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.

Opposition Research and Joe Biden


It’s interesting that many of the Democrat Party pr flacks with bylines have turned their attention to Joe Biden as he has begun to be considered as a candidate for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination. Things that unreported when he was Vice President are now coming to light.

For example, there’s a report at The Hill about Biden’s interference in an criminal investigation in Ukraine.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

The prosecutor was fired, and his successor terminated an investigation into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

As the now-completed Russia collusion investigation showed us, every American deserves the right to be presumed innocent until evidence is made public or a conviction is secured, especially when some matters of a case involve foreigners. The same presumption should be afforded to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, … and Burisma in the Ukraine case.

Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, to run for president in 2020: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work was performed for the money Hunter Biden’s firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?

Joe, they’re trying to tell you that you’re past your sell by date.

Joe Biden’s Past His Sell By Date


And even the New York Times has noticed. He’s too connected to the Democrats past failures and simply not credible with the party’s She Guevara Democratic Socialist wing.

Biden’s issues with gender, after all, go far beyond chronic handsiness. His waffling on reproductive choice troubles many feminists; as The Times reported last week, Biden’s “back-and-forth over abortion would become a hallmark of his political career.” He was the chairman of the hearings on Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination, where Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment, was demeaned and dismissed. Though Biden has expressed sorrow for how Hill was treated, he’s never directly apologized to her.

Beyond gender, on issue after issue, if Biden runs for president he will have to run away from his own record. He — and by extension, we — will have to relive the debate over the Iraq war, which he voted to authorize. He’ll have to explain his vote to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which, by lifting regulations on banking, helped create the conditions for the 2008 financial meltdown. (Biden has called that vote one of the biggest regrets of his career.) In 2016, Hillary Clinton was slammed for her previous support of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which contributed to mass incarceration. Biden helped write the law, which he called, in 2015, the “1994 Biden crime bill.”

Sorry, Joe. Your time has past.