every single one of these states the Executive branch could have gone to the state legislatures to seek the changes they wanted to 2020 voting. They did not. They acted unilaterally on their own. That inherently undermines the trust of electors. If you want people to believe you are honest – do not act unilaterally without meaningful oversight in the dark.

              4. Do you have any evidence suggesting counterfeit ballots that has not already been disproven?

                1. There are affadavits – and almost no actual Ballot fraud claims have been disproved.

                  You do not seem to grasp the difference between dismissed and disproved.

                    1. There are now over 1000 affidavits – the majority of which are first person accounts of observed fraud.

                      As an example each of the 6 states and specifically the 6 cities in those states has MULTIPLE eyewitness accounts where one or more election officials were observed feeding the same ballots over and over into a scanner.

                      This is a very common form of election fraud – in 2020 3 people were indicted and plead guilty in Philadelphia for this specific form of fraud – different election. \

                      The eyewittness under oath statements of witnesses is about as strong an evidence as you can get.

                      BTW the allegations of observing votes scanned over and over is a very common place form of fraud. It occurs in every election, and in every major city. There is no question that this occured in 2020. The only question is whether it was a factor in the presidential election.

              5. Sam, I just posted to that crazy guy anonymous but then noted he posted again. He didn’t get your point. He is denser than a brick.

                Now he will probably respond to me with his usual awful behavior and call me Allan as well. He is the type of person that others have learned to dislike.

            2. If you truly believe what you are trying to say but didn’t then you are more stupid than anyone imagines.

              If I run a deck of 52 cards plus 10 illegal cards through a counter it will count 62 cards. If I run it again it almost certainly will count 62 cards. If I look at the cards and remove the 10 cards from a different deck then the counter will register 52 cards. That is a simple process that you seem not to understand.

              Was each ballot checked for its legitimacy based on the law, the signature and other evidence that it was a legal ballot.
              anonymous, that takes only a yes or no. You can’t answer because you are willing to lie.

            3. No they did not. This has been debunked before.

              They Claim to have conducted a manual recount – which is NOT the same as a hand recount.

              Todate the only place that has verified voting machines is Antrim county where they found a 5000 vote flip from Biden to Trump.

              I would further note that given that there are many many claims in GA of fraud by election officials you can not have the people who are alleged to have committed the fraud conduct an audit of their own conduct.

    2. And you, Joe, have not bothered to learn of the hard evidence (Dominion machine chaning votes) and 1000*+ avidavits that are out there.

      Really? A court tells you that you are too late to file… you should have known of the fraud before.

      Most of you on the left are going to end up like Trotsky did.

      1. You haven’t bothered to present hard evidence of anything illegal.

        Many of the affidavits have no hard evidence, only hearsay. Some of the affidavits even complain about things that are legal.

        1. Hearsay is evidence. Hearsay of people admitting to a crime would be absolutely admissible.

          If only 1 affadavit was correct – you would still have a problem.

          After this election it is hard to know what is legal. You can not tell by reading the actual law or the state constitutions.

          In 28 states secret ballots are constitutionally required. Mailin ballots are not secret ballots.
          If we followed the law – those states could not have had mailin voting.

    3. You’re a moron. It is an undeniable fact that elected officials and bureaucrats illegally changed rules in swing states in ways that benefited Biden.

      1. It’s not an undeniable fact that elected officials and bureaucrats illegally changed rules. In the dozens of lawsuits filed, not a single court has ruled that they did. Some of those cases didn’t reach a merits consideration, but others did.

        1. And yet they actually did.

          It is amazing courts can find day is night and night is day.

          I would suggest you read the PA constitution section on elections.
          And then PA Act 77 – the PA election law.

          It is pretty trivial to find constitutional or act 77 requirements that were not met in PA.

          The claim that the laws were followed is ludicrously stupid.

          They were not.

          In PA mailin voting is unconstituional.

