Martin Sherman, Are Democrats Moving to Depose Biden?

By Martin Sherman

“A significant portion of the public does not believe that the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted. … Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.” — Patience D. Roggensack, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Dec. 14, 2020

“ … [A] majority of this court unconstitutionally converts the … Elections Commission’s mere advice into governing ‘law,’ thereby supplanting the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature and defying the will of [the state’s] citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to uphold the law and stands by while an unelected body of six commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government is subverted.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Dec. 14, 2020

“Investigators have been examining multiple financial issues, including whether Hunter Biden and his associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China. … Some of those transactions involved people who the FBI believe sparked counterintelligence concerns, a common issue when dealing with Chinese business … .” — CNNDec. 10, 2020

The November 2020 elections were an extraordinary event in which the bizarre, even the outlandish, became an integral part of the everyday humdrum routine.

The implausible and even more implausible?

This is not a politically partisan observation for it is valid no matter which side of the Democrat/GOP political divide one might happen to be on. After all, it is difficult to know what is more implausibly far-fetched:

(a) that, as the Republicans claim, there was pervasive electoral fraud on a scale so massive that it determined — indeed, inverted — the outcome of the ballot; or (b) that, as the Democrats claim, as a lackluster and lackadaisical candidate, perceptibly frail and aging, Joe Biden genuinely managed to amass the highest number of votes ever in a presidential election, surpassing former U.S. President Barack Obama’s previous 2008 record by almost 12 million votes.

Making this latter scenario even more difficult to accept at face value is that Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was hardly an electrifying vote-getter, having being forced to drop out quite early on in her own party’s primaries for its choice of a presidential candidate.

Indeed, Biden’s choice of Harris as his prospective vice president was, in itself, more than a little incongruous, as she had viciously excoriated him during the primaries for his record on race relations, complicity with segregationists and sexual impropriety, adamantly proclaiming that she believed the women who had complained about his unwanted sexual advances.

‘Many Doubt the Fairness of November Elections.’

Indeed, in light of his anemic, largely “no-show” election campaign, in which he studiously avoided articulating his position on a number of crucial issues, Biden’s apparent electoral achievement is even more bewildering. Indeed, referring to the Biden campaign, one media outlet observed dourly, “There is no surge of feeling, zero passion. … Instead, the closest thing to enthusiasm … among voters is resigned, faint praise. ‘He’s a decent man’ … but you can’t move the needle of history with flaccid decency.”

Another noted: “Biden’s performance [in exceeding Obama’s 2008 record] is incredible considering the voter enthusiasm, especially among young people, that his former boss had … .”

Accordingly, the sentiment expressed by the chief justice of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, Patience D. Roggensack, was hardly surprising when she warned,” A significant portion of the public does not believe that the Nov. 3 presidential election was fairly conducted.”

These words were part of Roggensack’s dissenting opinion in a hearing on several challenges by U.S. President Donald Trump to Wisconsin’s election results.

Although the motion was rejected by a 4 to 3 vote, at least one of the majority justices is on public record as being vehemently inimical to Trump, and the decision was severely criticized by the dissenting minority as being judicially unsound.

Thus, Justice Annette Ziegler, wrote, “The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier. … That has never been the law, and it should not be today.”

Abdicating Constitutional Duty

Disapprovingly, she chastised, “It is a game of ‘gotcha.’ I respectfully dissent, because I would decide the issues presented and declare what the law is.”

Accusing the majority of “abdication of its constitutional duty,” she lamented:

“Unfortunately, our court’s adoption of laches as a means to avoid judicial decision-making has become a pattern of conduct. A majority of this court decided not to address the issues in this case when originally presented to us. … In concluding that it is again paralyzed from engaging in pertinent legal analysis, our court, unfortunately, provides no answer or even any analysis of the relevant statutes, in the most important election … of our time.”

Ziegler was at pains to underline, “To be clear, I am not interested in a particular outcome. I am interested in the court fulfilling its constitutional responsibility.”

Expressing grave concern over the majority’s indecision, Ziegler chided, “While sometimes it may be difficult to undertake analysis of hot-button legal issues—as a good number of people will be upset no matter what this court does — it is our constitutional duty. We cannot hide from our obligation under the guise of laches.”

Accordingly, she concluded that “the rule of law and equity demand that we answer these questions for not only this election, but for elections to come.”

