Main page    Dec. 02


Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI

---

I Beg Your Pardon?

For months, if not years, the question has been whether or not Joe Biden would pardon his son Hunter at 11:59 a.m. on January 20 of next year. Turns out, the issue was not "whether" but instead "when," as the President issued a statement late in the day yesterday announcing that he was granting his son a full and unconditional pardon for any offenses committed between January 1, 2014 and... yesterday.

As a reminder, there were two criminal matters that the First Son faced and that he is now free and clear from. The first is that, while he was on a drug bender, he bought a gun. The form you fill out has a line where you have to affirm you are not using illicit drugs. There's some room for parsing exactly what it means to be "using illicit drugs" (e.g., "how recent does the use have to be?"), but Biden's "no" answer should probably be considered a lie. The second offense is that he underpaid his taxes by seven figures (about $1.4 million) and got caught by the IRS.

Was the father right to pardon the son? We think there are four arguments that point to "yes." Here they are, from strongest to weakest:

1. Hunter Jones, Part I: Both of the things that the younger Biden got popped for are definitely things that people can go to prison for. However, the gun offense is based on a law of dubious legality, a law that may soon be struck down. Further, on the other occasions when that law has been used against a felon, it was as an aggravating factor in some other crime (e.g., the person lied about their drug use, got a gun as a result of their fraud, then used the gun to commit a robbery). Biden did nothing criminal with his gun, and actually disposed of it a couple of weeks after purchase. As to the tax fraud, it was pretty serious. However, as with so many white-collar (and white-person) crimes, it tends not to result in prison time if the person fesses up and makes restitution. Or, if it does, it's slap-on-the-wrist prison time, like a couple of weeks at a Club Fed.
   
   The point here is that there is a very, very strong case to be made that if this man were Hunter Jones, instead of Hunter Biden, he would not have gotten a fraction of the attention, and would not have been facing years in prison. The son should not pay for the "sins" of the father (i.e., being a Republican whipping boy), and so on that basis alone, the pardon is justified.
   
   
2. Hunter Jones, Part II: There are several reasons that the Founding Parents granted the power of the pardon to the president, and one of those was to allow for gross miscarriages of justice to be corrected. If Hunter Biden really was named Hunter Jones, and the White House became aware that he was being hit with a punishment that far exceeds what is typical for his crime, and that he's cleaned up his act since his lawbreaking days, it would be an appropriate use of the pardon power to correct that injustice.
   
   
3. The Great Unknown: If the President had allowed this moment to pass, and put his son's fate in Donald Trump's hands, it is hard to know what would have happened. Maybe the incoming administration wouldn't have gotten involved at all. Maybe Trump would have issued a pardon, so as to appear magnanimous. Those two outcomes seem possible, if not likely.
   
   More probable, we think, is that Team Trump would have taken advantage of the situation in some way. When you read the next item, about Kash Patel and his scary ideas, you can begin to think of some of the things that might have been on the table. Team Trump could have pushed for unduly harsh sentencing. Or they could have made sure Hunter got stuck in the harshest and most dangerous prison they could find—maybe ADX Florence, where they put the real prizes, like the Unabomber and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Maybe they would have arranged for Hunter to be housed with some unfriendlies—say, accused terrorists who are angry about the current administration's policy in the Middle East/Gaza.
   
   As we note, we think the "do something nasty" possibility is more likely than not. But even if it's only 5% likely to happen, how can a father risk it, when he has the power to prevent it?
   
   
4. The Golden Watch: Maybe we shouldn't write this, and we understand there are limits here based on the crime committed and other factors, but the fact is that Joe Biden has served his country and his party for 50+ years, and has often put the needs of others ahead of his own (for example, clearing out for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024). Further, in case anyone hadn't noticed, people in positions of power get all kinds of perks not available to the rest of us. In any case, if one wants to think of this as Biden's Golden Watch—a thank you for his years and years of public service as he moves into retirement—we actually don't find that objectionable. Jimmy Carter pardoned his brother Billy, George H.W. Bush gave clemency to his son Neil, and Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger—it's part of the severance package, in a manner of speaking.

