What About the Toaster?

At the end of an especially busy week in pundit-world, Jonah sits down with us ...

By

At the end of an especially busy week in pundit-world, Jonah sits down with us all to ruminate on some of the more noteworthy topics that may have flown by too quickly to actually wrap one’s brain around them. On the docket: The final debate, some useful counter-programming on the Biden email hullabaloo, getting (erm…) a “grip” on Jeffrey Toobin, and much more. Plus, Jonah has some more evergreen thoughts on the gradual defining down of conservatism, and what the G-File has meant to him after all these years.

Show Notes:

–Get tickets to The Dispatch’s post-election event – What’s Next: Election 2020 and Beyond

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (34)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Paul G.

    This is a bit strange, but your talk on parties reminded me of this. http://nedroid.com/2008/06/1624-askbeartato-parties/

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Birch Barlow

    I loved J Pod's intro on the Commentary podcast the day after the Toobin thing came out (pun). There must be a good backstory there.

    Collapse
  3. Joe1776

    Jonah

    1) You assume that all of the work on this was all done in the few months after Biden left office - because that is when some of the emails happened. But that is contradicted by Bobulinski.

    Go to 6:40
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYHFncl2Lss&feature=emb_logo

    He was approached by Gilliar about this in late 2015.

    2) You keep equating this with legitimate ways to make money off of someone's name. I agree there is nothing wrong with Clinton or others demanding high pay for their name for endorsements or speaking engagements. People and corporations obviously value such public endorsements and events. But this was very different. Joe Biden was the big name and the big name was to be kept secret. When you are selling someone's name or influence and keeping the name secret that doesn't make sense for any legitimate purpose.

    Again imagine you offered Michael Jordan a million dollars to be able to use his name to endorse the dispatch. And lets say part of that would be a speech he would give or statement. Now lets MJ responds sure I will endorse you but you can't mention my name and my speech will have to be modified so no one knows it is me. No one can know I have anything to do with the dispatch and my name can't be mentioned. You will need to pay my son through a company he set up. What would you actually be getting? Nothing. The only way they are selling the Biden name in this situation is they are selling a promise of political influence.

    3) I agree it is unclear Biden was transferred any money. The deal did seem to go through but poor Bobulinski was too slow to understand what was really happening and got cut out. You see the front was that the Chinese were supposedly "investing" money in the US. And as a CEO of an investment company you don't just take the money of your investors and spend it like its your personal piggy bank! Poor Bobulinski apparently didn't understand that this "investment" company was really just a sham and it was really just a way to pay the Biden's directly. That is why he was upset that Hunter was just taking the money and using it as his own personal piggy bank.

    Like he said it later became clear the Chinese were not interested in a return on their investment (ROI). He was eventually disabused of his naive notion that the Chinese actually wanted to invest in the US through the Bidens. But he caught on too slow and caused to many problems so the Biden's simply cut him out of the deal and formed a new company without him. The poor guy didn't realize that until after the senate report shows they got the money in a new deal from the same Chinese players.

    Yes number three requires some reading between the lines and I may be missing something. But I doubt it. The question is what was happening earlier to set this deal up. It appears he was involved with some deal when he went to China with his dad on air force 2 back in 2013. Regarding that trip:


    "Hunter Biden’s spokesman, George Mesires, told NBC News that Hunter Biden wasn’t initially an “owner” of the company and has never gotten paid for serving on the board. He said Hunter Biden didn’t acquire an equity interest in the fund until 2017, after his father had left office."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-trip-china-son-hunter-2013-comes-under-new-n1061051

    4) If the emails were salted the fbi who has the laptop would not say simply they have nothing to add to the DNI's statement about the NYP article. If the NYP article had emails that said something different/salted than the laptop they have they would almost certainly obtain a copy of it or try to find out if the salting was from foreign powers. There may be salted material on the NYP hard drive but the FBI has said they are responsible to make check Russian disinformation and they have not flagged anything reported on so far. And yes we can be sure they are following this story. That would really be amazing if the FBI let these emails be published and made the representations they did even though they knew the emails were inconsistent with what they had on the original laptop.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    Stipulate that there are fools and knaves all over, and especially at both extremes; we can find plenty of people writing checks the established facts cannot cash. But if we focus on the battle of The Editors v. Jonah, I'm afraid they have marshaled the stronger case. MBD establishes that this is a real story and has been for some time, citing non-MAGA sources like The New Yorker and the Obama State Department.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/we-didnt-need-the-hunter-biden-revelations-to-know-its-wrong/

    Jonah very nearly says as much, conceding his agreement with many of their conclusions (recent disclosures include factual, scandalous content), and just holding back on a degree of confidence.

    As articulated here, Jonah seems to have two key points. First, absent stronger evidence of misuse of the power of office, the scandalous practice of cashing in on past and prospective terms in public office is so commonplace it cannot be seriously taken as a case against a candidate. ("Reagan did it too"). To the extent Jonah has to pretend that "Bananastan" billionaires do not understand the American two party system to sustain the point, it discredits itself. Second, Jonah sees a bright line between Hunter ("Sleazy guy!") and Joe Biden, asserting there's no persuasive evidence to question this. Seems to me you have to downplay or ignore many things to keep that line maximally bright. Start with the fact that Hunter's international deal-making was entangled with hitching rides on official Obama State Department diplomatic missions led by VP Biden. We worry so often about appearances, is it too much to ask that business bigwigs like Hunter Biden arrange their own transportation? There appears to be evidence of White House visits. Proven corruption? Perhaps not, but not a normal perq of most business deals. The new "Big Guy" language suggesting financial rewards for Joe himself are at least worth reporting and pursuing to see where they lead. "Lock him up?" No, but neither shut down the questioning on unfounded and officially contradicted claims of Putin origins.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Adam Barken

    Broken record time - great podcast. Am getting used to these solo efforts, and appreciate listening to Jonah work his way through these arguments in real time.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    I yield to none as the most boring and straight-laced, long-skirt-wearing, finger-wagging Southern church lady, but I was totally cracked up.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Angie

    I enjoyed it ...and I already said I was a fan of your piece about Toobin...

    Collapse
  8. Cecilia

    Female reader/listener who loves the G-File and who'd worry that something was seriously wrong if you didnt address the glorious Toobin fiasco.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

    My wife the Liberal LOVES the 12-year-old boy humor from that G-file. Why are you apologizing? Who is criticizing you? Something on Twitter?

    Mountains out of mole hills, Jonah, Mountains out of mole hills. Bending to the will of the cancel culture.... tisk tisk :D

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Anne W (Raw5254)

      I didn’t hear that he was bending to anyone’s will. He acknowledged why he thought the timing might have been bad, and he said he’d give a more explicit warning next time. But beyond that, I’m expecting the same wonderful zingers in the future!

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Mkapnick

    Jonah....if you ever start eliminating the sophomoric humor....I swear I will start cutting myself again.....The G File without sophomoric humor is like the Grateful Dead without long extended jams or the Red Hot Chili Peppers in concert with their shirts on.....I mean Come on, Man! In the G-File Jonah gets goes from high brow to low brow quicker than Rudy Giuliani gets his hands down his trousers when in the company of what he believes is an under aged journalist/hooker. So Jonah, pretty please with a cherry on top, keep the F--ng sophomoric humor.

    Collapse
Load More