Columns, Politics

The Final Corruption of Joe Biden
)

Below is my column in the Hill on the decision of Joe Biden to end his presidency with a final act of ignominy. The use of his pardon authority to protect his own family members was the final corruption of Joe Biden.

Here is the column:

With only 15 minutes to go as president, Joe Biden snatched infamy from the jaws of obscurity.

With record-low polling and widely viewed as a “failed” president, Biden completed his one-man race to the bottom of ethics by issuing preemptive pardons to members of his own family.

The pardons were timed to guarantee that the media would not focus on yet another unethical act by this president. He need not have worried. For four years, the media worked tirelessly to deny or deflect the corruption scandal surrounding the Biden family.

The pardoning of James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens and Francis Biden brought an inescapable clarity to the corruption of what is known in Washington as Biden Inc.

I have written about the Biden family’s corruption for decades. Influence-peddling has always been the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but this city has never seen the likes of the Biden family. Millions of dollars were secured from foreign sources and distributed to various Biden family members.

Biden repeatedly lied about the influence peddling. He long denied knowing about his son’s foreign clients or business. He denied ever meeting Hunter’s clients. Later, photos and emails showed that Biden had clearly met these clients and knew about the business deals. He was fully aware that his family was cashing in on his name and various offices.

Even Biden’s claims about handling the Trump cases were recently contradicted. While long claiming that he left these cases to the Justice Department and took no position on the merits, the Washington Post recently reported that Biden was irate over the failure to prosecute Trump before the election. He also reportedly lashed out at Attorney General Merrick Garland and said he regretted his appointment in light of the failure to nail Trump.

One of the most glaring lies was that he would never pardon his son. Few people believed him. Indeed, Hunter Biden’s bizarre criminal defense made no sense unless he knew that he had a pocket pardon if all else failed.

Once he was forced out of the presidential race, Biden was freed up to sign a pardon for any and all crimes committed over a ten-year period by his son. He insisted that he really hadn’t been lying. He claimed that no ordinary person would have been tried for his son’s crimes — a manifestly untrue statement. He also emphasized that he had to take this step as a father of a son who was a hopeless addict and has now been clean for years.

However, the latest family pardon shatters even that rationalization. These Bidens are not even charged with any crimes, but Biden wanted to give them cover from any possible prosecution for anything. It was the ultimate sign of contempt for the intelligence of the American public and the integrity of his office.

Biden has long exercised situational ethics and, with his powers coming to an end, the situation demanded that he cash out before his credit ended. In granting these pardons, Biden was seeking to protect not just his family but also himself. He was the object of the influence peddling and repeatedly lied to bury the scandal. This insulation of his family serves to move the threat farther from himself.

Biden, however, may have been too clever by half this time. In the final moments of his presidency, He broke into the open and exposed not just himself but his allies in the media. Reporters are now fully visible as willing dupes in one of the greatest corruption scandals in the history of this country.

In his pardon statement, Biden insisted that “the issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.” Of course, that is the very opposite of what most people will conclude. More importantly, the pardons will not end the threat to his family.

Figures such as James Biden have been accused of lying to Congress about the influence-peddling operation. He can still be subpoenaed and, if he lies, he can be charged with a new crime.

Indeed, after James Biden’s pardon, it will be argued that he has less basis to claim the right to remain silent about any alleged crimes committed during the period for which the pardon applies. (He could argue that there is a danger of state charges, but that is less credible due to the running of statutes of limitation and other factors.)

The pardons, if anything, make such an investigation even more compelling for those who want answers to longstanding questions of corruption.

Biden sealed his legacy with a finality that escapes most presidents. While his diminished mental capacity will remain an issue for historians, his longstanding lack of ethics was conclusively established with these pardons. It was Biden’s final act of corruption.

For a president who liked to call others “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” Biden proved that, in the world of political corruption, the ponies are entirely optional.

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.”

346 thoughts on “The Final Corruption of Joe Biden”

  1. On the matter of Elon Musk, he has been accused of making a N-zi salute on live television. Known for being boisterous in front of an audience, Elon Musk grabbed at his heart, and threw his arm out excitedly at the audience on both sides of the stage. He narrated the gesture, “My heart is with you all.”

    Until 48 hours ago, Democrats condemned Elon Musk for being too pro-Israel. Elon Musk has said Hamas should be destroyed, teaching kids in Gaza to hate Jews from the time they can talk has to stop, and he wears a “Bring Them Home” pendant, gifted from the mom of one of the Israeli hostages. Musk just visited Auschwitz about a week ago with Ben Shapiro, and gave a speech criticizing the antisemitism sweeping the globe.

    We are expected to believe that Elon Musk is now a blatant N-zi, ascribes to the most virulent of antisemitism, and thus wants global genocide of all Jews. Strange. He’s been opposing Hamas when we are to believe their goals are aligned.

    It’s going to take more than an arm gesture to convince rational people that Elon Musk is a raging antisemite N-zi. Sadly, there are apparently quite a few irrational people who accepted and repeated the accusation without question.

    1. Agreed. Then again, what do you otherwise expect from a political Party that promotes and puts front-and-center nothing but banshees?

  2. Former President Biden ensured his family would be protected from prosecution from the criminal schemes alleged in Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell. Biden attempted to have his political opponent jailed, through apparatchiks. Under his administration, armed SWAT teams stormed Mar-a-Lago, to seize documents that President Trump had declassified, and was going through the legal process to argue what the NA was entitled to. The NA spends years tracking down documents from former presidents. While claiming Trump had criminally mishandled classified information, President Biden had boxes of classified documents that he’d illegally taken as a Senator and VP, without the ability to declassify a single post it note, in his garage, quoted directly by his son while requesting money from foreign entities, and in the Chinese-funded Penn Biden Center.

    Democrats tell us it’s treason to suggest the 2020 election was meddled with. Yet, we’ve seen Democrats seek to strike President Trump’s name from the ballot, try to imprison him, collude in the claim that we should disbelieve our lying eyes about Joe Biden’s cognitive free fall, and their efforts to strike voter ID. We’ve seen a Democrat activist AG and DA fine Donald Trump half a billion dollars, because they don’t think the banks should have agreed with his assessment of his assets. We’ve seen an activist judge and prosecutor conspire to convict Donald Trump on 36 felonies, on a made up rule that an NDA should have been reported as a campaign contribution to himself. If that rule existed, it would have been an expired misdemeanor, but that was raised to a felony by claiming a report given 90 days after the election was an attempt at election interference. Having doubts about the election results is patriotic if you’re a Democrat, but high treason if you’re a Republican, who must disbelieve their lying eyes on every attempt Democrats have made to put their thumb, entire hand, other hand, both legs, and a boulder on the scales.

  3. Donald Trump took office eight years ago, pledging to “drain the swamp” and end the domination of Washington influence peddlers.
    Now, he’s opening his second term by rolling back prohibitions on executive branch employees accepting major gifts from lobbyists, and ditching bans on lobbyists seeking executive branch jobs or vice versa, for at least two years.

    Well thank goodness. How do you expect top federal executives to make boatloads of money if they have to follow silly ethics rules.

    Drain the swamp? My A$$, trump and his cronies are loading up. Pay attention to how much their net worth increases over the next 4 years. This will make Biden look like a pre school player.

  4. JT, will you devote a column to the Constitutional change process (Article V), and how the opportunistic reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment rationalizing grounds for “birth tourism” could be found null and void because that change to the meaning and impact of 14A was never ratified? Wouldn’t it be easy to prove with evidence that the drafters (and ratifiers) of 14A had no intention of repealing Citizenship by Derivation for children of immigrants? Especially since, in the 30 years following 1868, Citizenship by Derivation for children of immigrants continued. Nothing in the practice of immigration law post-1868 thirty years hence suggested the Amendment pertained to how immigrant babies obtained citizenship.

    1. * We understand kamala Harris is not natural born? Her parents or parent naturalized before she was 18. He was not naturalizedvat her birth. 😂

      Natural born was for reincorporating confederates who once were citizens but swore an oath to the confederacy nullifying their oath to the USA? They had to reswear.

      It doesn’t apply to birth tourism or illegal entry and trespass. Birth certs are a dime a dozen. No one expected this. So yes, it wasn’t ratified as you say.

    3. * Not only that but wives married to citizens do not derive citizenship from the husband but must naturalize and must speak, read and write English and have letters of good moral character. Melania Trump is naturalized for instance. Immigrants learned English quickly for reason.

      No one guessed this as birth certs were obtained and used for passports etc. It was so hidden. It’s huge.

      Well, quite a mess.

  5. If an infant is actually born alive after a failed abortion, and that infant is living and breathing as a human being no longer connected in any way to the mother, should it be protected from death? Should doctors have to exercise the same care for such a child as they would for a child during normal childbirth? Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says the GOP’s attempts to put such protections into law are “pernicious as they come,” because they “attack women’s health care” and use “fearmongering.” Is that true?

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5100557-senate-abortion-bill-born-alive/amp/

    1. This strikes me as an imagined grievance. I’ve never heard of one such case of a fetus surviving abortion.
      Can you say how many of these occurred in the past 10 years?

  6. With the stroke of his pen, Trump removed a $2 price cap on certain generic drugs, did away with a provision that would improve access to high-cost therapies for Medicaid recipients, and ended an effort to expedite the evidence-gathering process for new drugs.

    Thank you DJT, Man of the people (musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg).

    2. Your anonymous crocodile tears are amusing. You didn’t mention anything about the trillions of dollars Biden and the Dems blew on a pointless war in Europe combined with pork to their friends under the green new scam and their suppression of the American energy industry, among many other offensive, expensive, corrupt actions.

      The people spoke on November 5. Trump is back by popular demand. Get over it.

      1. “trillions of dollars blown on a pointless war…” We’re supposed to take you seriously? Typo or gross lo-info exaggeration?

        1. Reading failure on your part. Look up the definition of the word “combined”

        2. And it’s low key pathetic that you’re more concerned about that than about the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money (presumably including yours) being sent to (a) slaughter an entire generation of young men, (b) be recycled through a money laundering operation to line the pockets of the corrupt Biden family, and (c) put America ever closer to national bankruptcy.

      2. * IMHO it was the murder of laken Riley and the horrific murder of the Nungaray child as the straw that broke the camel’s back. The WH lawn party, story hour, etc sent parents over the edge.

        The left is still successful in establishing a new normative. Quite well done by taking it down to ground zero so people would feel relieved when it went back up. Grueling…

        1. * went back up but not to the previous normative.

          Absurd immorality when people can’t even recognize theft when they see it.

          I’ll give Trump credit for common sense and beginning work asap. Surprised he took time for the gala.

          Tragedy. Biden should be charged with treason .

    3. Congress has no power to tax for subsidies for consumers of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Congress has no power to regulate any aspect or facet of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Congress has no power to participate in or regulate any retail industry.

      Congress has the power to tax for “general Welfare” which is defined as all or the whole well proceed; not some, one, or a few; not individual welfare, not specific welfare, not particular welfare, not favor, and not charity.
      ______________________________________

      Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…

  7. Does it matter? None of these people will ever face ramifications for their actions, and though I hate it, I accept it – the mafia that has run our government for the past four years is about to disappear into the sunset, and there is nothing we can do, other than expose them (and we should).

    It’s more important to me what we do going forward, so let’s ignore the few remaining and impotent leftist mosquitos, very pathetically buzzing in our ears, and move on.

    We are all exhausted, we are all fed up, and we do not even need to give them the grace of our attention anymore. This is crystal clear in January of 2025; the modern left in America dug its own grave, and we as a majority pretty much think they are special ed, because they are. Let’s throw the dirt on that grave and get on with it.

  8. James Wilson, the most prolific speaker during the debate over the United States Constitution with more than 172 speeches and later an associate justice of the Supreme Court, called the presidential pardon power “extraordinary.” In his 1791 Lectures on Law, he taught us that this extraordinary power was to be used “after they have been apprehended, tried, convicted, and condemned.” Let us be clear, Biden’s family, Fauci, Milley, and the members of the House J6 Committee have never been apprehended, tried, or convicted, let alone condemned. They were not eligible for a presidential pardon.

    Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that the president has the power to pardon “for Offences against the United States.” However, Biden understands that these individuals he has pardoned have not committed an offense against the United States because his pardon statement says, “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.” How can former President Biden pardon someone for an offense against the United States when his pardoning message says that they are not guilty of any offense?
    https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/22/what-the-founding-fathers-would-have-to-say-about-biden-and-trumps-presidental-pardons/

    With over 8,000 pardons or clemencies in a mere 4 years, Biden has secured his final resting place in the pit of hell.

