How The Surgical Charging of Hunter Biden Ignores a Pattern of Concealment

Below is my column in The Hill on the impeachment inquiry and one striking pattern among the alleged crimes facing Hunter Biden: they all served to conceal the influence peddling efforts to sell access or influence to his father. The investigation and charging of Hunter Biden has, thus far, been strikingly surgical in avoiding this pattern of concealment.

New York Times columnist (and my former classmate at The University of Chicago) David Brooks said this week that the corruption scandal “merits an inquiry. It does not merit … an impeachment inquiry.” While I understand the distinction, I do not understand the basis for it in this situation. There are a variety of alleged crimes related to this corruption that may involve the President. There are also allegations like abuse of office that have been cited in past impeachments. We do not know if those connections exist but, if they do, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses. Moreover, it is unlikely that we will get those answers without an impeachment inquiry. An impeachment inquiry does not inevitably lead to impeachment, but it does tend to lead to answers on whether impeachable conduct has occurred.

Here is the column:

In both the law and psychology, the concept of “willful blindness” is a long-recognized pattern of human conduct. It has been described as circumstances where “you could have known, and should have known, something that instead you strove not to see.”

The indictment of Hunter Biden on three counts of federal gun violations illustrates the myopic view of many in the media and the Justice Department.

Although there is a real possibility of additional charges against Hunter, the move to charge the gun violations reinforces a concern that the Justice Department continues to focus on charges that stay as far away from Hunter’s father, President Joe Biden, as plausible. The gun charges are conveniently self-contained and insulated for the administration.

The unseen pattern is becoming more and more troubling.

For years, many of us argued that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel in the Biden corruption scandal was baffling. Even some Democratic members of Congress and many in the mainstream media now admit that Hunter was engaged in a multimillion dollar influence-peddling scheme. He was also engaged in alleged criminal conduct.

However, the appointment of a special counsel on the influence-peddling would have required an investigation of the president himself.  He was, after all, the one whose influence was being peddled as what Hunter’s friend and associate Evan Archer called the “Biden brand,” and he directly interacted with Hunter’s clients. It is impossible to pursue these payments and efforts without running into multiple references to the president or his various code names.

We also know that whistleblowers in the IRS said that they were told to avoid references to Joe Biden in their investigation of Hunter Biden. Moreover, they testified that the statute of limitations on the most serious charges related to these foreign payments were knowingly allowed to expire by the Justice Department, even though it would have been possible to extend the statute of limitations.

The Justice Department then attempted an absurd sweetheart deal to close off the case without felony charges or jail time. That deal collapsed after a federal judge confirmed that even the prosecutors themselves had never seen such a sweeping deal.

Garland finally yielded to the calls for a special counsel, then appointed David Weiss, who was responsible for the deal. He also did not expressly give Weiss a mandate to investigate the influence peddling or the president.

That brings us back to the gun charges.

Thus far, the Justice Department has surgically avoided charges that would implicate the president. This may simply be a coincidence, and correlation does not constitute causation. However, the other charges (including those that the Justice Department effectively killed by slow-walking its investigation) have an obvious potential connection: They all worked to help conceal the influence-peddling operation.

None of this means that this unifying theory is true, but it cannot be ignored by anyone investigating this corruption scandal.

First, there are the tax violations. While Hunter may be charged with some tax violations, the statute of limitations has now run out on the most controversial payments in the 2014 and 2015 period for foreign sources such as Ukraine’s Burisma. The obvious value in not claiming income is to avoid taxes. However, claiming income also highlights not just the receipt of these funds but their sources. Likewise, falsely claiming income as a “loan” can keep the money off the books or make it less likely to trigger scrutiny on the source and purpose of payments.

Second, there are the money transfers. The House has now detailed millions in transfers to Biden family members from a dizzying array of dozens of companies and accounts. The use of a complex labyrinth raises obvious concerns that it is a tactic used by individuals to conceal money transfers.

Third, many of us have noted that there seems ample basis for charging Hunter Biden under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, particularly given previous charges against such defendants as Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort.  Registering as a foreign agent obviously invites much greater scrutiny over foreign dealings and the specific nations involved in lobbying efforts.

Again Hunter could still eventually face charges for avoiding taxes. But there is little evidence that the Justice Department has actively pursued these broader implications or motivations.

For many, the marginalization of these charges raises troubling concerns, particularly in light of the failed sweetheart deal and the allegations from the whistleblowers. Even if the tax charges are brought, the framing of the investigation has been on the income rather than the influence sought in these dealings.

Instead, there seems confusion rather than clarity in how the Justice Department has handled these allegations for years. Even CNN legal analysts are now calling the handling of the investigation at the Justice Department an “unholy mess.”

This also explains why the public has little faith in the Justice Department in the investigation of Hunter Biden. In a new AP poll, half of the public says that they lack confidence in the integrity of the Justice Department’s investigation. Another 59 percent is extremely or somewhat concerned that Joe Biden committed wrongdoing in these dealings.

That follows an ABC News/Ipsos poll in which roughly half said they lack trust that the Justice Department will conduct the Hunter Biden investigation in a “fair and nonpartisan manner.” Finally, in a recent CNN poll, 61 percent of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business deals with China and Ukraine; only 1 percent of those who say he was involved believe that he did nothing wrong.

The public is not willfully blind to the evidence or the possible motives behind some of these alleged crimes. That is precisely why there is ample reason for the House to have launched its impeachment inquiry.

E.F. Schumacher wrote that “everything can be seen directly except the eye through which we see.” For the media and the Justice Department, it will become increasingly difficult to turn a blind eye to the evidence of corruption and influence peddling surrounding the Biden family, including the president himself.

These patterns and allegations can be disproven, but the public’s lack of confidence in the Justice Department increasingly appears justified. For most citizens wanting to see the truth behind these dealings, they will clearly have to look to Congress for the answers.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

271 thoughts on “How The Surgical Charging of Hunter Biden Ignores a Pattern of Concealment”

  1. ” David Brooks said this week that the corruption scandal “merits an inquiry. It does not merit … an impeachment inquiry.”

    Did David Brooks want Trump impeached for Ukraine even though Biden administration officials lied in their testimony, and Biden now stands accused by many, with good reason, of using his position to have Ukraine fire Shokin because Shokin was investigating Burisma and, therefore, the Bidens? Is Brooks a hypocrite?

  2. “Third, many of us have noted that there seems ample basis for charging Hunter Biden under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, particularly given previous charges against such defendants as Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort.” I would humbly suggest that Manafort is a precedent not to charge Hunter.

    Here is the Trump White House statement pardoning Manafort for this and other crimes:

    “As a result of blatant prosecutorial overreach, Mr. Manafort has endured years of unfair treatment and is one of the most prominent victims of what has been revealed to be perhaps the greatest witch hunt in American history,” the White House press secretary said in a statement announcing the pardon.”

    So the Manafort situation seems like a precedent for not pursuing FARA crimes against Hunter – or at least pardoning Hunter for any FARA crimes.

      1. “I would humbly suggest that Manafort is a precedent not to charge Hunter.”

        Negative. Manafort acted on his own, not in collusion with his father, the VP.

        Investigate him properly, and we ALL know (even the they crew) what will be found.

      2. OK lawyer Smeagol, same as lying on a form isn’t perjury, right?

        Same as lying about income to get a home loan isnt illegal, right?

        Same as evidence isnt evidence unles the evidence is a crime, right

        Same as evidnce isnt evidence unles its incontrovertible, right?

        Are you ever right? You have NO IDEA who he was representing. But glad you know more than the lawyers.

        And I love your reasoning…thats why he hasnt been charged. 5 years for a gun charge and a couple of midemeanor tax charges…I guess you woulda said the same thing six months ago about those. 3rd grade reasoning.

        1. “The tax charge is pointless because he paid it in full.”

          Yea, thats why his brilliant lawyer Abbe had him plead guilty to it.

          Why hasn’t Abbe, the brilliant defense attorney, filed the motion to dismiss the gun charge??

          Clearly, Hunter hired the wrong guy for his defense, mr incontrovertible proof.

          1. “He was representing his company. He and his partners”

            Dumbest sh!t I’ve ever heard, just create a company and you’re representing the company, not your company’s clients.

            Somebody call Abbe!!!


            Here let me save u the trouble Beaky…uh uh nope uh nope nope nope

  3. It is indisputable that becoming the Attorney General of the United States would be a massive accomplishment, when looking back on one’s life. While it does not rise to the level of Supreme Court Justice, for a lawyer, it’s pretty darn impressive. If nothing else happens to Garland, his obituary will lead with that fact.

    However, a fair recounting of Garland’s term as AG, will need to discuss the failure of his leadership during it. So, AG Garland, I ask you….was it worth it to destroy a lifelong series of accomplishments, and a belief you operated with integrity, to protect your political party? I think you will regret this behavior for the rest of your life, and beyond.

    1. “becoming the Attorney General of the United States would be a massive accomplishment”? Maybe in the old days. But then there came:
      -Eric holder with Fast and Furious?
      -Loretta Lynch with the ‘runway grandchildren discussions’?
      -Jeff Sessions declaring self impotence because of an irrelevant conversation?
      -Bill Barr failing to maintain control over his subordinates/agencies?
      -And now “willful blindness” on the part of Merrick Garland on multiple fronts?

      I dispute your claim that “becoming the Attorney General of the United States would be a massive accomplishment”. As these examples demonstrate, the office of AG has been debased by being occupied by individuals that demonstrated they were not only not up for the job and they failed the minimum moral standards of the citizenry. This type of functioning would be well within the capabilities of any well connected and average functioning political hack.

  4. Look for the wobble.

    When NASA scientists are looking for planets orbiting distant stars, they will not look for the planets directly, but rather evidence that would lead them to conclude a planet is there.

    Regarding an impeachment inquiry, the evidence proves this president is as wobbly as it gets.

  5. Does anyone think that the big guy has the mental capacity to drive a school bus. And if school bus drivers are vetted, do you think Hunter would be hired to be a school bus driver? This is what’s running our executive branch.

    1. Independent Bob,
      After watching them cut Biden off at the “press conference” announce the end of the “press conference” and crank up the music, no, he does not have the mental capacity.
      And it reflects in his polling numbers.

  6. “The recent 5th circuit court ruled such charges are unconstitutional.”

    One more time: The 5th Circuit undercut the gun possission or purchase charge, but it did NOT undercut the two LYING charges. Hunter is still facting 2 charges of lying on the gun purchase forms.

    1. But but but i said if the possession charge disappears, the lying disappears. I have no factual basis for that, it just makes sense to my pea brain and supports my narrative. Whats that, Abbe hasnt mentioned it yet?? Oh crap, i better text him today.

      1. No, it’s basic law. You can’t be charge for lying about something that is not illegal. The lying becomes moot. Otherwise prosecutors will have to explain to the judge what was he lying about when it’s not illegal to own or buy a firearm because you’re an addict.

        1. “You can’t be charge for lying about something that is not illegal”

          Oh really?? You just can’t stop stepping in it can you?

          Making income is not illegal.. Geting a home loan is not illegal. Lying about my income when getting a home loan is ILLEGAL.

          Its like talking to a third grader.

          Oh wait…now its whether its material I see below…bwahahahahahaha

        2. You can’t be charge for lying about something that is not illegal.

          General Flynn could not be reached for comment.

          1. Hunter Biden wasn’t required to register as a foreign agent. He wasn’t and never was a public officer.

            Paul Manafort could not be reached either.

    2. His stupidity can’t be accidental. It’s like he thinks he’s the only one who is aware of the fifth circuit ruling. I guess Weiss and Abbe are not aware of it.

    3. One more time: only material lies are illegal. If it’s no longer illegal to purchase/possess the gun, then the lie is no longer a material lie.

    4. Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

      Gee, why hasnt Abbe made a motion to dismiss???

      Maybe he hasn’t heard of your brilliant defense strategy for Murdaugh and Kohlberger…”incontrovertible proof”. If he had, he would have called you up.

  7. Democrats and the media are right there is no evidence worthy of an impeachment inquiry as long as you ignore the following evidence suggesting potential wrongdoing and corruption:

    1. Multiple burner phones. Why?
    2. Joe Biden used multiple fake emails. Why?
    3. Maze of fake shell companies. Why?
    4. Message from Hunter to adult daughter that Joe demands 50% of Hunter’s pay.
    5. Communication that at least one potential deal was structured so “10 Held by H for the Big Guy”. Were others?
    6. FBI has a document from a “highly credible” informant claiming $5 million was paid to each of Joe and Hunter to get Shokin fired.
    7. Video exists of Biden bragging about how he engaged in a quid pro quo to get Shokin fired by threatening to withhold $1 BILLION.
    8. Apparently stolen classified documents hidden away in multiple locations. Why? (Were they used to facilitate shakedowns of companies and foreign governments?)

    Expect, as always, the Democrat shills who comment here to twist, mangle, spin, etc. to justify and excuse it – or deflect to the “but Trump” logical fallacy.

    1. It is all they have.
      In their cult like thinking, they cry, they shriek, they stamp their little feet in the face of all the mounting evidence that there is no proof.
      In their cult like thinking, they deny common sense, logic and critical thinking.
      When all else fails, it is Trump ‘whataboutism!”

      1. Its the form they use to record reports from “trusted confidential informants”.

        “They are claims that the FBI has been unwilling to verify.”

        Fixed that for ya.

      2. They are claims that the FBI has been unable to verify. Meaning, no evidence.

        The FBI never verified the Steele Dossier, either….but they opened Crossfire Huricane and lied to get FISA warrants…..According to the FBI an unverified allegation triggers extremely invasive lines of investigation.

  8. The Professor accidentally made the best case for Impeachment there has been…..not of the President….but of Attorney General Garland.

    Perhaps even of the FBI Director Wray, Special Prosecutor Weiss, and other political appointees.

    More importantly the Professor indicts the Federal Government as a whole….combining the mutual support of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches in subverting their own duties to ensure the Constitution and the Federal Laws are faithfully executed.

    That is the “Impeachable Offense” that no one is willing to pursue…..any wonder why?

    The Professor also misses one point for sure.

    The Impeachment Inquiry does not determine “Impeachable Acts”…..that is determined by the US Senate in its Impeachment Trial of the person being impeached.

    The House of Representatives by means of the Articles of Impeachment accuse the Subject of the Impeachment Articles of some conduct that it sees as being “impeachable misconduct”.

    The Senate may elect to not take up the matter.

    All this being said….once again the Professor is correct in seeing impeachable misconduct but himself remains focused upon Hunter Biden and the involvement of the Big Guy while not emphasizing the need for additional Impeachment Inquiries on other Government Officials and employees.

    He does prove the notion that if you commit a serious enough crime while “in government” you shall elude the punishment a citizen gets for trespassing onto Federal Property or Abortion Centers.

  9. “it is unlikely that we will get those answers without an impeachment inquiry” is false. Without a vote approving an impeachment inquiry, the House gets zero new powers of inquiry.

    1. Without a vote approving an impeachment inquiry, the House gets zero new powers of inquiry.
      The vote is a house rule. Pelosi changed the rule. Regardless, the Judiciary is no weighing in on enforcing legislative rule

      1. Which doesn’t change the fact that without a vote approving an impeachment inquiry, the House gets zero new powers of inquiry. The powers that they already had = the powers they now have.

        1. And repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. You might want to check your source there teen vogue. I do you think the justice department is the only source of information?

          Why don’t you enumerate for us here, the exact additional powers that an impeachment Inquiry affords?

        2. House gets zero new powers of inquiry. The powers that they already had = the powers they now have.

          House rules not Constitutional mandate. Pelosi changed the rules. No Judge is going to involve themself in a House rules dispute.

        1. So there’s politics in Washington. Imagine that!
          Doesn’t excuse your willful ignorance (defined by Turley above, who you think is credible at times and FOS at others, whichever fits).
          Sit tight, I have a question for the crew.

          1. “It hurts their credibility,”

            How is your credibilty, Mr

            OK lawyer Smeagol, same as lying on a form isn’t perjury, right?

            Same as lying about income to get a home loan isnt illegal, right?

            Same as evidence isnt evidence unles the evidence is a crime, right

            Same as evidnce isnt evidence unles its incontrovertible, right?

      2. “The house eventually voted for an impeachment inquiry . . .”

        Some 5 weeks *after* Pelosi began the inquiry.

        For once, try not to be deceptive.

  10. The gun charges are problematic for obvious reasons. The recent 5th circuit court ruled such charges are unconstitutional.

    The crime is lying on a federal form. Also the 5th circut ruling is not controlling.

    1. Iowan
      He has repeated that lie every day.

      1st line of defense for anon
      Just make sh!t up.

      Funny, we’ve heard a lot from Abbe Lowell, but we havent heard that brilliant defense.

      Idk why he’s a grass cutter and not a defense lawyer

      1. “You can’t be charge for lying about something that is not illegal”

        Oh really?? You just can’t stop stepping in it can you?

        Making income is not illegal.. Geting a home loan is not illegal. Lying about my income when getting a home loan is ILLEGAL.

        Its like talking to a third grader.

        Oh wait…now its whether its material I see below…bwahahahahahaha

        1. Nope,

          Your example is not equivalent to the issue. Nice try though.

          If the question about income was unconstitutional lying about it would not be illegal. See how easy that was?

          Now try it with the gun question. If it is unconstitutional to prohibit a drug addict from purchasing or owning a gun, how is lying about it a crime?

          1. This is what you said, Beaky

            “You can’t be charge for lying (income) about something that is not illegal (buying a home)”

            I proved you wrong, equivalent to the gun charge or not. If you don’t want to be shown to be stupid, then don’t say stupid sh!t.

      2. We’re they wrong? A court Ruling ONLY applies to the case before the court. NO court is bound by the ruling.

        But as is typical, that’s is not the charge brought against Hunter. The charge is lying on a federal form.
        Down the road, SCOTUS may rule regardless of the answer on the form, a person cannot be denied a permit. The question will be used to track criminal actions. But you still can’t lie on a federal form.

      1. Lying on the form isn’t perjury either. You didn’t prove me wrong.

        You can only commit perjury when you’re under oath. You’re not under oath when you fill out a federal form to purchase a gun. Perjury is when you lie in court not even filing forms. “Under penalty of perjury” means when you’re charged in court and lie to the judge.

        You’re really bad with the legal aspect of things.

        1. Dude, I linked directly to the proof you were wrong. It was defined in AL code. You gonna act like you didn’t see it?

          Want me to post it again, so you can look like an idiot again?


    2. becomes moot when the lie pertains to an unconstitutional prohibition.

      Government tracks lots of info, the have no power to ask. But refusing to answer, or lying is a crime.

  11. Ok dunce lets just take this one provable lie.

    How many votes do YOU think McCarthy has?

    How many members in the freedom caucus?

    The truth is, republicans dont march lockstep. You goobers always try to paint that as a negative. Its sad we’ve come to a place where towing the party line is valued more than thinking for oneself.

    Lie less often and your posts might live.

    1. Ok so you evade the questioning of your lies again.

      Yea i saw what that lame brain hill said. I would like to ask him the same question i asked you

      Who do you think hunter and zlovchevsky called from dubai and why did they place that call?

    2. “Turley conveniently omits that particular fact. Republicans are doing what Turley did not support a “snap impeachment”.”

      Are they? Because just a few minutes ago you said they weren’t doing a dam thing.
      Remember, no vote, no powers? So simple.

      1. Nope, because they all have the same stupid arguments.

        Its why they are referred to as they. Keep up.

