Latest News

October 11, 2022

With the WASHINGTON POST reporting that federal agents believe there’s enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with a couple of crimes --- never mind all the OTHER crimes, the ones involving his family --- former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday to remind us about something.

This case, as a matter of national security, is so important, she said, “yet they choose not to get a special prosecutor...Legally, that is an actual conflict, because, as we know, the U.S. attorney reports to Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland reports to Joe Biden. Joe Biden and his kids are now witnesses in any case against Hunter Biden. It’s really unbelievable, legally, to me that that has not been dealt with and there’s not a special prosecutor on this case.”

It’s true that even if Hunter were to be charged only with the crime of lying on his gun application, members of his family, including his father, might be called as witnesses concerning their knowledge of his drug addiction at the time he filled out the form.

Merrick Garland, as attorney general, could –- and should –- appoint a special counsel. The glaring conflict of interest essentially demands that he do it. But, of course, a special counsel investigation would quickly expand into President Biden’s role in Hunter’s global business deals and all the national security implications of that. Garland will not let that happen. That's also because he reports to Joe Biden.

Next in Hunter news, if you’ve ever forced yourself to risk a terminal case of brain-fry and watch MSNBC, you won’t be surprised to hear that just this Friday, one of their analysts said it was “perfectly legal” for Hunter Biden to take money from foreign governments. Yes, he actually said that.

“Justice Correspondent” Ken Dilanian said this to Joe Scarborough:

“In terms of, like, corruption, conflict of interest, we’ve never heard a hint that there were potential criminal charges there because Hunter Biden wasn’t an officeholder. It was perfectly legal for him to take money from foreign governments, as long as he wasn’t inappropriately giving them information from his family or something. There’s no hint of that.”

He acknowledged that “it looks terrible” –- no kidding –- but still stressed the point that Hunter broke no laws.

It was “perfectly legal” because he “wasn’t an officeholder”? Out of curiosity, we checked to see if Dilanian has a law degree, and it turns out –- surprise! –- that he does not. He studied political science and history and began working in journalism immediately upon graduation. So if we want to see where Hunter stands legally, perhaps we should turn not to a reporter on MSNBC but to an actual attorney and law professor, such as Jonathan Turley. refreshing. Turley speaks of the very narrow scope of a possible indictment of Hunter Biden as a “controlled demolition” of the much bigger scandal. I’d think the force of the entire scandal would be closer to that of an atomic bomb. Here’s the column Turley wrote about the cooperation that might be needed to carry off that controlled demo. (By the way, he agrees with Pam Bondi on the “overwhelming need” for a special prosecutor.)

Turley refers to “the recent disclosure [of] open influence peddling by Hunter, referencing access to his father.” Can you say “illegal”? He even coordinated trips with his father on Air Force Two to arrange business meetings with associates.

According to Turley, “Even if the ‘Justice’ Department is set to decline charges linked to foreign money transfers or influence peddling, there is the obvious omission of charges under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). The ‘Justice’ Department has used FARA aggressively in past prosecutions such as that of Trump associate Paul Manafort. The omission of a charge under FARA would be glaring and troubling in light of those past prosecutions.”

(We would note that Manafort “wasn’t an officeholder.”)

This case is so big, Turley suggests the administration is trying to collapse it “by triggering a smaller explosion.” He says they’ve already downgraded the Hunter case “from a Category 5 hurricane to a tropical storm.” Of course, one way to facilitate this minimization is through helpful reporters who try to play down what Hunter has done.

Dilanian may not be an attorney, but he reports on intelligence and national security for NBC News, so one would think he’d be looking much more critically –- through a national security lens –- at what Hunter did. Perhaps he’s done that in other broadcasts, though, frankly, that would be surprising, especially if it were for MSNBC.
So take what he says with a grain of salt; in 2017, he reportedly got into hot water at the LA TIMES for running his stories about drone strikes past the CIA press office before submitting them for publication, not just to check accuracy but to ascertain their effect on public opinion. We’ve got way too many so-called “journalists” trying to tweak public opinion these days.

More Stories

IRS may have been “weaponized” against journalist Taibbi