4 deep thoughts on Hunter Biden
And why he isn't going anywhere any time soon.
On Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he had appointed David Weiss as special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden.
On that same day, prosecutors in Delaware, which were led by Weiss, announced that a plea deal for Biden, the son of the president, was effectively off.
Which is a big deal!
I jotted down a few (ok, four) thoughts on Hunter in the wake of this news. They’re below and in no other order than how they came to me.
I know any talk about Hunter gets very heated. I am trying to avoid all of that. This is simply a series of my observations about what we know — and what it all means. Let’s make sure we keep the comments section respectful too.
This is bad news for Hunter Biden. A month ago, the expectation was that Hunter would accept a plea deal in a Delaware court on tax and gun charges. Which, legally speaking, would have ended the investigation into him. That’s no longer operative — or close to it.
“The announcement of a special counsel is a significant development from the typically cautious Garland and provides Weiss with independence, authority and budget to pursue the investigation.”
It’s also important to note here that Weiss, who had been investigating Hunter Biden in Delaware, asked to be named special counsel — a request that Garland granted.
Which raises the question of why? Is it solely because, as the AP report suggests, Weiss thought the charges would be better brought in California or Washington, DC and, without the special counsel badge, he would be unable to do so?
Or is the special counsel appointment rightly understood as a deepening and widening of the investigation into the president’s son? Is it possible that charges beyond the ones we’ve previously known about cropped up (or will crop up)?
We don’t know the answer to that question yet. But what we do know is that a special counsel investigation keeps Hunter Biden in the news for the foreseeable future. And exposed, legally speaking.
Hunter Biden ≠ Donald Trump. There’s a tendency in the lowest common denominator political world where we now live to reduce everything to a series of unflattering comparisons.
Like, now the Bidens and the Trumps are under federal investigation by a special counsel. Samesies!
Except not at all. For starters, there is zero evidence that Joe Biden is under investigation or has committed any illegal acts. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is the subject of not one but two federal indictments — one for his retention of classified documents after leaving the presidency and one for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Even if you compare HUNTER Biden’s charges to those of Trump, it’s not even close to the same. Hunter was expected — in the plea deal — to say he committed two tax misdemeanors. What Trump is being charged with is FAR more sweeping — and concerning from a national security and, you know, democracy perspective.
Equating the two situations then is dumb and lazy — two things you don’t want to be.
Hunter Biden tried to trade on his dad’s name. This might be a controversial take but it shouldn’t be.
Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter’s, testified before the House recently that Joe Biden got on the phone with Hunter’s business associates 20 times.
Those phone conversations, according to Archer, dealt with nothing of substance. In other words, Joe Biden was just sort of on the phone. He wasn’t making promises or talking administration policy.
Which doesn’t let Hunter Biden off the hook. He was clearly trying to impress his business clients with who his dad was/is!
This exchange between Democratic New York Rep. Dan Goldman and Archer— as reported by CBS News — is instructive on that front:
Asked by Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, "In other words, Hunter Biden would take credit for his father's actions, even though he had no role or influence in those actions?"
Archer replied, "He would take credit for them."
Goldman asked, "So is it fair to say that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father?"
"Yes," Archer replied.
Like I said: Not a great look.
Hunter Biden isn’t losing this election for Joe Biden. The people who care most deeply about Hunter Biden are members of the Republican base, who weren’t going to vote for Joe Biden even if he never had a son named Hunter.
For the rest of the public, Hunter Biden — and his travails — just aren’t that much of an issue.
In a Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted earlier this summer, 51% of respondents agreed that Hunter Biden’s problems are entirely separate from and unrelated to his father’s presidency. Just 33% disagreed with that notion.
A new New York Times piece nicely gets at that reality. Here’s the key point:
In interviews, more than a dozen Democratic officials, operatives and pollsters said Hunter Biden’s legal problems were less worrisome than their other concerns about the president: his age, his low approval ratings and Americans’ lack of confidence in an improving economy.
I totally agree. To my mind, the 2024 presidential election is a toss up between Biden and Trump. But that’s because of ongoing concerns about Biden’s age, a lack of enthusiasm for him in the Democratic base and the persistent belief — contra data — that the economy is still faring poorly. None of that has anything to do with Hunter Biden.
But as Andy Borowitz commented today in the New Yorker, "Indicting Hunter Biden would make him [a] formidable Republican candidate."
The way I see it, Garland appointed Weiss as Special Counsel to take a talking point from the GOP. Now the GOP is crying foul. The GOP call foul if you do something they want as it was all just hot air and not a real ask. As far as Hunter Biden goes, it’s fine to investigate but good God, it has gone on long enough. If there is something and he’s guilty, indict him. If not, time to move on. Nobody is above the law. No one. However, the GOP is using this as political theater to keep it in the news and distract from Trump. Comer, Jordan, etc.. have nothing and grasping at straws. We knew that this was coming as soon as Trump was impeached, if not before. For the GOP it’s a revenge tactic. As far as I am concerned, Javanka should be looked at as well. They were in the administration for goodness sake. Getting back to Hunter, for the GOP it’s oh but her emails, all over again. Nothing of real substance and still trying to find facts to fit the narrative. Put up or shut up.