Throwing this one over the transom. Know the development is there. Crabgrass has no comment on it, being unwilling to put time into reading 65 pages of stuff from House Republicans. Readers can read it if they care to.

 The AP headline summarizes the story: 

House Republicans issue criminal referrals against James and Hunter Biden, alleging false testimony

 Fleshed out by Repubs saying, "Something to it," and Dems saying, "Nothing to it," go search if you care. This is from the folks who burned through time and money and drum beating based upon an FBI write-up of a confidential informant's information for which Special Counsel Weiss indicted Smirnov, the informant, for lying. 

Is it a last desperate effort, or something which could grow legs? You read through the turgid stuff and tell me.

--------------------------------------

MSN carried the story with a helpful link to the underlying document - the item the Republicans fabricated. (BS or with gravitas being unclear, "fabricated" is used as a choice-privilege of authorship. As in they put it together, fabricated in that sense.)

Bless anyone who takes it very seriously in this election run-up.

It appears as news along with more about the Alito upside down flag.

-------------------------------------

This "know it's there - believe it important or same old" post ends here.

 

__________UPDATE__________

One further thought. After Rep. Comer and crew lost cred over Smirnov's total lie, it reminds me:

 

Still Going (click here)

FURTHER: Breitbart covers it as if credible. But they cover Republicans as credible, no matter who or what, e.g., this from the homepage. 

______________FURTHER UPDATE______________

This is from a day later. The first new thought, is this referral step a sign of throwing in the towel, no further committee hearings, staff contacts, etc.? Or is this a show thing - DoJ being challenged to "prove" no two tier approach?

If the later, there might be a problem. Crabgrass recalls reading online in the past that the Republicans were not transcribing testimony/depositions. If a referral is made without a full record, how can the biased Republicans expect DoJ lawyers to judge sixtdy-five pages of bias against full statements, to see if anything beyond harmless misrecollection is at issue. Were Hunter and Jim Biden asked follow-up questions which might have refreshed memory were there actual misstatements, possibly inattentively so? Were questions vague or precise? Things which would go into a full weighing of, was there any likelihood of crime at all, and if possibly, can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., is it triable and at all winnable?

And remember, Joe Biden is running against a convicted felon. A trial was held and evidence of guilt was compelling to twelve randomly chosen citizens.

Crabgrass understands such questions might have some form of answer in the Republican pages, but declines to spend time looking. Interested readers can bear such questions in mind if reading Republican items. Most important to Crabgrass, were full transcriptions of subpoenaed under oath testimony given the DoJ to sensibly review committee allegations, or not?

No transcripts suggests political stunt rather than sincere belief that crime happened. This is clearly a politically charged thing, and the Republicans earlier released the FBI report of Smirnov lore -- hearsay without suitable effort to verify credibility, the released item containing pure provably inaccurate fiction. Prejudicial without any probative truth. Doing that burned credibility of the Republican conduct.

Skepticism is merited, and is the basis for Crabgrass believing reading the stuff is not worth the time it would take.

 

A sub-population of Israelis, "ultranationalists," who are the most hateful toward Arabs demonstrated their anti-Arab animus via a provocative "annual march;" (effectively also saying Fuck You to Biden's peace efforts - it being done in East Jerusalem).

Besides noting the event, there is a lesson nationally about editorial decision-making.

The full item is an AP release: https://hosted.ap.org/thetimes-tribune/article/1b54d6df460f681a550833888bc55581/israeli-nationalists-march-jerusalem-far-right-minister

That link does say "far-right-minister" with AP mentioning Ben-Gvir six or seven times, AND with AP on first mention linking here: https://apnews.com/article/israel-jerusalem-palestinians-al-aqsa-extremism-d0a2c4e0ff0b7bf443ef4dd8750282ec

That linked-over AP item states in part:

Ben-Gvir has used his influence to push forward pet projects and encourage Netanyahu to press ahead with the war in Gaza against widespread calls to reach a cease-fire deal that would bring home hostages.

The stunning rise of Ben-Gvir, 48, is the culmination of years of efforts by the media-savvy lawmaker to gain legitimacy. But it also reflects a rightward shift in the Israeli electorate that brought his religious, ultranationalist ideology into the mainstream and diminished hopes for Palestinian independence.

