Garland appoints Weiss as special counsel in the Hunter Biden case

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the announcement.

This could – and should – have happened long ago. Why is it happening now? My first answer is that the House investigations have shed some light on the scope and meaning of Hunter’s activities and on the need for more than a tiny slap on the wrist – or rather, on the need for the appearance of more than a tiny slap on the wrist. Weiss is already somewhat compromised, so he may be just the person to appoint to give that appearance but not that reality.

Then again, perhaps they’re getting ready to replace Joe, and this is part of it.

I do not think this is the beginning of a real reckoning, however. I’m with Jim Jordan here, and I was before I even read what he said:

House Judiciary Chairman Rep Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, blasted Weiss’ appointment in a statement issued through a spokesman.

“David Weiss can’t be trusted and this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family’s corruption. Weiss has already signed off on a sweetheart plea deal that was so awful and unfair that a federal judge rejected it. We will continue to pursue facts brought to light by brave whistleblowers as well as Weiss’s inconsistent statements to Congress.” said Jordan spokesman Russell Dye.

Another possibility is that the appointment of a special prosecutor will be the signal for the Democrats to say the House needs to stop its own investigation because it will interfere with the special counsel’s investigation (or the special counsel’s “investigation”).

And now I see this from Rep. Comer of Kentucky:

“This move by Attorney General Garland is part of the Justice Department’s efforts to attempt a Biden family coverup in light of the House Oversight Committee’s mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals. The Justice Department’s misconduct and politicization in the Biden criminal investigation already allowed the statute of limitations to run with respect to egregious felonies committed by Hunter Biden. Justice Department officials refused to follow evidence that could have led to Joe Biden, tipped off the Biden transition team and Hunter Biden’s lawyers about planned interviews and searches, and attempted to sneakily place Hunter Biden on the path to a sweetheart plea deal,” Comer said.

He continued: “Let’s be clear what today’s move is really about. The Biden Justice Department is trying to stonewall congressional oversight as we have presented evidence to the American people about the Biden family’s corruption. The House Oversight Committee will continue to follow the Biden family’s money trail and interview witnesses to determine whether foreign actors targeted the Bidens, President Biden is compromised and corrupt, and our national security is threatened. We will also continue to work with the House Committees on Judiciary and Ways and Means to root out misconduct at the Justice Department and hold bad actors accountable for weaponizing law enforcement powers.”

Good.

And the MSM will continue to ignore them or write stories from the “Republicans pounce!” angle.

ADDENDUM:

Andrew C. McCarthy has already weighed in:

Gillian, this is a sham. There is no special counsel investigation and there is no Biden investigation. The special counsel regulations, what makes a special counsel special is that you’re a lawyer who’s brought in from outside the United States government, not just outside the Justice Department, outside the government. This U.S. attorney is being appointed notwithstanding that he is an attorney who’s a top official in the Biden Justice Department. And Garland made clear, is going to remain a top official in the Biden Justice Department. This is the Biden Justice Department’s vehicle for maintaining control of an investigation that they are not pursuing. They’ve had the case for five years. They’ve never indicted it. They’re strategically allowing the statute of limitations to run to the point that the 2014 and 2015 conduct, which covers most of the $21 million that the congressional investigation report showed this week, that’s already time barred. And it’s time barred because David Weiss himself decided to let those charges die rather than bring an indictment. They’re not doing anything that you would do if there was an actual investigation. And he can’t be a special counsel because he’s inside the government, and the point of having a special counsel is to bring in someone from outside the government who we can trust to do a credible investigation.

Of course, just being outside the government doesn’t guarantee that, either.

ADDENDUM II:

Here’s what Ace has to say. He points out – among other things – that one of the motives to appoint Weiss may have been to protect Weiss himself from Congressional investigation into Weiss’ involvement in the sweetheart Hunter Biden plea deal and immunity offer.

If you missed how it all shook out, David Weiss hid the covert blanket immunity provisions for Hunter Biden in a separate document, as an addendum to the alternative sentencing agreement for the gun charge. He kept this out of the actual plea deal so that the judge would not see it.

