Garland Appoints Biased Special Prosecutor to Investigate (" ") Hunter Biden Case

Alright, I've been rather skeptical of this stuff--though off-and-on it seems to me that you just have to be naive not to connect the dots in the obvious way...

   But this is an outrage.

   The original deal seems to have been an outrage--though I could be wrong about that.

   Appointing the same prosecutor to be (pseudo-)special counsel...this is a damned outrage. If this were Barr and one of Trump's kids we'd be hearing...well...we'd have been hearing for the last three years...all about it every night on the news. Every minute on CNN and MSDNC. It'd be screaming from every issue of the NYT, the WaPo and the rest of Team Blue Pravda...

Here's the WSJ.

Here's Legal Insurrection.

   This development really pisses me off. I'm more than willing to reserve judgment about this--or at least I have been willing. Now that we know the President did, in fact, call Hunter during his business meetings--and now that I've read a bit about how influence peddling works (here's Turley on the topic)--well, personally, I think they're dirty. I think the President of the United States, while VPOTUS, engaged in influence peddling on behalf of his drunken, drug-addicted, prostitute-uh....hiring...son. However...all I want is a fair and honest investigation. But apparently we're not going to get that.

   The media has, once again, not merely been uncritical, it has been a partner in the collusion.

And now the Attorney General of the United States has appointed a pet prosecutor who has already cheated on behalf of the target of the investigation.

   As Turley points out, the media keep moving the goalposts. This is their standard pattern now when it's Dems who are allegedly guilty of wrongdoing: ignore it until it can't be ignored any longer, then deny it until some element of it can't be denied any longer, then lie about it / explain it away with some lame-ass, obviously bullshit theory until that doesn't work anymore, then move the goalposts / raise the burden of proof to a point such that only a signed confession by the Democrat in question could possibly count as acceptable evidence. Last week we were asked to believe that Joe just called to talk about the weather...now we're told that none of this counts for anything unless we can actually see him taking money. Which sounds like bullshit to me. Influence peddling for your son is influence peddling just as much as doing so to line your own pockets.

   However, at this point, I'd relish the opportunity to bet on the question "Did (Joe) Biden take some of the money?" Because, well, look: he did. But even if he didn't, he's still a crook.

   I can't resist adding: I knew and said that Biden would be a terrible President. But he has exceeded my wildest expectations...

[NTP: Garland's Latest Dirty Trick to Protect Bidens]