        2. The issue is *not* whether the voting changes were legal. The issue is whether those changes created a more secure or less secure election — and who benefitted from those changes.

          Georgia, for example, just for this election, got rid of signature verification on mail-in ballots. Such verification is the *minimum* necessary to ensure that ballots are legitimate. Who benefitted from that change? Biden.

          “. . . not a single court has ruled that they did.”

          So something didn’t happen (voting changes to help Biden) unless a court says so? Try thinking for yourself, rather than deferring to others.

          1. Georgia also has voted ID laws.

            That means that a ballot can not be accepted without verifying that the voter is who they claim to be and is a valid voter.

            Signature verification alone is insufficient for that. Eliminating signature verification means that no verification of ID at all was done.

            The normal rejection rate for first time mailin elections is 25% – that is what we saw in the democratic primaries.
            The normal rejection rate for absentee ballots – which require far better prep than mailin ballots is 6%.
            In 5 of the 6 “swing” states if the mailin ballot rejection rate had been 1% Trump would have won.

            The actual rejection rates in these states were 1/100th what was expected.

            All these states essentially accepted any ballot they received without verification of any kind.

          1. Link to the ruling you have in mind, and let’s check whether your description is accurate.

          2. False – contra claims – even in oppinions, very very very few if any of the actual claims have been addressed on the merits.

            The WI Federal courts “On the merits” decsions was a “latches” decision. i.e. – its too late and the remedy you are looking for too large.

            The courts fail to grasp that it is not Donald Trump that is owed a trustworthy election – it is the people. ALL of them. those who did not get what they voted for as well as those that did.

            When those of you on the left claim that the courts are being asked to invalidate hundreds of thousands of votes – you are correct.
            But Fraud has invalidated millions.

            You are obligated to PROVE to the millions of people who voted for Trump – as well as the additional millians that are not sure the results were lawful and trustworthy that the election was done lawfully and that fraud was not sufficient to alter the results.

            That is the requirement for a trustworthy election.

            You, the left, democrats, the media the courts have FAILED at that.

            1. Proof is on you John Say. No US Presidential election ever has been required to be “proven” to the losers and there is no mechanism for that to occur outside the courts, all of which have thrown out your crackpot complaints.

              Did you just move here or something?

              1. Actually ALL elections are required to be PROVEN.

                The requirement that elections are conducted according to laws is a requirement that the results are free of fraud.

                This is the most ludicrously stupid argument you have made yet.

                According to you -= Philadelphia need not count the ballots at all. – it can just make up and announce results.
                It would be up to everyone else to PROVE those results were wrong.

                What evidence do you have that is not what Philadelphia did ?

                How do you know that what we saw was not just a charade ?

                The point is that States ARE required to PROVE the lawful conduct of elections.

                Among other things they are required to subject elections to outside observers.
                They are required to preserve all election records for 3 years. And to make those records public.

                All of that is to PROVE the election was conducted without conseqeuntial fraud.

                1. Chew on this John Say and consider it’s meaning:

                  “…. Biden’s margin over Trump in the city is on track to be over 450,000 or even 460,000. That’s a huge advantage, and crucial in a state he won by what’s likely to be around 100,000 votes. But it would still be smaller than Hillary Clinton’s 475,000-vote edge in Philadelphia in 2016….”


                  Biden won Pennsylvania because of his vote count in the suburbs and red counties were he outperformed Hillary, not Philadelphia were he underperformed her. The same fact holds for Atlanta and Detroit, and in Milwaukee, he was roughly equal to her.

                  1. The Philadephia County results are readily available on line for both 2016 and 2020.

                    Your numbers are wrong.

                    Why is it that you keep trust

                    HRC 560,542
                    DJT 105,418
                    delta 455K

                    JRB 604175
                    DJT 132870
                    Delta 472K

    4. “Like Turley’s now proven ridiculous claim that there was enough ” there” there for Biden to support an investigation into “voting fraud” ”

      It has been ? Not that I can see.

      By failing to follow the law – and worse failing to support legitimate inquiry, Biden may end up as president, but at great cost to his own legitimacy and that of government.

      “a 10 year old could see”
      Wisely we do not let 10 year olds vote – though I hear that in 2020 large numbers of them voted for biden in Atlanta, Philadephia, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

  11. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

    – Declaration of Independence

    However did the British colonies engender leaders?

    What happened, America, shall you turn as cowards and surrender?

  12. Most of Turley’s pro argument can be simplified down to:

    DOJ can not be expected to impartially investigate the presidents son. PERIOD.

    There are purportedly two serious ongoing investigations. IF they do not reach an end before Biden is president – there must be a special counsel.

    With respect to Turley’s con arguments – they are irrelevant.

    There is a real concern that SC’s get out of control – as Mueller clearly did. If an SC is appointed to investigate Hunter Biden, and that SC finds that there is no prosecutable crime – then that SC should say so publicly and end the investigation.
    As Mueller should have done day one or shortly after.

    There is a really good argument that SC’s need some stronger form of oversight. But that requires a change in the law.
    We do not fail to appoint and SC because the last SC was abusive. We fix the law.

    I absolutely agree that much of what Hunter biden is accused of is both reprehensible and legal.

    And i argued exactly that with respect to Manafort. I would note that Turley WAS NOT arguing that Manaforts influence peddling was legal.

    Manaforts tax problems were tiny compared to the allegations against Hunter.

    Finally the elephant in the room is NOT Hunter Biden, it is Joe Biden.

    Hunter is free to sell his ability to influence the Vice President to anyone who will buy it.

    The vice president is neither ethically or legally allowed to use his powers for the benefit of his son.
    He may not even APPEAR to do so.

    The most serious allegation is that VP Biden used the US governments powers to coerce a foreign government to act for the benefit of his son. That is a crime.

  13. If Russian interference in the 2016 election was grounds for a special counsel, then China interference in the 2020 election is grounds for a special counsel. And if not a SC, then at least a serious federal investigation.

    China’s interference and meddling was to the tune of $400 million.

    In October 2020, UBS Securities LLC “invested” $400 million in Staple Street Capital — the parent company of Dominion Voting Systems. UBS Securities is a cutout for China. Smelling danger, about three weeks ago, 3 of its 4 board members left the company, under suspicious circumstances. (What likely happened is that they were “recalled” by their communist handlers.) All three are Chinese nationals, with documented ties to Chinese firms and to the communist party. Want to avoid being interviewed or subpoenaed? Be in China.

    What did Dominion do with that $400 million?

    (I am not alleging a *direct* connection between the Bidens and UBS Securities or Dominion. However, it is well known that China wanted Trump out and Biden in.)

    1. Mueller wasn’t appointed to investigate general Russian interference in the 2016 election.

      He was appointed to investigate links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.

      Do you have evidence of links and/or coordination between the Chinese government and individuals associated with the Biden Campaign?

      1. Pure BS. He was appointed to get rid of Trump. Problem was the whole was false. They had and have NOTHING on the man.

        1. Mueller wasn’t appointed to get rid of Trump. Rod Rosenstein, the Republican who appointed Mueller, is a Trump supporter.

                    1. Here is Allan resorting to one-of his go-to trolling strategies, where Allan pretends that the other person said something he didn’t say.

          1. ” Rod Rosenstein, the Republican who appointed Mueller, is a Trump supporter.”

            I wonder how you are going to prove that? Your head and butt seem to be in the wrong place.

          2. You’re lying again.

            Rosenstein is a Republican, not a Trump supporter .He’s as much of a Trump supporter as Bill Kristol.

            1. Yep, Trump nominated Rosenstein to be DAG, but Rosenstein had turned it down, Trump would have nominated Kristol.

        2. Both the Mueller Report and the Senate Report confirmed the bulk of the 2016 Russian “hoax” to be true. The only part not confirmed is that extent that the Trump campaign actively sought out Russian assistance. Not at all false.

      2. Anon: “Do you have evidence of links and/or coordination between the Chinese government and individuals associated with the Biden Campaign?”

        If you change that to the proper question: “. . . Chinese government and [the Bidens]” — then the obvious answer is: there are “links” aplenty. And if you don’t know what those connections are, then you are not looking hard enough.

        1. No, I worded it correctly, and the links I’ve seen aren’t to the Chinese government, only to Chinese nationals. Maybe I’m not looking hard enough, or maybe you’re imagining things that aren’t there.

          1. “. . . the links I’ve seen aren’t to the Chinese government, only to Chinese nationals.”

            Only a dupe (or the dishonest) believe that there is such a distinction in a communist dictatorship.

            1. Having lived in a non-communist dictatorship, I know for a fact that there’s a huge difference between a citizen and the government.

              1. “. . . huge difference between a citizen and the government.”

                You’re playing games with words.

                In a dictatorship, like China’s, there is no such thing as a *private* individual. There is no such thing as a *sovereign* individual. The individual exists merely to serve the interests of the state. You are born a slave and die a slave. And the higher up you are, in any field, the more you exist merely to serve the interests of the state.

                The three Chinese nationals who funneled $400 million to Dominion Voting Systems (via its parent company) are very high up. (Check their credentials and positions.) They were doing the bidding of the Chinese communist party — in the same way that German businessmen did the bidding of the Nazis.

                1. I lived in a dictatorship in another country. Most citizens in that dictatorship didn’t represent the government and were instead victims of the government. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  1. Anon: “Most citizens in that dictatorship didn’t represent the government and were instead victims of the government.”

                    We’re talking at cross purposes. You’re talking about the average citizen. I’m focusing on those who wield the power in a dictatorship, and their functionaries — such as the three Chinese officials at UBS Securities LLC, who “invested” $400 million to influence the U.S. election. They were *not* “victims.” They were perpetrators.

                    I’m focusing on the *nature* of a dictatorship, such as the one in China — and how it spreads an evil ideology. You’re focusing on the man on the street. With all due respect, when it comes to China’s meddling in our election, the man on the street is irrelevant.

                    1. Is Biden linked to any of the three Chinese officials at UBS Securities LLC?

                      What’s the evidence that they influenced the U.S. election?

              2. Absolutely a “brilliant” remark by anonymous. He recognizes a difference between a citizen and the government. He’s reached the level of a second grader.

          2. You are a dupe. The CCP controls China and all do their bidding. Things the Bidens did ended up providing a company to the CCP that enhances their air force. Your entire knowledge of China probably comes off of a Chinese Menu.

            Maybe you should spend less time on the blog and more time trying to learn something.

            1. “Is Biden linked to any of the three Chinese officials at UBS Securities LLC?

              “What’s the evidence that they influenced the U.S. election?”

              As children, some people weren’t very good at playing connect the dots.

              If we had justice-minded federal investigators and truth-seeking journalists, the existing evidence would spawn serious investigations galore.

      3. Do you have any evidence of links between the Trump campaign and Russia ?

        If we are going to have a faux investigation of a republican president it is only fair that we do the same to the subsequent democrat.

        And I will have no trouble concocting a far better basis connecting Biden to China than Trump to Russia.

        1. Both the Mueller Report and the SSCI Report identify links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. The former also identified multiple instances of obstruction that got in the way of a full investigation.

          1. Nope – spin is not evidence.

            This has all been hashed out time and again.

            The Mueller report is dog $hit and even so does not provide the facts you claim.

            The obstruction claim is total idiocy – you can not obstruct a non-crime.

            Beyond that obstruction is a chargeable offence.
            There is not a single meuller faux obstuction claim that did not involve a person in addition to Trump.
            Why were none of those charged ?

            That is easy – because there was no obstruction.

