President Joe Biden has repeatedly denied that his family received money from China. He has also denied any knowledge of his son’s foreign dealings despite direct evidence to the contrary, including a recorded message from the President to Hunter referencing the deals. The White House has simply refused to address the recording or photographs contradicting the President. Now, there is confirmation that millions were sent from China and then money from a third-party account was distributed to at least three, and possibly four, Biden family members. However, when confronted with the evidence on the way to Marine One, the President again declared “that’s not true.” Given that these are suspicious activity reports (SARs) from Biden’s own Treasury Department, it is unclear now what the President is suggesting beyond the possibility of an evil twin Biden family that is besmirching his good name.
After the GOP takeover of the House, the Oversight Committee demanded information long blocked by the Democratic leadership on the SARs related to the Biden family. The first such disclosure involved a Robinson Walker, LLC account that received $3 million from the State Energy HK Limited. Money was later distributed in incremental payments over three months to Hallie Biden and companies associated with Hunter Biden and James Biden. There was also an unknown bank account identified as “Biden.”
The House Oversight Committee is demanding to hear from the recipient of the transfer from China. Chairman Comer wrote John Walker that the panel “is investigating President Biden’s involvement in his family’s business practices” and “has identified you as a critical witness in this matter and has reviewed evidence showing you received millions of dollars originating from a Chinese energy company and elsewhere.” Walker can explain any connection between the Chinese transfer and the later distributions.
What is clear is that money has been received by Biden family members from China and other foreign interests. However, the White House has continued to refuse to answer questions on these details.
Even the highly deferential White House press corps erupted when White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that they would have the opportunity to ask President Biden questions at an upcoming meeting with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. The President rarely answers questions at such photo ops.
It is now clear that the President has continued to lie about his lack of prior knowledge of Hunter’s foreign dealings. It is also clear that the family has received money from deals in China and other foreign countries. That leaves the President with only categorical denials in the face of growing evidence to the contrary.
What is also clear is that the Bidens ran one of the most lucrative and blatant influence peddling operations in history. Influence peddling is the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but the Biden family is truly in a class to itself . . . unless there is that evil twin Biden family that continues to undermine the First Family.
Wonder how long Joe would stand up to waterboarding? How about we find out….
But…but… Trump made mean Tweets…
Again! Really after 1000’s & 1000’s of casea & the those Evil B*astards/Bill Gates are still releasing Polio into the world’s Gen Pop.
What can’t continue will not is what I’ve always heard.
*****
African Country Burundi Detects Polio Outbreak Linked to Polio Oral Vaccine – Vaccine-Induced Polio is Now More Prevalent than the Wild Type
by Jim Hoft Mar. 19, 2023 9:15 am248 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/african-country-burundi-detects-polio-outbreak-linked-to-polio-oral-vaccine-vaccine-induced-polio-is-now-more-prevalent-than-the-wild-type/
“What is also clear is that the Bidens ran one of the most lucrative and blatant influence peddling operations in history”
Come on! Don’t sell the Clinton Crime Family short. Until the numbers are in, it’s still a toss up. Not just who got the most millions. But where the millions came from, and how much of the USA was given in return for those millions, should count too. Biden may well be the winner, but keep in mind that when the Clinton’s were raping the country $10 or $20 million was a nice chunk of change. Now someone could probably find that kind of cash under Biden’s sofa cushions.
I am sure Trump’s team is compiling a list of the many members of Congress who have made payments to women to settle claims alleging sexual contact in its various forms.
Funny you mention that, andrew. Between 1997 and 2017, the Congressional Office of Compliance paid out $17 million to settle 268 sexual harassment complaints against members of Congress. I have absolutely no doubt that at least some of them were against Democraps who feign outrage at Trump’s behavior. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html
Thanks. That’s a lot of complaints.
Joe Biden refuses to condemn the secret payment of millions of dollars to his family from America’s most dangerous, nuclear-armed enemies, China and Russia. It is a felony, however, according to Biden’s allies, if a political opponent of Biden pays $130,000 of his own money to an American adult film star threatening to expose a consensual dalliance.
Thank you, Professor for suggesting the “evil twin” defense and let’s hope that Old Biden takes up the idea because it really looks like that between the need for IC to cover-up it’s misdeeds and Joe Biden having the walls closing in on him, that they might just start WW3 if for no other reason than to wash the slate.
“So what? What is illegal about receiving money from deals in China?”
Well, it is illegal for a politicians to take money from Communist China (a country that is an adversary to the United States) or Ukraine, which is a corrupt government, or anyone else, to influence, directly or indirectly, decisions of said politicians.
Bribery is the practice of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in discharge of his/ her public or legal duties.
18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2) provides in part, the following:
“…(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;….”
The bribery took place while Biden was Vice-President. The Constitution provided in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Bribery, i.e., is the practice of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in discharge of his/ her public or legal duties is an impeachable offense, supra.
The key to bribery as it applies to the Biden is section (b)(2), “… directly or indirectly,….). In other words the use of his family members to receive money to influence then Vice-President/President Biden, and then for those family members, i.e., his brother and son, then to funnel money to the then Vice-President/President.
We already know from records released that in addition to Biden’s brother, Hunter and
Hallie, $70,000 was paid to someone listed as “Biden.” Gee, I wonder who that could be? And, what was the $70,000 for? And what this is called is Bribery, i.e., to “receive directly or indirectly corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;…”
Let’s not forget the message sent by Hunter to his sister complaining about paying half his income to his father. And where did Hunter’s income derive from! China and Ukraine.
Maj229,
“Well, it is illegal for a politicians to take money from Communist China (a country that is an adversary to the United States) or Ukraine, which is a corrupt government, or anyone else, to influence, directly or indirectly, decisions of said politicians.”
Hunter Biden is not a politician or a government official. A lot of those deals were also made when Joe Biden was not in office.
“18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2) provides in part, the following:…”
McDonnell v. United States narrowed down the requirements to charge someone under that statute. The Supreme court effectively made the majority of influence peddling legal and considered it protected free speech under the 1st amendment. They ruled that the term, “any official act” was unconstitutionally broad and ran afoul of free speech rights. The biggest problem you have is proving influence. The second problem is proving intent and as a lawyer you should know it’s the most difficult thing to prove in court.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mcdonnell-19
“The Supreme Court had previously ruled in line of cases culminating in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) that plutocrats have a First Amendment right to buy, under the guise of campaign financing, undue influence which creates conflicts of interest for the peddlers of that influence. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in McCutcheon that “[i]ngratiation and access” bought in this manner “are not corruption…. They embody a central feature of democracy.” Under the Supreme Court’s bizarre interpretation that “freedom of speech” is the equivalent of freedom to make political pay-offs, the Supreme Court thus denies government the power to restrict the flow of special interest money into politician’s pockets through the various channels for campaign financing.”
“Since such recusal laws, if robustly enforced, would thus provide a systemic remedy for the systemic corruption created by the Court’s project of deregulating of the supply of money in politics, the Court has now issued a deceptive decision that maps a retreat from its permissive doctrine with respect to regulating conflicts of interest, without even mentioning the subject. It has done so by unanimously ruling that an elected official who takes money for and commits acts to advance the special interests of a benefactor, such as to make useful introductions, set up a meeting, talk to another official, make a product endorsement or organize a promotional event, but which activities do not actually succeed in accomplishing the supposed concrete goal sought by the benefactor, does not commit an act that fits within the Court’s re-definition of an “official act.” It makes no difference that such activities were unquestionably performed within the scope of the politician’s official duties.”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/30/supreme-court-legalizes-influence-peddling-mcdonnell-v-united-states/
This is from the conservative majority of the supreme court. It will be extremely difficult to event try to prosecute given these rulings. The supreme court set the bar quite high and the interpretation of the law very narrow.
“Hallie, $70,000 was paid to someone listed as “Biden.” Gee, I wonder who that could be? And, what was the $70,000 for?”
LOL! you’re a really bad lawyer. Speculation is not evidence. Complaining about paying half his income to his father means what? You still have no evidence and all you can do is speculate and claim crimes are being committed based on a law that the Supreme Court ruled is too broad and intrudes on free speech. Remember, Citizens United defined money as free speech.
LOL Try and keep up with me. United States v. McDonnell, et al, doesn’t deal with bribery. The trilogy of cases that McDonnell is a part of, deal only with campaign contributions used to gain influence with politicians, which the Supreme Court held were protected under the Constitution.
Bribery is not protected by the Constitution, and under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution bribery is an impeachable offense. Bribery of politicians is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2), which is not protected by the Constitution, supra. Since your not a lawyer “supra” means above and “infra” means below.
Hunter is the conduit through which the payments were made to influence the “Big Guy.” It’s called “money laundering” to conceal the bribery taking place, because it appears there is no connection between the “Big Guy” and the payments, when in fact there is when you look beyond the facade, which you never do.
The only reason we know this is the records that were just released. The payments came from a Chinese company, all of which are partially owned by the CCP. These payments were not campaign contributions because foreign nations and citizens of foreign nations are prohibited from making such campaign contributions per 52 USC 30121, at al.
As the payments were not “campaign contributions” as required by United States v. McDonnell, the case you cite doesn’t apply and your citation of it is incorrect.
I’m not speculating. It’s called deductive reasoning based on the circumstantial evidence found so far. All legal analysis finds it’s basis in deductive reasoning.
Maj, this has been told to Svelaz before, yet he keeps repeating his stupidity. That is what happens when one’s brain is smaller than one’s mouth.
Yep, you’re right. I usually ignore anything he writes, but it’s been a rainy afternoon today and helped the afternoon pass pointing out his ignorance of the law. LOL
Except for Svelaz, his aliases, and a few others, I enjoy reading post by you and many of the others on this site, non lawyers and lawyers alike. There are times when I think non lawyers understand the law better than lawyers and judges do, as evidenced on this blog site.
Maj229 is no lawyer. That’s for sure. Her arguments are horrible.
Sounds like Anonymous the Stupid trying to be relevant. Of course it could be one of the stupid other ones that didn’t sign their name.
S. Meyer, you keep thinking you’re smart, but you keep proving that assertion wrong every time you post.
Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
Svelaz – you constantly shout fire. but never provide evidence of anything you claim.
And the rare instances you do, your “evidence” is absurd.
Apples are not oranges.
Birds are not turtles.
For “whataboutism” to have any merit the things being compared have to be similar in the ways meaningful to the discussion.
Investing money for another – something banks and investment firms do all the time is NOT being paid billions.
Though we do expect investors to be paid for a good job
You have yet to explain what Hunter Biden was paid for.
The reality is that EVERYONE knows what Hunter Biden was paid for
He was brokering the office of Vice president.
Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt ? No.
It does not need to be.
It has been proven more than sufficiently to impeach, or to alter peoples votes.
Sen. Menendez was not convicted on bribery and corruption charges.
That may have been the correct result.
He was narrowly re-elected – that was the wrong result.
John Say,
“ Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
Svelaz – you constantly shout fire. but never provide evidence of anything you claim.
And the rare instances you do, your “evidence” is absurd.”
I provide evidence all the time. It’s you who does not most of the time. You make a lot of claims and accusations without backing it up unless you’re forced to and when you can’t you go off on long winded diatribes loaded with more unsupported claims and accusations. S. Meyer only provides incoherent word salads sprinkled liberally with insults and obfuscations.
“ Apples are not oranges.
Birds are not turtles.”
Very true. However you are the one who keeps making false equivalencies all the time when you are trying to make comparisons. Remember your teacher in classroom vs. a public speaking event? You compared both to being the same thing. That was a really bad attempt.
“ Investing money for another – something banks and investment firms do all the time is NOT being paid billions.
Though we do expect investors to be paid for a good job”
It’s also something foreign governments do al the time too. Especially governments run by royal families such as the Saudi’s. Newly created private equity firms owned by a president’s son-in-law getting $2 billion after facilitating a difficult PR problem involving a murder sure doesn’t seen sketchy at all? Please.
Investors don’t have to have experience to get paid millions or billions. Kushner and Hunter both made money by relying on their family names. That is not unusual, in fact it’s very common with the well off and well connected.
“ You have yet to explain what Hunter Biden was paid for.
The reality is that EVERYONE knows what Hunter Biden was paid for
He was brokering the office of Vice president.”
Why would I need to explain? He’s a private citizen. Just like Jared Kushner or Ivanka Trump. They don’t have to justify to anyone want they were paid for. BUT, if they worked for their dad as government officials then we do have a right to know what they were paid for.
Everyone doesn’t know what Hunter Biden was paid for. You don’t know, nobody knows. If that were true there wouldn’t be a need for investigations trying to find out. That was a really stupid claim to make.
“ Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt ? No.
It does not need to be.”
It has not been proven at all. That is the problem you keep running into. There is zero proof that he was “brokering the office of the Vice President”. Are you aware how stupid that sounds? There’s no sufficient proof to write articles of impeachment or alter votes. There’s more proof coming out of the Fox News Dominion defamation case on voter fraud claims being false and that is under proof obtained under oath.
Trump and Fox News have already been exposed as peddlers of BS. What is funny is you have to work a lot harder to deny those truths and that is telling.
You’re simply nuts.
“I provide evidence all the time.”
No you don’t.
Mostly you spew insults.
Occasionally accusations.
More rarely assertions without support.
To the extent you provide anything that actually constitutes evidence it is always framed nebulously to avoid exposing details that are entirely counter to your claims.
Or you fixated on tiny details that you do not like – without grasping they have no bearing on your claim.
A perfect example is that you are constantly argument that efforts to suppress speech are free speech failing to grasp if that was true – then free speech can not exist.
Based on your posts you are an unintelligent left anarchist.
But not even smart enough to grasp that is what you are advocating
“No you don’t.
Mostly you spew insults.
Occasionally accusations.
More rarely assertions without support.”
John, you’re confusing me with S, Meyer. That’s literally what he does on a daily basis. Everything on this one post is exactly what S. Meyer is guilty of.
Maybe you should be chastising him for being a leftist anarchist.
Svelaz, you are not fit to lick SM’s boots.
SM does not lie constantly.
You do.
SM’s posts have 1000 times more substance than yours.
Whatever insults might be hurled your way by him, or me or anyone else,
are a distraction which we should possibly avoid.
But they are fully justified.
“John, you’re confusing me with S, Meyer. “
If you were Meyer, you could stand on two feet, proud, but instead, you crawl on your belly, lying deceitfully, when you aren’t demonstrating your ignorance with error and slovenliness.
In virtually every post, John and many others have had to correct your facts, logic, and conflicting statements only to listen to you repeat them. You think you are smart, but you keep proving yourself a fool.
I have never seen anyone prove to a community his foolishness so many times and so rapidly. You win the award for stupidity beating out some pretty stupid people. Blessed are those that are not like you, and more blessed are those who never heard of you.
“A perfect example is that you are constantly argument that efforts to suppress speech are free speech failing to grasp if that was true – then free speech can not exist.”
No John it’s you who has a problem grasping the concept of free speech. Criticism is not suppressing free speech, It’s part of free speech.
Students at Stanford exercised their free speech rights when they protested Judge Duncan. They tried to drown him out and partly succeeded. That is still free speech. What Turley and other conservatives including libertarians such as yourself don’t understand is that you are dictating to everyone else the manner in which everyone should protest or disagree with someone else.
You say those protesters should be expelled because they were disrupting the speech of another. Nothing in the 1st amendment says they can’t do that. You support that kind of speech wholeheartedly when you defend the Jan 6 “protests”. You support the violent and disruptive actions they took to express their views which is no different than what the students at SLS did. They were protesting against the views of a federal judge, a government official.
Our own history is replete with examples. The Boston tea party, the Watts riots. The George Floyd riots. Lot’s of protests have been violent, even lynchings are seen as protest against certain groups. Protesting is what happens when civil means of communication lose their efficacy. That’s why protesting is a form of protected speech. Come to think of it the Jan 6 protests were right wing anarchists doing their thing. They wanted to disrupt a government function and went nuts once they got inside.
“Criticism is not suppressing free speech, It’s part of free speech.”
Correct.
“Students at Stanford exercised their free speech rights when they protested Judge Duncan.”
When they Protested OUTSIDE, or with Signs inside.
“They tried to drown him out and partly succeeded.”
Correct – that is NOT free speech
” That is still free speech. ”
nope. Nor can it be otherwise there is no free speech, just anarchy and the weak get drowned out by the powerful.
The quiet by the loud.
Right protect the powerless, not the loudest.
“What Turley and other conservatives including libertarians such as yourself don’t understand is that you are dictating to everyone else the manner in which everyone should protest or disagree with someone else.”
No we are dictating the FEW things you CAN NOT do – you can not use FORCE against others.
Suppressing speech is FORCE. Criticism is not.
Criticism is properly arguing someone is wrong.
Supression is drowning them out.
Again your error should be obvious even to you.
How would jonathanturley.org work if each of use could come here and erase the posts of others – would that be free speech ?
As I cited previously –
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—up to man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”
Liberty without the minimal order necescary to protect it is not liberty at all.
Or from the Declaration.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
The social contract – the duty of government is to protect – through FORCE rights
When government does not secure our rights – it is not legitimate and it is our right to abolish it.
Rights can not exist without law and order to protect them.
Like laws against disorderly conduct.
Those laws must err on the side of liberty.
But no latitude is needed when the conduct of one harms the liberty of another.
Again on issue after issue – YOU make the same stupid argument – that your liberty includes the right to destroy mine.
That is FALSE.
Svelaz, I will pretty much always have significant advantage over you in an argument.
First, you are not careful about the truth, facts, logic.
Also because you are always trying to make novel, new, unusual arguments that reject often millennia of wisdom and experience.
You presume on the issue of free speech you are the first to have thought of this argument that suppressing the speech of others is free speech to.
That is hubris. Far better people that you have made such arguments – often centuries ago and lost.
It is not always true that what is, is what’s best – but it nearly always is.
That is why most businesses fail, most new ideas fail.
That is why government must stay out of free exchange.
Free exchange results in failure far more than not.
The ONE thing we can not allow to fail is government.
But the frequency and harms of failure are overcome by the benefits when we eventually get things right.
When you are arguing against decades, centuries even millennia of wisdom – it is near certain you are wrong.
When you make a novel claim – I assume you are wrong. Novel claims are nearly always wrong.
My role is either to think of the rebutal, or find it. Knowing from the start it exists.
If it did not – your claims would not be novel – they would be the norm the past millenia.
“They wanted to disrupt a government function and went nuts once they got inside.”
And yet they are in jail for something that now, even you are calling protected free speech.
You are correct that I sometimes do not back up my claims with evidence.
I do not need to.
I do not lie.
I correct errors when I make them.
That is what behaving trustworthy means.
It is why I can go into a bank and get a loan for far more than I would ever think about borrowing.
Credit is just trust with money.
I do on occasion provide evidence – When I am tired of your BS I bury you in evidence.
Regardless, every claim I make can be verified.
Pretty much none of the few actual claims you make can be.
And you are frequently caught in stupid lies.
“You are correct that I sometimes do not back up my claims with evidence.
I do not need to.
I do not lie.”
LOL!!!!!! John you and I both know that’s BS. That level of arrogance is exactly why you lie. You rarely back up your claims because most of the time they are BS. You don’t provide any evidence precisely because it’s BS. That is not even debatable.
“Regardless, every claim I make can be verified.”
No it can’t. You have claimed in our discussions about Trump’s classified document fiasco that merely moving documents out of a secure facility are automatically declassified. Not once were you able to verify or show anything that backed up that stupid claim. You kept hemming and hawing around your inability to prove the claim by deflecting and obfuscating.
John, everybody lies. You’re certainly no exception.
Facts are not arrogance.
And we BOTH know my remarks are true – again you are lying.
The proof is smeared all over this web site.
Telling the truth is easy.
Correcting errors when you make them is easy.
Making up lies that will not ensnare you is not.
Regardless, the “evidence” is all over jonathanturley.org
With respect to your allegation on Classified documents.
That is a logical conclusion based on the constitutional power of the president and Obama’s Executive order.
But Beyond the logic – it is also supported by WaPo and NY Times articles in 2017/2018 that examined claims regarding to Trump providing Classified information to the Russian Ambassador.
This was also addressed in the media, and by lawyers and by me in 2013 with Respect to Pres. Obama using an AOL account to email Classified information to Clinton.
I would note the burden of Proof is on YOU, and prosecutors. YOU are alleging a crime. Further for my argument to be FALSE, you would have to allege that the president moving classified information for a secure location to an insecure one would be a Crime WHILE he was president.
Crimes are ACTS – they are not passive. You can not commit an ACT that is legal while you are president but becomes illegal as soon as you no longer are.
I would further note that NARA v JW may not explicityly state my claim – but it is implicit in the holding.
JW alleged that the Tapes contained Classified information. Judge ABJ said – does not matter at all – they are Clinton’s Period.
Either they are still classified and Clinton has the right to own them, or they are not classified and Clinton has the right to own them.
Svelaz – you absolutely SUCK at logic, and pretty bad at facts and law too.
Svelaz – we have been through this debate before – You lost.
You can not make the law and constitution and Obama’s EO work if I was incorrect.
Every president since Nixon would have violated the espionage act.
Yet they have not.
I would note that NO ONE is looking for Classified material that Biden has left lying arround as PRESIDENT.
They are looking for material from his time in the Senate and Vice Presidency.
The issue here is much the same as with the PRA.
If the PRA binds on the president in the way YOU claim – it is unconstitutional – because congress can not by law change the constitutional powers of a president.
That must be done by amending the constitution.
If the Espionage act binds on the President as you claim – -t is unconstitutional for exactly the same reason.
Even Obama’s EO can not bind himself, or future presidents. The constitution does not allow the president to limit his own power, much less his successors.
Presidents can CHOOSE to act within their own EOs or that of predecessors. The Rest of Governmnet MUST comply with all active EO
s – but not the president – that would violate the constitution.
“You kept hemming and hawing around your inability to prove the claim by deflecting and obfuscating.”
No I have used Facts, logic and reason to prove it.
I can not help it that you are dense and do not understand those.
The sun rose this morning – whether you accept that or not.
I virtually never deliberately lie.
I certainly have never done so – outside of obvious sarcasm or joking on this blog.
I conduct all my affairs with integrity – because in most of what I do – if you are caught lying ONCE people will no longer do business with you.
I would note that most people do the same. Generally successful people are scrupulous about not lying.
Even Drug dealers tend to be honest – as even drug addicts usually have sufficient choices that they will go elsewhere if they are lied to or cheated.
Svelaz – you are less honest than a drug dealer, than a Mafiosa.
Even crime requires more integrity than you have.
Everybody does not lie. And few people lie so much as you or those on the left.
Nearly all of us do not share truth with others they are not entitled to.
You are not as an example entitled to know whatever you want about my sex life.
Chosing not to tell you what you have no right to know is one of the many many things that are not lies, but not the truth.
You are so used to lying about everything, and so used to believing you are allowed to know about everything. that this would be beyond you.
Svelaz – I am not running into any problem at all.
Yes, The Conduct of the Bidens has plenty of Evidence.
If the standard is more likely than not – VP Biden sold out the country. There is more than enough evidence to meet that standard.
If you are not aware of that evidence – you are either willfully blind living in a hole, or lying to yourself.
People have already gone to jail over this.
“Yes, The Conduct of the Bidens has plenty of Evidence.”
What is the evidence? Conjecture, speculation, and assumptions is not evidence. You have a bad habit of conflating those as evidence, even an absence of evidence is considered evidence in that twisted mind of yours.
“If the standard is more likely than not – VP Biden sold out the country. There is more than enough evidence to meet that standard.”
IF, the standard is that, but that is not the standard. You are basing your reasoning IF a certain standard applies not the standard that actually matters. That is why you say “IF” instead of “THE” standard. The standard clear and convincing evidence”. Not, “more likely than not” which is no different than an assumption at best. You need concrete proof or proof beyond reasonable doubt which nobody has presented including you, despite saying there is evidence.
“If you are not aware of that evidence – you are either willfully blind living in a hole, or lying to yourself.
People have already gone to jail over this.”
You have not presented any evidence at all. All you have is speculation based on things that are not illegal and assuming it is because there might be something there that you don’t yet know which is no evidence on your part. You are still relying on this concept that lack of evidence is evidence. All you have is circumstantial evidence and you go far beyond that to insinuate that there is more damaging evidence without any proof. You start guessing anything beyond circumstantial evidence is itself evidence of a crime or illegal activity. That’s not how the law works. You already arrived at a guilty verdict based on speculation, not any evidence which you claim to magically have that nobody else has.
Who has gone to jail over this?
It is not possible to drive evidence into your brain like a spike – and it would be illegal to try.
You have been provided evidence.
You have been provided the means to find more.
You lost this debate long ago.
There is more than circumstantial evidence – but at least you are admitting that circumstantial evidence exists.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for pretty much every single argument I have made.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a criminal investigation.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict in a criminal Trial.
Here is the CA jury instruction on circumstantial evidence.
Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable
Repeating the same false claims over and over is not argument
And it is why no one trusts you.
Svelaz, I am waiting for you to prove your contention but all you do is prove yourself dumber than a load of bricks.
I note you piecing together phrases used by others and data that is out of context. These are signs something is wrong upstairs. Do you have an upstairs?
Maj229,
“ campaign contributions used to gain influence with politicians,..”
That’s what bribery is. Campaign contributions involve money. You as a “lawyer” should know that.
You just agreed with the Supreme Court ruling that bribery is protected under the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court stated any charges regarding bribery must be very narrowly defined. Because acts of bribery can also fall under free speech protections. They made proving bribery a lot harder by raising the bar and narrowing the legal interpretation of the statute.
“ As the payments were not “campaign contributions” as required by United States v. McDonnell, the case you cite doesn’t apply and your citation of it is incorrect.”
Wow, you really are a bad lawyer. The case didn’t just focus on campaign contributions it focused on the phrase “any official acts”. The case involved using money to gain access or contribute in other ways that fall under the umbrella of protected free speech activities.
“ I’m not speculating. It’s called deductive reasoning based on the circumstantial evidence found so far. All legal analysis finds it’s basis in deductive reasoning.”
LOL!! You are speculating all right. Deductive reasoning requires that you have evidence beyond mere guessing, more than just circumstantial evidence, to arrive at your your conclusion.
Payments coming from a Chinese company don’t prove anything other than just making money from a Chinese company. That’s not illegal or criminal.
Are you sure you went to a real law school? It looks like you got robbed.
More of this apples and oranges nonsense.
Carl Icahn pays money for stock to gain influence on a companies board.
Campaign contributions are to a campaign – not a person.
When the election is over – the candidate does not get to keep unspent money.
In the MacDonald case – which started this.
MacDonald was paid personally while Governor to appeal at events by companies.
MacDonald was not acting as governor, nor was the prosecution claiming that the payments were for excercising executive powers.
In the Menendez Case – Sen. Menendez Received valuable perks from wealthy constituents and in return wrote letters to government agencies
lobbying those agencies for better treatment of those constituents.
Menendez was not convicted by a Jury.
The Jury did not beleive the evidence of a quid pro quo was sufficient.
The Menendez case does not alter the law – receiving money or gifts in return for the exercise of public powers is a crime.
If you contribute to a political candidate – the expectation is that they will do as the publicly promised.
I am not aware of a political campaign ever promising to Benefit Exxon.
Political promises are to accomplish different views of the public good.
Some candidates and parties beleive that abundant energy is a public good.
Just as others beleive that the arts is a public good.
The fact that both are wrong does not make funding them criminal.
As to recent issues.
Trump paid someone to keep silent about a damaging fact. That is legal.
It is legal regardless of alleged motives.
Did he do so thoguh his campaign ?
That is not established – nor is it relevant.
Campaigns pay for many things.
Edwards paid to hide his adulterous pregnant paramour from the public and his wife who was dying of cancer.
and he did so with campaign funds and was not convicted.
AOC paid her lover from her campaign.
Maxine Waters pays family members from her campaigns.
There is no evidence that either actually do anything.
Nor are AOC or Waters the only ones using campaign funds to hide things or to benefit friends.
the DNC, Democrats and specifically the Biden campaign paid staffers to send censorship requests to Twitter and Social media.
Specifically to Hide the Hunter Biden story.
In what way is that different from Trump Hiding Daniels ?
Conversely the Biden family was Paid by the Chinese While Joe Biden was Vice president.
Is that proof of a Crime ? Ho was convicted for it.
Regardless, you are free to beleive that alone is not sufficient to bring criminal charges.
It absolutely is more than sufficient basis for investigation.
And more than sufficient basis for impeachment – you set the low bad for that.
It is reasonable for you to ask – what proof is their that Ho got a benefit that is specific to Biden as VP ?
Just as it is reasonable for the rest of us to ask – Where is their evidence that Ho bought anything that might be legal ?
You are correct – the fact that Hunter Biden and the rest of the Biden family by all apearances have no marketable skills that are worth millions – is not proof that they were paid millions to rent public power. But it certainly looks that way.
Hunter did not win the lottery.
While you keep misrepresenting that Facts regarding Kushner.
There is legitimate reason to question why Kushner was paid by the Saudis.
There is also a legitimate answer. Kushner is being paid to invest billions with the expection of profits on that investment by the Saudis.
Hunter Biden is being paid for something. Again – he did not win the lottery.
So far there is no legitimate answer.
We are entitled to be suspicious.
there is a foundation for an investigation.
Democrat: “We value Truth over Facts” seems they universally accept this capricious notion they can materially change the meaning of Truth. Truth can mean numerous things as exampled “God” there’s believers and non-believers, Global Warning, whose truth should we follow. You see truth and fact are not part and parcel to the other. Truth used in the truest sense, is made of fact and thus so defined in any dictionary. My first example above zeros in on the truth/fact issue as belief in a greater deity requires Faith, which does away with Truth and Fact as neither is provable; we can suppose facts based on occurrences but again that’s faith in your observational wish. The second issue is alike the first, truth before fact requires faith. The data stream of Global Warming is not empirically accepted by experts or the public to indicate one final conclusion or another. To make any conclusive statement about Climate and in particular a time frame too doom, is Faith in your belief without any supporting facts.
Now “That’s Not True” comes from the mouth that said, “We Value Truth over Facts”! Ha, I cannot accept the statement, there are facts that do not align with the supposed truth. “I have faith in the president”.
It was Joe Biden, on the campaign trail, who said ‘we choose truth over facts.’.
*I think that was the most honest and revealing statement he ever made.
The most corrupt administration in modern history occupies the White House.
The media supports or even defends or obfuscates all this White House administration lies.
This White House administration does everything to under mind traditional American values, all to promote a sick and twisted view of what American society should be.
This is the kind of thing American went to WWII to fight against. We just might find ourselves fighting as we did against the Nazis here on America soil.
FYI:
As I understand things last Thursday JP Morgan was able to secure 2 Trillion from the FED/Powell to keep them out of BK, but it isn’t a Govt Bailout it’s just a small Liquidity issue. LOL;)
Oh Gee ole buddy ole pal can you front me $ 2 Trill so I can buy a hamburger today & I’ll pay you back next Tuesday, I pinky swear.
& rumor also has it ole Warren Buffet & Mr “Suck It Up” Charlie Munger ( Wells Fargo) are speed dialing the equally old incompetent Jerk Pedo Biden.
I seen Fin News that those Mega Wallst Banks are as safe as being in your mothers loving arms. Naw Really, that’s what I heard. LOl;)
Well, whatever going on maybe they’ll explain it all to us Stakeholder/Citizens before those old b*astards get us all Nuked.
You Villl Own De Nothing & you Vill eat De Bugs! Form your new would be owners, the UN/WHO/WEF 7 the Globalist Corporate Masters.
Looks like we’ll just have to sort out the BullSchitt ourselves.
********
Federal Reserve Bank Launches Phase One of CBDC This July
175,134 views
Mar 17, 2023
85
Share
Download
Greg Reese
Greg Reese
https://banned.video/watch?id=6414cb05605edf539c4941f2
I like to clown around most of the time, but is serious. Just how many more times are we Stakeholding Citizens going to let the same Idiots like Jamie Dimon.JP Morgan, Warren Buffet/”Suck It Up” Charlie Munger WFC & the rest of the 6 monster Banks & assorted Corporate Fools W/this Govt/Courts Phk’in things up so bad & tell us again just Trust Them Again to Fix Their Mess & all we have to do is Pay those Dead Beats Azzhole’s Bill Again???
Fire Their Azzes Now!
I’m telling you I believe us Stakeholding Citizens can “peacefully” put an end to all the crap we’ve been witnessing, their Pedo stuff, Covid 19 deadly/Harmful Bug Juice Crap, Financial Frauds, etc., by simply peacefully & legally withdrawing support in ever way we can everywhere we can & help others learn how to do the same, keep it up until those Deadbeats are runoff.
Just do not be hanging around anyone even suggesting violence or anything illegal. Just look how most all of the J6 people are being tortured & framed up.
And Pray to Jesus!
**************
Log In
Subscribe To Our Newsletter
Become a Member
TGP Store
Contact Tech Support
Comment Support
Technical Support
Membership Support
Send Tips to The Gateway Pundit
Advertise On The Gateway Pundit
BREAKING: Warren Buffet Brought in to Solve Banking Crisis – OVER 20 PRIVATE JETS LAND IN OMAHA ON SATURDAY
by Jim Hoft Mar. 19, 2023 2:00 pm233 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/breaking-warren-buffet-brought-in-to-solve-banking-crisis-over-20-planes-land-in-omaha-on-saturday/
Well the obvious answer is usually the correct answer.
*Breaking News* – THE CHINESE HAVE CLONED THE BIDEN FAMILY
Shortly after the Scottish cloned Dolly (the Sheep, not Parton), Chinese Scientist in the Wuhan Laboratory began working on Total Human DNA Monoclonal Cloning and perfected their skills.
The Biden Family was selected after reaching a deal with Hunter for an undisclosed amount of money in return for a set of the Biden Family DNA, of which were collected “unbeknownst” to the Family from Covid Nasal Test Swabs and used Q-Tips from them picking their ears.
The first set of Biden’ Clones didn’t quite make the grade and were dubbed evil enough to bestow upon the World.
These were most likely the Biden’s (in fact they are – the Evil Bidens) that have perpetuated all of the currently questionable dealings to date, Including the Porno-Laptop-Hardrive and payments to ‘The Big Guy et.al.’.
Therefore, all this talk of the “REAL” Biden Family being; Aliens from a different Planet, Satan worshipers, and whatever have you is all ‘Disinformation’. You can rest easier at night knowing that the ‘Real’ Biden Family is safely in the hands of the Deep State Government while the ‘Evil Biden Clone Family’ is out there doing the Deeds of the Devil.
As for the Chinese, since honing their skills on the Biden brood, they have now set their sites on the Mass Cloning of Martha Stewart. After all who wouldn’t want a Martha Stewart in their Kitchen cooking up a storm (Well … except Loyola (Chicago) Professor Jenna Drenten), no more Sanson TV Dinners ! [Word is Darren has already placed his pre-order in for One.]
Obviously it’s the Obvious, so there is no denying the Logic.
Hail to the Sheep (Dolly that is)
Chinese scientists clone monkeys, break barrier to human cloning
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/chinese-scientists-clone-monkeys-break-barrier-human-cloning-n840736
Makes sense.
*also, the Chinese Biden Clone was manufactured at the Wuhan Virology Lab.
And yet, the Soros-bought New York DA plans to indict Trump on a $130,000 hush money charge, with only a hooker and a felon for witnesses. And we’re supposed to believe the Democrats aren’t crooks and liars?
The New York DA should check and see if statute of limitations has passed.
Dear Prof Turley,
I have little confidence that the ‘GOP takeover of the House, the Oversight Committee’ will do anything other than crow like chickens with their heads cut off, about anything the Bidens may, or may not, do.
Clearly, by hook or by crook, demented Joe is the ruler, the absolute ruler, of the Empire now. Like King George or Napolean or somebody like that.
* “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” ~ Karl Rove, aka The Turd Blossom
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1637211412270399488/photo/1
LMAO. Stormy Daniels has to pay Trump 300,000 big bucks. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-must-pay-300k-donald-trump-losing-defamation-case-appea-rcna21002. It will be interesting to see how this new information is going to play in a Trump trial on New York. She says she will go to jail before she pays a dime. What will she do when a judge garnishees every dollar bill stuffed in her g-string. There’s a pretty good chance that her financial hoes have just began. Pretty expensive price to pay for ten minutes of fame.
What is taking so long to get this nasty nitwit in jail, where he belongs?
BIDEN FAMILY corruption/influence peddling/Energy Guru’s that everybody wants to hire??? Remember, its ALL Trumps Fault?, /its not Biden Fault? Never take credit or responsibility for a bad idea? Never except its a Failure? He is being told by a group of Historians he is Churchill, FDR and etc. The Washington Elite, corrupt, The corrupt radical left Democratic Party, Woke crowd are leading this Nation to disaster, along with a corrupt Justice system 2 tier.
Jonathan: Here is some more interesting news you missed this week. If you thought Florida couldn’t go further to the right under Gov. DeSantis you would be wrong. The governor’s ant-Woke law that bans and censors school textbooks and teachers pales in comparison to what some FL state legislators are proposing. Take HB 1069 that would limit instruction on sexual and reproductive health in grades 6 through 12. The bill would prohibit school conversations or counseling about menstrual cycles for girls who get their periods before the 6th grade. Girls typically start menstruating from ages 10 to 15.
HR 1069 is authored by FL Rep. Stan McClain, a White male. Under his bill talking about periods is verboten. Any sex education in FL schools would have to say that sex is only male/female and “reproductive roles are binary, stable and unchangeable”. I guess McClain has in his mind that this proposed legislation is a way to shame young girls into a lifetime of hating their own bodies. But that’s what Republican laws are all about–keeping girls and women subservient. Poor Stan. He gets all “uncomfortable” when girl and lady stuff is discussed.
All this “uncomfortable” stuff is part of the GOP agenda–to restrict the free speech rights of students and teachers. Now I would think you would be interested in what is going on in Florida–undermining academic freedom should get your attention. But all the anti-free speech legislation is coming from conservative Republicans. A topic you will never discuss because it undermines your false narrative that only conservatives are under attack. Apparently, you are OK with prohibiting girls from talking about their periods.
Dennis McIntyre informs us once again that he is in favor of child porn in schools. Once again he tells us about books being banned in Florida but he never tells us what books are in question. Dennis, are you ashamed to tell us what books you are concerned about. My bad, no shame exists.
Thinkitthrough: You are in good company. For you and others on this blog talking about girls’ periods is equivalent to “pornography”, encouraging “child porn in schools” and accusing me of “grooming” one of my granddaughters to “take showers” with me. This has gone from the bizarre to the insane.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that girls now start their periods anywhere between 10 and 15. It’s a big event in the life of a young girl. I know because I am the proud grandparent of three teenage girls. When the oldest bled on the car seat of my car during a road trip she was embarrassed and mortified. My wife and I calmly explained what was happening–that menstruation is a normal process for girls. We all laugh now recalling that first incident.
But for some of you, talking frankly about periods is somehow “pedo grooming” or advocating for child porn in schools. Do you know how insane that appears to the women on this blog? It appears you and the others who are the ones with an unhealthy fixation with periods and sexuality in general. I pity your daughters and granddaughter for having to put up with your nonsense. All you retard males need to see a psychiatrist!
Give it a rest Denny. The topic here is the Biden Crime Family. As Capone once said, “Once you’re in the racket, you’re in it for life.” Biden is a sleezebag, lying, corrupt, sellout of a politician who has been bribed, lobbied, bought and paid for, enriching him and his dirtbag family for close to 50 years.
Denny has an unhealthy fixation on the sexuality of 10 and 11 year olds. We have exposed another pedo groomer.
Iowan2,
Exactly.
I am sure he is grooming his own grand daughter to take showers with him, and then when she is 14 years of age, to have a double mastectomy, take puberty blockers and/or testosterone.
Then be surprised that she/he/it commits suicide at the age of 17.
One of the books that Dennis talks about says that a girl who thinks she is a boy hates it when she menstruates. Now thats a healthy thought for a ten to fifteen year old girl to have. Dennis is all in on the grooming books. Another book talks about oral sex between two ten year old boys. Dennis is all in on that one too. These are just a few unimportant details that Dennis just refuses to tell us about. He receives his talking points and the parrot squawks again.
What is your obsession with exposing 6 year olds to pornography?
What is your obsession to sexualizing 6 year olds at drag queen shows?
What is your obsession to mutilate teens? Chemically castration?
What is your obsession to keep those teen trans dependent on Big Pharma for drugs? Counseling?
What is your obsession with denying women’s rights? Your obsession with allowing biological males to compete with biological females?
What is your obsession with allowing biological males to identify as females and get transferred to female prisons where those biological males rape and even get biological females pregnant?
Have you no decency?
Of course you do not.
You are a Democrat.
Don’t forget Rachel Levine, the United States Assistant Secretary for Health, who thinks it’s perfectly OK to castrate young boys, cut the breast off your girls and injected them with hormone therapy to provide “gender approving care” without the parents knowledge or approval.
I am also interested in hearing about JT’s views on the Florida education legislation and policies that Dennis brings up today and in previous comments. For me, the more information and issues JT considers and addresses the better.
The Florida education legislation is healthy legislation. Let children be children and keep groomers away from the public schools. Doesn’t that make sense? Do you think the laws are trying to do something different? If so, state specifically what it is you are concerned about.
When you think you have 81 million votes, “it’s not true” is all you have to say.
Right, 81 million votes (how many actual voters cast those votes?)….
Plus when you have the fake news media in your corner, protecting you…along with Wall St, big tech, big pharma, big corporations, academia, Hollywood….etc. No one is above the law! Except Democrat politicians….
LMFAO!🤣🤣🤣
If Trump got 81 million votes you can bet Biden would get 82 million. Or 83 or 94. As many as it takes.