The Hunter Biden pardon dominated a second news cycle, sucking up the vast majority of the oxygen.
Here's a rundown of some of the more significant storylines:
Unreliable Source: David Weiss is the special counsel who investigated and charged Hunter Biden, and yesterday
he was all over the place
insisting that the whole process was handled fairly and that the First Son was not singled out because of who his father
is.
Weiss is not exactly an unbiased source here; we've already pointed out that his handling of the gun offense and the tax
cheating were both... extraordinary, if not unique. But how about we add another data point? There have been 69 people
who have been appointed special counsel/independent prosecutor/whatever name was being used at the time. Do you know how
many of them were tasked with investigating a private citizen, one who did not hold an appointed or elected position of
any sort? One. Only David Weiss' investigation of Hunter Biden meets those criteria. That certainly suggests to us that
the First Son was not treated the way an ordinary American would have been.
Legacy: A whole lot of people yesterday had the "insightful" take that the pardon was a bad idea
because it complicates/stains the President's "legacy" (see
here,
here
and
here
for three examples, among many).
There was no argument or talking point being made yesterday that was stupider than this one. First, presidential legacies
are complicated things, and nobody can really know what will happen for a generation or more. Second, and consistent with
that, Biden's legacy will not come into focus until after he's shuffled off this mortal coil. Third, any person who would
let their last remaining son rot in prison for a few years in service of some amorphous concept like "legacy" is an
a**hole. Joe Biden has his weaknesses, but he is clearly not an a**hole.
Democrats Gone Wild: A great many Democrats, particularly in the Senate,
took Biden to task
yesterday for issuing the pardon. Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) were particularly outspoken.
Forgive us for our ongoing bluntness today, but these people need to shut their pieholes. From a human standpoint, if
they would do the exact same thing in Biden's place, then they are hypocrites for presuming to criticize him. And if
they would not do the same thing, and would let their own kid go to prison under highly questionable circumstances, then
they are jerks. From a political standpoint, a bunch of Democrats taking "principled" stands is not going to change
anyone's mind on whether or not the Democratic Party is corrupt. All it's going to do is give further oxygen to
right-wing talking points.
Ch-Ch-Changes: Another common refrain yesterday
was
"Biden said he wasn't going to pardon his son, and then he did. Argh!"
In some cases, the critic believes that Biden was lying when he made his previous promises not to issue a pardon. We
tend to doubt this. Joe Biden is a veteran politician, and knows how to thread the needle so he can give the answer
people want to hear without actually committing himself. Remember, for example, how carefully he handled the questions
back in 2020 about whether or not he would run for a second term. If he really knew he was going to issue a pardon (or
was likely to issue a pardon) all along, he would have hedged his bets more.
Other critics don't think he was lying, but they do believe he changed his mind, and they don't like that kind of...
indecisiveness, we guess? Truth be told, at least as far back as the John Kerry election, we've never really understood
this notion that a "leader" has to pick a position and stick with it, no matter what. In what other line of work is it
not preferable to adapt one's thinking when one is presented with new information? Sure, if you change positions so
often that people think you are a weathervane—like, say, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—then it's just vulgar
opportunism. But beyond that, isn't it preferable to have a leader who's open to re-examining their thinking?
Suppose the CEO of General Motors said: Our company was founded making gasoline-powered cars and that's who
we are and we're never going to go for this new-fangled electric car-thingie. Nope. We have our principles.
How would the board of directors react?
Our guess is that is what happened here. In particular, do you think it's a coincidence that the pardon came the same
weekend as the Kash Patel story? Donald Trump made it very clear that he was serious, and he was going to staff the
Justice establishment with score-settlers, who care little for such niceties as the Constitution. It is entirely
plausible to us that Biden could tolerate the idea of leaving his son's fate in the hands of Pam Bondi, but that once
Patel entered the equation, it was a bridge too far.
Paging Gerald Ford: Customarily, presidential pardons are pretty specific in their terms.
A person is being pardoned for [specific crime X] or their punishment is being altered to [reduced punishment Y]. The
Hunter Biden pardon, by contrast, is both broad and unspecific, clearing the First Son of any wrongdoing for any federal
offense he might have committed over a roughly 10-year period, from 2014 to 2024. Betsy Woodruff Swan, writing for
Politico,
points out
that there's really only one other pardon like this—the one that Gerald Ford issued to Richard Nixon.
For those who are convinced that the President has committed some great offense against the American way of life, the
breadth of the pardon deepens the extent of his "crime." For us, however, the clear message here is that Biden really
was concerned about the Trump administration targeting his son, very possibly on Trumped-up charges if the existing
charges (the gun offense, the tax cheating) had been wiped off the ledger.
