This week I wrote a column on a notable shift by political and media figures on the Hunter Biden scandal toward a last line of defense: the addiction defense. This shift is most obvious with President Joe Biden who spent years insisting that his son “did nothing wrong,” even bizarrely claiming that “no one has suggested that my son did anything wrong.” That defense was picked up by the White House.
Then it changed as prosecutors reportedly moved closer to criminal charges and the President no longer denied that his son did anything wrong but rather that he was an addict when he did allegedly criminal things. I called it the “seven percent solution” and it was on full (and uncontested) display in the President’s interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.
The interview had some probing and interesting questions on issues like Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia but, for those eager to hear the President answer substantive questions on the scandal, the interview followed the past media pattern.
Tapper neither challenged the suggested defense (which has glaring problems) nor raised the allegations of a multimillion dollar influence peddling scheme by the Biden family.
Biden was asked about the possible criminal charges from David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney for Delaware, Biden immediately went to addiction and said that Hunter is now “on the straight and narrow.” He then repeated the same lines about addiction in the questions that followed:
“This is a kid who got, not a kid — he’s a grown man. He got hooked on — like many families have had happen, hooked on drugs. He’s overcome that. He’s established a new life…
…He is — I’m confident that he is — what he says and does are consistent with what happens. And for example, he wrote a book about his problems and was straightforward about it. I’m proud of him…
…He came along and said, by the way, this thing about a gun — I didn’t know anything about it. But turns out that when he made [an] application to purchase a gun, what happened was he say – I guess you get asked, I don’t guess, you get asked a question, are you on drugs or do you use drugs? He said no. And he wrote about saying no in his book.”
As discussed earlier, the most obvious problem with the addiction defense is that Hunter did not appear to have any chemical-based challenge in maintaining a global, multimillion-dollar influence-peddling scheme.
Not only is this possible prosecution not based on a drug offense, it would feature a high-functioning defendant who earned millions in influence peddling. Indeed, the now-sober Hunter has repeatedly acknowledged that while his family name may have led to some of his past positions, he is a lawyer with experience that was useful in work like serving on the board of Ukrainian energy conglomerate Burisma Holdings.
Moreover, using the addiction to defeat the gun and tax charges will only heighten questions about the influencing-peddling allegations. If Hunter was a hopeless addict incapable of criminal intent or sound decision-making, why were foreign interests clamoring at his door to give him millions of dollars as a board member, lawyer or consultant? Without skill or capabilities to sell, you are left with raw and open corruption to gain access to or influence with his father.
Yet, once again, CNN and Tapper did not ask President Biden about millions of dollars collected from foreign sources in what was a raw influence peddling scheme by his father.
He was not asked about allegations of the involvement of foreign intelligence figures in these dealings.
He was not asked about references to the President himself as receiving a percentage of the take. It seems that millions of dollars raised in an alleged corrupt enterprise with foreign interests involving his son and brother was not sufficiently newsworthy to even ask about in one of the few interviews granted by this president.
Tapper also did not ask the President about emails and other evidence directly contradicting his repeated claims that he knew nothing about any of these business dealings.
Weeks ago, I discussed the possible plea bargain on limited charges as the best case scenario not just for the Bidens but the media which has buried this scandal from the outset.
The most important element of that “controlled demolition” of the scandal is to avoid discussions of the influence peddling scheme and foreign sources of this money. The CNN interview proved the perfect framing of that demolition project by discussing the addiction defense but avoiding any discussion of past false statements by the President or his family’s involvement in influence peddling.
With these questions not being pursued by the media (and the inexplicable refusal of Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel), political and media figures are only enhancing the case for the GOP in seeking to use congressional oversight to look into these dealings after the midterm elections.
The Democrats recently blocked (again) efforts to investigate the dealings, but the GOP has made this a priority if they take the House. One of the greatest advantages to a Special Counsel (beyond the independence from main Justice) would have been the issuance of a report on these dealings.
Just as the media buried the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election, it is now avoiding a full discussion of the foreign influence detailed on the laptop before the 2022 midterm elections. While the media now belatedly recognizes as authentic, it has a striking lack of interest what is contained in these emails. There just never seems a good time for the media to pursue the influence peddling scandal involving the Biden family.
I understand that Tapper had much to cover and I have previously praised him for his skills as an interviewer. No one would question his judgment in addressing such important issues as the threat of the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Moreover, Tapper was given a rare opportunity to interview a president who rarely does sit down interviews — leaving a host of matters to be addressed.
However, the President and his family have been implicated in a massive influence peddling scheme. Regardless of whether it is connected to criminal charges, it is the type of raw corruption that should be a concern for not just the public but the media. With the President’s past claims contradicted on his son and his own knowledge, it warranted greater attention given the President’s minimal access for sit-down interviews.
Omertà
Just imagine an interview with Trump on CNN. there would certainly be no softballs. There wouldn’t even be hard balls. There would be Steele balls but they certainly wouldn’t have been found on Jake Tapper’s anatomy. He lost those a very long time ago when he sold them at The Dollar Store.
yeah just imagine it, but it never will happen will it.
Biden reminds me of the guy in the joke who says he loves to make lists and put them on the kitchen counter, then try to guess what’s on them when at the store. He can’t remember his name without a card.
And why didn’t Tapper ask the hard question? Because he was told not to ask and as a good sheep, he obeyed.
All irrelevant at this point. We all know that dozens of employees of and consultants for the DoJ and FBI, in concert with our alphabet agencies, illegally used FISA and colluded in a criminal conspiracy to bring down President Trump. Each of them are guilty of no less than 6 counts of violating the President’s Constitutional rights, and due no less than 60 years in Federal prison.
Sadly they will not go where they belong in this life. The actual sentence will be from the American people casting Democrats out of power for the next 20 years or more.
“ The actual sentence will be from the American people casting Democrats out of power for the next 20 years or more.” ~ JG
The two decade estimate is, frankly, laughable. The voters might cast out Dems during the upcoming midterms, but to expect either a collective memory and outrage, or expect future voters just entering puberty to be outraged over the next 20 years is simply silly.
Jonathan: As promised here is some news you have chosen thus far not to discuss. On Tuesday, the trial of Igor Danchenko began. It’s John Durham’s swan song–his last desperate attempt to show some grand conspiracy by the Clinton campaign re “Russiagate”. In other posts you have applauded that effort. The problem is that much of the steam in the Danchenko case has come out already.
Judge Anthony Trenga, who is overseeing the case, has slapped down Durham in pre-trial rulings. Last week Trenga excluded large amounts of information Durham wanted to showcase–to apparently undermine the credibility of the Steele dossier’s notorious rumor that Russia had a blackmail tape of Trump cavorting with prostitutes. Trenga wasn’t having any of it. He said that Durham’s claims “do not qualify as direct evidence as they are not ‘inextricably intertwined’ or ‘necessary to provide context’ to the relevant charges”. Trenga also ruled that Durham’s claims “were substantially out weighed by the danger of confusion and unfair prejudice”. The Judge went further. He said Durham’s attempt to inject irrelevant issues into the trial was “an unnecessary and impermissible attempt to make this case more than it is”. In almost every step Trenga, a George W Bush appointee, has sided with the defense. Not a good sign.
So what does Durham have to show for his two year investigation? Not much. Not what Donald Trump/ Bill Barr and you wanted. The grand jury Durham convened handed up only 3 indictments–one ended in a plea deal. The trial of Michael Sussman, a Clinton allied lawyer, ended in acquittal. Durham had egg on his face. None of the indictments came close to accusing anybody in the Clinton campaign–let alone Hillary herself–which shows the entire investigation was a farce and a political witch hunt! It was a fool’s errand.
In his final report Durham will no doubt lay out his case against Clinton and the Dems. Unfortunately for Durham, he could prove none of his allegations in court–the only place that counts. Durham’s investigation was based on a hope and a prayer. It will end with a whimper.
Maybe there was something there… maybe there wasn’t. But the judge did allow one interesting fact into evidence that the defense objected to. Even after being offered $1,000,000 by the FBI, Steele could not corroborate one aspect of his so-called dossier
Yes, that is pretty damning.
though not to Danchenko, but to the FBI.
I hope against hope that will sufficiently debunk the claim that there actually was some evidence of collusion, that I will not have to deal with another left wing idiot claiming there was again.
Durham has this bad habit of tying to inject irrelevant material into evidence in order to “make it official” some of the allegations from conspiracy theories.
Marcy Wheeler has been following the case more closely and she has been correct in her analyst of Durhams shortcomings and court shenanigans. Durham is looking at another acquittal since he was not allowed to include a lot of his frivolous or nonsensical material designed to obscure the record.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/10/12/john-durhams-re-virgined-birth-of-the-carter-page-and-sergei-millian-investigations/
The material is not relevant to Danchenko’s criminal guilt.
That does not make it True – it is just not evidence for THIS trial.
Danchenko should be acquitted. He lied to the FBI – which should not be a crime.
Regardless, the FBI knew the truth at the time. The lies are therefor immaterial.
But the fact Durham is exposing are relevant to the public as a whole.
Durham has done an excellent job of exposing the Collusion delusion for the Farce that it was.
Crossfire Huricane – and its progeny. The special counsel investigation were all conducted in violation of the constitution.
There was no foundation for these investigations.
They were BLATANT abuse of power for political purposes.
Everyone in DOJ/FBI who had anything to do with any of these investigation should be terminated, and lose all government benefits.
Some should be charged with crimes.
And no one wants to here anything about Trump from anyone that does not acknowledge that this was a giant fraud on the american people – perpitrated by Hillary and sold to us all by the FBI, the Media and democrats.
Schiff told us he had seen more than circumstantial evidence.
There certainly is. There is absolute proof this was a fraud from the start.
Worse still the CIA under Obama had warned everyone that Clinton was cooking up a Fraud BEFORE Susman went through the doors of the Hoover Building.
You want to talk about Trump and have anyone listen – OWN that you were egregiously wrong about this. OWN that the FBI and DOJ are hopelessly politically corrupt.
Durham put Danchenko and Sussman on trial – but the real crime starts within the FBI and DOJ going all the way to Obama and Biden.
Next, why exactly is it we are supposed to beleive that Democrats and their ilk would not steel an election ?
It is not like This massive fraud was perpitrated by gnomes.
Why are we supposed to beleive DOJ/FBI/Media/Social Media/YOU/Courts when they say the 2020 election was not lawless and fraudulent ?
Why are we supposed to beleive YOU the FBI/DOJ/WH/Media/Democrats about their current attacks on Trump ?
YOU the FBI/DOJ/WH/Media/Democrats burned your credibility to the ground.
And you think it matters whether Sussman and Danchenko are convicted ?
And you think the because ALL the facts were no admissible against Danchenko means they are not true ?
And you think Durham is pushing right wing conspiracy theories ?
At long last – Have you no shame ?
The story here is trivially simple and proven beyond any doubt.
Hillary paid to concoct a bunch of fraudulent claims against Trump.
Sussman sold them to an FBI that knew where they came from and knew they were fraudulent.
These were eagerly sent up the line – ultimately all the way to Obama and Biden.
And these known hoaxes were then used to open a fraudulent and unconstitutional investigation of an incoming president.
Which continued for 2 years aided and abetted either knowingly or willfully blindly by the Media, Social Media, Democratic party, Courts and ultimately YOU.
And you wonder why Trump’s supporters continue to believe him ?
Because they are not so stupid as you.
They know who has been lying the past 6 years – and it is not Trump.
If this were 30 years ago and the DOJ/FBI was accusing the ex-president of Crimes – I would be inclined to believe them.
Not a chance today.
When you $hit all over your credibility – you should not expect to be believed in the future.
And those who continue to believe you – are morons.
There have been alot of conspiracy debunked conspiracy theories over the past decade – all left wing nut tin foil hat conspiracy theories.
Alex Jones is more credible than the MSM, that is bad.
I forget why everyone forgets it was Jeb Bush who sold it to Hillary in the first instance. Please remind me!
This is a bizzare argument.
The Steele Dossier has been thoroughly discredited. We are well past that.
It was a deliberate hoax, financed by Clinton. there is zero doubt. That has been proven in court, but no one has been convicted – because concocting fraudulent political dirt is not a crime.
The Sussman and Danchenko Trials are about whether they lied to the FBI.
convicting or aquitting Sussman and Denchenko does not change the fact that the FBI was the willing victim of a HOAX, that consumed the nation for 2yrs.
The judge is properly excluding evidence of conduct and crimes that Danchenko is not charged with.
That does not change the fact that evidence exists and is damning. It only addresses whether it is evidence that Danchenko committed the specific offenses he is charged with.
Danchenko should not be being tried. He is a scurilous figure, probably a russian spy.
But collecting rumours and gossip and making up some things about Trump is not a crime.
If it was the NYT would be in jail.
The NYT belongs in jail in any case, for colluding with the Government in the hoax to discredit President Trump. Because their support directly allowed the FBI to get away with illegal investigations and violations of President Trump’s Constitutional rights, every one of them who cooperated is due several decades in prison.
The so called Steele dossier was not only “financed by Clinton,” her campaign operatives made up the lies and then passed them to Danchenko who passed them to Steele who passed them to the Clinton News Network (which was the intent all along). Unfortunately for her plan (briefed to Obama in July 2016 by Brennan), by the time the dossier got to CNN in January 2017, she had already lost
Except for false reporting which was not charged, there is nothing that Clinton or the Clinton campaign did that was illegal.
Manufacturing false political dirt on an opponent is not a crime. It is repugnant, but not criminal.
The actual misconduct is on the part of the FBI – and Sussman – and likely Danchenko’s aquital establish that.
Their lies were not material – because the FBI already knew they were lies and went along with them anyway – for 2 years.
No, their “lies” were not material because in Sussman’s case he was asking the FBI about suspicious data. He was not deliberately conveying a “ false report.” Durham didn’t make that claim either because he knew there is no evidence to support the theory. He was left with only one possible charge of lying to the FBI by arguing that his “lying” was material. Obviously Durham failed to provide the evidence to convince the jury.
If Durham’s handling of Sussman’s case is any indication It stands to reason that his next case will not succeed as well. The judge has already denied the majority of Durham’s request to put in evidence material irrelevant to the case. That is not a good sign.
The data was false and human manipulated – that means it was a hoax. Susman knew the source of the data and either knew it was fraudulent or at the very least knew it could not be trusted.
You keep ignoring critical facts.
Part of why you are trying to exonerate Sussman is that you still beleive this nonsense.
I would note Sussman was part of the effort to peddle this all to the CIA – and the CIA had already concluded it was garbage and told those who provided it that at the time. So when Sussman went to the FBI he eitehr already knew – because he knew the source, or he already knew because the CIA had already said so – that what was suspicious was the provenance of the data.
Of course it is unlikely the Danchenko case will lead to a conviction.
The lies of Danchenko and Sussman are not material because the FBI knew they were lying at the time.
That is why Sussman was acquitted – the jury said as much, and why Danchenko will likely be acquitted too.
Based on what I know I could not convict either of them of lying to the FBI – though it is crystal clear they lied egregiously.
The FBI knew they were lying – you keep ignoring that.
Sussman did not get acquitted because anything he said was True. He was acquitted because the FBI knew he was lying.
He should however be disbarred.
Danchenko should face the same results. Danchenko much more so than Sussman.
Danchenko did not bring lies to the FBI. The FBI came to him. That makes a world of difference.
But lets presume that you are correct – Sussman one of the top tier DC lawyers and strongly tied to Clinton and the DNC, was given these frauds to bring to the FBI but did not knew they were frauds. Those who provided them to him and directed in to the FBI did. Sussman is a lawyer – as was established at the trial – he was NOT coming forward as a concerned citizen – he had a pair of clients. As a lawyer with clients – speeking to the FBI – He represents them. Even if he naively is unaware that he is selling a hoax – they are. And he represents them. Him bring this to the FBI while representing them is the same as Them bringing it to the FBI.
If I call 911 and tell them that my neighbor has automatic weapons, has killed his wife and is holding the rest of his family hostage and threatening to kill them – and that is false. The police will likely “swat” my neighbor, and someone might get killed.
Regardless, I will be charged with a serious crime.
Lets say I want to do the same thing – but to avoid being charged with a crime – I call my lawyer and have them forward the report to the police.
Have I avoided criminal liability ? Nope. Either Sussman is guilty or someone else is. It is that simple.
Both Sussman and Danchenko are liars, they are immoral and unethical. But the conduct they are accused of is not criminal.
Sussman is guilty of a different crime – false reporting
Independent of their trials – there is zero doubt at this time that the FBI/DOJ opened an investigation into the Trump campaign based on information provided by the Clinton campaign that the KNEW was fraudulent that is an unconstitutional abuse of power and probably is a series of crimes.
Just to be clear – I co not give a schiff if the FBI hauls you in and you lie to them.
That is a bad idea and it should result in the FBI looking up your ass with a flashlight.
But it should not be a crime.
Conversely if fraudulent allegations of Crime are brought to the FBI – Someone is guilty of a crime – possibly many
There is no slight of hand or card trick that produces a way to sell a hoax to the FBI as a crime that is not itself a crime.
The only question is who and how many are guilty.
Ah yes, Dennis McIntyre always leaves out some pertinent information. You might wonder about how Dennis did not recognize the part where the FBI was willing to pay Steele a million dollars if he could collaborate his dossier’s. The FBI continued the investigation even when they had no proof to base it on. The judge may have ruled out some of the testimony but he allowed testimony by the FBI agent in charge that confirmed that Steele’s story could not be found to be true even for a million dollars. Dennis McIntyre wants you to think that he has the best interest of America at heart but he somehow has no concern for a continuing investigation by the FBI without any substantiation. The nation was put through hell for five years but Dennis’s heart was not the least bit troubled. You will have to excuse me if I am not the least bit concerned about his concerns.
Durham has made public a number of new and interesting tidbits.
But the broad outlines were known to anyone that wished to know for along time.
There was no Trump collusion with Russia – though there likely was some Clinton collusion with Russia.
The whole collusion delusion was made from two Hoaxes constructs by Clinton.
These were sold to the FBI that knew they were bogus, and then used to screw over Trump and the country for more than 2 years.
Some idiots still beleive Trump colluded with Russia.
The evidence that Danchenko was a russian asset did not get into his trial – which is fine, he should be aquitted. His lies to the FBI are not material – the FBI knew they were false from the start. But it did get out to the public. We all know Danchenko was at one time a Russian Asset.
Some other new bits may emerge from the trial. Some may not get in.
Regardless, we all know more than enough to see this sham for what it is.
And those that still can not see self identify as morons.
Please tell me how Russia benefited from these blackmail tapes? What favors did Trump do for Putin?
There are no blackmail tapes.
This has been thoroughly debunk.
The event never happened.
Isn’t it strange. There has been no proof that Trump was paid off by the Russians but there is ample proof that the Bidens were payed off by the Ukrainians and the Chinese. There are actual records of these payments. CNN and our leftist bloggers lied about such revelations about Trump and now they want to sweep the payoffs to the Bidens under the rug. With the Ukrainians knowing what they know about Hunter it’s no wonder that Joe Biden is all in with Ukraine. When they give you multi-millions of dollars they expect a return on their investment. China and Ukraine believed they were making a good investment in Joe and Hunter and they were right.
Tit,
…” but there is ample proof that the Bidens were payed off by the Ukrainians and the Chinese. There are actual records of these payments.”
If it’s so ample why hasn’t anyone shown it? What are these records you speak of?
Did you know none of Hunter Biden’s Chinese deals go thru? How was he able to make millions when he didn’t get any of that purported money?
Tony Bobulinski has given several interviews and stated he turned over significant evidence to the FBI and he would be willing to testify, but the FBI has buried it. There is also reems of evidence on Hunter’s Laptop
Svelaz, Biden has never denied that he was paid over half a million dollars by Burisma. You may deny it for him but until Hunter denies it I’ll take Hunters word over yours. Neither Hunter or Joe have denied receiving money from China. You deny it but they don’t. You should be careful about believing the crystal ball in your head.
“ Svelaz, Biden has never denied that he was paid over half a million dollars by Burisma”
Why would he? It’s not illegal to get paid for a job.
They couldn’t have received money from China. The deals Hunter Biden had with the Chinese fell thru. Even if they did get money from China what exactly is illegal about getting money from China? They were both private citizens at the time of the allegations. I’m not denying anything.
Are these the ‘records’ you’re speaking of? Joe Biden’s tax returns would show any money coming from China. So what other records are you speaking of?
They couldn’t have received money from China.
China gave Hunter $2billion. Well, China gave Hunter’s money management company $2billion…’to manage’ 😉
But….At one half of one percent, management fee, (.005X$2,000,000,000) equals $10 million annual income
That is a lot better than Clinton’s wife’s Cattle futures payola, She only grifted$100K one time pay out. Not $10million annually.
Wrong!
Exactly! With absolutely zero evidence, the media and Democrats threw toddler tantrums over imagined violations of the “Emoluments Clause” by Trump, and application of the 25th Amendment due to Trump’s supposed mental state, yet now those same people seem to have forgotten these provisions exist now that there is ample evidence these provisions are woefully applicable to Biden. Democrats are rotten, they own and have corrupted the DC Circuit to the point a slam dunk case against Sussman Lying to the FBI ended in aquittal. Democrats corrupt every institution they control, DOJ, FBI, Courts, IRS, Education System and now the Military. It’s despicable!
On my list of things to do is to begin faking some of the outward signs of drug addiction. I will also join Narcotics Anonymous and drop out after labeling myself a failure. This minimal investment in time will pay off if I end up getting arrested for something.
Wow! Turley is criticizing CNN for not handling the “Hunter Biden Scandal” like Fox would. So what does today’s little toilet piece accomplish on the list of Turley assignments: attack CNN, attack Biden and continue to breathe life into the “Hunter Biden Scandal”, as if it is a thing. Just how many pieces has Turley written about this topic? Too many to count, but the point is to make it sound llike it is legitimate, to deflect away from Trump and his crimes and to attack mainstream media.
Perhaps view the Turley piece through nonpartisan eyes.
1. Turley the legal scholar is pointing out shift in potential Hunter defenses articulated by his family, legal team, and parroted by the media. The defense has shifted since the leak about Hunter potentially facing criminal charges.
2. Turley the legal scholar would have liked more legal oriented questions from CNN, but acknowledges Ukraine is understandably more newsworthy. I suspect somewhere there is a National Defense scholar blog that would have preferred far less Hunter focus and more nuclear weapon focused questions. And Turley acknowledges Tapper had to whittle down question topics due to his limited time with POTUS.
You’ve got your pro-Biden or anti-Turley panties in such a wad you can’t see straight.
Nav2003:
1. Turley, the paid professional pundit who trades on his legal bona fides, ignores the big political stories, like Trump’s theft of classified documents, having his lawyer lie about returning all of them, the false accusation that the FBI planted documents and/or that the GSA packed them without his knowledge or consent, and then fundraising over being forced to return them. NO ONE CARES about Hunter Biden except disciples of Fox, but Turley is paid to use his status to try to breathe life into the matter to make it sound way more legitimate than it really is. Whatever Hunter Biden’s faults and conduct, this does not implicate his father. It’s all a deflection away from Trump and his actual crimes we all saw on Jan 6th and thereafter.
2. Turley, the paid professional pundit who trades on his legal bona fides, takes his marching orders from Fox, one of which is to get in digs at mainstream media whenever possible. By criticizing CNN for not focusing on the “Hunter Biden scandal”, this is mostly done to validate his employer, Fox, and its endless “coverage” over this nothingburger. Therefore, one has to consider the context in which Turley operates: he’s a paid Fox pundit, and this figures into the validity of his attacks on mainstream media, Democrats and Joe Biden.
Hey, mental midget, put away the keyboard and go outside. Breathe in some nice, fresh air. Clear the cobwebs from your mind. You are a complete dullard. To call this a nothingburger tells me everything I need to know about your bias.
Suffering from TDS? There is a cure. But I would be banned by the “content police” should I mention it here.
I saw it, and have already said all I have to say here. We are a broken broken society. And the Dems in America caused it and are leading the charge toward that cliff. My biggest sadness is not the death of law; it is the death of shared humanity. And again, our Dems have led the charge in this country. I do not in any capacity understand how anyone can continue to support this. All we have left is our vote. I hope people use it, and that is all I personally can say. I am grateful for everyone here that can invoke law and precedent, because that is the only thing propping up my first point.
James,
I would not say Dems have led the charge in this country off the cliff.
I have a good Dem (only because he is union) friend who can define what a woman is, he thinks getting 6 year olds to question their sex is grooming, and when I told him about the recent Harvard medical school professor claiming a fetus inside the womb can tell if it is “trans” he thought that was idiotic and moronic.
The recent statement by Tulsi Gabbard highlighted many points of what Leftists within the Dem party have embraced and pushed the general Dem party towards. Like Tulsi Gabbard, my friend and many other traditional Dems look upon in abject horror at what their party has become.
And like Tulsi Gabbard, many are rejecting the new Leftist Dem party.
@UpStateFarmer
Very respectfully, I have friends like that, too. They all seem to have mind blindness and think they are still voting for JFK or even Bill Clinton. Literally nothing that has transpired over the past 30 years seems to resonate at all, and anyone that disagrees with the figment Dems of their past that no longer exist in government, is thought of as David Duke, or worse. May be different for you, and in my case I am not talking about uneducated people, and yet, they still drone on about the ‘post-truth GOP’. I don’t disagree with you about people like Tulsi, but they seem to be few and far between, and they sure aren’t the ones pulling the strings, which is all that matters to me at the end of the day, and I say that as an independent that voted for (and lived to regret) voting for Obama’s first term. Your experience may be different, but it sure seems to me that what I’ve described is the prevalent mentality. Voting against Dems to so very many in this country seems to automatically = voting for slavery and fascism, regardless of media hyperbole; even though that is an historical fallacy, the lack of knowledge of which is a statement unto itself IMO. If we don’t have honesty at the least, I don’t know what we’ve got. Certainly not consensus or solidarity. A whole lot of Dem voters still seem to think Biden was just an oopsie and it will be better next time, because, ‘integrity’. I do appreciate the sane conversation.
James,
Well said.
The first thing that popped out to me about your post was the,
“May be different for you, and in my case I am not talking about uneducated people, and yet, they still drone on about the ‘post-truth GOP’”
Perhaps it has to do with my friend is a blue class, non-college educated person. He has more common sense than many “educated” people I know.
Yes, I am seeing the “MAGA Republicans are fascists!” and they are trying to apply that to Ron DeSantis.
Funny thing is, looking at the so called radical MAGA agenda, a secure Southern border, presenting voted ID, supporting the police with some kind of third party oversight, 1stA, 2ndA, The Constitution, women in women sports, etc. those are things that I, as an Independent, can support.
And the Leftists would call me a radical MAGA Republican.
BTW, I am going to transfer the last of my funds out of PayPal, and donate the monies to Tulsi Gabbard.
Good conversation.
I closed my PayPal account, too. Have had that account for 20 years, and a great deal of funds have moved through it, they made a huge mistake IMO. Thanks for your considered response, it is much appreciated.
Two years after “media buried the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election”, does “the type of raw corruption warranted greater attention”?
I don’t think so:
1. As there are countless reports [1-2] of President Biden’s involvement in his son Hunter’s business dealings: Those who don’t see this connection will not change their oppinion if another piece of evidence arise.
2. Those who never heard about Patrick Ho, Che Feng, Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, Li Ming, Henry Zhao, Mervyn Yan, Tian Zhang, Mykola Zlochevsky, George Kent, Amos Hochstein, Andrii Telizhenko, or Kenges Rakishev, would not be interesting in names like Elena Baturina or Tony Bobulinsky.
3. Those who are in line with the implementation of “Biden-Sanders Manifesto” will vote accordingly.
4. If GOP will flip the House and will do what promised, those who are interested in will hear statements from persons like Bruce and Nellie Ohr, John Brennan, Lisa Monaco, James Comey, Jim Clapper, Mike Hayden, Leon Panetta, Brian Auten, Timothy Thibault, Igor Danchenko …
[1] https://thedrilldown.com/newsroom/contrary-to-earlier-portrayals-joe-biden-referred-business-and-mingled-finances-with-his-son-messages-show/
[2] https://thedrilldown.com/newsroom/memos-gathered-by-fbi-show-pattern-of-hunter-biden-mixing-personal-business-with-his-world-hunger-charity/
“. . . and the inexplicable refusal of Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel . . .”
Inexplicable?? The Eric Holder’s self-description as his president’s “wing man” springs to mind.
Very few appear to agree with my take on what Joseph Biden and his son Hunter have been doing together since Biden became Vice President under Obama in January of 2009. Here we are in late 2022, approaching 14 years later, that’s 14 years!; and my take is quite simple. Hunter Biden should give consideration to be outfitted every morning in body armor, Kevlar or its equivalent, if he is not already so outfitted. There I would guess some very upset Americans ( and possibly Ukrainians, Russians, and Chinese) who would not lose any sleep if Hunter were to come to an end. Though this isn’t the American way, I don’t think the Ukrainians/Russians/chinese care about the American way —
In 2006, Hunter Biden worked as a federal lobbyist. His father, then Senator Joe (D-DE), was concerned about the impact it would have on his WH bid. Joe Biden’s brother, James, was tasked with the job of finding his nephew Hunter employment in the then-booming world of finance. To do so he contacted Anthony Lotito from Lion Hall. law firm and John Fasciana, a New York lawyer and the four founded Paradigm Capital Management LLC. Hunter Biden was made president with an annual salary of $1.2 million, despite his inexperience in the hedge fund industry.
https://www.ft.com/content/b49b9a01-8b4b-3b5f-ae41-713a1e86143d
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123543815326954907
Influence peddling is not a stand-alone crime.
It inevitably includes money laundering and tax evasion at a minimum.
But then, we all know that, including the Marxist Supreme Court.
We all know there is one set of rules for them and another set of rules or all the rest of us. Can we stop beating this dead horse
Turley sure can’t. He even bought a new club to continue with the flogging.
Svelaz
You used to be fairly reasonable.
But your bile is really showing through.
Makes you much less interesting or credible.
And if Turley bugs you so much, quit reading him.
Monumentcolorado,
Turley doesn’t bug me. It’s just his transparent bias while claiming to be an objective observer and a law professor that makes him a hypocrite.
Nothing I’ve said nothing wrong here regarding his claims about influence peddling or his allegations of corruption.
Turley HAS admitted that influence peddling is not illegal on other columns and he’s been pretty quiet about similar “influence peddling schemes” by Trump and his children.
He’s never pointed out exactly what the criminality is or what laws Joe Biden has violated. All he does is gripes about the media’s lack of interest in this “scandal”. He doesn’t realize that people really don’t care just as they didn’t care when Trump and his children did the same thing. They have the same level of “evidence” of corruption and Turley conveniently ignores it.
It is true that a influence peddling is NOT illegal. The Supreme Court’s conservative block ruled that it is a form of protected speech under the 1st amendment. It’s a bad decision that even I don’t agree with, BUT I still have to point it out to those who are crying “corruption” and “influence peddling” that the court’s conservatives made this problem worse.
Do I believe influence peddling is wrong, absolutely. Even if the Biden’s do it. HOWEVER since republicans dismiss Trumps obvious corruption and influence peddling with the same amount of evidence showing it is indeed the same, Turley and those criticizing Biden have no business complaining about it if they are willing to accept the same shenanigans from Trump and his children. It’s the glaring hypocrisy that is the problem.
That is why Turley has no credibility or right to make these accusations if he cannot recognize the same problem with Trump.
Svelaz trying as hard as you can to explain anything to those who have a alternative reality is extremely difficult. But thanks for your attempt.
Svelaz – You say: “It is true that influence peddling is not illegal.” Yet, 18 USC 2001 expressly makes it a felony for a public official to seek or accept money “in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act[.]” Allowing influence to be brought to bear upon yourself, in exchange for money, seems to meet this definition. If not, how do you define “influence peddling”.
edwardmahl, lobbyist:
https://lobbyit.com/what-is-a-lobbyist/
Edward, the problem is the Supreme Court ruled the term “an official act” was too vague and too broad to be used in charging individuals. There had to be very specific evidence and intent. In the case McDonell v. United States they overruled the prosecutors attempt at using that vague term and determined that influence peddling itself is not illegal because it is a form of protected speech under the 1st amendment.
This is why now influence peddling is legal. They narrowed the requirements significantly and made it much harder to charge someone for influence peddling or corruption. I don’t agree with their ruling, but I will still use it to point out that those who are calling for Joe BIden to be prosecuted may be out of luck precisely because of this ruling.
the problem is the Supreme Court ruled the term “an official act” was too vague and too broad to be used in charging individuals.
Lying Troll
Once again, I debunked your BS yesterday. They never said that. They said the instructions to the jury were too vague that they could perceive almost any act by the governor as an official act. They vacated the convictions strictly on this point.
This is why now influence peddling is legal. They narrowed the requirements significantly and made it much harder to charge someone for influence peddling or corruption.
Bwahahahaha! You’re an idiot and a Lying Troll too. In one sentence you stated the SCOTUS ruling made influence peddling legal. And in the very next sentence said SCOTUS narrowed the requirements to charge some for influence peddling corruption. Well, if they made influence peddling legal, then they made charging it moot. You may want to rethink today’s strategy and come back when you’ve worked out the bugs.
I don’t agree with their ruling.
I see your handlers saw your beatdown yesterday and gave you new instructions. Gosh. And just yesterday you were touting this SCOTUS decision as every corrupt politicians get-out-of-jail-free card.
Lying Troll
Olly, you are one confused fella. You didn’t prove what you think you did. Here’s the actual text from the ruling,
“ The issue in this case is the proper interpretation of the term “official act.” Section 201(a)(3) defines an “official act” as “any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.”
According to the Government, “Congress used inten- tionally broad language” in §201(a)(3) to embrace “any decision or action, on any question or matter, that may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capac- ity.” Brief for United States 20–21 (Government’s empha- sis; alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The Government concludes that the term “official act” there- fore encompasses nearly any activity by a public official.”
“ Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.”
B
In addition to being inconsistent with both text and precedent, the Government’s expansive interpretation of “official act” would raise significant constitutional con- cerns. Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an “official act.” In the Government’s view, nearly anything a public official ac- cepts—from a campaign contribution to lunch—counts as a quid; and nearly anything a public official does—from arranging a meeting to inviting a guest to an event— counts as a quo. See Brief for United States 14, 27; Tr. of Oral Arg. 34–35, 44–46.
But conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that pub- lic officials will hear from their constituents and act ap- propriately on their concerns—whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm. The Government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these rela- tionships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame.“
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-474_ljgm.pdf
Olly, the court DID say the term “official act” was too vague and too broad.
Hey did Tara Reid get the finger from your 10% big guy hero?
Olly, you are one confused fella.
Not at all. My reading comprehension is just fine. Yours, not so much.
Olly, the court DID say the term “official act” was too vague and too broad.
Nope. They didn’t.
Because the jury was not correctly instructed on the meaning of “official act,” it may have convicted Governor McDonnell for conduct that is not unlawful. For that reason, we cannot conclude that the errors in the jury instructions were “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 16 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We accordingly vacate Governor McDonnell’s convictions.
The instructions were vague, not the term “official act.”
Governor McDonnell raises two additional claims. First, he argues that the charges against him must be dismissed because the honest services statute and the Hobbs Act are unconstitutionally vague. See Brief for Petitioner 58–61. We reject that claim. For purposes of this case, the parties defined honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion with reference to §201 of the federal bribery statute. Because we have interpreted the term “official act” in §201(a)(3) in a way that avoids the vagueness concerns raised by Governor McDonnell, we decline to invalidate those statutes under the facts here.
I’ll make it clearer for you. SCOTUS would vacate a verdict of you being a Lying Troll, if the blog did not have a clear meaning of the term. But because you have provided an abundance of examples that removes any vagueness of the term, the verdict stands.
No Olly, you’re reading comprehension is the problem. The court was not just talking about the jury instructions. It was ALSO talking about thee government’’s reliance on the vagueness and broad interpretation of the term “official acts”. They went into great detail explaining why that term is problematic and why it can apply to almost anything public officials do. They noted that any action based on that vague interpretation can be deemed corruption by prosecutors. It was noted that the term did indeed have specific meanings and they narrowed the scope to the point that the prosecution’s claims of corruption posed constitutional issues which they later clarified as infringing on legitimate free speech. You should read the entire 33 page ruling. Otherwise you are just cherry picking for your argument.
Svezlav – 18 USC § 201(a)(3) defines “official act”. It is the job of a court to apply this definition.
Forgive me, but when was Svelaz ever reasonable? There hasn’t ever been anything there but hate. To me, though anyone is free to disagree, is the fact that to modern leftists, a simple contrary opinion is labeled ‘hate’. Correcting a student in class makes them wet their pants. This is why I suspect Svelaz and those like them are probably paid to be here, they likely don’t believe half of what they themselves say. They are paid to serve ‘The Party’. And rational people need to stop addressing them as though they are also rational people. If I got paid by the word, I’d be a troll, too. I post here for ‘free’ (wow, that sounds ludicrous) because I believe in what Professor Turley is doing, he is a man of great courage in these times, even if I don’t alway agree with him. The same numbskulls show up ere quite literally *every* day, and have, for years and disrupt without ever saying anything actually meaningful. At the end of the day, 90% of their posts end up as school yard taunts. Does anyone, any longer, think that is a coincidence when by and large they are the only ones attempting to sow fear, uncertainty, doubt, and chaos?
James,
Well said.
“The Party” is upset the good professor does not toe “The Party” line, and questions their narrative. They cannot deplatform as his site does not support ads. He pays for this site out of his own pocket. As a result, “The Party” sends their trolls in to attempt to change the narrative, attack the good professor, or make the comments section about Trump, deflecting from the topic.
It would be one thing if they were paid trolls, as in, that is their career.
It is another if they do it for free, as in, zealots/useful idiots.
James, you don’t seem to understand what normal discourse is. On this blog I do disagree with Turley a lot and that is ok. If it weren’t for us “leftists” this blog would be one boring echo chamber. That is what is happening in Tump’s Truth Social. It’s become a boring social media platform and it is failing to attract investors because there is no interest except to those who love preaching to the choir.
Providing opposing views, correcting misconceptions, and pointing out flaws in arguments including Turley’s is what free speech is about. I’ve had others literally tell me to go somewhere else or just shut up, which is ironically exactly what Twitter or Facebook does essentially. Turley calls that censorship.
I’m not getting paid nor I am some sort of “operative”. I post contradicting evidence or points of view that others can’t seem to handle because I can. Just as others her are entitled to post their own absurd or nonsensical opinions and expose themselves to ridicule and mockery. It’s all fair game according to Turley’s absolutist free speech philosophy .
Dennis Byron,
Right you are.
Two sets of rules for all to see.
Meanwhile, from that same interview,
“I don’t think there will be a recession. If it is, it’ll be a very slight recession. That is, we’ll move down slightly,” Biden.
This just in, CPI went up by twice the expected (+0.2%) rate, rose to +0.4% MoM.
Inflation is at a 40 year high.
For many people in the lower and even middle class, the recession is already here.
Food banks have seen record numbers of people using them, surpassing the COVID pandemic records. Unfortunately, inflation (did I mention at 40 year highs?) are eating (pun intended) food bank purchasing power, like inflation (did I mention at 40 year highs?) are eating into the lower and even middle class purchasing power.
The IMF predicts lower global growth in 2023 by 2.7% or 0.2% lower than their July prediction. They say, “The worst is yet to come, and for many people 2023 will feel like a recession.”
Jonathan: You and Fox have reached a new low in your attacks on Joe and Hunter Biden. Sean Hannity on his Monday show is facing a backlash for using a voice-mail (Oct. 2018) from Biden to his son–a personal smear that shows Fox has no conscience, And what did Biden say to his son?: “It’s Dad. I called to tell you I love you more than the whole world pal. You gotta get some help. I don’t know what to do. I know you don’t either”. This was at a time when Hunter was in his deep addiction to alcohol and drugs. And what did Hannity prove? A father’s expression of love and support for his son. Doesn’t get any more mean spirited than this by Hannity’s use of the voicemail.–and why I don’t understand how you could work for an outfit that will resorted to personal attacks to bring down the Bidens. Judging from the backlash Hannity’s attempt at mockery is having an opposite effect–more respect for Joe for expressing his loving support for his son at a difficult time.
As to your allegations against the Bidens where is your evidence of “a million dollar influence peddling scheme by the Biden family”? You have been “peddling” this claim for a long time without much to show for your efforts. So far as I can tell David Weiss is looking into Hunter’s taxes and the purchase of as gun. Do you think Weiss is really interested in your claims of “influence peddling” by the Biden family? But your post serves a useful purpose–to distract from other important news I will cover in my next comment.
Hey Dennis M
I wonder if Tara Reid can be reached for comment.after all, mr 10% had a finger in it
Boo hoo! I don’t care if the Biden’s catch fire. They’ve destroyed the economy and continue to do so at every turn. Go cry to someone who cares… perhaps pick some ninny who still believes that orange man bad.
If you don’t believe that Biden is corrupt, and therefore controllable puppet, being manipulated by people that do not operate for best interests of the majority of Americans, then, sorry, you’re a freaking moron.
Trump was more corrupt. He was at the mercy of his own stupidity and it showed. That’s why he’s mired in multiple lawsuits and criminal investigations.
So what if he was? This is about Biden. Poor attempt at deflection
If he was and it was ok by republicans it shows that Turley’s claims are pure BS. It’ quite simple.
Didn’t your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right
Yes she did, but she also said don’t be a hypocrite. Turley has that down in spades.
Trump was more corrupt.
After being spied on non-stop since 2015, the govt has got exactly ZERO.
As a typical leftist all you can do is lie.
Iowan2, he wasn’t spied on. What keeps getting him in trouble is his inability to stop running his mouth and lying. Because it’s a constant problem and it’s the source of many of his lawsuits and criminal investigations. He’s his own worst enemy and he wants to blame everyone but himself.
Iowan2, he wasn’t spied on
The FISA warrant, and 3 renewals are a fake?
Interesting about the 3 renewals. An application for a renewal of a FISA warrant requires the agency attest to the warrant yielding results, furthering the investigation.
Multiple CHS? That’s Confidential Human Source, AKA spy. Dont be a retard.
Wasn’t spied on?
We have new evidence as of yesterday. More on the lies surrounding the FISA warrant to SPY on the Trump Campaign, and Transition Team, and Administration.
Auten, a supervisory counter intelligence analyst with the FBI, revealed the FBI offered Christopher Steele one million dollars if he could corroborate allegations in the Dossier, but that Steele could not do so. Auten repeatedly admitted under questioning from Durham that the FBI never got corroboration of the information in the Steele Dossier but used it in the initial FISA application and in the three subsequent renewals.
You must be in great shape, what with carrying all that water for the left!
You can believe whatever you need to keep you off the roof, but your nativity is laughable.
He’s mired in multiple lawsuits because morons will believe that that makes him corrupt and he’s being punished for not being corrupt. How people do not see that is sad, but education in the country is what it is.
No. he’s mired in multiple lawsuits AND criminal investigations because there is evidence and his own mouth keeps getting him in trouble. That is why he was constantly babysat by his staff because he was too stupid to understand the things he did were not legal, or against policy. At least Joe Biden knows how to read and use one hand to drink. Trump is still trying to master both.
Let us know when you get your convictions of Trump, meanwhile biden is blowing up Ukraine for his buddies.
Oh biden can hold a drink in one hand, too bad the other is petting some kid.
“No. he’s mired in multiple lawsuits AND criminal investigations”
But, Svelaz, every time you are questioned on this you fail to provide good arguments that aren’t quickly dismissed.
You are too silly.
Can you list your charges and evidence in the same paragraph? Stupidity leaves people stuck for words.
*sigh* You cannot be this dull
Well said!
Some words about drug addition from the late Rush Limbaugh:
“You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my life…so I need to tell you today that part of what you heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication”.
Reported by Fox News writer Catherine Donaldson-Evans on May 21, 2015
Jake Tapper didn’t ask any questions about the “big guy” because he was told beforehand where he could and couldn’t go. And he wasn’t allowed anywhere near that subject.
He didn’t ask because it is irrelevant.
Bingo! His handlers set out rules ahead of time. CNN has to explicitly agree to them. So Hunter begins and ends with drug addiction. The questions and answers are rehearsed. That is why Biden is leery about having a press conference where someone not under thier control might do off script
50% of the USA is either stupid or willfully blind. Pravda would be proud.