Glenn Reynolds Isn't The Sharpest Knife In The Drawer, But. . .

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, a Yale Law graduate and holder of an endowed chair at the University of Tennessee School of Law, is a libertarian, which means that he follows Ayn Rand as his guiding light. (Rand herself described libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose".)

He is also a transhumanist who in the past has endorsed cryonics (freezing the heads of dead people in anticipation that future technology can resuscitate them) and the technological singularity, which among other things embraces the idea that people can be digitized and uploaded into a giant computer memory, which will ensure their immortality, at least until the next power failure.

I wouldn't even ask Glenn Reynolds for advice on a traffic ticket, but before he rose to prominence, I'd already lost confidence in the ability of academic institutions to certify people whom we can trust to teach future generations. Nevertheless, like a few other commentators, he's beginning to ask the right question about Joe Biden:

In public he appears increasingly out of it.

He speaks nonsense, he shows flashes of inappropriate anger, he walks off stage in the middle of events, and he has trouble with stairs.

. . . But what if it’s all an act?

He cites as evidence Joe's use of pseudonymous e-mail addresses while he was vice president, apparently to pass privileged information to Hunter so that Hunter could in turn pass it on to foreign Biden family clients as proof that they were getting what they paid for, viz, Joe's influence on their behalf.

I'm not sure if this proves Reynolds's point -- Joe did use phony e-mail accounts at least up to 2016, but it says little about his cognitive abilities in 2023, although I agree in general that Joe isn't suffering from a medical condition that impairs his thinking. (A separate question that's worth asking is if he's still using fake e-mail.)

Reynolds cites Charles CW Cooke at the National Review behind a paywall:

Writing in National Review, Charles C.W. Cooke observes: “If this allegation is proven to be accurate, what could the defense possibly be? . . . I honestly can’t think of one.”

. . . I suppose there may be other, more innocent, explanations, but like Cooke I’m having trouble thinking of anything that makes this pattern of behavior look innocent.

Which is why I’m wondering if when Joe Biden is acting senile, he’s actually acting senile.

The accounts we're seeing suggest that there is in fact a purposeful effort coming from the White House to do what it can to control the metastasizing scandal, although the ability to address it is limited by Joe's apparent unwillingness to discuss it with aides:

President Joe Biden reportedly ignores most White House aides when they try to share “contributions” or “ideas” about how to handle Hunter Biden’s legal position, according to a report.

. . . “Inside the White House, most aides strenuously avoid discussing Hunter’s troubles with the president, believing their contributions and ideas would not be welcome,” the Washington Post reported Thursday based on comments from half a dozen current and former administration officials. “[O]nly a small group of longtime trusted aides are engaged in conversations about how to handle family matters.”

Joe Biden, who is reportedly “consumed” with his son Hunter’s scandals, allegedly angrily dismisses White House aides who believe Hunter Biden’s controversial history might politically hurt his father, NBC News reported in June.

Of course, Joe's problem isn't just Hunter, it's looking more and more as if Joe's problem is what Hunter was doing for Joe, especially when the phony e-mail accounts appear to have been directly related to their joint business effort. Newt Gingrich on Thursday referred to other purpose-driven activity from within the White House:

In an interview with Charlie Kirk, Gingrich said it is hearsay but that he was told from a reliable source, "Friday evening, somebody from Washington called the district attorney in Atlanta and said, You have to indict on Monday." He added, "We have to cover up all of the mistakes we just made with Weiss."

"She said apparently, my jurors aren't coming back till Tuesday," Gingrich continued. "and they said you didn't hear me. You have to indict on Monday."

"And she said, Well, they're not gonna get here before noon," he said. "They said that doesn't matter."

"She says this means it's going to be eight or nine or 10 o'clock at night," he added, "It doesn't matter. We need the news media shifting."

Kirk asked who made the phone call, but Gingrich said he didn't know, and reiterated that it was hearsay.

The bottom line here, for anyone even as obtuse as Glenn Reynolds, is that Joe himself has full situational awareness and probably understands his potential risks better even than his staff, which is why he won't discuss them. Still, we're seeing at least inchoate and piecemeal recognition of a problem and the start of a game plan to deal with it.

But for now, it looks like Joe's public strategy will be to do everything he can to avoid publc contact and definitely questions fron the press, but when he absolutely can't avoid them, he'll continue to play senile. The question will be how long he can maintain that facade.