Category: The Candid American

Hunter Biden, the New York Times, and the Coming Impeachment

Why did the Times confess their error on the laptop story? Who knows? But it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to know they’re up to no good.

The Sherlock Holmes question of the week is: Why did the New York Times finally admit that the Hunter Biden laptop was genuine? Here are five possible answers:

1) Roger Kimball suggests it’s a prelude to Joe Biden’s own people removing him from the Oval Office. The laptop clearly indicates that Biden is corrupt, as many said during the 2020 presidential campaign. That “fact” has to be established, and now it has been, albeit in paragraph 17 or 22 or 35 of a long article that many people will never read. It’s now a matter of record in what used to be called “the newspaper of record”—but is now, truthfully, just another sleazy hack political rag. 

Kimball’s thesis requires multiple steps, which makes it unlikely. Before “they” can dump Biden, “Kamala [Harris] will have to be dealt with first,” says Kimball. They need to dispose of her the way the Democrats had to dispose of Vice President Spiro Agnew before they could get rid of President Nixon. 

How are they going to do that? Actually, it’s probably not so difficult: Harris almost certainly has enough baggage in her past to kill an elephant. But unpacking that baggage takes time, and it would have to be done before the next Congress convenes. Under the 25th Amendment, if the vice president is removed or dies, the president appoints a new vice president, subject to the approval (by majority vote) of both houses of Congress. A Republican House is not likely to confirm a Democrat acceptable to a cabal of inner circle Democrats plotting to depose Joe Biden. 

Moreover, if Biden catches onto the plot, he could tell his would-be ousters that if they dump Harris (his gold-plated insurance policy) he’d appoint someone like Newt Gingrich as vice president. Or maybe Tucker Carlson. If he did that, however, the current Democratic House could simply decline to approve him. Then, if the cabal removed Biden (while there was no vice president), under the Succession Act of 1947, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would become president. President Pelosi would then appoint a new vice president, which the Democratic House and Senate would approve. 

All of that is theoretically possible, of course, but it’s a bit convoluted, and the clock is ticking, so Kimball’s hypotheses are unlikely. 

2) It’s possible that an errant staffer, ticked off at the Times for some reason, inserted the paragraph, deep down in the article, when no one was looking. Again, possible, but not likely.

3) Maybe the Times, sensing a change in the mood of the American people, wants to be able to say, soon, or at least in years to come, that, yes, they told the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop. Maybe. But again, not likely. 

4) Maybe Hunter Biden will soon be indicted, and largely because of the information found on his laptop. Maybe it would just be too embarrassing, given the likely publicity over such an indictment, not to have fessed up to the authenticity of his laptop. 

5) Maybe the Times is simply coming to grips with reality, the reality that the Republicans might impeach Biden, and the paper might as well be on record as having told the truth about the laptop, albeit verrrry late

Impeach the president? Yes! It’s entirely possible, even likely, that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would move to impeach him. There are certainly ample grounds: He simply isn’t taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed, especially on the southern border. Biden has abandoned all semblance of enforcing immigration laws. Illegals are pouring across our southern border (more than 2 million in Biden’s first year in office, and they’re still coming), bringing crime, disease, and—perhaps worst of all—fentanyl. Enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child in America. It’s a scandal—perhaps the scandal of our time. Biden should be removed for that alone. And he may be!

It’s true that some might argue that the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 3) doesn’t impose a duty to take care that the immigration laws are enforced but is merely a grant of power that the president can choose not to exercise. However many “scholars” may support that argument, it is—how to put this delicately?—not likely to be a winning argument in a Republican House of Representatives getting rid of a man who many think was not duly elected anyway . . . which requires a digression. 

Some people, perhaps many people, lost friends when they claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. Their former friends said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to support that claim. 

But how do we know—or rather, how do they know? If you ask them, they will tell you only what they have read or heard from the media, media that we know now (well, we knew it all along) are dishonest: we know that because that is the import of the New York Times’s confession of error. The awful truth is that you, Mr. and Mrs. America, wherever you are, have no idea whether the election was honest or not, because your only way of determining that is by what you read and hear from the media—which is shamefully dishonest and was totally in the bag for Joe Biden.

6) Maybe the Times has reformed. Maybe it’s going back to just reporting the news. Dream on. Try searching its website for “Zelenskyy bans political parties,” or for any formulation of the sense of those four words. Zelenskyy appears to have banned 11 parties in Ukraine, but not the Nazi party. Other news outlets ran that story on Sunday. Why not the New York Times? Maybe they were too busy flagellating themselves over the Hunter Biden laptop story. Maybe. But maybe not. 

So why did the Times confess their error on the laptop story? Who knows? But it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to know they’re up to no good.


March 30, 2022
American Greatness

Wheeled Vehicles, Kangaroos, and Nancy Pelosi’s January 6 Committee

The Pelosi committee is just a tool: a tool with which the Democrats are attempting to discredit Republicans of all stripes and to win the 2022 election (and perhaps also cover up Pelosi’s own rejection of National Guard assistance on January 6. (Did she assume the ton of FBI informants had everything under control?)

If you see a sign in the park that says “no wheeled vehicles allowed in park” can you enter pushing a baby carriage? The answer is obvious. Or is it?

Was the 2020 election stolen? The answer depends on how “stolen” is interpreted, as the meaning of the sign in the park depends on how “wheeled vehicles” is interpreted. In an adversary proceeding, each side will interpret the language to its own advantage, which means both interpretations will be presented.

Former Attorney General William Barr has written a book (an excerpt appeared in the Washington Post on March 4) describing his telling President Trump that the election had not been stolen—or at least that there wasn’t significant evidence that it had been stolen. 

People may disagree with Barr. Trump does. Trump, though, had had a chance to do something about election fraud that numerous people had warned him about a year before the election. He did nothing. That doesn’t make him responsible for any irregularities. But it does tend to take the wind out of his sails when he complains bitterly that no one (no one of his people, especially William Barr) did anything about the fraud he thinks—he “knows”—was committed. 

The media—do we have to say “woke media”?—are of course trumpeting the lack of any official findings of significant fraud, and trumpeting especially the Supreme Court’s (shameful) refusal to hear the relevant cases. The very concept of “fraud” has now been turned into something only those characterized as, “far right, Trump-supporting extremists” complain about. That is not good for democracy. The media are to blame, but, to repeat, so is Trump.  His arrogance, that he would win the biggest majority in the history of the galaxy (a galaxy in which all the forces of Mordor and the Imperial Army were arrayed against him), was partly to blame. 

A large segment of the American electorate was skeptical of the election result immediately. News and information travel quickly in America. By the afternoon of the day that the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded (January 28, 1986), the stock market had figured out that faulty O-rings were the cause. 

By January 6, 2021 (after two months of vitriolic and partisan news coverage of voting irregularities), many Americans had figured out that the 2020 election had been “stolen,” even if not stolen in a way Attorney General Barr could do anything about. Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spent more than $400 million in an effort some people saw as an attempt to corrupt election officials. And the woke media shamelessly shilled for Biden while also covering up the scandalous matter on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which now, finally, even the New York Times has conceded is genuine. Democracy anyone?

And so it was that many Americans gathered in Washington on January 6th to protest the stealing of the 2020 election. Or, if you prefer, the “stealing” of the election. 

They gathered initially on the Mall, listened to a speech by President Trump; and then proceeded to the Capitol. And we know what happened next.  Or do we?

It wouldn’t be accurate to say, “The rest is history,” because there are at least two different storylines. To the left-wing woke Democrats, it was the worst attack since Pearl Harbor (try telling that to any remaining surviving relatives of the sailors who died that day or to anyone else who has lost a relative in one of our recent feckless wars). That is, of course, nonsense. To the Right, it was a mostly peaceful protest. One person was killed, but not—can you believe it? —by a Trump supporter. An unarmed woman (i.e., not an attack ranger camouflaged in civilian clothes) who was crawling through a window (hardly a threatening position) was shot by a misfit policeman. (Now there was a cover-up!)

Scandalously, many people who were subsequently arrested were denied medical care and access to attorneys, and were kept in solitary confinement, referred to antiseptically as “restrictive housing.” Even Senator Elizabeth Warren (D–MA) complained about their treatment: “Solitary confinement is a form of punishment that is cruel and psychologically damaging,” Warren said. “And we’re talking about people who haven’t been convicted of anything yet.” (Great comment! Does the record show she did anything about it?)

Old soldiers may fade away, but the Democrats are determined not to let their narrative about January 6 fade away: they have been banging that drum for more than a year and intend to keep on banging right up until Election Day this November. The Nancy Pelosi Democrat January 6 panel consists of six highly partisan Democrats and two rabidly anti-Trump Republicans, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who, in an unprecedented action, have been rebuked by the Republican National Committee for their behavior. Pelosi’s committee is now alleging a “criminal conspiracy” by Trump. That’s just partisan nonsense—and it’s partisan because it doesn’t have even the trappings of an adversary proceeding, one in which all sides of an argument are presented before a conclusion is reached. 

Did Trump urge the crowd to riot? At the speech he gave on the morning of January 6, Trump asked his followers to protest peacefully and subsequently tweeted, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” Only partisan hacks—or perhaps a DC jury—could find fault with that. 

The Pelosi committee is trying to whet the appetite of “moderate” Attorney General Merrick Garland to go after the January 6 detainees and Trump himself—perhaps, say, a month before Election Day. That would be the same Merrick Garland whom Senator Mitch McConnell kept off the Supreme Court, and who also crafted a memo the text of which may have been innocuous but the import of which was widely seen as threatening parents who complained at school board meetings. Some moderate!

Harvard emeritus professor Lawrence Tribe and a colleague have written an op-ed in the Washington Post urging Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Donald Trump. The op-ed ran one day after a honey-trap reporter from Project Veritas videotaped Matthew Rosenberg, a New York Times journalist, saying: “We’re the ones, not Fox, not Breitbart, who actually went and uncovered the fact that, like, there were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.” Really? Do you suppose Nancy Pelosi’s committee knows that? Please.

The Pelosi committee is just a tool: a tool with which the Democrats are attempting to discredit Republicans of all stripes and to win the 2022 election (and perhaps also cover up Pelosi’s own rejection of National Guard assistance on January 6. (Did she assume the ton of FBI informants had everything under control?) The goal of her committee members is not to discover the truth; they don’t care about the truth any more than they cared about the truth of the now wholly debunked Trump-Russia collusion story, which we now know (we always surmised it) was a Hillary Clinton campaign dirty trick. The immediate goal of the Pelosi cabal is just another dirty trick: goad the Attorney General into acting and poison the 2022 elections. 

The cost, however, to the rule of law of achieving that goal is huge. Pelosi is the chief kangaroo of a kangaroo court, a very visible court; and the more visible, the worse for our treasured judicial system. 

When the Republicans take over the House of Representatives, they should tack up a sign on the front door that says, “no kangaroos allowed in this house.”


March 18, 2022
Human Events