A Tale Of Two Presidents, Part III

Here is what Michelle Goldberg, one of the leading columnists at The New York Times, thinks about all of the controversy surrounding Joe Biden.  Her Op-Ed in the paper's July 30, 2023 edition, had this headline:  "The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce."  Farce?  She concedes that Hunter is "a deeply compromised figure."  That's easy.  She also concedes that "Hunter Biden almost certainly owed his Burisma gig to his family name..."  Also should be an easy concession.

Maybe she had not yet heard that Devon Archer testified that Joe Biden called into Hunter's dinners and meetings about twenty times.  Because it was necessary to sell "the brand."  But at least one writer at The Times noted:  "It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son's business partners." 

Congressman Daniel Goldman (D-NY) opined that Joe Biden only spoke about "the weather or whatever" with Hunter's business associates.  If you choose to believe that, no matter how ridiculous, fine.  So let's go with that for a minute.  Here's Hunter either on the phone or at a dinner with his business associates, and when Joe arrives, or gets on the phone, now everyone is just talking about the weather?  Okay, I'll stick with that a bit longer.

As Vice President, Joe takes Hunter on a trip to China.  What is Hunter going to talk to everyone about? The weather in China?  And let's not bother to concern ourselves with why Hunter was on that plane.  As this writer previously noted, perhaps it was take your 40 year old son to work day.  Here's a text message from 2017, by Hunter to Chinese businessman Henry Zhao:  "I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled...(and after saying he is waiting for a call back) 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 directions."  What directions might that be - you need to wear a raincoat?  Because, you know, it's all about the weather. 

And wasn't Joe put in charge of Ukraine policy by his then boss, President Obama?  Yes he was.  But Joe did not give a second's thought about how and why his son managed to get on the Board of Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma?  

I, for one, am comforted by the fact that Biden touted his decades of foreign policy experience.  Because he would certainly know if his son was engaging in influence peddling with various foreign actors, some of whom are citizens of enemy countries.  Do you want to argue he was unaware/ignorant, or that he had such poor judgment he did not think it was a big deal.  Even after officials in the Obama administration warned him about Hunter's involvement with Burisma.    

But again, giving every conceivable benefit of the doubt to Joe Biden, and assuming Hunter set up all those shell corporations just for fun, and assuming millions of dollars were paid to Hunter because he is such a nice guy, I still have a few questions.

Was Joe really unaware of the appearance of a conflict of interest, of an appearance of impropriety?  Did he just not care?  And why is the mainstream media rushing to make excuses for this apparent influence peddling, instead of engaging in some investigative journalism?  What would the reaction be if we switched the names Joe Biden and Hunter Biden for Donald Trump and Don Jr?  

I am far less concerned with the events of January 6, which is over and done with, than I am with the ongoing Democrat party-mainstream media complex.

      

A Tale of Two Presidents, Part II

Here was the August 3, 2023 headline atop the New York Times' editorial that day:  "A PRESIDENT ACCUSED OF BETRAYING HIS COUNTRY."   Yes, it was all caps.  And, as an aside, I think it is rather ironic/comical that the Times feels they need to explain that the Editorial Board is "A group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values."  A little defensive, are they?

The Times tells us that the prosecutor, Jack Smith, was "a veteran prosecutor on the International Criminal Court who has prosecuted far more brutal and popular leaders than Mr. Trump..."  Brutal?  Are there allegations that Trump had people tortured or killed?  But let's talk about about Jack Smith for a minute.

As head of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, he pursued, unsuccessfully, a case against John Edwards.  Recall that Edwards was the former Senator who ran for president in 2008.  Thereafter, Smith prosecuted Edwards, alleging violations of campaign finance laws.  What exactly?  Using campaign funds to hide his extra-marital affair.  Sound familiar?

Smith also prosecuted former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for violations of the federal bribery statute.  In that case, Smith was successful at the trial level.  But the US Supreme Court felt differently about this prosecution, and reversed the conviction.  And they did so unanimously, in an 8 to 0 vote.  Yes, it can be said that McDonnell should not have accepted certain gifts, especially given his prior interactions with some of the donors.  

But, as the Court said:  "Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.  The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns - whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm."

The Court explained:  "The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to a ballgame.  Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse."  

