How Could the Democrats Dump Biden If He Somehow Got Even More Senile and Weird?

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

Yeah, this guy is a mess. But what would the Pinko Party have to do to get rid of him? I’ve been talking a lot about how Joe Biden is swirling down the toilet bowl of senility like the human floater he is, but this last week has been particularly horrifying. He almost wandered away at the G7 summit and had to be reeled in by the right-wing girl leader of Italy. Then he had to be corralled at the pinkothon in Hollywood by Barack Obama and let away like a drooling shortbus rider when he froze up on stage. The guy is getting worse. What are the Democrats going to do?

Look, I don’t think they’re going to replace them. I think the practical challenges of replacing were just too great to deal with. For one thing, unless they do it in the next few weeks, he won’t be a candidate in Ohio. Because the Democrats screwed up and scheduled their convention for after the deadline to get on the Buckeye Ballot, he is going to have to be informally formally nominated well before the convention. If they kick him off the ticket after that, his replacement will not get his/her/their name to appear. That’s a real problem.

But there are other logistical concerns. There are lots of ballots that will have to be changed and lots of dumb Dem voters who are going to have to be told, “Hey, when you’re going to the voting booth, you’re going to be looking for Joe Biden, but there’s going to be somebody else there.” Don’t underestimate how checked-out Democrat constituents are. These are Democrats. They’re not smart. They’re not engaged. I can see them looking at their ballots and scratching their pointy heads, then bursting into tears when they don’t see Joe Biden’s name. 

So, how would they manage to get Biden off the ticket if they were so inclined? They could try reasoning with him, but he’s a moron. Further, his wife, The Very Real Docter Jill, will not want him to go, nor are the thousands of people who owe him a job in the government. No one is talking these parasites out of their cushy sinecures no matter how bad Biden gets – and he could get pretty stinking bad.

So, how, mechanically, do they force Biden and his barnacles out of the White House? They could do the 25th Amendment to boot him out of office and possibly off the ballot. There’s a process. Kamala and a majority of the cabinet could get together and basically declare him incompetent and remove him. Of course, he can fight back and essentially say, “No, I am perfectly competent, and look, that squirrel is making faces at me again! Come on, squirrel, fight me, fat!”

Also, how do you explain them suddenly pulling the 25th? “Oh, you know. just last week, we noticed some troubling issues with the President out of the blue all of a sudden.” No, it would be seen as a massively cynical move, largely because it would be a massively cynical move.

And, worse, he might not lose that fight – the Republicans might just say, “Yeah, Biden is fine” when Congress has to referee the dispute. And remember, the 25th makes him not president, not not the nominee. This would be massively embarrassing and therefore hilarious, except for the whole thing about our enemies across the globe moving in to take advantage of this idiocy. Even if they defenestrate him, he could still be the Democrat candidate.

President Kamala would be the result of a successful removal, and she would definitely want to be the nominee. But even though we’re pretty sure she hasn’t showered with any of her children of the opposite sex, she has still managed to become even more despised than Biden himself. Americans just can’t stand her. But she’s also a person of color and womanness, and you’re not going to get even someone who’s moderately more popular than her to cut in line in front of her with those going for her. 

Gavin Newsom was the dark horse, but he’s kind of Schiffed the bed lately. “Make America California” is hardly the inspirational slogan you’re looking for if you want to win a presidential election in 2024. There are some decent candidates. Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania would be good. But let’s face it, there’s no one out there who is an obvious choice of the electorate. If there were, Biden might be gone already.

There are no more smoke-filled rooms of politicians picking candidates anymore, so they won’t be able to decree that Joe is off the ballot and someone else is on. No, I don’t see how a switch happens unless Crusty suffers some malady or injury. Maybe he breaks a hip or gets sick of, well, yuck, and then maybe I can see it. But that doesn’t solve the problem of who replaces him.

No, as senile, corrupt, perverted, and stupid as Joe Biden is, I think the Democrats have bought their ticket, and they’re riding this Amtrak all the way to the end of the line.

