The Biden ‘Brand’: Devon Archer Reveals the ‘Niceties’ of Influence-Peddling

Below is my column in The Messenger on the new evidence supplied by Hunter Biden’s close friend and former business associate Devon Archer. The effort of Rep. Dan Goldman to spin the damaging testimony spiraled out of control as it did in his prior effort to question IRS whistleblowers. Goldman is demanding that any further investigations stop immediately after a key witness showed that President Biden has been lying for years in denying that he had any knowledge of his son’s foreign dealings. Archer discussed over 20 calls from Joe Biden and the use of the calls to “sell the brand.” The second Trump impeachment was launched on the basis for a single phone call, but Goldman insists that the millions that were received by the Bidens, the countervailing whistleblower testimony, the proven false statements, and the allegation of bribery are all insufficient to ask any further questions.

Here is the column:

“There were niceties.” That description by Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) of calls between President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and Hunter’s foreign business associates may, strangely, be the most accurate thing the freshman congressman has ever said.

The almost-two-dozen calls — detailed by Hunter Biden’s close friend and former business partner, Devon Archer, during a closed-door interview Monday with House Oversight Committee investigators — were indeed “the niceties” of influence-peddling. The calls presumably were intended to show that Hunter Biden could deliver his father and to support what Archer called “the brand.” Hunter had no relevant experience or appreciable business skills, but he had the vice president of the United States on speed-dial.

The selection of Goldman as the only committee Democrat in the interview was ironic. Goldman was a Democratic staff attorney when the House impeached Donald Trump in 2019 largely on the basis of a single telephone call to the president of Ukraine. Now, however, Goldman is calling for an immediate cessation of any further investigation, in an almost comical display of denial and deflection.

Goldman helped demolish Biden’s long-standing defense in another hearing just a week earlier. In an effort to defuse the testimony of two IRS whistleblowers, who said Hunter received special protection from their criminal investigation, Goldman tripped the wire and elicited testimony that Joe Biden may in fact have spoken with his son about foreign dealings — something the president has denied for years.

Goldman said that “Joe Biden came to say hello at the Four Seasons hotel to a lunch that he [Hunter Biden] was having” with Chinese energy company executives. He then read from the record how another Hunter associate, Rob Walker, described the origins of that meeting with the Chinese to get his father to stop by: “Hunter told his dad that ‘I may be trying to start a company or try to do something with these guys.’” As with the twenty-some phone calls, Goldman dismissed Joe Biden’s sudden appearance as a fatherly drive-by.

On Monday, Goldman tried to dismiss a trusted Hunter Biden partner who was detailing how the then-vice president was critical to selling “the brand.” The new spin was to admit that the senior Biden did speak with Hunter’s business associates but only to exchange “niceties” when he was put on speakerphone at meetings and dinners. Goldman noted that Archer testified the elder Biden did not discuss “any business dealings or transactions” and said it would be a “preposterous premise to think that a father should not say hello to people that the son is at dinner with.”

What is truly preposterous is Goldman’s suggestion that these figures would have discussed corrupt deliverables on a speakerphone in restaurants. That was not the point of the calls. The point would have been that Hunter and his team were selling access, and the calls with his vice president/father confirmed that he was deliverable.

In Washington, influence-peddling is an art form, and the Bidens appear to be political Rembrandts. Demands are conveyed through as few people as possible. For example, Archer reportedly detailed how, in 2015, Mykola Zlochevsky and Vadym Pozharski, two executives of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, pressed Hunter to “get help from D.C.” to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for corruption. Archer reportedly said that Hunter, Zlochevsky and Pozharski stepped away to make a call.

That is how it is done — not on a speakerphone in a popular restaurant filled with political and media figures while ordering more breadsticks.

Then-Vice President Biden, who oversaw U.S. support for Ukraine, later made a billion-dollar aid package dependent on the prosecutor’s firing. The prosecutor was promptly fired, as Joe Biden himself later bragged.

That is why Hunter allegedly could tell Chinese business associates that “The Bidens are the best at doing exactly what the Chairman wants.” What that corporate chairman wanted, of course, was influence.

It increasingly appears to have been no idle boast. The very things that Rep. Goldman and others are citing is what has long made the Bidens — in the minds of many — the first family of influence-peddling. Business associates were told to use code names for Joe Biden like “the big guy,” according to reports, and used a labyrinth of accounts to transfer money to family members, according to House investigators.

Democrats have demanded to see evidence of direct payments to Joe Biden, which would be an amateur-hour move. The accounts of the president and vice president are some of the most scrutinized in the world, subject to reporting requirements and vulnerable to congressional subpoenas.

Finally, Hunter’s laptop emails detail a variety of alleged benefits to the Biden family. One referenced a 10% cut on a deal for the “big guy.” Other arrangements included free offices for Joe and Jill Biden and donations to foundations linked to the Bidens.

Devon Archer’s new evidence apparently brings this picture further into focus: As Hunter and his partners pitched “the brand,” Joe Biden apparently supplied the bona fides by stopping by lunches or calling into dinners.

That would be all that was needed to net millions of dollars.

In weeks to come, Congress is expected to release information on additional foreign payments going to the Biden family from additional sources. That’s the value of branding. As Starbucks founder Howard Schultz once observed, “If people believe they share values with a company, they will stay loyal to the brand.” It appears that the Bidens shared some values with the foreign oligarchs and operatives who embraced their brand. The rest was — well, in the words of Rep. Goldman, just “niceties.”

Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. 

259 thoughts on “The Biden ‘Brand’: Devon Archer Reveals the ‘Niceties’ of Influence-Peddling”

  1. The best way to cure a headache is to drop a cinder block on your foot. The best way to take the attention away from the addled, befuddled Joe Biden and his years of corruption, influence peddling and raking in millions from bribery and coercion is to create a firestorm in coordinated effort of the media and government agencies to make other “news” and do all possible to subdue the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Turn the spotlight on them all. ABC and CBS barely covered the story. NBC has ignored it altogether. They and others in mainstream media have damaged any semblance of honesty. I do not trust them and the feeling is mutual.

    What is sad is that there are only a small, yet determined, group of activists who are relentlessly attacking our way of life. The losers are the American citizens. Because we are the most powerful nation on earth the impact is global. Not good.

  2. If they can get us to believe that a biological male can compete against women and shower and dress with the women in their locker room, they can get you to believe anything

  3. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 [Interview]
    By: Savannah Guthrie, TODAY (NBC) ~ Aug. 2, 2023
    John Lauro, one of Donald Trump’s defense attorneys, speaks out on TODAY about the new indictment on four charges by a federal grand jury against the former president in the 2020 election investigation.

    Trump lawyer after third indictment: ‘We’re going to win’

    1. Thanks for demonstrating why I stopped tuning into the Today Show decades ago. Why would anyone want to listen to that certifiable moron arguing with someone she was supposed to be interviewing? That clip was like listening to a chimp arguing with Albert Einstein.

  4. Equally concerning is what our culture has become. Politics is downstream from culture. So what is the state of the culture you ask? In our culture a man can say he’s a woman and, even though everyone knows he’s a man, he will be permitted into women’s locker rooms to terrorize sexual assault survivors, and he will be permitted to compete against women and deprive them of prizes that they’ve trained a lifetime to win, and the news media (even the so-called conservative media) will refer to the man as “she” and anyone who objects to any of this will be punished. Under such conditions there is no basis to expect sanity in our politics.

    1. OMFK:
      “Politics is downstream from culture.”
      So true and equal with the truism that sh!t flows downstream. Hey maybe that’s the same thing.

    2. Even without any real or perceived danger to girls/women in a locker room, the entire in-your-face “culture” of today’s world is truly disturbing. Now we have trans women not only competing and winning over women and girls, we have them being crowned as “beauties.”
      “For 1st Time in 99 Years, California Crowns Transgender Woman In Beauty Pageant.”

      Also, see “Miss Netherlands contestant makes history as first trans woman to win the pageant.”

      And in Italy, over 100 trans entered Miss Italy’s beauty contest (I cannot post link because of limitation).

      What in the world is going on? I know that the Biden administration (harris in particular) has been talking about “population control;” –as I previously said a few months ago, no better way to accomplish this than to indoctrinate new generations with
      pro-LGBQT agenda.

    1. BTW: Ders is often wrong on certain issues like here, he’s clearly wrong at this time as the evidence shows Trump won the 2020 election but for “the massive election fraud by Demos/Rinos”.

  5. “Whether he’s silent because he endorses the Biden DOJ’s lawless assault on the rule of law, or because he’s drooling into a bowl of pudding is irrelevant at this point: Mitch McConnell is clearly unfit to serve as the Senate GOP leader.” @seanmdav

    “Republican voters have learned they can’t expect much from their incumbent leaders in the upper chamber. While the top contender for the Republican presidential nomination is targeted by an array of political witch hunts, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and most of GOP Senate leadership are missing in action, again.”

    “McConnell isn’t just failing to defend the Republican presidential frontrunner against partisan lawfare, he’s also failing to go on the offensive about the myriad scandals that plague the incumbent president.”

    Exactly, where are the Republicans in Senate leadership pushing back, speaking out? Nowhere. Crickets. They’re all in on it.

    Biden takes the cake, but they are all corrupt to the bone…..the whole lot of ’em in Congress…..including, but not limited to, the supremely corrupt leaders: McConnell, Romney, Kerry, Pelosi, et al.

    1. @seanmdav:

      “Instead of gaveling back into session to take on the most insanely corrupt power grab in American history, Congress is on vacation for 6 weeks.”

      and Joe ‘banana republic’ Biden is relaxing on the beach…not a care in the world.

  6. Jonathan: Who is the lawyer who is going to represent DJT in the latest Jack Smith’s indictment? It’s John Lauro, a criminal defense attorney DJT hired recently. Lauro has been making the media interview rounds today. On Fox, host Sean Hannity prefaced his interview by quoting you claiming the indictment was a “free speech killing machine”. Hannity agreed and asked Lauro for his take. Lauro echoed your false claim and said this is the first time the DOJ has been “weaponized and politicized political speech” and that the the Biden administration was trying to “censor” his client.

    Apparently, Lauro has not read the indictment or missed the part where Jack Smith says this case is not about “free speech”. In anticipating Trump’s main defense, Smith says on p. 3 of the indictment: “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means…”.

    Where DJT crossed the line is when he went from political speech to conspiracies and overt action to overturn the election. Your “free speech” rights are not protected when you engage in unlawful acts. If you shout in my face that “the 2020 was stolen from Trump” your speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. But if I shout back “Trump lost fair and square” and then you punch me in the nose you can’t complain when the police come and arrest you for assault and battery!

    So if Lauro thinks he can make this case all about “free speech” he is going to have a rude awakening when he enters Judge Chutkan’s courtroom!

    1. It’s amazing spin from Democrats and the Fake News:

      “Hunter Biden was selling the “illusion” of having access to Joe Biden.”

      Yes, China, Ukraine, and numerous other corrupt actors from our adversaries paid *tens of millions of dollars* to the Biden Global Racketeering operation for the “illusion” of access.

      I mean, really.

      1. And like President Biden laughed at the question and turned it around on the fake press, saying: “oh yeah, so where’s the money?” haha hehe

        Joe laughed because he knows his Crime Family hid the bribe millions in deep webs of LLCs and shell companies that laundered it so good such that it would take 10 years or more to “find it” and “prove” Joe Biden’s public corruption and criminality.

        How ’bout that Joe Biden? He’s just a loving father who loves his son. The bag man. The go between. The fall guy for the criminal operation.

        1. “I think you’re in the clear” said Joe Biden in a voicemail message to his son: the crackhead, the fall guy, the bag man, the “brains” of the criminal operation.

          the fix is in. Garland is the fixer.

          Impeach Merrick Garland NOW

  7. @AndrewHClark:

    This timeline is actually incredible. I mean come on.

