Corrupt influence: The Biden family vs. Clarence Thomas
The White House claims Joe Biden has no problem unless it’s shown that Biden actually changed a policy decision as a result of the money he and his family received from our foreign adversaries. (The mainstream media keeps saying that there is no evidence Biden himself received any money from foreign adversaries, but emails and testimony of Biden's business partners are evidence that he did.)
Proving that Biden changed his policies is almost impossible, and it’s not the right standard. It’s difficult to do because you can’t x-ray somebody’s brain as to why they did something. That’s why Supreme Court justices need to recuse themselves if they have a conflict. They don't rule on a case and then challenge critics to prove their decision was made as a result of the conflict.
But it’s pretty clear that the tens of millions of dollars paid to the Bidens by US adversaries were being paid for a reason. The only thing of value being provided by the Biden family in return for vast sums of money was Biden’s political influence. And the efforts the Bidens made to hide what they were doing by running the money through third-party intermediaries and shell companies (facts not reported by the MSM) shows they knew it was wrong.
The Democrats are all over Clarence Thomas principally because he took vacations paid for by Harlan Crow. Crow had no business before the Court, and his critics are not claiming otherwise. If he had, Thomas should have recused himself. But the critics aren’t even suggesting that Thomas changed a decision as a result of Harlan Crow’s largesse or any other source of financial conflict.
By contrast, the foreign adversaries who paid the Bidens many millions of dollars absolutely had business before Joe Biden. Biden was not only vice president, but he was the point man for the United States in the countries from which he and his family were receiving millions of dollars. The Bidens' claim is like a Supreme Court justice soliciting money from people with a case before the Court and then claiming that there is no problem unless you can show the money changed the justice's vote.
Photo credit: YouTube screengrab