Skip to main content

Hunter Biden and the Dueling Subpoenas

 

Before the Washington football team formally changed its name to the Commanders — a remarkably lame choice — I openly advocated for calling the team the Washington Subpoenas.

Subpoenas are the penalty flags of the legal system. And what could be more Washington than being caught in a personal foul for unsportsmanlike conduct? Or unnecessary roughness.

Hunter Biden has subpoenas going in two directions. He’s answering subpoenas from James Comer’s “Impeach Joe Biden” House Committee. And he’s issuing subpoenas to, among others, Bill Barr over Barr’s actions and inactions as Trump’s Attorney General. It is no doubt a sordid story, but we’re only getting small pieces of it.

These dueling subpoenas are of two different types: congressional and judicial. Congressional subpoenas, it turns out, don’t carry nearly the same weight as those issued by a court of law.

So it’s important to distinguish between the two types of subpoenas — congressional vs judicial — particularly when it comes to the ongoing ritual sacrifice of Hunter Biden.

Hunter continues to be the House Republicans’ most enduring scapegoat. And he’s just been “invited,” notoriously, to appear before James Comer’s ironically named House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

But hold that thought. Because even as Hunter is on the receiving end of that subpoena, he is himself seeking subpoenas of Trump, Bill Barr, and two of Barr’s former deputies at DOJ.

While these judicial subpoenas are unlikely to be served, it seems to be Hunter’s intention to raise the visibility of recent high-profile arrests in Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine.

Indeed, three Ukrainian legislators — one member and two former members of the parliament — have been charged with treason. They’re accused of working with Russian military intelligence — the notorious GRU — to disseminate false information aimed at undermining the Ukrainian government. This was back when Putin was still undermining, as opposed to invading.

Not coincidentally, the crimes these legislators committed happen to dovetail neatly with the misadventures of Rudy Giuliani, who at the time was gallivanting around Eastern Europe, looking for any dirt he could find, on any Biden he could slime with it. He “uncovered” a lot of nonsensical “evidence,” much of which came out in the first impeachment hearing of his boss.

But now we’re finding out that the nonsensical evidence in question was, in fact, one-hundred-percent Russian disinformation. The three Ukrainian arrestees had taken GRU’s bogus “intelligence” about Hunter Biden, and tailored it to Rudy’s political needs.

Those needs were, quite famously, to spin whatever he could find into a major scandal that would tank Joe Biden’s presidential aspirations, and lift Trump to a second term. This was a spectacularly bad idea, and, as we know, it did not go well.

But now, it turns out that the very same disinformation Rudy used to smear Hunter Biden was treated as real intelligence by Trump’s Justice Department, particularly by Bill Barr and the two deputies being served with Hunter’s subpoenas.

It’s a long and convoluted story that I can only sketch here, but while Rudy was illegally bringing home Russian disinformation for use in Trump’s presidential campaign, Barr was running interference for him at DOJ. He blocked all attempts by federal prosecutors to investigate Rudy for, say, espionage. At the same time, he ensured that the disinformation itself would get leaked to the media and used to smear Joe Biden. Which, by the way, didn’t work.

With these recent revelations in mind, it’s no surprise that Hunter Biden — through his A-list lawyer Abbe Lowell — has been trying to obtain DOJ records on the subject, and has now resorted to subpoenas.

Rather than get into the minutiae of this web of international intrigue — which I couldn’t do anyway — let’s move on to the other subpoena with Hunter’s name on it: the summons to testify before James Comer’s House committee.

Since Comer’s inquisition of Hunter is a transparent sham — and everyone outside the Fox media bubble knows it — Comer had every reason to believe Abbe Lowell would use all available delaying tactics to keep Hunter out of that hearing room. Comer surely would have used such delays as proof that Hunter was hiding something.

But then Lowell, in a move that has Comer totally flummoxed, accepted the summons, and unexpectedly insisted that Hunter would testify, but only in public.

Which would, of course, ruin the whole scheme. Comer — possibly the world’s dumbest public official — had been planning on grilling Hunter behind closed doors, so that he and his fellow Republicans could cherry-pick the parts of the testimony that are Fox-friendly, and bury the ones that aren’t.

But now he faces the prospect of seeing his whole scam exposed on a public stage. There are formidable Democrats on that committee — Jamie Raskin, Dan Goldman, AOC, Katie Porter, to name a few — and it’s not hard to imagine how they might eviscerate Comer’s evidence-free claims. And Comer knows it — he’s been backpedaling on the subpoenas ever since. He hasn’t said much about impeaching Hunter’s daddy lately, either.

Because here’s where we come full circle. It just so happens that last spring, when Comer was finding “whistleblowers” under every rock — each with a story about “Biden family corruption” that crumbled under the slightest scrutiny — one of these shady characters produced “incriminating” evidence that was, in fact, based entirely on GRU disinformation.

In other words, key pieces of Comer’s investigation into Hunter Biden are based on the work of Russian spies, three of whom are now under indictment for treason in Ukraine.

So even as Hunter is serving subpoenas on Bill Barr over the criminal dissemination of Russian disinformation, he is simultaneously answering subpoenas from a committee that could be using that same Russian disinformation against him.

It isn’t hard to see that Hunter Biden is bearing the entire weight of a five-year smear campaign, and for no other reason than an accident of birth. So whenever he gets the chance to hit back — to expose hacks like James Comer for the malicious swine they are — we need to cheer him on. The harder he hits them, the better.

Think of it as necessary roughness.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is This Election Really a Nail-Biter?

  I’ve been asked why I don’t think this election will be quite the nail-biter being hyped by the media. Part of my answer, of course, is that the nail-biter narrative is being hyped by the media. It’s usually a New York Times poll that triggers the nail-biting. Each poll is announced with great fanfare, in bold headlines, always with links to commentary that ripple through the rest of the media. The narrative is invariably that the race is deadlocked. Which happens to coincide with the neck-and-neck, both-sides-are-equally-bad, horserace political coverage in which they’re so deeply invested. To get some return on that investment, they bend objective reality to make Trump appear reasonable and normal, even as he descends deeper and deeper into madness. The Times has shown that it will always, always sane-wash Trump to make the race appear close, even if it isn’t. It’s not that their polls are wrong. They’re measuring something, after all. It’s just that what

The Decline and Fall of Toxic Masculinity, We Hope

  It was 2018, and Sen. Kamala Harris was sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioning Brett Kavanaugh about the Mueller Report. It was his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, and it wasn’t going well at all. We remember that hearing, mostly for the sexual assault allegations of Christine Blasey Ford, but also for the FBI’s refusal to investigate those allegations, and for Kavanaugh’s insistence that beer was a major food group. But Harris was less interested in Kavanaugh’s creepy youth than in his furtive sidestepping of a question she undoubtedly knew the answer to. Specifically, she wanted to know if he’d ever discussed the Mueller Report with anyone from Trump’s personal law firm. It was a yes-or-no question, and Kavanaugh took great pains to avoid answering it. If he said yes, he’d be confessing to a major ethical breach. If he said no, he’d be lying to Congress, and Harris would have the receipts to prove it. But it wasn’t the substance of Harr

Kamala Crushed It, But Missed a Few Chances

  Remember that whole big controversy before the debate? The one about whether the microphone should be on or off when the other person is speaking? History records that the Harris team lost that one. I’m not so sure. Trump’s handlers wanted the mics off, presumably to keep their guy from haranguing Harris and alienating the audience. Harris’s people fought to keep the mics on, for essentially the same reason, or so it’s said. The theory was that Trump’s inability to keep from interrupting would expose his boorish assholery, which would most likely work to her advantage. That theory always seemed counterintuitive to me — I couldn’t see any downside to keeping Trump quiet, or upside to letting him talk under his breath. So I suspected the Harris team might be playing rope-a-dope. Indeed, I think they faked the Trump side into keeping the mics off, which is what they wanted the whole time. Because what they knew — and we didn’t — was that Harris had a whole repert