Note, yet another link-over to further AP Ben-Gvir related coverage from before the most recent Israeli election, opening:

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israeli lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir calls his Arab colleagues “terrorists.” He wants to deport his political opponents, and in his youth, his views were so extreme that the army banned him from compulsory military service.

Yet today, the populist lawmaker who was once relegated to the margins of Israeli politics is surging ahead in the polls ahead of November elections. He has received the blessing of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is poised to emerge as a major force that could propel the onetime premier back to power.

Ben-Gvir’s stunning rise is the culmination of years of efforts by the media-savvy lawmaker to gain legitimacy. But it also reflects a rightward shift in the Israeli electorate that has brought his religious, ultranationalist ideology into the mainstream and all but extinguished hopes for Palestinian independence.

“Over the last year I’ve been on a mission to save Israel,” Ben-Gvir recently told reporters. “Millions of citizens are waiting for a real right-wing government. The time has come to give them one.”

Ben-Gvir, 46, has been a fixture of Israel’s extreme right for more than two decades, gaining notoriety in his youth as a disciple of the late radical rabbi, Meir Kahane. He first became a national figure when he famously broke a hood ornament off then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s car in 1995.

“We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too,” he said, just weeks before Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist opposed to his peace efforts with the Palestinians.

Kahane’s violent anti-Arab ideology -- which included calls to ban Jewish-Arab intermarriage and for the mass expulsion of Palestinians -- was considered so repugnant that Israel banned him from parliament and the U.S. listed his party as a terrorist group. Kahane himself was assassinated by an Arab assailant in New York in 1990.

So, coverage of the march differs among outlets. LATimes and LasVegasTimes each edit out most Ben-Gvir content, mentioning him only once, without any link over to informative text about the man and his rise in Israeli matters.

Strib, unfortunately paywalled, carries the full current item, but without any linkover.

Readers are urged to read the AP links, true objective reporting about the current event and the present orientation of Israel's government, in contrast to Rabin's commitment to a two state outcome. 

The truncated west coast versions give no real flavor whatsoever to the provocative nature of this march, at this time of death and starvation imposed on Gaza. Strib's decision to edit out links is fair coverage. It says, "Stay on our page, don't wander." That's in their economic interest, and not bias against a full report.

Last, Strib and AP, but not the west coast truncations, in closing note:

Commenting on the march, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said ''our people will not rest until the occupation is gone and an independent Palestinian state is established, with Jerusalem as its capital.''

The march was taking place as tensions over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza are high. The war began with Hamas' Oct. 7 attack into southern Israel, in which militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted around 250 hostages. Israel responded with a massive offensive that has killed over 36,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials, displaced most of the territory's population and caused widespread destruction.

The United States has thrown its weight behind a phased cease-fire and hostage release outlined by President Joe Biden last week. But Israel says it won't end the war without destroying Hamas, while the militant group is demanding a lasting cease-fire and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces.

That is the part of things showing this march was not only a Fuck You to Palestinian Arabs, but also a Fuck YOu to Joe Biden. 

Ben-Gvir has had Netanyahu's positioning his heading the police from the outset of this coalition government, and Netanyahu appears to offer no words about Ben-Gvir's extremism, as if approving without comment. Hence, derivatively, a Netanyahu Fuck You to Biden, while weapon flows continue, U.S. to Israel.

Presuming Biden and DoS are sincere in two state aims, this situation is a mess, which Biden in no way deserves from the Israelis his administration is arming. Arming them especially now while they devastate Gaza, and while they remain on an annual four billion dollar annual armament dole of U.S. taxpayer money. They are acting like real shits toward our nation. And should stop. The rest of the world, the U.S. included, owes the powerless of the world the imposition of the two state solution upon the Israelis regardless of how they think about it. The South Africans' efforts in the ICC against Israel's current government are spot-on and helpful.

U.S. veto usage in the Security Council whenever Israel is the issue, in light of present actualities, should be curbed. BDS efforts proved effective as part of breaking down South African apartheid, and could put strong economic pressure upon Israel to in part help break down its apartheid. If that is possible.

All of that being Crabgrass opinion, where opinions clearly differ. Ron Latz, the main Minnesota legislature individual behind Minnesota's present anti-BDS two statutes, for example, feels quite differently.

_______________UPDATE________________

For clarification, there is no indication Biden's administration is fundamentally against the current Israeli goal of elimination of Hamas, the disagreement being over means and not the end aim. Israeli death and starvation of civilians as a war tactic is at issue. Inhumane means likely will lessen IDF death and injury, but that alone fails to justify wholesale killing of civilians. Still happening.

The Biden administration is clear on continuation of a two state goal, which Israel promised to advance prior to Rabin's being shot by an ultranationalist hot-head, which was unfortunate, but not the fault of all Israelis. The allowance of Hamas to succeed in its incursion killing over a thousand Israelis and taking hostages, whatever its causes and basis, draws a focus upon the unusual historical relationship and past perceptions between Netanyahu and Hamas.

Today, Hamas, per Netanyahu rhetoric, are personas non grata. Whatever yesterday may have entailed. Some, surely, regard Netanyahu as trustworthy. He has been Israel's longest serving Prime Minister. Off and on. And he seems presently direct in his will to destroy Hamas, now, and direct in his dismissal of the two state solution. Whether the man can survive new elections will say much about majority opinion in Israel, under current events. A new coalition might arise, and prove better.

FURTHER: The latest war report of carnage, MSN carrying an AP feed. A UNRWA school alleged to be occupied in part by Hamas operatives was struck by two missiles. It appears this was not a ground strike, although that is not totally clear. Civilian deaths are reported.

Economic assessments of Trump proposals include: “If you are talking about kicking 50 percent of the farm labor force out, that is not going to do wonders for agricultural food prices,” David Bier, director of immigration-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, has said.

The headline assessment foretells impacts on prices at the supermarket, one of the most recognizable pressures on family budgets. Please note, that statement is from Cato Institute, not a Dem outlet. 

Online, the headline statement, in context, is from a DWT post, citing an item in The Atlantic; i.e., respectively:

DWT: Trump's Economic Agenda Leads Directly To Severe Inflation, And Probably Staflation - The MAGA Agenda Basically Wipes Out The Savings Of The Elderly

(Staflation likely typo - for stagflation) 

TheAtlantic: Trump’s Plan to Supercharge Inflation - Voters believe Trump would handle the economy better than Biden. Economists think differently.

See, also, FinancialTimes, here, where among other insightful analysis, this graph is presented:

 

 The FT item is short and helpful, while readers may choose to follow the Atlantic item itself, or DWT's post; or both, where DWT excerpts extensively from The Atlantic. For readers not going on to DWT, their opening image is reposted:

That is sobering notice for the voting segment where Trump support shown in polling is strongest - either rethink things or suffer told-you-so. From The Atlantic, an extended excerpt:

Among prominent economists, no one was more explicit than former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in warning that President Joe Biden and the Federal Reserve Board risked igniting inflation by overstimulating the economy in 2021. Soaring prices over the next few years proved Summers correct.

Now Summers sees the risk of another price shock in the economic plans of former President Donald Trump. “There has never been a presidential platform so self-evidently inflationary as the one put forward by President Trump,” Summers told me in an interview this week. “I have little doubt that with the Trump program, we will see a substantial acceleration in inflation, unless somehow we get a major recession first.”

Summers is far from alone in raising that alarm. Trump’s greatest asset in the 2024 campaign may be the widespread belief among voters that the cost of living was more affordable when he was president and would be so again if he’s reelected to a second term. But a growing number of economists and policy analysts are warning that Trump’s second-term agenda of sweeping tariffs, mass deportation of undocumented migrants, and enormous tax cuts would accelerate, rather than alleviate, inflation.

[hightling added] Continuing, Atlantic notes more dismal predictions -

In an upcoming analysis shared exclusively with The Atlantic, Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, forecasts that compared with current policies, Trump’s economic plans would increase the inflation rate and force the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. “If he got what he wanted,” Zandi told me, “you add it all up and it feels highly inflationary to me.”

In a study released last month, the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated that the tariffs Trump says he will impose on imports would dramatically raise costs for consumers. “Trump is promising a no-holds-barred, all-out protectionist spree that will affect every single thing that people buy that is either an import or in competition with imports,” Kimberly Clausing, a co-author of the study and a professor of tax policy at the UCLA Law School, told me.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, is sympathetic to many elements of Trump’s agenda and critical of Biden’s. But Holtz-Eakin agrees that Trump’s economic plan “doesn’t bode well” for “the cost of living,” as he told me.

Summers, who served as Treasury secretary for Bill Clinton and the top White House economic adviser for Barack Obama, took substantial flak from fellow Democrats when he repeatedly warned that Biden was risking high inflation by pushing through Congress another massive COVID-relief package in 2021, while the Federal Reserve Board was still maintaining interest rates at historically low levels. “The Biden administration and the Fed both did make … consequential errors of failing to do macroeconomic arithmetic for which the economy is still paying,” he told me.

Summers told me he remains unsure that the policies Biden and the Fed are pursuing will push inflation all the way down to the Fed’s 2 percent target. But he said he is confident that Trump’s blueprint would make inflation worse.

Summers identified multiple pillars of Trump’s economic agenda that could accelerate inflation. These included compromising the independence of the Federal Reserve Board, enlarging the federal budget deficit by extending his 2017 tax cuts, raising tariffs, rescinding Biden policies designed to promote competition and reduce “junk fees,” and squeezing the labor supply by restricting new immigration and deporting undocumented migrants already here. Others note that top Trump advisers have also hinted that in a second term, he would seek to devalue the dollar, which would boost exports but further raise the cost of imported goods.

For many economists, Trump’s plans to impose 10 percent tariffs on imported products from all countries and 60 percent tariffs on imports from China are the most concerning entries on that list.

These new levies go far beyond any of the tariffs Trump raised while in office, several of which Biden maintained, said Clausing, who served as the Treasury Department’s deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis for Biden’s first two years. Trump’s proposed tariffs also dwarf the levies Biden recently imposed on electric vehicles and assorted other products from China: Biden’s new measures affect about $18 billion in Chinese imports, she said, whereas Trump proposes to raise tariffs on $3.1 trillion in imported goods, more than 150 times as much. Trump “has been quite clear that he is envisioning something quite a bit larger than he did last time,” Clausing told me.

In the Peterson study, Clausing and her co-author, Mary Lovely, calculated that Trump’s tariffs would raise prices for consumers on the goods they purchase by at least $500 billion a year, or about $1,700 annually for a middle-income family. The cost for consumers, she told me, could be about twice as high if domestic manufacturers increase their own prices on the goods that compete with imports.

“When you make foreign wine more expensive, domestic manufacturers can sell their wine at a higher price,” Clausing told me. “The same with washing machines and solar panels and chairs. Anything that is in competition with an import will also get more expensive.”

While Trump’s proposed tariffs would increase the cost of goods, his pledge to undertake a mass deportation of undocumented migrants would put pressure on the cost of both goods and services. Undocumented migrants are central to the workforce in an array of service industries, such as hospitality, child care, and elder care. But they also fill many jobs in construction, agricultural harvesting, and food production. Removing millions of undocumented workers from the economy at once “would create massive labor shortages in lots of different industries,” Zandi told me. That would force employers to either raise wages to find replacements or, more likely, disrupt production and distribution; both options would raise the prices consumers pay. “If you are talking about kicking 50 percent of the farm labor force out, that is not going to do wonders for agricultural food prices,” David Bier, director of immigration-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told me.

Removing so many workers simultaneously would be disruptive under any circumstances, many economists agree. But it could be especially tumultuous for the U.S. now because the native-born population has grown so slowly in recent years. Bier pointed out that immigrants and their children already account for almost all the growth in the population of working-age adults ages 18 to 64. If Trump in fact extracts millions of undocumented migrants from the workforce, “there is no replacement [available] even at a theoretical level,” Bier said.

More difficult to quantify but potentially equally significant are the frequent indications from Trump that, as with all other federal agencies, he wants to tighten his personal control over the Federal Reserve Board. During his first term, Trump complained that the Fed was slowing economic growth by keeping interest rates too high, and any second-term move to erode the Fed’s independence—for instance, by seeking to fire or demote the board’s chair, Jay Powell—would be aimed at pressuring the board into prematurely cutting interest rates, predicts Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chair who is advising Biden’s reelection campaign. That would become another source of inflationary pressure, he says, likely spooking financial markets.

In the upcoming Moody’s analysis, Zandi estimates the cumulative impact of all these possible changes. He compares a scenario in which Trump can implement his entire agenda with one in which power remains divided between Biden in the White House and Republicans controlling at least one congressional chamber. Inflation, Zandi projects, would be nearly a full percentage point higher (0.8 percent, to be exact) under the scenario of Trump and Republicans in control than in the alternative of Biden presiding over a divided government. Inflation would be about that much higher under Trump even compared with the less likely scenario of Democrats winning the White House and both congressional chambers, Zandi projects.

Zandi said the only reason he does not anticipate prices rising even faster under Trump is that the Federal Reserve Board would inevitably raise interest rates to offset the inflationary impact of Trump’s proposals.

But those higher interest rates would come with their own cost: Zandi projects they would depress the growth in total economic output and personal income below current policy, and raise the unemployment rate over the next few years by as much as a full percentage point—even as inflation rises. Raising the specter of the slow-growth, high-inflation pattern that hobbled the American economy through much of the 1970s, Zandi told me, “It is really a stagflation scenario.”

Extended quoting can be critized, but there is more in TheAtlantic beyond that for readers wishing to see the full story. And again, the FT item is shorter but helpful in understanding economic thinking about Trump's stated agenda.

All for now on economical online analysis of Biden v. Trump.

_____________UPDATE______________

As good a place as any to mention should Trump win in November, he'd serve for a second term and under the Constitution his being in the White House would end. Should Biden win, the remaining question would be Republican Party loyalty levels if losing two straight runs. In 2028 Cruz would not be having to concentrate on his Senate seat in 2028, and he and others, Haley again possibly, could run in a primary.

Hypothetically, with only a single term served, Trump could run and lose as long as he'd end up the Republican nominee for future general elections. Practically it would be expected Trump base loyalty at some point would wane, and "his party," would move in a different direction. If and when under that scenario they'd abandon Trump is an open question.

 

Calling bullshit when it would be not merely negligent but reckless not to do so. (Bullshit from a Trump campaign spokesperson).

Where bullshit is a norm -

WaPo posts an item which includes:

The contrast on Capitol Hill will be reflected on the campaign trail as Trump decries the verdict, which his campaign and supporters say is a fundraising boom and has further motivated his base.

• “As President Trump has said, Republicans need to be tough and fight back hard,” Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This is more than about President Trump — it’s about the Democrats’ willingness to persecute anyone who speaks out against them and challenges the system.”

The Manhattan DA, a Democrat, prosecuted (not "persecuted") a crime, one that admittedly "challenges the system" of the rule of law. Do the crime, face the trial.

So let's look at a truth - prosecution of crime. Ms. Leavitt wrongly conjoined "anyone who speaks out against them," by "and" with challenges via crime against rule of law.

There is Leavitt, herself, and the sitting majority of the House, and tired old Alan Dershowitz not being prosecuted for beating on the Trump drum. Speaking out aganist Dems.

These folks are neither persecuted nor prosecuted. They are merely called false prophets by Dems, for distorting truth that Donald J. Trump, who IS a criminal, (34 counts worth); drumbeating as best they can beat the Trump drum while in thrall, as a party, to Donald J. Trump. Fair game. No sin. They act, the actions are critiqued. Free speech in sunlight, shining, but no crime to each side speaking its points.

Now, back to truth, prosecution - say by the U.S. DoJ, where Ms. Leavitt can choke herself trying to continue her lie in light of two items, prosecution of two federal politicians charged with challenging the system by taking bribe money and breaching law while acting as a foreign agents.

DoJ posting: Prosecution of Henry Cueller (D. Rep. Texas) and spouse.

DoJ posting: Prosecution of Robert Menendez (D. Senator, NJ) and spouse and others.

The focus in all three instances, the NY verdict, and the pending Dem politicians facing trial - for of all things, crime. Do the crime, face the jury.

Trump faced the jury. They found him, in effect, to be a guilty dirtbag.

Which he is.

And challenging the system by committing crime is NOT A PARTISAN THING. 

That is why the U.S. DoJ in a Biden Democratic administration is prosecuting Dems as well as fat Donald facing local charges. Breach of law, proven in Trump's case, innocent unless proven guilty in the instance of the two Dems.

It insults the national goal of justice being blind to partisanship, (which might not have been a personal goal of Bill Barr while AG. Rudy moved freely then. Rudy is charged now by Georgia's AG for crimes he allegedly committed in a RICO scheme with others.) 

Joe Biden is not interfering in any way with a soon to be started federal trial against his remaining son. There is fairness. There is restraint in the face of compelling personal grief over losing one son and seeing another tried. 

AND - There is Trump spokesperson bullshit. Of the worse kind you can push. Obvious bullshit. No-class bullshit. D- or F graded bullshit. Not even worth C-.

End of story. 

- the original post has been edited for clarity but not substantively changed -

 

Clarifying as necessary, that while not an inner party Dem. holding "our people are each beyond reproach" and being a realist about Joe Biden, my support of Biden 2024 is solid and unwavering, even posed in a lesser evil outlook.

Joe Biden is not Bernie. But he's in the White House and based on his record he deserves to continue there apart from the other option being a puke-worthy criminal insurrectionist. The positives -

Biden brought the economy back from Trump's handling of the pandemic, and in doing some pump priming there has been inflation, but not disastrously so.

Biden's appointments have been solid. Not necessarily progressive in any great measure, but solid. He has stood by those appointed, not changing things at whim as Trump did with firings anytime he felt like it. Biden is steady. Steadiness was lacking in a broad political sense the four years prior to Biden taking the White House. Other than Trump being steady in an all too undesirable way.

Biden finished the Afghanistan exit, which Trump, in fairness, did initiate. Biden did the job. Trump merely set the table.

Bernie clearly said it has to be Joe when faced with Trump as the alternative. Not overly embracing Biden as a progressive, but leaning there from center and reliable to not become an insufferable diva once in the White House.

Biden has had to straddle with Israel's conduct in Gaza. He has used what pressure he has toward lowering civilian loss of life among the Arab Gazans, while not reversing long set policy of favoring Israel, as right or wrong that can be argued, it is again, steady. Trump with Jarad, an incompetent Jewish favoritist put in charge of Middle East policy, made it hard for Biden to take over the Trump incited mess.

Biden has not been a bomb thrower, rather - again the word - a steady leader.

Biden is not half-insane and is not a danger to democracy. Not a criminal. Not a diva messing with porn actors for a fleeting, momentary bad-trip high. Instead, steady.

And, most important, Bernie trusts Biden, and in trust from Bernie, that matters.

It is astounding and hard to see and believe that anyone trusts Trump. Many regular people do, but why would a sentient citizen trust that blowhard grifter is still hard to believe, much less understand.

Trump said he had a healthcare plan and had none. Trump put in yet another tax cut for the wealthy, cynically timing it along with Paul Ryan for Christmas season.

Biden has given no breaks to the wealthy beyond generic pump priming spending - with bipartisan support - to come out well from the pandemic. He pushed Build Back Better progressive effort, but was thwarted by some in his own party. But he was on board, whether as a formality proposing something he thought best but saw as having no realistic chance, or as a true believer without qualification - that does not matter as much as from the White House he advanced the agenda in a good way.

Closing, the bottom line is Biden should be reelected. Again, it seems so obvious to Crabgrass that nobody in their right mind would back Trump, yet there's money behind Trump and too strong a Trump "mixed base" that a Trump win could happen, so that urging GOTV for Biden is absolutely necessary. Yes, the nation and the deep state are capable of surviving a second Trump term, but why-the-fuck put the people through any such avoidable disaster?

GOTV for Biden is the only way the nation does best over the next four years, with a choice limited to Biden or Trump, and with a progressive agenda being slim, but with Biden at least trying some reform in that direction, while also having to raise funding for a win. 

It is a straddle, but Biden is handling it well, while Trump is fragmenting from the fact he IS a criminal. Not that it's a morality awakening, but rather floundering around for a working tactic to try to disarm being told by twelve decent citizens that he's clearly a criminal with them going into jury duty without bias either way. And where each one of them was free to think otherwise which would have hung the jury, they, instead were unanimous on EVERY count. 

The dissembling going on right now via Trump and his Republican Party - it is his party beyond question now - sickens. 

UPDATE: Again, Biden has done a better job than I expected while voting for him, 2020. That is a core positive not listed above but posted previously. Also, as a progressive trying to be realistic, Biden with his years in DC government has been able to get things passed. Bernie's agenda commands Crabgrass agreement, but subject to the troublesome understanding that were it Bernie in the White House, not Biden, we might have seen less actual progress. More effort toward it certainly, but Biden has a sense of the achievable as well as perhaps the most desirable. 

Biden advanced Build Back Better while it was highly questionable whether Congress was ready for it.

That matters.