            Regardless the only actual russian who had any contact with an actual member of the trump campaign was Natalia who met with Fusion GPS immediately before and after meeting with DJR where she regaled him with rot about Russian adoption, Which last I checked had nothing to do with the election.

            Conversely Steele’s primary subsource was an actual russian and a known Russian agent. Oops.

              1. Yet, you have not provided evidence.

                You keep claiming that spin trumps evidence.

                Please cite actual evidence – not opinions.

                1. John, they are paid ChiCom trolls.

                  They are not commenting here to persuade any of the regular posters. They are here to try to redirect the narrative from Biden-China, back to Trump-Russia.

                  It’s about searches.

          1. I asked for evidence not more oppinion.

            Evidence – you know FACTS.

            Can you identify a single actual instance of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia ?

            The CIA identified collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russia – so where is the actual collusion ?

            FACTS not nonsense and oppinions.

    2. It is not well know that China wanted Biden in.

      Trump has abandoned the international field and left it wide open to Chinese dominance, from abandoning the TPP to withdrawing from acting with our allies to represent and spread democratic interests and principles around the world. China has expanded it’s influence in Africa and the Pacific rim as a result, and Biden would not passively watch that continue. Yes, Biden will be more amenable to joint ventures on world health, climate action, and other global issues. On trade, there is the abandoned TPP which Obaama and Biden were a part of writing and Trump was easily manipulated through his ego (see NK). That’s how we got an essentially meaningless “agreement” with the Chinese a year ago.

      1. “Trump has abandoned the international field and left it wide open to Chinese dominance, from abandoning the TPP”

        Are you completely clueless ?

        During the Trump administration the US military and India conducted joint excercises for the first time EVER.

        India has generally been hostile to the US since independence – despite the fact that the indian people are US friendly.

        Further Trump has provided India with support to buck Chinese agression in India.
        The US is returning to Subic bay as a result of negotiations between Trump and the Philipines.
        This is a huge deal as it makes it much easier for the US to support forward based carried groups that are essential to containing China.
        Trump has reversed the Obama era nonsense and has US ships conduction freedom of navigation excercises in the south china sea.
        This is incredibly important to Japan, Philipines, and Vietnam and other nations with claims in the south china sea as China under Obama was able to restruct access of these nations to their own teritory.
        Trump has struck deals with Vietnam.
        He has struck multiple deals with Japan – including converting an island near the south China Sea owned by Japan into a huge jointly operated airbase – basically a giant unsinkable carrier. This will allow moving forces on Okanawa 600km closer to china, more than tripplining the effective deterent of US forces near the south china sea. Further Trump and Japan are working to expand Japan’s military particularly its navy and airforce.
        Trump has struck two separate deals with Taiwan providing them with advanced military equipment that is sufficient to decimate chinese forces should China try to invade Taiwan.

        Since Trump’s election China has been isolated and pushed back on her heals.
        The movement of manufacting from China to the US or other asian countries has accelerated.

        China’s GDP growth has dropped to 2.7% – the lowest since Mao’s death. It has been declining steadily under Trump.

        China’s GDP was supposed to surpass the US by now. IS GDP is about 22T, China is about 14T.

        “China has expanded it’s influence in Africa and the Pacific rim as a result, ”
        Under Obama Biden that was correct. China’s influence has tanked since Trump took office.

        China was actively rooting for Biden.

        “Biden would not passively watch that continue.”
        Correct Biden will actively foster empowering China – as Obama did.

        “Yes, Biden will be more amenable to joint ventures on world health, climate action, and other global issues.”
        None of which matter.

        “On trade, there is the abandoned TPP which Obama and Biden were a part of writing and Trump was easily manipulated through his ego (see NK).”
        TPP is dead – even Hillary abandoned it. Trump has actually negotiated improved US deals individually throughout Asia

        HEre is some actual information and assessment of Trump’s china policy.'s%20China%20Policy%20Statements.pdf

Comments are closed.