Columns, Media, Politics

Getting “Personal”: Chuck Todd Dismisses Investigation into Possible Biden Foreign Influence Peddling
YouTube Screenshot

Below is my column in the New York Post on the new narratives emerging in the media in anticipation of the investigation into Biden influence peddling. The comments by NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd capture the ongoing efforts to dismiss the serious allegations raised in the scandal.

Here is the column:

“It does sound personal”: NBC’s “Meet the Press” host’s words Sunday capture the new narrative in Washington as the House readies the long-delayed investigation into the Biden family’s foreign influence peddling.

I previously wrote how the media was preparing to control the damage from the scandal after spending years falsely calling the Hunter Biden laptop “Russian disinformation.” Even after belatedly acknowledging the laptop’s authenticity two years after The Post’s October 2020 reveal, they continue to bury the story involving Russian, Chinese, Ukrainian and other foreign interests, including figures associated with foreign intelligence.

Now the details of one of the largest and most lucrative influence-peddling operations in history could be made public — along with their effort to conceal it.

Even in a city where influence-peddling is a virtual cottage industry, the Bidens took the corrupt practice to a truly Olympian level. The direct references to Joe Biden receiving money and benefits from these contracts should concern any citizen, let alone any journalist. Yet House Democrats blocked efforts to investigate any Biden influence-peddling.

This obstruction was only possible with an enabling and protective media downplaying the scandal. The press continued the effective blackout even as emails showed Biden repeatedly lied about having no knowledge of his son’s foreign business.

Such denials, however, are getting more difficult. The Associated Press had to withdraw its absurd recent claim there’s no evidence of Biden ever discussing his son’s dealings. There’s even audio of him leaving a message for Hunter specifically about coverage of those dealings.

Dozens of emails, pictures and witness accounts prove the president was not just aware but a possible beneficiary of this corruption. His personal interactions with his son’s business associates include at least 19 visits to the White House by Hunter’s partner, Eric Schwerin, alone from 2009 to 2015, when Biden was vice president.

Emails on Hunter’s laptop make repeated reference to not only Joe’s knowledge but efforts to hide his involvement. In one email, Biden associate James Gilliar instructed Tony Bobulinski, then Hunter’s business partner: “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.” Bobulinski has given sworn statements that he personally met with Joe Biden to discuss these dealings.

Emails used code names for Joe Biden such as “Celtic” or “the big guy.” In one, “the big guy” is mentioned as possibly receiving a 10% cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm. There are also references to Hunter paying off his father’s bills from shared accounts.

Code names, cuts for “the big guy” and millions in mysterious foreign transactions would ordinarily send the media into a frenzy. But the Bidens adeptly enlisted the press into suppressing the story. Many in the media became “made men” and women who proved their loyalty. If this is a corruption scandal, there’s little the media can do to spin their own role in concealing it from the public.

For their part, Biden allies are gearing up to attack possible witnesses against the Bidens. For the media, however, it’s hard to acknowledge let alone pursue a scandal that you actively suppressed for years.

That’s what made Chuck Todd’s interview with incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer so revealing. Todd spent most of the interview dismissing the committee’s work as a “political” exercise in targeting opponents. Comer’s efforts to detail the evidence of the president’s role was met by a smirking dismissal from Todd, who ended the interview by saying, “Well, it does sound personal, at that.”

So investigating millions of dollars flowing from foreign interests, including some connected to foreign figures or intelligence operatives, is just a personal attack.

If you’re wondering how the media would have reacted to even a fraction of such concerns being raised about Trump business deals, you don’t have to. They spent years drilling down on every foreign deal, and Todd was one of the most vocal in raising the alarm over foreign influence.

For example, in 2018, Todd doggedly pursued interviews with figures like former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Trump foreign deals and bank loans with Russian figures. Schiff declared without contradiction by Todd that “if Trump’s [business dealings] are a form of compromise, it needs to be exposed.”

Todd conducted a similar interview in February 2019 on influence-peddling allegations involving the Trump family. As Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general, breathlessly announced a Russian-collusion indictment of Trump “could be coming,” Todd asked whether foreign business deals “compromised” the president.

Todd was right to ask if Trump was “compromised” by foreign deals like a Trump Tower in Moscow in 2019. It was neither personal nor political to raise such questions.

But it is now. Totally personal and political. Unlike Schiff, who was heralded for his efforts to uncover evidence of “compromise,” Comer was given only two choices by Todd: Will he “de-partisanize” his investigation or “do you expect it to be partisan?”

The problem is that not only will the details of these dealings be made public; the public wants to see those details. Various polls show Americans want an investigation into the matter and believe Congress should address social-media censorship of such stories.

In other words, it’s not working. The public is not going to dismiss this influence-peddling scandal with a smirk and a shrug. There will be a public accounting, and it will not be confined to the Biden family.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

198 thoughts on “Getting “Personal”: Chuck Todd Dismisses Investigation into Possible Biden Foreign Influence Peddling”

  2. Jonathan: Speaking of “foreign influence peddling”, or more accurately “meddling”, perhaps we should discuss what is happening in Brazil, the largest democracy in S. America. Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally of Donald Trump, lost in a close presidential election to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Initially, Blosonaro was shocked by his loss and remained pretty quiet. That was until his son, Eduardo, flew to Mar-a-Lago and met with Trump and Steve Bannon. In an echo of Trump’s behavior Bolsonaro skipped Lula’s inauguration and flew to Florida. Some thought he would move into Mar-a-Lago but instead he found lodging with a friend in Orlando. Bolsonaro now claims his loss was due to election “fraud” and his supporters have demonstrated and blocked streets. Over the past weekend his supporters stormed and destroyed buildings at Brazilia, the nation’s capitol. Sound familiar? It’s a page right out of the Trump/Bannon playbook. In a podcast Bannon claims “Lula stole the election” and calls the Bolsonaro insurrectionists “freedom fighters”. Bannon wants the Brazilian military to stage a coup like the one in 1964 to get rid of Lula.

    And it isn’t just Trump and Bannon who are promoting conspiracy theories about the election in Brazil. Even Elon Musk and your co-worker Tucker Carlson at Fox have weighed in. Musk tweeted: “I’ve seen a lot of concerning tweets about the recent Brazil election. If those tweets are accurate, it’s possible that Twitter personnel [under previous management] gave preference to left-wing candidates”. Carlson was more blunt on his show. He claimed, without any evidence, the Brazilian election was “rigged”. He went on that Bolsonaro supporters “are angry because the new Lula government has eliminated their most basic civil liberties. Lula is working to turn Brazil into a Chinese-style dictatorship”. Other than George Santos when it comes to making breath taking lies Carlson has no equal! So what’s the point? As long as Trump and his allies are out there stoking the fires of insurrection, Democracy is not safe in either the US or Brazil!

    George Santos also has a connection to Brazil. Back in 2008 Santos went into a store outside Rio, spent $700 using a stolen checkbook and using a false name. Brazilian authorities investigated but ran into a dead end. They couldn’t find Santos. He disappeared. Now Santos has reappeared as a new freshman member of Congress. So Brazilian authorities are re-opening the 2008 investigation. and are asking for cooperation from the DOJ. It’s unlikely a sitting member of Congress will be forced to appear in Brazil. No wonder Santos wanted the job!. Santos can be tried in absentia–and if convicted could receive up to 5 years in prison, plus a fine. That’s why I can safely say Santos won’t be visiting friends in Brazil anytime soon!

    1. What does Brazil have to do with Biden and son influencing peddling? Try dealing with the facts contained in the ‘laptop from hell’ that the FBI has been sitting since Nov 2019. So the Dems, the press and government institutions are protecting the real criminals. I think Turley is right. The time to dismiss this is long past.

    3. Dennis – why don’t you let JT decide what subject he wants to discuss? You can always start your own blog, and no doubt millions will wait to see your opinions.

      1. edwardmahl – . . . millions will wait to see your opinions.

        You’re assuming they are his opinions. It’s obvious he doesn’t actually watch Tucker Carlson, so he’s just copying and pasting from some left-wing website somewhere.

  4. Does anyone remember that legal case where the FBI wanted Apple to use “backdoor” technology to access contents on an encrypted iPhone? FBI later declared that it had “found” someone to do it, and then withdrew its legal demand to compel Apple’s cooperation?
    My intended OPINION/musing is this: The people who create software/spyware/algorithmic access-ware, etc. obviously (and sometimes exclusively) know how to crack it, conceal it, erase it, disable it, destroy it, etc. and pretend it never happened. So too for other incriminatory information. Those that control the technology are capable of controlling the evidence.
    I AM NOT SAYING THE GOV’T IS DOING THIS, but when “controlling” the information involves a government entity, that can be veddy veddy skeddy, whether it be by friendly cooperative relations with media giants, or downright disappearance of inculpating information. That’s what bothers me about the media/government marriage (no betrothal, no ring, though)

    For example, the classified documents in VP Biden’s storage were “discovered” on November 2, 2022 (six days before the mid-term elections). So why didn’t click-bait media report this on November 3, with a simple [‘anticipatory’] “Oh, a handful of classified documents were found…but they were immediately turned over, and the Biden administration has been fully cooperative….” “Nothing to see here, folks, move along,” as one of our .here says (Diogenes? mespo? ?) Instead, the document disclosure is reported on January 9, 2023??? Took an awful long time to review the significance of “just 10” documents….
    And did we even know anything at all about VP Biden and Ukraine and all that–until much later, when Trump took office?
    Conversely, we probably know every sin Trump ever committed, -and knew most of it while he was still a candidate. The media then exponentially turned all his venial sins into mortal sins (am I using the right terms?)..
    So, for those who say, “Go ahead, conduct your silly investigations, you won’t find anything bad that Biden did,” -they may be right.
    We may never know for years-maybe eons, maybe never, if Biden and others will go to heaven?.

    1. addendum: sorry, my muse about going to heaven was just sarcasm directed toward the way “media” can create saints or sinners).

    3. Lin, when you say “discovered” you are implying that they didn’t really discover the documents but they “discovered” them. This leads to wild conspiracy theories before any of the facts are presented. The documents were not being sought by NARA. They didn’t know they were missing. The lawyers did the right thing and immediately notified NARA and the DOJ. Because the DOJ got involved and an investigation ensued per policy the DOJ does NOT comment or announce it. This is why we didn’t hear about it for a while. It was the same with Trump. We didn’t hear about the DOJ investigation on trump until he didn’t comply with a subpoena. It’s not even known if it was Biden who took those documents to that office. It’s assumed only because of the name of the organization where they found them. The difference is that unlike Trump. Those documents were immediately handed over to NARA as required and they fully cooperated with the DOJ. Trump didn’t until he was forced to.

            1. ATS, after leading people on a wild goose chase that revealed you were wrong (this is typical for you), you link to another lengthy site telling people to search it to prove your wrong point.

              Biden compromised the law and American security. They were classified documents kept at an unsecured think tank.

              You wanted to charge President Trump for classified documents, securely kept at Mar a Lago, that he declassified.

              What can one surmise from your sudden reversal?

              YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR

              It is time for the FBI to search all Biden properties and offices for classified documents left before he became President.

                1. You send people links to waste their time. This time the link was long, and you were wrong. You provided another link, yet haven’t shown where that link solidifies your position any more than referring us to a Donald Duck cartoon.

      3. Trump had valid reasons and arguments that he pursued through his lawyers and the rights provided to the President under NARA and the Presidential Records Act…so that isn’t obstruction. The antogonistic and politicized response from the National Archives, however, can be contrasted with their (and the FBI/DOJ) rolling over nicely for Hillary and Bill, Obama, and now Biden. So their comments one way or the other are just partisan statements at this point.

        With McCarthy it came down to “at long last Senator, do you have no shame”…what will it take for the MSM to get that same message, as complicit as they have been. They may think they all need to hang together or separately at this point, but that ship has sailed. Their only way back is to begin honestly reporting again.

      1. mespo727272: Thank you. So is prosecution for this ‘offense’ pretty much Moot since Biden was V.P. over five years ago,
        OR does the Statute of limitations begin with the Discovery of the Classified Documents (on November 2, 2022) ?

        1. §3282. Offenses not capital
          Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.

        2. When evidence of a crime is intentionally concealed, the statute of limitation only begins to loll when the concealed evidence is discovered. And there can be a new crime resulting from concealment of evidence, if that can be established.

          1. A:

            Typically if crime is continuing — like here and in cases of conspiracy — it’s not completed and hence the s/l won’t begin to run. I’m not aware of any exception for intentional concelment execpt in bankruptcy fraud cases and by statute. I doubt intentional concealment will delay running of the s/l but haven’t researched it.

        3. If the offense is a continuing one, such as possession of classified documents, the statute of limitations starts to run when the documents are discovered.

      2. Mespo, what is the legal origin of “classification?” Is it not a function entirely of the executive branch, the transfer of which would require a constitutional amendment, causing legislation to be illicit and unconstitutional as a usurpation of power, even if signed by the president? Are not the branches separate and equal, which precludes direction and dominion by one over the other?

        1. George:
          Not sure I understand your question. Are we talking about “classification” of documents? If so, that’s done by federal statute and federal regulation with the President given ultimate authority. There’s an argument to be made that protecting state secrets is an executive function historically speaking so I suppose you could argue Congress is overstepping its bounds but I think that won’t pass muster at SCOTUS.

          1. Does the Constitution establish and regulate the classification and retention of documents and materials?

            Is classification solely a function of the executive branch? If it is, modification would require an amendment and legislation would constitute illicit usurpation by the legislative over the executive.

            Was classification initially established by the Constitution or by federal statute/regulation? Presumably that power of regulation is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

          2. Sorry, nope. All powers of classification reside in the Chief Executive and are delegated in the Executive Branch officers the President designates and devolves power to through the rules and regulations you mention. But those rules and regulations bind THEM and limit THEM, not the President from which the power derives and devolves. The Congress has NO ROLE in any of this.

  6. Yeah but, ProfT, you still voted for this mess. I mean some of us raised these questions over 3 years ago. Biden’s influence peddling is hardly late breaking news. You addressed it yourself in more than one column. Yet you somehow still voted for the guy who is compromised, blackmailable by multiple hostile entities, and an accused rapist among other things. And you even got weepy about the unity that this marvelous human being, show me the money Joe, was going to somehow create. At what point do you come out and say, clearly, without prevarication, sorry I got it wrong?

  7. This obstruction was only possible with an enabling and protective media downplaying the scandal. The press continued the effective blackout even as emails showed Biden repeatedly lied about having no knowledge of his son’s foreign business.

    Back in the day journalists reveled in holding the government’s feet to the fire, questioning authority, and exposing corruption at the highest levels. Now, it seems they just read scripts prepared for them by the agencies of the security state, the military-industrial complex, the pharma-industrial complex, and the climate-industrial complex. From all appearances, journalism has become a burnt-out shell of its former self.

  8. Jonathan: You continue your allegations about “influence peddling” by the Biden family that has reached a “truly Olympian level” and Hunter Biden’s laptop shows Joe Biden “possibly receiving a 10% cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm”; and, a “reference to Hunter paying off his father’s bills from shared accounts”. So far a lot of allegations and other conspiracy theories but little in the way of actual proof. “Possibly” doesn’t count as real evidence.

    So finally your wet dream has come true. The new GOP controlled House is setting up a special committee to try to prove what you have complained about for years about the Bidens. In one way I welcome theses investigations. Finally, you and the GOP are going to have to put up or shut up. I expect the House Committee will want to call you as an “expert” witness so you can lay out your case. Jim Jordan and James Comer are relishing the idea of investigating the Bidens. Comer said on Meet the Press last month: “We’re investigating Joe Biden to determine if this president and this White House are compromised, because of the millions of dollars that this family has received from our adversaries in China, Russia and Ukraine”. Without any evidence or testimony Comer has already prejudged. Hardly a good start for a fair and impartial investigation.

    In the midterm election campaign the GOP promised it’s top priority would be fighting inflation and dealing with other issues important to American families. That’s likely to take a back seat now that the MAGA supporters are in charge. It will be 2 years of non-stop “investigations” to try to show how the DOJ/FBI was “weaponized” to unfairly go after Donald Trump and defend the Bidens. I am looking forward to the circus we will see on full display in the coming months. Please let us know when you are scheduled to testify. I wouldn’t want to miss that!

    1. Today’s Turley Fox-purchased attack piece goes after: mainstream media and Joe Biden. Turley says that mainstream media “admits” that the laptop is authentic, after initially dismissing it, but, Turley, tell us when your employer ever admit that any stories or commentaries it published were false or unfairly distorted the truth? How about the Big Lie? Did they ever retract all of false claims about Trump’s “landslide victory” being “stolen”? How about claims that Jan 6 was orchestrated by Antifa and/or the FBI? Did Fox ever apologize for Kellyanne’s efforts to deny that Trump called migrants “criminals, rapists, murderers”? When Fox hosts feed the Republican claims about “weaponization” of the IRS, are they going to mention how Trump got the IRS to do a deep, forensic audit of James Comey’s taxes? I sort of doubt it. Whenever a guest of one of the hosts points out the truth, Fox immediately goes to a commercial. Yesterday, Karl Rove did a white board comparing Trump’s intentional theft of hundreds classified documents stored in unsecure locations, with the discovery and voluntary reporting by Biden’s administration of 10 or so classified documents found in a locked office closet. I know your employer has been spinning this as some sort of defense of Trump, but the situations are totally different–Biden didn’t intentionally take anything, and the minute the papers were discovered, they were reported. Trump deliberately stole hundreds of classified documents, lied about returning all of them, made up a fairy tale about mentally “declassifying” the documents, and forced the NARA and DOJ to go after him with a search warrant. No comparison whatsoever, but is that how Fox will spin it? We all know the answer to that one.

      1. (1) I believe the gist of today’s blog post is about media’s addressing/treatment of potential issues, not the guilt or innocence of the person in question. Apparently, you missed that.
        (2) Gigi: Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump.
        (3) Take two aspirin and lie down, check in with us at your usual time tomorrow.
        (4) Thank you.

        1. Dear Lin: you need help with reading comprehension. I did address how one “media” outlet handles “issues”–media that goes by the name of “Fox News”, in particular, that never retracts or apologizes for publishing outright lies, spinning facts to make ReTrumplicans look good, and constantly attacking Biden and Democrats. Turley is just a paid mouthpiece to serve as an echo chamber for their agenda. Your efforts to demean me say more about you than me–I must be scoring points to earn your scorn. I’ll shut up about Trump if he shuts up and goes away for good, like every other losing presidential candidate has done–George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton are recent examples. He lost 2 presidential elections, but found a way to cheat his way into office in 2016, he lost Congress for Republicans in 2018, and multiple other candidates he endorsed lost in 2022–in particular, Lake, Oz and Walker. The only ones who won that he endorsed were predicted to win anyway because they were in safe districts. But, he just won’t shut up, go away, stop lying about losing, and stop stirring the culture wars. So, he’s fair game for criticism.

    2. ‘Dennis McIntyre’ (‘Jonathan: you continue your allegations…’) the Cluelessness of such Spin posted by you here are due to the fact that the writer has failed to avail himself of the actual sources that show concrete Evidence behind everything Prof. Turley has to say.. There are Choices. Does one continue to watch NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, et al, for more fake news aka propaganda.. or does one Really Do The Research into Primary Sources..where the Truth/Facts can be found.. and they always speak for themselves… ‘res ipsa…………..’ not needing the MSNBC spin…

    3. Dennis – Pull up a chair, one without cushions, where that rear end will not be working button holes on the cushions seats. The coming disclosures, the ship is going to hit the sand so to speak. The late coming disclosures are very indicative, and I would allege that from the time DT became the Rep candidate they have attempted a coup against him down to this very day. The US Intelligences could tell you every dollar that was transferred to Hunter where it originated, if it was channeled through a number of shell corporations and where the dollars last deposits were. All the evidence has been broom swept away by some of our most high (legally) 3 digit alphabets (EG; DOJ , FBI, etc) and hidden and particularly prior to voting 2020 2022. It is now an opportunity to rip the covers back and expose the Bidens, and the deep state, and including our Gov’t institutions. I would allege there is much criminal activity. If allowed, I would believe a disclosing John Durham report would start a purging tsunami

    4. Pretty rich from a Dem! Sorry, it won’t be like the Schiff Show Kangaroo Court nor the J6 Kangaroo Court…there will be real evidence and not a show trial of manufactured evidence produced by a professional director/producer from NBC. Show the FBI/DOJ was weaponized? All they have to do is show the investigations and the lack of evidence or cause!

  9. Why wouldn’t a guy who’s working for the Biden Whitehouse want to keep us from seeing the payoffs to “the big guy”? He’s just doing what he’s been told to do at the morning meetings. He went down to the crossroads and sold his soul to become a big time broadcaster long ago. Once he sold his soul his master will never let him have it back and will play the fiddle to make him dance again and again. There are no mirrors in his house.

  10. OT but deliciously ironic:
    Biden: “Hey, Merrick, let’s put that ‘imminent’ Trump indictment on ice.” Trump’s collecting on that “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Let’s all spell “S-E-L-E-C-T-I-V-E P-R-O-S-E-C-U-T-I-O-N” together now. LOL

    1. Had Trump done what Biden did — immediately notify the FBI and return the documents — it wouldn’t be an issue for Trump either. Instead he obstructed.

      1. Anonymous, two things: 1) Trump was the president, Biden wasn’t, and 2) The FBI was aware of the docs that Trump had and they were actually is discussions about them.

        Now try really hard to be critical of Biden, or any Democrat Come on hack, you can do it.

        1. Trump’s presidency ended on Jan. 20, 2021.
          Trump was subpoenaed for all of the documents with classified markings, and had his lawyers lie that a complete search had been carried out and all had been returned.

            1. Trump has been prosecuted for it? News to me. And you well know that that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted, so it would have to wait til Biden’s out of office. You’re so blinded by hatred that you can’t even refer to Democrats without referring to them as “Dims.”

              1. “You’re so blinded by hatred that you can’t even refer to Democrats without referring to them as “Dims.”
                **************************
                Only because they are. I called Repubs the Party of Stupid for years until they came around. Now and as for Trump being “prosecuted,” he won’t be and precisely because of yet another Biden stepping on it moment. I don’t hate the Dims as they are amusing in their transparent patheticism. It’s just they have become my sworn enemy as destroyers of the Constitution and of all American traditions. Nothing personal but I do hope they burn for eternity in that “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing [their] teeth.” Other than that, I wish them well and a speedy receiving of their just rewards.

                1. Thanks for more evidence of what a hateful person you are to hope that anyone ends up in a fire for eternity.

                  “he won’t be”

                  Time will tell. You wish to pretend to read the future. I won’t join you in that.

                  1. Hate is an underrated emotion. It’s fine — even required– to hate your enemy, child abusers, your oppressors and especially reruns of Maude.

      2. Anonymous – According to the White House Counsel: “The President periodically used this space from mid-2017 until the start of the 2020 campaign. On the day of this discovery, November 2, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office notified the National Archives.” Are we really supposed to believe that Joe Biden did not know for over 5 years that he had these highly classified documents in an unsecured location? It is more likely that he knew and said nothing. It was the Counsel’s office, not Biden, that recognized the political significance of the documents and acted to limit the damage. But let’s assume that Biden actually did not know. In that case, it would be evidence of an atttude far more reckless than that of Trump, who kept his documents in a secure location.

        1. I see no reason to guess. Let it be investigated, as it should be, just as Trump’s possession of classified documents should be investigated. A number of the classified documents are MaL were in an unsecured desk in a room where all sorts of people, including foreign nationals, passed through, so don’t pretend that this was less secure.

              1. How does one get to the office unless invited? I invite people into my office, but that doesn’t mean that they have access to my personal papers. President Trump is neat.

                Biden’s office did not have the security arrangements of Trump nor the powers of Trump. Biden is in clear violation.

  11. What is News but the perspective of the reporter, the editor, or corporate governance? We have reached the point where facts have been replaced with self-delusional truths; facts that do not adhere with the delusion must be ignored, replaced, or co-opted to advance the quest for transcendence to utopia. The Forth Estate has become corrupted by Democratic and Woke hysteria, delirious notions of self-worth and thinking the pedestal they perch on is stable enough to withstand a barrage of facts. The foundational structure of the Forth has large fissures where facts go to be forgotten, and new truths to be written.

  12. Chuck Todd is failing in the ratings and is in danger of losing his job and therefore he is doing what everyone trying to gain support of the mainstream clique does, he trying to shore up his leftist bona fides. Ralph Northam did it and succeeded and even managed to end the “scandal” of wearing black face. This tactic has played out many times and of course it almost always works.

    As for Svelaz claiming that Biden didn’t do anything illegal, there are no words to convey how corrupt this argument is. Here is a rule of thumb, if a Republican is doing something out in the open, see Ivanka Trump, and is not getting into trouble then it is legit, if a Democrat is doing something surreptitiously and is in danger of getting in trouble, see ALL OF THE BIDENS, then it is most definitely illegal.

    Trump’s family acted out in the open, above board and with the knowledge of everyone while the Biden creeps snuck Hunter to China on AF 2, made SECRET deals and then claimed the VP knew nothing about it.

    BTW, how many of you know that when Pelosi made her trip to Taiwan, a trip that had problematic geopolitical ramifications, she took her son with her SECRETLY, he wasn’t listed in the programs given to the media, so that maybe he could make some deals with the Taiwanese.

  13. Remember – John Kerry’s step son left his partnership with Hunter Biden when Biden moved into this direction. In addition, no Biden family member denied the laptop story.

  14. Not disagreeing with any of Professor Turley’s statements, but I notice that there are no citations of statutes or case law indicating that the article needed to be written by a lawyer or legal analyst instead of, say, a political pundit or media critic. The hackneyed expression “liberal media” in the title of the article as it appeared at the NY Post and the body of the article itself seem to indicate political punditry or media criticism, not the legal analysis that is the professor’s bread and butter.

    It reminds me of the way NY Times columnist Paul Krugman — a supposed economics expert (LOL) — regularly strays FAR out of his economics lane into areas where he has no more expertise than anyone else (but a LOT more bias) to spew wild democrat political rhetoric having nothing to do with economics. You could literally stop any 10 random people on the street and get 9 opinions that are at least as valid as Krugman’s when he’s not talking about economics (and 5 opinions that are as valid as Krugman’s when he IS talking about economics).

    At any rate, as a mental exercise it would be interesting to read what the other 6 people that were watching Meet the Press think. And a definition of “liberal media” would also be enlightening (not to mention hilarious), especially considering that the article was originally published by Trump-hating, Freedom-Caucus-disparaging Murdoch media, which appears lately to be channeling Liz Cheney when it’s not obsessing over the British Royal Family or promoting radical socialist Tulsi Gabbard.

      1. Gabbard quit her job at the DNC to support Bernie Sanders. Your MORONIC reply is meaningless compared with actual FACTS, troll.

          1. She quit to support Sanders, lying troll. And when the unprosecuted multiple felon formerly known as “Hillary in a landslide” got the nomination, Garbbard supporter her/it. And when it came time for the 2020 election, Gabbard supported Joetard, TROLL.

            1. Troll, how many radical socialists do you know get invited to GOP CAP as a speaker?
              In her tweets, she tends to mention God. Not really a radical socialist POV. Not at all. I am on her email list. I have donated to her 2020 campaign twice. Would of a third time had she not dropped out. Note, she lasted longer than that loser Harris.
              She supported Sanders as a better choice to H Clinton.
              And boy was H Clinton pissed! Still is.
              Troll.

              1. Got it. You love socialism and political chameleons, That’s YOUR credibility problem, not mine.

              2. Upstate, It is hard to dislike Tulsi, but no matter how likable she is, I want a leader strongly adherent to free market capitalism and small government. Today she is not that person.

                I can mention many of her good policies I strongly support, along with too many bad ones. Two that tell me a politician leans strongly toward a collectivist ideology are climate change (including fracking) and healthcare.

                However, she is young, 41, and has time to move away from those policies and others, especially since she demonstrates a strong independent spirit.

    2. Actually, I used to read Paul Krugman fairly regularly – as a preventive to low blood pressure. He is as wrong about domestic economics as about everything else. He predicted that Trump’s election would lead to economic disaster – but, unless he had pre-warning of COVID, that has to be marked as wrong as the rest of his screeds. Because the economy was flourishing like a much loved and tended rosebush in an ideal climate before that, with the changes enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We need to make those cuts permanent before they snset at the end of 2025.

      1. I also read Krugman regularly, back when I had a NYT subsecription that I let lapse in 2012. If I recall correctly almost every comment I posted concerning his articles were in disagreement with him and asked WHY he was supposedly an economics columnist when virtually all of his columns were about partisan politics. And when he managed to talk about the economy, he was almost always proven wrong. He’s gotten more milage out of a Nobel Prize than anyone else I can think of who’s turned out to be a laughing stock in his own field — which is supposed to be economics, NOT politics. There’s a lesson for Turley in there somewhere, if he’s smart enough to take it.

        But reading Krugman regularly for some time (and knowing when to quit) was good mental exercise because it made me figure things out for myself, which caused me to remember what Krugman said would happen vs what I said would happen (or thought would happen concerning articles I didn’t bother commenting on), so that when things actually happened I could remember knowing more about how the economy functions than a guy who apparently bought his Nobel Prize at a garage sale.

        1. Krugman’s Nobel was connected with his work on “New Trade Theory” and “New Economic Geography,” whatever those are supposed to mean. But he’s clueless about even the very basic principles of economics as it directly impacts peoples lives.

          FWIW, the official title of his NY Times column is (or was) “Conscience of a Liberal,” though he’s no more truly liberal in principle than any of the power elites whose boots the wannabe licks for his breakfast.

          1. Of all the Krugman articles I read way back when I had an NYT subscription, the only one I remember is the one where he claimed that the economy was in great shape and there was actually negative inflation. This would have been around 2010 or 2011, as rhetoric to support Obama’s reelection. And to support his “reasoning,” Krugman cited the price of Gulfstream jets as dropping or holding steady. Forget about the cost of food and clothing. So if you were a billionaire tooking to replace your old personal jet with a new one, inflation was low and the economy was in GREAT shape.

            That’s my most vivid memory of a Krugman column — that and the fact that, for whatever reasons, my comments concerning his colums seemed to get regularly selected as “Editor’s Picks” — which I’ve always interpreted as indicating that my comments represented what a LOT of people were saying but that they were saying it with more obscenity than I used.

            1. Yeah, I stopped reading him in disgust around then. I actually remember reading that particular column. But, as I noted, he’s a power-groupie, so of course he’s concerned about the poor billionaire Democrats. Normal folks? Let them eat Gulfstreams.

              1. I chalked Krugman up to being a writer of made-to-order political rhetoric and not actually a legitimate economics columnist at all. But he’s also a cautionary tale for Turley, who seems to be flirting with performing the same function for the establishment “republican” party.

  16. It’s Getting “Personal”

    Damn right it is. As prophesied, the year 2023 is about gossip & airing dirty laundry…For Cash.

    Take that carpet bagger Prince Harry who lives in a $14 million dollar mansion in LA.
    Harry complained about the US constitution. Now Harry has turned into a house wrecker, going after his family for book deals & paid interviews.

    Harry says “it’s a dirty game”…..So who wins & cashes in?

      2. The bodyguard’s son is the un-royal now firmly attached to a failed, opportunistic gold digger in an extremely lucrative global fantasy derived of the empathy, covetousness and envy of hordes of commons.

        Precisely on the Kardashian model, there’s no there there.

  17. “It does sound personal”: NBC’s “Meet the Press” host’s words Sunday capture the new narrative in Washington as the House readies the long-delayed investigation into the Biden family’s foreign influence peddling.”
    *********************************
    Hahahahaha! After everything they did and said about Trump and his fine family, ol’ Caterpillar Lip is worried about getting too personal. Hahahahaha!

  18. Does anybody remember the Benghazi fiasco and how a Republican congress couldn’t cement the deal that hillary was a lying haridan purposefully causing the deaths of those 4 Americans. They had the goods on hillary, but they faded away in their attempts to prove anything. It was swept under the rug because too many swamp dwellers on both sides are so vulnerable to blackmail because of their own corrupt actions that silence is their only path at this point. Only if there is enough continued public outcry from enraged citizens will this get anything but perfunctory treatment. We have rinos in both Houses that will be “convinced” to let this slide until he is out of office and the fear of a Harris presidency has passed.

    1. I acknowledge your fears. So much corruption that goes unaccounted for, it is hard to believe anything will come from any investigation except a bunch of money spent.

      1. It took four indepth investigations by congress before it was finally exposed that Clinton knew that an Al Queda faction was responsible while the attack was ongoing.

        Had the truth been provided quickly there would have been only one investigation.

        1. It took four indepth investigations by congress
          Every
          It took 6 investigations to finally get to Clinton’s wife’s emails. Every investigation up to that point, got only the few email on her official State Dept .gov email. Clinton obstructed the Congress in their investigation, but thats a different kind of obstruction.

  19. Todd has a Democratic footprint. According to Wikipedia, he worked on the 1992 Presidential campaign of Sen Tom Harker, a left-of-center Senator from Iowa. Of course, NBC knew that when they hired him.

Comments are closed.