As we reported this morning, the Department of Justice first sent a letter to a federal court in New York on Saturday declaring that they wanted Devon Archer to report to prison. (Previously, Archer appears to have been convicted of securities fraud and recently lost his appeal.) Then on Sunday, they sent a new letter trying to do some damage control. Representative Greene has a copy of it:
After obstructing justice demanding Devon Archer go to jail immediately, the DOJ sends a letter again demanding Devon Archer go to jail but back peddling as fast as possible to clarify “after” his congressional testimony.
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) July 31, 2023
Why the rare work load on Saturday and Sunday?
What is… pic.twitter.com/0yGVClNqof
If you read the letter carefully, you will realize there is no legal purpose to it. None at all. The court wasn’t going to have him arrested today, regardless. So, the only purpose for this letter was public relations, to try to say ‘hey, we aren’t trying to stop him from testifying. Really!’
And all of this on a weekend? Greene is absolutely correct to note that it is bizarre for the DOJ to have this much activity when the court is closed.
Meanwhile the brilliant Jonathan Turley weighed in on the whole mess:
After the debacle in Delaware where the Justice Department seemed entirely confused on its own filings, the letters only reaffirmed the image of a department adrift in this expanding scandal...https://t.co/MpOi32Vpq0
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 31, 2023
...While it allowed major felonies to expire in the Hunter Biden investigation, it seems on a hair trigger for those who may accuse him or the Department of wrongdoing...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 31, 2023
...It often seems like the Justice Department under Merrick Garland is a series of step-on-the-rake moments.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 31, 2023
Recommended
From his post:
The Department of Justice caused a[n] outcry this weekend when it filed a notice to a federal court on a Saturday that it should move ahead and order the jailing of Hunter Biden’s former business associate and friend, Devon Archer. That came less than 48 hours before Archer was scheduled to give potentially explosive testimony on the Biden corruption scandal. The Justice Department decided that the matter was so urgent that it required a weekend filing before Archer testifies. The optics could not be worse and many took the letter as an effort to intimidate Archer. Then the next day the Justice Department sent a second letter to the court saying it can wait to arrest him after he testifies. After the debacle in Delaware where the Justice Department seemed entirely confused on its own filings, the letters only reaffirmed the image of a department adrift in this expanding scandal.
On Saturday, the Justice Department told Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York that the court should move toward ordering the incarceration of Archer. The timing was viewed by many as intimidating and was reminiscent of the IRS visiting the home of journalist Matt Taibbi on the day that he was testifying to disclose the government’s massive censorship program.
Whether the Democratic Party and its propagandist in the media want to admit it or not, this is warming up to be the most serious impeachment inquiry in American history. Indeed, we are looking at the real possibility that Biden might face the first impeachment where the legality of the impeachment is beyond question. Every prior impeachment carried with it a real doubt whether the charge was even something that can support an impeachment. As you might recall, the impeachment clause of the Constitution that applies to the President (as we pointed out yesterday, there is a different clause that applies to federal judges) says the following:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Every prior impeachment relied on the grounds of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and in each one, from Andrew Johnson, to Donald Trump’s two impeachments there were serious legal questions of whether the conduct could be counted as a high crime and misdemeanor. For instance, Andrew Johnson was primarily impeached for his attempts to remove Secretary of War Stanton from office. Later, the Supreme Court said that a President had a right to remove such appointees. And in his last impeachment, Trump was impeached for speech that was protected under the First Amendment, leading some strange people to claim that Congress could remove a president for saying things protected by the Constitution.
But the most serious possibility in this investigation is that Joe Biden might have been receiving bribes, funneled through his son, Hunter. This claim is not proven, yet, but any person who says there is no evidence of it is flat out lying. But if it was proven, bribery is specifically listed as a ground for impeachment. The question wouldn’t be if a president can even be impeached for it, but whether the evidence supports the charge.
And at the same time, while the term ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is debatable, one thing is less so: Using the power of the government to hide criminal activity almost certainly fits the bill. ‘It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up,’ is the Nixon-era cliché and while Nixon was never impeached, if he didn’t resign he would have almost certainly been impeached for exactly that: The cover-up.
And we are watching a cover-up occur in real time. Only sheer partisanship is keeping this from being admitted in the mainstream media.
And again you seem surprised when confronted with the reality we've all known for years
— Scott C ""Panem Et Circenses" (@ScottC20012) July 31, 2023
Meanwhile, they get away with it and no accountability
— Canna Anna (@Apple748582331) July 31, 2023
Garland obviously does as he's told.
— Good Ole Ricky (@ricky_ole) July 31, 2023
We are so glad he didn't become a Supreme Court justice.
A picture with Archer. Oh my God Joe must have been in business with a son that Joe knew was in the middle of his drug addiction. Come on Johnny, really?
— Ron Fancy (@RonFancy) July 31, 2023
What a silly straw man argument.
What a clown show over at DOJ. The only question is who is Bozo and who is Clara Bell.
— Soaring LIBERTY (@LibertySoaring) July 31, 2023
Heh.
Finally, we will note that part of the agenda that the DOJ seems to be pursuing is to remind people that Archer has been convicted of fraud. First, it’s a reality that criminals are often surrounded by other criminals and when we put criminals away, we often do so by the testimony of other criminals. Second, it is still reasonable to say that any person convicted of fraud shouldn’t just be believed, blindly. But there are ways to corroborate a person’s account, or at least major parts of it. Archer should be listened to, but the question should always be asked: ‘Suppose someone else gives a different story? How do we know this is the truth?’ Ask him that and see what his answer is.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member