The Search for Robert L. Peters: He Goes By Various Names…The Question is Why

Below is my column on the search for the true identity of Robert L. Peters, the name Republicans believe was used by then Vice President Joe Biden in emails that contradict his past claims on the influence peddling scandal.

Here is the column:

He is a man with many names. “Celtic.” “The Big Guy.” According to congressional investigators, most citizens know him as “President Biden.”

Aliases are tricky things. They are sometimes innocent or essential like the code name that the Secret Service gives you as part of your protection like “Celtic.”

Then there are nicknames that are preferred to your given name. Take the Big Lebowski. He did not like being called Mr. Lebowski and preferred “Dude” but he was flexible: “I’m The Dude. So, that’s what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or, uh, Duder, or El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.”

It appears that President Biden also preferred on occasion not to be called “Mr. Biden.” The question is why and whether Mr. Peters is more Big Lebowski or Big Guy.

People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Biden associate James Gilliar explained the rules to Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, and not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”

So it was not “Mr. Biden” who would receive a planned 10 percent cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm. It was “the Big Guy,” who also was to receive benefits like office space from foreign sources.

Recently, an FBI document showed that a trusted source relayed an allegation of bribery where a Ukrainian businessman said that he was told not to send money directly to “the Big Guy” but used a complex series of accounts to transfer the funds.

The question is whether “Robert L. Peters” used in various emails was in fact Joe Biden.

House investigators want to find out, but the Administration does not seem eager to resolve the question.

The earlier email using the alleged alias is from 2016. It holds particular significance for House investigators because it cc’d Hunter Biden about Ukraine.  In the now widely accepted influence peddling operation, the object of the influence was Biden.

We now know that the President lied for years in denying knowledge or conversations about his son’s foreign dealings.

Even the Washington Post now admits that the President lied when he said that Hunter made no money in China.

However, these emails may show the quid in the quid pro quo. Biden is accused of sending official information on these countries to his influence peddling son.

The nothing-to-see-here crowd is dismissing the allegation while resisting any further confirmation of these emails. (Notably, many of them insist that the false claims of Russian collusion against Trump were established by the fact that his campaign chair, Paul Manafort, gave polling data to a Russian client).

Yet, there are 27 emails linked to Joe Biden’s alleged “Robert L. Peters” alias including one sent  from John Flynn, a former senior adviser to Joe Biden, with the White House “” domain name.

For his part, Peters uses “” domain name on a government network, which includes the Executive Office of the President.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) has pushed the National Archives to share unredacted copies of these emails and has said that the House has not received the evidence. If so, it is not clear why the Archives would redact names from these emails or other information. If that matter comes to a head, the House is likely to win in court. However, efforts to obstruct such efforts could soon be one of the subjects of an impeachment inquiry.

It is also not clear why Joe Biden will not simply make this information and his financial records available to resolve any lingering questions over his past conduct and ongoing denials.

It is not likely to happen. Joe Biden has not taken well to reporters using his aliases. When a reporter who asked him about being “the Big Guy,” President Biden was irate and asked “Why’d you ask such a dumb question?

If the answer was not clear before, it was clear after that response.

It appears that other Obama Administration officials used such aliases. The question is whether Mr. Peters was doing something that Mr. Biden did not want to be associated with.  He was not the “brand” being sold by Hunter, but he may have been a conduit to deliver on that brand.

The House is unlikely to tolerate further delays in answering these questions. One thing is clear. For a fictitious figure, Mr. Peters has a growing number of people eager to make his acquaintance.

This column was posted on

230 thoughts on “The Search for Robert L. Peters: He Goes By Various Names…The Question is Why”

  1. As a former Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Division (Los Angeles) I can tell you that finding a target who’s used multiple fictitious names (which are called, “nominees”) and a labyrinth of companies that exist only on paper is a dream come true. Every Special Agent Report needs, “Intent Items” . . . which are acts, documents and other evidence that show the defendant knew what he was doing was a violation of the law and went to extraordinary steps to frustrate the administration of justice.

    1. It just makes you wonder how Biden, not a particularly smart man, could pull this off and control a deep network of corruption that has “protected” him and his family from prosecution all these years.
      And for Biden, Inc. to rake in upwards of $50 million in tax-free cash from a global shakedown, racketeering operation, we can begin to understand why Joe calls Hunter, “the smartest guy I know.”


