Main page    Nov. 28

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Happy Thanksgiving! Bad as it may seem, there are always some things to give thanks for.

Example 1: Voters of both parties (largely) believe the elections were fair and free and not rigged.

Example 2: There will be a smooth and peaceful handoff of power in January, with no rioting.

These were not givens a month ago. Try to focus today on things for which you can be thankful. If you can think of other things for which we can all be thankful, let us know. If we get enough responses, we'll do a rundown tomorrow.

Welcome to the Land of Two Hundred Vetoes

At the moment, 432 of the 435 House races have been called. Republicans have locked down 219 seats and Democrats have locked down 213 seats. Three are still too close to call, pending recounts. They are CA-13, CA-45, and IA-01. Here are the latest tallies in them (asterisks denote incumbents):

District Democrat Dem votes Dem % Republican Rep. votes Rep. % Difference
CA-13 Adam Gray 104,503 50.0% John Duarte* 104,321 50.0% 182
CA-45 Derek Tran 157,960 50.1% Michelle Steel* 157,347 49.9% 613
IA-01 Christina Bohanan 206,156 49.9% Marianette Miller-Meeks* 206,956 50.1% 800

Suppose the current leaders in all three races win. Then the House will be 220 R, 215 D. So the Republicans will be able to tolerate two defections on any vote, resulting in 218 R, 217 D votes. That's good enough. Three defections will be fatal, though, if the Democrats stick together.

But there is more. Donald Trump has plucked two House Republicans for his administration. These are Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has said he will not take his seat in the 119th Congress. When Waltz and Stefanik resign, expected sometime in January, the House could be 217 R, 215 D until the vacant House seats are filled by special elections, probably not until April. This means that if any bills come up in February or March, and maybe for longer than that, a single Republican defection will tank the bill by forcing a 216-216 tie. On a tie, the bill fails.

De facto, this means every Republican in the House will have a veto over every bill for several months. Donald Trump's first 100 days could be rocky. When Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), chair of the Freedom Caucus, figures this out, he will be ecstatic. He will often be able to find some member willing to blackmail Trump into doing something that will not be popular (for example, shutting down the government unless Trump agrees to that member's ideas about the budget). It could be rough, if the three pending House elections end up the way they are now. (V)

A Cabinet of Losers

Donald Trump often brags about how he loves winners and hates losers. But actions speak louder than words and he has populated the top ranks of his administration with many losers—that is, people who have lost elections in the past. Here is a partial list:

Candidate New Job Races(s) Lost
Doug Burgum Secretary of the Interior Lost 2024 Republican presidential nomination
Lori Chavez-DeRemer Secretary of Labor Lost 2024 general election in House district OR-05
Doug Collins Secretary of Veterans Affairs Lost 2020 special election for the Senate in Georgia
Tulsi Gabbard Director of National Intelligence Lost 2020 Democratic presidential primary
Pete Hegseth Secretary of Defense Dropped out of 2012 Minnesota Republican Senate primary before the vote
Pete Hoekstra Ambassador to Canada Lost 2010 gubernatorial race and 2012 Senate race, both in Michigan
Mike Huckabee Ambassador to Israel Lost 2008 and 2016 Republican presidential nominations
Robert Kennedy Secretary of HHS Dropped out of the 2024 Democratic presidential primary, general election
Karoline Leavitt WH Press Secretary Lost 2022 general election in House district NH-01
Linda McMahon Secretary of Education Lost 2010 and 2012 U.S. Senate general elections in Connecticut
Mehmet Oz Medicare Administrator Lost 2022 U.S. Senate general election in Pennsylvania
Vivek Ramaswamy DOGEy Lost 2024 Republican presidential nomination
Marco Rubio Secretary of State Lost 2016 Republican presidential primary
Scott Turner Secretary of HUD Lost 2006 House special election in California (came in 8th of 15)
Dave Weldon CDC director Lost 2012 Republican Senate primary and 2024 Republican House primary
Matthew Whittaker Ambassador to NATO Lost 2014 Republican Senate primary in Iowa
Lee Zeldin EPA administrator Lost 2022 New York gubernatorial election

When compared to previous administrations, this is a huge number of losers. For example, in the Biden administration, Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack ran unsuccessfully for president in 2008 and Sec. of Transportation Pete Buttigieg ran for president in 2020, but Biden came nowhere near Trump's 17 losers (so far). (V)

Republican Representatives Are (Foolishly) Eager for Tariffs and a Trade War

One thing that Donald Trump has promised to do is raise tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China on Day 1. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, not the president. However, Congress has passed laws giving the president that power under certain circumstances. That may be challenged in court, because the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that Congress may not delegate powers expressly assigned to the legislative branch by the Constitution.

