Is the Clock Finally Running Out on Hunter Biden?

Below is my column in The Hill on the expiration of the grand jury in Delaware and reports that the Hunter Biden investigation is at a “critical stage.”  These lingering questions could have been avoided if Attorney General Merrick Garland had responded to new disclosures with the appointment of a special counsel. In 2021, emails and recordings from the laptop further fueled questions of whether President Joe Biden could have been a beneficiary of some of these dealings and how his early denials of knowledge appear demonstrably false. The failure to appoint a special counsel in this case is a textbook example of why such appointments are necessary to avoid such doubts about the scope or independence of an investigation.

Here is the column:

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin once said the secret to his success was “timing … I have been blessed to have been in the right place at the right time.” It is the same defining element of Hunter Biden’s life: No matter what crime or corruption is alleged, he has escaped responsibility, often by pure political serendipity.

Now, according to various media outlets, time may be running out for Hunter, with a federal investigation entering a “critical stage.” Yet, timing still could be on Hunter’s side.

Hunter has always had impeccable timing and, like Blanche DuBois, “always depended on the kindness of strangers.” He went to law school after his father became a powerful U.S. senator with a long line of influence-seekers eager to help him and his family. After graduating, Hunter was given a high-paying job with MBNA, the bank holding company, which supported key credit card legislation being pushed by his father in the Senate.

Later, Hunter was given a ridiculous appointment to the board of Amtrak and became its vice chair, despite an utter lack of credentials. His father, however, was a critical advocate for Amtrak in the Senate.

When his father became vice president, Hunter and an uncle allegedly cashed in on a long line of foreign entities seeking influence with his father. Millions of dollars were given to Hunter even though, as he has acknowledged, he was a crack addict and alcoholic at the time — “[d]rinking a quart of vodka a day by yourself in a room [which] is absolutely, completely debilitating” and “smoking crack around the clock.”

When Hunter’s debaucheries and dealings became public knowledge, thanks to a laptop he abandoned at a repair shop, the timing again was right for him. It happened just before the 2020 presidential election, and the media imposed a virtual blackout on coverage; 51 intelligence experts wrote a letter dismissing the laptop as likely “Russian disinformation.” U.S. Attorney David Weiss, probing Hunter’s dealings under an appointment by then-Attorney General William Barr, suspended his grand jury investigation for months to avoid accusations of influencing the election.

Now the grand jury’s expiration last month has forced a new timeline in the Hunter saga. The grand jury reportedly looked at a variety of possible criminal charges stemming from Hunter’s reported influence-peddling with dubious foreign figures from China, Russia, Ukraine and other countries.

While it is unclear if there were any indictments, some crimes seem undeniable on the basis of known evidence. For example, Biden seems clearly to have lied on the federal form to acquire a gun by denying his drug use; he also appears to have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And there are obvious tax charges that could be brought, even though he paid outstanding taxes after the investigation began.

However, some of the most serious allegations of corruption concern alleged influence-peddling and acquiring millions from foreign figures. Not only were there reportedly more than 150 suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed, but those millions seemed to evaporate. His dealings reportedly involve an array of powerful figures, including his father, his uncle and the children of other well-known families.

Yet it is again a matter of “timing” and familiar concerns of “Election Year Sensitivities.”

A long-standing Justice Department policy instructs prosecutors to exercise caution in “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election.” Accordingly, some observers have objected that prosecutor Weiss should not issue an indictment against Hunter before the midterm elections, since that could hurt Democratic candidates. That could explain the failure to release any indictments after the disbanding of the grand jury.

But the use of this policy to seal or delay any indictments could raise equal concerns over the politicalization of prosecution.

The protected period under Justice’s policy has been stated variously as 60 or 90 days. This grand jury’s term expired outside of either period. Moreover, the policy does not bar filings during that period; it bars prosecutors from using “the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” It is the grand jury’s expiration, not any nefarious purpose, that is driving this schedule.

The most obvious problem with this argument is that neither President Biden nor his son are on any ballot in November. The policy is not supposed to be a political variation of the parlor game “Six Degrees of Separation From Kevin Bacon.” An indictment in Delaware would be three degrees from any Democratic candidate: (1) Hunter is the son of Joe Biden, (2) Joe Biden is president and a Democrat, and (3) there are candidates running as Democrats.

To use such a strained connection can itself be a political act. If the Justice Department can withhold prosecutions with even tangential political elements, it can shield political allies from having to address criminal allegations before the voters.

Of course, if there are sealed indictments, any delay would not stop an eventual prosecution. However, that timing still could benefit Hunter. He did not have to face a special counsel, who ordinarily would prepare a comprehensive report. There has long been an overwhelming basis for the appointment of a special counsel in this case, given direct references to President Biden as a prospective beneficiary of Hunter’s deals. By leaving this case with a U.S. Attorney, such a report is unlikely, and only limited information would be disclosed with any indictment.

More importantly, if an indictment is confined to narrow charges, not a broader conspiracy, Hunter could plead guilty to secure a more favorable sentence and avoid both a trial and the release of additional information. A plea could offer practical protection from future congressional hearings, too: It would close the case before Republicans could regain control of one or both houses of Congress, and the Justice Department could decline to bring further charges. Indeed, the expiration of the grand jury without a public indictment fueled concerns that the Biden Justice Department might cut a generous plea deal with the president’s son.

Conversely, if the U.S. Attorney were to present evidence to a new grand jury, it could take months and extend beyond the midterm elections. That would present a considerably higher risk for the Biden administration and for Hunter himself, because Weiss might put that additional time to good use.

Weiss does not appear to have called critical witnesses related to any alleged influence-peddling, including President Biden. Presidents can be called before grand juries or deposed by investigators in other cases; President Clinton, for example, famously was compelled to testify in a legal case during his term. If Weiss is going to investigate deals that discuss money going to “the big guy,” as Hunter allegedly referred to his father, then it would seem obvious that that would be the one guy who should be on any witness list.

It is unclear what, if anything, Weiss has uncovered about the Bidens — but, perhaps for the first time, time will tell.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

169 thoughts on “Is the Clock Finally Running Out on Hunter Biden?”

  1. Yeah, you can’t indict a Democrat before an election, but Republicans Casper Weinberger and Ted Stevens would like a word.

    I think that one of the most infuriating aspects of the media controlled narrative is the fact that we now live in “Doublestandardstan” (TM). The way that Democrats can get away with murder (see Kennedy, Ted) and Republicans all have to pay for any minor misdeed from any Republican down to state rep is sickening.

    Eric Holder and Lois Lehrner held in contempt of congress…nothing to see here. Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon…prison time.

    Lie to congress as a Democrat, get a job on MSNBC, lie to congress as a Republican…prison time.

    Lie to the FBI as a Democrat, see McCabe on CNN, Lie to the FBI as a Republican see Roger Stone or General Flynn.

    Living in Doublestandardstan (TM) is what has ruined the standing of our media and will hopefully finally wake up the elctorate.

  2. None of you so far has stated another obvious, but not often voiced, alternative to the Hunter Biden ‘problem.’ Who is he a problem for?…….Joe Biden and Democrats seeking election/re-election. Who wants to see Hunter Biden removed from the picture? Joe Biden and the Democrats. Who wants this guy to remain alive, and ‘singing’ to prosecutors? The GOP. Who does not want that? Joe and the Dems.
    So I ask all of you who still care; in whose best interests is it that Hunter ‘disappear?’

  3. As usual, we see only the tip of this iceberg. There likely are lots of “graymail” type stuff in this case. For example, Hunter’s emails show connection to former FBI Director Louie Freeh who was working on behalf of Gabriel Popoviciu, a Romanian business tycoon facing bribery charges in Romania. Hunter and Popovicciu were business colleagues and Hunter and Freeh discussed helping to get Popovicciu out of his court problem. Freeh apparently was in touch with his former Bureau pals to “use” Popoviciu as a cooperating witness (for what we don’t know!). Freeh “donated” one hundred thousand dollars to a foundation set up for Hunter’s sis-in-law’s kids. Freeh also was trying to use his connection to Hunter to encourage Hunter’s dad to engage Freeh’s security service. Lots of stuff here that would make jucy congressional hearings into connections and ties between family of POTUS via Hunter to shady characters like Popoviciu. Freeh looked like hapless wannabe trying to wiggle himself into what he must have known was a lucrative endeavor.

  4. A colossal new film is coming. In this new film the name Corleone is simply replaced by the name Biden. I guess that sooner or later a President who is the head of a crime family would be elected. Joe has made it known that if the media doesn’t go along with his protection racket bad things could happen. For many years the Italian community knew what was going on but they finally and painfully came to the conclusion that it was the Italians who were being hurt by the Corleone family. You have to hand it to Papa Joe, he has brought the protection racket to a national level. Will the American family finally and painfully come to the conclusion that Joe and his foot soldiers are hurting us all and may be doing irreparable damage to our republic. One can only hope that a real awakening will transpire in November.

  5. There remains a subset of those who still approve of the President, albeit this dwindling number is smaller than the party base. I am not sure who loves watching their retirement savings diminish, freedoms being eroded, and runaway inflation.

    Those who are tied to him are in a dilemma. If they remain with him, especially in swing states, they will likely go down with the ship. Ask him to step down? The Vice President is incompetent. What to do?

    Meanwhile, any fair minded thinking person is scratching head. How bizarre! Most know that the fix is in and the rhetoric (B.S.) will continue.

    Legacy media organizations continue down the path of deception. Their audiences and readership continues to fall. I bet it is frustrating for a journalist who longs to seek and tell the truth to be throttled back by their bosses.

  6. AMAZING! YOU SHOULD SHILL FOR ‘BALANCE OF NATURE’ or RELIEF FACTOR….I’d buy anything you endorse…do you have T-Shirts? Or Apple Cider Gummies? ….Seriously, it’s always a treat to read your analysis.Thanks!

  7. Of course it is, This is how they will remove that misfiring mental vegetable from office. He will be told to resign for the good of the country. He will say something like this; “He hadn’t realized what a viper his son was and, while ashamed of him, he feels he must remove himself from office for the honor of America”.

  8. I have no doubt Hunter used his daddy to make money. Like far too many other kids and spouses of elected officials.

    But we just had a president that tried to stay in power by using a violent mob. Our country continues to be torn apart by people who think they are following Jesus when in fact they are following the spawn of satin.

    Thank you Jonathan for your caring so much that Hunter get his due. Meanwhile the trump fascist party is doing whatever they can to stay in power, legal or otherwise.

    1. There seems to be little question that Hunter has some serious explaining to do however it appears that he and his relationships “are to big to fail”…

  9. Once the haircuts got to rolling along in France…..lots of those cheering the early ones….found themselves getting their own perm done to them.

    Like that Baseball guy said….”It ain’t over until it is over.”.

    We have the November election coming up….and it appears Nancy Pelosi is going to be handing over the big Gavel to McCarthy……and Chuck You Schumer shall become the Minority Leader in the Senate.

    That will be the start of the new round of haircuts…..as the Republicans take charge of Congress.

    Then comes the 2024 Election….after four years of Biden/Harris….do you want to place your bets on how the Democrats fare in that election?

  10. A long-standing Justice Department policy instructs prosecutors to exercise caution in “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election.

    That’s an outdated policy. Politicians are in campaign mode 24/7. I couldn’t care less that a public announcement about an investigation is potentially inconvenient to a campaign or political party. Prosecutors don’t consider the timing of indictments for the average citizen.

    1. Campaigning is not the issue. It’s the election date that is. Investigations or announcing investigation findings close to an election is because they do have the ability to directly influence an election outcome.

      “ Prosecutors don’t consider the timing of indictments for the average citizen.”

      No they don’t. Because the average citizen is NOT running for office. Therefore an investigation does not have the potential to influence or affect an election outcome.

      1. I don’tcare.

        near the time of a primary or general election.

        Last I checked, the primary and general election window runs at least 10 months of the election year. When sufficient evidence is presented for an indictment, then ignore the calendar and indicate. Otherwise that is potentially influencing an election.

          1. Olly, you may not care, but it’s the biggest reason why that policy is important. If it involves a candidate being investigated then the policy is in effect when it’s too close to an election.

            They can still indict after an election if there is evidence that a conviction will stand. Nothing stops prosecutors from bringing charges after an election. It’s still an option.

        1. Olly,

          I’m actually siding with Olly on this issue. I want to be influenced not to vote for a candidate if there is a prima facie case for indictment even in the midst of an election! We’ve seen how difficult it is to hold a president criminally accountable AFTER he has been elected.

          Earlier Olly said:

          “There’s been no desperate attempt to tie Hunter’s activity to his father. The laptop and witnesses have done that all by themselves. The desperate effort has been to bury this story.”

          Not unlike the desperate attempt by Fox to bury the recent Jan 6 hearing by airing it on its business channel while its news channel’s primetime hosts continued to smear the hearings as a “show trial” which characterization Turley has never endorsed. Instead, he is on the record approving of these hearings despite his lamenting their shortcomings.

          While Turley justifiably criticizes the MSM for burying the Hunter laptop, he hypocritically will not criticize his network for trying to bury the Jan 6 hearing….

          1. While Turley justifiably criticizes the MSM for burying the Hunter laptop, he hypocritically will not criticize his network for trying to bury the Jan 6 hearing….by airing it on its business channel

            There, fixed it for you. He’s a constitutional scholar, not a program manager for a major news outlet. Since Fox is airing it, they clearly haven’t buried it. It’s not as if FBN is CNN+. Well they could be if they ignored their advertisers on their primetime lineup and decided to air it on FoxNews.

            1. Olly,

              Airing the hearings on its business channel is an attempt by Fox to maintain its plausible deniability that it is not censoring the hearings not unlike Trump throwing in “peacefully” into his “fight like hell” exhortation to claim that he was not inciting his crowd to violence.

              I am not going to insult your intelligence by arguing that you don’t recognize that. You do. You just won’t admit it.

              1. I admit that I watched the two failed impeachment trials. I promise you, if Trump is indicted and they air the trial, I’ll watch that fail as well. In the meantime, I admit I have not and will not watch the Jan. 6 committee’s (not-ready-for-primetime) worst imitation ever of Geraldo opening Capone’s vault. Hell, at least Geraldo was working with a character proven to have committed crimes.

                Hey look, Lucy’s holding the football for you. Go kick it!

                1. Olly,

                  If Trump is indicted, I’ll bet you that he will be convicted. Paul has agreed to hold bets. He is an impartial person. I trust him. I’ll gladly Venmo to him $1000 to hold until the verdict is in. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

                  1. When we have a single-tier justice system, I’ll review the evidence, I’ll consider the venue and then maybe bet accordingly.

                    1. Olly,

                      Turley did not claim that the jury engaged in jury nullification in the Sussmann acquittal despite its D.C. venue. Turley has never even intimated that we have a two-tier justice system. I’m with Turley unlike you.

      2. It’s the constant Lefty refrain: We must put our thumbs in the scale, American voters are too ignorant to be trusted! Lol!

    2. I’d really like to know the history of that “long-standing policy.” It’s being used by the media and the DOJ to justify their rank deception of Americans just when their need to know becomes most important. It relieves the press from the cumbersome task of actually investigating and allows them to continue their campaign for the DNC without even dropping a Pom Pom.

      1. It’s being used by the media and the DOJ to justify their rank deception of Americans just when their need to know becomes most important.

        Of course it is. The DOJ withholding indictments due to the possibility they would influence an election, is no different than the collective media blocking a story on the false allegation of Russian disinformation.

  11. “ However, some of the most serious allegations of corruption concern alleged influence-peddling and acquiring millions from foreign figures.”

    Turley has been beating this dead horse for so long that it’s gotten to the point where nobody really cares.

    Everything Turley mentions is either an “alleged” crime, “possible”misconduct, “may” have been illegal, etc, etc, etc. he’s feeding assumptions and engaging in insinuations to create a distraction from more serious and current issues.

    Influence peddling is completely legal. The majority of Supreme Court conservatives have ruled such influence peddling is protected free speech. Making millions from foreign figures is not illegal either. Turley has admitted none of those issues are illegal or crimes.

    There’s a very specific reason why no special counsel has been appointed. There’s nothing illegal or suspicious about the actions that Turley has already admitted are legal. He’s just promoting the narrative that suspicious activity despite being legal is somehow criminal.

    Turley has been beating this dead horse for so long it’s turned into a useless pile. The grand jury hasn’t found anything worthy of a conviction because nothing he’s done is actually illegal or a crime.

    1. There is one question all of us are dying to have answered by you:

      what is the method to your madness of using different profile names? Everyone on here knows you use scores of sock puppet accounts, and we all laugh at you. So, out of curiosity, what is the rhyme/reason to your using one fake name over another? is is the gravitational pull of the moon/earth, radiation from the Sun reaching us due to explosions in its atmosphere, or is it your medications?

      Honest question because frankly nothing you write is taken seriously. Though we can appreciate you have to make money trolling for your handlers.

      1. I’ve never used fake names or posted anonymously unless it was a mistyped email address.

        There are far more folks on the right why use multiple names or post anonymously.

        I haven’t poster in a week because I went on vacation.

        I always post with the same name. That’s never changed.

