Throwback: That Time Obama’s Press Secretary Was Asked About Hunter Biden and Burisma

Hunter Biden has now taken a position with the largest oil and gas company… holding company in Ukraine. Is there any concern about at least the appearance of a conflict there?” a reporter asked President Barack Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney back in 2014. “I would refer you to the Vice President’s office,” Carney replied before adding “Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens and where they work does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the Vice President or President.”

For weeks, Democrats and their friends in the media have done everything possible to cover for former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s work with Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Despite multiple government officials who served under President Obama and Trump citing Burisma as a concern and notoriously corrupt, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff refused to allow Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness during impeachment inquiry hearings last week. Questions about Hunter Biden’s dealings, which included an $83,000 per month paycheck, have been brushed aside by the media as a political attack on Joe Biden, who is running for the White House.

But it wasn’t that long ago when questions about Hunter Biden’s dealings, right under the nose of Vice President Biden who oversaw the Ukraine portfolio for the Obama administration, came under questioning during a White House Press briefing.

“Hunter Biden has now taken a position with the largest oil and gas company holding company in Ukraine. Is there any concern about at least the appearance of, of a conflict there, to see the Vice President’s son…,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked in 2014.

“I would refer you to the vice president’s office, I saw those reports. Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens and uh, where they work is not, does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the vice president or president. But I would refer you to the vice president’s office,” Carney said, deflecting the question.

RecommendedDemocrats Between a Rock and a Hard PlaceDavid Limbaugh

Last week Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham launched an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma. In a letter to the State Department, Graham requested any documents related to the issue to be turned over to the Committee.

The Schiff Coup: Day One

These facts cannot be disputed:

1. Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted and bragged on TV that he threatened to withhold one billion dollars in American foreign aid to Ukraine if Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.  Burisma was paying Hunter Biden, son of the Joe Biden, over $50,000 per month as a board member of Burisma.  There is no dirt to dig up.  Joe Biden admitted to the dirt.

2. The Obama-Biden administration did not supply military aid to Ukraine when Ukraine needed the aid against Russia. This was admitted by the acting ambassador to the Ukraine, William Taylor, in his testimony.Trump in December 2017 announced that the United States would send military aid to Ukraine that then–Ukraine president Poroshenko requested from the USA.  Obama and Biden had refused the sale of $47 million’s worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko thanked Trump for supporting Ukraine and providing the Javelin antitank missile systems.

3. On July 25, 2019 President Trump asked Ukraine’s President Zelensky to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election.  There is evidence that Ukraine helped Hillary in the 2016 election and tried to sabotage the Trump election.

4. The transcript of the phone call was released by President Trump.  The transcript speaks for itself.  There is no mention of conditioning American aid on any investigation of Biden.

5. There was no investigation by Ukraine into the 2016 election or any investigation of Joe Biden.

6. Ukraine received the American military aid that is the subject of the “impeachment inquiry” on September 11, 2019, six weeks after the July 25, 2019 phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

7. The Democrats have refused to produce the so-called “whistleblower” to testify.

The Democrats, led by Adam Schiff, AKA Shifty Schiff, believe that these facts are enough to constitute “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” to impeach and remove President Trump.

Shifty Schiff is calling as “witnesses” State Department employees who are giving their opinions about the meaning of the transcript and their opinion of the events. They do not agree with President Trump’s foreign policy. 

 We have the transcript, and anyone, including Congress, can decide what it means.  It means exactly what the words of the transcript show: no quid pro quo, nothing illegal.

The first two witnesses, George Kent, a State Department official

William Taylor, acting ambassador to Ukraine, clearly by their demeanor and opinions show that they do not support President Trump.

  I would bet anything they voted for Hillary Clinton. 

 Both are annoyed that Trump is president and that Trump used his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate corruption in Ukraine.  Rudy investigated as part of his defense of Trump in the Robert Muller investigation.

It appears that Shifty Schiff is offering these witnesses as “expert witnesses” as to how to deal with Ukraine.  In a court of law, expert witnesses have to be qualified as experts in the field in which they testify

and are used only when an expert is needed to explain to a court and jury something beyond the understanding of the layman.  For example, claims against doctors require that a doctor explain what the defendant doctor did wrong.

Kent and Taylor, and the rest, are employees who are to carry out the foreign policy established by the president.  Their opinions about President Trump’s foreign policy are irrelevant to whether the facts constitute “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

  At best, their opinions qualify them for a job at CNN or MSNBC, alongside John Brennan and James Clapper, to attack Trump. 

 But their testimony is not relevant and not material to the issue of whether the phone call amounts to “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Kent and Taylor are upset that President Trump used Rudy Giuliani, his private attorney, to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in our politics

. After watching Taylor and Kent, the first two witnesses called by Shifty Schiff, President Trump was wise to use Rudy and not rely on these two.

But their “concern” about Ukraine rings hollow.  They both knew that Obama refused to give Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine when Ukraine needed those during its battles with Russia.  

Yet now they are “concerned” about Ukraine’s safety.  They are following the Shifty Schiff narrative that Trump withheld aid for about six weeks, from July 25 to September 11.  Both said that defending Ukraine means defending the USA. 

 If they and the Democrats and media, who have suddenly discovered that Ukraine is crucial to the USA defense, believed that, then they should have impeached Obama for failing to give the Javelin missiles to Ukraine.

In sum: President Trump supplied the Javelin missiles to Ukraine. Obama refused to supply the missiles.  Joe Biden threatened Ukraine with the loss of one billion dollars in aid if Ukraine didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.  Burisma paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, over $50,000 a month for a no-show job only because he was the V.P.’s son. 

 But it is wrong, according the Democrats and media, to question Biden about this, and Trump should be removed from office because they interpret his phone call as asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.

The crime is that there is no investigation of Joe Biden using his position as V.P. to get the $50,000 per month to his son and to get the prosecutor fired.  Nor is there any investigation of the Ukraine interference in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton and Trump.

President Trump and the Republicans are correct to fight this shabby attempted coup.  He should ignore the “advice” of former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, who is usually correct in his legal analysis, and Fox reporter Chris Wallace, who is usually wrong in his political analysis because he is a NeverTrump.  Both suggested following the hearing on November 13 that Trump admit that his phone call was inappropriate or wrong and argue that impeachment is too severe for the phone call.  This is admitting the premise of Schiff’s charge.  It is similar to a guilty plea where you ask for lenient sentence.

The Democrats and media have nothing.

If this were a real trial, the judge would dismiss the complaint and assess counsel fees and costs against the Schiff Democrats for bringing a suit with no basis in law or fact, and brought solely in bad faith to harass President Trump.

Corrections: $50,000 per year corrected to $50 per month; November 25 corrected to July 25

Biden, Union And San Francisco, Joe Biden Tweeted In Response. “Unions Built The Middle Class In This Country: San Francisco Supervisor Leads Chant Of ‘F–k’ The Police Union?

As CNN noted, “Biden has long enjoyed close ties to labor groups and often attributes his political ascent to unions, referring to them as the ones who ‘brung me to the dance.’” But while Biden’s strength among working-class voters is one reason some observers see him as potentially able to win back Democrats who defected to Donald Trump in 2016, his initial comments about the IAFF endorsement at least raise a question about priorities and strategy.

Biden was born in 1942 and was first elected to the Senate in 1972. Unions were a strong economic force then, and they carried significant political clout, with large, politically active memberships and financial muscle. But the percentage of American workers belonging to unions peaked in the mid-1940s and has been falling ever since

San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer denounced the 2,000-member police union with her middle fingers raised.

San Francisco, CA – A San Francisco Board of Supervisors member led a crowd in a profanity-laced chant against the local police union during an election party on Tuesday night (video below).

The event was being held in honor of public defender Chesa Boudin, who is vying for the San Francisco District Attorney’s seat, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

At one point during the boisterous gathering, San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer took the stage with her middle fingers raised and began yelling “f–k the POA!” video footage showed.

“Hey, so I just got one thing to say, which is ‘f–k the POA,’” Fewer shouted, according to the San Francisco Examiner. “San Francisco, this is what we get when we throw the f–k down. This is the city where we elect a public defender to be our district attorney. What we start here, the nation follows. So, look out.”

People in the crowd chanted along with her, denouncing the nearly 2,000-member San Francisco Police Officer’s Association (POA), the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Footage of the supervisor’s outburst was shared widely on social media.

On Wednesday, POA President Tony Montoya sent a letter to Fewer, demanding that she apologize for her “unhinged attack” on the city’s police force.

Montoya said Fewer’s “hate-filled comments and unstable behavior” were “offensive and unbecoming of an elected official.”

“By leading a public chant of ‘F@%k the POA,’ you stoke anger against our members who already perform a dangerous job every day to protect our residents,” the union president railed. “You show, by example, that it is acceptable to verbally assault officers.”

Montoya accused the supervisor of making police officers’ jobs even more dangerous.

“When you lead a profane verbal attack on the SFPOA, you are in fact attacking San Francisco’s police officers,” he declared. “You should be ashamed, and you owe every hardworking member of the SFPOA an apology.”

Debunked Joe Biden: We have an erratic, crazy president who knows not a damn thing about foreign policy.Barack Obama Was a Foreign-Policy Failure

Final Presidential Debate 2012 Complete – Mitt Romney, Barack Obama on Foreign Policy

The 44th president of the United States promised to bring change but mostly drove the country deeper into a ditch. Obama’s foreign policy is a mess, says the New York Times.

Despite replete evidence of the mendacity of our foes and the recalcitrance of the Palestinian Authority, President Obama operates in his own world. The result is an America that appears off-kilter, unreliable and weak. Consider:

President Obama (R) meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) in the White House on Monday. (EPA/ALEX WONG / AFP)
President Obama (R) meets with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) in the White House on Monday. (EPA/ALEX WONG / AFP)

The president praises Mahmoud Abbas, who refuses to recognize the Jewish state or give up the right of return, has refused to hold elections, continues to honor terrorists and has no succession plan. He seems to willfully ignore the PA’s limited desire to make anything approaching a deal with the Jewish state.

While Obama and his secretary of state expend endless hours on the moribund “peace process,” the most urgent issue, Iran’s determination to possess a nuclear weapons capability, is unmatched by the administration’s desire to prevent it. The administration continues to pine for a deal with Iran while it pursues illicit nuclear materials.

As for Russia, the president enacts minor sanctions against discrete Russian officials, forgoing any meaningful economic sanctions. He continues to talk endlessly to Russian President Vladimir Putin, apparently convinced he can talk reason to the brutal despot; Putin in turn shows no sign that he cares what Obama says.  The president continues to make empty statements and unconvincing threats, sounding like he expects Russia to understand its invasion is a mistake — by Putin.

(“Further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world.”) Putin responds by recognizing Crimea as an independent state, the first step toward annexation.

The New York Times delivers a blunt assessment to the White House and its readers: This is a disastrous foreign policy in which mistake follows mistake:Sanctions and modest help to the Syrian rebels have failed to halt the slaughter; if anything, the killing worsened as negotiations dragged on.

The White House was taken by surprise by Vladimir V. Putin’s decisions to invade Crimea,

but also by China’s increasingly assertive declaration of exclusive rights to airspace and barren islands.

Neither the economic pressure nor the cyberattacks that forced Iran to reconsider its approach have prevented North Korea’s stealthy revitalization of its nuclear and missile programs. . . .

But the most stinging critique of Mr. Obama is that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of nonintervention. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, argues that five years of signaling that others need to step in, of stressing that America can no longer police the world, have taken a toll

And freed from the propaganda bubble of the White House in which no one dares tell the president his foreign policy is in ruins, ex-officials confide that “Mr. Obama erred in failing to have a plan to back up his declaration that President Bashar al-Assad had to leave office.” Maybe they could confide what problems ensued and why that poses a threat to U.S. credibility around the globe. It might be a public service to inform the public and policymakers how this has adversely affected our ability to cope with Russia and Syria.

Most damaging, our allies have lost faith in the administration and complain openly. “Israelis worry there is diminished interest in keeping American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and fear that if a nuclear deal is struck with Iran,

Washington will no longer anchor an alliance to contain Tehran. The Saudis are talking anew about the possibility of needing a nuclear deterrent of their own. . . .   The ‘pivot to Asia,’ which has been slow to materialize, was supposed to be emblematic of a new combination of soft and hard power; it was as much about building trade relationships as making it clear to the Chinese leadership that America has no intention of ceding the East and South China Seas as areas where Beijing could expect to become the sole power.” (Like Walter Cronkite and LBJ, when Obama loses the New York Times, it might be time to rethink things.)

In short, just about every conservative criticism of the administration is now conventional wisdom about the president’s shortcomings. Congress can only do so much. Our allies can only do so much. Ultimately, however, if the president is misguided and wholly unwilling to recognize a series of debacles, bad things will happen in the world. The question remains whether the president will do anything to stop the drift. If not, by the end of the term, the Russia empire will be on the march, Iran may be a nuclear-capable state, China will have intimidated our allies and both democracy and stability in the Middle East will be hobbled. As bad as Obamacare may be, it is exquisite public policy compared to the foreign policy mess.