Comments

What’s going on in the Hunter Biden trial? — 54 Comments

1. Merrick Garland and David Weiss should be ashamed.

   I sometimes wonder if they’re actually capable of shame. They’re doubtless extremely vain creatures and as such they may be susceptible to feelings of anger and annoyance about having their images tarnished by constantly covering for various criminal activities. I can’t imagine they enjoy being thought of as mere lickspittles for an utter fool of a president and his nitwit princeling son.

2. If Joe is pushed out of the nomination, pardons for Hunter and for himself are guaranteed.

3. Nonapod – They’re too busy saving democracy. No time for shame.

   I’m frankly astonished that they haven’t kicked Biden to the curb yet. They must be really worried about Kamala on a national ticket. On the other hand, look at the lies they got away with in 2012. Benghazi was a reaction to a video. Obama called it terrorism immediately. Romney was going to “put y’all back in chains.” If the press and all elected Democrats could continue to insist that Biden corruption is just a GOP conspiracy theory, can anyone be confident that they won’t get away with it (again)?

4. The walls aren’t closing in just yet.

   But it is precarious. Enough dominoes may fall to ease the Big Guy out to sunnier pastures.

   I wonder if conservatives could handle the good news.

5. Good news? President Kamala, President Newsom, or President Whitmer would make Biden look like a picnic.

6. For some, the sky is always falling.

7. huxley:

   I’m not at all sure that Kamala or Newsom as president would be such good news.

   I could definitely handle actual good news, though.

8. The part I find amazing, and I believe the judge balked at, was the simultaneous claim of an ongoing investigation as well as a blanket immunity. If the latter is the case, why bother with an ongoing investigation??

   Well, the probable honest answer is that congressional investigators want all the gory details, and the DOJ is refusing on the grounds that it is an ongoing investigation. A tired ploy, but they can’t have it both ways. The not quilty plea and presumed trial means they can maintain the tired ploy. I doubt there will even be a trial.

   It certainly seems that they are dancing on a pile of excrement now. We will see if they fall into it.

9. Jonathan Turley on the Hunter plea bargain mess:

   https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-skewers-doj-hunter-biden-plea-deal-falls-apart-problem-own-making

   DOJ tried to immunize Hunter from any further charges while at the same time maintaining to Congress that it must withhold information because there’s an ongoing investigation. Can’t have it both ways, says Turley.

10. I’m not at all sure that Kamala or Newsom as president would be such good news.

    neo:

    So if Biden is forced out of office or out of running again, that’s bad news?

11. huxley:

    It depends why and how, and what comes next. Most people agree that Newsom would be a more formidable opponent, for example. He might indeed be the replacement – and although not senile, just as leftist or more. He certainly has helped run California into the ground, with vigor. So why would Joe’s leaving be good if Newsom is the replacement? And Kamala is as cognitively challenged as Joe, as mendacious, and as leftist. So if she’s the replacement, that would only be good if she’s more likely to lose an election, and I have no idea whether that’s true.

    Plus, I firmly believe that if Joe is forced out it will almost certainly be not for violation of some principle – now, THAT would be good news, and I would be happy about it – but because they think his replacement would be more likely to win in 2024. I fail to see why that would be good news.

12. I agree that there could be all sorts of negative consequences that might flow from Biden being forced to step down, but I still believe that a Biden resignation would be in itself a good thing. Having a President as manifestly unfit for the job as Biden is an insult to the country and everyone who has sacrificed so much to protect her.

13. For Federal Court they draw from the whole state. The lower two counties are more conservative and mostly republican.

14. Yeah, it does sound like the fix was in as long as the prosecutors didn’t have to publicly say so in open court. Once the judge made them state the details, they got cold feet.

15. Why is Hunter Biden provided with a six-vehicle motorcade just to show up in court? Not only that, all those black vehicles look like ICE SUVs rather than the EVs we’re all supposed to switch to for the sake of the planet:

    https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2023/07/26/something-curious-is-noted-about-hunter-bidens-arrival-to-delaware-courthouse-n782296

    I feel sorry for the Secret Service officers assigned to the Biden crime family– having to watch JoJo swim naked, having to get hospital treatment for dog bites, having to pretend they don’t know who brought the bag of blow into the WH, and having to ensure the Clown Prince gets to court without incident.

    I wouldn’t blame the SS if one of them discreetly added a generous dose of fentanyl to Hunter’s next baggie.