A Fair Point: When Biden issued the pardon, he made a big point of noting that while he
was stepping in to save his son, he otherwise has great confidence in the American justice system. Alexandra Gibbs, also
writing for Politico,
observes
that the President's words and his actions are incongruous. Even if he (or anyone else) says "Well, it's just that you
can't trust the Justice Department under Donald Trump," that's nonetheless an assertion that something at the DoJ is
broken. That, in turn, gives momentum to folks who think the whole system needs an overhaul. Some of those folks think
this means there is a two-tiered system of justice, and that the nation needs to work towards more equitable outcomes.
Others of those folks, by contrast, think that the DoJ is a deeply corrupted instrument of the Deep State, and that it
needs to be blown up and its focus redirected toward the "real" enemies of the nation. It is the latter faction that is
about to be ascendant in the federal government, incidentally.
Another Fair Point: Speaking of a two-tiered justice system, there is little question that
Hunter Biden got different treatment than "Hunter Jones" would have gotten. There is also little question that there are
plenty of people in federal prisons who were treated even more unfairly than the First Son was. Slate's Mark Joseph
Stern
advises
the President that he should spend some fair chunk of the balance of his term wielding the pardon baton, so as to
correct for injustices not involving people named "Biden." To take one example, there are about 40 people on federal
death row. The President says he opposes capital punishment, both as a Catholic and as a politician. He could commute
all of those sentences to life imprisonment, meaning those folks would still not be a danger to society, but they also
would not be in danger of being executed. The next president will work hard to get all 40 killed ASAP, having done a
similar thing during his last term.
In case you are wondering, Biden is not the least generous user of the pardon power, but he's not far off. Here's
how often the 10 presidents prior to him wielded this particular tool:
President
Pardons
Commutations
Other
Total
Donald Trump
143
94
0
237
Barack Obama
212
1,715
0
1,927
George W. Bush
189
11
0
200
Bill Clinton
396
61
2
459
George H.W. Bush
74
3
0
77
Ronald Reagan
393
13
0
406
Jimmy Carter
534
29
3
566
Gerald Ford
382
22
5
409
Richard Nixon
863
60
3
926
Lyndon B. Johnson
960
226
1
1,187
"Other" refers to remissions (waivers of financial penalties) and respites (temporary reprieves usually granted for
medical reasons).
Thus far, Biden has issued 25 pardons and 77 commutations, for a total of 102. So, he's only outpacing the elder Bush.
Well, unless you count the blanket pardon Biden granted to those convicted of marijuana possession. That adds 6,500 more
pardons to his total, and makes him the all-time pardon king (leaving even Franklin D. Roosevelt, with 3,796 pardons,
commutations, and other considerations, in the dust).
And that's the rundown for today. We're in touch, so you'll be in touch. (Z)
This story might be more significant than the Hunter Biden pardon. In fact, it may be WAY more significant.
And yet, it's getting a tiny fraction of the attention. We will leave it to readers to decide for themselves
why that might be (for our part, we can think of numerous possibilities).
This weekend,
we had a question
about whether or not Donald Trump would be able to skim a million dollars here, and a million dollars there, from the
federal budget. Our answer was that it would be difficult and risky, and that there are better ways for him to enrich
himself, using his outside businesses. It took a grand total of 48 hours before we got an object lesson in exactly how
he might do that.
Recall that the Trump family recently got into the crypto game, with a project called World Liberty Financial (WLF).
It is hard to call WLF a business, because the crypto it sells is currently not "currency." The only thing that you get
if you buy it is the right to vote when decisions are made about WLF. And that is not likely to change anytime soon, or
maybe ever, making WLF a rather poor "investment."
In view of this, WLF hasn't been doing too well, and looked like it might be headed for the same graveyard as Trump
Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, etc. However, over the weekend, it
got a huge "investment"
from Justin Sun, who is a crypto entrepreneur (and a Chinese national, incidentally).
Here
is Sun announcing his new purchase:
We are thrilled to invest $30 million in World Liberty Financial @worldlibertyfi as its largest investor. The U.S. is
becoming the blockchain hub, and Bitcoin owes it to @realDonaldTrump! TRON is committed to making America great again
and leading innovation. Let's go!
Sun is generally trying to cultivate an image as a wild and crazy guy who might do something unpredictable at any
time—sort of a Richard Branson on steroids. Readers may have seen the story about the "investor" who bought an
artwork composed of a banana duct-taped to a wall for $6.2 million a little over a week ago? Well, the buyer was Sun,
and he promptly ate the banana.
This used to be called conspicuous consumption.
It brings to mind the
potlatches
practiced by some Native American tribes in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. People
would spend hundreds of hours making intricate blankets and other items and then they
would ceremonially burn them (or give them away) as a statement of: "I am so rich I can afford to lose this valuable property."
Turning back to WLF, let us now point out how the venture is structured. Under
the terms of incorporation,
the first $30 million in income goes into the bank for operating costs. Thereafter, 75% of all income goes right to the
Trumps. Prior to Sun's "investment," WLF's take was $22 million. Add in the Sun money, subtract the "into the bank"
money, and calculate 75% of the residue, and the upshot is that Sun just gave the Trumps a $16.5 million holiday bonus.
Or, if you prefer, a $16.5 million bribe.
Now, what might Sun be interested in here? Maybe he's a MAGA True Believer and just wants to support the movement. Or
maybe this is part of his public branding as a wacky guy who does wacky things. Or possibly this is some lobbying on
behalf of the Chinese government, so as to influence the President-elect's thinking about tariffs. Or maybe, just maybe,
Sun is worried about the fact that
he's been charged with securities fraud
by the SEC, and he could sure use a friend who could help him out with that. Sun says he's not looking for anything in
exchange for his "investment." If you believe that, then please do
contact us,
because we have a banana we'd like to sell you. At only $2 million, it's a bargain compared to what some other bananas
are going for. You do have to provide your own duct tape and wall, however (although we do have a used roll of tape available for $2,500).
In any case, are we crazy in thinking that the incoming president taking what appears to be a $16.5 million bribe is
a much bigger story than the outgoing president letting his kid off the hook? Heck, even the banana art story has gotten
more coverage than the WLF "investment." (Z)
At the outset of last week, there were three House seats still up in the air. Now, the total is one,
and even that one is probably just a day or two from being decided.
The first seat among the trio to be resolved was the one in CA-45. Democratic challenger Derek Tran is up by about
600 votes, and Rep. Michelle Steel (R) concluded that there was no circumstance under which that gap would
be erased. The fact that all the major outlets had called the seat for Tran probably helped bring some clarity to
her thinking. In any event, she has
conceded.
Next up was the seat representing IA-01. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) was up by just 801 votes when the initial counting
was concluded, so challenger Christina Bohannon asked for a recount. As we have noted many times, the votes that change during
a recount are almost exclusively leaner non-votes that become votes and leaner votes that become non-votes. Barring some systematic
problem with the ballot design, or the voting process, it's basically a series of coin flips. And one candidate is not going
to win 800 more coin flips than the other. In fact, once all was said and done, Bohannon picked up... three votes. So,
Miller-Meeks
is now
your official winner.
That means that the only seat that is still unresolved is CA-13, where Rep. John Duarte (R) is trailing Adam Gray
by 143 votes out of a little over 310,000 cast. The good news for Duarte is that, over the weekend, he gained ground
on Gray, picking up about 80 votes. The bad news is that time is running out. The only remaining ballots are ones that
need to be "cured," and volunteers for both campaigns spent the Thanksgiving weekend knocking on doors trying to reach
the casters of those ballots. After so much effort has already been expended, the Duarte camp is not likely to be able
to find another 143 uncured voters, especially since the deadline for certifying the results is supposed to be today.
So, this one is almost certainly going to go to the Democrat Gray.
Assuming Gray does hold on, then there will be 220 Republicans in the House and 215 Democrats. And even if Gray
stumbles at the finish line, there will be 214 members of the blue team. Interestingly, and we have not seen anyone who
has pointed this out, either way it means the Democrats will have more members in the 119th House than they had at any
time during the meeting of the 118th House. In the 118th, the Democrats largely alternated between having 212 and 213
members, dropping to 211 on one occasion for about a month (from the death of Bill Pascrell on Aug. 21, 2024, until the
seating of LaMonica McIver as the replacement for Donald Payne on Sept. 18, 2024).
Meanwhile, the Republican Conference in the 118th House started at 222 members, dropped as low as 217 members, and
mostly hovered around 219-220 members. Assuming Gray wins, then the 119th House will have 220 Republican members. So,
the cat herding will be just a bit harder this time than it was last time (because more Democrats, same number of
Republicans). And, of course, the moment the 119th House convenes, 3 Republicans will vanish, as Matt Gaetz' resignation
becomes official, and Elise Stefanik and Mike Waltz will depart for jobs in the Trump administration. So, Speaker Mike
Johnson will start with a 217-215 "advantage."
As we have pointed out,
that will mean that every Republican member will have a veto for the next several months, as long as the Democrats stay
united. Good luck with that, Mike (and keep reading). (Z)
As we note, the current
score
on the House is 214 D, 220 R, with CA-13 still hanging in the balance, but likely to go Democratic, for a final tally of
215 D, 220 R. Subtract the three exiting GOP members, and it's 215 D, 217 R. With a 1-vote margin of error, at least for
the first 100 days or so, it means that Mike Johnson will get to deal with 217 Joe Manchins.
Most House Republicans will follow Johnson's orders, but most doesn't do the job. All does the job.
There are at least five groups and things Johnson will have to worry about, and some of them will be issues even beyond
the three special elections that will return his majority to 220-215. Here is a brief
rundown
of the lay of the land:
The Freedom Caucus: These folks are extremely right wing and also want deep cuts in government spending, especially in
areas they don't like. For the first 100 days any one of them could torpedo any of Donald Trump's plans. Even with a
220-215 House, it would take only three votes to kill budget and other bills. Three hard-line Republicans on the House
Rules Committee, Reps. Thomas Massie (KY), Ralph Norman (SC) and Chip Roy (TX), have often killed bills they didn't like
in committee in the past. Now they will have the power to kill bills from all committees by voting with the Democrats
against them. They are not likely to give up this power without a fight, and Johnson can't threaten them with removal
from that Committee (which would cause the FC to go bonkers and move to vacate the chair).
The SALT Caucus: Republicans from high-tax states like California, New Jersey, and New
York want to expand the state and local tax (SALT) deduction from the $10,000 set in the 2017 tax cut law. Trump revels
in the limit because it selectively punishes well-off suburban voters, many of whom have become Democrats. The problem
for Johnson is that it now takes only one member from a SALT-y district to throw sand in the gears. Threats of a primary
from the right are essentially threats to hand the seat to the Democrats, which could lead to a Democratic majority in
Jan. 2027. Neither Trump nor Johnson wants that, so these people will probably need to be placated. But raising the SALT
cap will mean a bigger budget deficit, something the Freedom Caucus is wildly opposed to. Republican Reps. Young Kim
(CA), Mike Lawler (NY), and Jeff Van Drew (NJ) are going to lead the SALT march.
The Ambition Caucus: Quite a number of Republican representatives are planning to run for
higher office in 2026. For example, Kevin Hern (OK) and Byron Donalds (FL) are likely to run for the governor's mansion
in their respective states. Members don't have to resign to run, but once they have announced, they will be out on the
campaign trail a lot and may miss many votes. With only 220 votes, if five Republicans miss the vote, then it goes down
(of course, some Democrats may also seek higher office, balancing things out somewhat). It also matters where the
missing representatives are from. Someone running for office in Virginia can pop back for a vote more easily than someone
from Oklahoma.
The Defense Hawk Caucus: Some House Republicans have not drunk the Kool-Aid and still
oppose Vladimir Putin and Godless Communism. They do not want Putin to take over Ukraine and will insist on including
funding for Ukraine in the budget (in part because they know the money is actually spent in the U.S. by giving orders to
defense contractors to produce weapons for Ukraine). They could refuse to vote for a budget that does not include money
for Ukraine. In particular, the incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), is a
noted defense hawk. He is a supporter of aid for Ukraine and there is no easy way around him.
The Deficit Caucus: A number of conservative House members oppose growing the federal
deficit. They want it to be smaller. They think just borrowing money is unsustainable. Of course, they keep voting for
tax cuts for rich people, which just increases the deficit. But then they can argue spending has to be cut. Any bill
that has the effect of increasing the deficit is going to get close scrutiny from them. A project to round up and deport
millions of people, for example, will be very, very expensive, and this bunch of skinflints won't like the fiscal impact
and might demand major cuts elsewhere in the budget to finance the deportations.
The Actuarial Caucus: Three members of the 118th Congress died during the 2-year stretch.
There will be 13 members of the new Congress older than 80. Luckily for Johnson, the majority of those are Democrats.
Still, even a serious illness that keeps a member away for weeks could be a problem when the margins are so small.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was one of the greatest cat herders in the past century. We may soon find out if Johnson's
skills can match hers. (V)
Oops, we accidentally did this out of order. It was supposed to be Kamala Harris first, then Donald Trump. Oh, well.
Here, for your viewing pleasure, are half a dozen reader suggestions for what Santa should bring the VP this year:
K.P. in San Jose, CA: A month of pure joy, and a plate full of crispy latkes on Christmas night.
L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands:
A.J.C. in Williamsburg, VA: This is so easy! Kamala needs only one thing! A blanket
presidential pardon signed by Joe Biden. In fact, I think that's the only gift that Joe should be giving to everyone on
his Christmas list this year. He needs to make sure that everyone who worked in his administration has one, especially
the ones with big public profiles. We absolutely can't trust that the 2nd Trump administration won't be going after the
opposition. And while Joe's at it, he should definitely give one to Hunter. I wish I could complete my Christmas
gifting this easily! Pardons for everyone!
Z.K. in New York City, NY: A slate of faithless electors.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: A lifetime supply of personalized stationery with the words "I told you so!" emblazoned on it.
K.B. in Edgewater, NJ:
Tomorrow, it is Joe Biden, followed by J.D. Vance, and then Mike Johnson. There is still time, if readers
have suggestions. (Z)