Game On, Joe. Game On.
You may want to read the whole thing. Maureen concludes,
In the end, these moments highlight the hypocrisy of both parties. Each case has to stand or fall on its own facts, patterns, corroborations, investigations — not on viewing it only through partisan goggles.
You could ask if hypocrisy in the age of Trump is antiquated. Why should the Democrats hold themselves to some higher standard of conduct when Trump, a serial assaulter of women according to his accusers and own “Access Hollywood” confession, is wallowing in amorality and refusing to release a scrap of paper about personal finances or conduct?But moral relativism is not the answer. Joe Biden is running — or for the moment, sitting — on compassion and decency, the antithesis of Trump. If he throws that away, he’s going along with Trump’s worldview: We live in a corrupt jungle. Everybody’s down here in the muck. So you might as well go with me, because I’m stronger.From the day Trump was elected, it has always been a race between the damage he could do and the day his term was up. Let’s hope that damage doesn’t include the Democrats sinking to his cynical, miserable level.
Ms. Dowd enlarges upon the theme of how Democrats have brought this situation on themselves—viz. Al Franken, viz. Brett Kavanaugh. That’s true, but it provides us no guidance on how to act now.
Like many others, she seems to be of a mind that it’s unwise for progressives just to say, well, Ms. Reade’s accusations are not particularly credible, so let’s just stop our ears and ignore her. I agree. On multiple grounds. Which is, however, not the point of this post.
Like many others, Maureen has not proposed a specific suggestion about how to proceed. That IS the point of this post, and of one of yesterday’s posts as well. Here, I want to review the bidding.
The alleged event took place 27 years ago. Ms. Reade chose to speak out in March, 2020. She could have spoken out any time earlier. Or, she could have waited and spoken out in, say, September,2020—in which event, one might infer that she was trying to promote Trump’s reelection.
But, no. She chose to speak out in March of this year. A strong, almost irrebuttable inference arises that she was trying to persuade Democratic voters, and the Democratic political establishment, to pick Bernie Sanders over Joe Biden.
The two possible strategies are (1) ignore the allegations, on one purported ground or another, or (2) investigate the allegations. The latter is by far the better strategy. The gist of the response should be along these lines.
Thank you, Ms. Reade, for bringing these matters to our collective attention. We understand that you are trying to influence our nominating process. Your complaints are addressed to us. Fine, we hear you, and we will conduct a proper investigation.
All that said, you need to understand, Ms. Reade, that we are not only going to investigate the accused, we are also going to investigate the accuser. We will not make up lies to smear your name. We will not try to expose any irrelevant peccadillos on your part. But we will examine all the relevant evidence proffered by you and by your corroborators and by anyone else claiming knowledge of these matters.
And we will expect your full and complete cooperation.
And if we do not receive your full and complete cooperation, we will be entitled assume that you are lying.
Within the next few days, the Democratic National Committee should hire a very large law firm to begin an investigation. One team should begin interviewing witnesses—from both the accuser’s camp and the accused’s camp—and identifying anyone else who might have relevant knowledge. That would include Joe Biden himself. The witnesses should be asked to provide copies of any relevant documents, including, for example, recent emails bearing on the matter.
The witnesses should be interviewed over Zoom or some similar service.
Affidavits should be prepared based on their stories, and they should be asked to sign the affidavits and have them notarized.
A second team should be charged with tracing down the relevant personnel records, whether they are, in the National Archives or somewhere else.
Then, there is the matter of Biden’s senatorial records at the University of Delaware, said to amount to 200 boxes of paper documents and 400 GB of data. My friend CDT would wait until the above matters are accomplished before taking any further steps, including searching this University of Delaware material.
That is one way to proceed, and it might be the right way. Additionally, right or wrong, Joe Biden, who controls this material, might demand that the witness interviews precede any look at the senatorial materials.
Whenever the Delaware material review takes place, it should be done by a small and highly trusted team within the law firm, and the young lawyers should be charged simply with identifying and pulling out any personnel-related documents. They should be threatened with castration if they leak any embarrassing material not related to the investigation.
I believe that reviewing the paper documents for this purpose should take, at most, 100 person hours. As to the 400 GB of electronic data, presumably it is searchable electronically.
The Democratic Party is the intended audience for Ms. Reade’s March, 2020, complaint, so one could not reasonably object if the Democratic Party chooses to investigate.
Of course, one could unreasonably object, and of course some will unreasonably object. But remember that a DNC investigation does not foreclose any other investigation.
If the Republican National Committee wants to conduct its own investigation, the DNC can’t stop it.
If Lindsay Graham wants to haul Tara Reade and Joe Biden before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the DNC can’t stop him.
If the FBI, for whatever reason and with whatever legal authority or lack of same, chooses to investigate, then that is their affair.
Joe Biden, My Plan to Safely Reopen America:
People across America are stepping up to the plate. Millions are performing essential services at great personal risk, and millions more are staying at home, away from friends and extended family. In return, they want the answer to a simple question: What is the plan to safely reopen America?
So far, the Trump administration hasn’t supplied an answer.
The plan has to start with responding effectively to the immediate medical crisis and ultimately lead to the widespread availability and administration of a vaccine. But we can’t stay home and just wait for the vaccine to arrive. As others have noted, we need to build a bridge from here to there. Here’s what our national strategy should look like.
First, we have to get the number of new cases of the disease down significantly. That means social distancing has to continue and the people on the front lines have to get the supplies and equipment they need. President Trump needs to use his full powers under the Defense Production Act to fight the disease with every tool at our disposal. He needs to get the federal response organized and stop making excuses. For more Americans to go back to their jobs, the president needs to do better at his job.
Second, there needs to be widespread, easily available and prompt testing — and a contact tracing strategy that protects privacy. A recent report from Mr. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services made clear that we are far from achieving this goal.
We should be running multiple times the number of diagnostic tests we’re performing right now. And we should be ready to scale up a second form of testing: rapid serology tests to tell who has already been infected with the coronavirus and has antibodies. This isn’t rocket science; it’s about investment and execution. We are now several months into this crisis, and still this administration has not squarely faced up to the “original sin” in its failed response — the failure to test.
Third, we have to make sure that our hospitals and health care system are ready for flare-ups of the disease that may occur when economic activity expands again. Reopening the right way will still not be completely safe. Public health officials will need to conduct effective disease surveillance. Hospitals need to have the staff and equipment necessary to handle any local outbreaks, and we need an improved federal system to get help to these places as needed.
Make no mistake: An effective plan to beat the virus is the ultimate answer to how we get our economy back on track. So we should stop thinking of the health and economic responses as separate. They are not.
Once we have taken these steps, we can begin to reopen more businesses and put more people back to work. Things will not go back to “normal” right away. As public health experts have said, we should expect activity to return gradually, with sites like offices and stores reopening before arenas and theaters.
That’s why we need to be working right now on the conditions under which our economy will operate as America gets back to work, and ensuring that the financial support our families and small businesses will need is fully in place.
As long as there is a significant risk that the virus can start spreading again, we are going to have to do some things differently. And the federal government should be leading the effort to figure that out.
If I were president, I would convene top experts from the private sector, industry by industry, to come up with new ideas on how to operate more safely. Perhaps offices and factories will need to space out workers and pursue other solutions to lessen risk of spread of the virus on the job. Restaurants may need new layouts, with diners farther apart.
From my talks with some industry leaders, I know that many are already at work on these questions. Mr. Trump needs to accelerate this thinking and make sure it is available to all businesses — including small businesses, not just the largest companies.
Likewise, I would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, working with organized labor and employee groups, to figure out what protections workers need on the job during this period.
Getting protective gear to our health care workers and emergency medical workers is the top priority — and one where we are still lagging. But once that need is met, I’d ask the experts to figure out what delivery workers, waiters, clerks and so many other professionals need to be safe. And I would focus like a laser on the racial disparities in Covid-19 cases.
Safe and effective treatment can help manage the risk of the coronavirus. But of course, the only complete solution is finding a vaccine to extinguish the threat it poses. Scientists are making great strides on this, but discovering and testing a vaccine is only the first step: Manufacturing sufficient doses and distributing it to reach everyone is a huge challenge. The Trump administration should already be reporting to the American people on its efforts.
As we prepare to reopen America, we have to remember what this crisis has taught us: The administration’s failure to plan, to prepare, to honestly assess and communicate the threat to the nation led to catastrophic results. We cannot repeat those mistakes.
We know what we have to do. We have the tools, expertise and, now, hard-won experience. The American people have already paid too high a price in illness, death and economic loss. This time, the White House has to get it right.
There is much to admire about Hillary Clinton and much to admire about Joe Biden. And, my, how we all wish Hillary were president right now. But the woman’s picture of herself blinded her to how her actions would look to others. And she just couldn’t get her head around the rancidness of our current political situation. Joe Biden has some debilitating blind spots as well—not exactly the same as Hillary’s visual deficiencies, but roughly similar in kind.
A couple of weeks ago a columnist named David Von Drehle wrote a column “reasoning” that Democrats were unwise to proceed with impeachment because that would just let Trump tear apart their leading candidate, Joe Biden. You will immediately see that there are lots of flaws in that “reasoning” beginning with this: impeachment or no impeachment, Trump was still gonna go after Joe and his son with a bunch of big lies.
(Parenthetically, one wonders how much Mr. Von Drehle was paid to pen this nonsense. Maybe I should apply for his job.)
Yesterday, in another column, The Hunter Biden story is a troubling tale of privilege, Von Drehle shot his arrow closer to the mark. He wrote,
There’s an old saying about addiction. The man takes a drink (or a sniff), then the drink takes a drink, until the drink takes the man. It will take the bystanders, too, if they let it. Addiction is ravenous. But there was always someone in Joe Biden’s life to help him out with Hunter. It’s heartwarming when family and friends swoop in to care for the boys while Daddy serves the people of Delaware. But little boys have little needs, while big boys have bigger needs.
Soon enough, directionless Hunter has a six-figure job at a bank run by Biden supporters. When Hunter grows bored, there’s another lucrative job under the tutelage of a former Biden staffer. When Hunter wants a house he can’t afford, he receives a loan for 110 percent of the purchase price. And when he goes bust, another friendly banker mops up the damage.
Then his brother Beau contracts fatal brain cancer, and the last wobbly wheels come off Hunter Biden’s fragile self. At this point, the New Yorker piece becomes a gonzo nightmare — much of it narrated by Hunter himself — of hallucinations, a car abandoned in the desert, maxed-out credit cards, a crack pipe, a strip club and a brandished gun.
If, as the [New Yorker] headline put it, Hunter Biden now jeopardizes his father’s campaign, the article makes clear Joe Biden feels a share of the blame. Yet, by the time the senator was vice president, the folks still willing to help Hunter were of a sketchier variety. There was a Chinese businessman who, Hunter said, left him a large diamond as a nice-to-meet-you gift. And a Ukrainian oligarch who hired Hunter at a princely sum to do nothing much. (Neither the firm nor Hunter Biden identified any specific contribution he made). Joe Biden’s response, according to his son, was: “I hope you know what you are doing.”
Hope! What family of an addict hasn’t fallen back to that last trench? Denial, they say, is not just a river in Egypt.
Von Drehle concludes with these thoughts—and here, in my opinion, is where the rubber meets the road:
In sum, the story of the Bidens, father and son, is more pathetic than nefarious. Yet it might do damage anyway. Less privileged Americans can’t be faulted if they wonder why their addicted loved ones are on the streets or in the morgue while the vice president’s son is blessed with diamonds and sinecures. Multitudes locked up for years under Joe Biden’s crime bill might ask why the author’s son traveled the world scot-free. And sober working people making $50,000 a year may be skeptical of a system in which a vice president’s addicted son reportedly collected that sum every month.
Thank him for his service. Hold a big party in his honor. And promise him a nice job in the next administration, but only on condition that Hunter stops trading on his father’s position.
This morning, I see I have some readers in Ukraine. How sweet it is. HELLOOOOO PRESIDENT ZELINSKY!
N.Y. Times, May 1, 2019 ,Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies
Business Insider, Sept. 21, 2019, Here’s the truth about the allegations involving Joe Biden’s son and Ukraine drummed up by Trump and Rudy Guiliani
Republican senators, we are told, are by and large not circling the wagons around Trump. Meanwhile, it seems, lots of folks arecircling the wagons around Joe Biden. Claiming to have learned from Hillary Clinton’s missteps, they are refusing to answer questions about Hunter Biden and haranguing the press not to inquire.
Let me review the bidding here.
Hunter Biden, now aged 49, son of Joe Biden, is a Yale Law grad, sometime lobbyist, sometime business consultant, and sometime international dealmaker. Between 2014 and April of this year, Biden the Younger served as a director of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian corporation that produces natural gas. On the corporate board, Biden served along side a “high profile international” group of fellow directors assembled by the company’s principal, a Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky, typically described as a Ukrainian “oligarch.”
Some say that Mr. Zlochevsky and his company had a penchant for money laundering, tax evasion, and miscellaneous acts of corruption. These suspicions led the local authorities to investigate the alleged wrongdoing.
The extent of Burisma’s payments to Biden the Younger, and the reasons for those payments, are not clear. During all or part of his relationship with Burisma, he was wearing three hats:
Biden the younger has denied that his legal efforts involved any investigation of Burisma or Mr. Zlochevsky. According to the younger Biden, “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.” (That may or may not be the case, but one would suppose that, wearing his other hat, that of director, he would have a duty to be concerned with the company’s criminal exposure, if any.)
As for Biden the Elder, he has said that he learned of Biden the Younger’s excellent Ukrainian adventure by reading the newspapers—and that he never discussed these activities with his son. His son says that’s right.
Three explanations are metaphysically possible.
One. Zlochevsky was bribing Joe Biden. Two. Zlochevsky was unsuccessfully attempting to bribe Joe Biden. (Unsuccessful, that is, because Biden the Younger paid over none of the loot to Biden the Elder, and because Biden the Elder took no account of his son’s activities.) Three, Zlochevsky regarded the payments as money well spent to create the impression that he had an in with the Vice President of the United States, who was at the time tasking a large interest in Ukrainian corruption, a topic with which Mr. Zlochevsky was familiar. Possibilities two and three are consistent with one another, and might both be true.
Sometimes our close friends and family do things that are unwise—even things that cause us serious harm. That’s just the way life is. A situation like that creates all sorts of dilemmas. It’s hard to know how to respond. And, in the final analysis, you can’t control the unwise decisions made by a son in his forties.
All that said, it just doesn’t work to say, when a reporter thrusts a microphone in your face and asks for comment, “Move along. Nothing to see here. Don’t ask me any more questions. And if you do ask me any more questions, obviously you’re a tool of Trump. And if you persist and keep on raising the issue, then I’ll just throw a hissy fit.”
Nor will it work to claim that “the real story is Donald Trump’s betrayal of his oath of office.”
Well, that’s ONE real story, all right.
But it’s not the ONLY real story.
I can relate because I did a fair amount of legal work for bad actors on the international scene. Not to help them commit new crimes and frauds, but, yes, to help protect them from the crimes and frauds they may have committed in the past. And, in many cases, to help them clean up their act going forward.
But if my father had been a leading US politician, with a special concern over corruption in a particular foreign country, I would have had the sense to decline representation of malefactors in that country. And my father would have had a moral right to ask me to decline any such legal work.
Joe just cannot claim the moral high ground here while denying there is anything wrong and denouncing anyone who says otherwise.
That dog won’t hunt.
In January, a reporter contacted the nascent Biden campaign to request an interview. She wanted to ask the former vice president about lingering criticisms that were bound to come up on the trail: how, as a senator, he failed Anita Hill; his lead role in the 1994 crime bill; his vote for the Iraq war; his mixed record on abortion rights; his handsy ways; the hot mess that is Hunter.
And that little girl was me.
Maureen Dowd, Kamala Shotguns Joe Sixpack.
This afternoon, the talking heads are talking about Joe Biden’s eyebrow-raising comments to a bunch of rich supporters in New York. There are many things that might be said—see, for example, the two sources cited above—but let me just make two quick points.
Biden knows his audience. His pitch to them is not that we must reduce inequality because it’s a fundamental wrong, but because if we don’t, the masses will rise up in anger and you never know what might happen then.
My observation: it’s true that inequality has gotten way out of hand, and if it isn’t reduced, the poor are likely to rise up at some point and make things very uncomfortable for the rich. In other words, narrow, amoral economic self-interest on the part of the plutocracy would dictate that the plutocracy do something to let the pressure cooker vent, before it’s too late.
Biden was advocating that some rich people should give him some money. When you’re advocating, you don’t make the argument that is the best and most noble. You make the (true) argument that is most likely to appeal to your audience.
Biden is not to be faulted for telling his audience something that is true and is likely to appeal to them, rather than telling them something else that is also true, but will have less appeal. At least that’s my opinion.
But Biden’s viewpoint suffers, in my view, from quite a different, and very fundamental, defect.
Know yourself, know your enemy, hundred battles, hundred victories. Hillary Clinton lost for many reasons, but among the most important was her failure to understand what political currents she was dealing with. I very much fear that Joe Biden suffers from the same mental defect: you can make nice all you want with Mitch McConnell and his ilk, but they are not going to make nice with you.
If you do not understand whether the battlefield is hilly or level, you are likely to make big mistakes. I am very much afraid Biden does not understand where he is. And, lacking an understanding of the most fundamental facts about the current political environment, any success he may have will largely come as a matter of accident.
I do not like to depend just on dumb luck. An appropriate strategy, along with well-chosen and skillfully implemented tactics, are much to be preferred.
Today, I had the privilege of eating lunch with a person whom I greatly admire—one who has walked with princes and presidents, whose wisdom has been sought by foreign heads of state, but who has remained grounded through it all.
As we finished our lunch, my friend allowed as how Elizabeth Warren is looking better and better. I agree.
I’m still concerned that she told the Texas Bar Association that she was an Indian. I’m tempted to say that we have all done some squirrely things in our time, but, to tell the truth, I really can’t think of anything comparable that I might have done.
Still, nobody’s perfect.