Below is my column in The Hill on the expected formal vote this week on the impeachment inquiry. The vote is only to continue to look into the allegations that President Joe Biden knew of the influence peddling operation of his family and fostered those efforts. The final line of defense is to acknowledge that this was influence peddling but that Biden was only trying to support his son. The question for this vote is: how do you know? We have millions raised in what most view as corrupt influence peddling. Many of those payments are now confirmed by the Justice Department in the second Hunter Biden indictment. Only an investigation will establish the truth on the President’s knowledge and involvement. Yet, for years, Democratic members have opposed any investigation. They now face a moment of truth.
Here is the column:
Author Aldous Huxley once said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.”
Such a moment of madness has arrived in Congress as members prepare to vote on the formal approval of an impeachment inquiry. The second indictment of Hunter Biden shattered long-standing denials and narratives repeated by the White House and members of Congress. What is left in its wake is now plain to the public: corruption.
The vote is not whether to impeach President Biden, but whether members support the investigation into these growing allegations of corruption by the Biden family. According to recent polling, nearly 70 percent of voters (and 40 percent of Democrats) believe that Biden has acted unlawfully or unethically or both. Yet with almost half of the Democratic Party viewing Biden’s conduct as worthy of investigation, it is not clear whether a single Democratic member will vote to look into these allegations.
In September, I testified at the first impeachment inquiry hearing and stated that the evidence had clearly passed the threshold for such an inquiry. While there was no requirement to hold a formal vote to start this process (as the Democrats did with Trump), I encouraged the members to hold such a vote.
Since that hearing, the evidence has only mounted against President Biden. It is now clear that Biden lied when he maintained as a candidate, and later as president, that he had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings with foreign interests. Even Hunter himself contradicted the president on this claim.
It is also now clear that he lied in denying that his son never made money in China. The indictment confirms massive transfers from Chinese sources.
It is also clear that Hunter was engaged in raw influence peddling. This included threatening at least one Chinese businessman that his father was sitting next to him and would retaliate against him if he did not send millions to the Bidens.
President Biden also lied when he claimed this week that he had not had any “interactions” with his son’s business associates. There are emails, audiotapes and testimony now disproving that claim.
Millions of dollars flowed to Biden family members through a labyrinth of shell companies and accounts. Hunter Biden sent emails saying that up to half of his income went to his father while they used shared accounts and credit cards for expenses.
Even Biden associates now admit that they were selling “the Biden brand” and influence with Joe Biden. Advocates simply argue that they were merely selling the “illusion” of influence.
It is now time to see if a single Democratic member will stand against corruption and support an inquiry into the president’s role and later cover-up of this corruption. That includes the use of White House staff to spread false claims and attack critics.
I have previously discussed four possible articles of impeachment that warrant investigation.
One of the false narratives being bandied about is that there is no proof that the influence peddling of Biden’s son and brothers benefited the president himself. Thus, the argument goes, even though he was the subject of the influence peddling, Joe Biden did not legally or constitutionally benefit from the payments to constitute bribery or other crimes.
That is utter nonsense. The courts have repeatedly found that benefits to family members (far more modest than the millions in this case) can constitute bribery for a politician. That has also been the position of the Justice Department in past cases. Regardless of whether Hunter or his associates were speaking truthfully about handing over percentages of these funds to Joe Biden, he practically and legally benefited from the millions going to his family.
Even if members insist that they are not yet convinced, it makes no sense to insist that there is no direct evidence while opposing efforts to establish such evidence. These members have opposed any investigation into the allegations from the start.
Polling suggests most people believe there was a massive influence peddling operation built around Joe Biden, and that the president lied about not knowing about these deals. It is now time to get answers directly from the key players, from Hunter Biden to the president himself.
There is more at stake for the members than a Democratic president. The Democratic Party has already embraced censorship and abandoned its long advocacy of free speech. Democrats are now running on the pledge to expand censorship on social media. The question is whether, as a party, it will now vote to shield corruption, even with almost half of Democratic voters calling for answers.
The Democratic Party that I was raised in and supported was more than the party of censorship and corruption. It fought for free speech and good government. There were principles that came before personalities.
That is why we have reached a point of inescapable clarity. There is no principled basis to oppose an investigation into these chilling allegations. Stripped of the false narratives and faux constitutional claims, what remains are raw politics and utter madness.
The only question is, who will step forward on the Democratic side to demand not impeachment but answers?
So let’s call the vote.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Paywall. Now. Before it’s too late.
What is the purpose of a “shell company?”
It is so funny to see folks avoid this obvious truth. Shell companies are to avoid the connection, the problem is the Biden Family are grifters, they care not about a single thing but serving their masters. So the Laptop contents, which can be reviewed by anyone now, are a monument to depravity, grifting, lying, drug use, and things with children. It is all there in color, yet somehow because the TV talking heads say “Hunter is a kid, the children he’s with, naked, and the drugs, and the lying and the grifting, well that is just the life of a little scamp, now, that 15 minute meeting Trump Jr. took with a guy who spoke russian, that’s treason.” Mind boggling, people are stupid.
What I find hilarious is that Turley testified in the Ukraine based impeachment one, a “trial” where the forces that created it were mostly Ukrainian (it’s called vested interest) and the issue was that Ukraine would not get money to fight russia in the future. Turley hasn’t made the simple connection, Joe and Hunter have their entire lives tied up in Ukraine, so deep they get frequent stayer perks at hotels. And, remarkably, Joe is in office and greenlit all the Ukraine aid needed, the very thing Trump was accused of doing but never did.
Why are Hunter and Joe so caught up with Ukraine, why was Trump impeached over Ukraine, why is everything Ukraine tied to NATO, death to Russia and even the bioweapons labs Hunter helped set up, labs used to create death pathogens aimed at Russia btw?
I have a confession. I am a booger eating, foreskin licking, pedophile troll who lays awake at night counting and recording all the different posters that are all Estovir the Terrible!!!!
Adam Schiff ladies and gentlemen.
From Turley’s Own Link:
Only One Third Approve Of Inquiry
Yet, while most believe the current president acted illegally or unethically, only a third approve of the impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives into Biden’s potential involvement. Republicans are more likely to approve of the impeachment inquiry while Democrats are more likely to disapprove.
Fifty-four percent of the public have read or heard little or nothing about the impeachment inquiry. Of those who have read or heard at least something about the impeachment inquiry, 49% disapprove compared with 31% of those who have not paid much attention to the inquiry.
Edited From:
https://apnorc.org/projects/most-say-biden-has-acted-either-illegally-or-unethically-in-his-sons-business-dealings/?doing_wp_cron=1702229222.9387021064758300781250
Too funny. Its over 2 months old.
Want to take that survey again?
You’re misinterpreting the data.
Sorry but its how you interpret the no opinion section.
The numbers are really 60/40 overall in favor of the inquiry.
Its hard to explain if you don’t know how to read the data.
The question is more of looking at those who are against an inquiry than those that are for it.
Any doubts now that these people would rig an election to get closer to power and the chance to shove their greedy paws [or is it claws?] Into big piles of money?
Updated
Archer had no idea what was on those phone calls. He admitted it under oath—Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Evidence isnt permissible unless its incontrovertible—-ATS
Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict——Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Republicans are the only ones calling for violence these days—-Dennis
Democrats call for violence when the cause is right—-Dennis in the same post
Gas prices spiked because Texas uses crude oil to make electricity—-Gigi
AR-15’s ruin the meat—-Dennis
The inflation rate was 8% when Trump left office—-Gigi
Biden only released the strategic oil reserve once—-Svelass Mr Peetape
Archer never said it was Joe that was called from Dubai—-ATS
The State of Florida does property tax “appraisals”—-Svelass Mr Peetape
You can’t convict without incontrovertible proof—ATS
Trump was convicted of rape—Svelass Mr. Peetape
The Jefferson County school board has a supermajority of republicans—-booger boy
Trumps attorney forgot to “check a box”——Dennis
An insult or name calling is not a personal attack—-Svelass Mr. Peetape
The DC NG answers only to the President—-Gigi
Christianity teaches to treat your fellow man the same way you treat Jesus—-Svelass Mr Peetape
The ideal athlete is 6’2” and 175#—-Dennis
There is no way a fat person can shoot a 67 in golf—-Dennis
“Bright red Alabama is the “wild west”,” (when its bright blue Birmingham that accounts for 95% of the gun violence in Alabama)—-Dennis
That’s why McCarthy didn’t hold a vote. He was going to, but upon realizing he didn’t have the votes he chose not to hold one.—-Mr Peetape
McCarthy never said he didn’t have the votes.—-Mr Peetape
@Tom,
Ok, as a former collegiate athlete… I was 6’2″ and 155. I was the perfect lightweight oarsman until I screw up my knees.
(So maybe Denise was partially right there?)
The AR-15 does destroy the meat, if you’re hunting squirrel. Placement matters.
(Depending on the state [most of them], you can’t hunt deer with an AR-15 in 5.56 NATO. 300BLK … a different story)
Just keeping it real. 😛
“The AR-15 does destroy the meat, if you’re hunting squirrel.”
An AR-15 can be had/made in .22LR. Where i grew up, that was the preferred rifle caliber for squirrel. So no, Dennis is completely full of sh!t.
I used to ridicule my brother for his use of dogs and shotguns. But he would bag his limit every time, soooo….
I also gave several obvious reasons why he was an idiot for posting that stat for athletes.
Shohei Ohtani weighs 220#. He just signed a contract for $700 million. I checked the small print. There was nothing in there telling him he needed to lose weight.
Aaron Donald is one of the premier defensive lineman in the NFL. He is 6’1” and 280#, and can run 100 yards faster than Dennis could ever run 60.
So no partial credit for Denny on this one either. He’s an ignorant twerp posing as a person.
Turley Hides Behind Hunter As Republicans Shred ‘Free Speech’
Republican officials and right-wing commentators are working overtime to criminalize and punish pro-Palestinian speech they disagree with, indiscriminately charging anyone who is insufficiently supportive of Israel’s war in Gaza with antisemitism.
But lost in Republican grandstanding is perhaps the most far-reaching effort yet to punish pro-Palestinian speech — a seemingly innocuous bill in Congress to establish a commission to investigate antisemitism in the United States.
The bill doesn’t specify what constitutes “a certain perception of Jews” and neglects to mention the alliance’s own elaboration, which includes the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” and “applying double standards” to Israel as examples of potential antisemitism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/11/congress-commission-antisemitism-palestinians-israel-free-speech/
……………………………………….
Article goes on to describe said commission as exactly the kind of Orwellian overreach Turley typically describes as ‘chilling’.
What’s more, the article wonders if Republicans are truly that concerned about antisemitism. Because it seems these accusations (of antisemitism) are the perfect club for bludgeoning Bernie Bros and fracturing Democrats.
YAWN
I have a confession. I am a booger eating, foreskin licking, pedophile troll who lays awake at night counting and recording all the different posters that are all Esovir the Terrible!!!!
Estovir, who is your main handle now? Thinkthrough? Tom? Edward Mahl? Wolfman? Or is this repulsive green anonymous the real you? Funny how gay-themed crap seems to flow naturally Mr Green Slime.
Seeee^^^^
Hey brandrunner, how does it feel?
Svelass aka Mr. Peetape says
“Archer had no idea what was on those phone calls. He admitted it under oath.
Shokin was not investigating Burisma and that was the problem. How could there have been pressure if Shokin was not investigating. He was fired because he was NOT pursuing corruption.
You really need to go over the facts because someone has been making a fool out of you.”
Laugh all you want, sleezeball liar. Here ya go. From the pdf. It’s searchable by the way. You might want to try it.
This was Archers sworn testimony.
Q Did — during that I’ll say after dinner at the Four Seasons, did Mykola
Zlochevsky or Vadym ask Hunter Biden to make any phone calls?
A Yes, though I was not party to that phone call.
Q What was the request?
A The request was they were getting pressure and they requested Hunter, you know, help them
with some of that pressure.
Q What pressure?
A Government. Government pressure on their — you know, government
pressure from Ukrainian Government investigations into Mykola, et
cetera.
Who was the Prosecutor General when that phone call was made, Mr. Peetape? Thats right. It was Viktor Shokin.
Why don’t you ask Zlochevsky or Vadym how there could be pressure? You wanna know how??? Because the bullsh!t you refer to was a LIE. Unless you have another explanation.
No one need make a fool of you. You do a dandy job all by yourself.
Sounds like Archer had a pretty good idea what the phone call was about. Lie #1
Sounds like they were getting pressure. Lie #2
Sounds like it was Shokin. Lie #3
Republican Narrative On Hunter Full Of Holes
Other details of Biden’s work in Ukraine also undercut key GOP claims that Biden’s effort to topple the Ukrainian prosecutor was done to benefit his son.
State Department officials already interviewed by congressional investigators testified that withholding the aid was a matter of bipartisan U.S. policy and backed by the international community. State Department emails show the U.S. demanded progress on corruption reforms to secure funding, determining in 2016 that those conditions had “not yet been met.”
Plus, Shokin’s deputy has said that an investigation into the company had gone dormant before then-Vice President Biden’s intervention, undercutting the idea that Shokin’s firing would help Burisma and Hunter Biden.
Edited From:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4353834-inside-the-house-gops-key-biden-impeachment-claims/
Q Did — during that I’ll say after dinner at the Four Seasons, did Mykola34
1 Zlochevsky or Vadym ask Hunter Biden to make any phone calls?
2 A Yes, though I was not party to that phone call.
3 Q What was the request?
4 A The request was I think they were getting pressure and they requested
5 Hunter, you know, help them with some of that pressure.
6 Q What pressure?
7 A Government. Government pressure on their — you know, government
8 pressure from Ukrainian Government investigations into Mykola, et cetera.
It doesnt matter what ANYONE other than the principles involved thought. Z thought S was on his a$$. Z asked H to call DC. H called J and J responded. End of story.
Oh, and this turd above is from the same kunt who thinks that 261 different posters are all Tyrannosaurus Estovir.
What incredible Spin – yes there was bipartisan support for tying aide to corruption reform.
Firing Shokin was not corruption reform. There was NOT bipartisan support for firing Shokin.
Further Joe himself tied the aid to firing Shokin – not corruption reform.
Whatever you allege that Shokin’s deputy said – Shokin had a sitdown Meeting with Hunter Biden on Burisma scheduled for the day after he was fired. Shokin has a reputation for being SLOW and STEADY. The Burisma case was not dormant.
Shokins firing DID help Burisma.
SCOTUS has granted Jack Smith’s request to expedite *consideration* of his petition for cert, and Trump has until December 20th to respond
𝐄𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐌𝐞𝐠𝐚 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐓𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐔𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐮𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐁𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐬 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧
During the Sunday, December 10 news program on CNN, “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash,” a deceptive, scare-mongering TV commercial popped up, warning that federal banking regulators’ proposed plan to require the mega banks on Wall Street to hold more capital against their riskiest trading activities “will increase the cost of mortgages and car payments” and “hurt small businesses, making it harder for them to access credit, meet payroll and run their operations.”
The ad featured images of a farmer on his tractor, an auto mechanic, a worried small business owner, and other emotion-packed images.
By: Pam Martens and Russ Martens ~ December 11, 2023
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/12/eight-wall-street-mega-banks-have-teamed-up-to-run-television-ads-in-a-bogus-scare-campaign/
Updated
Evidence isnt permissible unless its incontrovertible—-ATS
Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to convict——Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
Republicans are the only ones calling for violence these days—-Dennis
Democrats call for violence when the cause is right—-Dennis in the same post
Gas prices spiked because Texas uses crude oil to make electricity—-Gigi
AR-15’s ruin the meat—-Dennis
The inflation rate was 8% when Trump left office—-Gigi
Biden only released the strategic oil reserve once—-Svelass Mr Peetape
Archer never said it was Joe that was called from Dubai—-ATS
The State of Florida does property tax “appraisals”—-Svelass Mr Peetape
You can’t convict without incontrovertible proof—ATS
Trump was convicted of rape—Svelass Mr. Peetape
The Jefferson County school board has a supermajority of republicans—-booger boy
Trumps attorney forgot to “check a box”——Dennis
An insult or name calling is not a personal attack—-Svelass Mr. Peetape
The DC NG answers only to the President—-Gigi
Christianity teaches to treat your fellow man the same way you treat Jesus—-Svelass Mr Peetape
The ideal athlete is 6’2” and 175#—-Dennis
There is no way a fat person can shoot a 67 in golf—-Dennis
“Bright red Alabama is the “wild west”,” (when its bright blue Birmingham that accounts for 95% of the gun violence in Alabama)—-Dennis
That’s why McCarthy didn’t hold a vote. He was going to, but upon realizing he didn’t have the votes he chose not to hold one.—-Mr Peetape
McCarthy never said he didn’t have the votes.—-Mr Peetape
bwahahahaha
“That’ not what I am lying about today, Tom.”—-Svelaz aka Mr Peetape
The Strategic Oil Reserve wasn’t the topic of that column either, but you had no problem dropping another steaming turd of a lie then. In fact, you doubled down and accused me of being uninformed., quoting an article about one release as “proof” that there weren’t two. So I’ve given you several opportunities to admit that, once again you either
A)lied
B)were ill informed
C)have a terrible memory
D)were talking out of your @ss
Since you won’t, I will keep reminding you. How many were there, and what were their dates?
While you’re at it, and would like to stick to the subject today….What kind of inquiry is going on in the House right now? What kind of inquiry might the House vote on this week?
See how its relevant? Because you are either a liar or just don’t know what you are talking about. Either way, it doesn’t seem credibility matters to you at all.
Behind Door Number 1: “Goofy” Gavin Newsom.
Behind Door Number 2: Michelle “Stormin’ Transformin'” Obama.
Behind Door Number 3: Bobby “Frog-In-My-Throat” Junior
MAGA!
The only question is, who will step forward on the Democratic side to demand not impeachment but answers?
Media Matters will not be available. David Brock, founder of Media Matters, pledged scorched tactics on Republicans for investigating Hunter Biden. Now it is MM that is in the crosshairs.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has launched an investigation into Media Matters. I have said for years that Media Matters is likely supplying the trolls on Res ipsa loquitur. David Brock left Media Matters and had Angelo Carusone take over the leadership.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey
@AGAndrewBailey
🚨BREAKING: We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America.
We have launched an investigation.
Enemies of free speech are attempting to kill X because they cannot control it, and we are not going to let Missourians be subject to fraud in the process.
Memo to Angelo Carusone of Media Matters:
https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023.12.11-Notice-of-Investigation-MMFA-Final.pdf
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
ANDREW BAILEY
December 11, 2023
Angelo Carusone
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
PO Box 44811
Washington, DC 20026
Via email to: action at medimatters org
Re: Notice of Pending Investigation Dear Mr. Carusone,
This letter serves as a formal document hold notice under federal and Missouri law. The Missouri Attorney General’s Office has opened an investigation into Media Matters for America (“Media Matters”) regarding your firm’s potentially unlawful business practices.
As you are no doubt aware, a federal lawsuit has been filed against Media Matters, raising serious allegations that your firm falsely and deceptively manipulated the algorithm on X (formerly known as Twitter) through coordinated, inauthentic behavior and that you did so in an attempt to defame the organization and cause advertisers to pull their support from the platform, thus harming free speech. The lawsuit alleges that you lied to the public, falsely suggesting that fringe, extremist content regularly appears next to content from corporate advertisers when in fact the opposite is true. At the same time, you appear to have used this coordinated, inauthentic activity to solicit charitable donations from consumers across the country.
I have reason to believe that your firm’s alleged actions may have violated Missouri consumer protection laws, including laws that prohibit nonprofit entities from soliciting funds under false pretenses. E.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020.1.
Dennis McInlyre, aka Mr Alpha Bank
Please state for the record if you believe, like 30% of the country that Biden isn’t a crook and the pee tape is real.
Jonathan: Alina Habba, one of the attorneys representing DJT in the NY civil fraud case, has egg on her face.–again! Last Thursday she promised her client was “looking forward to taking the stand” today–he would not “cower”. Last night DJT announced he would not testify. Opps! DJT threw in the towel.
When push comes to shove you can count on DJT to fold. If he testified today it would be just more of the same–complaints about how Judge Engoron and his principal law clerk are “biased” against him and he cannot get a “fair” trial in NY. Could he have offered any evidence to rebut all the evidence against him? Nope. So why make the long trip from Mar-a-Lago to NY. Save the aviation fuel for another day.
But in one sense DJT is right. Engoron’s law clerk has probably already written much of the judge’s final opinion. That is one of the principal duties of the law clerk. And it will not go well for the Trumpster–maybe in excess of $450 million in ill gotten gains and the loss of his business licenses in NY. DJT’s business “empire” is about to come crashing down. As they say: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people (in NY) all of the time”.
How’s that pee tape Dennis? Have you worn it out yet?
“You can fool some of the people
allsome of the time, but you can foolall the people (in NY)Dennis and Svelaz all of the time.Fixed
Aka Mr Peetape and Mr Alpha Bank
“Alina Habba, one of the attorneys representing DJT in the NY civil fraud case, has egg on her face.–again!”
Man oh man would I love to lick that egg off. MMMMmmmm, would be even better if it was all over her big fat t!ts!!!
But Svelaz and Elvis Bug would be all over it if they could lick it off of Trump’s balls!!
