Tag Archives: Hunter Biden

The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

2 Replies

[+Homage to Harry Litman]

This is not how I had planned to spend this day, but I can be silent no longer. This morning I read the latest USAToday hit-piece on President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, to protect him from the vengeance that has been promised by the incoming Trump administration and the compliant Supreme Court that has granted the President of the United States king status, free of criminal responsibility to pervert the Department of Justice to serve the personal goals of the president rather than do its statutory jobs with political neutrality.

I have stated previously my belief that the media’s obeisance to Trump will cost it, and the country, dearly. Now, we see plainly the media doing exactly what experts in authoritarianism, like Yale Professor Timothy Snyder, have repeatedly warned against – obeying in advance. If they believe that someone of Trump’s ilk is going to give them credit for this, they are ignoring the lessons of history and will come, too late, to regret their cowardice.

I subtitled this piece regarding Harry Litman, who, after starting to write, I chanced to discover had resigned from the Los Angeles Times in protest to the editorial interference of its billionaire owner and Trump supporter. For those interested, Mr. Litman’s statement can be read here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/harrylitman/p/why-i-just-resigned-from-the-los?r=4gbf6r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Everyone should read it.

Returning to my own thoughts inspired by USAToday’s attack on Biden, the title implies there is a “debate” over Biden’s legacy resulting entirely from his “broken promise” not to pardon his son. To clarify, the author, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is, as near as I can tell, not a relation to Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump bootlicker of same last name. An odd coincidence, but there it is.

 The article notes that “The backlash against the 82-year-old lame-duck chief executive was predictable, swift and bipartisan,” implying the criticism is justified and widespread. The first “authority” cited is Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congressthing from Georgia, famous for belief in QAnon and other phantasmagorical conspiracy theories, screamer during Biden’s SOTU speeches, supporter of Matt Gaetz, and, well, you probably know the rest.

But, as if there were no history, notable Democrats have also jumped on the “let’s self-immolate” bandwagon. Adam Schiff is cited, claiming “It sets a bad precedent.”

Ramaswamy goes on to note that Biden’s pardon has “precedent-setting nature” that “could shape how he is remembered for years to come” because, according to Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian and professor of history at Rice University, he said he wouldn’t do it and “There’s nothing positive about it.”

There are plenty of positive aspects to it, to which I will return after I finish excoriating this execrable piece of journalistic nonsense. The author, for example, claims that virtually universal condemnation of Biden’s about-face on the pardon “make clear that his legacy will be defined by his two sons – and his nemesis Donald Trump, whose two nonconsecutive terms as president will serve as bookends to Biden’s single term in office.”

I suggest, with full disrespect, that Ms. Ramaswamy and the USAToday editors need to read some more history. And, after noting that Biden stepped in after the catastrophic failure of Trump’s administration to effectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, promising to and “mobilizing vaccination shots and instituting an unpopular mask mandate. Over time, COVID deaths declined, Biden lifted the mask mandate, and Americans went on with their lives.”

But that apparently counts for nothing because “Biden’s presidency also was at times rocked by turmoil. Inflation rose to a 40-year high [not plausibly charged to Biden], 13 soldiers died during the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan [a deal made by Trump], migrants poured into the country illegally along the southern border [Trump stopped the bipartisan deal to address this], and wars in Ukraine [Putin, Trump’s idol, started that war, not Biden] and the Gaza Strip [chargeable to Biden, really???] “tested the nation’s influence on the world stage.”

Well now, considering that Trump’s legendary ignorance and refusal to learn about foreign affairs, almost certain conspiracy with Russia to get elected and with whom he treasonously shared U.S. state secrets, any testing of the nation’s influence, if chargeable to anyone, is chargeable to Trump. And, to quote from the line in Natural Born Killers (movie), “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

The author’s bias is further evident in the claim that Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump dealt a “serious blow to Biden and his legacy since many of his accomplishments in office will almost certainly be wiped out by Trump when he returns to the White House in January.”