Nevertheless, Trump is virtually certain to try, especially since many Republican office holders are egging him on. Some have said that as a savvy businessman, he knows to do these things. For example, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said: "A businessman like Trump gets it." Some are more specific. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) said: "The tariffs will incentivize manufacturers to invest in American made products." Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-NY) sees Trump's announcement as "a powerful message: stop the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into this country." Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) said "The government of Mexico has been complicit in allowing the largest human trafficking operation in history." Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said: "Mexico deserves this because they are blocking our corn exports." And there are many more.

But these members either don't know how tariffs work or don't see the consequences (or are in denial). When a U.S. company—say, Walmart—imports a product with a tariff on it, the importer pays the U.S. government the tariff—not the foreign manufacturer. Since Walmart already has low margins in order to maintain market share, it is not going to be able to absorb the loss in many cases, and will then have to raise prices. This is known as "inflation."

Companies that import industrial products under tariff—say, steel—will have to raise the price of their finished products—cars, new housing, appliances, etc. It is unavoidable. In some cases, this will provide an incentive for some American company to produce the product domestically, but the difference in wages between China and the U.S. is so great that there will be very few products that suddenly become profitable by making them in the U.S. with a tariff of only 10%. The Mexican and Canadian tariffs of 25% may produce some substitution, but only if the importer is convinced the tariff will last. No company wants to spend millions to build some factory, only to see a Democratic president in 2028 remove the tariff as part of some bigger deal.

Scott Lincicome, a trade expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, doesn't believe Trump will actually pull the trigger. In an interview, he said: "It's crap, and you can quote me on that." He also wondered: "Is it really a political winner to make avocados more expensive right before the Super Bowl? And what about one of the other top imports from Mexico: beer?"

But the biggest problem with imposing tariffs is the likely retaliatory tariffs. Last time around, Trump dealt with then-Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a charismatic old-school politician with whom he got along well. This time he will have to deal with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, a leftist ideologue who is much less willing to bend to Trump's will. She knows that many U.S. companies import all manner of products from the maquiladoras they have built in Northern Mexico on account of the free-trade agreement, and they will scream bloody murder if that trade is effectively stopped. If China responds to tariffs by switching to agricultural imports from Brazil, U.S. farmers will suffer and some will go under. Republican senators will not be shy telling Trump about this.

What might happen is that Mexico and Canada will make some small changes (probably ones they were planning to make anyway) and then Trump will claim victory, take his football, and go home. With China, it is harder to tell what will happen because President Xi Jinping does not like taking orders from Trump. Also, Xi is prepared to play the long game and knows that tariffs will raise inflation in the U.S. and that Trump promised to get prices down, not up. Xi might be willing to absorb some temporary losses to put Trump in a position where he comes to Xi and begs to end the trade war—on his terms, especially during the 2026 election season when rising inflation could cost Republicans control of Congress. (V)

Trump Makes It Even Worse at HHS

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of HHS has many public health experts alarmed. If he is confirmed, which is far from certain, he could try to do many things to reduce vaccinations, which in turn could lead to epidemics of measles, polio, and other diseases that have long been beaten down. The one consolation the experts have is that Kennedy knows absolutely nothing about running a department with 80,000 people. He will have to rely on his #2 to actually make sure his orders are carried out and he will have to hope the #2 doesn't feed him bogus reports about how everyone is complying.

The experts got some bad news earlier this week when Donald Trump nominated Jim O'Neill as the deputy secretary of HHS. O'Neill's background is running Peter Thiel's Mithril Capital Management, although he also had a small role in George W. Bush's administration.

