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.        

Joe Biden - Pro-Israel?

Joe Biden has long held himself out to be a good friend to Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East.  Another thing that surprises me when people tell me how good Biden is for Israel, and how bad Trump was.  Go figure.

Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.  It is where Israel has said the embassy should be; as with every other country, the embassy should be in the country's capital.  Here was what Biden thought about it at the time, calling it "short-sighted and frivolous."  That's some friend.  Denying an important ally the right to decide its own capital.   

Then, we have the not insignificant issue of Biden restoring the funding to the Palestinian Authority.  That was something that Trump put a stop to, until such time as the PA leadership agreed to stop rewarding Palestinian terrorists who kill Jews.  But that was a non-issue for Biden, friend to Israel.  

Thomas Nides is the US Ambassador to Israel.  Following his boss' lead, Nides has repeatedly warned Israel about proceeding with their proposed judicial reforms.  (See the March 28, 2023 and March 30, 2023, 2 part post on "Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel?")  Think about that.  We have the United States admonishing the democratically elected government of Israel, about how to run their country.  

Nides has said that the US must prevent Israel from "going off the rails."  And he told the Netanyahu government to "pump the brakes."  The truth is, Biden, like many of his fellow Democrats, sees Netanyahu as just another Republican, and treats him and his ruling government accordingly.  Additionally, Netanyahu had a very good rapport with Trump, something that must eat at Biden.  

And, it is not just the public admonitions given to the Netanyahu government.  Netanyahu, Israel's longest serving Prime Minister, was again "reelected" by the Knesset, at the end of last year.  Ordinarily, we might have expected the President to invite the newly elected leader of such a close ally to the White House for an official state visit.  On July 17, Biden apparently spoke with Netanyahu or his aides, finally extending an invitation to get together.  But as of now, it is not at all clear that the invitation is for a formal White House dinner or meeting.  

It is possible that Netanyahu will only get an audience with Biden in a private meeting when the UN General Assembly convenes in New York in September.  Obviously, every world leader wants the prestige of a formal White House invitation.  And just as obvious, Biden does not want to extend that advantage to Netanyahu.  As the July 19 Wall Street Journal pointed out:  "The message to Israelis is that the US is with you but not your government.  It's the kind of thing we tell Cubans and Iranians, or at least we used to."

I do not agree that this Administration is "with" the Israeli people nearly as strongly and openly as was the Trump Administration.  And clearly they do not wish to be seen giving any public support for the Israeli government.  

I could do an entire post on all the anti-Israel people Biden has appointed to serve in his Administration.  And what has become of the Trump Abraham Accords?  Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan and Morocco, all agreed to increasingly normalized relations with Israel.  The ultimate goal was to get Saudi Arabia on board.  But Biden unwisely insulted the Saudis early on, calling the country a pariah state.  The result?  The Saudis turned towards China, which then brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two former enemies.  Good job, Biden.  This is the president who claimed to have significant foreign policy experience.

Experience when you are so wrong is meaningless.  Experience when your leftist worldview tells you that a deal with Iran can be had is meaningless.  Experience when your leftist worldview tells you that Israel's democratically elected government needs to be criticized, while you pay the PA to fund terrorists is meaningless.  Biden has often been wrong.  (No, I'm no going to discuss Afghanistan in this post.)  Like his Democratic predecessor, Biden treats allies poorly, while trying to appease our enemies.  

Joe Biden - Mr. Nice Guy?

I've always perceived Biden to be a mean-spirited bully.  As a result, I have frequently been surprised by those who have told me how good it is to have a nice guy in the White House.  Joe Biden, Mr. Nice Guy.  Please.

It was quite a surprise when none other than Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times, told Biden it was time to acknowledge his seventh grandchild, Navy Joan Roberts.  Navy is the daughter of Hunter Biden and Lunden Roberts.  Hunter Biden claims it was just a fling he had with Lunden, initially denying paternity.  Until a test proved him wrong.  Then, Biden argued over child support.  What a nice guy - just like his Dad.

Following Dowd's lead, other columnists in other papers followed suit.  Here was Ingrid Jacques in the 7/13/23 edition of the USA Today:  "At Christmas, the Bidens hang stockings for six of their grandchildren - and even include ones for their dog and cat - yet ignore Navy altogether."  Too soon?  Navy is 4 years old!  Classy Hunter, classy Joe.  

Recall that at the ceremony swearing in his staff, Biden made these remarks:  "If you're ever workin' with me and I hear you treating another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot.  On the spot.  No if (sic) ands or buts.  Everybody, everybody, is entitled to be treated with decency and dignity.  That's been missing in a big way the last four years."  Good story, Joe.  Not true, but good story.

I'm not just referring to the way he spoke to White House reporter, Peter Doocy, calling him a "stupid son of a bitch."  I'm talking about the way he speaks to his own staff.  As reported by Axios on 7/10/23, Biden has quite the temper.  Again, obvious to all those who have been paying attention.  Here are some quotes attributed to Biden, as reported by Axios.  "G-d dammit, how the fuck don't you know this!?"  And:  "Don't fucking bullshit me."  And, "Get the fuck out of here."  Axios reported that even his aides avoided private meetings with him because of his temper.  

Is Biden the first president to curse?  Obviously not.  Is he the first to insult reporters?  No, again.  But given the way he has portrayed himself as Mr. Nice Guy, and given the mainstream media's description of him as kindly 'Uncle Joe," and given his own comments about how his Administration was going to be different from the prior four years, I would say to him:  "Stop B.S.'ing the American people.  Fess up to the mean-spirited bully that you are."  

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.