Investigating Biden influence peddling didn’t become illegitimate just because Joe ran for president
Running for president does not provide immunity from investigation — just ask Donald Trump, who was investigated by the Obama administration while running for president.
Adam Schiff is up to his usual games, claiming the NSA and CIA have been withholding potentially important documents relevant to impeachment.
Of course, Schiff is raising this concern only on the eve of the trial. It was not raised during the House investigation. He wants to drag out the trial while the supposed NSA and CIA conduct is investigated. Sound familiar? Just like in Kavanaugh as one ridiculous accuser after another came forward (remember the supposed Rhode Island boat sexual assault?), all Democrats supposedly wanted was an “investigation.”
Democrats also are talking about calling more witnesses in the House if they don’t get their way in the Senate trial as to witnesses.
Democrats are acting in complete bad faith. As I wrote in Lev Parnas is Julie Swetnick, and Dems are trying to ‘Kavanaugh’ the impeachment trial, Republicans should shut this Schiff charade down. Let Schiff present his case based on the House record, let Trump’s counsel present their rebuttal, then ether vote to dismiss the case or move to a vote to acquit or convict.
If four weak Republicans vote to hear witnesses and allow Schiff to perform his circus act in the Senate, then of course Schiff himself needs to be called as a witness by Republicans. Schiff is a dirty congressman, and he needs to be questioned under oath about his own activities in maneuvering to undermine the administration, including leaks from his office and committee.
But beyond exposing Schiff’s dirty laundry, Joe Biden and Hunder Biden need to be witnesses.
One framing of this whole impeachment I’ve been thinking about but never put in words, is that Trump did nothing wrong by raising the issue of investigating the Bidens. The son of the then-sitting Vice President of the United States received obvious payola from a Ukrainian company under investigation for corruption at a time that VP was responsible for U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
If Joe Biden were not running for president, would it have been improper — much less impeachable — for the successor President to ask for an investigation? Of course not.
So why does it become improper just because Biden decided to run for president? Does running for president create an immunity from investigation? If it does, that would be news to Donald Trump who was investigated by the Obama administration while Trump was running for president (over the failed Russia-collusion claim).
Mark Levin, reacting to a story about another Biden family member who got rich working the Biden name while Joe was VP, put it succinctly in a tweet:
The Bidens are corrupt. The impeachment of the president occurred, in part, to immunize Biden from legitimate scrutiny.
My response was:
Exactly. Possible corruption of former Vice President of the United States at hands of foreign entity paying his son is a legitimate subject of investigation. It does not become illegitimate just because that former VP decides to run for president.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I am of two opposite thoughts….First, kill it quickly. Second, bring on the clowns and make it the biggest show on earth….
bring on the clowns and make it the biggest show on earth…
It won’t be so funny when they’re in prison.
But…with Barr as AG, Trump critics seem to immune from prosecution, whether it be perjury or possessing child porn!
WTH are you talking about?
I’m talking about Comey and McCabe and at least a dozen other deep state types with IG criminal referrals, and Paul Krugeman, publicly admitting to being is possession of child pornography and the FBI/DOJ, under Barr did nothing to investigate
…and a PS, Both Swetnick and Avenatti were referred by the Senate for prosecution for lying and again, under Barr nothing was done, whereas if anyone associated with Trump misremembers a date time or person and they get a visit from the SWAT team, That’s what I’m talking about!
Which is an outright lie. Krugman never admitted to any such thing, and nobody in any position to know has ever accused him of it. One kooky right-wing sewer of a web site invented it and the kooks who read it spread it.
I’m with you.
Wish we could do both.
Here’s the Dude laying it on the line,
My witness list includes but is not limited to: the clintons, brennan, comey, mccabe, strzok, page, paul pelosi and paul jr., nancy pelosi, adam schiff, eric ciamarella, Victor Shokin, john kerry, christopher heinz, devon archer, the bidens and barrak hussein obama. Make them get up there and either lie or plead the 5th.
Generally speaking Lt. Tragg was always called as a prosecution witness.
(This jibe will not be understood by anyone born before 1966)
Yes it has my mark on it.
But Tragg wasn’t corrupt. He wasn’t even a bad cop, most of the time. He just liked easy answers.
As a boy, I watched that show religiously, to the point that I knew which objections would be sustained and which would be overruled.
The Dems have one song (with apologies to Lamb Chop and Sheri Lewis)
This is the scam that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some liberals started singing it, not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue singing it forever just because
This is the scam that never ends
This is exactly right.
And the notion that the CIA would withhold anything to protect Trump is ludicrous. The CIA did everything it could to undermine Bush, and to prevent Trump’s election, and then to undermine Trump. If it had a document that could harm Trump it would have released it.
Or leaked it, but I guess that is release also, isn’t it?
Schiff may have a mole in the NSC. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/19/nsc-russia-expert-escorted-from-white-house-under-intelligence-investigation/
in the waning days of the Obama administration didn’t they convert a bunch of political appointees to civil service jobs
Yes. My father worked for the GSA (of the infamous scandal) and he retired right before that because it was making him crazy. He told me that during the Obama administration every single thing got political where it hadn’t been before. It used to stay at the top, but very quickly was planted all the way down.
If Al Capone had run for president, would the Federal investigation of his “Chicago Outfit” have suddenly become illegitimate?
Only if he had run as a Democrat.
Capone is running as a Democrat. Only his name is Sanders, he seeks to extract far more wealth from the people than Capone ever did, and he’s far more ambitious about using government power against his opponents than Capone ever was.
But seriously, folks, I wonder whether the “Capone” comparison might be an effective counter to the Democrats’ accusation that the investigation of Hunter Biden is illegitimate.
Sadly, no. Per MSM doctrine, any comparison of a Democrat to an invidious person is itself invidious.
Professor Jacobson is looking for a way to put our rebuttal into words; perhaps the wording I’ve suggested will be helpful. Also, not all Democrats are alike, and not everyone who’s leaning toward removing Trump from office is a Democrat.
I don’t think many Americans at all believe Trump has done anything wrong. The vast majority of the people who want him removed would probably admit that they simply don’t like him and even they don’t think he’s actually done anything impeachable. I mean…the fraudulent nature of the whole Democrat farce is obvious. But I have absolute faith that the Republicans will blow it through cowardice and capitulation.
The people who want Trump removed don’t just not like him. They hate him so much that they think EVERYTHING he does is impeachable, criminal, immoral, and in bad taste.
If he sneezes, they claim it’s because of a drug habit. If he uses a word incorrectly, they claim it’s because he’s senile. If he takes 45 seconds to comment on a story they are interested in, instead of twenty seconds, they say it’s because he was waiting for Putin to tell him what to say.
They are not reasonable or honest. Remember that.
This is true. I don’t like Trump, but I give him credit when he deserves it, which is often, and I don’t accuse him of things that are clearly not true. Which is why despite myself I’ve spent the last three years defending him, since it seems that his opponents are incapable of accusing him of anything that might actually be true.
I reached for “reply” and somehow hit “downvote” with my fingertip (using my iPad) an now can’t change it – apologies.
I realized something a while back – It’s true that many people hate Trump. However, they also hated both of the Bush’s, Regan, Nixon, and probably Ike (although I am too young to be sure of that). Hell, they even hated Romney who is really a Democrat. They are not people who think. They just hate.
Francis Menton blogs at Manhattan Contrarian. He’s a retired partner from Wilkie Farr. Yale and HLS degrees. If he’s not on your blogroll, I’d strongly urge you to consider adding him.
See his post dated December 12, 2019 titled: “President Trump Was Absolutely Right To Ask Ukraine to Investigate The Bidens”
Stay with it. The post starts a bit slow. However, he’s blogged about the Biden/Ukraine connection a few times so he’s done more research than most. He’s got an interesting timeline a few paragraphs in.
Investigating Democrat malfeasance is always illegitimate, according to the MSM/DNC axis.
At any rate, the coup attempt against Trump proceeds unimpeded. Schumer is (for the time being) the Majority Leader of the Senate. There will be no outright dismissal. Democrats will almost certainly get to call new witnesses. I would not be surprised if Trump’s defense team was blocked from calling any important witnesses like the Bidens.
Remember always, dear readers, that the Vichy Republicans (Romneycare, Murkowski, Collins, Sasse, Lee, and perhaps several others) want Trump gone, like, yesterday. While they will always lack lack the votes to actually remove Trump, they can certainly try to damage him politically so he will lose in November (I think a majority vote to remove has been the only realistic goal of Democrats and the Vichyites). The Vichy Republicans want open borders, gun control, government-run healthcare (single payer), and they calculate a Democrat administration will deliver those cherished goals.
Dome of those you named are Vichy in the true sense but are just too doctrinaire to see what’s really at stake. But Romney and Murkowski are filth.
I think it’s the only reason Gropey Joe is running for President. He’s old and tired, he doesn’t want this. He’s just in it so the media can scream to keep him from being investigated.
While they won’t openly admit it, there are four democrat senators who have it in their best interest to get this over quickly. The question becomes would they risk the long term effects of a dismissal vote versus the short term gain of being able to return to the campaign trail and fund raising. Evey day they are stuck in DC while Joe and Pete have free reign has to put them in a deeper hole.
There is yet another debate coming up just before New Hampshire and Super Tuesday with 30% of the states voting on March 3, an extended period in DC, 6 days per week becomes more of an issue as the days pass with no resolution in sight.
” Possible corruption of former Vice President of the United States at hands of foreign entity paying his son is a legitimate subject of investigation. It does not become illegitimate just because that former VP decides to run for president.”
Quite to the contrary: Isn’t it doubly important to investigate corruption by a man who seeks to be President? And triply so, since the conduct to be investigated occurred while he was holding an analogous position of power?
Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and co would certainly agree with that.
And they’d have a point, if they themselves hadn’t created the claim to investigate in the first place.
If giving an advantage over a political appointment is sufficient to make an investigation illegitimate, then the impeachment is likewise illegitimate.
Let’s say I realized my shady doings were exposed and jail time loomed. If I still had some of the stolen money around, I’d finance a campaign for President, to keep me permanently above the law. We know that politicans are always campaigning, so who says I’d have to stop running after one election cycle?
Can Mr Schiff be asked questions during the written question portion of this charade?
Would Chief Justice Roberts allow those questions?
I would be allowed to question the opposing attorney, during any action I had in Court.
Not as far as I know. I’ve never heard of such a thing and don’t believe any judge would allow it.
If you think the opposing attorney has testimony to give you would have to call him as a witness, just as you would anyone else. And you’d need to convince the judge that his testimony is really necessary to your case, and that there’s nobody else you could get it from instead. But without calling him as a witness you would certainly not be allowed to question him.
So why aren’t all of those points germane to Trump’s case? Schiff and the WhistleBlower had some sort of a relationship even if it were through one of his staffers. Schiff presented and repeated one lie after another as his total opening statement in the investigation. Schiff has claimed to have “Russian collusion” evidence for at least 2 years.
Schiff deserves his day in court as a witness.
I have long believed that the only reason that Creepy Uncle Joe is even running at all is to set-up this whole “You can’t investigate your political opponents blatant corruption” thing. His campaign is a complete cluster**** and he still hasn’t figured out that his frequent gaffes and bouts of insanity are easily found on-line and debunked. The internet is forever…