The reality is that history, if there is any after Trump’s presidency, will condemn Trump’s legacy for destroying the progress made under Biden’s presidency. If you don’t know about the American economy under Biden, you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t realize what a bunch of losers and lunatics Trump is proposing to populate his cabinet and bring down the federal government, you understand nothing about how this country is governed.

It’s more than a little curious that a historian like Douglas Brinkley is so quick to make sweeping interpretations of current affairs when historians have always warned us against premature judgments about historical realities. Maybe he just likes seeing his name in the media. Equally disturbing in a piece of this nature, is the author’s observation, delivered without context, that Trump’s “attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden resulted in his first impeachment, which ended in a Senate acquittal.”

Yes, Trump was acquitted but he wasn’t found “not guilty” of the acts he obviously took (it’s on the tapes and everyone with a functioning mind knows what he did); he was “acquitted” because the Republicans in the U.S. Senate refused to do their duty, refused to hear evidence or witnesses of Trump’s traitorous conduct because they feared his vulgar retributive response. The author ignores those facts because they conflict with the narrative flow and, besides, Trump would not approve.

Finally, the author gets around to the reality of the Hunter Biden situation. Quoting the ever-quotable historian Brinkley:

If it had been a different type of Republican being inaugurated president in January, Biden may have thought twice. But the thought of Trump in the end having control over his son’s future in a federal prison was a bridge too far.

Indeed. Imagine that Joe Biden leaves office with his son exposed to Trump’s promise revenge along with the useless space-occupying Congressman Comer also promising to continue pursuing Hunter after years of fruitless and costly investigations into the Biden family. Republicans smell blood in the water and like the sharks they are, figured Hunter was an easy target once Joe Biden was out of the way. What would be said about Biden then? That he failed to protect his family in the face of multiple overt threats by Trump and his vengeance army? That he was a “bad father?” Worse?

Nevertheless, Ramaswamy persists with a roundup of Democrats eager to get their names in the press by criticizing Biden’s decision to protect his son, including Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.

Finally, the author notes, without acknowledgment, that her earlier statement about the “unprecedented” nature of the Biden pardon was exaggerated if not outright false:

…many [presidents], like Biden, have faced criticism for how they’ve used that power. Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon probably cost him a second term. Bill Clinton was pilloried for granting a series of pardons in his final hours in office, including one for his brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. Trump pardoned dozens of people during his first term, including his son-in-law’s father and some of his closest allies who were convicted of crimes ranging from financial fraud to witness tampering and more.

Ah, but Ramaswamy notes that “Biden … is the first president to pardon one of his children” while dragging into the story the unnecessary criticism of a Trump-appointed judge who gratuitously offers his judgment that “nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.” Another example of a Trump-appointed judge speaking about a political matter that is none of his business. Maybe he’s looking for a Trump appointment to a higher court. We’ll know soon perhaps.

Finally, Ramaswamy drags in Melissa DeRosa, identified as a “Democratic strategist and author” bitching that Biden’s protection of his son from the promised vengeance of Donald Trump and his army of mindless sycophants was somehow going to contribute to the further splintering of the Democratic Party. Until now I though Ms. DeRosa was bright and committed to the country’s welfare. She was the “right hand” to Governor Cuomo during the pandemic that rages through New York in 2020, killing tens of thousands. Cuomo, you will recall, was forced to resign in the face of accusations of sexual misconduct, about which one hopes Ms. DeRosa was ignorant. Why she would choose now to say that Biden’s decision to protect his son against Trump creates questions Joe’s standing as an “honorable man with integrity” is beyond my ability to understand.

You might think from all this that Joe Biden acted arbitrarily to free his son of the potential consequences of an objective, independent prosecution directed by politically neutral law enforcement. In fact, however, the reality is that Trump has sworn vengeance against Joe Biden and his family. Anyone with a reasonably objective mind should be able to understand that the President had good reason to protect his son from what Trump credibly promised.

