The Dripping Away of the Democratic Party: Sir Thomas More and the Biden Corruption Scandal
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column on Fox.com on the hearing this week on the corruption scandal involving the Biden family. For years, the Democrats have opposed any effort to investigation the Bidens, including as part of the current impeachment inquiry. Various members misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in saying that there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take.
Here is the column:
In the 1966 movie "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More faces Richard Rich, an ambitious office seeker who would ultimately lie and betray him. In this British historical drama, More warns Rich that "when a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again."
This week, Democrats appear to have finally drained away what remained of themselves and their party. For years, Democratic members and the media have demanded any evidence of the direct involvement or knowledge of President Joe Biden of the influence-peddling operation of his son, Hunter, and his brothers, James and Frank.
In the hearing, witnesses testified under oath about specific meetings with Joe Biden discussing these foreign dealings and the family business interests. Bank records were introduced showing the transfers of millions going to Hunter and various Biden family members.
Faced with the evidence that the president lied about his lack of any knowledge or involvement in the influence peddling, the Democrats opened their fingers wider.
Rep. Dan Goldman, D., N.Y., captured the problem for Democrats in even addressing any of the mounting evidence contradicting the president. Yet, Goldman has long shown a willingness to rush in where angels fear to tread.
In previous attacks, Goldman repeatedly hit the Bidens with friendly fire when eliciting damaging answers from witnesses. Goldman has a habit of raising the worst evidence that his colleagues have avoided. In one hearing, he stumbled badly in raising the WhatsApp message where Hunter told a Chinese businessman that his father was sitting next to him and would not be pleased unless he sent him money. On another occasion, he prompted an IRS whistleblower to note that an email Goldman read into the record was actually a direct contradiction of the denials of the president.
In the latest misstep, Goldman pressed former Biden partner Tony Bobulinski on a proposal shared with Hunter and others to reserve 10% for "the Big Guy." In other emails, Bobulinski was told to use such codes to avoid mentioning Joe Biden's name. He was expressly identified as "the Big Guy." Video
Goldman snapped at Bobulinski, "Did anyone ever respond to that email?"
Bobulinski responded "Yes, they did numerous times. Hunter himself did."
Goldman blurted out "you're right" before angrily reclaiming his time to cut him off.
Things did not prove any easier for other members. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D., N.Y., imploded by mocking Bobulinski and challenging him "It is simple, you name the crime. Did you watch him steal something?"
Bobulinski proceeded to rattle off a series of possible criminal acts and Ocasio-Cortez cut him off. She then bizarrely pretended that he did not just list the crimes and barked "What is the crime, sir? Specifically?"
Bobulinski was not the only one confused and noted "you ask and answer the question, I answered the question, RICO, you're obviously not familiar with…"
That is when Ocasio-Cortez again cut him off with "Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. RICO is not a crime, it is a category. What is the crime?"
With that, it appears that Trump has now been cleared of charges in Atlanta by no one other than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Racketeering is a crime and some of the crimes referenced by Bobulinski are commonly part of such conspiracies.
The exchange captured the lunacy of the hearing as Democrats demanded evidence and then ignored it when it was repeatedly offered by witnesses and members.
Yet, Ocasio-Cortez was illuminating on one point. Neither she nor her colleagues were willing to admit the obvious. Few people now disagree that Hunter was openly engaging in influence peddling, which is a form of corruption that the government has long fought around the world. It is also clear that Joe Biden knew of that influence peddling not just from his son but newspaper accounts. He had knowledge of the corruption and facilitated it. However, Ocasio-Cortez wanted to ignore the millions of dollars acquired in influence peddling to press a witness on whether he saw the president steal something like a purse or a hubcap.
The Democrats have allowed their very identity to drip through their open fingers. They have become a party that calls for censorship, ballot cleansing, and court packing. Now they are dismissing allegations of raw influence peddling after opposing every effort to investigate it.
As a lifelong Democrat from a politically active Chicago family, I can no longer recognize the party from my youth. We once stood for something other than the next election or hating others.
By the end of the hearing, virtually every Democratic member had attacked the witnesses and denied the obvious corruption surrounding the Biden family. They had become a party of Richard Riches. Of course, this unified effort to deny the obvious left little time to look down at what remained in their hands. They had owned the moment when the party fought to shield one of the most extensive and lucrative influence peddling operations in history.
After that ignoble effort, there was little reason to look down since they "needn't hope to find [themselves] again."
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
Bobulinski had them twisting & turning yesterday.
A one man tour de force.
"Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in saying that there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take."
THERE IS NO 'BIDEN CORRUPTION SCANDAL.' THERE IS NO BIDEN CORRUPTION. THERE IS NO BIDEN CRIME FAMILY.
Six months later the evidence still does not support impeachment and the sad truth is Jonathan Turley knows it.
Over the course of the last eight years he has turned himself into a Fox News, MAGA, joke
Your interpretation of his remarks is incorrect, see his actual words at 1.1.
The chain of impeachable offenses grows by several links every day.
What I posted is not an interpretation, it is a quote from Jonathan Turley.
What he might have said several months ago is irrelevant and is refuted by what he said a few days ago.
That is the problem with what he is saying. There is no new evidence, the hearing the other day had absolutely nothing new in it. Yet Turley who said that there isn't enough evidence for an impeachment wants to keep this farcical committee going.
There is plenty of credible evidence of Biden's corruption, but you continue to deny it.
Why do you think that the Dems on the committee wouldn't even let Bobulinski speak and answer their questions
AOC in particular looked like a total deranged idiot who has no idea of what she is talking about.
what is it?
You don't get it, but you just proved Greg's point.
that'll be the day
And...another point proven.
How so Greg? Prove it.
There has never been any proof whatsoever of wrongdoing by President Biden, none, zip, zero, zilch, zip, nada, diddly squat.
As the time grows nearer for the former 'president' to start to pay up for SOME of his crimes, the cult grows ever more desperate.
Anyone who would bring up A Man For All Seasons ,which is a story that centers on individual integrity, in a context that includes James Comer and Jim Jordan is truly a lost cause.
It’s not comer or Jordan. It’s about people who attack a defendant for asserts due process and his rights and who engage in lawfare to satisfy their ahab like obsession with trump to destroy him at any price. They are Channeling Richard rich and hopefully they wake up and realize what their war on the justice system will mean long term,
Defending any of these prominent Republicans on the basis of integrity is ludicrous.
No this is Ludicris
That’s the whole point of the scene. Richard rich is one of the all time great weasels, completely lacking in integrity and Moore refuses to abuse the law to get him, though it means ruin for him. The law has to apply to those who lack integrity just as much as those who have it.
I don't know if you read the article or not , but it is not at all about how trump is being treated.
I was responding to your argument.
That projection in that 'article' by Turley is palpable.
The republican star witness Tony Bobulinski appeared at a 2020 presidential debate, sitting in the Trump section of the audience,( a couple seats away from Kid Rock) and also appeared at a Trump press conference during the 2020 campaign, and was also seen talking to Mark Meadows somewhat surreptitiously outside of a Trump rally during the 2020 campaign. How all this can be explained in the context of someone just trying to do the right thing, is not credible.
The Republicans seem to think that the public are idiots.
Well, they tend to confuse their cult/fans/enablers with everyone else so that's understandable.
Yawn, still going with the “Biden is all corrupt thing” eh?
Another nothingberder.
Yawn