Attorney General Merrick Garland continued to refuse to address questions over his refusal to appoint a Special Counsel in the Hunter Biden investigation despite new evidence tying President Joe Biden to the controversial business deals. The New York Post is reporting that President Biden agreed to cover more than $800,000 in bills of Hunter, including legal fees tied to the foreign deals. While President Biden’s denial of knowledge of Hunter’s deals has been repeatedly contradicted (including by Hunter himself), White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki declared that President Biden stands by his denials. However, she declined to explain new information showing that a key business partner in these deals visited the White House over a dozen times, including at least one meeting with then Vice President Biden.
The New York Post shows that on Jan. 17, 2019, Hunter Biden’s then-personal assistant, Katie Dodge told accountant Linda Shapero that Joe Biden was covering the legal costs. The email states “I spoke with Hunter today regarding his bills. It is my understanding that Hunt’s dad will cover these bills in the short-term as Hunter transitions in his career.”
What may be even more damaging is the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca, one of the key firms involved in the alleged influence peddling schemes.
We have previously discussed the various references to the President in these emails. Indeed, it is impossible to look into these allegations of influence peddling without repeatedly running into references to the President.
As vice president, Joe Biden flew to China on Air Force Two with Hunter Biden, who arranged for his father to meet some of his business interests. Hunter Biden’s financial interest in a Chinese-backed investment firm, BHR Partners, was registered within weeks of that 2013 trip.
There are emails of Ukrainian and other foreign clients thanking Hunter Biden for arranging meetings with his father. There are photos from dinners and meetings that tie President Biden to these figures, including a 2015 dinner with a group of Hunter Biden’s Russian and Kazakh clients.
People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, was instructed by Biden associate James Gilliar not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”
Instead, the emails apparently refer to President Biden with code names such as “Celtic” or “the big guy.” In one, “the big guy” is discussed as possibly receiving a 10 percent cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm; other emails reportedly refer to Hunter Biden paying portions of his father’s expenses and taxes.
There were other connections like an office arranged for Joe Biden by the Chinese, a letter of recommendation written by Joe Biden for a key Chinese figure’s child, and expenses paid out of joint accounts.
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 mounting evidence, the position of Attorney General Garland has gone from dubious to ridiculous in evading the issue of a special counsel appointment. He continues to refuse to acknowledge these conflicts with the President. In a hearing yesterday, Garland again refused to address the issue, even discussing what it would take to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. There is no reason why he cannot answer such legal questions without getting into the evidence produced in Delaware.
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.”
It is hard to imagine a stronger case for the appointment of a special counsel.
Thank God this man was NOT nominated to the Supreme Court ! His obvious influences lie somewhere OUTside the LAW !
svalaz
How many cut outs are needed? One, two, three? what is influence peddling, what is payola?
We know money from foriegn interests going to Vice President Biden, through the Hunter Cut out. We know 10% was paid to Hunter, to ‘be held for the big guy’. We also know Hunter was actively aware of forieng lobbyists required registration with the proper office, and actively worked to skirt the law, but not successfully
In two years the Trump family is able to operate under the rules you are advocating.
Iowan2,
The simple fact is that influence peddling is legal. What Biden’s critics contend is that Hunter Biden was selling access or facilitating access to his father however, that in itself according to a unanimous Supreme Court decision is not corruption.
“ We know money from foriegn interests going to Vice President Biden, through the Hunter Cut out. We know 10% was paid to Hunter, to ‘be held for the big guy’. ”
No, we don’t. Because it’s not been shown that the allegation is true. It is only assumed. Besides, it is not illegal either. Biden was not in office when that 10% was allegedly offered.
“ We also know Hunter was actively aware of forieng lobbyists required registration with the proper office, and actively worked to skirt the law, but not successfully”
I’m assuming you are referring to FARA violations. Hunter Biden had to be a government public official and be working in that capacity to register according to FARA.
OT:
Anthony Fauci has seen the writing on the wall. He blinked.
One of the world’s most intelligent physician scientist epidemiologist, Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford, wrote a bullet proof paper published a few weeks ago. He skillfully argued that the COVID pandemic was over, and that public health leaders needed to call it. Fauci called it today.
Here is the paper that made Fauci blink.
The end of the COVID-19 pandemic
John P. A. Ioannidis
First published: 28 March 2022
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13782
That is one hell of a paper. As a retired internist, pulmonologist and critical doc I have to say you seldom see such papers that are so well researched and lucid.
This post id off subject, but presents an question that I have, hopefully a discussion of this subject will answer my question – I apologize for being off subject.
Why is the House of Representatives limited to only 435 ?
According to Article 1 Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the must be one elected representative for every 30,000 people. Every ten years, the government conducts a “census” that records every (?) resident of the United States. According to the “official” 2020 census there was 331,449,281 U.S. Residents. Divide the number of residents by 30,000, there should be 11,048 elected Representatives in Congress.
The Constitution defines the duties of Congress, it stipulates that Senators are to look at issues from the vantage point of their respective States – what is best for the whole state. Representatives assess matters based on how they affect local communities – congressional districts.
Constitutionally, the President has very few powers that can be exercised without the assistance of Congress. Refer to Article 2 of the Constitution. There is not any provisions in the Constitution authorizing the numerous Executive agencies that currently exist.
Congress arbitrarily decided to violate the Constitution to limit the number of Representatives.
There are over 23,000,000 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who make up rules and regulations, that should be done by the elected accountable (every two years ) House of Representatives.
Bureaucracies, Like a Virus, exists only to Perpetuate itself.
The formation of the numerous unconstitutionally federal bureaucracies eliminates the Checks and Balances of the Constitution.
Only Congress has the power to create laws, which can be approved or disapproved by the President.
Laws must be Constitutional as determined by the Supreme Court and the people.
https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf
You’re mistaken that “According to Article 1 Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the must be one elected representative for every 30,000 people. … Congress arbitrarily decided to violate the Constitution to limit the number of Representatives.”
The Constitution says that congressional districts may be no smaller than 30,000 people — “The Number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every thirty Thousand” — but the Constitution does not put an upper bound on the number of people in a district.
The House set the total number of Reps at 435 in 1929: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/
As for executive agencies, here’s a legal discussion: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45442.pdf
Could Congress decide that there could be only 50 Representatives ?
“, but each State shall have at Least one ”
By limiting the number of Representatives, doesn’t this cause taxation without representation ?
Look lay off the guy, he’s busy going after those pesky parents, Jan 6th protesters, find something anything to pin on President Trump and now Elon Musk “must” be doing something anything wrong. Hunter Biden, who’s he?
Garland is as shameful as the bribe-taking, crack-smoking Bidens! He has no honor and is now scared of the Law.
BS.
Turley complains about Garland but cannot bring himself to quote what Garland said in response to the questions about it.
Here is Garland’s testimony yesterday in full:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?519718-1/attorney-general-garland-testifies-departments-budget
The exchanges about it are ~1hr2min in (with Sen. Hagerty) and again ~1hr36min in (with Sen. Braun).
Among other things, Garland notes that “We put the investigation in the hands of a Trump appointee, from the previous Administration, who is the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware,” that he’s “quite comfortable with the United States Attorney for that District continuing in the role that he’s playing,” and that as AG, Garland is “committed to the independence of the Justice Department from any influence from the White House in criminal matters.”
Looks like the US-A for Delaware is David C. Weiss. Turley doesn’t say why he believes that Weiss is incapable of carrying out the investigation.
“We put the investigation in the hands of a Trump appointee . . .” (Garland)
That’s a sleazy statement. They didn’t “put” anything. The Weiss-led investigation began in late 2018, under Trump.
“We” = DOJ.
The DOJ put the investigation into Weiss’s hands.
There is nothing “sleazy” about noting that.
Do you believe that Weiss is capable of carrying out the investigation?
“‘We’ = DOJ.”
Sure: “I wasn’t part of the crew that built the Empire State Building. But *we* did a good job.”
“Do you believe that Weiss is capable of carrying out the investigation?”
Sophism 101: Reframe the issue. Be subtle about it. Rope in the unsuspecting.
If you were being truthful about that analogy: if there were a company “that built the Empire State Building,” and it got a new owner, that owner might easily say “we did a good job,” even though he wasn’t the owner when the Empire State Building was built. Because as the owner he represents the company, just like the AG represents the DOJ.
If there’s a sophist in this discussion, that would be you.
Why go after the Big Guy when we have whitey to abolish?
Not much integrity in Garland.
And he was a candidate for SCOTUS!!!!
What is your evidence that Garland lacks integrity?
Why do you believe that Trump appointee Weiss is incapable of carrying out the investigation?
I think that Weiss is already a Special Counsel that’s why Garland won’t touch or talk about it. Barr knew Biden fired the last prosecutor who attempted to look into his sons business ventures with Victor Shokin in the Ukrainian Burisma case- “If you don’t fire the prosecutor you ain’t getting the money. Well SOB the prosecutor got fired”. Why wouldn’t Barr offer Weiss and the Biden investigation a shield by making him a special counsel as he did with Durham? Not only Barr, but Trump would have also been keen enough to recommend this be done as well given Bidens track record regarding prosecutors. Also if you’ll remember, Barr appointed Durham in secret and announced it 2 months after the fact. Who said he had to do that? Who’s to say he didn’t appoint Weiss as SC and kept it secret because of the election and who was running? It’s not like Biden is going to take office and make that announcement himself now is he?
Biden did not and could not fire Shokin, a prosecutor in another country. Biden did say that Shokin should be fired and that the US would withhold funds unless Shokin was fired. Biden did that with the knowledge of Congress. Members of the congressional Ukraine Caucus, including Republicans, agreed that Shokin should be fired for failing to do his job. So did the EU.
Garland was under oath. He would refer to Weiss as a Special Counsel if Weiss were a Special Counsel.
“Biden did not and could not fire Shokin, a prosecutor…”
The discussion surrounding the firing of Shokin has been discussed at length in the comment sector. John Solomon’s articles provided transcripts, testimony, wire transfers and other solid evidence were provided by Solomon.
The rebuttal to this robust evidence was ATS sliming John Solomon wasting the time of others who then had to prove what ATS said wasn’t.
Here is one such article picked at random. I don’t wish to waste any more time only to have to play Anonymous the Stupid games.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story/
This whole debate is stupid.
Joe Biden EXPLICITLY on readily available video said that he extorted Ukraine into firing Shokin.
There is absolutely zero doubt at all of that.
The QUESTION is not whether, but WHY ?
I would note that the very fact that Hunter Biden was on Burisma’s board made it a violation of federal ethics laws for Biden to involve himself at all.
Ethics laws are not criminal laws, but they are most certainly impeachable offences.
Obama gave us Trump. Democrats have never been able to accept that truth. The know it is true. They just refuse to accept it.
Now Democrats are doubling down on stupid. Welcome back President Trump. This time not near as naive as the first time.
Let me see ? Garland has failed to call for a Special Counsel for Hunter Biden. Now who was it that nominated Garland for AG ????? OH thats right I believe it was Hunters father. And whats going to happen. Nothing, so suck it up all you voters we’ve been f**k again.
“President Biden stands by his denials.”
He has been a pathological liar since at least law school. Any person who believes him deserves what he gets.
What is that tag line?
Something, darkness, dying….. Anyway
What all this tells me. The facts are so glaring, even Garland being in charge of how things are framed, and Garland being in full conrol of the the informnation, Garland knows it is impossible to spin this, so killing the story is the only option.
President Donald J Trump, is the greatest President of modern times. Only Trump was able to expose the rot in all the DC institutions. The DoJ is now nothing but the states secret police, spying on parents that go to school board meetings.
So you trust Trump, but you don’t trust David Weiss, the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, who is investigating Hunter Biden?
Garland is the AG. I looked at the linked video. Garland never declares he is not involved with the Wiess investigation Garland states there will be no political interference in the investigation. He never said he personally is not pulling the strings. If I were a congress critter, I would have asked Garland produce the scope letters to Durham and Weiss. He will deny he created such letters, but at least the lie would be on record.
So you’re unwilling to say whether you trust Trump-appointee David Weiss, the US-A for Delaware, who is investigating Hunter Biden. OK.
Weiss had a life before Trump. My money says Trump had no idea of who Weiss was. Half of the Republicans in DC were against President Trump because they are in on the grift also. “Trump appointed” is a terrible test. I have no idea what kind of worker bee Weiss is.
We were told Comey was a straigt arrow boy scout. But proven to be brazenly corrupt. Muller was supposed to be honest, but that was proven wrong.
Garland could start with some transparency, but he refuses to answer a direct question, and seldom responds to Letters from Congress persons.
“Half of the Republicans in DC were against President Trump ”
LOL!
They had two opportunities to impeach him (in the House) and remove him (in the Senate), and most voted to help Trump. Even today, most of them argue on Trump’s behalf.
Your answer demonstrates how little you know about politics and how people think. Not everyone is an automaton like you. Some follow principles and morals.
Unfortunately, that is not what we see in Washington, where too many legislators place their jobs and security ahead of the country. Some in the Republican Party have demonstrated their principles, but none in the Democrat Party of today.
…and remove him (in the Senate), and most voted to help Trump….
All calico cats are females. True statement, just has no bearing on the topic.
You’re the one who falsely claimed “Half of the Republicans in DC were against President Trump.” I was giving you some evidence that it’s false.
Sorry, Iowan2 was incorrect, it was only 49.953%
ATS, you get annoyed when someone doesn’t answer a question. Let me repeat an earlier one. You claimed no one was in jail for Jan6 that wasn’t violent or the like.
Since ATS is at it again, I propose he answer a question. He objects to others, saying Jan6 people are being denied bail as justice is absent.
What about Nordean? The evidence against him for anything major like violence is non-existent. He was initially permitted out on house arrest but then put in jail, primarily in solitary confinement.
ATS explains how Nordean is in jail when you say such occurrences aren’t happening. His father offered over $1 million bail risking his business and assets. Alternatively, you can admit you were lying.
His underlying crime was supporting Trump. Videos show a man walking from the Washington Monument and through an open door of the Capitol Building where the police stood by. The release of such videos was met with strenuous resistance from the Biden administration.
To my knowledge, the worst charges against him are non-violent, conspiracy and obstruction, both of which are on tenuous grounds not deserving a jail sentence without bail where most of the time was spent in solitary confinement.
Your nickname is S. Meyer the Troll Liar because you often troll by lying.
You are lying here. “You claimed no one was in jail for Jan6 that wasn’t violent or the like … you say such occurrences aren’t happening” is a lie.
You don’t link to any comment where I said what you allege … because you cannot.
You’ve called others ATS (Anonymous the Stupid), but you often post anonymously — https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/20/aggressively-individualistic-miami-law-professor-proposes-a-redo-of-the-first-and-second-amendments/comment-page-2/#comment-2145741 — and you are the true Anonymous the Stupid.
Anyone who wants to know the current charges against Nordean can read the second superseding indictment against Nordean and his alleged co-conspirators: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1480996/download
Anyone who wants to read the public evidence, motions, rulings, etc. can read them on the docket here: courtlistener.com/docket/59704100/united-states-v-nordean
You may wish to discuss Nordean’s case with me, but you are not a good-faith discusant, and I will not treat you as a good-faith discussant.
“You don’t link to any comment where I said what you allege … because you cannot.”
You have made it very difficult to challenge your comments based on past comments. That is why you like the anonymous alias. You hate that I got around that alias by naming you Anonymous the Stupid or ATS, making you more transparent. Others have started to do the same, and that Pis-es you off.
Arguments abounded on the blog about the lack of bail for Jan6. Anonymous was on one side, but now you want to claim you weren’t there? Don’t make me laugh. You have been proven a liar repeatedly.
“Anyone who wants to know the current charges against Nordean can read the second superseding indictment against Nordean”
I have no intention of discussing this case with a proven liar. He was initially let out either with bail or house arrest. Then he was put in jail for a year, spending most of the time in solitary. The government keeps delaying his case while he suffers in prison. Again you link, and that is what you did every time you denied the truth.
“You have made it very difficult to challenge your comments based on past comments.”
Liar. It’s exceptionally easy to link to prior comments made by anonymous commenters.
For example, if I claimed that you periodically respond to Svelaz with anonymous insults, it would be extremely easy for me to provide evidence. Here’s an example where you anonymously call Svelaz “a worthless person” — https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/24/trump-prosecutors-resign-after-grand-jury-case-stalls-in-manhattan/comment-page-1/#comment-2161618
You have not shown that ANY anonymous commenter “claimed no one was in jail for Jan6 that wasn’t violent or the like … you say such occurrences aren’t happening.” You cannot. And now, like the baby you are, you attempt to make excuses for your lie, and you double down with another lie that it’s “very difficult.”
This is why you are Meyer the Troll Liar: you troll by lying all the time. You don’t provide evidence because you cannot.
“Liar. It’s exceptionally easy to link to prior comments made by anonymous commenters.”
You provide Svelaz name as an example. The number of returns a search gets on any one page for Svelaz will be relatively low. However, on a well-commented topic searching for anonymous will lead to many returns, sometimes exceeding the number of names.
I made it easier by labeling you Anonymous the Stupid. One can type in your name, and only a few comments are returned. From those comments, they can go backward and see who I was responding to. Bingo, almost immediately, one can locate Anonymous the Stupid.
Do you see? I am making things easier for Anonymous the Stupid to find his own stupid remarks.
Close the door on your way out.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid. You were lying when you said “You claimed no one was in jail for Jan6 that wasn’t violent or the like … you say such occurrences aren’t happening,” you were lying when you claimed “You have made it very difficult to challenge your comments based on past comments,” and you continue trolling, because you are Meyer the Troll Liar.
It is only easy in your warped brain.
There is no means of reliably determing which anonymous posts belong to which anonymous posters.
Even where there is an anonymous post, a reply by someone else and an anonymous reply – there is no means to assure the first anonymous poster and the second are the same.
Every single anonymous post stands alone
Trying to group them is GUESSING
Even where an anonymous poster “signs” their post, – that can easily be faked by another anonymous poster.
This is litterally how anonymity is SUPPOSED to work
And the price you pay is that you have no credibility, and a higher burden of proof.
You are actually degenerating this into a conflict over what other anonymous posters may or may not have posted ?
Typical left wing garbage.
I have ZERO interest in your claims that some other poster lied about what some anonymous poster said about J6.
What matters is what happened on J6
not moral accusations of hearsay thrice removed.
Here’s a little bit of what happened on J6. The guy on the left, bashing in the window into the Capitol so that people can enter without going through security, is Dominic Pezzola, one of several Proud Boys charged with conspiracy and obstruction, among other things:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1481021/download
So if it were Trumps presidency, ag and influence peddling son, you would not see a conflict of interest prescribing the appointment of a special counsel to investigate outside the control of the trump doj?
If so, you trust trump a lot more than I do and are overlooking that conflicts of interest by elected officials don’t need to be true to be damaging not just to the person, but to trust in the system and rule of law generally?
If not, why do you vary your standards based on who the person holding office is and why do you view the rule of law as a partisan issue?
Most influence peddling is legal. I’d rather that it be illegal, but I doubt that Congress is going to make it illegal, as many members of Congress seem to like that their families benefit from it.
There was influence-peddling by several of Trump’s kids and son-in-law while Trump was in office. None of Trump’s AGs/acting AGs named a Special Counsel to investigate that influence peddling. Probably because for the most part, influence peddling is legal. Same with Biden.
My standards aren’t different for the Trumps and the Bidens. Lots of political families do it, but it’s most legal (Rod Blagojevich’s effort to sell a Senate seat is one of the rare exceptions).
If you have evidence that Hunter Biden broke one or more laws, contact the DOJ and give them your evidence.
Where is NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, the front pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times? Where are the journalists? What happened to the profession of journalism? Their silence is nothing short of complicity… a specific decision to ignore and obscure this story – no matter what level of involvement Biden had with his son. Whether this group decision was spoken or unspoken, it is still collusion, corruption, an overt attempt to commit fraud on the American people and the world who had trust in our system of government held together, trustworthy and accountable by checks and balances of which the news media, journalists, are an ESSENTIAL component. The censorship of this story, to aide the current sitting government is a direct assault on our constitutional protections of free speech and press. Reporting this story is an obligation. The absence of questions, reporting, probing, is a shameful dereliction of duty and a crime by the once sacred profession of journalism.
Well said!
“Silence” about what?
On their knees in front of Congress.
This also seems to set a bad example. In the future an Attorney General might point to the lack of action in this case as a reasonable precedent for not appointing a special Special Counsel when it is so obviously necessary. Wholly contradicts the actions of the Justice Dept when Trump was President and the evidence of wrongdoing was even slimmer. Not a fan of Mitch McConnell but he sure made an outstanding call when he blocked this man from the Supreme Court, especially to replace such a gifted Justice as Scalia. The sad part of that blockade was that there were airheads in the Republican Party who were ready to confirm Garland. Luckily those airhead seem to be retiring, dying or getting beat in primaries over the subsequent years.
If what Joe Biden has said is true, he should be asking for a Special Counsel if not just to clear his name for historical relevance. Of course he is hoping it will blow over with mass media lack of coverage but that bet is misplaced upon a change in Congressional committees
Garland is even worse than Eric Holder. One can only be grateful that he will only have 4 years to attack the American Constitution as the AG rather than decades as a Supreme Court Justice.
Now who, raise your hands, is surprised by this?
Democrats are criminals….not one is honest
Not “contradicted.” Disputed or refuted.
I just thought, after the clinton administration etc., that it was just a given.