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.
Although Hunter is obviously a serious lake, I still don't remember voting for him nor do I understand why those ultra patriotic GOP congresspersons are spending so much time focused on him.
What I keep reading is that Weiss was given full authority as a SP without the actual status as such. That happened at the beginning. . He’s been investigating Hunter for years already so I find it unlikely there’s more evidence to uncover. I think Garland just finally gave the ReThugLicans their wish just as Jeff pointed out earlier today. Let’s get this Hunter shit over with. My guess is they’ll just reach another plea deal pretty soon.
In Republican circles, some of their election "pros" are tossing out the possibility that in the Spring of 2024, Joe Biden will step aside.
At that point, the weary and "demented" president will give his full throated blessing to the team of:
Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Hunter Biden in an attempt to keep political dynastic names in play.
Political observers wondered which of the many natural or chemical hallucinogens the desperate Republican National Committee members were imbibing in their newest feeble attempt to smear President Biden.
I disagree that there is lack of enthusiasm for in the Democratic base for President Biden. The last time I checked, he raised a humongous amount of money in the last quarter, Biden is also more popular among Democrats than Obama was this time during his Presidency. Democrats , by nature are pessimistic. Look at 2022 midterms ,everyone including most Democrats resigned to the fact that Republicans are going to have the so called 'Red wave' which never happened.There will be plenty of enthusiasm among the Democrats, Independents and Surburbanites for President Biden come 2024. As for Biden's age, Trump is not any significantly younger than Biden. They are in the same age bracket. Biden will win this 2024 election because of the booming economy , ( is the economy stupid?). The fruits if this great economy will soon get to the population at large in time for the 2024 election. Other significant factors that will help Biden win in 2024 are Abortion , Trump and his criminal indictments, January 6 insurrection, investments in climate change and his excellent job with NATO and Ukraine
Great post! I agree, but do have some questions. 1. I am not a lawyer, how is Ivanka's trading on her father's name/position with the Chinese different? I mean that as a serious question and not as a "what aboutism". 2. Let's say it all goes south for Hunter and he is found guilty of the charges, what is the damage (provided we don't find any more out about this roping in the Pres)? 3. I have resisted this, trying to take the high road. I am absolutely flummoxed by people seeing the President's age V Trump's as somehow significant. Here is the avoiding part... Trump looks like a health disaster, quite out of shape (OK, fat), a strange color, LOTS of sweat when he talks, slowly meanders playing golf (which, apparently, he cheats at as a matter of course) V the president who, for god's sake , can ride a bike!!!? What are people missing? Hell, most Americans couldn't keep up with Biden. (I say this as an 61 yr old, ex professional modern dancer who is a Univ professor and still dancing every day. I see what my fellow Americans are capable of, not casting a stink eye at anyone! but just say'n). Glad you're back, sounds like you all had a great time.
Regarding your third point, "Hunter Biden tried to trade on his dad’s name.", welcome to the business world (and life, for that matter). Part of forming relationships in business will usually include an answer in some way to the question, "How will my business (or how will I) benefit from this relationship?" This may include (without limitation) great insights, the benefit of their experiences, leadership, and what opportunities this person (or the firm they represent) might be able to bring to the business (or me). This last might be as simple as who do they know, and can they connect me or my business to them. Hunter selling the illusion of influence with the Vice President is not a unique thing, although, I would agree, with public figures, this is not a good look. Lobbyists would not play nearly as big a role in politics if they were not providing access (simply introductions) to people in power to their clients. When hiring a lobbyist, it is important to fully understand who they are regularly in contact with, and are those people in positions to help you achieve your objectives. Would you want to tell me for a minute that Harlan Crow did not "sell" to others his proximity to a Supreme Court Justice? Leonard Leo? Wayne Huizenga? All of the others? Whether or not Crow, Huizenga, or the others had specific business before the court, it is likely they were letting others know they had access to Clarence Thomas. They created opportunities to be seen as a friend of the Justice. And who is to say they were not asked by their 'friends' to bring up ideas on other topics which might relate to a case before the court, even though it had nothing to do with business they individually (Crow, Huizenga, etc.) had before the court? Why spend the money to entertain the Supreme Court Justice if you were not going to get something out of it? My bet would be many of the "gifts" to Clarence Thomas (and Alito, and any others, for that matter) were deducted as business expenses, and not as gifts...
Hunter was beefing up his image so he could have a better chance at winning clients, and/or command more in fees. Again, to your point, and with which I agree, with public figures, this is not a good look, and potentially crosses a line. It appears from the details of Devon Archer's testimony, the former Senator, Vice President and current President was aware and careful, and therefore, was very superficial in his conversations. In business settings, most people would have seen right through this, and these telephone conversations would not have provided much value to Hunter in his efforts to sell his services.
In politics and in business, and it a lot of other things as well, who you know can be as important as what you know. We all are, at times, are looking for a introduction to someone - whether looking for work, trying to get a sale, trying to get children into special, high-end colleges, etc. - it is called networking. Hunter was trying to sell that he had a network which might have included an introduction to a senior government official, if needed, even though he most likely knew his fairly straight-laced father would never actually do anything. Did his father help a little with the illusion - sure - something we all might do if our children asked for a little mostly harmless help. In fact, I am always thrilled if my children ask for my help, and will want to do what I can. I am sure Joe Biden was trying to help Hunter in any way he could within his (Joe's) ethical limits.
To me, many others are doing far worse (hence my reference to Crow, etc.) things which are more worthy of the "deep state" descriptor than what Hunter clumsily tried to do.
But as Andy Borowitz commented today in the New Yorker, "Indicting Hunter Biden would make him [a] formidable Republican candidate."
Who Weiss?
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.
Although Hunter is obviously a serious lake, I still don't remember voting for him nor do I understand why those ultra patriotic GOP congresspersons are spending so much time focused on him.
I think the focus on him is clearly to take the focus off of Trump and his many legal problems. Which doesn't mean Hunter shouldn't be investigated!
When I lived in L.A. there was an AM station that gave headline news in 20 minute blocks each hour.
It's tagine was "All the News, All the Time."
Seems it could be adapted by ReTrumplican'ts today: "All Hunter, All the Time."
If Trump gets re-elected I’m hearing about him for the next 5 years.
If Biden gets re-elected I’m hearing about Hunter for the next 5 years.
There’s no escape.
What I keep reading is that Weiss was given full authority as a SP without the actual status as such. That happened at the beginning. . He’s been investigating Hunter for years already so I find it unlikely there’s more evidence to uncover. I think Garland just finally gave the ReThugLicans their wish just as Jeff pointed out earlier today. Let’s get this Hunter shit over with. My guess is they’ll just reach another plea deal pretty soon.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jefftiedrich/p/todays-republicans-are-hypocritical?r=2xr16&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
The issue was that as a Delaware DA he could not investigate Hunter in California and another state.
In Republican circles, some of their election "pros" are tossing out the possibility that in the Spring of 2024, Joe Biden will step aside.
At that point, the weary and "demented" president will give his full throated blessing to the team of:
Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Hunter Biden in an attempt to keep political dynastic names in play.
Political observers wondered which of the many natural or chemical hallucinogens the desperate Republican National Committee members were imbibing in their newest feeble attempt to smear President Biden.
So, President Harris?
Meanly applying apples to oranges seems to be a Republican favorite
ReTrumplican'ts: the creme de la creme Whataboutists.
I disagree that there is lack of enthusiasm for in the Democratic base for President Biden. The last time I checked, he raised a humongous amount of money in the last quarter, Biden is also more popular among Democrats than Obama was this time during his Presidency. Democrats , by nature are pessimistic. Look at 2022 midterms ,everyone including most Democrats resigned to the fact that Republicans are going to have the so called 'Red wave' which never happened.There will be plenty of enthusiasm among the Democrats, Independents and Surburbanites for President Biden come 2024. As for Biden's age, Trump is not any significantly younger than Biden. They are in the same age bracket. Biden will win this 2024 election because of the booming economy , ( is the economy stupid?). The fruits if this great economy will soon get to the population at large in time for the 2024 election. Other significant factors that will help Biden win in 2024 are Abortion , Trump and his criminal indictments, January 6 insurrection, investments in climate change and his excellent job with NATO and Ukraine
Chris
Great post! I agree, but do have some questions. 1. I am not a lawyer, how is Ivanka's trading on her father's name/position with the Chinese different? I mean that as a serious question and not as a "what aboutism". 2. Let's say it all goes south for Hunter and he is found guilty of the charges, what is the damage (provided we don't find any more out about this roping in the Pres)? 3. I have resisted this, trying to take the high road. I am absolutely flummoxed by people seeing the President's age V Trump's as somehow significant. Here is the avoiding part... Trump looks like a health disaster, quite out of shape (OK, fat), a strange color, LOTS of sweat when he talks, slowly meanders playing golf (which, apparently, he cheats at as a matter of course) V the president who, for god's sake , can ride a bike!!!? What are people missing? Hell, most Americans couldn't keep up with Biden. (I say this as an 61 yr old, ex professional modern dancer who is a Univ professor and still dancing every day. I see what my fellow Americans are capable of, not casting a stink eye at anyone! but just say'n). Glad you're back, sounds like you all had a great time.
thanks
Ang
Chris has been repeating the Republican talking points about Biden's age for some time now. He seems obsessed with Biden's age -- don't know why.
Find me a person with a famous parent who doesn’t trade in the name in some way!
Flashbacks from the get-go: Billy Beer, Hugh Rodham, Javanka.
Interestingly, the Dem relations are/ were small-timers compared to trump club.
Regarding your third point, "Hunter Biden tried to trade on his dad’s name.", welcome to the business world (and life, for that matter). Part of forming relationships in business will usually include an answer in some way to the question, "How will my business (or how will I) benefit from this relationship?" This may include (without limitation) great insights, the benefit of their experiences, leadership, and what opportunities this person (or the firm they represent) might be able to bring to the business (or me). This last might be as simple as who do they know, and can they connect me or my business to them. Hunter selling the illusion of influence with the Vice President is not a unique thing, although, I would agree, with public figures, this is not a good look. Lobbyists would not play nearly as big a role in politics if they were not providing access (simply introductions) to people in power to their clients. When hiring a lobbyist, it is important to fully understand who they are regularly in contact with, and are those people in positions to help you achieve your objectives. Would you want to tell me for a minute that Harlan Crow did not "sell" to others his proximity to a Supreme Court Justice? Leonard Leo? Wayne Huizenga? All of the others? Whether or not Crow, Huizenga, or the others had specific business before the court, it is likely they were letting others know they had access to Clarence Thomas. They created opportunities to be seen as a friend of the Justice. And who is to say they were not asked by their 'friends' to bring up ideas on other topics which might relate to a case before the court, even though it had nothing to do with business they individually (Crow, Huizenga, etc.) had before the court? Why spend the money to entertain the Supreme Court Justice if you were not going to get something out of it? My bet would be many of the "gifts" to Clarence Thomas (and Alito, and any others, for that matter) were deducted as business expenses, and not as gifts...
Hunter was beefing up his image so he could have a better chance at winning clients, and/or command more in fees. Again, to your point, and with which I agree, with public figures, this is not a good look, and potentially crosses a line. It appears from the details of Devon Archer's testimony, the former Senator, Vice President and current President was aware and careful, and therefore, was very superficial in his conversations. In business settings, most people would have seen right through this, and these telephone conversations would not have provided much value to Hunter in his efforts to sell his services.
In politics and in business, and it a lot of other things as well, who you know can be as important as what you know. We all are, at times, are looking for a introduction to someone - whether looking for work, trying to get a sale, trying to get children into special, high-end colleges, etc. - it is called networking. Hunter was trying to sell that he had a network which might have included an introduction to a senior government official, if needed, even though he most likely knew his fairly straight-laced father would never actually do anything. Did his father help a little with the illusion - sure - something we all might do if our children asked for a little mostly harmless help. In fact, I am always thrilled if my children ask for my help, and will want to do what I can. I am sure Joe Biden was trying to help Hunter in any way he could within his (Joe's) ethical limits.
To me, many others are doing far worse (hence my reference to Crow, etc.) things which are more worthy of the "deep state" descriptor than what Hunter clumsily tried to do.
A question - is it likely, or even possible, that Weiss will expand the investigation to cover Hunter's father as well? Thanks
a la Star?
Love your common sense and logic
; love your sense of humor!
Check out the recent Empty Wheel post. Marcy Wheeler can be counted on to d a deep dive into issues.
2nd bullet point - YOU set up the straw man, then say it's a false equivalency. It's YOUR comparison that you shot down.
4th bullet point - yeah, there's ZERO chance that's wishful thinking on the Dems part. Absolutely zero. Nuh uh, no way.