Needless to say, Republicans across the land soiled themselves when they heard the news, framing it as the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the nation. Here, for example, is incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung:

The failed witch hunts against President Trump have proven that the Democrat-controlled DOJ and other radical prosecutors are guilty of weaponizing the justice system. That system of justice must be fixed and due process must be restored for all Americans, which is exactly what President Trump will do as he returns to the White House with an overwhelming mandate from the American people.

It is well within the realm of possibility that we will not directly quote Cheung again for months, or maybe years. Everything he says might as well have been written by ChatGPT. In fact, here is what ChatGPT produces if you ask it what Cheung would say in the event of a pardon:

The reported pardon of Hunter Biden is a blatant abuse of power and a slap in the face to every hardworking American who expects equal justice under the law. This administration has consistently shown that it prioritizes protecting its own over upholding the principles of fairness and accountability.

If the Biden family can evade consequences for serious allegations, it raises a troubling question: Is justice only for some? The American people deserve leaders who respect the rule of law—not ones who manipulate it for personal gain. This pardon is nothing short of a disgrace and a glaring example of the corruption at the heart of this administration.

Can you see a substantive difference between the AI version and the real deal? We can't.

We only quote Cheung here because he was the first one to come out with guns blazing, and because he illustrates how very knee-jerk the Republican response is, and will continue to be. They are going to whine, and kvetch, and moan for a few news cycles, ignoring the utter hypocrisy of their position (given that Trump handed out pardons to friends like candy) and then... they will find something else to be angry about. It will be largely forgotten by next week, and will be entirely forgotten by November of 2026.

Of course, one might argue that by pardoning his son, Joe Biden gave Trump cover to abuse the pardon power once January 20 of next year rolls around. But here's the breaking news: Trump has not only already done that, but he will continue to do it, Hunter Biden pardon or not. After all, Trump has a far greater need to use and abuse the pardon power for benefit of his circle, inasmuch as he's surrounded himself with rogues and villains. And he has far less compunction about doing it, given his lack of moral compass, and the fact that he knows he will never be held accountable.

For all of the reasons here, we have believed for many months that a pardon was coming; we just thought it would come at the bitter end (the way the other presidential-relative pardons did). Beyond that, in our view, there's nothing surprising here and also nothing particularly impactful, except for the members of the First Family. (Z)

Trump Plans to Fire Christopher Wray and Nominate Kash Patel to Lead the FBI

So far, we have run items that group the past week's appointments together. But this one is so significant it deserves more attention. On Saturday evening, Donald Trump announced that he will fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and will nominate Kash Patel to lead the FBI. The FBI director is appointed for a 10-year term, specifically to keep the position (and the director) out of politics. Wray was appointed by Trump in Aug. 2017, so he should serve until Aug. 2027.

However, he is actually doing the job he is expected to do and not the job Trump wants him to do, namely get revenge on people who have crossed the President-elect one way or another. Legally, the director serves at the president's pleasure and can be fired for any reason or for no reason at all. The post-Watergate law could have specified that the director cannot be removed by the president and can only be removed by being impeached and convicted. But it didn't.

Remember, in his first term, Trump fired Jim Comey because Comey believed in the rule of law. Trump does not believe in that. He is (unwittingly) a fan of the Old Testament: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Or maybe two teeth. Or 10 teeth. People who have attacked him will get attacked right back. The fact that they were justified in attacking him because, for example, he broke the law, is not part of the equation.

Ethics-wise, Patel makes Pam Bondi look like Elliot Richardson. In her pre-Trumpy period, she mostly upheld Florida law and did what a Republican state AG was expected to do. Patel is in a different league. He once said this on Steve Bannon's podcast:

We will go out and find the conspirators—not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice, and Steve, this is why they hate us. This is why we're tyrannical. This is why we're dictators.