O'Neill's view about pharmaceuticals is, er, interesting. He believes that if a drug company offers a new drug and tests show that it is safe, it should be approved. Current rules require new drugs to be both safe and effective. If O'Neill gets his way, companies will be able to offer sugar pills as cures for cancer or other diseases and as long as testing shows they do no harm, they can be sold with an FDA approval label. The opportunities for grifters will skyrocket. It is easy to make a pill that is safe: Just put common, safe ingredients in it. If testing the effectiveness is no longer required to get FDA approval, the market will be flooded with useless drugs. Grifters will rejoice, but how will doctors know what to prescribe if FDA approval no longer means the drug works? The only thing we don't know yet is how Trump will manage to get a cut of the grifters' profits. Maybe the new rule could be: The drug must be safe and the company must pay a large "fee" to Trump to ensure speedy approval. Since overseeing the FDA is part of his official duties, that would presumably be legal. Right, John Roberts? (V)

Trump May Have Problems with the NRSC in 2026

The 119th Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet, and the battle for the 120th Congress has already started. The chairman of the NRSC will be Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). Whether he has the chops to do the job remains to be seen. He is not a heavyweight. One thing he is planning to do is select Stephen DeMaura, Mike Pence's former campaign manager, as executive director. The chairman sets the general policy goals but the executive director actually runs the operation. The first task of the executive director is to recruit candidates for open seats, or for seats held by a Democrat. Once there is a candidate, the executive director is almost like the campaign manager, although technically serves under the formal campaign manager. The executive director is responsible for budget, polling, key hires, fundraising, strategy, ads, and more. A sitting senator like Scott doesn't have time to help run half a dozen or more campaigns around the country and actual campaign managers may not have enough experience, especially if the candidate is an out-of-state carpetbagger who doesn't know the lay of the land well.

DeMaura and Donald Trump are not buddies. DeMaura was executive director of the super PAC that backed Carly Fiorina in 2016, but worse yet, putting Pence's guy in charge of Republican fortunes in the Senate in 2026 does not sit well with him, especially since Trump and DeMaura will have to work together closely in 2026. What if DeMaura asks Trump: "Do you think you could find time to campaign in, say, North Carolina? We need help there." Or: "Please DON'T go to Maine. You are toxic there."

Or worse yet, there will probably be an open primary in Kentucky (if Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, calls it quits) and certainly in Georgia. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) is expected to jump in and challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA). Kemp is not especially Trumpy. What happens if DeMaura tells Trump to stay out of it because Kemp is their strongest candidate, but some very Trumpy Republican jumps into the primary? Suppose it is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)? Will Trump fight with DeMaura over that?

MAGAworld is not happy with the idea of DeMaura at the NRSC. Some Republicans fear that a guy close to Pence will go for normie Republicans and not people with a "candidate quality" problem, as they would prefer. Already, the MAGA Men have declared they will form their own Senate PAC, which would essentially be trying to do the same thing the NSRC does, except with different candidates. You never know if Trump, et al., mean it, or if they are just blowing smoke. But if Scott indeed chooses DeMaura, as multiple sources say he will, it might not be all smooth sailing in 2026. (V)

Biden's Climate Measures Might Survive Trump 2.0

The Inflation Reduction Act contained the largest funding ever to combat climate change. Donald Trump intuitively opposes it because he wants to erase Joe Biden's legacy. That is a goal all by itself. Also, his donors in the fossil fuel industry would be happy to get 4 more years of reprieve, even though they know they are ultimately doomed.

Clean energy advocates are planning to fight back by deemphasizing the climate-change part of fighting climate change. Instead, they will focus on five things: (1) beat China, (2) national security, (3) shore up domestic manufacturing, (4) increase total domestic energy production and (5) create jobs in struggling coal communities (especially in southwest Pennsylvania, where there are still 40 active coal mines in the Main Bituminous Coalfield). Trump could be responsive to this pitch.

If all that the sustainable-energy industry has to do to survive is adjust the PR campaign and bamboozle Trump, it has a fighting chance. The national security angle is a bit exotic, but real. China is the main producer of some metals needed to make batteries for electric cars. If China were to block exports of them, that would have devastating effects on U.S. auto manufacturers, who are already struggling to beat China. Millions of jobs could be lost. The U.S. actually has deposits of some of these metals, but extracting them is expensive and the environmental impact is significant. Trump could subsidize the extraction and waive environmental rules (or try to mitigate the damage) in order to break China's stranglehold. This is something he could be made to understand. One ally the electric vehicle industry has close to Trump is Elon Musk. He is quite capable of telling Trump that developing a domestic industry in these metals is vital for national security and getting him to accept it.

There are even a few barriers to the clean energy transition that Trump might remove. One is permit reform. If a company wants to build a massive solar farm somewhere and someone spots a spotted owl nearby, the resulting court battles can take years and sometimes the companies don't even start on account of that. Congress could pass laws making it clear that when there is a conflict between energy production and the environment, energy wins. Environmentalists wouldn't like that at all, but if Congress passed such laws, the court battles would be simple and over quickly.

Another thing Trump is likely to do is support a massive build-out of the electrical grid. This would make it possible to transport electricity from a producing site to a consuming site easily—for example, solar energy from the Nevada desert to Los Angeles or Denver. Trump might also approve construction of more nuclear power plants and projects involving hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Even wind energy might have a chance with the new National Energy Council being chaired by Doug Burgum, who championed wind energy on the windy plains of North Dakota. Burgum's view is that all sources of energy, both fossil and clean, are needed well into the future.

However, Burgum will have a fight on his hands. The incoming secretary of energy, Chris Wright, is CEO of the country's second largest fracking company. He doesn't believe in climate change and thinks green energy is for the birds. On the other hand, he, like Rick Perry before him, may not realize that the secretary of energy doesn't actually have much say over energy policy. His job is safeguarding America's nuclear weapons. And with Burgum as "energy czar," Burgum may have more influence, in the end, than Wright.

In short, while Trump's first instinct might be to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, people and industries that might profit from clean energy will be lobbying hard to convince him to let it be for the five reasons listed above. Or maybe he will kill it, but then tell Congress to pass a Trump Energy Act that does the same thing. (V)

Cooper Vetoes a Bill That Would Greatly Weaken His Successor

The North Carolina Republican-dominated state legislature has a history of changing state law after a Democrat has been elected governor to hamstring the governor and maintain control itself. This year's edition is a bill that nominally is about aid to victims of hurricane Helene, but is really about taking power from incoming governor Josh Stein (D) and handing it to the legislature. Here are some of the provisions of the "hurricane aid" bill.

You can obviously see how the people whose houses were destroyed by Hurricane Helene can't wait until corporations can donate money to political parties for legal battles. The bill does authorize $200 million in loans to people and businesses affected by the hurricane, though.

Outgoing Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) vetoed SB 382, the "hurricane relief" bill. He said it is a "sham" that merely moves money from one existing loan program to a different one. Republicans have a supermajority in both the state Senate and state House. They have overridden 11 of Cooper's previous vetoes. However, some of the representatives from the stricken areas are not happy with the bill and may not vote to override the veto. They want a new bill that does more for their communities. The legislature will have to move fast because, starting January 2025, Republicans in the state House will be one seat shy of the votes needed to override gubernatorial vetoes. This will greatly increase the power of incoming governor Stein, forcing the legislature to negotiate deals with him. This is why the Republican legislators want to make hay while the sun is shining on them. (V)

Election Day Is Now Officially Election "Month"

For decades—centuries, actually—elections were held on... wait for it... Election Day. People came in that day, voted, and went home. In 2024, 88,233,886 votes (58% of the total) were cast either by absentee ballot before Election Day or in-person before Election Day. With nearly three-fifths of the votes now cast before Election Day, what we have is now Election Month, more or less.

Based on the available data, it appears that 41% of the early votes were cast by Democrats, 38% by Republicans, and 21% by independents. It is clear that Donald Trump's warning not to vote by mail has not been heeded, since many of the early votes were absentee. It is not surprising that independents did not vote as heavily early on as partisans because many of them did not make up their minds until "Election Day." (V)

Schiff: Jack Smith Blew it

Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-CA) has blasted the decision of Special Counsel Jack Smith to drop the cases against Donald Trump. Schiff said: "The Justice Department and the court system failed to uphold the principle that no one is above the law. DOJ by neglecting to promptly investigate the events of Jan 6, and the courts by willfully delaying progress of the case and providing immunity."

But more specifically, Schiff, a graduate of Harvard Law School and lead prosecutor in the first impeachment of Donald Trump, said that Jack Smith made a serious technical error in how he handled ending the cases. Smith dropped the cases because DoJ policy is not to prosecute a sitting president. But Smith had some options on how he ended the cases. Smith asked the judge to dismiss the cases without prejudice. This means that the cases can be brought back to life after Trump leaves the White House. But it requires specific action on the part of the DoJ to reactivate them. If a Republican president succeeds Trump, his AG is very unlikely to reactivate the cases. If the AG does nothing, the cases are dead for at least 4 years, and probably forever.

Schiff argues that a far better option would have been to simply postpone the process until Jan. 21, 2029. Then the cases would automatically continue starting then. It would take a specific action on the part of the DoJ to kill the cases. At the very least, a specific decision by the new AG to kill the cases would probably result in an uproar that could hurt the incoming president. As it is now, all the new AG has to do is—nothing—and the cases go away by magic. There are unlikely to be any news stories about the AG doing nothing. Schiff sees this as a serious tactical error on Smith's part.

Although Trump may be off the hook now, that is not true of his cronies. The fake-electors case in Georgia is pending, waiting for an appeals court to decide if Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis may continue on the case after hiring her then-boyfriend to lead it. If the appeals court tells her what she did was exceedingly stupid, but not illegal, the case will probably continue, but without Trump as an indictee. In addition, the fake electors case in Arizona is definitely going forward according to Arizona AG Kris Mayes (D). She didn't indict Trump, but did indict Rudy Giuliani and some others close to Trump. (V)

Supporters of Ranked-Choice Voting Are Rethinking Their Future

Ranked-choice voting was on the ballot in a number of states on Nov. 5 and lost almost everywhere. The only place it "won" was in Alaska, where the referendum was about terminating it, not starting it. And the proposal to get rid of RCV almost carried. Supporters of the idea are now thinking about what to do next.

In all the states where it was proposed, the idea was to have open primaries with the top few candidates advancing to an RCV general election. The number of advancees varied by state, usually around four. Supporters say that open primaries will reduce partisanship because candidates will have to worry about getting second-choice votes from the other party.

It could be that supporters of RCV overreached. All of the proposed amendments did two things. First, they created nonpartisan open primaries. Second, they instituted RCV in the general election among multiple candidates. One of the reasons people may not like the idea of open primaries is the California experience, in which it often happens that the general election features two Democrats, leaving Republicans out in the cold. (Sometimes it's two Republicans, but that's rarer.)

A possible alternative to the amendments is to continue with partisan primaries, but have RCV in the general election. In practice, this would require the winner to have an absolute majority, and would allow people to show support for their minor party true favorite, without jeopardizing the results. If Florida had had RCV in 2000, it is very likely that most of the 97,488 people who voted for Ralph Nader would have chosen Al Gore as their second choice. Then they could have sent a message that they preferred Nader, but when forced to choose between Gore and Bush on the second round, they preferred Gore. Then he would have been elected president, with all the consequences of that.

Most Southern states have something akin to this. If no candidate for the Senate or House gets an absolute majority on Election Day, there is a runoff 2 months later. RCV is an alternative name for IRV—Instant Runoff Voting. If IRV (i.e., RCV) were in place in the Southern states, they wouldn't have to run a second election in January. They would just redistribute the votes of the minor candidates a few days after Election Day and save the trouble and expense of a physical runoff. It is certainly an idea and might be more saleable to people who like partisan primaries. (V)

A Quick Peek at Some Long-Term Developments

Let's switch gears now and think long-term. Do we mean the 2026 midterms? Nah, too short term. So we mean the 2028 presidential election? We are planning a series on possible candidates, but that is not the subject of this item. No, think about 2032. We are not going to predict the Democratic or Republican candidates for that election. That would be a fool's errand. No, we are going to look at the map.

People are on the move. Mostly from the North to the South. And from Blue states to Red states. The Census Bureau has already come up with a tentative map of which states will gain House seats (and electoral votes) after the 2030 census and which ones will lose them. Here is the map based on trends in population:

Project changes in number of House seats per state in 2030

First off, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Illinois, Minnesota, California, and Oregon—all blue states—are projected to lose a total of 13 House seats (and 13 electoral votes). Idaho, Utah, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida—all red states—are projected to gain 10 House seats and electoral votes. The swing states of Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia are projected to gain 3 House seats and electoral votes.

Losing 13 House seats and 13 electoral votes could be trouble for the Democrats. On the other hand, demography is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get. We forget which philosopher said that, but we are sure it wasn't Winston Churchill. If all the people leaving New York and causing it to lose 3 EVs move to Florida and cause it to gain 3 EVs, nothing will happen to New York except it will lose some power. But what about Florida? Will those people take their New York values with them or will they blend into Florida's values and just vanish? It is at least conceivable that those 2 million or so New Yorkers will make Florida a swing state again. We don't know. Similarly, if 3 million people move from California to Texas, will that make Texas purple? Again, we don't know.

It is also possible that the map is wrong because the decade is young. Also, maybe all the dissatisfied New Yorkers will move to North Carolina, turning it bright blue, with Florida's gain coming from boomers in Illinois and Minnesota residents who hate the Midwest winters. Maybe all the unhappy Californians will move to Arizona, not Texas, turning it bright blue (although all the new Texans have to come from somewhere).

It is also possible that state policies change the flows. Suppose some states ban all abortions, make homosexual acts a felony, defund the public schools and mandate prayers in what is left of them. That could make some blue staters change their minds about whether they should move at all, and if so, where. Migration into the three swing states could change them from purple to light blue (which is what happened to Virginia). It is all very iffy at this point. The only thing that seems clear is that cold states are losing and warm states are winning. But if climate change causes six gigantic hurricanes that destroy much of Florida in 2025, maybe that changes, too. And if Minnesota gets a balmy climate and Texas temperatures regularly hit three-digits in mid-winter, that could have an impact on migration patterns as well.

And politics is more than population. Other factors could play a bigger role in 2028 and beyond. Just to name one, will all the young Black and Latino men who decided to vote for Donald Trump at the last minute because he is a tough guy and a disrupter decide that Yale-educated lawyer and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is their guy? That could be the $1 billion question for the GOP in 2028 and 2032. (V)

Will Joe Biden Pardon Hunter Biden on Jan. 20 at 11:30 a.m.?

Politically, it is a small issue, but it could affect Joe Biden's legacy. The question is: On the morning of Jan. 20, 2025 at 11:30 a.m., will Joe Biden pardon Hunter Biden? All he has to do is sign a simple document and the deed is done. There is no way for Donald Trump to unpardon Hunter. Republicans will rant for a couple of days, but by Jan. 23, they will be busy with other things.

The issue is coming to a head because on Dec. 12, the younger Biden will probably be sentenced by a federal court in Delaware because he lied on a form asking whether he was a drug addict when he bought a gun. A few days later, he will be sentenced on tax fraud charges in Los Angeles. It will not be a merry Christmas for Hunter and it will be a huge problem for Dad.

The president also has one other option. Instead of a pardon, he could commute his son's sentence. Then Hunter would still be a convicted felon, but would not have to go to prison.

Also, the gun charges have no real precedent. It is unheard of for people who lie on government forms to go to prison, except if there were other serious crimes committed. Usually nothing happens to them even when it comes out (see: Thomas, Clarence). There is also no doubt that if Hunter Biden were Hunter Jones, he would never even have been charged. And even if he were charged, the judge, a Trump appointee, would have thrown the case out. If ever there were a political prosecution, it is this case. If the judge decides that given the spotlight on the case, a modest fine is appropriate, Biden père will probably do nothing. The tax case is more serious and could well involve prison time.

Republicans in Congress would squawk about a pardon, but after Donald Trump's misuse of the pardon power to help his buddies Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Steve Bannon, along with other associates, they have a pretty weak case. They could demand that the new AG, probably Pam Bondi, dream up some new offense and indict Hunter on it. For example, working as an unregistered foreign agent. The only way Joe could prevent this is to issue a blanket pardon to Hunter for all crimes he may have committed. But that could create a firestorm. It's a tough call. (V)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers