Pardon Me?

For the past six months, President Biden and his surrogates have repeatedly insisted that no pardon would be forthcoming for his son, Robert Hunter Biden. Time after time the president, his press secretary, their acolytes on the US news channels, and news anchors themselves, were adamant that there would be no act of clemency forthcoming and that to suggest such a thing was verging on heresy. This, however, has proven not to be the case.

The biggest clue that this was all a charade was the president’s failure to rule it out using his remarkably egotistical statement that he meant it ‘as a Biden,’ as though that was meant to mean something profound. Now, to mean something ‘as a Biden’ has a new definition: It’s not true. Of course, to Biden watchers, it never was. 

Those of us who have followed his career can attest to the fact that he was always disinclined to the truth and content to pass off other people’s words and ideas as his own. When he ran for the presidency in 1988 he was caught plagiarizing a speech by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, known un-lovingly and for good reason as the Welsh Windbag. This, however, was only part of his problem that year. He was likewise caught repeating word for word, a speech given by Robert Kennedy some 20 years earlier. He claimed to have gone to college on a full scholarship. He didn’t. He claimed to have finished in the top half of his class. He didn’t. And he claimed to have three degrees. He does not. Unsurprisingly, he crashed out of the Democratic Party Primary race that year.

Biden’s narrowing group of supporters will doubtless be pointing to the sins committed by Donald Trump and may even go as far as to highlight the pardons issued by previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, that have courted controversy. All of which is irrelevant for this case. No one is questioning the president’s legal capacity to issue pardons. Although it is remarkable that, having waged a revolutionary war to rid themselves of a constitutional monarch, Americans bestowed their new president with such authority. What is at issue here are two immediate factors: Firstly, President Biden’s steadfast and repeated insistence that he would not issue such a pardon, and secondly, the sweeping nature of the decree.

That the president pardoned his son should come as no surprise, despite the all too obvious conflict of interest involved. What is deeply disturbing is the blanket nature of the pardon, covering not only the two cases before the courts, to which he has pled guilty or been found guilty, but to any and all crimes he MAY have committed stretching back to 2011. It shouldn’t take the sharpest legal brain to leap to the obvious conclusion: What exactly is being addressed in this that is not yet in the public domain? What potential crime are the Biden family concerned could come to light in the years to come that they have now shielded Hunter from?

Intriguingly, the pardon that Biden has now received was similar to the deal that Hunter was offered by the DOJ back in the summer as part of a plea deal that was rejected by the presiding judge precisely because it was far too broad and shielded him from any further prosecution for unrelated incidents. This, of course, goes further, to shield Hunter Biden from any breaches of federal crimes dating back eleven years. Why eleven? It’s hardly a round number, or a figure that leaps out as being the obvious time period to apply to a pardon. Unless, of course, there is a hidden significance? The time frame covered by the pardon all but ensures that any wrongdoing will be impossible to address, especially when compounded by the statute of limitations which similarly constrains prosecution for acts committed in the past. The time frame also relates to the scope of an investigation being conducted by the House of Representatives into Hunter’s business dealings. Make no mistake, this is a concerted effort to shield him from any future findings of wrong-doing, and is, in itself, a tacit admission of wrong-doing on the part of the president’s son.

Hunter’s long struggle with addiction is now being used as a form of justification for his presidential pardon. To quote the Inbetweeners, ‘that’s awful, obviously, but not relevant.’ Hopefully my British understatement, dry wit, and sardonic sense of humor is coming through at this point? If not, let me be blunt. It’s a smokescreen being used to hide a far greater series of malfeasances.  It’s also a terrible insult to those who do suffer and who do not have a president as a father to grant them absolute immunity from prosecution.

The wording of the pardon is therefore significant. By going beyond the two crimes that Hunter was about to be sentenced for, the pardon acknowledges that more crimes were likely committed and would come to light. What these were, who else may have been involved, and the implications of these acts may, or may not now come to light. If they do, Hunter will remain absolved from any criminal liability due to the pardon. But will others be so lucky?

Which raises my final point. It’s only the first week in December. I had expected a presidential pardon to be forthcoming, but not until Biden’s final day in office. Issuing this pardon so soon after the election raises the question as to what will follow? Who else will be pardoned? The White House has announced that more pardons are forthcoming, but of who? 

Right now, Biden’s supporters are twisting themselves into pretzels in an effort to defend the indefensible, suggesting somehow that the facts had changed since Biden last insisted that he would not pardon his son. That will doubtless continue until the next opinion polls emerge that will likely show a collapse in support for the president. When that happens, expect his supporters to run for the hills.

For years we have been told that a certain politician was only seeking the presidency to shield himself and his family from legal jeopardy, that he was using the office for his own financial gain, that he intended to issue sweeping pardons to his children, and that he was, fundamentally, corrupt. It turns out that this was indeed the case, it’s just that the individual in question was not Donald Trump. It was, as it always was, Joe Biden. And that’s no malarkey.

Who Wants to Be a Billionaire?

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s stunning victory here in the US presidential election, several attempts to explain the result have been attempted by a steady stream of individuals eager to blame Harris’s defeat on a combination of racism and sexism/ misogyny. This clearly overlooks the overwhelming support that Trump gained from women and ethnic minorities in all parts of the country. 

Moreover, it overlooks the fundamental issue driving the electorate, which was neither racism nor misogyny (although both certainly exist in the US), but rather the economy and the cost of living. This may seem a rather quaint concept to those sitting in TV studios or in Ivory Towers, here in the US and around the world, pondering the possible direction of US foreign policy, or America’s place in the world. Indeed, Joe Scarborough referred to such issues as ‘reductive’ live on TV today.

His wife, Mica Brzezinski, daughter of the former national security advisor had to correct him over the cost of butter, which he believed was $3. She advised him it cost $7. It is not. It’s $8.99. Incredulous, he asked if it was ‘wrapped in gold.’ You could not ask for a more perfect moment to encapsulate the disconnect between the electorate and those preaching to them. It is reported that Ms Brzezinski and former Congressman Scarborough have a combined annual salary of $16 million and a joint net worth of $45 million. Clearly, taxes will cut that figure in half, but don’t cry for them as they lament the election result and the short-sightedness of the American electorate. 

They are merely two of the celebrities who have openly supported Kamala Harris’ doomed campaign in the face of overwhelming public apathy for her cause. They, along with Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Jon Bon Jovi, and of course the late night talk show hosts who hard working people can’t possibly stay up late enough to watch as they have jobs to go to in the morning.

The combined wealth of these individuals far exceeds $3 billion, yet they encouraged Americans to vote against their better economic judgment and support the policies of an administration that has overseen a crippling rise in inflation over the past 4 years. Those who fail to understand economics point to the current rate of inflation as a sign that the economy is rosy. It is not. The inflation under Biden remains baked in. The fact that the rate has dropped recently is absolutely no help as wages have fallen far behind with no comparable increases to match prices. 

In case anyone doubts the cost of living in the US, I went to the store today to prove a point. A loaf of bread costs $4.50, soup costs $6.50, milk costs $6, eggs cost $7.50, chicken costs just shy of $13, a quiche costs $9.99. This may all be fine if you’re Born to Run and can easily Shake It off. However, if you’re Born in the USA, chances are you’re Living on a Prayer trying to make the ends meet. 

This is why Donald Trump won. Americans simply could not afford to continue as things were going under Harris/Biden. 

Let the Recriminations Begin….

He’s back. In many ways, of course, he never really left. But in a remarkable turn of events, unforeseeable 4-years ago, Donald Trump has become only the second American ever elected to two non-consecutive terms as president. 

Having predicted this result in September, I am in the all-too rare and fortunate position of not being smart after the event, as so many will prove to be in the coming weeks and years, as pubs and TV studios inevitably fill with those claiming to have predicted this all along. They didn’t and the evidence is all over social media.

There is clearly a great deal to un-pack here, too much for one single posting, so I want to address a series of issues that are important to focus upon in the aftermath of this result. 

Until the summer, Joe Biden was not only the presumptive nominee, but he was also the sitting president and had won 14 million votes in the primary season to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination ahead of the convention. No one within the Democratic Party would say a bad word about his health, mental ability, or overall capacity to do the job. Everyone, from Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi on down swore blind that he was right as rain. Which is funny, because I had seen him speak at the Kennedy Library 2 years earlier and he was not right even then, unable to identify supporters in the first three rows, unable to pronounce names, and then getting lost leaving the stage. I’ve been fortunate enough to have met many world leaders and politicians and have never before come away so underwhelmed or concerned about any of them.

Then something funny happened, as Biden set in motion a chain of events that led directly to the re-election of Donald Trump. In May he challenged Trump to a series of debates, not waiting until after the conventions when such events had traditionally been held under the auspices of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Instead, two debates were scheduled, on June 27 and September 10.

Perhaps Biden figured Trump would refuse to meet, enabling the White House to score political points without actually having to engage with its Republican opponent. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Trump accepted the invitation and agreed to the rules put in place by CNN, including the muting of the microphones when the candidates were not speaking. Despite expectations, this actually aided Trump. Instead of the unhinged, raucous debates of 2020, the June encounter was far more controlled and contained. What was abundantly clear, however, was Biden’s decline. 

U.S. presidential debates often turn on a single phrase or soundbite. “There you go again,” in 1980, Reagan’s reference to Mondale’s youth and inexperience in 84, “you’re no Jack Kennedy” in 88, and so on. In 2024, it was Trump’s response to a rambling Biden, “I really don’t know what he just said.” Nailed it. At that point it was over, and it felt like 1984 all over again. Could this be a 49-state blow out? 

As it turns out the debate proved the final straw for the Democratic leadership. And I don’t just mean George Clooney. Horrified by what they had seen, forces moved quietly against their sitting president, instigating a whispering campaign that culminated with his ‘voluntary’ decision to stand down as the candidate. Everyone involved has denied any role or responsibility for this, which means that they are all lying. In the coming year I anticipate that the truth behind what occurred will be revealed in a series of memoirs from former Biden officials and when it does, it is going to be damming for all concerned. This includes the Obamas, Pelosi and a string of celebrities all of whom conspired to force Biden from the ticket. 

This presented a brief window of opportunity for the Democrats. In a strange series of events, Biden had fallen into Trump’s trap and been exposed. But Trump could easily have been undone by successfully calling for Biden to withdraw so early in the race and not allowing the president’s public humiliation to continue into the convention season. By moving quickly, the Democrats at least stopped the bleeding. What they should have done at this point was to hold a mini-primary, in the old style of a brokered convention. Since there was no nominee, and the convention was going to occur regardless, the opportunity was there for leading Democrats to put their hat in the ring and compete for the nomination. This would include those who had been forced to sit on the sidelines in late 2023 as a declining Biden insisted on running again, people like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer. 

Instead, the party decided upon a coronation for Kamala Harris. Perhaps the optics of throwing a black female vice president under the bus were too bad to contemplate, but what does that say about any expectations that she may have prevailed in such a contest? Perhaps party elders recalled her disastrous performance in the 2020 primaries, when she withdrew before a vote was counted? 

Regardless of the rationale, the decision to forgo a democratic vote by the Democratic Party unsettled many, raising questions as to how deserving Haris was, what the basis for her nomination was, and about her ability to withstand a general election having forgone the internal party nomination process. 

Having been handed the nomination, Harris then made the classic error and failed the first test of leadership; picking a terrible Vice President. Yes, a VP needs to be able to step in should fate intervene, but firstly they need to help a candidate win the presidency. To do so, they need to be able to add something to the ticket and deliver their home state. It should not shock anyone when I say that Harris was going to carry Minnesota irrespective of whether she placed its previously unheard-of governor on the ticket. Naming Tim Walz was a mistake from start to finish. He added nothing to the ticket, much like Tim Kaine in 2016. This, however, was not to be the last comparison with Hillary’s doomed campaign. The obvious choice was Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania governor, who may have helped secure a vital swing state but for reasons that defy political logic Harris balked and in so doing, handicapped her campaign from the start. 

Walz was a terrible pick. He added precisely nothing to the ticket. He brought no gravitas. He didn’t help Harris with any key demographic. From the start questions were asked about his honesty and integrity, as his propensity to, let’s be generous here, be creative with the truth revealed itself over and over again. 

Still, coming off the convention Harris soared in the polls, delighting Democrats, startling the Trump campaign and seeming to have reinvigorated an election that looked to be all over. She prevailed in her debate with Trump. However, this proved to be a Dead Cat Bounce. All too quickly Harris’s submarine strategy, of saying and doing as little as possible, began to backfire. No press conferences. No proper interviews. No policies. Just a steady stream of word salad statements that made no sense, advanced no agenda, and confounded belief.

There were no prepared answers to the most obvious of questions. From the start, therefore, this was a poorly prepared, poorly run campaign. Time and again Haris and her team seemed determined to repeat the same mistakes as Hillary Clinton in 2016. Refusing to engage, patronizing the electorate, believing that their election was pre-ordained, failing to address the central issues of the moment; immigration and the state of the economy, focusing instead upon peripheral issues.

And then there were the celebrities….

Just like in 2016, Harris seemed starstruck, overwhelmed by Beyonce, Oprah, Gorgeous George, and most notably Taylor Swift. As in 2016, not only did they not help, but they may have hindered the campaign. There is no evidence that these endorsements helped win Harris a single vote. And why should they? Many speculated that Taylor Swift’s eventual endorsement might drive millions of Swifties to polling stations across the country and propel Harris to the White House. Turns out, not so much. Several couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either major candidate or instead, wrote in Taylor herself as a candidate, totally undermining the whole exercise!

And then there is the great imponderable: Did Biden want her to lose all along? In case that sounds crazy, just hear me out……

In 2020, Harris implied that Biden was racist. Not behind closed doors. Not in an email. But on a debate stage in front of millions of Americans. Jill Biden’s response to this is well known. However, having pledged to place a woman of color on his eventual ticket, Biden had few alternatives other than Harris. When faced with the opportunity to stand down after one term and endorse her, he chose instead to seek a second term at aged 80. During his term, Harris had been viewed as ineffective and ineffectual. Appointed as the Boarder Czar, she failed to visit the boarder. Quite what she did for 4 years is anyone’s guess frankly, other than alienate people and hemorrhage staff.  

When she did emerge as the candidate, Biden seemed to deliberately go out of his way to sabotage her campaign. He unexpectedly turned up in the White House press briefing room at the precise moment Harris was speaking, forcing the networks to cut away to cover the president. Then, and most egregiously, while Harris was delivering her remarks from the Ellipse, Biden appeared to call Trump supporters ‘garbage’ on a podcast. Again, the parallel with 2016’s deplorables loomed large, diverting all attention away from Harris just when she needed it the most. He became persona non grata within the Harris camp and was banished to the White House, never to return to the campaign. 

And so, to the result. 

Not only an Electoral College win, but for the first time since 2004, a Republican victory in the popular vote. Speaking in London last week I mentioned that the best result would be an overwhelming victory for either party to end any debate about what constituted a mandate. Donald Trump achieved that. I predicted an electoral college victory of 297 votes, generously granting Michigan to the Harris campaign as well as a popular vote victory. It now appears that the Republicans will control the presidency, the senate and perhaps the House, in a stunning repudiation of Biden, Bidenomics, Harris, and the policies of past 4 years. 

But why?

That’s for the next paper….