And that remark was no slip of the tongue or one-off attempt to please Bannon's audience. In 2023, Patel published a book entitled Government Gangsters, in which he wrote "FBI has become so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken."

Even Bondi hasn't gone this far. Which is worse, an FBI director who actively wants to end the rule of law and persecute Trump's perceived enemies or a secretary of HHS who might end vaccinations and cause hundreds of kids to die of measles? A Sophie's Choice, if we've ever seen one.

It is also worth noting that the "I" in FBI stands for "investigation." The FBI investigates alleged crimes and writes a report. It can't indict anyone. That decision will be up to the DoJ, and ultimately Bondi, if she is confirmed, which seems likely. Even rule-of-law Republican senators have to pick their fights carefully.

In case you have never seen Patel, here he is speaking at CPAC 2024:

In case you can't quite make it out, his sash reads "fightwithkash." Not surprisingly, Fightwithkash is the name of Patel's personal website. Here is a screenshot of it:

The first news item is about supply chains rooted in China (and why that is bad). The second and third speak for themselves. Also for the fact that the website is not updated terribly often.

Patel also has a charitable foundation. Here is its webpage:

The foundation's stated mission is to help veterans, provide education for the public in areas that the mainstream media refuse to cover, provide scholarships, and help with the legal defense of whistleblowers. However, we don't exactly see how these news stories fit the mission. But wait! Checking out the Hunter Biden story we find the sentence: "Mishandling classified information is a federal crime, period." Patel should have told Judge Aileen Cannon that. Sh**, she didn't know it. If only Patel had told her, he could have changed the course of history. With websites like these, it should be obvious why Trump picked Patel to run the FBI.

While it may be obvious to the casual reader why Patel was nominated, it may also be obvious to the senators, and so Patel's confirmation by the Senate is by no means assured. The confirmation battle in the Senate could be bruising. Trump could try for recess appointments, but that first requires the Senate to go into recess. That could also be a battle because both chambers have to agree to a recess and with the tiny Republican margin in the House, it could be tricky. Could Trump force Congress into a recess against its will? Oliver Cromwell used the British Army to disband Parliament in 1653, so there is vaguely precedent for this sort of thing.

Reactions to Patel's nomination were—how shall we put this gently?—mixed. Mike Flynn, who served as Trump's first NSA, lasting two full scaramuccis, tweeted: "Kash is America's choice as Director of the FBI. Accountability is coming. Congratulations and well deserved." Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) called Patel an "excellent pick."

However, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had this to say: "It's a terrible development for the men and women of the FBI and also for the nation that depends on a highly functioning professional independent Federal Bureau of Investigation. The fact that Kash Patel is profoundly unqualified for this job is not even like a matter for debate. So I think what we should, what we should really be thinking about right now is what does this signal in terms of Donald Trump's intent for the FBI."

John Bolton was less charitable: "Trump has nominated Kash Patel to be his Lavrently Beria. Fortunately, the FBI is not the NKVD. The Senate should reject this nomination 100-0." The NKVD was the Soviet Union's secret police and Beria was the infamous director of it under Joseph Stalin and responsible for carrying out some of his worst crimes. Oh, and Beria raped scores of young girls.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) was a bit more careful. He defended Wray and didn't see any need for a replacement. The Senator told ABC News: "Chris Wray, who the president nominated the first time around—I think the president picked a very good man to be the director of the FBI when he did that in his first term." He then noted that any new nominee will have to go through the process and face the Senate. He didn't sound like a senator who would be happy to have Trump bypass the Senate with a recess appointment.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said: "We already have a FBI Director, Christopher Wray, and his term does not expire until 2027. President-elect Trump knows this, because he nominated Director Wray in 2017 after he fired the previous Director, James Comey, another lifelong Republican who failed Trump's loyalty test. President Biden kept Director Wray in office because the FBI is supposed to be insulated from partisanship." But Durbin is a Democrat, so his views don't matter. What matters is whether four Republican senators put their feet down and say: no.

The confirmation hearing should be, er, interesting, if it gets that far. (V)

Will Trump Even Bother Having an Official Cabinet?

The way things are supposed to work is that the president sends nominees for cabinet positions to the Senate, which then asks them (largely pointless) questions to which they give (wholly predictable) non-answers and then the Senate votes to confirm them. But with so many nominees likely to face difficult confirmation battles, Trump could go a different route: acting secretaries.

In his first term, Trump also used acting secretaries to bypass the Senate. They served a total of 2,736 days across 22 cabinet-level jobs. He could do that again. Step one would be to fire Biden's entire cabinet, whose members serve at the pleasure of the president. Once each position was vacant, Trump could appoint an acting secretary. Acting secretaries can serve for 210 days. If a permanent nominee is rejected by the Senate—and Trump could send the Senate such unpalatable nominees that they would be certainly rejected—then the clock resets and the acting secretary gets another 210 days. Rinse and repeat. Chad Wolf served as acting secretary of Homeland Security for 14 months in Trump v1.0 this way.

Democratic presidents have also played this game, but not nearly as intensely as Trump. Joe Biden tried to get Julie Su, the Deputy Secretary of Labor, confirmed when Marty Walsh took his puck home and resigned, but the votes weren't there, so Biden made her the acting secretary. Trump could use acting secretaries on an industrial scale.

There is also another version of this that Trump could pursue, namely ignoring the real cabinet and instead relying primarily on an informal cabal of advisers. This is usually known as a Kitchen Cabinet, and numerous presidents have utilized this arrangement, most notably Andrew Jackson. Those folks would not have official power, but they would have the president's ear, which is sometimes better, particularly with a president who has poor impulse control. Trump obviously relied on quasi-official advisers in his first time quite a bit—Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, etc.—but if he can't get the people he wants past the Senate, he might take the Kitchen Cabinet concept into overdrive. (V)

The Senate Itself Is on Trial

Every day, there is another nomination of an individual who is not only totally unqualified for the job, but a direct affront to the Constitution and the whole idea of the rule of law. Donald Trump is challenging—no, daring—the Senate to exercise its constitutional role to advise and consent. Although since Trump is not asking the Senate for advice, all that is left then is for it to consent. At this point it is increasingly clear that many of the nominations, like Kash Patel, are just to bait the Senate and dare the senators to vote no. If Trump had made all the picks like Doug Burgum and Pam Bondi—conservatives, maybe a bit corrupt, but otherwise within the range of normal Republican nominations—the Senate would approve them all quickly. But now the Senate itself is on trial. Will it stand up for itself as a major governmental institution or will it just become a rubber stamp for whatever craziness Trump wants? Trump has interpreted his narrow victory (1.6% in the popular vote and 1.3% in the swing states) as a huge mandate granting him the power to undo 236 years of American history and do whatever he damn well pleases, without regard to tradition, law, or the Constitution.

The founding parents never conceived of a Senate that just bowed down and worshipped the president. It was designed to have strong powers as part of a system of checks and balances. There is nothing more central to the Senate than its confirmation power (and its shared power with the House over the budget). Will the Senate fail the test?

The Republican Senate Conference passed its first test when it chose Sen. John Thune (R-SD) as majority leader over the very Trumpy Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL). But that election was by secret ballot. The confirmation hearings will all be televised on C-SPAN and probably elsewhere and the votes will be public. Will the Senate pass that test?

