New disclosures are demolishing the continued denials of President Biden that he had no knowledge and nothing to do with his son’s business interests. The emails (reviewed by Fox and The Daily Mail) include exchanges with at least 14 of Hunter Biden’s business associates while Joe Biden was vice president. They cast further doubt on the president’s repeated claims that he had no knowledge of his son’s foreign business dealings. In one almost plaintive email, Hunter actually complains to an associate that he had delivered on everything that was demanded of him in getting access to his father and the White House.
President Biden and the White House continue to repeat his denial from the campaign trail in 2019: “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” These denials have continued even after an audiotape surfaced showing President Biden leaving a message for Hunter specifically discussing coverage of those dealings.
Some of us have written for two years that Biden’s denial of knowledge is patently false. Indeed, it is baffling how Attorney General Garland can ignore the myriad of references to Joe Biden in refusing to appoint a special counsel.
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.
The new disclosures only add details to the the extent of his knowledge and involvement. It appears that Biden met with at least 14 of Hunter’s business associates from the U.S., Mexico, Ukraine, China and Kazakhstan over the course of his vice presidency. That includes Hunter’s Mexican business associates, Miguel Aleman Velasco and Miguel Aleman Magnani who visited the West Wing on Feb. 26, 2014, and Joe was later photographed with Hunter giving Velasco and Magnani a tour of the White House Brady Press Briefing room.
Hunter is clearly eager to get photos as a deliverable for the visits. In one email in April 2014 to David Lienemann, Biden’s official photographer, Hunter asks “Do you have pictures from the lunch I had in dad’s office (I think on 2/26) with Miguel Alleman [sic] Sr. And Jr. And Jeff Cooper? If so let me know and I can send someone to pick them up. Thanks. How was Kiev?”
Other emails show Hunter using trips with his Dad to arrange meetings with business associates like Magnani. Indeed, in one exchange with Magnani, Hunter complains that he is not getting responses on his business dealings, objecting
“I have brought every single person you have ever asked me to bring to the F’ing White House and the Vice President’s house and the inauguration and then you go completely silent,. I don’t know what it is that I did but I’d like to know why I’ve delivered on every single thing you’ve ever asked – and you make me feel like I’ve done something to offend you.”
The cringeworthy email only adds to the embarrassment not of Hunter Biden but Merrick Garland who continues to refuse the obvious need for a special counsel. Indeed, the public could raise the objection raised by Hunter: what does it take?
Jeff Silberman,
Your comment posting privilege is Revoked for a gross violation of the civility policy occurring last week. You gave an implied threat and ultimatum to a website administrator that if we did not perform a task that you demanded, an administrator would be sanctioned by you. The language you posted included, “This is your final warning.”
This decision was made after deliberations. A few months ago, and resulting from removing numerous other comments that you made that were violations for statements made against other commenters, we decided to allow you then to post comments and provide you another chance. After this last demand you made it is clear this is no longer reasonable when looking at the totality of the circumstances between you, the administrators of this blog, and other users who should not have to experience ultimatums sent by you if your demands are not met.
Again, your privilege to post comments on jonathanturley.org is revoked. Do not post any further comments to this blog under this user account, any other alias, or anonymously.
I will miss Jeff Silberman’s comments and perspective around here and find this situation unfortunate. Ironically many uncivil and juvenile comments were directed at Jeff (calling him Jeff a Simpleton) and in his uncivil comments that got him revoked he was trying to address the uncivil comments by another commenter.
“Your comment posting privilege is Revoked for a gross violation of the civility policy occurring last week. You gave an implied threat and ultimatum to a website administrator that if we did not perform a task that you demanded, an administrator would be sanctioned by you. The language you posted included, “This is your final warning.”
***************************
Jeff just outgrew his britches. Sayonara!
Jeff Silberman has been a useful commenter here. If ‘uncivil’ according to some, it only was in response to incivilities addressed to him.
I thought it foolish of him to rail at the blog administrator, who is more heavy-handed than I would prefer. Nonetheless, it is volunteer labor and we all appreciate it.
For the post in question, are we sure that Jeff Silberman actually posted. it? Is it beyond credence that some clever fellow spoofed his account?
Jeff Silberman has been a useful commenter here.
I’ve said as much about Silberman.
The fact is American Marxists are highly dependent on an army of “useful” people. That is until their usefulness is exhausted. He’ll be back though. He’s too narcissistic to stay gone.
RE:” it only was in response to incivilities addressed to him.” Disagree! More often the initiator which was to his purpose. I had the sense that he saw himself as the center this universe.
There were no incivilities addressed to Silberman in the comment in question.
Margot was commenting on a post by Turley. I forget the name of the person Turley referenced in his post, but when Margot commented about him she misspelled the person’s name by one letter. Silberman interpreted the misspelling as a slur that violated the blogs civility rule and then made his bizarre demands that she be sanctioned.
I pointed out that Margot may have made an innocent typo. Or she may have quickly skimmed the post and misread the person’s name.
It’s also possible Margot DID intend it as a slur, just as Silberman suggested. Nobody knows except Marget. However, we know from the context of Margot’s full comment she was in no way being bigoted or uncivil. For Silberman to jump to the conclusion that her one letter typo was meant as a slur that required sanctioning was unreasonable. You know, the whole Blackstone thing that “it’s better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.”
What, exactly, do you find useful in Silberman demanding someone be sanctioned when guilt is not only uncertain, but highly unlikely given the context?
It was the June 26 blog post about Chancellor David Faigman. Much of the discussion related to this issue appears to be still there (did not see final warning language).
Anon,
The incident that you refer to happened a month ago and Darren’s post indicates that the offense for which JS was banned occurred in the last week.
In addition, the language from the month old post differs from that described by Darren. A month ago JS said to Darren; “I’m giving you 24 hours to do your job”, not “[t]his is your final warning”. In addition, I do not see a threat, explicit or implicit, in the month old post.
It would not surprise me if there was a similar incident in the last week where JS issued a “final warning” to Darren and also offered some sort of implicit threat as well.
This was just one act in JS’s obnoxious schtick and apparently it finally caught up with him. He will not be missed by me.
Ray, I could be wrong but I was assuming that Darren probably removed the specific final warning comment from the June 26th blog. I don’t remember a similar incident that happened more recently.
But Darren did say last week as you indicate. Thanks.
Requiring a pen name might calm the traffic, to a greater or lesser degree. 🙂
George
This decision was made after deliberations.
I’ll bet that’s more effort than he would have supported for keeping Clarence Thomas at GW.
Thank you for what you do Darren.
Thanking Turley, Darren, and whoever helps keep this site up.
Just like the left wishes to destroy societal norms for ‘the revolution,’ some seem anxious to decimate this blog as well because Professor Turley promotes civil liberties that bites one side of the aisle or the other at different times. Turley is acting as an anchor, much like the Constitution. He calls for people to talk, not destroy.
Some people believe they have a right to destroy and not be questioned. That seems to be what they are learning in school. I don’t know the correct path for this blog, but I think it is appropriate for the blog to defend its integrity against the destroyers and malcontents.
Whoa!
I missed that one.
After making demands on Darren, then gave a apology not really an apology, and now implied threats, ultimatums, demands of tasks and,
“This is your final warning.”
I would agree to revoking his posting privileges too.
“This is your final warning.”
Just out of curiosity:
When one issues such an ultimatum, one usually has something in one’s back pocket. What did JS think was in his back pocket?
(Darren, you have the patience of a saint.)
RE:”What did JS think was in his back pocket?” Most likely the idea that he was irreplaceable. The sin of false pride.
Merrick Garland is essentially a Soviet style apparatchik that will NEVER indict his boss or any other high Party Official, Garland WILL however put a 70 yr old Lawyer in leg shackles, at night, with media coverage, over a dubious money dispute. Strictly to persecute a Political Opponenet and to intimidate OTHER Political opponent…. That is pure Lavrentiy Beria crap.
Sounds like Fred Flintstone is the purveyor of flat basketballs and has been bounced again.
Sounds like another Anonymous the Stupid trying to make a Stupid name for himself.
====
Deleted: “More mutations needed to be shot by cops that day.”
28 CFR 600.1 states that: “The Attorney General . . .will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and – (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office . . . would present a conflict of interest for the Department . . . .”
It is generally agreed that investigation of a President presents a conflict for the Attorney General, who is the President’s political appointee.
So, the key question is whether a criminal investigation of Hunter and Joseph Biden is “warranted”? Obviously, yes. Hunter Biden’s computer, whose genuineness has never really been in question, contains emails that show that Hunter had arranged meetings between foreign “businessmen” and the Vice-President. Hunter’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, has stated in public that incriminating emails on the computer were genuine and that he personally attended a meeting with Hunter, his uncle, and his father where Chinese business deals were discussed. New York Post, October 22, 2020. (“That night, we discussed the Bidens’ history, the Biden family’s plans with the Chinese, with which he was plainly familiar, at least at a high level[.]” There are emails where Hunter said that “the big guy” would get 10% of money paid by a Chinese energy company. In another email, Hunter told a “girlfriend” that he gave all his money to his father. We also know that the son and father traveled together on the Vice-President’s jet to locales where Hunter sought deals. We know that Joseph Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor who was apparently threatening Burisma. Notwithstanding the remarks of some of the commentators here, this is not “business as usual” in Washington. No one can point to anything similar in our history. Further, it is not a case of simple “lobbying” by Hunter. The father and the son together were involved in a scheme to sell access to the Vice-President of the United States in exchange for millions of dollars. This joint criminal enterprise, violative of 18 USC 201, must be investigated by an independent person. It cannot be made to go away by shouting “TRUMP” and “JANUARY 6.”
The Biden Crime Family will be tried in Washington D.C.
The Deep Deep State Swamp is way ahead of you.
The fix is in.
You don’t know it.
Ask the dupe, John DUDham.
Think about all the airtime spent on Democrats claiming foreigners paying the going rate to stay in a Trump Hotel, which Trump no longer controlled, was a violation of the Emoluments Clause. Trump was investigated, and if I recall correctly, 2 cases went to the Supreme Court and were dismissed.
Meanwhile, Democrats ignore Hunter selling access to Joe, with Joe allegedly getting 10%. Hat do we have to do here to get an earnest investigation?
It’s long been this way. How Biden bragged on camera about a quid pro quo with Ukraine, in which he got the prosecutor investigating his son’s employer fired. Trump got impeached for inquiring about it.
There is no equal justice.
Lets just remember that there are those on this blog who declared that the Hunter laptop was just Russian disinformation. Now these same posters are saying that an individual email may not have been verified. Before making such an assertion a proper mea culpa concerning the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop should be forthcoming in order to lend some veracity to their present assessment of the new laptop revelations. Will an apology be put forward by these bringers of renowned virtue. Consider the sources.
“those on this blog who declared that the Hunter laptop was just Russian disinformation.”
No, that was the DOJ, FBI, American Deep Deep State Swamp Security Apparatus, Propaganda and Indoctrination Directorate and Gestapo under Obergruppenfuhrer Merrick B. Garland.
Two old maids….
Laying in a bed…
One rolled over to the other and said:
Let’s stop. My Biden’s getting tired!
I am going to go out on a limb here and resort to common sense.
If Trump or any of his family members committed any crimes, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But again, using common sense, anyone who believes Biden NEVER SPOKE to Hunter about his business dealings is totally devoid previously stated two -word noun. And any intelligence at all.
They can say everything they want about Trump, but the real criminal family here is Biden, Clinton.
OT
The Global Communist Deep Deep State is done with Biden.
If the wholly ineligible, incompetent, grossly unqualified, I-slept-for-my-promotion Harris, currently occupying a literally “vacant” vice presidency, doesn’t work out, Super Sub-Rosa RINO, Deep Deep State Puppet, and Never-Trumper, Kevin McCarthy, firmly ensconced in the presidential line of succession in November, will be rested, tanned and ready to assume leadership of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” for his new Sino-Soviet benefactors.
Following the initial volley of China Flu, 2019, to remove Trump at the outset of the 2020 presidential campaign, the battle space will now be fully prepped for WWIII.
The communists have been working feverishly since Lincoln acted as Karl Marx’s “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward “the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
What have conservative, actual Americans been doing for, lo, this last century and a half?
Giving their country away.
It’s gone.
Just in case you missed this.
For your and Maeva’s edification:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/federal-judiciary-act
Relevant passage:
Transcript
Congress of the United States,
begun and held at the City of New York on
Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.
Just in case you missed this:
“George Washington DID NOT set the number of justices at six.”
– Kevin W
________
And Neil Armstrong didn’t land on the Moon, his Apollo Lunar Module did, right?
And in case you missed this
Better re-read the ACTUAL Congressional act in which THEY, NOT George Washington set the number of justices.
For your and Maeva’s edification:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/federal-judiciary-act
Relevant passage:
Transcript
Congress of the United States,
begun and held at the City of New York on
Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.
“It’s the [workload], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
Because you missed it and for your edification, inherent in the article by Maeva Marcus was the rationale for the number of Justices being set at six.
It was to accommodate the workload or docket.
No other criteria should be considered legitimate for setting the number of Justices.
You may want to take the issue up with Maeva, her GWU Law e-mail is readily available – you probably shouldn’t incessantly and incoherently stalk her online.
Not being an authority, I’m going to take a wild guess that George Washington’s signature was required to set the number of Supreme Court Justices at six.
And I’m going to take another wild guess that had Washington not signed, the number of Justices would not have been set at six.
It would appear that George Washington did, in fact, set the number at six as Maeva Marcus indicated.
________________________________________________________________________________
“George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six. Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789. Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices. “The justices had to spend almost the entire year traveling [and] the traveling conditions were horrendous,” states Maeva Marcus, GWU. To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern. The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions.”
– Maeva Marcus, Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School, Director of the Institute for Constitutional History
I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t understand that just because GW signed it doesn’t mean he set anything. In fact Congressional Acts don’t even require a President’s signature. If he vetoes or doesn’t sign (that would be a ‘pocket veto’) Congress, if it wishes, can override that veto and the Act becomes law with or without a President’s signature.
The most logical explanation for the claim of him setting the number is that in writing the article the Professor made a simple error (which I immediately spotted, and you should have if you had carefully read before copying and pasting). I merely pointed out the error and you can’t seem to admit the simple and obvious fact that the statement as written is incorrect.
Perhaps you should try and provide some legitimate historical documentation to support the claim (as I provided for my claim) that GW set the number even though the Congressional Act is quite specific in stating that they were setting the number of justices with nary a word about the President anywhere in the bill.
Technically he didn’t land on the moon HIS Apollo Lunar Module.
The Module was property of U.S. Government Agency NASA., not Neil Armstrong.
Have you written Maeva yet?
Let us know how she responds.
Why on earth would I write to Maeva. She isn’t the author of the article you linked to – That would be Dave Roos (freelance writer most associated with the site ‘How Things Work’).
There is no quotation mark or other attribution to indicate that the statement in dispute is in any way associated with her. Her name doesn’t appear at all until the later subsection in the article (Split Decisions Were Less Of A Concern).
Maybe YOU CAN CONTACT Dave Roos to find out if it was he or Maeva Marcus who’s responsible for the error. My guess is it’s Roos, since no other named attributions are anywhere in the first section of said article.
I think you owe it to Maeva Marcus to verify her authorship of a remark YOU are attributing to HER.
Our pedantic anonymous decided to use an alias. Not holding my breath it will last
“Why on earth would I write to Maeva.”
– Kevin W
________
To facilitate your learning and to gain knowledge from an expert as to how and why George Washington set the number of Supreme Court Justices at six (6), by signing the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Apparently you choose to remain ignorant.
__________________________________
“It’s Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789. When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
“Why six? Because Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789. Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices.
“The justices had to spend almost the entire year traveling,” says Maeva Marcus, a research professor at the George Washington University Law School and director of its Institute for Constitutional History. “And the traveling conditions were horrendous.”
“To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern. The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions.
“Marcus said that no one at the time quibbled about the fact that six is an even number, which leaves open the possibility of 3-3 split decisions.
“They never even thought about it, because all the judges were Federalists and they didn’t foresee great disagreement,” says Marcus. “Plus, you didn’t always have all six justices appearing at the Supreme Court for health and travel reasons.”
– https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution
There is no indication that Maeva Marcus had any input into the paragraph that stated GW set the number of justices.
You seem to not realize that the article you are linking to is authored by Dave Roos, NOT Maeva Marcus. And nowhere in the section referring to the setting of the number of justices are there any quotation marks or other attribution to Maeva Marcus. She isn’t mentioned or quoted in the section about GW setting the number of justices
The first mention of Maeva Marcus is in the section with the sub-heading ‘Split Decisions Were Less Of A Concern’.
Neither Neil nor any other human has ever walked on the Moon. NO manned space mission has ever gone higher than low-earth orbit. And none will – unless and until they figure out how to pass thru the Van Allen radiation belts safely.
Curious folks should check out https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
Merrick Garland has no shame and so long as the media protects him, he will do nothing.
Garland still bears a pathological grudge against the entirety of the GOP for blocking his SCOTUS nomination. As dangerous and destructive as he is to our democracy and any sense of justice or fair play, be thankful he’s not sitting on the Supreme Court for the rest of his miserable life.
The Thing Itself Speaks
Garland himself has proved that Garland is not qualified for the SCOTUS or any other position of responsibility in the American republic.
This has been advanced by Russian intelligence services.
I and a number of high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials have already signed our names on an official letter about this.
This letter was reported on by a number of reputable news sources who did their own work. They did not merely take our word for it, re-print it, and head for the bar. They are hard-working people who do not simply regurgitate what current and former U.S. government officials say.
There is nothing to see here.
IF only we could trust that the FBI and Justice are seeking truth regardless of political affiliation.
I seriously do not believe that today’s FBI could have conducted one of the most infamous undercover operations of Congressional Bribery and conspiracy [Abscam], or Justice would prosecute the 6 U.S. Representative’s, 1 U.S. Senator, 3 Philadelphia City Councilman, and the Major of Camden, NJ. There were 10 Democrats’ and 1 Republican charged and convicted of various charges.
John Austin wrote that Law is the command of the sovereign imposing a duty which is enforceable by sanctions strictly applied by political superiors to political inferiors and that an indeterminate body cannot express wishes in the form of commands.
God help the United States if the preverbal Rug covers more Swamp dirt.
Remain calm – all is well
DNC press release
Whig, a while back you provided some statistics on gun deaths that came from Sowell in 2016.
I am trying to track that down. By any chance, do you have an address or other place that would help me track down his statement along with other information?
Thanking in advance.
Nothing wrong with a Biden in denial.
Nothing to see here, peson! Move along. Move along peson!
The Fox article that Turley linked to does not even mention where the emails came from. Phenomenal journalism on display. Presumably, they came from the laptop cache. If so, did Fox News take the basic step of authenticating the emails? Did anyone at Fox analyze whether these were real, and if so, why did they not include that process in the news report.
After the fiasco with the Steele Dossier, you would think folks on both the left and right would care about making sure they are using real documents. But, hey, I guess journalists are too partisan now to develop a system regardless of the slant. As with the Steele Dossier, we have been unable to authenticate the entire laptop, so it important that authentication of EVERY SINGLE file is done before we use its contents to make sweeping claims without using additional facts and evidence to corroborate them.
Before y’all attack me, I am not saying the email is fake. But, I am saying that a healthy skepticism until authentication is completed is warranted. That Turley failed to acknowledge this is just another sign he cares less about the news and more about its partisan ends.
I’m not sure what you are complaining about. Certainty rarely exists. Do you expect Dr. Turley to investigate every claim to the umpteenth degree? The email can be dismissed by Hunter, the sender or any people mentioned. The email is totally consistent with what is known.
However, I am happy with your skepticism. That means that the New York Times and Washington Post can never be trusted for anything since they have been proven to lie and distort the news. Additionally, they have been wrong on every major issue involving Trump. These newspapers use anonymous providers of information. At least this email has 4 names attached.
You are right about the Steele Dossier, but it had a lot of unnamed sources and investigations that only looked at one side of the coin uninterested in what anyone had to say about the other side. What a travesty and people who have little knowledge still believe it along with the Russia Hoax, Ukraine Hoax, and other things promoted by the left and MSM.
I don’t expect Professor Turley to investigate every claim. But, I expect him to only use news articles that subscribe to a basic standard of journalistic principles. This Fox article does not even MENTION where the email came from. It does not claim to have independently verified its contents, let alone even attempt to do so. The reader should not have to assume where it came from. That is extremely piss poor journalism.
“The email is totally consistent with what is known.” I have no idea what that means. I was under the impression that this email was “new” information. If it is “consistent with what is known,” where is the evidence from a different source that corroborates its contents? Please provide.
I don’t trust the NYT and WP, or Fox News. I use http://www.memeorandum.com, which aggregates news articles. Once it shows up on left-wing and right-wing sites, then I can confirm that it exists. This should be the same process every reader uses.
An email with “4 names attached” is useless, unless you are able to speak to those names and authenticate the basic facts with those people. Has the Fox article done this? No.
“They have been wrong on every major issue involving Trump.” I assume this is either hyperbole or ignorance (because you don’t use those sites), so I will ignore.
Do you think Hunter’s laptop looks at both sides of the coin? How is your Steele dossier distinction relevant here? The laptop certainly doesn’t approach the topic from multiple perspectives….
My issue with Professor Turley is that he is amplifying his attack on Hunter Biden by using patently poor journalism to establish his factual basis for doing so. I really don’t think that is an unreasonable position given how terrible this Fox article is.
If the email you mention is the basis of your complaint, in essence, you are asking Truly to investigate almost every complaint. The suggestion is the height of pettiness, especially when we look at the evidence and spin you bring to the table.
You rail against Fox and their journalism. I am not in love with Fox. They are not a right-wing publisher. They filled a gap in reporting and made it big because the gap was big, and Fox was more believable. We should hear you discuss the Washington Post which not only doesn’t include what you think is lacking in the Fox email, but it intentionally lies and spins on the front page.
You use ‘memorandum’ that spins left and chooses the same types of columns that lack exactly what you complain about. It seems to select columns with spin and lack of veracity which is exactly the opposite of what you want. Based on your rhetoric, you want only one side to be heard. I like hearing both sides, and that is one reason I read leftist comments, even though they are mostly empty and without thought.
“Has the Fox article done this? No.“
You do it. The fact that it has names means people will check it out. Even Hunter can check it out. They can then comment on the veracity. However, when the Washington Post headlines an anonymous person saying something, that cannot be checked out, you instantaneously believe it.
>>“They have been wrong on every major issue involving Trump.”
>”I assume this is either hyperbole or ignorance (because you don’t use those sites), so I will ignore.”
Of course, you will ignore it because you don’t want to hear it. How do you know what I read? You don’t. But even a person who never read the Washington Post can make a judgment based on what the Washington Post reveals on the net for free. How can a person do that? Simple. When the truth comes out, was the Washington Post right or wrong? They were wrong on the most significant issues involving Trump. I will be glad to debate that with you but you can’t, because the Washington Post lied and should have no credibility on political matters.
“Do you think Hunter’s laptop looks at both sides of the coin?”
The evidence from Hunter’s laptop is about the best we can get because it wasn’t written with the intention of spinning. Did you read Thucydides? It is great for more than what it says. It is one of the few excellent books written by one who appeared to lack spin and permitted the reader to make his own decisions. Hunter’s laptop though atrocious, is similar in that way. It’s testimony without a desire to prove anything to others or a court. I think there is a legal term for that type of evidence that I forgot.
“The laptop certainly doesn’t approach the topic from multiple perspectives….”
It’s not supposed to, and that is what makes it so important as a document to be trusted as something Hunter saw or did without thinking of self-serving interests.
” I really don’t think that is an unreasonable position given how terrible this Fox article is.”
Tell us precisely where it falls below the standards of the Washington Post. Tell us what factual information isn’t true. Has Hunter disavowed the email? Have any of the other three disavowed it? Does the email logically fit in with the truth? Yes. You only wish to destroy, not create so these questions won’t be discussed.
BECAUSE OF THE MANY SELF-DELETIONS BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER, I AM POSTING THIS TWICE TO MAKE SURE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST DOESN’T HAPPEN AGAIN. I DON’T APPRECIATE MY RESPONSES INTENTIONALLY BEING DELETED BY ANYONE WHO CHOSE TO USE A BANNED EMAIL ACCOUNT INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SUCH THINGS TO HAPPEN.
“Do you think Hunter’s laptop looks at both sides of the coin?”
What does that even mean?
That laptop (and other sources) are a chronicle of kleptomaniacs, using political pull, to sell out their own country (often to its enemies).
What’s the other “side” of that — a P.S. stating: “BTW, we’re not crooks”?
“I have brought every single person you have ever asked me to bring to the F’ing White House and the Vice President’s house and the inauguration and then you go completely silent,. I don’t know what it is that I did but I’d like to know why I’ve delivered on every single thing you’ve ever asked – and you make me feel like I’ve done something to offend you.”
***********************************
Well, Don Joeleone sorta talks like Brando and Hunter looks a lot like Johnny Fontane. Don Joeleone: “You can act like a man … Is this what you’ve become, a Hollywood finocchio who cries like a woman, [Hunter]?” LOL:
Jonathan: The answer to the Q at the end of your column “What does it take?” is pretty simple. Some evidence of a crime by Hunter Biden–not just allegations and speculation. For 2 years you have been beating the drum about alleged “massive corruption” by the Bidens. The most you can show is that Hunter used the family name for his own personal financial interests. If that was illegal half of Congress would be facing prosecution. Influence peddling has been endemic in Washington since almost the inception of this country. If Trump (I know Rupert Murdock doesn’t want you to discuss for former president any more) could be prosecuted for “corruption” he would be wearing a prison jump suit right now. So let’s move on and discuss what is happening at George Washington Law School where you teach.
Clarence Thomas just announced he will not be co-teaching a Con Law class at GWU. Thomas’ withdrawal comes after a student petition garnered 11,360 signatures calling the Justice’s continued employment “completely unacceptable”. There are only 1,646 law students at GWU so it appears almost half of the entire student body was opposed to Thomas’s presence on campus. When the most senior Justice is no longer welcome on college campuses you know the Court is facing a real problem of legitimacy.
I think it was a prudent decision by Thomas. Why teach where you are not wanted? I also suspect sign-ups for Thomas’ class were probably small–especially among female law students. I’m sure you will label the signers of the petition as opponents of “free speech”. So perhaps you should urge Thomas to reconsider and not give in to a few “malcontents”. However, there might be some embarrassing moments if Clarence did teach the class. How would Thomas explain to his class his reasoning behind the Dobbs decision to take away a long precedent involving an important constitutional right? Or, how would Thomas respond when asked to explain his sole dissent in Trump v. Thompson that held Trump could not claim “executive privilege” over docs sought by the J.6 Committee. That would be an awkward moment when a student asked: “Mr. Justice, you were the only dissent in that case but you offered no explanation. Could you explain your reasoning in that case and why you refused to recuse in that case despite the evidence now presented by the J.6 Committee that your wife was involving in pushing to overturn a legitimate election? Just a few embarrassing questions Thomas would face and probably why you will not be welcoming Thomas to your campus this fall.
Yes. Absolutely correct! Because anyone who holds an opinion concerning Constitutional Law that differs from us are moral reprobates who should be driven from the public square. It might even be criminal, in the cases of Giuliani and Eastman. Those SOB’s belong in prison for disagreeing with us.
Dennis, the genius, states that of course there should be no investigation…because there is no proof of a crime being committed???? This is the logic of the left.
Hullbobby: THX for recognizing my “genius”. I don’t get such compliments in this chatroom. So they are always welcome. I agree with your point that a DOJ “investigation” does not require proof of a crime in advance. But the DOJ doesn’t begin an investigation, let alone the appointment of a Special Counsel, unless there is a strong suspicion. Fishing expeditions don’t get much traction at the Garland’s DOJ. James Comey made that mistake when he initiated an investigation of Hilary Clinton’s server under pressure from Donald Trump only to find there was no there–there. When he told Trump there was no basis to charge Clinton he was fired! Garland doesn’t want to appoint a Special Counsel, and spend valuable resources now being used to prosecute those responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, only to come up empty handed.
Notice that Turley relies extensively for his allegations on Fox–his employer. Those allegations, in turn, come from emails allegedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop. There is a huge problem–the chain of custody. The owner of the computer store made a number of copies of the hard drive and gave them to Rudy Giuliani who made extensive use of the emails when he was trying to discredit Joe Biden’s 2020 candidacy. We don’t know who else had their hands on the hard drive. This creates a huge chain of custody problem. If there was anyone who had a motive to tamper with the hard drive it would be Rudy. After all his attempts to manufacture unfounded claims about “fraud” in the election and his failure to turn up “dirt” on the Bidens in connection with Ukraine do you think we can believe anything Rudy has said about the laptop? But even if we accept the authenticity of the Hunter e-mails( and that’s a stretch at this point) what do they prove? Hunter engaged in a lot of influence peddling but nothing yet that would lead to the reasonable belief he engaged in anything illegal.
Keep your eye on the ball. It’s not a “left” or “right” issue. Ask yourself this Q. Why is Turley still pushing the Hunter Biden issue? I think it’s a distraction to avoid a discussion of all the evidence of crimes coming out of the J.6 hearings. That should be our focus, not on Hunter’s pursuit of his economic interests.
Well, Dennis, for one, there is still the original laptop. For another, the emails clearly implicate Biden. Hoping that they are fakes won’t take the place of an investigation, which would verify them.
Democrats have too much control over major cities, politics, and 3 letter agencies. This allows them to create a sham committee to investigate Jan 6, barring Republican members who would ask questions that would undermine their narrative, even editing evidence, while ignoring Democrats who fanned the flame of BLM riots that terrorized the nation for a year.
This is how Trump gets investigated for his hotels, which are open to everyone, foreign and domestic, while Democrats have shielded Biden thus far from the above allegations.
This is how Democrat rioters and looters escape charges, or get diverted to rehabilitation, while those who trespassed in the Capitol Jan 6 get thrown in solitary for 9 months.
This is how Democrats called the 2016 election stolen, and Pelosi said Trump was put in office by Russia, caution rioters to take over Franklin Square at the Capitol, without consequences, while Trump is being investigated for telling his followers to peacefully let their voices be heard.
You can gaslight all you want, but it won’t change facts.
Karen S: You assume facts not in evidence. What “laptop” are you referring to? The “laptop” that was brought into the computer store? Or the laptop from which the hard drive was taken? The issue is not the “laptop” but the hard drive. There are, so far can I tell, a lot of unanswered Qs about both the laptop and the hard drive. For example, how many people handled the hard drive after it was removed from the laptop? We know the computer store owner made copies of the hard drive and gave them to Rudy Giuliani who gave copies to others. Who? That’s where there are huge problems with the chain of custody. In the civil and criminal law the items (laptop and hard drive) must show an unbroken chain of custody before they can be used in a court of law. Had the computer store owner immediately turned the laptop and hard drive over to the FBI there would be no problem. But the owner didn’t do this. This raises all sorts of other issues. Logically, if the laptop remained unclaimed why didn’t the computer store owner just use the name and telephone on the receipt to call the person who dropped off the laptop? You just don’t make copies of the hard drive and give them to a third party. Instead, the owner made copies of the hard drive for Rudy Giuliani. Why? Did the shop owner know Giuliani was trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens? All the circumstances around this appear very suspicious and why media and the FBI raised so many red flags. Even if the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden that does not answer the problem of authenticating the contents of the hard drive. that leads back to the problem of chain of custody.
And what does the J.6 investigation have to do with the laptop or the hard drive? You make the unproved allegation the J.6 Committee is guilty of “editing evidence”. Even Turley doesn’t make this argument. He merely argues the membership of the Committee is “unbalanced”. There is no evidence the Committee has altered or “edited” any evidence presented so far. I suggest you re-read Turley’s columns on the J.6 investigation. Even if the contents of the hard drive can be authenticated where does that leave us? A lot of influence peddling by Hunter using the family name for his own financial interests. That’s not illegal. Even if his dad lied about not being involved in Hunter’s business activities please cite a federal statute making that a crime. If “corruption” is a crime Trump should be wearing a orange prison jumpsuit right now!
On a final note you say I am guilty of trying to “gaslight” you. That’s bizarre and non-sensical. You appear to be a person in full command of all your faculties so why do you think I could or would want to deceive you? If anyone is guilty of “gaslighting” you should direct your complaint to Turley who has been guilty of doing this in all his columns about Hunter and Joe Biden. His posts are full of “ifs”, speculation and unproved allegations. So far it’s all smoke and mirrors. You may be the victim of “gaslighting” but it’s coming from another source, not me. Of course, if you believe in the conspiracy theory about the “deep state” trying to protect the Bidens then nothing I have said will have any impact on your thinking on this subject. That says a lot about your willingness to be drawn in by all sorts of nonsense. If you believe Trump is only being “investigated for telling his followers to peacefully let their voices be heard” you haven’t been paying close attention to the J.6 hearings. Facts aren’t apparently important to you.
DM
With respect to your criticism – DOES IT MATTER ?
Outside of discredited former intelligence figures and discredited meadia NO ONE credible is challenging the authenticiy of the material
Glenn Greenwald did an excellent editiorial in October 2020 explaining why by all prior journalistic standards the HB laptop was golden.
Some highlights:
The provenance of the material would matter – If there were one of two damning bits of information and no cooroboration.
That is not the case. Though I could go through the well known chain of custody of all of this – the FBI has the original HD and has had that for years, directly from the repair shop owner who got it directly from someone claiming to be Hunter, and who has been well corroborated to be Hunter.
Hunter has publicly admitted to losing 3 separate hard drives – one is still floating arround – probably in Russian hands.
More recently a Hunter Biden cell phone got hacked and its contents are now with some journalists.
Further John Solomon BEFORE any devices surfaced had gathred hundreds of documents through FOIA requests – mostly of the state department that corroborate much of this.
Regardless, as new documents are made public – their autheticity is confirmed – often by those involved.
When you demand chain of custody, when you attack the provenance – what is your goal ?
To prove the contents are 100% bogus ? that ship sailed long ago. Hundreds of documents have been confirmed as authentic.
None have so far been found to be fake.
To proves that SOME of the contents are faked or modified ?
That is a possibility – though a remote one. Regardless most of what has been published is independently verified.
When there is a picture on the laptop showing VP Biden meeting with some central american Billionaire at a specific place and time,
That provides journalists with information to seek confirmation that meeting took place.
And most if not all of what has been published is confirmed.
How does this compare to the Steele Dossier ?
When the FBI interviewed the “primary subsource” in early Jan 2017 he confirmed that it was all gosspi and rumors and unlikely to be true.
After years nothing meaninful in the Steele Dossier has been corraborated.
And we now know as the FBI did at the start that it was manufactured.
How does the Hunter Biden material compare ?
First the Steele Dossier is not primary source material, it is not pictures or emails or documents directly from the original sources
The steele dossier is a massive collection of tripple hearsay. There is no primary source material in it at all.
The Hunter Biden information is entirely primary source material.
It is generally self authenticating. You can check if Hunter was where the laptop says he was,
if he met with those it says he met with.
If i give you a date, time, and GPS stamped picture showing a meeting with Hunter, Joe, and a bunch of the people paying Hunter millions – you can check and hotel records, secret service records, office of he VP recods to determine if Joe was where the photo said he was at that time.
So far NOTHING that has been published from the laptop or hacks has failure do authenticate.
Third party records confirm the laptop information. Press questions of individuals confirm the laptop information.
DM;
It is self evident you are unable to discern what is likely true and what is not.
You bough the Collusion delusion – though there was excellent reason to doubt it from the start.
You doubt the thousands of facts that lead multiple ways to confirmation that the 2020 election was lawless and fraud ridden.
You doubt the Hunter Biden laptop information.
It is self evident that you beleive – what supports your world view and reject what does not, without regard for any rational evaluation of the quality of the information.
The Steele dossier was obvious garbage from the start. And despite thorough efforts NOTHING corroborated.
The Hunter Biden Laptop was obviously legitimate from the start – and nothing that has been checked has failed to corroborate.
If you had evidence that was a tiny fraction of the quality of this regarding Trump or any republican – you would be certain it was true.
BTW you are completely incorrect about chain of custody in a court of law.
You are also incorrect about the chain of custody of the laptop materials.
The shop owner received the laptops (2) From Hunter Biden. There is significant evidence of that, signature matches, as well as the fact that the contents of the laptop confirm its owner.
The shop owner copied the drives before turning the originals over to the FBI.
The FBI has had the original drives for years.
What has been made public comes from the forensic copies the shop owner made. John B Say (@johnbsay)
Yes, a copy went to Guliani. So ?
Would it matter if the hard drive came from Putin – if the material made public was corroborated ?
Chain of custody is of critical importance when you are trying to prove possession.
A baggi of Cocaine can be entered into evidence with a lab report – if the purpose of the evidence is to prove that the baggie is of cocaine.
No chain of custody needed.
But if the officer is seeking to prove it is the defendants cocaine – then he must prove chain of custody back to the defendant.
An email can be admitted into evidence in a court – with absolutely no chain of custody – if either the author or a recipient confirms its authenticity.
You clearly do not understand chain of custody
Further we are not in a court of law, but the court of public opinion.
Journalists have run anti-trump nonsense with a single unknown anonymous source
Here is video of Adam Schiff presenting as evidence a text from Rep. Jordan to Rep. Meadows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar4RWEcOo7Q\
Jordan did not send that text, He sent a much larger text that included a FORWARDED text by lawyer – not Jordan himself.
Further the FORWARDED text was truncated by Schiff AND the punctuation changed to alter its meaning.
This is the actual text sent by the lawyer.
“On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” Schmitz texted.
Further Schiff’s characterization of the text is FALSE. Even his own edited version – is a Request to Pence to CALL OUT all unconstitutional electoral votes. It is NOT a request to discard them. Pence was asked to identify those electoral votes from states that had violated their own constitutions before submitting them to congress to be voted on.
That is within Pence’s power.
Finally Schiff portray’s this as some crime. Counting unconstitutional votes is arguably a crime – opposing them is not.
The will of the people is settled by a lawful and fraud free election. We had neither.
The lawlessness and fraud are not in doubt.
The legitimacy of the election results however are in doubt.
Regardless, Schiff edited evidence.
This is just the first example.
“Had the computer store owner immediately turned the laptop and hard drive over to the FBI there would be no problem. But the owner didn’t do this. This raises all sorts of other issues.”
He did. He also made a copy that a yar later he provided to Gulliani after the FBI appeared to be doing nothing.
” Logically, if the laptop remained unclaimed why didn’t the computer store owner just use the name and telephone on the receipt to call the person who dropped off the laptop? ”
He did, he made repeated efforts to get Hunter Biden to reclaim the laptop. The contract that HB signed when he left the laptops for repair states that they become the property of the owner if they are not retreived. This whole process took YEARS.
“You just don’t make copies of the hard drive and give them to a third party.”
Once the legal requirements of you contract are not met by the owner and the owner fails to pay and retrieve his property it becomes YOURS to do with as you please.
“Instead, the owner made copies of the hard drive for Rudy Giuliani. Why?”
Because the FBI had done nothing for over a year and it appeared to the owner that the contents of the hard drive might be criminal.
I would note that the owner did not make a copy for Guliani, He gave Guliani has own copy. The owner was concerned that som of what was on the laptop might be child porn and that mere possession would be a crime. He gave it to Gulliani to get it out of his own hands.
“Did the shop owner know Giuliani was trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens?”
Possibly – so what ?
The J6 committee is trying to dig up dirt on Trump. Mueller tried to dig up dirt on Trump.
The press tried to dig up dirt on Trump.
WE find dirt by looking for it.
“All the circumstances around this appear very suspicious”
Nope they are quite normal
Guliani is a former US ADA from SDNY
You may not like that but he is a trusted source.
“and why media and the FBI raised so many red flags.”
Nope – it is increasingly evident that the FBI deliberately squashed an investigation – which is why the store owner gave the laptop to Guliani.
“Even if the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden that does not answer the problem of authenticating the contents of the hard drive.”
Every bit of the contents that has been made public has been authenticated.
You are not paying attention.
“that leads back to the problem of chain of custody.”
If there is child porn on the laptop that does not feature Hunter Biden” – then a prosecution of possession of child pornography would require proof of chain of custody. That would be easy – Hunter to Store to FBI – all documented, all with paperwork, and signatures.
If however there was video of Hunter having sex with someone underage – chain fo custody would no be the issue – the charge would be statutory rape, not possession, The proof required would be proof that it was hunter in the video and the age of the child at the time.
The rules of evidence are generally rooted in logic. Chain of custody is necessary to prove possession, and sometimes to prove authenticity of something that can not be authenticated in other way.
But authenticity can be proven many ways.
“A lot of influence peddling by Hunter using the family name for his own financial interests. That’s not illegal.”
According to you, the media and the left it would have been had Trump or his family done it.
The fact is that the Trump’s did not.
“Even if his dad lied about not being involved in Hunter’s business activities please cite a federal statute making that a crime.”
Just to be clear – you are saying it is OK for Hunter Biden to sell access as well as the influence of the US Vice President ?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara
“If “corruption” is a crime Trump should be wearing a orange prison jumpsuit right now!”
So what “corrupt” act did Trump commit ?
John B Say: When Trump used the office of presidency to make money off his properties, golf course and hotels, that was “corruption” and a violation of the emoluments clause. When Trump tried to bribe the president of Ukraine to get dirt on Biden that was also “corruption” and it got him impeached. When Trump tried to “corrupt” the election results in Georgia that was a violation of federal and state election laws. That’s just for starters.
But let’s cut to the chase. If Hunter committed any federal offenses he should be prosecuted. Plain and simple. If Turley thought Hunter violated 18 USC 201 or FARA don’t you think he would have laid it out chapter and verse? So far, all we have with Turley are allegations and speculation–a lot of “ifs”–but little in the way of solid evidence. The whole purpose of Turley’s columns on this subject is to make it impossible for Joe Biden to run again in 2024. It is a calculated political attack and has nothing to do with following the law. You have allowed yourself to be gaslighted on this issue.
And Trump continues his “corruption” as we speak. In case you missed it Trump used the presidential seal during the just concluded Saudi backed LIV Golf Tournament held at Trump’s Bedminster, NJ golf resort. The presidential seal appears on golf cart covers, inside a viewing room at the course, on Trump’s golf bag and on large plaques set in the fairway. That’s a violation of 18 USC, Section 1017 and carries a fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. No “chain of custody” problem in prosecuting that case.
Keep your eyes on the future J.6 hearings to resume in the fall. Trump’s “corruption” and lawbreaking will be signed, sealed and delivered. But you, like Turley, will look around and say: “What corruption?” Ostriches, both of you!
When Trump used the office of presidency to make money off his properties, golf course and hotels, that was “corruption” and a violation of the emoluments clause. When Trump tried to bribe the president of Ukraine to get dirt on Biden that was also “corruption” and it got him impeached. When Trump tried to “corrupt” the election results in Georgia that was a violation of federal and state election laws. That’s just for starters.”
This is what you think you have ? Really ? What left wing nut lawyer manufactured this ?
The emoluments claim was idiocy from the start – and it failed because it was.
Nothing you call corruption – actually is. If it were corruption – most of the democratic party would be in jail right now.
If you are unable to apply the law blindly – if republicans are always guilty – just because they are accused, and democrats are always innocent – regardless of the evidence, then we do not have the rule of law.
WE now know that the Same FBI SAC that pushed the Collusion delusion during the 2016 election also pushed the lie that the Hunter Biden material was russian disinformation during the 2020 election.
Our first president sold land to the Federal government while president.
The emoluments clause is not a constitutional provision that bars executives from being in business.
It is a bar to receiving rewards specifically because they are in public office.
The Pelosi’s are not barred from owning real estate, from trading stocks – because Nancy is in office.
They are barred from insider trading – because it is a crime, or selling public office
This is what Actually blackmailing Ukraine looks like.
“I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
VP Biden.
Here is the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA–dj2-CY&t=17s
Now what is it that you think is wrong about Trump asking Zelensky to look into this ?
Oops
https://copyrightlately.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/office-of-barack-obama-760×342.png
Oops
https://copyrightlately.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/office-of-george-w.-bush.png
Oops
https://www.zazzle.com/bill_clinton_president_seal_sticker-217977616250899452
DM all that you manage to do with this nonsense is prove that you are completely clueless.
IF the law you cite barred Trump from Putting an image similar to the Seal of the President with the title “The Office of Donald Trump” then every single former president in the past 30 years has violated the law – as well as every single gift shop in DC that sells a knick-knack with the seal of the president or the great seal of the united states.
BTW the Seal is NOT the graphic, it is an actual seal that is affixed to official documents issued by the president.
https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/Seal-of-the-President-of-the-United-States-by-vintagetreasure/15087073.UIIS2
“Contrary to popular opinion, the law doesn’t make the mere use of the presidential seal illegal. If this were the case, all of the sellers of tacky merchandise on Amazon and D.C.-area gift shops would be going to jail.
Instead, in order to violate the law, the seal has to be used “in a manner reasonably calculated to convey a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof.”
“Keep your eyes on the future:
For 6 years you democrats, the left have been promising an actual crime.
Have you heard of the story of the little boy who cried wolf ?
Regardless – there is NOTHING coming – aside from more of the same idiotic losing court cases based on stupid legal claims that
must have originated with those law students at Harvard – who did not find the actual law appealing to them – so they made up law they liked better.
There are no new secret bombshells to be revealed. We all know what Trump has said – the majority of it is public, and his private remarks are no different – except possibly with more expletives.
The gist of the J6 hearings, and faux impeachment deux is democrats do not like the fact that Trump and much of the country did not just roll over and play dead in the face of a lawless and fraudulent election.
Hillary is still claiming she won in 2016 – as are some of her supporters here. No one is looking to prosecute them.
Hillary tried (and succeeded) in getting some electors to change their votes.
That is closer to criminal than anything Trump did.
The constitution and federal law requires congress to vote to accept the electoral votes from each state. explicit in a vote, is the power to say no.
Only in left wing nut world is it illegal to engage in political speech to attempt to persuade members of congress to vote no.
Presidents twist the arms of congressmen all the time. Are we going to send Biden to jail for rolling Manchin ?
Excellent points. Turley further fails to assert whether or not the Trump admin and DOJ possessed the exact same info and did not appoint special counsel. I do not think Turley is embarking on a legally motivated search for justice here. His outrage will grow as midterms bear down.
The Attorney, Trump was impeached for inquiring with Ukraine about the quid pro quo Joe bragged about on camera.
Don’t blame Trump for Biden’s craven perfidy.
We also didn’t get a more polite, less quarrelsome president in dog-faced-pony-soldier Biden who persecuted Border Patrol mounted officers for riding with split reins.
Trump admin and DOJ possessed the exact same info and did not appoint special counsel.
President Trump was at odds with the Democrat ran, and corrupt DoJ.
It’s patently obvious “mr Attorney” that trumps DOJ was compromised and did everything it could , just like the other alphabet agencies to hide things from him and stab him in the back. It’s so glaringly obvious then and now I have to assume you were part of that scheme to have ignored it’s reality so perfectly.
+100
RE:”Just allegations and speculation. For 2 years you have been beating the drum about alleged “massive corruption” by the Bidens.” Disagree!! Not just Jonathan. We have been getting it piece meal through the media, most up front was the Bobulinski interview prior to the vote which most of the MSM did not air, as well as the ‘Laptop’. business which the FBI is accused of covering up. A proverbial ‘Uncle Ernie’, fiddling about, and no one wants to talk about or intervene with child molester in the family until the evidence becomes incontrovertible. We’re approaching that threshold.
There are none so blind than those that refuse to see…none so deaf as those who refuse to listen…none so dumb as those who refuse to speak.