Well, He Does Have the Right to Remain Silent


Of course, Joe Biden often doesn’t have enough good sense to keep his mouth shut, but it’s reported that he said that he won’t voluntarily appear if he is called as a witness during a Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.

Imagine the following scenario—Biden refuses to appear when subpoenaed, so the Senate sends its Sergeant of Arms to arrest him and bring him to the chamber to testify. And then Biden invokes his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Gentle Reader may speculate on the effect that might have on the Democrat presidential primaries.

Everything Is Proceeding As I Have Foreseen


The Gentle Reader may have noticed that this post’s title is a recurring line here at Hogewash!. Today, I used it in a comment to a post about the latest impeachment craze over at The Other McCain. My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has a long quote from a Marc Theissen piece at WaPo which points out the interest that the Democrats had in the Ukraine’s own corruption investigation earlier this year, before that country’s Obama-supported president Petro Poroshenko was turned out of office. Now that the newly elected president and his government are investigating what happened between the Obama administration and Poroshenko and his cronies, the Democrats wish to convince us that it was an impeachable offense for President Trump to encourage Ukraine to continue the ongoing investigations touching on Hunter Biden and his father.

My comment over at TOM continues, “but I still haven’t decided whether to order more popcorn or a big bag of Chalupas.” The bag of Chalupas alludes to why I foresaw what has been happening. It refers to Alexandra Chalupa, an activist with connections to the Ukrainian embassy in 2016, to many of the usual Democrat suspects, and to some more unusual ones—including creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and bomber activist Brett Kimberlin. Her activities with Kimberlin that came to light in early 2017 appeared to be part of the initial stages of the Democrats’ failed attempt to gather dirt on Donald Trump and other officials in his administration, and it has led me to keep an eye on what’s going on between Washington and Kyiv.

One of the sources I’ve tracked is a website called EuromaidanPR (empr dot media). I believe that it is part of the Protect Our Elections/EMPR Inc operation run by Kimberlin. I haven’t found any coverage of the ongoing investigations on the EMPR website since late July. That last post dealt with Petro Poroshenko being interviewed by Ukrainian prosecutors. However, the @EuromaidanPR Twitter account did take note of the Trump story. Here’s the most recent tweet.It’s dated the 19th, when the story was first breaking. It’s interesting that coverage dropped off as soon as the facts started to come out and it began to look like the Democrats had opened the wrong can of worms.

The comedy of errors continues, and everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE—BTW, here’s the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky telephone conversation.

 

A More Basic Question


Paul Mirengoff has a post over at PowerLine with A Question for Joe Biden. Biden showed some backbone during the last debate by refusing to apologize for his position on forced school bussing of children across communities for the purpose of achieving racial balance in school. During the Obama administration, HUD promulgated regulations aimed at  “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” AFFH has the goal of moving whole families across town to new neighborhoods to racial balance neighborhood populations. The Trump administration has reinterpreted those regulations, effectively putting them on hold.

Here’s Miregoff’s question for Biden—

I’d like to hear Biden say whether he supports the idea of the federal government conditioning grants to localities on their willingness to require that a certain amount of housing in mostly White neighborhoods be occupied by African-Americans. If Biden says he does this, and I think he almost has to, I’d like to hear him explain why it’s a good idea whereas busing was a bad one.

One possible answer would be that the goal of racial balance is good and that having minority children spread through the community eliminates the need for such bandaids as forced school busing.

I have a more basic question. Is racial balance for its own sake always a good goal? The last census data is almost a decade old, but it’s what we’ve got for now. It showed that blacks make up about 12.6 percent of the U.S. population and that Hispanics make up around 16.3 percent. Should NBA teams be forced to staff their benches with more Hispanics than Blacks? Or should the Lakers have different quotas from the Celtics because of the different balances in their cities? Or should we force families to move from LA to Boston in the name of balance?

Or should we let NBA teams hire on the basis of merit? If we allow a meritocracy in sports, why not in other businesses? Why not elsewhere?

The problem of sorting for merit is that half the population is below average. As a result, any system that sorts for merit tends to disproportionally reward top performers. As a rule of thumb, roughly the square root of any population will do half the work. (This may also be stated as 20 percent of the customers drink 80 percent of the beer.) That rule implies that in a country the size of America about 18,000 people would control half the wealth—and that about a dozen would have control of ten percent of the wealth. That’s not too far off from what we see in the Real World.

So here’s a yet more basic question, if we want to allow the best to rise to the top and given that the Marxist experiments of the 20th century all ended disastrously, what can we do to provide humanely for those among us who aren’t successful?

Collusion? What Collusion?


A couple of collusion stories broke over the past few days, and it will be interesting to see if they are more than just peripherally related.

The first story deals with referrals by Congressman Deven Nunes to the Department of Justice of several individuals for crimes such as lying to Congress and leaking classified information. Over at PJ Media, Rick Moran comments

There may not be enough evidence to prosecute anyone, so its best not to get hopes up. But this is a development that should have several key players in the anti-Trump faction at the Justice Department who flogged the Russia collusion story nervous.

The second story deals with corruption in Ukraine having ties back to the United States, ties to Democrats and the Justice and State Departments. The Hill has published a piece by John Solomon titled Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don’t you want our evidence on Democrats?

Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes.

The names Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Nellie Ohr, and Fusion GPS all figure in The Hill report which suggests connections between members of the U. S. Deep State and corrupt interests in Ukraine.

But many of the allegations shared with me by more than a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials are supported by evidence that emerged in recent U.S. court filings and intelligence reports. The Ukrainians told me their evidence includes:

• Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton. The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;

• Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;

• Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukrainian relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;

• Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;

• Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;

• Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.

Read the whole thing.

Lee Stranahan, Politico, and The Daily Caller have previously reported on attempts by Ukraine’s embassy in Washington to help the Clinton campaign’s effort to discredit Trump during the 2016 election.

Hmmmmm.

Joe’s Hands


Philip Klein has a post over at the Washington Examiner that takes a look at Joe Biden’s behavior during the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991. Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing the confirmation process of the nomination of Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. Klein’s uses Thomas’ 2007 autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, as the basis of his post. From that point of view, Biden’s behavior might best be described as two-faced backstabbing.

Part of Biden’s quasi-defense of his groping has been that standards of behavior have evolved. What was acceptable during his early years is no longer permissible. In a half-hearted mea culpa, he says he should do better now.

The standard under which Thomas was challenged involved making remarks to Anita Hill that made her uncomfortable. There was no physical contact. Just words. Unproven words. He said/she said “evidence.” That seems to me to be a much stricter standard than the documented complaints against Biden which involve unwanted touching captured in images and video. IANAL, but isn’t that technically the crime of battery?

It may be that the real law Biden has violated is the Law of Karma, and he’s now experiencing his own high tech lynching (to borrow a phrase from Justice Thomas) at the hands of the feminists because he might get in the way of a women being nominated in 2020.

You reap what you sow, Joe.

UPDATE—My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has further thoughts on how Biden’s past is being used against him because he no longer serves The Narrative.