His scheme was to confer blanket immunity on Hunter Biden for all crimes he committed in the past, including those never named or referenced. Immunity deals are read in favor of the defendant by judges — so Hunter, by merely showing this secret codicil could be read as conferring blanket immunity, would in fact have blanket immunity. A judge would say, “Well the prosecutor wrote this sloppily, but we construe these agreements against the prosecutor and in favor of the defendant, so congratulations, you have blanket immunity for all crimes in your entire past!”

But of course this arrangement was not done “sloppily.” David Weiss wanted to give Hunter Biden blanket immunity for all past crimes, but he knew a judge would never, ever agree to that … so he stuffed this Double-Secret Immunity provision into the alternate sentencing memorandum.

The judge asked him (or his prosecutor) if there was any precedent in all of legal history for putting the bulk of the plea deal into a document that was not the plea deal, but a side document, and Weiss (or his prosecutor) had to admit: “No.” There was no legal precedent for what Weiss was attempting to do, give a secret, backdoor Get out of Jail Free for All Past Crimes card, and give it in an alternative sentencing memo to boot.

And that’s why the plea deal fell apart: When the judge asked him directly if he was trying to give Hunter blanket immunity for all crimes he may have committed in the past, Weiss had to claim he wasn’t trying to do that, because then he’d be admitting he was committing the crime, and the disbarrable level vioation, of attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the court. …

And in that context, Merrick Garland now appoints Weiss special counsel, so that he won’t have to answer questions about his own criminal behavior.

So many possible angles here.

Tucker interviews Steven Sund, head of the Capitol Police on J6

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a report on the gist of the interview.

But first, a reminder of Sund’s timeline with the Capitol Police. He was appointed head in June of 2019. After January 6, 2021, he became the fall guy:

In the early morning hours of January 7, Sund issued a statement defending the department’s response. That afternoon, during a televised press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for Sund’s resignation, citing “a failure of leadership at the top” of the department and added that Sund had not contacted her since the event. (An aide to Pelosi later clarified that Pelosi and Sund had spoken on the evening of January 6, but not after that time).

That afternoon, Sund submitted a letter of resignation stating his intention to remain in the post until January 16. The following day, January 8, Sund’s command ended …

Sund later said he regretted his resignation.

So, back to the interview with Tucker Carlson. You can see clips of it at the Town Hall link. Here’s one excerpt:

“On Sunday and Monday, [military leaders] had been discussing locking down the city… because of the concern for violence. You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hill for demonstrations? I do,” Sund said. “You know, who wasn’t told? Me. Instead, on January 4th, what does Miller do? He puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying the various weapons, any weapons, any civil disobedience equipment that would be utilized for the very demonstrations or violence that he sees coming. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

No it doesn’t, and hasn’t for a long time. Nor do we know who else was behind those orders, if anyone, besides Milley (whom Sund also named) and Miller. My guess is that they didn’t do it on their own, although it’s certainly possible they did.

Much more at the link.

Report from Maui

The New Neo Posted on by

I thought I’d highlight this comment from “Jim Irvine,” about the Maui fires. Some of you may not have seen it.

The fires resulted most likely, from downed power lines. Wind was 40+, gusts to 80, both in Lahaina, and in Kula.

The plantations, both Maui Pine, and HC&S, had 35000 acres under cultivation – also they functioned as firebreaks. When the plantations closed, everyone I know realized that dryland forests need to be managed. As others have said, the native grasses don’t exist. Kiawe trees continue to burn, down into the roots, and wind brings up new fires.

Yes, it’s time the state and the county (there are no city governments in Hawaii) need to find a way to replant thousands of acres with drought resistant or fire resistant plants. There exists a company, Mahi Pono, that is planting millions of citrus and other trees. Most are now 3 or 4 feet tall. they plan to plant 40000 acres. Time will tell.

There is irrigation to all of the fields. the plantations used flood irrigation until the late 70’s, early 80’s. after that drip was used, or rather drip tape.

In the last several years, we have had major brush fires, about this same time of year. Leeward sides get little rain, compared to the windward side. The last big one, several years ago, closed the two roads out of Kihei. I was lucky, and was around when Oprah opened the road to up country, so we could escape. If the fire had of continued, most of Kihei would have suffered Lahaina’s fate.

People also don’t understand that there is ONE road, to and from the west (Lahaina) side. the road that goes north, is one lane for much of the time. No guard rails, no markings, just a very small road, with sheer cliffs on one side, and lava and boulders on the other. It takes 3 hours minimum to go from Lahaina to Kahului using this ‘back side’ route. Rental companies prohibit using this route. Going thru the Kahakaloa area, you are 4 feet from people’s front doors. The distance is 25 miles, using the south road. Takes about 40 minutes.

All electric is on poles, newer ones are hurricane poles, steel and very high. Underground is almost impossible, due to the blue rock found on Maui.

To fight the fires, Maui Fire had 100 men. For three major blazes, Kula, Pulehu, and Lahaina. They were out-matched from the get go. They have helos, but those can’t fly in 60mph wind. And when they do, the small buckets make little distance. there are no California type c-130 tankers, anywhere in Hawaii. To be honest, with the wind, which had been blowing for days, like normal trades, but 3 times as strong, it was a disaster from the start.

They fought the Kula fire first, and thought the Lahaina fire was out. When it came back, it went thru Lahaina like a a hurricane. From late night to early morning, a space of a few hours, it completely destroyed Lahaina town. 100-year-old buildings, mostly wood. Spaced very very close together.

Friends i know live on LahainaLuna Rd. From the time they smelled smoke, to the time they were running for their lives, was minutes, literally. Two ran to the harbor, the heat was so intense many people died unable to run anymore. Dozens of people dove into the ocean, which became hell on earth, as the boats in the harbor ignited from the intense heat and embers. Oil coated the water. Many people didn’t make it thru that.

It is terribly terribly sad here. I have lived on Maui for 40 years. Everyone I know has an uncle or aunty, niece or cousin they know who are now homeless, and out of work as well. Unlike California, where people can relocate, it doesn’t work that way here. NO rentals, no places to live.

They will have relocated 24000 tourists out of the island by end of day today. clearing the way to help the thousands of locals who are without food, water, electric, or beds. We live on an island, and it takes time, and massive logistics, to get things here, thru the one port. Maui is a small place, and we all have friends and ohana who are suffering.

It will never be the same here. ever. It was magic when I moved here. That magic has been gone a long time now. This fire, and what will happen after, will destroy whatever is left of the Aloha that drew so many of us here, back in the day.
No one has faith in the current crop of so-called leaders. This state has been Democrat since statehood. Enough said.

The current death toll is 56 I believe. that will increase.

I hope this helps people to understand what it is like here now.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

Another busy news day, so here’s another roundup.

(1) Jonathan Turley has even more to say about the Trump indictment by Jack Smith.

(2) In Ecuador, it seems they kill candidates rather than merely attempt to imprison them:

(3) The FBI killed a man in Provo, Utah, while trying to serve him with a warrant for threatening Joe Biden and other officials. It’s unclear what the exact circumstances were:

On Wednesday morning, Provo resident Craig Robertson was shot and killed by the FBI after allegedly threatening to kill President Biden. ABC4 spoke with his neighbors to get a closer look at how neighbors and friends perceived him.

Robertson was described by neighbors as an older church-going man. He was reportedly in his late 70s, and barely mobile. According to neighbors, Robertson used a hand-carved walking stick just to get out of a chair and move around.

Nevertheless, he had weapons and had threatened – online, anyway – to use them against various lawyers (Alvin Bragg, for example) as well as Biden. We’ll never know whether this was just bluster or an actual intent to harm. Neighbors describe him as a nice guy, although weird, who took care of his disabled grown son.

[A neighbor] Clark said he believes Robertson may have just let himself get carried away on social media.

“I can’t imagine that he could either physically or mentally act on any of that at all. So I think it’s just a tragedy like this, an abject tragedy that got out of hand,” Clark said.

Around 6:15 a.m., FBI agents attempted to serve an arrest and search warrant at his Provo residence when the raid led to the shooting and killing of Robertson.

Did they do the full SWAT-type approach? Did Robertson fire back at them? I wonder whether we’ll ever learn.

(4) Christopher Wray lied to Congress about the extent of the FBI’s war against “traditional” Catholics.

(5) The Biden administration is unfreezing six billion dollars in Iranian assets in exchange for five Iranian-American prisoners. Moral hazard, anyone? The money will supposedly be administered by Qatar and can only be used for “humanitarian purposes, such as medicine or food.” Why do I doubt it will work out that way?

