Is it Time for a Special Counsel on the Hunter Biden Scandal?

“Come on H this is linked to Celtic’s account.” Those nine words from a retired Secret Service agent to Hunter Biden in recently released emails may prove a nasty complication for some in Washington who have struggled to contain the blowback from the still-unfolding scandal linked to Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop.

“Celtic” was the Secret Service code name for Joe Biden, and recent disclosures may puncture the media’s cone-of-silence around the scandal. The emails link President Biden to his son’s accounts and indicate a commingling of funds with money coming from controversial foreign sources.  Even more embarrassing, the shared account may have been used to pay a Russian prostitute named “Yanna.”

The commingling of funds is the latest contraction of President Biden’s repeated claims that he was unaware and uninvolved in past dealings by his son. Given these links, there are legitimate questions of why the Justice Department has not sought a special counsel in the ongoing investigation of alleged money-laundering and tax violations linked to the president’s son. More importantly, even if there are no criminal charges, there is now a compelling need for an independent report on the alleged influence peddling operation by Hunter, his uncle James Biden, and potentially his father, President Biden.

In the latest disclosures from the laptop, a former secret service agent reportedly texted Hunter on May 24, 2018, when he was holed up with a Russian prostitute in an expensive room at The Jeremy Hotel in Los Angeles. Hunter wired the woman $25,000. That alone was nothing out of the ordinary for Hunter who, while his father served as vice president, seemed to divide his time equally between influence-peddling and personal debaucheries.

Hunter clearly only had influence and access to sell. We know now that foreign interests gave Hunter millions at a time that he admits that he was a crack addict and alcoholic — in his words, “Drinking a quart of vodka a day by yourself in a room is absolutely, completely debilitating,” as well as “smoking crack around the clock.”

However, the tranche of emails raises a new and disturbing element: the possible mixing of accounts and funds between Hunter and his father. If true, President Biden could be directly implicated in ongoing investigations into his son’s money transfers and dealings.

Most notable are the new emails from Eric Schwerin, his business partner at the Rosemont Seneca consultancy, referencing the payment of household bills for both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. He also notes that he was transferring money from Joe Biden. If true, the communications indicate that some of President Biden’s personal expenses were paid out of shared accounts with Hunter, including accounts that may have been used to pay for prostitutes. Rosemont Seneca is directly involved in the alleged influence peddling schemes and questionable money transfers from Chinese and Russian sources.

Schwerin also was involved in President Biden’s taxes and discussions of a book deal for the then-vice president; he popped up in the donation of Biden’s official papers to the University of Delaware, with restrictions on access.

President Biden has long insisted that that his son did “nothing wrong.” That is obviously untrue. One can argue over whether Hunter committed any crime, but few would say that there is nothing wrong with raw influence peddling worth millions with foreign entities. The public has a legitimate reason to know whether the President or his family ran an influence peddling operation worth millions.

Given this record, there is little reason for the public to trust what it is reading about the scandal. The media has long refused to investigate the allegations or even report on emails contradicting the President. This was most evident when social media like Twitter actually blocked postings on the laptop or its content before the election. Powerful figures then issued false statements about the scandal to the public. Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who assured “this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin.” Some 50 former intelligence officials, including Obama’s CIA directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta, also insisted the laptop story was likely the work of Russian intelligence. The laptop is now recognized as genuine.

This is not the first contradiction for President Biden in his repeated denials of knowing anything about his son’s business dealings. Hunter himself contradicted his father’s repeated denial. Likewise, a key business associate of Hunter Biden, Anthony Bobulinski, confirmed the authenticity of the emails and accused Joe Biden of lying about his involvement. Bobulinski has detailed a meeting with Joe Biden in a hotel to go over the dealings.

Past emails included discussions of offering access to then-Vice President Biden. They also include alleged payments to Joe Biden. In one email, there is a discussion of a proposed equity split of “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Bobulinski confirmed that “H” was used for Hunter Biden and that his father was routinely called “the big guy” in these discussions.

Just to make things more concerning is Hunter Biden’s recent acknowledgement that one of his laptops may have been stolen by Russian agents and was likely being used for blackmail purposes. The fact that the president’s son admitted that Russians may have intentionally seized one of his laptops during a drug binge, in order to blackmail him, raises serious potential national security concerns — especially if any of the emails include compromising information about the president directly benefiting from the very same accounts used by his son.

That creates a rather nasty problem at the Justice Department. Federal 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.”

I do not see direct evidence of criminal conduct by President Biden even if he lied about his past knowledge of his son’s conduct. Indeed, influence peddling is not a per se crime even for Hunter. However, one value of a special counsel is the expectation of a report that can address whether the family engaged in influence peddling with foreign powers and whether foreign powers may have acquired compromising material from these laptop files.

In 2017, Democratic members and activists were adamant that the Justice Department should carry out an investigation involving President Trump and his family.  Then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted that, without a special counsel, “every American will rightfully suspect … a coverup.”

There is already a federal criminal investigation into these matters involving Hunter Biden, and the latest emails now link President Biden receiving money and benefits from related accounts as well as key players. Even if one questions a direct conflict of interest, it is hard to deny the towering appearance of a conflict in the ongoing investigation.

“The Big Guy” is now president and his administration is handling an investigation that could have political as well as legal implications for him and his family. It may be time for a special counsel.

 

199 thoughts on “Is it Time for a Special Counsel on the Hunter Biden Scandal?”

  1. There will be no special counsels appointed to investigate Hunter or anyone else close to the Biden Crime Family. I’m sure Merrick Garland knows that he is Biden’s wingman. Appointing a special counsel will get him fired, pronto. Democrats understand this. Only clueless Republicans like Jeff Sessions squirm enough to appoint special counsels.

    1. Sessions didn’t appoint the Special Counsel. Rosenstein did. Recall that Ken Starr was appointed Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton, so cut the partisan BS.

      1. Enough with the denial – everyone has seen how utterly corrupt and partisan all the federal agencies are!
        The DOJ, the FBI, the CIA and the IRS are all Democrat operations, at this point. They are used to prosecute anyone who might challenge the Democrat one-party-rule.
        Did you miss how the IRS blocked conservative political organizations? Mrs Lerner was ultimately fired, but nothing happened to Obama, whom she had met in person an extraordinary number of times for a simple IRS bureaucrat.
        What about all those openly political statements from Milley, Brennan and – privately – so many individuals at the FBI?
        The act of treason of launching a criminal “investigation” into completely fabricated “Russian collusion” story, when the FBI knew – based on their own internal notes – that the accusations was fake and financed by the DNC / the Clintons.
        I don’t get how anyone can still support this and think that it won’t cause immense harm to the US and the entire western world.
        At this point, only China is laughing.
        Russia – not so much. They have no intention of going to war with China, but they sure as hell don’t want to see China gain any more power.
        Their minister of foreign affairs recently stated that they support China’s claim to Taiwan. They share a huge land border with China. They don’t want to see millions of Chinese troops enter Siberia.
        Meanwhile idiots in the US support the utterly destructive agenda of the Democrats, Big Tech etc. who all are bought by the CCP.
        Biden was chosen by the cabal (cf. Time article) as candidate because they needed someone who would have no shame to preside over the intentional destruction of the US. Someone who was too senile to have any ideas of his own.

        1. It must really suck for you to live in this country. Tucker Carlson reports that Hungary is more like how America should be. He has met a lot of Americans who are very happy living in that country under the leadership of Victor Orban who Tucker sings his praises.

          Ever think about moving out of this cesspool? I think this country is too far gone to turn it around.

    1. A lifetime of being a loyal Democrat/criminal has been exceedingly remunerative to Turley, Esq. In the cold, hard, reality of green money he’s no need of tiring of it.

  2. Anonymous says:

    “Once again, I doubt you’ll be able to admit how wildly wrong you are. You seem to find it really hard to say “I was wrong.”

    Trumpists will NEVER admit that they were lying that the election was stolen. How can they? To do so means that they can never be trusted again. That fate is why Trumpists never will admit they were wrong unless there is incontrovertible “smoking gun” evidence such that one would have to disbelieve one’s very own eyes in order to accept their false claim.

    This refusal to concede the truth explains why absolute loyalty to Trump is indispensable. He must be utterly assured that his cadre will stick to the lie to the bitter end. Like the mob, disloyalty is not tolerated because the ONLY way a lie can possibly prevail against all contrary evidence is if NOONE breaks rank.

    Like Trump himself, diehard Trumpists will go to their graves with the Big Lie still on their lips.

    1. Anyone who thinks Lets Go Brandon really got more votes than any previous president in the history of this country is an idiot.

  3. By all means, appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter no matter where it leads. I have been consistent in saying that no one is above the law. It is galling, however, to accede to the demands of lying Trumpists who smeared the Mueller investigators as being engaged in a “witch-hunt.” Even so, Democrats should follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads in spite of the bad faith of Trumpists who impugned the service of government civil servants sworn to uphold the rule of law as part and parcel of a conspiracy-driven “Deep State,” as well as dismissed as a “hoax” the undeniable evidence of Manafort’s secretive collusion with the Russian intelligence officer Kilimnik.

    And if it so happens that Joe Biden is not found culpable of corruption, Trumpists will claim that the investigation was a “whitewash,” for they are irremediable LIARS.

    1. Deep State,” as well as dismissed as a “hoax” the undeniable evidence of Manafort’s secretive collusion with the Russian intelligence officer Kilimnik.

      And if it so

      I see you are still spouting lies.

      You could link us to interviews done by even one “journalist”. When you tire of looking for that apperition, you can go one to links to interviews done by the FBI, Senate Intel committee, and the Mueller investigation.

      Kilimnik was so foundational in proving collusion between

        1. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”

          -Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report

          Manafort is a convicted felon and a proven liar- he is a Trumpist after all. Kilimnik can’t be trusted either. I have spent a couple of years in a former Soviet Republic, and I can tell you without hesitation that lying is a way of life for those formerly oppressed people. I would not trust Kilimnik to give me the time of day.

          I accept the Senate Report. You won’t. You despise the “Deep State.” But should the “Deep State” find something criminal about Hunter, THEN you’ll drop the “Deep State” conspiracy theory shtick in a heartbeat!

          1. But then you democrats give the Podesta freaks a complete free pass in corruption and worse.
            John Podesta given a free pass by FBI DOJ he even got to chose his bestie for his Judge. You Democrats bathe in corruption and immorality. Your behaviour disgusts the majority of Americans and the rest of the world.

            1. Petal shares:

              “You Democrats bathe in corruption and immorality. Your behaviour disgusts the majority of Americans and the rest of the world.”

              Noted. I’ll file that where it belongs.

      1. Iowan2 says:

        “You could link us to interviews done by even one “journalist”. When you tire of looking for that apperition, you can go one to links to interviews done by the FBI, Senate Intel committee, and the Mueller investigation.

        Kilimnik was so foundational in proving collusion between”

        This is gibberish. Get it together before you waste my time.

        1. Jeff has read the investigative reporting done by Matt Tabi. provided by my link in previous post.
          Kilimnik was a source used extensively by the Obama State Dept. Meeting with him every two weeks to get his take on all things the State Dept was needed to stay abreast of.

          While the Senate committee had a conclusion, they never called him on the telephone to get his side, or call him in for an interview.
          Ditto for Mueller
          Ditto for FBI

          Jeff thinks Kilimnik is a huge player.
          Those doing the actual investigation, knew not to waste time because kilimnik was dispositive to there pre determined narrative.

          Read my link to Tabbi

          1. Taibbi writes “In 2005, [Kilimnik] left the IRI to go work for Paul Manafort. … Kilimnik being a spy wouldn’t just mean that the Trump campaign had been penetrated. It would mean the same thing for the IRI, which was chaired by late Senator and leading proponent of the Russiagate theory John McCain at the time. More to the point, it would also be disastrous for the State Department, and particularly for the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, whose staffers placed great trust in “KK” as a regular source. The FBI’s own declassified reports show Kilimnik met with the head of the Kiev embassy’s political section “at least biweekly” during his time working with Manafort and Yanukovitch, adding that he “displayed good knowledge and seemed to know what was going on,” and came across as “less slanted” than other sources, among many other things.”

            But Taibbi doesn’t link to the FBI reports he claims to be quoting, and when I did an internet search for the purported quotes, the search results only pulled up items by Taibbi or about his reporting, no original FBI documents.

            How about YOU provide the original FBI reports he’s quoting from, so that we can see whether his claims are accurate and what else the reports say? (As you said to me yesterday: “Youll need a cite on that.”) For example, Kilimnik being Russian Intelligence in 2015 doesn’t imply that he was Russian Intelligence in 2005, when he left the IRI. Yet Taibbi simply assumes “Kilimnik being a spy wouldn’t just mean that the Trump campaign had been penetrated. It would mean the same thing for the IRI, which was chaired by late Senator and leading proponent of the Russiagate theory John McCain at the time,” ignoring the shift in dates. He also claims “it would also be disastrous for the State Department, and particularly for the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, whose staffers placed great trust in “KK” as a regular source,” as if an embassy would never knowingly talk with a Russian agent. That, of course, is nonsense. The State Dept. regularly talks with members of the Russian government, some of whom are presumably agents.

            1. Why would I take Kilimnik as a spy when the Federal govt, investigating all things Russian! Collision! Never bothered to even give him a call. So never interviewed the man.

              So the Senate intel committee, wrote an ominous account of Kilimink. Exactly what information did they have and exactly where did it come from? We know who it did not come from.

              It is clear, like all things Russia!, it is lies. There has been nothing factual ever touching the Russia! hoax

              +

              1. Next you’ll tell me that the federal government couldn’t legitimately conclude anything about Osama Bin Laden without interviewing him. (sarc)

                Still waiting for you to produce the FBI reports Taibbi claims to be quoting from but didn’t link to. I doubt you will. You’ll just take Taibbi’s word for it because you like what he says.

                1. Bin Laden? WTF?
                  Kilimnik was having bi weekly briefings with the US Ukraine Embassy staff. Well known to US personnel. Contact information on file.

                  The investigators need to state the evidence they had to make the conclusions you find believable. All the accusations are fabricated, never supported factually.

                  1. “Bin Laden? WTF?”

                    You do understand that “(sarc)” is an indication that the comment was meant sarcastically, right? Do you understand how sarcasm is used?

                    “Kilimnik was having bi weekly briefings with the US Ukraine Embassy staff.”

                    That’s what Taibbi claims. But he hasn’t linked to his evidence, and neither have you. I’m not going to take Taibbi’s word for it.

                    As I said: Still waiting for you to produce the FBI reports Taibbi claims to be quoting from but didn’t link to. I doubt you will. You’ll just take Taibbi’s word for it because you like what he says.

                    1. Seems like you geniuses got off the track here. Taibbi, Kilimnik, Russia, Mueller? The article is about Hunter and Joe Biden. Where did your attention span go? Or are you trying to move to another subject for some reason?

          2. Iowsn2,

            You can judge a man by the company he keeps. And the fact that Kilimnik was an associate of the convicted fraudster and proven liar Manafort informs me not to accept his word for anything despite Matt vouching for his integrity. That is how I see it.

            1. I’m not relying on Kilimnik for anything. You have hitched your wagon to him as proof of Russia! collusion. You go ahead and believe that, then explain how Mueller knew it was folly. Mueller took the time to indict 12 Russia! Persons and entities for election interference, but avoided like the plague putting Kilimnik’s name in his report. Kilimnik you use as PROOF Russia!

              1. Iowan,

                I’m not going to argue with someone like yourself who believes down to his bones that the Mueller investigation was a “witch-hunt” because the Russian affair was a Democratic “hoax.”

                If you will continue to lie that Trump’s election was stolen on account of massive fraud, then you are not an honest individual. When you concede that Trump is a chronic liar, then and only, we can talk.

              2. You may have seen Taibbi’s most recent piece but it is disturbing and intelligently written. He continues to expose the Democrats and MSM re the Deep State, and he takes no prisoners. His tying Bill Moyers to it was brilliant. It should be apparent to most people, after reading liberal, intelligent journalists like Matt Taibbi detail the nefarious movements of DOJ, CIA, FBI, MSM during Obama’s reign, and now Biden’s, that THE BIG LIE is the manipulating of the American populace by the elite in Obama – Biden circles. We should all be worried for our future in America. AG Merrick Garland comes to mind. There is a reason why the Left seek to cancel and characterize as terrorists their critics.

                Yes, Virginia, There is a Deep State

                A major untold story of the Trump era has been the political comeback of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, who thanks to an ingenious marketing campaign now enjoy widespread support among young liberals

                Six or seven years ago, “Deep State” was a term you would only see in left-leaning media. Bill Moyers explored the theme on his site from time to time, and when The Nation asked Edward Snowden about it, he said, “There’s definitely a deep state. Trust me, I’ve been there.”

                The “deep state” was on the liberal left’s front burner then because a spate of horrendously ugly revelations put it there. We learned via Snowden that the NSA was collecting the communications of people all around the world in secret (Carollo might want to mark down that congress wasn’t informed) in a program the U.S. Court of Appeals just last year declared illegal.

                We found out top intelligence officials like CIA chief John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to congress, among other things about the warrantless surveillance program, and got away without perjury charges despite a furious outcry from legislators (another useful factoid for Carollo, on the oversight front). We learned about the CIA’s systematic use of torture techniques, ranging from anal feeding to threatening to rape and murder relatives to induced hypothermia, another fun set of pastimes the agency decided not to burden congress with knowledge of.

                Worst of all, we learned Barack Obama and his staff held regular “Terror Tuesdays” meetings to decide who they would and would not kill by secret drone assassination, a program which many Americans were surprised to learn was run not by the military but by the CIA. Obama — who would eventually be quoted joking that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people” and “I didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine” — widened the secret “kill list” to include Americans.

                https://taibbi.substack.com/p/yes-virginia-there-is-a-deep-state-bbc

              3. “Mueller took the time to indict 12 Russia! Persons and entities for election interference, but avoided like the plague putting Kilimnik’s name in his report.”

                LOL, that’s not true at all!

                His name appears almost 150 times in the report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume1.pdf
                There’s even a section of the report **titled** “Konstantin Kilimnik”!

                Once again, I doubt you’ll be able to admit how wildly wrong you are. You seem to find it really hard to say “I was wrong.”

                  1. Are you going to admit that your claim “Mueller … avoided like the plague putting Kilimnik’s name in his report” is wildly false and a figment of your imagination?

                    As for your question: read the report. It has notes about the sources of information.

    2. Who is this “jeffsilberman” who, at nearly 4:00 a.m. is spewing his hatred for “Trumpists” and is back online just a few hours later this morning, already attacking anything anyone says that disagrees with his
      own repetitive verbosity. Jeff, look at yourself in the mirror and realize you are not promoting intelligent debate, but rather revealing a great deal about yourself.

      1. Lin advises:

        “Jeff, look at yourself in the mirror and realize you are not promoting intelligent debate, but rather revealing a great deal about yourself.”

        Will do. Thanks for the tough love! Please keep it coming.

  4. Just saw a clip of Pres Biden’s remarks at daycare center in Connecticut today. Holy crap.

    He shares what his neurosurgeon told him years ago after he operated on his brain anyeurism !!!! The man’s brain is not functioning!!!

    Biden then turns his back and yet again….runs away from ANY press questions.. like the demented coward he is.

    But because he is a Democrat and “one of their own” the corrupt press say NOTHING and politely treat both Biden and his lying press secretary with respect??

    Biden deserves to be called out LOUDLY by the press that he arrogantly and constantly turns his back on. It is infuriating to see such a corrupt and complicit press treat this president with such deference and respect. Biden deserves none of it. He has earned NO RESPECT.

  5. Sure, and so long as a Special Counsel’s being contemplated, a kick to the seat of the DOJ Inspector General’s trousers seems in order, as well. After all, the FBI subpoenaed Hunter’s laptop Nov., 2019 — a year prior to the 2020 election — and emails suggest that federal agents were well aware the Biden clan was an ethical abomination years prior. Another episode of Democratic Deep State omertà, which the IG will be at a pathetic loss to explain.

    1. “You must never betray the secrets of this society, observing the ancient tradition of omertà. The penalty for violating this law is death.”
      ―Michael Corleone[src]

  6. As Turley did in the past with Hillary, he now pushes Hunter. Fine, let the investigations fly and let’s get to the truth. But, it won’t matter what facts come out as they did with Hillary. Still guilty no matter what the facts find. The cult find fault in anything someone else does, never themselves.

    1. Politics Is the New Religion: To understand the modern world, one must understand how politics has replaced religion

      The left does well in attracting adherents … It wields myths that fit into a culture that has long been Christian. The fascist vision of warrior nations locked in perpetual struggle pales next to the leftist dream of the suffering just triumphing in the fullness of time and creating Heaven on Earth. Unlike the right, the left has been able to harness moral guilt on behalf of its transformative vision. Even more significantly, it has weaponized hatred by recasting it as moral indignation in the face of injustice or prejudice….

      These observations should not be read as an endorsement of what the left is selling, which is dangerous totalitarianism that proceeds from a destructive vision of undoing human history and human nature. It also operates like a runaway train; conceding any ground to the left will not cause it to stop roaring forward. Only a counterforce with equivalent power can halt its advance.

      Like the ancient Gnostics the left sees itself as engaged in a struggle of Good against Evil in its own equivalent of the End Times. It therefore deals ruthlessly with its adversaries standing in the way of the long-sought victory over “prejudice” and “fascism.” Misrepresenting reality, stealing elections, and allowing alleged “right-wing extremists” to rot in jail are small prices to pay for the prejudice-free age that they imagine awaits the righteous. This golden age will come more quickly if the opposition can be driven out of the public square and into fearful silence.

      https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/politics-is-the-new-religion/

      1. “Politics Is the New Religion”

        We’ll believe that when political beliefs get the same protection from the courts that religious beliefs get.

        “politics has replaced religion”

        If you believe that, then everyone proclaiming religious belief is really only making a political argument.

        Here’s a better explanation: the person who wrote that argument is lying to you (or maybe you recognize that the argument doesn’t hold water, but you like the conclusions, so you repeat it anyway).

        1. If I made as big of an ass of myself as you did in trying to deconstruct Estovir’s post, I’d choose to remain anonymous, too.

          1. Im not fond of Andrew Sullivan in the slightest. However, when the notoriously leftist The Atlantic, and gay activist / writer Andrew Sullivan agree that politics is the new religion, intelligent people notice. Few people today care to read thoroughly researched, intellectually stimulating pieces (and Andrew Sullivan is no idiot) because it challenges their beliefs. Its the state of the American psyche, which is truly unfortunate.

            As for the Enlightenment, again, it takes time and intellectual depth to understand what the Enlightenment was and how it influenced historical events. Cardinal John Henry Newman was a brilliant thinker of the Enlightenment. Cardinal Newman’s book, The Idea of a University , is often referenced as the epitome in describing the role and purpose of a truly liberal arts education entails. Our Western Civilization has fallen greatly since the Enlightenment. And it shows in the public forum.

            Enlightenment
            Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

            The Enlightenment is often associated with its political revolutions and ideals, especially the French Revolution of 1789. The energy created and expressed by the intellectual foment of Enlightenment thinkers contributes to the growing wave of social unrest in France in the eighteenth century. The social unrest comes to a head in the violent political upheaval which sweeps away the traditionally and hierarchically structured ancien régime (the monarchy, the privileges of the nobility, the political power of the Catholic Church). The French revolutionaries meant to establish in place of the ancien régime a new reason-based order instituting the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality. Though the Enlightenment, as a diverse intellectual and social movement, has no definite end, the devolution of the French Revolution into the Terror in the 1790s, corresponding, as it roughly does, with the end of the eighteenth century and the rise of opposed movements, such as Romanticism, can serve as a convenient marker of the end of the Enlightenment, conceived as an historical period.

            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

            1. There are those (typically conservatives) who believe that religion can save the West and America. What is stupefying is how they often simply ignore significant historical and ideological facts.

              The Dark/Middle Ages (roughly 1,000 years) were dominated by religious ideology. What was life like? There was widespread ignorance. destitution, disease, a life expectancy in the low 20’s, chronic bloody wars, and a political system that regarded the individual as a slave of the church-state.

              A typical reply (when one is seldom offered) is that *those* religious leaders (the church fathers!) misrepresented “true” religion — that what’s needed is not new principles, but new faces. That, of course, is a fallacy. And it’s the exact same fallacious argument made by apologists for socialism: “We don’t need new political convictions. We just need socialists with smiley faces.”

              If you want a comprehensive picture of what life was like in the Dark/Middle Ages, read: “A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance,” by William Manchester.

              Incidentally, the Enlightenment neither spawned, nor was ended by, the French Revolution. (A notion that is an obvious contradiction.) The essential *ideas* of the Renaissance/Enlightenment were reason and individualism — both of which were rejected by the Revolution’s leaders. (There is a reason why Rousseau, the Revolution’s ideological leader, is considered an *anti*-Enlightenment thinker.

              What the French Revolution ended was any hope for individual liberty in France. (Look across the ocean for an Enlightenment counterpart.) The Enlightenment was a broad philosophical/cultural revolution, that affected the arts, politics, philosophy, education, science. The Enlightenment, in fact, flourished in other parts of France’s culture: in literature (e.g., Hugo), science (e.g., Pasteur). And the Enlightenment spawned the greatest technological/wealth revolution in history: the Industrial Revolution (which started in England and flourished in America).

              When you denigrate the Enlightenment (and attempt to replace it with religion), it is those human achievements (among countless others) that you are rejecting.

              P.S. I would not copy a page from a medical journal, then claim to be knowledgeable about science. It is equally unwise to do so when the subjects are history and philosophy.

      2. “. . . politics has replaced religion”

        So surrender to God or to the State. Those are the only two choices?

        1. Politics hasn’t replaced religion, and you don’t have to surrender to either one.

          For someone who claims to have taught logic, you should work on your reasoning skills, especially since you should know that you are a counterexample to such surrender.

        2. I choose God.

          Fun fact: so did Abraham Lincoln. Amazing the things you learn on JT’s blog, eh?

          America’s New Religions
          By Andrew Sullivan
          DEC. 7, 2018

          So what happens when this religious rampart of the entire system is removed? I think what happens is illiberal politics. The need for meaning hasn’t gone away, but without Christianity, this yearning looks to politics for satisfaction. And religious impulses, once anchored in and tamed by Christianity, find expression in various political cults. These political manifestations of religion are new and crude, as all new cults have to be. They haven’t been experienced and refined and modeled by millennia of practice and thought. They are evolving in real time. And like almost all new cultish impulses, they demand a total and immediate commitment to save the world.

          Now look at our politics. We have the cult of Trump on the right, a demigod who, among his worshippers, can do no wrong. And we have the cult of social justice on the left, a religion whose followers show the same zeal as any born-again Evangelical. They are filling the void that Christianity once owned, without any of the wisdom and culture and restraint that Christianity once provided.

          https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html

          and

          America Without God

          By Shadi Hamid
          APRIL 2021 ISSUE

          As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen. Will the quest for secular redemption through politics doom the American idea?

          https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/america-politics-religion/618072/

          1. “I choose God.”

            Yet you regularly post comments that are inconsistent with some of your God’s commandments.

            1. Estovir provided 3 articles, two were to very liberal publications, disproving what you claim. You did the usual hit and run, then ad hominem. That is all you have: opinions and insulting others. You debase this legal blog with your little girl antics, quite the insecure coward

              1. With respect to his God’s commandments, it’s irrelevant whether he links to liberal or conservative publications.

                His God commands him not to bear false witness, yet he regularly makes false claims.
                His God commands him to love his neighbor as himself, yet he regularly acts in unloving ways (for example, his homophobic harassment of Seth Warner).

                I have not run. You’ve posted more insults than I have. Your repeatedly choice to call people you disagree with “girls” also suggests a bit of misogyny.

          2. “As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen.”

            Someone does not know (or is evading) the “ideological intensity” of the Dark and Middle Ages — periods dominated by religious faith.

            If you think that religion will save the West (and America), you have two insurmountable hurdles — history and logic. History: the Dark Ages, and the fact that America was the offspring of the Renaissance — the rebirth of Reason. Logic: The successful use of reason creates all human values. Faith (and mysticism) is its antithesis.

            (Anon: You misread the meaning of my original comment.)

              1. “Faith (and mysticism) is (sic) its antithesis”

                “Sic” should be offset by brackets, not parentheses.

                You failed to copy the period.

                Physician, heal thyself.

            1. The successful use of reason creates all human values.

              That begs the question: How do you define success? Abortion instead of abstinence is just one example.

                  1. It is when one asks what shapes our emotions.

                    In what directions are children’s emotions bent in our nihilistic, Marxist schools?

                    What values are they being fed?

                    They succeed by tearing down anyone who disagrees with their madness of the moment.

              1. Sam thinks our present times are enlightened, just like the French Revolution. Someone needs to educate Sam before he guillotines others with his enlightened reasoning skills and awful grammar

                The ideas of the Enlightenment led to the French Revolution. French leaders gained power, because they thought they were enlightened, and tried to set up republics. Marie Antoinette was executed by guillotine by the enlightened ones. Then the Committee of Public Safety was developed. This committee comprised enlightened members who each shared absolute power. Since they said they were enlightened, it was natural that they felt they had to have absolute power. One leader’s name was Maximilien Robespierre, who was very very enlightened, so people at the time said. He created the Reign of Terror which used terror as a weapon for politics. Sound familiar? Looking at you ANTIFA BLM Democrats. And lo, they call themselves enlightened too. What a coincidence!

                These enlightened French executed religious people, nobles, and the middle class. That was not so enlightened behavior. They executed these people with the new French invention called the Guillotine because they were Enlightened. In 1799, Napoleon gained power, and the government became a military dictatorship.

                The enlightened ones like Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, FBI and AG Merrick Garland believe parents are terrorists which strikes average Americans as not very enlightening.

                1. “enlightened ones”/Enlightenment — nice equivocation. And a really infantile argument. That a person calls themselves “enlightened” does not mean that they understand or live by the *philosophic* ideas of the Enlightenment.

                  “The ideas of the Enlightenment led to the French Revolution.”

                  Nice straw man. And a complete misrepresentation of the *ideas* of the Renaissance/Enlightenment and of the French Revolution. Robespierre, et al. were thoroughgoing *collectivists*. Their god was Voltaire. Enlightenment thinkers (e.g., Locke) promoted *individualism*.

                  A simple comparison of the French and American revolutions could have kept you from making such an egregious historical and philosophic error.

                  “Sam thinks our present times are enlightened . . .”

                  Now you’re just making stuff up, to rationalize the irrational notion that religion can save America. I never said anything about the *ideas* that dominate “our present times.” I merely noted that faith and mysticism (the essence of religion) are (there, happy?) not the cure.

                  If you knew anything about Renaissance/Enlightenment philosophy, and about the philosophic development of America, then you’d know that America began turning away from her Enlightenment roots in the late 19th century, when it started importing German philosophy. By the time of America’s Red Decade, this country became more collectivistic and less individualistic — which was, of course, a turn *away* from her Enlightenment philosophy. It has been well documented by numerous scholars that America today has rejected the philosophic ideas of the Renaissance/Enlightenment — what they call a “post-Enlightenment” world.

                  P.S. I did not run this comment through Grammarly. So fell free to dismiss it or smear me, for any grammatical mistakes or punctuation errors.

                  1. Just to be clear, Sam, I am the anonymous commenter you sometimes criticize with comments like “Anon’s complaint amounts to: You failed to hyphenate ‘BLM member.’”

                    But I am not the anonymous commenter who wrote the October 15 2:56 PM comment. I suspect that that comment was written by Estovir posting anonymously.

                    I am the anonymous commenter who posted the October 15 12:17 PM response noting that we don’t have to surrender to either politics or religion and the 2:05 PM comment thanking you for letting me know that I had misunderstood your initial comment.

                    1. My initial comment was telegrammatic and open to plausible misinterpretation. Such are the hazards of my being too terse.

                      Thanks for the who’s who. I figured the 2:56 wasn’t yours. It’s not your content. And you’re more articulate than that.

                      I suspect you are correct. But why switch from a named user to anon? Forgot to sign in? (Ive done that.) Or trying to hide? If so, and you’re proud of your comment, why hide?

    2. May be time? Jeez. Never forget, as much as I like many of his views, Dr. Turley remains a Democrat. He may as well write an article titled: “On the Potentially Troubling Ethics of Genocide.” Us common people know when we see and smell a rat. How come the elite don’t?

  7. OT.

    Steve Bannon was subpoenaed for a deposition today before the Jan. 6 Committee, and he refused to show up. The Committee will vote on Tuesday whether to request that he be charged with criminal contempt. I hope they all vote in favor and that the DOJ brings charges.

    1. Bannon has been accused of no crime. But then congress has no jurisdiction to investigate crime. So what legislative function is this investigation investigating.

      1. One doesn’t have to be accused of a crime to be subpoenaed. Bannon was subpoenaed, both to produce documents and to come in for a deposition. He refused. Refusing to comply with a subpoena is punishable as contempt and can result in a fine and/or jail.

        Congress has jurisdiction to investigate everything that is relevant to their constitutional roles — legislation, confirmation of appointees, certification of the EC vote, etc. They cannot file criminal charges, but that does not mean that they cannot investigate actions that may have been criminal.

        They are investigating the attempt to prevent or delay Congress’s certification of the EC vote, and there’s also legislation that could be affected by what they find.

        Bannon is in contempt of Congress, and he should be charged with it. He has no right to disobey the subpoena.

          1. Why? The DOJ declined to prosecute Holder. He was a sitting AG, and Obama was still in office. It’s not analogous at all to Bannon, who was not an executive branch employee, and Trump, who is no longer in office. As a lawyer, you presumably understand that executive privilege attaches to the office of the President and so can only be asserted by the person currently in office.

            1. Strange the “executive privilege” does not attach to President Trump. In fact FISA warrants pierced the privilege. And of course all the people in the White House that sat for dozens of hours of interviews with Mueller. Executive Privilege, indeed. Privilege is not limited to cabinet members. It entails all Presidential counsel. That is exactly why it exists. To assure those that counsel the President will not have brain storming meetings taken out of context by politically driven investigations.
              Gee. What is the Jan 6 committee? A partisan witch hunt that barred Republicans from participating.

              1. “Strange the “executive privilege” does not attach to President Trump.”

                No, it’s not strange at all. He’s no longer President. It only ever attaches to the Office of the President and therefore too the person currently in office. It also doesn’t attach today to Carter, Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

                “It entails all Presidential counsel.”

                No, it only entails presidential counsel who are employed by the executive branch. Bannon was not a government employee at all in 2020-2021.

                “What is the Jan 6 committee? A partisan witch hunt that barred Republicans from participating.”

                You’re either quite ignorant or a liar. First, there are two Republicans on the committee. Second, it’s the Republicans in the Senate who rejected a bipartisan Commission with equal representation. The House had agreed to the following and the Senate rejected it:
                “(a) Members.—The Commission shall be composed of ten members, of whom—
                “(1) one member shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate to serve as Chairperson of the Commission;
                “(2) one member shall be appointed jointly by the minority leader of the House of Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Commission;
                “(3) two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
                “(4) two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;
                “(5) two members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate; and
                “(6) two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate.”

                The Republicans could have appointed whoever they wanted. They rejected that option.

                Republicans weren’t barred, and it’s not a witch hunt.

                I doubt you’ll admit your mistake. I’ve never seen you admit your mistakes. You couldn’t even admit your mistake about the FBI investigation of the Russian hack of the DNC server even when I quoted relevant testimony under oath.

                1. Republicans did try to “appoint whomever they wanted.” Speaker Pelosi rejected their appointments.

                  1. “Republicans did try to “appoint whomever they wanted.””

                    That only occurred AFTER the Senate Republicans rejected the bill I just quoted, which had already passed the House.

                    “Speaker Pelosi rejected their appointments.”

                    Correct. Since the Senate Republicans voted the bill down, the bipartisan National Commission was never created. Instead, the House created a Select Committee, and that committee was only bound by the general House rules for Select Committees.

                    Details, details.

                    Again: it’s the Republicans’ fault that there wasn’t a Commission with equal representation from each party, where each party would have had total control over the members it appointed. Blame the Senate Republicans, not Pelosi.

                    1. Correction: the Senate Republicans didn’t “vote the bill down,” they filibustered it, preventing the bill from reaching the floor and making it impossible for the Senate to vote on the bill itself.

                    2. “Anonymous says: October 15, 2021 at 1:32 PM Correction”

                      It is adorable when you bark at the big dogs like the cute chihuahua that you are. Your b|tch mother should be proud

                2. ‘No, it only entails presidential counsel who are employed by the executive branch. ‘
                  Youll need a cite on that.

                  ‘You’re either quite ignorant or a liar. First, there are two Republicans on the committee’
                  The minority leader of the house chooses the members for the committe. Not the speaker of the house

                  Rejecting the first iteration of the committee is irrelevant

                  Republicans Jim Jordan and Jim Banks were rejected (barred) by Pelos

                  1. “Youll need a cite on that.”

                    LOL that you demand a citation from me when you regularly refuse to provide them yourself. I’ll accede here, but I will not do it again until you’ve either provided a citation for your claims “The Russia e mail hack? No investigation was ever conducted to make any determination” and “The FBI never asked for abyte for byte copy. The FBI NEVER lifted a finger to investigate” or admit that you cannot: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/11/is-durham-circling-jake-sullivan-the-special-counsel-may-not-be-done-with-national-security-adviser/comment-page-1/#comments

                    It’s easy enough to confirm that executive privilege only extends to certain executive branch employees. An example:
                    “The court, however, was acutely aware of the dangers of a limitless extension of the privilege to the principles of an open and transparent government. Therefore, it carefully restricted the privilege’s reach by explicitly confining it to White House staff that has “operational proximity” to direct presidential decision making.” (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf)
                    Bannon wasn’t WH staff.

                    Also relevant, from the same source: “The executive branch has acknowledged some limits to its use of executive privilege. Thus, Presidents have stated they will not use executive privilege to block congressional inquiries into allegations of fraud, corruption, or other illegal or unethical conduct in the executive branch.” Of course, it would be no surprise for Trump to refuse to abide by that standard.

                    Other examples:
                    law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_privilege
                    pogo.org/report/2019/05/the-limits-of-executive-privilege

                    “Rejecting the first iteration of the committee is irrelevant”

                    It isn’t irrelevant at all. The Democrats were willing to agree to the terms of the House bill for a National Commission, including how members would be chosen, but the Senate Republicans filibustered it, never allowing it to come up for a vote. Because they refused, it then became a House Select Committee.

                    “The minority leader of the house chooses the members for the committe. Not the speaker of the house”

                    As you said: “Youll need a cite on that.”

                    You’re wrong. House rules: “House committees are of three distinct types: (1) standing committees, whose members are elected by the House, (2) select committees (also called special committees), whose members are appointed by the Speaker, and (3) joint committees, whose members are chosen according to the provisions of the statute or concurrent resolution creating them.”

                    Will you own up to being wrong?

        1. and there’s also legislation that could be affected by what they find.

          Ahhh. There’s the rub. What legislation? To answer that you first have to define what exactly you are looking for. Sound bites for campaign ads is not a reason

          1. There is no rub. You simply want to ignore that it is already sufficient they are investigating the attempt to prevent or delay Congress’s certification of the EC vote.

            1. Do you understand the difference between a sitting AG and someone who is not even an executive branch employee?

              The DOJ also declined to press charges against Bill Barr when he was cited for contempt of Congress, again because Barr was the sitting AG.

              Also learn that only the current President can assert executive privilege. Trump is no longer the current President.

              1. Like St. Ronnie of Reagan said……..”There you go again” Thank you for even trying to bring some facts and truth to this black hole of a site for the cult, But, as you know they want no part of it.

  8. Professor Turley should be applauded for his laser beam consistency. He has been talking about Hunter Biden almost as long as Trump has repeatedly claimed he won the 2020 election by a landslide.

    JT presumably concedes that Washington Post fact checkers ruled Joe Biden lied about the Democrats $3.5 trillion spending plan costing zero dollars & the WaPo editorial board, Chris Cuomo, & Anderson Cooper condemned Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan & botched COVID booster shot proclamation. That doesn’t stop Turley from presenting his case that the media’s “cone of silence” about Joe Biden’s “repeated claims that he was unaware and uninvolved in past dealings by his son” proves the media is systematically hardwired to protect Joe Biden at any cost

    Yesterday, JT’s most trusted news source, the New York Post, reported that Facebook successfully flipped Wisconsin to Biden in the 2020 election. That helps explain why a poll last month shows that 78% of Republicans don’t believe Biden won enough legal votes to be elected. Our country’s fine Republicans clearly don’t get their own particular set of “facts” from CNN, the Washington Post & the mainstream media.

    Professor Turley admits he “does not see any direct evidence of criminal conduct by President Biden even if he lied about his past knowledge of this son’s conduct” but still wants a special counsel to investigate Hunter’s laptop. JT doesn’t reveal whether he supported Republicans blocking the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Capitol rioters trying to block Congress from certifying Biden’s electoral college victory on January 6th.

    But Turley offers an important reminder that without a special counsel “every American will rightfully suspect … a coverup.”

    1. Professor Turley should be applauded for his laser beam consistency

      Your handlers at Act Blue are not sending us their better trolls.

        1. Ah, the old “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument. Well played, sir, well played. Huzzah!

      1. It’s always entertaining when conservatives reflexively leap to wildly unsupported conclusions. Wise decision to remain anonymous.

    2. Apples to acorns, my friend. Taking just one of your comparisons: Jan 6 Committee was formed when there were already several other official investigations on-going; by everyone from the FBI to Capital Police to DOJ Prosecutors to several Congressional Committees. – It is there for quite reasonable to take the position that there is no rational basis behind, nor meaningful benefit to America that can be gleaned from adding yet another investigation – And this is most especially the case when said additional investigation has only the support of half the Congress and only 1 of our 2 main political parties which it would also almost exclusively be run by.

      1. It should have the support of everyone in Congress and both parties. But Republicans don’t want to have a thorough investigation of Jan. 6, even while some of them claim that it was a false flag operation.

    3. They’re sharing bank accounts and most likely the profits from Hunter boy’s dirty deals, Sparky. It’s a little late for the nothing-to-see-here snark act.

  9. Couple of points:
    1) The left tore into the nomination and appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG in 2016…they hated the guy and their media sycophants followed right up on it. HOWEVER, Sessions actually recused himself from a political hot potato and a Special Prosecutor was appointed. Does anyone think that Merrick “Moms are terrorists” Garland will do the same? Would Eric Holder have done it?

    2) There are actually two giant scandals with the first of course being the obvious corruption of Joe “the Multi-millionaire on a public servant’s salary” Biden, regardless of how people like Anonymous or Natacha want to change the subject, but the second and just as big scandal is that the press will not cover it at all.

    Does anyone think that if JFK had done what Nixon had done that the Washington Post would have dogged him the way the dogged Nixon? The only problem for old Joe is that once it becomes obvious that he is a weight on the party the media might turn against him due to having a minority female waiting in the wings.

    Remember when VA Gov Northrup was being forced to resign over his Blackface issue and then it was discovered that the Lt Gov also had an issue…and the it was discovered that the AG, the next in line, also had an issue with the next person up suddenly became a REPUBLICAN…and the calls for the governor to resign all went away.

    The party will demand that they demanded that Al Franken resign…because the governor could appoint another Democrat to replace him. If it was a Republican governor that wouldn’t have happened. Same thing in NY.

    1. “Sessions actually recused himself”

      Yes. But do you remember **why**? He was legally required to recuse himself.

      This is governed by DOJ regulations (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2), and Sessions had a political relationship with Trump prior to becoming AG (e.g., he was the first Senator to endorse Trump, the only Senator to endorse Trump before Trump won the GOP nomination, was the one who formally nominated Trump at the GOP convention, he participated in dozens of campaign events).

    2. “the media might turn against him due to having a minority female waiting in the wings.” Well, I think even the lying, corrupt media can imagine how that would turn out.

  10. The Joe and Hunter show is well known in D.C. The Clinton camp used it against Joe in 2015 when they leaked stuff to the N.Y. Times forcing Joe out of the presidential race. It’s always there when they need it, it’s just that right now he’s still useful so he’s being protected.

    The classic Chinese bribery technique is to pay the family so there’s no trail to the politician. Apparently Joe is too dumb to realize sharing a bank account with your son the bag man defeats the purpose. There should be a special counsel appointed just off this fact (along with Joe being caught lying) but Biden happens to be president making him the luckiest man on earth.

    You could hope Garland proves to be above politics and does the right thing. But a read of that memo he sent out threatening mothers of schoolchildren with visits from the FBI indicates otherwise.

    1. Biden wasn’t forced out of the race in 2015. He chose not to enter because he was still in mourning over his son Beau’s death.

      1. Better check your history, dude. Biden dropped out after the Times article came out about Hunter’s no-show Burisma job and other conflicts of interest. Beau had nothing to with it, that just made for a nice cover story. Up til that article came out Biden had every intention of running.

        1. Better check *your* own history, dude. He never entered the Dem primary in 2015.

          “Up til that article came out Biden had every intention of running.”

          If you can actually read minds, do something useful with it, like preventing crime.

      2. “…he was still in mourning over his son Beau’s death.” Yes, and that speech he plagiarized from the English guy. Not all of us have poor memories.

  11. MSM to America: “This is not the evidence you seek.”

    Why should the Jedi mind-tricks stop now that Lord Biden is in charge?

  12. Wall Street Journal:

    Biden and Nothingness

    Costless spending, the ‘closed’ border and other manufactured alternative realities.

    The reason many have come to feel cut off from reality is that so many others spend their days creating alternative realities.
    Washington, to be sure, has become a round-the-clock supplier of manufactured realities. Many Americans, for instance, watch scenes on television of thousands of migrants crossing the Rio Grande River into the United States. Nonetheless, Mr. Biden’s secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas, says the border is “closed” and “no less secure than previously.”

    Mr. Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, said in August the evacuation of Kabul couldn’t be called “anything but a success.” Ms. Psaki’s skill at reordering reality for Mr. Biden is mesmerizing, and I say without irony that she will be seen as an important figure in the transformation from believing what is real to believing what we’re told is real.

    Reality resets have become commonplace. In Chicago some days ago, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx declined to prosecute any of the gang members who staged a broad-daylight shootout in a residential neighborhood. Among the reasons her office gave for not bringing charges was that the gangs were engaged in consensual “mutual combat,” like in the movie “Fight Club.”

    The relevant point here is that in our time more and more people—and not just in politics—think they can say anything. We’re living in a Peter Pan world: “You just think lovely wonderful thoughts and they lift you up in the air.” The credibility cost is zero.

    The political class, a lagging indicator, is assimilating changes in the general culture, which has been transitioning for years from old-fashioned lies (“I didn’t do it”) to self-delusion (“What’s your problem?”). Donald Trump inhabited both worlds.

    Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram enabled people to assemble personal alternative universes, which became “real” when their friends embraced the fake persona. A similar manipulation away from plain reality has happened to politics on Twitter.

    At Facebook’s scale, these reality-shifting habits and forces are unprecedentedly powerful. Conspiracy theories proliferate, from QAnon to the Russia-collusion narrative.

    1. There will be no special counsel, but if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate in the 2022 elections, there will be a public, but partisan investigation. Most news outlets will ignore it or discredit it even if it brings out criminal or totally unethical behavior.

    2. Good piece, and an apt play on Sartre’s title.

      The Biden administration’s psychotic strategy: Click your heels, and declare your failures as successes. (See Afghanistan, the border, the crashing economy)

  13. Who to trust? 17 The Executive Branch? NO. The Legislative Branch? NO. The Judicial Branch? Sadly No. I suggest Japan. A neutral Ally. Give them Extraordinary Security Clearance, Subpoena and Seizure Power granted by Japan’s Courts. Etc. Etc. This Country needs an outside non-partisan CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Trump goes to jail, too bad. Obama goes to jail, too bad. Clinton goes to jail, too bad. Adam Schiff goes to jail, GREAT(joke). Let the cards fall where they may. Doesn’t need to be Japan. Doesn’t need the example powers I mentioned.

  14. IT IS SAD AND INTERESTING TO ME THAT PUNDITS KEEP ALLEDGING THAT HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS FATHER, JOE BIDEN, DID NOTHING WRONG NOR RECEIVED FUNDS BY MEANS UNOBTAINABLE BY NORMAL CITIZENS. WE DEFINITELY NEED A NON PARTISAN SPECIAL COUNSEL TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE AND PRODUCE A NON-PARTISAN DOCUMENTED REPORT WITH THE ANSWERS. IF HUNTER BIDEN ACTED ILLEGALLY THEN HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL. IF JOE BIDEN ACTED ILLEGALLY HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
    THE CONSTANT BACKGROUND OF ALLEGATIONS NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED TO BE EITHER ACCURTE OR FALSE.

  15. How can there be a special counsel when they’re busy going after those pesky domestic terrorist mommy’s at school board meetings?

    1. True.

      They also seem to be busy plotting kidnappings and insurrections to ‘solve’. Can’t be bothered with what used to be known as crime.

      Nobody will trust an ‘investigation” by the same people who have spent years hiding the problem.

      Didn’t Comey ‘clear ‘ Hillary and her lot? There are rewards, Comey hasn’t committed ‘suicide’.

  16. Another one of Turley’s assignments: to breathe life and credibility into the “Hunter Biden scandal”. The source of the hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter that supposedly turned up at a Delaware computer repair shop was Giuliani, who came up with the idea of creating some scandal involving Biden’s only surviving son, after Trump’s disastrous performance at the first debate. He thought that if Trumpy Bear sprang some salacious allegations against Hunter at the second debate, that it would throw Biden off of his game and he would perform poorly. Well, now, it didn’t work, did it?

    The fact that Turley sold his credentials and whatever credibility he might still have to imply that there’s even a valid reason to claim the existence of a “Hunter Biden scandal” is disingenuous. It’s all more of Giuliani’s lies, Turley, and I think you know that. Just because your employer keeps claiming there is something to these lies doesn’t make it so, and trying to carry water for them won’t work, either.

      1. Rumor has it Natch may be Hunter’s drug dealer. She sez she was a nurse practitioner, then an attorney, acts like a 70 yer old roving crank, sputters unintelligible science-legal- DNC whack a mole talking points, and continually insults the host. Drug dealers are like that, esp the former nurse practitioners turned attorney types.

        😉

      2. What is there to be “objective” about? Where’s the proof? The information about Giuliani came from one of the recent books about Trump (I don’t remember which one, because I’ve read so many). The fact that Fox, Turley’s employer, harps constantly about a “Hunter Biden scandal” does not prove there IS any such scandal. But, you gullible Trumpsters will believe anything, including the Big Lie, just on Hannity’s say-so, and despite mountains of proof to the contrary. And, besides that, you’ve been duped into believing that anyone who says differently is the one who isn’t to be believed.

        1. Nutty Natch sez: What is there to be “objective” about? Where’s the proof? ….. And, besides that, you’ve been duped into believing that anyone who says differently is the one who isn’t to be believed.

          Russian:

          Нет никаких фактов, никаких, что Хантер курил крэк с демократами, подавляющими эту информацию перед выборами. Кстати, вы продаете чистые вещи или просто режете аспирин-тальк-трещину снега?

          English:

          There are no facts whatsoever, none, that Hunter smoked crack with Democrats suppressing this information before the election. By the way, do you sell pure stuff or just cut aspirin-talc-crack snow?

          1. Nobody cares what Hunter smoked, but people DO care about Trump’s cheating to get into office, trashing the economy, allowing the pandemic to get out of control which caused the country to mostly shut down for over a year, his failed agreement with the Taliban that set the stage for problems withdrawing from Afghanistan, the Big Lie and the fact that he just won’t shut up or go away. There is a photo of Tiffany Trump smoking a joint on a hotel balcony. No one cares about that, either (but, maybe that explains the problem her father has with her weight and why he doesn’t want to be photographed with her). The basis for Turley’s entire piece is the laptop Fox is trying to claim belongs to Hunter Biden, with no proof at all, and the source being the thoroughly-disgraced, now-suspended former attorney, Giuliani. Turley is just a tool being used to try to breathe credibility into Fox’s scheme. Well, it won’t work.

            1. Natacha has just admitted in her post at 5:29 PM that the pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack are actually pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack on a laptop that she previously said didn’t exist and she now says no one cares about the real pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack on the laptop that she says is not real. Oh what a tangled web she weaves when first the syntax in her brain deceives.

              1. Oh what a tangled web she weaves when first the syntax in her brain deceives.

                You give her more credit than I do.

                I think she is a psychotic patient who ran away from an ACLF home, with her patient gown open and flashing everyone in her vicinity. She is also in her 70s so keep that imagery in your mind.

                1. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

                  1. These words you wrote here will have the effect of splashing Holy Water on Linda Blair when “Natacha” reads the words. Ahhhh! Holy words! Ahhhhh! “Natacha” will not be able to handle it….

                    1. I take it you’re not a Christian and so don’t believe them to be your God’s commandment.

                    2. “I take it you’re not a Christian and so don’t believe them to be your God’s commandment.”
                      ———————————–
                      Nope, I do.

                      I’m suggesting that “Natacha” can’t handle it 😉

                    3. “I take it you’re not a Christian and so don’t believe them to be your God’s commandment.”
                      ———————————–
                      Nope, I do.

                      I’m suggesting that “Natacha” can’t handle it 😉

                      Your adversary is a total amateur.

                      Natacha, Dennis McIntyre, Jeff, Fishbreath, Anonymous “I’m rubber, you’re glue”, et al, are like Fundamentalist religious zealots. They selectively quote Sacred Texts. Some of the many words of Jesus Christ they ignore are beauties. As you stated, they cant handle the many other words of Christian texts. Here are just a few but there are many more:

                      About Herod: “Go ye, and tell that fox” (Luke 13:32)

                      To Pharisees: “O generation of vipers” (Matt. 12:34)

                      To Pharisees: “Ye are of your father the devil” (John 8:44)

                      To the scribes and the Pharisees – Matthew’s version: “—woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!—Ye fools and blind—ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness—within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity—Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers” (Matt. 23:13-33)

                      To the scribes, Pharisees and lawyers – Luke’s version: “Ye fools—hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not” (Luke 11:40-46).

                2. Estovir, I’m an atheist. I don’t care what your God tells you, and I don’t care what your Bible says about people who don’t believe in Christ. But YOU claim to care about your God while regularly betraying some of his commandments, including the commandment that you not lie and the commandment that you love your neighbor as yourself. You regularly make knowingly false claims and post insults about those you disagree with. You may be Catholic, but you are not a good Catholic.

                  One doesn’t have to be Christian or even religious to believe that lying is wrong and to believe in the golden rule. I believe both those things. Your religion tells you that you may go to hell after you die for disobeying these commandments. I don’t believe in an afterlife, and I aim to be moral because I believe it’s right, not out of a threat.

                  “They selectively quote Sacred Texts.”

                  Yes! As do you.

                  Why do I quote selectively? To make my point about your failure to act like a good Catholic; the parts you just introduced aren’t particularly relevant to my point. Also because I only agree with some religious content, such as the admonition against lying.

                  “they cant handle the many other words of Christian texts”

                  I have no problem handling your fiction.

        2. We know Natacha, the pictures of Hunter Biden found on the laptop are not really pictures of Hunter Biden in Natachafantasyland. Oh look there’s Dumbo! Oh look there’s Goofy!

    1. That’s proof right there that propaganda and brainwashing work. Give your head a shake and re-read the article, including the links. It’s all there. Biden lied about his son and his involvement in his son’s schemes and deeds.

    2. You are a fool Natacha. Go back to sleep. Nobody reads your talking point dribble coming from this corrupt WH

    3. You’re lying up a storm here. That laptop was given to the FBI long before Giuliani got what was just a copy of the hard drive. Learn the facts before you try to push your progressive propaganda.

    4. I find it particularly amusing that “Natacha” has such a distaste for the good professor that she/he is
      breathlessly waiting to comment on his next article every day…

Leave a Reply