Hunter Biden, A Liability on the Precipice

Photo: Visar Kryeziu/AP, as published in CityWatch LA, 12/30/19.

Photo: Visar Kryeziu/AP, as published in CityWatch LA, 12/30/19.

By Sara Corcoran, Courts Monitor Publisher (Originally published in CityWatch LA, 12/30/19)

 

DC DISPATCH-Amidst Trump campaign slogans calling for Hunter Biden’s location, one thing is clear. . .we all know where Hunter is — Los Angeles — and hope he is enjoying his new life in Citywatch’s backyard.
But in wishing him well, we would be remiss if we did not mention the serious threat he presents to his father’s presidential prospects. Hunter Biden (photo above, left) is an unpredictable tracking cookie who follows his father’s campaign, displacing bytes of data wherever he travels. Furthermore, he appears to be a liability that the campaign or its leader has strongly overlooked in assessing Biden’s chances of winning the presidency. Absent a credible strategy to block Hunter’s cookie trail, he will continue to diminish the fungibility of his father’s candidacy — stonewalling or calling members of the audience on the campaign trail “damn liars” will just not work. 

Let me start by saying that I admire Joe Biden as a candidate and public servant. This courageous American has dedicated his entire life to the American people both domestically and abroad. He has endured unimaginable tragedies which makes his ability to connect with fellow survivors genuine. I do not question his patriotism nor his frontrunner status in national and swing-state polling, but I am left feeling very uncomfortable that his former partner in the Executive Branch has failed to endorse him. 

According to some media reports, Obama is not convinced that Biden has what it takes to clinch the nomination and beat Donald Trump. Absent the overt and covert blessing of Obama, we are left to infer that he knows something about the former Vice President that the general public does not. What can it be? His health? His age? Or some secret information that he’s gleaned from classified intelligence reports? 

Obama, during the last year of his presidency, had the insider track when it came to monitoring the impact Donald Trump was having on the U.S. elections — he may have underestimated the impact, but he knew that the Russians were working to harm Hillary Clinton and to push for Donald Trump. In hindsight, I’m sure he feels his administration should have acted more forcefully as a former member of his cabinet was eviscerated by a very successful Putin-led assault. Obama is likely flustered at the prospect of witnessing another member of his former cabinet suffer the same tortious interference and I suspect he thinks that possibility is very real. 

As the activist, silent investor in the Democratic party, Obama knows the assets and liabilities of each candidate on the debate stage. When the former president speaks publicly about the 2020 contest, it has been to caution the party against going too far left. So, when he was reported to be telling top democratic donors that “Elizabeth Warren is a capable candidate,” it seems as if he was steering wealthy donors to look elsewhere — a definite slight to Biden, who served him loyally for eight years. 

While out on the campaign trail, Joe Biden has failed to competently address questions and concerns related to his son. While many candidates have previously enjoyed the rule that family is off-limits, in the age of Trump and his tweets, this is no more, and candidates must adapt. Nothing is off-limits and everything is on the table, including Hunter on a platter. 

Hunter Biden’s ongoing child support and paternity case illustrate the type of prey that Trump, a known carnivore, will pounce on, feasting on every savory morsel of output. If Trump had known that Hunter would risk gravely harming his father by engaging in an open-source civil matter, our President would not have needed to risk abuse of power and obstruction of Congress by mining for dirt in Ukraine. Trump could simply have waited for Lunden Roberts, Biden’s baby momma, to produce a trove of public and humiliating documents. 

This case cried for a quiet settlement, but for some reason, Hunter first refused to acknowledge paternity and then to make steady payments to the child he knew he had helped produce. By his arrogant conduct, Hunter managed to anger the judge who has denied a protective order in part and compelled him to appear for a deposition in Arkansas in early 2020. Hunter will now be forced to supply five years of financial documents (instead of three) which include his time as a Burisma board member, his work in China and who knows where else he has been conducting business. These will be made public in redacted form. 

D & A Investigators, a private, Florida-based company is assisting with the effort of digging up dirt on Hunter and has filed a series of salacious documents with the court.

These allude to a series of criminal investigations that have tenuous links to Hunter at best, but they have become part of the court record. More importantly, it is not known who is footing that bill. In all likelihood, the T-shirt catchphrase, “Where is Hunter” will soon give way to, “I’ve got the Dirt on Hunter” from the Trump campaign. 

Hunter’s recent claims of poverty, rebuked by the purchase of an upscale home in the Hollywood Hills of Los Angeles, does not help his credibility. And though he lives far from Little Rock, it is clear that Hunter Biden will have to deal with this now very public proceeding and discovery process. It would have been the more prudent move to shield his father, his 18-month-year-old infant, and his newly pregnant wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, the pain of a public display by reaching an out of court settlement. 

In the current political environment, where dirt and kompromat have more value than the actual record, the younger Mr. Biden will continue to be an onus to his father’s campaign. Trump has demonstrated time and again that he will risk all to mine for valuable “oppo” data. Since it will now be available in plentiful supply in Little Rock, Trump won’t have to rely on Ukrainian cutouts. He will soon learn the utility of having an open legal proceeding out there for the press to dissect. The current Commander in Chief will benefit greatly from the subpoena of Hunter’s financial records, emails, and other communications and he won’t even have to show a trace of the clumsy machinations he and Giuliani used in Ukraine. 

The Biden family must address this unresolved liability head-on even if it involves acknowledging wrongdoing and errors of judgment. Candidate Biden cannot plead the loving father, asking no questions of his errant son. Hunter can no longer claim his finances are a private matter. There are simply too many areas of questionable conduct — from allegations of shady business dealings and child support obligations. Both Bidens need to sit down together for a lengthy, no-holds-barred interview and explain to the American people how they erred in the past and how they both intend to behave in the future. If Biden is to be elected President, it is the only way to take a step back from the precipice. If successful, they will be able to assuage voters’ fears and blunt the onslaught of oppo dirt that Trump and his campaign will keep hurling their way.

(Sara Corcoran writes DC Dispatch and covers the nation’s capital from Washington for CityWatch. She is the Publisher of the California and National Courts Monitor and contributes to Daily Kos and other important news publications.)

 

Court rejects Department of Defense policy banning transgenders in military

In this March 27, 2018, file photo, plaintiffs Cathrine Schmid, second left, and Conner Callahan, second right, listen with supporters during a news conference in front of a federal courthouse following a hearing in Seattle.  Photo credit: Elaine Thompson/AP as reported in the Military Times on 8/24/18.

In this March 27, 2018, file photo, plaintiffs Cathrine Schmid, second left, and Conner Callahan, second right, listen with supporters during a news conference in front of a federal courthouse following a hearing in Seattle. Photo credit: Elaine Thompson/AP as reported in the Military Times on 8/24/18.

In Doe v. Trump, a federal court has ruled that the government “failed to show what deliberative process it undertook to decide some transgender personnel should not be allowed to serve,” according to Military Times.

“In the lawsuit, Doe v. Trump, transgender service members and recruits are challenging the Pentagon’s new policy on transgender service members, which forbids any recruit or service member experiencing ‘gender dysphoria’ from serving, and implements additional restrictions on those transgender personnel already serving,” the publication reported.

“Since last fall, attorneys have filed four federal cases challenging the ban: Doe v. Trump in Washington, D.C.; Karnoski v. Trump in Washington State; Stockman v. Trump in California and Stone V. Trump in Maryland,” Military Times reported.

According to the New York Times, the Obama administration announced in 2016 its plan for the armed services to begin accepting transgender recruits at the start of this year. President Trump “abruptly reversed course, announcing on Twitter in July 2017 that the military would ‘no longer accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity. …”

‘Dreamers’ could see fate resolved by Supremes

Photo Credit: Julián Aguilar/The Texas Tribune as reported in The Texas Tribune on 7/31/18.

Photo Credit: Julián Aguilar/The Texas Tribune as reported in The Texas Tribune on 7/31/18.

The future of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, will become clearer as federal courts wrestle with the Obama-era initiative to shield young immigrants from deportation. And the U.S. Supreme Court may end the controversy once and for all.

The Washington Post reports that on Friday, Aug. 17, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that the Trump administration must continue processing renewals but that the administration can halt new applications for “Dreamers” while DACA is under appeal.

“Bates is one of the federal judges presiding over four different lawsuits aimed at maintaining or eliminating DACA, which was created by executive order by President Barack Obama and then ended by President Trump,” the Post reports.

The Texas Tribune notes that on Aug. 8, federal District Judge Andrew Hanen was scheduled to hear the state’s request for a halt to the program preliminarily “while the issue meanders its way through the federal court system.”

The fate of DACA could ”end up in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court,” the Texas Tribune reports. “In June, the Department of Justice asked Hanen to delay a possible injunction ‘so the United States can seek stays of all the DACA injunctions in the respective courts of appeals and the Supreme Court,’” the Tribune notes.

EPA set to overturn Obama-era vehicle efficiency rules, California sues

Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Photo Credit: Wikipedia

Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Photo Credit:
Wikipedia

According to the Washington Post, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will revisit Obama-era vehicle efficiency rules. Obama’s policy to address climate change would raise efficiency requirements on the nation’s automobile fleet to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025. The Trump-era proposal would freeze the emissions standards at 2021 levels. The new plan would also challenge California’s ability to set its own fuel-efficiency rules.

A lawsuit — filed by California with support from other states and environmental groups – aims to try to block the overturn of Obama’s policy.

With Trump’s DACA Decision, A Look At Context

Tomas Martinez, with GLAHR, a grass roots organization from Atlanta, chants to excite the crowd in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday, April 18, 2016. Hundreds gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to show their support for President Obama’s immigration executive action as the Court hears oral arguments on the deferred action initiatives, DAPA and expanded DACA.  Photo credit: Lexey Swall

Tomas Martinez, with GLAHR, a grass roots organization from Atlanta, chants to excite the crowd in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday, April 18, 2016. Hundreds gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to show their support for President Obama’s immigration executive action as the Court hears oral arguments on the deferred action initiatives, DAPA and expanded DACA. Photo credit: Lexey Swall

The Texas Tribune continues excellent coverage of President Trump’s milestone decision on DACA, the Obama-era program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay in the county with some status if they came into the country before they were 16 years old and were 30 or younger in June of 2012. The “dreamer” act is a big deal everywhere, but none more bigly a deal than in Texas.

The Tribune reminded its readers that Texas has a leadership role in opposing the plan, both with civil lawsuits and threats of legal action. They also note the relevance for the Lone Star State: “… as of August 2016, more than 220,000 undocumented immigrants in Texas had applied for a permit or a renewal of one under the program, and nearly 200,000 of those have been approved, according to government statistics. It’s the second-highest total behind California’s estimated 387,000 applications and 359,000 approvals during the same time frame.”

Texas, we are reminded, led 10 states in legal challenges to the Obama policy.

More context:

“The DACA initiative preceded a broader but ill-fated 2014 program, known as DAPA, which would have expanded the eligible population of the program and lengthened the work permits to three years. That program was never implemented after the state of Texas sued the Obama administration and successfully convinced a district judge and an appellate court that Obama overstepped his executive authority. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court split on the matter and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
“The Trump administration officially rescinded that policy earlier this month but said that DACA and some expanded DACA permits would remain in effect. Paxton argued in Thursday’s letter that that’s not good enough and warned that if the 2012 program isn’t rescinded, he and the other plaintiffs from the 2014 lawsuit would go back to court to settle the issue.
“If, by September 5, 2017, the Executive Branch agrees to rescind the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum and not to renew or issue any new DACA or Expanded DACA permits in the future, then the plaintiffs that successfully challenged DAPA and Expanded DACA will voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit currently pending in the Southern District of Texas,” they write. ‘Otherwise, the complaint in that case will be amended to challenge both the DACA program and the remaining Expanded DACA permits.'”

Follow the debate from what amounts to Ground Zero in Texas here:

Texas leads 10 states in urging Trump to end Obama-era immigration program

Chicago Trib Deep-Dives Into Immigration Court Delays

Dario Castaneda, an immigration attorney who is representing detained immigrant, Francisco Casas, outside of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office (West Congress Pkwy.) in Chicago on Tuesday, May 9, 2017. (Jose M. Osorio / Chicago Tribune)

Dario Castaneda, an immigration attorney who is representing detained immigrant, Francisco Casas, outside of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office (West Congress Pkwy.) in Chicago on Tuesday, May 9, 2017. (Jose M. Osorio / Chicago Tribune)

The Chicago Tribune is taking a deep dive into the Windy City’s immigration court backlog, including how a DUI sent a man to jail for seven months to await his day in court and other big-picture information. For example, the newspaper reports that “… as recently as 2010, the immigration court in Chicago had fewer than 13,000 pending cases on its docket. By the end of March, that figure had risen to 24,844, according to statistics provided by the federal Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is part of the Department of Justice.

The paper also notes that “… the crunch is partly the result of policy changes under the Obama administration, which made a priority of quickly handling cases that involved children and recent border crossers, particularly in the face of an influx of immigrants coming into the U.S. illegally from Central American countries around 2014. But the Trump administration has contributed to the crunch as well, emphasizing the deportation of detainees who have had contact with the criminal justice system, though even those without records have been caught up in the efforts.”

It’s a solid report and you can find it here: Cases flood Chicago Immigration Court as system reckons with new landscape

Obama’s ‘Rocket Docket’ Policy Comes Under Scrutiny

The so-called “rocket docket” policy of the Obama administration is coming under fire for lack of judicial training and for allowing non-judges to determine which cases get priority, according to four attorneys’ groups.

The Courthouse News is reporting that “… the groups — including the American Immigration Lawyers Association — claimed the Department of Justice, which oversees EOIR, refused to turn over records on policies and procedures for expedited immigration dockets, or “rocket dockets,” in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

The CN also noted that the groups “… say the lack of clear policies and guidelines made it harder for unaccompanied minors, one-parent families and their attorneys to navigate the system and avoid deportation.

See the story here: https://www.courthousenews.com/foia-reveals-spotty-procedures-immigration-courts/

Trump Promises Deportation, But Obama Already Delivering It

Advocates say immigration raids are making it more difficult to contact potential Latino voters. | AP

Advocates say immigration raids are making it more difficult to contact potential Latino voters. | AP

While Donald J. Trump has outraged immigration advocates by saying he intended to deport massive numbers of undocumented residents, the Obama administration is outraging many of the same people by actually deporting families here to seek asylum from dangerous countries. Politico is reporting that “… the administration has so far declined to confirm specifics about the latest round of raids, which were disclosed in a Reuters report this month. According to a document obtained by the news agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have told agents across the country to prepare for a 30-day ‘surge’ of arrests targeting mothers and children who have recently arrived in the country illegally but have been told to return to their home countries.

One part of the political fallout is simply that immigrant families that might worry about their status just don’t come to the door when political organizers visit. Politico is all over the story here:

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/immigration-raids-latinos-sanders-clinton-223671#ixzz4AFkexpwS