Hunter Biden suggests Ambien contributed to Joe Biden’s poor debate performance

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.abc4.com/news/hill-politics/hunter-biden-suggests-ambien-contributed-to-joe-bidens-poor-debate-performance/

And in other related news

Another Biden aide invokes Fifth Amendment in deposition before House panel

Annie Tomasini became the third Biden administration official to plead the Fifth Amendment in a House panel's investigation into the former president's mental fitness.

abcnews.go.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5404020-anthony-bernal-jill-biden-aide-pleads-fifth/

Biden's doctor has also done the same:
Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s former doctor, also pleaded the Fifth to questions asked during his testimony before the same panel last week, which earned another rebuke from Comer.

“When Joe Biden’s doctor was asked under oath whether he had ever been instructed to lie about Joe Biden’s health, he pleaded the Fifth,”


Obviously pleading the 5th isn't, by itself, any indicator of guilt or wrongdoing. And sometimes lawyers will advise clients to do that if the question is either a no-win question or deliberately meant to obscure context/facts

However, if you look at the transcripts of the questions these three different individuals were being asked, they didn't seem to fit that mold - and were fairly straightforward, hence...some of these invocations of the 5th can't help but look a tad suspicious.


Were you ever instructed to misrepresent the President’s health?

Were you ever told to lie about the President’s health?

Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the President?

Did you advise President Joe Biden to pardon his son?


If the answer to those questions is a definitive "No", then why would they answer with anything but definitive and assertive "No"?


The other possibility, there are times where lawyers will all advise their clients to plead the fifth to hedge against additional charges of perjury if their answers don't line up.

For example:
If John Says: "I'll invoke my 5th amendment rights" to the question "Do you know who stole that car?"
And then Dave gets on the stand and says: "It was Chuck who stole the car, and John knew about it"

John would've been in a lot more trouble had he answered with "No"

 

[durangodawood]

In an era of overt intent to vengeance-prosecute, I can see the value in asserting nothing, positive or negative.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In an era of overt intent to vengeance-prosecute, I can see the value in asserting nothing, positive or negative.

With regards to these particular questions they were being asked...

Were you ever instructed to misrepresent the President’s health?

Were you ever told to lie about the President’s health?

Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the President?


Seems like those are kind of big deal and if someone was engaging in them, I don't know that it would be labelled a "vengeance prosecution"

That's like saying, "Yeah, we know it's quite likely that Tony stole the car, but we know you have a grudge against him, so your heart's not in the right place, therefore it's best to not allow your department to prosecute him because you might be doing it for the wrong reasons"


There are times that justice and vengeance can intersect.

If there is even a remote possibility that there's something to any of those aforementioned questions, then I don't know that anyone should be celebrating the idea that people are keeping that covered up as some sort of "win" merely on account of the fact that the GOP is likely doing it for reasons of vengeance.


If someone stole my car -- if the reason why the prosecutor wanted to bust them so bad was because of the fact that the car thief used to bully them in high school (vs. having a sincere interest stopping car thefts in the abstract), is of little consequence to my perspective, I'd want the prosecutor to build the strongest case they could against the car thief regardless of their motivation.



All of those prosecutions aimed at Trump after he left office after the first term, are we going to pretend that none of those were coming from a place of "vengeance"? Did a lot people on the left want to see the book thrown at Trump for falsifying business records simply because they hated his guts and wanted to see him "get his" in order to get even for what they saw was a 4 year impediment to their agenda? Of course they did, anyone who pretends its just because they're passionate about business recordkeeping integrity would be clearly lying.

...but the fact is, he did the crime, so the reason why they wanted him prosecuted were irrelevant.

 

[durangodawood]

....Seems like those are kind of big deal and if someone was engaging in them, I don't know that it would be labelled a "vengeance prosecution"

If someone wasnt engaging in them, a vengeance prosecution still has value as intimidation of other political enemies. These people probably dont have unlimited resources, and defense against a motivated DoJ could break them.

.....If there is even a remote possibility that there's something to any of those aforementioned questions, then I don't know that anyone should be celebrating the idea that people are keeping that covered up as some sort of "win" merely on account of the fact that the GOP is likely doing it for reasons of vengeance.

I dont see it as a win. I see it as a loss for principles of justice in America, as you seem to. But thats what happens when powerful misuse the implements of justice for political purposes. Even if they arent actually doing that in this case, the promise to do it should be taken seriously and can compromise the whole process.

