What Matt Viser Won’t Tell You about Hunter Biden, His Dad, and Burisma

Phil Rucker has wasted yet more journalistic space and time in his obsessive pursuit of Hunter Biden dick pics.

Today, it comes in a 4,800-word piece from Matt Viser rehashing what we already knew about Hunter Biden trading on his father’s name — a piece that couldn’t manage to find space to include specific emails where Hunter told potential business partners he would not lobby for them, as he told Vuk Jeremic in 2016 when they were discussing gas deals in Mexico: “[A]s I have also said many times I won’t  engage in I [advocating] on your behalf with my father or anyone else in the USG.”

Viser, who seems to think he is clever, ends his piece with an exchange between Hunter and his business partner, Devon Archer. Archer complains that Joe Biden didn’t step in and make Archer’s legal troubles go away.

“Why did your dad’s administration appointees arrest me and try to put me in jail? Just curious,” Archer asked in a text message, in an exchange found on a copy of Hunter’s hard drive and verified by a person familiar with it. “Why would they try and ruin my family and destroy my kids and no one from your family’s side step in and at least try to help me. I don’t get it.”

Archer declined to comment on the exchange.

“Buddy are you serious,” Hunter responded, going on to explain the role of an independent Justice Department and the need for checks and balances.

“It’s democracy. Three co equal branches of government,” he wrote. “You are always more vulnerable to the overreach of one of those Co equal branches when you are in power.”

Viser apparently didn’t find space — not in 4,800 words — to mention what Chuck Grassley and Scott Brady just revealed: According to Grassley, in 2016, while Biden was Vice President and his kid was on the board of Burisma, DOJ opened a corruption investigation into Mykola Zlochevsky.

[I]n December 2019, the FBI Washington Field Office closed a “205B” Kleptocracy case, 205B-[redacted] Serial 7, into Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of Burisma, which was opened in January 2016 by a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FBI squad based out of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

Again, according to Grassley, this investigation was opened when Biden was VP and Hunter was on the board of Burisma. It was closed (according to Grassley) in December 2019, even as Trump defended himself against impeachment by claiming that it was important to investigate claims of corruption related to Burisma.

Opened in January 2016. Closed in December 2019. Is that clear enough for you to understand, Matt?

And just weeks later, starting on January 3, 2020, Bill Barr set up a means to insert information Rudy Giuliani obtained — according to Lev Parnas, including from Zlochevsky — into the Hunter Biden investigation. The FD-1023 at the core of Republican efforts to gin up impeachment, one that records a claim Zlochevsky appears to have made in late 2019 that conflicts with what Zlochevsky said in spring 2019, has its roots in the corruption investigation into Zlochevsky opened during the Obama Administration and closed as Trump publicly staked his presidency on a claim to care about Burisma corruption.

The investigation into Zlochevsky got closed (again, per Grassley). And Zlochevsky made a claim that conflicted with his past claims about Hunter Biden. Both happened in roughly the same period.

I’m not sure how Viser didn’t consider that worthy of inclusion in his little story. Nothing demonstrates the irony he seemed to be chasing so much as that the investigation opened while Joe Biden was Vice President is now being weaponized by people like Viser while Biden is President.

Perhaps Viser and Rucker didn’t think that new news was worth sharing, because doing so would make it clear that the entire campaign against Hunter Biden — Viser’s little journalistic hobby that Rucker pays him for — has its roots in the fact that the Obama Administration didn’t protect even Joe Biden’s kid. Sharing that news would require thinking about how the WaPo’s Hunter Biden obsession routinely exhibits the kind of corruption they claim to be exposing.

And so you won’t find that in Viser’s 4,800-word story.

Update: Two more comments about what a corrupt person Viser is.

First, this story seems to be based on Devon Archer’s bid to provide testimony again, which his attorney offers to do in the story. It comes as DOJ just obtained an extension to brief his appeal before SCOTUS. As such, it could be read as an implicit threat from Archer that if President Biden doesn’t keep him out of jail, he will become a bigger political problem then he already is.

Second, as Viser has done in the past, he ignores statements from Abbe Lowell — such as that Tony Bobulinski lied to FBI — relevant to his recycling of certain of these emails (in this case, 10% for Big Guy).