      1. PS: Can someone in the right State actually sue for Tortious Interference of Contract (local version) against an active Cancel Culture inciter? There are Constitutional guardrails on certain “speech”, and so even if novel, the right case could clarify needed clarification of Tortious Acts that hit up against such speech, no? Happened, yet, anywhere in social media context?

      2. How about you link to the tweet where he did this. All I see is him saying “More proof that Jonathan Turley is Mike Lindell with tenure.”

      3. I noticed that Turley was a trending topic last night on Twitter, or rather in the early AM hours today. It didn’t appear for long. The incidence count (sometimes included by Twitter) was less than 4000. I also saw a tweet about Turley and Mike Lindell but didn’t understand it. It was more salacious than merely mentioning “tenure”.

        I’m not an attorney like the rest of you, but it seems unlikely that someone could be prosecuted for “cancel culture incitement”. I recall Rush Limbaugh (may he rest in peace) saying that pursuing a defamation / libel case is challenging for a public figure. I don’t want any harm to come to Jonathan Turley though, so please do what can be done.

  2. Their navy is a very large Coast Guard and their army can’t walk across the Pacific Ocean. No land army can occupy the U S.

  3. “I knowe on whiche syde my breade is buttred.”

    – John Heywood, 1546

    The Deep Deep State “Swamp” denizen and duplicitous fraud, Kevin “The Bumpkin From Bakersfield” McCarthy, knows on which side his bread is buttered.

  4. LOL, Trump is so vain that he lied about his weight for his arrest record. He claims he’s 6’3″ and 215 lbs. Ha!

    1. “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t even know what hit you.”

      Oh wait, that was Chucky Schumer threatening supreme court justices.
      But it is also an unspoken message to Biden and the evildoers who are abusing their power like the lawless thugs they all are.


    2. “… serious journalists @jaketapper and @DanaBashCNN are reading and laughing about Donald Trump’s booking sheet with details of his weight and hair color.”

      Oh so funny isn’t it CNN? And you wonder why you are called Fake News, the Enemy of the people?
      They are nothing but corrupt Democrat propaganda media.

      The real criminal is sitting on the beach, drooling, but CNN doesn’t have much to say about that.

    3. Really? I see Trump lives on in your head, rent free, I might add. You on the Left are making lifelong enemies that someday you will come to regret. At that point all your crying isn’t going to do you a bit of good. Mark my words.

  5. The question is, why is Joe Biden who has real evidence of criminality getting away with it?
    And why have Joe Biden’s employees made up crimes against Donald Trump and they’re all getting away with it?

    1. Simple answer: Because there are plenty of equally-corrupt republicans in the UniParty club.

      1. I love that. When demoncrats are caught red handed and everyone pretends it’s all unclear, it’s because the REPUBLICANS (really no evidence and no open accusations) ARE GUILTY OF WHAT IT IS “NOT CLEAR” THE DEMONCRAT EVER DID.

        When Curt Weldon (R) was attacked by the deep state and removed years ago (his daughter attacked as well), I knew what was going on. The same thing goes on today. The stakes and deep state crimes are raised.

        Keep pretending your answer makes any sense what so ever. It doesn’t make a lick of sense at all.

        1. LOL — and you keep pretending that Mitch McConnell and 70% of the “republicans” in the Senate don’t have more democrat DNA than republican. LOSERS llike YOU are why our government is hopelessly corrupt.

          1. You were asked why demoncrats commit crimes and no one does anything, and republicans don’t but demoncrats make up crimes and charge them. Curt Weldon is in that attacked category.
            Your answer to the above is mitch mcconnel.
            Is mitch going to charge anyone ? NO. Is the judiciary committee powerful ? NO.
            How many referrals did Matt Gaetz send to DOJ – a lot. Nothing happens, of course.
            So the answer isn’t Congress.
            Furthermore, you just blabber out republicans commit all the crimes too. Then that doesn’t stick you call them rinos. So what ? Those that aren’t rinos expose it all and nothing happens anyway.
            Congress is not the answer to your perceived problems.

            BTW thanks for all the power, I’ve corrupted Congress according to you. LOL
            Delusions by those who are obviously wrong come fast and furiously. Yeah, nothing happened to Holder either.

            1. I’m a Trump supporter, you lying piece of trolling garbage. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Turley REALLY needs to boot a few of you frauds off this website.

    2. Because the media is filled with Democrat lefties and the federal justice system is run by Merrick Garland another lefty.

  6. 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    “*** (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. ***”

    One might reasonably conclude that a public official using a pseudonym in correspondence with another world leader while conducting US Government business — as Joetard did while communicating in writing with the President of Ukraine — “willfully and unlawfully” engaged in an act of “concealment” in relation to said business communications by using a secret pseudonym such that said government records would remain hidden from FOIA requests and/or responses.

    At the very least, this verified information requires full criminal investigation. No clue what’s taking Congress so long in getting to the bottom of this apparently-documented conduct.


      “Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted”

      By Andrew C. McCarthy

      Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

      ‘How is this not classified?”

      So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

      1. Yes, we’ve been over this tired old ground quite a few times since the Hillary email scandal first errupted, and our moronic government always finds a way to sweep concealment of records under the carpet — probably because MOST of the unprosecuted felons in Congress have done it in the past and likely continue to do it. And if something isn’t finally done about this nonsense it will continue “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow *** To the last syllable of recorded time.” (Macbeth)

        1. You kind of miss the part where open demoncrat crimes are announced then DOJ and the courts shrug their shoulders and move on.
          Instead, it’s the republicans fault “because they do it too”. If they did it too they’d be in the courts after a 4 am raid with 45 agents and submachine guns pointed in their face. In fact they didn’t do it too and that happened anyway. A lot.

          1. Ask an adult to explain what I wrote to you, because you’re clearly too reading impaired to understand it. And stay off the pipe.

    2. Sure no clue why Congress can’t get to the bottom, of anything really … you’re totally clueless…
      The guilty parties deny them evidence, over and over, for years.
      If Congress “gets to the bottom of it”, you still just have a story.
      I’m certain, Merrick Garland will take all the evidence and shove in the black hole and tell us it is under deep and concerning investigation and we’ll know the outcome in 75 years.

        1. I don’t drink or do drugs or take prescriptions. I bet you’re sauced up on pills right now, right bucko ?

          1. Keep it up, degenerate fraud. You’re not making me look bad — you’re making Turley and his webmaster look bad.

  7. Are any Democrats, any RINOs, any Agnostics stopping to consider how this all ends? The country is viscerally divided. At least 20 countries have dumped the dollar. Truly a precipice moment, and no doubt a constitutional crisis

    1. Our Constitution remains healthy. If there’s a crisis, it’s because some people want to act unconstitutionally.

      1. You mean like allowing like acting to allow unfettered border crossings?
        How about using used Section 702 to spy on on January 6th suspects and over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign.
        How about Biden (not even Congress) allocating $430B to buy votes, er, to payoff some people’s student loans and not others?
        How about trying to make every private employer have a vaccine (sic) mandate?
        How about trying to ban gun parts
        How about rolling back protections for religious student organizations
        How about implementing price controls on Rx drugs
        How about not impeaching sotomajor
        How about giving away billions to a corrupt nation to fight a border skirmish
        How about being a racist?
        How about the failure to use the 25th?

      2. And people do want to act unconstitutionally, meaning there is a crisis.

        (FYI: the Constitution, being text on paper, cannot be “healthy” or “unhealthy.” American society, well, that’s another matter altogether.)

      3. Un——-believable!!!

        The Constitution remains nullified and voided by the courts.

        There is a crisis because the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has been grossly derelict and negligent.

        The Supreme Court allows the principles of communism to prevail in America, wherein the Constitution precludes and denies them completely and comprehensively in immutable diametric opposition.

    2. So?
      BRICs meets and wants to show their ‘strength’.
      China is a paper tiger/dragon.

      Just watch…

        1. …and who controls 90% of the world’s supply of antibiotic inputs and 90% of the US’s fentanyl inputs.

      1. Aside from nukes and a space program, China has the largest navy in the world.,superior%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Navy.

        I wouldn’t call that a “paper tiger/dragon.” And they also have a view of humanity that allows them to think of hundreds of millions of people in their population as disposable — aka cannon fodder. Our society might miss a few hundred million people, but China? — not so much.

        I wouldn’t discount China’s ability and willingness to put up a fight that they might win

        1. China thinks of their population as the population, and all other populations are disposable.
          I quite understand a westerntard cannot comprehend such a thing.

    3. Lawfare just got real for millions of Americans. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

      As someone who spent 15 years analyzing intelligence in the Balkans (2000-2015), I can’t say that I’m optimistic.

      1. Lawfare got real in 1860.

        Did you see where that went?

        Lincoln high-criminally fantasized and conjured a non-existent prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

        The rest, they say, is history.

        “[Laws] we ain’t got no [laws], we don’t need no [laws], I don’t have to show you any stinking [laws].”

        – Abe “Gold Hat” Lincoln, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948

  8. Jonathan
    Lots of people use synonyms. For instance, some have used Dennis as a synonym for George Soros. But I am here to set the record straight, that it’s a synonym for paid troll. If I was going to pick a synonym for Joe Biden, it wouldn’t be Peter, it would be something like little Peter eater, or just pedophile. Or maybe, and I’m just spit balling here, child attracted adult.
    Heck, even Fanny got synonyms. Hurst synonym for Trump is Gump because she gonna make that shrimp boil. Wooowree it gonna get hot in Fulton county orange man going to get pink.
    Gigi come on girl, don’t shout me down

    1. Synonym?
      You mean aliases.

      And no using an alias like this only occurs for one thing.
      To hide illicit communications.

  9. Though it is nearly ‘never’ addressed virtually all of Western Law is based on the Ten Commandments. But let’s go further, Thomas Aquinas PROVED there is a God using ONLY science and philosophy. It’s called his Quinque Via! The best part of all is he didn’t even use RELIGION in his arguments at all. And no, Dawkins’s did not disprove him.

    As God goes, so goes the West! And what will be left? Utopia? Hmm, where have I heard that before? Imagine people in their 70s and 80s whistling at the graveyard…

          1. There is no proof that any gods exist.

            How can Hume and Kant disprove something that does not exist?

          2. There is no proof that any gods exist.

            Can you prove that, or are you just expressing your preference?

            While you’re mulling that one over, maybe you could tell me: what percentage of the total knowledge that currently exists on earth do you personally know? Let’s say it’s 10%. It’s surely much less, but certainly no more than 10%, so we’ll use that figure as an upper bound. So of all the knowledge people on earth have, you are not aware of 90% of it. Yet you can confidently say that nowhere in that 90% of knowledge – which again you personally do not know – is any proof that any god exists. Give that concept a moment’s thought.

            1. “Give that concept a moment’s thought.”

              I gave it less than a moment, because it’s a fallacy: ad ignorantiam (an appeal to ignorance).

              1. I gave it less than a moment . . .

                And your response reflects how little thought you gave it. It’s not an appeal to ignorance. I’m not saying “God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t.” That would be an appeal to ignorance. I’m saying that he’s wrong to assert that “there is no evidence that God exists” when he is not aware of all the evidence in the case.

                1. “I’m saying that he’s wrong to assert . . .”

                  I know what you were saying. And what you said is an appeal to ignorance.

                  Or, to put it another way: You’re assuming the mystic’s premise: That if you don’t know everything, you can’t know anything.

                  1. It’s not an appeal to ignorance to say “if you don’t know all the evidence in the case, you can’t correctly say ‘there is no evidence of X.'” That is not an appeal to ignorance.

                    An appeal to ignorance has a specific definition, which you can easily look up. It asserts a proposition is true because it hasn’t yet been disproven. I’m not asserting any proposition is true; rather I’m criticizing someone else for making such an assertion – that there is no evidence of X – when that person does not possess all the evidence in the case.

                    Enjoy your weekend.

                    1. “It asserts a proposition is true because it hasn’t yet been disproven.”

                      You got part of its meaning.

      1. The difference being . . . ?

        God’s name is YHWH, pronounced in various ways including Yahweh and Jehovah.

        1. Your god’s name is YHWH. Or more precisely, the god of the Holy Bible is YHWH. And he is a jackwad, and cannot possibly exist as described in the Bible. I don’t like impugning someone’s faith, but if you’d like me to expound further, I can.

          1. Tom – I’d like to understand where you’re coming from. So . . . I’d like you to expound further – under one condition: that your comments are well informed, and do not proceed from ignorance of the Old Testament and its meaning (ignorant denunciations of the Bible and the God of the Bible are a dime a dozen).

            1. OK, but I may not meet that wicket because I am not sure what you mean by “the Old Testament and its meaning”. Most modern Evangelicals still believe the old testament to be a literal account of man’s beginnings.

              But here goes….
              The King James version of the Holy Bible, in many passages (i won’t quote them all) says that Jesus is God. In Hebrews it says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Ergo, God (Jehovah/Jesus/The Holy Spirit) is the same yesterday, today and forever. Since modern Evangelicals also believe that the Holy Bible is the complete, inspired, infallible word of God, the prior sentence MUST be true.

              Yet, Jehovah told his people, Israel, in Deuteronomy, to go and slaughter every man, woman, child and even the livestock of their enemies.

              Jesus, in Matthew 5 said to love your enemies (and also made that a condition for being the children of God, by the way).

              No amount of mental gymnastics will ever reconcile those statements.

              On a smaller note, in order to be a disciple of Paul, whom most of the New Testament outside of the Gospels was written by, you must believe that God made some men to be masters and others to be slaves and that women should be subservient to men.

              The ONLY way to jeehaw these things is to abandon the notion that the KJV is the infallible word of Jehovah. So where does that leave one? A heratic by most modern Christian’s account.

              I had someone tell me recently that the KJV was a basic tenet of the Christian faith. When I said I found that intriguing, since it didn’t even exist for the first 1600 years of Christianity, the room grew strangely quiet.

              1. “in Deuteronomy”

                Tom, the Torah is impossible to read or understand all by itself. That is the reason why many will refer you to the oral Torah, which briefly explains what it means. The oral Torah was put into writing several centuries AD over a few centuries.

                If you read the Ten Commandments from the Torah, it will say, Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The Torah doesn’t tell you what the Sabbath is or when. That is further explained in what is called the Mishnah and further explained in the Gemara. In totality, that is known as the Talmud.

                If you wish to make sense of what you find nonsensical, you have to first read the Talmud.

                1. I will confess my ignorance regarding the “Oral Torah”, but I might have some difficulty applying “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)

                  Are you suggesting that if I read the Talmud, that I would see that Jehovah didn’t actually tell the Israelites to “But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:”?

                  Or are you suggesting the Talmud would reconcile that with the passages from Matthew and Hebrews?

                  Not to offend, but it looks like I may have been premature in my “mental gymnastics” comment (wink).

                  1. Tom, I am not suggesting anything. I am explaining how the Torah is read by many. You are entitled to your own beliefs. The most religious understanding about the gift of the Torah from the Lord is that the Lord provided Moses with both what he was to write and the rest in oral form. In ancient times that is how history was preserved. Their mechanism of preservation was based on multiple great minds confirming one mind’s memory. I think it took about 12 years of intensive study just to be knowledgeable, and then another 12 to become proficient, but to be one of the greats involved tremendous mental capacity.

                    The Talmud will explain the meaning but it will not deal with the King James interpretation. Whether or not you believe, those that put the Talmud into writing were brilliant. They were among the best educated people of the time.

                    1. Thanks for that response Mr Meyer. I’m not well educated on the ancient texts, but i have a superficial knowledge of who/what/when/where. I can see that my assertions regarding the modern christian faith dont have much bearing on whatever discussion we would have pertaining to Jehovah. Being admittedly ignorant of much of the Jewish faith, I must defer. Thanks for your insight.

                    2. Tom, you are far from ignorant. I would say you are somewhat enlightened asking the appropriate question for the appropriate times.

              2. Tom, I personally think the Old Testament cannot be correctly interpreted without an understanding of cosmic geography. In short, there were territories to the gods. Yahweh disinherited the nations at Babel, putting them in charge of lesser gods, and later created a nation for himself from Abraham’s descendants to live within certain geographic boundaries. The nations living in the land promised to Abraham’s seed had become unbearably evil and the land needed to be purged. I respect where you’re coming from, although I think your interpretation of NT passages does not do them full justice. I have no desire to convince you of anything and so I see no point in getting into an in-depth discussion of these passages.

                If you have any interest in a better understanding of the Hebrew Bible through a lens of cosmic geography, I highly recommend a scholarly book on the topic called The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser. That and some of his other books (such as Reversing Hermon) do a great job of explaining it and making otherwise confusing passages of the Bible much easier to understand.

                Enjoy your evening.

                1. I will check that out and appreciate your willingness to share what you know.

                  The only assertion in your response that i would take issue with is that I “interpreted” the NT verses. I can quote them word for word, but it would first require that we establish which version of the text we are using.

                  It sounds as though you dont subscribe to the typical dogma of modern Evangelicals. I certainly didnt expect that and apologize for my assumptions.

                  1. Tom, I did not take any offense. Yeah I don’t really know what I am. Born and raised Jewish, recognize Yeshua fulfilled an uncanny number of prophecies relating to the Messiah as described and promised in the OT . . . now not evangelical, more attracted to liturgy and sacraments, as in Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy (albeit still Jewish). Thanks for your willingness to check it out. I imagine we’ll talk about other topics on this blog.

                  2. So Tom, would you say you’re anything in particular, as in agnostic, atheist, buddhist, etc.?

    1. “Thomas Aquinas PROVED . . .”

      All five of which arguments were refuted long before Dawkins.

      it’s Quinque viæ not “Quinque Via.”

      “As God goes, so goes the West!”

      Sure. If the West has a death wish, to return to a second Dark Ages.

      “[V]irtually all of Western Law is based on the Ten Commandments.”

      Really? What took so long (centuries)? And why did the DoA and U.S. Constitution arise during the age of the Enlightenment, and only after the Renaissance (the rebirth of reason)?

      As with socialists, some religionists simply evade huge swaths of history that make their ideology look bad.

  10. Democrat activists in positions of authority and power will drag this out as long as possible, stonewalling investigations, blocking the release of information, and redacting names, giving Biden time to retire from his re-election campaign. Trump, having the greatest name recognition, will win the primaries, since the large field of contenders will dilute out the remaining available votes. Instead of debating Biden’s disastrous presidency, which was the foreseeable result of the Democrat Party platform, the Democrat candidate will spend his entire campaign talking about all the indictments against Trump. Trump will spend his entire campaign defending himself, both legally and figuratively. Then a Democrat will win. The politicized Left DOJ will give Biden some sort of light tap on the wrist, which the Democrat president will pardon,

    If anyone other than Trump wins the primaries, then he or she could talk about:
    1. The abuse of power in the FBI and DOJ, which protects Democrats but persecuted Republicans beyond the law. Hillary Clinton got away with keeping classified information on an illegal server in her bathroom, and wiped the server with Bleach Bit. She was responsible for convicted sex offender Anthony Weiner having access to some of those emails on Huma’s laptop. Joe Biden kept boxes of documents that belonged in NA, some classified, in his unsecured garage as well as the Penn-Biden think tank. They were not punished. Trump argued through his lawyers with the NA over what he was allowed to keep as souvenirs, and claimed he declassified documents. He got an armed raid and indictments. Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, Nancy Pelosi, and most Democrats publicly claimed that when Republicans won elections, it was either rigged, or due to Russian interference. That’s their First Amendment right. Trump got indicted for believing the election he lost was rigged. (How big a push did the media, alone, give Biden by hurrying the laptop pay to play scandal, covering for his mental decline, and only asking him about ice cream?)
    2. Democrats own the defund the police movement. They should own the resulting massive crime wave, including increased murders.
    3. Democrats own decreasing penalties on shoplifting, or refusing to prosecute, until crime waves of shoplifting led many stores to just close, leaving food and pharmacy deserts and loss of jobs.
    3. Democrats own the transgender movement, in which kindergarten kids are taught that male and female are arbitrary feelings, not real binary genders, and that they will get more attention if they change genders. Democrats led to an increase in the castration and sterilization of minors, which is one heck of an albatross to hang around their necks. They claimed puberty blockers were fully reversible, and safe. They are only reversible in the fact that once withdrawn, they no longer interfere with hormone production or uptake, but that time of puberty is gone. Teens are left with stunted genital growth, and an inability to feel desire or sexual pleasure. To have a minor decide to do something so life altering, but claim they are too immature to buy a beer, is idiocy.
    4. Democrats own the drag queen movement to reach child audiences, and sexuality their shows. How many videos do we have to see of drag queens having kids feel their fake boobs, wear gargantuan fake books with prominent nipples and see through shirts while teaching shop class, or simulate anal sex at a show where children are present, before enough people figure out it’s not rated G. If it’s illegal for a kid to go on her own to a rated R movie with similar content, why is it legal for a school to put on a drag show with sexual content?
    5. Democrat policies increase the cost of living. Higher minimum wage, means all higher wages, means higher cost of groceries, because costs are passed on to consumers. Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable, and increasing their use increases home energy costs.
    6. Democrats own electric car mandates in the pipeline. EV require battery components that are toxic, prone to fires, and rely on materials like cobalt, which is mined using literal slave labor in The Congo. EVs are more expensive. Electricity costs are going up. People are abandoning their EVs when they try to drive cross country, because they can only drive a couple hundred miles before they have to charge for 4 hours. Yet we’ll all be forced to buy them. Any time the government wants to shut down a protest, or prevent us from traveling or going to work, it would just have to shut down the power.
    7. Democrats pushed the idea that it’s more humane to enable people to be homeless on the street, than to force them to go to a shelter or seek rehab or mental health treatment. Now we’ve got massive homeless camps, with feces, urine, vomit, dirty needles, and used condoms. It can happen in front of your business, or home, unless you’re wealthy like Pelosi. There are no homeless camps in her wineries.
    8. Democrats rioted routinely, burning buildings, police precincts, and looting, because they were mad, often over a false story. Democrats regularly take over state and federal buildings, and have interfered with state and federal governments. That’s laudible. One time, Republicans at a peaceful Trump rally, left the rally, went to the Capitol, many were let in by Capitol police, and while the rest walked around taking pictures and selfies, one group tried to break into the Senate floor. We will never hear the end of it. Somehow, Democrats have refused to take responsibility for the riots they spurred as justifiable rage. They won’t even talk about the damage they caused. Instead, they accused Republicans of being rioters, which absolutely defies any logic. CHOP/CHAZ, Occupy, BLM, Antifa, and on down the list. It’s what they do. Don’t wear a MAGA hat, or they’ll assault you. Democrats can wear Democrat logos, or even the images of mass-murdering Socialists or Communists, with impunity because in general, because there is no similar trend of Republicans assaulting someone over political clothing.
    9. Democrats brought segregation back. They teach students to judge everyone based on race. There are black dorm rooms, study groups, graduations, meetings, and workplace training. It’s Jim Crow.

    Honestly, the failure of each policy has been so complete, the cognitive dissonance to still support the party must be exhausting.


    1. Karen S you should have a website where you keep these essays you share on this blog. It’s a shame they essentially get lost with the passage of time just because of the trouble of how to go back and find them a few months later. Further your website should be required reading for high school civics class.

      Yours as always,
      Uncle Henry

    2. Well put! Could not agree more. I wonder about the cognitive dissonance as well.

      But here is how a Democrat sees it….

      Republican party is the party of fascism.
      R’s are the fascists.
      R’s are the racists.
      R’s are climate deniers who call climate change a hoax and won’t do anything about it.
      R’s want to give more and more tax cuts to the rich and the corporations.
      R’s will cut government benefits to the poor and working class.
      R’s wil distract you from their real agenda (like it’s bad?) by talking about trans issues, boys in girls locker rooms, etc.

      Dems see only themselves as caring about the environment.
      Dems see only themselves as caring about the poor and working class.
      Dems see themselves as fighting against a Republican fascist takeover.
      Dems want universal healthcare….even for illegals.
      Dems want abortion on demand.
      Dems want free college tuition, free childcare…even for illegals.
      Dems want a guaranteed living wage.
      Dems want higher taxes to pay for all of it.
      Dems want to censor ‘hate speech’ and ‘misinformation.’
      Dems support funding endless war.
      Dems support open borders, sanctuary cities.
      Dems support equity over fairness.
      Dems support mask mandates.
      Dems support vaccine mandates.
      Dems support vaccine passports.

      Democrats call their agenda “inspiring.”

  11. Jonathan: A lot of people use pseudonyms–particularly the rich and famous. You see a lot of pseudonyms on this blog. I use my real name on this blog so no one can accuse me of trying to hide behind a pseudonym. That doesn’t stop some from claiming I am really “George Soros’ or some other troll. Go figure.

    When it comes to pseudonyms Presidents have frequently used them. Richard Nixon sometimes used the name “Mr. Wilson” when checking into hotels. Same with Ronald Reagan who used the name “Mr. Wilson” and Bill Clinton who used the name “Mr. Jefferson”. The purpose was to avoid public attention.

    The Q is whether Joe Biden used the pseudonym “Robert L. Peters” for some nefarious purpose–to hide his involvement in his son’s business dealings and to receive payoffs. Do you or James Comer have any evidence to back up your claims? Nope. It’s just insinuation and innuendo. All you have is an allegation that Hunter “may have been a conduit to deliver on that brand”.

    Do you really think the MAGA Republicans should impeach Biden for using a pseudonym? Really? FACTS and EVIDENCE” are the only things that count in an impeachment inquiry. “Maybes” don’t count!

    1. Thank you, Dennis. Let’s count up the qualifiers in the above piece that prove your assessment that Turley is once again dealing in insinuation and innuendo: “According to congressional investigators”….”People apparently were told”….”an allegation of bribery”…”the alleged alias”…”these emails may show the quid in the quid pro quo”…. “Biden is accused of “….”It appears that”….”he may have been a conduit”. Turley also claims: “The House is unlikely to tolerate further delays in answering these questions.” Gee, correct me if I got it wrong, but didn’t Jordan and other Republicans ignore subpoenas sent by the J6 committee? Given that, why should anyone honor supoenas sent by Jordan and Comer? The J6 Committee investigation involved a violent break-in of our Capitol in an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, all because Trump couldn’t accept the fact that he lost the election. There’s nothing like that at stake here, other than trying to score political points by diverting attention away from Trump. The partisan political motivation is clear. Note: this “column” was posted on One word: “Dominion”.

      1. Could Joe Biden (or any Democrat) stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and still not lose your vote?

      2. Gigi

        Nothing to see here.

        Just keep repeating it, liar.

        So pathetic. Take a moment to write down ALL the things you have claimed are evidence of nothing. Then read them out loud. It might help you cope.
        What are you gonna do when this all comes to light? In your soul you know its true. I guess you’ll just screech “whats a few million dollars”, our capitol was attacked!!!

        By the way. What were the annual inflation rates for june and july, liar?

    2. Joetard used an alias while corresponding with the President of Ukraine, and carbon copied the correspondence to Hunter. Let me know when you find another president (besides Obama) that used an alias while conducting US Government business with another world leader and carbon copied his relatives. You clowns are pathetic.

    3. Hey Dennis, why don’t you do us all a favor and take a moment out of your obviously busy day, and list for us every single item that Comer claims is evidence. Below each item, write the line, there is no evidence. Then, at the end of that 50 item list write again there is no evidence.
      I know it’s a big ask, but truly, we all just want to see how much audacity you have.

    4. Isnt that a song by phil collins

      Pseu-pseu-pseudonym, whoa-whoa

      Hey dennis, looks like that guy Dick Head is back, dissin’ on your keyboard diarrhea again. Dang that guy sounds a lot like u. Are u using another pseudonym??

      And by the way, which is the lie?

      Democrats love violence when it suits their needs—-dennis

      Trump is the only one calling for violence——dennis

    5. My son has never earned a dime from China ! NOT ONE DIME !
      I have never talked to my son about his business. NOT ONCE !

  12. @paulsperry
    Fox News moderators failed to ask the candidates the most pressing question of the moment — should President Biden be impeached over his mounting family corruption? Yet they found time to ask about freaking UFOs. What were they thinking!

    1. @EmeraldRobinson
      How many investigations can the House GOP launch before you understand that they’re never going to impeach Biden or stop Democrats?
      When will you finally learn: the whole point of a government probe is to find nothing.

    2. Well, as far as primetime goes, Fox News openly calls itself “entertainment,” notwithstanding using the word “News” in its name. So the only surprising thing about the UFO “news” is that there isn’t more of it and that it isn’t accompanied by other “news” about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, leprechauns, ghosts, etc.

      Otherwise, since the chances of Joetard being removed from office by the democrat-controlled Senate are ZERO, I actually give them points for staying away from that pointless subject. Democrats would LOVE to change the subject from Joetard’s crimes, incompetence, and dementia to evil republicans trying to remove him from office via impeachment instead of election. That’s a winner for democrats and a LOSER for republicans. It’s not fair, but nobody ever said politics was fair.

  13. In the mid 1800’S the democrat party was split into three parts, one element in New York were called the Barnburners. They were named such because they split from the parties’ platform of supporting slavery and were accused of “burning the barn down to kill of the rats”. Could we be seeing the same thing but in opposite dignity of cause, today’s split, save the criminals damn the party? This is remindful of the chicken and pig (bacon/ham and eggs for breakfast) (The pigs committed, the chicken is involved), my reasoning: the parties committed and Biden(s) are involved.

    Now onto the Republican debate, it was all for nothing. So many Stupid questions from the moderators: (do you believe in UFO’s, did VP Pence do the right thing [WHO CARES}). How can anyone give an answer of substance within the time allotted!

  14. Well, well, well, The Washington Post finally comes to the realization that Papa Joe lied about his sons very lucrative arraignment with the Chinese. Joe purposely lied and he knew that he was lying. I’m sure that he justifies it because he thinks that you are too stupid to ever figure it out. His actions are proof that he holds you in the lowest of lowest esteem. Are you angry yet?

Leave a Reply