Hey @Denise…
Trump doesn’t have to testify.
I mean what’s his upside?
He’s already been found guilty.
His defense brought in expert testimony from the DB bankers that will win Trump that appeal.
So what does he gain?
Now while you’re probably going to say that they didn’t… here’s how…
1) Engoron made a summary judgement without looking at the evidence. (He committed a judicial misconduct, but good luck trying to prove it … he made a judgement call.)
2) DB Bankers testified that they didn’t use Trump’s estimates. (Which are not lies by the way… but that’s another point.) They testified that while Trump estimated his net worth at 4B (USD) they estimated it at 2B (USD).
Yet they still gave him not only the loans, but also special consideration. Why? Not because they relied on his estimates but because he was a ‘whale’. That they figured that by having Trump as a customer, they would gain additional business easily offsetting any potential risk.
3) James relied on a statute and not only misused the statute, but also didn’t consider special consideration due to other factors than Trump misrepresenting his net worth.
BTW Turley never talked about the intent of the law, which also should be a factor on appeal.
So looking at #2, DB asked Trump to provide an estimate of his wealth (valuation of properties he owned. ) Did he misrepresent his ownership? No. He provided what he believed the properties were worth based on his expert opinion. DB did their own due dilligence and came up with a different number. BTW Engoron came up with a completely different number for Mar a Lago, which was totally incorrect, well after being told not to use the tax assessor’s number. (Which would be a fraud upon the court and also afoul against the same law he’s using against Trump were he not the judge.)
So with the consideration due to Trump being Trump and not what he wrote or represented… how did he lie?
You see Denise … Trump will ultimately win without having to testify.
-G
I do not expect a single member of the regime to find their spine. Hunter says ‘the GOP’ is trying to kill him, and useful idiots will believe him – yes, we’ve reached the point that enforcing the decidedly non-violent laws of the land are somehow unfair violence, and this idiot man child is happy to capitalize. There is no public or even private instance of Hunter’s behavior that should lead anyone to believe he is a good, mature, ethical, or moral person of any stripe – he is a lifelong spoiled and coddled brat, useless to society, pure and simple. If we in the U.S. hadn’t given the king the finger centuries ago, he’d be a prince or a duke. I’ve got nothing left to say about modern democrats, except that if we don’t get them out of power, none of it matters anyway. No one but the most elite can take four more years of this.
It’s good to mention Clinton, because he was indeed much smarter, and his (at least overtly, at the time) indiscretions were much less. Nevertheless, I weep for my country every day since Obama’s second term, and I really don’t know what else to say. That man and the connections that preceded him and enabled him were a death knell to this country. I still fail to see how any of this ends well, though I’m always open to being surprised.
For what it’s worth, I have always thought this was who the dems, at their core, at least, were behind the curtain, it’s nothing new. Those that thought they ever stood up for anything whatsoever but their own interests based on how the wind was blowing were hoodwinked well and good.
And again: protect the first at all cost. Protect the first with the second.
OT:
Jack Smith has gone straight to SCOTUS on the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump’s DC charges (claimed by Trump in a motion before the DC Court of Appeals, but which has not yet been heard), and he’s seeking to expedite the matter.
Anonymous, it looks like Smith is trying to get ahead of the Appeals Court in order to make sure that Biden’s DOJ can get Trump before the election. The trial is set for the day before Super Tuesday.
Nothing prevents SCOTUS from taking it up now, especially since either side will appeal a DCCA opinion. Note that if they rule in Trump’s favor before Jan. 20, 2025, it means that Biden also has absolute immunity prior to leaving office. Do you really want that? I don’t want any President to have absolute immunity, nor do I think the Constitution supports that.
My guess SCOTUS sends the case to the appeals court. So the appeals court can do the grunt work of fact finding and write up their opinion, for SCOTUS to dissect. . That’s the normal process, and Jack Smiths desire to use the charges as political weapons, has zero sway with SCOTUS. Smith is 100% driven by the political calendar, and not a hint of seeking justice is evident. If justice was the goal, it would make no difference when the trial happens.
He’s done this because, as stated in his filing, he’s concerned that if the appellate process moves forward in the usual way, the Supreme Court won’t be able to hear and resolve the case this Term. And the trial proceedings in Chutkan’s court must all be stayed while the appeals are underway. This would mean there would be almost no chance of a resolution before the election. Further evidence, if any is needed, that this is all about election interference.
It’s further evidence that the public also has an interest in a speedy trial.
Do you really want all Presidents to have absolute federal immunity for anything they do while in office. Ford’s pardon of Nixon certainly didn’t suggest that.
“It’s further evidence that the public also has an interest in a speedy trial.”
Not relevant.
Would you say that the public’s interest in a speedy trial was satisfied by the four year delay (at least) in prosecuting Hunter Biden for tax evasion and filing false returns, not to mention the apparent crimes not even charged yet?
Legally, both the defendant’s and public’s interest in a speedy trial begins when the defendant is indicted.
“public’s interest in a speedy trial”
Please cite your reference for this being relevant.
The public has an “interest” in only one thing….a FAIR trial. If that takes 25 years, so be it.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/11/with-the-indictment-and-inquiry-democrats-now-face-a-moment-of-maddening-truth/comment-page-3/#comment-2346456
Thats what I thought, turd layer.
The turds just make up terms like “the public’s interest in a speedy trial”.
No.such.thing.
No, the public has an interest in the prosecutor not allowing the Statute of Limitations to expire. It rather defeats the chance for a trial.
It’s not either-or. It’s both-and.
True but thats nothing to do with the subject. That would be a speedy investigation, not a speedy trial
BTW, Steve Vladeck (UT Austin Law School) notes:
“Here’s a list, courtesy of me and my awesome research assistant, David Merlinsky, of the 49 times #SCOTUS has granted certiorari “before judgment.”
“Of particular note:
“1) Lots of presidential power cases;
“2) 19 grants since 2/2019 (after *no* grants between 8/2004 and 2/2019)”
https://nitter.net/steve_vladeck/status/1734277854475489288
So it’s not as though this has been uncommon recently.
Trump’s the one arguing that he has absolute immunity. If SCOTUS grants cert and rules in his favor, that ends the case sooner rather than later, which is to his benefit. You seem to be assuming that SCOTUS will grant cert and then rule against him.
Jonathan: If there was any doubt before it is quite apparent now that you are in the PR business–acting on behalf of Jim Comer and his Biden impeachment inquiry. This is your second column in days calling on the House Dems to switch sides.
But you are not the only one working the issue. Jamie Raskin has been meeting behind closed doors–talking to conservative and moderate House members to convince them that Comer’s investigation has all been smoke and mirrors–that there is no evidence to charge Pres. Biden with “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
So tomorrow will be the “moment of truth”. But don’t expect the Dems to break ranks. Your PR strategy should have been focused on the GOP members Raskin is talking to right now. We’ll see tomorrow whose strategy worked and which did not.
Hey Dennis, aka Mr. Alpha Bank
How does it feel to be in the 30% who still don’t think Bidens a crook and believe the pee tape is real??
Asking for a friend
“Jamie Raskin has been meeting behind closed doors–talking to conservative and moderate House members to convince them that Comer’s investigation has all been smoke and mirrors–that there is no evidence to charge Pres. Biden with “high crimes and misdemeanors”.”
Spoken like a true imbecile that doesn’t know the difference between a vote for an impeachment inquiry and a vote for impeachment.
Is the imbecile you or Raskin, Denny? I’m guessing both.
Which members would that be, btw, Mr. Alpha Bank? Asking for your friend, Mr Peetape.
Never mind Denny, it looks like it was Mr. Buck that Raskin’s been talking to. LMAO
Buck said 3 years ago he wouldn’t vote for an inquiry LMAO.
“But don’t expect the Dems to break ranks.” If it proves true that not even a single member of the Democratic Party votes for an inquiry into impeacheable offenses, when confronted with the greatest influence-peddling scheme in American, if not world, history, then it will prove that the Democratic Party is the real “enemy of
democracy.” Free govenment cannot survive when its leaders sell their offices.
Claiming that the GOP investigation is smoke and mirrors is SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
Sorry Dennis – while it is not certain how a vote will go. there is zero doubt how it SHOULD go.
That Democrats will not vote for an impeachment inquiry – makes them complicit in Joe Biden’s conduct.
There is no PR strategy here.
Frankly there is enough evidence at this time to go straight to an impeachment vote, rather than a vote for a formal impeachment inquiry.
And that impeachment vote should be unanimous.
Your celebrating the fact that Democrats are corrupt.
Obviously some parts of this are about strategy and tactics.
But what most of us should care about is TRUTH