As you’d expect, news that the long-running Hunter Biden investigation is ending with pleas to a few relatively low level infractions that are unlikely to result in jail time has been met with gnashing of teeth and donning of sack cloth, in “Where’s Hunter?”/”Biden Crime Family” land. But they are holding on to one faint glimmer of hope. Is the investigation really, really, really over? As in super double over?

Let’s take a look.

It probably goes without saying. But it’s worth remembering and noting this. Joe Biden took the fairly extraordinary step of leaving the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware in place for more than two years into his own term for the sole purpose of not even appearing to interfere or change anything about the management of the investigation into his own son. (For what it’s worth, my recollection is that the man in question, David C. Weiss, has a good reputation — not just another Trump-adjacent hack.) Now it appears to have ended with Biden pleading to two relatively low level tax misdemeanors and a weapons violation which will be set aside if he completes a diversion program. There’s few better examples of the difference between the mores and standards that apply in both parties.

Here’s a really must-read article out this morning from the Post, “FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year.” Unless the reporting comes under serious question, and given who the reporters are I doubt that will be the case, it should be one of the canonical articles required to understand this story. And that story is how it is we only got to the present point in the investigation more than two years after the events of January 6th, 2021.

The key mystery to me is the headline. Unless my brain isn’t working this morning there’s very little in the piece to in any way back it up. FBI Director Chris Wray definitely took a hands-off approach. But the article is quite clear that the main reason for the delay came from top-level appointees at the DOJ — specifically Garland and Monaco and those working under them.

I’ve been writing recently about the corrupt monstrosity that is the “No Labels” third party effort and the way the insider sheets in D.C. persist in labeling this an action on behalf of centrists. It is in fact a lifestyle front group run by the husband and wife team of Mark Penn and Nancy Jacobson, some of the most retrograde players from the dark side of American politics. The effort is funded by a who’s who of right-wing Republicans. But I want to step back from this story to note a feature of the 2024 presidential election that is already coming into view.

The 2016 and 2020 presidential elections were both quite close. Numerous factors distinguish one from the other and set the stage for the very different results. But one of the biggest factors was the role of third party candidates, which made it possible for Trump to slip in by pulling both major party candidates down below 50%.

We’re at 2,988 TPM Readers who’ve contributed in this year’s TPM Journalism Fund drive. A mere 12 more to get to 3,000! You could be number 3,000 by clicking here!

Also don’t miss these two Juneteenth-themed articles from the TPM archives.

The Hidden History of Juneteenth.

Why Changing The Way We See The Civil War Will Help Us Preserve Our Country

It’s looking like we’ll hit the $300,000 milestone today in this year’s TPM Journalism Fund drive. So big thanks for that. This isn’t just a pro-forma comment. It’s a big deal. So thank you. I noted that we recorded a special extra episode of the podcast this week with Kate and I and special guest Joe Ragazzo, TPM’s Publisher, talking about how TPM operates on the inside, our business model, how it’s changed over the years, lots of the nuts and bolts of operating a small media organization. You can listen to that here, and, if you don’t already, subscribe to the pod through iTunes or Spotify or some other service. You can even watch the video version here.

Since some of you have asked, I thought I’d share some details about how the drive has gone. Just because you might find it interesting. Now, one small caveat. A few of these numbers were compiled yesterday. So a few are slightly out of date. But pretty close. So here goes.

As of this moment, we’ve had 2,877 individual contributors.

I know these pushes may seem like a distraction from the news you come here for. But I assure you they’re essential. We’re pushing hard to get to the next milestone in our drive — 3/5ths of the way to our goal. We’re currently at $267,607 and we need to push as hard as we can to get to $300,000 by the end of the day. The way drives work is we get a surge of contributions at the beginning, and then weeks two, three and four are the slog. I’ve spoken to many of you who plan to contribute and are waiting for a convenient moment. Please make the convenient moment today if you can. Just click right here and we’ll keep focused on bringing you the latest on the ten different things that are unfolding in the news today.

Late Update: We are now at $278,952. We can really get there today.

Later Update: Now at $283,530.

Even Later Update: Now at $287,700.

Still Later Update: Now at $291,483

So Much Later It’s the Next Morning Update: Now at $295,731!

We need to keep our momentum going in this year’s TPM Journalism Fund drive. I know it’s easy to put things off. I do it all the time. So I wanted to ask if you can take a two-minute time out from whatever you’re doing at this moment and contribute to this year’s drive. Like literally right now. If you’re a member you don’t even need to get out your credit card. It’s super simple and fast. Just choose whatever amount you feel comfortable giving. It helps us so much. Just click right here.

If you’re interested in how TPM functions as an organization and a business and the history of the operation, including the radically changed business model, you’ll want to check out this special episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast. My cohost Kate Riga and I were joined by Publisher Joe Ragazzo to discuss how the place operates, what moved us from an advertising to a subscription business model and some ways that may not be obvious in which we differ pretty dramatically from other media organizations. Along the way I even discuss a few things I haven’t gotten into before: like how exactly do I know so much about how the advertising economy is the taproot of bothsidesist journalism? And what was I thinking when staff came to me and said they wanted to form a union? You can listen to the episode here on the site or on your device if you already subscribe to the pod through one of the standard services.