        But thanks for the compliment. Not sure if it has much “credibility” bwahahahahah

  12. There is a very simple explanation. It’s called a defense in depth. Anyone in the military (supposedly) would recognize this concept except for current pentagon leadership.
    1st line-the president has no knowledge of his son’s business
    2nd line-the president never discussed business with his son.
    3rd line-the president knew some of the business partners of his son but all the meetings were just get togethers to discuss the weather.
    4th line-the Delaware Federal Prosecutor has the final say on all charging and the ability to file any charges
    5th line-it’s not our problem if the Federal Attorneys in D.C. and California refused to file charges where the alleged crimes took place.
    6th line-The AG says the Delaware Federal attorney now is named a special counsel so he will have the final final say on charging
    7th line- We have no idea why the statue of limitations ran out on the tax charges, just could not get that paperwork in and filed in time
    8th line-mickey mouse charges with no consequences fails to sway Federal judge who asks simple question and the house of cards fall. I guess we messed up and will try again
    9th line-federal gun charges filed but there is precedent now that may kick out any consequences since there was no violence
    10th line-all those companies that funnel money but produce no product or service. It’s a tough world in financial markets these days and we need all the help to handle our myriad services
    11th line-media, “where’s the evidence”, Well it’s not in their offices at their studios, it might be out there in the field where you have to go and dig it out, sort of like infantry and journalists of a previous day.
    12th line-well an inquiry is warranted but not an “impeachment” inquiry where the shovels can go deeper and wider.
    13th line- The “president loves his son”. Well how nice but has no bearing on these possible charges.

    Thats a Defense in Depth. Total exhaustion can sometimes defeat the attack but the reality is you just have to throw in heavier artillery, air strikes and win with attrition and slogging even as you look for the weak spots that can bring the defense down. You don’t always know when you might hit that critical link that unravels the whole complex.
    Who knows, you might even bring down the media which is falling fast and loses trust by the day. Imagine that.

  13. Reading the results of the poll numbers.
    Even most Democrats think Biden is corrupt. Some 80% of Democrats want “just someone else.”
    But as we see here, nearly everyday, there is that cult like 1% who cries,
    “He did nothing wrong!”

  14. Come on, lets hear it, crew…

    There is no evidence
    There is no evidence
    There is no evidence

    If you click your heels together while you say it, you’ll end up back in lala land.

    1. Why do you care what kind of inquiry it is??? I’m sure u rather it be left to Weiss, mr “uh uh no your honor, we have no precedent for this immunity deal”.

    2. Dang it, i forgot that one

      Say it with me crew

      He’s not the prez
      He’s not the prez
      He’s not the prez

      Dont forget to click those heels now

    3. it is apparent to all of us that your paid handlers have run out of talking points to give to their paid trolls considering you keep repeating them day after day after day. Meanwhile Biden’s poll numbers are sinking while Trump’s numbers are rising

      pro-tip: the word “evidence” does not mean what your paid handlers have told you. Like Chuck Todd, it might be time to find another job.

    1. Ohh! Poor, poor, bug! Crying about his massive violations of the civility rule! When it was all his own actions that got him there! Let us have a pity party for the man-boy!

    2. I dont know why you would want the evidence of your willful ignorance and disingenuous “logoc” left behind for everyone see. Not to mention the total smackdown you get for the really inane comments.

      Hey, chief wilson would like to see you in the engineroom.

        1. And look, I didnt say I wanted to give you a TP shower. I just said if you had served on a submarine, you would most certainly have gotten one. that much I do know.

  15. Joe Biden has made absolutely sure that Merrick Garland and the FBI lack the anatomically correct parts to investigate anything connected to the Bidens. Add to this, the mainstream media’s constant 24/7 refrain that Joe Biden wasn’t directly connected to any of this because we don’t have a picture of him at the ATM withdrawing Chinese bribe money, and you have a winning formula for the 2024 election (with millions of extra of mail-in ballots of course). Can you just imagine the hysteria in the media if Donald Jr. had scored a $1.5 Billion dollar “business deal” with the Chinese government while riding around on Air Force One with his dad ? A complete corruption operation from top to bottom.

    1. But but but Jared!!

      Oh, Jared didnt move the money thru off shore accounts and shell companies and to grandchildren to try and hide it, you say?

      Oh, Jared didnt hide payments as loans, you say?

      Oh, Jared didnt, give Don “half for 30 years”, you say?

      Oh, Jared didnt hide it on his tax returns, you say?

      Oh, Jared wasnt a drug addicted no good pos riding around on AF2 and all over washington and the world with his head up don’s a$$, you say?

      Oh, Don never claimed he doesnt have a clue what jareds been up to, as part of the cover up, you say?

      Oh, Tony Bobulinski met with joe, not don, you say?

      Oh, archer met with joe multiple times and not Don, you say?

      Oh, Marc Holtzman met with Joe and hunter, and not don and jared, you say?

      Oh, grown a$& men don and jared didnt share bank accounts, you say?

      Oh, jared hasnt been paying dons bills and house payments, you say?

      None of that is a crime, so why do you care??? Sorry, i dont have time to list the rest right now, i am on my way to my attorney, to close on the beachfront property in topeka, ks that i bought.

  16. When history books record the presidencies of American presidents, the Biden presidency will be unique in reflecting what could possibly be the first time in our history when the man who was elected was actually directed on what to do and what to say by operatives — the men and women who were actually making the day to day decisions for the Chief Executive himself. Some people used to joke that when Reagan was elected, Jack Warner was pulling the strings — but it was clearly meant as humor —
    But this is no joke — Joe Biden has at best 1/2 the mental acuity as he had in 2008 when he became the VP —- and even then, he has less acuity than he had when he presided over the Anita Hill situation pertaining to Clarence Thomas in the early 90’s — and Joe never was an academic to begin with — he was in the bottom third of his law school class — he’s been plagiarizing since the 1960’s and caught doing it — how on Earth did this guy get elected in 2020?

    1. He was installed. Like a toilet. Inside a fortified election process which looms over us like a suddenly erected series of Motte and Bailey castles loomed over England after the Norman Conquest.

      The new feudal ruling class craps on the peasants below through the garde robe while waging lawfare against everyone outside the castle who objects.

    1. I think DeSantis could do it, and would likely be more effective. He resisted the Fauci/Birx dictatorship authorised by Trump, prevented vaccine and mask mandates, attacked the entrenched DEI commissars, eliminated critical race theory and transgender ideology in schools, took on the wokists at Disney, restructured New College by appointing new Trustees and fired progressive prosecutors who would not enforce the laws. Unlike Trump, he has focus and discipline, and relies on people who are knowledgeable and effective.

      1. Agreed. Trump runs his mouth too much. Dont forget, a judge used his twitter as justification for characterizing his terrorist immigration ban as racist.

        I like ramaswamy’s politics even more than desantis, but afraid he would be swallowed up by the swamp just like trump. Desantis has been inside the swamp and is still willing to take it on.

      2. DeSantis is an excellent candidate, but Trump is more seasoned. I’ll take either one, but it looks like Trump has it, and a war between the two is not productive. I will watch while the cards play out.

          1. Both of them are savvy , so when in the future the time comes they will act appropriately. As an example, I provide the name of Ted Cruz. The Bush’s put their family desires ahead of the nation. They account for part of the problems Trump faced.

  17. It’s sad to think I have almost come to a place of not caring whether Congress gets answers or not. What good does knowing the truth do if nothing is done about it? What good is all the grandstanding if not one prosecutor will follow up? Some keep saying, “but we’ll know the truth” and I keep saying, “but to what end?” Unless someone of either party can turn the ship back toward equal justice for all, we are never going to see these criminal creatures punished, all the while non-criminal unfortunates are behind bars without charges. It’s truly hard to care anymore.

    1. If we have an election free of fraud and shenanigans, there’s the hope of an electoral fix. But absent that, you’re right.

      Here’s the bottom line- the political machine which is truly running this country has decided that Donald Trump is such an existential threat to “democracy” that any breaching of the norms of that very “democracy” in order to eliminate any possibility of a second Trump term are justified.

      That’s the paradigm through which we must see this. In their view, it’s only a temporary measure, and it only applies to Trump.

      The willful blindness of this cabal will kill not only their “democracy,” but our Constitutional Republic as well. Furthermore, I get the impression they think the country deserves it because we just don’t agree with their superior insight.

    2. @Debra

      Same here, Debra, and I hate that I’ve become so cynical or forlorn. I am not surprised by the behavior of the dems anymore, but I remain gobsmacked this could all happen so effortlessly in America. Sad how little, so many, have paid attention for 30 or so years. IMO the lockdown really was a defining moment, these people will not relent, and it will take the force of a freight train to set things right.

Leave a Reply