by Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley:
Below is my column in the New York Post on the last ditch effort of the members of Congress and the media to get the public to just “move on” from the Biden corruption scandal. The message has been clear and amplified, as former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) insisted on MSNBC, “Everybody needs to back off!” As evidence and public interest increase, it is a bit late for spin or shiny objects. This week, the scandal is likely to be even more serious for the Bidens and the country. The media is increasingly taking on the appearance of Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun yelling that there is “nothing to see here” in front of a virtual apocalyptic scene of fire and destruction.
Here is the column:
“I wonder after this plea happens if you would advise your party to move on?”
That question from CBS’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan to Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie was raised just days before a former business associate of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, gives potentially explosive testimony to a House committee in the Biden corruption scandal.
The media’s desire to “move on” from the scandal is reaching an almost frantic level, as millions in foreign payments and dozens of corporate shell companies are revealed, and incriminating emails are released.
The same plaintive demand was made in congressional hearings.
What was most striking about the last hearing involving two respected IRS whistleblowers was how Democratic members avoided virtually any specific questions.
The members discussed everything from the Emmett Till murder in 1955 to whether the term “two-tiered justice system” is racially insensitive … and of course, Donald Trump.
It was clear that the release of the new evidence of corruption had left no room to maneuver for both Democrat politicians and the media.
Any question would now trip a wire on the Bidens, so most avoid the allegations in favor of talking about Trump or other shiny objects.
He asked about a “lunch where Joe Biden came to say hello at the Four Season’s hotel to a lunch that he was having with CEFC executives.”
He then read how Biden associate Rob Walker described the origins of the meeting with the Chinese officials to get his dad to stop by: “Hunter told his Dad that ‘I may be trying to start a company or try to do something with these guys.’ “
Goldman asked slyly, “Now let me ask you something, that doesn’t sound much like Joe Biden was involved in whatever Hunter was doing with the CEFC, if Hunter Biden is telling him that he is trying to do business with them, does it?”
That is when Shapley stated the obvious: “No, but it does show that he told his father that he was trying to do business and . . . ” Goldman finally saw that problem and cut him off with “OK, well that is true that Hunter Biden does try to do business, that is correct.”
The problem is that Goldman just elicited sworn testimony on how Joe Biden did in fact know about these business dealings despite years of categorical denials of having any knowledge or interaction with Hunter or his business associates.
Goldman demolished the Biden defense in less than five minutes.
Now, Archer is expected to testify that Joe Biden participated in actual telephone calls with them. That will allow investigators to build further on the foundation Goldman laid.
Archer will join other witnesses like Hunter’s business associate Tony Bobulinski, who said that he sat down with Joe Biden to discuss the deals. Bobulinski was instructed by Biden associate James Gilliar not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions.
No matter the severity of the revelations, the liberal media calls the investigations a “clown show.”
Others have continued to tell the public that there remain no alleged ties from Hunter to President Biden despite emails, pictures and witness testimony.
Yet it is becoming harder and harder to avoid these details.
With the possible testimony of Hunter’s business associates, the only hope is that Republicans might be convinced to “move on.”
What was most notable about the question to Christie was the reference to the plea bargain.
A year ago, I wrote a column on how the political and media establishment would likely use a “scandal implosion” approach as the evidence mounted over the corruption allegations.
After the Democrats lost the House, there was a need to cap off the scandal and I suggested that the Justice Department would secure a light plea on a couple tax counts with little or no jail time.
Members and the media would then declare the scandal closed and demand that we all “move on.”
It is unnerving to see how the response unfolded so precisely as predicted. Members made repeated reference to the plea bargain to avoid further discussion.
Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D.-Md.) was positively irate that “We are doing this all over again for the Hunter Biden show to someone who has pleaded guilty and has taken responsibility for not filing taxes for two years. This is ludicrous. Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life down here. None.”
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.