77 replies
  1. Matt Foley says:

    This is MAGA’s SOP. Report a fraction of the truth, omit the stuff that doesn’t own the libs, then brag that “we told the truth/we were right.” Fox News does this every day.

  2. BobBobCon says:

    I’m reminded of accounts of the way Jeff Gerth constructed his stories on Whitewater. People in Arkansas recounted how he had clearly written his story before doing reporting, and when he came around to talk to them was just going through the motions to fulfil the formal appearances of being a reporter.

    Gerth took a package of opposition research, honed it into something the NY Times could publish, did a bare bones amount of fact checking, and then went out for a few quotes that could be stuck in the background to meet the most rudimentary requirements of journalistic standards.

    Viser is clearly in that mode, and if you look back on his reporting, he’s clearly taking pitches from GOP sources and then figuring out ways to mold them into something the Post can publish. His reporting on Biden’s backing for striking UAW workers was predictably full of warnings of doom and danger, and of course when the UAW won, there’s no followup about how Biden was smart and showed foresight. He doesn’t take pitches from anyone telling him a full set of facts, so why would he?

    • emptywheel says:

      Correct. And that’s precisely what Phil Rucker wants from him: A paid opposition researcher infested into the Biden campaign, regardless of what the facts are.

      • Sue Romano says:

        Now that she’s blocked you, snowflake Karen Tumulty is calling her critics ‘left leaning critics’ thus exposing her bias.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Might be that her Harvard MBA makes her rigidly put “journalists” and their critics in different pigeon holes, because only a lefty – and no journalist – would ever criticize the writing in the WaPo. LOL.

      • BobBobCon says:

        The final step is when polling reveals consumers of the news don’t know basic facts about current events — falling inflation, Biden’s position on abortion and unions, Trump’s direct role in 1/6 — we get complaints by the press about the public.

        The possibility that the press is failing simply can’t be treated seriously. They’re like some goateed musician blaming his lack of audience on everyone just not being ready for him.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      How easy it was to forget Jeff Gerth, and how hard to distinguish him from Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald.

  3. David in NYC says:

    What was true for Hunter Biden is also true for every adult everywhere: name dropping opens doors. So what?

    • Fraud Guy says:

      It’s not what you know, but who you know. My employer actually includes this as part of their career advice, to find a mentor among senior management to help guide your career progression and open up opportunities.

      • gertibird says:

        Yes. That is just another reason women find it hard to reach the upper positions. With men mostly at the top and upper management it is difficult for them to find a mentor among these because of the sexism and rumors from others that will be attached to the “relationship” which would not happen between 2 men.

  4. Clare Kelly says:

    Thank you, again and still.

    I’m not the only one in the WaPo comment section on Viser’s piece who referred those in the reality-based community to come here for fact checks.

    I didn’t even bother to send a note to his editor this time.

  5. Upisdown says:

    Thanks for venting so I don’t have to.

    Viser’s column infuriated me this morning. Besides being outdated and one-sided, as you point out, it almost completely relies on content from the laptop that would not be publicly available if not for the slimy collaboration of MacIsaac, Giuliani, Bannon, and Murdoch. His column would be blank if you take out the texts and emails that were essentially purloined.

    It was a worthless pile of rubbish.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      From a laptop, rather its drive and contents, that would seem to have no chance of ever being admitted as evidence.

  6. Patrick G. says:

    For what it’s worth, Viser is getting reamed in the reader comments – not that he gives a crap. That new editor-in-chief hired away from Murdoch takes over next month – we’re probably going to see a lot more of this BS from WaPo going forward.

    • Upisdown says:

      If not for Phillip Bump I would drop the Post. That’s how bad it’s gotten. I would miss Jen Rubin and Alexandra Petri, though.

        • RipNoLonger says:

          Thanks for that reference to the LATimes. I’ve been a long-time admirer.

          And also Phillip Bump, Jen Rubin and a few others.

          The Washington Examiner and what’s left of the Times better watch out for the new RW rag in D.C.

        • dopefish says:

          Alexandra Petri is great.

          My favorite article of hers is from 2017.. google for
          “This is not a crisis Republicans say, as a large spider slowly devours them”.

          The Shelob imagery is apt. The Republican party certainly was stung into paralysis, and at least mostly consumed.

      • 2Cats2Furious says:

        Absolutely agree. Petri is an absolute treasure, and Rubin is one of the few voices consistently trumpeting Biden’s accomplishments, and criticizing the media for their endless fascination with polls and “both sides” reporting. She has repeatedly cited to a quote from Amanpour that the media owes the public”truth, not neutrality.” I could not agree more.

        I also appreciate Greg Sargent and Dana Milbank. Unfortunately, WaPo’s opinion columns have been infested with too many hacks.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          We all knew about the Op-Eds. The problem here is that their so-called “news” division has given itself over to partisan stenography, with a few notable exceptions.

  7. freebird says:

    What is missing from this drama is that Ukraine was a country near total collapse and Burisma was a minor company. As vice president Biden sought to keep Ukraine from being subsumed into Russia. He visited the country over six times and was in constant contact with its leaders. The major gas company was Naftogaz which has revenues of over $200 billion compared to $400 million for defunct Burisma.

    Former presidents and vice presidents get hefty fees up to $200k for making speeches and even more money for writing books. Biden gets pensions for being a senator and the vice president. It was reported that Biden made $16.7 million since leaving the vice presidency before running for president. So, taking a bribe from a small company does not make sense. With that type of income, lending his brother $200k is easy.

    Saving Ukraine from Russia and bringing it into the sphere of democracies is what our leaders are supposed to do. Yet, the Republicans seek to punish Biden for trying to save a country from oppression.

    • wa_rickf says:

      When a group of GOP’ers go on a field trip to have dinner with Putin on the 4th of July, is keeping an emerging democracy out of the clutches of an oppressor really on their minds?

    • Southern Star says:

      Could not agree more. When the U.S. can spend 5% of the Pentagon’s budget and deplete one of our biggest foe’s military capability by 50% what’s the controversy? Seems like a slam dumk to me.

  8. Jim Luther says:

    Like it or not, agree with it or not, we live in a very capitalistic society where the primary (only?) responsibility of corporations are to their owners. The dominant belief in the corporate world since the 1970 publication of “A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits” has been that corporations have zero responsibility to the public, and are only responsible to their shareholders. Sure there is greenwashing and DEI programs, but they exist only to the extent that they support market values.

    That media companies are profiting by publishing whatever they believe will help them maximize profits should not surprise anyone. In fact, it is no different than the approach of manufacturing companies, accounting firms, pharmaceutical companies, etc. IMHO, the problem is not that corporations produce content/products that are harmful to society overall (think of the food, cigarettes, weapons, insurance scams, spam email, etc.) – of course they do – it is that some have the unrealistic, outdated perception that corporations are doing anything other than chasing profits.

    The issue is far, far larger than media companies publishing whatever they think will drive revenue.

      • Jim Luther says:

        Put another way, what in our system gives any media organization any obligation whatsoever for legal content to be truthful? What in our system gives any food company any obligation for their products not to contain chemicals that are considered harmful and have been banned in many countries, but not the USA? What in our system gives any makeup manufacturer any obligation to exclude chemicals known to cause cancer, unless forced to do so?

        Corporations are organized to make a profit and can be expected to attempt to do so, within the limits of the law. Fox, MSNBC, Hannity Show, Daily Kos, all have a target audience and they all provide that audience with the content that enables them to monetize their audience. The question is “Is the approach profitable” not “Is the approach honest”. Why would anyone expect any different?

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah? I live in a county, in the US, 5X the size of Fulton County. There are 98 full time prosecutors, and many less so, but very much there. Which one of them do you want to decide national things like the Presidency?

        • El Señor Onazol says:

          Jim Luther’s comment did not mention, nor was it even tangentially related to: Fulton County, full time prosecutors, the presidency.

        • bmaz says:

          Not really, no. Did local judge, I’m sorry prosecutor, Willis have jurisdiction for all of Georgia? No. Quit trolling Danny.

        • dopefish says:

          dannyboy: “Wasn’t the election in Georgia interfered with?”
          bmaz: “Not really, no”

          Perhaps your position keeps drawing “trolls” as you call them, because its non-sensical?

          What do you call incumbent President Trump phoning up Raffensperger and pressuring him during an hour-long phone call to change the election results for the state of Georgia? “I just want to find 11,780 votes.”

          What do you call Chesebro et al’s plot to recruit 16 fake electors in Georgia, convene them in a meeting room at the Georgia State Capitol to sign the fake documents at the same time as the real electors were signing the real documents elsewhere? By the way, this took place in Atlanta, Georgia in the heart of the district for which Fani Willis is district attorney. They actually sent the falsified documents to the U.S. Senate and the National Archives. You think she should not prosecute them for these acts?

          I understand you have a beef with the way some state laws get used in some state courts by some pissant local prosecutors. Thats fine.

          But its pretty clear that illegal acts were carried out in Georgia that may have damaged Georgians’ faith in free and fair elections, and if the Attorney General of Georgia–a Republican–isn’t going to do anything about it, it seems perfectly reasonable for Fani Willis to prosecute those crimes.

          Laws are the foundation of a civilized society, but they don’t mean anything if they aren’t enforced.

        • bmaz says:

          Hi, thanks for the opportunity to respond. Yes, laws are important. But who and where they are enforced also matters. No, there is no reason, and no delegation, of authority to Willis. If you really believe in “the law”, maybe advocate all of it, not just your personal view.

        • dopefish says:

          bmaz, thanks for your reply.

          I’m certainly not a lawyer, nor familiar with the exact responsibilities of U.S. prosecutors. The NDAA says “They represent the people of their jurisdiction and have a duty to seek justice in every case”–I guess that obviously means cases where they have jurisdiction.

          Based on a quick googling which landed me at this page, under Georgia law if a criminal conspiracy occurs and either the “corrupt agreement” or any of the “overt acts” of the conspiracy, occurred in Fulton County, venue may be laid there.

          But I’ll try to stop hassling you about this. You’re probably right that Georgia’s conspiracy and RICO laws are dangerously broad.

          Its hard to look past the fact that Trump and those others needed to be held accountable *somehow* for their conduct, and Willis is prosecuting them. But of course you’re right that how and where laws are enforced matters.

        • freebird says:

          Fox paid $787 million for lying. Monstanto just got a $1.5 billion judgement for its Roundup product. These are not profitable activities.

        • BobBobCon says:

          I cannot believe anyone who thinks they understand economics will cite the press as an example of a profit driven enterprise.

          The Post, the publisher of this stuff, is doing really poorly economically.

          It just went through a painful series of job cuts and the writing is on the wall for more.

          CNN followed Zaslav and Licht’s formula for a rightward tilt first in the face of predictions by industry analysts that it was pointless, then despite ongoing losses and ratings collapse.

          This is just nonsense.

        • P J Evans says:

          My point, which seems to have gone past you, is that they aren’t going to go broke paying these fines.
          (I’ve used Roundup, on weeds. Not general spraying. Even farmers aren’t that casual.)

        • Jim Luther says:

          Roundup was patented in the early 1970’s and was sold around the world in over 150 countries for about 50 years. It was Monsanto’s cornerstone product, the most common herbicide in America, and the Roundup line (including “Roundup resistant seeds, made up about 50% of total revenue in the years prior to Bayer’s purchase). In 2018 the then owners of Monsanto cashed out for $66B. It was an extremely profitable activity for the then owners of the company. No so much so for Bayer.

        • RipNoLonger says:

          I was about to write the trite “Bayer will do quite well, thank you” when I saw this analysis via Wikipedia (I’m sure others will want to contest it):

          However, owing to ongoing litigation concerning the herbicide Roundup, produced by Monsanto, the deal is considered one of the worst corporate deals ever agreed, owing to the massive financial and reputational blows it has caused Bayer.

        • Greg Hunter says:

          It is my understanding that there was no real published data that Roundup caused the problems for which they were punished by the jury. Bayer apparently bought that argument.

          However, it could be argued that Monsanto management could read the tea leaves and foisted this problems onto primarily German investors? American HIPAA laws certainly favor the corporations knowledge of chemical contaminants impacts to be close held.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Your comment is neither here nor there regarding this post. But you fail to note that Milton Friedman led the charge to up-end the normal priority for state-authorized and supported legal entities: shareholders come last. But the lies he promulgated were wonderfully profitable.

      • Jim Luther says:

        The point of the post, at least as I read it, was that the WP published an article that was either intentionally misleading or willfully ignoring important information. I am simply saying, why would anyone expect any different and what gives any media organization any obligation whatsoever to be truthful?

        • Jim Luther says:

          The rights granted to the press are explicit, whereas the obligations were previously implied, and now are simply a memory of times past. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am unaware of the press being obligated to any higher standard than any other person – meaning slander / libel. Quid pro nihilo.

        • tje.esq@23 says:

          In its civil case against Fox News, Dominion Voting System’s lawyers asked Rupert Murdoch why the Fox News network’s shows were continuing to prominently feature election-denier-guests like MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, and was continuing to do so, even after Dominion filed its defamation lawsuit. Murdoch’s answer?:

          “It is not red or blue, it is green.” Murdoch Deposition. 299:14-16.

          quoted on page 36, Dominion’s Opposition to Fox News’ & News Corp’s Rule 56 MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Is Murdoch still in the green, despite the LARGE payout bmaz notes above? Did the settlement dip Fox Corp into the red?

        • BobBobCon says:

          That’s an absolutely terrible result in today’s economy.

          Businesses aren’t run on the expectation that they massively trail an average company. The opportunity cost of that money is immense, and investors would rather park money in the safety of bonds or invest in other companies with better returns.

          Fox Corp is essentially seeing sports and entertainment streaming offsetting fading revenue on the news side. News is an anchor for them weighing them down, but they’re sticking to the formula because the Murdoch family is a bunch of ideologues willing to forgo profit for their lunacy.


    • freebird says:

      A capitalist needs to satisfy his customers and obey laws to stay in business. Profits are derived from the customers who are the public. Satisfying your customers but disobeying the laws can also put a company out of business.

      The article in question could lose the public which reduces profits and therefore shareholder value. Some companies like X formerly known as Twitter, right now is not run to maximize profits.

      • Fraud Guy says:

        But that is not the model for private equity. They find a company that can be bought via loans, then extract significant income for themselves from that business while cutting costs (and service, product quality, reputation for the bought business), and then either sell or allow the purchased company to go bankrupt, but keeping their income from “successfully” “running” the company into the ground. Cf., Toys R’ Us.

        • freebird says:

          I was in commercial lending and ran into private equity guys who used to be called venture capitalists. They changed their name because of the bad publicity which you describe.

          The irony here is that some of their funders were pension funds whose members lost their jobs, health insurance and pensions when private equity chopped up healthy companies. The Pension Guarantee Board had to come in to save the workers pensions.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      It is always a good idea to look for the money trail. Since we do live in a capitalistic society, and mainly a capitalistic world, most of the trails lead to those that manipulate money.

      The media conglomerates are huge multi-billion receivers and dispensers of money and favors. They are no longer muck-rakers or truth-seeking individual reporters for the most part. They are primarily capitalists serving their shareholders and their executives.

      I think we’ve all witnessed once ‘esteemed’ organizations become beholden vested interests – mainly money but sometimes to ideologies and self-worshipers.

  9. 2Cats2Furious says:

    Thanks, Marcy, for covering this. I saw the headline on WaPo this morning and refused to click on it, because clicks seem to be the only thing it cares about.

  10. Jeffrey C Gallup says:

    I had a different reaction to the Viser story. I came away sympathetic toward Hunter Biden. The article showed his effort to maintain ethical boundaries, how Joe was not involved in his business, and how much Joe loves his son. I liked the conclusion with Hunter’s wise words on the separation of powers and the risks of fame. It really humanized Hunter, while previously the only image was of a drug-addicted, greedy sleaze. Clearly, a lot of pro-Biden sources here.

    Marcy’s specific criticisms are well-founded. The Viser article omits many aspects of the Hunter Biden story – but the story cannot be ignored in the mainstream media because of the daily drumbeat from Fox News and Republicans in the Congressional impeachment inquiry: The Big Guy! $ 5 million bribes to Joe and Hunter! Money laundering! $20 million to the “Biden Crime Family!” – this version of the story is recycled every single day. There needs to be acounterbalance.

    Marcy’s specific criticisms are well-founded. Much is omitted from this story, but it gives us a useful portrait of Hunter, even as the details of his dealings with foreign entities are absent.

    • kmlisle_1 says:

      Having worked with vulnerable kids and veterans with PTSD for many years, I have always had the view that Hunter Biden’s behavior probably stems in part back to his injuries as a toddler in the accident that killed his mother. The trauma and possible brain damage may have impacted both brothers long term and Hunters problems are typical of survivors of trauma both in the classrooms I taught in and in the veterans military organizations I have worked with.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Thank you for bringing that up. I’ve never seen any account of that accident that details the medical consequences for the surviving brothers. Maybe also worth mentioning: they grew up in what was, for the times, an unusual level of scrutiny and pressure. The Biden kids were a B-list version of the Kennedys, over-achievers until the end (Beau) or the unraveling (Hunter).

        Despite his privileges (and in some ways because of them), Hunter is not someone I envy. As he hangs onto his recovery amidst this firestorm, however, he is someone I have come to respect.

      • Spooky Mulder says:

        Thank you. I’ve mentioned that very notion a lot. You are likely familiar with ACEs, Adverse Childhood Experiences and their potential impact on health outcomes. I encourage everyone to explore the topic.

  11. Savage Librarian says:


    What’s the story on this geyser?
    It could have been so much wiser,
    but for a fascist plasticizer,
    content to be a merchandiser.

    To every Nixon sympathizer:
    Don’t pardon an abusive kaiser,
    There’s more to being a wordy prizer,
    Open your eyes, shift the visor.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Weak beer, and a little breathless. Half of the article is the author’s angst about Cannon’s finances, focused on whether she could afford a $750,000 house in Vero Beach. The author knows nothing about her wealth or income as an appellate litigator for the DoJ. AUSA salary ranges are a matter of public record. With nine years experience at the DoJ, Cannon would have made over $100,000.

      The author has an estimate of her husband’s income, about $90,000, but not his wealth, but posits without evidence that the couple could only afford the house if her nomination to the federal bench went through. Their combined income would have been $200,000 or higher. The house purchase was within reach.

      Moreover, this was a Len Leo, GOP congresscritter approved nomination during Trump’s presidency. Of course, it was going through. The rest is fluff.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Those salaries would be the minimum, and ignore assets the pair might have had for a down payment, which seems to include a nearly half million cottage/condo in the Keys.

          The couple seem to be spending within their income range, so this looks like an entirely made-up problem. It’s made moot because a federal district court judge’s salary is more than twice the salary Cannon probably made at DoJ. As bmaz implies, a $750,000 property in southeastern Florida isn’t gonna raise any eyebrows.

  12. Maureen A Donnelly says:

    I read Matt’s article and wondered about his take on Don Jr., Vanks, and Eric . . . It’s all so exhausting that they are coming after the “first son” who is loved by his father.

  13. CPtight617 says:

    The story is basically a clip job. But that doesn’t mean Viser is “corrupt.” I know and worked with him for a spell. He is fine. The problem with the story is that he is way out of his depth — he’s not an investigative reporter and has never covered international affairs or the law. He’s an OK political feature writer. He didn’t include that stuff bc he doesn’t know about them and/or doesn’t know enough about the subject to understand its importance.

    • Rayne says:

      You know what? Those are excuses. They’re not acceptable rationalizations when a nation is relying on too few people covering this story to get the facts right and present them in a lucid, cogent fashion. Public opinion about the Biden White House is being shaped by this half-assed not-corrupt out-of-their-league reporting.

      It’s not as if there isn’t at least one resource *waves around here wildly* which could aid a journalist out of their depth.

      It’s still absolutely essential that the failings of journalism are scrutinized in ample sunlight so that the public has a fair chance at understanding what’s actually happened.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      There are pool lifeguards and ocean beach lifeguards. If Viser is out of his depth, he was put there. If he doesn’t know enough about the details or context, he should ask why he was put in that position by his editor and/or employer. Or he should learn how to swim better in open water; if not, the rip currents will do their work.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      If Viser wasn’t up to the task, why was he assigned to it? I thought that larger pattern–not personal deficiencies or corruption on Viser’s part–was EW’s real subject in the post.

Comments are closed.