Reaction to Hunter Biden News: A Clinic in Hypocrisy
Plus: Who’s on the debate stage next week?
Good afternoon, Press Pass readers. I’m on my way out to Iowa for some reporting from the campaign trail. You can read all about it in Thursday’s edition, which will be exclusively for Bulwark+ members. If you haven’t already subscribed, take advantage of a free 30-day trial using the button below and see what you think of the extra benefits.
In today’s Press Pass, we’ll examine how lawmakers responded to the appointment of a special counsel in the Hunter Biden case. (Spoiler: There was hypocrisy everywhere.) We’ll also take a look at the lineup for next week’s GOP presidential debate, the first of the 2024 primary season. Most of the candidates will be there, but not all.
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed David Weiss to serve as special counsel in the case against Hunter Biden, continuing the saga that began when Weiss first started investigating Biden in 2019 and that entered a new phase following the breakdown of Biden’s initial plea agreement in late July.
Hypocrisy was everywhere in reactions to this news, as were false equivalences.
Elected Republicans sounded the alarm of a “coverup” while conveniently forgetting that the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter was exactly what they had asked for. There was plenty of bad faith to go around. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) immediately condemned Weiss, who was appointed by Trump to his role as a U.S. attorney in 2018, as “probably the least independent person that Merrick Garland could have appointed.” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) tweeted that Garland chose Weiss “because he knows Weiss will protect Hunter.” Ted Cruz called it “disgraceful.”
The news cycle moves fast; it’s easy to forget articles that you’ve read, programs you’ve seen, political documents you’ve signed and publicized, and so forth. In this case, the outraged senators appear to have forgotten the letter they and dozens of other GOP senators signed last fall explicitly asking Garland to give special counsel powers and protections to—yep—David Weiss. Many similarly distraught Republicans in the House had signed a similar letter requesting a special counsel last year, although theirs did not specifically name Weiss.
On the media side, Axios published a piece last week titled “2024 has become the scandal election.” That’s because, the piece explains, both Trump and Biden “will be burdened by politically fraught legal cases that together involve a trio of special counsels.”
The Axios story also claims that House Republicans are “laying the groundwork to impeach the president.” But this couldn’t be further from what’s actually happening. House Republicans have been scrambling to find something—anything—that could warrant a Biden impeachment. The problem is that each allegation, rumor, or surprise witness has failed to pan out. In some cases, they have completely flopped, to the embarrassment of the lead investigators.
“Laying the groundwork” implies there is some kind of detailed impeachment blueprint being followed as opposed to a pile of scribbled-on cocktail napkins. House Republicans who aren’t expressly trying to impeach Biden have not been sold on the investigations so far, with many not yet backing even an inquiry into impeachment. A recent NBC News report detailed this skepticism:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces unease within his ranks about impeaching President Joe Biden, with some politically vulnerable and centrist Republicans indicating they don’t believe there is enough evidence to take such a drastic step.
Those Republicans are also conflicted about whether to launch a formal inquiry, typically the first step before impeachment proceedings, and their anxieties highlight the practical and political dilemmas that McCarthy, R-Calif., and GOP leaders will have to navigate.
There’s even less enthusiasm in the Senate, where there’s virtually zero prospect of an actual conviction, should impeachment articles reach that chamber from the House.
Press coverage intended to fairly represent “both sides” of an issue runs a high risk of failure when one side is dominated by bad-faith actors. In such cases, creating the impression of balance can lead to drawing false equivalences, elevating unserious positions, and minimizing serious crimes. While the larger media world continues to struggle to accept this lesson—one of the biggest of the 2016 election—it’s important for political observers and news consumers to look at these situations with a wider lens to avoid being misled.
Debate me, bro (seriously bro, please, I need to get on the stage)
Anticipating a lot of candidates, the Republican National Committee set strict criteria for getting on the debate stage. These include meeting polling benchmarks, committing to sharing data with the RNC, securing donations from a set number of individuals across a set number of states, and signing a pact to support the eventual GOP nominee, even if said nominee is a convicted felon.
Here’s who has met all of those requirements—well, almost all:
Donald Trump
Ron DeSantis
Nikki Haley
Vivek Ramaswamy
Tim Scott
Doug Burgum
Mike Pence
Chris Christie
Three individuals on this list have not agreed to the pledge. Pence and Christie have been pretty clear they think Trump is unfit for office, though Pence has not said outright he won’t back his old boss if push comes to shove. The third candidate who hasn’t signed is Trump, because he doesn’t like several of the candidates.
As I reported in January, these pledges are effectively meaningless, and the RNC risks much more by trying to enforce it than by simply ignoring the naysayers. And there’s nothing stronger than the individual’s word making the pledge binding: Candidates can always renege if they change their minds, as Trump and other Republicans did in 2016.
It’s the other requirements that are preventing some primary candidates from securing a spot in the debate. A few of them are close to making it, but probably not before the deadline next Monday: Asa Hutchinson has met the polling minimums but doesn’t have enough donors, while Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and businessman Perry Johnson claim to have gotten enough donors but haven’t gotten their polling numbers high enough.
Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd, a late entrant to the race, might crack the donor requirement in time. He announced Tuesday that he is just 2,000 donors away from the 40,000 minimum.
But for all the drama surrounding the debate cutoffs, it’s still very possible that Trump won’t actually show up. Some campaigns are prepping for him to participate anyway, believing he won’t be able to resist it. Trump is, after all, the frontrunner by a country mile. If he shows up, he’ll be the star of the show. That’s normally the kind of thing he doesn’t skip out on.
The media aren’t trying to be fair; they’re trying to and succeeding in creating clicks. If they lift up Hunter as a conversation topic they get more eyeballs. Even the NYT has fallen into this trap in a big way.
McCarthy has a pipe cleaner for a spine but there are 16 GOP House members from Biden districts and Kevin can count. Will the crazies in the House pay in ‘24 pay for no impeachment? It would be worth it for some Dems quietly to form a PAC to fund ads in the right places hammering the House’s failure to impeach. The voters who sent the crazies to Congress aren’t going to like the failure one damn bit.
Weiss has a loser case and he knows it. Juries don’t convict people for taxes they’ve already paid. The gun law has already been declared unconstitutional in at least one jurisdiction. He’s been investigating for five years and has found nothing else. The statutes of limitations have expired on most if not all of anything having to do with business deals--some of these things date back to 2013.
This may be one of those occasions where allowing the GOP the rope with which to hang itself, the petard upon which it can blow itself up, and all those other fitting metaphors is the wisest course.
Also, Axios is a joke.
Of course, he could have a previous engagement which a judge will make that requires his presence elsewhere than on a debate stage. That could be his best out, being "ordered" by a representative of the "Deep State" not to attend the debate which he really, really, but I mean REALLY wants to attend.