Indeed, given the relative proximity of the court hearing to the actual ballot process, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in order to comply with the majority conditions for the motion to be heard on its merits, the Trump legal team would have had to submit its case against the alleged infractions before those infractions were committed.

Covering Corruption or Not?

The apparent judicial reluctance to deal with allegations of widespread fraud leads us to another manifestation of partisan reticence, that of the mainstream media in their pre-election coverage of news highly pertinent to the voters’ decision at the ballot box — which seems to have drastically subsided in the wake of the elections.

Arguably, this was best capsulated in the Dec. 10 headline in an established Tennessee daily, “Uninterested Before the Election, National Media Now Find the Hunter Biden Story Worth Mentioning.”

The ensuing editorial shrewdly observed, “Too late to help the voting public form an objective opinion about their presidential choice, the national media has suddenly decided that the Chinese business dealings of Hunter Biden are worth mentioning.”

It continued: “We have long believed — and said — that the younger Biden’s business dealings, and his father’s major or minor role in them, was at least a disqualifying criterion for the elder Biden’s presidential election. It is clear, after all, that the younger Biden would not have been involved with various businesses in the Ukraine and China over the last decade had his father not been vice president at the time.”

Indeed, it is clear.

In a grave reproach of the mainstream media, it asserted, “National media outlets knew before last month’s election that federal prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, but they did not pursue the story.”

In a stinging rebuke, it charged“They also refused to further investigate the New York Post pre-election story about e-mails allegedly contained on the younger Biden’s laptop pointing to shady dealings between Joe Biden and Ukraine.  . . . In truth, they withheld critical information from readers and viewers so that Biden might beat President Donald Trump, the man they l[o]ve to hate.”

‘Too Disgusting to Repeat’

For example, leaked recordings exposed CNN’s president and political director blocking coverage of the New York Post’s explosive exposé on Hunter Biden’s shady business dealings overseas.

Thus, on Oct. 14, political director David Chalian was heard on a conference call, instructing, “Obviously, we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden.”

Just two days later (Oct. 16), CNN’s president, Jeff Zucker, informed his staff, “I don’t think that we should be repeating unsubstantiated smears just because the right-wing media suggests that we should.”

On Oct. 22, in a televised discussion, CNN anchor Jeff Tapper told his colleague, Bakari Sellers, that ” … the right-wing is going crazy with all sorts of allegations about Biden and his family. Too disgusting to even repeat here.”

The Media Research Center (MRC) conducted a review spanning the period Oct. 14-22 of ABC, CBS, NBC’s evening and morning shows and their Sunday roundtable programs, as well as ABC’s and NBC’s townhall events with Biden and Trump.

According to MRC, “Out of a total of 73.5hours of news programming, there were less than 17minutes (16 minutes, 42 seconds) spent on the latest scandals involving Joe Biden’s son.”

To be precise, the media watchdog found that ABC devoted zero (!) seconds to the reported Hunter Biden scandals, NBC just six minutes, nine seconds, while CBS led the broadcast networks with a “still-measly 10 minutes and 33 seconds.”

All-Pervasive ‘Russian Disinformation’

Moreover, even when the Biden story was mentioned, it was, by and large, denigrated as “Russian disinformation” (see for example here and here).

On Oct. 19, Politico.com published a report, dramatically headlined “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

It commenced with the following unequivocal pronouncement, “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of e-mails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.'”

However, in the letter itself, the “former intel officials,” who — unsurprisingly — included the ardently pro-Biden and fervently anti-Trump John Brennan (former CIA director), and James Clapper (former director of National Intelligence), seem to be far less unequivocally clear-cut and strident. Indeed, they were at pains to insert a paragraph, clearly formulated to protect their professional “rear-ends”: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement. … [However], there are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.”

This, of course, leaves the reader to puzzle over the question: If the “former intel officials” had no clue whether or not the e-mails were, in fact, authentic or the product of “Russian involvement,” how could they possibly make the determination that they were—and why would they lend they names and reputations to create a politically partisan impression, which, by their own admission, they could not substantiate?

Or were they counting on the assumption that few ever read beyond the headlines and the opening paragraph?

An Abrupt Change of Heart

With the election over, there seems to have been a perceptible shift in the media attitude towards the allegations of malfeasance in the Biden family’s overseas business activities.

For example, CNN anchor Tapper seems to have undergone an abrupt change of heart as to the gravity of these allegations, having, prior to the election — as we have seen —dismissed them in the strongest possible terms.

However, several weeks after the presidential election, with Biden preparing to become the 46th president, Tapper apparently had few qualms in raising the subject publicly and the Biden family’s business ties began to be gradually emerging as fair game to him (see here).

A similar shift in journalistic sentiment was evident in other media outlets.

Take, for example, the Los Angeles Times. As early as March 6, it ran an editorial, “The GOP’s Senate Investigation into Hunter Biden Is a Charade — and They Know It,” proclaiming that the entire probe into the Biden’s far-flung business dealings was little more than flimsily disguised political shenanigans.

However, soon after the elections, this changed markedly.

On Dec. 9, LAT ran a report headlined: “Hunter Biden Tax Inquiry Examining Chinese Business Dealings.”

It disclosed that “the Justice Department’s investigation scrutinizing Hunter Biden’s taxes has been examining some of his Chinese business dealings, among other financial transactions.”

The report continued: “… The investigation was launched in 2018, a year before his father, Joe Biden, announced his candidacy for president” —i.e., months before the LAT editorial board dismissed GOP claims regarding the existence of such a probe as “a charade.”

Indeed, a little over a month after the polls had closed, it conceded that “the younger Biden has a history of business dealings in a number of countries, and the revelation of a federal investigation puts a renewed spotlight on the questions about his financial dealings that dogged his father’s successful White House campaign.”

Three days later (Dec. 12), LAT again raised the subject in a piece, “Hunter Biden Subpoena seeks Information on Burisma, Other Entities,” stating that a “subpoena seeking documents from Hunter Biden asked for information related to more than two dozen entities, including the Ukraine gas company Burisma … .” Significantly, it added, “The breadth of the subpoena, issued Tuesday, underscores the wide lens prosecutors are taking as they examine the younger Biden’s finances and international business ventures.”

The Harbinger of Far-Reaching Political Change?

This post-election metamorphosis of media mood could also herald the onset of a far-reaching political shift within the Democratic Party.

After all, in contrast to the accusations against Trump of colluding with Russia and conniving with Ukraine, based largely on third-party hearsay and innuendo, the evidence accumulating against the Biden family seems far more solid and compelling, including firsthand witness accounts and emails whose authenticity have yet to be denied.

As coverage on the alleged Biden scandal continues — and certainly if it turns out that Biden has been untruthful over his complicity in his family’s questionable business operations — his continued incumbency is likely to be increasingly challenged until it is no longer tenable, and he is compelled to transfer power to Harris.

Of course, there will be those who discount this possibility as being beyond the bounds of probability.

However, they would do well to bear in mind that the overwhelming preponderance of the ideo-political energy in the party comes from the more radical left-wing, which has already proven that it can assert its will on the party apparatus in the past.

Recently, rumblings for changes in leadership within the party have begun, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. calling for a structural change in the party and for the old guard to be replaced with younger legislators to promote the radical policies she advocates.

Indeed, she has even called explicitly for the replacement of the party’s congressional leadership of both Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in the U.S. Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the U.S. House.

Will Frailty and Mendacity Ensconce Kamala Harris as President?

The contour lines of an approaching scenario in which Biden, exposed as both frail and mendacious, is forced to step down and concede the presidency to Harris are gradually coming into focus.

With an ever-more critical press and an ever-more radical intra-party opposition, we may well be on the cusp of a new American (or rather un-American) revolution — a revolution in which a cardboard-cutout president is driven from office by people imbued with a political credo, forged by figures and ideas not only different from, but entirely contrary to, those that made America America.

It is indeed a scenario that risks transforming America into a de-Americanized post-America — an unrecognizable shadow of its former self.

That will be the terrible price the American electorate has inflicted on itself for submitting to the fit of puerile and petulant pique that molded its choice this November.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies and served for seven years in operational capacities in Israel’s intelligence community. Sherman lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic Studies. He holds several university degrees — B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance) and PhD in political science/international relations. He was the first academic director of the internationally renowned Herzliya Conference and has authored two books as well as numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He was born in South Africa and has lived in Israel since 1971. Read Martin Sherman’s Reports — More Here.

Read Newsmax: Are Democrats Moving to Depose Biden?

Please follow and like us:

33 thoughts on “Martin Sherman, Are Democrats Moving to Depose Biden?”

  1. Jim Stone’s report this AM….DEVASTATING, BUT LIKELY ON TARGET. Too much to copy and paste.
    Evil has won for the time being. As Jim has said for months, get armed, stock up on food and get ready.

    FOR NOW, IT’S OVER. This is reality, friends. America is over at this moment.

    http://82.221.129.208/.uw2.html

    THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO INITIATE THE OUSTING OF TRUMP TONIGHT.
    The House judiciary committee is attempting to invoke the 25th and have Trump ousted IMMEDIATELY. They have made a formal, detailed appeal to Pence.

    Pelosi controls the DC police who allowed Antifa in.

    They had Antifa stage an attack so they could shut down the proceedings, and now they are going to attempt to eject Trump. They were obviously going to lose, so they are pulling out all the stops and trying to get rid of Trump. Gosh, his twitter is shut down. HOW CONVENIENT. COUP IS ON

    IT IS OVER. The military has now started ignoring Trump and is only speaking to Pelosi, Pence, Schumer and McConnel. IT IS OVER FOLKS. OVER.

    https://www.infowars.com/posts/coup-acting-sec-def-says-vp-pence-pelosi-mcconnell-schumer-briefed-on-national-guard-deployment-but-president-trump-iced-out/

    The acting Secretary of Defense admitted that he and the Joint Chiefs Chairman didn’t discuss deploying the National Guard with President Trump — but instead Vice President Pence and Congressional leaders.

    “Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol,” Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller said Wednesday.

    moderated
  2. Ralph, you really don’t understand the situation. For Trump to fire Fauci (a civil servant) he would have to have his DHHS secretary fire a whole lot of intermediaries in the process–doable but not worth the effort with far bigger items on the agenda. Trump is not controlled, but he is hemmed in by lots of things: e.g., Congress, which has to approve cabinet picks, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, etc. It would be nice if he could fire everyone in DC but that’s not so easy. He has done a lot with executive orders, such as construction of hundreds of miles of border wall, and he has ordered as commander-in-chief major reductions in troops abroad and has effectively ended our involvement in Syria and Afghanistan. And, he has managed to fire at least of the worst offenders, like Esper. But, hw has made a few mistakes as well; for one, hiring Bolton–who was later fired–made no sense. In the end, he did serious damage to the ruling cabal not only by pulling troops but also by forcing them to use massive fraud and censorship before the entire world, destroying any legitimacy that they still had. I would say overall he deserves an A-, not a perfect grade but far better than anyone else could have done.

    moderated
    1. Trump had honorable intentions. I doubt he realized the extent to which this country and it’s “leaders” have been compromised. He did what he could as a deal maker and businessman, but he was never and could never be a member of the club. As a people, it’s now up to us. I see no relief from the courts or the military….and one can just about bet that that military will soon include Chinese troops.
      We need organization and we need leadership. Any ideas?

      moderated
    2. After the “inauguration”, we will be the new underground resistance…..because of the possibility of ANTIFA and BLM infiltration, the ‘strategy’ we witnessed yesterday will not be viable. Am I wrong?

      moderated
      1. It begins now. The fake “Biden” wants to lock us down, force masks and vaccinations and take our guns. Every day they are in office, they grow stronger and we grow weaker. It cannot wait. The time is now. Brace your self. It’s going to get bloody.

        moderated
        1. All I hear now is “no violence”, remain calm, go home….even from what I thought was a trusted site, Steve Bannon and the War Room and even Tucker. Are they serious? Is no one thinking or analyzing what actually went on yesterday.?IT WAS A COUP for Keericed sakes. We are in this position because we allowed (Trump included) ANTIFA and BLM to run rampant through our cities with basically free reign to do whatever they wished. NOW, that we finally get up the courage and enough patriots together to combat this outrageous criminality, we are told to sit back and calm down.

          Does everyone forget how this country was formed and what it took?

          Stand down and go home my arse.

          Fight the bastardz until your last breath.

          moderated
          1. Calm down Mr. Will.

            White hats (led by Trump) will spring into action—- any day now.

            Don’t worry!

    3. Thank you for the comment. I wish I could agree.

      If Trump is not controlled, then he must be stupid.

      Because no rational person with average intelligence would continue, at this point, to promote vaccines. And frankly, when you consider the absolutely HUGE damage that Fauci has caused, no rational person would have allowed him to continue in his White House role, regardless of how much effort was required to oust him.

      moderated
  3. I wonder how many people are going to show up in DC… (den of cobras). More than a million, i would say that’s a lock. Could it be more tan two million? Possible. The weather looks favorable for a large turnout. I thought about going and I just didn’t get that “must travel 1700 miles” feeling and this annoying thing called work. I heard about Mayor Bowser trying to thwart the rally by closing down hotels and eateries and make life difficult for any visitor. I wouldn’t be surprised if she had every bathroom in a 5 mile radius welded shut. Such a cunt. My feeling is that Aunt Teefa will have their usual band of thugs causing trouble, but they will be unnumbered a thousand to one.

    moderated
    1. Yeah…I gave it a shot too, Dk, but dog sitters are hard to come by when you live in farm country…farmers laugh at that kind of stuff. You can bet BLM and ANTIFA will be there in legion. The cops themselves escorted them to Trump’s rally last night.
      I don’t know about you, but I need to get an RV…..pet problem solved.

      moderated
          1. This could be another misdirection but sen. Chuck Grassley tweeted that Mike Pence would not preside over the electoral count, then he back tracked. I don’t know what to think about Pence anymore. That strange deal at Buch senior’s memorial service where Trump did not even acknowledge Pence and his wife gets an envelope? Could all be just for show who the hell knows anymore. I have always had a funny feeling about Pence. It was almost like the feeling I got about the Obamas. I took one look at the first family and thought, they look just a little too perfect. I couldn’t put my finger on it. Then that air filled slogan… “change you can believe in” … I thought to myself… they can keep the change.

        1. I did not see any trouble…just the cops escorting buses filled with ANTIFA and BLM into the rally…but that type of intimidation by these animals can play a huge role. Even Trump will not utter BLM. In his tweet today, he warned ANTIFA, but not a word about BLM.
          I will say the rally was strange. I had a feeling that trump was not even there…like it was all staged via some video magic.
          On the channel I was watching (Internet, I have no TV) Trump Jr. was speaking, they cut him off, went to My Pillow commercial and when they returned a minute later, Trump was on stage speaking with the helicopter in the background.
          It just did not seem real, I am sorry to say. All this at about 9 PM when he was scheduled to be there at 3 PM.

          moderated
          1. Oh, no. Completely real. Watched the whole thing. He was excellent. Brought Ivanka and Donald Jr. with him. I was very impressed. Later in evening to make it closer to the vote, I would guess. Very well done.

          2. No. I watched the chopper pull up. Watched Trump, Ivanka and Don Jr. deplane. Watched him approach the crowd and speak. He spoke for 1.5 hours and it was terrific. He had the crowd with him all the way.

          3. Good to know…that channel (I forget the call letters) is usually pretty good…but that was disappointing for sure. Seems there are times broadcast TV can serve a purpose.

          4. On the internet, I found a LIVE COVERAGE channel, which it was I have no idea. Just did a search. Fox covered parts, MSM virtually none.

          5. You lucked out with better coverage than I had. Let me know if you remember the channel. I’ll switch to that one. As far as tomorrow goes, I would guess Cspan will be best.

          6. Search for LIVE COVERAGE OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE AND DEBATE. It ought to be extensive. C-SPAN should offer good coverage.

          7. looks to me that David Perdue was paid to lay down and get beat. He declined a chance to debate and has been invisible. Kelly didn’t do too much better. That debate with Warnock, she was just a one trick pony and kept repeating the same exact line. I was not impressed. your thoughts on the pathetic run off campaign? They collected a boat load of cash and where the hell did it go?

          8. The steal was in. Everyone pretty much knew the outcome. Same machines…same story as on November 3rd. Nothing changed. Three machines down in major Republican districts. And ANTIFA and BLM had been brought in as intimidation. Georgia is a loss.

          9. I am apprehensive you may be right. With 20% reporting, there’s an odd 55% to 45% for DEMS over GOP. Why should we be surprised?

  4. Ask you self, “Why doesn’t Trump fire Fauci and Birx?”

    Is it because they are doing such a good job?

    Is it because Trump is stupid and doesn’t know what is going on?

    There is no excuse, is there?

    And why does Trump continue to promote vaccines?

    The answer is this: TRUMP IS CONTROLLED

    Wake up.

    moderated

Leave a Reply