MONOKULTUR

Når CNN begynder at gennemgå Joe Bidens mytomani, ved man, at den store læremester er på vej ud. Om det betyder at regimet har fundet ud af, at komme af med vicepræsident Kamala Harris, så man kan få kørt Californiens guvernør Gavin Newsom i stilling – han gav mellem linjerne regimet en opsang, hvor han advarede om, at tiden var ved at rinde ud for alternativer forrige uge – eller om det blot er fuldkommen panik er svært at afgøre. Måske er det tilfældigt at den tidligere FBI agent Peter Strzok – der var indblandet i alting vedrørende FBIs sabotage af Trump indtil hans tekstbeskeder med elskerinde afslørede hans had til ikke blot Trump, men også alle Trumps tilhængere – nu vil have en særlig enhed til at beskytte FBI agenter mod folkets retfærdige harme.

Også New York Times og Washington Post underminerer nu Joe Biden og mener at han er for gammel, skriver Daily Mail

The New York Times and Washington Post both published opinion pieces Wednesday branding 80-year-old President Joe Biden as too old to run for re-election in 2024. 

It comes as Biden faces an impeachment inquiry and recent polling numbers show most consider the president at too advanced an age to serve again.

Ross Douthat, a conservative op-ed writer for the liberal Times, penned a piece titled ‘2024’s Field of Nightmares,’ a reference to the 1989 film Field of Dreams.

He said while his concerns with Biden come down to run-of-the-mill political disagreements during his first term, Democrats are playing with fire in allowing the oldest president in American history to run again.

The two risks of Biden running again, according to Douthat: ‘The high stakes of the next election, in which a health crisis or just more slippage might be the thing that puts Trump back in the White House, and the different but also substantial stakes of another four-year term.’

Det Hvide Hus ser i hvert fald ud til at være gået over stregen i samarbejdet med deres medier, ved at forsøge at bosse dem til at underminere Republikanernes indledende Rigsrets-undersøgelse, i et brev sendt til diverse nyhedsredaktører, skriver Jonathan Turley

The message is curious and concerning, particularly in the aggressive role being played by the White House Counsel’s office under Stuart Frank Delery.

First, as I have previously noted, the White House is now actively involved in pushing narratives and denying factual allegations linked to the Biden corruption scandal. That could create Nixonian-type allegations of the abuse of office in the use of federal employees to counter impeachment efforts.

Second, the letter was drafted by Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office. So White House lawyers are now enlisting the media in a counter media campaign against impeachment? The letter removes any pretense of separation between the Biden personal legal team and the White House Counsel’s office. Sams has been the most aggressive White House official in actively swatting down allegations of corruption as well as the President’s documents investigation.

Third, the letter calls for the media to actively support the White House account. The draft of the letter is a call for what I have previously criticized as “advocacy journalism” where reporters frame stories to advance their own viewpoints or values.

Sams wrote “[c]overing impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable.” In other words, media should (and it has for years) decline to give equal attention to allegations the Bidens and instead tell the public what the truth is.

(…)

The letter is an alarming erosion of separation of the White House Counsel’s office from the Biden defense team. It also confirms an active and aggressive role of White House officials in swatting down allegations against the President. While the staff obviously is not expected to be neutral on impeachment, there is a careful line that past White House counsels have walked between fulfilling their duties to the office as opposed to the officeholder.

Vi kan ikke have en Rigsret, det forstyrrer det vigtige politiske arbejde, var den Demokratiske senator Chuck Schumers reaktion. Ted Cruz mener at der er rigeligt med bevis (hvilket ikke gør det bevist) om Joe Bidens korruption og det gør David Harsanyi også

Let’s start with the IRS whistleblowers charged with investigating Hunter Biden’s tax case, who testified under oath that Joe was present in at least one meeting with Hunter’s foreign clients. In numerous private emails and texts and WhatsApp messages he never imagined would be made public, Hunter talks about his dad not only helping him secure payments but taking a cut for himself. Hunter’s former business partner contends that Joe was involved. Another of Hunter’s partners, who is also a former close friend, maintained under oath that Joe spoke to Hunter’s associates at least 24 times, often being dialed in on the phone during business meetings. An FBI informant documented conversations that indicated to him that Joe pressured foreign companies to send millions to the family business.

And listen, I get that Democrats want us to believe it was just crazy happenstance that Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who happened to be investigating a company that was paying his son $1 million a year. But if the vice president knew the two were in business — and since he had a sit down with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi, it is highly likely he did — then his actions were a corrupt conflict of interest, at the very least. 

That’s also all evidence.

Yet, Democrats want to create new evidentiary standards for both congressional investigations and for impeachment. No, Joe didn’t need to commit a crime to be impeached. We know this from the first Trump impeachment.

And, no, Biden didn’t need to directly benefit from his family’s corrupt business ventures to be corrupt. If one of the most powerful people in the United States government allows or participates in a scheme to trade on his power to make millions for his family (or deliberately gives the impression that he’s willing to do so), it may or may not be illegal, but it is clearly unethical.

Money, incidentally, is fungible. Just because a shady Ukrainian isn’t writing “re: Joe Biden influence trading” on the memo line of a check doesn’t mean the president didn’t benefit. Perhaps further inquiry into the 20 shell companies and dozens of bank accounts, or the 5,000 emails in which Joe used pseudonyms to converse with Hunter and presumably others — all of it completely normal stuff for an above-board family business, right? — will provide some answers.

Der er ikke rigtigt noget alternativ til at indlede en rigsrets-undersøgelse, skrev Jonathan Turley tilbage i august

The debacle in the Hunter Biden investigation has left most objective legal analysts in disbelief, with one CNN analyst calling it an “unholy mess.”

Even before the collapse of a widely condemned “sweetheart deal” with Hunter, the investigation headed by U.S. Attorney David Weiss was a growing concern for many observers. In prior years, I wrote about Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel despite the obvious conflicts posed by the potential involvement of President Biden in his son’s alleged influence-peddling scandal. I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes.

It turns out that the same concerns were being raised within the Weiss team. Two IRS whistleblowers recently confirmed that the expiration of potential tax felony crimes was raised with Weiss and the Department of Justice (DOJ). There reportedly was an agreement to extend that period, including on the violations tied to the most controversial alleged payments from sources in Ukraine and other countries. The two witnesses testified that the Justice Department instead allowed the statute of limitations to expire.

These two whistleblowers — and, more recently, a former FBI agent — said that the DOJ tipped off the Biden team on attempts to interview Hunter and to conduct searches. They describe an investigation that was anything but the “routine” matter described by congressional Democrats in seeking to block House investigations.

What followed has bordered on the burlesque. Weiss cut a deal with Hunter’s legal team that was widely derided. After years of investigation, he and the DOJ agreed to a couple of tax misdemeanors, a papered-over gun charge, and no risk of jail time for the president’s son. The deal disassembled in court after a few questions from the presiding judge about sweeping immunity language and other curious elements. When District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked the prosecutor if he had ever seen any agreement like this one, he replied “no.”

House Republicans had previously demanded that Weiss and his team answer questions about the investigation and the plea bargain. And an appearance before a House committee was planned when Garland suddenly preempted that by doing what many of us have demanded for years: He appointed a special counsel. To the amazement of many, though, he appointed the one prosecutor who should have been categorically excluded — David Weiss.

Det må få en betydning for mange amerikaneres forståelse af virkeligheden, som det bliver stadigt mere tydeligt, ikke blot at deres præsident er korrupt, men at Demokraterne forsøgte at fjerne Donald Trump ved en Rigsret, for netop at afsløre denne korruption med sin perfekte samtale (den ene af to perfekte samtaler, Trump har præsteret mens han sad i Det Hvide Hus).

Imens er Hunter Biden blevet tiltalt for at have løjet på en ansøgning tilladelse til at anskaffe sig et skydevåben. Den daværende crack misbrugende vicepræsident søn, skrev på ansøgningen, at han skam ikke var misbruger af stoffer. Men det var han altså. Og det er ikke så dårlig en historie for faderen, minder Robert Barnes om: “Goal here is to tie up Hunter such that he can’t be subpoenaed to testify in any impeachment effort, and can claim the 5th. It’s not a real effort to punish.”