Did the Biden Administration Just Give a Boost To the Hunter Biden Defense?

Below is my column in the New York Post on the implications of the recent civil lawsuit against Steve Wynn for allegedly working as an agent for China. The lawsuit was brought under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The timing of the shift to civil penalties is significant given the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden for possible FARA violations. The decision of the Biden Administration to move away from criminal charges under FARA could prove highly advantageous for Hunter Biden.

Here is the column:

The Justice Department this week sued former casino mogul Steve Wynn for allegedly working as an agent for China. The lawsuit under the Foreign Agents Registration Act is bad news for Wynn, but it may be a win for another potential target: Hunter Biden.

By bringing this action as a civil lawsuit, the Justice Department may have undercut the ongoing investigation by David Weiss, the US attorney for Delaware, into Hunter Biden’s foreign dealings. This civil suit doesn’t necessarily bar Weiss, but Biden’s team can now argue that criminally charging him with a FARA violation would be inconsistent with contemporary investigations.

recently testified in Congress on FARA prosecutions and noted that the Justice Department had largely dropped civil actions under the act in favor of criminal charges. Special counsel Robert Mueller targeted various Trump officials with FARA, using the law to investigate, search or charge attorneys from Paul Manafort to Rudy Giuliani to Victoria Toensing.

I testified earlier that “after ramping up prosecutions in the last decade, the Justice Department has created precedent for the criminalization of what were previously treated as administrative violations. From Paul Manafort to the current investigation of Hunter Biden, there remain questions as to whether Justice Department will operate under a single, coherent and predictable standard.”

Some in the administration may be hoping that this charge will compel a consistent approach that would effectively decriminalize any violations under investigation in Delaware.

The feds sued Wynn over his effort to intervene in the case of  Chinese businessman Guo Wengui, a billionaire real-estate magnate and critic of the Chinese government. Beijing wanted the businessman back in China and hoped to persuade the US government to deny him a visa.

Wynn spoke to President Donald Trump about the case, a call that carried added weight due to Wynn’s position as the Republican National Committee’s finance chairman.

Wynn has interests in Macau, and his intervention was allegedly appreciated by high-ranking Chinese officials. The Justice Department asked Wynn to register as an agent, but he declined.

What is most striking about this case is how serious it is, particularly compared with past criminal cases like the prosecution of Paul Manafort. Here, Sun Lijun, then the Chinese vice minister for public security, was allegedly organizing the lobbying effort in 2017 and contacted figures like Elliott Broidy, a former RNC finance chairman, and Nickie Lum Davis, a top Trump fundraiser. Both Broidy and Davis later pleaded guilty in prosecutions.

The question is why Broidy was criminally prosecuted in 2020 under FARA, including for work on the Guo matter, yet the Biden administration suddenly decided that the Wynn part of the deals should be treated as a civil matter. This is coming at the very time a grand jury is reportedly considering charges against Hunter Biden that could include FARA violations.

Wynn not only allegedly acted at the request of Chinese officials but was able to make direct contact with Trump to lobby him on the issue. He had no apparent interest in Guo, who would face a dire future if deported to China. But he had major financial interests in China, and the investigation yielded other criminal charges.

A huge high-profile case like Wynn’s is not simply left to local prosecutors. Main Justice is often involved in such investigations and charging decisions. Other agencies can also be involved.

The decision to depart from the earlier cases and proceed civilly could not come at a better time for Hunter Biden. If the Justice Department applied the same approach used in the Paul Manafort case, Biden would be looking at the serious prospect of a felony charge.

Biden discussed the possible need to register in light of his extensive work on behalf of foreign interests in what many view as blatant influence peddling. This work happened during the same period as the Wynn work. In 2017, Biden texted his business associate Tony Bobulinski: “No matter what it will need to be a U.S. company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state-funded projects. Also we don’t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act] which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know. James [Biden] has very particular opinions about this so I would ask him about the foreign entity.”

There was ample reason to worry given the wide array of foreign clients and their interest in using Hunter’s access and influence. The president’s son was working with CEFC, a Chinese Communist Party-linked company led by Ye Jianming. The Justice Department criminally charged one of Ye’s associates, Patrick Ho, in 2017 under the FCPA. The first call he reportedly made after his arrest was to James Biden, who said that he was trying to reach his nephew, Hunter.

Hunter worked on a joint venture between an entity called Sinohawk and CEFC. He had extensive dealings with Chinese figures as well as officials in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and other countries. Emails referred to meetings with his father, then vice president. In 2014, he wrote to former business partner Devon Archer about an upcoming trip to Ukraine by “my guy” — his dad. He noted that it should “be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.” (Archer would later be criminally convicted of fraud in a separate matter).

Hunter Biden arranged meetings between his father and Ukrainian and foreign clients. He also continued to express his concerns over registration laws, noting that executives at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma “need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policymakers, and that we need to abide by FARA and any other U.S. laws in the strictest sense across the board.”

He never, however, registered. Like Wynn, he maintained that his work for foreign interests stayed short of the FARA line despite the broad interpretation the Justice Department gave in past criminal cases. Compared with those other cases, Hunter Biden seems well over the line. In United States v. Chaudhry, a US resident pleaded guilty under FARA for efforts to influence various US think tanks’ views on US-Pakistani relations.

Now the Justice Department has departed from years of criminal charges in favor of civil charges. Many of us have questioned the need for criminalization of these charges and the broad sweep of FARA. But the timing of the Biden administration’s sudden change could not have come at a more opportune time for the president’s son.

144 thoughts on “Did the Biden Administration Just Give a Boost To the Hunter Biden Defense?”

    1. Bush had the executive and legislative branches in 2000.

      Were he a true republican and patriotic, conservative American, he could have repealed America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        1. Thank you. You prove my point. W. Bush was a useless RINO who did nothing when he had an opportunity. I don’t know how much conservatism could have been processed through Dennis Hastert but that is moot because of W. Bush’s liberalism. Most importantly, Paul Ryan (i.e. D) should have been prosecuted and sued for fraud against America and the Republican Party, as the Super RINO that he is. Finally, Trump never had a chance to do anything conservative because Hillary enlisted Obama to pursue the Obama Coup D’etat in America through the FBI, American Intel, the judicial branch et al., including the FISA Court. That was the point of the Coup, to “stop him,” which you might ask Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (“Obama wants to know everything we’re doing”) about. Further, look at that abhorrent, odious, low-life, backstabbing traitor, Mike Pence, licking the boots of that RINO Georgia Governor, Brian Kemp. Everyone knew that Trump won 2020 and that Kemp, Pence and Congress must have used their constitutional power to correct the election crimes. These lying apostates supported Joe Biden and his life of crime in the corporate “headquarters” state, his life of corruption as an essential part of the “swamp” in the Deep Deep State.

          Professor Turley occasionally used the term “duopoly” in the past, meaning that D.C. was incestuous, and that the “democrats” and “republicans” were actually “republicans” and “democrats” who commingled unnaturally.

  1. “Ed Buck, once a prominent Democratic donor, sentenced to 30 years in prison“

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/us/ed-buck-sentenced-30-years-federal-charges/index.html

    REGARDING ABOVE:

    Readers should note, Hunter was an amateur and never hurt nor killed anyone!!! On the other hand, Ed Buck might be not so amateurish. True he was friends with Adam Schiff but queens of a feather flock together, so there is that!

    Alas I am in mourning. My crystal meth dealer, Ed Buck, betrayed me. A well known Democrat donor in West Hollywood Los Angeles, he enticed black gay and trans men with meth, then killed them. They were all skanks!! I was his preferred queen!!! Whats more, he is now in prison and no one will sell me meth because I defended Ed Buck. Im a Democrat, of course I would!!

    can someone give this queen a bump?

    – Da Stooge

    1. Why isn’t Sussmann being tried in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California?

  2. Very strange indeed. When Paul Manafort didn’t register as a foreign agent it was a criminal mater but when Hunter Biden didn’t register as a foreign agent it has become a civil matter. Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

    1. Also recall at the time Manafort was working for John & Tony Podesta that were doing the same & they walked right a way.

      1. They were democrats.

        Sussman will not be convicted.
        Klinesmith got a slap on the wrists.
        Hunter Biden will not be charged.

  3. Now for the incoming from the usual suspects. I’ll be called a “retard,” accused of suffering TDS, etc.

    I’m actually defending Turley, but I’ll be accused of hating him.

    1. Jeff, no insults. Is Nina and Natacha the same person? Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. Diogenes,

        Who the heck is Nina? How should I know?

        I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing!

        1. Nina Jankowicz? I realize she’s an obscure reference now that she’s unemployed.

          1. I once saw her interviewed on the tube, and I was not impressed, but that was sum and substance of what I know about her. Unlike a Trumpist, I would not judge a book or a person by its cover. For all I know, she was a good choice. I don’t mind being uncertain. Only a closed mind is certain.

            1. You put it perfectly JeffSilberman. “For all you now she might have been a good choice”. Apparently all you know about the head of the ministry of truth is not very much. I sense a trend.

              1. I’d rather concede my lack of knowledge than pretend I know more than I do. One is taught in law school not to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. There are too many people commenting on social media smugly proclaiming they know more than they actually do. I always pepper more comments with “apparently,” or “ostensibly,” or “presumably” or “seemingly” because I am not in a position to be certain. There is no shame in being uncertain unlike being shown that one should have been.

                1. JeffSilberman, you very certainly said that the Alfa-Bank story was not a hoax. You posted that the Fox News story said that it was a hoax and it is obvious that you think it was not a hoax. You were very certain in your assessment. You didn’t tippy toe around with any phrases such as apparently, ostensibly or presumably. You were absolute in your certainty. No kind of weasel words will change what you yourself put into writting.

                  1. TiT,

                    I was disputing FOX’s assertion that it WAS a hoax. In the court of public opinion, we can’t be certain. The malicious intent required to prove a hoax needs to be established in a court of law.

                    I can be certain that someone is uncertain.

                    Why are you so obtuse?

                    1. JeffSilberman, so because Bigfoot has not been proven to be a hoax in a court of law we should not believe that it is a hoax. How many known hoaxes have proven in court? When the hole is about to get over your head you should stop digging.

                    2. TiT,

                      You’ll forgive me if I don’t respect your judgement of my arguments. If you don’t mind, I’ll leave it to others.

                    3. I would not expect that you would respect the judgement of an intelligent person.

                      We are all judged based on not just what is known of the facts of the moment – but our past history and judgement.
                      The accusations we have made of others and the extent to which those proved ultimate true or false.

                      And you have FAILED at all of those.

                      Anyone who cares about your judgement is foolish or ill informed.

                    4. John Says:

                      “I would not expect that you would respect the judgement of an intelligent person.”

                      I respect Turley’s judgment and few others on this list.

                      You?

                      Not so much.

                    5. Back to the mind reading.

                      Actually double – both mine and Turley’s.

                      Way to go Counsellor Troi.

                    6. No malicious intent is not required to prove a hoax.

                      You really are hung up on mind reading.

                      When you manufacture something that is is FALSE – that is a Hoax.

                      A Hoax is a lie resting on false Facts that YOU create.

                      It is not relevant to whether it is a hoax why you are lying or why your created false facts.

                      That said – is there the slightest doubt in anyones mind Why Hillary would direct that the Fake Steele Dossier be concocted and then sold to the media and the FBI ? Of course she had malicious intent.

                      Intent is required for most Crimes – all hoaxes are not crimes. But that intent is not that significant.
                      You must know that what you are doing is wrong and choose to do it anyway.
                      It is not necescary for us to know WHY you did something or whether you were motivated by malice to know that you had criminal intent.

                      Sussman knew that lying to the FBI was a crime. and he did it anyway. I suspect he did not think much about it – he was an important DC lawyer with personal relations to other DC power players. he had no reason to ever expect to be held accountable.
                      Afterall he was no Roger Stone of Micheal Cohen. He was an elite power broker such lies were permitted to him.

                    7. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth:

                      1. “No malicious intent is not required to prove a hoax.”

                      AND

                      2. “When you manufacture something that is is FALSE – that is a Hoax.”

                      You cannot do 2 without 1.

                    8. Of course you can.
                      The fact that something is not common does not mean it does not exist.

                      But lets presume you are correct that would mean that the act of manufacturing a hoax is proof of malicious intent.

                      Do you think before you post ?

                    9. RE: “”Do you think before you post?””” The word malicious is defined as characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm. As I see it, the circumstances under discussion were certainly carried with intent to do harm. Precisely the purpose. Give us an example of a scenario in which you feel that manufacturing a hoax might be carried out WITHOUT malicious intent. . .

                    10. Causing actual harm is either a tort or a crime.

                      All hoaxes are not crimes or tortious.

                      Had the collusion delusion not been sold to the FBI it would still be a hoax, but not an abuse of power, not a crime. and probably not tortious.

                      Here is a number of famous hoaxes most of which did not cause actual harm.

                      https://www.bestpsychologydegrees.com/hoaxes/

                    11. RE:”Was of the Worlds” Hoax. I’ve heard transcriptions of that broadcast and know of the response. Were there no injuries or property damage recorded as a result of the panic which ensued.

                    12. “Here is a number of famous hoaxes most of which did not cause actual harm.”

                      I think almost every claim of doom and disaster regarding climate has been proven to be a hoax. The last time I was there the Statue of Liberty remained above water.

                    13. I respect Turley’s judgment and few others on this list.

                      Turley’s judgement, FOX is a respectable source of news and analysis. That’s why he choose to share his knowledge and experience on that network.

                      So stop with the ad hominems.

                    14. I should have been more specific. I generally respect Turley’s legal analysis. I do not respect his selling out to Fox News. The discredit Turley is now suffering in the estimation of his fellow academics and students at his law school owes itself to his lending legitimacy to the Trumpist false narratives at Fox.

                      I contend that Turley will ultimately disassociate himself from this propaganda outfit and live to regret his decision. As Fox moves farther to the conspiratorial fringe, Turley will find it untenable to remain. That’s my prediction. Time will tell if I will be right.

                    15. Time will always tell. Thus far, CNN has not been right. They’ve been far left, and left at the gate. Their viewership is in the crapper. Their ‘PLUS” adventure crashed before it ever flew. Theirs carries their own brand of the ludicrous.Brian is braindead. Why he deserves a seat at the table is beyond me.. If one is flexible enough to derive information from a variety of sources, the wheat can always be separated from the chaff. That means fact, from interpretation of fact, and opinion. As far as networks are concerned. one is no better than the other.

                    16. Naturally, I completely reject almost everything you have stated except that I do agree with:

                      “Time will always tell.”

                      Let’s leave it at that.

                    17. “””Naturally, I completely reject almost everything you have stated….”” Of course! Why should anyone expect otherwise?

                2. Jeff –

                  Conceding lack of knowledge is okay. What’s not okay is to purposely avoid information and to try to disparage those of us who are more informated. Ms. Jankowicz was clearly NOT an expert in disinformation since she had disseminated the fake information that DJT had ties to a Russian bank and repeatedly lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop, telling the AP that it should be viewed as “a Trump campaign product.”

                  So now, officially, you are not lacking knowledge. Conservatives are often so much more informed than liberals because we are always exposed to mainstream biased media while constantly searching out more diverse opinions. The liberal echo chamber is pervasive and dangerous.

                  What you should ask yourself is how this inept Biden administration could call her an expert in detecting misinformation? Her only title could be Expert Purveyor of Information.

                  1. Highlyeducated says:

                    “What’s not okay is to purposely avoid information and to try to disparage those of us who are more informated.”

                    I am not *purposely* avoiding information. I disparage people who think they know more than they can possibly know or who refuse to wait until a matter is determined in a court of law which is the only reliable forum for a search for truth.

                    You say:

                    “So now, officially, you are not lacking knowledge.”

                    Frankly, knowing your past commentary as I do, I would not trust you to give me the time of day. So, no, I will not accept your “alternative facts.”

                    1. until a matter is determined in a court of law which is the only reliable forum for a search for truth.

                      Speaker Tom Delay and Senator Ted Stevens call BS on such inanities.

                      Courts concern themselves with the law. Truth is far down the list of subjects addressed.

                    2. Jeff – I’m sorry you’ve been the center of much discussion but I have to respond and ask you if presented with information such as Nina’s acceptance and propagation of misinformation about the Biden Laptop and the Steele propaganda report (which FBI agents testified was clearly fake), can you affirm her inadequacy in the role the Biden admin appointed her to?

                      Secondly, a court of law is NOT the only reliable forum for a search for truth. That’s absurd. It might offer one avenue to investigate truth but clearly we know how flawed it is.

                    3. Dunno about Nina. Nice name though.

                      Secondly, a court of law is the best forum to ascertain the truth. There is none better that mankind has devised. Period.

                    4. ” can you affirm her inadequacy in the role the Biden admin appointed her to?” This should be interesting

                3. “I’d rather concede my lack of knowledge than pretend I know more than I do. One is taught in law school not to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. ” and yet you don’t.

                  “I always pepper more comments with “apparently,” or “ostensibly,” or “presumably” or “seemingly” because I am not in a position to be certain. There is no shame in being uncertain unlike being shown that one should have been.”

                  Both false and wrong.

                  Outside of testimony under oath, it is poor writing to say seemingly or ostensibly all the time – go read Orwell on writing.

                  If you are stating a fact – BE RIGHT. There is no excuse for qualifying a factual statement. If you do not know, or are not sure – find out, or shut up. Facts can be checked BEFORE your write. \

                  If you are stating an opinion – it should be OBVIOUS that is an opinion – because it is NOT a statement of fact.
                  State what you believe in its clearest strongest form, and expect those who disagree to strongly respond.

                    1. It would be easier to agree with you if you were not constantly at odds with yourself.

            2. The board itself is a bad an unconstitutional choice.

              The Mary Poppins of disinformation is self evidently a bad choice.

              There is no entitlement for ANYONE to decide what is truth for the rest of us, much less her.

              1. John B. Say pronounces:

                “There is no entitlement for ANYONE to decide what is truth for the rest of us”

                Neither are you entitled to tell everyone that the truth is- “so-and-so knowingly perpetuated a hoax.”

                We have courts of law for that determination.

                1. “Neither are you entitled to tell everyone that the truth is- “so-and-so knowingly perpetuated a hoax.””
                  Absolutely False. I am free to say nearly anything I wish that is true, and nearly everything I wish that is false.

                  “We have courts of law for that determination.”
                  Nope, Courts are a PART of the legitimate process for using FORCE against people when they do Actual harm to others.

                  They are not to decide what we can say or what we are free to believe.

                  AGAIN – it is wonderful debating you – you say such incredibly stupid things, you create the opportunities to rebuts stupid arguments and speak truth.

    2. You are an attorney of sum total zero importance vs. Turley with multiple millions of followers. Being a blind progressive all you do is add value to any of Turley’s opinions with which you disagree.

      Do you condemn or defend the DOJs change in tactics Re. FARA, pre vs. post Biden President? Is this an act of corruption or a normal change? Why else except to protect Hunter would this change occur now?

      1. “Turley with multiple millions of followers.”

        Lie.

        “Being a blind progressive all you do is add value to any of Turley’s opinions with which you disagree.”

        This sentence is incomprehensible. Try again.

        “Do you condemn or defend the DOJs change in tactics Re. FARA, pre vs. post Biden President?”

        Ask Turley. He only raised the question.

        “Is this an act of corruption or a normal change?”

        TBD

        “Why else except to protect Hunter would this change occur now?”

        You are assuming a fact not yet in evidence.

    3. Hey JeffSilberman, Hillary knew that The Alfa-Bank accusations had not been proven when she approved the leak. The Alfa-Bank story then was inflamed by the media. I think you are in need of a definition so here it is. hoax
      /hōks/
      Learn to pronounce
      noun
      noun: hoax; plural noun: hoaxes
      a humorous or malicious deception.
      “they recognized the plan as a hoax”. Get it. As to Professor Turley with friends like you who needs enemies. It’s obvious that you do indeed suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s also obvious that you suffer from FNDS. Fox News Derangement Syndrome. The news channel ratings speak for themselves and testify to the fact that most Americans do not think as you do. Thank goodness. Read em and weep.

