There are apparently disagreements over tactics among a variety of groups prepared to protect Hunter Biden against an assault of House GOP inquiries, putting their plans at risk of failing to be coordinated.
According to a Washington Post article published on Saturday, the individuals and organizations supporting President Joe Biden and his 52-year-old son are split along the lines of two conflicting tactics.
Republicans' Investigation Against Hunter Biden
The first strategy is to be more aggressive, as promoted by well-known Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris. The second strategy, which is supported by other unnamed individuals in the paper, would be for Hunter Biden to remain silent while the White House, Democratic National Committee, and other Democratic legislators and organizations attack the Republican probes as biased and unfounded.
Per The Washington Examiner, Morris stated that Hunter Biden's squad needed to be offensive during a discussion of the strategies in September of last year. The lawyer, who is a close friend of the younger Biden's and a financial supporter, outlined potential defamation actions the team may file against the president's son's harshest detractors, including Fox News, Eric Trump, and Rudy Giuliani.
Morris also provided a detailed analysis of two prospective witnesses for the House Republicans against the younger Biden: Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate, and John Paul Mac Isaac, a computer repairman who Biden is said to have left his notorious laptop.
The Washington Post said that the conference provided "a view into a huge apparatus that is fast, almost urgently, building to resist Republicans' efforts to make Hunter Biden into a big news issue when the GOP gains control of the House next year."
The danger for Hunter Biden-and perhaps for President Biden as well-lies in the fact that these disparate initiatives do not completely coordinate and do not adopt a common strategy.
The article also indicated that the president's son has hired two more attorneys: Chris Clark to handle the federal criminal inquiry into his financial activities and Joshua A. Levy to handle the House probes. Hunter Biden and Morris reportedly have a "team of researchers" ready.
Others in the Biden orbit, notably apparently the White House, which prefers that the younger Biden keeps out of the spotlight, have resisted their assertive reaction approach. Those who support this strategy have voiced worry that it could be counterproductive to make Hunter Biden the center of attention.
While this is happening, the White House and DNC have "prepared their own strategy for dealing with what could be a political maelstrom around the president's son." To represent him personally should the necessity arise, the president has retained Bob Bauer, former White House counsel to former President Barack Obama.
In addition, three outside organizations with ties to the Democratic Party have pledged to offer communications and other emergency response services. Even while the federal inquiry into his taxes and a 2018 gun purchase is still active, all the groups believe that it has to be resolved.
Hunter Biden Laptop Story
Meanwhile, Ro Khanna remarked on Sunday that he's open to congressional probes into the subject, making him maybe the only Democratic senator to speak out against the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. The California Democrat contacted Twitter to inform them that their censoring of the New York Post article regarding Joe Biden's son in October 2020 was a "violation of the First Amendment," as was disclosed in the "Twitter Files" earlier this month.
The so-called Twitter Files make public a wealth of internal Twitter conversations pertaining to the choices made to bury the Hunter Biden laptop story and to ban then-President Donald Trump from the site in the days following the January 6 Capitol attack.
The internal communication reveals Khanna contacted Twitter's head of law, policy, and trust at the time, Vijaya Gadde, to inquire as to why the Post story had been removed from the service.
Gadde was informed by him that journalists and media organizations should not be held accountable for the unethical behavior of sources unless the publisher actively participated in the unethical behavior. Additionally, he stated that news organizations should feel free to break stories, "particularly those involving a Presidential contender."
Khanna, with good reason, hypothesized that the story was now more about censoring and raised doubts about the initial motivation for the massive attempt to conceal the article, as per Daily Mail.
@YouTube