Patterico's Pontifications

6/20/2023

All Things Hunter Biden [UPDATED]

Filed under: General — JVW @ 1:05 pm



[guest post by JVW]

UPDATE: Well, well, well, it’s been quite the day of legal system accomplishments for Mr. Robert Hunter Biden. The NY Post reports that his Arkansas baby mama, Lunden Roberts, has just settled with the father of her four-year-old daughter Navy Joan for a 75% reduction in his monthly child support obligations, cut from $20,000 per month down to $5,000 per month. So either we are to believe that Ms. Roberts and her attorney resigned themselves to the idea that Hunter Biden’s financial situation has taken a drastic downgrade and that $5k per month is just about as much as they were going to get from him, or else some other rich sleazy Democrat fat-cat is quietly taking care of Ms. Roberts and her girl behind the scenes in return for the two of them no longer bothering the Biden family while they face a tough reelection fight.

And apparently the Biden family will continue pretending that Navy Joan doesn’t exist. This comes from Ms. Roberts’ lawyer, Clint Lancaster:

“Lunden is a great mum and little Navy is going be fine,” said Lancaster. “The kid has lots of love on the maternal side of the family in Batesville [Arkansas]. They are a very, very close family. They adore her and are always going to support her … But I think everybody is disappointed that there’s not more contact [with the Biden family].

“It’s not lost on anybody that Jill Biden wrote a children’s book and [dedicated it] to her grandchildren,” the lawyer went on. “She could have kept it at that, but she named every child except Navy.

“They hung stockings for the dog at Christmas but not for Navy. That is one of the saddest things.”

We’ve suffered through the Ozark dysfunction of the Clinton Crime Family, we’re endured the Golden Toilet escapades of the Trump Trash, and hopefully we can withstand the ugly sleaze of the Delaware Dipshits. But we really ought to be aspiring to a higher caliber of leaders in this country.

—– Original Post —–

I see that discussion has already started on the Weekend Open Thread, so we might as well migrate things here.

Here’s the general overview:

* Hunter Biden was charged today with felony gun possession and misdemeanor tax charges. The gun charge pertains to having lied about his drug use on a federal background check form he filled out in 2018. The tax charge is for failing to fully pay his tax obligations for 2017 and 2018.

* The defendant will plead guilty to the two tax charges and will be sentenced to a probationary term. So long as he fulfills the terms of his probation, he will not face prosecution for the gun charge and it will disappear from his record in two years. So he avoids being designated a felon, and forcing his old man to intercede and pardon him. A federal judge still has to sign off on this, but it looks like the ballgame has been fixed.

* The unpaid tax bill for the two years is said to be for over $100,000 each year. With penalties and interest, one would assume that he owes in excess of $300,000 which is a pretty large chunk of change for a guy who no longer has attractive employment possibilities with Ukrainian energy companies or sleazy Chinese billionaires. Do the Bidens know that if Hunter receives money from mom and dad to cover his tax bill, that in itself is taxable income? Or has Hunter squirreled away enough filthy lucre from his past business ventures that he can cover it himself?

Partisan Republicans are probably going to get a bit too overwrought about this whole situation. This plea agreement does not resolve the question surrounding Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings, including those while his father served as Vice-President. The U.S. Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, was quick to remind everyone that these investigations continue, even if there are significant claims that the government is slow-walking them in order to push them past the 2024 elections. The Hunter Biden situation here shows that when you cooperate (even minimally so) with the prosecution you can reach an agreement that spares you huge embarrassment.

One thing to wonder is whether the government could have pressed Biden fils a bit harder, knowing that Team Biden did not want Hunter to be on trial this fall or next spring with his sleazy personal life and shady business dealings being detailed in court proceedings while his dad was out making the case for why he should be reelected to another Presidential term. And the seeming casualness with which the government provided an escape hatch for Hunter Biden’s gun crimes seems to put the lie to the incessant Democrat claims that we need more numerous and strict gun laws in order to make our streets safe.

In any case, it certainly was a busy holiday weekend in the legal struggles of Robert Hunter Biden. He appeared in an Arkansas court this past Friday in the matter of his desire to reduce child-support payments to the mother of his love-child (shamefully still unacknowledged by Joe and Jill Biden). This motion naturally has the court seeking financial records from the child’s father, who claims that his income has significantly dropped to the point where his $20,000 monthly support check is no longer feasible. So Hunter Biden apparently took the stand last Friday and testified under oath with respect to his finances in open court. Should his testimony not jibe with the records that investigators may eventually release, has Hunter Biden opened himself up to perjury charges which would violate the terms of his probation and theoretically put the gun felony back into play? Or since the probation deal has not yet been consummated, could he possible limit his liability to a perjury charge in Little Rock?

Stay tuned. Never a dull moment with this crowd.

– JVW

136 Responses to “All Things Hunter Biden [UPDATED]”

  1. I miss the days when good old fashioned bachelors like Grover Cleveland were in the White House, especially when they had love children of their own. Or at least when the White House children are young and can’t get themselves into serious trouble.

    JVW (c535be)

  2. These are the good old days, JVW; compared to what I fear is coming for our children.

    felipe (8f56c3)

  3. With penalties and interest, one would assume that he owes in excess of $300,000 which is a pretty large chunk of change for a guy who no longer has attractive employment possibilities

    The reports are that it was $2 million he owed, with all the bumps, and he was “loaned” the money by a Hollywood fixer with political ties to his father.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  4. A lot is said about how Weiss was appointed by Trump, but stayed on the complete the mission. Still, pressure could be applied and Biden’s people did come to talk to Garland about it.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  5. Do the Bidens know that if Hunter receives money from mom and dad to cover his tax bill, that in itself is taxable income?

    There is no reason for them to know that, because it is not taxable income, it is a gift; the gift tax is paid by the giver and not the recipient; and the first $12.06 million ($12,060,000.00) is tax free. What did you think you were voting for when you voted Republican?

    nk (fd1f0d)

  6. I know, I know, it saves the family farm.

    nk (fd1f0d)

  7. The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees need to air all this out and conduct public hearings. Why haven’t they?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  8. There is no reason for them to know that, because it is not taxable income, it is a gift; the gift tax is paid by the giver and not the recipient; and the first $12.06 million ($12,060,000.00) is tax free. What did you think you were voting for when you voted Republican?

    Good gravy! Here’s a citation for the $12.06 million lifetime figure that nk mentions. And nk’s right that it’s not taxable, though the Bidens would have to report anything over $17k (I’m assuming a combined $34k if they file jointly) that they passed along to him.

    JVW (12a3a1)

  9. Andrew McCarthy is not pleased with today’s developments, and believes that despite Mr. Weiss’s claims to the contrary, the investigation into Hunter Biden is essentially over:

    Under Justice Department policy, even with a plea agreement, the government is supposed to seek a plea to the “most serious,” readily provable “offense that is consistent with the nature and full extent of the defendant’s conduct.” Hunter Biden committed tax offenses that could have been charged as evasion, which is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment for each count. Furthermore, he made a false statement that enabled him to obtain a firearm; that’s a ten-year felony under legislation pushed through by then-senator Joe Biden to show how very serious Democrats are about gun crime.

    Biden apologists have tried to minimize that transaction as a “lie and try” case, which they say is often not prosecuted. But such non-prosecution (though it shouldn’t happen) occurs because of what you’d infer from the “try” part — i.e., the liar got caught and failed to obtain the gun. Hunter’s case, to the contrary, is a lie and succeed case. He got the gun. What’s more, he was then seen playing with it while cavorting with an “escort” (see the New York Post’s pictorial, if you’ve got the stomach for it). Shortly afterwards, he and his then-paramour — Hallie Biden, the widow of his older brother — managed to lose the gun near a school (it was later found by someone else).

    Those are the kinds of gun cases that get charged by the Justice Department even if the suspect hasn’t, in addition, committed tax felonies by dodging taxes on the millions of dollars he was paid, apparently for being named Biden. Yet after refusing for years to appoint a special counsel despite the five-alarm conflict of interest attendant to investigating the president’s son ( . . . and family . . . and the president himself), the Biden Justice Department is permitting Hunter Biden to dispose of the case with misdemeanor tax charges that will allow for a probation sentence, and diversion — essentially, no prosecution — on the gun felony that would result in imprisonment for most Americans who engaged in similar conduct.

    Quite a deal.

    JVW (f77924)

  10. Do the Bidens know that if Hunter receives money from mom and dad to cover his tax bill, that in itself is taxable income?

    Why should it be? Isn’t that a gift?

    But that’s not the way they are doing it, anyway.

    In any case, the $2 million he already paid was structured as a loan, which is not taxable, unless it is written off, and it does not become taxable income unless no money is paid back on the loan for seven years. Or he is insolvent and/or declares bankruptcy.

    Now the $2 million came from a lawyer who is a campaign donor. It might be considered an unreported illegal over-the-limit campaign contribution if Joe Biden had anything to do with that. (if he didn’t it’s an un-coordinated independent expenditure)

    Go prove it. I think to make it a campaign contribution they would need to pierce attorney-client confidentiality because this surely would all have been done using attorneys as intermediaries for all communication. This works for everyone except Donald Trump, because he’s careless and has enemies out to get him.

    Incidentally, I heard that Hunter Biden is supposed to pay $1,200,000 more, not just $300,000.

    In the meantime, he’s in court in Arkansas arguing that he has no money. Maybe has no control over it. so he can’t settle with the mother of his child. All she’s asking for is – a little over $3 million all told – $20,000 a month for the next 13 years or so. That is a lot, come to think of it. Equal to the amount he’s has given or is supposed to give the federal treasury. But he’s being subsidized for more.

    Joe Biden pointedly does not recognize this grandchild.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  11. Hallie Biden threw the gun away because she was afraid Hunter would use it to commit suicide. When she told him, he insisted they had to find it. Eventually the Secret Service was set to looking for it (even though Hunter was no longer a protectee) And they found it. That’s all in the laptop files. The Justice Department could not ignore it because Rudolph Giuliani and other Republicans knew all about it.

    Hunter’s lawyers said that if he was prosecuted they would appeal a conviction, based on a recent Supreme Court Second Amendment case. It might not have that great a chance, but it probably was enough to gain a non-prosecution agreement, because DOJ policy calls for only prosecuting cases they feel really certain they can win.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  12. In the meantime there will be no further IRS investigation because the team has been dismissed and replaced.

    https://nypost.com/2023/06/11/biden-laughs-off-fbi-bribery-claims-as-evidence-against-him-and-hunter-mounts

    …Thanks to two senior IRS whistleblowers, we have insight into the internal conflict that has plagued Weiss’ investigation into Hunter, at least since early 2020, amid claims of interference from “main Justice,” the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington, DC, where the attorney general and other top political appointees work.

    Gary Shapley, a 14-year supervisory IRS agent in the international tax and financial crimes group, who ran the Hunter Biden investigation for Weiss, spent at least seven hours under oath two weeks ago [= May 29-June 2] privately testifying to the Republican-led House Ways and Means Committee.

    He handed over 23 pages of evidence documenting “egregious” DOJ “deviations from normal process” and “slow-walking” of the investigation over the past three years in ways that seemed always to benefit Hunter.

    He first came forward to Congress on [Wed.] April 19, when his attorney Mark Lytle wrote to three House committees offering to make protected whistleblower disclosures. Shapley, at that point unnamed, offered evidence to “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee”; reveal failures to handle “clear conflicts of interest”; and detail instances of “preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols.”

    He previously has made complaints internally at the IRS, and to the inspector generals at the Treasury Department and DOJ.

    Three weeks after his outreach to Congress, [= May 8-12] Shapley and his entire team of 12 investigators on the Hunter probe in Delaware were removed “at the request of the Department of Justice,” his attorneys alleged on May 15. [The next week]

    Last week, [= June 5-9] a second IRS whistleblower from Weiss’ team, who had worked on the Hunter case since it was opened in 2018, also testified to Congress, accusing the DOJ of “acting inappropriately” and alleging he was removed from the case for doing the “right thing.”

    This whole thing is as serious for Joe Biden as the documents obstruction was for Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  13. So Hunter Biden apparently took the stand last Friday and testified under oath with respect to his finances in open court. Should his testimony not jibe with the records that investigators may eventually release, has Hunter Biden opened himself up to perjury charges which would violate the terms of his probation and theoretically put the gun felony back into play?

    No, the lawyers have it all worked out, by which he has money and doesn’t have money at the same time.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  14. I think that Mark Twain’s comment could be expanded to all politicians.

    “There is no distinctly American criminal class – except Congress.“

    Simon Jester (13ae4c)

  15. The ban on firearm possession by drug users are being reconsidered by a number of courts in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (see here and here) is crumbling, as are bans on possession by non-violent felons and those under felony indictment. Reportedly the Biden legal team was going to mount a constitutional challenge to the drug user ban.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  16. Charlie Cooke reminds us that by so effortlessly dispatching with the gun charge against Hunter Biden, the Justice Department has spared us with the spectacle of Hunter Biden making a strong Second Amendment plea which would likely embarrass his father, were his father capable of embarrassment, but would certainly provide some angina to the more staunch gun controllers in the Biden Administration:

    Joe Biden is famous for his support for stricter gun-control laws, stricter drug-control laws, and stricter laws in the areas where guns and drugs intersect. Obviously, Joe did not want to see Hunter’s lawyers arguing that, under the recent Bruen decision that Joe vocally opposes, all of those laws are unconstitutional.

    Which may well be the reason that Hunter’s lawyers “told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment.” As a threat, this was extremely potent. Under the American system of government, the Hunter Biden case has ultimately been brought not by the DOJ, but by the authority vested in the president of the United States. Per Article II, the prosecution would be most literally rendered as Biden v. Biden. How excruciating it would have been for Joe to have a case such as this roiling in the background while he insisted cloyingly from his podium that, unlike all the Bad People out there who disagree with him, all he wants for America is a return to “common sense.”

    Yep. Chalk up another W for The Swamp.

    JVW (0f1c41)

  17. Rip Murdock and I were on the same wavelength.

    JVW (0162b8)

  18. And overturning the bans are a good thing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  19. No, the lawyers have it all worked out, by which he has money and doesn’t have money at the same time.

    Schrödinger!

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  20. Drug users and alcohol abusers should be banned from possessing guns. Trust me on this. Not only for other’s sake, but the extreme frustration of being unable to quit can easily lead to suicide.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  21. I keep seeiing it said that conduct like this would get anyone else serious jail time, especially the gun charge(s). That isn’t my perception at all. Cases like this in my community often end in pretrial diversion and/or plea bargains with fines.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  22. I keep seeiing it said that conduct like this would get anyone else serious jail time, especially the gun charge(s). That isn’t my perception at all. Cases like this in my community often end in pretrial diversion and/or plea bargains with fines.

    Me too, DRJ. And my community was Chicago and vicinity. Morton Grove? We would stipulate to the facts without pleading guilty; confiscate and destroy on the gun; and the sentence would be a year’s non-reporting supervision which if successfully completed would result in dismissal of the case.

    nk (5a775d)

  23. There are also the tax charges. Again, in what world is intentionally not paying taxes on $3 million income (because you were too busy spending it on whores and crack) just probation? It’s not like Hunter came in and told them he owed taxes.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  24. But wait. Didn’t Joe tell us that Hunter did nothing wrong?

    What gives, man?

    How does he know? Was he with him 24/7?

    Of course not.

    Oh, he’s just protecting his family, you say. Yes, and I don’t find it noble. In fact, I find it disgusting. I don’t agree with the notion that family triumphs all. The mafia always stresses family over obedience to the law.

    If my family member committed a crime, I would refuse to be a PR flack for him/her.

    norcal (8b5267)

  25. 19. Hunter is probably living on borrowed money and gifts and advances.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  26. Drug users and alcohol abusers should be banned from possessing guns.

    One is, the other isn’t.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  27. Keeping the investigation “open” can also be a DOJ plan not to have to disclose any information.

    steveg (23418c)

  28. Drug users and alcohol abusers should be banned from possessing guns.

    Both should be. I am not being hypocritical here either, having once been both.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  29. Hunter is probably living on borrowed money and gifts and advances.

    I would very much like to see him find permanent recovery. It’s there, if he wants it and will work for it. If he doesn’t this plea deal will bite pretty badly. His dad can rescue him one more time, but that’s not a very good plan for Hunter.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  30. The justice system can be merciful with substance abusers, unless they hurt other people. It can be frustrating but it is possible for some abusers to change.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  31. I’ll bet that Hunter will be pardoned on the last day of Biden’s Administration. It would be no different than Trump’s pardon of Charles Kushner.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  32. The reports are that it was $2 million he owed……

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/20/2023 @ 1:25 pm

    According to this report Biden “only” owed $200,000 in unpaid taxes.

    According to the tax Information, Hunter Biden received taxable income in excess of $1,500,000 annually in calendar years 2017 and 2018. Despite owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes each year, he did not pay the income tax due for either year.
    ……….
    Hunter Biden is charged with two violations of failure to pay income tax and one violation of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison on each of the tax charges…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  33. I’ve heard a variety of sums that Hunter Biden allegedly owes to the government. I used the $200,000 figure because that is what was reported in the source material I used in constructing my post: $100k for each of the years 2017 and 2018. I’m sure that there are penalties and interest tacked on too.

    But I did come across the item that Kevin M mentions regarding the $2 million sum, which is apparently what Hunter paid last year in order to settle another tax dispute with the government. The source of that largesse is supposedly a Hollywood lawyer who is (was?) also paying Hunter’s rent and living expenses out here.

    Yeah, sounds like a totally legitimate arrangement.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  34. UPDATE: Well, well, well, it’s been quite the day of legal system accomplishments for Mr. Robert Hunter Biden. The NY Post reports that his Arkansas baby mama, Lunden Roberts, has just settled with the father of her four-year-old daughter Navy Joan for a 75% reduction in his monthly child support obligations, cut from $20,000 per month down to $5,000 per month. So either we are to believe that Ms. Roberts and her attorney resigned themselves to the idea that Hunter Biden’s financial situation has taken a drastic downgrade and that $5k per month is just about as much as they were going to get from him, or else some other rich sleazy Democrat fat-cat is quietly taking care of Ms. Roberts and her girl behind the scenes in return for the two of them no longer bothering the Biden family while they face a tough reelection fight.

    And apparently the Biden family will continue pretending that Navy Joan doesn’t exist. This comes from Ms. Roberts’ lawyer, Clint Lancaster:

    “Lunden is a great mum and little Navy is going be fine,” said Lancaster. “The kid has lots of love on the maternal side of the family in Batesville [Arkansas]. They are a very, very close family. They adore her and are always going to support her … But I think everybody is disappointed that there’s not more contact [with the Biden family].

    “It’s not lost on anybody that Jill Biden wrote a children’s book and [dedicated it] to her grandchildren,” the lawyer went on. “She could have kept it at that, but she named every child except Navy.

    “They hung stockings for the dog at Christmas but not for Navy. That is one of the saddest things.”

    We’ve suffered through the Ozark dysfunction of the Clinton Crime Family, we’re endured the Golden Toilet escapades of the Trump Trash, and hopefully we can withstand the ugly sleaze of the Delaware Dipshits. But we really ought to be aspiring to a higher caliber of leaders in this country.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  35. But we really ought to be aspiring to a higher caliber of leaders in this country.

    Perhaps we need to bring back literacy tests on the voters. But I’m betting that in a few years we’ll have party symbols and candidate photos on the ballots.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  36. $100k for each of the years 2017 and 2018.

    The construction I read was “over $100K for each year” which could mean anything. And really, with income of $1.5 million each year, $100K with penalties is a little hard to believe.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  37. The STATE income tax in DE is $97K/year on that income. Federal tax is $560/year. Then there’s the question of FICA etc. When they go after you, they often disallow most deductions, so $2 million total for 2 years with penalties and interest is not out of the question.

    https://smartasset.com/taxes/delaware-tax-calculator#7DHXbP7CYl

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  38. * $560K/year

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  39. And really, with income of $1.5 million each year, $100K with penalties is a little hard to believe.

    Perhaps, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that he hadn’t reported any income for those years, it might be that he just grossly under-reported his income (which could be a sign that he’s trying to hide something) and thus didn’t pay his full tax bite.

    I believe I read that there was one year, 2015 it might of been, where Hunter Biden had completely failed to file a tax return. I think that was part of what he settled up with the government on last year.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  40. I guess it’s understandable that Hunter Biden get a extremely light rap on the knuckles for his failure to pay taxes and then lying on a federal gun form. Prison sentences need to be reserved for people who do truly heinous things, like lie to the NYU Admissions Office or give USC a big check to get their kid a spot in the freshman class.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  41. Now with Hunter mostly out of the picture, what trivial issue are Trumpists going to obsess on next?

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  42. Here’s where the $100K number came from (Weiss):

    In a statement, Weiss said Hunter Biden received more than $1.5 million in annual income in both 2017 and 2018 and didn’t pay taxes on it, despite owing more than $100,000 each year. The Wall Street Journal previously reported he paid back about $1 million, while the charges say he failed to pay at least $200,000 on time. The reason for that apparent discrepancy wasn’t clear in advance of further details expected from the prosecution.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  43. Ah, thanks for the clarification, Kevin M.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  44. I wonder if he had reported the actual number it would have raised eyebrows.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  45. Now with Hunter mostly out of the picture, what trivial issue are Trumpists going to obsess on next?

    Are you suggesting that only Trumpists are concerned about potential corruption and shady dealings within the Biden Family? And what is so “trivial” about tax avoidance and felony perjury? Look at what other issues with dishonest gun permit disclosures have reached the news recently.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  46. Yes, I’m saying Hunter’s guilty plea is a trivial issue. If his name was Hunter Skakorsky and he committed the same offenses, I’m not sure it would get any media coverage, anywhere.
    And let’s not forget, US Attorney Weiss was picked by AG Barr, presumably with Trump’s blessing.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  47. And let’s not forget, US Attorney Weiss was picked by AG Barr, presumably with Trump’s blessing.

    I keep hearing that. I also hear that the DoJ has interfered, to the point of reassigning investigators, at several points. Then there is the issue of what happens to staff after Weiss leaves. Do they really want to have Hunter’s scalp nailed to their wall?

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  48. If his name was Hunter Skakorsky and he committed the same offenses, I’m not sure it would get any media coverage, anywhere.

    No it wouldn’t. Nor would Hunter Skakorsky have had the Secret Service following him around trying to clean up his gun mess, or a Democrat sugar daddy loaning him $2 million to pay off his tax bill, or a direct pipeline into the DOJ to make sure that the Barr-chosen U.S. Attorney is hemmed in as much as possible. And even if Hunter Skakorsky had been prosecuted for lying on his gun permit form, I’ll gladly stipulate that it would have at best been a brief item in news and more likely than not would have been totally ignored. But can you see why Hunter Biden is a bit more newsworthy than Hunter Skakorsky?

    JVW (1ad43e)

  49. I shouldn’t have commented, because I really don’t care. The Hunter story has been flogged well enough.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  50. You cared enough to dredge up some comment from almost a year ago for the purposes of a victory lap.

    BuDuh (f57af2)

  51. I think it matters because he was riding on Airforce 2 trading off of the office of the VP of the USA. We have had a rash of unprincipled men in the WH since 2008 and two of them are the same guy and the other is named Trump

    No one would care about Hunter Skakorsky, except for the mockery he would have gotten for being the idiot who was smoking crack, waving a gun, all in front of federal officers at the same time he was evading $300,000 in Federal Taxes. First ballot hall of fame

    steveg (23418c)

  52. @51 Since 2008? Where were before 2008? Dubya, bubba, dubya’s pop. bonzo. Ford, ( nixon’s pardon aside) carter at least tried to have principals.

    asset (8a3592)

  53. You cared enough to dredge up some comment from almost a year ago for the purposes of a victory lap.

    Yes, for nailing the fact that that was all that going to come this case.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  54. Eh, …all that was going to come from this case.

    The Trumpist right has been way too invested in this story, IMO, desperate to find a moral equivalency between Joe’s alleged indiscretions and Donald’s blatant crimes. It’s akin to the Trump-Putin Wing declaring that Zelenskyy is just as bad-evil as Putin.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  55. Joe’s blatant crimes *

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  56. I think AllahNick answered his only question about why Jack Smith won’t offer a plea deal, yet: The J6 investigation is going full tilt, and any plea bargain (and I doubt Trump would accede to one) would be a package deal, covering both indictments. I’m guessing the 2nd indictment, for the crimes involving Trump’s attempted coup, will happen before the equinox.

    For more than a year and a half after leaving office, Trump rebuffed every informal attempt by the federal government to persuade him to return the many sensitive documents in his possession without incident. Had he cooperated at any point, right up until the day before the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, I suspect he wouldn’t have been charged with any crime. (See, e.g., Mike Pence.) In fact, none of the counts against him for willfully retaining documents in Jack Smith’s indictment relate to material Trump reluctantly handed over before he was subpoenaed in May 2022. He’s gotten off scot-free with respect to those documents.

    Hunter Biden is receiving a light punishment in return for admitting wrongdoing. Trump almost certainly would have received no punishment and never been asked to concede that he’d done wrong despite having committed far graver offenses if he hadn’t been so stubborn about “my boxes.” Republicans are quite capable of grasping fine legal distinctions when they want to, and this one isn’t particularly fine. If they can’t see the difference in these two cases, it’s because they don’t want to.

    Frankly, I doubt Trump would have been charged even after the FBI searched his property and recovered additional material if not for the deceit he engaged in. According to the indictment, he misled his own lawyers by quietly hiding boxes before they signed an attestation that all documents in his possession had finally been returned. At another point, after he was subpoenaed, he allegedly asked his attorney, “What happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?” and “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything there?”

    Being stubborn and crooked is a good way to get indicted. Being stubborn, crooked, and stupid all but guarantees it:

    Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.

    Tom Fitton isn’t a lawyer, he’s a political activist. Like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani after the 2020 election, he prevailed over more ethical and experienced advisers in influencing Trump by assuring the former president that his worst impulses are correct. Rarely will a toady lose a strongman’s ear by telling him what he wants to hear.

    There are many things one can say about Hunter Biden, but at least he has the basic horse sense to take his lawyers’ advice when in criminal jeopardy.

    On Monday night Trump sat down with Fox News and all but confessed to the elements of the charges against him. He couldn’t hand over his boxes to the National Archives until he had checked them thoroughly, he told Bret Baier, because his golf attire might have been jumbled up inside with top-secret documents. Why a billionaire would prefer to risk prison than simply ship everything back to the feds as-is and buy some new polo shirts is unclear. So is his inability to find a few hours over the course of 18 months to sort through the contents of the boxes when he seems to spend most of his time nowadays golfing.

    Reliable Trump defenders like Brit Hume were aghast after the Fox interview about their man’s impulse to needlessly make trouble for himself. One can only imagine how his lawyers felt. (Although, if you’re foolish enough to take on Trump as a client at this point, you must know what you’re getting.) Online MAGA supporters barely bother to argue the facts of the case, resorting instead to dubious interpretations of the Presidential Records Act and table-pounding about “double standards” for which today’s wrist-slap of the president’s son will prove useful. If they have any theory as to why Trump isn’t guilty as charged of at least obstruction of justice, as alleged by the indictment, I haven’t heard it.

    All of which makes this a pretty ripe moment for him to consider a plea bargain, no?

    I remain firmly opposed to pardoning him for his crimes, and not just because letting him off the hook for stealing classified material wouldn’t end his potential federal criminal jeopardy. A pardon should require some admission of fault, if not by Trump himself than by Republican leaders or Republican voters in the form of electoral repudiation. A party poised to renominate a twice-indicted coup-dabbler isn’t admitting fault. They’re tripling down on it.

    And because they are, pardoning Trump wouldn’t help “heal the country” or “drain the poison” from American life. The right would react to clemency from Joe Biden not with gratitude but with resentment and cockamamie conspiracy theory, the way they process all modern political developments. MAGA fans would claim that Biden issued the pardon only to spare his Justice Department the embarrassment of their case falling apart in court, or because he’s secretly worried about being prosecuted himself by a future Trump administration and wants to set a precedent in which ex-presidents are held harmless for their crimes.

    I repeat what I’ve said before: The only coherent argument for pardoning Trump is to appease the would-be domestic terrorists who might turn violent on his behalf if their leader is ignominiously jailed. If we’re going to grant him legal impunity for the sake of mollifying the most feral elements of his base, we should be forthright about it instead of dressing it up in euphemisms about “comity” or “healing.” And we shouldn’t complain afterward when the worst actors in society draw a logical conclusion about the political utility of threatening violence.

    Pardons are an act of mercy. Mercy should be earned. Trump has done nothing to earn it. The reason he was never persuaded to return “his boxes,” I suspect, is that he believed and still believes that America won’t have the nerve to jail him. When any institutional effort to hold him accountable for his misconduct does more damage to that institution’s credibility than it does to his, as invariably happens among American right, accountability quickly becomes more trouble than it’s worth. There should be no rewarding that with a pardon.

    However.

    Plea bargains aren’t special acts of mercy. They happen in virtually every federal and state case, as we were reminded again on Tuesday morning. They’re products of rational risk assessment on both sides about the odds of winning or losing at trial. And in Trump’s case, the risk of the feds losing is real: As strong as the indictment against him looks, he’s drawn a favorable judge in a politically favorable state. A single MAGA-minded juror could ensure a mistrial, daring the Justice Department to refile charges for another hugely expensive, politically wrenching prosecution.

    Prosecutors have good reason to make a deal. But so does Trump, given the strength of the evidence against him and the likelihood that even a short-ish sentence would lead to him dying in prison.

    Sounds to me like the makings of a plea bargain.

    “Forget it,” you might say. “He’ll never confess his guilt. He’s incapable of admitting fault, let alone remorse.” Right, but he doesn’t need to admit fault in order to make a deal. He could offer what’s known as an “Alford plea” in which the defendant maintains his innocence but concedes that the evidence against him is strong enough that a jury would probably find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Imagine Trump agreeing to enter an Alford plea, paying some sort of fine, and accepting a few years’ probation in exchange for no prison time. The DOJ would leap at that deal, I suspect, sparing itself years of political headaches in trying Trump and then years of logistical headaches in figuring out how to safely incarcerate him if he’s found guilty.

    Even if the Justice Department is loath to let him off with no jail time after all of the crimes he’s alleged to have committed, today’s Hunter Biden plea deal makes it that much harder politically for it to say no. “If Hunter didn’t have to serve time, why does Trump?” the average joe will wonder. “Good question!” Republicans will reply in unison, hoping that said average joe doesn’t think too hard about the relative gravity of the charges against each man.

    If the feds can let the left-wing president’s corrupt son go free, it’s only fair that they let the corrupt right-wing former president go free as well. To a post-liberal mentality, that’s basic justice.

    I think Trump could spin a plea deal to the satisfaction of most of his fans so long as his punishment was conspicuously light, making it seem as though he “won” the plea deal. My lawyers came to me with tears in their eyes and said, “Sir, many people are saying it would be good for the country if you made a deal with the crooked thugs at the Justice Department to end their witch hunt.” So I did it for you. But I didn’t admit guilt! Total exoneration!

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  57. Joe’s blatant crimes *

    Show me the evidence, and don’t say the FD-1023, because that’s an allegation, one small step above hearsay, not proof.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  58. @JVW

    We’ve suffered through the Ozark dysfunction of the Clinton Crime Family, we’re endured the Golden Toilet escapades of the Trump Trash, and hopefully we can withstand the ugly sleaze of the Delaware Dipshits. But we really ought to be aspiring to a higher caliber of leaders in this country.

    Bravo in your descriptor, I might just steal it.

    It would be something if the candidates are Ron DeSantis v. Gavin Newsom. Those two would give voters something to vote for, rather than simply partisan defensive voting.

    [Note: Fished out of moderation. – JVW]

    whembly (d116f3)

  59. I’d be OK if Trump plead guilty to one count under 18 USC 2383, and got a stiff fine and a suspended 10 year sentence.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  60. Shut down any invesigation into his son’s overseas crimes. Fired whistleblowers talking about the criminal restrictions placed on their invetigations into his son’s crimes.

    NJRob (31968d)

  61. Ridiculous sweetheart deal given to his son for many crimes.

    Reminds me of the FBI granting immunity to all Hillary’s minions then destroying the evidence on their phones.

    NJRob (31968d)

  62. And Joe is now spitting on the law again as the deadline to release all information into the Wuhan Flu’s origins passed yesterday without said information being released.

    That deadline was passed with bipartisan consent and signed by Biden previously.

    NJRob (31968d)

  63. That’s not worth no gold doubloon. Maybe an extra ration of rum. I don’t remember, did Ahab allow liquor on the Pequod?

    nk (d28491)

  64. To a post-liberal mentality, that’s basic justice.

    The same principles that led to “You can lie [under oath] about sex.”

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  65. That’s not worth no gold doubloon. 18 USC 2383 would be. The disqualification meets the 14th Amendment test.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  66. Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/21/2023 @ 8:17 am

    Me, too. Maybe that bit of US Code will be in the next indictment.

    Shut down any invesigation into his son’s overseas crimes.

    What shutdown? Was not Weiss investigation Hunter for the last five years?

    Fired whistleblowers talking about the criminal restrictions placed on their invetigations into his son’s crimes.

    From what I’ve seen, those “whistleblowers” aren’t whistleblowers and they all have credibility issues. There’s a reason Jim Jordan’s spectacle of a hearing basically went nowhere.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  67. The DOJ investigation of Robert Hunter Biden is still ongoing.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  68. Did anyone a year ago predict that the investigation would be ongoing?

    BuDuh (78a8bd)

  69. From what I’ve seen, those “whistleblowers” aren’t whistleblowers and they all have credibility issues.

    ALL whistleblowers develop credibility issues as those who they blew the whistle on react.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  70. The DOJ investigation of Robert Hunter Biden is still ongoing.

    And they will continue to play keep-away from Congress.

    If Comer had any brains (heh!), he would subpoena all of Hunter’s tax returns since 2009, on the theory that Congress needs to understand how the tax system works in the case of cheating by Executive dependents.

    Then, of course, publish them after swearing you would not.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  71. ALL whistleblowers develop credibility issues as those who they blew the whistle on react.

    Eric Ciaramella went through actual whistleblower channels instead of slipping a note to the Chair of the Oversight Committee. Did he have “credibility issues”?

    If I sound like I’m ragging on my party a lot today, folks, all I can say is that a twice-impeached twice-indicted con man has a 21-point lead, at the least, for the 2024 GOP nomination.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  72. After looking at Hunter Biden’s gun charge, it looks like he actually had the gun for only 11 days. His wife found it in his car and promptly threw it in a dumpster at a local restaurant (!). She feared that he was suicidal. They went back to retrieve it but in the interim someone took the gun out of dumpster (!). It was then later reclaimed from the dumpster rummager. Now, does any of that absolve him of criminal liability for lying on the form about his drug use? Obviously not completely, but clearly the drug use impacted his judgment and it seems reasonable to look at more of the circumstances. Does someone in a similar circumstance typically get time in prison? It doesn’t look like it. A diversion program seems appropriate. The key is justice, not political vengeance.

    I don’t quite understand why he did not pay the taxes. I’ve not found any articles that dug that deep. Obviously post criminal investigation, the back taxes plus fines got paid with the help of a “loan” from Kevin Morris. Again, it’s hard to get a jury to put someone in prison who admits his mistake and makes restitution, even if it’s with the help from a 3rd party. So, if you take this out of the political realm, would a similarly-charged individual get a similar plea agreement? It looks like it. He wasn’t challenging the authority of the IRS, or whatever Wesley Snipes was doing with much larger liability. It’s sad. You would hope someone as prominent as Joe Biden would be able to help Hunter out more effectively. I guess it shows the scourge of addiction as well as the limits of privilege.

    I continue to NOT see the point of piling on. Joe earned some of the abuse by not avoiding the appearance of corruption. But corruption is not what I worry about Biden. I don’t trust his judgment and I think he’s wasted an opportunity to be a bigger President. I hope he retires and does not run in 2024. It will cause some chaos short term, but the office needs someone sharper and more energetic.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  73. Rep. Lauren Boebert to force House vote on impeaching Biden
    ……….
    “President Biden’s negligence of duty has resulted in the surrender of operational control of the border to the complete and total control of foreign criminal cartels putting the lives of American citizens in jeopardy,” Boebert said on the House floor Tuesday.
    ………
    “I am bringing my articles of impeachment against Joe Biden to the House Floor in a privileged motion, meaning that every Member of Congress must vote on holding Joe Biden accountable,” Boebert tweeted.
    ………
    The six-page impeachment resolution argues that Biden has abused his power and is derelict in his duty as president, leading an administration “that has continuously, overtly, and consistently violated Federal immigration law by pursuing an aggressive, open-borders agenda.”

    Boebert, who tried to impeach Biden in 2021, accuses him of “purposefully and knowingly” releasing millions of migrants into the U.S. “without the intention or ability to ensure that they appear in immigration court to face asylum or deportation proceedings.”
    ……….

    Related:

    Speaker Kevin McCarthy urged House Republicans to vote against the resolution brought forward by GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado forcing a vote to impeach President Joe Biden this week, arguing now is not the right time, multiple sources in the closed door meeting told CNN.
    ……..
    McCarthy argued that Republicans should let committee investigations play out and warning that jumping to impeachment now could threaten their slim majority, the sources said. The speaker noted that House Republicans have taken back the House five times in the last 100 years, and two of those times lost the majority the next cycle.
    ……..
    ……..(S)everal hardline Republicans plan to vote for the impeachment resolution, even though she has faced some criticism from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who called her a “copycat” for offering an impeachment resolution similar to the one she proposed.

    Greene said that she plans to support the Boebert resolution, and that she is also taking steps to force a vote on five other impeachment resolutions. These resolutions target Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and US Attorney Matthew Graves.

    “What we need to do is we really need to have this argument here in our conference and get to the same place that our base is, where our Republican voters are and they’ve had enough. They’ve absolutely had enough.”
    ………

    If not now, when? Better to impeach before the presidential election and bloody Biden’s nose. He doesn’t have Trump’s charisma to use impeachment as an electoral advantage.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  74. It would be something if the candidates are Ron DeSantis v. Gavin Newsom. Those two would give voters something to vote for, rather than simply partisan defensive voting.

    At one point I was really hoping for a Ted Cruz vs. Bernard Sanders matchup in 2016, on the theory that it would be a needed test of the proposition that the United States is still a center-right country. Of course that was predicated upon my belief that Sen. Cruz would manage to beat the Green Mountain Gramsci, and eight years later I’m not at all sure that would be the case if the same two ran next year.

    JVW (1ad43e)

  75. And I would be kinder to Comer and Grassley if I weren’t sure that the real reason they’re hounding Hunter is not out of loyalty to America, and not even out of good old-fashioned wholesome American political partisanship, but instead out of craven fawning to that twice-impeached, twice-indicted con man.

    nk (d28491)

  76. I’d be OK if Trump plead guilty to one count under 18 USC 2383, and got a stiff fine and a suspended 10 year sentence.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/21/2023 @ 8:17 am

    You’re getting soft. Previously you have wished he would shuffle off his mortal coil. 😜

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  77. Wishes sometimes have to give in to “good enough.”

    It does disqualify him for office, which is a win.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  78. It would be something if the candidates are Ron DeSantis v. Gavin Newsom.

    How about Tim Scott vs Gretchen Whitmer? Then we could see how Opportunity fares against The Life of Julia.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  79. If not now, when? Better to impeach before the presidential election and bloody Biden’s nose.

    You assume a great deal here. Impeaching Clinton just made him stronger, and the 1998 midterms were a disaster for the GOP.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  80. Question (on topic):

    Can a plea bargain include the waiving of a constitutional right?

    Suppose it was speech or worship?

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  81. I’d be OK if Trump plead guilty to one count under 18 USC 2383, and got a stiff fine and a suspended 10 year sentence.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/21/2023 @ 8:17 am

    Wishes sometimes have to give in to “good enough.”

    It does disqualify him for office, which is a win.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/21/2023 @ 11:12 am

    LOL! Will never happen.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  82. If not now, when? Better to impeach before the presidential election and bloody Biden’s nose.

    You assume a great deal here. Impeaching Clinton just made him stronger, and the 1998 midterms were a disaster for the GOP.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/21/2023 @ 11:17 am

    Biden doesn’t have Clinton’s popularity or charisma, and Clinton was helped by the “it’s just sex” argument. If Biden is as corrupt as everyone says he is, he should be immediately impeached, along with everything else.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  83. “Can a plea bargain include the waiving of a constitutional right?”

    I guess you don’t have to take the plea, and states can condition gun ownership on not being a felon. Now, should that be true, especially for non-violent offenses? I’m an exigent circumstances kind of guy. I think there should be a clock on it and a review process. If Biden has a security concern…Trump and a bunch of acolytes want to string him up…then the state should either provide protection or allow him to arm himself.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  84. It’s hard to support making a joke out of impeachment, especially with using the border as the prime charge. Even though it would not get enough support for conviction, I think the questionable Executive Orders Biden has issued would have a bit more foundation. It doesn’t help that the House has not pushed for any sort of more aggressive border policy (though I certainly could have missed it). The GOP is just letting the wrecking ball swing on institutions and the Constitution. It’s hard to watch. Maybe it does need to just burn.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  85. Lunden Roberts, has just settled with the father of her four-year-old daughter Navy Joan for a 75% reduction in his monthly child support obligations, cut from $20,000 per month down to $5,000 per month. So either we are to believe that Ms. Roberts and her attorney resigned themselves to the idea that Hunter Biden’s financial situation has taken a drastic downgrade and that $5k per month is just about as much as they were going to get from him, or else some other rich sleazy Democrat fat-cat is quietly taking care of Ms. Roberts and her girl behind the scenes in return for the two of them no longer bothering the Biden family while they face a tough reelection fight.

    He might be very poor in a couple of years. But then, how could she rely even on $5,000? Maybe somebody bought an annuity for the child.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  86. AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/21/2023 @ 1:17 pm

    , I think the questionable Executive Orders Biden has issued would have a bit more foundation.

    Stopping the IRS investigation miht be abetter choice.

    It doesn’t help that the House has not pushed for any sort of more aggressive border policy

    Nobody wants that. You might get more deaths, like Greece.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/seventeen-drown-100-rescued-after-migrant-shipwreck-off-greece-2023-06-14

    Or even Canada:

    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/after-immigrant-deaths-border-calls-end-us-canada-asylum-pact-grow-louder-2023-04-04

    Dozens of protesters gathered in front of Canadian Public Safety Minister office in Toronto on Tuesday demanding an end of an asylum treaty between Canada and the United States after eight people died by drowning as they tried to cross into country.

    You might get deaths in U.S. custody(as happened in Mexico)

    https://www.npr.org/2023/03/28/1166452582/39-migrants-are-dead-in-a-fire-at-an-immigration-facility-in-mexico

    You might get somebody killed after being sent away.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  87. AJ:

    I have always been intrigued by the idea of impeaching a Homeland Security Secretary over non-enforcement of immigration law as it currently exists as a way of forcing a conversation over immigration reform. The English parliament (and pre-independence colonies here in the US) used to do this rather frequently. Since the Senate must address an impeachment, it does force a national debate (if no actual action).

    This would be a bold maneuver znd wuld be better handled by serious people (rather than the idiots who are busy today trying to censure Adam Schiff a second time, while ignoring the lying criminal in their midst). But I am intrigued to force something on an issue Congress and the President refuse to address.

    Appalled (345825)

  88. Actually it’s hundreds that drowned near Greece .The whole policy is steering people into overcrowded unseaworthy vessels, which shouldn’t happen in this day and age,

    They could see it was unseaworthy but they didn’t want to take them off the ship because they wouldn’t have the co-operation of the smugglers who were now heading for Italy, and they only stop and board ships when real crimes are involved.

    It’s not possible to have a policy which is restrictive, enforced and humane. You can pick only two out of the three.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  89. It does disqualify him for office, which is a win.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/21/2023 @ 11:12 am

    Impeachment does, provided the Senate, by majority vote (all that’s needed here), votes to do so, but a criminal conviction does not.

    Nicholas Kristoff wrote a whole column in the New York Times about Trump being president behind bars (would the Secret Service be imprisoned with him – could the 25th amendment be invoked? – not likely he wrote because Trump would pick the Cabinet members) – and finally brought up the question of a pardon, which of course Trump could do for a federal offense, so that’s first choice.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/opinion/trump-prison-convicted.html

    An absurd question keeps nagging at me: Could an inmate in a federal prison get a leave to attend his own presidential inauguration?

    I wonder about that because Trump seems to be moving simultaneously in two opposing and irreconcilable directions. First, it seems increasingly plausible that he will become the first former president to be convicted of a felony. Second, he also seems increasingly likely to win the Republican nomination for president, with the betting markets also giving him about a 22 percent chance of going on and actually being elected president.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  90. The DOJ investigation of Robert Hunter Biden is still ongoing.

    But the plea bargain has to immunize him against a certain category of offenses.

    Aj udge could raise questions.

    Sammy Finkelman (d007a3)

  91. Impeachment does, provided the Senate…

    Which it wouldn’t. That statute, however, invokes the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment, which is a valid qualification (or disqualification) for all federal officers.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  92. A judge could raise questions.

    A judge could impose a jail term, or reject the deal outright, saying there are enough red flags for it to have been charged as a felony.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  93. It’s Impeachment Season:

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced on Wednesday that she would offer her articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray as a privileged resolution.
    ………
    “Christopher Wray spit in our faces and disrespected our Oversight Committee and our Chairman Comer by forcing us to see redacted versions of UNCLASSIFIED 1023 forms that gave proof of then VP Joe Biden taking a $5 million bribe,” Greene tweeted.

    “I’m turning my Articles of Impeachment on Wray into a privileged resolution. Wray is a bad cop hiding Joe Biden’s crimes and must be held accountable. I won’t tolerate this level of disrespect and pure criminal corruption,” she continued.

    By turning the resolution into a privileged resolution, House procedures will dictate that the resolution should be voted on by the chamber within two days, even without the approval of House leadership.

    Greene introduced the articles of impeachment against Wray last month as part of her “impeachment week,” in which she introduced articles against several Biden administration officials and the president.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  94. I have always been intrigued by the idea of impeaching a Homeland Security Secretary over non-enforcement of immigration law as it currently exists as a way of forcing a conversation over immigration reform.

    How does impeaching Mayorkas drive a conversation toward immigration reform? It would certainly drive Biden and the Democrats away. Who would have the conversation? Republican House members would rather impeach Mayorkas as a way of forcing him from office:

    GOP leaders are facing serious pressure from conservatives eager to fulfill a big promise to the party’s base by voting to recommend the Homeland Security secretary’s removal over Biden administration border policies. But top Republicans remain short of the votes they need to impeach Mayorkas six months into their majority, which leaves their right flank in the position of chief salesperson.
    ………
    (Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and his allies still face skepticism within the GOP conference — and, crucially, the Arizona Republican acknowledged, among Republicans in the Judiciary Committee, where impeachment articles would have to originate. While there is growing public pressure from some of the right flank’s most vocal members to make good on vows to hold the Biden administration accountable for the border, some centrists are still unsure, at best, that impeaching Mayorkas is a winning political message.

    The unofficial impeachment whip campaign is playing out in public and behind the scenes. The Homeland Security Committee formally launched an investigation on Wednesday that will include a series of hearings and released a preliminary report laying out its evidence so far. Meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee has planned out several hearings before the August recess, including testimony from Mayorkas himself in the final week of July……..
    ……….
    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to “investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist” for the House to impeach Mayorkas. The step is not as far as the impeachment resolution she previously introduced against the DHS secretary, but one she hopes could gain more traction more quickly within the conference.

    “For those members that are on Judiciary who have been against impeachment — those Republican members, by the way — I think this is a lot different. So I feel very confident they’ll vote yes for an investigation even though they may not be for impeachment at this time,” Greene said in a brief interview.
    ……..
    McCarthy has opened the door to impeachment in public comments, but not formally embraced it. Biggs said he views the California Republican was “kind of saying yes.” More of the struggle, Biggs said, lies with the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, where “a few” aren’t yet on board.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  95. Mayorkas impeachment resolutions in the current Congress.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  96. The next time Joe Biden goes on about “white privilege” the response should be “You should know.”

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  97. “I have always been intrigued by the idea of impeaching a Homeland Security Secretary over non-enforcement of immigration law as it currently exists”

    The problem is that the practice of parole carries with it discretion. A policy preference enforced by executive order can always be reversed or attenuated by a competing executive order. I also see no reason why Mayorkas should be impeached rather than Biden as ultimately the buck stops with Biden.

    The problem is that we are now making a policy difference into a “high crime and misdemeanor”. Certainly gross incompetence or dereliction of duty fall into that swath but is the Mayorkas parole authority that much different than what was done under Obama? It’s not to say that impeachment must be perfectly consistent, but that the competence and duty seem to fall in the Overton window.

    We can disagree hotly, but ultimately something like this is left to the voters. If you want tougher border policy, then you need to vote that way in 2024. Another approach would be to pass new legislation that curbs the parole discretion. Find a bi-partisan framing that could have a chance of getting through the Senate…and somrthing that might even be veto-proof. Again with our system, this is a tall ask. The country and parties are split on the question, though my sense is that the “get tougher” side is a mjority.

    If we really want to talk and debate the border situation, then the House passing clarify legislation would seem to do more than a transparently partisan impeachment that will die in the Senate. The GOP might think it is compelling discussion of immigration, but the reality is that the impeachment power and partisanship will suck the oxygen from the room. I’m sure we will see this theme pushed hard next year running up to election day. Hey, border enforcement is a winning issue for the GOP. Why cloud it with a tenuous impeachment claim?

    AJ_Liberty (a7fb63)

  98. Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, it is a political prosecution and is subject to the public mood. If the public is against impeachment (or evenly divided), Senators will not vote for it. Clinton committed a felony and it was recorded. Yet the public did not insist he pay for it. Similarly the J6 impeachment.

    From time to time the public mood changes, and impeachment may become possible where it previous was not.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  99. The problem is that these Congresspeople from asshat districts need to grandstand or some other asshat from their district will call them “soft.”

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  100. I don’t blame Mayorkas. Those were some heart-rending images of the Border Patrol and the Haitians running from the horses with their pitiful little food and water and probably only the clothes they were wearing as their only other possessions. Regardless of “right” and “wrong”.

    Meanwhile, in The Great American Comfort Zone,Emma Watson’s ‘levitating’ dress is confusing the internet.

    nk (bb1548)

  101. #97 —

    I am going to admit that my thoughts are more half-thought when it comes to immigration. It boils down to this — we have a law passed in the 80s. It was never realy enforced or enforced arbitrarially. This has allowed politicans of all persuasions to make speeches with no consequences and the administrative branch to create policy rather than implement it. Since there is no consensus, or there is consensus to maintain the status quo while complaining about it, we have a morass of who knows what when it comes to border enforcement. It’s hard to argue rule of law when the government has developed a policy of ignoring what the law is.

    The solution is old fashioned — argue about immigration some. Try to pass a law that will be enforced, and come up with the compromises needed to get 60 votes in the senate. However, there is a lack of good faith all around. In an alternate universe where our conservative legislators are not authoritarian curious nutbags, but the left is continuing to be the left, there is something in simply forcing a discussion of immigration policy via an impeachment of the cabinet officer responsible for it, through an impeachment document going through the immigration laws as written, and how the cabinet secretary is not enforcing it. I like that approach better than impeaching the President.

    It’s a dream. I know it’s a dream. Rip will surely remind me of that. But it is one that does have some Anglo-Saxon precedent as a way to deal with an unresponsive system.

    Appalled (afa7b3)

  102. Clinton committed a felony and it was recorded.

    Not quite:

    ……..
    (President Clinton’s agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray is) not your everyday legal agreement. It’s not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminal investigation because the case isn’t solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors). The most unusual aspect of the deal is that Clinton reached a civil resolution with a criminal prosecutor.

    The Clinton-Ray agreement occupies a legal space somewhere between a declination and a plea bargain. Ray declined to indict Clinton for criminal perjury (as in a declination), but he also struck a deal that requires Clinton to admit his evasions in the Jones proceedings and to pay a price (as in a plea bargain).

    ………..(H)ere’s what it offers the three parties: Ray goes home knowing that Clinton received some punishment for his behavior. The Supreme Court’s committee gets the same satisfaction. And Clinton frees himself from the clutches of a criminal prosecutor and from a civil proceeding in which he could have been disbarred.
    ###########

    They didn’t call him Slick Willie for nothing. Giving up his law license for five years was no big deal since he didn’t intend to practice law again.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  103. Once any notable Republican labels an immigration bill “amnesty” and/or “open borders”, nuthin’ gonna happen, IMO, regrettably.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  104. Try to pass a law that will be enforced, and come up with the compromises needed to get 60 votes in the senate. ……It’s a dream. I know it’s a dream. Rip will surely remind me of that.

    Appalled (afa7b3) — 6/22/2023 @ 7:41 am

    It’s difficult, but not a dream. It’s the way it should be done, not through ad hoc Executive Orders.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  105. Appalled (afa7b3) — 6/22/2023 @ 7:41 am

    Try to pass a law that will be enforced,

    Not a good idea.

    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

    Does anyone believe that any law will make either moral or econoic sense?

    You could get a law that would more tend to be enforced, but only if it was less restrictive.

    and come up with the compromises needed to get 60 votes in the senate.

    A compromise would not make much sense, because it is a compromise, and would tend to be unworkable because it would probably set a fixed number for many categories, and create waiting lists. We have compromises. They result in a broken immigration system.

    However, there is a lack of good faith all around.

    No good faith among the restrictionists, who are mmore interested in less imm
    migration and don’t care uch what proportion is legal and illegal..

    There was some negotiation under Trump, but he kept upping his demands.

    The first mistake in any negotiation is settling on a number of total legal immigrants first. Any such bill is dead, not to mention not making any economic sense.

    Enforcement first is also dead. Either it is meaningless, or results in never having any other provisions triggered. Comprehensive immigration reform is dead. Every provision, whether more enforcement or more legal immiga=ration, must stand on its own merits – and whatever people agree on should be passed. Like anesty for the dreamers. Trying to tie it to anything else means a dead on arrival bill.

    Anything that substantially impacts legal immigration adversely is also dead. Republicans tend to be against family reunification and Democrats for it.

    Sammy Finkelman (0e7228)

  106. The first thing, though, is to get rid of the lies and misinformation.

    Sammy Finkelman (0e7228)

  107. 91. If the Senate approved impeachment it would surely also disqualify him.

    What it won’t do is convict (2/3 majority needed)

    Sammy Finkelman (0e7228)

  108. @102: I was talking about the perjury and impeachment which happened several years before Clinton plead it down in court.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  109. It’s difficult, but not a dream. It’s the way it should be done, not through ad hoc Executive Orders.

    The holdup is, and has been for a while, that the Democrats are adamant that there be a pathway to citizenship for amnestied illegals, and the Republicans are dead set against said pathway. It’s not something that is easily compromised. The rest of it, amnesty, remediation or whatever you want to call it, and future rules, they have come to some agreements. But not on citizenship for illegal entrants.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  110. The one thing I hoped Trump would do is realize he could accomplish a lot of his purported platform on immigration by requiring absolute obedience to the law as written and demanding the funding needed to accomplish it. That would have generated enough of a rebllion in Congress to actually force everyone out of their trees on what legal requirements on immigraton they would actually accept.

    He wasn’t either smart enough or bold enough to do it.

    Appalled (623760)

  111. Sammy (#105)

    If you aren’t going to enforce the law, have the courage to seek to repeal it. Your approach leads to anarchy at worst and arbitrary enforcement of the law at best.

    Appalled (623760)

  112. By the way, I am more open borders than most — we don’t have the population to sustain are welfare state without fairly constant immigration. My complaints in this area are about process failures that lead to policy failures (and, frankly, a lot of racism and populism and Trump)

    Appalled (623760)

  113. @111:

    The best way to deal with an unjust law is to strictly enforce it.

    If the executive can pick and choose which laws to enforce, Congress is a dead letter. Not only can they not rely on any law being enforce, but compromise, where you combine things to satisfy several sides is useless if the Executive can only enforce the part he likes.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  114. @112:

    Agreed, but the immigrants you bring in must be workers, not dependents. The current law gives dependents priority. Workers, but last on the list and first to fail due to country-quotas, have only illegal entry as an option. And of course illegals are likely to work under the table, not contribution to FICA and such.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  115. @102: I was talking about the perjury and impeachment which happened several years before Clinton plead it down in court.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/22/2023 @ 10:12 am

    That worked out really well. The impeachers couldn’t even get a majority vote for either article.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  116. @102: I was talking about the perjury and impeachment which happened several years before Clinton plead it down in court.

    Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/22/2023 @ 10:12 am

    The impeachment trial took place in 1999, Clinton settled with the independent counsel two years later.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  117. One more Lilliputian enters the Republican primary.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  118. If the Senate approved impeachment it would surely also disqualify him.

    What it won’t do is convict (2/3 majority needed)

    Sammy Finkelman (0e7228) — 6/22/2023 @ 10:01 am

    What’s the difference?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  119. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/20/2023 @ 5:47 pm

    I’ll bet that Hunter will be pardoned on the last day of Biden’s Administration. It would be no different than Trump’s pardon of Charles Kushner.

    Better, Bill Clinton’s pardon of his half brother, Roger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton_Jr.#:~:text=In%20January%202001%2C%20before%20his,possession%20and%20drug%2Dtrafficking%20conviction

    [Roger] Clinton attracted negative media attention in 2001 when it was revealed that he had accepted $50,000 and a Rolex watch in 1999 from the children of Sicilian mobster Rosario Gambino, a convicted narcotics trafficker and Gambino crime family member serving a 49-year sentence, in exchange for lobbying his brother to pardon Gambino. Clinton repeatedly visited the federal parole commission headquarters to advocate for Gambino. In 1999, Gambino was included in a list of potential pardons, but he was ultimately not granted one.[8] In January 2001, before his brother left office, Clinton was granted a controversial presidential pardon for a 1985 cocaine possession and drug-trafficking conviction. Roger Clinton Jr. had served time in federal prison after being convicted following a sting operation of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.[9][10]

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  120. 118. The point is the sticking point is the Senate voting to convict on an impeachment.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  121. 111.

    If you aren’t going to enforce the law, have the courage to seek to repeal it.

    Neither is a realistic possibility.

    You don’t even have to repeal it. It would be enough, in most cases, to offer a way out.

    Your approach leads to anarchy at worst and arbitrary enforcement of the law at best.

    The Fugitive Slave law of 1850 was worse than what preceded it. Freedom only for escaped slaves was a compromise the South would not love with and trying to get rid of it led to Civil War.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  122. The point is the sticking point is the Senate voting to convict on an impeachment.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/22/2023 @ 2:45 pm

    I still don’t understand your distinction between the Senate “approving” an impeachment and not “convicting”. Is your “approval” threshold a majority in favor, but less than the required 2/3 to convict?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  123. Appalled (623760) — 6/22/2023 @ 10:20 am actually force everyone out of their trees on what legal requirements on immigration they would actually accept.

    Neither side really cares about illegal immigration. The restrictionists care about the level of immigration – period. (Because they don’t want to convert any illegal immigration into legal immigration and because they want to reduce legal grounds for immigration.

    The other side doesn’t care about legal or illegal, just limited or non-enforcement, except they want whatever is legal to remain legal.

    They are mainly in favor of legal immigration for friends and family of people already here.

    The compromise is to entangle legal immigration in more and more bureaucracy and more “vetting” (this extra vetting is only for potential immigrants, not visitors).

    Even when Congress agrees to admit some people, like with Afghans who worked with the United States – it is not made practical.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  124. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/22/2023 @ 3:00 pm

    I still don’t understand your distinction between the Senate “approving” an impeachment and not “convicting”. Is your “approval” threshold a majority in favor, but less than the required 2/3 to convict?

    No. I just don’t like the word “conviction”

    The 2/3 threshold is for approving a House resolution – a majority is all that is needed for disqualification for the future.

    The only thing that is automatic with conviction is removal from current office. But someone is not required to hold any current office to get convicted by the Senate, but resigning has in the past stopped proceedings in its tracks.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  125. From 1884 through 1917, Congress kept adding conditions for immigration, but not restricting it by number. (A literacy test was twice vetoed by presidents till Wilson signed one in 1917)

    From 1921 on, quotas were in. Also till then, I think, there was no distinction between visitors and immigrants. No temporary admissions.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  126. No. I just don’t like the word “conviction”

    Too bad that is what the Constitution says.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  127. Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/22/2023 @ 10:16 am

    The holdup is, and has been for a while, that the Democrats are adamant that there be a pathway to citizenship for amnestied illegals, and the Republicans are dead set against said pathway. It’s not something that is easily compromised.

    It’s not the hold-up.

    Lindsey Graham proposed something like 12 years after the passage of the law till citizenship.

    You can’t make it longer, because if you do, a future Congress may grant them citizenship sooner than 12 years out. Twelve years is about the most you can postpone it.

    The Democrats do want to give them citizenship because there are laws that give greater penalties for criminal convictions – mainly deportation. But it’s not a hold up, except to the extent that Republicans know you cannot stop a future Congress from voting for citizenship eligibility.

    There is also the general principle that people living in a country should be citizens.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  128. The rest of it, amnesty, remediation or whatever you want to call it, and future rules, they have come to some agreements. But not on citizenship for illegal entrants.

    No, I think the sticking point is amnesty for those who are yet to come illegally

    The Republicans want some certainty that there will never be another amnesty. (This, they can never have. And wouldn’t believe it if it was offered.)

    If not, they don’t want to grant amnesty to people already here. But neither do they want to deport them, because that will turn out to be unpopular. Neither do they want to legalize immigration of people in similar situations to those being amnestied. (say anyone who lived in the United States for a specified period of time, especially before age 12 or 18, or with a degree from any U.S. institution) They don’t even want birthright citizenship, which closes the book after a generation, and would prefer that more people be illegally present in the United States.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  129. Joe Biden’s campaign for president in 2007-8 encouraged someone to donate money through straw donors and let him think it was legal.

    The FBI started investigating someone on one thing, then discovered the straw donors (investigations into Biden about this were stopped) and then switched finally to to other issues.

    https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/this-delaware-businessman-received-jail-time-from-the-feds-because-he-wasnt-a-biden

    … It all began when Tigani, the third-generation scion of wealthy Delaware liquor distributors, was invited to join the Biden family to watch the Democratic primary debate on Oct. 30, 2007, at Drexel University in Philadelphia, where Joe was vying with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. [and several others too, I think]

    At the afterparty at a Chestnut Street bar nearby, Hunter and his late brother, Beau Biden, sidled up to Tigani and asked him for $100,000 to pay for billboards in Iowa for their father’s ill-fated 2008 presidential run.

    According to Tigani, the Biden brothers said, “Hey, we need $100,000 for billboards. Do you think you can help us with that?”

    Tigani replied, “I don’t think I have that much, but I can probably do $75,000.”

    Soon after, Joe approached him with a big smile and said in vague terms: “Hey, I hear you’re going to support our billboards program.”

    Then Dennis Toner, Joe’s campaign finance director, came over to discuss logistics and, Tigani alleges, taught him [incorrectly – SF] what “bundling” was.

    Toner asked: “How many people do you have there at your office yo
    can trust?”

    “All of them,” replied Tigani, who had 160 employees working at the family firm, N-K-S Distributors, where he was president.

    Tigani, whose father had played football with Joe at the tony Archmere Academy, says he had no idea it was illegal to solicit his employees for campaign donations and then reimburse them from company funds.

    He even listed the $74,000 in his ledger as “political donations.”

    Fast-forward three years and the FBI was investigating a “sweetheart deal” Tigani had made with the state transportation department to lease a block of land for a warehouse.

    Local Delaware media ran allegations that Tigani’s friendship with then-Gov. Ruth Ann Minner was behind the deal. He says it was all aboveboard and no charges were ever brought.

    One morning, Tigani was confronted at a gas station by two FBI agents who asked him about reimbursing his employees’ donations to the Biden campaign.

    “It’s not illegal,” he said.

    “Yeah, it is,” said the agents, and his world fell apart.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  130. Then they found some income tax charges against Chris Tigani.

    After combing through his business records, prosecutors added two tax charges to his election bundling offense, alleging that he had underreported his income and thus owed the IRS $92,000 for 2006 and a little over $100,000 in 2007.

    “Mine were tax felonies,” he says. “Here’s the difference with Hunter. I paid my taxes, but then they said I didn’t pay enough. Hunter kept in excess of $1.5 million and didn’t even file a tax return, and I’m the one who went to jail.”

    They had him wear a wire. Chris Tigani thought that Biden or his campaign people would be a big enough fish to get him off. But maybe that was too big a fish for the FBI. That is, the career people in the FBI didn’t want to investigate someone who was by then a vice president.

    “They thought I had bribed all these people because I had been to every fundraiser and a lot of good things had happened to our industry. But I never asked a politician to do anything. I had never, ever done anything that would embarrass my mother or compromise my principles. We sell a legal product [beer] that is regulated by the state [so] I needed to have a good relationship with politicians.”

    Despite the fact that he was in trouble for donating to Joe Biden’s campaign, Tigani says the FBI never asked him to record conversations with anyone in the Biden family. The bureau even slapped down his suggestion that he go to Washington, DC, and try to get the then-vice president on record.

    “They were not terribly interested in that part of the investigation,” he recalls. “They wanted to get other people … The FBI were political when they were investigating me.”

    He suspects someone tipped off the Biden campaign that he was wearing a wire, because when he tried to get Toner to repeat what he had told him about bundling back in 2007, he hit a dead end: “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” said Toner on the phone, “and I don’t know who’s listening to this call.”

    After that, the FBI took back the wire, ended the probe and unsealed his indictment.

    The Bidens “were made to look like victims,” he says. “The newspapers made it sound like, ‘Oh, Chris was playing them.’ It was just crazy.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  131. When he got out of jail..

    When Tigani got out of jail, he found himself face to face with Joe Biden one Saturday in 2013 on the bucolic grounds of Tatnall prep school in Greenville, Del., where his children and the vice president’s grandchildren went.

    Joe came over and gave Tigani the “big double-Biden handshake,” looked him in the eye and said, “How is everything. I know it’s been tough for you.’ ”

    What did he know, and when did he know it?

    Who knows?

    The prosecutor in his case was then-First Assistant US Attorney David Weiss.

    He dd go to jail for the straw donations.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  132. In 2013, Joe Biden expressed is sympathy in some vague way.

    His campaign people had led him to believe that reimbursing donors was legal.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  133. You can’t make it longer, because if you do, a future Congress may grant them citizenship sooner than 12 years out. Twelve years is about the most you can postpone it.

    Amendment XXVIII:

    1. No person, having unlawfully entered the United States as an adult, may be considered for US citizenship.

    2. Congress may override this provision by a 2/3rds vote of each House for a particular, named individual. Such overrides may not be combined into a single bill.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  134. But neither do they want to deport them, because that will turn out to be unpopular.

    Trump will, and I think that’s part of the attraction to some.

    They don’t even want birthright citizenship

    Who is “they”? That is a fringe position. At best, “citizenship tourism”, where an expectant mother flies into the US to have a baby and then all depart, might be handled by the qualifying language of the 14th Amendment:

    … and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside …

    A child who spends a few days in the country after birth is arguably not “subject to the laws thereof” and/or is not a “resident” of a state in any meaningful way. The POINT of the provision was to prevent actual residents at the time of adoption (read: freed slaves) from having their citizenship disputed. The provision is weakened considerably by the availability of cheap intercontinental travel, and this is a very weak point that is constantly abused. It should stop, and does not need an amendment to do so.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  135. 2. Congress may override this provision by a 2/3rds vote of each House for a particular, named individual. Such overrides may not be combined into a single bill.

    That sounds like a proposed text of a constitional amendment, ‘

    Congress can’t bind a future Congress, although a bill may set a rule, like the CRA law which waives the filibuster. But all these rule fixings make things more liberal, not less.

    Sammy Finkelman (7b754a)

  136. There seems to be factual dispute over whether the Delaware prosecutor could bring charges in DC or California.

    Also, the main whistleblower complaints about the investigation seems to have happened mostly while Trump while still president but after the November 2020 election

    The whole tax evasion case from 2014 and 2015 seems to have been lost. I

    Sammy Finkelman (7b754a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1764 secs.