Joe Biden has corrupted our system of justice and turned it into a pathetic laughingstock. On that basis alone, Americans should boot the occupant of the Oval Office in the next election.
The president’s lackey, Merrick Garland, has disgraced his high position as attorney general by targeting his boss’s chief political opponent, Donald Trump, with two specious federal indictments, while protecting the president who clearly aided and abetted his son’s global influence peddling schemes. The Biden family got filthy rich by selling out America to its adversaries.
At the center of it all are Joe Biden’s lies. You’d need a calculator to keep track of them all. Recent testimony by Hunter Biden’s business partner demolished Joe’s repeated claims that he knew nothing about it and had no involvement. Devon Archer confirmed that Hunter was selling access to his father and promises of influence. Read the transcript. Don’t believe the mainstream media’s spin meant to cover up the criminality.
Naturally, Archer tried to minimize the wrongdoing by saying they were selling “the Biden brand.” That’s a clever feint. Don’t be fooled. Branding is a market strategy. All brands sell something. The Bidens were selling policy influence in exchange for tens of millions of dollars. Hunter would put then-Vice President Biden on the phone to help close the deals. The Burisma scam was their most brazen.
Archer admitted that Hunter was hired at the Ukrainian energy company for the sole purpose of ending the government’s corruption probe which threatened to shutter its operations. The chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had already seized some of the assets of CEO, Mykola Zlochevsky.
In an email dated November 2, 2015, a top Burisma executive implored Hunter to wield his influence to “close down” the criminal investigation. Thereafter, Hunter flew to Dubai to meet personally with a very desperate Zlochevsky who promptly demanded that he get his father on the telephone. When Joe answered, the men stepped out of the room so that Archer would not be privy to the conversation that ensued. But what happened next tells the story.
Joe Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to Kyiv and conveyed his infamous extortion demand to the government that Shokin be fired, or the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in financial aid as a penalty. Within hours, the prosecutor was canned and the probe into Burisma vanished overnight. Mission accomplished. The company got what it paid for, and the cash continued to flow into Biden accounts. Later, Joe bragged about it on camera.
In his testimony, Archer agreed that it raised “serious alarm bells for influence peddling.” Is that a crime? Absolutely. It’s called bribery and conspiracy. It’s also a crime under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for a public official to exploit his or her office for financial profit. To prosecute and convict, it is not necessary under the law to show that Joe Biden himself received a penny. Enriching your family constitutes criminality.
Archer also admitted that Hunter acted as a foreign lobbyist. That’s also a crime under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). You’ll recall that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was prosecuted under the same FARA law for accepting money from Ukraine. He went to prison. But Hunter and Joe get a free pass thanks to Garland’s DOJ.
The Bidens worked similar schemes involving China, Romania, Kazakhstan, and Russia. These are very same countries over which Joe Biden as VP ran foreign policy during the Obama administration. Coincidence? Hardly. The Biden family syndicate banked tens of millions of dollars. They appear to have operated as a criminal enterprise under criminal racketeering laws.
Equally incriminating are the encrypted messages recently uncovered. In one, Hunter is obviously shaking down the Chinese Communist Party-linked company CEFC for cash. “I’m sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” it reads. “I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting her waiting for the call with my father.”
The not-so-veiled threat worked like a charm. Days later $5 million was wired into an account controlled by Hunter Biden. But that’s not all. Some $3.5 million was transferred to another account from Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina. She attended a dinner at the ritzy Cafe Milano in Georgetown organized by Hunter. Joe Biden’s flaks have long denied that he joined the dinner. But Archer confirmed that the vice president was there, exposing yet another Biden lie. It’s curious that Baturina was conveniently left off Joe’s list of sanctioned oligarchs when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Where did all the payola go? The House Oversight Committee is tracking it down. So far, they’ve determined that millions were funneled through a complex web of shell companies and LLCs. Some of it eventually landed in the greedy hands of Biden family members. But if those accounts were used to disguise the source of the money —as it surely seems— that would constitute numerous crimes of money laundering. It’s also tax evasion and fraud. Two IRS whistleblowers told the committee that Hunter failed to pay taxes on $8.3 million in income.
All of this was ignored by Garland’s Justice Department. He refused repeated written demands by Congress to appoint a special counsel, which is required under federal regulations. Instead, Garland ensured that Hunter received special treatment in a lenient plea deal that overlooked the vast majority of the crimes committed. The whistleblowers testified in detail about the political influence that scuttled much of their investigation. Make no mistake, Garland interfered to protect Joe Biden because there is a plethora of incriminating evidence that implicates the president as complicit in his son’s illegality.
As Garland ran his protection racket for the Bidens, he went after his boss’s political opponent with a vengeance. Did Joe instruct his AG to indict Trump for the January 6th violence at the Capitol? He didn’t have to. The president told his aides that Trump should be prosecuted and expressed frustration over his attorney general’s indecisive action. That tidbit of information was then deliberately leaked to The New York Times. I’m sure that Garland reads the leading newspapers. But that’s how corruption works in Washington. Instructions that would otherwise be an improper abuse of power are messaged via proxies.
Joe Biden didn’t have to telegraph his wishes to the legions of sycophants he appointed at the Justice Department. Garland and his prosecutors were more than happy to do Joe’s bidding. That’s why the attorney general selected Jack Smith as special counsel. He has an abysmal track record of bringing politically motivated prosecutions by bastardizing the law. The Jan 6th indictment against Trump is another example.
For the first time in American jurisprudence, Smith is making it a crime for a politician to utter false claims and act on those claims in a government function —to whit, an election. If that’s the new legal standard, just about everyone in Washington belongs behind bars because lying is endemic in our nation’s capital. Some examples?
James Comey lied to the FISA court to obtain a warrant to spy on a Trump associate. Was the disgraced FBI Director prosecuted? Of course not. Hillary Clinton invented and funded the Russian collusion lie, conspired with others to defraud the FBI with a phony dossier to smear Trump. Hillary was never indicted.
The political landscape is littered with government actions based on false claims or lies, including those of Joe Biden. He lied about his authority to erase half-a-trillion dollars in student debt, having first admitted he had no such power. The same with his COVID mandates. Both executive actions were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In bringing his Trump indictment, Smith is leveling the same criminal charges that the Supreme Court has already invalidated. In the seminal case of U.S. v. Alvarez (2012), an elected official in California lied about his military service and awards for heroism. Prosecutors sought to criminalize his lies. His conviction was overturned because the high court ruled that “false claims” are protected speech under the First Amendment. Invoking the historic counter-speech doctrine, the Justices reminded the government that the proper remedy for lies is the truth, not prosecution.
Even the special counsel admitted in his indictment that knowingly false statements are constitutionally protected speech. But then he performed a magical pirouette by asserting that it’s nevertheless criminal if it was done to obstruct an election result. He then states that a variety of people told Trump that he lost. So what? Joe Biden listened to a host of legal experts who told him he couldn’t unilaterally forgive student debt and that only Congress had such authority. Listening is not believing.
If Trump truly believed that he won —even if he was wrong or irrational— how has he committed fraud by challenging the certification of electors which is permitted under both the U.S. Constitution and the Electoral Count Act regardless of what he believes? Democrats pulled the exact same maneuver by contesting Trump’s certification in 2017 in favor of Clinton. They also did it in 2001 and 2005 in an attempt to overturn the election of George W. Bush. Even if Trump relied on erroneous legal advice, he is allowed to exercise challenges provide by law.
Nor is it a crime, as Smith seems to think, for a candidate to claim that the election was stolen or rigged. Both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi said it four years earlier as they tacitly approve the effort by supporters in Congress to mount a meritless and fruitless bid to reverse the outcome. If Democrats do it, it’s a legal right. If Trump does it, it’s a crime.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that Smith can show through witnesses that Trump privately conceded that he lost the election but nonetheless asserted otherwise publicly. Prosecutors still cannot circumvent the Alvarez decision where the defendant’s lies were indisputable. Free speech, not just truthful speech, is protected by the Constitution.
Yet, the special counsel has now set himself up as a one-man truth squad. It’s censorship under the guise of criminal threats. His contorted legal theory will not stand up to legal scrutiny against the inevitable challenges in the courts. It’s a blatant abuse of power.
But Garland and Smith don’t care. They just want to damage Trump to help Biden win re-election.
