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

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Six Things Every American Needs to Know About Trump

  When it comes to Trump, piling on is a civic duty. We cannot afford to allow him even the slightest chance of retaking power. He needs to be overwhelmed. Simon Rosenberg — the veteran political analyst who famously predicted that the Red Wave of 2020 would be the Republican debacle it turned out to be — is urging a practical, grassroots approach to the problem. He is openly optimistic about the Democrats’ prospects this year, but he wants us all to be smart about it. He's especially concerned about getting information to the depressing percentage of the public who have no real grasp of who Trump really is, let alone the clear and present danger he represents. Right now, they are not paying attention, but Rosenberg wants us to be ready when they are, and to have at our command “ The Six Things Americans Are Going To Learn About Trump They Didn’t Know in 2020.” There’s nothing new here, but seeing it in one place is valuable. Think of it as a starter set o

The Origin Story of the Pro-Death Movement

  Two weeks ago, I excoriated the New York Times for its heavy hand in election coverage, for compulsively favoring the horserace over the survival of the American Experiment. Of course, no sooner had I done that then they published the sort of eye-opening exposé that few journalistic organizations have the resources to pull off anymore. Which only served to underscore what we’ve been missing from the Times in this year of hair-raising silliness. It was a long and depressing article about the behind-the-scenes machinations that led to the fall of Roe v. Wade . It tells of a loose but vast movement of religious zealots, reactionary lawyers, and red-state legislators who saw the election of Donald Trump as the moment they’d been waiting for. Think of them as the pro-death movement: [T]hey had built an elite legal and ideological ecosystem of activists, organizations, lawmakers and pro bono lawyers around their cause. Their policy arms churned out legal argument