And who can forget the IRS and Lois Lerner allegedly targeting conservative 501(c)(3) groups, auditing them for improper political participation, and seeking to end their tax exempt status.  Many will recall that Lerner later apologized for targeting Tea Party groups.  But Jack Smith saw things differently.  Said Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH):  "Jack Smith was looking for ways to prosecute the innocent Americans that Lois Lerner targeted during the IRS scandal."

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problems with a zealous prosecutor targeting organized crime, terrorists and the like.  But I have a serious concern with a prosecutor like Smith, who seems to look for ways to extend the law in a manner that should make all of us wary.  As one of the attorneys involved in the Watergate scandal famously said:  "If the government wants to get you, they can find a way to get you," or words to that effect.

But is that what we should want in prosecutors?  Seeking to extend the law to reach as many Americans as possible, in order to send them to prison.  Do we even want that with regards to politicians who, most would agree, are notorious for, to be kind, stretching the truth.  As Kimberly Strassel wrote in her Op-Ed, regarding the Trump prosecution:  "Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims?  There aren't enough prisons to hold them all."   

A Tale Of Two Presidents, Part I

Not a big surprise.  As requested by the January 6 Committee, and even by Joe Biden (yes, the New York Times reported that highly inappropriate comment by the sitting president, saying the former president should be indicted, and the DOJ got the message), former President Trump has been indicted yet again.  This time, the indictment obtained by federal prosecutor Jack Smith, alleges obstruction of an official proceeding, and 3 conspiracy counts - conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights (in this case, voting rights).  All the counts involve the activities that occurred on January 6.  

No, he is not charged with "insurrection."  No, he is not charged with conspiracy involving the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers.  The conspiracy counts involve taking legal advice from his attorneys.  (You attorneys out there better be careful in what you advise your clients.)  This indictment is yet another "unprecedented" action taken against the former president.  With the 34 counts involving payment of "hush money," another 40 involving the documents at Mar-a-Lago, these 4 bring the total to 78.

With more indictments likely to follow, it is quite clear that the Democrats want to see Trump rot away in prison for the remainder of his life.  Has anyone else been the subject of so much persecution (that's right I said it - persecution) in our country's history?  Keep in mind that it all started when Trump took that escalator ride down inside Trump Tower in 2015, announcing his candidacy for president.  

Does Trump have any defenses to these latest charges?  Yes, he does.  He has the defense of the First Amendment, with even the prosecutor conceding that Trump was allowed to assert, rightly or wrongly, that he won the election.  But it goes beyond that.  As explained by attorneys David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey, in an August 3, 2023, Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, presidents have absolute immunity from both civil and criminal liability for "actions taken in the execution of the office."  

Rivkin and Casey explain that the prosecutor's focus on whether Trump honestly believed the election was stolen from him, is misplaced.  "The proper question is whether the actions he allegedly took after the 2020 election fall objectively within 'the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.'"  Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald (1982), Rivkin and Casey tell us that "the determination of whether a president was acting in his official capacity couldn't be based on either motivation or the legality of his actions, as that would 'subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful, or was taken for a forbidden purpose.'" 

In case anyone has any doubt about this, Kimberly Strassel in her August 4, 2023 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, explains it this way.  Did Joe Biden have an honest belief that he could single-handedly wipe out nearly a half a trillion dollars in student loan debt?  Biden told us he didn't:  "I don't think I have the authority to do it by signing with with a pen."  Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Biden he didn't have that power:  "People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.  He does not."  But he did it anyway.  

And when Congress asserted their Constitutional authority over the power of the purse (denying student loan forgiveness), Biden vetoed the measure.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court told Biden he did not have that kind of authority.  Anybody seriously expect Biden to be prosecuted for his illegal action, either now or when he is out of office?  How about when Obama decided that he had the power to decide when the Senate was in recess, so that he could make appointments without the "advice and consent" of the Senate.  The Supreme Court was unanimous in ruling he had no such power.  Was he prosecuted?  Of course not.  

The difference is that Biden and Obama are Democrats.  But, some say, Trump's actions were a threat to democracy.  (We'll leave aside Biden's and Obama's blatant disregard for the "separation of powers," one of the cornerstones of our democracy.)  As Rivkin and Casey point out, the Constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  Why is it not a defense for Trump to say that he was doing just that, as it appeared to him, and others, that the voting laws were not being followed.