https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/05/we-need-to-talk-about-hunter-biden

The standard lines from Democrats about Hunter Biden and his business dealings in China and Ukraine have been consistent: Donald Trump has abused the office of the president by asking foreign leaders to investigate Biden’s son, and there is absolutely no proof that either Joe or Hunter Biden have done anything to break the law. Any questionable dealings by Biden’s son also pale in comparison to ethical breaches on the part of Ivanka, Eric or Donald Trump Jr, who have routinely blurred the lines between the extended Trump Organization – the family’s business empire –and their presence in the White House.

This is all true, and arguably these are the right lines vis-a-vis the long overdue impeachment proceedings. What’s harder to shake is the fact that Hunter Biden’s career is undeniably shady in the way that only the son of a longtime Washington insider could muster, failing upwards into positions of influence and power on the merits of his last name. And that should be considered a huge liability to Joe Biden, for months now considered heir apparent for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination.

Biden has a storied history within a political establishment that Donald Trump ran – successfully, if disingenuously – to unseat. Indeed, his entire appeal is premised on his ties to that political establishment, namely his having been Barack Obama’s vice-president. That’s his biggest and perhaps only selling point in a run that’s been defined by fumbling debate performances, scant appearances on the campaign trail and awkward defenses of a record that includes support for the Iraq war and pitiful treatment of Anita Hill.

...The gamble of a Biden nomination, then, is a big one. It’s a bet on whether Americans really do want a return to the political establishment when signs here and around the world seem to be pointing in the opposite direction, empowering both far-right strong men and socialists as center-left and center-right parties stumble. Biden’s chances in a general election also hinge on whether he can muster support from enough Obama-loyal, reliable primary voters to counteract a lack of enthusiasm among younger and more progressive segments of the electorate, who won’t back him with nearly the same vim as they would Elizabeth Warren or (especially) Bernie Sanders. Did the mythical white working class voters that Biden is supposed to appeal to really just want to vote for another white guy (as cynical pundits have claimed) or did they too want to drain the swamp?..."

voted against him twice, has championed Hill’s courage for decades, He did not harass or shame her in the hearing. The Republicans did and the other Dems did not do anything to counter them, to confront Thomas.

Hill wanted the hearing and Biden got it for her. But he was not her personal defense attorney. That he has taken this whole sorry process on his shoulders is plain wrong. He believed Hill. He never
smeared Hill. She did not have the support then she has now. Thomas had more support.

But Biden? He supported her then in a flawed and ugly process. He supports her now.

So much wrong with this article.

Joe Biden himself regrets how he handled those hearings...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html

how Thomas and the Republicans treated her. Yes, he has apologized for the process, not being able to have made that easier or better. He has also said maybe he should have called a reluctant witness and treated her as a hostile witness against their lawyer’s advice. But Biden did not create
the process, one doomed to be a humiliating experience, to force a woman without legal representation to confront her abuser.

In this case, the abuse happened ten years prior, Hill came back to work for Thomas again after he had verbally harassed her, and continued contact with him after no longer having to work for him. Asked about that she said it was hard to explain sexual harassment. Prior to #metoo pretty impossible. She could not have scored points by explaining that she needed his recommendation, which she did contact him for post-harassment. As to the witness, there was no witness to what she suffered, only a witness to say he had a lewd mouth who absolutely did not want to testify.

In this case, Republicans chose an arch-conservative black man to take Thurgood Marshall’s seat, a civil rights legend. That shut the Dems up. Ted Kennedy was especially uninvolved during proceedings. Thomas called the hearing a high-tech lynching during the hearing.

As to support? Do you know the context? Did you see the hearings? Have you watched a video of even a part? Did you read the news at the time? Sympathy for Anita Hill was in shorter supply than
for Thomas who would go on to be only the second black person in American history to become a Supreme Court Justice, the first being Marshall.

So yes, the deck was sadly stacked against Anita Hill. But Biden did not stack it.
Maybe a transcript would help.

to make them better. He didn't have to allow testimony from the guy who testified that she had "erotomania," for example -- while refusing to allow public testimony from the women who were under subpoena as corroborating witnesses.

I watched all the hearings in real time. They were a disgrace, and Biden allowed them to happen.

No I did not sympathize with Clarence Thomas at that time or since. Biden chaired the committee and he did nothing ZERO to stop members of that judiciary committee from either party from attacking Hill. He simply allowed it to happen. He failed to call additional witnesses who would have corroborated her story. That was his job. And in his own questioning of Anita Hill he was NOT sympathetic, rather he was skeptical and some would say accusatory. Here is the clip:

"I wish I could have done something," is a pretty pathetic excuse for an apology given his role in those proceedings.

And he never did...What are you talking about? Biden was notorious for treating Anita Hill very bad during those hearings. We cannot make our own history anymore, there are plenty of videos out there that will contradict what you are saying.

He did not call her a delusional fantasist. He did not shame her. He was not notorious at the time
for mistreating her. That would be Grassley et al.

BIDEN called her a delusional fantasist. But he ALLOWED testimony from someone who did, and he didn't have to.

Meanwhile, he said they didn't have enough time for public testimony from the three women who thought they were going to be called as corroborating witnesses.

In recent interviews, Ms. Hill and others involved in the confirmation fight portrayed Mr. Biden’s handling of the hearing as at best inept and at worst deeply insensitive. They fault his refusal to seriously investigate her accusations and take public testimony from other potential witnesses who said the future justice had acted inappropriately with them. Justice Thomas has denied any inappropriate behavior.

One of those potential witnesses, Sukari Hardnett, a lawyer in Silver Spring, Md., said in an interview that she decided to come forward while watching the hearing when she “saw what they were doing to Anita Hill and how they were literally trying to trash her.” Ms. Hardnett wrote a letter detailing her own experiences and submitted it to the committee through the dean of her law school, expecting to be called to testify. But she said she was not.

Another woman who sought to testify, Angela Wright, called Mr. Biden “pretty much useless” last year in an interview.

Ms. Wright, Ms. Hartnett and one other woman, Rose Jourdain, who died in 2010, were ready to back up Ms. Hill’s account before the committee, but Mr. Biden ended the hearings before they were heard from in public. Over the years, Mr. Biden has suggested they either backed out or were reluctant.

Ms. Hill said there was not “any evidence” of that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html

For the record, Joe Biden did not apologize to Anita Hill. When he arranged a phone call with Hill a few weeks in advance of announcing his presidential bid, the political calculus of damage limitation could not have been more transparent. And yet, he could not even bring himself to say anything more than he felt "regret" - which Hill said very clearly was not an actual apology.

Watched the whole Thomas hearing. He may not have defended her by standards of today, but he was not the hitman! He was trying to be imminently fair to both. Other Senators were much harsher. Perhaps you weren't aware that most people didn't believe her at the time. How times have changed!

angry accusation that the hearing was a “high tech lynching” had strong resonance among both
black men and women. It is pure revisionist history to blame Biden for the cynical Republican scheme that brought on Thomas and smeared Hill at the hearing.

The smears continued after the hearing. I won’t even go into the lengths Republicans went to. It
would appear Hill herself would rather forget who her actual persecutors were.

Not Biden!

Anyone familiar with Hunter’s “career” can clearly see how he benefited from his name, rightly or wrongly.

This happens all the time, of course, but there’s a lot of mud for the right to fling in this particular instance. It’s going to get very ugly.

Biden doesn’t deserve it.

1. Hunter Biden is no saint, the guy had problems with cocaine, and did other questionable things, one that although Biden and his wife approved, as a father I would have not. None of my business though but it just didn't look good when I read about he and his brother's widow becoming a couple, although temporarily, immediately after the death of his brother.
2. Joe Biden himself should have known that his son taking on that position in Ukraine would eventually come to bite him, and it is. To me, that is bad criteria from Joe Biden, he should have talked to his son to make sure he would not be involved with Ukraine, or China.

I ask myself what republicans know that the public doesn't know yet that is being reserved in case Joe Biden becomes the nominee, what skeletons will be taken out of the closet? I find this theater about Biden and republicans very suspicious, it almost looks like republicans are trying to make people think they fear Biden.

DISCLAIMER: I will vote for Biden and support him anyway I can if he becomes the nominee, do I want him to be the nominee? No.

But the Navy thing, to me, is pretty much ammunition for the right.

I like Biden, but not a fan of Hunter. At all.

It also speaks volumes about his character.

Yes, Hunter has a lot of baggage that I feel is going to come out and hurt his father, but then again, Joe should have thought it would and done something about it.

I suspect he’s much like my mother - she would never believe anything bad about either me or my sister, lol, even when it was true.

No, I don't have to whitewash Hunter Biden just because he's "ours."

He should have known this was going to bite him, and in my opinion he should have advised his son against taking that job. Maybe Joe is sincere about not wanting to run for President after his time as VP, as he has said many times, so his son taking that job did not matter, but with his experience he should have talked to his son to prevent what is now happening.

Joe Biden knows republicans well, you don't let your guard down against these crooks, I feel he did.

Hunter has had some troubles, understandable. However he is not a stupid person

Georgetown, then a law degree from Yale.
I imagine most Yale grads have good jobs, not just those of politicians.

--
FWIW, articles like this make me even more determined to support Biden.
Supporters of Warren and Sanders are not helping their cause. In fact it makes me dislike both of them even more.

I am a bit different, articles like this pile up on my research for the best candidate we can get, if at the end of the day and at the time I decide to choose for a candidate the weight in the balance for Joe Biden falls on the negative side then my analysis will tell me that this guy will not be good for the Democratic party, and for the country, so he will not be my choice.

And to tell you the truth, at this moment the weight, at least on my balance, falls on the negative side for Joe Biden. As I have said before, if he is the nominee I will vote for him, I don't intend to sit out I will vote, and I will support him the best way I can, but for now he is not my first choice.

when people allow their opinion of a candidate to be raised or lowered based on said candidates supporters. Bottom line is that we have an excellent slate of candidates, any one of whom would be a great president.

Would change my longtime observations and analysis of those candidates, or alter my intention to vote for that candidate should they become the nominee. This gotcha squad who’s been running wild the past few weeks is just sounding silly and unreasonably demanding.

And we need a united front because Trump could go after any one of them.

If you mean the candidates' supporters -- the ones who bother me are the ones who seem very happy that Biden's under attack and it might hurt his chances of becoming the nominee.

It's premature grave-dancing. And it's disgusting.

I know the party policy is to stay neutral in the primaries, but there are plenty of spokes people who could counter these smears effectively

the US government to impact our democratic election.

Howard Dean has said it is best for the DNC not to get involved. What!? Trump and company are
counting on fear and rivalry to prevent a concerted outcry.

How is it promoting Biden to stand up for him against Trump? To say that Trump is targeting him?
He was the VP and a damned good one. He has been a loyal democrat working hard for our
candidates in the past, championing many, mentoring...

It is going out of the way NOT to mention Biden in calling out Trump.

Several candidates have taken a pause in their ambitions to stand up for Biden. Those who have not have been noticeably absent.

The whole Democratic Party ought to be standing up for Biden loudly. Tomorrow Trump will try to
take someone else out of the picture.

All for one and one for all. Biden has been a great friend to Democrats.

Don’t really want any Dem to win.

It’s always the same characters stirring up stuff. The leader is going to be smeared or
“alleged”.
I see today as Warren picks up steam, a very long post (which I read a bit) “warning” Warren of things she said in the past don’t necessarily exactly match some things she has said lately or on the website or whatever.

Geez. Folks who parse every word someone has ever said in twenty or seventy years drive me nuts.

tweaking of a stump speech to bring two explanations she gave, for why her first teaching job ended after a year, into agreement, now that video has surfaced online of the earlier explanation.

Quick fix. A sentence or two.

And I posted that because the story about the video was at the top of a news site I check and post about regularly.

the right to your opinion but its untrue, that DUers who post don't want any dems to win.

the hyper-scrutiny that Joe Biden has received will be visited upon any candidate deemed a threat to the Trumpster's reelection. As Elizabeth Warren nips at Joe Biden's ankles, she too will be spotlighted for every flaw and wart, every possible angle to exploit whether genuine or not. Anyone thinking that Warren will escape this sort of attack is blowing the smoke of wishful thinking or pretending Warren has never made a mistake or said a stray word in her lifetime that cannot and will not be exploited.

The ugly is upon us. This is only the beginning. Which is why I've been repeating:

An attack on one is an attack on all.

If Elizabeth Warren and her people expect all Dems to vigorously join in her defense when the time comes, then they should join the frontline with other candidates in stating unequivocally:

These attacks cannot stand because we're all standing against it, pushing back and calling it out for what it is.

The silence is disappointing to say the least.

I completely identify with the weariness it produces. That being said, it's only going to get worse. We're in a 'gird your groin' moment in history. One we didn't select but one we'll need to survive. Or not.

that said we can't "indict" a sitting president, and ignored an earlier one that said we could.

The legal precedent: Clinton v. Jones

“If public policy and the Constitution allow a private litigant to sue a sitting president for acts that are not part of the president’s official duties (and are outside the outer perimeter of those duties), and that is what Clinton v. Jones squarely held,” he wrote, “then one would think that an indictment is constitutional because the public interest in criminal cases is greater.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

I think we all expected Mueller to end the agony. But he failed to bring the biggest conman to justice.

As for Bill Clinton? Clearly, there's a double standard for Democratic presidents. Sexual improprieties are a no-no; corruption and betrayal to the national interest are ignored, given short-shrift, even excused.

Beyond depressing. But it's the reason we need to keep fighting.

keeps fighting Big Money that sets the corporate double standard such that a blowjob gets impeachment, government gets stripped down by a conman who only won the vote of 19.5% of the whole country. Then the .01% get trillions.

How billionaires of the Koch/Mercer/Adelson/DeVos class would want to beat a democracy that made them rich, into a corporate campus that leaves us all under "market value" law, is too hard for me to live with. Once I've lived under constitutional Enlightenment values and rule law, corporate serfdom is slavery.

Big Money is winning over law. It's been winning over the values tossed out by that double standard. Big Money commandeers our tax money against us. How does one keep fighting that, except impotently.

You don't have to answer, because you're right, it's beyond depressing.

If Trump wins, I'll be inconsolable. No more rule of law.

And who of us won't be laughed at by the stupid who won.

We keep fighting because if we stand together, those who value democratic institutions, the rule of law, governmental integrity, we absolutely can win. And this is a battle we must win for ourselves and our kids.

First things first, we get behind the Herculean task of repudiating Trump and Trumpism in 2020, kicking them solidly to the curb. I do not ascribe to the faulty, wishful reasoning that Trump and his henchmen are going to be easy to defeat, the 'anyone can do it' mantra.

What that means is the best candidate for the moment and a solid: Vote Blue No Matter Who vow. No intra-party fighting or divisions once our nominee is known, no third-party ship jumping and definitely no staying home. We have to convince our families, our friends, our neighbors that this truly is the most important election of our lifetimes, that what we do on Election Day 2020 is one of the more important moments we'll ever have as American citizens.

That determination paid off in 2018 when the pundits and even some Dems portrayed the mid-term election as a futile enterprise. And yet, we won an historic victory with excellent candidates, most of whom were tailor-made for their districts. We need to put aside the ideological purity memes and stand shoulder-to-shoulder, even with odd bedfellows, to fight the scourge that is Trumpism, just another term for fascism. There's no doubt that the Trumpers do have the money advantage. But if we stand together, there are far more of us than them to win, to indelibly embed the message:

This will not stand. Not here, not in our country. Not ever again.

Doesn't mean there won't be dark days. I suspect there will be days when the majority of us will want to crawl under the bed and never come out. We're just going to have to shake those feelings out, stand up for what we know is right, put one foot in front of the other. And keep going.

Because ultimately, we're the only ones who can save ourselves. The heroes have disappeared. The saviors are out of town. It's just us, people like you and me. With a voice, with a sense of urgency and purpose, people who continue to push the message:

This will not, cannot stand.

Not very succinct, I'm afraid.

Link to tweet

was there to save his republican party period. just like Barr and McConnel, screw Democracy or the Constitution.

He doesn’t need other candidates to defend him (unless they’re directly asked, then yes, they should defend him).

It seems to me since he is the object of this smear, Hunter should be out front refuting it. The Bidens have had weeks to get tough and explain this. Instead, Joe Biden won't punch back, Hunter is in hiding, and they allow Trumpkins to continue the smear daily.

Not exactly the kind of fighter Democrats are looking for.

I’m don’t need to hear him stand up to smear. It’s a smear.

Saying nothing leaves Trump to set the agenda.

Just like when Muller said nothing for two years, Trump set the narative.

He’s making shit up.

into proof that he’s the one to beat Trump. Further, he appeals to voters with “don’t let Trump pick
the nominee.” No whining. No angry displays. And no dishing other candidates.

I’d say Biden’s handling of Trump’s campaign against him a template in the tone others might adopt faced with adversity.

As to Hunter Biden? I don’t expect him to jump in. This is definitely about his father, not him. Trump could care less about Hunter. Just using whatever he can. Why feed him?

Link to tweet

You are so right rwheeler31. FFS We're now discussing Hunter's relationship with his dead brother's widow? Seriously? His drug issues? What ever happened to the idea that addiction is a disease? And hinting that Joe and Jill aren't great parents? Come on, guys. Support your candidate on the basis of their platforms -- and most of them are great. Are you that insecire that you have to use GOP talking points and express your "concern" about Biden to drag him down so your candiate can rise? It is as transparent as Trump saying he was pushing for corruption reform and not talking the Bidens in his call to Ukraine.

Let's be honest. Your "concern" is about as believable as the NRA's "thoughts and prayers" after a mass shooting.

Stick to the way your candidate responds to the issues. Remember, play along with GOP today attacking Biden and watch the way the GOP goes after your chosen candidate tomorrow -- and their family. Have we learned nothing from swift boating?