Hunter Biden Gets The "Kid Gloves" Treatment

It's true.  Relatively speaking, the IRS prosecutes very few people for a failure to pay their taxes.  And Biden is pleading guilty to two misdemeanors, which do have the potential of jail time.  But what is most distressing is the evidence disclosed by the House Ways and Means Chairman, Jason Smith.  

The evidence involves the testimony of  Gary Shapley, an IRS agent, along with another IRS agent.  As reported by Kimberly Strassel in a 6/23/23 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Shapley was tapped to head up the IRS investigation into Biden's overseas business dealings.  But Shapley claims his investigation was impeded by the directions of the Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lesley Wolf.  

Directions such as, do not seek a search warrant for Joe Biden's guest house, where Hunter Biden had lived.  Directions such as not to ask about Hunter's "dad" or the "big guy."  Directions such as not to inquire about the finances of Hunter's children.  And not to look at campaign finance violations.  

According to Strassel, Shapley's testimony showed that the plan was to recommend indicting Hunter Biden with "felony tax evasion, felony false tax returns, and failure to pay taxes."  Again, Strassel reports that the prosecutor, David Weiss, was prepared to go along with the recommendations by the IRS agents, but was blocked from doing so, allegedly by Joe Biden appointees.  Recall that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, claimed that Weiss had full discretion to proceed as he saw fit.  

Strassel further reports that the most serious tax charges involved tax years 2014 and 2015, but the bringing of charges was delayed so long that the statute of limitations barred the prosecutors from pursuing those potentially more serious charges.  

Shapley apparently also testified to Hunter Biden having $400,000 in income from Burisma, for which he still has neither declared nor paid taxes on.  Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence concerns influence peddling, for which no charges have been brought against either Biden.  Shapley is said to have given the Ways and Means Committee a 2017 WhatsApp text message.  

In that message, Hunter is telling a Chinese businessman that "I am sitting here with my father," and warns that individual that he needs to immediately follow through on a commitment, or "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."  

Do we know if Joe Biden was actually sitting next to his son at the time?  No.  Do I believe all of Joe Biden's assertions that he knew nothing of his son's business dealings?  Absolutely not.  He never asked how his son was making all that money?  Maybe he did not have to ask, because the "big guy" was getting his share.  

As for the gun charge, it sounds as if Biden is going to get a walk.  A diversion program.  I would not count on Joe Biden pulling back on his anti-gun crusade as a result of his son's anticipated guilty plea.  He'll just continue to refuse to answer any questions about it.

Adam Schiff Gets Censured By The House

You might think that the censure of a Congressman would be first page news.  After all, it has only happened 8 times previously in the last 100 years.  And only 24 times in the history of the House.  Except, Adam Schiff is a Democrat.  And he led the the Democrats' first impeachment proceeding against Trump.  So, he is somewhat of a hero to the Democrats, and their advocates in the mainstream media.  

Schiff was accused of "falsehoods, misrepresentations and abuses of sensitive information."  The vote was along party lines, 213 to 209.  Six Republicans voted "present."  Five of those six are on the House Ethics Committee, so it is customary for them to not vote on such a measure, as the they may decide the punishment for Schiff.  

This major story did manage to make page 16 of the 6/22/23 New York Times.  With this headline:  "Republican-Led House Censures Schiff for Role in Trump Investigation."  Let's think about that.  If a Republican was censured, I have no doubt it would have been front page news, and likely above the fold.  And the headline would not have been "Democrat-Led House Censures...whoever."  No, it would have been "House Censures..."  Without the suggestion of party bias.  

And what about the reason for the censure?  The Times is very clear in stating the censure was as a result of Schiff's role investigating Trump.  No, it was because he lied.  And disclosed sensitive information in an effort to destroy Trump.  So, to my liberal friends who believe that the New York Times is the premier paper in the country, do we say "yay" New York Times? 

The Los Angeles Times managed to put this story on page 5 of their 6/22/23 edition.  But given that their entire first section was only 12 pages long (the paper is not what it used to be), it may as well have been page 16.  Here was the headline in the LA Times:  "Schiff embraces censure by House Republicans."  It is a censure by the House, just as the party line vote on Obamacare (with I believe one Republican voting aye after there were already sufficient Democrat votes to pass it), was passed by the House.  Obamacare became law upon Obama's signing it.  The censure was effective as soon as the House passed it.  But party only comes into play when it's the Republicans passing something.  

Back to the headline.  Yes, Schiff embraced the censure, calling it a "badge of honor."  But why was that even part of the headline?  A member of the House was censured for lying and disclosing sensitive information.  And it was all done with the aim of getting Donald Trump.  So, would someone please tell me why these two papers failed to have a headline along these lines:  "Schiff censured for lying and for disclosing sensitive information."  

For those on the Left, allow me to explain.  That would have been a factually accurate headline.  But the mainstream media long ago gave up on making facts their priority.  The spin became more important, as facts took a back seat, all in the pursuit of supporting Democrats.  In the Trump era, the facts took a distant back seat because the goal was to get Trump at all costs.

Permit me to make an offer I have made many times before.  Select any edition of the New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," and I'll show you the bias.  The spin.  And I'd love to hear from someone who believes that only Fox News is biased.  

The Feds Indict Trump! Part II

So what about Clinton?  She used a private email server to send and receive highly classified communications.  Remember then FBI Director James Comey telling the country that doing so either intentionally or with gross negligence, is a felony.  He told us that he believed she did not do it intentionally, but was "extremely careless."  That's enough for an indictment.  But how could it not be intentional also?  She was a former United States Senator, so she understood very well the need for security.  Yet, she then becomes Secretary of State and does not ask State Department officials for secure devices.  Please.  I guess it did not hurt that her husband managed to surreptitiously sneak in a lengthy conversation with then AG Loretta Lynch.  You know, about golf and the grandkids.  Sure. 

Clinton then directs that 33,000 of her emails be deleted, asserting they were just "personal."  Who wouldn't believe Hillary Clinton?  Then, Clinton had her staff smash her mobile devices.  Doesn't everyone?  And doesn't everyone use "Bleach Bit" to wipe their hard drive?

As George Washington University School of Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, wrote in an Op-Ed in the June 9 New York Post:  "It was Comey who declined to prosecute Clinton despite finding that she violated federal rules and handled classified material 'carelessly.'  He then launched a Russian collusion investigation that Durham found lacked minimal support against Trump."

What about Biden?  Never mind the times he took government papers as Senator, and as Vice President.  A President may have an argument to make about taking government papers.  But a Senator or VP?  Let's talk about the FBI having the Hunter Biden laptop for FIVE years, but still not being able to find a single violation of the law by Biden's son.  It would not surprise me if Hunter gets indicted just before his father leaves office (to show how fair the Feds are), giving the President an opportunity to pardon his son at the 11th hour.  See?  The system works.  

What about the $5 million allegedly paid to Joe Biden by Burisma, with another $5 million to paid to Hunter, with an expectation that the Bidens would get rid of the prosecutor looking into corruption allegations against Burisma.  Lo and behold, Biden bragged about getting that prosecutor fired, by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine.  (Biden, as VP, was put in charge of Ukraine policy by his then boss, Obama.)  Sorry if I sound cynical, but influence peddling seems to be the Biden family business.  

Michael Goodwin wrote in a 6/10 Op-Ed in the New York Post:  "Two standards of justice, open and notorious, are doing more harm to American democracy than Trump could do in two lifetimes."  Let us not forget that, while claiming no interference in the decisions of the DOJ, Biden had previously said that he wished his Attorney General, Garland, would act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor.  Biden is also said to have told his "inner circle" that he would like to see Trump prosecuted.  Whether or not Garland was in that inner circle, it does not take a flight of fancy to imagine that Garland got the message. 

So, where do we go from here?  I saw a picture of many boxes (presumably of government documents) at Mar-a-Lago.  Do we know everyone who had access?  Unlikely.  But, at least there were Secret Service agents on site.  I also saw a picture of Biden's garage, a clearly unsecure location, where boxes of government documents were allegedly kept.  Why, when leaving office as VP, did he take any documents?  

My solution?  Drop the indictment against Trump.  (If not, file against Clinton now, and Biden when he leaves office.)  Have Trump, Biden, Pence and anyone else having possession of government documents return them all to the government.  They can be picked up by the National Archives, and reviewed by them, the FBI, the CIA or whoever, in order to make sure that no sensitive materials are released.  And let's have Congress pass a law now to that effect, so that NO government official ever again takes government documents with them when they leave office.  No, I have not read every government law and/or reg already on the books dealing with this issue.  But let's make it simple - when you walk out the door you take no documents.  Request whatever you believe you should have (such as for a presidential library), and government officials will decide.  Is this ideal?  Of course not, as any number of government officials in recent years have proven themselves to be biased at best or corrupt at worst.  But it's the best I've got, with an eye towards not turning document disputes into criminal matters.

The Feds Indict Trump! Part I

Hardly a surprise, given the nonstop investigations into Trump for the last seven years.  What are the allegations?  31 counts in the indictment allege the willful retention of National Defense Information.  Then there is one count each for:  conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, a scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations.  

Let me clear about something.  I have long opposed prosecutors over charging the number of counts for what is essentially the same act.  As far as I am concerned, the last 6 counts all concern the same alleged offense - but pled 6 different ways.  And the first 31 counts - 31 different pieces of paper, but all regarding the same alleged act.  The prosecutor should have been permitted, therefore, to allege 2 counts only.   But the prosecutors charge more in an effort to obtain a plea.  Such as:  agree to a 20 year sentence or face 5 million years in prison.  Yes, I am being facetious, but not by much.  Apparently Trump faces 420 years.  As the Kingston Trio said - coulda been life.  

As we know, Biden appointed Merrick Garland (thank G-d he was never confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court) as his Attorney General.  Garland, in turn, appointed special prosecutor Jack Smith.  Here is what Smith said the other day in an effort to justify this prosecution:  "We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone."  I almost choked on my lunch. 

But permit me to back up a bit.  This move is hardly the first unprecedented move for the Democrats.  They have broken every norm, every customary standard and practice, previously adhered to by both parties, in order to maintain their grip on power.  They spent nearly 3 years on the phony Russian collusion hoax; with the recent Durham report stating there was little basis for it.  They then impeached Trump over their phony, made up story.  

Did that phony story cost Trump the 2020 election?  If there was collusion, it was between the Democrats and the mainstream media, pushing their phony narrative.  Then, following the events of January 6, they impeached Trump a second time.  But no House Judiciary Committee hearings first, no due process of law for Trump, no opportunity to rebut the charges against him.  No, that came afterward, with the made for primetime TV "select" committee hearings.

Yes, it was "select" alright.  All members were selected by Speaker Pelosi, after denying to then Minority Leader McCarthy his choice of committee members.  Again, unprecedented.  So this unprecedented federal indictment of a former president should come as no surprise.  And, of no apparent concern to Biden, we have the incumbent president, who is seeking reelection, pursuing the prosecution of the leader of the opposition party, a man who, as of now, looks to be the opposing nominee.  Welcome to the Banana Republic of the United States.  

When I speak of there being two different systems of justice in this country, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, the Left just accuses me of "whataboutism."  To me, that is their way of telling me they don't give a damn about the equal application of the laws.  It tells me that they support their party's nonstop efforts to retain power at all costs.  Just ask Biden.  He'll tell you that those MAGA Republicans can never be trusted with holding office.  

Before I do discuss Clinton or Biden avoiding prosecution, let me be clear.  There are, indeed, some serious allegations against Trump, including admitting he had highly sensitive documents that were still classified, and asking others if those documents might be concealed.  (As an aside, who recorded those conversations with Trump, and why?)  Do I have a recommendation for what should be done about it?  Yes, at the end of this blog post.       

Antisemitism Has Reached The Highest Levels Of Society, Part I

Foreign Affairs journal/magazine is published by the Council on Foreign Relations.  It is likely the preeminent journal dealing with foreign affairs.  While the Council is an independent think-tank, Wikipedia notes that "its membership has included senior politicians, numerous secretaries of state, CIA directors, and senior media figures."   It would not be an understatement to say that it is highly influential.

So it was rather disturbing to see the article that was published in the 100 year old journal, on the occasion of Israel's 75th anniversary.  The piece was written by 4 professors, from the University of Maryland and George Washington University.  According to the authors:  "Forced to choose between Israel's Jewish identity and liberal democracy, Israel has chosen the former."  The last I looked, Israel still has free elections, in which all citizens are allowed to vote.  I can't say the same for the many surrounding Arab countries.  Arab citizens vote, served in the last government, are in the Knesset, are lawyers and doctors, and I could go on. 

The authors go on to discuss a "draconian blockade of Gaza."  Both Israel and Egypt control land access to Gaza.  Israel has no control over Gaza's 7 1/2 mile border with Egypt.  Of course, humanitarian supplies and other necessities are allowed in through the Israeli border crossings.  But why would any sane country allow unlimited access to an entity that is sworn to its destruction?  Gaza is run by Hamas, with a secondary player being Islamic Jihad.  Those two entities have no interest in making peace with Israel.  Their charters call for Israel's destruction.

But I must ask something that I have asked previously.  If Gaza is so closed off, how does Hamas continually manage to get access to mortars, rockets and missiles, which they use to attack Israel.  If Gaza is so closed off, how do they manage to get cement, wiring and other materials used to build their underground tunnels which lead into Israel, and which Hamas uses for the purpose of killing or capturing Jews.  

The authors then say that Israel has "control (of) the West Bank with a system of checkpoints, policing, and relentlessly expanding settlements."  Of course, areas of the West Bank are under the control of President (for life, apparently) Abbas, and the Palestinian Authority, along with 77,000 security personnel.  Israel must maintain control over the border with Jordan.  If that area of the West Bank was turned over to the Palestinians, nothing would prevent ISIS and/or Al Qaeda from getting in and being directly on Israel's border.  And Israel could never give up all of the West Bank.  If they did, at one point Israel would only be 9 miles wide, risking an enemy attack that could cut the nation in two.  

Another reminder.  Following Israel's War of Independence (1948-1949), Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip.  For nearly two decades those Arab countries controlled the land now sought for a Palestinian state.  Their control ended with Israel's victory in the 1967 Six Day War.    Did Jordan and Egypt seek to establish a Palestinian state during their period of control?  Of course not.  Jordan actually expelled Jews who were living in the part of Jerusalem that Jordan captured in 1948-49, an area now referred to as East Jerusalem.  Jewish synagogues were destroyed when "East" Jerusalem was under Jordan's control.

It is disappointing, but hardly surprising, to see academics criticize Israel in this fashion.  Israel does what it needs to do to survive.  Would I like to see peace?  Of course, who wouldn't.  Would I like to see a time when people and goods could move freely between all areas of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel?  Yes, but not until the Arabs lay down their arms, stop both the militaristic and diplomatic attacks on Israel, and truly acknowledge and accept Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.    

The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part II

The headline in the USA Today clearly had a different perspective from the New York Times:  "Durham blasts FBI for 2016 Trump-Russia probe."  Right off, the paper gives us this quote from the Durham report:  "Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department (of Justice) and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report."  The question is why?

Why did the agents and Department officials fail to adhere to the law?  Might it be because of their overwhelming anti-Trump bias.  The USA Today:  "Durham said the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane based on 'unevaluated evidence' at the direction of former deputy director Andrew McCabe and former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who 'at a minimum, has pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.'"  

And then there is this damning statement in the Durham report:  "...neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."  But, why would they need evidence if the goal was to get Trump?  

And the report told us this:  "The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign."  Another example of how Trump was treated differently from Clinton.  Who is surprised?  Good for the USA Today for demonstrating a willingness to report a harsher assessment of the actions taken by the FBI than the New York Times was willing to do; an assessment reflected in the Durham report.  But the New York Times was all in with regards to Russian collusion, and attacking Trump.  It is clear that the Times is not about to back off now.

Finally, here is the headline that was in the local paper, the Ventura County Star, on May 17:  "Durham:  FBI's Trump-Russia probe flawed."  The paper also notes that "the FBI has also long since announced dozens of corrective actions."  And, in responding to the report, The FBI said this:  "Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented."  Missteps?  The FBI is being too kind to itself.  

Meanwhile, the paper reports that House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, has invited Durham to testify.  

Here is my concern.  Any system of government still depends on people of good will.  No matter how many rules are put in place, it depends on people willing to do what is right.  However, our country is so divided, that people at the highest levels of federal agencies inappropriately expressed negative attitudes towards Trump, and then acted on those attitudes.  People in the mainstream media justified their biased reporting because they believed Trump had to be stopped.  So they acted as advocates, rather than acting as reporters and journalists.  Will anything change, especially if Trump turns out to be the 2024 Republican nominee for president?     

The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part I

(A note.  I have not read the 306 page report, dealing with the investigation into the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation by the FBI into the Trump campaign and Russia.  The comments in these posts are taken from various media reports, and where obvious, are my own.  Additionally, I have never used the expression "nothingburger," either in conversation or in writing.  I am generally not a fan of words or expressions that become a fad, and then fade away.  However, in this case, based upon reading various sources, it seemed to be an appropriate usage.)

Here was the headline in the May 17 New York Times:  "After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver."  The Times reports that "no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official" was charged with a crime.  They do acknowledge that the report found the F.B.I. guilty of "confirmation bias."  And:  "There were real-world flaws with the Russia investigation, especially how the F.B.I. botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser."  Botched?  How about lied in the warrant application.  

The Times then reverts to the earlier report of the DOJ's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, saying he found "no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated."  Not politically motivated?  Then what is the "confirmation bias?"  And what about the text messages between Peter Strzok, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, and FBI attorney Lisa Page?  Text messages discussing how to prevent Trump from becoming president.  And what about the discussions they had in the office of Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI?   

The Times does acknowledge that Strzok cautioned about use of the Steele dossier, and that it "should be viewed as intended to influence as well as inform," and that the source was "presumed to be connected to the (Clinton) campaign in some way."  But that did not prevent the FBI was citing the dossier in their warrant applications.  

The Times does offer a quote from the head of Judicial Watch:  "Never in American history has so much government corruption faced so little accountability."  

The Wall Street Journal had a different take in their May 17 editorial.  They cite the fact that the FBI had no "actual evidence of collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign.  The Journal further asserts that "not a single U.S. agency had evidence of collusion."  Then why did the FBI open an investigation?  The Journal says the Durham report claimed a "clear predisposition" to open the investigation based on a "prejudice against Trump," and "pronounced hostile feelings."  

And the Journal tells us this:  "The FBI gave a Clinton representative a 'defensive briefing' about the risks of foreign actors.  Mr. Trump received no such briefing."  The Journal then asserts that "...the FBI probe that disrupted American politics for three years may have begun as a Russian intelligence operation," as there may have been connections between Steele and Russian agents.  Which would not be surprising as Steele was not only a former British MI6 agent, but was in charge of the Russia desk there.  And there is no doubt that the dossier was opposition research conducted on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The Journal:  "All of this is an indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI," such as AG Loretta Lynch and Deputy AG Sally Yates.  The Journal tells us that the FBI has since "implemented dozens of corrective actions," which, had they been in place at the time, would have "prevented" these events from happening.  Why were such corrective actions necessary, unless FBI agents were acting outside of their legal responsibilities, based on an anti-Trump bias?    

Finally, acknowledging the obvious anti-Trump bias of the mainstream media, the Journal says this:  "The press corps was also an all-too-willing accomplice to the collusion con, yet there has been little to no outrage or even self-reflection at having been played for dupes.  Most coverage largely dismisses the Durham report because no one new was indicted."  

I take issue with the Journal's comment that the mainstream media was "played for dupes," but agree that they were "all-too-willing accomplices."  The media's hatred for Trump was, and continues to be, obvious.  That many in high levels of government had the same hatred for Trump, made the Russian collusion story possible.  And the mainstream media made sure that the story had legs.  It is impossible for this writer to believe that there was no political motivation behind the Russian collusion narrative.