George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told host Laura Ingraham it was “otherworldly” at this point to hear President Joe Biden continue to deny any involvement in son Hunter Biden’s business deals or that he never benefitted from them.
“Hunter Biden said there is no evidence to support the allegation — first of all, no evidence?” Ingraham said to begin the segment. “And then he says the phrase ‘not financially involved.’ My father was not financially involved. Professor, that seems, again, very Clintonian to me.”
“Well, it is. We are seeing the shifting rhetoric, even from the president himself. He stated during the campaign that he had no knowledge, no involvement with these business deals or these associates of his son. That appears to be demonstrably false. We now know that even Hunter’s associates said it was nonsense,” Turley responded. “Hunter himself said his father had knowledge. But, you have the president sort of caught in the amber of this scandal. And he can’t now deny what he told the public over and over again.”
The host replied: “Financially involved could mean in his interpretation, right, that, ‘oh, my father is not running these businesses,’ right? He is not directing their moves vis-a-vis the United States. Again, that phrasing is very amorphous.”
The law professor agreed.
“It’s not just amorphous, it’s irrelevant. The Democrats have been stating that that’s there’s no evidence that the president benefited from these payments. That’s nonsense. There are federal cases on bribery and other crimes where the courts have said payments to family members do constitute benefits legally for those actual criminal charges,” Turley said. “It also implies in an impeachment. I represented the last judge impeached by Congress. He was charged with gifts that went to his family. So, all of that is just nonsense.”
“I mean, it’s really otherworldly to see these denials. I have got to tell you that even though Washington is known as a theater of the absurd. I have never seen anything like what we saw with Hunter and his lawyers today. I can’t come up with a legal rationale for what they did. I mean, he effectively engaged in legal self-immolation,” Turley said before adding that essentially, Hunter had two choices on Wednesday — comply with the congressional subpoena and testify behind closed doors, or go into Congress anyway and not provide any testimony at all.
“There is no third flavor on this ice cream stand. You don’t get to go in front of the Senate and literally mock Congress. And people have said, well, this might not be enforceable because the vote came later. There was an impeachment inquiry going on,” he added. “The Democrats started an inquiry without a formal vote. There is no requirement for a formal vote. More importantly, the subpoena came from the Oversight Committee, which has independent subpoena authority.
“So, in my view, he is in flagrant contempt of Congress. And, you know, I have represented the House of Representatives. I have a lot of affection for that body. And I have rarely seen such open contempt for Congress,” Turley noted further.
