Impeach Biden for Obstruction of Justice

New report shows Biden interfered into investigations of himself, his son and Trump.

SEE:; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Mueller report suggested that former President Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice because of his decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey and alleged pressure on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire Mueller. Now a report has emerged that Biden is planning to fire Attorney General Merrick Garland over special counsel investigations.

While the media made much of the obstruction of justice allegations at the time, it’s shown little interest in its own reporting which implicated Biden in multiple instances of obstruction of justice.

A recent Politico report described Biden complaining that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not stop Special Counsel Hur from editing out mentions of his diminished mental capacity in his report, that Garland should not have allowed a special counsel to look into his son’s misconduct and finally that Garland had failed to schedule a trial of former President Trump quickly enough.

As a result, Politico reported that Biden would oust Garland if he gets a second term.

Not only was Biden interfering with supposedly independent investigations of himself and his son, but even into criminal proceedings aimed at his likely opponent in the presidential race. The interference has become crude and overt enough that it now includes media leaks threatening the job of his attorney general for not sufficiently protecting him from investigations.

And for not doing enough to schedule his presidential opponent’s trial before the election.

Troublingly, the report describes Biden complaining in “recent weeks” that Garland took too long to move on trying Trump. And in mid-January, Garland unexpectedly told CNN that “the cases were brought last year, the prosecutor has urged speeding trials with, with which I agree, and it’s now in the hands of the judicial system, not in our hands.”

It appears now that the attorney general was not just talking to CNN, but to President Biden.

If the Politico report is true, this is deeply corrupt behavior that meets the standard for impeachment. A pattern of interfering in his own investigations is obstruction of justice, but interfering to speed up a criminal case against his opponent so that a trial takes place before an upcoming election is abuse of power. Both are extremely impeachment worthy charges.

Impeachment proceedings moved forward against former President Nixon over obstruction of justice charges related to the coverup of Watergate. Former President Bill Clinton actually was impeached on obstruction of justice grounds and finally former President Trump was impeached for the first time on obstruction of justice charges. The precedents point to impeaching Biden.

These reports come after multiple denials by the White House, by Attorney General Garland and other administration figures that there was any political interference in the investigations.

“Since he took office and consistent with his campaign promise that he would restore the independence of the Justice Department when it comes to decision-making in criminal investigations, President Biden has made clear that this matter would be handled independently by the Justice Department, under the leadership of a U.S. Attorney appointed by former President Trump, free from any political interference by the White House. He has upheld that commitment.” the Biden administration claimed after whistleblowers described efforts by the Department of Justice to sabotage their investigation into Hunter Biden.

The independence has been exposed as a sham and the documented interference with the Hunter Biden investigation could have come from the Justice Department under pressure from the Attorney General or other administration figures because Joe Biden was protecting his son.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan had already announced an obstruction of justice investigation into Biden over allegations that he had interfered in the Hunter Biden investigation and the revelations in the Politico article that Biden had sought to pressure not just one investigation but three and to do so at the level of the attorney general’s office are likely to provide more fuel for an obstruction of justice case.

“We are facing obstruction like has never been demonstrated in the history of congressional investigations,” Rep. Comer had argued.

According to the Politico report, anger at Special Counsel Hur’s report by “Biden and his closest advisers” led them to “put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report.” While Attorney General Garland could have tried to edit or suppress the report, Congress would have demanded unredacted copies and the leaked copies would have been an even bigger scandal. Garland appears to have understood this even when Biden did not.

Biden also charged that Garland should not have “empowered a special counsel to look into his son” claiming that “the stress could send Hunter Biden spiraling back into addiction.”

Most damagingly, Biden recently took to grumbling “to aides and advisers that had Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded” apparently out of concern that the trial might not take place before the presidential election for maximum political advantage.

As a result, “most of the president’s senior advisers do not believe that the attorney general would remain in his post for a possible second term.”

Clearly the Biden team expects more legal troubles or assaults in a possible second term and believes that Attorney General Garland is spending too much time protecting himself from the fallout and not doing enough of their dirty work. That does not bode well for the next four years.

While there are no indications that Biden has directly pressured Garland, the constant mentions of the subjects to top aides and advisors, followed by media leaks, are meant to have the same effect while providing plausible deniability. They also convey a message to anyone who wants to be Garland’s possible successor of the expectations of the office that he or she hopes to assume.

When the president expresses his unhappiness to aides, they are expected to act on it. And the question is, beyond media leaks, what actions did they take to pressure Garland on the three investigations? That is the question on which Biden’s impeachment may depend.

Despite efforts to portray Biden as a disinterested party who was watching the investigations unfold without interfering with them, the Politico report shows that he was highly invested in them, closely monitoring them and sending strong signals of what he wanted to see done with them. These are evidence of obstruction of justice and a severe abuse of power.

And they cannot go unpunished.

International Court of Justice Ruling: Despite the Hectoring Rhetoric, a Win for Israel

SEE:; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The ruling handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on January 26 could have been much worse. The Court might have agreed with South Africa’s contention that in Gaza, the Jewish state is engaged in “ethnic cleansing” or in “genocide.” It might have ordered an “immediate ceasefire” or, still worse, a complete withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza. The ICJ did none of those things. More on this welcome result can be found here: “ICJ badmouths Israel for 35 minutes, then Israel wins – analysis,” by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, January 26, 2024:

For 35 minutes, the International Court of Justice bad-mouthed Israel, but then it surprised the Jewish state by not issuing any practical orders against the IDF.

There was no order to cease the war and there was no order for the IDF to withdraw from Gaza.

Those were the most important victories for Israel at The Hague. There surely was great disappointment, I should think, in Pretoria, Ramallah, and Khan Yunis, when they realized what the ICJ had not demanded of the Jewish state.

The most troubling practical item in the ruling for Israel is the need to report back to the ICJ in one month, something which leaves the door open to a more serious order at that time.

All of the other measures that the ICJ ordered are items that Israel says it agrees with in general: don’t commit genocide, facilitate humanitarian aid, preserve evidence for probes of alleged war crimes, and prosecute Israelis who engage in illegal incitement against Palestinians.

To understand the complex ICJ decision and why this was a big win for Israel, one needs to understand the difference between declarative and operative law.

Declarative law is basically asking or advising a party to do something but with no teeth.

Only operative law has teeth and punishments.

In fact, the ICJ conclusions are only declarative. The ICJ has no enforcement mechanism. Its decisions can help put pressure on a party to a dispute, but there is no way to force a state — say, Israel — to comply with its decisions. Were the ICJ, for example, to demand that Israel agree to an immediate ceasefire, and Israel were to refuse, there would be no way to make the Jewish state do so. On the other hand, such a refusal might lead Israel’s key allies, including the U.S., to increase pressure on the Jewish state to comply.

No definitive action against Israel taken

Israel’s critics hoped there would be an order to end the war and withdraw the IDF. They had every right to expect such a result after the ICJ declared Israel’s West Bank security barrier illegal in 2004 and ordered Israel to remove it.

This would have put Israel in the uncomfortable position of either giving up on its national security to comply or being a public offender [sic] of the ICJ’s decisions.

This would also have put Israel’s allies in a much harder position and possibly led some of them to penalize Israel diplomatically and even economically.

All of this would have had a real-world impact on Israel and the war effort.

Instead, the ICJ heavily criticized Israel for killing Palestinian civilians and causing destruction, but avoided any immediate conflagration [sic] with Israel….

This criticism was, of course, unfair. The ICJ refused to recognize the hellishly difficult nature of warfare on a densely populated urban battlefield. It did not seem impressed with the enormous efforts the IDF has taken to minimize civilian casualties. These include warnings the IDF gave initially to civilians to leave northern Gaza when that area was about to become a battlefield; 900,000 of those civilians heeded the warning and moved south. to relative safety. Similarly, when the IDF subsequently moved its main operations to the south, it dropped leaflets and sent emails that provided maps showing exactly where the IDF would not be operating, so that civilians could move to those areas. Furthermore, the IDF routinely has been warning civilians in Gaza, by messaging, emailing, and leafleting, when a civilian building — a school, a mosque, an apartment building — is about to be targeted. Of course all these warnings also alert Hamas operatives, but that has been a price the IDF has been s willing to pay in order to minimize civilian casualties.

In warning civilians in Gaza, the IDF has so far dropped six million leaflets, made 14 million pre-recorded telephone calls, and 72,000 personal calls. It is the only army in the world that warns its enemy in such a manner. For that, and other reasons, British Colonel Richard Kemp has called the IDF “the most moral army in the world.” Perhaps, upon reflection during the next month, the ICJ judges will come round to seeing the justice of that verdict.

The intensity of the war has already wound down in the north, where tens of thousands of IDF Reservists have been pulled out, and where the IDF has decreased the number of airstrikes and focused instead on targeted killings. That may now happen in the south, once the city of Khan Yunis has been entirely subdued.

While Hamas is already spinning the ICJ decision as a great victory for its side, it is nothing of the sort. Israel has not been charged with “genocide,” but told only to make efforts to “prevent genocide.” These are different things. The Jewish state has never engaged in “genocide,” so the ICJ need not worry about that score. Israel has not been told to pull out of Gaza; the ICJ recognized the atrocities of October 7 and the right of Israel to self-defense. It also spoke of the need for Hamas to free the hostages. Nor did the ICJ seek to impose a ceasefire, of any length, on the Jewish state. For those decisions by the ICJ, just announced, as to what it condemns and what it condones, Israel should now breathe a sigh of great relief.