The Chickens Come Home to Roost for the House Hamas Caucus

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

We're now over two months into the Israel-Hamas war, a battle that was instigated after Hamas terrorists attacked Israeli civilians on October 7th, brutalizing and murdering 1,400 and taking some 240 as hostages.

Since that time, the House Hamas Caucus, which includes Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) have not exactly covered themselves in glory, with their inability to hide their antisemitism on full display during press conferences and speeches, where they've repeatedly alleged without evidence that Israel is engaged in "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "apartheid" against the people of Gaza and is deliberately targeting Gazan children.

Most disturbingly, Tlaib made the antisemitic chant "from the river to the sea" a focal point of a pro-ceasefire video she shared to Twitter in early November, causing her Jewish Michigan Democratic colleagues to twist themselves into pretzels in trying to defend her in the aftermath.

The calls from the AOC-led Squad of radical Socialist Democrats for a ceasefire have been non-stop, most recently with a rally held in D.C. where Tlaib and Bush were among those who spoke and took questions.

As RedState previously reported, Tlaib was quick to play the victim card, alleging that people were calling her "antisemitic" because they thought the allegation would shame her into being quiet:

Bush actually claimed that the accusation "hurt" her, and also suggested it was a silencing tactic that must stop:

My response to all of that: Doesn't feel so good to be on the receiving end of such characterizations, does it?

Their complaints about silencing attempts ring hollow to me. If these women truly cared about free speech and open dialogue, they wouldn't have spent the entirety of their time in public office (and even before that during their activist days) accusing their critics of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and all the other isms and phobias, all for the crime of daring to disagree with wokeness. 

The only time they don't seem to like it is when their own words get used against them, something we saw when another Squad/Hamas Caucus member, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), tried to get Riley Gaines' criticism of her removed from the record at a Congressional hearing on protecting women's sports last Tuesday.

For years, these same women have tried to use the various Absolute Moral Authority cards to silence their political opposition, so if they don't like such tactics maybe they should stop using them. Of course, the difference in these cases, though, is that the accusations against Bush and Tlaib are true, a fact a growing number of people are aware of, and which is likely at the heart of what really irks Tlaib, Bush, and their defenders.

X22, And we Know, and more- December 12

 

Why Are There So Many Mentally Unstable Progressives In Education?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

I’m not on TikTok, and I recommend you delete your account if you are (or your kid’s accounts, if they have them). If you don’t think you can live without it you can cut out the middleman and send all your personal data to the Chinese consulate (or reach out to Eric Swalwell’s office and ask for Fang-Fang’s number, same difference). But putting aside the communists who run it, there’s a big problem with the communists who use it – many of them are teachers, and a disturbing percentage of them are mentally unstable. 

This isn’t just about TikTok, it’s about academia. Major universities in this country are run by diversity hires who couldn’t bring themselves to condemn calls for genocide because they were made against Jews. When the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania testified on the Hill last week, their steadfast insistence that calls for genocide needed “context” to determine if they were bad or not was insane. These are people who expel students for calling someone with a gravitational pull “fat” and have entire departments under their control to police pronoun use, lest some entitled brat’s latest temper tantrum not be accepted as gospel truth. 

But a nuanced “context” is required before judging signs reading “Clean the world” with the Star of David in a trash can. If Hitler had a tattoo, that would probably be it. There’s your context. Well, that and all the threats of violence (and acts of violence) against those with a Jewish sounding name. 

Those presidents have since released statements trying to protect their jobs, er, I mean trying to clarify what they meant. “I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures…I failed to convey what is my truth,” said Harvard’s President Claudine Gay. But there is no “my truth,” there is only the simple truth that she, seemingly because she was being questioned by a Republican, couldn’t bring herself to condemn calls for genocide against Jews. She seemed to dig in her heels because she was being questioned by a Republican – a “I can’t condemn it because that would be me agreeing with you, and I hate you” mentality common among many on the left. 

Penn President Liz Magill eventually released what amounts to a hostage video, reading the statement walking back her refusal to condemn anti-Jewish hate with all the sincerity you’d expect from a child forced to apologize for taking another kid’s toy. She didn’t mean it, she had to do it to try to save her job. It didn’t work, as she resigned a day or two later. Sincerity wouldn’t require a script; heartfelt makes eye contact, it doesn’t focus on the teleprompter under the camera. 

These people are unstable. Well-adjusted individuals aren’t ideological slaves to the point that they can’t bring themselves to entertain the idea that they’re wrong; that their opponents have a point. Because they were “called out” by Republicans, their instinct was to recoil and refuse. Children do that, then they grow up. Adults now do it at an alarming rate, and they seem to be on the left.

TikTok is full of adults, though not heads of universities, who work in education and are desperate from external validation. They need strangers to embrace them, to cheer their sexual proclivities, deviant lifestyles and holier-than-thou pronouncements. 

How many videos of teachers have you see with “pride” flags all over their classrooms who breakdown because one of their students used whatever garbage words they decided were their pronouns for that day? These people are brought to tears by a 5-year-old picking up on the fact that the pink hair, dozens of facial piercings and constant talk of their “partner” with a name of the same gender means they’re gay. Well, as a father of a 5-year-old, that’s what they do, they pick up on things. It’s not amazing, it’s part of life. 

The real problem is these people who ooze details of their pathetic personal lives to kids because they’re desperate for them to pick up on them and repeat them back. Kids aren’t approving or disapproving, they’re incapable of either, they’re just noticing things and saying what they are. That’s what kids do. If that sends you into a crying frenzy, you need help and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near kids until you get it and it works. 

Why do so many unstable people gravitate to education? Because most job titles in it bring with them an inherent sense of authority and trust that people would have to otherwise earn. Teachers know what they’re talking about, right? They’re teachers, after all. University presidents are smart, they’re heads of universities! The same goes for cable news and radio, audiences assume people wouldn’t be on those mediums if they didn’t know what they’re talking about. I can assure you, none of that is close to true. Most of them have no idea what they’re talking about, their “knowledge” base is a mile wide and a half inch deep. 

At least you can turn the TV and radio off, education is different in that you really can’t. All you can do is go into it, or send your kids into it, with eyes wide open and know that you may have to undo much of what is done in there. 

Not every teacher is a lunatic on social media, breaking down because their students aren’t judging them for attending weekend orgies, and not every university president remains silent if they’re sympathetic to some calls for genocide, but it doesn’t take many to screw up the whole thing. 

After Millions Of Illegal Crossings, Senate Republicans Finally Discover America Has A Border Crisis

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist 

It only took millions of illegal immigrants violating American sovereignty during Joe Biden’s presidency, but Senate Republicans are finally concerned about the ongoing invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border — or are they?

In recent weeks, Senate GOPers have been unusually vocal about the unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, a crisis created by Biden administration policies that’s wreaking havoc on communities across the country. On Wednesday, for instance, Senate Republicans blocked a $110.5 billion foreign-aid package proposed by Biden that sought to give tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, arguing that the measure must include “strict new changes related to asylum” and other border policies before it receives GOP support.

The bill also would have earmarked funds for Israel and “other global hot spots.”

“As we’ve said for weeks, legislation that doesn’t include policy changes to secure our borders will not pass the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a major proponent of shipping U.S. aid to Ukraine, said.

But Republicans’ push for increased U.S. border security isn’t as heroic as they’re making it out to be. McConnell and Co. aren’t saying they’ll no longer advance more aid to Ukraine altogether. They’re just stating they won’t consider doing so unless funding for U.S. border security comes with it.

In other words, the Republican message to Democrats is: “Give us enough border funding to placate our base, and we’ll keep helping you bankroll Ukraine’s forever war.”

Republicans’ argument — like that on so many other issues — comes from a point of weakness. If the border crisis is as dire as they’re claiming — it is — then protecting the American homeland should be the only priority that matters. Instead, the GOP establishment sees an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

On one hand, tying border security to Ukraine aid allows neocons such as McConnell to continue to fund their proxy war in Eastern Europe and financially boost their buddies working in America’s military-industrial complex. On the other, it gives Senate Republicans something to campaign on ahead of next year’s elections other than selling out their voters on a myriad of issues.

Biden’s border crisis has been raging for nearly three years, but McConnell and Co. decide now — months before the earliest GOP Senate primaries — to begin raising Cain and using their institutional power to force Democrats to negotiate on the issue. Better late than never, right?

If Senate Republicans ultimately manage to force Democrats to offer some changes to the U.S. border policy, conservatives should make sure that the “negotiated” outcome is strictly relegated to securing the border. In the past, “immigration reform” produced between the two parties has often involved amnesty for illegal aliens, a proposal that would undoubtedly attract more illegals to America’s southern border. Ahead of last year’s lame duck session, for example, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat-turned-independent from Arizona, reportedly pressed Senate leadership to bring their “immigration reform” bill that — among other things, would have provided a “pathway to citizenship” to two million illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors — to the floor for a vote.

While the bill ultimately never passed, its conception demonstrates the willingness of Republicans to sell out their voters at a moment’s notice in the name of “do-somethingism.”

Eric Holder Outlines the Best DOJ Targeting Process He Knows – The Exact Process He and Obama Used

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

In this short clip {direct Rumble link here} former AG Eric Holder is asked about the potential for a President (Trump) to target his political opposition using the DOJ.

Not coincidentally, nor ironically, Holder goes on to outline the exact process that Joe Biden is using to target Donald Trump.  Which is the exact same process Barack Obama used through Eric Holder to target his political opposition in the aftermath of the 2010 shellacking.  First the video, then the reminder.  Eric Holder knows a great deal about how this process works, because he did exactly what he is outlining.  WATCH:

What too few people remember is that back in 2011, in the aftermath of the November 2010 shellacking of the Democrats by activist Tea Party groups around the country, AG Holder asked the Treasury Department to participate in a “special research project.”

The IRS was asked for the Schedule-B’s of groups who were registered as “patriot” groups (Tea Party Patriots) and other names associated with the political uprising against Barack Obama and the takeover of federal healthcare, ie Obamacare.   The Cincinnati field office of the IRS then sent the DOJ a batch of CD-ROM’s containing the names of the individual donors listed on the IRS 501-c (3)(4) forms.  That list was then compiled and used by the federal government to target the donors and supporters.

A Cincinnati IRS office worker blew the whistle.

An investigation was launched by congress.

IRS head Lois Lerner then pleaded the 5th amendment, and later the IRS/DOJ settled a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of the targets.

During the investigation, former Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew was moved into position as Treasury Secretary, with the priority to cover-up and hide the DOJ initiating request.

Specifically, because the Tea Party groups were primary targeting the Republican members of the UniParty, the DOJ effort to destroy the participants was fully supported in 2012, 2013, 2014, by Republican leadership as well as complicit Democrats.  This was the most transparent UniParty cover-up operation through that date.  Only later exceeded by their unity in common cause against the Donald Trump presidency.

The Obama/Holder group learned a lesson in 2012 when the IRS whistleblower came forward.  The use of the IRS was dropped, and instead the administration switched to using the NSA database for their targeting data.  Federal officers, FBI offices and contractors working on behalf of the government, then began exploiting the NSA database for information on opposition to the Obama administration.

Approximately 80% of all NSA database searches were non-compliant.

Meanwhile, back in the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), the Holder operation continued with the use of weaponized FISA-702 exploits as surveillance and FARA violations as the process tool.   The DOJ-NSD was created by Eric Holder and refused any DOJ inspector oversight until 2017 under the Trump administration.  The process of having no oversight made it easier for the targeting operations to continue.

This is the truth of the thing, and CTH covered it in detail as it was happening.

President Obama and AG Eric Holder did exactly what Mr. Holder is now outlining in that CNN interview.   Essentially, Holder is saying the quiet part out loud, while recognizing that too few people will ever understand that he is guilty of the exact process he is explaining.

FUBAR

Missouri Joins Texas in Investigating Media Matters for Fraud for Their Attack on Musk's Advertisers

streiff reporting for RedState 

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey opened an investigation into the far-left website "Media Matters for America" alleging fraud in its scheme to deprive "X," the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, of advertisers.

“We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to trick advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America. Radicals are attempting to kill Twitter because they cannot control it, and we are not going to let Missourians get ripped off in the process,” said Attorney General Bailey. “I’m fighting to ensure progressive tyrants masquerading as news outlets cannot manipulate the marketplace in order to wipe out free speech.”

The genesis of this incident is a series of stories run by Media Matters in November claiming that "X" allowed corporate ads to be run alongside “white nationalist and pro-Nazi content.” This caused the loss of at least one major advertising account to X, IBM, and the reports were used by Media Matters to raise funds for their fight against "extremism."

X owner Elon Musk promised a "thermonuclear lawsuit," which was just that: Elon Musk Drops the Hammer on Media Matters.

X v Media Matters Complaint by Zerohedge Janitor

The reaction by prominent leftwing law experts indicates they expected Musk to passively stand by as specious claims damaged X's brand and Musk's reputation (Legal critics blast Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters as ‘weak’ and ‘bogus’). The subdued reaction by the ordinarily high-strung Media Matters CEO Angelo Carusone and the bellyaching about this "chilling" speech (sorry, blatant lies are not protected or even desirable speech) also indicate that the speed and ferocity of Musk's response was unexpected.

Following the lawsuit, another unexpected player entered the game. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Media Matters using fraud to hurt X's business.

The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) is opening an investigation into Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity. Under the Texas Business Organizations Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the OAG will vigorously enforce against nonprofits who commit fraudulent acts in or affecting the state of Texas.

Attorney General Paxton was extremely troubled by the allegations that Media Matters, a radical anti-free speech organization, fraudulently manipulated data on X.com (formerly known as Twitter).

This seems to have caught Media Matters by surprise. If so, today's announcement that Missouri will investigate Media Matters from a different angle was probably a thunderclap.

With Paxton and Bailey leading the charge, it wouldn't be a shock to see some other state attorneys general, particularly those on the Missouri vs. Biden team, also take a swing.

How Media Matters will cope with defending itself from two state investigations and a lawsuit funded by literally the richest man on earth remains to be seen. It will not be a shock if this ends with Musk owning Media Matters and the CEO and writer for this story shining Musk's shoes to pay off the criminal fines in addition to civil damages.

The Stuff Not Known About Tucker's Streaming Service Launch

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

In preparation for 2024 CTH now has a strong source arsenal of very specific contacts.  I can say with certainty that Tucker Carlson publicly expresses significant support for Elon Musk and his Twitter endeavor; however, privately Tucker says he doesn’t trust Musk one bit.

What’s the motive for the two faces?  Easy, Carlson is launching his own platform, and he is publicly positioning for the largest populist audience, while avoiding the harder road of speaking true, yet unpopular opinions.   Tucker isn’t the only voice doing that, and (short term) Musk is benefiting, but watch out.  Take that reality as you will, but it’s a truthful baseline.

[Trending Politics] – Tucker Carlson is launching a new streaming dedicated to his brand of brash conservatism, one that is expected to rival the online efforts of Fox News and other major players in center-right news circles.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the new service, which launches Monday, is expected to cost $9 per month, or $72 per year, and offer content from Carlson and other reporters that builds on lengthy programs he has been freely releasing for months on X. Sources close to the project expect up to five shows to be ready by mid-week, a combination of interviews, short-form videos and monologues. Named the Tucker Carlson Network, the new outlet will have a red pill as its logo, a wink to conservatives who regularly use the “Matrix” reference to imply a greater understanding of truth over misinformation.

Like most online outlets, some programming on the Tucker Carlson Network will remain free and ad-supported while other interviews and monologues will be available exclusively to subscribers without ads. Carlson was taking sign-ups for the service at his own site, www.tuckercarlson.com, as of Monday morning. (read more)

Weiss Indictment Parrots Bogus Claim That A Chinese Felon Paid Hunter Biden $1M For Legal Representation

Hunter Biden’s claim that the $1 million payment was ‘a retainer’ for his representation of Patrick Ho is not credible.

Margot Cleveand reporting for The Federalist

The nine-count federal indictment returned against Hunter Biden late Thursday detailed the president’s son’s “four-year scheme” not to pay taxes and his further efforts to evade taxes by filing a false return in 2018. But for all the specifics included in the 56-page indictment, including an extensive elaboration on Hunter Biden’s sordid spending sprees, Special Counsel David Weiss glossed over one of the most significant details uncovered during the multi-year investigation: the $1 million payment Hunter Biden received from Patrick Ho at a time when the Chinese associate was under federal investigation.

Here’s how Weiss described that payment in paragraph 100 of the indictment:

Roughly contemporaneous with the arrest of [Patrick Ho], an individual associated with CEFC, on or about November 2, 2017, [Hudson West III] received a $1,000,000 deposit. At the Defendant’s direction, on or about March 22, 2018, the funds were transferred to Owasco, LLC. The memo line of this transfer indicated it was for ‘[Patrick Ho] Representation.’ To justify the transfer, [Hudson West III] was provided with a letter stating that the funds were a retainer for the Defendant’s representation of [Patrick Ho] who was under criminal investigation in the United States.

The indictment highlighted the $1,000,000 payment from the Chinese communist felon, Ho, merely to establish that Hunter Biden had funds available to pay his outstanding tax burden and instead blew the money on desperate living — and for no other purpose. 

But that $1 million payment was far more significant because Hunter Biden’s claim that it was “a retainer” for his representation of Patrick Ho is unbelievable. First, there’s the fact that Hunter Biden’s law firm was Owasco PC and not Owasco LLC, the latter of which was merely a holding company — and if you are going to pay a whopping $1 million for legal representation, you want to pay the law firm supposedly providing those services.

Hunter gave away the game during the plea hearing for his since-scuttled plea agreement in this colloquy with the court: 

COURT: All right. In the third paragraph, which is actually the second full paragraph, it says on or about March 22, 2018, you received a million-dollar payment into your Owasco bank account as payment for legal fees for Patrick Ho. 

DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: Who is that payment received from, was that the law firm? 

DEFENDANT: Received from Patrick Ho, Your Honor. 

COURT: Mr. Ho himself? 

DEFENDANT: Yes. 

COURT: Were you doing legal work for him separate and apart from the law firm? 

DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. Well — 

MR. CLARK: That wasn’t through Boies Schiller, Your Honor, Mr. Biden was engaged as an attorney. 

COURT: Right. So that’s why I asked. You were doing work for him — 

DEFENDANT: My own law firm, not as counsel. 

COURT: So you had your own law firm as well? 

DEFENDANT: I think Owasco PC acted as a law firm entity, yeah. 

COURT: OK. 

DEFENDANT: I believe that’s the case, but I don’t know that for a fact.

In this exchange, Hunter Biden confirms he was not serving as counsel for Ho, which is obvious since he was in the throes of his addiction in 2018. Hunter Biden suggests instead that “Owasco PC acted as a law firm entity,” although he quickly hedged on that claim, likely to avoid a perjury charge. 

But if Owasco PC acted as the law firm entity, why then did Hunter Biden direct the $1 million retainer to be paid to Owasco LLC? (Were there even any other lawyers working at Owasco PC at the time?) And why did Biden report that $1 million payment to Owasco LLC on his personal income tax return in 2018? Why did he spend nearly the entirety of the $1 million retainer over the next six months on “large cash withdrawals, transfers to his personal account, travel, and entertainment,” as U.S. Attorney Weiss maintains he did?

Either Hunter Biden embezzled Ho’s retainer, or the $1 million wasn’t a retainer for legal fees but a payment for something else. 

Thursday’s nine-count indictment of the president’s son made no mention of any of these facts, much less charged Hunter Biden for any potential crime related to the $1 million cash payment. This apparent shrug by Special Counsel Weiss at what was, at best, unregistered lobbying by Hunter Biden to help Ho escape criminal prosecution and, at worst, fraud on Hudson West III, embezzlement of Ho’s money, money laundering, or bribery — or some combination of all these possibilities — foretells of two possibilities: Either Weiss intends to close out his career by completely papering over evidence of more serious criminal offenses, or the special counsel intends to seek additional charges.

Weiss may have provided a hint of his plans in the opening paragraph of the indictment when he called Hunter Biden a “lobbyist.” That unnecessary reference suggests prosecutors have renewed their focus on the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. 

If so, that still will not be enough. Substantial untangling is still required to expose the breadth of the Biden family corruption. 

I hold little hope, however, that the now-special counsel intends to zealously pursue the money trail, given that Weiss could have brought last week’s nine-count indictment against Hunter Biden as early as 2019 or 2020 but didn’t. Fortunately, the House oversight committees and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who long ago publicly revealed many of the same facts as those detailed in the tax charges, will continue their pursuit for truth and justice — with or without Weiss. 

Let’s Be Clear: This Is About Joe Biden, Not Hunter Biden

It’s all about protecting the Big Guy.

David Harsanyi reporting for The Federalist

When James Comer wondered on CNN whether Special Counsel David Weiss had indicted Hunter Biden on nine tax-related charges to protect him from having to be deposed in the House Oversight Committee, Jake Tapper snarkily responded: “Yes, the classic rubric. He indicted him to protect him. I got it.”

Well, yes. Indicting a person on lesser charges can often protect him from more serious ones. It happens all the time. In this case, though, “him” isn’t Hunter, it’s Joe.

Weiss failed to indict Hunter for failing to register as a foreign agent or failing to pay taxes on the millions that flowed from those arrangements. Why? Probably because any investigation into Hunter’s $17 million foreign influence-peddling business — which Weiss has scrupulously avoided — leads to the president of the United States answering lots of awkward queries about his connection to disreputable people and authoritarian regimes. There is no Hunter Biden case without Joe. There is no Biden Inc. without Joe.

Hunter’s laptop — the one that the New York Post got its hands on, and that Tapper and others attempted to cover up — was crammed with texts and emails in which the son references his dad’s role in securing payments and taking cuts from the business. None of that is to mention the numerous witnesses that have come forward to contend that the “Big Guy” played a part in that outfit. Or the checks that ended up being written to Joe. Any genuine investigation into the 20-plus shell companies set up by James Biden, Joe’s brother, and Hunter would compel lots of people to answer questions on the record or under oath.

Weiss conveniently allowed some of these infractions to pass the statute of limitations, but some have not. Hunter pulled in a million a year from Burisma from the years 2014-2017, while Joe was forging American policy in that nation. It’s only a weird happenstance, not a massive conflict of interest, that the sitting vice president’s decisions may have aided the oil concern while his son was being paid. Hunter’s salary fell to roughly $500,000 annually from 2017 to 2019, after Joe was out of the White House. Another weird coincidence.

But the president’s son also had a 10 percent stake in a Chi-com investment fund named BHR Partners from 2013 to 2021. Joe flew him to China to set it up, met one of the partners, and then wrote a letter of recommendation for the man’s kid. All completely innocent, no doubt.

Let’s not forget, either, that without the IRS whistleblowers coming forward, Hunter would probably have escaped any charges. And let’s also not forget that without U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika putting the kibosh on it, Weiss would have allowed Hunter’s lawyers to write an extraordinary plea agreement that not only would have ensured the president’s name wouldn’t be dragged into the investigation, but it would have let Hunter plead out to two of the least consequential charges — with virtually no punishment — in exchange for blanket immunity for a slew of serious potential offenses, including tax, gun, and drug crimes.

At every turn, Weiss is protecting Joe.

Then again, this is about Hunter insomuch as all of this can be politically disastrous for the president. On the Sunday talk shows the president’s defenders portrayed Hunter Biden as a lost man struggling to overcome drug addiction and Joe Biden as the loving father, who had recently lost his other son, there to help. Others contended that Hunter was the real victim of an overzealous prosecution.  

Hunter is a middle-aged Yale-educated lawyer, international lobbyist, foreign energy consultant, millionaire, and celebrated artist, whose work can go for upwards of half a million dollars. The jails are strewn with Americans who have far more tragic stories to tell. Do they get to write off sex club memberships, prostitutes, and hotel rooms for his drug dealers? Would you?

Moreover, Hunter continued cheating on his taxes after he had supposedly gone clean and remarried. He set up his influence-peddling schemes before his brother Beau died — not in combat, as the president often claims, but from a brain tumor.

When ordinary Americans are being audited by the new supercharged IRS, or spending hours struggling to figure out the square-footage formula used to write off their home office in their 1040s, I hope they remember that Democrats believe Joe and Hunter are the real victims here.

At any rate, Weiss knows, despite the media’s insistence, that Joe doesn’t need to directly benefit from his family’s foreign ventures to corrupt himself — though there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that he did. If one of the most powerful men in the United States government participates in a scheme — or allows people to believe he is offering access — that makes millions for his entire family, it may or may not be illegal, but it is corrupt.

And any investigation that leads to those questions is a disaster for the president.