      1. Since you accuse me of TDS and now FNDS, may I take the same liberty of accusing you of JSDS, that is, Jeff Silberman Derangement Syndrome, and thereupon dismiss and ignore all your criticism because it is motivated by your deranged hatred of me?

        1. JeffSilberman, you may interpret my response to your posting as hate but hate of you on a personal basis has nothing to do with it. When you point out your differences with others you consider it acceptable discourse but when I point out my differences with you it is a manifestation of hate. Tell us the truth. Do you hate Trump? Do you hate Fox News? You try to tell us that the Alfa-Bank story was not a hoax perpetuated on the American people and when I point out that you misrepresent the nature of the leak approved by Hillary Clinton you attribute it to my personal hatred of you. Pointing out the ridiculousness of your arguments is now hate speech. When the kitchen gets hot it’s no place for snowflakes.

          1. TiT says:

            “When you point out your differences with others you consider it acceptable discourse but when I point out my differences with you it is a manifestation of hate.”

            YOU accused ME of TDS and now FNDS, not the other way around. I RESPONDED to your accusations by ASKING why I should not be able to interpret your comments to my postings as motivated by hatted as well?

            I accuse Trumpists of Biden Derangement Syndrome just to mock them AFTER they have accused me of TDS. I have said time and again that no one should should accuse anyone of hate in order to win an argument! Because even a hateful person can make a GOOD argument. So a person’s motivation is irrelevant to their commentary.

            Will you stop accusing me of TDS and FNDS?

        2. Jeff, your a clown – no one hates you.

          You are entertaining.

          You make stupid arguments giving others the opportunity to poke holes in those or to speak what they want on related issues.

          Don’t confuse laughter with hatred.

          1. John B. Say speaks for everyone here when he assures me that:

            “no one hates you.”

            BUT nearly everyone here accuses me of hating Turley and Trump…..

            1. If someone here hates you – let them speak up and I will correct myself.

              I do not recall accusing you of hating Trump or Turley.

              You are obviously Stupid. You certainly suffer from TSD, You are one of the biggest hypocrites here.

              But I do not know who you hate.

      2. Lets be clear the CIA review of the Alpha Bank data concluded that it was Human manipulated – not actual captured records from the internet.

        i.e. HOAX.

  4. Natacha says:

    “Anything, literally, anything Fox wants Turley to do or say, he will do or say.”

    I would not say that. Turley does lend credence to Fox’s false narratives but short of lying, for he must maintain his academic credibility. Take, for example, last Friday when he appeared on Fox Primetime to repeat what he had written here about the judge’s decisions in the Sussmann trial. Despite all his concerns about the impartiality of the jury, he emphasized that:

    “Having said all of that, I don’t mean to suggest that these jurors are going to be biased. They could very well be impartial. Jurors take things very seriously.”

    Unlike a Trumpist, Turley does NOT believe the trial is *rigged* in favor of Sussmann. He merely raises legitimate *concerns* but he gives the benefit of doubt to the jurors because he ultimately has faith in the jury system.

    Turley typically is circumspect and guarded in his commentary. But that rectitude does not stop Fox producers posting these disinformation chyrons underneath Turley’s headshot during his interview:

    “Hillary Clinton approved dissemination of Alfa Bank hoax to media, campaign manager testifies”

    Notice that Fox inserts the false narrative that Mook testified that Hillary approved of a knowing “hoax,” but Turley has NEVER accused anyone of perpetuating a hoax. He reserved that accusation for the Smollett case.

    Further along in the interview, Fox reinforced this Trumpist “hoax” lie:

    “Durham team unravels Clinton-backed Russia hoax”

    Now the “hoax” is not just about Alfa bank but the ENTIRE Russian scandal. Search Turley’s archive yourself to prove that he has NEVER used the word “hoax” in reference to the Russian scandal. Finally, Fox posted this smear:

    “Russia hoax scandal is also a media scandal”

    Fox would have you believe that Turley supports the narrative that the media was also perpetuating a hoax on the American public. As much as he deplores advocacy journalism in the media, he has NEVER accused any journalist of outright lying. He has NEVER repeated the Trumpist lie, “fake news.”

    Yet there is Turley seemingly oblivious to the fact that Fox is grossly mischaracterizing his legal analysis. He gives Fox an inch, but it takes a mile.

    Is Turley unaware that he is being misused by Fox? Does he care?

    Well, he needs to be asked these questions directly in order to determine whether he is an unwitting dupe.

    1. JeffSilberman, you left out the part where the director of the CIA said that Hillary wanted to get the Alfa-Bank story out to distract from her private unsecured server. How am I not surprised. Mook testified that Hillary approved the leaking of the story. You conveniently left that part out too. You continue to blow holes in your credibility on a daily basis. Hillary had no proof that the Alfa-Bank story was true but she leaked it anyway. You also left out the testimony of the FBI agent who said he discredited the Alfa-Bank accusations in 24 hours. Some appreciation for the truth on your part would be greatly appreciated.

      1. TiT,

        First, I am not defending Hillary. I never liked her since she defended Bill against his Impeachment. She engaged in oppo research and approved its dissemination. Politics is a dirty game. The fact that Hillary’s Lieutenants had no proof that it was FALSE demonstrates that it was NOT a deliberate “hoax.” A person perpetuates a hoax only when they KNOW it is a lie as in the case of Smollett (which was proven at trial).

        It all comes down to intent. Trumpists assume that Hillary fabricated this Alfa bank connection out of whole cloth. Turley does not make this accusation. You say that an FBI agent “said he discredited the Alfa-Bank accusations in 24 hours.” You mean you now trust the “Deep State”? What are you? A NeverTrumper?

        1. So JeffSilberman, you now expect us to believe that Hillary knew without a shadow of a doubt that the Alfa-Bank accusations were true before she approved the leak. Hillary knew exactly what she was doing and she didn’t give a damn about the truthfulness of the hoax. Are you really trying to tell us that Hillary was innocent of any deceit in the matter. Man, you sure are over the top a lot of the time.

          1. TiT,

            First of all, don’t flatter yourself thinking that every Trumpist thinks like you. S.Meyer and John B. Say probably, but I would hate to think that too many are as dense.

            I don’t know what Hillary knew until she is deposed and more evidence can be collected. The only thing I know beyond a “shadow of a doubt” is death and that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer” as Turley quipped.

            It’s *possible* that Hillary did not give a damn whether the Alfa bank accusation was true. Are you the prosecution, jury, judge and jailer?

            I have said repeatedly that no one is above the law, but everyone is presumed innocent until proven to the contrary in a court of law with all the rules of evidence and due process safeguards to bear. I will not crucify someone in the court of public opinion.

            1. Jeff you are full of schiff.

              But even more you are a blatant hypocrite.

              Hillary has literally been at the inception of just about every political hoax and misadventure in american politics for 40 years.

              Banghazi was a spontaneous riot over an internet video
              Obama’;s birth certificate is fake.
              The Biden ukraine story was first pushed by Clinton to Push Biden out of the 2016 race.

              In the unlikely event Clinon is ever deposed again the answer will be the same as last time “I do not recall”

              1. You say:

                “Hillary has literally been at the inception of just about every political hoax and misadventure in american politics for 40 years.”

                Do I detect Hillary Derangement Syndrome? Or am I not allowed to rip a page from Trump’s playbook?

                1. “Do I detect Hillary Derangement Syndrome?”

                  What a stupid comment. What was said is true. Then again you don’t know anything about facts.

                2. You rage against Trumpists, and in the same breath, in your writings, support a philosophy expounded by a political party and a movement which committed an outrage against the citizens of this country. They and their minions successfully corrupted the FBI, the DOJ, the FISA courts, the House of Representatives and the Senate, by willfully abrogating the oaths they swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They forced the expense of wasted hours of time and materiel, millions of dollars, persecutions, prosecutions, lives ruined in so many ways, in the pursuit of a diffuse rainbow at the end of which they hoped to find a pot of gold which they did not. Nothing more than a bucket of lead.  In the process they distracted a duly elected administration from what should have been its central focus. The needs of the citizens of the United States. Now that this fool’s errand of a ball of wool is beginning to unravel, the dots connected, and the truth to be told, what? Expressions of remorse, regret, contrition, apology? Hardly!  That’s not the political way, is it?. When one steps in shit, one changes ones shoes, and just keeps walking.  All of this for what?. So that a self-satisfied, ego-maniacal, hubris ridden wretch, besotted with moral and ethical turpitude, might satisfy her conviction that her destiny was to be entitled to be recorded by history as the first woman to be elected President of the United States of America. If she had had the cojones, she would have done what any other self-respecting married woman would have done in the face of a husband’s infidelity. Kicked his monkey ass out of her bed and walked. But NO! Her eye was on the prize and screw the rest of us. No different than any of them.

                    1. RE:””our lies are old, but I admit you tell them very well. Mazel tov!”” That which has already be established as fact in the public square, not necessary to enumerate here, you characterize as lies. You do well in re-enforcing and giving weight and credence to the opinions of you already expressed in these pages. There are no concerns about total transparency or surprise.. We know what to expect.

                    2. Zzdoc says:

                      “That which has already be established as fact in the public square … you characterize as lies.”

                      Given Fox News, Newsmax, One America Network and Infowars, I no longer trust the “facts” in the public square. I have faith in our courts- where rules of evidence honed over centuries of litigation- which are our best assurance of determining facts. Given the irreducible and accelerating polarization of the public, our courts of law are our only salvation to determine truth. We undermine the rule of law at our mortal peril.

                      Despite his contractual obligation and putative non-disclosure agreement with Fox News, Turley will NEVER echo Hannity’s Trumpist paranoid delusion of the “Deep State” or parrot Carlson’s false flag conspiracy theory in his “Patriot Purge” documentary which prompted 2 long-term Conservative Fox contributors- by their own admission- to flee the network not unlike Chris Wallace who himself also left because Carlson’s lies were intolerable.

                      What was Turley’s reaction to this humiliating repudiation of Fox’s false narratives by 3 long-term employees?

                      Crickets. Not one word.

                      Despicable.

                3. Nope, just the facts.

                  the woman is an unbelievably prolific hoaxster.

            2. “I have said repeatedly that no one is above the law, but everyone is presumed innocent until proven to the contrary in a court of law with all the rules of evidence and due process safeguards to bear. I will not crucify someone in the court of public opinion.”

              No you have not said or acted as if you beleive that repeatedly.

              Hillary gets the benefit of your manufactured doubts, as does Sussman. But Trump ? Stone ? Papadoulis ? Page ?

              These were guilty until long past proven innocent.

              Stone was actually convicted by a DC jury for a crime Mueller said never happened and we now know was a HOAX.

              Though many of us knew that in 2016.

              1. John B. Says:

                “No you have not said or acted as if you beleive that repeatedly. Hillary gets the benefit of your manufactured doubts, as does Sussman. But Trump ? Stone ? Papadoulis ? Page ?”

                You are a goddamn liar. I always reserve judgment until trial. I have demanded only investigations.

                Trumpists are the ones changing “Lock her up!” Not me.

                1. “Trumpists are the ones changing “Lock her up!” Not me.”

                  Maybe Hillary should be locked up. Maybe not. You don’t have any facts so how would you know?

                2. Jeff – we are not in a bubble with no past.

                  Your past remarks are no secret.

                  Your past rush to judgement is no secret.

                  Your hypocrisy is no secret.

                3. You have demanded investigations that have violated peoples rights,

                  And you have prejudged the outcomes.

                  “Trumpists are the ones changing “Lock her up!” Not me.”

                  So ?

                  so called “trumpists” have not claimed “I always reserve judgment until trial. I have demanded only investigations.”

                  You have

                  Anyone is free to reach a judgement whether there is a trial or before trial – unless you are a jurror.

                  But lying about it is different

                  I do not expect a jury for Hillary or any other high profile politico.

                  I am free to reach a judgement on their conduct.

                  In the current circumstances I am free to conclude based on known facts that far more democrats should have been charged and convicted regarding the collusion delusion, and no republican even should have been investigated.
                  Further the FACT support that.

                  It is not hypocritical to treat people differently – when the facts are different.
                  It is hypocracy to judge people differently when other factors are the same or nearly so,

                  There is a radical difference between Sussman and Flynn – obvious just be the fact that Sussman should have been charged with filling a false complaint.
                  While Flynn and everyone Mueller investigated could not have been charged with that.

                  No is there anything wrong with treating people differently based on their past.

                  This is not Clinton’s first Hoax, past bad conduct is evidene to weigh regarding current or future conduct.

                  You have repeatedly erred in the past, you have both rushed to judgement and been wrong.

                  You have lost any presumption of credibility.

        2. What part of Made up don’t you understand.

          The Steele Dossier was not merely “False” it was “made up” – Denchenko at brookings wrote it using gossip and rumours from people at the DNC, the Alpha Bank nonsense was “Made up” – the data was actually human created according to the CIA.

          This is called Fraud.

          If it has remained a “dirty trick” – that would be a matter for the voters to decide and an indictment of the press and our institutions for buying it.

          The problem is that Sussman – at the direction of a Clinton cabal sold it to the FBI as a crime.

          That is FALSE REPORTING – itself a crime.

          When a proivate citizen lies to law enforcement to leverage them into harrassing someone else that is more than a dirty trick, more than moraly and ethically wrong. That is Criminal.

            1. Read the testimony, read the court submissions.

              This is not some deep dark secret of something from Qanon.

              Outside of left wing nutistan the fact that the Steele dossier was written from democratic gossip is very well documented.
              Danchenko the primary subsource has been interviewed by the FBI repeatedly and as early as Jan 2017 told them everything he provided to Steele was garbage and had no russian sources. This has been known for several years. It is part of Horowitzs report.
              It is probably hidden in Muellers somewhere, it was part of the exculpatory evidence in the Flynn contest. And it has been fleshed out alot by Durham.

              So that you are clear – we have IG reports, FBI interviews, Grand Jury Testimony. Depositions.

              What is it you need ?

                1. “Facts”

                  Something you never have at hand even when asked for the facts. Sometimes you even admit you don’t know much of anything.

        3. More of this nonsense about “intent”.

          This was a HOAX – not merely unwittingly false. There were not Russian sources good or bad.
          This was all created in house between the DNC, HFA, Perkins Coi, Brookings and Fusion GPS – The only Russians involved were immigrants in the employ of Brookings.

          Everyone involved KNEW or should have known this.

          With specific reference to Sussman – he was a lawyer – the standard is actually higher. Even if the Clinton campaign hid the fraudulent roots of this – and there is plenty of evidence Sussman was aware – he had an obligation not to shill unsubstantiated gossip to the FBI.

          As Baker testified – he would not have scheduled a meeting – except that Sussman on his own was bring this too him.

          Baker may well be lying about whether he cared that it was coming from the Clinton campaign.

          But he absolutely cared that it was coming from Sussman.

          Neither Baker nor the CIA would have met with Jeff Silberman over allegations such as these.

          Susman was an officer of the court – and one with a considerable reputation – when he brought this to Baker he was vouching for the information with his own reputation. Ordinary people – even with more credible claims would not have gotten a meeting with the FBI Counsel, and they certainly would not have had that counsel forward it to investigators.

          While intent here is obvious – there is no need to fixate on it. What is True is that Sussman KNEW what he was doing was wrong.
          He was providing his imprimatur to allegations that he either knew or had good reason to suspect were false, and where he had a duty to be sure.

            1. Jury verdict on what ?

              Sussman will not be convicted – it is a DC jury.
              Durham has done quite well, but he has been beating his head against the wall from the start.

              You have heard most of the evidence and you could read the rest if you wanted.
              I doubt you would be convinced – unless the shoe was only the other foot – if Trump was on trial – you would not need evidence.

              1. I will accept the verdict whatever it is because I believe in the jury system. I don’t believe elections or trials are rigged. Trumpists do.

                1. You are a liar. Nothing you say is credible and yet you repeat yourself all the time.

                2. As you said “Facts”

                  The fact is there are now multiple instances of proof that the 2020 election was lawless, corrupt and full of fraud.
                  In every single key state allegedly corrupt city – varrying from many to almost all election records that federal and state law require preserved are gone.
                  In GA that are 350K ballots that do not have the signature of an election official and a witness swearing that the ballots are legitinate and the tabulations correct.
                  By law without these – the ballots can not be counted.

                  we have about 140K votes in Michigan from people in nursing homes – 5 times prior years.
                  Most of these people do not recall requesting a ballot or voting. Many are not competent enough to vote, a few have been in a comma since before the election.
                  Several elderly home residents have reported to police that they were threatened by staff if they did not vote – they were forced to sign requests for Mailin ballots, and then provided with filled in ballots they were forced to sign.

                  In AZ sherriffs are making arrests and filing fraud charges on a ballot harvesting ring that may have injected 100K fraudulent votes.

                  PA – Philadelphia, which is 2nd only to Chicago in historic election fraud, still has 274K more ballots than voters. ll

                  And this is a small portion of what has been found.

                  Does this prove Biden lost ? That depends on your standard of proo
                  it is highly unlikely that the Fraud in Atlanta GA was pro-trump fraud – but you are free to beleive that until the evidence establishes otherwise.
                  You can beleive that the GOP was twisting the arms of the elderly in WI or engaged in Fraud in Philadelphia.
                  You can beleive there is an actual question regarding who committed the fraud.

                  But there is plenty of evdence not just of the ordinary fraud that goes on with every election – but large scale organized interstate fraud that we have not seen since the 19th century.

                  Right now the big problem is that the legal Bar is threatening to disbar prosecutors who investigate, prosecute, or even sign off on private criminal complaints.

                  There is a group in GA that has amassed significant evdence of Fraud – more than 350K fraudulent ballots, but they can not get into court without a DA atleast singing off on a private criminal complaint.
                  Freindly and supportive Republican DA’s have openly told them that they are being threatedn with disbarrment if they touch anything election related.

                  We are seeing versionsof this in GA and AZ – where the current state AG is trying to play all sides – he has accepted the fraud allegations from the Senate Audit.
                  He publicly promises investigations and prosecutions – he is running for Senate and he is hard selling his election fraud investigation cred to red voters, But thus far he is doing nothing but issuing press releases,
                  When there are plenty of actually identified fraudsters in AZ that can be prosecuted. il
                  The best that is actually occuring is a Sherrifs office is actively persuing about a dozen ballot trafficers – many with hundreds of illegal ballots.

                  In GA Raffensburger is up for re-election and he too is being challenged over his mishandling of both the 2020 presidential election and the senate runnoff – there is evidence of Fraud there too.
                  Raffensburger has “gotten religion” – and claims he is investigating the large scale ballot harvesting fraud that TTV uncovered. He makes a big deal on the campaign trail, but there is no actual evidence he is doing anything. Frankly the issue is lose-lose for him, If he proceeds he alienates democrats and even GOP powers that be, and if he succeeds – he is the dope that let it happen in 2020.

                  You can pretend to be skeptical if you want
                  You can pretend that this is Trump rather than Biden.

                  You claimed you want investigations, there is plenty here to investigate that meets the constitutional test for a criminal investigation.

                  If you wish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the evidence is not damning – go ahead. You have done that alot before. As well as accepting as credible complete and obvious garbage.

                  But unless you back meaningful investigations – you are a hypocrite and a liar.
                  Though I do not know why I pretend there is doubt.

        4. ” Trumpists assume that Hillary fabricated this Alfa bank connection out of whole cloth. Turley does not make this accusation. ”
          No – the CIA does.

          “You say that an FBI agent “said he discredited the Alfa-Bank accusations in 24 hours.” You mean you now trust the “Deep State”? ”
          Aparently you do not understand the burden of proof.

          Do I trust the FBI ? Nope. If the agents in question got it wrong (we know after 6 years they did not). ultimately the truth will out.
          There is the press, as well as state and local law enforcement and congress, and myriads of social media, new media and blog posts.
          There is no doubt Sussman’s claims would have found an audience somewhere. And no doubt that the left wing equivalents of Alex Jones would have picked up on it.

          It is very hard to bury actual truth.

          But it is self evidently trivial to chase a lie for years.

          1. John B. Say actually said:

            “And no doubt that the left wing equivalents of Alex Jones would have picked up on it.”

            Who are the Leftwing equivalents of Alex Jones who said is being sued for defamation for claiming that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut was a “giant hoax”?

            https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-liable-defamation-sandy-hook-giant-hoax-case-rcna5608

            Speaking of unproven claims of hoaxes….

            1. Who are the left wing equivalents of Alex Jones ? Really ?

              The real question is who in the MSM is NOT more nuts than Alex Jones. Didn’t much of the MSM settle with the Covington kids.

              1. John,

                I would bet my life that Turley would never ask “who in the MSM is NOT more nuts than Alex Jones?”

                You are a freak.

            2. Falsely claiming something is a hoax is not a hoax.
              Like most left wing nuts – Jones beleives what he says.

              I am not sure how Jones false claim was defamation, there there is probably another tort there.

              The Covington kids were actually defamed – by the most prestigious news organizations in the country.

              So Alex Jones equivalent to just about ever WaPo or CNN reporter or talking head by your argument – I can agree with that.

              1. You say:

                “So Alex Jones equivalent to just about ever WaPo or CNN reporter or talking head by your argument – I can agree with that.”

                That’s it. I’m done with you. If you believe this crap, you are irredeemable.

                Have a nice life.

                1. John Say made an excellent point that the pinhead in our midst can’t live with. The Washington Post did to the Covington Kids what Alex Jones did. They both acted in the same fashion. Many think Alex Jones is crazy, while many think the Washington Post is a premier newspaper when both are very much the same.

                  I wouldn’t trust either of them, but Jeff prefers the spin and lies from the Washington Post, making the Washington Post an acceptable newspaper to him while Alex Jones is not.

                  What a pinhead!

                  1. What the Post – and far from the post alone did was WORSE.

                    The damage caused by lies is determined – not merely by the lie told, but by the degree to which the person telling it is trusted.

                    The MSM have betrayed trust earned over decades.

                2. Who pushed the Collusion Delusion ?
                  The Russian Bounties story ?
                  The Hunter Biden Laptop is russian disinformation story ?
                  We have had 6 years of looney nonsense from some of the top journalists in the country.

                  I have no time for Alex Jones – but pretending that just about every top news media figure has not done more damage than Alex Jones oer the past 6 years – THAT is crap, that is irredeemable.

                  If you can not defend the proposition that CNN or MSNBA are more credible than Alex Jones – with FACTS, LOGIC, REASON – rather than hurling insults – YOU are no better than your own view of jones.

      2. Plus JS ignores and/or approves of the fact that the DNC, the Biden campaign and retired CIA agents (and the CIA itself) all purposely and intentionally lied pre-election Re. Hunter’s computer. The CIA absolutely knew the Hunter laptop and email story was true, could have and did not tell the public that the retired agents had no right to interfere with the election quoting their retired CIA status to add credence to POTENTIAL LYING DENIALS ABOUT HUNTER’S LAPTOP.

        And FOX was the SOLE MSM network to get the Hunter email and laptop story right. Every other MSM news network outright lied as did Twitter, Google, FB and all other social media who censored the story, wrongly insuring Trump lost. And still to this day not one of them nor the liar Silberman has apologized for lying and skewing the vote illicitly. In fact a CIA tool credit for causing Trump to lose.

        And I hate Trump’s guts too BTW but the above acts were still wrong and a hoax on all voters.

    1. Stooge ( Leo G), this is from your article:

      In March 2017, two months before his appointment as Special Counsel, Robert Mueller received $24,000 (~ ¥130,000) from a firm owned by a top official of the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China. Almost certainly, he had expectation of future income contingent on approval of Chinese government. In exchange, he accepted, articulated, and publicly committed himself to the DNC conspiracy theory that “Russia had hacked the democracy”. Russia has hacked neither democracy nor the Democrats (despite them being near opposites).
      ……………………………………….

      No name of the ‘firm’ or its Chinese owner. No explanation of what business the ‘firm’ is in. Then a blanket denial of Russian hacking. One could surmise this ‘newspaper’ is published by Russian trolls.

      1. The firm is IDG. There is a link in the post. From the linked article:

        “IDG owner China Oceanwide Holdings Group is headed by Mr. Lu Zhiqiang, a high-level official of the government and Communist Party of China.”

        “China Oceanwide announced acquisition of the IDG on January 19, 2017 – the last day of the Obama administration.”

        “Mr. Lu Zhiqiang officially became the Chairman the Board of IDG on March 29, 2017.”

  5. Let’s get real here, folks. Wake up and smell the coffee. That’s not a greeting party of Unicorns and Rainbows Pac-Maning up the whole world, nation by nation.

    Those are massive Chinese intelligence and military forces – the ENEMY – being “…adhered to, receiving Aid and Comfort…” from various and sundry American traitors.

    This frog is being boiled very slowly so that it fails to jump out of the pot in time.

    Oh, it’s happening, Sweetheart!

    Pervasive and vigorous impeachment and prosecution are where America needs to be.

    No formal declaration of war is necessary per the precedent of actual declarations since 1812.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Article 3, Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    1. In March 2017, two months before his appointment as Special Counsel, Robert Mueller received $24,000 (~ ¥130,000) from IDG, a firm owned by a top official of the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China.

      For this money, Mueller gave a speech at a trade conference Security Executive Summit, hosted by IDG in partnership with CDW. According to Forbes:

      “What the Russians are doing is a huge threat,” said Mueller, adding that such cyberthreats to democracy are, in a sense, “more devastating than terrorist attacks — the one-offs that you currently have in the United States.”

      This said, the treason charge requires an actual war.

      1. Wars have not been declared since Vietnam, but wars they were, nonetheless.

        The next “war” will probably last an hour; it may be important to get right on this, all these various related aspects, such as treason.

        If they are ignored and allowed now, traitors won’t be known until defeat is upon the U.S.

        There is massive executive “overreach” in many multiple other areas – 2 million per year now in illegal immigration which is clearly willful and deliberate dereliction of essential duty, and likely treasonous.

        A little “overreach” in the realm of treason might be a good thing.