(6) The Band’s Robbie Robertson has died. RIP. I just now learned from reading his Wiki page that Roberton’s mother was of native American (Cayuga and Mohawk) background, and his biological father (who was not his legal father) was Jewish. Interesting combination.

Maui fires

The New Neo Posted on by

The left likes to use all forest fires as opportunities to blame climate change.

But here’s the probable cause for the destructive fires in Maui:

But some experts said they suspect human development on the island is at least partly to blame for the destruction.

Wildfires have quadrupled in Hawaii in recent decades, and many scientists say the culprit is unmanaged, nonnative grasslands planted by plantations and ranchers and others unfamiliar with the island’s native ecosystems. The grass is dry and prone to fires.

“There is no doubt that fire-prone grasses have invaded drier Hawaiian ecosystems and brought larger, more intense fires,” said Peter Vitousek, a professor of earth sciences at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

High winds and low humidity likely contributed to the fires, but officials know little else, said Maj. Gen. Kenneth Hara, commander general of the Hawaii Army National Guard, at a briefing Wednesday.

The high winds were from a distant hurricane.

I wrote a number of posts about wildfires in California that also blamed human habitation encroaching more and more on areas of dry, unmanaged vegetation. This seems to be a constant theme for wildfires these days, as well as arson.

Oh, and by the way, in line with my post about truncated DeSantis quotes …

The New Neo Posted on by

… here’s a comment I just noticed at Instapundit:

Ron deSantis just effectively committed suicide with the Republican base (and independents as well) by endorsing the 2020 election theft.

Which of course Ron DeSantis did not do, as I wrote (with actual quotes) in this post. But the truncated-quote-lie is a very effective tool, as I also wrote, and it’s being used against DeSantis by the Trump forces – and of course by the MSM, which also uses the Trump forces to spread the word although the latter may not recognize that’s what’s happening.

Most people will not get curious enough to look up the context of any quote. Most people will jump on a quote that seems to substantiate what they already thought was the case, rather than check it out. Why do you think that NBC interviewer was so eager to keep asking an asking DeSantis to repudiate the idea that there was fraud in 2020? She was hoping to elicit something to use in a headline that the Trump forces would pick up and spread, something that would hurt DeSantis with the right. And although DeSantis was careful in his answer, the misleading sound bite was generated because – as Karl Popper said – Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.

Although actually, I very much doubt that those accusing DeSantis of rejecting the idea that any election fraud happened in 2020 actually misunderstand what he said, if they in fact read it or heard it. They are purposely misrepresenting it in order to effect a political end. So I will revise that Popper quote to read this way: Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be quoted in a misleading manner in order to harm you: there will always be some who use a truncated quote in order to mislead others for political gain.

Trump refuses to sign pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee

The New Neo Posted on by

As soon as I heard a while back that participation in the Republican presidential debates for 2024 would require entrants to pledge to support the eventual nominee, I was virtually certain that Trump would not be participating and that he would refuse to sign such a pledge. And so this news is no surprise:

Former President Donald Trump said he would not sign the loyalty pledge that is a requirement for participating in the upcoming first Republican presidential primary debate.

Trump has already met the other criteria, including minimum donor and polling thresholds, to participate in the debate set for Aug. 23 in Milwaukee.

But Trump, the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination, said Wednesday night that he would not sign a candidate pledge agreeing to support the eventual party nominee, no matter who it is.

“I wouldn’t sign the pledge. Why would I sign a pledge if there are people on there that I wouldn’t have?” Trump asked in an interview on Newsmax. …

The former president has repeatedly signaled he plans to skip the debates, contending that there was no point in exposing himself to a barrage of attacks from his rivals who are far behind him in the polls.

Of course he doesn’t want to debate in the first place, even if there wasn’t a pledge requirement. Why should he? He’s way ahead because the are so many completely committed Trump loyalists, or so it would appear from the polls. Why would he enter a series of debates – exercises in which he’s never been especially strong – and allow himself to be measured directly against opponents who may be more articulate in that arena? Why would he want to stand next to people who are a lot younger? No, he much prefers rallies where he can do his patented schtick unopposed, in front of adoring fans. No one ever said Trump didn’t have a well-developed ego.

