A Tale of Two Calls & Two Presidents – Top 3 Takeaways – June 14th, 2023
- A tale of two calls and two presidents and two recordings. Yes, the past few days were dominated by coverage of former President Donald Trump’s arraignment. The arraignment has come and gone and as I outlined yesterday, was largely a non-event from a spectator’s perspective. This was seemingly much to the chagrin of the of the former president’s detractors, as based upon the handling of some of the coverage, they were hoping for more a spectacle with both the president and his supporters. Nevertheless, based on the speed of any potential appeals which may be brought by the Trump legal team, this will be last we’ll see of any of the related legal proceedings for quite some time, potentially even before the election. In fact, it may well be the case that pending the investigations into the two other outstanding Trump-related investigations – Georgia alleged election interference and January 6th incitement – that there’s movement on those potential cases before there’s new movement on the case Trump was just arraigned for. In any event with indictment coverage of Trump dominating political news coverage the only recording that’s made much news has been the alleged recording of Trump in 2021 suggesting he knowingly hadn’t declassified certain documents in question. However, that is not the only recording involving a president that could prove to be a key piece of evidence in a criminal trial. And if there’s anything other than a two-tiered system of justice it won’t be the only to potentially be presented in legal proceedings. Senator Chuck Grassley, who has been intimately involved in the congressional investigation into the Biden’s potential pay-for-play foreign affairs...
- Has announced a bombshell that if true is far more egregious than anything the former president was just charged for. The announcement, based on the classified documents presented by the FBI whistleblower to congress, was that the Burisma executive who allegedly paid Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each for foreign favors, while Joe Biden was Vice President, made and kept 17 recordings of conversations with the Biden’s as “an insurance policy” against them. Not one call discussing bribes with bad foreign actors in return for favors from the Vice President of the United States and his son...17. Now if true, and again – there’s already a lot of hard evidence surrounding this entire issue, Hunter Biden with no experience becoming a high-paid board member of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Joe Biden who had Ukrainian oversight as VP – firing the Ukrainian prosecutor at Burisma’s request (threatening to withhold $1 billion of US foreign aid if he wasn’t fired). But if true that there are tapes, there would be nowhere for the Biden’s to hide if they are produced. It’s a tale of two presidents and two recordings. One’s far more serious than the other – starting with the fact that the other involves the current President of the United States – however only one seems to be widely reported. Senator Chuck Grassley presented these findings on the Senate floor and the only national news organizations to report on it were: Fox News, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, Newsweek, The Washington Times and Daily Mail. It’s fascinating how interested the other news organizations are in seeking truth and justice...as long as that means its prosecuting Donald Trump.
- Recusal. So, speaking of the prosecution of Donald Trump... The cries for the judge randomly assigned to the case, Aileen Cannon, to recuse herself from overseeing it were already loud. Now that Trump’s been booked, they’re growing louder. The argument for her recusal is obvious. She was Trump appointed. But here’s why that notion is not only ridiculous, but why if that logic is applied, it wouldn’t be possible for Trump to ever be able to receive a fair trial. All federal judges are presidential appointments. If you accept the premise that Aileen Cannon isn’t fit to preside over a case involving Trump because of inferred political bias, riddle me this one. What presidentially appointed judge couldn’t have the same inferred conflict? Either theoretically in favor of or opposed to the former president? It’s an inherently dishonest call made by those who’ve already made up their mind about what the outcome should be in this case. In the grand scheme of BS arguments is one in which a Trump-appointed judge isn’t fit to preside due to the implication of potential political bias while a Biden or Obama appointed one is? The premise of the argument is false and for that matter any who advance it are evidenced hypocrites. Why? Because low an behold the Deputy to Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who brought the charges against Trump, didn't just have the alleged pretense of political bias but the actual campaign donations to evidence as much. Jack Smith prosecutor Karen Gilbert donated $2,000 to Joe Biden’s campaign in 2020. Think she might have a political interest in prosecuting Donald Trump? If anyone needs to recuse themselves in this case, it would be her. For that matter does her involvement in this investigation and the charges brought to date not potentially represent prosecutorial misconduct? So, if anyone really wants to have an honest related conversation about recusals, that’s where it should begin.