No it’s not, but also this clip isn’t exactly as reported either. Contrary to claims made in this very expertly excised piece of Joe and Jill Biden’s interview with Stephen Colbert, Biden didn’t direct his use of “foul play” at the US attorney investigating his son Hunter. Instead, Biden tells Colbert that he still plans to pursue relationships with Republican leadership, even though they participated in attacks on Hunter as a way to “get to me.”
That’s what Biden calls “foul play,” which is still … not really true:
Biden spox Andrew Bates tried to nip the “Biden attacks US Attorney” narrative in the bud when CBS reporter Bo Erickson floated it on Twitter. Bates provided the full context of Colbert’s question, in which the Late Night host explicitly framed the issue of those who “use your adult son as a cudgel against you”:
False. Colbert's question, which Evening News omitted from their clip, was about people who "use your adult son as a cudgel against you" – not the investigation.
— Andrew Bates (@AndrewBatesNC) December 18, 2020
Even with that context, though, pointing out all of the questions and troublesome connections that Hunter Biden, and for that matter Joe’s brothers James and Frank, have cultivated over the years is not “foul play” at all. Hunter’s no adolescent or grammar-school child; he’s older than some of the Democrats who ran against his father. Given that these Bidens keep seeming to make money off of their connections to Joe Biden, including Joe’s policy areas and interests, the whiff of corruption is real. And now that Biden’s president, those family connections will bear even more scrutiny.
Biden wants to preclude that by promising bipartisanship in exchange for an end to questions about the business operations of the other Bidens. Republicans in Congress shouldn’t take that deal. In truth, Biden needs the GOP a lot more than they need Biden, who will be under tremendous pressure to produce some success on his agenda, whatever that turns out to be. They shouldn’t get intimidated from their responsibility to check the executive branch on the basis of claims that such scrutiny is “foul play,” either. But they should define the conflict accurately as well.
Here’s a last question, though: just how much do Republicans want to dig up on Hunter, James, and Frank now that the election is over? If they dig up a smoking gun, the result may well be … President Kamala Harris. In this case, maybe it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie.