Below is my column in The Messenger on the expanding evidence in the Biden corruption scandal and the need for Congress to take commensurate action to investigate the matter. After this column ran, Fox’s Brian Kilmeade conducted an interview with Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. What was striking about the interview is not just the contradiction with other accounts (like insisting that he was investigating Burisma and the investigation was expanding when he was fired), but that he claimed that Kilmeade was the first to seek to interview him. This is just Shokin’s account and many question his veracity. However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years. However, the greatest case for an impeachment inquiry was made by Attorney General Merrick Garland himself.
Here is the column:
When Congress returns next month, it has little alternative but to launch a long-discussed impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. For House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the case for an inquiry came from a most unlikely source: Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The debacle in the Hunter Biden investigation has left most objective legal analysts in disbelief, with one CNN analyst calling it an “unholy mess.”
Even before the collapse of a widely condemned “sweetheart deal” with Hunter, the investigation headed by U.S. Attorney David Weiss was a growing concern for many observers. In prior years, I wrote about Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel despite the obvious conflicts posed by the potential involvement of President Biden in his son’s alleged influence-peddling scandal. I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes.
It turns out that the same concerns were being raised within the Weiss team. Two IRS whistleblowers recently confirmed that the expiration of potential tax felony crimes was raised with Weiss and the Department of Justice (DOJ). There reportedly was an agreement to extend that period, including on the violations tied to the most controversial alleged payments from sources in Ukraine and other countries. The two witnesses testified that the Justice Department instead allowed the statute of limitations to expire.
These two whistleblowers — and, more recently, a former FBI agent — said that the DOJ tipped off the Biden team on attempts to interview Hunter and to conduct searches. They describe an investigation that was anything but the “routine” matter described by congressional Democrats in seeking to block House investigations.
What followed has bordered on the burlesque. Weiss cut a deal with Hunter’s legal team that was widely derided. After years of investigation, he and the DOJ agreed to a couple of tax misdemeanors, a papered-over gun charge, and no risk of jail time for the president’s son. The deal disassembled in court after a few questions from the presiding judge about sweeping immunity language and other curious elements. When District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked the prosecutor if he had ever seen any agreement like this one, he replied “no.”
House Republicans had previously demanded that Weiss and his team answer questions about the investigation and the plea bargain. And an appearance before a House committee was planned when Garland suddenly preempted that by doing what many of us have demanded for years: He appointed a special counsel. To the amazement of many, though, he appointed the one prosecutor who should have been categorically excluded — David Weiss.
Section 600.3 of the DOJ’s code on special counsels requires an appointment from outside the Justice Department, for obvious reasons. While another prior special counsel, John Durham, also came from within the Justice Department, Durham was retiring from the department at the time of his appointment. Not only did Garland have to ignore his own regulations to appoint Weiss but he also had to ignore the main qualification: The appointed outside counsel should be someone with “a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making.”
Weiss could well have a legitimate defense to Republican complaints that he ran a fixed investigation into Hunter or accusations that he made false statements to his own team. However, he clearly remains under suspicion by many people. That is reflected in an ABC News/Ipsos poll in which almost half of Americans lack trust that the DOJ will conduct the Hunter Biden investigation in a “fair and nonpartisan manner.”
In addition to this controversial appointment, Garland again refused to expressly extend the special counsel’s mandate to include influence-peddling allegations involving President Biden.
Even some liberal pundits are mystified by these moves and why Garland would not simply appoint someone in compliance with the regulations who could guarantee a new and full investigation.
So Weiss is now investigating crimes that continue to dwindle in number due to the long delays in prosecution. It is like waiting for winter to go goose hunting in Canada, long after the geese have flown South. Everyone just gets dressed up and fires aimlessly into an empty sky.
While Hunter still can be charged on the same meager grounds (and possibly the addition of a Foreign Agents Registration Act charge), the alleged fix remains in the Biden investigation.
Now, however, Congress will have a more difficult time getting answers out of Weiss because he can claim he is engaged in an ongoing special counsel investigation, and he can use the eventual special counsel report as much to defend his own actions as to detail any potential crimes.
At the same time, the Biden administration still is resisting the sharing of information with the House, including records held by the National Archives.
For months, I have discussed a potential impeachment of the president with Republican House members and have encouraged them not to repeat the abuses of House Democrats in the use of “snap impeachments” and the discarding of fact hearings in the House Judiciary Committee.
Garland, however, has effectively forced their hands.
While Garland seems incapable of imagining any crime involving the president, he has made a conclusive — if unintended — case for an impeachment inquiry.
With the investigative impediments created by the Weiss appointment and by Garland’s refusal to expressly extend the special counsel’s mandate to the allegations of Biden family influence-peddling, there is little choice but to commence an impeachment inquiry. The authority of the House is at its apex when carrying out its duties under the impeachment clause.
Whatever interest — or ability — remains to prosecute Hunter Biden, Congress has a separate duty to confirm any high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Biden. Indeed, the Democrats themselves established precedent for carrying out retroactive impeachments for prior offices, including any which may have occurred when Biden was vice president.
With the current state of the Hunter Biden investigation and the baffling conduct of Attorney General Garland, there is no alternative for the House but to launch the impeachment inquiry.
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.
” However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years.”
Professor Turley, though made for media and not exactly media, the J6 hearings didn’t interview Pelosi and request her records. Doesn’t that tell us that J6 was a hatchet job?
I think I remember reading John Solomon on Shokin after he spoke to him years ago. He provided a transcript of the discussion, but the MSM wasn’t interested. That is more proof that the MSM does not provide competent news coverage of political events.
Shame RINO and DC will IGNORE the RULE OF LAW…like they have done since Obama installed people WHO HATE AMERICA since 2008
I propose replacing Merrick Garland with Victor Shokin.
The Senate will never vote to convict under any circumstances because the mythology of Watergate and J6 as being the two worst events in American history must be maintained. Maybe an impeachment inquiry is needed to wrest evidence from the cabal — but don’t expect more.
Why not replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris? Maybe things have to become worse before they any chance of getting better.
Residents, survivors rather, of Maui are now in the media thanking Joe Biden for his efforts. So, maybe things have to get much, much worse. I therefore insist on Kamala replacing Joe.
There was an interview on OAN some couple of years ago that included about four persons from Ukraine who were shedding light on this matter, and I don’t recall if Shokin was one of them, but do I recall that some of the interview was conducted in Europe or even Ukraine because these folks were having trouble getting a visa — purposeful obstruction?
“Maybe an impeachment inquiry is needed to wrest evidence from the cabal — but don’t expect more.”
Exactly. Of course we don’t expect more. We also don’t expect the MSM to cover it fairly and to make known to their lemmings the evidence uncovered.
Turley writes so mabout the “Age of Rage,” without noticing he’s at the center of the storm. For every headline and new piece of evidence about Trump, he fires back trying to equate Hunter Biden with the former President. He distorts the truth and now that Trump is facing a televised trial, he is whispering into the goon in the Republican House to impeach in a tit for tat. His love of country has been replaced by a partisan fervor.
Trump deserved to be impeached, the reason he wasn’t convicted was because Republican patriots wouldn’t speak a word against him and testify to what they knew. To be fair, Democrats wont Impeach Biden, despite the rantings of Jordin and Comer, there has been no proof provided against Joe, just projections. So Turley will keep pushing for impeachment, blaming it on Garland and others, meanwhile Trump is in a race to prolong his trials and appeals until after he dies. Hunter Biden has done enough that he could be imprisoned, but has he done more than Jared, Ivanka, Don Jr, and Eric? Have they not traded on their father’s name and made deals with America’s enemies? Has Hunter done more than many white collar criminals who get probation and a fine? There is an age of rage, and Turley is stoking the flames.
I did a search on “trump” in Professor Turley’s text and it came up empty.
Re: “there has been no proof provided against Joe, just projections.”
The way it works, is that there first has to be a committed, objective criminal investigation of Joe and fam to establish if evidence (proof) of possible guilt exists. “See no evil” because of Ghetto affiliation related to parasitic political hacks of any stripe is for chumps.
“Ghetto affiliation,” your hood is showing.
Big Volunteer Opportunity for Enigma!
Go for it!
———->>>
Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays
“I’m looking for a rabid anti-Trump Democrat to deprogram in a public demonstration. Any volunteers?
Note: I’m a trained hypnotist, but no induction or trance is involved. Just talk.”
Look up the word and the origin. Long before it was a word identified with “hoods.”
““Ghetto affiliation,” your hood is showing.”
Because only black people have ever lived in a Ghetto…
Did I mention Black people?
Yes you did. Also, your post name does.
“Did I mention Black people?”
I’m sorry, I used higher reasoning skills to recognize your referral to hoods as being a reference to the KKK, which is known most predominately for its persecution of black people. If you meant something else, please tell us what it was….
We can slow the discussion down if you need it.
If you don’t want someone to recognize your innuendo, then don’t use it.
Or were you suggesting the commenter has a clitoris??
You’re allowed to presume what I meant but your use of ghetto meant something innocuous?
“You’re allowed to presume what I meant”
I’d prefer to hear exactly what you meant, instead of you acting like a coward about it. Did your “hood” comment insinuate he was racist for using the term “ghetto”, or did you mean something else?
Thank you for clarifying that it was someone else (Radical Pragmatist) who made the “ghetto comment.” Since I made my “hood” response, several people have condemned me while nobody has questioned the use of “ghetto” by Radical Pragmatist, someone even providing the original use of the term as if that what he/she intended. You haven’t asked Radical Pragmatist for clarification nor called him a coward. Once you elicit a response from Radical Pragmatist about his/her intention, I’ll be happy to clarify my response.
I will note, appropo of nothing, that white supremacy is almost never called out here and often defended, while any response by me is considered racism.
I took it literal. “ghetto’ in this context would tend to mean he was disparaging these “affiliations”. A ghetto is a place, not a race.
Unless I am forced to agree with Dennis, that anything not anti-racist is racist, I didn’t take his remarks as disparaging a certain race.
Would I have used the term? No. Nor did I need “clarification” of what he meant. If you needed it, perhaps you should have asked before you insinuated that he was a racist.
What are literal “ghetto” affiliations? He certainly wasn’t talking about a relationship with a place. It isn’t always possible to ascertain what is and isn’t racist. I don’t have the luxury to believe nothing is racist unless it slaps me in the face. There are those suggesting the Jacksonville shooter might not have been racist despite his apparent words to the contrary in his manifestos and swastikaz on his guns. You wouldn’t use those words, probably less likely when talking to me, because you wouldn’t want it to be taken the wrong way for which I commend you. I still haven’t seen the actual user of the language questioned about his intent.
I will note, appropo (sic) of nothing, that white supremacy is almost never called out here and often defended, while any response by me is considered racism.
Apropos of a dumb black angry man who cant spell, cant reason, cant engage in intellectual discourse save employing
DNCplantation talking points, as contrasted to an intelligent, articulate, inspiring black man like Sen. Tim Scott.Liking the Black men who agree with you doesn’t keep you from being a racist.
Enigma, it is true, as you said, liking one race or another doesn’t keep one from being a racist. But doesn’t the idea of color over merit make a person one?
ghetto
adjective
often disparaging
: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a ghetto (see GHETTO entry 1 sense 2) or the people who live there
“In sociology, ghetto behavior refers to the patterns of behavior and responses to social issues surrounding densely populated areas of low-income households in an urban environment.”
“The linkage between Jews and “ghetto” began in the early 16th century.”
“A ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, especially as a result of political, social, legal, environmental or economic pressure. Ghettos are often known for being more impoverished than other areas of the city.”
I hope this helps you see why i had no need to question his meaning.
Now, were you insinuating he is a racist (or more correctly a bigot) or not?
I don’t wish for you to explain what you think he meant, there’s only one source that can say and nobody is calling on him to explain. Get an answer from him and you’ll have one from me.
I never said or insinuated that your response was racist. If pushed on the issue, i would have characterized it as immature or manipulative.
And I never accused you of saying so, if you read some of the responses I get you could see some of those I meant. If pushed, I would say my response was from being tired of some of the comments received here.
These comments read as if this individual has a virulent case of TDS. His bias is so invasive. His lack of focus on current ongoing issues of governance and leadership that has invaded the very core of American government is astounding and proves that he is infected with a bad case of it. He affliction is of such astounding measure that only lobotomy could cure it. Failing to realize truth and constantly bringing up events that occurred in the past reeks of bias but more importantly, it shows the soul wrenching fear found in the minds of these writers.
Enigma
We don’t need for you to explain what you meant. You were insinuating that he was bigoted towards black people. If you want to blame your behavior on that of others, thats your prerogative. I think it’s weak sauce.
Hunter did not “trade on his father’s name”; he collected his father’s bribes. Nobody ever thought to bribe Hunter Biden; every dollar he collected was payment for his father’s services and/or protection. Hunter’s cut for his services as bagman was 50%; the other 50% went to Joe.
The Shokin firing was the quo for which Burisma’s payments to Hunter were the quid. Hunter’s job was to provide his father’s protection; the deal was, you pay me, and if you ever get in trouble my father will use his official authority get you out of it. Which is exactly what he did. At least he was honest and stayed bought.
The same applies to all the money Hunter collected in China and elsewhere; it was all for the same sort of thing. In return for that money Joe would either do specific favors, or else provide protection in case anything went wrong. That’s why Joe was to be cut in for 10% of the Chinese company, in addition to his half of whatever Hunter pulled in.
And no, none of Trump’s children ever did anything like that, or ever would. They have succeeded on their own talents. Ivanka in particular is a very talented person. Sure, the name helps, but there’s nothing wrong with that. The point is that every dollar they were paid was for their own services, not for anything their father was to do or not do on the client’s behalf.
Nor have any of them made any deals with US enemies.
“Turley writes so mabout the “Age of Rage,” without noticing he’s at the center of the storm.”
When one thinks about rage, one is forced to think about Enigma’s never-ending rage that leads to the abolition of useful thought. Enigma’s rage dates back to shortly after Columbus discovers America, and nothing can put out the flames of his rage.
S. Meyer,
He talks about rage.
Reading the comments, the majority of them are quite logical, common sense, or just down to earth thinking.
When I think of rage I think of Dennis, Natasha, ATS, bug et al.
Re: “However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years.”
Scandals are contrived or suppressed based on the interests of the dominant Ideological Ghetto. The Democrat – MSM Ghetto controls the messaging about the corrupt, parasitic Biden family headed up by life-long political hack and über-parasite Joe Biden. By advocating for and apparently expecting an Impeachment investigation, Professor Turley is pushing on a rope.
Hope is not a strategy. Stick a fork in America – because it’s cooked…
True that. I am reminded of a scene in the Godfather where Michael says to Tom Hagen, “And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don’t we, Tom?” Could just as easily be ascribed to the current president–or whomever is truly running the show now.
Garland “appointed [. . .] David Weiss.”
“Bob,” a prosecutor, works with “Steve,” also a prosecutor, on a number of cases. You then appoint Bob to lead the investigation of Steve’s *brother*.
In what universe is that *not* a conflict of interest?
For those not abreast of the fix-is-in scorecard: “Bob” is then-Delaware prosecutor Weiss. “Steve” is then-Delaware AG Beau Biden.
Merrick Garland and David Weiss are solidly on Team Biden and are determined to weather the legal storm whatever the outcome. And Chris Wray ? He is the consummate “Slow Walker in Chief” of all Biden investigations. After 4 years, his agency’s complete failure to conduct a thorough examination of Hunter’s laptop has forced the House Oversight Committee to do the criminal investigation that his agents were prevented from doing.
Republicans are cowards they will do nothing.
you MAKE money playing the DC game. RINOs are there for the MONEY!
You don’t make MONEY being independent and honest in DC
Those $100,000 speaking fees go to those that PLAY THE GAME!
DC is LOST!
Sadly, I believe you are correct.
In 1988, during the Democrat primaries, there were a number of candidates running — Al Gores from Tennessee; Dukakis from Massachusetts; Biden – Senator from Delaware; and others not worth remembering —- I liked Al Gore, a lot of people did — young, from a political family, knew the ropes– of course Tipper could become an issue –; and Biden, also young, been in politics for years – knew the ropes.
Then the Biden ‘ plagiarism’ reporting went public. Joe had no choice but to drop out of the rate in 1988.
Then we save Biden go after Anita Hill during the Thomas hearings — pubic hair on a can of Coca-Cola — oh please!
And until 2008 when the Muslim Barack Hussein chose Biden as running mate — Joe was still true to the founding principles of this great nation —
It is now 2023, Biden has cognitive dissembling that is so highly visible he’s compared to Marie Antoinette and her ‘let them eat cake’ comment —
And you know who should be held responsible for Joe’s ascension to POTUS aside from Clyburn, Schumer, and other obvious and not so obvious players?
Jill Biden. She knows in what bad shape he his. She knew it when he ran for POTUS in 2019 and 2020.
Jill Biden is highly responsible — and has put her husband up as a ‘sacrificial lamb’ , biblically speaking.
She has lusted for the position of First Lady — probably dating back to 1988 when Dukakis was given the nod and lost miserably.
Maybe Congress should subpoena Jill Biden for her testimony about her husband’s ‘career’ and his day to day mental incapacities?
Your’s is a good suggestion. I tell people that Dr. Jill helped to perpetuate a fraud on the American public because she aided in hiding his condition. But then, one has to consider that there is no such thing as “fraud” in politics. Fraud and politics are one and the same.
Biden was never true to the founding principles of this great nation. He was always and always will be true to himself. And Dr. Jill is guilty of elder abuse for allowing this charade to continue.
If Biden did nothing wrong, Weiss is dedicated to the truth, Garland an honorable AG, and the Senate majority solid as a rock, then those on the Left should welcome a thorough Impeachment Inquiry. It could only bring to light all the honest and laudable things that the Biden Administration has done, and demonstrate for all time the Democrats’ devotion to Our Democracy.
The problem is that, like everything else Democrats touch, they broke the impeachment process. Neither of Trump’s impeachments were conducted in fair and impartial ways. Democrats were not seeking truth. They were not seeking “justice”. Both impeachments were taxpayer funded Kafka-esque Star Chambers whose goal was to nullify the 2016 election; tell Trump supporters their votes do not matter; and destroy the America First populist agenda.
Don’t forget, elected Democrats were getting themselves booked on MSNBC calling for Trump’s impeachment BEFORE he was even inaugurated. They tried to advance impeachment resolutions at least FIVE different times to nullify the election. Then they have the nerve to run around pretending they care so much about democracy. They’re ALL frauds.
All that to say Republicans will likely play by those rules established by Democrats. However, even if they do try to be slightly fairer in their hearings than Democrats were, there is an enormous industry of left wing funded trash who exist to twist, spin, lie, distort and mischaracterize anything Republicans do or say and push Democrat’s lies and groupthink.
Baffling conduct indeed, Attorney General Garland has an opportunity to go down in history as a model of integrity in the Legal world. Perhaps he thinks some of the Supreme Court Justices don’t look too healthy in the picture and we know he always wanted that job. Poor guy probably wants to do right but cannot piss off the boss or bye, bye Courtship.
Remember Spiro Agnew, you have to get rid of Kamala, aka Mz Nonfeasance, first. If not impeachment just makes the problem worse.
Prof Turley is not calling for Biden to be impeached, but for the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry. I agree that it should hold the inquiry, but should not actually impeach, because the Senate is guaranteed to acquit no matter how strong the evidence against Biden is, and he will trumpet that acquittal as a vindication. Use the inquiry to get at the truth, and publish it widely. Then hopefully the next president will be able to bring criminal charges.
Millhouse,
I agree.
@Millhouse
I agree, too. The dems have been very intentionally playing with fire and begging for retaliation to justify their means for awhile now, and they have been largely successful in destroying the former validity of a whole lot of established law and decorum, but for the worse. I don’t think that’ll be changing anytime soon.
Hmmm…yes and no. Put an asterisk next to Biden’s name with an impeachment. Of course, conviction is impossible, but when did that stop the Dems from going forward. At least this time the American public can see how a fair and transparent impeachment proceeding, as opposed to a star chamber, is conducted.
What is sad is to witness the calloused disregard for ethics and integrity by the number of those who hold power, especially those who represent once respected and reputable institutions and follow nothing but blind selfish ambition.
One thing is 100% certain in this life and that is death. Many of these older politicians are standing at the jumping off place. What will be their legacy? Their accomplishments for humanity other than feathering their own nests? What will be said of them when they pass from this life? What of their shriveled souls?
They act like they will live forever.
I have a 4×5 photo of of Hitler’s inner circle (my late father-in-law found while serving as a combat infantryman in the ETO in WW2) in all their might and arrogance. They look confident, smug and insolent. A few years later they were either dead by their own hand or in front of the judges looking like pathetic worn out slugs.
I see these political actors through a similar lens. In the meantime they have caused much damage.
E.M. Well said. I don’t think they really care about their legacy. Power is the aphrodisiac they seek and money. Joe makes much of his catholic faith but his practice is far short of the minimal requirements. He acts like there is no meeting with god or an afterlife for those that are righteous before god. Hence the grab for riches now because I’m sure he lives by “Well you can’t take it with you”. You pursue excellence and accomplishment for your fellow humanity with integrity and honesty. The apply rich or poor.
My own father’s tombstone
Name
Lt Col
US Army
World War 2
Korea
DOB-DOD
Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal
Beloved Husband and Father
No mention of Bronze Star, March Down the Champs Elysees at the liberation of Paris, Hurtgen Forest, Battle of the Bulge (wound kept him in hospital, 6 months) Pusan Perimeter, Set up with his unit at Kaoseong NK for initial peace talks before move to Panmunjom . High school education, no service academy.
Thats a legacy that a person can be proud of.
G.E.B.
What an excellent legacy your father left including your life and your accomplishments. My father-in-law (90th Infantry Division) was also in the “Bulge” Adrienne Offensive. They were in the same hell. My dad was on the other side of the globe in the Solomon Islands, including Guadalcanal.
Have you visited the American Cemetery in Luxembourg? It is a sobering experience.
You have much to be proud about.
Professor, remember Joe Biden said this in 2020, “We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of the United States”
So, there’s every reason to know there was extensive fraud in the 2020 election.
I see logic isn’t your strong suit.
That sound clip is a great “gotcha”, but it’s not a serious argument.
Of course there was extensive fraud in the 2020 election, and of course the Democrats did put together an extensive organization to enable (if not to actually perpetrate) as much fraud as possible, but that’s clearly not what he meant to say. It’s completely obvious from the context of that remark that he meant to say they’d put together an organization that would protect voters from having their votes challenged. Yes, it was completely predictable that many of those votes would be fraudulent, and therefore in that sense the organization to protect them can fairly be described as a “voter fraud organization”, but that’s not the way he meant it. The official Democrat position is and was that all of those votes were valid, and it’s a horrible crime to even suggest otherwise; how dare we challenge any vote, no matter how sketchy it looks. Any attempt on our part to do so is in fact fraud! That’s obvious BS, but it’s also obviously what he meant to say. So the sound clip doesn’t help any serious inquiry. It’s just something we can snicker at, because he inadvertently spoke the actual truth.
Well then, take it to court. You think there’s that much evidence, then file it in court. Or find someone who will, good luck.
I have a meme especially for instances like these:
“However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal.”
“the baffling conduct of Attorney General Garland”
It’s an image of a dog with his head buried in the sand, caption, “I know the truth is in here somewhere!”
Had Turley bothered to do a simple search, Shokin has been Interviewed several times, by conservatives, like Giuliani for instance. Us supposed “conspiracy theorists” have known all of this for years now, everything Jonathan mentions, & more!
Here’s the link to the interview, from back in 2019!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rGc41vkwlQ0
Yes, I have been saying the same thing. It is strange how the DC elite takes YEARS to catch up to well known facts.
They still have no clue about where or how covid originated. It’s like they aren’t even 3rd graders, they are stuck in 2nd grade.
Except it isn’t a 2nd grader’s mind that is the problem.
“We can’t make any of us look bad! Always speak with exceptions and caveats and loose word games, you don’t want anyone angry at you, you don’t want to be sued ! Never say out loud what you actually know ! Beat around the bush and speculate, no matter the beyond any doubt evidence.”
Yes, it’s corruption so bad the words themselves cannot be spoken.
I conclude that is a large reason why they hate Trump so much. Often he just blurts out the obvious. “That’s fake news” “You’re a liar.” “Of course that’s how it works, I paid them off when I was building in NYC and they came to me on their knees begging.”
“We aren’t going to pay that much, we are going to renegotiate that price.”
“We have stupid people in charge that are getting beat by the foreigners who laugh at them, they have real killers.”
“They are going to pay their fair share.”
“They have to go back.”
The criminals, cons, scams, tax money grubbers of DC just cannot tolerate any of that. It all has to be said with flowery obtuse language that misdirects, smooths over the big bumps by ignoring them, covers up the corruption and outrageous filthy money grubbing and all the other idiocy that 34 trillion in overspending entails.
We know they love naming their new bills the exact opposite of what they actually do. It’s really astounding. The crimes are out in the open but if anyone mentions it, conspiracy theorist, terrible person, Russian operative, racist …. misogynist and on and on.
Unless I missed it, the article fails to mention, and I don’t understand, what the POINT of an “impeachment inquiry” would be when there’s ZERO chance that the Senate would vote to remove Joetard, even IF the House voted to impeach.
Usually, people have concrete REASONS for taking actions, but this article is silent concerning the PURPOSE of conducting an impeachment inquiry when nobody is going to be removed from office.
Is it supposed to be a law-enforcement action taken by a Congress that has no constitutional law-enforcement authority? Is it supposed to be an adjunct to the 2024 election campaign? — and is that the legitimate purpose for conducting an impeachment inquiry? Or is it just another example of Abuse of Process, where the Washington CLOWNS (both parties) use various processes for everything BUT their intended purposes?
Here are the purposes:
1. An impeachment inquiry maximises the power of congress to enforce in court the subpoenas it issues. Biden obstruction makes this necessary.
2. Once it obtains full information, the case for impeachment may strengthen, in particular if bribery/extortion is shown.
3. A strong case for impeachment may garner public support, justifying impeachment by the House and putting pressure on the Senate.
4. Even if the Senate does not convict, a justified impeachment will help defeat Biden in the election, and help defeat Senate Democrats who vote against.
Regarding the latest about Shokin, he has been saying for years that Poroshenko told him that he either had to drop his investigation of Burisma or leave office, and that this was due to pressure from Joe Biden. He should be called to testify by Comer’s committee. As should the Form 1023 CHS, Ostapenko (who accompanied the CHS), Pozharski and Zlochevsky, with full immunity in the US and Ukraine. Further assistance to Ukraine could be opposed until this is arranged.
Impeachment inquiries against Garland and Weiss should also be launched, for obstruction and lying to Congress.
Part of the motivation here is to respond to the weaponisation of the DOJ and FBI for political purposes. If there are no consequences for this it will never end.
None of that is relevant. As for your first point, Congress hasn’t taken ANY steps to enforce subpoenas, and launching an impeachment inquiry won’t change a thing. The rest is all political campaign related stuff, which is NOT the legitimate purpose of impeachment inquiries.
As for Shokin, they don’t need an impeachment inquiry to get him to testify before Congress. The lazy, corrupt clowns haven’t even asked him to testify, and they’ve known for months or YEARS that he has information about Joetard’s activities regarding Ukraine. Shokin had to come looking for Congress. LOL LOL LOL
This is more congressional BS by the UniParty. They’ll put on a show, and the garbage media will breathlessly follow it to NOWHERE.
I agree with a lot of what you say. But it was the Democrats who lowered the bar for impeachments so I no longer have any qualms about deploying it for political purposes when there are sufficient grounds for suspicion, which is clearly the case here.
I think it’s safe to say no one will ever accuse congress of doing any ‘snap impeachments’, or impeachment inquiries, against Joe Biden.
*it’s been a long time coming .. .
Daniel, you are 100% right and Ralph is arguing against himself. He asked a dumb question, why have an impeachment inquiry, without knowing the answer, you explained it to him cogently and pointed out all the advantages of it and he basically said, “so what, who cares.
I am not sure about having an actual impeachment, but we do need an inquiry.
That’s not really the point – the point is, IS there any real point? Republcians can posture, as usual, and give the public a show of political theatre, but when does it ever change anything?
I recall the Republican-led hearings on Benghazi, and the Republican questioning fo Hillary CLinton was beyond useless, beyond stupid. I could think of two dozen better questions in the first two minutes. I have as yet to see why I shoufl think any better of the current crop.
While I agree with the substance of this, given that Shokin has by his own statements, no knowledge of direct evidence of wrongdoing by either Faux Joe or Sleazy Son, there might be little point. Of course, that is giving the Unipartiers and known and unknown RINOs the benefit of a doubt they little deserve.
I’s think it might be worthwhile to attempt to get into the record testimony of current and senior CIA personnel who were involved in those assessments of Ukraine and Shokin, and were approving of his progress in fighting corruption – in-person testimony is always more impactful than mere paper. Which goes against what I postulated re: Shokin, so, really, I have to come down with you – there is all mere political mummery.
So, you’re saying it’s a political witch hunt.
No, because there is now substantial evidence that Biden, Garland and Weiss have all committed impeachable offenses. And focused impeachment inquiries would marshall this and uncover more. That impeachment inquiries also serve political purposes is no reason not to pursue them.
Daniel, I have been on the edge regarding an impeachment inquiry as that word should be a last resort. Turley talked about this sometime back and I thought indicated that there was another way of dealing with the situation that was as powerful as an impeachment inquiry. Do you know the alternative ways?
Additionally, if I were doing such an inquiry I would start with the weakest high level individual who is Garland and impeach him with the intent of putting him in jail. The follow-up would be the impeachment of Biden.
The use of the word impeachment with regard to the President is very destabilizing. Most true conservatives care, but Democrats do not as seen in the false impeachments of Trump. The far leftist ones will do anything to destroy the Constitution and the nation.
“and impeach him with the intent of putting him in jail”
That isn’t possible. Congress can’t put him in jail no matter how much evidence it assembles that he has committed crimes. The most it can do is publish its findings and ask the DOJ to bring charges, which it will refuse to do. Then it can wait for the next president, and hope the statute of limitations has not expired by then.
“Congress can’t put [Biden] in jail . . .”
Given the Left’s precedent, a local DA can.
Milhouse, I didn’t limit the incarceration of Garland to the House. They can tighten the screws and provide the needed evidence that leads to a conviction. I’m not interested in jailing him per se, I want to disinfect our political bureaucracy in DC.
S. Meyer,
I agree.
Although I would not mind seeing an impeachment and compare and contrast a Biden one vs the Trump one. Not the snap one. That was a farce.
Even though we all know the outcome of a Biden impeachment trial, we would all see what evidence is presented.
Upstate, my problem is that impeachment means instability. I thought the impeachment of Clinton was wrong and I have significant questions regarding the Nixon affair.
I lack the depth of knowledge of what different avenues offer and where they can have an opposite effect so I have to rely on other opinions while trying to firm up my own. Those opinions need to come from the legal profession and Constitutional scholars.
Not when there is clear body of evidence of corruption and wrong doing.
According to Turley “The authority of the House is at its apex when carrying out its duties under the impeachment clause.”
Presumably, the House at its apex will at least command more press and gain more attention. That way, we can all watch Shorkin’s prior sworn testimony on Burisma and the Biden ‘brand’ impact in Ukraine that nobody has ever heard about.
Who knows. With an independent investigation, even Senators like Schumer and the NYT will have to acknowledge reality.
Things change. Sometimes for the better (don’t laugh; just a few million years ago I had a vestigial tail.)
* Inquiry Exhibit 3.1
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OY_cTQY1dMs
DG, partisan Democrats like Schumer will never admit the truth unless it becomes so obvious that Biden is harming the party’s chances in 2024.
I have never seen such shameless lying as I have seen from the Democrats like Goldman and Raskin as well as the media. We see obvious corruption, open for all to see, and they reply, “there isn’t a shred of evidence showing Joe Biden did anything wrong”. It is so stupid, so shameless, so ridiculously gaslighting that is almost makes conservatives and Independents just want to move on. This is their game.
Eminently reasonable commentary. I should think, based upon Professor Turley’s arguments, that he’s made a much better case for impeachment against Merrick Garland, who might just barely possibly be thrown to the wolves by the jackal Senate Democrats.
But yes, since there is approximately zero statistical chance that Faux Joe would be removed from office – unless there’s something going on behind the scenes I do not know about, and there always are such things – an impeachment inquiry would be just another waste of taxpayer time and taxpayer money, and – may I say? – another tale told by a bunch of idiots.
An excellent review. Merrick Garland seems to have become the nexus of a legal firestorm. For all the Kudos flung his way when he was nominated for the Supreme Court and seeing his performance now, it seems his record is almost Shakespearean in character.
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
I do not recognize a great legal mind behind all of these actions but simply a terrible partisan and not a very good one. I have seen more wisdom and excellent legal discussion on this blog and dealing with local attorneys than from this AG. And on this blog that includes those who are on the conservative side as well as the liberal side of the law. I have seen opposing plaintiff’s attorneys show greater command of their subject and incisive character and decision making. Fortunately I have seen the same from Defense counsels also.
I can appreciate a clear thinking attorney on an opposing side especially because I like to the see the art and power of the law when it is wielded with knowledge and wisdom.
This AG does not leave me with anything approaching respect, knowledge or wisdom.
A great legal mind wields the law like Debakey wielded a surgeons blade, or Louis Weinstein built the sub-specialty of infectious disease.
“Section 600.3 of the DOJ’s code on special counsels requires an appointment from outside the Justice Department, for obvious reasons. “
It seems to me that the GOP controlled congress how to be able to engineer replacement for a special prosecutor, David Weiss. At the very least they can go to court and indicates that his appointment is a violation of session 600.3. But I don’t expect much from this do nothing congress, and while they’re in impeachment angry mode, they most certainly should include secretary Mayorkas. And FBI Director Wray there are plenty of grounds to impeach both.
600 states explicitly that it creates no rights and is not enforceable in court.
Even if it were enforceable, the House would have no standing to enforce it. It would be up to the DOJ to enforce it against itself, which would make no sense. Which is why there was no point in making it enforceable in the first place.
I’m glad you said what several people I know have denied exists. I will give the benefit of doubt to AG Garland that, perhaps, he intentionally forced the hand of Congress to now act since he may feel some sort of obligation to the President for the appointment to the AG position. I have serious doubts, but I am willing to afford AG Garland may have purposefully done what he did.
LOL. The hand of Congress can’t act, there is an ongoing investigation now by the corrupt skum who blew the last one for everyone but the biden buds.
Do you also give the benefit of the doubt to someone punching you in the face, bloodying your nose, breaking out your teeth, then doing it a second time ? Yes, you do. Garland rests easy knowing this. Every possible mind warp excuse will be utilized forever, while the biden mob makes bank and still flies junior and dad everywhere together, in between blow straw painting bribes.
From your opinion to G-d’s ear. One can only hope.