  6. Turley’s assignments for today: 1. continue to try to breathe credibility into the “Hunter Biden Scandal” by keeping it going even without anything newsworthy; and 2. attack the DOJ because they will probably go after Trump and his co-conspirators. The Jan 6th committee has turned up handwritten notes written by Trump, proving his direct involvement, but you don’t mention that. And, hey, Turley, don’t let pesky little things like facts get in the way of your Fox paycheck. For instance: “This civil suit doesn’t necessarily bar Weiss, but Biden’s team can now argue that criminally charging him with a FARA violation would be inconsistent with contemporary investigations.” So, Turley admits that a civil suit doesn’t bar a criminal action, but he doesn’t admit that the DOJ would ever actually argue that criminally charging Weiss (not Hunter) would be inconsistent with policy decisions. So, according to Turley, if facts implicating Hunter are turned up, Hunter would probably get a break and not be charged criminally. Turley, you DO know very well that prosecutors, federal and state, have absolute discretion as to what matters will be charged criminally or prosecuted civilly. You also know that no two cases are alike and that there are lots of reasons that only prosecutors know that you couldn’t know (like the strength of witnesses, their vulnerability to impeachment and contrary evidence that affects the choice of how to proceed when criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that affect ther decisions on which way to go. You don’t know, based on the Weiss case, what would be done if facts constituting crimes involving Hunter Biden are ever turned up. But, that’s not the point is it? Alt right media disciples already believe that the DOJ is purely political, something that was true under Trump, but untrue under Biden, something else you know very well. This is just more red meat based on absolutely nothing whatsoever other than the Fox paycheck you receive.

    Anything, literally, anything Fox wants Turley to do or say, he will do or say.

    1. NUTCHACHACHA,

      You’re Grrrrrreat!!!

      You don’t need that crutch, right?

      Can we level the playing field now so that MERIT MATTERS, and so that you go out into to that great big world and pursue your own happiness and make your own success in freedom?

      Can we end unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, FED, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., now?

      1. RE:”””Can we level the playing field now so that MERIT MATTERS…””’ “Holy Candace Owens, Batman!” “Sounds like a plan!”

    2. There is no evidence anybody at Fox tells Turley what to say or write. There’s plenty of evidence from former Fox contributors – left wingers as well as normal people – that they have complete freedom to express whatever their opinions are. That you even pretend to believe a man of Turley’s stature would consent to being told what he can say or write is utterly absurd.

      You have no other goal than to come here to smear Turley with your dishonest assertions. Rather than smear him, however, the only thing you accomplish is you cement my impression of you as a bitter, nasty, evil liar who is about as charming as an unflushed toilet. I assume you are single. I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind would want to wake up every morning and find someone with your dishonest ugly character in their bed.

  7. Nothing will be done, Hunter will continue to blow paint and Sussman will continue to practice law on behalf of the Democrats. When Joe has left office he’ll go the way of Mr. Fair Share building multi dollar homes. Are they the problem or are we for continuing to elect these people time after time? We sit back and we allow the corrupt press to demonize candidates not affiliated with the DC elites. We talk a good game about term limits but we don’t demand term limits. The nation is in the worst state it has ever been since WWII and only God knows if we’ll be able to reverse and repair the damage done?

    1. What Turley is neglecting to mention is that nothing that Hunter Biden or Sussman has done is illegal. Influence peddling is completely legal according to the conservatives in the Supreme Court. It’s ironically a protected form of free speech.

      Sussman didn’t lie right FBI. The only way for that charge to stick is if Durham’s conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact would have been allowed in trial.

      Conservatives and Trumpists are always demanding the law be followed. But when it is and things are not going their way because the law was not broken it’s suddenly a corruption problem at the department. Funny how that works isn’t it?

      1. Not reporting as a foreign agent is a crime and that’s the crime Hunter committed about a thousand times, liar.

    1. The American Revolutionaries, Founders and Framers would like to say a few words with reference to your position of the persistent, pervasive, ubiquitous and corrupt Deep Deep State dominion-in-perpetuity.

      Gentlemen!

      Go ahead, gentlemen.

      Ahem!

      Thank you for this rare opportunity to directly address our descendants and actual American people.
      _______________________________________________________________________________

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  8. FARA was rarely if ever treated as a criminal issue until it was used against Trump, so this is just a return to normal.
    Would be nice to have a government of laws, not men, but that ship sailed long ago…

  9. In my Criminal Procedure 101, my professor made this statement, “There are no coincidences.”

    Apparently, once again, it’s good to be the son of Joe ‘the big guy’ Biden’s son.

  10. So the outrage is that how it might affect Hunter, not that the Trump administration was neck deep in this corruption.

    1. RE:””””So the outrage is that how it might affect Hunter,….”””” Outrage?!?!? Meh!! Merely….Verrrry interrresting!!

    2. Surely you jest Sammy. The Biden administration is the most corrupt that we’ve had in decades. I am old enough to remember when Eisenhower was president and don’t remember any other administration being this blatantly corrupt. Nixon was a crook, Clinton did some things, as did Reagan and others but not to this level.

  11. Interesting change of charging people at a very interesting time in politics. I would certainly like to see the record of conversations between the WH and DOJ about that change. Of course that would likely be blocked by executive privilege. However executive privilege, any more, does not seem to exist past the last day of a president’s term. Patience and a long memory may be necessary to eventually find those discussions.
    Remarkably benevolent attitude mister Silberman shows “I could not care less if they are prosecuted and impeached”. I did not remember him being so forgiving to those on the other side of the political spectrum

  12. Music
    Hunter…Hunter Biden…
    What…kind of dork is Hunter Biden?
    Fat kid. Skinny kid. Kid who climbs on rocks…

  13. RE:”””But the timing of the Biden administration’s sudden change could not have come at a more opportune time for the president’s son.””” Do the time period during which the alleged offenses occurred and that of the change of policy in the prosecution thereof have any relevance to each other going forward?.

  14. The degradation of the DOJ into an arm of the DNC should concern everyone.

    1. Turley says:

      “Now the Justice Department has departed from years of criminal charges in favor of civil charges. Many of us have questioned the need for criminalization of these charges and the broad sweep of FARA.”

      It seems to me the DOJ is taking Turley’s advice and changing its FARA policy. Congratulations, Professor!

      1. RE: “”””See….Turley? What did I tell you? The Fox lies work!”””” What is it about what we already know to be true regarding the details and sequence of events surrounding the FISA Court, the Steele Dossier, the gamers involved and their victims, and what is now unfolding in Sussman that has anything to do with FOX? If it becomes satisfied as fact, that HRC signed off on this gambit, and the prosecution is successful in extending is reach even further, Trump’s debate quip that she should be in jail, indeed spoke truth to power. Machiavelli couldn’t hold a candle to her. She’s learned her history well.

  15. Turley may have a good point. We shall see. I hope Hunter and Joe are held accountable if they have broken the law. I could not care less if they are prosecuted and impeached.

    Unfortunately neither Trump nor Joe Biden will ever serve time in jail if ultimately convicted since they are entitled to secret service protection for life. Worst case scenario is home detention.

Leave a Reply