The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, September 29, 2023

The Goldilocks Rule

If nothing else, you have to give Joe Biden's Democrat defenders in the House and Senate (not to mention his trained hamsters in the propaganda media) credit for chutzpa.  

Now that the House impeachment inquiry has begun, we hear continual cries of "no evidence" and wails that any investigation is a sham— that the selling of the "Biden brand" and the obvious enrichment (think: off-shore companies and hardcopy bank records) of close family members is just business as usual in D.C. One brainless Democratic congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, (D-TX), reiterated the tired trope that the "only thing Joe Biden is guilty of is loving his child," as if Hunter was a wayward 11-year old who had stolen a bar of candy from the local WaWa.

The Wall Street Journal does a good job of summarizing the facts as we currently know them. Much of the information in the WSJ report has been discussed in previous posts in this blog (e.g., here). One thing is certain, the stench of influence peddling is in the air.

Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan Turley discusses the "Goldilocks Rule" when referring to the typical corruption that pervades political Washington. Those in the Congress and the executive branch can enrich themselves and their families, but they must do so subtly (often after they leave office [1] ) and they MUST stay within certain undeclared boundaries (you know, "not too hot or too cold—juuusst right).

Joe Biden's family were piggish in the exploitation of the Biden Brand. They set up offshore shell LLCs, they strong-armed foreign actors to pay for play, and they did this under the nose of the "Big Guy"—Joe Biden himself. It strains credulity to suggest that Biden didn't know. If he did know, he probably thought the Goldilocks Rule applied.

It's very likely that Joe Biden knew and Joe Biden profited in ways that may or may not be easily traced. 

If the big guy did nothing wrong, his administration should work with the impeachment inquiry, and provide the documents they require and put the entire matter to rest quickly. Unlike the Democrats who impeached Biden's predecessor for a single phone call (BTW, Biden participated in 20 phone calls that are all suspect), the GOP has NOT impeached Biden, merely launched an investigation to determine if the existing evidence of influence peddling will lead to facts that warrant impeachment.

That's what terrifies to Dems, and that's why they're throwing a hissy fit.


[1]  As a near-comic aside and good example of the Goldilocks rule, Michelle Obama was recently paid $741,000 for a one-hour speech. At the risk of being partisan, I would argue that nothing Mrs. Obama has to say over 60 minutes is worth 3/4 of a million dollars, but that's just me.


The New York Post was the mainstream media outlet to break the Hunter Biden laptop story—the catalyst that has led to the Biden corruption scandal. The Post was condemned by other media sources and Democrat-friendly deep state operatives (including many in the FBI and intelligence community) for reporting "Russian disinformation" and then censored and banned for doing so. There was only one problem—the NY Post was 100% correct. Continued reporting by the newspaper is one of the few bright lights amid the propaganda media silence and lies associated with the Biden scandal. 

After delineating, yet again, the facts and evidence that clearly and unequivocally support an impeachment inquiry, the Post Editorial Board writes:

The inquiry hearing itself saw Dems make a desperate, last-stand effort to pretend it was insane to ask if all this somehow benefited Joe.

That’s even though Joe knowingly signaled that paying Hunter would influence him.

One “expert” witness the Dems called up compared it to giving a ticket to Joe if Hunter was caught speeding in his dad’s car. Ha! 

All they have is the lame line: There’s no proof Joe benefited personally

We say: yet. 

I say—good. Not because Joe Biden is a cognitively-disabled, corrupt politician, but because political corruption is toxic, and for once, the perpetrators should be held accountable.


After describing the "no evidence" meme that seems to be the only way that Democrats and their trained hamsters in the propaganda media can respond the the mountains of actual EVIDENCE that is arrayed as part of the Biden scandal, Matt Margolis writes:

I know that’s not true. You know that’s not true. Frankly, they know it’s not true as well, but they’ll keep saying it repeatedly, hoping to convince the public that there is no evidence. Besides the sworn testimony, bank records, emails, phone calls, videos and photos, text messages, and White House visitor logs [emphasis mine] we already know about, new evidence released this week further undermines the “no evidence” narrative.

According to text messages obtained by the House Ways and Means Committee, Joe Biden personally requested a meeting with a Chinese oil executive, Ye Jianming, whose company had paid millions of dollars in consulting fees to Hunter Biden.

In an August 27, 2017, WhatsApp message to CEFC director Gongwen Dong, Hunter Biden mentioned that his uncle’s “brother” would be in New York City and wanted to meet with Ye.

“My uncle will be here with his BROTHER who would like to say hello to the Chairman,” Hunter Biden said in a text message to Dong. “So please give me location and time. Jim’s BROTHER if he is coming just wants to say hello he will not be stopping for lunch.”

Given their backing by the propaganda media, the Dems have become masters at gaslighting. But only fantasy thinkers could believe that there is any legitimate purpose for a political family to create 20 off-shore shell companies. One, maybe? Two, possibly ... but 20? Heh.


Funny how "no evidence" leads to more evidence and still more evidence ... and all that evidence needs to be further investigated, refined and explained. Just this week, the House Ways and Means Committee released more than 700 pages of documents that contain email exchanges that imply prosecutorial bias in the Hunter Biden case, a conscious effort to limit any investigation of Joe Biden, more on the Biden (both Joe and Hunter) efforts to kill the Ukrainian investigation of corruption at Burisma, And other juicy tidbits.