X22, And we Know, and more- June 19

 

Stumbling Into Nuclear War

by Christopher Roach for American Greatness 

In a story that deserves more attention, Ukraine recently attacked a Russian early warning radar facility designed to detect nuclear attacks. This insane action conferred no military advantage on Ukraine—the station monitored potential launches in the Middle East—but it carried with it the risk of igniting a nuclear war. From the perspective of the country being attacked, the only reason to attack an early warning system would be to blind one’s enemy as a prelude to a nuclear attack.

Nuclear war is the most dangerous game. It means the end of civilization. If this horror show ever comes to pass, it is likely more than half of the people on our planet will die. Many console themselves that they’ll die instantly and that most of the consequences will borne by others, but no one can be sure.

Even with such cold comfort, many will survive, at least for a time. They’ll survive disfigured, injured, poorer, hungrier, and sicker. And they will do so in a new world where things we take for granted like clean water, electricity, medical care, and basic law and order are all absent. But they will be alive, and they will try to remain so.

Nuclear Forgetfulness

Unfortunately, rational fear of nuclear war is not as much a part of the public consciousness as it once was. Generation X and Baby Boomers both grew up worried about nuclear conflict. They did “duck and cover” drills in school and saw footage of nuclear tests on television. They had a sense of the scale of the risks from books like Alas Babylon and influential films like Dr. Strangelove,War Games, and The Day After.

When the Cold War ended, it was a great relief, especially in the West. We were told the world was still dangerous, but it didn’t feel as dangerous as it did when a hair-trigger nuclear posture prevailed between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Serbia did not carry the same existential risk that prevailed during the Cold War. Today, the risk of nuclear war is more salient, not least because of the arrival of a flotilla of Russian naval ships in Cuba. The ships include the frigate Admiral Gorshkov, which is capable of launching nuclear-tipped hypersonic missiles, along with the never-seen-before nuclear submarine Kazan.

While ostensibly there to conduct naval exercises, the visit has a whiff of the Cuban missile crisis and its risky nuclear brinkmanship. This situation has understandably alarmed many Americans. We are used to being invulnerable and impressing others with our military power. We even direct our naval ships into the Black Sea. We are definitely not used to hostile, nuclear-armed vessels patrolling off of our coasts.

Here, our collective anxiety makes some sense. Being so close to the United States, any of these ships could launch nuclear missiles in order to destroy command and control systems and decapitate our national leadership. Russian hypersonic missiles would take twelve minutes or less to reach Washington, D.C.

Russia Is Sending a Signal

This visit takes place in parallel with a proxy war in Ukraine, in which the United States and other NATO countries have supplied training, intelligence, and arms and ammunition in order to weaken Russia and its armed forces.

Weakening is an anodyne word that does not convey the full gravity of what is taking place. We are trying to kill Russians and destroy their military. We have had some success in doing so, and we have not made any secret about it. This is understandably very provocative to the world’s largest nuclear power, even if one condemns Russia and its invasion of Ukraine.

The Russian flotilla’s visit appears to be an intermediate step, one designed to communicate a message: we can hurt you too. It is too public to be the foundation of a sneak attack.

But the risk of such an attack is very real. Submarines on both sides already have the potential for a decapitating first strike against the other, and this does not require any public port visits. Ordinary first strikes are deterred by the prospect of mutually assured destruction, but a submarine attack that seeks the swift removal of the leadership and command systems of the other side may occur regardless. They may occur because, if they are successful, these attacks defeat the possibility of an otherwise-inevitable retaliatory strike and thereby defeat the logic of mutually assured destruction.

More importantly, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he views the war in Ukraine as an existential war for national survival and that Russia will do everything necessary, including using nuclear weapons, to win. He has repeatedly warned the United States and other NATO states that there are lines that we have crossed or are about to cross, which may set in motion a chain reaction that leads to the use of nuclear weapons.

Like the man who jumps from the building and says, “So far, so good,” the failure of these provocations to yield a Russian response are lulling us into a dangerous complacency. We will only know we have gone too far when a global nuclear war breaks out. We should instead steer clear of such risks and maintain an ample margin for safety.

A War No One Wants

The recent authorization for Ukraine to use western weapons for deep strikes within Russia proper accords with American military doctrine. This doctrine calls for disruptive and deep attacks against enemy logistics hubs and command and control infrastructure. This is a well-supported conventional strategy, but, even during the Cold War, western planners never fully accounted for the risk of provoking a nuclear response.

This boomerang effect does not depend on one or the other side’s inherent ruthlessness; rather, it arises from ordinary fear and confusion about an adversary’s intent. As Barry Posen argued in his Cold War-era study Inadvertent Escalation, “confusion about the relationship between conventional and nuclear war can lead to situation in which Western conventional and nuclear forces work at cross purposes.” In such a scenario, we or Russia do something that we consider conventional, proportionate, normal, and non-nuclear, but the other side perceives it quite differently.

For example, an American or proxy attack on a navy base or airport using conventional weapons may seem a far cry from a nuclear threat, but what if one or more planes at the airfield is an early warning plane or a nuclear-capable bomber? The party being attacked may reasonably wonder if the real intention is to defeat its nuclear retaliatory capability.

This is one of the paradoxes of conventional conflict between nuclear powers: tactical and operational victories using conventional weapons can lead to perceptions that it is time to “use it or lose it” for nuclear weapons.

The incremental escalation of the Ukraine War flows logically from the American doctrinal emphasis on deep strikes to disrupt enemy logistics. I wrote before the war began, “It’s not clear that the United States would keep any conflict over Ukraine confined to the borders of Ukraine. After all, Russian logistical depots, strategic reserves, and manpower are located in Russia proper. Avoiding them in conducting warfare would give Russia’s substantial conventional capability even more power than it would otherwise have . . .” Yet here we are. Ukrainian missiles have not only sunk Russia’s capital ships and been directed at civilian areas of Moscow, but now are being directed at Russia’s critical nuclear early warning radar sites. 

While this could be a case of the Ukrainians acting on their own, they are very much our proxy. I suspect this is actually a probing attack authorized by the United States, where public protests function as cover-enhancing plausible deniability.

Either way, this is madness. Regardless of their intentions, our leaders should be held accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their policies and the foreseeable risks that they are presently creating. Providing sophisticated long-range weapons and authorizing Ukraine to use them within Russian territory courts disaster on the biggest scale imaginable.

During the Cold War, policymakers and the public had a comparatively more sophisticated understanding that a nuclear war was a risk of such magnitude that direct confrontations between the Soviet Union and NATO had to be avoided. This approach prevailed even after acts of aggression, including the Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). But today a compliant media, an ignorant public, and an arrogant ruling class have combined to render the risk of nuclear war higher than it was at any point during the Cold War.

God help us.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Ukraine’s Suicidal Nationalism

posted by Alexander G. Markovsky at American Thinker 

In a speech delivered on August 1, 1991, in Kiev, President George H.W. Bush urged Ukraine to consider risks associated with independence. He delivered a clear warning to Ukraine, stating that “…. freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

The President’s warnings fell on deaf ears. Ukrainian leaders were not pursuing national interests. Instead, they were motivated by unfounded hostility toward Russia. The outcome proved catastrophic.

On August 24, 1991, Ukraine, driven by “suicidal nationalism,” seized the opportunity presented by the impending collapse of the Soviet Union to proclaim its independence. Once the excitement and promises of democracy and prosperity faded, the Ukrainian people, who had never experienced self-governance, were confronted with the harsh realities of governing a nation. Subsequently, despite impressive resources, Ukraine failed economically and politically.

Ukraine inherited one of the world’s largest agricultural and industrial bases from the Soviet Union. It used to be called a breadbasket of Europe. Its economy produced airplanes, ships, locomotives, turbines for hydropower plants, electrical motors and transformers, and a vast assortment of consumer goods. Donbas coal mines were a major supplier of the Soviet Union’s steel mills and power plants. Additionally, Ukraine manufactured various military hardware, such as tanks, missiles, and jet fighters. With a well-educated population, Ukraine could have become one of Europe’s economic powerhouses.

Unfortunately, Ukrainian leaders either failed to grasp or intentionally ignored that the Ukrainian economy was closely intertwined with the Soviet Union’s economy. Therefore, Russia was a natural, or rather the only, market for Ukrainian goods and services. Despite this, Ukraine abandoned Russian markets and aligned with the European Union. It was an absurd idea, as it would necessitate a significant overhaul of the Ukrainian economy to comply with European regulations and standards. Such a massive endeavor would require both time and substantial financial resources.

In the end, the EU displayed no interest in Ukrainian products. Consequently, Ukraine lost the Russian market, and the economy crumbled. Ukraine was no longer able to sustain itself, and its entire existence relied on foreign aid, ultimately resulting in Ukraine losing sovereignty and becoming a pawn of foreign interests.

In no other area did “suicidal nationalism” manifest itself as severely as in the realm of domestic policy, which eventually contributed to the ongoing conflict.

After the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, where most residents were Russians, fell under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The sentiments towards Russia in these regions, varying from acknowledging Russian as an official language to seeking complete autonomy from Ukraine, have been ingrained in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. These emotions were further solidified by the removal of Ukraine's pro-Moscow, democratically elected president Yanukovych in a coup d'état that the United States sponsored in 2014.

Kiev could accept a limited autonomy for the belligerent East, similar to the American states, which it demanded from the outset, and avoid a bloody conflict altogether. But newly elected president Petro Poroshenko ignored President Bush’s warning not to “… seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” Instead, it elected to use military force to subdue the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. It has been shelling Donbas, including the use of artillery supplied by America, destroying the cities, and killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately for years (something the Western media ignores entirely). This “suicidal nationalism” was one of the reasons behind Russia’s eventual annexation of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

In foreign affairs, “suicidal nationalism” also overrode national interests. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, ostensibly for security reasons, disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings over the past three decades about the existential threat of NATO’s eastward expansion. The push for Ukraine to become a member of NATO would not and could not ensure Ukraine’s security. Instead, the effort has put Ukraine in mortal danger for breaching the terms of the 1997 Treaty on Friendship between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, which explicitly stipulated Ukrainian neutrality (section 6, page 148).

Ukraine’s unwavering pursuit of NATO membership, fueled by political inexperience, recklessness, and a heavy reliance on foreign aid, was an illusory goal that served no national purpose and tragically led to a preventable war. By now, it is self-evident that the pursuit of NATO membership resembles chasing a mechanical rabbit (video here). Yet Zelensky and Co. still do not realize that their tireless endeavors and sacrifices have been in vain, as NATO membership has never been an attainable reality. For obvious reasons, NATO members, unlike Ukraine, want to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.

Indeed, even Ukraine’s strongest supporters cannot escape the fact that during the thirty years after declaring independence, it has failed to produce any notable accomplishments. On the contrary, inept Ukrainian leaders have plundered most of the resources they inherited from the Soviet Union, exacerbated internal incompatibilities, and incited an unnecessary war with Russia, the ravages of which continue to erode the remaining fragments of its once-thriving heritage.

In the annals of history, it would be difficult to name another instance where a nation consistently made decisions detrimental to its own national interest, ultimately leading to self-destructive outcomes. As this dysfunctional and corrupt failed state crumbles, there is a haunting fear that Ukraine will be left a wasteland for future generations. Konrad Adenauer’s words, “History is the sum of things that could have been avoided,” ring so especially true for Ukraine.

Netanyahu Releases Video Hitting the Biden Regime, Libs Triggered

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu released a video on Tuesday directly criticizing the Biden administration. Frustrations have grown over the last several months as Joe Biden and his national security team have withheld deliveries of munitions in an attempt to force Israel to surrender to Hamas. 

Netanyahu is likely priming the pump for his address to Congress, which is set to take place later in June.

NETANYAHU: When Secretary Blinken was recently here in Israel, we had a candid conversation. I said I deeply appreciated the support the U.S. has given Israel from the beginning of the war, but I also said something else. I said it is inconceivable that in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunition from Israel. Israel, America's closest ally fighting for its life, fighting against Iran and our other common enemies. 

Secretary Blinken assured that the administration is working day and night to remove these bottlenecks. I certainly hope that's the case. It should be the case. During World War II, Churchill told the United States, "Give us the tools, we'll do the job." I say, give us the tools and we'll finish the job a lot faster.

Biden's machinations have stemmed from his domestic woes, as he faces a tough re-election campaign against Donald Trump. Repeatedly, the White House has made concessions to Hamas, most recently with a laughably bad ceasefire proposal (that Hamas rejected anyway), in a vile attempt to court radicals in places like Dearborn, MI. Of course, that hasn't worked, and the president continues to draw the ire of the far-left.

For its part, Israel has remained committed to its goals, and it invaded Rafah despite Biden proclaiming it a "red line." So far, two full battalions of Hamas fighters have been dispatched as a result. The war will continue until Hamas' total defeat barring real concessions being made by the terrorists to secure a ceasefire, including releasing all the hostages. 

What I found interesting, though, was the reaction to Netanyahu's statement. For the past few years, liberals have gone after anyone who questions American allies as treasonous stooges. 

Warning: Profanity

That's Alexander Vindman's less-than-stable wife cursing at the Israeli PM for simply speaking the truth about the Biden administration's betrayals. She's spent the entiretly of the Ukraine-Russia war lecturing others on the importance of supporting allies. Yet, all of a sudden, she's not so supportive anymore. Weird, right? 

The Biden administration has tried to straddle a fence that can't be straddled when it comes to Israel and Hamas. For that, they are reaping the whirlwind from all sides. Netanyahu should light into Blinken and company even more when he addresses Congress. Leave no doubt. 

Israel Approves Plans for Offensive Against Hezbollah in Lebanon

Spencer Brown reporting at Townhall 

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced on Tuesday that operational plans had been approved for an offensive in Lebanon where Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists have been launching escalating attacks on Israel that began after the Hamas assault from the Gaza Strip on October 7.

According to the IDF, the Northern Command's Commanding Officer MG Ori Gordin and Head of the Operations Directorate MG Oded Basiuk approved the operational plans after holding a "joint situational assessment" in the Northern Command on Tuesday. 

"As part of the situational assessment, operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon were approved and validated, and decisions were taken on the continuation of increasing the readiness of troops in the field," the IDF's statement added. 

The approval of plans for a Lebanon offensive does not mean such an action has been ordered nor is it necessarily imminent, but it's the latest signal from Israel to Iran and its terrorist proxies — as well as the rest of the world — that it is ready and able to take action to end the attacks coming from across its northern border. 

In the wake of the 10/7 Hamas attack, Israel evacuated residents in towns and kibbutzim across northern Israel to create a buffer between its citizens and Hezbollah terrorists. 

Still, in a recent three-day period alone, Hezbollah said it had launched more than 40 attacks on Israel with its rockets, missiles, and kamikaze drones as part of its ratcheting-up of assaults. 

Hezbollah is better positioned than Hamas is in Gaza, geographically, to receive ongoing deliveries of such weapons from its backers in Tehran. A land route from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon has become a busy corridor for terrorist weapons, including some with ranges that would allow attacks on Israel's most populous cities. 

Without a full offensive, Israel has still been picking off Hezbollah terrorists inside Lebanon as the Iran-backed group significantly escalates the number of attacks on Israel. Earlier on Tuesday, the IDF took out one of the squads operating Hezbollah UAVs.

Graft, Corruption, International Bribery: the Biden Family Business

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Politics and corruption seem to go hand-in-glove and have been at least since Mark Antony reportedly solicited a bribe from King Herod in return for Rome propping up Herod's claim to the throne of Judea. It hasn't gotten much better since then; an old Army buddy of mine, who grew up in Arkansas in the '60s and '70s, once told me that one term as a country sheriff would set you up for life in his part of Arkansas due to the favors the position enabled you to do for key people.

It sure seems, however, like the Biden family intends to take all this to the next level, and we can learn one thing from an analysis of their shenanigans: Being vice president enables one to wield a fair amount of influence, to cash in on that influence, while not too many people are paying attention to you. That's what Joe Biden did as Barack Obama's VP; he and his family cashed in on dealings with one of America's adversaries.

 Hunter Biden informed his business associates in late 2013 that a top Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader allegedly asked him to travel to China to talk about future "business opportunities," according to an email obtained and verified by Fox News Digital.

In December 2013, Biden accompanied his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, on a six-day trip around Asia that included China, South Korea and Japan. While in Beijing, Biden introduced his father to one of his Chinese business associates, who was accompanied by another associate, in the lobby of the hotel they were staying in.

"Business opportunities," indeed. And his father accompanied him, meeting those "business associates." 

During the China leg of the trip, Biden attended multiple events with his dad, including a lunch that featured some of the most powerful CCP leaders in China. On Dec. 5, Jonathan Li, the business associate who Vice President Biden was introduced to, emailed Biden asking him how his China trip was going, prompting Biden to email later that day that everything "went very well."

"Do you know former Governor of Hong Kong- C.H. Troung (sp?)," Hunter asked. "He wants me to come to HK to visit to discuss business opportunities. He sat next to Dad at lunch w/ Premiere and implied we knew each other- but I don't remember him."

"Very good, I can go with you to find out what he can do for us," Li said to Hunter.

"Troung" refers to C.H. Tung, a former governor of Hong Kong and billionaire who served as the vice chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) between 2005 and 2023, a former business associate of Biden confirmed to Fox News Digital.

As for what the CPPCC is:

According to a 2018 report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a U.S. government agency, the CPPCC is a "central part" of China’s United Front system, which works to "co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP)."

None of this presents a pretty picture.

So, to summarize: We have Hunter Biden, the ne'er-do-well son of the vice president, receiving a probe from a Chinese Communist Party official asking him to travel to China to talk about "business opportunities." We next have Vice President Biden, as was, dropping in while on a trip to Asia to meet this Chinese official. We have a later email from Biden praising that meeting - and then discussing more "business opportunities" with a former governor of Hong Kong, who also met the vice president and who is a key Communist Party official, offering even more "business opportunities."

The results of these meetings never resulted in even one product being manufactured or offered for sale - but somehow resulted in vast amounts of money flowing, including into the various shell corporations and bank accounts belonging to the Biden family. In a sane world, that would be called bribery.

I’m old enough to remember – barely – when the Republicans in Congress went to President Richard Nixon and told him they would have to support impeachment and conviction, for his malfeasance in the Watergate cover-up. My father made me watch those proceedings, telling me, "You're seeing history made." Those people, Barry Goldwater among them, had principles in those days. 

But that won't happen now, even though this is the very picture of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now it’s all about the side, and while the House may be able to impeach President Biden on a narrow party-line vote (assuming no Republicans defect, and I wouldn’t take that bet), the Senate will never vote for removal. Hunter Biden could walk into the Senate, bare his soul, and spend days detailing his facilitating corruption and laying the blame at the feet of "The Big Guy," complete with emails, bank records, and whatnot, and the Senate still will not vote to convict.

While this would be a clear-cut case for impeachment and removal, there just are no principles; only principals. No matter what evidence comes to light, it just isn’t going to happen.

When The SEC Started To Investigate Hunter Biden, He Played The ‘Do You Know Who My Daddy Is’ Card

Republicans are investigating whether Hunter’s decision to name drop his dad discouraged ‘further SEC scrutiny.’

Jordan Boyd reporting for The Federalist

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2016 declined to charge Hunter Biden alongside his business partners in a tribal bond scheme after he invoked his father’s position as Vice President of the U.S.

The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees are demanding answers from SEC Chair Gary Gensler after discovering that the agency tasked with investigating market manipulation left Hunter out of a sweeping indictment that befell his business partners shortly after he name-dropped his dad.

Hunter’s longtime associates including Devon Archer and Jason Galanais were indicted by the federal government in 2016 for violating several federal securities laws when they defrauded investors “in sham Native American tribal bonds.”

The vice president’s son was among several of the Biden family business associates and entities subpoenaed by the SEC in March 2016 to hand over relevant evidence about the scheme, specifically “concerning Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC,” by the end of the month.

When the time came for Hunter to hand over key documents and communications to the SEC, he delayed. Nearly one month after the subpoena deadline on April 20, 2016, Hunter’s lawyers responded to the SEC, begging the agency to “treat this matter with the highest degree of confidentiality, consistent with Commission policy and applicable law.”

“The confidential nature of this investigation is very important to our client and it would be unfair, not just to our client, but also to his father, the Vice President of the United States, if his involvement in an SEC investigation and parallel criminal probe were to become the subject of any media attention,” Hunter’s legal counsel wrote.

A few weeks later on May 11, 2016, the SEC publicly announced charges against several of Hunter’s business partners but did not mention the Second Son.

Republican investigators say there is no doubt that Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC (RHB) “was directly implicated in the tribal bond scheme.” Yet Hunter has tried to falsely distance himself from the company despite documents and evidence confirming his history as RHB’s corporate secretary.

As the committees note in their letter, Hunter routinely used the RHB bank account to “funnel other foreign payments and benefits to [himself], including money from Ukraine and a new sports car from an oligarch in Kazakhstan” that he obtained during his international influence peddling.

“Mr. Biden’s response gratuitously invoked his father’s position as the Vice President in
what could be interpreted as an effort to discourage further SEC scrutiny,” the Republicans wrote.

To better understand the suspicious exchange between the SEC and Hunter, Republicans are demanding Gensler hand over “all documents and communications with the White House” about Hunter, his business partners, and the entities involved in the 2016 defrauding scheme. The investigators also said they require a transcribed audience with Tejal D. Shah, the former staff attorney who led the SEC’s probe.

Understanding why the SEC declined to include Hunter in the charges, the committees concluded, is “critical to the impeachment inquiry.”

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

Greg Gutfeld Puts Biden/Media Collusion on 'Cheap Fakes' Scandal in Perspective As Only He Can

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

The mainstream media are, as per the norm, doing their part in aiding and abetting the Biden administration/campaign in trying to counter the mountain of evidence - shown in video form - of Joe Biden looking lost, out of it, confused, wooden, and just generally unwell.

The full-court-press from The Usual Suspects, starting with White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, has come in the aftermath of a series of disturbing clips, including one showing former President Barack Obama having to gently lead Biden offstage during a Hollywood fundraiser Saturday, that further raise issues ahead of the presidential election about Biden's age and fitness to lead the country.

---

The Press Start Spouting the 'Cheap Fakes' Talking Point, As Panic About Biden's Senility Grows

---

While these deeply problematic moments reach back to well before Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, the left-wing media's penchant for covering for Democrats goes back much further than that.

But the last week or so of "cheap fake" talking points from the purported reporters who want you to believe that they really are committed to weeding out so-called fake news stories and alleged misinformation caught the attention of Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, who put things in perspective as only he can during Tuesday's "The Five" broadcast:

"Where were these anti-hoaxers in the ‘fine people hoax’, the ‘drinking bleach hoax’, the ‘koi pond hoax’, the ‘migrant kids in cages hoax’, the ‘border patrol migrants whipping migrants hoax’, the ‘lab leak is a conspiracy theory hoax’, the ‘Russian collusion hoax’…?”

The answer is, as RedState readers know and understand all too well, that the mainstream media were right there with Democrats, pushing along the same fake narratives about Russia collusion, the "very fine people" nonsense, and all the rest. 

"They're the engine behind their hoaxes," Gutfeld also correctly pointed out.

To put a finer point on it, these same media outlets that are gaslighting their readers and viewers now about how the videos are allegedly deceptive, taken out of context, etc., are the same ones who along with Democrats tried to sell the American people on the supposed need for Trump to be impeached over the Russia collusion hoax, the Ukraine call, and January 6th.

In other words, the national press hasn't just done its part to spread phony Democratic talking points about Trump and other Republicans for the purpose of winning elections, but they've actively and deliberately used their positions to get a Republican president who they don't like removed from office by way of dishonorable and deceptive means.

They're still trying to manipulate voters ahead of the election, but this time around they're doing it by telling you not to believe what you've seen with your own eyes about the current Oval Office occupant.

With trust in the media at all-time lows, it is hard to envision a scenario where they'll be able to pull the wool over enough people's eyes to make a difference in November. But rest assured they will pull out all the stops in hopes that what they did in 2020 by suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story will work again in its 2024 incarnation: the "cheap fakes."