    3/17 – Hunter admits laptop
    3/18 – Trump indictment news

    6/8 – FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
    6/9 – Trump indicted

    7/26 – Hunter plea deal collapses
    7/27 – Trump indicted

    7/31 – Devon Archer testifies
    8/1 – Trump indicted



    The corrupt DOJ is still sitting on a bogus seditious conspiracy charge against Trump. They’ll let that one fly after all the bank records and conversations between Burisma’s founder and Biden are released.

  8. Meanwhile the ever more radical “Joe Biden” administration is punishing public schools for having archery classes. I guess archery skills don’t comport with the progressive agenda.

    1. S. Meyer: I’m glad you brought up this interview. I watched it in its entirety. To anyone who may later watch it, watch out for three things: (1) the expressions on Devon Archer’s face as he responds to Tucker, i.e., the unspoken communication between them; (2) Devon’s mention of “an abuse of soft power,” and (3), the 2011 letter from VP Joe Biden (who ostensibly knew nothing of Hunter’s business) to Devon.

      1. Thanks lie. Our resident trolls will look at the video and explain it away.

        “Devon’s mention of “an abuse of soft power,”

        That statement is very telling. I think Archer is walking a narrow line. The Bidens could hurt him, and we know the Biden motto, ‘ No one F’s with a Biden.’But this corruption extends to Obama and Clinton where Arkanside is a very real threat. I would not want to be Devon Archer.

  9. It seems nothing will wake the democrats up so they can see their leadership clearly. They’re too busy getting off on indicting Trump. All the while we the people can’t believe our eyes.

    1. @Ayn

      Agreed. Being in literal chains seems to be the only thing that might register. It is absolutely unreal.

  10. Real President Donald J. Trump was indicted by corrupt political opponents in three states (i.e., D.C.) on imaginary and “fake” political charges.

    Throwing political opponents in prison hasn’t been done since “Crazy Abe” Lincoln went nuts.

    Who has been dedicated to this nation as few others?

    What independently wealthy and incorruptible billionaire has given and suffered so much for America, actual Americans, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?

    Real President Donald J. Trump.

    1. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs in jail.

      FDR’s DOJ may have had to drop charges in that big sedition trial. But that was because the case was falling apart, and then the judge died.

    1. @Wally,

      If he does… when SCOTUS smacks down this prosecutorial misconduct… how much do you think he could sue the US Government along w Jack Smith?

      1. SCOTUS can prevent Trump from going to jail by issuing an injunction staying the case until they decide Trump’s appeal.

  11. Tucker Carlson
    Watch: 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐉𝐨𝐞 ‘𝐊𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬’ 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥

    Tucker Carlson dropped a shocking interview on Wednesday with Devon Archer, two days after the former Hunter Biden associate testified before Congress, where he admitted that he and Hunter Biden essentially traded on the Biden name, but also claimed that ‘the big guy’ wasn’t involved.

    Ep. 12 Part 1. Devon Archer
    11:00 AM · Aug 2, 2023


    1. but also claimed that ‘the big guy’ wasn’t involved.

      That’s not a declarative statement. All Archer is doing is saying ‘I have no personal knowledge of Joe collecting cash’. Much the same as Joe statement that he NEVER spoke to Hunter about his business dealings.

  12. Trump’s FIRST impeachment as a result of his phone call with Zelenskyy. The second was about Jan. 6.

    He never was impeached about Russiagate, which may be the source of confusion

    1. Trump’s first impeachment was for allegedly doing exactly what Joe Biden actually did and bragged about it on video aka quid pro quo, fire the prosecutor investigating the energy company Hunter was on the board for or Joe Biden will withhold a billion dollars in loans.
      And yet our leftist friends will tells us there is nothing to see here, move along. They think we are that stupid. Thankfully we are not and have independent media and the good professor writing articles on it daily.

      1. Professor Jonathan Turley is on a roll, business speaking. He has 2 new articles published today at USA Today and another at Daily Beast.

        Good for him. I tell academic physicians and researchers all the time to find their niche, create a brand, shake trees and pound the pavement to find angel investors, and market, promote, sell your brand. Turley is doing it in spades. His latest article at USAT is impressive. Laurence Tribe must be spitting nails.

        As expected, Smith’s charges were met with a level of ecstasy that bordered on the indecent. Former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama, declared that the indictment “is up there with Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown v. Board of Education.”

        Yes, this indictment was compared to an opinion ending segregation in the United States.

        The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.

        In the 2012 United States v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who lied about military decorations.

        The court warned such criminalization “would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.”

        That precedent did not deter Smith. This indictment is reminiscent of the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. His conviction on 11 corruption-related counts was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.

        Professor Turley raises a point that had not occurred to me. Biden’s DOJ vis a vis Merrick Garland, is continuing their trajectory to censor, cancel and police dissenting opinions. Cuba did that when Fidel Castro launched his coup. So I see a trend with Democrats following Cuba. Charging Trump on first amendment issues is merely a continuation of Democrats being motivated to control all of us. COVID lockdowns, bogus masking, school closures, bankrolling Pfizer’s CEO who financially supported Biden’s rigged election, censoring tweets, Facebook links, dragging opponents through the mud, …the list is endless.

        SCOTUS will hopefully reprimand Prosecutor Jack Smith for once again disregarding case law and the US Constitution itself. Of course whether Smith wins is not the point. The point IMHO is to censor all of us. To say that Jack Smith is being “broad” in his charges against Trump is being naive. He is just being a Communist, a prelude to what Democrats want to do with our nation. Thankfully the Founding Fathers knew better and codified the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

        1. I suppose you could argue that it is not the speech itself that is alleged to have been illegal, but the requests for action that the speech justified. If Trump had just repeated his views without urging corrective action it is unlikely charges could have been brought.

          In the end, Trump did not have the power to actually revise the certified election results. He sought to persuade others that those results were crooked and should be revised, and in so doing he alleged certain things that others had advised him were not true. And the ostensible “co-conspirators” helped him. But his persuasive efforts failed. The officials with the power to do something were not convinced, and Trump did not use or threaten force or other measures to get them to do as he wanted.

          Despite the heavy breathing in the indictment, I fail to see what crimes were committed here. Trump tried to persuade officials in authority that the election was rigged and that they should take action to check and correct the result, but he could not persuade them. That’s it.

          1. @Daniel,
            They didn’t charge Trump with that. In fact they avoided it completely.

            A lot of the legal pundits are pointing out the massive flaws in Smith’s case.
            This goes beyond mere overreach but misconduct.

          2. “in so doing he alleged certain things that others had advised him were not true. “

            I think part of Smith’s indictment was that Trump knew at the time what he was saying was a lie. I don’t think it matters, but proof from Jan 4 was brought forward showing that Trump believed what he said. Therefore, Smith’s indictment isn’t true.

        2. That’s an excellent comment, Estovir. We have all these ways to describe the behavior of evil regimes; Communists, Marxists, Socialists, Nazi’s, Totalitarians, Dictators, etc. And with everyone one of them, without fail, they rise up, destroy the lives of millions of people that bravely opposed them, as well as those that fearfully and/or ignorantly supported them. And then the evil regime collapses. Only in western democracies and most notably in our constitutional republic, were we able to keep those evil forces outside of the gates. However, that began to change when those forces got their nose under the tent after WWII. Eisenhauer warned about the MIC, as he knew they would lead the way towards that evil end state. At the same time, the Marxists got their noses in to begin their work on the culture. With each successive generation, these forces have been at work building their network of operatives in the federal bureaucracy and the private sector. The Obama regime was the pivot point where the two forces came together to bring about the “final” transformation of the United States. However Trump’s win in 2016 was a D-Day level shock to their plans. That forced the evil regime out of the shadows and into open warfare against our culture, rights, freedoms and a functioning government of the people. The government bureaucracy was never going to do it alone without the Marxists. The Marxists were never going to do it without an allied government. And yet here we are in our 21st century moment, poised to collapse the evil regime, or suffer the total collapse of this country under the evil regime.

        3. “Thankfully the Founding Fathers knew better and codified the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.” And too their credit today, the 2nd and it’s ramifications are what’s preventing this country from permanently turning hammer and sickle-style Red anytime soon.

          1. the 2nd and it’s ramifications are what’s preventing this country from permanently turning hammer and sickle-style Red anytime soon.

            There’s a lot of truth in that statement JAFO. If you look at all the ways the regime is attacking this country, you can identify the other areas where they see an obstacle to total and complete power. Obviously the 1st amendment. The 4th amendment. The long running assault on the 10th. The courts. The electoral process. And of course our traditionally American culture. That latter one is perhaps the most pressing for them. Right now, my guess is they’ve locked down about 35% into their camp. The most pressing need for the other 65% is doing everything possible to make sure they cannot rig the upcoming election. If we lose that, then we will likely lose everything else.

            1. About the election process, Olly. Any idea what it will take for the courts to get interested enough to actually look into ‘any’ voter fraud concerns? So far they only seem interested in the occasional gerrymandering issue here and there, but nothing regarding States being held to their own legislated standards for federal elections. Frankly, I was caught off-guard when Texas and the other 18 or 19 states that petitioned with them in 2020 were denied ‘standing’ in a Federal election case. I mean, isn’t part of the reason the Federal Court systems exist is to settle disputes between the states?

              If Team Blue does again what they did then – and they most certainly will figuring they really don’t have anything to lose when they get caught; I don’t recall anyone in Arizona being charged with election fraud despite 100,000 plus ballots not up to Arizona’s own election standards but counted anyway – and the Courts again determine cases based on criteria other than hearing the cases on evidence presented in court, then you’re right…the rest is moot. Heck, the election itself would be moot.

              I can’t see a scenario where if that should happen again The People would simply ‘take it’.

              1. Frankly, I was caught off-guard when Texas and the other 18 or 19 states that petitioned with them in 2020 were denied ‘standing’ in a Federal election case.

                Attached is a lengthy explanation as to why SCOTUS rejected Texas’ case based on standing. It would take me several more reads in order to form a reasonable understanding of the points being made, But two takeaways for me are: Texas didn’t present actual harm and if SCOTUS had accepted the case, this would set a precedent no constitutional conservative would ever want.

                For what it’s worth, my opinion is that cases involving national elections should always be reviewable by SCOTUS, before harm can be proven. By denying standing until harm can be proven over election disputes, the harm could impact nominations to SCOTUS, confirmation in the Senate, and by the time that case comes before the Court, the majority on the Court may have shifted against the harmed party.

                Elections are the lifeblood of our entire system. If we have to wait for it to be poisoned before we can take action, we’re already dead.

                1. If I remember correctly, Texas was going to argue Texans and other states citizen’s votes were effectively nullified by Pennsylvania and other states when they allowed/accepted votes cast by using methods not enacted by their respective legislatures. Justice Thomas (and maybe Alito?) said he would have heard the argument, but he was ‘overruled’ by the lack-of-standing declaration of the majority. This implies States aren’t allowed to speak on behalf of their own voters which further indicates if a State can’t be ‘heard’ on Federal election integrity, what chance does any citizen have?

                  1. JAFO, I may be wrong, but standing seems to require an individual, or in this case a state, to be a victim before they can sue. Now we have laws, regulations, policies supposedly to protect the public and of course states from being a victim in the first place. But what if this victim-first rule involves who gets to write the laws, regulations and policies to protect the public and the states? What if it involves who is on the courts to rule on the victim’s case? We often hear that’s what elections are for. I can understand that we do not want SCOTUS encroaching on the powers of the other two branches, or the powers of the states, but in the area of the integrity of our federal elections, they have to exercise their powers.

                    1. Olly and JAFO: I always read your thought-provoking comments. If I may, I might add that Texas and Louisiana have just lost another case (June 2023) based on standing (this one involving a new Biden administration immigration policy). In this new decision, SCOTUS informs on what a state may need to establish standing, and offers five examples (summarized in the two-page syllabus).

                    2. Thank you lin for the link. It does appear that our constitution is a suicide pact.

                    3. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

                      John Adams

                    4. Lin, after a short perusal of the opinion, I find this particular quote by the Court quite contradictory…

                      “To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. See Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560–561. The District Court found that the States would incur additional costs because the Federal Government is not arresting more noncitizens.
                      *Monetary costs are of course an injury* (emphasis mine.) But this Court has “also stressed that the alleged injury must be legally and judicially cognizable.” Raines, 521 U. S., at 819. That “requires, among other things,” that the “dispute is traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process”—in other words, that the asserted injury is traditionally redressable in federal court.”

                      How is this alone not enough ‘standing’ for the Court to hear Plaintiff’s concerns? It agrees with the District Court: plaintiffs are indeed being injured.

                      Alito’s dissent is spot on:

                      “At issue here is Congress’s authority to control immigration, and “[t]his Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792 (1977). In the exercise of that power, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a law that commands the detention and removal of aliens who have been convicted of certain particularly dangerous crimes. The Secretary of Homeland Security, however, has instructed his agents to disobey this legislative command and instead follow a different policy that is more to his liking. And the Court now says that no party injured by this policy is allowed to challenge it in court.

                      That holding not only violates the Constitution’s allocation of authority among the three branches of the Federal
                      Government; it also undermines federalism.”

                      This Court is saying out loud, “Not our problem, not our job. Texas, Louisiana and the rest of you “States”, you can’t make us force the executive to enforce laws congress passes. Not even after the executive takes an oath and promises to faithfully defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. So there.”

                      As Antonio might say, “I (too) want a divorce.”

                    5. Agreed. “I can understand that we do not want SCOTUS encroaching on the powers of the other two branches, or the powers of the states, but in the area of the integrity of our federal elections, they have to exercise their powers.”

                      Exactly right, and that exercise must start with the Court giving the individual or state the means to have their petition heard, not denied on the outset on what may turn out to be lack of standing, later. Review the evidence. Hear the arguments of relevant law itself. Does it confirm the actions were unlaw? If yes, then an individual or state’s ‘standing’ should not matter. For me, that’s a critical factor.

                      As I mentioned, SCOTUS has already opined on some gerrymandering lawsuits brought to the Court by the states, themselves. The outcome of those cases directly determine how Federal US House seats are filled. By extension, the Court must ‘listen’ if any one state has probable-cause another state is violating their own election laws for the only election where the states themselves have any meaningful input – electing a President.

                      (Our friend George has been saying as much but only a few are seeing the merits of his contributions.)

          2. The Founders codified that Supreme Court and Marbury v. Madison codified Judicial Review. The singular American failure has been and remains the Supreme Court, the Justices of which have failed to fulfill their sworn oath to “support” the literal, clear meaning and intent of the Constitution, which exists in evident distinction and diametric opposition to the principles of communism.

            Look around you, America IS hammer and sickle red. The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

            Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

            Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

            Lincoln began the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in 1860. He was congratulated and commended by Karl Marx in 1865. America has been “Progressively” evolved into total communism for 150 years. The frog that would immediately jump out of hot water was brought to a boil and cooked slowly. “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist,” said Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, in 1848. Alger Hiss, State Department official under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, chief implementer of communism, was effectively sentenced for being a communist, according to Whittaker Chambers.

            “As long as humanity speaks of virtue and dreams of freedom, the life and writings of Whittaker Chambers will ennoble and inspire.”


            Joe McCarthy was right!

            And you just noticed?

      2. You were compelled to point out something that has been utterly self-evident and obvious for years; Trump’s was not, while Biden’s was de facto quid pro quo.

        When America threw out its Constitution, the code to live by was lost, leaving American dynamics entirely to politics, whimsy, and corruption. Lies become truths, and facts become falsehoods. Dependents and parasites will do and say anything to obtain “free stuff” and “free status.” The lunacy and chaos of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” ultimately achieve dominion, constituting the final phase of the Prentis Cycle, wherein the author asserts that “popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within.” Indeed, the Founders established a severely restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one-man, one-vote democracy.

        Indeed, Abraham Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater—he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery—beginning the incremental implementation of the principles of communism. For that, Lincoln was congratulated and commended by Karl Marx.

        The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and today America’s credit rating was downgraded by Fitch over debt.

        The Prentis Cycle

        From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.

        – Henning Webb Prentis Jr., 1943

Leave a Reply