Sep 212023
 September 21, 2023  Posted by at 1:54 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Théodore Géricault The Raft of the Medusa 1819



A short comment on an all too familiar sort of MSM article about US politics these days. This article, a few days old, comes from Gary O’Donoghue, Washington correspondent, BBC News.

The MSM must concede that Hunter Biden is under investigation. Now that it’s official, they can no longer hide it. Time for plan B. This is the BBC, more MSM than anyone. The new narrative is that both political sides are being probed now, supposed to make us think there’s a sort of balance, a neutrality.

And the DOJ is some kind of impartial office (just like the FBI and CIA). Even though the entire alphabet soup has been directed squarely against Trump for 8 years now. The result is that they list the charges against the two sides as follows: 91 against Trump, one -small one- against Hunter, and zero against Joe Biden (he’s not even mentioned here).

Not one word about Joe Biden’s own involvement in what Hunter is accused of. Not one word about the laptop. Or about the tens of millions of dollars the House Commitee says the Biden family received from foreign sources. Ergo: Trump is much worse than Hunter. And Joe never put a single finger wrong.

What Hunter Biden Charges Mean For The President

Politically speaking, there are currently two Americas. One is outraged and horrified that the former president, Donald Trump, is facing 91 federal and state criminal charges in what they see as a deep state conspiracy orchestrated in part by Joe Biden’s Department of Justice. The other believes that very same justice department has spent five years unfairly pursuing Mr Biden’s son, Hunter, over his tax affairs and behaviour while a self-declared and repentant drug addict. In other words, both Americas believe the department responsible for enforcing the laws of the land has been taken captive by the other side and is hopelessly politicised.

“..improper and partisan interference..” but not from the Democrats…

Hunter Biden’s lawyer responded to the news that his client had been indicted on three federal gun charges by accusing the prosecutor of bending to “improper and partisan interference” from Trump-supporting Republicans. Meanwhile, Andy Biggs, one of those conservatives in Congress, suggested the charges were simply a manoeuvre to make it look like the justice department was fair. “Don’t fall for it. They’re trying to protect him from way more serious charges coming his way!”, he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Republicans only focus on Hunter because of Trump’s “legal jeopardies”. Not because of the laptop contents. Which the FBI sat on for 5 years, and we would never have known about if the repair shop owner had not given a copy to Rudy Giuliani. The FBI were busy targeting Trump, after all. Hunter’s “legal woes” are only “a blow in a personal sense to his father”. Surely not because his father pops up a thousand times in the laptop in comprimising ways,

Hunter Biden’s legal woes will of course be a blow in a personal sense to his father and his family. But the ramifications go much further than that. Republicans have for some time known that the president’s son is a vulnerability. Exploiting that has the power not just to significantly rile up Joe Biden, but also to help distract from their own problems with Mr Trump’s legal jeopardies. Add to that the fact that most Democrats, when asked, are far from happy that Mr Biden is running for the White House again in 2024. Hunter seems like just another reason for some continuing to press for the 80-year-old president to step aside for the next generation.

But wait, this is not about Hunter, it’s about Trump. And it’s certainly not about Joe. Nothing Hunter did could possible be as grave as Trump’s actions. Why else would there be 91 charges against him?

All this means that the outcome of Hunter Biden’s case will play a significant part in what promises to be a turbulent election year. But Republicans face something of a dilemma. It’s true that the three gun-related charges are felonies rather than misdemeanours; and it’s true that further charges could come relating to Hunter Biden’s tax affairs and foreign dealings. But none of it currently quite rises to the scale and quantity of Donald Trump’s alleged crimes. So any attempt to weaponise Hunter Biden’s problems could simply invite the American people to compare and contrast. Also, as Democrats will no doubt continue to point out, Hunter Biden is not running for dog catcher, let alone to be President of the United States.

“After all, there is nothing in the Constitution about drug addicts being unable to bear arms.” Gotta love that line.

One intriguing aspect of Hunter Biden’s case is that his lawyers clearly believe the plea deal that broke down in July could still be resurrected – and that the recent expansion of Second Amendment rights by various courts could be an element in his defence. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution about drug addicts being unable to bear arms. That would be an extraordinary irony given where most Democrats stand on gun control.

“ months of existing investigations into Hunter Biden..” Again, the FBI has had the laptop for 5 years. What more can you say? Jim Jordan just yesterday in the House: “We have an investigation run by Mr. Weiss that not only had a sweetheart deal rejected, but according to The New York Times, there was an even sweeter earlier deal with Mr. Biden where he would not have to plead guilty to anything. Four and a half years and all that..”

Thursday’s indictment came just days after Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, announced an impeachment inquiry into President Biden – a move dismissed as a political stunt by the White House. Mr McCarthy said there were “serious and credible allegations” into the family’s business dealings and President Biden’s conduct. And Republicans will hope this new inquiry implicates the president in the peddling of power and corruption. So far, however, seven months of existing investigations into Hunter Biden have produced snippets from former business partners, an FBI informant and a couple of IRS agents, but nothing that comes close to a real smoking gun.

The reason for the impeachment inquiry vs Joe Biden is not to get rid of him, or even “win a vote”, it’s to establish a record. The Senate would never agree to impeach him, just like it didn’t Donald Trump when the GOP had a majority. But the record is crucial. Pelosi and Schiff knew it, and now so does the GOP.

That may change when the subpoenas begin to fly, but the Republican majority in the House is so slim, that it is far from certain that Republicans would win an impeachment vote on the House floor, if it got that far. What is certain, is that the once-clear distinction between the political and legal systems has become increasingly blurred. And that’s a major problem, according to Randy Zelin, adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School. “Somebody woke up one day and said, boy I have a new toy and that is called the federal criminal justice system, where I’m going to use the criminal system to punish people who don’t agree with my politics,” Prof Zelin told the BBC. “I think the sole influence here is that this country is being torn apart by this never-ending battle.”

This is how the media today wants you to see it. But where were they during the Steele dossier days? Or any of the other anti-Trump shenanigans? Remember, they never proved a single thing against him. They just “won” some votes in theaters where they had a majority. And now they’ve come up with 91 new charges in the theaters that the DOJ and FBI have been turned into. Vs zero for Joe Biden. And one puny one for Hunter. Hey, we have an election coming up.

I suggested recently that there wouldn’t be a US election in 2024. But trying to imagine what would happen if they attempted to have one, replete with Dominion machines and mail-in ballots, I’m starting to wonder if there will be a country left next year to hold an election in.

The two sides are so far apart (not really of course, they’re still neighbors, it’s all in the head), that they may as well live in different countries. And then one day they actually might. 1861 is not that long ago.





Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.






Home Forums The New Narrative

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
  • #143408

    Théodore Géricault The Raft of the Medusa 1819     A short comment on an all too familiar sort of MSM article about US politics these days.
    [See the full post at: The New Narrative]

    John Day

    @Michael Reid: thank you for introducing the “Prussiagate” NWO point of view to me/us.

    I am very impressed with Will Zoll’s rigor and detail in all of this. I wonder how he affords this and who may help him.

    There is so much, all excellent, not redundant. You had included this recently and I excerpted it in my last blog post:

    Even CelticBiker and Aspnaz might venture a careful look.

    Dr. D

    That is completely correct. Democrats 100% believe “91 Charges” vs, GOP “witch hunt.” Talk to the hand, case closed.

    I am exhausted with constant partisanship, but when I ask each, “What are the details of the case?” only one side has any idea or interest.


    From Barnes…a fun hypothesis is that Trump wins election, then Biden pardons himself and Trump before Trump takes over the office in January ’25. This way, Biden looks bi-partisan.


    Once the Uniparty eliminates Trump and Kennedy from the ballot, Joe Biden can be acclaimed re-elected since there are no other candidates running. The current candidates will all drop out when ordered!


    Yes the Prussiagate stuff is very good


    The chosen ones get to do nuclear proliferation: one rule for me, a different rule for you, otherwise known as the USA’s rules based world order. Will the USA be supporting this? Of course, Israel runs the USA, why would they object. And if anyone were to object, I am sure that Netanyahu could do another “visit” to intimidate and threaten, like he did with Musk …


    Anyone want to be vaccinated with nano-particles? It is not as if the vaccinators and your government would try and screw you over with this stuff …


    If you think there is a political solution to any of this, you’re delusional. We are way past that.

    Dr. D

    Meh. I disagree. I assume you’re not saying “War is Politics by other means” and therefore war IS a political solution.

    All that has to happen is like Andersen, people wake up and stop supporting. Blowing up some buildings or shootin’ some folks does very little to accomplish that. Right? So I sympathize with your position, and as with just the 5 comments above, we’re talking about going radically out of the political norm. Just swearing in and pardoning? Having a one-party race? That’s possibly MORE radical than a Civil War.

    If you open that, then you can, say, arrest 2/3rds of Congress for instance. That would be “Legal” since I imagine there are at least that many felons under any normal person’s understanding of “Bribery”, etc. You can impeach 500 judges under the same entirely legal and proper, moral and appropriate process. You can defund the FBI completely legally and make another. Congress has the power.

    You CAN. But you have to WANT to.

    Let’s go your way on it: so…who do you shoot? And when you start shootin’ some folks, then what? They all lay down and say “I see the error of my ways”? So you start a war and to win it without being counter-attacked, end up with an America run by a 5-man military tribunal? Which can’t re-empower a Congress, a Judiciary…or the Constitution?

    If we’re past all military solutions, what’s your productive solution? Just like in a war, we can’t sit down and sign a peace treaty? Because we do, you know. All wars end in peace treaties. And all struggles end in a political solution. Why not skip the war, DON’T blow up your own city and burn down your own house, and jump right to the “Political Solution” by waking people up?


    We keep thinking that an American civil war would be about physical areas being defended.
    I don’t think so- it would be factions in every area fighting each other- really, really messy.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.