What Elephant? AP Denies that There is Any Evidence That Joe Biden Discussed Hunter’s Business Dealings

For those of us who have written about the Hunter Biden scandal and the family’s influence-peddling operation for years, it is routine to read media stories denying the facts or dismissing calls to investigate the foreign dealings. However, this weekend, the Associated Press made a whopper of a claim that there is no evidence even suggesting that President Joe Biden ever spoke to his son about his foreign dealings. I previously discussed how the Bidens have succeeded in a Houdini-like trick in making this elephant of a scandal disappear from the public stage. They did so by enlisting the media in the illusion. However, this level of audience participation in the trick truly defies belief.

The statement of the Associated Press at this stage of the scandal is breathtaking but telling: “Joe Biden has said he’s never spoken to his son about his foreign business, and nothing the Republicans have put forth suggests otherwise.”

For years, the media has continued to report President Biden’s repeated claim that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” At the outset, the media only had to suspend any disbelief that the president could fly to China as Vice President with his son on Air Force 2 without discussing his planned business dealings on the trip.

Of course, the emails on the laptop quickly refuted this claim. However, the media buried the laptop story before the election or pushed the false claim that it was fake Russian disinformation.

President Biden’s denials continued even after an audiotape surfaced showing President Biden leaving a message for Hunter specifically discussing coverage of those dealings. The call is specifically referring to these dealings:

“Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you. I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance give me a call, I love you.”

But who are you going to believe, the media or your own ears.

Some of us have written for two years that Biden’s denial of knowledge is patently false. It was equally evident that the Biden family was selling influence and access.

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.

Bobulinski has given multiple interviews that he met twice with Joe Biden to discuss a business deal in China with CEFC China Energy Co. That would seem obvious evidence. In addition, the New York Post reported on a key email that discussed “the proposed percentage distribution of equity in a company created for a joint venture with CEFC China Energy Co.” That was the email on March 13, 2017 that included references of “10 held by H for the big guy.”

The Associated Press later revised the line after an outcry from some of us. It now ends “there is no indication that the federal investigation involves the president.”  The revision creates a new problem. Rather than simply stating the fact, AP seems to struggle to shield the President. There is every indication that “the federal investigation involves the president.” Not only is the President discussed in key emails under investigation, but the grand jury heard testimony that the “Big Guy” is Joe Biden.

That brings us back to Houdini’s trick of making his 10,000 pound elephant Jennie disappear every night in New York’s Hippodrome. He succeeded night after night because the audience wanted the elephant to disappear even though it never left the stage.

I previously wrote about how the key to the trick was involving the media so that reporters are invested in the illusion like calling audience members to the stage. Reporters have to insist that there was nothing to see or they have to admit to being part of the original deception. The media cannot see the elephant without the public seeing something about the media in its past efforts to conceal it.

The media is now so heavily invested in the trick that they are sticking with the illusion even after “the reveal.” The Associated Press story shows that even pointing at the elephant — heck, even riding the elephant around the stage — will not dislodge these denials. This is no elephant because there cannot be an elephant. Poof!

N.B.: This column was revised to add discussion of the AP revision of the line on the investigation.

229 thoughts on “What Elephant? AP Denies that There is Any Evidence That Joe Biden Discussed Hunter’s Business Dealings”

  1. I have always had the utmost respect for Mr. Jonathan Turkey . God Bless you for having the guts and the integrity for telling the truth . I believe Joe Biden is a tyrant who seeks power above all else . While Donald Trump may be controversial , he is in my opinion no way near being as bad a politician as Joe Biden . If President Trump did break the law and try to unlawfully negate the last presidential election then he deserves to be punished . I do not believe former President Trump is guilty of espionage however . I also believe that he has received the worst treatment , probably any president in the history of our nation . While I am not a presidential historian , I do believe he at least has been treated the worst of any modern President easily . I also believe that he doesn’t deserve to be treated the way he has been treated for the most part , no matter what you think of him . I also think the modern Democratic Party is the most corrupt party our country has ever seen . We will probably lose some of our most cherished rights if Joe Biden wins another as President . The fact that his administration wanted a so called Ministry if Truth or Dept. of Disinformation to censor free speech should scare you to death . Combine the Dept. of Disinformation and Executive order 14067 to establish a digital dollar or Central Bank Digital Currency and some politicians are calling for Vaccine Passports and our freedoms will be gone . Wake up America .

  2. Those of us who have a reputation for credibility need not provide proof, so long as we do not undermine our own reputation.

    Those like DM who – just like this instance are NEVER right, ALWAYS require proof.

    We are NOT equal – that is an idiotic myth of the left.

    Some of us are smart, some not,
    some of us are talented, some not.
    Some of us are truthful and credible, some not.

    We are not therefore subject to the same expectations.
    If you have a poor track record – proof is required.

    In this instance DM’s claim that Alito was the source proved to be WORSE than your typical left wing nut garbage.

    That you even bothered to defend DM and attack ThinkItThrough over an issue that DM was so clearly wrong about
    undermines YOUR credibility

    But then there is a reason you are posting anoymously.

  3. Jonathan: Oh, I forgot to mention another important bit of news yesterday. On Saturday the Bill Pickett Invitational Rodeo (BPIR) was held in Fort Worth at the Cowtown Coliseum. The BPIR, for those who don’t know, is the only touring African American rodeo in the US. It is named after the legendary Black cowboy and performer who overcame discrimination to become the first Black rodeo athlete to be inducted in the Rodeo Hall of Fame. The participants in the BPIR help celebrate , validate and redefine the largely untold story of Black cowboys and cowgirls in the history of the West. There are a lot of books about Black cowboys and cowgirls but you probably won’t find them on the school library shelves in Florida. So as a public service announcement I am encouraging those on this blog to check out the BPIR website to see if they will be appearing in your city. It’s quite a sight to see nothing but Black people riding horses and dressed up in beautiful outfits and competing. Of course, I can understand why this might not appeal to some on this blog. It might make them feel “uncomfortable”. But isn’t that the whole idea?

    1. OMFG
      Bill Picket!!!! thats the racist hobby horse you want to whip?
      Poor recriminated man…..He was born in 1870! How many Blacks did The mayor of Chicago let die last weekend? Whats the over under for murdered Blacks in Chicago over the long Thanksgiving Holliday? 50 dead?

    1. From the article: “Russian agents did conspire to influence the election”

      They probably did in order to cause dissension, but did a bad job if they intended to help either candidate. The rest is opinion based on little fact. Nowhere do they mention such actions were based on the direction of either candidate.

      The Steele Dossier was a hoax. It was a collection of lies mixed with a bit of meaningless reality.

      Sue, show us the parts of the Steele Dossier you find meaningful and show us a legitimate reason why you believe Trump was directing the Russians to do anything.

      “Don’t take MY word for it.”

      You can use your words or the articles, but make sure you can provide adequate explanation why you find any of the junk meaningful. You can’t and that is why your claims are wrong.

      1. If you dismiss Cato Institute opinions as “junk,” that’s the end of our exchange.

        1. Sue, you fail to understand that people of all types have biases seen when they write or speak.

          The end of our exchange is that you have no data, nothing to say, zilch. You are unable to pick out data from the article. You picked out a biased opinion, and the reason we know it is the author stayed away from facts using indirect statements instead.

          Go to the article and prove your point. You can’t. That is why you need to end the discussion.

          I like much of what Cato says, even though I have some disagreements. In fact, some of what they say is sometimes disagreeable to libertarians. Sometimes Cato’s opinions agree with Democrat opinion though more often they agree with Republicans.

          Go to the article and prove your point. You can’t. Now you can end the discussion of your own volition, but you own your loss, your inability to prove a point.

        2. >> If you dismiss Cato Institute opinions as “junk,” that’s the end of our exchange. >>

          Of course it is. Little Susie is so offended by the word “junk” that she’s taking her ball and going home.

    2. The Dossier was completely false. Steele was ordered by a Judge in UK to do Interrogatories for a case where he was being sued by a man from FL. In there he testified, under oath, that the dossier was “unverifiable.” The FBI offered $1 million if Steele could verify the Dossier, he admitted he couldn’t. The FBI interviewed a Russian that Steele talked to. He said that it was “Bar talk” he couldn’t “believe anyone could believe that information, it wasn’t true.”
      Mueller admitted they couldn’t find any collusion. In the second part,the person who wrote it tried to hint that there was some not so legal behavior. But,they couldn’t relate anything. It sounded like the writing of Lawyer Andrew Weissman, who is a disgusting man, who’s done terrible things & destroyed people’s lives & was wrong & was overturned, but he’d already done the damage to the men, one died in prison, an innocent man, He hated Trump & wanted to find something, but there was nothing there, so he tried to write to make it SOUND like there was something there. Read it very carefully & then go and read some of his garbage on his cases, you’ll see the way he writes & know he wrote this part of the Mueller Report for sure. Trump didn’t do anything. They couldn’t find anything after 32 months of investigation. 10 months by FBI & 22 months of Mueller & his hatchet men!

  4. Biden says he never discussed business dealings with Hunter. Shouldn’t the first question be: “Why the heck NOT ?!”. I mean, you’re a public figure having supposedly spent a lifetime concerned about “the appearance of impropriety”. Your untalented, extremely troubled son is traveling the world hauling in boatloads of money. And you don’t ask him what’s going on??!!!
    Totally unbelievable. Never mind just the normal parental curiosity. THIS parent had a lot of reasons to ask what his son was up to.

    And let’s not forget the brother……

  5. The AP (Associated Press) says there is no Joe and Hunter Biden story. They also call elections for Democrats, before all of the votes have been counted. The AP Lies.

  6. Joe will pardon Hunter, regardless of what he did, or might do. The Senate will never convict Joe via impeachment trial. No matter how corrupt it may be, all of this is a gigantic nothing-burger.

      1. Yes, we have to impeach in the House. If we don’t the Democrats will be worse than ever the ne t time they have all the power. They impeached Trump twice & didn’t have any proof of anything. There is so much evidence against Biden, the America people need to know the truth. They just get bits & pieces now & every media has different story. The full story needs to come out. He also took oil from America’s Strategic Oil Reserve, meant ONLY for Emergencies & sold it to China, one of the Countries Hunter & him did business with, an oil company. That’s an impeachable offense.
        Our Constitution states that the Executive Branch has the responsibility to protect the States from an invasion. He has deliberately allowed an invasion into several states & then deliberately transferred thousands to other stated. That’s an impeachable offense also.

  7. The original claim that the president covered or got a kickback from a negotiation carried on by hunter is not addressed. All that is addressed is that he thinks he is smart and has concluded that because he is smart Biden extorted cash from China. This article is propaganda, pure and simple.

    1. So your saying that this (“This article is propaganda”) is a ‘Distraction’.
      The Democratic Press is full of Distractions.

      Touché !

    2. The article cites evidence that Joe Biden has lied repeatedly about something important enough for him to lie about it. He could have easily said “We talked about things in general terms” etc. being the seasoned shyster that he has always been, since he smeared the unfortunate truck driver who was driving when Biden’s wife pulled directly in front of him coming down a hill and he had no possible way to stop in time. Biden said “he must have drunk his lunch”. There was never any evidence to even hint at such a thing. He accused Donald Trump of “killing all those people” too when it was the criminal regime in China that deliberately spread the virus. His administration is covering up the origin of the virus. Taken as a whole the evidence that Biden is owned by China is a lot stronger than any of the “evidence” that Trump colluded with the Russians, which turned out to be entirely based on forgeries, lies from inside the government and arguably criminal behavior by the so-called “news media” itself. And the NY Times got a prize!

      This is remarkably parallel to the case of Walter Duranty. Or the reporter Tablet magazine wrote about last year “The NY Times Nazi Correspondent”. For those wishing a comprehensive view about the “newspaper of record” see “The Gray Lady Winked” which has been conspicuously absent from major media reviews or C-Span’s BookTV. (While Book TV gave a platform to Stacy Abrams and Bill Clinton to promote works of fictjon).

    3. Actually Dr. Turley and others have addressed it multiple times it’s just that you have blinders on. Watch out because you’re getting run over by elephants Tommy.

  8. For decades, many journalists have followed their biases, their ideologies, and their hatreds even when doing so has been damaging to the profitability of their employers. We are now, however, on the cusp a severe recession. It will be interesting to see if the major news outlets allow the foolishness to continue.

  9. It’s all a cesspool, with politicians swimming, floating, wading, etc. However, the Republicans stink the worst. Nothing the Biden’s have done, even if all allegations are true, comes anywhere near the festering disgrace of Republicans, Trump, and his gang. Kushner commutes to Saudi Arabia for four years and then right after losing his job, viola, a few billion invested by his old Arab pals. C’mon Turley, pull your head out of where the sun don’t shine.

    1. Everybody knows Kushner is effectively a liberal Democrat who tried to sabotage every America First-type move Trump made. And normal rules don’t apply to anything Saudi-they even got a pass on their involvement in 9/11. It’s like Israel (which for some time now has been a close de facto ally of KSA), which didn’t suffer any negative consequences for its deliberate attack on what they knew was a US ship, USS Liberty.

    2. among the errors in your faulty logic, Voila is the proper spelling….ya need to at least get something right.

    3. Viola? Reminds me of the old line about the difference between a viola and a trampoline – You take your shoes off to jump on a trampoline.

    4. Your own example refutes you.
      Absolutely Kushner sold something of value to other people for money.
      That happens every-time people buy groceries.

      Or to the specific example you used – The Saudi’s chose Kushner – who is worth billions on his own, and has an established track record for making good investments, to invest their money. They did not Give that money to Kushner – it is STILL their money.
      They are paying him a fee that is a small percent of that amount to profitably invest it for them.
      If Kushner fails to do so – they will take their money back.
      Nor does the Saudi investment WITH (not in) Kushner have anything to do with the US Government.

      And all of this occurred AFTER Kushner left an unpaid government job.

      NONE of the above is true regarding the Biden’s.

      The Biden’s were paid for their ability to alter the actions of government in ways favorable to those paying them.
      No one Paying the Biden’s – got a condo, or a Hotel, or ownership of a billion dollar property.

      The KEY question is NOT how much money does who make,

      It is whether what is being bought is private or public.

      No one gives a Schiff if Hunter Biden was paid handsomely for his ability to broker a deal with GM.
      No one should care if the Saudi’s pay Kushner to profitably and privately invest billions.

      But it is corrupt – and likely Criminal if what is being bought is influence over the exercise of GOVERNMENT power.

    5. The Biden is corrupt story predates Trump.
      Nor was Trump the original source of the story.
      NY Times ran the first story in 2015 – driven by requests by Clinton aparatich Sydney Blumenthal as the means to keep Biden out of the 2016 presidential race.

      Once Clinton lost, and Biden became a likely candidate in 2020 – then and only then did republicans and some journalists take interest.

      From the moment Biden was a likely candidate – Biden was protected by the press and social media.

      Trump’s request to have Ukraine look into Biden’s misconduct was purportedly a crime, based on debunked right wing conspiracy theories, and later Russian Disinformation. And democrats impeached him for it.
      Except it was self evident at the time, and is more so now, that there is more than enough evidence to ask for the investigation – that democrats have been thwarting for years. Worse still – investigating a political rival was according to democrats inarguably corrupt – with no possible excuse, Yet, Biden has been investigating a political rival from the first day of his presidency. It was also inarguable according to the left that witholding defense funds from an ally for political purposes was an impeachable offense – and yet Biden again did exactly that with the Saudi’s.
      Put simply at some point you are going to have to accept that you impeached Trump corruptly. That everyone who voted to impeach Trump that has not demanded Biden’s impeachment is politically corrupt.

      I have no idea – and it does not matter alot, whether a real investigation of the Biden clan will lead to evidence of prosecutable criminal conduct.
      Contra Svelaz influence peddling is actually illegal, but the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to prosecute.
      That does not preclude investigation. It is politically corrupt and impeachable regardless.

      1. ” but the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to prosecute. That does not preclude investigation. It is politically corrupt and impeachable regardless.”

        John, I don’t doubt what you say, but I think the Presidency is so intermingled with things that include the President’s personal life that it is hard to impeach because there are so many motivations possible. I would like to know the points the Supreme Court made when making it difficult to prosecute. I want to match those points to Biden’s obvious corruption.

        1. The relevant Supreme court case is McDonald.

          A republican VA Gov. He received gifts from an assortment of private benefactors while Governor, as well as payment for hosting events.
          He was convicted and appealed to the Supreme Court.

          SCOTUS determined that the RECORD show no proof that McDonald received private payment for anything involving his official duties.

          This was a major factor driving Sen. Menedez’s aquital.

          Biden does have a bit more trouble – because he has admitted that he demanded Shokin’s firing AS VICE PRESIDENT.

          The Ukraine incident is the best case against Joe. All that needs to be proven is that VP Biden was aware that his son was representing Burisma at the time, and that Shokin was investigating Burisma.

          Firing Shokin was an official act, and a family member profiting is sufficient – especially with finances intertwined as they were.

          While the left is wrong about several things – Shokin was not corrupt. Those are irrelevant.
          All that matters is that he was investigating a business that Biden’s son was profiting from and that Joe knew it.
          And BTW there is plenty of evidence that the VP’s office knew.

          There are emails from Victoria Nuland begging the VP’s office to get Hunter out of all the places the VP was going before there was a scandal.
          The missing link is ANYTHING that proves Joe Biden knew Hunter was working for Burisma, and that Shokin was investigating.

          1. From this, I suppose you are saying there must be a proveable link between the personal “gift” and some government action that otherwise wouldn’t occur. I think one has to add that significant other motives make it impossible to prove the prosecutable motive to be the right one.

            I see nothing wrong with this.

            Did the Supreme Court make it difficult in any other ways?

            1. All I was doing was pointing out that current state of the law as defined by the Supreme court.
              Correcting the ludicrously stupid claim that influence pedaling is legal according to SCOTUS.

              I did not take a personal position.

              What I do say is that – it is not necessary to prove That Biden violated the narrowest read of the law to establish that he is politically corrupt.

              This is one of the issues the left does not grasp regarding Trump.

              Trump is not avoiding prosecution based on technicalities, he is not benefiting from reasonable doubt.
              Claims regarding him die because they are WRONG.

              Russian collsion is not something that Mueller fell just short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
              It is something that not only was there no evidence of at all, but that the foundations of the investigation were based on Fraud.

              Biden can not ever be exonerated – there is no question that he and his family sought to profit off his public service.
              That has been proven – what might not be proven is that he was legally corrupt, in addition to being morally corrupt.

              Trump has moral problems – but public corruption is not one of those.

              1. John, my question wasn’t about your position but rather about clarifying whether or not I understood what the Supreme Court ruled on. I provided my opinion because I thought the restrictions were reasonable and made it very hard to prosecute a President on those grounds. We have a Congress that is supposed to do that even if multiple motivations make it impossible to rule against a President.

                1. My point – though not aimed at you – was that SCOTUS did not declare influence pedaling legal.
                  They merely made it more difficult to prosecute.

                  I have a separate point in that, the conduct of the Biden’s, and particularly Sen, VP and President Biden is a matter for public investigation and concern – whether it is legal or not.

                  President Biden’s efforts to blackmail the Saudis into not raising oil prices until after the election, is not a criminally prosecutable act.

                  It is however immoral. It clearly meets the democrats new standard for an impeachable offense. and it is a legitimate matter of public interest.

                  1. “My point – though not aimed at you – was that SCOTUS did not declare influence pedaling legal.”

                    That was a good point and I was glad you made it. Influence pedaling can be a crime.

                    “President Biden’s efforts to blackmail the Saudis into not raising oil prices until after the election, is not a criminally prosecutable act.”

                    It isn’t criminal because the motivation might not lead to personal benefit. It is difficult for a President to be convicted of influence pedaling because that is ‘part of his job description’. We have a Congress that is supposed to fight for its power and stop such shenanigans by the President. Congress has been impotent. We also have a judiciary to reign in presidential powers by finding things unconstitutional.

                    The double standards of Democrats seem to confuse many people who would be happy to be part of the Democrat Party in years past. They should reexamine what the Democrat Party of today really is.

              2. “Trump has moral problems – but public corruption is not one of those.”

                What are those moral problems? Previously you listed two, sex and bragging.

                Sex: Many people engage in open marriages, wife-swapping, etc. Divorce rates are sky-high. Foul talk in a locker room is not uncommon. This talk is private stuff that the media exploits and builds on.

                Does he beat his wife? No.
                Does he force his wife into prostitution? No.
                Does he provide for his wife and family? Yes

                What is your problem with Trump’s sex life?

                Bragging: We ate dinner at a table close enough to Don King that we started talking to him. He presented himself in a completely different fashion in conversation. He did not seem like Don King, but when we were ready to leave, he suddenly became the Don King I recognized. He became the promoter. In his rapid staccato fashion, he told us we had to get tickets to see the fight, it was going to be the best fight, and we would have the best time, Everything would be the greatest. That was Don King the promotor. His home was within walking distance and the tickets we could purchase would not affect his income. His house down the block cost tens of millions, so this sudden diversion into promoting his boxing event is different than the normal bragging we might find objectionable.

                Trump too is a promoter, and we see the same thing. What is seen is a man presented by the media, not the man.

                I know too many people that know him on a personal level. They describe him as quiet and non-threatening.

                Is your objection to his personal or business persona? Why?

                1. You are off on a meaningless tangent.

                  Thomas Jefferson owned other humans, and may have slept with his slaves – certainly some mail in the Jefferson family did.
                  That is immoral.
                  Jefferson is also the prime author of the declaration of independence one of the more important political and moral documents of human history.

                  Trump is not Jefferson – neither in the height of his accomplishments, nor the depth of his immorality.

                  You are likely correct in your long list of immoral acts that Trump did not commit.

                  Regardless, I will choose to defend Trump on the ground I choose – not that you wish to choose for me.

                  Trump is inarguably a far better president than Biden.
                  Trump’s moral failures are inarguably less than Biden’s or most democrats.

                  1. “Thomas Jefferson owned other humans,”

                    Trump did not own slaves. Get back to the question instead of your tangential argument. “What are those moral problems? Previously you listed two, sex and bragging.”

                    “Trump is not Jefferson – neither in the height of his accomplishments, nor the depth of his immorality.”

                    John Say is not Jefferson. Another tangential.

                    “You are likely correct in your long list of immoral acts that Trump did not commit.”

                    Those acts are important and common acts demonstrating immorality. Do you have some uncommon acts of Trump we are unaware of?

                    “Regardless, I will choose to defend Trump on the ground I choose – not that you wish to choose for me.”

                    I am not asking for you to defend Trump. Quite the contrary, I am asking you to open the wound and let everyone see the worst of Trump. Let us not talk about Trump’s good parts. Tell us the worst of his morality.

                    1. Please pay attention to the actual argument – it is not tangential, it is just not what you wanted to hear.

                      One of the differences between us – odd since you are constantly accusing me of rigidity, is I do not expect perfection.

                    2. Your statement that Jefferson had slaves had little to do with the questions asked. I will repeat the crux of the discussion.

                      You wrote: “Trump has moral problems – but public corruption is not one of those.”

                      I then responded with the question: “What are those moral problems? Previously you listed two, sex and bragging.”

                      You write: “Please pay attention to the actual argument”

                      If you look at my question, you will see I am paying attention to what you said, but you are not responding on topic. I am not asking you to praise Trump. I am asking you to show the worst of Trump’s moral problems. That is easy to answer, but for some reason, you are avoiding a response.

                    3. Again you do not control my arguments or my responses.
                      The Jefferson assertion was responsive to MY POINT, MY ARGUMENT.

                      You asked what Trump’s other moral failures are.
                      My answer is that I do not care, and they are not sufficient to negate his accomplishments.
                      I am not obligated to respond to your posts in the way you wish.

                      Biden has numerous moral and possibly criminal failures which require further exploration –
                      Particularly because they are directly related to his excercise of public power – Trump’s are not.

                      But many would yawn at Biden’s large moral failures – if he was a successful president.

                    4. “Again you do not control my arguments or my responses.”

                      I do not wish to control your argument. My question was simple and based on your correct belief about Trump’s moral failures, existing in almost all our presidents and legislators. You mention or emphasize these moral failures in the discussion. I agree. However, I find them of little relevance because our choices for good leaders are limited, and most, revealed by the press or not, have similar failures. In Trump’s case, the media unfairly enhances questions of his morality to such an extent that people feel the need to apologize when they mention his name in a positive light (you do not do that).

                      However, sometimes you seem to focus too much value on his (personal) morality, where I find little relevance, so I searched for more explanation. That is why the following dialogue occurred.

                      You wrote: “Trump has moral problems – but public corruption is not one of those.”

                      I then responded with the question: “What are those moral problems? Previously you listed two, sex and bragging.”

                      If there is nothing more, that is fine, but it makes me wonder what good leader would fill your needs. I don’t require an answer to that, but that is the essence of the discussion.

                      Abe Lincoln understood morality and didn’t prevent moral problems from getting in the way of good leadership. When discussing Grant’s drinking, instead of firing him, he is quoted as asking what type of whisky he drank so Lincoln could send that brand to all his generals.

                      When considering Trump’s successes, I won’t complain about his moral failures, as already mentioned, unless, of course, there are more that you wish to add. Barring any additions, I think we should all be satisfied with him and reduce the discussions of morality when we consider our choices.

                    5. Your question is Your question. It is what YOU care about.
                      It is not what I care about.
                      I do not care what the answer is – so why should I answer it ?

                      If your question interests you answer it.

                      Why is it you are demanding that I provide you with an answer to a question I do not care about ?

                    6. “Your question is Your question. It is what YOU care about. It is not what I care about.

                      Then why do you pursue this very question? I have asked a question, yet you wish to turn the question. Why?

                      “I do not care what the answer is – so why should I answer it?”

                      I am as interested in non-answers as I am in answers.

                      “If your question interests you, answer it. Why is it you are demanding that I provide you with an answer to a question I do not care about ?”

                      I can’t answer the question for you. If I could, I wouldn’t be asking the question. There is no need for you to pursue the question by manipulating it. Do not worry. You know what you want even though you entangled it with something else in it.

                    7. Your not entitled to answers – except from government or those you have contracts with.

                      Failure to answer is SOMETIMES meaningful.
                      SOMETIMES it just means the other party does not care.

                    8. Over and over and over again ad naseum, despite getting the only answer you are going to.

                      You are absolutely free to flog that dead horse.

                    9. John, I don’t have to repeat the question and you don’t have to repeat your answer. Your repetition means the horse is not yet dead. Its heart may have stopped beating, but there is enough alive that you wish to respond.

                    10. You are not paying attention to what I said, you are fixating on a very small detail of what I said.

                      Why is it that you need a list of what I beleive to be Trump’s moral failures ?

                      They are real, they are problematic, they are harmful, but they do not alter the fact that on Net he was the best president in the 21st century.
                      He is not a giant among presidents, But he is a giant among dwarf presidents.

                      I also think he turned out to be the right person at the right time.
                      Conversely Biden is turning out to be pretty much the worst person for this moment.

                    11. Most of the private moral failures on the blog are trivial to a president’s ability to function. Because a nuclear exchange can occur, I am not concerned with foul locker room talk. Some have made Trump’s character an issue which I find foolish. Whether it is an issue for you or not, I don’t know, nor does it matter though I would like to learn from other people the important features a president should have.

                    12. “One of the differences between us – odd since you are constantly accusing me of rigidity, is I do not expect perfection.”

                      I didn’t say you were rigid except at times when you wish your ideology to be followed rigidly. At other times, not so much.

                    13. What bothers you is not what I wish.
                      It is that I correctly refuse to accept that specific types of compromises are improvements over losing.

                    14. “What bothers you is not what I wish.
                      It is that I correctly refuse to accept that specific types of compromises are improvements over losing.”

                      No. I want to learn what is most important, and how choices are made when dealing with high stake risks such as nuclear war.

        2. I am surprised that an SC was not appointed for Hunter Biden.
          Though I think there will be one soon.

          Too many here seem to think that the Trump SC is an agressive move.
          I think it is a defensive move by Garland.
          It passes a hot potato,
          It gets Garland out of Biden’s bullseye.
          it get Garland out of the House Judiciary Bullseye
          It obstructs the house investigation.

          Appointing an SC for Hunter does much the same thing

          It will not “work” – unless delay is your definition of working.

Comments are closed.