Special Counsel—The Sequel

I'm sure that every leader of the Democratic Party along with the vast majority of all Democrats, would heartily endorse the appointment of Special Counsel to investigate the Biden family—Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and his brother, Jim. After all, It was the Democrats who argued that the only way to get to the bottom of the "Russia collusion" scandal was to name a Special Counsel who conducted two-year investigation that roiled Donald Trump's presidency and consuming the media. No matter that there was little if any evidence of collusion, the Dems insisted that an investigation was not only warranted, it was a moral imperative. 

Even if the Bidens' own emails, banking transactions, and business activities do NOT indicate an active attempt to sell access and influence at the highest levels of government, the simple fact that there are substantive allegations should be enough, right? BTW, if the Trump allegations would rate a 2 on a seriousness scale of 1 to 10, the Biden allegations should rate at least an 8. Unlike Trump, there actually is a paper trail, money from foreign powers did, in fact, change hands, and an actual named witness to the process has come forward, implicating not only the Biden family but indicating that Joe Biden himself knew all about it.

Michael Goodwin writes:

Now that the election is over and it is safe for the media to cover the Hunter Biden scandal they ignored when The [NY] Post broke the story in October, things in Washington are getting back to normal. FBI and Justice Department officials are once again leaking like sieves to their favorite reporters.

The New York Times knew before the election that Joe Biden was the “big guy” in line for a secret 10 percent stake in a deal with a Chinese energy conglomerate, but the paper withheld the information from readers. Yet now that Hunter Biden admits he’s under a criminal tax probe, the Gray Lady begins to stir.

In a Friday piece about the perils of the probe for Hunter’s father, the Times writes that “the inquiry originally focused on possible money laundering but did not gather enough evidence for a prosecution, according to people close to the case.”

Yada yada yada, the real question is, what else did the Times know and when did it know it? And why did it keep silent before Election Day?

Try to imagine Donald Trump and his family getting the same deference.

The feds are investigating Hunter B. and have been for over a year. The question is—what have they learned about Joe B.'s involvement. Goodwin continues:

Someone wrote that, by standing alone against the mob, The [NY] Post proved itself the nation’s indispensable newspaper. That high praise is borne out by the fact that the October reports were on the money — and there were no anonymous sources. The paper identified Rudy Giuliani as the source of the contents of the laptop Hunter left at a Delaware repair shop and failed to retrieve, and the repair-shop owner confirmed it.

To this day, neither Hunter nor Joe Biden has disputed any of the e-mails, messages and lurid pictures found on the device.

Consider this, too: The Post’s reports, including interviews with Tony Bobulinski, a former partner to Hunter and Jim Biden, presented more solid evidence about dirty dealings by the Biden family than anyone found on Trump and his family. This is true despite special counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year probe into Russia, Russia, Russia and the nonstop House impeachment investigations.

The confederacy against Trump gives rise to another reality: The only way to protect the probe into the Biden family money-grubbing is through the appointment of a special counsel. The need for protection was the logic behind the Mueller appointment, and it applies now in spades ...

In China, our No. 1 global adversary, Hunter made millions upon millions of dollars in deals with firms tied to the ruling Communist Party. And recall that Joe and his brother Jim were also involved in the 2017 planned deal with the energy conglomerate, according to Bobulinski, who provided his information to the public and the FBI.

The potential implications for America’s national security are enormous. The Trump administration has forcefully confronted China on numerous fronts, including trade deals, repression in Hong Kong and among the Uighurs and its military expansion in the South China Sea. As a result, Joe Biden will be under pressure from President Xi Jinping to take a softer approach.

If he does, will that show he is bought and paid for? And what else does China know about the Bidens that Americans don’t?

Interesting question. Given their past pre-disposition for a special counsel, I have no doubt that the Democrats will agree that one is warranted to look into the Biden matter. After all, it only seems fair that the "rules" the Dems created for Trump apply to Biden as well.