Archive for the ‘Joe Biden’ Category

Now that Shepard Smith left FNC, it’s time to get rid of Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, in that order. This morning, Wallace interviewed Acting WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about the confusion over his ‘admitting’ that President Trump connected military aid to Ukraine with investigating the Bidens. I get it that the media loves stirring up controversies where they don’t exist but this is ridiculous.

First, Mulvaney said that governments engage in quid pro quos all the time. While I haven’t heard him say it this way, I’m confident that Mulvaney meant that reporters are getting hung up on the phrase quid pro quo rather than asking the important follow-up question, which is ‘was the quid pro quo corrupt? Or was it innocent?’ Quid pro quo simply means “this for that.”

Imagine this: every time you buy something in a store, you’ve committed a quid pro quo. You exchanged financial considerations for a product, aka this for that. If that’s illegal or corrupt, shopping malls are filled with criminals.

Of course, everything in DC gets overhyped. That’s how this story went from being a big nothing to being the biggest story this side of the other nothing story, aka the impeachment nothing story. This is utterly predictable. Without conflict, ratings would tank. Without misleading headlines, there wouldn’t be the clicks. Conflict drives ratings and attention.

That’s why I don’t pay attention to those tricks. I want to gather information. I don’t care about the latest hot stories. Rest assured that the content that you find here is important to people and is reliable. I don’t buy into the gamesmanship that the networks employ. They’re always telling us that this or that event is super-important before turning into a non-event.

I pay attention to political rallies because they tell me whether voters are fired up. If they aren’t, that’s an automatic disadvantage to that candidate. This year thus far, Trump holds the advantage over most of the Democrats, with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren being the exceptions — sorta. Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are doing best but they still can’t match Trump’s crowds and enthusiasm.

This article highlights the difference between the Trump campaign’s cutting edge media strategy and Biden’s strategy:

One recent video from the Trump campaign said that Mr. Biden had offered Ukraine $1 billion in aid if it killed an investigation into a company tied to his son. The video’s claims had already been debunked, and CNN refused to play it. But Facebook rejected the Biden campaign’s demand to take the ad down, arguing that it did not violate its policies. At last count, the video has been viewed on the social network more than five million times.

Chris Wallace is going the way of the dinosaur. Fox Nation is a great option because it’s more of an on-demand option. Why go old-fashioned when you can customize?

George Mesires, Hunter Biden’s attorney, issued this statement regarding Hunter’s work for Burisma:

Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term.

That’s classic Swampspeak. Hunter’s dad was a Democrat senator before becoming a Democrat vice president. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would’ve had significant influence into ethics and conflict-of-influence laws. It wouldn’t have been difficult for anyone in that position to put in place provisions that would’ve made it difficult to do something illegal.

That’s like asking an arsonist to write laws regarding criminal arson. The principle is the same. Asking corrupt people to write laws that govern themselves is stupid. The chances of corrupt people writing legislation that’s friendly to corrupt people is 100%.

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are birds of corrupt feathering. That they didn’t do anything illegal is just proof that the Swamp protects its own. It isn’t proof that Swamp people are honest. Hunter isn’t too stable, either:

It’s one thing for a corrupt Ukrainian business to shovel $200,000 a month into Hunter’s bank account. It’s another when the Chinese government pays Hunter $450,000 a year for a high-profile person who’s been in-and-out of substance abuse rehabilitation centers more times than I’ve been to a grocery store in the last year. Why should I think that the Chinese would pay him $450,000 a year if not for influence-peddling?

Remember this oldie-but-goodie?

Biden insists that China is a nothing compared to the US. Right. Then we find out that his son is getting rich working for the Chinese. But, hey, everything’s on the up-and-up, Creepy Joe insists. R-I-I-I-G-H-T! What could possibly go wrong?

Democrats have a messaging problem with Joe Biden. The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’ve stuck with the ‘Trump is going after his political enemy’ storyline. Up until now, that’s been effective. Bit-by-bit, though, it’s hitting the point-of-diminishing-returns wall.

It’s indisputable that candidates can’t take campaign contributions from foreigners or foreign companies. That’s been on the books for decades. That’s getting murkier by the day. Presidents have the obligation to fight crime, too. As long as those 2 obligations tug at each other, this isn’t a simple thing to sort through.

The minute you say President Trump can’t ask for China’s help in investigating Hunter Biden’s activities, 2 bad things happen. First, you tie the president’s hands in conducting foreign policy. That’s never a positive. I also don’t think it’s constitutional because the Constitution gives the president sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Also, does anyone seriously think that the Supreme Court would capriciously limit a president’s ability to conduct foreign policy? I can’t imagine it.

Next, does anyone think it’s wise to tell the executive branch that they shouldn’t investigate corruption hidden within the US executive branch? I don’t. If the man who’s getting investigated is the former VP and he’s also running for President, I’d suggest that that political party should find someone with more integrity to be their nominee.

In 2016, Hillary complained that Jim Comey demolished her presidential campaign. At the time, I wrote that if she didn’t want the FBI investigating her, she shouldn’t have been that corrupt. I’d tell Joe and Hunter Biden that they shouldn’t have trafficked in influence peddling while Crazy Joe was Vice President. It isn’t that complicated, though I’ll immediately admit that it’d be mighty tempting to take the millions and run.

This isn’t just a campaign finance issue. It’s a governing/law enforcement issue, too. It can’t be one or the other. It’s gotta be both. As is often the case with the law, there’s a judicial ‘tug-of-war’, for lack of a better term, between competing principles that aren’t settled with oversimplified communications. It’s best admitting right at the start that there’s a conflict that must be resolved.

To me, it isn’t that big of a deal for President Trump to tell China or Ukraine he’d appreciate their help in investigating high-level corruption. If that corruption potentially involves a presidential candidate’s offspring, should the offspring get a free pass? Or should that son or daughter get investigated? To me, that’s a no-brainer — investigate.

If a presidential candidate’s son or daughter wants to stay out of the news, behave yourself. If you continue misbehaving, expect the investigation. This isn’t that tough to figure out.

It’s time for these reporters to start putting 2 and 2 together. It’s time that they figure out what the people that they’re covering are busy with. It’s time they start putting the puzzle together.

Things are definitely heating up in the presidential race, with President Trump and Vice President Pence on one side and former Vice President Joe Biden on the other side. Right now, Vice President Biden is outmatched. Today, Vice President Pence was asked if it was ok for President Trump to tell China and other nations to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Vice President Pence “gave a full-throated defense of President Trump’s call for an investigation into” Biden and his son, saying “The American people have the right to know whether or not the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position. My predecessor had a son who was paid $50,000 a month to be on a Ukrainian board at the time that Vice President Biden was leading the Obama administration’s efforts in Ukraine, I think (that) is worth looking into. And the president has made it very clear that he believes … other nations around the world should look into it as well. When you hold the second highest office in the land it comes with unique responsibilities – not just to be above impropriety, but to be above the appearance of impropriety, and clearly in this case there are legitimate questions that ought to be asked.”

Pence also said that he and President Trump were elected, at least in part, on draining the swamp. Voters didn’t say ‘drain the swamp except if it’s happening in another country.’ People want the swamp drained. Period. This video is a precise, intelligent explanation for why Vice President Biden should be investigated:

Here is President Trump calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens:

Meanwhile, Joe Biden attempted to defend his family with limited success:

Let me make something clear to Trump and his hatchet men and the special interests funding his attacks against me: I’m not going anywhere. You’re not going to destroy me. And you’re not going to destroy my family. I don’t care how much money you spend or how dirty the attacks get.

Biden sounds defensive. It might be the best he can do but it isn’t enough to win the gold medal.

As I wrote earlier, President Trump is getting good news from lots of different locations. His job approval is definitely improving. His fundraising is shooting through the roof. These aren’t the characteristics of a candidate on the defensive. They’re the characteristics of a man campaigning with confidence.

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed is must reading if you want to know the difference between the Democrats’ definition of impeachment and the Constitution’s definition of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Republicans better get their act together on this. Democrats have declared war on President Trump and Republicans. Senate Republicans better prepare for warfare. They should opt to shut down the trial, if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment.

Here’s why: Nothing that President Trump has done comes close to meeting the constitutional test of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” In fact, President Trump hasn’t come close to committing a crime, much less a high crime. When Bill Clinton was impeached, a grand jury identified a series of felonies that he’d committed.

Let’s remember that, in the end, President Clinton paid Paula Jones a small ton of money and surrendered his law license in Arkansas. He wouldn’t have had to do those things if he hadn’t initially been indicted.

Mentioning Biden’s name and Biden’s son’s name in the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wasn’t the best thing to do but it doesn’t come close to a high crime. That isn’t just my opinion. That’s Alan Dershowitz’s opinion, too.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

I wrote about this recently because I’m convinced that governments shouldn’t be overthrown for “light and transient causes” any more than presidents should be impeached for light and transient causes. This isn’t a joke. This is serious stuff.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, it is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate. Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Vice President Biden shouldn’t get that get-out-of-jail-free card because nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents. This video sums things up nicely:

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings and paid $83,000 a month for 5 years. What’s worse is that he didn’t have any expertise in the energy industry or in the Ukraine. Then, when investigators started checking out potential corruption, Vice President Biden threatened to pull $1,000,000,000 in loan guarantees from Burisma if Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, wasn’t fired.

Impeachment is a political act because it involves the political branches of government. That being said, it also uses judicial principles if done properly. If articles of impeachment are passed on a straight party-line vote, Republicans should essentially throw the case out for not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment.

This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:

Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and — guess what — the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.

This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let’s start with the text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s important to notice why the Second Amendment was written — for “the security of a free state.” Further, it’s worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The person apparently doesn’t know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn’t whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.

The talk about implementing “common sense solutions” is just that — talk. House Democrats don’t just want “common sense” restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it’s easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn’t part of the list so it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon.

If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms “in common use” can’t be prohibited. That doesn’t stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:

Beto’s ‘Buyback’:

Sen. Harris’ executive order:

Democrats don’t want to pass “common sense” restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren’t back-benchers. They’re the Democrats’ presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.

According to Sean Davis’ article, the snitch’s complaint (my word, not Sean’s) put together by the snitch’s legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean’s article, he highlights the fact that Steele’s dossier didn’t use people’s names:

Steele hadn’t gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. “Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Steele wrote. “Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.

Let’s compare this with the snitch’s complaint:

“I was told that a State Department official” did this or that. “I heard from multiple US officials” that such and such. “Officials have informed me. …” And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump’s guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn’t even in the same room.

Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn’t rely on their own observations? That isn’t a whistleblower. That’s a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele’s discredited dossier and this snitch’s questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn’t have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won’t run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.

The snitch’s story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:

The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.

Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn’t known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.

I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy. There’s no question that President Trump brought up Biden’s son late in the conversation. I still don’t see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn’t one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump’s priorities.

The other thing that’s noteworthy is what wasn’t said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn’t there, not even in a dog whistle.

Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats’ impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven’t passed anything that’s improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.

I get it that Chris Coons needs to run interference for Joe Biden. After all, Coons represents Delaware, just like Biden did. Nonetheless, it’s a bit much that he’d make this foolish statement with this video circulating everywhere:

Next, here’s what Sen. Coons said:

My gut reaction is ‘here we go again.’ In the 2016 campaign, President Trump repeated baseless allegations about Hillary’s emails over and over and over, to the point where the average voter couldn’t really tell you what it was actually about, but they just had the vague impression that something inappropriate had happened. That is exactly what President Trump is trying to do here, and I hope that both the media won’t take the bait and simply repeat these baseless allegations.

This isn’t ‘Here we go again’ with baseless allegations. It’s ‘here we go again’ with Biden foolishly shooting his mouth off again. What type of idiot brags that he got a prosecutor fired who’s investigating his son? That’s as foolish as it gets. That’s Biden for you.

This won’t finish well for VP Biden or Democrats like Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.). Though he doesn’t know it yet, Schiff is about to find out what it’s like to play the part of the dog who’s chasing a car, then accidentally catches it. If the transcript is released, which seems inevitable at this point, it’s likely to show that President Trump talked to the Ukrainian Prime Minister to investigate corruption in his country. Here is President Trump explaining why he told Prime Minister Zelensky to investigate Vice President Biden’s son:

It’s perfectly acceptable for President Trump to tell Ukraine to clean up its act. As President Trump said, trying to clean up corruption is part of the mandate for why he got elected. Further, there’s no question that Ukraine has had corruption issues for a while.

Democrats know this. They’re just hoping to defeat President Trump before this ‘bombshell’ blows up in their face.

This article asks an important question for the Democrat presidential nominee and the DFL Senator. It’s an article about the Line 3 Pipeline project.

It starts by saying “MINNEAPOLIS — A divisive fight over the future of a crude-oil pipeline across Minnesota is pinning presidential candidates between environmentalists and trade unions in a 2020 battleground state, testing their campaign promises to ease away from fossil fuels.” Then it states something controversial, saying “Progressive candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have condemned a Canadian company’s plan to replace its old and deteriorating Line 3 pipeline, which carries Canadian crude across the forests and wetlands of northern Minnesota and into northern Wisconsin. They’ve sided with environmental and tribal groups that have been trying to stop the project for years, arguing that the oil should stay in the ground. Other candidates, including home-state Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.”

I must take issue with this statement:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.

Oh really, Joe? Then what did you mean at this campaign event?

Ending fossil fuels necessarily requires being opposed to the Line 3 Pipeline project because the Line 3 Pipeline project carries fossil fuels. Democrats don’t want to admit that because Democrats want to appease both construction workers and environmental activists simultaneously. That’s impossible because those organizations fit together like oil and water. (Pardon the metaphor but I couldn’t resist.)

I’d also reject the notion that Sen. Klobuchar has stayed neutral, as this suggests:

Klobuchar has also avoided taking a position. She has said she wants to ensure a thorough environmental and scientific review to determine if the Line 3 project should move forward. Minnesota regulators signed off on the main environmental review last year, although an appeals court has ordered additional study on the potential impacts to the Lake Superior watershed. But she recently returned $5,600 in donations from an Enbridge project manager after a liberal watchdog group, the Public Accountability Initiative, revealed them.

Sen. Klobuchar knows that that’s BS. The Line 3 has already gone through the entire permitting process, including getting the approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The only step left is for the lawsuits to get settled. Enbridge played by the rules laid out by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Jason Lewis put things beautifully when he announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate:

When Republican Jason Lewis launched his U.S. Senate campaign at the Minnesota State Fair, the former congressman said he would focus on greater Minnesota — the mostly rural part outside the Minneapolis-St. Paul area — to make up for Democratic strength in the cities. He highlighted the 8th Congressional District, which covers northeastern Minnesota and has swung from blue to red. Lewis said Trump’s campaign is “dead serious about Minnesota,” and that he expects it to follow the same strategy.

“Greater Minnesota is turning red, deep red. I don’t know how a Democrat’s going to win the 8th District promising to give pink slips to every trade union member on the Iron Range, promising to stop Enbridge, to stop copper mining, to stop logging, to stop people from having jobs on the Iron Range,” Lewis said.

The DFL is almost ceding rural Minnesota legislative districts while becoming more and more metrocentric. If the DFL continues siding with environmental activists and against the construction unions, they won’t win many elections in rural Minnesota. The truth is that the DFL isn’t interested in farmers or laborers, aka the F-L in DFL.

If President Trump highlights the differences between the DFL’s broken promises to farmers and laborers vs. President Trump’s promises made and promises kept on the issue of slapping tariffs on China to prevent steel dumping, he’ll make Minnesota competitive again.

This weekend’s campaigning in New Hampshire must’ve caused Vice President Biden’s cheese to slide further off his cracker. I say this because he said that “President Trump is becoming ‘more erratic’ in dealing with ‘an economy that’s teetering on a recession.'”

Actually, Vice President Biden either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s pretending that the vast majority of Wall Street economists think that we’re at least a year away from a recession. That includes Jerome Powell’s prediction:

“We are not forecasting or expecting a recession,” said Powell during a discussion with Chairman of the Swiss National Bank, Thomas Jordan, in Zurich. Instead, he said the outlook of the US economy continues to be a “favorable one,” which he attributed to the Fed’s decision earlier this year to cut rates for the first time in a decade. “We’re going to continue to act as appropriate to sustain this expansion,” Powell said.

If we judge whether Vice President Biden is an expert on the economy based on the Obama administration’s economic performance, he’d be in trouble compared with President Trump. Further, Biden is having difficulties with his truth-telling abilities:

Joe Biden is looking voters in the eye and promising to “end fossil fuel.” The former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate made the comment Friday after a New Hampshire environmental activist challenged him for accepting donations from the co-founder of liquified natural gas firm. Biden denied the donor’s association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman “kiddo” and taking her hand. He said, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”

The activist, 24-year-old Rebecca Beaulieu, later said she appreciated that Biden took her question seriously, but that he was not satisfied with Biden’s plan to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050.

Thanks, Vice President Biden. You’ve just admitted that the Obama administration (that you were part of) really tried killing the coal industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs the fossil fuel industry supports. In fact, during last week’s climate change townhall, each of the Democrat presidential candidates said that they’d destroy the fossil fuel industry and the US economy along with it. So much for these Democrats’ judgment. Frankly, they’re idiots for saying that. That essentially puts Michigan in the Trump column, with Ohio (which isn’t a purple state anymore) and Pennsylvania another possibility. These answers at the CNN climate change townhall don’t help assure people that he’s up to the job of leader of the free world: