The challenges ahead (Biden's America)

[N.E. Brigand]

A new New York Times article about the testimony of two IRS agents to Congress seems designed to force U.S. Attorney David Weiss to testify about the Hunter Biden case. One of the supposed whistleblowers, Gary Shapley, is basically saying that Weiss in a letter and Attorney General Merrick Garland in testimony have lied to Congress when they variously said that Weiss had ultimate authority, that Weiss could bring charges based on conduct outside of Delaware, and that Weiss had never requested that he be granted special counsel status. The accounts appear to be so much at odds that it seems like someone has to be lying. (But it could be Shapley. A Republican-controlled House would never refer him to the Dept. of Justice for lying to Congress.)

The Washington Post reports that "the FBI agent overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden disputed whistleblower [David Shapley's] claims that David Weiss was stymied by the Biden administration."

[N.E. Brigand]

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy today announced that, despite there being no evidence to warrant it and despite not being able to muster the votes to support it, he is opening an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. He was fiercely critical of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi for having authorized a 2019 impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump's conduct without obtaining a vote in the House first, but then there was plentiful evidence that Trump had extorted Ukraine's president earlier that year. McCarthy's move is clearly both meant to distract from Donald Trump's criminal proceedings and to relieve pressure on himself from the Republican hard right. And now Politico has some more news: "Trump privately discussed Biden impeachment with House GOPers," including conference chair Elise Stefanik.

Also the Dept. of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel in 2020 issued a formal opinion that subpoenas issued as part of an impeachment inquiry that had not been authorized by a vote of the full House of Representatives were invalid. The opinion initially was issued in secret but later was made public as part of Trump's defense in his Senate trial. Lots of people thought that the opinion was wrong. But it's never been tested in court, and it is customary for later administrations to honor such findings.

[N.E. Brigand]

During the G20 summit in India last week, President Biden announced the U.S. was taking part in a number of joint policy initiatives. One is a project with the European Union to develop a railway line in Zambia and Angola. This is one of several projects who have among their goals countering Chinese influence in Africa. It would also extend a line from the Indian to the Atlantic oceans.

Naturally Republicans are mocking Biden's announcement (delivered the next day during his press conference in Vietnam) about building "a railroad all the way across the African continent" as being either a gaffe (i.e., that he meant to say "across the U.S.") or a bad investment.

[N.E. Brigand]

Per Reuters, a new EPA study "finds the U.S. "is on track to spew between 35% and 43% less carbon dioxide by 2030 from 2005 levels as a consequence of the Inflation Reduction Act."

At the same time, "the U.S. produced more energy in 2022 than any year on record."

[N.E. Brigand]

Earlier this week, the publishers and top editors at several major media outlets met with the Dept. of Justice to push for better treatment of the press, in response to recent revelations about how DOJ had obtained subpoenas for reporters' records in the course of leak investigations (investigations that may have been politically motivated). There were some calls this week among other journalists for those media bigwigs to use the meeting as an opportunity to demand that the Justice Dept. drop its charges against Julian Assange, on the grounds that he too is a journalist deserving the freedoms afforded by the First Amendment....

Because it may become relevant to Julian Assange's case (it's nearly a certainty now that he will be extradited to the U.S.), I'm noting this new AP story here:

Ex-CIA engineer convicted in massive theft of secret info

The defendant, Joshua Schulte, is apparently a brilliant engineer who now has been convicted of stealing documents in 2016 and sharing them with Wikileaks, which dubbed them "Vault 7" when they were released in 2017. These documents reveal the tools (some developed in part by Schulte himself) that the CIA uses to hack phones, and the release thus severely undermined the CIA's information-gathering ability. Schulte was arrested in 2017. (It's possible that Donald Trump, either accidentally or in a fit of pique about the idea that Barack Obama tapped his phones, tipped Schulte off via comments made in an interview with Tucker Carlson.) Over the next three years, he apparently continued to leak information from jail that he had obtained from the government through the legal discovery process (that accounts for two of the charges he was just convicted of today). He first was tried in 2020, but the jury hung on most charges, voting to convict him only of making false statements and contempt of court. He chose to represent himself in the second trial -- and after the jury began deliberations, the judge said he did a creditable job of defending himself -- and he was convicted of all counts: eight counts of espionage and one count of obstruction. He will certainly appeal. (Schulte also faces yet another trial on an unrelated matter.)*

Wikileaks claims to have another tranche of documents they call "Vault 8" in their possession, whose release (as Schulte himself has noted) would be just as problematic or worse for U.S. intelligence services, but they've never released those documents, and there is some suspicion that Wikileaks is trying to use that fact as leverage against the U.S. government, perhaps to reduce an eventual sentence should Assange be tried and convicted, but I don't know if that's anything but speculation.

*Today Schulte was convicted on that other matter (three charges for receipt, possession, and transportation of child pornography).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Note: this is not real. But it is apt ... and amusing.

[N.E. Brigand]

As I am pretty sure you know already, they can't sue the judge for what he ruled no matter how wrong his ruling is. Nor should they be able to (but we've had this conversation before).

That having been said, the ruling is pretty nonsensical. However, the Fifth Circuit is extremely conservative, so it is not a given that it will be overturned immediately. I do think that it won't survive review by the Supreme Court. [...]

Meh. Dred Scott and Fred Korematsu should totally have been allowed to sue the Supreme Court for violating their civil rights. Since they're dead and that's not possible, their descendants should now be allowed to sue John Roberts and the rest of them for every cent they've got. How else can they get justice?

But in any case, you were right that it was "not a given" that the Fifth Circuit would overturn Judge Doughty's decision. In fact, they upheld some key parts of it. Notably they say:

Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.

I'm OK with a prohibition on the government coercing the social media companies, but not with a prohibition on the government "significantly encouraging" social media companies.

And now the government has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court asking that the order (as upheld by the Fifth Circuit). I appreciate how the filing stresses the difference between coercing and encouraging.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

Hunter Biden, the president's son, has been indicted on a false statements charge for lying when he told a gun dealer (and said on a form) that he wasn't on drugs. I believe in strict gun laws, so in the abstract, I have no problem with this. However, Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell, told the judge last week that Biden was abiding by the terms of the diversion agreement previously reached with prosecutors on a charge pertaining to Biden's possession of the gun while on drugs, so this feels extraneous. Does this end in some new plea deal?

(Edit: V beat me to it.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I also believe in strict gun laws, but I also believe in equitable application of the law and while the son of the president should certainly not receive favorable treatment, he also should not receive unduly unfavorable treatment, and from everything that I have read, these charges would not have been brought but for the fact that he is the son of the president.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As I am pretty sure you know already, they can't sue the judge for what he ruled no matter how wrong his ruling is. Nor should they be able to (but we've had this conversation before).

That having been said, the ruling is pretty nonsensical. However, the Fifth Circuit is extremely conservative, so it is not a given that it will be overturned immediately. I do think that it won't survive review by the Supreme Court. [...]

Meh. Dred Scott and Fred Korematsu should totally have been allowed to sue the Supreme Court for violating their civil rights. Since they're dead and that's not possible, their descendants should now be allowed to sue John Roberts and the rest of them for every cent they've got. How else can they get justice?

But in any case, you were right that it was "not a given" that the Fifth Circuit would overturn Judge Doughty's decision. In fact, they upheld some key parts of it. Notably they say:

Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.

I'm OK with a prohibition on the government coercing the social media companies, but not with a prohibition on the government "significantly encouraging" social media companies.

And now the government has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court asking that the order (as upheld by the Fifth Circuit). I appreciate how the filing stresses the difference between coercing and encouraging.

[N.E. Brigand]

Heh:

(source)

Edited to add:

1. Most importantly, there's a third charge that I didn't mention, which is for Hunter Biden's actual purchase of the gun. Hunter's attorney notes that prosecutors signed a diversion agreement specifically not to charge that one. The prosecutors say the deal is void because the probation officer never signed it. Hunter's attorney also says that (1) an appeals court recently ruled that this law was unconstitutional in certain circumstances (but it's an appeals court in a different district) and (2) that this charge has never been brought as a standalone count by federal prosecutors in Delaware before (but there's a first time for everything).

2. Andrew Weissmann, Renato Mariotti, and Elizabeth de la Vega, all former prosecutors, are skeptical of the decision to bring these charges.

3. Asha Rangappa points out that Hunter Biden's mistake was not making his purchase at a gun show.

4. I like this: "Biden has weaponized the Department of Justice against his son's Second Amendment rights."

[N.E. Brigand]

Franklin Foer's new book about Joe Biden, titled The Last Politician, has more details about Biden's June 2021 meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. At the time, it was announced that Biden, aware that Russian cyber agents had been poking around U.S. facilities, had given Putin a list of 16 key infrastructure where any such attack would result in serious consequences. Foer reports that "the president spoke more ominously than he'd let the public know. 'Put yourself in my shoes,' Biden told Putin. 'I mean, with the attacks on our infrastructure. Imagine if something happened to your oil infrastructure…' Biden let the thought hang in the air, and reading it now, it hangs even heavier. One year later, as America spent millions to defend Ukraine against Russian invasion, the CIA learned of a Ukrainian plot to damage the Nord Stream pipelines with underwater bombs."

[N.E. Brigand]

Some 13,000 members of the United Auto Workers -- about 10% of the total membership -- went on strike at three Ford, Chrysler (Stellantis) and General Motors plants in Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri, respectively, starting last night at midnight. Here's video of the union's president explaining the move and says that the strike will expand if the auto makers don't meet their demands. President Biden has expressed support for the workers, saying they deserve a "fair share" of the firms' "record corporate profits". (But you can find stories in which business criticize Biden for supporting the workers and in which workers criticize Biden for not doing enough to support them.)

Edited to add: a Gallup poll finds that Americans support the union over the automakers by 75%-19%.

[N.E. Brigand]

Dave Weigel of Semafor gets at the laziness of many reporters:

[N.E. Brigand]

Of the 46 million jobs added to the U.S. economy since 1989, 96% were added while a Democrat was president (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden) and only 4% were added while a Republican was president (George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Donald Trump).

[N.E. Brigand]

NBC: "Military officers begin to speak out on the harm done by Sen. Tuberville's holds on promotions. They say the damage the holds will do to the military will be felt for years, as young talented officers decide they've had enough and choose to get out."

Here's a hypothesis: perhaps Tuberville could be an unwitting agent of the Russian or Chinese military governments, who have used the issue of abortion to trick him into damaging U.S. military readiness. I would be open to other theories. Maybe he hates America for his own reasons. Or maybe he's just really stupid.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm pretty sure it is closer to the latter option than the others, but who knows for sure?

[N.E. Brigand]

Sigh.

[Frelga]

Unbelievable.