As we and others noted, at the time Hunter Biden joined the board, the mainstream and leftish press, AND members of the Obama administration State Department itself, raised numerous concerns and red flags about Hunter Biden. These were swept under the rug by the upper ranks of the Obama administration. Testimony along the same lines from several witnesses called before Cong. Schiff’s committee were ignored by Cong. Schiff. Former Vice President Joe Biden, on the campaign trail, even claimed, “Nobody warned me about a potential conflict of interest. Nobody warned me about that.” Given the statements from the witnesses, the honesty of that claim may safely be called into question.
Let’s emphasize the point: Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma are not in and of themselves a conflict of interest – but Hunter Biden’s dealings as the son of the US Vice President who has been given authority over the Ukrainian portfolio surely are. It is the family ties that make this a matter of concern, and Cong. Schiff, no matter how he may try to qualify it or walk back his statement, can no longer argue otherwise.
Needless to say, it is risky to place any faith in the reliability of statements from Cong. Schiff, but when he undercuts and destroys his own argument it is more likely that the truth has slipped out than when he was refusing to consider even the possibility of a conflict of interest.
It is probable that saving Hunter Biden is not one of Mr. Schiff’s high priorities. It is even possible that protecting Joe Biden’s campaign for President isn’t very important to Adam Schiff either. His prime concern is finding something – anything – with which to damage President Trump.
Speaking of trying to damage President Trump, we have the case of Tomeka Hart. Don’t recognize the name? Well, she was the foreperson of the jury that found Trump associate Roger Stone guilty. And maybe he is guilty, but Ms. Hart’s animus for Donald Trump and his supporters should clearly have disqualified her from the jury. The judge, Obama-appointee Amy Berman Jackson, refused juror challenges from the Stone defense team based on anti-Trump views, even as she rejected a juror who worked in the Reagan campaign thirty years ago.
Here’s what Jonathan Turley, Constitutional expert, had to say about it: “. . .the social media postings of Hart raise troubling questions as to whether these views were known or disclosed. What is clear is that no defendant associated with Trump would want such a juror sitting in judgment. This included a posting about the Stone case where she retweeted mocking dismissals of objections to Stone’s treatment in a dawn raid. I was one of those raising such concerns. There is of course nothing wrong with holding the opposing view of that issue and Hart did nothing wrong in sitting on the jury absent some allegations of hiding or misrepresenting information.” Of course, it appears that either she did hide that information, or that the judge didn’t think that the juror’s emphatic anti-Trump position would color her ability to render a fair verdict.
Mr. Turley continues: “What would be the response if an Obama associate was convicted on a jury with a foreperson who was a Republican activist with a long social media record criticizing not just Obama but supporting the prosecution of that associate?”
Roger Stone, as we said, may be guilty, but he did not receive a fair trial before an unbiased jury. This affair shows that not all conflicts of interest are financial in nature. They can be political as well.