What it Takes To Believe to Believe That Biden Is Innocent

[Borg warner]

What We Must Believe to Believe Biden Is Innocent

Is it plausible* that the real rainmaker of Biden, Inc. was the only one who didn’t get paid?

 

David Catron September 17, 2023 The American Spectator  

 

It’s hardly a surprise that the corporate media have rushed to the defense of President Biden pursuant to the impeachment inquiry announced last week by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. More surprising is the absurdity of the arguments they offer on his behalf. For years, his denials notwithstanding, Biden knew his son ran an international enterprise whose only real service was selling access to the Vice President of the United States to foreign entities who hoped to procure favorable policy decisions from the Obama administration. This operation generated at least $20 million that was doled out to nine Biden family members, yet we are asked to believe that the “Big Guy” didn’t get a cut.

CNN, for example, insists there is no evidence that he “personally received any money.” The network’s fact-checkers evidently need to see a cancelled check made out to “Joe Biden” by an Oligarch who has helpfully written “bribe” on the memo line. The public is more sophisticated. A significant plurality of voters believe that Biden has accepted bribes. A recent Yahoo/YouGov survey asked this question (48F): “Do you believe that Hunter Biden funneled millions of dollars to his father in a long-running scheme to help Joe Biden profit off of his position?” Fully 45 percent of registered voters answered, “Yes.” These aren’t “MAGA extremists.” Indeed, 41 percent of Independents answered, “Yes.”

Moreover, they have many sound reasons for doubting the President’s veracity and suspecting him of engaging in impeachable offenses. On August 24, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) released a list of 16 instances of Biden lying to the American people about his knowledge of his family’s influence peddling schemes. Last week, Chairman Comer released an additional list of evidence showing that Joe Biden’s involvement in these illegal schemes was anything but passive. Meanwhile, Special Assistant to the President Ian Sams issued a memorandum to the corporate “news” media effectively commanding them to scrutinize Republicans with even more animus than is their standard practice:   

 

"It’s time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies … As you begin to cover the House GOP’s impeachment push more intensely, enclosed you will find a 14-page appendix that comprehensively addresses the 7 key lies House Republicans are suggesting they are basing an impeachment on. We hope this document helps provide you with factual information useful in your reporting on their unprecedented, unfounded claims underlying an impeachment inquiry without any evidence of wrongdoing."

 

Mr. Sams hasn't done his boss any favors here. In one stroke he has confirmed the incestuous relationship that exists between the White House and the media while preemptively destroying the credibility of any defense the latter might produce on Biden’s behalf. As to the 14-page appendix Sams provided along with his peremptory memo, it amounts to little more than a collection of recycled White House talking points and quotes from old “news” stories published by the very outlets he urges to “ramp up” their coverage of Republicans. Ironically, the only interesting news produced by the appendix is that Hunter Biden’s “money guy,” Eric Schwerin, managed Dad’s finances while he was Vice President. (READ MORE: Was Last Week the Beginning of the End for Biden?)

Fox News reports, “House Democrats acknowledged Wednesday that Hunter Biden’s then-business partner, Eric Schwerin, handled President Biden’s finances for the duration of his vice presidency.” Sams was foolish enough to mention Schwerin’s interview with the House Oversight Committee in his index, and reporters from Fox confirmed that Schwerin did indeed act as bookkeeper for then-Vice President Biden from 2009 to 2017. It’s no mere optics problem for Hunter Biden’s business partner to manage the Vice President’s finances for eight years. Yet, on ABC’s “This Week,” host Jonathan Karl asked Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) if it was premature to begin an impeachment inquiry.  She responded as follows:              

"The facts are everywhere. There are text messages, there are emails, there are witnesses, there are whistleblowers, there are meetings, there are phone calls, there are dinners … And the inquiry, my understanding is, as you said earlier, gives us expanded subpoena powers. I want the bank records of Joe Biden. All of that should be on the table to prove out the allegations in the SARS reports. We’re talking about a significant sum of money. We are talking about bribery. And in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 4, that is the basis for impeachment."

 

It is indeed. This situation is, to coin a phrase, worse than Watergate. It’s not about a bungled burglary and a clumsy cover-up. It is also far more egregious than lying under oath about a tawdry sex scandal involving a White House intern. It is without question far worse than a single phone call with a Ukrainian comedian cum President about the corrupt dealings of a former Vice President and his degenerate offspring.  Finally, for anyone with an IQ exceeding single digits, it’s more dangerous than a rushed impeachment for incitement of insurrection that failed to meet the legal definitions of “incitement” or “insurrection.” 

In order to believe that Biden is innocent of taking bribes for favorable foreign policy decisions, we must ignore his own words, his son’s text messages and emails, all the “spontaneous” meetings, all the whistleblowers and witnesses, and the need for more than 20 shell companies to launder and distribute loot among family members who have no demonstrable skills. Finally, we must believe that $20 million — and probably much more — has been lavished on all of these people except the only one possessed of the power to make it rain.

 

*Plausible
plau·si·ble
/ˈplôzəb(ə)l/
adjective (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"

Synonyms:  conceivable credible logical possible probable tenable believable
Antonyms: impossible improbable inconceivable irrational unlikely unbelievable.

 

[JMag]

Watch how they discuss the topic…diamonds money, whatever, the guy is greasy and has been for a long long time.

[geeorge]

I'll believe for $10millon in cash in used bills