Congress, Media, Politics

Rep. Dean: There are Questions That Need to be Asked on the Biden Scandal But “I Don’t Have Any”

I suppose this represents progress in Washington. On “CNN News Central,” co-host John Berman actually asked a Democratic House member about the allegations against President Joe Biden. The response from Rep. Madeleine Dean (D., Pa.) captured the increasingly incomprehensible position of members as the evidence of corruption has mounted and implicated the President. Dean admitted that there are legitimate questions that should be answered but stressed that she does not have any herself. In other words, the public has a right to know, but I will not help them find out.

In the interview, Berman asked, “On the subject of what could be a pending impeachment inquiry into President Biden, what questions, if any, do you have about Joe Biden’s connection to Hunter Biden’s business dealings?”

Dean answered,

“I don’t have any at this point. But, certainly, there are questions that can be asked, and should be answered, if there was any connection. But we don’t see any evidence of that whatsoever. So, they’re making it up [out of] whole cloth.”

Berman then fairly followed up, “And where would you learn that evidence, if not for an inquiry?”

The response was an attack on the Committee and its chairman rather than answer the question:

“Well, sadly, we won’t learn it by way of our Judiciary Committee, which is now led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). He’s Chair of Judiciary. And he’s proven himself to be very weak in the hearings that we have had this Congress. He’s just not hitting the mark on any of the things he’s trying to prove. And what is so dangerous is the willingness of Mr. Jordan and others on the Republican side of the dais in Judiciary to absolutely peddle in lies. They call all of our witnesses to swear to tell the truth. And yet, they peddle lies as they ask their questions. So, we’re not going to get good information under any kind of leadership from Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Jordan.”

The exchange was telling because the room for movement is being dramatically reduced by the new evidence. Members and the media first denied the legitimacy of the story, claimed that the laptop was Russian disinformation, and then insisted that there was no evidence. Even with two IRS whistleblowers saying that the Hunter Biden plea bargain was the result of political influence and special dealing, politicians and pundits continue to cite the plea bargain as the end of the matter, a spin predicted over a year ago.

What is striking is the lack of embarrassment about admitting that there are questions that must be answered on corruption while disclaiming any obligation as a member of Congress to assist in getting those answers. Like her colleagues, Dean has avoided any substantive questions of the claims of special dealing and influence peddling with witnesses testifying before her.

There is still an element of willful blindness in these answers. Despite the detailed testimony of the whistleblowers, millions in transfers to the Biden family, and proof that the President has lied for years, Dean is still maintaining “we don’t see any evidence of that whatsoever.” She continues to demand “where’s the evidence?”

It is also striking how the members and the media praised Republicans who broke from their party to support the impeachment of Donald Trump (as many did in the Nixon impeachment). Yet, there is no pressure on Democrats to show the same independence. It has been a unified front as Democratic members have opposed every effort to investigate or to expose the evidence on influence peddling by the Bidens.

This is why Aldous Huxley maintained that “facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

118 thoughts on “Rep. Dean: There are Questions That Need to be Asked on the Biden Scandal But “I Don’t Have Any””

    1. Technically The Judge did not tank the deal.

      All she did was ask questions regarding the terms of the deal and Hunters Attorney’s and the DOJ refused to agree regarding what those Terms were.

      The Judge did not reject the deal. What she did is what Judges are required to do.
      She made sure that the defendant in particular, but both parties understood what the deal was.

      She asked whether the Deal would bar DOJ from future prosecutions against Hunter for FARA violations based on the transactions he was pleading guilty to.

      Hunter’s attorney’s said – Absolutely. this deal ends everything.

      DOJ attorney’s said – nope, this deal is ONLY for the crimes listed int he plea deal.

      The Problem was that Hunter Biden’s interests and Joe Biden’s Attoorney Weis’s, AG Garland’s, … all diverge on this point.

      There are very few people who actually beleive DOJ is going to continue to pursue Hunter.

      But without an open investigation, they will be required to comply with FOIA requests and congressional subpeonas’

      The biggest impediment to the House investigating DOJ/FBI/ the entire law enforcement aparatus of the executive right up to the Oval office is the fact that there is an ongoing investigation of Hunter.

      DOJ/FBI/Joe Biden need this plea deal so that they can claim there is no there there and that this was much ado about nothing. BUT they MUST simulataneously be able to CLAIM they are continuing to investigate – or they have no means to block the GOP investigation of THEM.

      Weis, Garland, Wray, Joe Biden are NEVER going to allow Hunter to plead to anything that ends all investigations.

      And Hunter should never take any deal that does not. His guilty plea is sufficient in and of itself to convict him later on FARA. And later can be in 2025 with a Republican president.

      The Judge did not tank the deal.

      Republicans did not tank the Deal.

      The Deal tanked itself.

  3. Very, very little of the evidence against biden is news. Informed voters knew 90% of this in 2020. The uninformed American voters who put this machine in place are finally paying the price. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to ante up too because of their complacency and laziness to inform themselves. The democrats say there are questions but they don’t have any. Ostriches all. They were more than well aware of the corruption they were putting at the top of their ticket. Every one of them knew. If not for the Republican House barely squeaking out a majority, the “Know Nothings” would still know nothing.

    1. Kennedy,
      Is that not part of the problem?
      The Know Nothings are doubling down on their own willful ignorance.
      Some have finally seen the light with many of them ditching the Democrat party. Not necessarily for the Republican party but changed to Independent. Read about more than a few life long Democrats who have.
      As Bill Maher has said, “I did not leave the party, the party left me.”

    2. Excellent post.

      Few forget that the Biden corruption scandal first hit the news in 2015 – Sydney Blumenthal – a Clinton aparatich pushed the story to the NYT to drive Biden out of the 2016 race – and it worked.

      Regardless, in 2015 there was more than enough evidence to open an investigation.

      And yet Democrats impeached Trump for asking for one ?

      Democrats have no standards but for double standards.

      There is far more evidence that Joe Biden accepted Bribes than that DJT took classified documents.

      Yet who was indicted – and by whom ?

      I though seeking an investigation fo a political enemy was an impeachable offence ?

      We certainly heard that for months.

    1. “Lol! No, it’s still not illegal. It’s considered protected free speech activity by the conservative block of the Supreme Court which ruled in McDonnell vs. United States that such activities including influence peddling is legal.”

      Anonymous the Ignorant, corruption is not protected free speech. I don’t know if anyone can get any dumber than this anonymous.

      1. ATS
        So, once and for all,

        Is it your contention that IF the allegation is true, and Joe Biden, as VPOTUS, leveraged $1B of US money to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired, at the behest of or in support of the president of Burisma, in exchange for $5M to himself and $5M to Hunter, and without the consent of the POTUS or anyone else in gov’t, that he is not guilty of Bribery as interpreted by McConnel v US?

        If so, you have nothing further to add…go home.

        If that is not your contention, then stop raising that red herring.

        1. Tom,
          Really? Using logic against ATS? And spelling it out to him using simple, small words so he can even understand?
          What a low blow.
          How marvelous! 🙂

          1. The guy is quite remarkable in his circular reasoning. My favorite example is that he thinks an act has to be illegal to be evidence of criminal activity.

            “So I was hanging out near the house where the 4 students were stabbed to death with a knife with my DNA on it at 2 in the morning. So what, its a free country, that’s not illegal. You can’t use that as evidence.”—ATS regarding his involvement in the Idaho killing

            I get it why he is Anonymous now…we’ve all been punked…It’s Brian Kohleberger posting from prison. He thinks he is a legal scholar too.

  5. Giirrrrlllll power.

    LOL. She’s a low-IQ apparatchik, wonder what they have on her/her husband?

  6. Silence in the face of wrong doing is equal in depth to the crime itself. That is how we know that this particular apparatchik is a soldier for the progressive democrat ideology- the ends justify ANY means.

  8. The Democrat party truly is pathetic. Their willful ignorance is on gross display. Only an idiot or ATS would deny the mounting body of evidence of corruption.

    1. “Lying is not a violation of the civility rule…”

      Thank you for admitting that you are a liar. It’s good to hear the truth every once in a while. You were banned rightfully so because you broke the civility code repeatedly after being warned. Your note will be banned but this one will remain.

      1. Anonymous writes. “Just pointing out that lying…”

        You showed us in a backward manner that you are a liar. It is clear and makes sense. You prove the case that you are a liar because most of what you say isn’t true and most of that is dumb.

        1. Anonymous writes: ” the fact that lying is not a violation of the civility rule.”

          You are justifying your lying by saying it is not a violation of the civility rule.

    2. While I beleive that the current evidence is sufficient to get a criminal conviction in 70% of the country – and it is only likely to get worse with time. We have not heard from Gall Luft under Oath yet. But Devon ARcher put Joe Biden squarely in the middle of Hunter Biden’s business as an active participant.

      But fine – you want to use the beyond a shadow of a doubt standard for criminal prosecutions.

      That is NOT the standard for impeachment.
      That is NOT the standard for voting.

      There is 10,000 times more than is needed to indict Joe Biden today.

  9. House Oversight Chairman Comer says ‘Joe Biden lied’ about family business dealings
    The House committee is finding evidence that first son Hunter Biden brought his father into his deals with foreign nationals from Ukraine and China.

  10. Representative Dean is good little obedient Lemming marching along to the Biden Beat. Nothing will change her mind. Not hookers, cocaine, foreign bribe money flowing through shell companies to family members, dementia, nothing. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

    1. Republicans need to begin an impeachment inquiry – but Biden is the wrong target.
      Garland is a far better choice.

      An impeachment inquiry empower the house – so MacCarthy and republicans need to start one NOW.

      But an inquiry into Biden does not have the scope nor the effect ont he rest of government.

      Impeaching Garland increases the odds that others in DOJ/FBI/IRS/… will come forward and cooperate.

      There are multiple lines of inquiry regarding Garland. Everything Joe Biden related is relevant to an impeachment of Garland – and much much more.

      There are far more people that can be supeonad. There are far more people who might feel the need to tell the truth to protect their own ass.

      The goal BTW is NOT to actually impeach anyone. It is to expose the malfeasance of this administration.

      The inquiry should be thorough, deep, broad and last and last and last.

      It should actually start SLOW. Republicans should want democrats stuck with Biden as their nominee,
      Republicans should NOT be trying to force Biden out of th 2024 race,

      Nor is this just about Biden. The performance of house democrats is harming the democratic party.

      We WANT all the absurd conduct by democrats.

      There are 538 reasons to draw this out. There are 538 targets – not just Biden.

      1. “Republicans need to begin an impeachment inquiry – but Biden is the wrong target.
        Garland is a far better choice. ”

        In war, we have many targets. I don’t choose which is a better choice based on externalities. I chose the target that provides victory.

        “Impeaching Garland increases the odds that others in DOJ/FBI/IRS/… will come forward and cooperate.”

        That is a good point, but I don’t know how Congress functions in an impeachment hearing. Which impeachment better leads to the release of documents? If they base the choice on public opinion, then it is wrong.

        “There are 538 targets – not just Biden.”

        That is the best point. There is a need to destroy the Democrat party, so it can rebuild into a party that loves America and its people.

        1. I provided a long explanation of why Garland – there are a huge number of reasons Why Garland is first, and why NOT to impeach Biden and others NOW.

          Win the 2024 election – and the rest of the targets are mostly gone.

          There are almost no republican candidates that have no promissed to clean house.
          Even RFK Jr. is promissing to clean house.

          Biden is pretty much the only candidate that the Deep State can survive if elected.

          Many here and elsewhere including me are complaining of Democrats failure to grasp the PROVEN corruption of the Biden crime syndicate and of this administration.

          As much as I attack that – to a very large extent that misconduct is GOOD.

          Democrats look BAD defending all this nonsense.

          Even Dowd had to attack Biden for his failure to accept his grand daughter.

          As obstructive as democrats are – We WANT that.

          We WANT them to be the defenders of corruption in 2024.

          We WANT the bad economy, the corrupt government, the bad foreign policiy – to be OWNED – not just by Biden, but by all democrats.

          Republcians should be aiming to sweep the government in 2024 – not just the presidency.

          And then the rest of us should DEMAND they keep their promises.

          One of the HUGE deals about Trump – one of the PROOFs that the left is insane, is that Trump more so than any president in my lifetime vigorously tried to keep his campaign promises.
          Even ones I disagree with.

          That MATTERS alot.

          We should expect those we elect to do as they promise, and we should NOT elect them if what they promise is actually undesirable.

          THAT is the moderating influence on politics.

          We should not be dependant on the supreme court to thwart presidents and congress from doing stupid things.
          And we shoudl be voting based on the assumption that those we elect will do what they promise.
          And should not promise what they will not do or can not accomplish.

          1. “Biden is pretty much the only candidate that the Deep State can survive if elected.”

            You have a lot more confidence in believing the Deep State will die if someone other than Biden wins than I do. A power reduction is likely, but there will be a resurgence as soon as everyone forgets.

            1. Accepted.
              How about – Biden is the only candidate that the deep state does not perceive as an existential threat ?

              One of the major arguments for Trump over DeSantis is that Trump KNOWS they are out to get him and that this is a life or death struggle.

              That is self evident by the manufactured effort to convict Trump of a Crime.

              I think there was a movie or Series 40 years ago that had the line “There can be only one”.

              DeSantis almost certainly would disempower “the deep state” but he does not yet understand the existential threat they are to him.

              The only republicans safe from the Deep State are NeoCons. And RFK Jr. is likely as dangerous to them – and visa versa as Trump.

              I suspect DeSantis ultimately WILL get it.

              Alot is made of the Trump DeSantis contest. I do not think it is a contest.

              I am very glad DeSantis is running. Without Trump running he would be an excellent candidate.

              In 2028 he will still be an excellent candidate.

              And Should the left wing nut conspiracy ACTUALLY manage to take out Trump – I am ecstatic DeSantis is waiting in the wings.
              Which is precisely what he should be doing.

              As the Brits say “an Heir and a spare”.

              While trump is currently curshing Desantis – More so that Biden is overpowering RFK Jr.

              Polls of Trump vs. Biden and DeSantis vs Biden make it crystal clear that – Trump voters will vote for DeSantis if Trump is not a choice.

              1. “How about – Biden is the only candidate that the deep state does not perceive as an existential threat ?”

                Many people live for power and would do anything for the deep state to work with rather than against them. Many others are cowards and would let the deep state run over them. A few will stand and fight for what is right, but then we find imperfections in the person and destroy him.

  13. “Oh yes, I see the smoke feel the heat and people may legitimately suspect a fire but as for me I think it’s all overblown. Likely a cookout or something over at the White House.”
    These Dims really are rotten to the core,

  14. Nothing to see.
    —-

    Judge threatens sanctions against Hunter Biden legal team for allegedly misleading court clerk

    Hunter Biden’s legal team faced scrutiny on Tuesday from a Delaware U.S. District Judge set to decide on his plea deal over an alleged trick to prevent the inclusion of an amicus brief from the House Ways and Means Committee in the court record.

  15. This is why they will a) not go on unfriendly media and b) will not debate. Imagine how easy it would be to hit a lightweight like this with a follow-up question. Imagine how easy it will be for a Trump, DeSantis or any other Republican to say on a debate stage Mr. President you said EMPHATICALLY many, many times that you never spoke to your son or brother about their “businesses”, was that a lie.

    Imagine having some moronic Dem rep or senator on a show and they are asked about the whistleblowers and when they reply with some banal ridiculousness the host comes back with an actual follow up.

    Imagine if when Jacqui Heinrich asks KJP about Biden not speaking to Hunter and the reply is that Joe was never in business with him and Jacqui or another reporter comes back and says “yes, but did they ever talk and if so why did Joe say they hadn’t”. How easy would this be if we were in a fair world.

    1. When Dean said there was no evidence the interviewer should have cited chapter and verse and asked her how she could ignore that. The media remain in the tank for Biden.

  17. When I think of awful hearings and clown show statements, what the Dems did during the whistle blower hearing and RFKJ hearing were true clown shows.

    1. The term, “clown show” which evokes a fun connotation seems inappropriate. Most would agree that there’s nothing fun about paralyzing a country which prevented the most powerful force for good in the world from succeeding.

  18. Dean makes a strong case for why we need to repeal the 19th Amendment. We should do it before they burn the country to the ground cause they will.

    1. Let’s not go there. The 19th ammendment is fine. (it does prove that the Constitution needed amended. SCOTUS could not just rule from the bench to change the Constitution. Like abortion, or homosexual marriage)

      The 17th amendment should be repealed. Get the interest of the STATES represented, rather than popular opinion.

  19. The willful blindness of the democratic party to the unfolding scandal is only magnified by the uninterested media

  20. So, is now the pre-planned time to oust Biden and bring in President Emhoff?

Comments are closed.