Below is my column in the Hill on the new emerging narrative or defense from the Bidens. It has become increasingly obvious that the Bidens were influence peddling, as now acknowledged by many Democrats and media pundits. The new defense is that Hunter Biden and his uncles may have been selling influence, but that it was “illusory” and not actual. In other words, it was a grift. There is an obvious problem with this effort to portray Hunter as a type of Harald Hill, Music Man, selling marching bands. It is still corruption and the President may have not only known about it but fostered it. If that is the case and we just dismissed it as the natural order of things, as Professor Henry Hill warned, we truly do “have trouble right here in River city.”
Here is the column:
As the House of Representatives goes into high gear in its impeachment proceedings (and possible contempt resolution against Hunter Biden), the Biden family legal problems continue to mount. In one week, it was revealed that President Biden’s brother James was caught on an FBI audiotape in a corruption investigation, while Ashley Biden, the president’s daughter, is now also facing demands for unpaid taxes.
James Biden is expected to appear before the House for questioning in the coming weeks. The appearance may solidify a new line of defense for the Bidens: that they are harmless grifters.
After years of denying influence peddling with the help of an obligating media, even some Democrats are now admitting that Hunter and his uncles have been selling influence. Biden associates confirmed that Joe Biden was the brand that they were peddling to foreign clients, who paid millions to the family.
The FBI tape is the latest example of how the Bidens would market their name and access. The surveillance occurred in the bribery investigation into Mississippi trial attorney Richard Scruggs. Like many Biden associates, Scruggs would eventually go to prison while the Bidens remained untouched.
Scruggs forked over $100,000 to James Biden when he was seeking to reinforce support for the massive tobacco legislation and Joe Biden was viewed as skeptical on what some viewed as a windfall for trial lawyers.
Scruggs admitted to the Washington Post that “I probably wouldn’t have hired [James Biden] if he wasn’t the senator’s brother.”
Scruggs was just another shady figure whose business association with the Bidens would ultimately end with a prison stint. As soon as the tape came out, so did the new defense.
James Biden took the money but allegedly did nothing to land his brother.
If that sounds familiar, it should. After Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer admitted that they were selling the “Biden brand,” the Bidens’ defenders immediately insisted that it was merely “illusory.” In other words, these corrupt figures wanted to buy influence and access, but they were just chumps fleeced by the Bidens.
The idea is to get the public to think less of the coked up Henry Hill in “Goodfellas” and more of the lovable professor Harold Hill in “The Music Man,” the charming rascal ripping off hayseeds by selling marching bands.
It is a curious defense that we are not corrupt because we just ripped off dupes who were corrupt people.
The problem, of course, is that influence peddling is a form of corruption. Indeed, it is a form of corruption that is so damaging to good government that the United States has pushed global agreements to ban influence peddling in other countries.
The question is whether Joe Biden knew about the influence peddling of his brothers and his son. If so, he actively assisted his family in acquiring millions to influence him on public policy or legislation. His family was effectively marketing time shares in a senator, a vice president and now a president.
Whether or not Biden delivered, the family business corrupted the functions of government by converting offices into types of commodities. That is the case regardless of whether or not they delivered. It is akin to an extortionist taking money without any intent to follow through on threats of disclosure or use of damaging material. Even in today’s willfully blind politics, every voter should be able to agree on two simple facts.
First, influence peddling is corruption long opposed by the government and denounced by both parties.
Second, if the president knew that his son and uncles were using him for influence peddling, Joe Biden is also corrupt.
That is why it comes down to knowledge. Under federal case law, money and gifts going to one’s family is often treated as a benefit for the purposes of corruption or bribery. Indeed, many of the current Democratic members previously voted that money going to family members of a judge was impeachable. I represented that judge in the last judicial impeachment tried on the Senate floor.
It is highly implausible that the president did not know about the influence peddling. There were news articles on the allegations, and the Biden family has been accused of influence peddling for decades. It is a virtual family business.
The greater problem facing the White House is that roughly 70 percent of voters (including 40 percent of Democrats) believes that President Biden acted illegally or unethically, or both. Even Hunter’s friend Archer said that the president’s denials of knowledge were “categorically false.” Other witnesses, such as Tony Bobulinski, have stated under oath that they personally spoke to Joe Biden about these dealings.
This is likely why defenders are now failing back on the claim that the Bidens may have been grifting, but not actually selling out. It was an act put on for corrupt marks wanting to buy an advantage. That is why the Biden team immediately said that James Biden took $100,000 but then did nothing to deliver his brother.
But Scruggs later expressed satisfaction for what he got out of the deal, stating “Jim was a help, and Joe gave us some good advice.”
Joe Biden would later join Scruggs at high-profile events, and Scruggs used his private jet to fly Biden to a fundraiser.
These are dealings that will now be pursued by the House. However, the issue remains what the president knew about his family’s influence peddling and when he knew it.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Jonathan: At this time of year we all get solicitations for money. I am deluged with them. I just got a solicitation from the Obama Foundation. The solicitation begins: “This season we can continue working towards a world where democracy thrives and positive change becomes reality”. It goes on by describing the work of the Foundation: “In 2023, contributions from people like you provided more than 150,000 lunches to young people on the South side of Chicago, aided 100 USA Leaders in learning new skills to accelerate positive change in our communities…”. I’m sure you will appreciate all the good works of the Obama Foundation in the city you grew up in.
Then I looked at DJT’s latest solicitation. Does he have a “Foundation” or is he building a “Library” like Obama? Nope. Besides, if DJT were to build a library it would contain only a few books–“The Art of the Deal”, which he didn’t even write, books by Don Jr. and Melania– maybe some of the stolen top secret docs he probably still has hidden. And, of course, the speeches of Adolph Hitler. Not exactly on a par with the Great Library of Alexandria, Egypt!
No, DJT’s latest solicitation is a scam to fleece the pockets of his MAGA supporters for more money for his legal defense fund. The only “charity” DJT is involved in is the one with his name on it and where the money goes into his pocket. Not exactly the good works of the Obama and his Foundation. So if we want to talk about a “grifter” DJT is the master, not Joe Biden!
This time of year, Dennis likes to solicit little boys with money.
I hear in the grapevine that the Pope is going to endorse and sanctify NAMBLA next.
REGARDING ABOVE:
This is Tom/Estovir with yet another homosexual reference. Why is he so obsessed with gays??
Steaming turd from turdrunner, who tries to equate pedophilia to normal human sexuality. Must be a pedophile himself. Trying to normalize pedophilia as homosexuality. Well played pedo.
Regarding above
Ghost Turd continues to demonstrate that he is a b*tch ass little twat, who loves licking Trump’s foreskin when he’s not whining like a breast fed 7 year old about how he’s being skull f*cked daily by the whole planet.
Signed
James is Tom/Estovir plus Thinkthrough, Hullbobby, Jimmy, Upstate Farmer, Iowa2, Edward Mahl, Shakdi, Ralph Chappell, Guy Ventner, Margot Ballhere and many, many more.
“This season we can continue working towards a world where democracy thrives and positive change becomes reality.”
– Obama Foundation
________________________
Translation: We destroy the free and rational, restricted-vote republic given to Americans by Ben Franklin et al. and we impose Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the hired help,” aka proletariat, through one-man, one-vote democracy to obtain the order of collectivism out of the chaos of one-man, one-vote democracy.
Fact: Approximately 50% of “low-information” voters intuitively and instinctively restricted themselves from voting in 2022.
As it thrived in the Democratic Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Democratic Republic of California, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, etc.., etc., etc.
1-800-Barrysbagodiks
Text Larry Sinclair and you get a free tube of reparation H
Jonathan
I know you are a free speech absolutist, but why do allow pedophiles like Dennis McIntyre to use your platform to reach out to young boys?
Term limits are the answer. A total of 10 years maximum of elected Federal office with the caveat that you can only serve as a congressman 3 terms. So Pres./VP 4 year terms. Senator 6 year term. Congressman 2 year terms. The corruption would be mitigated to a great degree.
Still to long – 6 years at the very max (4+2). Anything close to 2 consecutive Presidential terms (8yrs) allows the corruption to seed & root.
If America simply and strictly adhered to the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution, there would be no communist American welfare state and the liberals, dependents, leeches and parasites would have no reason to vote because there would be no “free stuff” to vote for.
See? The Founders and Framers made it so easy for Americans: Freedom and self-reliance.
Taxing for charity, “free stuff,” and the welfare state is unconstitutional.
Increasing the size and number of regulatory agencies is unconstitutional, in fact, no regulation is enumerated by the Constitution and regulation must be done by industries themselves to protect the corporations and entities involved from being sued into insolvency.
Enjoy your freedom, “pursue happiness,” and take the —- care of yourself.
Friends, let me tell you what I mean.
You got one, two, three, fourteen, twenty-five, thirty-six scoundrels in the Senate. Scoundrels that mark the diff’rence
Between a brush off and a payday,
With a capital “P,”
And that rhymes with “B” and that stands for Biden!
And all week long your dirty
Reps be frittering away,
I say your dirty reps be frittering!
Frittering away their noontime, meeting time, hooker time too! Get that money in the pocket,
Never mind gettin’ budgets passed
Or the roads patched or the border tightened. Never mind pumpin’ any oil
‘Til your parents are caught with the Chevy empty
On a Saturday night and that’s trouble,
Oh, yes we got lots and lots a’ trouble.
I’m thinkin’ of the kids who still have hope,
Bright-eyed young ones, peekin’ in on the Senate
Hearings after school, ya got trouble, folks!
Right here in DC City.
Trouble with a capital “T”
And that rhymes with “B” and that stands for Biden!
Brilliant!!!
Simply follow the money…
Where are copies of cancelled checks and /or wires and signed/dated loan docs evidencing loans allegedly made by Joe Biden to family members being “repaid” to Joe…really as simple as that
Jonathan: It appears both Jack smith and Fani Willis have more arrows for their quivers. The Detroit News is reporting that, in phone call recordings, DJT tried to pressure 2 members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the vote for Joe Biden in 2020. More evidence of DJT’s “intent” to orchestrate a plan to overturn the will of voters.
It’s not clear Jack Smith needs the new evidence because he already has a mountain of it about DJT’s conspiracy. But the new evidence from Wayne County may prove useful to Fani Willis in her RICO case against DJT. More trouble for the Trumpster!
Apparently you are not paying attention – the Rising – that is a center left – and by that I mean Center of the left not just on the left of center, news outlet has reported on the Democatic election think tank that in 2020 war gamed the possible results of the Trump/Biden election looking at a Trump blowout, a biden blowout, a close biden victory and a close Trump victory and developing their plans both to get the outcome they wanted and to deal with each of these outcomes.
All of this is perfectly legal and something you would expect out of the democratic party, and that hopefully the RNC has groups exploring too.
The news is the planned Democratic strategy for a Close Trump victory.
1). Allege election fraud.
Challenge ballots and voting in swing states.
Allege problems with voting machines.
2). Challenge the election in court.
3). create slates of alternate electors in swing states.
4). Organize mass protests
5). Prepare to challenge the election in congress, with a mass protest at the capitol during that cetification.
There is more than this.
But the critical point is that there is nothing Trump and his people did that Democrats would not have done had Trump won narrowly – which was a possibility that democrats seriously considered – as they should have.
There is todate no actual evidence that Republicans had a plan like this BEFORE the election – But Democrats did.
If as those like you allege – this is illegal – then the only thing separating Democrats fromt he same crimes they allege regarding Trump is the election results obviated the need.
But more importantly this establishes that Democrats prior to the election either did not beleive any of this was illegal – or did not care and planned to do it anyway.
Rotflmao! ‘The Detroit News;?? Even the people of Detroit do not read that rag.
The “mountain” is a molehill. Smith’s only real weapon is the weight of the process. And that weapon now works against him.
Looky here everybody! Dennis once again gets his “news” from some anonymous turd layer here on this blog.
LMAO
You left wing nuts keep up this “intent to orchestrate a plan to overturn the will of the voters ” nonsense.
This is not a crime. Spin does not change that.
It is also a stupid claim – 75M REAL voters intended that Donald Trump become our President –
Are you claiming that the democrat efforts to thwart that were illegal ?
Are you claiming that efforts to resist Trumps inquiry into election fraud were an orchestrated plan to overturn the will of the voters ?
Something is not a crime – just because you do not like it.
Election fraud is a crime. Ballot harvesting is a crime.
Efforts to find election fraud ARE NOT A CRIME just because you do not like what the results might be.
If the Wayne county supervisors Actually worked for Trump – demanding that they go looking for fraud, or demanding that they look for missing ballots for Trump would not be a crime.
We had a mess in Maricopa County in 2022. Katie Hobbs was Sec. State at the time – she gave numerous directions to election officials before and after the election. She gave directions that were completely at odds with AZ election law. She THREATENED supervisors with criminal prosecution if they did not certify what Remains a highly dubious election – Maricopa country election supervisors have been caught in NUMEROUS lies.
The Maricopa County Election equipement was “certified” by the state on the last day that the state could certify it before the election.
The equipement was sealed as required by law, and was not allowed to be altered after that certification.
3 days later the equipment was unsealed and tested – because it had not been tested as required by law.
The failure to test was a violation of election law.
The unsealing was a violation of election law.
Serious problems were found almost 50% of the ballot printers had problems – the same problems that occured on election day.
The machines had new software put on – which did not correct the problems and were resealed.
All this was done with the knowledge of the Sec. State Hobs’
And then in Nov. the election was held resulting in massive problems on election day.
At the first challenge to the Maricopa count – Election supervisors testified under oath that the problems with the machines was limited to a small number of machines and that fewer than 1500 ballots were effected – they testified to this under oath.
Yet, today we KNOW that they KNEW that almost 50% of the ballot printers had problems over a month before the election – and nothing was done about this. They KNEW they were going to have wide spread problems on election day. They KNEW there were more than 1500 ballots effected.
Lakes people have optained the logs from the ballot printers and they now KNOW that there were more than 1500 problems PER PRINTER,
Regardless, the FACT is that Hobbes EXTORTED various AZ county election supervisors to force them to certify the election when they had decided that they could not.
Further she FORCED them to certify an election conducted using equipment which was illegally certified under AZ law.
Every single AZ county election supervisor was entitled to KNOW that the machines used to conduct their elections had been illeagally certified and therefore they could not certify they 2022 election.
Instead Election officials were denied that knowledge from the AZ SOS who knew that, who had ordered their illegal certification.
And then threatened to criminally prosecute any Election supervisros who refused to certify an election that SHE was a candidate in.
And you think Trump talking to some county election supervisor is a crime ?
Keep dreaming Dennis the pedophile!
“Fani willis…the first intelligent black woman in a courtroom”—-dennis mcintyre
Hey Dennis, when did you realize that you like little boys?
What did you say your age limit is, 14?
Retard Dennis is just a drive by shooter.
Never sticks around to defend the talking points handed to him.
Asking elected officials to exercise their powers is not a crime. It is what a Representative Democracy encourages
(what is it about leftists that have zero knowledge of civics?)
Do you really expect Dennis to engage with you on your points and his points when you call him a retard and Anonymous calls him a pedophile?
says the retard, pedophile Svelaz, Wally, Sammy, Bob, CC, nelly whiny beatchy girly troll.
Have you no gonads, dude / dudette!? SMH
Swindling does seem to run in the family. With Joe, through his power of the presidency, the small time grifter becomes a big time swindler. Just two, of many possible, examples.
In his 2nd State of the Union address Joe Biden proclaims, “Let’s face reality. The climate crisis doesn’t care if you’re in a red or blue state. It’s an existential threat. We have an obligation, not to ourselves, but to our children and our grandchildren to confront it. I’m proud of how America at last is stepping up to the challenge.” At no time does anyone provide convincing argument that climate change (some perhaps anthropogenic) is an existential threat. This is just a giant swindle to separate you from your wallet and give the proceeds to Joe’s favorites.
In prepared remarks on the Student Debt forgiveness program Joe Biden states, “When I announced I was going to run for the presidency this time, I made it clear that I had three goals. The first and most important goal was to give middle-class families and working-class families a fighting chance. They’d been on the short end of the stick for a long time, across the board — across the board. ” What he doesn’t tell you is that in effect his plan would take money from the middle class and give it to aspiring upper middle class professionals spending $500B all at the stroke of his pen without approval from Congress. Now that is a swindle – a raid on the treasury to give to some of Joe’s favorites.
Joe likes to say that his family is tight. Well the “acorns” from this family tree are in a very tight bunch not far from the “oak tree” swindlers both large and small.
Impeach. Convict. Remove.
Rather amusing that the Biden life support team here has such trouble with their inability to understand individual position without lumping all opposition into a predisposed category of a Trump supporter. There are many citizens that recognize and are repulsed by blatant public corruption knowing how destructive it is to our government. This is not a partisan issue, it’s wrong and those that engage in it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It’s shamefully obvious that Biden is compromised beyond measure and complicit to criminal activity as accused. The blatant political persecution of Trump and the blatant seditious conspiracy set in action with the Obama Administration deep State against a duly elected President draw many to his campaign.
There are actual studies of corruption globally, beleive it or not these generally found that the harm to corruption was rather small.
To be clear I am not defending corrption and none of this means that we should not find and prosecute it.
Nor does it mean that voters should be denied of the knowledge of the corruption of candidates.
I have absolutely ZERO problem with the prosecution and conviction of those in the Biden family.
Hunter is clearly guilty of versy serious tax fraud, lying on a sworn form, Foreign lobbying crimes, human trafficking,
drug dealing, and wither Fraud or bribery or both. The remainder of the family appears to be guilty of a significant subset of that.
The question is what can be proven regarding Joe Biden himself.
It is not necescary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every allegation against Joe to impeach him, or even to remove him from office.
While I personally think that there is more than enough evidence for a criminal conviction of Joe Biden.
Even if the standard of proof that could be met was much lower – investigation is justified.
Under the current circumstances the duty of house republicnas is to investigate and make public what they find.
At the same time, I think it is approriate under current circumstances to leave the final verdict – regarding Joe to the voters.
But unlike in 2020 – to INFORMED voters.
The same is true regarding Trump. Frankly democrats have not even come close to making an actual criminal case against Trump.
And the criminal prosecutions should die. But Democrats are free to make their own claims of election interferance against Trump – and let the voters decide.
Frankly all of the alleged conduct of Trump – and nearly all of the conduct of his supporters is perfectly legal.
It is conduct you can vote against if you do not like.
It isnot conduct you can prosecute.
🎄⛄❄️🎁 🎅 Have a Merry Bidenomic Christmas Everybody! 🤶 🎁❄️⛄🎄
https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/70s-stereo-gear/GreatDepression.jpg/image
We have seen Turley pull off this trick before with Hillary, throw everything and anything to see what sticks. Turley went on a rampage on Hillary, when nothing could prove anything they accused her of, Turley went on vacation to Alaska, and changed the subject as fast as a New York minute. When the house of cards that the Trump Cult is building falls apart, Turley is sure to change once more to another talking point. Then again, one never needs facts or evidence to keep the rage going with the Trump Cult. Just make them jump from one rabbit hole to the next.
Fishy smell brings his morning turd to us. Good boy fishy. Good boy.
Your defending Hillary ?
We are talking about the SOURCE of the collusion delusion hoax ?
We are talking about someone who directed staff to destroy evidence ?
We are talking about someone who without any authority to do so removed 30,000 documents from the government.
We are talking about someone who was sharing TS/SCI classified information with democrat cronies not in government and without security clearance that they used to profit as consultants in the mideast ?
We are talking about someone who Rigged a primary against her democrat opponent ?
Several here claim Biden is the most corrupt politician ever.
Poppycock. Joe can not hold a candle to Hillary.
The biggest deal about Joe is the scale of the really crude corrption that he engaged in without getting Caught.
Biden is a corner Drug dealer. Hillary is the Bernie Maddoff of political corruption – sophisticated and engaged in a polished corruption organization operating in plain sight to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars – not ripping off foreign thugs for a few million.
Notice how fishy never posts a single fact? Just a string on ad hominem
notice how you take his bait. every.single.time.
Fishwings has you wrapped around his troll pinky.
The Biden grift has been obvious since Hunter’s laptop became public. It is also equally obvious that the United States has a state media no different from Pravda of the Soviet Union. To remain employed by the American media you have to toe the party line.
When FOXNEWS towed Trump’s “party line”, it costed them over 700 million. Rudy towed Trump’s “party line” it cost him 150 million. Trump lawyers are hiring lawyers to pay for their “party line”. MAGA morons who believed Trump’s “party line” lies went to jail and prison. And that’s just a few, maybe you can enlighten us and inform us of other “news” organization’s and people that have paid the price of towing the “party line”.
Fishy smell with another turd. Thats it fishy! Good boy! Get it all out.
With Congress towing the uniparty line, its cost American taxpayers $34T, there’s not enough ink and/or paper on the planet to print that in $1000 bills.
Obama racked up more debt than all combined Administrations before him. GWB did a carry water for him with this with unfunded wars designed to enrich his Pals.
The Guiliani lawsuit is a farce. It is another of those – sentence first hearing later nonsense.
It was infront of the infamous Beryl Howell who is a lawless democratic operative masquerading as a judge.
The case did not belong in DC., None of he parties had anything to do with DC.
The alleged defamation was made in court – court statements and filings are by law immune from defamation claims.
Gulliani was deprived of the right to put on a defense – the most significant one being – the statements are TRUE.
The plantiffs were government officials and should have been subject to the highest standard.
The allegations were about misconduct as a government official – which is accepted from defamation claims for excellent public policy reasons. We WANT people to report public corruption – even if they are wrong.
That you can defend this kind of lawfare garbage is morally revolting on your part
And Firing Tucker Carlson cost them Far more than that.
In any real world the Fox lawsuit would have been dismissed immediately.
AGAIN – Government and government actors are NOT entitled to defamation protection – Trump lost several defamation lawsuits over that.
Absolutely Trump was egregiously defamed. But we have again decided that even egregiously false allegations regarding government or those in government are protected speech. And for good reason.
Further Fox reported the allegations of others – mostly challenging them.
That is protected under the first amendment.
AGain you are defending Lawfare.
The first story of Joes corruption ran in the New York Times in 2015. It was planted by Clinton operatives to discourage Joe from running in 2016.
That was likely assisted by Obama – who though that Joe was a total F#$Kup and was concerned that his presidential campaign in 2016 would expose corruption int he Obama administration.
John Solomon was onto Biden corruption in 2017 – long before the Hunter laptop. Solomon gathered a damning trove of documents from Eastern Europe and from the state department using FOIA requests.
There was a basis to impeach Biden in 2015. There was a basis for criminal investigations through the entire Trump presidency.
The Laptop was just icing on a mountain of evidence that existed previously.
This stuff is Not knew. Real Journalists have been into this for years.
(OT)
New York to Chick-fil-A: We decree that you be open on Sundays.
Power lusters love compulsion. And they wonder why people and businesses are fleeing those fascist states.
(Assembly Bill A08336.)
𝐆𝐎𝐏 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐃𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬
Efforts are underway by Republican lawmakers to draft legislation aimed at removing Joe Biden from the ballots in key swing states Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
By: Jim Hᴏft ~ Dec. 22, 2023
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-gop-state-lawmakers-draft-bills-remove-joe/
Related:
𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞: 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐃𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐚, 𝐀𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐨𝐧𝐚, 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐬𝐲𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚
By: Wendell Husebø ~ Dec 22nd 2023
[Link] breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/22/exclusive-republicans-drafting-bills-to-remove-joe-biden-from-ballots-in-georgia-arizona-pennsylvania/
𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐲: 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐨𝐧’𝐭 ‘𝐒𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠’ 𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥
Friday, immediately upon the news that the Supreme Court announced its decision to decline to expedite a ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim in the special counsel Jack Smith probe, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley downplayed the possibility of a March trial date.
By: Jeff Poor ~ Dec 22, 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/12/22/turley-special-counsel-jack-smith-wont-stick-the-landing-on-forcing-trump-march-trial/
The dems never learn a lesson.
Bwahahahahaha
Thanks Harry Reid!!
Biden is not going to be on the ballot anyway. The Democrats can’t let this thing get out of hand. They have to throw him overboard soon, and Kamala Harris will pardon the whole crime family and the Democrats will pick Newsom or the big guy’s wife. It’s just a waste of energy.
Really, with the 25th Amendment? Or will they sign on to an impeachment?
Lets keep it in the realm of possibility.
Or ar you really suggesting he’ll resign?
Thats never gonna happen because he believes he did nothing wrong. He’s a Biden. He deserves everything.
The folks in charge will or did send a messenger to meet with Biden and tell him that you, and your family, and your Yale graduate brainless son are about to bring down the whole enterprise. You got rich, and we will see that you all get pardons. We will tell the MSM to say that Jimmy Carter is still the worst POTUS in history.
End it, RESIGN Soon.
Nobody f*cks with a Biden.
While I think this is all political theater – I fully support these efforts – primarily to put democrats on notice that Turn about is fair play and to send a message to SCOTUS to END this idiotic left wing nut election lawfare.
“. . . new emerging narrative . . .” (JT)
Is this “narrative” (read: lie) #5, 10? I’m losing track.
Everyone seems to forget that Penn gave Biden a very lucrative no-show contract and the CHINA gave Penn millions to set up the Biden Center. This is called money laundering and bribery and all done to the benefit of our greatest enemy. This is treasonous on a cosmic scale, this is far more impeachable than anything Nixon did.
This is far and away the most corrupt person to ever be our president, the most incompetent man to ever sit in the WH, the most senile man to ever hold our highest office and the most disgusting pervert to grace the Oval Office. And yet we see “historians” and idiots like Morning Joe saying he is like Churchill and FDR rolled into one. I swear the country has lost its mind.
See wblow another steaming turd from dennis the biden family apologist
Joe Biden is almost certainly the WORST president we have ever had.
It is unlikely he is the most corrupt.
The Clinton’s were with certainty more corrupt, they are just far better at laundering the money.
The Biden’s should have learned fromt he example of the Clinton’s and created a private charitable foundation.
This allows you to launder gargantuan sums of money right out in public. You become immune from prosecution – because there is some alleged charity that it is all wrapped arround. It is not necescary that the Charity actually does any good, it just needs to sound good.
Further it gives you the basis for jetting arround the world and rubbing elbows with the movers and shakers – especially the ones you are fleecing.
Further unlike the Biden scheme – those you are fleecing mostly know exactly what you are up to – so it is not even Fraud.
For most of my life Democrats were better at messaging than Republicans – Today they are bad beyond beleif.
No Joe is not FDR and Churchill rolled into one, and saying such things makes you look stupid.
But Democrats have jumped the shark so many times, they are self evidently fascist and it takes massive acts of self delusion to pretend otherwise.
Jonathan: The Comer investigation of Joe Biden is not in “high gear”. It’s been stuck in low gear for 11 months–lurching along without any proof the President committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It involves lots of allegations, insinuation and innuendo but no evidence Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business affairs or that he received bribes or some other financial benefit to influence public policy to benefit family members.
The Scruggs bribery case is another case of “guilt by association”. James Biden was never charged in the case. You cite the long investigation by the WP about that case. But the WP concludes “These allegations do not prove any wrongdoing, nor that Joe Biden knew about the alleged money trail”. James Biden took $100,00 for legal advice but you admit he “did nothing to deliver his brother”. That means no “corruption”.
It’s pretty obvious Joe Biden did know about his family’s business dealings. But you claim “influence peddling is corruption” and “if the president knew that his son and uncles were using this for influence peddling, Joe Biden is also corrupt”. “Influence peddling” alone is not a crime. Otherwise a lot of people in DC would be facing criminal prosecution. The Menendez case shows when influence peddling crosses the line into “corruption”–when a public officer offers to influence public policy in exchange for a financial payoff.
So far Comer has not offered any evidence to prove Joe Biden falls into the Menendez category. Loan repayments by James Biden to his brother or Hunter’s repayment of a car loan don’t amount to “corruption”. But Comer will lurch along in first gear, now calling James Biden and his wife to testify. Comer’s investigation is a theory in search of crimes. It’s whole purpose is not to prove “high crimes and misdemeanors” but to serve the DJT’s political campaign agenda next year.
Dennis Metamucil McIntyre stops by on a saturday morning to drop his steaming turd.
“It’s pretty obvious Joe Biden did know about his family’s business dealings.”
Because in the McInlyre dream world, people loan $200k without asking
a) what is it for
b) when will you pay it back
c) how will you pay it back
Hey Dennis
Can we get a comment on where you stand on a man who cheats on his wife by f*cking his dead brothers widow? We ned to know where the official Biden Family Apologist stands. Because we know where Joe stands. He is PROUD of him.
While you’re at it Dennis. What do you think about a CEO who sunbathes nude in front of the female members of his company provided security detail? See a problem with that?
Trump has never been charged with incitement – and yet you beleive so much that is what he did that you exclude him from ballots.
Turley did a good job of laying out the Grifter defense – which is essentially what you are arguing.
But that defense has many many problems.
The first is – despite your and many other left wing nut claims – the argument that Joe was uninvolved is hillariously stupid garbage.
And the we took there money but never gave them anything defense only goes so far. The Biden Syndicate has been in operation for 40 years.
You can not defraud people over and over for 40 years. Eventually people learn they are getting nothing for their money.
No one pays over and over for something that no one ever delivers on.
And Finally – you have the Burisma mess.
Hunter was paid to thwart the investigation into Burisma. That is confirmed by many many many sources.
Hunter actively lobbied the US State department and other US government and foreign government entities to accomplish that for Burisma.
That is a crystal clear FARA violation which is a crime. Manafort took foreign money for lobbying in the US – but he did not do the actual US lobbying himself – he hired Tony Podesta’s(D) firm to do the lobbying. Hunter did so directly.
We now know that the claim that all of Europe wanted Shokin gone was little more than a Deliverable to Burisma. That was true. But it was not accomplished by independent investigations by the EU, It was done through Lobbying by Sorros affiliated NGO’s and by the task force in the FBI that Joe Biden was running.
Finally when all that failed, Joe went to Kiev and and using his US government power demanded that Shokin be fired.
I find it quite interesting that Shiokin – who despite Democrats claims is by all evidence an honest prosecutor with no ties to corruption – something rare in Ukraine, – it is IK for democrats – who you would think would champion someone like him, to defame and destroy him and to support those who defame and destroy him.
At long last – Have you no shame.
I would further note that the State department was constantly Begging the VP’s Office to get Hunter the H311 out of Ukraine as he was F’ing up US policy and relations to Ukraine and the EU and because it all looked corrupt as schiff and the Obama administration was desparate to avoid an actual scandal.
The claim that Joe “knew nothing” is garbage.
Nor is this the only evidence. There are numerous instances of Joe actually doing things for foreign interests.
Such as letters of reference. While these may not be huge deals – they obliterate the claim Joe was uninvolved.
Do we really want a president whose family is all a bunch of extortionists and crooks profiting in the millions by selling government power – even if what they are selling is a fraud ?
Are you really arguing that Joe Biden was oblivious to all of this for 40 years ?
Democrats obliterated any standards to impeachment with the First Trump impeachment.
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate obviously suspicous conduct – we have hundreds of what are litterlally called “suspicious activity reports” to justify that by all standards asking for an investigation of the Biden’s was justified – even if you beleive their conduct is all legal. It still smelled like rotting fish. Had Joe Biden not been a likely political opponent – and at this Time Joe’s hat was not even in the ring yet, there would have been no issue with this request. It would have been no different from Obama asking to have Paul Manafort investigated.
I would note that Obama, Biden and Clinton seeking to investigate Trump in 2016 does not seem to be an issue for you.
Regardless, you impeached Trump over asking for an investigation into a barely potential rival at the time, with no quid pro quo, and an obviously legitimate basis for investigation – unknown to Trump – DOJ/FBI were already a year into investigating the Biden’s.
So you have already established that the existing evidence against the Biden’s is more than sufficient to justify not merely an impeachment inquiry – but actual impeachment. As President Joe Biden has repeatedly and even publicly called for investigations of an announced political rival – and he has gotten them.
In left wing nut world – that is impeachable – if you are a republican.
John, you say towards the end that “President Biden has repeatedly and even publicly called for investigations of an announced political rival”. Perhaps I missed or forgot something, but what is the basis for you to say that? Thanks.
Here ya go. Here is one.
Next time do your own research, lazy ass
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/biden-urges-investigation-into-trump-ukraine-call-idUSKBN1W60M7/
Thanks for the link to a 2019 article. I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that John was attributing his statement to when President Biden was the President (not before).
This is not exactly what you are after, but just yesterday Biden while specifically stating that he was not going to comment on court cases then went on to specifically state that Trump had been PROVEN to have engaged in insurrection.
Also the “infamous” Biden Reichstag speech in Philidephia in late Summer 2022 – as well as frequent remarks by Biden accuses large portions of the country of being Nazi white supremecists.
One of the things that is most interesting about Biden is that he is a chimera – for most of his political career he has been just short of a blue dog democrat. He took the lead in numerous bills that his administration is working hard to gut.
He is one of the architects of the assorted laws that are responsible for militarizing the police, targeting young black males.
This should be a clue to most people – Joe Biden has no principles or values. He is for sale in one form or another and always has been.
He will always do or say what he thinks is best for Joe Biden.
While his presidency is a massive left wing nut disaster – Joe Biden is not a left wing nut.
He has NO VALUES AT ALL. Whatever he says today is what he or his handlers think he needs to say to get whatever he wants.
There are plenty if you want to check.
There is also plenty of “leaks” that Biden goes on late night “who will rid me of this meddlesome priest” type of rants.
A beckket reference if you are illiterate.
It is also reported that relations between Biden and Garland are frosty because Garland has not protected Hunter and because he has not bagged Trump or other Republicans.
Remember – “no one messes with a Biden”
Are you honestly saying that after 7 years of fruitless investigations of Donald Trump – that Comer and Republicans do not have a DUTY to investigate the Biden syndicate ?
If you start from the FACTS – that the Biden family was unarguably demanding and getting tens of millions of dollars in return for Favors promised to be delivered by Joe Biden – something that is unarguably true.
You are trying to say that it is not legitimate to conduct a THOROUGH
investigation to determine if Joe Biden received any of that money, met any of those people delivered on any of what his family promised ?
I would further note that Democrats, the media, social media, the FBI, DHS, CIA and government funded private groups went to extraordinary efforts to illegally and unconstitutionally censor this information during the 2020 election to preclude voters from knowledge of the rot in the Biden family.
You rant about the will of the voters – how is the use of Government power to deprive voters of knowledge of corruption by the democratic candidate not overturning the will of voters ?
Or do you think that it is OK to prevent voters from having knowledge they might want in order to vote ?
Your argument seems to be that voters are sheep, that it is perfectly acceptable to manipulate them before and election, but it is not acceptable to try to determine if the count of the sheep was actually accurate.
The selling of influence is politics as usual. Anyone who helps significantly to finance a candidate gets access and perhaps an appointment. The same is true for anyone who helps a candidate or office holder personally.
It has been obvious for years that Biden was at the centre of his family’s industrial scale influence peddling. The challenge has been to connect the benefits the family received to Joe Biden’s use of his office to benefit the paymasters. Without that, there is no proven crime of bribery. So far, nothing on this has been proven, despite a great deal of circumstantial evidence.
Where are the documents Comer demanded of Blinken regarding US policy towards Victor Shokin in the fourth quarter of 2015, when Joe Biden demanded his firing? Why have we heard no more about those documents?
Where is the follow-up regarding the call made to D.C. on December 4, 2015, by Hunter, Zlochevsky and Pozharski, just days before Biden demanded Shokin be fired?
Where is the follow-up on the Form 1023? Lesley Wolf was briefed on this and appears to have done nothing. Was she asked about that in her interview? How can we still not know if this was investigated, and if not, why not?
At some point, if Congress continues to be stonewalled on these questions, they should move to impeachment on grounds of obstruction.
“Where are the documents Comer demanded of Blinken regarding US policy towards Victor Shokin in the fourth quarter of 2015, when Joe Biden demanded his firing? Why have we heard no more about those documents? ”
I don’t know where those documents are, but here’s one fourth quarter 2015 document showing that U.S. policy was to demand that Shokin be fired — a November 22, 2015 letter provided from the State Dept. to the House Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs in 2016:
Talking Points [to Poroshenko] …
• Anti-corruption efforts have to be at the top of your agenda. That will mean standing up the National Investigative Bureau.
• It will also require changing the Prosecutor General, who is damaging your credibility and obstructing the fight against corruption.”
Background …
… the time is ripe for President Poroshenko to reanimate his reform agenda. You should recommend that he give a state of the nation speech to the Rada in which he reenergizes that effort and rolls out new proposed reforms. There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General’s Office including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/VPBidenTPUkraineMeetingShokin.pdf
Here’s another example of it being US policy and that Congress was briefed about it, from a former Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was Ambassador when Biden made the statement to Poroshenko. His 2020 deposition under oath:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/2020-09-22-Pyatt%20Interview%20with%20Exhibits.pdf#page=25
See, for example, pp. 25-27 and pp. 33-36
He refers to other documents that would now be part of the Obama Admin presidential records, presumably obtainable from the National Archives, though some might be classified.
Similarly, John Herbst, another former Ambassador to Ukraine (Bush Admin), testified under oath in a 2016 Senate hearing:
“While reform progress was substantial in 2015, it was not enough for many in civil society and at least some reformers in the Rada and the government. Critics focused on the absence of any real changes in the Procurator General’s Office and in the judiciary and claimed that the president and prime minister were not interested in going after these major sources of corruption. Both institutions were known to facilitate corruption. They pointed to the failure of the government—through the Procurator General— to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption. They complained, too, that Procurator General Viktor Shokin was a compromised figure who had served as Procurator General in the Yanukovych administration.
“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place. … Mr. Poroshenko called for Mr. Shokin’s removal … Vice President Biden has been a great advocate for reform in Ukraine.”
Congress knew because it was public US policy, and a bipartisan 2016 letter — sent by members of the Senate Ukraine Caucus and signed by Republican Senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson, and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Murphy, Sherrod Brown, and Richard Blumenthal — to Ukraine President Poroshenko said in part that “We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s Office and judiciary.” Shokin was Prosecutor General at the time.
As for “if Congress continues to be stonewalled on these questions,” you’re assuming that they’ve been stonewalled rather than that they got evidence and it undermines the story they want to tell. What’s your evidence that they’ve been stonewalled?
The State Department was shown as corrupt during the Trump Impeachment. Several were “misleading” in their statements trying to ‘get Trump’
We all know the State Dept was neck deep in the Russian Collusion Delusion.
You need reliable sources. The State Dept is far from reliable.
IDGAF what your personal opinion of the State Dept. is.
I presented testimony under oath AND I presented a 2015 document demonstrating that it was the Obama Admin’s policy. Of course, you’re silent about that, because you have no counter to it. All you have is your evidenceless whine about the State Dept.
I have a reply. I dont give a sh!t what you presented. Show me where Joe Biden was given unilateral authority to leverage $1B specifically to fire Shokin.
Then explain why Zlovchevsky thought Shokin was on his ass and asked Hunter with help from “DC”.
Sworn testimony.
If Joe Biden took action unilaterally in exchange for $5M to him or Hunter, it doesnt matter if it was in keeping with US policy. Actually, even if he had taken no action, if he convinced Z that he did and Z paid up, thats still a crime and fraud to boot.
you’re silent about that, because you have no counter to it.
It is clear testimony under oath is no deterrent from lying. The DoJ is a full partner in the Corruption. The DoJ is not going to prosecute lying under oath.
Biden is going to be booted from primaries in Texas and several other states under the 14 amendment. Welcome to the rules you advocate for.
Once again, you cut off part of a sentence to try to change the meaning.
Again: I presented a 2015 document demonstrating that it was the Obama Admin’s policy. Of course, you’re silent about that, because you have no counter to it.
You: Continued silence about the 2015 document. Because you have no counter to it.
“Archer continued his testimony by saying that during the drinks, Zlochevsky told Hunter Biden that Burisma needed “help from the United States government” to deal with the pressure the company was under from Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor in Ukraine who was allegedly investigating Burisma, according to Jordan and the source. Archer then stepped away, and Hunter Biden was told to call “D.C.,” but Archer did not testify whether or not “D.C.” was then-Vice President”
Regardless of the lies from State. Burisma asked and received help from the Bidens. Quid Pro Quo
a) You’re a plagiarist, quoting from the Washington Examiner without crediting them.
b) By your own quote, “Archer did NOT testify whether or not “D.C.” was then-Vice President.” Moreover, Archer DID testify “the narrative that was spun to me was that Shokin was under control and that whoever the next person that was brought in was — you know, the fact that he was — this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a — was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola. I have no way to verify that.“
a) I put it in quotes. I never claimed ownership
The rest is meaningless.
Burisma wanted help from the US government, and Hunter was told to call DC
Sworn testimony
They asked for help from DC and Joe Biden delivered and payment was made to his family
Sworn testimony as backed up by financial records.
Your preferred narrative was the prosecutor was ignoring corruption.
Burisma proves the narrative is just that. A narrative to distract from the facts
BTW, I find it really entertaining that sworn testimony you think supports your argument is valid, but sworn testimony that undermines your argument isn’t, even when it comes from the very same person. You can’t even bring yourself to quote an entire sentence from Archer. Perhaps you’ve never read his testimony, relying instead on excerpted phrases in your preferred news source.
Complicity in fraud and corruption is not a viable defense.
Steaming turd^^^^
Thanks for the link to the State Department memo of Nov 22, 2015.
That does indeed say that Biden should recommend to Poroshenko that he reanimate anti-corruption efforts and as part of that should replace Shokin. Comer has asked for all documentation relating to that, and I have seen nothing to indicate that the requested documentation has been provided.
The memo also says that Biden WILL SIGN the loan guarantee when he is with Poroshenko. There is no link whatsoever between the recommendation regarding the replacement of Shokin and the signing of the loan guarantee. Conditioning the loan guarantee on Shokin’s removal was NOT part of US policy. Rather, the loan guarantee was a done deal, and the recommendation regarding Shokin was forward looking, and without any express timetable.
Between this Nov 22 memo and Biden’s Dec 9 meeting with Poroshenko came the Dec 4 call to “DC” by Hunter, Zlochevsky and Pozharski. So it was after this call that Biden decided to disregard US policy regarding his signing of the loan guarantee and instead to condition the loan guarantee on the removal of Shokin.
In an affidavit, Shokin stated that when Poroshenko approached him on this in February 2016, Poroshenko said Biden had demanded that Shokin resign or drop the Burisma case to get the loan guarantee. This is consistent with everything else we now know.
Daniel,
You’re welcome.
“Comer has asked for all documentation relating to that, and I have seen nothing to indicate that the requested documentation has been provided.”
Neither have we seen anything to indicate that the requested documentation was NOT provided.
We don’t know one way or the other.
“Conditioning the loan guarantee on Shokin’s removal was NOT part of US policy.”
Several people testified under oath to the contrary. I already linked to one of them and even specified relevant pages. For example:
MR. DOWNEY: Okay. So, Ambassador Pyatt, based on public reporting, we understand that Vice President Biden conditioned the third $1 billion loan guarantee on the removal of Viktor Shokin. Do you know when this was first communicated to the government of Ukraine?
AMBASSADOR PYATT: So I would disagree with the premise of your question. It wasn’t Vice President Biden who conditioned the assistance. It was the–our interagency policy. It was a policy that was developed based on the data that my embassy was reporting from our contacts in Ukraine civil society, data that the intelligence community was reporting based on their sources, and particularly important, the advice and data that was provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and our experts who were inside the prosecutor general’s office.
And that’s the important thing to understand. We have a very high level of visibility into this institution because of the technical assistance that we were provided.
So it was a U.S. government policy, which was amply debated in many DCs and PCs. I can’t tell you now when that was decided, but I’m quite confident that the documentary record fully reflects exactly how that unfolded. And I’m also quite confident that it was briefed to Congress at the time.
“it was after this call that Biden decided to disregard US policy regarding his signing of the loan guarantee and instead to condition the loan guarantee on the removal of Shokin. ”
Nope. Again: read the testimony under oath. There’s relevant testimony from multiple former Ambassador’s to Ukraine. The most relevant is that of Geoffrey Pyatt, who was Ambassador when Biden made the statement to Poroshenko.
“In an affidavit, Shokin stated that when Poroshenko approached him on this in February 2016, Poroshenko said Biden had demanded that Shokin resign or drop the Burisma case to get the loan guarantee.”
Please link to the affidavit, so we can see the question and the answer (yes, I recognize that we may need to translate it). Also, do Ukrainian affidavits require that the person make the statement under oath, and if so, what does the oath say?
* Ambassadors to Ukraine, not Ambassador’s to Ukraine
So, where is the State Department document linking the removal of Shokin to the granting of the loan guarantee? As late as Nov 22, 2015, that explicitly was NOT US policy, according to the very document you cited. In fact precisely the opposite. That memo says Biden WILL SIGN the loan guarantee when he meets Poroshenko. That deal was DONE. In a different section, the memo also says that Poroshenko should reanimate anti-corruption efforts and remove Shokin, but without reference to any timeline or penalties for not doing so. Pyatt may have been mistaken in his testimony or may have been lying.
And for Shokin’s affidavit, Google Shokin affidavit on firing. It is available through factcheck.org.
Daniel,
Thanks. It took a bit of searching (not sure why you didn’t just link to it), but the copy I found — https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/427618359-Shokin-Statement-1.pdf — was not sworn under oath or under penalty of perjury. And the FactCheck article in which I found it includes the following:
Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor, told us in an email that such a statement would not be admissible in a U.S. federal court.
“An affidavit of this sort would not be admissible in evidence in federal court in the United States if it were offered to prove the truth of matters asserted in it because it is hearsay (the declarant is not subject to contemporaneous cross-examination), and it does not appear that any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule apply,” Burbank told us.
“Moreover, and quite apart from that defect, even in legal settings where affidavits are permitted, as for instance on a motion for summary judgment, the ‘evidence’ must be capable of being presented at trial in admissible form,” Burbank added. “Numerous statements made in the affidavit would not qualify for admission.”
Among the statements that likely wouldn’t be admitted is the statement He says things like “I assume Bursima, which was connected with gas extraction, had the support of the US Vice-President Joe Biden because his son was on the Board of Directors.” Assumptions aren’t admissible.
Let Shokin make the statement and submit to questioning under oath, and similarly for the people he references in hearsay. Let his hearsay and his statements starting with “I assume” and “I believe” be struck as non-admissible. Let others who are knowledgeable about whether he was, in fact, investigating Burisma be questioned. And then, as occurs in other cases where there’s conflicting testimony, let people decide whose testimony is more reliable.
“was not sworn under oath or under penalty of perjury. ”
A person’s ignorance leads them to stretch views incompatible with truth. That is why ignorant people rely on fact-check sites known for spinning rather than accuracy.
The leftists believe, beyond reason, that the 51 CIA agents proved that the laptop was disinformation. The Shokin transcript wasn’t officially sworn to because he wasn’t in a court of law, but he had his name attached and a story that was logical, far more logical than the pee tape believed by the left. Moreover, the transcript matched the data, and Shokin was willing to testify anywhere.
Fools believe an affidavit must be true, and an unsworn one isn’t. Facts don’t count to the ignorant. All they need is a corrupt partisan website to prove their case.
Poor editing on my part. “Among the statements that likely wouldn’t be admitted is the statement” should have been deleted.
Also, I didn’t see a statement corresponding to “In an affidavit, Shokin stated that when Poroshenko approached him on this in February 2016, Poroshenko said Biden had demanded that Shokin resign or drop the Burisma case to get the loan guarantee.” Please indicate the paragraph number/letter, so I can see which paragraph you’re referring to. Thanks.
“where is the State Department document linking the removal of Shokin to the granting of the loan guarantee?”
Again, did you read Pyatt’s testimony document? I even directed you to a few pages that are particularly relevant. Here’s part of it:
AMBASSADOR PYATT: So these things, it’s an iterative process. Generally, certainly in the Obama administration, my experience was there were more of these meetings, not less, and they all had summaries of conclusions, and all of those would document the evolution of the policy.
What I will tell you is at the beginning, it was not our expectation that Shokin’s removal would be necessary to achieve our policy goals. I had–and again, this would be reflected in classified embassy cables and classified instructions which I received, with talking points that I used with President Poroshenko, with Mr. Shokin, with other senior Ukrainian officials, as we sought to help the Ukrainian government and in particular President Poroshenko who had been elected as a reformer with support of all of those people who are out putting flowers in front of Parliament after Yanukovych left. …
MR. DOWNEY: So did you communicate this Shokin condition for the third loan guarantee to Vice President Biden?”
AMBASSADOR PYATT: No. I cannot–no. I mean, I think you–again, you misunderstood my presentation.
I would have gotten an instruction. I would have gotten the instruction which says we, the interagency, have decided that the loan guarantee condition for the third loan guarantee will include–and that would be something–and there would always be an anticorruption condition, but eventually, that condition evolves towards “President Poroshenko, you need to have Shokin removed.”
I would have then received that instruction, and I would have communicated that instruction to President
Poroshenko. I would have communicated it to people around President Poroshenko, including his chief of staff and national security advisor, both of whom were almost daily interlocutors. And all of that would be–[inaudible] classified State Department [inaudible].
MR. DOWNEY: So following up on what you just said, Ambassador, do you know when specifically you communicated this third loan condition to President Poroshenko and his staff?
AMBASSADOR PYATT: I do not. It would have been in roughly that period you described, and obviously, I didn’t– I didn’t get through to him or he didn’t act on it. And eventually, we used the visit of Vice President Biden in December, I believe, as an opportunity to really drive home that point. The Vice President, Secretary of State Kerry was involved in this effort. This was a whole-of-government effort, and it reflected the best advice that we across the administration gave to him. …
I can tell you if I was in the meeting [that Biden had with Poroshenko], I would have been there as a notetaker, and my reporting message from the meeting would have been put into the appropriate channels. And it’s available somewhere. …
As I said, I consistently–I saw, over three years, Vice President Biden consistently act just like Senator McCain acted and Senator Portman and Chairman Corker and Senator Johnson acted, in the interest of the United States, in the furtherance of the bipartisan policy that saw corruption as top priority. …
I literally, you know, if I had the cables, if I had my calendars–I don’t have access to my calendar from those days. We have to–all of that gets retired as a presidential record.
So I can’t confirm or deny or corroborate or not corroborate the tick-tock that you’re describing, but I’m confident, again, that it’s reflected in the documentary record.
The public is not going to get access to “classified embassy cables and classified instructions.” But Congress can presumably get them. As for whether all non-classified documents have been released to the public, I cannot possibly know that. I also do not know which of all of these documents are classified and which aren’t. You’re asking me things that I can’t possibly know.
“Pyatt may have been mistaken in his testimony or may have been lying.”
Or he may have been telling the truth, given that his testimony is backed up by the testimony under oath from several other people. Why on earth would he say that there’s documentary evidence for it if there isn’t? You seem to expect us to see classified material — why?
@Daniel
Uhm no.
When you are a family member peddling influence… and the politician takes action… that’s a bribe and a crime.
What action did Joe Biden take in exchange for what bribe?
He unilaterally leveraged $1B in loan guarantees against the firing of viktor shokin in exchange for $5M from mykola zlovchevsky
Nope. As I presented evidence for in my 11:29 AM comment, it was official U.S. policy and also had bipartisan support in Congress, not “unilateral” at all. And you present no evidence that Joe Biden got “$5M from mykola zlovchevsky”
Doesnt matter if it was us policy u nincompoop
1023 and statements from mykola zlochevsky
U dont like the evidence ok. But its there.
Oh, and the $5m that went to from zlochevsky to biden family shell companies and family members
No, you’re making claims but not presenting any actual evidence to back them up. Link to the 1023 and the statement from Zlochevsky, and let’s see what they actually say.
“You will sign our third billion-dollar loan guarantee and publicly announce FY 15 U.S. assistance for the first time: $189,035,756 — which does not include security assistance (previously announced separately).”
From YOUR state department evidence.
Convenient that you left that out. An act of bribery doesnt have to exist outside the current policy.
Save your gaslighting for small minds.
You will sign our third billion-dollar loan guarantee
Where is your evidence that Biden was authorized to act in direct opposition to his marching orders and withhold the $1B?
The rest of your argument is horsesh!t
See my comment above. Linking the loan to firing Shokin was unilateral. The State Department memo instructs Biden to sign the loan guarantee when he meets Poroshenko. It separately says he should recommend to Shokin that he reanimate anti/corruption efforts and replace Shokin. It does not say the former is conditional on the latter. To the contrary, it says that Biden WILL SIGN the loan guarantee when he meets Poroshenko. Biden’s unilateral decision not to do so appears to have violated US policy.
, it was official U.S. policy and also had bipartisan support in Congress,
If it was policy, why was the loan approved by the US?
“What action did Joe Biden take in exchange for what bribe?”
Leaving a Russian oligarch off the sanctions list, in exchange for millions. (And that’s just one.)
It has not yet been proved definitively that Biden violated US policy. Though as I state elsewhere, the Nov 22, 2015 State Department memo that says Biden WILL SIGN the loan guarantee when he meets Poroshenko comes pretty close to doing so.
Daniel,
As always, well said and a good comment.
Aren’t you ashamed that your seemingly independent writing on public issues, including Hunter Biden, his lap top, his uncles and his father, is like Manna from heaven to every Biden hater, MAGA Republican and conspiracy finder whose comments litter your posts. As the saying goes ‘if you lie down with dogs you get fleas’. You are lying down with fleas. That’s probably why you bark all the time.
Newton,
Your comment is pure ad hominem with zero substance on the topic of the blog and you should be ashamed of yourself. It’s signature significant that you would resort to such rhetorical methods to attack Turley’s integrity simply without commenting on the topic at hand. It’s not Turley’s fault that there is one story after another that makes the political left look like they’re corrupt.
Fleas are much better and easier than the STDs of the opposing ticks, (as in blood suckers) team.
So Newton is saying we should ignore Joe Biden’s corruption because it may help Republicans. Quite the low bar you are setting there chump.
Its clear that Newton is no kin of Sir Isaac.
Just a steaming turd layer.
The thing I don’t understand is that if President Obama had security briefings almost daily, and the Biden’s were selling influence to China, Russia and Ukraine. (aka the bad guys). Why didn’t he put a stop it?
ANonymous, that is one of the reasons why the media/Democrats are so intent on obstructing any investigation and why Obama didn’t want Biden to run for the office.
The big questions is did Obama get money too? We know that the Obamas like money, see Netflix and other rediculous deals, see two waterfront mansions (exempt from any climate disaster that is imminent) and notice how Obama gave Joe the portfolios of the most corrupt money making countries , i.e. China, Ukraine, Romania and Russia. Notice there is no France, England or Germany under his control.