16. ”Once the judge made them state the details, they got cold feet.”

    Let’s give some credit, too, to the House Republicans. It was a House Republican who alerted the judge to the irregularities in the plea deal. They’re doing a lot with a very slim majority.

17. Hide well … if possible.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12336855/Hunter-Bidens-business-partner-Devon-Archer-hiding-fears-familys-safety-receiving-threats-testify-Congress-week-shady-dealings-Son.html

18. Merrick Garland and David Weiss are guilty of obstruction of justice. Just as with Comey and Hillary Clinton.

    All singing the same line from their ideology’s hymnal; “Guilty as hell, free as a bird”.

19. I’m not at all sure that Kamala or Newsom as president would be such good news.

    neo:

    I follow your reasoning to a point.

    However, it often seems to me that many conservatives are always looking for the most pessimistic interpretation. They won’t take yes for an answer. They are always looking for the non-silver lining.

    One of my last interactions here with Gerard was when I made an upbeat comment about Biden’s Afghanistan fiasco, that perhaps it was a turning point which would reflect poorly on Biden and make his job harder.

    Gerard suggested I do something scatological with my hands, clap them together, then look for the good news.

    Well, the Afghanistan fiasco was bad news for Biden, it marked the end of his honeymoon, and his poll ratings have dropped steadily since. I call that good news.

    It’s a pattern I see a lot with conservatives.

20. Neo concludes, “I firmly believe that if Joe is forced out it will almost certainly be not for violation of some principle – now, THAT would be good news, and I would be happy about it – but because they think his replacement would be more likely to win in 2024.”

    AGREED.
    I EXPECT the 25th Amendment (disability) to be invoked this Autumn, just as Congressional impeachment inquiry gets rolling.

    That’s the best way to mute the coming storm.

21. Ashamed!?! How very DARE you peons think WE should be ashamed!

    You MAGA fools are too stupid to understand that we are the only thing between the death of Our Democracy and Donald Trump *spit*.

    You should be thanking us for helping a loving father save his scamp of a son. It should be a lesson to you all about how your betters protect and defend their children.

22. huxley:

    I see good news when there is good news. I think conservatives have mostly earned their pessimism. So many times it has seemed as though something would lead to something good, and then it’s a bust. In the case of Biden, I really just don’t see a way it ends up being good, with the sole exception – as I said – of perhaps Kamala being such a weak candidate that it helps the eventual Republican nominee win.

23. On huxley’s insight: “ They won’t take yes for an answer. They are always looking for the non-silver lining.

    “It’s a pattern I see a lot with conservatives.”

    Too true.
    The Right thinks they are wise to be risk averse.
    AND THEY ARE.

    But then the potential for upside opportunities
    gets exaggerated discounting.

    There must be an economic formula from
    financial economics, somewhere, that formalises
    this issue.

    And then seeing it translated into behavioural
    economics terms would be illuminating.

    Followed by privet and historical “case-study”
    examples.

    The practical application involves proper rubrics
    or counterfactual tests against excessive risk aversion.
    If the concluding truisms can be spread, it ought
    to prove salutary to the Right in politics.

    THANKS huxley. I do know a few economists who
    might be empathetic to the cause of more deeply
    tracing and tracking your insight. It’s worth some
    emails.

    Two weeks ago, I got to meet economist Arthur Laffer
    who is spear-heading a drive for the Tennessee legislature
    to pass property tax increase caps, much like
    Prop 13 did for California.

    He’s quite optimistic about success! During that
    encounter, I had nothing deep or interesting to share.
    But now I do.

24. neo:

    Back when I was a leftist, there was a catchphrase: “More leftist than thou.” Even on the left, it wasn’t a term of endearment. Leftists knew it was a problem, but they couldn’t solve it, and here we are.

    On the right it seems to me there is a competition for “More cynical than thou.”

    It’s a judgment call, I suppose, but I see a lot more good news that most conservatives can manage.

    That the legal hounds are starting to bay for Biden and Hunter I see as a good thing, that our legal system hasn’t totally gone East German. I focus on that.

    Newsom might be the 2024 D candidate in any event.

25. OH my. I am always driven to doubt–to question–to explore all details.
    Here is one detail of today’s events that I have not yet heard discussed, but which may come up some time in the near future.
    1. It is known that this judge is a supporter of Hillary Clinton.
    2. Hillary Clinton’s network of evil is extensive–does this judge work for her?
    3. What does Hillary Clinton obtain by this move today?
    4. The Democrats are now so dirty–in particular the Biden and Clinton networks–how much will this judge acquire by this move.
    5. How long will she hold out and gain how much?

    Sorry folks, I do not see today as a big accomplishment–not yet anyway.

26. Anne, I thought the judge was a Trump appointee.
    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryellen_Noreika
    On December 20, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Noreika to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, to the seat vacated by Judge Gregory M. Sleet, who assumed senior status on May 1, 2017.

    Does not mean this judge is not a fan of Hillary, but hopefully she is at least legally neutral if not leaning conservative.

    But, yes, this case could bounce in almost any direction, and end up well short of the level of justice most of us would like to see visited on The Prince (and his wannabe King).

27. …his case could bounce in almost any direction, and end up well short of the level of justice most of us would like to see…

    –R2L

    We are never going to see the level of justice we would like to see. That’s not on the menu. If that’s the metric, then nada, zip.

    What level of justice would suffice for you to see it as a win?

    There is a lot more going on here — whistleblowers, GOP congressional work, conservative media — than just one judge.

    I still believe in America. I see the system and our people, terribly battered to be sure, trying to work.

    I see Biden’s failing polls, the desperate fascist Dem attempts to control America, the Bud Light, Target, Disney/Lucasfilm boycotts, the unpopularity of the DEI/CRT/Trans agendas as leading edge indicators.

    Perhaps my optimism is my psychological bias. But that goes in both directions.

28. Tangentially related:

    I used to oppose impeachment of Slowy, on the grounds that it would be futile. What Dem Senator will vote to convict? That’s still true, but a new facet looks to be surfacing that justifies impeachment.

    Consider this: The House gets busy and impeaches Biden. It doesn’t matter that no conviction will result, or even that Schumer will not allow any such resolution onto the Senate calendar. But an actual impeachment resolution triggers another facet of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, viz:

    “…and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    With an impeachment resolution passed, even if the Senate hasn’t taken it up, Slowy can no longer pardon himself. More, no successor President can pardon Slowy, so long as the impeachment resolution exists. I think such a resolution would exist until the 118th Congress expires on 3 January 25.

    Cheap insurance to buy.

    Also posted at Legal Insurrection.

29. Gregory Harper wrote “Having a President as manifestly unfit for the job as Biden is an insult to the country and everyone who has sacrificed so much to protect her.”

    Yes, and having a clownish fool like Biden or Harris representing us, does not strike fear into the hearts of our global adversaries.

30. Leo,

    I think that the “traditional” reading of that section means that a President could not pardon himself for any acts leading to the impeachment, but until he is actually removed from office, he could pardon himself, or others, for other acts that are criminal under Federal law. The game would be very tricky. Thus, even if the impeachment included a charge of helping Hunter evade the law, Hunter could be pardoned. (I think.)

31. “I sometimes wonder if they’re actually capable of shame. ”

    I don’t wonder at all. I know they are not, just like every other Democrat.

32. Looks like Garland does indeed have a problem:
    “C’mon Joe, come clean with me!! Work with me, here. Is there anything else that you guys are covering up that you’re NOT telling me? That you’re, um, covering up from me? Anything else?
    C’mon Joe, HOW can I protect you if you don’t tell me everything?
    How can I protect you if you’re covering up things from me?? From ME, Joe, ME????

    Joe?
    JOE??
    Damn, he’s fallen asleep on me again…

    (Not a huge problem, though.
    Everyone KNOWS how these things work.
    Everyone KNOW the end-game here.)

33. garland isn’t running anything, lisa monaco and kristen clark are

    https://donsurber.substack.com/p/someone-finally-told-hunter-no

34. The legal analyses I’ve read make this attempted plea deal look astoundingly irregular. This looks to me like an extension of the essential Biden arrogance. We can get away with this because, word of a Biden, we’re wonderful.

35. If I’m repeating what has already been said/mentioned/explained, then apologies.
    The big news here (it seems to me) is that Andrew McCarthy—again—seems to be catching on(!) and his explanation of the latest “Biden”/DOJ FIDO farce is magnificent.
    “The fix was in for Hunter Biden — until a hero judge stepped up”—
    https://nypost.com/2023/07/26/the-fix-was-in-for-hunter-biden-until-a-hero-judge-stepped-up/
    H/T Powerline blog.
    Opening grafs (RTWT):
    “If you are trying to pull off a corrupt deal — one that is actually political theater, but that you are trying to masquerade as law — you’d better make sure the judge is in on it.
    “When it came to that little detail, the Biden administration dropped the ball.
    “Judge Maryellen Noreika instead did her job….”
    (Is McCarthy playing with us??)

36. Hoping and praying that EVERYTHING OOZES OUT…
    “Jill Biden’s ex-husband claims ‘Biden crime family’ has targeted him for years”—
    https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/jill-bidens-ex-husband-slams-biden-crime-family/
    Not just about Biden, but about “Biden” and all of ’em…
    (Yes, I realize that’s a tall order… Call it my Happy Meal?)

    Interesting grafs:
    ‘…“I can’t let them do this to a president that I love and respect. I can’t let them do this to our country,” he added of Donald Trump….
    ‘ “This is why I’ve come forward. This is the only reason I’ve come forward. It’s like I said, nothing about the divorce, no bitterness, but Jimmy, Frankie, and President Biden are very dangerous, and it’s tragic. I can’t let them do what they did to me to President Trump. I can’t do it.”…’

37. https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1684331594864025602

    Another former Fed prosecutor explains the corrupt “deal”

    h/t CFP

38. ‘banana in the tail pipe’ mccarthy just removes all doubt all the time,

39. meanwhile

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1684554660382740481

40. sdferr,
    seems those bast***s were “this close”…
    Amazing.
    Pretty sure they’ll figure out something else just as brazen. Or more so….

    (Here’s a timely little reminder from Jonathan “Off-The-Cuff” Gruber about the things on which “Biden” and his Bogus, Bent, Brutal band of crooks, criminals and goons at the DOJ thrive and DO ALL THE TIME…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo )

41. Sue and settle is an old game in DC. And this is really DC, notwithstanding the Delaware venue. I am glad the judge was awake. They were setting her up to be the chump.

    This is a dangerous tactic for Team Biden. Judge John Sirica blew up the Watergate scandal when he smelled a rat.

42. So which is it?
    Not enough evidence?
    Or simply too much money? (Or too many little piglets suckling at the teat…he DID know how to pass those bucks around, didn’t he…)
    “Feds Drop Campaign Finance Charge Against SBF”—
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/feds-drop-campaign-finance-charge-against-sbf
    Looks like it’s time for another rousing round of…
    “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone….”

    ‘n don’t yeww fergit it!

43. “I am reminded of the rather obvious fact that in the Hunter Biden case the two sides – prosecution and defense – aren’t really opposed to each other.”

    Boom! The significance of this fact needs to be pronounced, explored, and elaborated publicly! Is it possible that this could bear significantly on Congress’ options, or on the validity of any subsequent pardon?

    It isn’t everyday that lawmakers are faced with impeachment-level crimes by the President, the AG, and the head of the FBI – among others!

44. “I am reminded of the rather obvious fact that in the Hunter Biden case the two sides – prosecution and defense – aren’t really opposed to each other.”

    Ps. Isn’t that called a “conspiracy” to defraud the people of the United States?!

45. One more thing: Republicans and conservatives should use the acronym “FARA” at every opportunity in discussing the Hunter Biden non-agreement.

    Foreign Agent Reporting Act violations are what the DOJ used to go after Trump’s people, and more significantly it ties Hunter’s tax woes to the foreign sources of his money! If the DOJ is forced to address FARA, the obvious next step is asking “By the way, exactly what service was Hunter selling his customers?”

46. that only applied to manafort and woolsey adjacent, yes the prisons would be full if they did strict fara enforcement, k street would have to find real work

47. Barry Meislin:

    You will find there is a pattern to McCarthy’s essays. He’s usually quite good these days on everything but January 6th issues and also Trump.

48. OK, I get it. We all have our issues(!)…
    I admire him—I’m not ashamed to admit it—but there’s this huge gap there, a line he thus far has refused to cross…even though all the evidence is staring him right in the face.
    Oh well (time for a cliche break), we got to be thankful for what we DO have, I guess.

49. Related…in which the celebrated straight shoot Sol Wisenberg makes another cameo appearance…
    “Hunter Biden plea deal a scam from the start”—
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hunter-biden-plea-deal-a-scam-from-the-start
    H/T Powerlineblog.
    Key grafs (RTWT):
    ‘…This is from Sol Wisenberg, a former prosecutor for independent counsel Kenneth Starr: “A broad immunity provision (arguably covering every crime Hunter may have committed during the relevant time frame) was hidden in Paragraph 15 of the Pre-Trial Diversion Agreement and this was done by the parties in order that the judge could not accept or reject the broad immunity portion of the overall deal. Totally unprecedented.”
    ‘ Paragraph 15 said the government “agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden … for any federal crimes” involving the behavior covered by both the tax charge agreement and the gun charge agreement. So if prosecutors, for example, decided that Biden was representing a foreign government in the course of his shady overseas financial dealings, he might be charged with violating the law requiring him to register as a foreign agent. But Paragraph 15, buried in the gun charge agreement, would have forbidden that.
    … It seems entirely possible that the DOJ and the Biden defense team were trying to pull a fast one on the judge. Indeed, Wisenberg noted the transcript of the hearing “shows that the judge didn’t even see the key paragraph until shortly before the hearing.” Whatever the case, it didn’t work. Noreika put a stop to the proceedings and ordered both sides to work something else out.

    In the meantime, Biden has now been formally charged with the two misdemeanor tax charges. He pleaded not guilty, even though he had been ready to plead guilty just minutes earlier.

    Now, we have to learn more about what happened. It’s an outrage that the DOJ has not even released the plea agreement and that we are all going on somebody’s cellphone photos of the agreement posted in Politico. (And thanks to Politico for doing it.) “It’s a scandal that it hasn’t been released,” Wisenberg said. “It ought to be released immediately by the attorney general. His failure to release it adds to the suspicion that this is a tainted deal.”…’ [All emphasis mine; Barry M.]

    Suspicion?

50. Big Brother is here. The Thought Police are real. Othering is real.

    Welcome to 1984. When 2024 is stolen, will America have been “fundamentally transformed” as Obama promised?

    Democrat voters are thrilled with the progress.

51. I think conservatives have mostly earned their pessimism.

    Thomas Sowell talks about this, more or less. So does Jordan Peterson. Sowell talks about constrained and unconstrained visions – another way, ISTM, of illustrating the difference between a Hobbesian and a Lockean (Lockeian?) worldview. The constrained vision holder (the conservative) believes that humankind is fallen and humans are prone to taking whatever advantage they can, so we have to set up systems that – in Paine’s formulation, was it? One of the Founders anyway – check and balance one ambition with, and against, another. The unconstrained vision holder (the progressive) believes perfection, utopia, is possible.

    Real life teaches us that the constrained vision is, at minimum, far more reflective of people’s actions. It’s my opinion, as a constrained-vision person, that the constrained vision is reflective of reality. This worldview can be perceived as pessimism.

    Peterson says that conservatives are “pretty good” (ya know how he talks) at implementation, but not good, not nearly as good as the Left, at explaining their vision or ideals. He says he thinks this is because conservatives don’t really need a vision – their default is (this is the way I always put it, which I draw from William James – it’s not how Peterson puts it) “that which works.” An example he gave: when a conservative is challenged to defend marriage, the conservative says, “But… didn’t we all agree a long time ago, basically at the beginnings of human civilization, that marriage is a social good? Why does it need defending?”

    Now, I think that, under pressure from the progressives everywhere in our society, conservatives are getting a lot better at explicating the conservative “vision,” such as it is, as well as at explaining why pragmatism triumphs over utopianism. But we’re still on our back foot, because utopianism is a whole lot more attractive, especially to young people, than “the poor will be with you always” (for example), however smart the young people are, even if they are forced to admit that if you’re going to define poverty by quintiles there will always be a lowest quintile. And the Left has gotten a lot better at couching their utopianism in “pragmatic” terms so it’s not so obviously impossible. Take MMT as a foundation for UBI, for instance. It’s easy to see that a UBI will bankrupt us all if you think money is a real thing (which it is – a real means of exchange that reflects the value people place on real things), so redefine money as some kind of social construct, and Bob’s your uncle!

    This probably belongs in an open thread… Neo, please delete or move this comment if it’s too distracting from your topic!

52. Not Paine, but Madison: Federalist 51, I think:

    The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

53. the dems lie with great relish (and mustard) pick any issue, now government is effectively become antithetical to those means

54. Two weeks ago, I got to meet economist Arthur Laffer
    who is spear-heading a drive for the Tennessee legislature
    to pass property tax increase caps, much like
    Prop 13 did for California.

    He’s quite optimistic about success!

    TJ:

    I missed your comment earlier. Thanks for speaking up.

    I didn’t even know Arthur Laffer was still alive.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>