In addition, he wants to keep his options open for running 3rd-party in case he manages to not get the nomination. That way he can act as a spoiler. I think he’d rather Biden were elected than one of his rivals. If that sounds like a harsh judgment on my part, so be it. I have said many times that I think Trump has changed somewhat since his bout of COVID right before the 2020 election, and since the election itself and of course J6 and then his current prosecutions. I believe his always-present narcissism and anger have grown greater, and his judgment poorer. He never was a conventional Republican, and if for some reason he fails to win the nomination in 2024 he will not hesitate to turn on the party that he will feel has so wronged him, and he will want the party to go down with his own ship and have no problem acting as spoiler.

As I’ve said so many times before when I’m predicting something upsetting, I hope I’m wrong about that. But as it is, I think that Trump loyalists will stick with Trump no matter what, and it will lead to the election of Biden or a Biden-replacement-to-be-named-later.

If this scenario ends up happening that way, I think it will be an unforced error and a tragedy.

I suppose Trump’s refusal to participate in the debates might end up backfiring on him, however. If one or several of the GOP candidates are especially impressive, Trump might lose a significant number of his supporters. I suppose that could end up mattering. But from what I see online, the vast majority of his current most loyal supporters would follow him right over that cliff and help elect Biden or Biden’s replacement.

The Biden take is now …

The New Neo Posted on by

… twenty million dollars.

And counting.

A mere bag of shells:

President Biden’s family and their allies brought in at least $20 million from foreign sources, including first son Hunter Biden’s business associates in Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine — some of whom dined with the current commander-in-chief, the House Oversight Committee revealed Wednesday. …

“During Joe Biden’s vice presidency, Hunter Biden sold him as ‘the brand’ to reap millions from oligarchs in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. It appears no real services were provided other than access to the Biden network, including Joe Biden himself,” [James] Comer said in a statement.

Those truncated DeSantis quotes

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve written before about how early I noticed a smear campaign on the right against DeSantis. I use the words “smear campaign” not to describe mere criticism, but attacks based on distortions of his record and his words. Trump was a very active participant, and many of his supporters followed his lead on blogs and in comments. It spread very rapidly and very effectively.

And of course the left is very happy to encourage it and amplify it. Perhaps some of these comments are made by leftists masquerading as someone on the right, but I believe the majority are actually from people on the right.

I have no problem with criticism of DeSantis, and if voters don’t want him as the nominee then that’s the way it is. But I would like people to understand his actual positions, not distortions of those positions by the opposition.

A recent example is the reaction to DeSantis saying in an interview that Biden won the election, and that he also supposedly said that accusations of fraud in the 2020 election are false. I’ve seen headlines to that effect in many places, on both left and right.

A commenter here named “banned lizard” wrote:

I hoped he would bow out gracefully.
Oh, well.

DeSantis: ‘Of course’ Trump lost in 2020

*sigh*

Why anyone would hope DeSantis would “bow out gracefully” I don’t know, unless that person is convinced Trump would win the general and be more effective at swamp-draining than he was during his first term. I think quite otherwise. “Banned lizard” and the rest who would like DeSantis to disappear and leave the field to Trump are entitled to their opinions, of course.

But what I detest – no matter what side does it – is the use of propagandist truncated quotes. I’m quite aware that waging war against that practice is a losing game. The propagandist truncated quote is a very clever tool, used constantly by each side. It’s a way of telling the truth – “So and so said this awful thing!” – while taking the quote out of context in order to lead to a misperception (or at the very least an incomplete, misleading perception) on the part of the listener or reader. I hate it when it’s used against anyone. That very much includes when it’s used against Trump – which happens constantly and to great effect, both from the left and from NeverTrumpers who used to be on the right.

How boring and time-consuming to look up the longer and more complicated story. The press knows this; politicians’ enemies and/or opponents know it, too. Nice guys finish last and all that. Much better to go with the attention-getting, incendiary quote, the one the leads people to the conclusion you want. It works for both Trump’s enemies and for DeSantis’ enemies, on both left and right, and both sides are adept at spinning someone’s words. For Trump-boosters on the right, the theme is DeSantis as betrayer stabbing Trump in the back, as well as DeSantis the wimp, DeSantis the GOPe candidate – despite DeSantis’ record in Florida and in Congress as a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, the most conservative group in the House.

For this recent DeSantis interview, if you look past the headlines you’ll see that the general points DeSantis was making were the following:

(1) Trump lost in the sense that he is not currently president. Biden is.
(2) The 2020 election had multiple issues that make it especially suspect, and several aspects of the rule changes were unconstitutional.
(3) Trump has some responsibility for this in that he approved of Fauci and the lockdowns that led to many of the rule changes, and he also signed a bill that funded ballot mailings.
(4) Trump’s lack of control over the FBI allowed them to suppress the Hunter Biden story.
(5) Republicans and Trump didn’t fight back hard enough against these things when it was all happening, and they need to do that in the future. (In other words, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.)

I have transcribed the relevant part of the interview that most people are talking about, the video of which can be found here:

Q: So could we just put this to bed, so you don’t have to be asked about this a million times – yes or no, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

DeS: Whoever puts their hand on the Bible on January 20th every four years is the winner, and I don’t think the election – and I’ve pointed out in that same quote, and I’ve said this from the very beginning – when they changed the rules for COVID, I think that was wrong. I think some of those changes were unconstitutional. When they do mass mail ballots, I think that’s wrong. When they do ballot harvesting, I think that’s wrong. I think Zuckerbucks was wrong. I think the fact that the FBI was working with Facebook and these other tech companies to censor the Hunter Biden story was wrong. And so I don’t think it was the perfect election; I remember after, the media was saying “This is the most secure election in history.” How could it be the most secure with those millions of mail ballots going out? At the same time, after the election, they were talking about Maduro stealing votes on the voting machines or whatever, and none of those theories proved to be true. But here is the issue that I think is important for Republican voters to think about: why did we have all those mail votes – because Trump turned the government over to Fauci? They embraced lockdowns, they did the CARES Act, which funded mail-in ballots, across the country. Donald Trump signed that bill that funded the mail ballots that all the Republicans have been so concerned about. And also, what the censorship of the Hunter Biden – that was Donald Trump’s FBI that was working that. He didn’t have control over his own government. So with me as the nominee, we won’t let them run circles around us. In Florida we banned ballot harvesting; I think that’s what you should do. If there is ballot harvesting that’s allowed, like in Nevada, we are going to do it too. We’re not going to fight with one hand tied behind our backs. And so I think all of those issues were very problematic, but at the end of the day, Donald Trump helped facilitate that whole set of circumstances.

Q: Okay, but respectfully, you did not clearly answer that question. And if you can’t give a yes or no on whether or not Trump …

DeS: Because …

Q … lost, then how can you …

DeS: Of course he lost …

Q Trump lost the 2020 election …

DeS: Joe Biden’s the president. The issue is I think, what people – in the media and elsewhere – they want to act like somehow this was just the perfect election. So I don’t think it was a good run election, but I also think Republicans didn’t fight back. You’ve got to fight back when that is happening, and you shouldn’t have provided all the money to fund the mail-in ballots.

Will the Biden corruption news matter in the 2024 election?

The New Neo Posted on by

Answer: very little.

The first question is whether Biden will run in 2024. I am hereby going on record as thinking that he probably will be the Democrats’ nominee. That may be a somewhat unusual point of view on the right, but I continue to believe that the removal of Biden and Kamala Harris would be difficult to pull off, and I think that Joe is so full of himself that he would never go voluntarily. As long as Biden polls decently against Trump, he’ll be allowed to stay in there – unless polls show that a replacement like Newsom would be a shoo-in. I don’t think that’s the case at the moment, although it’s hard to find a Newsom vs. Trump poll.

And what of the cascading news about Biden corruption? I doubt that most potential Biden voters care, for two reasons. The first is that the MSM is barely covering it – and when it does, the story tends to be of the “Republicans pounce” and the “there isn’t a scintilla of evidence that Joe was involved” variety. I think most potential Biden voters will read the headlines, nod, and go on with their lives and their Biden votes.

The second reason is that even if such voters are following the Biden corruption news, they perceive Biden as running against Hitler himself. Whom would you prefer: a slightly corrupt pol – “corrupt” in the old-fashioned way of taking money for favors – or Hitler? It’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?