“Four Pinocchios”: The Washington Post Admits Biden Lied About Hunter Not Accepting Money from China


President Joe Biden has been a regular recipient of “Pinocchios” by the Washington Post for his false statements on subjects ranging from election laws to abortion protections to deficit reduction. Biden is undeterred and regularly repeats false stories from his life that have ranged from an invented arrest with Nelson Mandela to a zombie-like train conductor. Undeterred, this week he continued with the false claim about the “Joey, Baby” conductor. Now, the President has a fresh set of “Four Pinocchios,” but the false claim is far more serious than inventing a conductor or rewriting the history of the Second Amendment.  The Post is admitting that Biden has been lying about how his son Hunter never made money from China. It is the latest indication that the protective media wall surrounding Biden is beginning to crumble under the weight of new evidence in the corruption scandal.

Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday that Biden has repeatedly and categorically maintained that his son did not receive money from China.

“But now, nearly three years later, Biden’s assertions have been directly rebutted by Hunter himself. In court testimony last week, the younger Biden acknowledged that he in fact had been paid substantial sums in China — the first official confirmation that this was the case.”

What is curious is that Kessler and the Post waited for Hunter to effectively confess rather than take notice of money transfers and records released by House committees investigating the corruption scandal. The Post and most of the media have taken little observable journalistic interest in independently confirming such payments or benefits. Instead, the media has adopted a largely passive stance and waited for confessions rather than find confirmation.

Nevertheless, as with the laptop, there is some credit to be given for eventually confirming what has long been known.

Kessler noted that these dealings overlapped with the President’s travels and meetings:

“Twelve days after he flew to Beijing, Hunter Biden joined the board of a just-formed investment advisory firm known as BHR (Bohai, Harvest and Rosemont), whose partners included Chinese entities, including the man he introduced to his father. Separately, after Joe Biden left public office, Hunter Biden in 2017 inked a deal with CEFC China Energy, a Chinese energy conglomerate. The Washington Post reported last year that documents, including emails found on a Hunter Biden laptop that emerged during the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign, showed that over the course of 14 months, the CEFC and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and President Biden’s brother, James.”

Nevertheless, the Post emphasized that it “did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC.” Of course, the Post has not been know to be particularly active in independently trying to confirm such benefits . . . absent another Biden admission or confession.

As with the clearly false claims that he had no knowledge or involvement in these dealings, the question is now not whether Joe Biden has been lying but why he has been lying.


219 thoughts on ““Four Pinocchios”: The Washington Post Admits Biden Lied About Hunter Not Accepting Money from China”

  1. Just an aparté concerning Trumps arraignment of today. Yes, It’s Barnum and Baileys all over again… I was just listening to you on Foxnews. Since the subject is on Lying, and you were discussing the indictment, which I haven’t read yet, trying to prove Trump lied willingly and knowingly… There is A point of Law I would like to see explained and/or discussed: If and When, because it appears it is where we are heading, Government draws the line in a political context of where lies the truth and what are lies… is this not an infringement of the 1st Amendement. Determining who says the truth or who lies is a protected privilege as it is tied to Freedom of Thinking which is intrinsic in and to Freedom of Speech. When Government decides what is “truth” and what is “lie”, is that not like Imposinsing Speech as it denies individual jusdgement…. And for Government Imposing Speech is a “Dereliction of Duty” in Protecting an Individual’s Freedom of Speech?
    As Roberts eloquently expressed, i the case you were quoting I believe:”“For politicians, lying is a religious observance akin to attending a church or a synagogue, except that they do it seven days a week.”
    Yes, here lying is more pertaining to protection to practice one’s Religion: Lying… It’s still the first Amendment… But my question to the legal community is pertaining to imposing speech when deciding who speaks the truth and who speaks lies…
    Thank you again,
    Your Elegance

    1. Denys: Trump is not being prosecuted over lying–Turley is just repeating a Fox (non) News talking point–spinning the indictment as some sort of chilling effect on free speech. Trump is being prosecuted for his ACTIONS. Please read the indictment, which makes clear the boundary between speech, protected by the First Amendment, and actions, which are not. The indictment specifically mentions the First Amendment.

