More Hunter Biden News

While checking the news, I saw a reference to Attorney General Merrick Garland being scheduled to give a special announcement. It turns out the U.S. attorney overseeing the Hunter Biden investigation was made a "special counsel." Garland appointed two others, one for the President Biden documents investigation and Jack Smith for the Trump investigation.

Early reporting merely reported that he made the appointment, with one article referencing that Garland did it at the person's request.  We had a few comments on social media wary about the move and/or complaining about Garland bending over backward to please Republicans. 

(ETA: I saw Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, a political commentary blog, suggest the appointment is misguided means to appease the Republicans.  As I discussed, this is far from clearly the case, including what the prosecutor himself said.  

Now, maybe deep down it's all about satisfying Republicans. Or, maybe, Garland and company are doing their jobs as members of the Justice Department, and the situation as a whole warrants it.  Maybe, those whose very job it is to comment about the situation should do a more nuanced job of doing it.)  

The guy investigating asked for the change in status.  I'm sick of this Garland bashing.  I also was annoyed that the early reporting didn't clarify what this move did and why he might have done it. This is a basic thing to cover.  It's like saying someone bought a gun but failing to note that they did so because it was an antique.  

When I tried again, I found a bit more clarity.  As noted, in the words of a CNN article: "prosecutor, David Weiss, asked Attorney General Merrick Garland for the new authority after plea talks to resolve tax and gun charges fell apart, with a trial now likely."  

Weiss has clarified, recall he is a Trump-appointed prosecutor, that he did not ask for this title in the past.  Republican criticism factors into the whole equation -- sensitive investigations are a basic reason for special roles -- but that is not the reason from what I can tell.  

There was a plea deal but it broke down over the judge not being satisfied.  Seems a bit of a mess, but too soon to think they won't manage to figure things out.  Still, since the matter is being taken to a new stage, the additional discretion and powers of the role make it now appropriate.  As one article summarized the Garland statement:

“This appointment confirms my commitment to provide Mr. Weiss all the resources he requests. It also reaffirms that Mr. Weiss has the authority he needs to conduct a thorough investigation and to continue to take the steps he deems appropriate independently based only on the facts and the law,” Garland said.

Any commentary, online or not, should help the average person understand the nature of the move and why specifically it might have been done.  For instance, what difference would it make if Weiss was not given this title in such and such situation?  Overall, I think it sensible that the prosecution of the son of the president is carefully handled.  Someone sniped that this is a "private" citizen as it is some Joe Smoe.  

It also is not too surprising that Republicans are making political hay about this.  It is rather rich -- and Democrats should very well use this to their benefit -- given Trump and Trump's family.  The limited value Hunter Biden received for his family (oh the vapors!) is in no way comparable to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, both of whom had actual official roles.  

The whole thing is a sideshow and net works out to Biden's benefit in a variety of ways. First, the investigation is being handled correctly overall.  Second, Biden is showing empathy for his son.  Third, any attempt to make hay just provides a big blatant opening to remind how much the Trump family monetized their access to government.   

There is a stupidity zone here, including "both sides do it" and reporting that does not provide useful context, leaving us to kneejerk based on names and "something big happening" or something.  If we are going to have a lot of commentary, let's just do it right.  When something is done, provide full context, including the nature of the event and why it occurred.  

(For instance, I saw a tweet saying that the status would mean that the prosecutor could avoid testifying to the House Oversight Committee. I did not see this in the coverage yet.  It might be the case. Sort of useful to note.)