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.
Good God man you’ve flipped it. WHAT happened to respected Jonathan.. You are still vying for that Supreme Court stint.. You’re not useful. Thomas is Grifting.. and I suspect you would too.. no ethics.
And, of course, it may not be just grifting.
Turley has always been pretty weak on DemoncRat corruption. This is so ugly now that he is trying to extricate himself; but the odor is skunk-like – very persistent. He can run but he cannot hide.
@Turley
The Music Man is a bad analogy.
The ‘Grifter’ was running the con, but found love and somehow the kids actually learned to play. Aka a miracle.
Here you just have the grifter.
The interesting thing. The cover up is always worse than the crime.
Put Biden under oath and catch him in a lie.
There are enough lies, but none under oath.
That is what will end him.
-G
Meanwhile, speaking of grifters in Gotham, the chocolate Jesus produces a gay themed marriage cartoon for kids.
BarrysBakODiks
Txt Larry Sinclair for a free tube of Reparations H
Just step back and view this with a bit of common sense. It becomes glaringly obvious that influence peddling was their stock in trade. If you reach any other conclusion, you are part of the problem. That is also a common-sense supposition.
Classic liberal democratic playbook. 1. It’s absolutely not happening. 2. Well, it might have happened, but there is no evidence and nothing to see here. 3. It happened, but the evidence is circumstantial and anyway everyone does it; you’re unfairly picking on us. 4. It happened, but it’s the family member’s (or staff member’s, or aide’s fault), and we disavow their action and they’ve been let go. 5. At this point, what difference does it make?
They know they’re lying. We know they’re lying. They know we know. We know they know we know. Yet, still they lie. Constantly and about everything. We are a government now built on lies and pretending not to know they’re lies.
1. It’s absolutely not happening. 2. Well, it might have happened, but there is no evidence and nothing to see here. 3. It happened, but the evidence is circumstantial and anyway everyone does it; you’re unfairly picking on us. 4. It happened, but it’s the family member’s (or staff member’s, or aide’s fault), and we disavow their action and they’ve been let go. 5. At this point, what difference does it make?
It’s a Modified Limited Hangout:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
Same thing the Deep State is doing with the COVID origins/safe/effective/people-dropping-dead fiasco, as well as the 2020 election fraud scandal. Only nowadays the Regime media is running the scam.
100% of Democrat Representatives have taken the position that even inquiring into the Joe Biden behaviors since he was Vice President, just looking at factual information about Joe’s actions, documented factual records, that even taking a ‘look’ at it, is to be rejected.
212 men and women in Congress all voting the same way —- not ONE of them willing to break from the party line.
How come is that? Do ALL their millions of constituents across al 50 states believe Joe’s behaviors don’t warrant a closer look?
Polls consistently have shown 40% of Democrats across the country believe Joe has acted either illegally or unethically.
Which jurisdictions are those 40% located in?
Taking advantage of bad people. Good! Yeah! That’s it!
The griftwagon keeps on giving. And now the soon to be prosecution is getting the benefit of the briben bitler griftvagen !!!.
It is Harold Hill.
Harald and Henry within three sentences — both mistakes the cost of typing from memory past a certain age. Note to JT: Freelance copy editors exist and do worthwhile work for public-facing opinionistas with failing memories
I always enjoy Professor Turley’s rapid responses to current events and am amazed by what a prolific writer he is. But there’s no question he could use an editor. I spent my career in communications, and I’d never release any of my writing without having another set of eyes on it. Unfortunately, in retirement there’s no one I can ask to do that. So far too often I end up looking like I either don’t know how to write coherently or that I just don’t care. It’s kinda sad to see such an erudite and articulate columnist making so many avoidable mistakes.
Anal retentive
well the Republicans could STOP funding Criminal Democrats…but they chooses to REWARD THE Criminals!
The president is guilty if anyone profits from his influence.
For those who care the betting on Trump being president in 2025 is 37.7, Joe Biden is 29.6.
Trump is currently the 75% favorite for the GOP nomination. Biden is only 62% likely to get the Democratic nomination.
Leslie Wolf refused to answer questions asked by House investigators concenrting her role an knowledge regarding the Iinvestigation of Hunter Biden.
Referring to a DOJ letter signed by her immediate superior – not Weis, not Garland that whe was not authorized to answer questions.
There is no “I am not authorized” privilege with respect to congressional testimony.
There is also not an “ongoing investigation privilege” – it is NORMAL for congress to defer to an “ongoing investigations” assertion – it is not an actual privilege or requirement. If Congress insists – administration witnesses must answer, or they can be held in contempt or refereed for prosecution for perjury, Refusing to answer a question is legally perjury.
Wolf is especially relevant to congresses investigations because according to existing testimony under oath Wolf either directly countermanded IRS investigators efforts, or countermanded them citing higher authority. Regardless, Wolf is the person who actively thwarted IRS investigations. According to prior testimony, Wolf stopped the IRS from executing a search warrant on Hunter Biden’s storage facility, and then Notified Hunter Biden’s lawyers that a search was imminent. Wolf is also allegedly responsible – based on testimony and documentation for removing references to Joe Biden from memos, evidence, and indictments of Hunter Biden.
This is only a short list of the instances in which the investigation of Hunter Biden was thwarted or derailed that wolf was either directly a part of or a witness to.
Wolf is also relevant to the House inquiry as to whether Garland lied to congress regarding Weises power.
Garlard testified that Weis had the powers of a special counsel and that had he wanted to pursue the tax charges in CA he could have.
Several witnesses have testified that Weis told them that he was not authorized to proceed in California.
Wolf is a witness to the exchanges in which Weis allegedly stated that he could not proceed.
Wolf appears to be the point person at DOJ specifically blocking any evidence that would lead the inquiry toward Joe Biden.
Whether democrats and those on the left like it or not – someone has lied to congress under oath about an important matter.
Whether it is the numerous witnesses or Garland himself someone has perjured themself and Congress is entitled to get to the bottom of that.
Numerous FACTS and correspondence and emails strongly indicate that the investigation of Hunter Biden was being actively obstructed from within DOJ. Wolf is at the epicenter of all of that. Of Testimony regarding her conduct, of documentation of her actions.
Either Wolf acted on her own authority – and must justify her actions to congress, or she acted at the direction of others, and congress is entitled to know who directed her to thwart the Hunter Biden investigation, or Both.
It is certain that Wolf will be required to testify again in the near future – likely before the house impeachment comittee. And that when she does her choices will be to answer questions under oath or plead the 5th.
I would further expect that Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer who ordered her not to cooperate with congress will also be required to testify shortly.
At this time it is not possible to know whether Wolf acted on her own, at the direction of Mr. Weinsheimer, or Weis, or Garland or direction from the Whitehouse. But there is a very strong case that she is part of an illegal effort to obstruct Justice – one that may or many not go beyond herself.
Regardless, this forebodes serious trouble for Wolf, for Weinshcemer, for Weis, for Garland and for Biden.
For the benefit of Gigi, Svelaz, and Dennis, there is a significant body of EVIDENCE that the investigation of Hunter Biden was actively obstructed from within DOJ to cover up Joe Biden’s involvement.
This is -= for the moment the flipped version of Watergate – Where Nixon directed a coverup of the conduct of several on his staff. There is to this day absolutely no evidence that Nixon had any foreknowlege or involvement in the Watergate Burglary. Only that after the fact he participated in covering it up.
Here we have evidence of those inside of DOJ covering up Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s activities. Just as it was illegal for Nixon to thwart the investigations of his staff, it is as illegal for those in DOJ to coverup Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunters activities under investigation.
Wolf was colleagues and friends with former Delaware prosecutor Alexander Mackler, a close friend of the Biden family who had previously worked as Joe’s late son Beau Biden’s campaign manager for his 2010 Delaware Attorney General bid.
Mackler worked in the Delaware Attorney’s office from August 2016 through May 2019 – when the office’s probe into Hunter’s shady overseas dealings was already underway.
Asked by Congressional staff whether Mackler played any role in the Hunter probe, Wolf turned to her attorneys and said: ‘Can I answer?’ then replied: ‘I’m not authorized to answer that question.’
For the “comments” longer than Prof. Turley’s original post, you should give some serious consternation to starting your own blog.
For the retards like anon above, you should give serious “consideration” to buying a dictionary.
Consternation—-give it for Christmas this year!! LMAO
okj
Mr. Turley, you are spot on as usual in general. However, you should be meticulous in how you include certain facts in groupings. Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony should not be grouped in with any term such as “these dealings” when that term involves actual corruption, because the business dealings he can speak to are from 2017, when Joe Biden was not a public office holder. It would not be corrupt for Joe Biden at that time in any way to enter into the contracts or dealings that Mr. Bobulinski was involved with.
You are LIKELY correct that 2017 matters do not constitute bribery. Though we have to be careful even their – some of this occured in very early 2017 and was essentially the completion of transactions that started while Biden was VP.
The other factor that must be considered is that all corruption and crime is not bribery.
The Biden syndicate was engaged in influence pedaling. Some of that is legal if immoral. Some of what is legal requires conforming to a wide collection of anti-corruption laws including FARA.
There is ZERO doubt that the Biden syndicate did not comply with FARA. To the extent that Joe Biden was part of that syndicate – he too is gulty of violating FARA. Next we have tax issues – Hunters are pretty much infamous at this point. But other members of the Biden family appear to have failed to pay taxes over the past decade – though so far none so egregiously as Hunter.
The labeling of payments to Joe as Loan Payments is a huge red flag for tax evasion.
loan repayments are not taxable. Which is why tax cheats often try to misrepresent income as loans.
Paul Manafort ACTUALLY loaned himself money – from his tax free offshore income – you do not owe taxes on money made outside of the US – until you bring it into the US. But you CAN legally loan yourself money from outside sources – but if you do so you MUST document it properly and actually treat the loan as a loan. If you do not charge market interest rates – it is not considered a loan. If you do not make regular repayment it is not considered a loan. Does Joe Biden have the appropriate loan documentation for these loans that are allegedly being repaid – if there are no records of Joe Giving the money to Hunter or James or the businesses that are repaying these “loans” that is tax fraud. If there is no record of regular payments at market interest rates – that is tax fraud. If there are not properly executed loan documents – that is tax fraud.
And Tax Fraud is a crime.
There are many ways Biden’s foreign revenue in 2017 could pose a serious criminal problem for him.
There are a FEW ways that it still could constitute bribery.
3 Republican groups in 3 states have announced they will file lawsuits to remove Biden from the ballot. One of these is Pennsyvania – which is a must win state for the next president.
Prior to the CO SC’s nonsense – this would be ludicrous and should be laughed out of court.
But the CO SC has created a huge problem for democrats. The claims of law and of facts that they relied on in their decision – work as well if not better regarding Biden than Trump.
Several sources I followed have noted that you can not commit insurrection as president. To be clear that does NOT mean that you can not act illegally or act immorally and get impeached. But the Commander in Chief of the US can not commit insurrection.
That is significant – as Biden may have to rely on that to prevail on the ballot challenges based on allowing the southern border to be overrun by carttels, and drug dealers and human trafickers. That is ONE of the 14th amendment claims being leveled against Biden.
The “the president can not do that” defense that Biden is likely to raise will apply to Trump.
There is also a claim that by giving funds to Iran Biden was giving “aide and comfort to our enemies” – that is a SEPARATE clause in the 14th amendment. It is a clause that CAN apply to sitting presidents. Iran is a known state sponsor of terrorism. And is currently supporting terrorist acts all over the world. Hezzbolla is funded by Iran, the Houthis are funded by Iran.
Right now the Houthis are disrupting Trade, engaging in acts of piracy and have committed acts of War against the US.
While I do not beleive we should be weaponizing the 14th amendment – if we are going their – the case against Biden is stronger than the case against Trump.
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,’
Sir Walter Scott.
I support the efforts to remove Biden from the ballot in all 50 states.
While I do not beleive we should be doing this, one of the best ways to get the Supreme court to dispose of this idiocy as quickly as possible is to make it perfectly clear that there is no limit to the lunatic CO SC decision. This can go far beyond Biden.
Democratic Representatives who voted for the Iran deal – could be removed from the ballot,
Or who voted not to fund a southern wall.
The 3rd clause of the 14th amendment was a mistake at the time it was passed. Throughout subsequent history it was invoked 5 time, all by congress not states. In what world does anyone believe the framers of the 14th amendment intended southern Sec. States to decide the ballot eligibility of former confederates ? That alone should dispose of the stupid notion that the 14th amendment is self executing.
Congress attempted to stop seating 5 former confederates to the house of representatives. It only succeeded twice.
Over the next 50+ years thousands of former confederates served as repreentatives, senators, supreme court justices as well as state governors, senators, representatives, judges, …..
The Federal government even eventually dropped charges against Jefferson Davis the president of the confederacy.
The same people who drafted the 14th amendment very quickly decided not to use it again EVER.
It is a bad idea. The constitution specifically defines the crime of treason – the ONLY crime in the constitution, It does so specifically to preclude politicians from weaponizing claims of treason against political enemies. We see this all the time in $hithole countries.
The 3rd clause of the 14th amendment reniges on that wisdom in the constitution itself – as we see right here and now.
Now instead of using vague claims of treason to punish political foes, we are using “insurrection”
in the same way. Scotus can not unfortunately pretend the 3rd clause of the 14th amendment is not present.
But they can make it clear that insurrection is not subject to politically weaponization, that the power to restrict someone from the ballot under the 14th amendment must be VERY limited and must be excercised with great care and numerous checks and balances.
Or we can just play a game of seeing which of Biden or Trump can survive ballot challenges in key states.
“[T]he business dealings he can speak to are from 2017, when Joe Biden was not a public office holder.”
That is false.
Bobulinski’s involvement and evidence started in *2015* — when JB was VP.
Great Moments in Unintended Consequences
https://youtu.be/Oztz17JUpr0
What does Maga mean
https://youtu.be/irYTIAoy4H0
Question from a legitimate White House press Corp to KJP: Do you think it showed bad judgement for the President to use his degenerate son as the bagman for the family influence peddling racket?
And they’d get one of the following 3 answers:
I’m just not going to get into that from here.
I refer you to the Bidens dog Commander, he can be contacted at the local pound.
The answer remains the same as it has always been. President Biden loves his son and chocolate mint ice cream.