As for this particular doctor, I could see the value in offering zero assertions to minimize legal leverage points regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

[Richard T]

https://www.abc4.com/news/hill-politics/hunter-biden-suggests-ambien-contributed-to-joe-bidens-poor-debate-performance/

And in other related news

Another Biden aide invokes Fifth Amendment in deposition before House panel

Annie Tomasini became the third Biden administration official to plead the Fifth Amendment in a House panel's investigation into the former president's mental fitness.

abcnews.go.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5404020-anthony-bernal-jill-biden-aide-pleads-fifth/

Biden's doctor has also done the same:
Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s former doctor, also pleaded the Fifth to questions asked during his testimony before the same panel last week, which earned another rebuke from Comer.

“When Joe Biden’s doctor was asked under oath whether he had ever been instructed to lie about Joe Biden’s health, he pleaded the Fifth,”


Obviously pleading the 5th isn't, by itself, any indicator of guilt or wrongdoing. And sometimes lawyers will advise clients to do that if the question is either a no-win question or deliberately meant to obscure context/facts

However, if you look at the transcripts of the questions these three different individuals were being asked, they didn't seem to fit that mold - and were fairly straightforward, hence...some of these invocations of the 5th can't help but look a tad suspicious.


Were you ever instructed to misrepresent the President’s health?

Were you ever told to lie about the President’s health?

Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the President?

Did you advise President Joe Biden to pardon his son?


If the answer to those questions is a definitive "No", then why would they answer with anything but definitive and assertive "No"?


The other possibility, there are times where lawyers will all advise their clients to plead the fifth to hedge against additional charges of perjury if their answers don't line up.

For example:
If John Says: "I'll invoke my 5th amendment rights" to the question "Do you know who stole that car?"
And then Dave gets on the stand and says: "It was Chuck who stole the car, and John knew about it"

John would've been in a lot more trouble had he answered with "No"

Taking the 5th is almost always a good idea. Lying to Federal officials is always a bad idea. Just ask Martha Stewart or others like her. If they want these people to talk they can offer immunity.

With regards to these particular questions they were being asked...

Were you ever instructed to misrepresent the President’s health?

Were you ever told to lie about the President’s health?

Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the President?


Seems like those are kind of big deal and if someone was engaging in them, I don't know that it would be labelled a "vengeance prosecution"

That's like saying, "Yeah, we know it's quite likely that Tony stole the car, but we know you have a grudge against him, so your heart's not in the right place, therefore it's best to not allow your department to prosecute him because you might be doing it for the wrong reasons"


There are times that justice and vengeance can intersect.

If there is even a remote possibility that there's something to any of those aforementioned questions, then I don't know that anyone should be celebrating the idea that people are keeping that covered up as some sort of "win" merely on account of the fact that the GOP is likely doing it for reasons of vengeance.


If someone stole my car -- if the reason why the prosecutor wanted to bust them so bad was because of the fact that the car thief used to bully them in high school (vs. having a sincere interest stopping car thefts in the abstract), is of little consequence to my perspective, I'd want the prosecutor to build the strongest case they could against the car thief regardless of their motivation.



All of those prosecutions aimed at Trump after he left office after the first term, are we going to pretend that none of those were coming from a place of "vengeance"? Did a lot people on the left want to see the book thrown at Trump for falsifying business records simply because they hated his guts and wanted to see him "get his" in order to get even for what they saw was a 4 year impediment to their agenda? Of course they did, anyone who pretends its just because they're passionate about business recordkeeping integrity would be clearly lying.

...but the fact is, he did the crime, so the reason why they wanted him prosecuted were irrelevant.

You have an interesting take on justice and vengeance intersecting. Yours is probably more mainstream but I'll offer this alternative. If it is personal or based on past offenses where conviction was never secured, then justice seems lacking to me. I offer OJ as evidence on the motive of prosecutors and even juries. No one goes to jail that long on a first offense robbery/(plus unusual kidnapping charges) unless there is a special motive. That motive was to keep OJ in jail longer to pay for the murder that he skated on. This is not impartial justice. It is justice with a vengeance.
Trump too had vengeance prosecutions as you noted. The NY prosecution was done in such a way that the charges were uniquely applied. He had all kinds of prosecutions thrown his way, as it became a political game that is being played on both sides. So to me the reasons are quite relevant. Prosecutors have lots of latitude in charging, in plea deals, in sentencing. I could side with mercy far more than I could side with throw the book at them. Motives to smear and demean by attempting prosecutions should give way to what is practical as well.
Lerner head of the IRS had far more perjury and bad behavior than Federal Reserve Chairman Powell. So the Powell referral to the DOJ is plain and simple from the wrong motive, to force him to resign or lower interest rates.
For the case against covering up Biden's health. It seems pretty subjective to ask a non DR. about someone's health. Is it memory loss from Alzhiemer's or a lack of sleep, or medication? Even a Dr. short on tests should not make a diagnosis too quickly. To me the system failed because the 12 amendment switched the President and VP to being from the same party. Had a GOP person been VP the health status would have been questioned more vigorously. Of course a better cure would be to have a more constitutional limitations on the President such as age or competency tests. Perhaps more required speeches like the state of the union though without notes or a teleprompter too would deter those with poor cognitive abilities? anyway, a sort of fascinating outcome, that America could run somewhat on autopilot with very little consequences at least as of yet.

 

[ozso]

How he performed in the debate is one thing. Him formally resigning from the election is another. Because that's why he didn't win. He dropped out and left Harris holding the bag. He quit. He chickened out.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As for this particular doctor, I could see the value in offering zero assertions to minimize legal leverage points regardless of guilt or innocence.

...but we'd have to ask ourselves, what exactly is the "legal leverage" they'd be looking to minimize?

Noting the questions:
Were you ever instructed to misrepresent the President’s health?

Were you ever told to lie about the President’s health?

Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the President?


The purpose of the 5th amendment is to protect oneself from being compelled to answer questions that directly incriminate themselves, it doesn't cover shielding someone else.

So for instance: "Did you lie about the president's health?" would be a question where 5A would apply.

"Did this other person ever try to get you to lie about his health?" is a question about other people, not the person actually on the stand, so I don't think 5A would/should apply there.


If 5A applied to witnesses being asked about other people (who may have had a friendly relationship with the person who's actually on the "hot seat"), then prosecution as we know it would basically cease to exist in most cases as the only times they could ever build a case was in situations where wrongdoing was observed by someone who was an observer who just happened to be there, or someone who wasn't friendly to the accused.


The SCOTUS has weighed in on this in the past

ROGERS v. UNITED STATES.

www.law.cornell.edu

The decisions of this Court are explicit in holding that the privilege against self-incrimination 'is solely for the benefit of the witness,' and 'is purely a personal privilege'. Petitioner expressly placed her original declination to answer on an untenable ground, since a refusal to answer cannot be justified by a desire to protect others from punishment, much less to protect another from interrogation.


Or in a nutshell, "I know the GOP is vindictive, so I don't want to give them any ammo to use against Biden's family members or staffers -- so I'll just keep my mouth shut and not answer" isn't a valid application of 5A

How he performed in the debate is one thing. Him formally resigning from the election is another. Because that's why he didn't win. He dropped out and left Harris holding the bag. He quit. He chickened out.

If someone has poor debate performance or "chickens out" of an election they know they're about to lose, that part doesn't concern me all that much.

"We have this elderly relative who's in a position of power that impacts 300 million other people, he's already tired a lot and has lost a step, let's give him some Ambien and then manipulate him into doing stuff" seems like a much bigger deal.


If there was even the slightest whiff of a possibility that "Some of Trump's policies and EOs were the result of Don Jr. and Ivanka giving him goofy pills, and then using his compromised state to steer him into certain ideas" -- it would be front page news on almost every media outlet.

 

[durangodawood]

....
"Did this other person ever try to get you to lie about his health?" is a question about other people, not the person actually on the stand, so I don't think 5A would/should apply there.

Correct, in principle. Its kind of cute how you appeal to principle tho in an era where what counts is what you can get away with.

If 5A applied to witnesses being asked about other people (who may have had a friendly relationship with the person who's actually on the "hot seat"), then prosecution as we know it would basically cease to exist in most cases as the only times they could ever build a case was in situations where wrongdoing was observed by someone who was an observer who just happened to be there, or someone who wasn't friendly to the accused.

Or the prosecutor can find material evidence.

The SCOTUS has weighed in on this in the past

ROGERS v. UNITED STATES.

www.law.cornell.edu

The decisions of this Court are explicit in holding that the privilege against self-incrimination 'is solely for the benefit of the witness,' and 'is purely a personal privilege'. Petitioner expressly placed her original declination to answer on an untenable ground, since a refusal to answer cannot be justified by a desire to protect others from punishment, much less to protect another from interrogation.

Or in a nutshell, "I know the GOP is vindictive, so I don't want to give them any ammo to use against Biden's family members or staffers -- so I'll just keep my mouth shut and not answer" isn't a valid application of 5A

I agree - in principle. But when the prosecuting side has telegrammed that they are motived by other interests besides justice, I completely understand a potential defendant trying for whatever they can get away with.

If someone has poor debate performance or "chickens out" of an election they know they're about to lose, that part doesn't concern me all that much.

"We have this elderly relative who's in a position of power that impacts 300 million other people, he's already tired a lot and has lost a step, let's give him some Ambien and then manipulate him into doing stuff" seems like a much bigger deal.


If there was even the slightest whiff of a possibility that "Some of Trump's policies and EOs were the result of Don Jr. and Ivanka giving him goofy pills, and then using his compromised state to steer him into certain ideas" -- it would be front page news on almost every media outlet.

Yes, scenarios like that would be bad. I dont think Biden was that out to lunch tho. His was a political problem more than a governing problem. But for sure he needed to be a one termer.

 

[wing2000]

However, if you look at the transcripts of the questions these three different individuals were being asked, they didn't seem to fit that mold - and were fairly straightforward, hence...some of these invocations of the 5th can't help but look a tad suspicious.

Don't pretend these are inocent questions or "straightforward". It's obvious James Comer, backed by a completely compromised DOJ, is out to prosecute aids of the former POTUS.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or the prosecutor can find material evidence.

Short of a hidden recording turning up (which would likely get tossed if it's a two-party consent jurisdiction), I don't see how there would be the possibility for that much material evidence in matters like this. (any doctor's notes, etc... are also going to be shielded by HIPAA)

Witness testimony is going to be the only feasible avenue for these types of matters.

I agree - in principle. But when the prosecuting side has telegrammed that they are motived by other interests besides justice, I completely understand a potential defendant trying for whatever they can get away with.

...but that think that becomes far too easy of an excuse to leverage.

We saw a lot of it from Trump's defenders.
"This is clearly politically motivated -- therefore, the prosecution shouldn't even happen at all" became a common talking point.

Trying to separate political motivations from prosecutorial processes is something of a fool's errand.

Primarily, because the way our system was designed pretty much demonstrates that it's a "feature" and not a "bug".

The fact that the way prosecutors come to their position is through direct elections (where they declare their political stances in their campaign) or by appointment from an elected member of executive branch, shows that partisanship was somewhat the intent. If it wasn't, then every lawyer who was interested would just toss their name in a hat, and we'd pick one at random.

Whether by direction election or appointment, it's pretty evident that the concept of "prosecutorial discretion" was intended to be used to advance political initiatives. ("I'm going to be hard on <XYZ>" or "I'm going to decline to take up these cases of <ABC>")

Yes, scenarios like that would be bad. I dont think Biden was that out to lunch tho. His was a political problem more than a governing problem. But for sure he needed to be a one termer.

Why were they even giving an older guy (who seemed to be tired a lot) Ambien in the first place?

MedPage:
Ambien (zolpidem) is generally not recommended for elderly adults due to an increased risk of adverse effects in this population. Older adults are more susceptible to side effects such as confusion, balance issues, dizziness, and a higher risk of falls, which can lead to serious injuries, as well as possible links to increased prostate cancer risks in men.

American Geriatrics Society lists Ambien as a potentially inappropriate medication for use in older adults, specifically because of these safety concerns.

https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.18372

It's kind of concerning he was on that given that we (as a nation) witnessed him having those side effects -- some confusion, balance issues, and ended up getting prostate cancer.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Don't pretend these are inocent questions or "straightforward". It's obvious James Comer, backed by a completely compromised DOJ, is out to prosecute aids of the former POTUS.

I would say they were pretty straightforward...they certainly weren't "when did you stop beating your wife" kinds of questions.

For instance, if they asked "Given how desperate they were to not let the American public know how bad he was, do you think that's why they was such an effort to help cover it up?" -- that would be a loaded question.
(as that would be a question that attempts to slip in an affirmation of the concept, and there's not correct way to answer)


However, simply asking:
"Were you asked to lie about the health of so-and-so?"

That's direct question with a Yes/No answer.

 

[durangodawood]

....However, simply asking:
"Were you asked to lie about the health of so-and-so?"

That's direct question with a Yes/No answer.

There could be a lot of gray area with how you interpret that - which could come back to bite you if the prosecution side felt vindictive.

 

[wing2000]

I would say they were pretty straightforward...they certainly weren't "when did you stop beating your wife" kinds of questions.

For instance, if they asked "Given how desperate they were to not let the American public know how bad he was, do you think that's why they was such an effort to help cover it up?" -- that would be a loaded question.
(as that would be a question that attempts to slip in an affirmation of the concept, and there's not correct way to answer)


However, simply asking:
"Were you asked to lie about the health of so-and-so?"

That's direct question with a Yes/No answer.

Sure, the questions are clear.
The motive (and corrupt power behind them) is also clear.
THey are no doubt following their attorney's advice.
And in this environment, I would do the same.