“Lies.” That response was a mantra for President Joe Biden, who denied ever meeting or knowing about his son’s foreign dealings. Despite the pronounced lack of interest by most media outlets in the alleged multimillion dollar influence-peddling scheme, the House and conservative groups have doggedly pursued the matter and found overwhelming evidence that the President has repeatedly lied about his interactions with foreign clients. Now, a new photo further contradicts the President, who recently pardoned his son for any crimes committed over a ten-year period.
America First Legal has been engaged in a prolonged legal fight with the National Archives to get access to the undisclosed evidence. It recently won critical rulings forcing the release. The discovery includes this photo of then-vice president Joe Biden meeting with Hunter and his clients. It adds to an already ample photographic and testimonial record contradicting the President’s past denials.
The House has released records showing $27 million in payments from foreign sources to Hunter Biden and his business partners from 2014 to 2019. Hunter used official trips with his father to facilitate some of these associations.
Despite denying meeting with these clients or knowing anything about his son’s dealings, it was later revealed that Biden was repeatedly put on a speakerphone with clients, attended dinners, and took pictures with them, including BHR Partners CEO Jonathan Li. A key witness said that he sat down with Joe Biden specifically to discuss these foreign deals with this son.
Joe Biden later wrote college recommendation letters for Li’s son and daughter.
In the summer of 2019, Li wired Hunter Biden $250,000 that originated in Beijing and had Joe Biden’s Delaware home as the beneficiary address.
There were diamonds as gifts, lavish expense accounts, and a sports car, in addition to massive payments that Hunter claimed were “loans.” There are messages like the one to a Chinese businessman openly threatening the displeasure of Joe Biden if money is not sent to them immediately. In the WhatsApp message, Hunter stated:
“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the Chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
After years of ignoring the influence-peddling scandal, the media is not likely to suddenly pursue the story. If you want to see one of the reasons why the public is abandoning the legacy media for new media, just look at this photo.
In the meantime, Democrats have praised or rationalized Biden for pardoning his son despite the fact that it covered possible crimes that might implicate not just Hunter but his father in corruption.
Only two out of ten Americans support the pardon. However, Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate majority whip, called it a “labor of love.”
And, as we learned in a certain 1970 film, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry” . . . particularly when you have pardon power.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Dear Mr. Turley, it seems to me the country needs a completely non-partisan group to look at Mr. Biden’s pardon of his son and issue their findings and settle this thing once and for all. Both sides on this keep stating cheap shots at the other and nothing is resolved. Robert Hur would be an excellent choice as he was spot on regarding Mr. Biden’s mental decline and showed no malice towards the aging president.
Robert Hur would be an excellent choice as he was spot on regarding Mr. Biden’s mental decline and showed no malice towards the aging president.
A perfect choice to investigate his boss, The Big Guy, a second time as he showed no prosecutorial interest the first time towards the aging president. The president he never said was also too incompetent to remain in office as his boss. Think of that (as all normal Americans have)!
Too incompetent to be indicted (despite the fact we regularly indict aging mobsters, a few Nazi war criminals, etc). Perfectly competent to have the nuclear football and remain Commander In Chief!
You’re a very, very busy little Anonymous Democrat coward this morning, ‘Anonymous’.
Old Airborne Dog
“this thing” IS settled once and for all. Hunter Biden has been pardoned–that’s it–that’s all. Republicans wasted millions of our tax dollars trying to get something criminal on Biden, but there was nothing there. No quid pro quo- no money going to Biden–no favors conferred. And, no, Hur, a Republican stooge, was not “spot on” claiming that Biden has “mental decline”–that is a product of MAGA media. Biden has always battled a stuttering problem, and being slower to respond for someone over the age of 80 is not a sign of mental decline.
Name that exact dollar figure Gigenius, that Republicans wasted, and then do crossfire hurricane and mueller.
Fvcking idiot.
Biden took money from his son. Hunter said so, more than once.
He also got money from his brother and paid cash for a 1.8 million dollar beach house.
LIAR
WHERE IS THE PROOF?
AN important announcement:
The MegaMillions lotto is now $1.15 BILLION USD.
We urge you to go buy (1) $2.00 and sign the back of the Ticket to: 10% to “The Big Guy’s” Blog (a.k.a. JONATHAN TURLEY’s – Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks).
So that a small percentage will be given to the Staff:
So That …
Daren can see as many Taylor Swift concerts that he likes.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-mega-millions-jackpot-is-more-than-1-billion-heres-how-many-taylor-swift-tickets-iphones-and-private-jets-you-could-buy-if-you-won-170852106.html
Kristin can get a new Herman Miller’ Eames Executive Chair
https://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/office-chairs/eames-executive-chairs/
and
Hartwell Harrison can drive behind the wheel of anything that comes in 12 cylinders and Ferrari red.
Republicans have a far bigger problem. Both Bush and Trump destroyed the party of Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln.
As a kid growing up during the Cold War, our Republican parents, teachers and leaders taught us that America was great because of our Independent Judiciary (non-partisan courts), limited constitutional government and our checks & balances to prevent absolute power. Trump wants to destroy Reagan’s vision.
George W. Bush began to dismantle the Reagan values by violating Reagan’s Torture Treaty (also federal criminal law) and restoring J. Edgar Hoover’s “Cointelpro” blacklisting program (adopted from the communist block nations like East Germany).
Trump building on the Bush’s foreign model of government, attempted to illegally overthrow and subvert our constitutional system of government and steal the votes of millions of American voters.
Trump biggest thank you should be to Democrat Merrick Garland for choosing not to enforce the law against Trump in 2021.
In 2006, a great documentary titled “Boogie Man…the Lee Atwater Story” also confirms the rejection of Ronald Reagan by today’s RINO Republicans!
Today in 2024, we now know most voters in the United States (including independent voters) voted against Trump’s anti-Reagan values! Today’s RINOs didn’t win by a landslide and don’t have a mandate for radical change, most voters voted against Trump!
“Today in 2024, we now know most voters in the United States (including independent voters) voted against Trump’s anti-Reagan values! Today’s RINOs didn’t win by a landslide and don’t have a mandate for radical change, most voters voted against Trump!; you seem a little more addled this morning than usual, perhaps it is the impending inauguration of Trump, but surely you should base your posts on facts rather than prog/left TDS fantasies. It is getting weary….
“Republicans have a far bigger problem. Both Bush and Trump destroyed the party of Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln.”
Political parties change all the time.
“As a kid growing up during the Cold War, our Republican parents, teachers and leaders taught us that America was great because of our Independent Judiciary (non-partisan courts), limited constitutional government and our checks & balances to prevent absolute power. Trump wants to destroy Reagan’s vision.”
And the left has taken over the courts making them partisan or hyper partisan and expanding the scope of govenrment.
BTW I grew up during the same Cold war and the Party of Reagan was actively fighting left leaning judges that did not follow the constitution then.
I do not recall the GOP ever being the party of an independent judiciary – in the sense that the courts could abuse the constitution to thwart limited government.
“Trump building on the Bush’s foreign model of government, attempted to illegally overthrow and subvert our constitutional system of government and steal the votes of millions of American voters.”
Can you phrase your claim in a way that we can test it against the constitution ?
You say certain acts by Trump were illegal – yet the Charges of Smith and others against Trump regarding the election are all vague and use extremely broad interpretations of the scope of already overly broad statues.
How did Trump try to subvert the constitution ?
Are you claiming that no one can challenge the outcome of an election ?
Disagree with decisions of courts – especially those ot on the merits ?
You say Trump sought to “steal the votes of millions of americans” – how so ?
Can you point to specific americans whose ballots he voided ?
One of the huge problems with the left’s idiotic position on 2020, is that Trump’s claim – from the start, one that has NEVER been refuted and still has alot of support is that
there are millions of ballots in the 2020 election for Biden that are NOT the actual votes of people. That either those people do not exist, or that they did not cast that ballot,
or that they did not cast any ballot.
It seems to me that ANY constitutional system of government requires that voting be conducted first according to the law, and then according to laws that assure that it is the actual votes of real people that are counted, not however many ballots one party is able to inject into the election.
You can argue that did not occur, but the indisputable FACT is that the 2020 election was conducted without regard to election laws that made it more difficult to inject ballots into the election.
I would note that the results of the 2024 election cast further doubt on the 2020 election and support Trump’s claims.
In 2020 Biden got 81M votes in comparison to Trumps 75M.
In 2024 Trump got 77M votes in comparison to Harris’s 74M.
About 6M votes disappeared between 2020 and 2024.
This despite the fact that both parties registered more voters than ever
and that far more public and media attention was given to the 2024 election than the 2020 one.
We would expect that the total number of votes cast – would increase, not decrease.
While Trump’s cotes increased by a few million – consistent with increasing GOP votes in each cycle dating back to 2012.
Harris’s vote count dropped by almost 10M compared to Biden’s.
Are these democrat voters that just decided not to vote in 2024 ? There is no evidence that millions of Trump voters decided not to vote in 2024.
Or is that approximately 10M “fake” votes ?
I do not know the answer – and neither do you. Because election law was not followed in 2020, it is impossible to tell if ballots were counted that did not come from real people.
Several things are different between 2020 and 2024.
First over the past 4 years even the left wing nut courts that allowed lawless elections have been backtracking.
In 2020 the PA supreme court allowed counting undated mailin ballots, in 2024 they partly followed the law and required ballots to be dated.
In 2020 the PA supreme court allowed counting ballots that arrived substantially after the election was over. In 2024 they did not.
2nd the RNC gather a corp of 260,000 volunteer election monitors and 9000 election lawyers and deployed them primarily to battlegorund cities in battleground states.
It was FAR HARDER in 2024 for the machinations that Trump alleged in 2020 to occur in 2024.
One of the problems with large scale election fraud is that if you get caught – even once, things can escalate quickly.
The left claims J6 was an insurrection. But if it is proveable that millions of ballots were counted that did NOT come from voters in 2020.
Then an actual insurrection – tens of thousands of ARMED protestors marching on the capitol are justified.
One of the very important reasons that Trump’s claims regarding 2020 needed to be examine on their merits – which did not occur, is specifically because if the election results are not trustworthy the resulting government is not legitimate and an actual armed insurrection is justified.
Regardless, the RNC made sure in 2024 that the conduct Trump alleged in 2020 could not be done without getting caught.
And no one engages in election fraud while they are being watched.
“Trump biggest thank you should be to Democrat Merrick Garland for choosing not to enforce the law against Trump in 2021.”
not sure how you get there ? Garland appointed an unconstitutional special counsel to “enforce vague over board interpretations of unconstitutionally vague laws”
Seems like Garland did exactly what you say he did not.
“Today in 2024, we now know most voters in the United States (including independent voters) voted against Trump’s anti-Reagan values! ”
Not so. Official tallies now have Trump with 49.8% of the vote – no one else is close. All you have to do is include RFK jr. voters in states where RFK jr. was thwarted from removing his name from the ballot.
Regardless YOU are proposing a new election standard. In the US you win an election by winning the Electoral college.
But the left has introduced a new requirement that you win the popular vote, and now you are adding one that requires that you win more than 50% of the vote.
Trump won the Electoral college by a landslide. Republicans swept the senate and fell a very small amount short of flipping 4 more senate seats.
Republicans narrowly won the house. Trump won the popular vote. He won every single swing state.
Now you want to add a new requirement that he must also win 51% of the vote otherwise you will ot accept the result ?
Keep moving the goal posts.
Regardless you are correct that Trump does NOT have a mandate for radical EXPANSION of federal power.
But he DOES have a mandate for RADICAL cuts in federal power.
You yourself emphasized “limited government” – Trump has a mandate to restore constitutional limited govenrment – you do not need 51% of the vote for that mandate.
it is going BEYOND limited govenrment that requires not merely majority support – but super majority support – including amending the constitution.
“WASHINGTON — When Ronald Reagan came to power eight years ago, he pledged to bring to the federal courts a new breed of conservative judges who would reverse the ‘judicial activism’ of the past three decades.
Slowly but surely, Reagan has accomplished his goal and will leave office in January having appointed half of the federal judiciary.”
From ojp.gov
“Under the Reagan administration, the judicial selection process has been made more formal by institutionalizing tasks and interactions that previously were more fluid and informal. The center of judicial selection activity has shifted from the Deputy Attorney General’s Office to the Office of Legal Policy. The main innovation, however, is the creation of the President’s Committee on Federal Judicial Selection. This nine-member committee gives the White House an active role in judicial selection. The Reagan administration is the first Republican administration in 30 years in which the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary was not actively used and consulted in the prenomination stage. Data on the 129 Reagan first-term appointments to Federal district courts showed that about 40 percent were members of the judiciary, over 70 percent had either judicial or prosecutorial experience, and a majority had private college background. Comparison with previous administrations’ appointments showed that the typical Republican appointee tended to be of higher socioeconomic status than the typical Democratic appointee. The Reagan administration’s appointment of women was second only to that of the Carter administration, “
Here is Reagon on the federal judiciary.
Why are you commenting as “Anonymous”? You are the guy who has frequently commented as Ashcroft’s [insert rest of name here]. I believe the name you used to use was “Ashcroft’s Zeitgeist”, but I may not be misremembering the second word in your handle.
Turley, being a nature enthusiast, really loves beating a dead horse, a lot. He’s well aware that influence peddling is totally legal. Some right-leaning justices on the Supreme Court even see it as free speech. A photo? Come on, that doesn’t prove Biden did anything wrong or took bribes. Pretty soon, Trump will be pulling the same stuff, and you can bet Turley will just gloss over it like usual. Trump’s also going to be busy making threats against the media and former officials for holding him accountable.
If congress finds Biden to be cognitively impaired, can’t they disavow all his pardons?
By that light, most of our nation’s legislations (especially true in blue states and on that side of the aisle in congress) would all be declared null and void. You would have to be mentally deficient to protect illegals, kill babies and defund police – just as a sample of the impaired decisions made by progs these past 60+ years. I think you should follow this through, perhaps it would enable us to dismantle the welfare system and most blue states.
If George understood what big words like “reading comprehension” meant, he would understand that what he read was, “…President Joe Biden, who denied ever meeting or knowing about his son’s foreign dealings.” Please, George, show us where JT SAID “Biden did anything wrong or took bribes.” What he DID say is that there seems to be some good evidence that Biden LIED. Poor Georgie.
Turley, being a nature enthusiast, really loves beating a dead horse, a lot.
George, playing the part of bumbling clown Larry in the Democrat slapstick comedy group The Three Democrat Stooges, really loves coming here to do an Adam Schiff routine every day to vent his hatred of his host, Professor Turley. What did Professor Turley do to George to cause such hatred?
1. Why doesn’t George publish his own blog, rather than coming here to use the blog of Professor Turley who he hates so much to publish his sophomoric nattering?
2. Why does George believe he has the slightest shred of respect and/or credibility with the actual audience here?
Old Airborne Dog
” He’s well aware that influence peddling is totally legal. ”
Incorrect. The supreme court has merely required that influence peddling must be proven – that we can not support criminal prosecutions for bribery merely on freindly relations between parties and favorable treatment. That an actual quid pro quo must exist. The Hunter Biden quote above is a CLEAR Quid Pro Quo.
There have been innumerable convictions – including the recent conviction of Sen. Mendez for bribery and public corruption.
I would note that the courts decision on McDonald was NOT a free speech decision, it was a standard of proof decision.
The courts long ago decided that speach that is conduct is not protected by the first amendment.
A Mafia don can not direct a capo to put concrete boots on an enemy and have him swim with the fishes.
Hunter Biden’s threats to Chinese “businessmen” if they do not give him millions immediately are not protected free speech, they are criminal extortion.
There is absolutely no doubt at all that Hunter Biden’s conduct in these foreign influence peddling operations is criminalm and that extortion is not protected free speech.
The Questions have been:
Why wasn;’t hunter investigated and prosecuted for crimes he undeniably committed – such as extortion ?
And what was Joe Biden’s role in those crimes.
As Turley has repeatedly noted, a criminal quid pro quo in a bribery case need not be a personal benefit, it can be a benefit to family.
“A photo? Come on, that doesn’t prove Biden did anything wrong or took bribes.”
Correct, but it proves that he and his supporters and his whitehouse have lied
and whether you like it or not in a criminal case proving that the defendant lied repeatedly is admissible, and is
sufficient for a jury to conclude that the lie was an effort to hide criminal conduct.
“Pretty soon, Trump will be pulling the same stuff”
If you have Trump pulling the “same stuff” – you can go after him.
Yet, there is no evidence that he did in the past.
Free exchange that does not involve the use of government power is not a violation of bribery laws, nor an illegal quid pro quo.
“Give me $100K and I will give you a florida condo” is legal.
“Give me a Million or I will use government power to make your life hell” is criminal extortion.
John Say, the biggest problem with your claims is that there is no evidence. Not even evidence of a qui pro quo. Jim Jordan and James Comer tried for nearly two years and came up empty handed. Like you, all they could muster is allegations and claim them as proof. Similarly, saying there’s evidence is not evidence.
The cases you cited all had concrete evidence not allegations. Even if some evidence were to be true you’re well aware that the Supreme Court made prosecution of bribery to be a very precise and narrow set of standards. They even went as far as imply that certrain kinds of bribery could be considered protected free speech activity.
Turley and most of Biden’s critics like you keep mentioning crimes but never state explicitly what crimes were committed. All the “evidence” that is being offered are allegations and unsubtantiated claims. Influence peddling is indeed legal. Lobbyists engage in it every day. Making deals with foreign nationals and making money are completely legal.
Biden may have lied, so what. Every politician lies including Trump. It’s not a crime to lie. You are perfectly fine with lying from politicians even by Trump. Trump lies incessantly so why would it be any different if Biden lied about being in a picture or simply meeting with Hunter’s business partners? Talking to people and meeting them is not a crime or proof of bribery. Turley loves to insinuate a lot from run of the mill meetings and contacts. He should be a mystery novel writer instead of a legal analyst.
Biden won’t get prosecuted or charged. Trump will be busy overreaching and creating chaos that will most certainly result in republicans losing control of congress in two years. Especially when he fails to keep his promise of lowering consumer prices and energy prices.
ugly hateful and insulting George (with vengeful low self-image) says, “Turley loves to insinuate a lot from run of the mill meetings and contacts. He should be a mystery novel writer instead of a legal analyst.”
Georgie should be a comic book writer instead of a legal blog commenter. He has no idea what a “legal analyst” does.
Whereas, comic book readers enjoy and laugh at comic (get it, “comic?”) books, but no one believes their content.
John Say, the supreme court made it very difficult to prosecute for bribery by very narrowly defining the criteria. Influence peddling is legal and only very specific circumstances would make it illegal. Biden’s actions and that of Hunter were perfectly legal. Calling what they did crimes without the required concrete proof just makes them into run of the mill allegations. Jim Jordan and James Comer spent two years trying to find proof and they failed. No charges, no indictments of bribery or any other crimes were levied against Joe Biden.
You allege President Biden “sold the office” but that is not evidence of a crime with proof of what he allegedly “sold”. If you are referring to influence that is actually legal. Lobbyists do this all the time with congressmen and senators. Even Trump did this in his first terrm.
Bribery that benefitted his family? Again, what is the evidence. Mere benefit is not enough evidence to charge anyone wiith bribery. As SCOTUS clearly stated there must be clear evidence of a quid pro quo and proof the intent behind it would be a benefit of the exchange. We arleady know the bribery allegations against Biden were lies fabricated by Smirnov who admitted to lying about it and the DOJ has proof he lied. That leavees us back to just allegations. We know that allegations are not proof, but you seem want allegations to be enough to call it evidence.
Biden won’t be charged with anything and thanks to the Supreme Court’s expansive new definition of presidential immunity Biden could still be immune from any prosecution if it were to come to that.
Biden lied? So what. It’s not a crime. Every poltician lies. Even Trump and we all know you don’t really care if he does or not. Just as long as he is a “leftist” to you lying is a convenient excuse to criticize what you accept of others on the right. Just as you are perfectly fine with someone calling the shots besides Biden as Elon was for Trump. The hypocrisy of your position was astonishing and unsurprising.
Threatening people who have committed crimes with prosecution for those crimes is completely legal.
I know that thinking is difficult for left wing nuts – but threats are protected free speech – except when what is threatened is an illegal act.
Hunter Threatened to have Joe Biden abuse public power if he was not given millions immediately – that is extortion.
Threatening to investigate and prosecute violations of the law is perfectly legal.
Regardless – What Threats has made against the media or former officials ?
Trump can threaten to hold them accountable for violations of the law.
But see the New York Rules of Professional Conduct when such threats are made in the context of civil litigation.
John Say,
“Threatening people who have committed crimes with prosecution for those crimes is completely legal.”
The issue is that holding someone accountable is not a crime. Doing your job as a prosecutor is not a crime either. However, threatening retribution as a president is authoritarian. Your position supports authoritarianism.
P.S>: H&J Biden China Trip Photos:
https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/19163754/Hunter-Biden-photos-2013-2014.pdf
A leader with 34 felony convictions and convicted of rape in a civil trial has no moral high ground to judge anyone.
Oh, certainly higher than those lying that he was convicted of rape. So there’s that.
Who are you referring to?
Hillary Clinton committed the same crimes that Trump was convicted of. Two didferences: HRC mislabeled Steele Dossier payments as “Legal Services,” and the FEC actually fined her for her deception. So why wasn’t this NY resident who ran her csmpaign out of NYC prosecuted for these felonies?
“Convicted of rape in a civil trial” is a contradiction in terms. Further, a jury of his peers specifically found Trump NOT LIABLE for rape.
kangaroo courts can reach astoundingly odd decisions, remember all the witch burnings done by fanatics in Salem? Just keeping it in perspective.
To correct you mistatements, Trump was sued and paid damages for sexual abuse or harassment, not rape which is a serious crime. Trump was convicted for classifying payments made to his lawyer as legal expenses in his accounting records. Some of these payments were to compensate the lawyer for securing an NDA on Trump’s behalf. The payments were appropriately classified by accounting standards.
I would further note that the Bragg and James case are “fraud” cases. The supreme court – as well as hundreds of years of common law specify that fraud is a property crime.
That means that without real tangible harm – a person of persons being deprived of something tangible that is theirs by right there can be no crime.
Why is this important ?
Joe Biden has lied repeatedly about meeting with Hunter’s clients.
By the standard used in the Bragg and James cases – that is fraud and Joe can be prosecuted for it.
But no one is seeking to prosecute Joe for lying about meeting with hunter’s clients.
Joe lying about those meetings is not a crime.
But it can be used as evidence that Joe was lying to hide an actual crime.
As you noted Trump did not lie by calling payments to a lawyer legal expenses.
But even if he did – such a lie would still not be a crime, UNLESS that lie deprived a real person of real property that was actually theirs.
We would all like it if people lied less.
But with rare exceptions lying is not a crime.
One of the reasons that is so is self evident by the posts here.
What those on the left call “lies” by Trump quite often proves to be the truth.
We can not jail people for saying things that we think are lies without ending up with everyone those in power do not like in jail.
Often determining if something is a lie is highly subjective.
A manhattan jury decided that saying a payment to a lawyer was a legal expense was a lie.
The people of the jury are free to make that subjective determination as to what constituties a lie.
Just as the rest of us can conclude they are full of schiff.
But we can not impose criminal sanctions on such highly subjective determinations.
The statute the jury decided that Trump violated is a fraud statute.
It is NOT sufficient that the jury decide subjectively that Trump lied.
They must also find that Trump used that lie to deprive another person of real property against their wishes.
There was absolutely no effort to do so in the Manhattan case.
We can debate the subjective question of whether trump lied.
But there is no crime without tangible harm, and prosecutors made no effort to even claim tangible harm.
John Say,
“The Supreme Court – along with centuries of common law – clearly defines fraud as a property crime.”
It’s crucial to note that John consistently confuses federal law with state law. Trump was charged under state law, and New York has its own specific definition of what constitutes fraud. The federal definition is only relevant when federal charges are filed. The Supreme Court’s opinions apply strictly to the interpretation of federal statutes, not state law. Trump was charged and convicted under New York state law, and John Say fails to grasp that the existence of a definition in federal statute does not override state law. It simply does not work that way.
No, it was a unique lie by the new york powers and has never occurred before and won’t in the future because it was so stupid and so ridiculous no one had ever tried it or been convicted of it before.
Now it’s a weight on the necks of the new yorkers, to their utter shame and possible loss of trillions in business if they dare try it ever again.
A leader with 34 felony convictions and convicted of rape in a civil trial has no moral high ground to judge anyone.
A cowardly Anonymous Democrat child rapist on the loose deflecting from their mentor, The Pedophile In Chief, who has never been put on trial for raping his daughter in the shower will not be a surprise when they anonymously claim a leader was “convicted of rape in a civil trial”.
It cost George Stephanopolos $15 Million for making that claim. But George Stephanopolos didn’t make that claim while posting Anonymously, he did so with an identifiable name.
And this is why you feckless Democrat cowards refuse to attach a username to your lies. Your welfare cheques couldn’t support the Bull Schiff emanating from that second anus you have in the middle of your face.
Old Airborne Dog
C’mon man! Civil trials don’t result in convictions! Moreover the bogus convictions in Manhattan (if that’s what you are referring to) may be overturned by the Appellate Division Fourth Department. Bragg’s case is flawed.
George Washington was in an entangling alliance with France.
Yes, and what are the implications of that.
True, he was receiving arms and ships from the French to aid in our revolution, but at least he wasn’t skimming 10% for the “”The Big Guy” and then easing his family into the grift and he only had one home and it wasn’t near a beach.
When Trump was convicted by a jury of sexual assault, he couldn’t even identify his former wife in a very clear photograph.
Biden probably meets hundreds of people in a single year, but betting Biden could remember what his wife looks like!
Trump guessed that a woman in a photo taken a decade before the alleged Bergdorf incident was his second wife.
Biden doesn’t even know where he is most of the time – so what is your point? That TDS is going to turn your grey matter in to oatmeal if you don’t seek treatment soon.
Biden probably meets hundreds of people in a single year, but betting Biden could remember what his wife looks like!
Want to run a poll here on how many believe Biden clearly recognized it was his daughter he was “inappropriately” having sex with in the shower, rather than First Babysitter Jill?
I’ll be happy to cover any bet you want to make that readers here will believe your claim Biden couldn’t recognize it was his daughter that he was nailing in the shower.
BTW, now that you’re floundering around attempting to deflect from Biden White House Crime LLC and want to talk about sexual assault:
What is it when you’re nailing your daughter in the shower?
Incest?
Rape?
Sexual Assault?
Child Abuse?
Old Airborne Dog
RML
The woman in the 30 year old B&W photo looked a great deal like Marla Maples. and Neither that women nor Mapples look anything like that today or have in several decades.
I have little doubt that Biden would be fooled by a B&W photo of him with a women that looked similar to Jill taken 30 years ago
Regardless the purpose of the photo was to prove that Trump has “met” E Jean Carrol.
The plantiffs were able to establish that once in 5 decades Carrol and Trump were close enough to be photographed together.
That does not actually establish that they “met” or knew each other.
Even if Trump had had a 5 minute conversation with Carrol that would not contradict Trump’s claim that he did not know who she was.
Can you identify every person you have ever spent 5 minutes with in your entire life ?
I can not name all my classmates in High School – even some I spent hours with.
Worse still – I have confused one classmate with another – because in 50 year old photos they look similar.
And most of them look nothing like they did 50 years ago.
How long before GWU escorts Prof. Turley to the door?
For the indiscretion of exposing the misdeeds of the Left, an unforgivable offense to any academic community. For shame, JT!
By his own undertanding of the rules, a private entity could do that if it wanted to.
Pacta sunt servanda. Turley could not simply be fired at this point
In 2017, Joe Biden was working to frame General Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr for a bogus FARA violation as Joe “Big Guy” Biden was protecting Hunter Biden from a real FARA violation with China in deals that were making the Biden family rich.
CF, what you wrote is true and it is just one of the reasons I disagree whenever some weak minded person says that they feel sorry for Biden due to his dementia. Biden has always been an evil little corrupt moron.
Biden went from being dumb and dumber (hence the plagiarism) to being demented! He has been in various stages since, at least 2019/2020, but the Biden RICO “family” wanted and needed him in the WhiteHouse. And the USA pays the price.
I know, I know what this looks like; photos, UPenn office, classified docs, bank wires, text messages, emails, whatsapp, trips, phone calls, meetings. I mean seriously, that’s all just a bunch of malarkey. He’s the Scranton kid. It’s all just coincidental that his actual policies couldn’t have been more hostile to the United States. That’s just bad luck. Now, about those extreme MAGA Republicans…
Despite all the evidence, Big Media will continue to label allegations of grift against Hunter/Joe as “unconfirmed”. (Psst, we know better. Joe & Son were international grifters, squeezing $$ out of foreigners for access to the VP/President, a man named Joe, aka the “Big Guy”.)
Oh yeah, how could I forget; that whole Covid origin/Wuhan lab leak/gain-of-function conspiracy theories might appear that Biden’s China relationship exposed him to be compromised, but seriously dude, Science Czar Dr. Fauci loves baseball, so it’s all good.
Maybe Joe Biden and the rest of his family can not help being criminals??? Maybe it was their parents’ fault??? It is a little-known fact that Democrat parents tend to raise criminals. For example, these spawn of the Democrat base:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6is7tLQTi8
see also:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/9-year-old-arrested-baltimore-armed-carjacking-robbery-spree
The people that didn’t know, or don’t know, that Biden was knee deep into the corruption regarding China, Ukraine and Russia are the same people that thought that Biden was “sharp as a tack” and running circles around his 30 something years old aides. In other words either partisan hacks or morons. Or like Dennis, Gigi and Anonymous, both partisan and morons.
Bidens got Million from Ukraine…Ukraine got Billions….it really is that Criminal!
You’re just jealous because you didn’t get any.
To me, Hunter’s accumulation of millions from a corrupt Ukrainian politician implicated Joe in sn emoluments clause violation, considering no one rational would go to a crackhead for advice, and there already was a US licensed lawyer on the board. The only reason seemed to be that VP Daddy Joe had been named,Obama’s polnt man for Ukraine.
No there is no emoluments clause violation here – just as there was not regarding Trump.
The Biden’s are guilty of abuse of public power for personal profit. Plain and simple.
Ukraine got two wars with widespread death and destruction that we ended up paying cash for – because Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden refused to honor our commitment to defend Ukraine in exchange for them surrendering their deterrent nukes that scared us so much when we gave America’s promise.
This is how you make America’s word and credibility meaningless to both friendly and adversarial nations.
Old Airborne Dog
When I read that Biden was taking his adult children to China in 2013…I KNEW it was a CRIME…EVERYONE KNEW it was a CRIME
Republicans, DC and Democrats IGNORE THEIR CRIMES
Time to REMOVE 50% of DC spending….move 75% of the remaining federal government out of DC. Defund the criminals!
“After years of ignoring the influence-peddling scandal, the media is not likely to suddenly pursue the story.”
Respectfully, when will “influencer peddling” be called by its real name? It is bribery.
Biden’s legacy is emerging. He was for sale and could be bought for a price. He made a Faustian bargain. He will go down in history as one of the worst and most destructive Presidents in our history, perhaps THE worst.
everyone who protected the criminal biden crimes…need to be JAIL along with ALL THE BIDENS
A newly discovered photo? Highly unlikely. Just another example of news suppression and OMISSION of facts by a lying, colluding, complicit, bought off legacy news media that makes Russia’s Pravda pale in comparison.
I believe there was a picture of Obama with Louis Farrakhan that was hidden during the full 8 years of Obama’s presidency. The media didn’t want the stupid people to “think” that Obama was a radical or that he had racist friends. See Wright, Jerimiah.
Obama’s life was an embellishment, per Hillary Clinton. And yet, Obama today is a multi-millionaire in spite of not bringing any cures or new drugs to market, identifying new academic theories to explain unexplained phenomena, not even for winning a Noble Prize. Oh wait…..
Nobel Prize motivation: “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”
Memo to Noble Prize committee: that red line identified by Barack was red due to the slaughter of innocents by Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad. If slaughtering people via drones is worthy of a Noble Prize, then yeah, impressive cooperation Barack fostered: just
grab them by the pussykill innocent civilians3/25/2008
Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements
Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.
“Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won’t do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, “Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]
Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. “Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ‘the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.’ ‘I just did that last year,’ he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.” [New York Times, 2/2/08]
Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. “Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: ‘I meant the whole civil rights movement.'” [New York Times, 3/5/07]
LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. “As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld’s asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.’ Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]
Chicago Tribune: Obama’s assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing ‘strains credulity.’ “…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 — more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.” [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]
Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House.’ “White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday — a flat declaration that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House’ after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying — in contrast to his written pledge — at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]
FactCheck.org: ‘Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama’s health plan.’ “Obama’s ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama’s plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn’t analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that “experts” say Obama’s plan is “the best.” “Experts” turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren’t actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama’s plan “guarantees coverage for all Americans,” neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it’s only Clinton’s and Edwards’ plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama’s would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]
Sen. Obama said ‘I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,’ but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. “As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage.” The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that “The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a ‘cloud’ over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year.” [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]
ABC News: ‘Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made’ on ethics reform. “ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of “bundlers,” those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is “because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that.” Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama’s amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What’s more, although Obama’s amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a ‘law’ that the Illinois Democrat has ‘pushed through’ but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.” [ABC News, a=href”http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html”>7/23/07]
Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. “When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from ‘Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser’ to ‘Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll’ to ‘Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.’ Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it.” [politico.com, 5/9/07]
https://web.archive.org/web/20080326030237/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6752
it’s hard to think of a bigger fraud than Barack Obama. Yet here we are discussing Joseph Biden’s fraudulent political life.
I’m not a lawyer but a blanket pardon for undisclosed, unspecified crimes seems so egregiously wrong that it ought to be invalid, unconstitutional, and impeachable. Maybe this can be repaired by a combination of legislation and Supreme Court decisions.
Meanwhile, with a little luck and honesty, maybe the corruption of the Obama and Biden administrations can be unwound and punished. Severely.
I’m not holding my breath.
Also, I’m expecting POTATUS to issue a stream of pardons before he exits.
Meanwhile, democrat talk of not certifying the election as a way to keep Trump from being innaugurated is the single most stupid political move I’ve ever heard.
Who the F do these people, and I use the term ‘people’ very loosely, think they are?
I am a lawyer and “a blanket pardon for undisclosed, unspecified crimes” is clearly invalid as a “pardon”. It is a grant of immunity, which is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution or laws of the USA. That question has not been considered by the Supreme Court (nor by any federal Court, to my knowledge) and it would be easy to put that issue before them now. Just indict one of the recipients of such a “pardon” and issue is joined. Let’s get behind this.
* Thank you
Oh no! You don’t mean it??? Biden lied???
Biden lied? Biden lied for the past four years when the evidence was clear… photographs. The mainstream media just did not want to go there. It is not too late to reveal the truth.