As Harry Litman noted in his resignation announcement cited at the outset of this post, Trump is exactly what you see. With the help of his appointed judges, the inexplicable reticence of Attorney General Garland, and the unprecedented interference of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump-appointed majority, Donald Trump has escaped accountability for his many crimes before and during his presidential terms. Now that he has been given a free hand to exact retribution against his perceived enemies, he has made clear his determination to use that power to the fullest.

Given that reality, I salute Joe Biden for protecting his family to the extent he can by using the power the Constitution gives him (no exceptions for President’s family members and plenty of precedent). There was no reason for Biden to leave his son at the mercy of a criminal like Donald Trump so his “legacy” could remain untouched. Like all presidents, who occupy the most difficult job in the world, there are many grounds for criticism for those who never stood in his shoes. In my book, Joe Biden has no reason to be concerned about how history will judge him in relation to his predecessors and successors. He has much to brag about, and his decision to protect his son is among those difficult decisions of which he should be most proud.

 

 

 

Shame on the New York Times

1 Reply

The comments are closed, or I would have posted this in the New York Times following the frontpage article that somehow the Times believes is part of “all the news that’s fit to print,” the legendary creed it places on every print edition. The article by Katie Rogers, “a White House correspondent, covering life in the Biden administration, Washington culture and domestic policy” since 2014, is entitled, The Peril in Biden’s Inability to Say No to Son. The online version is titled differently: President Biden Keeps Hunter Close Despite the Political Peril. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/10/us/politics/joe-biden-hunter-relationship.html Both titles imply that Hunter Biden somehow controls or exerts undue influence over the President.

I have searched this 2,400-word piece for “news,” something that was not previously reported and widely known about Hunter Biden and his problems along with President Biden’s continuing struggle to support his son and hold his family together following tragedy after tragedy. I searched again and again. Nothing. No news. Nothing not known before.

The article begins with the collapse of Hunter’s Justice Department plea deal, leading the President to a state of “sadness and frustration” according to “several people close to him” and “more than a dozen” who spoke only anonymously. [I counted at least 7 references to unnamed sources for the various slights and jabs laced through the piece.] Predictably, this will lead to renewed Republican attacks that, even though lacking any factual basis, Ms. Rogers asserts leave “no doubt that Hunter’s case is a drain, politically and emotionally, on his father and those who wish to see him re-elected.” The link is to a CNN article about a poll asserting that, largely along partisan lines, a majority of Americans think President Biden was inappropriately involved in Hunter Biden’s business affairs. Yet, later in the article,

Mr. Biden does not believe that Republican attacks on his son will hurt him with voters as he runs for re-election in 2024, and there is data to suggest that is largely true, at least for now. A June poll by Reuters and Ipsos found that 58 percent of Americans would not factor Hunter Biden into their decision in the presidential race.

“At least for now.” Of course, in case you missed it, Ms. Rogers wants to be sure you don’t think this sad story isn’t going to affect the election.

And when it comes to polls, you can pick your poison. See Jennifer Rubin’s excellent piece on polling in Sunday’s Washington Post. I don’t write about polls. You shouldn’t bother with them, either.https://tinyurl.com/mpj94udv

The Times piece then turns to the family history, Hunter, Beau, all of it, 830 words, more than a third of the entire article, rehashing Hunter’s descent into addiction.

The article then goes subtle as a sledgehammer to the head. It describes Hunter traveling with the President on Air Force One. The piece notes that “No hard evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden personally participated in or profited from the business deals or used his office to benefit his son’s partners while he was vice president.” It’s likely true, of course, as the article suggests, that Hunter used his father’s prominence to create the “illusion” of access, but that is on Hunter, not on the President. And the “revelation” is not new or surprising that someone in Hunter’s position and condition would try to exploit his “connections.”

The article then turns back to Hunter’s life in California and his continuing struggles, another 357 words to be sure we know what a problem Hunter is. Like father like son. You know the cliché. If Hunter is bad, Joe Biden must also be bad.

Then, the final knife in the President’s back:

Last month, when asked by reporters at Camp David about the special counsel investigation into his son, Mr. Biden’s response was terse. “That’s up to the Justice Department,” Mr. Biden said, “and that’s all I have to say.” Mr. Biden then left Camp David and rode aboard Air Force One to Lake Tahoe for vacation. Hunter joined him there.

That time, the president’s son flew commercial.

End of article. Very cute.

What possible purpose in “all the news that fit to print” could this piece serve other than to remind readers yet again that (1) Hunter Biden has a lot of problems, (2) Republicans are trying to pin those problems as evidence of corruption by the President (because, you know, the Republicans are supporting a twice-impeached, four-time felony indicted man named Trump to lead the country). And, oh yes, (3) the President loves his son despite his problems but cannot solve those problems, yet still supports him. No news. Zero. Yet, the Times puts it on the Sunday front page and devoted an entire page, replete with photos, inside the paper.

Why? The continued undermining of President Biden by publishing this no-news hit-piece is obvious and obnoxious. The editors of the New York Times should be ashamed that they published this attack and, worse, prominently featured it on the front page of the Times where it would garner the most attention.

The Hunter Biden Circus – Bring in the Clowns

Leave a reply

Disclaimer: Since my earliest days as a lawyer, when I was assigned a few times by judges in the District of Columbia to perform pro bono (free) defense services for indigent criminal defendants, I am not, and have never been, a criminal defense attorney. But I do know a few things. Believe. Or not.

The circus surrounding the charges against Hunter Biden has its roots in the fact that he is the President’s son and Republicans are desperate to undermine the President who appears, for the present, destined to obliterate the criminal traitor Donald Trump on whom the Republican Party has pinned its hopes for 2024. Otherwise, Hunter Biden’s alcohol and drug-fueled misbehavior would be just another relatively small and unimportant criminal case against a person who, sadly and despite having all the advantages of being the son of a prominent politician, could not control himself. Addiction will do that. A Nobel Prize awaits the person who figures out how addiction works and how its deadly work can be derailed. But until then, it’s clear that the interest in the Hunter Biden case stems from one source.

Hunter Biden has been under investigation for years when the Trump administration was in charge and Trump’s personal lackeys were in charge of the Department of Justice, the FBI and more. In the ordinary boring course of such investigations, absent the connection to Joe Biden, the charges brought would most likely resemble those in the present case and a plea bargain would have emerged. Something went terribly wrong in Hunter Biden’s case and there is plenty of blame and reason for suspicion to go around.

Reports indicate that “whistleblowers” who formerly worked at DOJ have claimed their attempts to tie Hunter to the President were stymied. Yet, the man in charge of the process at DOJ says otherwise. He, like the judge assigned to Hunter Biden’s case, was appointed by Donald Trump (odd how that keeps happening). US Attorney David Weiss led the entire investigation and has been clear that there were no restraints on him from any source.

Little clarity surrounds the “restraints” claimed by the “whistleblowers” who arguably are carrying water for Rep. Jim Jordan and other MAGA Republicans whose main goal is not “justice for Hunter Biden” but pinning a corruption charge on President Biden. David Weiss has offered to testify before Jordan’s House committee but only in public and not behind closed doors as, curiously, the Republicans desire. Jordan’s approach would, of course, enable Republicans to make irrefutable claims about Weiss’s testimony, a ploy that he, despite presumed loyalty to Trump, is wise to.

The other major and possibly unique circumstance surrounding the plea deal and sentencing hearing is that the MAGA Republicans filed their own brief on Hunter Biden’s sentencing, urging the judge to reject it. And she did. Not, ostensibly, because of the claims of political interference by Biden loyalists at DOJ, but because of a serious oddity: an asserted concern raised by the judge on her own initiative, ostensibly, about the constitutionality of the plea deal’s secondary issue: Hunter Biden’s purchase of a gun when, as an admitted drug addict, he was forbidden from doing so.

Then, under probing from the judge about possible other charges against Hunter for illegal foreign lobbying under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, it was revealed that the Biden defense team and the prosecutors had different understandings of Hunter’s future exposure to such charges. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the remarkable, astounding fact that is apparently at the root of the plea deal’s rejection, at least for now, by the judge.

If the judge’s questioning was motivated only by her appropriate interest is assuring that the parties had a complete meeting of the minds on the plea agreement, without regard to the political pressure brought to bear by the Republican Congressmen calling for rejection, the judge cannot be faulted. On the other hand, she is a Trump appointee and the issue of possible unconstitutionality of the plea deal as structured seems a bit of a stretch. We’ll likely never know.

I am personally very troubled, deeply, at the idea that a Congressional committee of partisan politicians injected itself into a criminal proceeding. I would be equally troubled if a committee of Democrats intervened in a criminal proceeding involving a Republican. We’ll never know what influenced the judge who reportedly said she had not digested the entire brief from the Congressional committee but signaled her intention to consider it.

One report characterized the judge’s concerns this way:

Noreika expressed frustration that the two sides structured the tax and gun plea deals in a way where she would need to approve the gun deal but had no powers to approve or reject the tax agreement.

The diversion agreement – which isn’t often submitted to a judge – has a provision that says if there is a dispute over whether Hunter Biden breached the terms of the deal, it would go to the judge for fact-finding. Noreika questioned why it would “plop” her in the middle of a deal she didn’t have a say in, and potentially block the Justice Department from bringing charges, a function of the executive branch.

[https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/26/politics/takeaways-hunter-biden-plea-hearing/index.html] I don’t understand the judge’s attributed remark that she had no say in the deal when the deal was before her for acceptance or rejection.

Beyond the judge, however, it is clear to me that one of counsel’s most important functions in a case like this is to suss out every possible issue that could come up, every possible thing that could do awry. This is as true of the prosecutor as it is of the defense counsel. Here, apparently, both failed in this critical responsibility. They made a deal that was incomplete, and the omitted factor was, I believe, obvious. A plea deal is a settlement and a central issue in every settlement is the question of its completeness. Does it resolve all issues? In civil settlements, it is typical to include the broadest possible language showing that all issues between the parties arising out of the dispute are resolved. No less is this to be expected in a criminal plea bargain.

Yet, in Hunter Biden’s case, the parties did not, apparently, consider the issue of future charges for other offenses even though the potential of such charges was known to and should have been obvious to both sides.

The end result is that there is no end result. Hunter Biden ended up pleading “not guilty” to the current charges while the judge considers her options. Presumably, the defense and prosecution will reconvene to negotiate further. Time will tell.

So, who was responsible for this mess? I don’t know and decline to speculate. As with the charges that appear to be imminent against Donald Trump and his many co-conspirators for the January 6 insurrection, the false electors gambit and the fully documented attempts to overturn the election in Georgia, we will have to remain patient for a while longer. Serious and expert observers of this case share your, and my, amazement that this issue was not resolved before the plea hearing. https://www.rawstory.com/hunter-biden-2662485694/

A final observation: one issue that has been raised in the press is whether the agreed charges against Hunter Biden are inappropriately “light” given the offenses involved. One’s views of this question are most heavily influenced by one’s political partisanship. I caution only this: plea deals are just that. Each side assesses the strengths and weaknesses of its case, and each side gives something to achieve settlement.

Sentencing is inherently difficult and often results in terms that seem sharply disparate. The most prominent examples lately are the various impositions on January 6 insurrectionists who were found guilty, by trial or plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. There are many reasons for this. If you are really interested in how this happens, read Noise, by behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize-winning author of Thinking, Fast and Slow), Olivier Sibony and Cass Sunstein where the variability of judgments by judges, doctors and others is analyzed in shocking detail.