There have been discussions about whether to keep the filibuster before, but the filibuster is just an old Senate rule. Changing a rule is something the Senate can do whenever it wants to. On the other hand, abandoning its constitutional duty is at a whole different level. Sarah Binder, an expert on Senate procedure at George Washington University, said: "When you open the barn door, it is really hard to get the horse back in." In other words, if a Republican president can bypass or cow the Senate, that is an invitation to the next Democratic president to do it as well. And once "advise and consent" goes out the door, what about the Senate's job to oversee federal agencies and the Executive Branch as well? Are those dead letters now?

Another part of the picture is Trump's plan to avoid full FBI background checks for nominees. Some senators don't care. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) said on ABC yesterday: "I don't think the American public cares who does the background checks." That is probably literally true because that is inside baseball. But the senators know very well that the FBI will do a thorough job and some company Trump hires will probably not, if they do anything more than ask the nominees a few questions (probably not under oath and probably not with lie detectors). Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), in contrast, wants FBI checks, but she hasn't said if failure to have one will be disqualifying by itself.

Many senators believe that the first few weeks of Trump v2.0, and how they handle outrageous nominations, will determine the future of the Senate. If the Senate fails to carry out its duties when the Constitution is crystal clear on them, what chance does it have when the dispute is merely over policy? Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) put it this way: "Whether or not the Senate can be the institution that our framers intended is going to be proven one way or the other here in the next 2 months." (V)

Texas Can Have Its Own Immigration Policy

The conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has made an important ruling about the U.S.-Mexican border. For years now, Texas has effectively had its own immigration policy, which is in conflict with the federal one. Texas' policy is simple: No immigrants. The court ruled that Texas can continue putting razor wire, floating barriers, and other obstacles in the path of would-be immigrants, and Border Patrol agents may not remove them.

Now fast forward to Jan. 20. There will be a new sheriff in town and the new one very much applauds what Texas is doing and will surely encourage it to continue and possibly will agree to pick up part of the cost. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the Fifth Circuit on the grounds that only the feds may defend the border. However, if Donald Trump puts his seal of approval on what Texas is doing, then the "state" operation de facto becomes a federal operation and is then certainly permissible. One of the arguments in the circuit case was that the razor wire was injuring people. The court was not impressed with that argument.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Fifth Circuit, then protecting the border with floating barrels and rolls of razor wire will be officially approved. These are much cheaper and easier to deploy than building a wall (and getting Mexico to pay for it). One other thing Trump could do fairly quickly is order the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the Rio Grande on the U.S. side of the river to make it 10 feet deep. Right now, there are places it is shallow enough to walk across. The combination of a much deeper river, floating barrels strung together on a cable to block boats, and razor wire on shore could have a major impact on how many people could cross it, even without a new wall. Since none of these things are expensive, Trump could probably find the money within existing budgets. It might not be as dramatic as a shiny new 50-foot wall, but it could be effective and would give Trump an early "win" that would also be popular with many Democrats. (V)

The Nepotism Goes On

Ivanka and Young Jared have decided not to take part in Trump v2.0. They are too busy enjoying the Saudis' money. Besides, Ivanka probably instinctively understands that with her father's many questionable and poorly vetted personnel choices, things might go south at some point, and they don't want to be there holding the bag. Barron is in college and Don Junior and Eric will be stuck running the Trump Organization again, so Trump is running out of kids to put in his administration.

He doesn't really like his daughter with Marla Maples, Tiffany, because he thinks she is fat. But with the supply of his offspring limited, in desperation, he turned to Tiffany's father-in-law, Massad Boulos, a Lebanese billionaire, as senior adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs. While Trump famously does not like Arabs or Muslims, Boulos is fortunately Greek Orthodox. Otherwise he would have had to play the billionaire card. When Tiffany married Boulos' son, Michael, in 2022, Trump was able to control himself despite her marrying an Arab, and he did walk her down the aisle at her wedding.

Oh, and while we are on the nepotism front, Trump also nominated Jared's father and a convicted felon, Charles Kushner, as ambassador to France. Being father-in-law of a Trump child is clearly a good thing to be. If Barron meets a nice girl at college and she is not so interested in him, maybe he could have a talk with her father about their future. (V)

Trump Has Already Put Kennedy in His Place

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. thought that by dropping out of the race for president and endorsing Trump, he could get in the candidate's good graces. It doesn't work like that. Yes, he was nominated for secretary of HHS, but that is just transactional: You endorse me and I'll give you a job. It doesn't mean Trump will listen to Kennedy. Not at all. That is already becoming clear.

Kennedy has strong views on vaccines, but also on other subjects. He believes that sugar, soybeans, corn, and other farm products are poisoning Americans. He sees obesity and chronic disease as huge problems. Consequently, he wants a comrade-in-arms, a secretary of agriculture who will join with him and take on Big Ag. Kennedy even drew up a list of possible candidates, vetted them, and gave them to Trump. On the list were Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who wants to slash aid to farmers, and Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller (R). Upon taking office, one of Miller's first actions was to rescind a ban on public schools serving fried foods and soft drinks for lunch.

It hasn't been reported whether Trump thanked RFK Jr. before putting the list in the circular file. This shows that Trump really has no interest in MAHA—Make America Healthy Again. And he certainly has no interest in taking Kennedy's advice on anything. It was simply a transaction: your support for a job in the administration. Other cabinet-level officials should take note of this: Offer advice to Trump only when he requests it.

Instead of any of Kennedy's choices, Trump picked attorney Brooke Rollins. She has a bachelor's degree from Texas A & M, with a major in agricultural development, but no actual experience in agriculture. After graduating law school, she worked for a Texas law firm, then had a minor position in Trump v1.0 advising the president on technology. After he left office, she formed a nonprofit called American First Policy Institute and was CEO of it. It was founded to promote Trump's agenda. Above all, she is a Trump loyalist. That's what matters. Whether she can tell a cow from a soybean does not matter at all.

Big Ag does not want Kennedy to be within a country mile of food policy. Rollins is not likely to rock the boat, not that the average Nebraska corn farm has many boats. To the extent she has a bee in her bonnet, it is her opposition to wealthy Chinese people buying up U.S. farmland, especially farmland near military bases where it could be a base for spying. She can expect Trump's full support on that. As to Kennedy's wish to tackle obesity, well, fat chance of that.

Kennedy hasn't even been confirmed yet—and may not be—but he is already onto the grifting part of the job, with his MAHA brand of products. He even appears in one of the videos, with his wife, Cheryl Hines. And at least she is fully clothed. (V)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 1: Gifts for Donald Trump

As we noted over the weekend, we're going to put the Christmas poetry aside for a year or two, and do a little something different to commemorate the holiday season. This week, it will be gifts for various political figures, as recommended by the readership.

Note that we think of this as something like an advent calendar; something short and sweet to contribute just a little bit to getting folks into the holiday mood. So, the list of responses will be much briefer than we do with, say, the Question of the Week on Saturdays. And with that out of the way, here are half a dozen reader-recommended gifts for Donald Trump this holiday season:

• M.G.K. in Toronto, ON, Canada: A conscience.
  
  
• A.H. in Espoo, Finland: Am I hinting at something here?
  
  
  
  
• J.A. in Austin, TX: I'm working blue, apparently:
  
  
  
  
• J.S. in Seattle, WA: A 4-year supply of super-absorbent paper towels to clean up all the messes that he makes for American democracy.
  
  
• K.P. in San Jose, CA: I hope he gets... exactly what he has coming to him.
  
  
• R.B. in Santa Monica, CA: This retails for about twenty bucks at Amazon:
  
  
  
  It's perfect. Trump clearly loves cheap rugs, particularly in colors that do not exist in nature.

If you have suggestions for the other four folks this week—Kamala Harris, J.D. Vance, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) or Joe Biden—please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com. Make sure to include your initials and city, and to make clear whom you are gifting. (Z)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers