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.
Former Leftist NAILS Why The Left Is So Angry
https://youtu.be/ypsO05yJ70c
“Of course you left off a LOT more than what you quoted. Which is not what you imply it is.”—-Svelass
Look at this little twit squirm. I mean is that even English??? LMAO
And look at this, its even better…
“It also showed that the broad interpretation of bribery by the government is overbroad and requires that to allege bribery it must prove specific intent.”——more jibberish from the brilliant linguist
You’re right, i feel dumber every time i read your turds. To allege it must prove??? Lmao squirm little man. Oh and it requires that??? Lmao. Did Kamala Harris write this for you?
And of course now there is “specific intent”. Which is different than “willful intent” both legal terms brought to us by Svelass.
Tell you what Mr Peetape the brilliant researcher, who accused iowan of being lazy and ignorant, how about you go cite one f*cking reference to the word “intent” in their ruling, no less the phrase “specific intent”.
Do it or show yourself as the liar and coward we know you are.
McDonnell was about what actions meet the definition of “official acts”, and whether the jury was properly instructed based on that. Period.
If you have proof that it was more than that, cite it from the ruling.
AS a rule – not absolute requirement, intent is required for an act to be a crime. Though left wing nuts CONSTANTLY get this totally wrong.
Requisite criminal intent is NOT specific. As an example if you get into a gun fight in the street with the intent to injure or kill your rivals, and an innocent person is killed – you are guilty of Murder – intending to kill someone is enough – it does not have to be the person you actually kill.
It is generally sufficient to commit an act deliberately, and to know the act was wrong. You need not know it was a crime, nor must the crime you are guilty of be the one you intended.
On the opposite side – which we see all the time and even Turley can not seem to get this straight – a legal act is legal REGARDLESS of intent.
You can mow your grass with the intention of disturbing your neighbor. If mowing your grass at the time you did so is legal it is irrelevant why you did so.
Weaponizing law enforcement against enemies is a crime – not because you intentionally targeted your enemies – but because conducting an investigation of anyone without sufficient basis is a violation of their rights. The FACT that you targeted enemies and NOT just random people is proof that you KNEW what you are doing was wrong – otherwise you would be targeting everyone.
But john, can you give us the legal definition of “specific intent” and also “willful intent”?
Svelass does this mealy mouth doublespeak all the time. He thinks it guards him against accusations of being full of sh!t, because he’ll just claim you have comprehension problems, even when its clear you dont. ATS used to use that same lame ass put down when he was cornered. The difference was he was harder to corner. The turds drop from svelass daily. He makes it easy.
He actually said the other day that its perfectly acceptable in his mind to just make sh!t up or mischaracterize something because its up to the reader of his horse manure to determine how bad his steaming pile stinks.
In other words, he’s not here to advance the discussion, but we already knew that.
Tom, I deliberately did not use Svelass’s words. Nor did I use legal terms of art.
I explained in lay terms what the role of intent is in crime.
I did so deliberately.
I have had a version of this argument with S Meyer before. MEANING comes first – defintions 2nd.
In a perfect world – defintions match meaning.
I tried to COMMUNICATE in simple terms the relationship between a crime and intent.
It is not the WORDS used that determine whether something is a crime – but the actions and the meaning.
I do not use “specific intent” – because even though that is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning – Svelaz and those on the left will mangle the meaning.
The GENERAL requirements for nearly all crimes are:
It must be an ACT – we do not have thought crime in the US. Further speech that is not direction to act usually requiring the power to direct is also not a crime.
It must be intentional, I decided to act, not it just happened.
I must know the act that I intend is wrong.
All of the above is NOT enough to prove a crime, but with very few exceptions – such as statutory rape all of the above must be prove – as well as other elements of a crime.
The above constitutes a pretty close approximate of the legal requirements for “intent” that must be met for most crimes.
John
My question was not a serious one. A simple “i have no idea wtf that means” would have sufficed. LOL
The “brilliant” Abbey Lowell actually allowed his client to read a statement that used the term “false facts”. If i were to ask what that means, rest assured I am only ridiculing the idiot that used the term and would not really expect you to be able to answer it.
“I have had a version of this argument with S Meyer before. MEANING comes first – defintions 2nd.
In a perfect world – defintions match meaning.”
John, that is true. We had that discussion, but you needed to understand that a lack of agreement as to definitions means communication is seriously impaired.
You argued that everyone knew and understood the definition involved in our discussion. I didn’t because if we used yours, your argument failed. From my vantage point, you might make your argument in Chinese. Neither could be understood. You wouldn’t provide a definition, believing everyone understood what it meant. That wasn’t true because your apparent definition could not reach a logical conclusion.
The above discussion has little to do with anything above or Svelaz, whose definitions change based on self-serving needs,
Somehow there is a feeling that the Biden family made mega bucks at the expense of the American people B U T there is a bigger feeling that the Clinton Clan was much more successful.
It depends on what you want to read and what you want to believe.
“Worth” is in the Eyes of the Beholder, and I think they are all “Worthless”.
But you know, Who’s counting. (Only people like the Bidens & Clintons do)
𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡
After cashing in during the Trump era, Joe Biden is once again taking a government paycheck. That’s not stopping him from continuing to add millions to his fortune.
By Zach Everson, Forbes Staff ~ Aug 17, 2023
[Link] forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2023/08/17/heres-how-much-joe-biden-is-worth/?sh=748e7ce138ea
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡?
By: David Nadelle – GOBankingRates ~ November 09, 2023
[Link] nasdaq.com/articles/what-is-hillary-clintons-net-worth
𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐬: 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥, 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲
lovemoney.com ~ Nov. 28th 2023
[Link] lovemoney.com/galleries/165997/meet-the-clintons-what-bill-hillary-and-their-family-members-are-worth-to?page=20
Evidently Hunter has them all Beat (Read)
𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒: 𝐀 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬
By: Federick Brown ~ December 21, 2023
https://caknowledge.com/hunter-biden-net-worth-cars/
This website has to be off its rocker:
https://caknowledge.com/politicians/
Is it possible to convict the Deep State?
I’m tired of offering my ideas and advice.
If you see a conflict as something that “spreads”, and that spreading as a bad thing to be avoided, then you’re looking at it all wrong.
Librarians now function like censorship bureaus:
The American Library Association sided with Fidel Castro’s censorship death cult over freedom for Cuban librarians. Libraries have gone over to the dark side.
Yesterday, there was an illegal alien dressed in dirty rags sitting outside Burlington with his back against the wall smoking a cigarette. As I walked past him, he looked at me with lust in his eyes. He looked like a Chinaman who had been working on the railroad all day long. Some of his cigarette smoke irritated my lungs. I started walking really fast without making eye contact. Thank God I was able to get away from him.
It is a curious defense that we are not corrupt because we just ripped off other people.
That there is gold. And it’s a defense only a thoroughly corrupt person would think might fly.
Jonathan
Following up on my earlier question…
Does Dennis soliciting little boys for aex on this website constitute protected free speech?
Jonathan: Following up my earlier comment (@1:31pm) about DJT’s pressure campaign on election officials in Wayne County, we now have more information.
The two election officials were Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the latter now deceased. They are both mentioned in the Jan 6 Select Committee final report. At the time both Palmer and Hartmann claimed they were not pressured not to certify the election certificates for Biden. That turns out to be a lie. But the Jan. 6 Committee did not have the just revealed phone recordings so they could not not pursue this line of investigation.
The phone recordings reveal the extent to which DJT and Rona McDaniel, the current chair of the RNC, were prepared to go to get the canvassers not to certify the vote. McDaniel tells Palmer and Hartmann: “If you can go home tonight, do not sign it…We will get you attorneys”. To which DJT added: “We’ll take care of that”. Offering something of value (attorneys) to a public official to violate an oath of office is a federal crime (See 18USC1346 dealing with “honest services” and public officials participating in a bribe or kick-back).
This is why both Jack Smith and Fani Willis will find the phone recordings a literal gold mine–important in their separate criminal prosecutions. And no doubt, state prosecutors in Michigan will also be looking at charges against both DJT and McDaniel under similar state fraud/bribery statutes.
Now don’t you wish Jim Comer had similar phone recordings of Joe Biden taking “bribes”. That would be the “smoking gun” he has wanted but so far has has eluded him. That’s because no such evidence exists. So Comer, the Sherlock Holmes of the MAGA crowd, is left scratching his head. No evidence, no crime. The devil is always in the details!
The devil is in the pedophile
Personally, if Donald Trump was president now, as I’m certain he actually should be in the Oval Office, our country and the entire world would be much better off. Team Biden cheated, of that there is no doubt.
Agreed but those two things are not related.
Contra to most claims – Jimmy Carter was a pretty good president. He specifically screwed up the Iran Hostage crisis. But otherwise he is the most deregulatory president in US history. Much of what is attributed to Reagan – who deserves credit for continuing it was started by Carter.
Carter negotiated the camp david accords, as noted he was a huge deregulator, he was pretty fiscally conservative. He put Volker on the FED.
And he was responsible for Fed’s tight money policies that choked the economy and denied him re-elation but resulted in the “great moderation” that followed under Reagan. Carter could have put someone in who would have continued the inflationary policies of the past and coasted to re-election.
Carter is a profile in courage.
There are many things Regan deserves credit for – including continuing the fiscal policies of Carter, but he did not initiate them.
Two things can be true at once. Carter thoroughly botched the Iran Hostage Crisis, and he was otherwise a good president.
Clinton was a crook – though hillary is worse. He was abysmal at foreign policy. But he was actually quite good at domestic policy.
Like Carter his domestic policies were pretty conservative. Conversely Bush wore a conservative Hat, but had he left well enough alone economically – we would have a balanced budget and no debt right now, We would likely have 5-6% growth on a regular basis.
Instead Bush had to spend Trillions on foreign wars, and in order to do that he had to increase domestic spending to get the votes to do so.
He is also responsible for greatly expanding the federal role in education – to all of our detriment.
Offering something of value (attorneys) to a public official to violate an oath of office is a federal crime
Deciding not to certify the votes of the election is not a crime. It is a requirement of the office.
I would note that we now have an Actual crime with Katie Hobbs in AZ – not that it will be prosecuted.
She trheatened to have County election officials prosecuted criminally if they did not certify HER election.
Aside from the conflict of interest there is the separate problem that it turns out that the AZ election equipment was NOT certified according to the law.
The law requires that the equipment must be tested with observers present, that the equipment that passes the tests must be certified and sealed. And that the certification must occur 30 days before the election.
On the last day that certifcation could legally be done – SO SoS officials sealed the equipment without testing.
A few days later someone realized they had a problem so they came back, unsealed the equipment and tested it.
Almost 50% of units failed – with the same problems they had on election day, but all units were resealed.
And used on election day.
So we have AZ SOS Hobbs extorting county election officials – in writing to force them to certify an election in which uncertified equipment was used AND FAILED.
That is what the kind of crime Dennis is looking for looks like.
I do not “wish” anything. With respect to Willis and Smith and democrats in general – I beleive the evidence I actualy see or hear – in context, without spin or deceptive editing. Thus far you have not even stated a reason why these alleged to exist recordings are meaningful.
Trump has no authority with respect to Wayne, GA. You can have him ranting and frothing at the mouth, making all kinds of ridiculous demands.
Unless you have him extorting or bribing these election officials you have nothing.
You say I should wish that I had recordings of Biden – there are already plenty. But more importantly we have money going from the chinese to Biden Shell companies, to Biden family members to Joe Biden. We have amounts that exactly match the 10% for the big guy emails and testimony.
I do not need a recording of Biden agreeing to a bribe. We have bank records of him receiving a bribe.
I know this is hard for you – but that is stronger.
Do you have Money from the Trump campaign to Wayne Co election officials ? That would be damning. especially if you have a sudden jump in Trump votes.
Again I know this is hard for you – but what we SAY is rarely a crime. It is SOMETIMES evidence of a crime or the intention to comitt a crime,.
but almost always requires an act. The Hunter Biden communication – demanding immediate payment of millions is Evidence of extortion – and possibly bribery. The almost immediate payment of the money completes the proof of a crime.
The only open question is Whether Joe Biden was presenent and to what extent he participated.
It is a crime regardless, the only question being whether Joe was a conspirator.
I would note that extortion is a crime – even if you are not in public office.
Dennis – read what you wrote. You are constantly using words with negative connotations as standins for something more serious – crimes.
It MAY be illegal for the president to pressure the AG to do something that is unconstitutional – that would be because the president has power over the AG.
If I “pressure” you to do something you do not wish to do – is that a crime ? Obviously not. You do not work for me. I have no actual power over you. I can beg, cajole, plead. What I can not do is threaten, extort, or bribe. When Hunter Biden threatened the Chinese to rain the Wrath of Joe Biden as well as himself on the Chinese if they did not pay him millions immediately – that is extortion. The next is to what extent did Hunter have the power to do so, and to what extent was Joe part of that extortion.
We get this nonsense with you constantly – attempting to overturn an election is not illegal. Using threats and extortion to do so is.
Using fraud to alter the outcome is. Lying or censoring to alter the outcome is always immoral, but it is not illegal unless you are part of government. Those in government may not censor period
Words matter, facts matter.
When the words you use are Fraud or Force – then you have something. When they are beg, cajole plead, “pressure” – you do not.
John Say: Boy, in your 2 late night posts, when you should be resting, you missed a few things. First, it’s not “Wayne, GA”. It’s Wayne County, Michigan! But you’re right. DJT had “no authority” to intervene in Wayne County to stop the certification of the votes. That destroys the rest of your spurious arguments. In the federal statute cited in my previous post offering “something of value” in exchange for an official act is bribery. Doesn’t have to be money. In this case DJT and McDaniel offered to provide attorneys if the 2 election officials would not sign the election certificates. That’s “something of value” and bribery!
Third, your claim there are “plenty” of phone recordings of Biden. Cite one that shows Biden extorting a bribe? There are bank account records which you say shows Biden “receiving a bribe”. No they don’t. There are bank records Comer has tried to also imply involved bribes. But there is no evidence the money exchanges between Hunter, James Biden and Joe Biden involved some official act–because Joe Biden was a PRIVATE citizen at the time. As it turns out the money transfers were repayments of loans, e.g., Hunter’s purchase of a truck. DJT was the PRESIDENT when he tried to bribe the 2 election official in Wayne County!
Finally, you bizarrely claim “attempting to overturn an election is not illegal”. Yes it is! Read Jack Smith’s indictment! “Obstructing an official proceeding” is a federal crime. Are you really saying that when DJT sent his supporters to assault the Capitol to stop the certification of the electoral votes, trying to extort election officials in GA to change the vote count, trying to get election officials in Wayne County not to sign the election certificates and they trying to put up fake electors–all this was perfectly legal? If the roles were reversed would you make the same spurious claim? If Biden did the same thing in 2024 if he were to lose the election would you say Biden’s attempt to overturn an election was “not illegal”? I doubt it.
If the “facts matter” you better get them straight before offering an opinion that a president is above the law!
Dennis – So, yur definition of “pressure” is that Trump offered them legal help if the Democratic SOS sued them? It seems like the opposite of pressure. If they are pressured by Democrats, Trump will help them.
It would not matter – while clearly this is begnign and frankly more proof that democrats ideas of criminal conduct is actually spin of things they do not like. Short of bribery, or extortion there is nothing that Trump could say that would be a crime.
You have the most bizzare definition of a crime.
Refusing to certify an election is not a crime.
I would further note that your interpretation would put Mark Zuckerberg and his wife in jail.
Jim Jordan ios looking for evidence – and likely will find it of coordination between Bragg, Willis, and Smith – as well as possibly Judge Beryl Howell and several others – while that would be troubling under any circumstances – under your defintions – that is a crime.
That would be a violation of Trump’s civil rights 18 U 1983. And therefore a crime to coordinate in doing so.
So The CA lawyer who paid Hunters tax bill committed a crime ?
Do you understand that your idiotic interpretation of the law would make every GoFund me to pay anyones legal fees into a crime ?
Do you understand that the CO 14th amendment case was CREW vs. SOS Griswald ? That Trump was not a party. But his attorney’s were present – and sat with Griswald on the defendants side of the aisle.
Are you claiming that Griswald and Trump committed a crime in trying to defend against his own ballot removal ?
I would also note that your argument would result in MASSIVE problems.
Either party could prevent or force whatever they wanted regarding elections – or almost anything else in government – just by being the first to sue.
You say Trump could not offer to pay election officers legal fees. Then he could have threatened to sue him if he certified the election.
By YOUR argument – no one could have tried to defend him. The election official would find himself in court facing mkillion dollar attorneys from one party – and the other party would be barred from joining the lawsuit – because that would be bribery.
DO YOU THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE THESE STUPID CLAIMS ?
Do you ever wonder why the majority of americans either do not care about this nonsense you are engaged in or are increasingly angered by it seeing it as fascism ?
Claims like this are a part of why.
You make absurd claims regarding the law – that in nearly all cases democrats have egregiously violated in the past, and sometimes in the present.
You are literally and stupidly trying to make it illegal for any political party or private party to help to defend agains any legal challenge to any government official.
You are making amicus briefs into a federal crime.
You are making probably 1/3 of all Democratic lawfare into a federal crime.
Is that actually what you want to do ?
“Great moments in unintended consequences.
Good idea
With the best of intentions
What could possibly go wrong ?”
Legislators or RNC officials in 3 states including Pennsylvania have announced their intention to use the 14th amendment to remove Biden from the ballot in their state. Their claims are as legitimate as those presented in Colorado. Further the CO SC has just provided the legal map to procede with a non-existant standard of proof for all claims.
Dennis, PLEASE every single time you post some claim – think about the argument you are making.
Apply Alan Derschowitz’s “shoe on the other foot” test.
Basically – if my argument were adopted as correct – using the same creative and broad application as I have, how would those that I hate target me using my own claims.
Do you really want to make offering to pay the legal fees of a public official into a federal crime ?
Can you think about how doing so would allow well funded groups to leaverage government officials by suing them ?
We have already seen this. In GA in 2020 Democrats sued Raffensberger over Signature verification.
Reffensburger settled the lawsuit by implimenting signature verification that did not comply with the GA law.
R did so because the groups suing was well funded and even though in his instance he had the budge of the Sec State office to defend him – it still was proving a very expensive lawsuit and settling was the easy way out.
This is even more of a problem for local government officials – who just do not have the budget to fight against political lawfare groups.
If you do not allow third parties to fund the legal defense of government officials – you make it so that the first powerful interest that files a lawsuit against a government official will get what they want. The local government will run out of money.
Just about every single argument you have ever made fails the “shoe is on the other foot” test and/or the law of unintended consequences.
Had democrats not circumvented the fillibuster for Obama apointments under Harry Reid, The supreme court would likely be split 5-4 right now, and gorsuch, barret, kavanaugh and Jackson would not be justices – Trump and Biden would have had to nominate milquetoasts that could survive a fillibuster.
Had Democrats not gamed the rules under Pelosi – Schiff and Swallwell and Omar would have their committee assignments.
Democrats would have more power to stall the Republican impeachment effort.
You rant about insurrection – but Eastman’s plan was created by Lawrence Tribe for Hillary Clinton – who Did try to persuade electors to change their vote.
And yesterday “The Rising” a left leaning outlet reported that the Democrats 2020 War Gamed plan to deal with a narrow victory by Trump – is exactly what Trump did in 2020 after narrowly losing to Biden.
The court challenges, the protests, the effort to get congress to reject the electoral college – ALL were int eh democrats plan had the outcome been 45,000 votes different.
House Republicans Focus On Biden’s
While Achieving Little Else
For House Republicans, the first year of their new majority was a lesson in humility, plagued by infighting, historic expulsions and dashed exceptions.
Don’t just count the nearly four weeks without an elected Speaker and the public bickering. The internal dysfunction is also reflected in the key metrics. Just 31 pieces of legislation became law in 2023, the lowest number in the modern era, going back more than 50 years.
Divided government and a slim House GOP majority had always meant that finding bipartisan consensus in lawmaking would be difficult. But the number of bills passed is significantly lower than other periods of divided government, with those structural issues further exacerbated by GOP infighting.
The low number of enacted laws has become an attack line for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the campaign arm for the House Democrats.
“Censure. Expulsion. Impeachment. Resignation. These are the only things MAGA Republicans seem to care about, anything but delivering on the issues that matter most.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4372444-republicans-point-fingers-historically-low-lawmaking/
“Just 31 pieces of legislation became law in 2023 . . .”
What the Left regards as a failure, lovers of liberty regard as a success.
“That government is best which governs least.” (Thoreau)
Steaming Turd^^^^
ust 31 pieces of legislation became law in 2023, the lowest number in the modern era, going back more than 50 years
The best year for the American people in 50 years, that is something to celebrate!
“INSANE ASYLUM FRAUD”
Congress hasn’t passed any constitutional legislation since 1860.
In fact, there is no need for anything beyond the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Imposing the Communist Manifesto on Americans, though unconstitutional legislation, was never the intent of the Founders.
Read carefully, and you will soon grasp that government is severely limited and restricted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And that the people are provided maximal freedom.
That is all.
That is all that is necessary.
Oh, and the illegal immigration of people who didn’t meet the prescribed criteria on January 1, 1863, the post-“Operation Wetback”-born-on-U.S.-soil mass immigration fraud commencing in 1954, and the current insane “asylum”immigration scam, whereby not a few individuals but entire population segments of countries are “fundamentally transformed” into America because the people who comprise them are ostensibly under threat, are all disingenuous, illicit, and unconstitutional.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) quite simply want more votes.
Actual Americans know that it’s the Constitution that matters, not the votes for “free stuff” of dependents, leeches, and parasites.
And actual Americans know emphatically that the less legislation, the better.
But what if their idea of pursuing happiness is to make you unhappy?
Then they are direct and mortal enemies which must be engaged and neutralized with extreme prejudice.
I long for a time when children in restaurants were seen but not heard. Why do they have to immerse themselves in so much random drama, spouting off every random, unimportant thing that crosses their minds every two seconds? Why can’t they just sit down, shut up, and eat their damned food?
My quality of life would be enhanced if certain people were made dead.
You may be guilty if you…
Beware the Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, the “texting suicide case.”
STOP THE LIBERAL IMMIGRATION SCAM AND CORRUPTION
_________________________________________________________________
“I’ll have those n—–s voting democrat for 200 years.”
– Lyndon Baines Johnson
____________________________
“I’ll have those Mexicans voting democrat for 200 years.”
– Joe Biden
_____________
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America merely want to materialize more voters and corrupt American elections.
Six Million fraudulent asylum seekers and illegal alien invaders have entered American since Biden took office.
The “asylum” rationale for entry into America is fraudulent, corrupt, and criminal:
– On January 1, 1863, extant immigration law required citizens to be “free white persons” and most people affected by Lincoln’s unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation must have been compassionately repatriated (i.e. the typical and natural desire of all released abductees).
– The Jus Soli of illegal alien invaders from Mexico after Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” was criminal and fraudulent as the fundamental law used by migrants was written for freed slaves.
– “Asylum” may be claimed for a few high-value individuals but not for huge segments of the populations of foreign countries.
John Howard Wilhelm, Ph.D., Economics Univ. of MI
@JohnHowardWilh1
·
Aug 8
If it is true that the head of Burisma paid Biden millions after lobbying him to get the prosecutor fired, I don’t see how anyone can deny that bribery was involved and that those in Congress have a duty not only to impeach but to convict.
John Howard Wilhelm, Ph.D., Economics Univ. of MI
@JohnHowardWilh1
·
Aug 8
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: The president, vice-president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Yes, Joe Biden was probably bribed by Burisma. But if this happended before he held his current office, can he be impeached for that? I am somewhat skeptical. It would like trying to impeach Trump after he left office. (Oops, that is what Democrats were trying to do.)
Svelaz the pedophile, who claims there is no evidence of anything, now opines that McDonnell will save Biden.
He also makes sh!t up once again. He asserts that the SCOTUS narrowed the definition of bribery.
A LIE
They narrowed the definition of an official act.
Of course he will now claim that his statement “not any more” does not have to do with the quotation he showed, which was concerning gifts to family members.
Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of McDonnell knows it was not about gifts to family members.
At issue on appeal was whether the definition of “official act” within the federal bribery statutes encompassed the actions for which McDonnell had been convicted and whether the jury had been properly instructed on this definition at trial.
Come on Mr Peetape lets hear about how we dont comprehend your jibberish.
Here’s Tom/Estovir responding to his own green anonymous. Estovir’s puppets respond to each every day.
F*ck you, you little zit faced piss ant. I post as my name, not some green anonymous.
And everyone here can tell who the “not very bright” one is Svelass. But you just keep on trying that approach. Its served u so well this far. 20 stars and counting.
*Tom
BYE-BYE BIDENS???
Not to worry!
The stealthy de facto president, Barack Hussein “Barry I-Have-A-Statue-In-Jakarta Soetoro” Obama, is tanned, rested, and ready to “pull the strings” and masterfully manipulate Her Incoherence and Eminent Word Saladess, Kamala Harris, or “Lil Wifey,” the Fat-Walleted and Fat-Bottomed Moochhell—the Figurehead never figured in much anyway, right—efficaciously assisted by his faithful anti-American “Jihadists,” Susan “Suzy Q” Rice, the very Iranian Valerie Jarrett, and a seasoned staff.
The Son of a Radical Activist, Anti-Colonialist, Anti-American, Jailed-For-Six-Months-By-The-British Foreign Citizen, Barry, says, “It’s all good to go!”
Oh, and the Obama Coup D’etat against Real Actual American President Donald J. Trump will continue unabated: “We will stop him!”
Svelaz the pedophile doesnt understand the difference between influence peddling (lobbying) and peddling your own influence (corruption).