      1. Lmao at gigi again. The indictment reads like a political manifesto, not an indictment. For whose benefit was enumerating the things that were NOT a crime?? I mean, for gods sake, who puts that crap in an indictment? More type was spent on what he did that wasnt criminal than what he did that supposedly was.

        And your gullible little mind fell right for it.

        “I have a great idea. Let’s fill the indictment with lots of claims that we aren’t prosecuting protected speech, so they cant use that as a defense”—-junior lawyer on the Jack Smith team

    2. You should read the indictment.

      Paragraph 3:
      The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to 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, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

      Paragraph 4:
      Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:
      a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
      b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified (“the certification proceeding”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); and
      c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.
      Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election (“the federal government function”).

      He’s not accused of lying, which — as the indictment notes — is generally legal to do. He’s accused of conspiracies. It’s not his words, it’s his actions.

      1. LOL – all 3 “conspiracies” refer to his speaking. It’s as transparent as the lying puss of a demoncrat.

        If you want to know whom those conspiracies apply to, check Nancy Pelosi, the Mayor of DC, and others who refused the national guard and the beefing up security, for the 1st time ever.

    3. Former Attorney General, Bill Barr: “As the indictment says, they’re not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy.”

          1. I guess you are telling us you don’t have an answer and don’t know what a conspiracy is.

        1. As usual, it’s the criminals like Mayor of DC, Nancy Pelosi, and the 3 letters who conspired and stopped standard usage security and infiltrated and opened the heavy mag lock doors to the Capitol and waved people in, snickering and in cahoots the entire time.

    4. Whether or not the 2020 election was actual!y stolen, surely it was (and is) reasonable for Trump or anyone else to believe it was stolen. How can it ever be illegal to express a reasonable belief?

      1. Everyone knows it was stolen. No one who glances can refute that. It would be nice if people gave up the demoncrat asset of playing stupid.

  2. “China Hands Rare Death Sentence to Former Asset-Management Head”

    Lai Xiaomin was found guilty of bribery, embezzlement and bigamy; his punishment comes as crackdown on the financial sector intensifies

    – Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2021

    “Lai Xiaomin: Criticism of death sentence on former Chinese tycoon” (condensed)

    The death penalty handed out to a former Chinese finance chief found guilty of corruption has been heavily criticised by human rights groups. Lai Xiaomin was arrested in 2018 on charges of taking 1.8bn yuan (£200m, $280m) in bribes over a 10-year period. It is one of the most severe sentences to stem from President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption drive. Human Rights Watch said “China is clearly taking a major step backwards.” Chinese officials said crimes committed by Mr Lai were during his time as chairman of Huarong Asset Management. The financial firm was set up in 1999 to to take bad debts off China’s largest state-owned banks. On Tuesday, a court in the northern city of Tianjin, said his crimes had “caused serious losses to the interests of the country”. “Imposing the death sentence on Lai Xiaomin for financial crimes, such as bribe taking, is outrageous and unacceptable and clearly violates China’s commitments to respect international human rights standards,” Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch told the BBC. Mr Robertson said the death penalty should be immediately commuted to prison time. “By imposing this sentence, China is clearly taking a major step backwards on rights in what appears to be an effort to create fear among businessmen.” Human Rights Watch calls the tactic ‘killing the chicken to show it to the monkeys’ so it “makes an example of one person to instil obedience in all the others.” Yaqiu Wang, a China researcher at Human Rights Watch, added that President Xi “has little intention to end or slow down the campaign” to stamp out corruption. Human Rights Watch added that it opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as “inherently cruel, and believes it violates of the right to life and fundamental dignity that all human beings possess.” The group has called on the Chinese government to impose an immediate moratorium on its use.

    – By Justin Harper, Business reporter, BBC News, 6 January 2021

    1. Is a death sentence for bribery and embezzlement a worse than a potential 175 year sentence for practicing journalism?

  3. Meanwhile, Trump’s latest indictment appears to be for voicing an opinion Democrats didn’t like. Hillary Clinton still says the election was stolen by the Russians. That’s fine. Stacey Abrams and Al Gore still think they won. If Trump refers to ballot stuffing, or that you can count and recount ballots filled out absentee for old folks and get the same number yet never address validity, or that different standards were applied in different districts, and he’ll get indicted.

    Joe Biden can brag on camera about a quid pro quo in which he withheld aid to Ukraine until the prosecutor was fired, and that’s fine, but Trump got impeached for making one phone call to inquire about it.

    Hillary Clinton kept an illegal bootleg server with classified information in her basement, backed it up to the Cloud, and wiped it with BleachBit while under investigation, and that’s fine. Joe Biden can keep boxes of documents that belonged in the National Archives, as well as classified information, in his unsecured garage next to his Corvette, and that’s fine. He sent classified information to the Penn Biden think tank, as well as internal documents that belonged in the NA, and that’s fine. Drug addict Hunter Biden can reference classified information in his emails peddling Joe Biden’s influence schemes, and that’s fine. But Trump keeping documents he claimed to have declassified, as well as documents his attorneys were arguing did not belong in the NA, in a secured area with the full knowledge and indeed consultation of the FBI on matters of security, and he’s been indicted.

    There is no justice in the US. Democrats have seized control of three letter agencies and the vast bureaucracy to create a many headed hydra that seems hopeless to fight. Where is a Bellerophon?

    1. Karen S.
      As always, I look forward to your comments.
      Straight. To the point. And factual.
      Then watching Natasha try to counter your facts is always fun in watching her fail with her delusions.

    2. Karen,
      You clearly haven’t read the Trump indictment. It’s as clear as can be that Trump can say whatever he wants to the American people, including lies (see paragraph 3). What he CANNOT do is conspire against the government (see Counts 1-4).

      1. What!? You know what conspiring is, right? That’s thought crime. I.e., IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTIONS. IT IS DEFINED BY THE DEFENDENT’S INTENT, WHICH IS NOT A FRIGGIN’ ACTION OR EVEN MEASURABLE/KNOWABLE. Ridiculous.

        1. No, criminal conspiracy not a thought crime. What’s ridiculous is that you haven’t read the indictment and its discussion of the many actions and apparently also don’t understand that it’s not defined by intent.

    3. Karen S: No. You are wrong again. Trump was indicted, based on testimony and documents from REPUBLICANS over his actions–not his lies. And, Trump did cheat in 2016 with the help of Russians–read the Republican Senate Committee report from their investigation–something your alt-right news fails to discuss, if you don’t believe the Mueller Report. Al Gore did win–but, did he get people to falsify Electoral College documents, or try to get the VP to award him the election, or start in insurrection. Nothing Trump said about election fraud is true–nothing–proven by multiple re counts, re-recounts, audits, forensic audits, and at least 2 investigations Trump commissioned–all of these prove there was no widespread voter fraud. Trump lost just like every poll predicted he would.

      You were corrected yesterday about the lie over Joe Biden getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired–the reason was corruption. And, Trump DID withhold aid from Ukraine–trying a quid-pro quo–to get Zelenskyy to gin up lies about Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton was extensively investigated–she had no criminal intent in using a personal server, and tried to keep the information away from hackers with BleachBit–not because she was being investigated–but to prevent hackers. Joe Biden did not deliberately steal classified documents, and neither did Mike Pence–both of them asked for their papers to be searched for anythng that shouldn’t be there and to be immediately returned to the NARA.–unlike your hero, who deliberately stole them, kept them in unsecure locations, moved them around, tried to get security footage erased before his lawyer could come and search the boxes to retrieve the documents, and has lied repeatedly about “declassifying” them. He showed them off to young female staffers–trying to impress them with what a big shot he thinks he is. Trump was indicted for his deliberate theft of classified documents, refusal to return them, lying about returning them, even after being subpoeaned, and efforts to erase security footage proving his crimes, which is obstruction of justice. No one in US government ever consented to Trump’s theft and retention of classified documents. MAL is open to members and guests, including the ballroom where our national secrets were on a stage, in a bathroom, in a pool locker and other areas that all kinds of people could have accessed any time they wanted to. And, before you claim it–the Secret Service does NOT guard papers or property–just people.

      There are no “influence schemes” that have been proved–despte 4 years of investigation. Trump is NOT the victim of the DOJ or the FBI–but of his own ego–his refusal to accept the will of the American people, and egotistical need to keep national secrets he had no right to keep–to prove he’s a big shot.

      1. Gigi
        You lower the bar every day.

        “tried to keep the information away from hackers with BleachBit–not because she was being investigated–but to prevent hackers.”

        Bleachbit isnt anti-virus or security software you dunce. The way u keep hackers from hacking your illicit server is to unplug it lmao.

        “Joe Biden did not deliberately steal classified documents,”

        Another deliberate outright lie. The only way a Senator could possess those documents outside of a classified skiff is to deliberately steal them. Unless you’re suggesting that stealing can somehow be “not deliberate”

        “she had no criminal intent in using a personal server,”

        Intent is not part of the standard with respect to handling of classified materials. Do you think the career sailor who took selfies inside the submarine control room had intent? She broke an oath. That was intentional.

        Another of your long winded rants filled with lies, half truths, willful blindness and frankly, just plain ignorance of facts.

  4. They shouldn’t use the power of government to cause political damage to a candidate. It goes against the spirit of what the Constitution is supposed to be about: protection against governmental abuse.

          1. “According to Devon Archer, he didn’t commit any.”

            You mean, the guy you previously claimed was “out of the loop”. Inadvertently admitting that there was a loop, which ostensibly included Pedo Joe, unless Hunter is a loop unto himself.

  5. The JOE BIDEN scandals are starting to congeal into the end of his presidency. To quote John Dean, “there is a cancer growing on the presidency.” Biden will be gone before Christmas, probably before Thanksgiving, and the fools that are defending the indefensible, see Goldman, Dan, will pretend nothing happened, that he is just not running again due to his age and the fact that he accomplished all he wanted to accomplish. LAUGHABLE.

    Newsome, a loathsome character, is the only one seemingly smart enough to be getting his ducks in a row. Harris will make a stink and will offer up a pathetic attempt to garner the nomination, but she will fail. All of the poseurs that scream women first and black women before all others will quietly ignore Harris, they will support Hair Gel and they will all pretend that being a black women doesn’t matter at this time.

    1. “I began by telling the president that there was a cancer growing on the presidency and that if the cancer was not removed that the President himself would be killed by it. I also told him that it was important that this cancer be removed immediately because it was growing more deadly every day. I then gave him what I told him would be a broad overview of the situation and I would come back and fill in the details and answer any questions he might have about the matter.”

      – John Dean, Nixon White House Counsel, 1973

      1. Dean is the criminal who concocted the break in without Nixon’s knowledge.

        I listened to the Nixon tape where Dean explains to Richard what he did.

        John Dean has been a woke libtard hero now for decades. John Dean is the crook, not Nixon. John Dean is the conspirator of the Watergate break in, not Nixon. Dean is the cancer, not Nixon.

    2. Harris and Newson have been running neck-&-neck for quite some time.

      She: a District Attorney of San Francisco (2004)
      He: San Francisco Board of Supervisors (1997)

      Then She Attorney General of California (2011)
      Then HE: Mayor of San Francisco (2004)

      Then She: United States Senator from California (2017)
      Then He: Lieutenant Governor of California (2011)

      Now: V.P. (2021)
      Now: Governor of California (2019)

      Gavin and Kamala, the Best of Frenemies
      Gavin Newsom seems to be quietly plotting a 2024 presidential run, putting him on a collision course with his old pal, Kamala Harris
      By: Peter Kiefer ~ Sep 15, 2022

      The California Cabal is widespread – The Notable ones are obviously getting to old, but new ones like Out-of-State Cabal member Rep. Dan Goldman (Levi Strauss – San Francisco) still hold the Cal-Line and the Tech Superior Elite.

      I don’t like the idea any more than you do, especially Newsom
      but I would not count them out, They have clout now.

      1. Candidates don’t “run” in Communifornia.

        Boot-licking, sycophantic, illegal alien apparatchiks are appointed by the Communist Party.

        California is a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans and America.

        California seceded from America and its Constitution a long, long time ago.

    3. With that article being published, look for Trump to be indicted on something else tomorrow. That would keep the pattern going. I notice that even the WSJ has taken to ignoring the Biden corruption issues so it is shocking that WaPo is admitting that there may “be something there” when it comes to Joe Biden’s lies regarding his involvement in Hunter’s business dealings. The WSJ has four Trump articles today (just from a quick glance at the front page and political section. Not one on the Biden corruption. Are corporate news sites getting their own “ten percent for the Big Guy”?

      1. Cfofthewoods,
        Seems Jack Smith admits to withholding evidence from the Trump defense.
        Wonder what else Smith might be withholding.

        1. Did Lavrentiy Beria ever withhold evidence from the defense?

          How about Mike Nifong?

          Perhaps Andrew Weissmann of Enron infamy?

    4. HullBobby,
      The mounting body of evidence of corruption will only continue to grow to the point even MSM may turn on Biden for Newsome.
      While Newsome will claim of various success in his state as governor, anyone with any degree of common sense can see what he and his fellow Democrats have done in CA. Open air drug markets, rampant crime, feces all over the streets of San Fran. For that matter entire sections of San Fran are ghost towns. Businesses closing. Homeless problems. Sky rocketing housing and rent prices. High taxes and cost of living. Absurd business regulations that has made it all but impossible to open a business.
      That is what Newsome and his fellow Democrats call success. And they want to bring it to the rest of America. The Biden admin is trying to.

  6. Tucker – This is the VPOTUS, he’s not allowed to be working on businesses with foreign governments while he’s VP???

    Archer – Not as far as I know…

    Tucker – Yet, here, he is (pointing to the letter Joe wrote to Archer…you know, the guy he never spoke to)

    Archer – Right.

    And if you watch the interview or read the transcript, every time the subject becomes detailed or begins to implicate, he starts fidgeting and smiling oddly and carefully choosing his words, many times starting to say it one way, then saying it another. These interviews have only scratched the surface of what he knows.


    Joe Biden had global influence as Obama’s vice president.

    Hunter Biden, of unsavory history, was close to and in constant contact with Joe Biden.

    Hunter Biden benefited from and sold Joe Biden’s influence.

    Enough inexplicable money flowed in to generate 150 SARs on Biden family bank accounts.


    Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, et al. committed corruption, influence peddling, bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion.

  8. If you want to know exactly what Devon Archer said you should not trust CNN or The Washington Post. You should watch his interview with Tucker Carlson and make up your own mind. Do not quickly forget that earlier The Washington Post gave Joe Biden four pinochles for lying about his contact with Hunter’s business associates. They must have gotten an ear full so now they are trying to walk it back. Putting a strawberry on a pile doesn’t make it strawberry shortcake. You can watch the interview to determine if your being gaslighted again. Turn the lights up.

    1. And “If you want to know exactly what Devon Archer said” to Congress, read the transcript:

      Q: “If someone were to conclude from this that this is evidence, this Form 1023 is evidence that Joe Biden was bribed by Mykola Zlochevsky, would you disagree with that conclusion?”
      A: “Yeah, I would.”

      Q: “The report also found, quote, ‘No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden.’ Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?”
      A: “No.”

  9. Well my oh my, the transcript of the Devon Archer testimony has been released. Yesterday out leftist bloggers were screaming that the Republicans were afraid to release the transcript because they were hiding something. They knew that the transcript would soon be released but they raised their normal stink anyway cause it’s just the way they role.

  10. What, exactly, does the Constitution of the United States mean to you? Is it just a loose guide for use to continually work on forming a More Perfect Union, and laws are what we use to codify those efforts?

    I would venture to say that we only use the name of the document and “We the People”, the balance of the document is left unused until we get to the amendments which we have turned into a source of improper partisan interpretations which have created a mutable government on steroids.

    The truth is that without Article 1 Sections 1, 2, and 3 that there would have been no purpose for the Constitution of the United States, it would be a totally fallacious document, because the balance of the articles are basically a carbon copy of the Articles of Confederation with only minor adjustments to establish continuity and stability of government, through term lengths and offset elections of Senators, a continually seated Supreme Court, an executive department separate from the Senate, but still under the direction and control of the Senate, which allows the Senate to recess with the full congress, and to make amending the constitution more feasible, because unambiguous ratification is almost impossible, but 3/4 eliminated those fringe elements that would act against anything even if it was in their interests.

    None of the lies that you attribute to Biden would even be relevant to a properly assembled and operated governing system established by the Constitution of the United States, not even the second amendment reference you through in, which I am sure you don’t know the history of the 2nd amendment either.

    Here’s the history of the Second Amendment from Article 6 Clause 4 of the Articles of Confederation:

    [No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.]

    And if you are honest, the 2nd amendment just paraphrased this article, very eloquently of I may say so. And if you can read, this only refers to military arms and equipment, because everyone owned a gun at that time for hunting and self protection, so absolutely none of the arguments you geniuses are spouting have anything to do with the purpose and intent of the 2nd amendment.

    The same is true of the Supreme Court, its purpose, how it’s assembled, and how it functions, which also comes directly from Article 9 Clause 2 of the Articles of Confederation where the only change is that the pool of no less than 7 and no more than 9 judges are continually seated instead of having to assemble the pool for the adjudication of every petition for redress of grievances of the States, or their citizens, and they also appointed a Chief Justice to preside, not to participate, over the proceedings of the Supreme Court.

    A government that is susceptible to this level of individual malfeasance and corruption is not a well constituted government! And the government established by the Constitution of the United States, and the Articles of Confederation before it, are well constituted, and are robust to the mischief of factions, as well as, the malfeasance and corruption of individuals.

    If Biden were properly vetted by electors, then he would have never gotten the required majority of the electors, not electoral college votes, to become president in the first instance, and neither would Trump, and neither one of them would in my estimation would have been in the top 3 of the persons identified by the electors on the aggregate list for President or the top 2 of the persons identified by the electors on the aggregate list for Vice President, which would mean they wouldn’t even have been considered for those offices at all, and if this level of malfeasance, corruption, and lying had been discovered after they assumed office, they would be immediately impeached and convicted for those indictments, even if they are only misdemeanors, because a misdemeanor is spitting on the sidewalk, but for some reason we have disabled our system of government to where no one can be removed from office, even, in Trump’s words; He shot someone in the face on Main Street, which is just another indication that the government cannot police itself and protect itself form these factors of corruption and usurpation.

    You people need to put down you crack pipes!



      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions 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.

      Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

      “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

      – James Madison

    2. So, it sounds like you’ve worked yourself into a foggy place where there’s no way to turn.

  11. If a sclerotic life-long political hack commits crimes of oily parasitism in the Swamp and the MSM refuses to take notice, does it make enough noise for the fly-overs to read about it?

  12. I’ve always thought that Anonymous was a Democratic insider assigned to the Turley blog. My suspicions have now been confirmed. She says that the Republicans have not released the transcript of the Devon Archer hearing but it seems that she is quoting directly from the transcript. Who gave her the transcript? The logical conclusion must be that she an insider posing as just your normal everyday citizen. I guess there’s no hiding it anymore. A hack is a hack and she finally made a mistake and let it out.

    1. I don’t disagree with your premise, but the transcript has been out for awhile now.

      However, please tell me that ATS is not a woman! I prefer to think of the fairer sex as being less capable of willful stupidity and deliberate ignorance…

      1. Excuse me, but what is a “woman”? I was hoping that Ketanji Brown Jackson would set the record straight on this. But she too had no answers. It’s all so confusing.

        1. They forgot to ask her at the hearings how she has arrived at the determination she is a woman, consequently letting her off the hook unnecessarily.

        2. Too many dumb lawyers running the hearings. They failed to ask her how she concluded she was a woman.

      2. Re: “I prefer to think of the fairer sex as being less capable of willful stupidity and deliberate ignorance…”

        Nancy Pelosi, et al. would beg to differ..

  13. The police chief of the Capitol Police says he requested help from the National Guard and he had to wait 71 minutes for a response. See the interview with the chief of police here. https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/08/02/exclusive-capitol-police-chief-called-jan-6-events-a-cover-up-in-tucker-carlson-interview-hidden-by-fox-news/. It was Nancy Pelosi’s decision to not send the guard when it was requested. Nancy does know a good political opportunity when she sees one.

  14. My oh my. Yes oh yes. What a difference a day makes. Twenty four little hours. The Washington Post gives Joe Biden four pinochles. The New York Times says he lied, Slate Magazine says Joe is to old to run, News that Obama told Biden that Trump could win all coming out a couple of days after the Devon Archer testimony. They all smell the pungent odor of damaged goods. Why all the change of heart? I suspect that they realize that there is much more to come in the Biden saga. The Republicans have proof of the wire transfers and the suspicious activity reports. There will be much more to come on the way to November 2024. Stock up on your popcorn and tune in. The plot will soon unfold.

      1. “Meanwhile the governor of California is preparing to enter stage left”

        And if elected, he’ll bring to America what he created in California: A mass exodus.

    1. I hope you are right thinkitthrough. But it’s hard for me to trust again. The Republicans have always been like that guy in front of you on the freeway with his blinker on forever but never changes lanes. I don’t want to know what they’re going to do. I want to know what they did. The time has come for action.

    2. @TiT

      The Treasury Dept. is dragging their feet on the actual SARs.
      There’s more of them when you start to follow the money.

      You need to see who ended up with what… and then where the money originated from.
      There’s a problem if the funds came from certain bank(s) which may have lax reporting.

      The other issue.
      You need to show Biden (Joe) is tied to at least one or more of these offshore accounts.
      The fact that Hunter created a web of off shore accounts and companies… mens rhea is easier to prove.
      That is evidence of trying to hide the funds.

      Also the lack of reporting of the funds.

      Still you need to tie it to Joe which may prove to be difficult.

      But lets also talk about the million dollar book deals and other soft money deals.


  15. I notice that neither Dennis nor ATS took me up on my offer to invest 10K into whether Trump gets convicted and upheld on the latest indictment. I guess that shows them for the big mouth coward trolls that they are.

    I think the DOJ should have to answer to the American people for why DJT wasn’t charged under 18 USC 2383 and 2384.

    1. @Tom
      Convicted? Yes.
      Upheld? No.

      18 USC 2383 ? That would be tough since he was POTUS and the transcript of his speech would prove otherwise. The other issue.
      Tough to have an unarmed group of men/women leading an insurrection.
      Same for 18 USC 2384. Unarmed protesters? Really?


  16. Bulletin, bulletin, bulletin, “Anonymous” has passed his daily count of 200 comments for BOTH columns that the good Professor has provided for us. 400 comments with nary one good idea or opinion.

  17. How do you know if Joe Biden has lost the support of the Democrats. When Slate Magazine comes out saying he shouldn’t run for President again that’s how. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/welcome-to-the-zombie-election/ar-AA1eJjX8. I find the timing of the release of this story very interesting. Slate and the NewYork Times have gone into live to fight another day mode. They’ve been holding off but now that the Archer Devon testimony has come to light the rats are hastily scurrying from the ship.

  18. I am convinced that a few of the comments that show up here are not written by everyday individuals, but rather by individuals and groups (composing under the same name) that are elements of the administration. No less dangerous than the “Russian Bots”, these individuals and groups serve the purpose of the administration by diverting attention, assisting in messaging, covering for failures, excusing obvious criminal activities, basically anything to protect the administration and help implement its policy no matter if it’s right or wrong.

    1. CalvinH,
      I would be inclined to agree.
      No matter the mounting body of evidence, the obvious corruption of the DOJ, FBI and IRS the softball MSM they will always defend this admin no matter what. As you point out, deflection, promoting the official narrative, the whataboutism anything to protect this admin.
      Are they paid?
      Or just useful idiots?
      The upside is we all see through it. And as more and more information comes to light, the more desperate they get.
      Just look at the past few days on the good professor’s blog.

      1. Calvin and old friend Upstate, I agree that “Anonymous” is probably a bot or a paid partisan, but there is a chance that he is just a contrarian weirdo. Either way I just ignore him.

        Note to all people that don’t opt for a name and instead go by Anonymous, many of us ignore any comment you may have because we assume it is written by “Anonymous”.

        1. HullBobby, my most esteemed colleague,
          Right you are.
          However, have you noticed how much better the good professor’s blog becomes once Darren cleans up the mess?
          Now, prior to the purge of it that should not be named, it tried to assert that any POV other than conservative ones are something like uncomfortable or unwelcome or something like that.
          It is not that conservative POV are welcome here. Look at Dennis and Natasha. There comments always remain. They are hardly conservative.
          I, myself may be conservative fiscally, as a farmer I have to be. But concerning social POV I am all over the place.
          But it that shall not be named, always claims the victim. It’s comments are deleted not for what it says but for it’s past egregious violation of the civility rule. It cannot man up and admit it’s own actions for getting deleted.
          And we all know it’s misinformation, disinformation and out right lies get ever so boorish.
          Thank you Darren for a job well done! We should send you a fruit basket.

  19. Let’s dissect this for the willful idiots in the room (ATS, Gigi, Dennis, u know who you are).
    The whole truth will not be known until there is a PROPER criminal investigation. Devon Archer did not tell the truth in that interview. The delays in getting him to the hill were because he and his lawyers were negotiating the questions that would be asked and whether or not the testimony would be under oath. This allowed Archer time to prepare his answers, being careful not to implicate himself in the whole filthy scheme. Until and unless a prosecutor threatens him with real jail time, and offers him immunity (and possibly witness protection, he will need it), he isn’t going to spill the beans. “The brand” my ass. Joe Biden was what was for sale, period. Archer knew it, Hunter knew it, and everyone who paid knew it. If anyone here truly thinks Joe was the only who didn’t know it, I have a huge tract of swampland in DC to sell you.
    “you know what we’re talking around”—Devon Archer to House Counsel
    Archer must have said “you know” a thousand times in that interview….probably the truest thing he said. Yea, Devon, we all know.

    I am starting to think Goldman is a Republican plant. He has to be the dumbest guy in Congress. He demanded the transcript be released. Now it is clear that Archer knows everything, and told less than 2 percent of what he knows.

    If you doubt the voracity of what I am saying, ask yourself this. Why didn’t congress ask Archer specifically what he discussed with Joe Biden when he visited him in the White House in April 2014?

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks