It’s been suggested in the press that early on when Federal prosecutors let slip that they had enough evidence on which to base serious indictments of Hunter Biden, Biden’s lawyer Chris Clark “threatened” David Weiss, the US Attorney for Delaware with this:
President Biden now unquestionably would be a fact witness for the defense in any criminal trial. This of all cases justifies neither the spectacle of a sitting President testifying at a criminal trial nor the potential for a resulting Constitutional crisis.
IBM was interested in buying the Israeli chip maker, Tower Semiconductor, and the acquisition might have raised antitrust concerns in Israel, the US, the EU, and elsewhere around the world. Each of those antitrust concerns, if acted on, would have had effect only inside the nation raising the concern, however, making the matter purely a business decision whether to go through with the merger and simply not do business in the objection nation. Nobody objected, though, except the People’s Republic of China.
The PRC’s State Administration for Market Regulation balked and withheld approval, so IBM meekly quit the deal altogether, apparently in order to appease the PRC and preserve—IBM hoped—its other business concerns there.
The Biden administration is bent on bringing computer chip manufacturing back into the United States. On its face, that would seem beneficial. However, the administration team he’s formed to oversee the matter and its $39 billion of taxpayer dollars allocated to the program is populated with
investment bankers, private-equity investors, and management consultants.
And apparently no chip engineers or anyone familiar with supplying chip factories.
The Manhattan Project and the crash program to develop treatments for the Wuhan Virus were populated, strongly preferentially, with experts in the field, and they just as strongly deemphasized the moneybags experts.
Or worse. The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are on the right track to criticize the sham nature of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to appoint David Weiss as Special Counsel (an illegal appointment, as illustrated nearby) in the Hunter Biden (and possibly et al.) investigation.
Those editors, though, are surprisingly naïve in one regard. On the matter of DoJ’s (Garland’s and Weiss’) move to formally withdraw the plea deal that Federal District Judge Maryellen Noreika had rejected the day it was presented to her, the editors suggested,
Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed Delaware Federal Prosecutor David Weiss as Special Counsel overseeing the Huner Biden collection of investigations. You all know this already. There are problems with Garland’s appointment and with Weiss’ being in that position.
The Biden administration’s OMB is moving to eliminate consideration of opportunity costs from the administration’s estimates of the costs of proposed regulations, a move that would make those regulations seem cheaper than they are.
Opportunity costs are at the core of free market economics, and The Wall Street Journal‘s editors offer a succinct definition [emphasis added].
Recall that Delaware Federal Prosecutor David Weiss is the prosecutor who agreed to a wrist-slap plea deal regarding Hunter Biden’s tax failures and his illegal possession of a firearm. That deal was so soft, and so shady—Weiss even tried to slide an indemnity against any further prosecution on any matter into the rehab program Weiss had agreed—that the judge presiding on the case tossed it the day it was formally presented to her.
Now, Attorney General Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden’s (D) wingman in DoJ has appointed a special counsel to oversee the continuing/renewed investigations into Hunter Biden’s shady foreign dealings (many of which border on, if not actually are, FARA violations), money laundering, and influence peddling, all of which have implications regarding Joe Biden’s involvement.
Cogently put by Keri Ingraham, Discovery Institute’s American Center for Transforming Education Director in her Tuesday Wall Street Journalop-ed:
[M]ost “public” schools aren’t public at all.
In most communities, children are restricted to a single assigned school based on their home address and arbitrary boundary lines. Private schools often have academic, behavioral or other admissions standards, but they don’t keep children out simply based on where they live.