Below is my column in the New York Post on the last ditch effort of the members of Congress and the media to get the public to just “move on” from the Biden corruption scandal. The message has been clear and amplified, as former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) insisted on MSNBC, “Everybody needs to back off!” As evidence and public interest increase, it is a bit late for spin or shiny objects. This week, the scandal is likely to be even more serious for the Bidens and the country. The media is increasingly taking on the appearance of Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun yelling that there is “nothing to see here” in front of a virtual apocalyptic scene of fire and destruction.
Here is the column:
“I wonder after this plea happens if you would advise your party to move on?”
That question from CBS’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan to Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie was raised just days before a former business associate of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, gives potentially explosive testimony to a House committee in the Biden corruption scandal.
The media’s desire to “move on” from the scandal is reaching an almost frantic level, as millions in foreign payments and dozens of corporate shell companies are revealed, and incriminating emails are released.
The same plaintive demand was made in congressional hearings.
What was most striking about the last hearing involving two respected IRS whistleblowers was how Democratic members avoided virtually any specific questions.
The members discussed everything from the Emmett Till murder in 1955 to whether the term “two-tiered justice system” is racially insensitive … and of course, Donald Trump.
It was clear that the release of the new evidence of corruption had left no room to maneuver for both Democrat politicians and the media.
Any question would now trip a wire on the Bidens, so most avoid the allegations in favor of talking about Trump or other shiny objects.
He asked about a “lunch where Joe Biden came to say hello at the Four Season’s hotel to a lunch that he was having with CEFC executives.”
He then read how Biden associate Rob Walker described the origins of the meeting with the Chinese officials to get his dad to stop by: “Hunter told his Dad that ‘I may be trying to start a company or try to do something with these guys.’ “
Goldman asked slyly, “Now let me ask you something, that doesn’t sound much like Joe Biden was involved in whatever Hunter was doing with the CEFC, if Hunter Biden is telling him that he is trying to do business with them, does it?”
That is when Shapley stated the obvious: “No, but it does show that he told his father that he was trying to do business and . . . ” Goldman finally saw that problem and cut him off with “OK, well that is true that Hunter Biden does try to do business, that is correct.”
The problem is that Goldman just elicited sworn testimony on how Joe Biden did in fact know about these business dealings despite years of categorical denials of having any knowledge or interaction with Hunter or his business associates.
Goldman demolished the Biden defense in less than five minutes.
Now, Archer is expected to testify that Joe Biden participated in actual telephone calls with them. That will allow investigators to build further on the foundation Goldman laid.
Archer will join other witnesses like Hunter’s business associate Tony Bobulinski, who said that he sat down with Joe Biden to discuss the deals. Bobulinski was instructed by Biden associate James Gilliar not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions.
No matter the severity of the revelations, the liberal media calls the investigations a “clown show.”
Others have continued to tell the public that there remain no alleged ties from Hunter to President Biden despite emails, pictures and witness testimony.
Yet it is becoming harder and harder to avoid these details.
With the possible testimony of Hunter’s business associates, the only hope is that Republicans might be convinced to “move on.”
What was most notable about the question to Christie was the reference to the plea bargain.
A year ago, I wrote a column on how the political and media establishment would likely use a “scandal implosion” approach as the evidence mounted over the corruption allegations.
After the Democrats lost the House, there was a need to cap off the scandal and I suggested that the Justice Department would secure a light plea on a couple tax counts with little or no jail time.
Members and the media would then declare the scandal closed and demand that we all “move on.”
It is unnerving to see how the response unfolded so precisely as predicted. Members made repeated reference to the plea bargain to avoid further discussion.
Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D.-Md.) was positively irate that “We are doing this all over again for the Hunter Biden show to someone who has pleaded guilty and has taken responsibility for not filing taxes for two years. This is ludicrous. Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life down here. None.”
He then tore up papers in disgust.
Members and the media were literally citing a plea bargain as dispositive, even as two lead investigators were saying it was fixed and politically influenced.
Others insisted that the allegations were still “unproven” or “unverified” while showing the same lack of interest in establishing the truth.
Notably, these same media outlets did wall-to-wall coverage of the false Russian collusion claims in the Steele dossier.
They are now simply shrugging off what could be one of the most serious corruption scandals in modern history despite the testimony of highly credible whistleblowers and thousands of pages of supporting evidence.
Polls show that the public is not “moving on” and now view this as a major scandal. A majority believes that Hunter has received special protection in the investigation. While the media can continue to suppress the evidence and allegations within their own echo-chambered platforms, truth like water has a way of finding a way out.
The scandal is moving forward with or without the media.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.