  9. Biden’s Army of “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” The Un-Pardoned

    Adam Schiff * | Alexander Downer | Alexander Vindman | Alvin Bragg
    Andrew McCabe | Andrew Weissmann | Andrew Whitney | Azra Turk
    Barack Obama | Bill Priestap | Bill Taylor | Bruce Ohr
    Charles H | Dolan | Christopher Steele | Christopher Wray
    Cody Shear | Dana Remus | Daniel Goldman | Don Berlin
    Donna Brazile | E.W. Priestap | Eirc Holder | Emmet Sullivan
    Eric Ciaramella | Eugene Vindman | Evelyn Farkas | Fani Willis
    Fiona Hill | Gen. Milley* | George Soros | Gina Haspel
    Glenn Simpson | Gov. Janet Mills | Hillary Clinton | Huma Abedin
    Hunter Biden | Igor Danchenko | Jake Sullivan | James Baker
    James Clapper | James Comey | James E. Boasberg
    Jeff Sessions | Jerry Nadler | Joe Biden | John Bolton
    John Brennan | John Kerry | John McCabe | John McCain
    John Podesta | Joseph Mifsud | Juan Merchan et al | Judge Arthur Engoron
    Peter J. Kadzik | Kathy Ruemmler | Kevin Clinesmith | Kurt Campbell
    L. Jean Camp | Laycock | Lerner | Letitia James
    Lisa O. Monaco | Lisa Page | Lois Lerner | Loretta Lynch
    Marc Elias | Matthew Colangelo | Merrick Garland | Michael Cohen
    Michael Kortan | Michael Sussmann | Nancy Pelosi | Nellie Ohr
    Paul Vixie | Perkins Coie et.al. | Peter Fritsch | Peter Strzok
    Power | Richard Dearlove | Richard Schiff | Robby Mook
    Rod Rosenstein | Rodney Joffe | Ron Klain | Sally Yates
    Stefan Halper | Stormy Daniels | Strobe Talbot | Susan E. Rice
    The Mueller-Team | Tom Rice | Valerie Jarrett | Victoria Nuland
    The Dems …

      1. CREDITs: Sir George & Anonymous
        I’ve been collecting Names to George, and made this into a pretty list.

        They’re all subject to Congressman James Comer (R-Ky) of the House Oversight Committee and Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Judiciary Committee Chair discretion. and fit to stand Trial. Thanks to Them we have a sizable list to work from, and BTW, Comer’s and Jordan’s list is longer.

  10. Analyzing the Criticism of Biden’s Final Pardons: A Balanced Perspective

    The recent column in *The Hill* criticizing President Joe Biden’s last-minute pardons paints a dire picture of corruption and moral decay. However, while the article is passionate, it relies on logical fallacies, sweeping generalizations, and questionable comparisons to construct its argument. Let’s critically evaluate the claims and provide a balanced view of the issue.

    Understanding the Context of Pardons
    Presidential pardons have long been a contentious but constitutional tool. From George Washington’s pardon of the Whiskey Rebellion participants to Gerald Ford’s controversial pardon of Richard Nixon, presidents have exercised this authority for a variety of reasons, including political expediency, reconciliation, and mercy. President Biden’s pardons for family members may raise eyebrows, but they are not unprecedented.

    Critics argue that Biden’s pardons are a clear indication of corruption, claiming they were meant to shield his family and himself. However, this accusation lacks concrete evidence. Pardons do not inherently prove guilt, nor do they erase wrongdoing. Instead, they are a legal mechanism for closure. Dismissing Biden’s rationale as purely self-serving ignores the complexity of the decision-making process and the historical use of pardons by other presidents.

    Addressing Logical Fallacies
    The critique of Biden’s actions is rife with logical inconsistencies:

    1. Ad Hominem Attacks
    – The article frequently targets Biden’s character, referring to his “diminished mental capacity” and ethical shortcomings. These personal attacks distract from the issue at hand: the legality and appropriateness of the pardons. Such rhetoric undermines the credibility of the argument by shifting focus away from facts.

    2. Hasty Generalizations
    – Declaring Biden’s presidency a failure based on polling numbers and these pardons oversimplifies a complex four-year term. The claim that the pardons are the “final corruption” of his presidency assumes that no other actions or decisions could outweigh this perceived wrongdoing.

    3. False Cause
    – The suggestion that the pardons were solely intended to protect Biden from investigations oversimplifies the motivations behind them. Without definitive proof, this claim is speculative at best.

    4. Straw Man Arguments
    – The article caricatures Biden’s justification for the pardons, presenting it as a flimsy excuse rooted in familial loyalty. This misrepresentation ignores the possibility of nuanced reasoning, such as ensuring closure for his family amid ongoing political scrutiny.

    A Question of Ethics vs. Legality
    While the ethical implications of pardoning family members are debatable, the action is firmly within the president’s legal rights. The Constitution grants the president broad pardon powers, and Biden’s actions fall squarely within this authority. Arguing that this act alone signifies corruption conflates legality with morality, a distinction that must be maintained in any fair critique.

    Comparison to Historical and Current Precedents
    The column’s framing of Biden’s actions as uniquely corrupt ignores historical and current parallels. For instance:

    -Donald Trump’s Executive Actions in 2025
    – Upon returning to office in 2025, Donald Trump issued a series of highly controversial pardons, including over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riots. Leaders of groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were granted clemency, sparking accusations that Trump endorsed the actions taken during the insurrection. Additionally, Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road darknet marketplace, highlighting his willingness to challenge legal norms for perceived political or ideological gains.
    – These actions underscore how presidents often use pardons to advance personal or political agendas, raising ethical questions similar to those surrounding Biden’s decisions.

    Historical Examples
    -Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton, for drug-related charges.
    -Richard Nixon received a controversial pardon from Gerald Ford, which aimed to heal the nation but also faced backlash.

    These examples illustrate that the use of pardons in contentious circumstances is not unique to Biden. The criticism must therefore consider whether his actions deviate significantly from established norms or simply align with a broader pattern of contentious presidential pardons.

    Media’s Role and Public Perception
    The article accuses the media of complicity in downplaying Biden’s alleged corruption. However, the media’s role is not to serve as a mouthpiece for partisan attacks but to provide balanced reporting. The portrayal of Biden as irredeemably corrupt based on one action risks oversimplifying the narrative and alienating audiences seeking nuanced analysis.

    Conclusion
    The criticism of Biden’s pardons reflects broader political tensions rather than a fair assessment of the act itself. While the ethical debate surrounding family pardons is valid, allegations of corruption require more substantial evidence. Comparing Biden’s actions to those of his predecessors and Trump’s recent controversial pardons highlights that this use of pardons, while controversial, is neither new nor uniquely egregious.

    In the end, public discourse benefits from critical analysis grounded in evidence and historical context, rather than rhetoric and conjecture. By holding leaders accountable through reasoned debate, we uphold the principles of democracy and ensure a more informed electorate.

    1. If anything is full of “nuanced reasoning” it is this diatribe. Has to be written by a crying Democrat.

      1. My God, man, did you read all that?

        You certainly have more time to devote to this blog and corrupt American jurisprudence than I.

    3. “Analyzing the Criticism . . .”

      That comment is why, years ago, I stopped reading academic papers.

      They are mind-numbingly long, incoherent arguments filled with gibberish — all intended to obfuscate an obvious conclusion. In this case: I support Biden’s corruption.

  11. Arguments

    There is no compelling argument for interpreting 14A in such a way as to split immigration status within the nuclear family on account of a newborn. The original Citizenship by Derivation approach keeps the family’s status uniform as it changes.

    And, most Americans find it vile and repugnant that 14A is used by foreign “birth tour” operators to sell US Citizenships.
    That cannot possibly stand up under Supreme Court review.

    A review is way overdue,. 14A will no longer be allowed to be interpreted to split family status upon a birth, and no longer used to sell US Citizenships abroad. I think it will end up:
    Birthplace Citizenship – US Citizen and PLR parents
    Citizenship by Derivation – all lesser visa categories and illegals (tourist, business, student migrant ag worker, TPS, etc.)

    1. That doesn’t make sense. Citizenship by birthright, by definition, requires splitting a nuclear family’s immigration status. Otherwise, it is a dead letter because it would be exactly the same as citizenship by blood.

      How in the world would it ever differ from citizenship by blood?

      1. I agree (I think). Birthplace Citizenship should be virtually retired, replace by Citizenship Inheritance (from either US Citizen parent or PLR residing in the US).

        That would effectively mean that a baby born on US soil to a visitor, tourist, student, businesswoman, or illegal entrant/visa overstay would inherit the nationality of the parent(s) (jus sanguinis).

        I had proposed The Citizenship Inheritance Act many Congress cycles, and it went nowhere.

        Of course, if the law changes in that direction, those who in past years obtained US Citizenship as newborns to foreigner parents will get to keep it. There are only very specific conditions under which US Citizenship may be stripped.

        But, in the future, it need not continue that way. After all, this is a democracy.

    2. * In this assessment of the 14th one must consider such stellar figures as Kamala Harris. Neither parent at the time of her birth was a US citizen. Her claim was based on birth and yet, no one noticed nor corrected it and she is an attorney and an AG and a VP. An avalanche of absurdities.

      1. Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, CA.

        Pursuant to the plain language of the 14th Amendment, she is an American citizen. What are you talking about?

        1. She is a “citizen” not a “natural born citizen.”

          “Citizen” is the simple and lower form required for Congress and Senate.

          “Natural born citizen” is the higher form required for the higher office of president.

          There is a distinct difference if you discover the one and only definition of “natural born citizen,” which exists in Vattel, the Law of Nations, 1758.

          Indeed, Blackstone defined “natural born subject” through his own ideation.

          1. There has to be a reason these wannabe constitutional experts who keep pimping Vattel NEVER copy and paste the text in Madison’s Notes where the Framers apparently decided that Vattel had given them the template for defining citizenship. Surely there must be a line or two recorded from the debates and discussions that mentions Vattel if he was so persuasive?

            The Framers – those guys who drafted the Constitution and made reference to “natural born citizen”, treated Vattel with all the respect George and Gigi’s lies get here. ZERO.

            In other words, they never mentioned that European elitist snob in their deliberations. In fact, if Vattel was so awesome with his book on Laws of Nations, the Framers would have just adopted his book and called it a day.

            No American would be pimping for Vattel, a European, to be the final reference on the meaning of the constitution.

            1. What about Franklin??

              During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

              “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

              Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

              “From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

              In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

              “… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.”

              https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/vattel/

              1. They obfuscate, prevaricate, and refuse to argue the facts because they cannot; they lose the debate every time.

                The key is the fact that Congress/Senate requires only “citizen,” while President requires “natural born citizen.”

                The highest form of citizenship is “natural born citizen,” which the Constitution states is higher when it differentiates and requires “natural born citizen” for the higher position.

                What, you ask, is the difference?

                Two parents—at least a father—who were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate.

                1. Thank you for your reply.

                  Yes, exactly. There is a very good reason that president requires Natural Born Citizenship.

                  President is the highest elected office, he is CiC of our military, he is to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ foreign policy, treaties….the Framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure no one with a foreign allegiance could be elected to the office of president.

                  This wasn’t a bias or discrimination…nothing like that. The Framers just wanted to protect the office and the Country from foreign influence.

                  Only those born in the Country to US citizens are Natural Born Citizens. If one is born in the Country, but one parent is a foreign national, there is dual allegiance — even if the child never claims that dual citizenship — even if the foreign country doesn’t allow dual citizenship. They are considered to have dual allegiance and are not Natural Born Citizens.

                  At the time of ratification, only the citizenship of the father counted because the mother/wife took on the citizenship of her husband.

  12. Absent accountability and consequence, its all just words. The nation was played and Biden won. Flipping every Democrat seat up for re-election in 2026 might be a beginning.

    1. Global warming refers to surface temperature average over the global surface over 1 year. Weather is what is happening at a specific location on a specific day. Two completely different quantities. I know, you doodled during math class.

      That said, there is much hysteria over the timeframes and consequences of GW, considering major questions remain about timeframes.

      The problem calls for dispassionate, scientific (yes, skeptical) critical thinking. Ideologies will just screw it up.

      2. Agreed – maybe start by not banning gas stoves and gas water heaters, or gasoline cars, and not suppressing affordable energy for the poor, until there is a solid basis for such draconian and anti-human measures. And maybe also start by not censoring opposing views from climate scientists. (I’m not talking directly about you, of course, but about the political and private-sector benefactors of the global warning scam who do all of those things while gaining personal wealth and power.)

        I do find it interesting, though, when the wealthy (such as Obama) shell out tens of millions of dollars for oceanfront properties while publicly supporting the concept that their high-priced properties will be underwater very soon. Something seems “off” about that.

        1. I can tell you a good work project for the country. Wood stoves. Do you realize how much firewood is wasted in the country? Suppose, just in California, they collected the brush and dead trees and bundled it. Sell it, or give it to people for free. In cold areas, they could use it for sure. But even in the desert areas where it gets cold at night.

          Same across the country. Quit dumping this resource.

      3. I know, you doodled during math class.

        I know, I know… some people cosplay that they actually paid attention in school rather than posing and flexing in hopes of being accepted by the cool kids.

        Did the California public school system fail our useful idiots from California that haven’t noticed that every single prediction made by ICANN has not come true?

        Well, did those California Useful Idiots hoping they can cosplay as critical thinkers and observers notice that, after eight years of warning Americans that the rising seas were going to flood our cities and we were all gonna die, the very first thing The Magical Marxist Mullato Clown did at the end of his presidency was drop $13 Million on a beach mansion a few feet above mean sea level and a few hundred feet from the shoreline?

        Didn’t strike California’s critical thinkers as odd that Bolshevik Barack would buy a house that apparently the ocean is going to come pouring through the front door in the next few years because of those rising oceans he warned us about?

        Were California’s useful idiots learning Valley Girl-speak when they failed to notice that every single one of ICANN – and NASA’s – climate models is a failure? They can’t even predict known historical weather – much less future weather.

        I know, I know, the California Useful Idiots were preoccupied with chanting “The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share” and deciding what their pronouns would be.

        California and it’s Useful Idiots are all about ideologies – NOT critical thinking.

        Old Airborne Dog

      4. “. . . you doodled during math class.”

        At least he wasn’t sleeping during logic class.

        Climate Malthusians constantly conflate weather and climate. Yet only now it’s a crime?!

    2. “. . . they’re playing ice hockey in the streets of New Orleans:”

      True to their anti-science methodology, the climate change gang claims that such events are further “proof” of climate change. It’s the differences, they claim. No ice hockey. Now ice hockey. Ergo climate change.

      It’s the greatest scam in the last 100 years. No matter what happens — more rain/no rain, more/less windy, higher/lower temperatures — everything and anything “proves” climate change.

      Now, about gas vehicle you like, and that $100 billion for poor countries devasted by climate change . . .

  14. “On Sunday, January 19 — the day before President Donald Trump’s second inauguration — CNN held a staff meeting to discuss coverage.

    The attendees ranged from CEO Mark Thompson to top hosts Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper. And according to reporting from Status’ Oliver Darcy and later, the Daily Beast’s Sean Craig, Thompson urged CNN journalists to avoid focusing heavily on Trump controversies of the past.”

    We need an investigation. The media is so corrupt. Go easy on the sexual abusing fraudster trump.

    1. Nielsen rating review of President Trump’s inauguration coverage showed CNN was beaten by the Food Network’s Guy’s Grocery Games.

  16. Over on Gateway Pundit they have an article that raises some questions similar to what Turley has here.

    The blanket pardon offered by Biden (They still have to accept it.) is an actual admission of guilt to an unnamed crime that they may have committed in the past 10 years.

    Of course Biden can do this and its legal. The POTUS power to Pardon is pretty much absolute except that you can’t pardon someone for a future crime. Or an ongoing criminal act. Suppose you robbed a bank and put the money in to some investments. You get a blanket pardon. So you can’t be held responsible for the bank robbery. However… if you didn’t report any income from these illicit investments and paid taxes on it.. going forward from the date of the pardon you could be charged for that crime.

    Where this becomes interesting is w Hunter.
    Suppose he hid some money offshore and denied ever having it. He’s got his blanket pardon thru 2024. But in 2026 he fails to declare income and pay taxes on those funds… he could be hit w tax evasion charges in 2025.

    Just food for thought.

    -Gumby

    1. Gumby – interesting. But in agreement with the comment below (12:53 by Anonymous), I would be interested in to see if blanket pardons really do survive constitutional scrutiny. Gigi’s only objection is factual, not legal, but even if she’s right a different case can undoubtedly be found as a test case.

      1. * presidential pardons are unassailable. The conclusion is he shouldn’t have been faux elected.

      1. There is a distinct difference between ‘blanket’ pardons and preemptive pardons.

        Carter’s ‘blanket’ pardon of draft dodgers (i.e. the ‘offense’) would most likely pass constitutional muster. Biden’s Preemptive pardon(s)* .. . not so much.
        (the only possible precedent case I could find is Ford’s pardon of Nixon .. . although that seems almost quaint compared to Biden’s liberal use of preemptive pardons.)

        *does anyone remember when Democrats so opposed preemptive pardons?

    3. You dance around your overwhelming desire to shape the outcome of the circumstances and the law.

      The power of the pardon is absolute and not qualified by the Constitution, other than that the offense must be against the United States and not an inferior level of government.

      The President shall have the Power to grant Pardons for Offences against the United States—not inferior levels of government—except in Cases of Impeachment.
      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1

      The President shall…have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

  17. Had a thought, could Liz Cheney be charged with destruction of public records of the J6 committee to establish the validity of preemptive presidential pardons? A SCOTUS ruling could be definitive. She was co-chair but no longer protected as a member of congress.

    1. STOP REPEATING MAGA MEDIA LIES. From “USA Today”:

      “An Aug. 9 Facebook post (direct link, archive link) shows clips of several members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

      “Now that the J6 Unselect Committee has been caught destroying their records, let’s see what they said in their own words about destroying evidence during their made-for-TV show trial of President Trump,” reads part of the post.

      It was shared more than 300 times in 12 days. Similar versions of the claim have been shared on other social media platforms by former President Donald Trump and by Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican.

      Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

      Our rating: False
      The Republican congressman overseeing the investigation into the committee’s work has not said any records were destroyed, and there have been no reputable reports of such destruction. What Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did say is that some video recordings are missing, and he does not know what happened to them.”

  18. More chum for the MAGAs. Turley claims “media” worked to cover up some “corruption” involving the Biden family and that because Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons, he did something wrong. Turley knows he has it exactly backwards. The MAGA media he works for endlessly trolled the Biden family, claiming that Hunter Biden was selling influence. Turley has the gall to claim: ” Millions of dollars were secured from foreign sources and distributed to various Biden family members.” WHAT “family members”? WHAT was purchased? And, I know you MAGAs don’t understand the distinction in semantics between a crime and corruption, but “influence peddling” is what lobbyists do for a living–and it’s not illegal. Turley claims that Biden was involved in one of the greatest “corruption scandals” in Washington. WHAT CORRUPTION? WHAT crimes were committed? Turley can’t name any crimes, he hasn’t identified any benefit flowing to anyone who allegedly corrupted any of the Bidens, and he knows the disciples don’t know the difference between something claimed to be “corrupt” and a crime. Besides, he is paid to attack the Bidens and Democrats. To try to get some actual evidence of criminality, Republicans held hearing after hearing, but came up with squat–but, did that stop the likes of Mark Levin from using the phrase “Biden Crime Family”? Uh, No. Turley hasn’t come up with anything resembling proof of a quid-pro-quo–or proof that JOE Biden took money to do anything. But being fair is not what Turley is paid to do.

    Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons because the orange hog that lied to get into office promised to go after those whom he pardoned. Even if Trump’s stripper-haired AG couldn’t actually convict anyone named Biden, fake prosecutions of them would provide endless fodder for MAGA media. And, on that note, MAGA media endlessly and baselessly claimed that Joe Biden was orchestrating the criminal prosecutions of Trump–no proof, but does that stop them? OTOH, Trump actually said, out loud, that he would command stripper-haired Bondi, if she gets in, to go after people he directs. Turley doesn’t have anything to say about that.

    And, Turley, if you want to talk about government corruption, what about Jared Kushner getting billions of dollars from Saudis immediately after Trump was put out of office? You claim Biden is guilty of “situational ethics”–you can’t even accuse Trump of having ANY ethics. It’s truly outrageous, Turley, that you use your platform to attack someone like Joe Biden while ignoring the abuses of DJT. Turley frosts the cake by claiming that Biden has diminished mental faculties. Turley–you have diminshed ethical faculties, which you prove every single day you write. Turley’s trying to pre-defend Republicans who will still try to go after the Bidens by arguing that because of the pardons they don’t face legal jeopardy, and so must be compelled to testify. Anything to divert attention away from the sh(t show going on now and the bad things to come.

  19. This law has multiple sections. Most are defining those born OUTSIDE Us soil. These are the only ones referring to born on US soil.

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    (b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

    (f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

    1. The issue:

      (a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

      How do you parse that sentence?
      This is the question that needs to be answered by the courts.
      There is that pesky comma …

      The last one (f) is interesting.
      If you’re an orphan found in the US… you don’t want your DNA collected until after you turn 21.
      If they find out that thru your DNA your parents are Mexican or some other country… you’re not a US citizen.

      And this of course this begs some questions…
      Shouldn’t the law be updated since 18 is now the age of majority?

      This raises an interesting question…
      An illegal couple come to the US.
      They have a child born in the US but not in a hospital.
      They try to get a birth certificate for their child.

      Or before they can do that… the get killed and the child has no direct relatives. (No DNA testing or DNA testing doesn’t find any relatives in the database.)

      Definitely a couple of legal arguments that will need SCOTUS.

      -Gumby

      1. “If they find out that thru your DNA your parents are Mexican or some other country… you’re not a US citizen. ”

        Do you believe that a child born to US citizens of Mexican heritage could not be orphaned and become a foundling? Do you think that a citizenship change affects deoxyribonucleic acid structure? It would also be interesting to learn what definitively “Mexican DNA ” looks like, since Mexico has also been quite a melting pot of ethnicity.

    2. There is no compelling argument for interpreting 14A in such a way as to split immigration status within the nuclear family on account of a newborn.

      And, most Americans find it vile and repugnant that 14A is used by foreign “birth tour” operators to sell US Citizenship.
      That cannot possibly stand up under Supreme Court review. Meaning, 14A will no longer be allowed to be interpreted to split family status upon a birth, and no longer used to sell US Citizenships abroad.

  20. Good riddance to biden and his crime syndicate. America survived in spite of you and the voters who put you in office.
    And BTW Merrick Garland, you failed miserably at lawfare, you pissed off your friend joe, and he didn’t give you one of his 8,000+ pardons. It may be time to lawyer up.

        1. Some people act like there isn’t an existing legal immigration process, or seasonal work visas. People have gotten temporary work visas in agriculture for many years.

          The Democrat arguments that we need open borders because who would harvest our crops sounds an awful lot like the appalling previous Democrat argument in favor of slavery, “Who would pick our cotton?” Some things never change.

          People need to come here the right way, through the legal process, by which they are welcome guests and new residents.

      3. Trump was able to influence Hamas to agree to return hostages, just by saying all Hell would break loose if they didn’t agree to a deal before he took office. A deal was struck and 3 hostages returned the day before his inauguration.

        Your definition of “sucks” is skewed.

Comments are closed.