      2. Anonymous,

        Can you refute the fact that influence peddling is not illegal? How about making millions from foreign entities? Turley has never mentioned that those activities are illegal or crimes. Can you show that they are?

      1. Debinrye,

        Still haven’t seen anyone refute the fact that influence peddling is illegal. The Supreme Court ruled it’s protected free speech. Turley insinuates that influence peddling is a crime or against the law somehow. Being that he is a law professor he should know exactly why his insinuations and claims don’t hold water.

        https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/30/supreme-court-legalizes-influence-peddling-mcdonnell-v-united-states/

        Just recently Sen. Ted Cruz won a case for bribery which the Supreme Court Agreed that essentially bribery is protected free does thus its legal.

        https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099256713/supreme-court-sides-with-sen-ted-cruz-in-campaign-finance-case

        1. Still haven’t seen anyone refute the fact that influence peddling is illegal.

          I believe you meant isn’t illegal. It’s also not illegal to indict someone before a general election. However as you have argued, it shouldn’t be done as it may influence the election. Hunter Biden is not a candidate for any office, so what candidates for office would his indictment potentially negatively influence and why?

          1. Olly, thank you, yes I meant “isn’t”.

            “ It’s also not illegal to indict someone before a general election. However as you have argued, it shouldn’t be done as it may influence the election. Hunter Biden is not a candidate for any office, so what candidates for office would his indictment potentially negatively influence and why?”

            Being that Hunter is president Biden’s son AND critics of President Biden are trying desperately to tie something of an illegal or criminal nature to him thru his son’s alleged crimes or illegal monetary gains qualifies the use of this policy if Biden chooses to run. Another issue is using the same narrative to influence the November elections and the primaries by using weaponizing the investigation’s findings to influence the most recent election. The latter is a possible reason, but not necessarily an airtight reasoning to invoke that policy.

            So do you agree that influence peddling is not illegal according to the Supreme Court McDonell v. United States? Turley obviously doesn’t mention this inconvenient fact.

            1. Being that Hunter is president Biden’s son AND critics of President Biden are trying desperately to tie something of an illegal or criminal nature to him thru his son’s alleged crimes or illegal monetary gains qualifies the use of this policy if Biden chooses to run.

              Trying desperately to tie…? From Professor Turley:

              When Hunter’s debaucheries and dealings became public knowledge, thanks to a laptop he abandoned at a repair shop, the timing again was right for him. It happened just before the 2020 presidential election, and the media imposed a virtual blackout on coverage; 51 intelligence experts wrote a letter dismissing the laptop as likely “Russian disinformation.”

              If you read carefully, you’ll notice the absence of the word alleged. There’s been no desperate attempt to tie Hunter’s activity to his father. The laptop and witnesses have done that all by themselves. The desperate effort has been to bury this story.

              So do you agree that influence peddling is not illegal according to the Supreme Court McDonell v. United States?

              No, I don’t. Influence peddling may be illegal if the state can prove the quid resulted in a quo.

              As far as I know, having sex with a Chinese spy or having a Chinese spy as a chauffer are also not illegal. It’s also not illegal for a servicemember to file for bankruptcy. But guess which of the three may have their security clearance suspended, at least temporarily, while it is determined they are not a national security risk? That’s right, not the members sitting on the House and Senate Intel committees.

              1. Olly,

                Your Turley quote is not an allegation. What he IS alleging is are the activities as being either illegal or criminal without citing the law stating that it is.

                Turley is engaging in speculation and as an “esteemed” law professor he is making assumptions rather than an honest analysis. He’s basically writing sophisticated tabloid material.

                1. Your Turley quote is not an allegation.

                  You’re really not that bright. I already said: If you read carefully, you’ll notice the absence of the word alleged.

                  Being that Hunter is president Biden’s son AND critics of President Biden are trying desperately to tie…

                  To which I replied: There’s been no desperate attempt to tie Hunter’s activity to his father. The laptop and witnesses have done that all by themselves. The desperate effort has been to bury this story.

        2. “influence peddling”

          It is not necessarily illegal and is done all the time, but it becomes illegal based on how it is done and the circumstances behind it.

          Biden is definitely involved with illegal influence peddling. The only problem is proving it. The media doesn’t even want to accept Hunter’s laptop as legit and the DOJ does not follow the rule of law.

          1. Anonymous, “ Biden is definitely involved with illegal influence peddling. The only problem is proving it.”

            Its not illegal according to the Supreme Court. And as you acknowledge there is no evidence of any of it being illegal.

            You say Biden is definitely involved with illegal influence peddling without any proof of your own. Wanting it to be illegal is not proof that it is.

            1. Its not illegal according to the Supreme Court.

              False. I read the decision you cited and it is illegal if the state can prove the quid resulted in a quo.

              1. The only thing that would be illegal is a quid pro quo deal. Just peddling influence itself which is what Hunter Biden is being accused of is not. Nobody is claiming there is some quid pro quo agreement. Even Turley doesn’t claim that.

                What he IS doing is insinuating that the influence peddling itself is the crime. He’s strongly framing the narrative as such.

                The illegality according to the Supreme Court is very specific and very narrow in its interpretation.

                What quid pro quo has Hunter Biden engaged in?

                1. The only thing that would be illegal is a quid pro quo deal.

                  You would have a hint of integrity if you would settle on one narrative. For instance, you claimed that SCOTUS ruled influence peddling is not illegal. I proved that’s not what the decision said. So now you acknowledge that it would be illegal if it proved there was a pro to go with the quid (peddled influence). The illegality according to the Supreme Court is very specific and very narrow in its interpretation.

                  So now you’ve chosen a different argument.

                  What quid pro quo has Hunter Biden engaged in?

                  The allegation of Hunter’s illegal influence peddling would be directly connected to an entity that had a quid based on the influence Hunter peddled and then was connected to a pro. In case you’re still not following; if Hunter was selling access to Joe because of Joe’s position of power in the US government and Hunter was paid for what he sold because Joe completed the quid pro quo, that is illegal for Hunter and Joe. If it can be proven that Joe (Big Guy) also received compensation connected to the quid pro quo, then that would certainly satisfy SCOTUS’ interpretation.

                  I know, I know, your next question is where’s the quid pro quo? Ukraine would be a textbook example. Was that illegal? If it was done to stop a corruption investigation into Burisma. But hey, that’s why investigations are conducted by non-partisan special counsels. That is you have any interest in rooting out corruption in government.

                  1. One would have to completely naive or lying to think there was not a quid pro quo behind all of Hunter Biden’s action regarding each and every country or person who has paid him large sums of money, including for his ‘Art.’ Hunter brings nothing to the table other than being the son of a Senator, then Vice-President, and now President. That and being an addled drug user.

                    1. Agreed. There is a 3rd option however. They could be what Bezmenov described as “demoralized”.

  12. One thing this mess has made clear: the country dodged a bullet when Merrick Garland was not appointed to the SC. He’s as crooked as Biden and Hillary, and clearly does whatever the party bosses tell him to do.

  13. This is another example of the way the Press has distorted reality in the US. Only political operatives, as the Press has proven itself to be, would have ignored not only the salacious story but obvious corruption of the Biden family. The Press has proven it is without ethics and undeserving of many of the benefits we give it. It truly reveals the disgrace the US Press has become a mouthpiece of the DNC … as always, reminding us they are Orwell’s Squealer.

  14. Has the clock run out for Hillary, the Russia Russia Russia conspirators, the Jan6 committee, those who manipulated our election? Hunter will face the same end. Look how bold and confident they are to pull off these stunt’s. It’s come to a time when the masks are off and it’s in your face corruption.

    It bothered me that our young people are not eager to serve in our nation’s military but why offer your life to protect these people?

    There’s no one looking out for the Republic but the people. The question is when will the people react?

    1. Margot,
      If I had kids in their highschool years, I would tell them to avoid the military (and I served, family has a long military history) and college.
      My daughter was able to get out of college just as wokeism arrived.

    2. That is the question. I do think that Hillary has a closet full of Teflon pantsuits.

  15. If this were the Trump family, the lap top would have been front and center and all sorts of litigation would unfold. But we are now a third world political country.

  16. It would be simpler for the President to pardon himself and family then resign, but I suppose he is worried about his approval rating.

  17. “Is the Clock Finally Running out on Hunter Biden?”

    No, nothing will happen to this jerk, just like it never happens to all of the previous jerks i.e. Clinton or Obama. This is the system we have.

  18. Anyone who keeps abreast of current events should clearly comprehend the fact the United States has a two tiered justice system.
    One set of laws that protect one political party and another set that criminalizes the opposing party.

  19. Does anyone expect justice from AG Garland?

    Justice here will be gentle, slow, confidential.

    Compare Garland’s treatment of Republicans.

Leave a Reply to giocon1 Cancel reply