Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday wouldn’t say where a reported bribe paid to a top Trump official ended up.
In September 2024, Tom Homan, who currently serves as the administration’s “border czar,” reportedly took a $50,000 cash bribe from undercover FBI agents who were posing as businessmen. In turn, Homan reportedly agreed to help them obtain border-security contracts from a potential Donald Trump administration.
However, once Trump took office, his politicized Department of Justice closed an investigation into the matter, seemingly allowing Homan to get off scot-free.
As if that weren’t bad enough, it still leaves the question about where the $50,000 is now.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, probed Bondi at a Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee about that very matter.
"What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Homan?" Whitehouse asked Bondi.
"The investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review,” Bondi replied, avoiding the question. “They found no evidence of wrongdoing.”
"What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?" Whitehouse asked, not letting Bondi off the hook.
White House border czar Tom Homan, shown in May.
"You're welcome to talk to the FBI," Bondi said, again deflecting, even though the FBI reports to Bondi.
After Bondi kept refusing to answer, Whitehouse replied, “I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question.”
The question should have been easy for Bondi to answer: Either Homan kept the money, or he gave it back. If he gave it back, Bondi could have easily said so. But if Homan kept it, did he report the earnings on his tax filings? If he didn't report it, Homan would have committed a second crime—tax evasion.
“On top of the Epstein files, she needs to release EVERYTHING on the Tom Homan investigation, including the video,” Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee wrote Tuesday in a post on X, referring to a reported video of the bribe. “Where is the $50k?”
It’s unclear if we will ever get the answer. Democracy Forward, a group seeking to stop corruption in the executive branch, sued the Trump administration on Monday for refusing to release the recording of Homan accepting the bribe.
“The Trump-Vance administration continues to erode public trust and weaken accountability with the American people,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a news release. “These law enforcement agencies must follow the law and release this critical recording without delay. The public deserves answers about why this investigation was closed and whether senior Trump officials are being shielded from scrutiny that would apply to anyone else.”
And MSNBC reported on Monday that federal prosecutors are bracing for a top colleague to be fired once she tells her boss, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, that there is no reason to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James, another enemy of Trump’s.
Tom Homan, the “border czar” who has been the architect of some of the Trump administration’s most harmful and callous immigration actions, was reportedly under FBI investigation for accepting a bribe—but the case was dropped after Donald Trump was sworn in as president in January.
MSNBC reported on Monday that Homan allegedly took $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents posing as contractors. According to government documents, Homan was recorded on camera taking the payment at a location in Texas in September 2024.
Homan reportedly took the cash in exchange for the promise of securing government contracts when the Trump administration took over in January of this year. MSNBC reported that FBI and Department of Justice officials believed they had a case against Homan for conspiracy to commit bribery.
In response to the outlet’s reporting, FBI Director Kash Patel argued that the investigation was a partisan operation that began under the Biden administration. Patel didn’t explain why Biden’s team failed to bring charges if partisanship was the motivation.
Even as the Trump team was burying the Homan case, the administration began orchestrating criminal investigations of Trump’s political adversaries. Those machinations recently came to a head after the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was fired because he wouldn’t charge New York state Attorney General Letitia James with trumped-up crimes.
This isn’t the first time that Homan’s name has come up in connection to corruption.
In May, it was reported that Homan worked as a consultant for the Geo Group, which operates immigration detention centers. Homan was paid a minimum of $5,000, although disclosing the exact amount he made isn’t mandatory—and then pushed mass deportation efforts as border czar, generating new business and lots of federal payments for his former employer.
Homan has been the public and extremely pugilistic face of the administration’s harsh immigration policies. He has made frequent media appearances, including a near-ubiquitous presence on Fox News. The MAGA mouthpiece news network has buried the latest report on his actions, naturally.
The former border patrol agent has a history of racist affiliations and as border czar has embraced racial profiling and using scare tactics against largely Latino migrant communities. He has admitted that ICE has arrested people without cause, and has threatened cities with Democratic leaders who have said they will protect immigrant communities.
Homan has even said he would use the Department of Justice to go after Democratic officials like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for speaking out against deportation actions. Now we know that this same department is apparently uninterested in pursuing justice if the crime may have been committed by Homan himself.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt tied herself up into knots yet again, this time in an attempt to spin President Donald Trump’s weekend descent into authoritarianism.
When asked by a reporter Monday whether Trump was going back on his inaugural promise to not allow the state to be weaponized to persecute political opponents, Leavitt was blindingly obstinate.
"No. In fact, the president is fulfilling his promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability. And it is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponized the Department of Justice,” she said.
Leavitt continued to engage in what can only be described as “1984”-level doublespeak.
“We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media or from anyone on the other side who is trying to say that it's the president who is weaponizing the DOJ,” she added.
Meanwhile, Trump continues targeting political opponents, like New York Attorney General Letitia James—who successfully proved Trump’s involvement in real estate fraud—and comedians Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel—for nothing more than mocking him.
The Trump administration is covering up very serious allegations of corruption among its own rank and file, including reports that his “border czar” Tom Homan isn’t simply a sadistic racist but also suspected of taking a bribe—an inquiry that was allegedly shut down by Trump.
Leavitt’s demand for “accountability” is just another attempt to distract from the Trump administration’s own weaponization of power.
Another week of Donald Trump's presidency is in the rearview. And like the two weeks before it, it was filled with lawless actions, lies, and ridiculous behavior that Republicans lined up to defend.
Trump threw Ukraine under the bus and appears likely to let murderous Russian dictator Vladimir Putin seize control of the sovereign nation. He also fired more independent watchdogs, let more corrupt politicians off the hook, slashed grants to medical research, and he even said he might ignore court rulings blocking his unlawful actions.
And like the pathetic lapdogs they are, Republicans defended every move.
After multiple federal judges of all ideological stripes blocked some of Trump’s executive actions, Republicans pushed the country further into a constitutional crisis by backing Trump when he suggested he’ll ignore those court orders and do whatever he wants.
“It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that.’ So maybe we have to look at the judges. ‘Cause I think that’s a very serious violation,” Trump said on Tuesday.
Trump likely got this idea from his own vice president, who wrote in an X post on Feb. 9 that judges shouldn’t be allowed to stop the president’s executive power.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote.
And other Republicans agreed with the false statement that the courts are not allowed to check the president’s power—when that’s exactly what the Constitution dictates.
“Of course the branches have to respect our constitutional order but there’s a lot of game yet to be played. This will be appealed, we’ve got to go through the whole process, and we’ll get the final analysis. In the interim, I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with Vice President JD Vance, my friend, because he’s right,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a news conference on Tuesday.
Later that day, he said that the courts should back off of Trump altogether.
“I think that the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out. What we’re doing is good and right for the American people,” Johnson told reporters, specifically referring to the cuts co-President Elon Musk is trying to make with his fake agency, the Department of Government Efficiency.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah
"I don't believe judges, courts have the authority or power to stick their nose into the constitutional authority of the president,” Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said.
“These judges need to back off and get out of the way of what the executive branch is doing to administer the government,” Roy said on Fox News.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also expressed agreement that courts don’t have the power to challenge Trump’s executive orders.
“These judges are waging an unprecedented assault on legitimate presidential authority, all the way down to dictating what webpages the government has. This is absurd,” he wrote on X.
Rep. Darrel Issa, Republican of California, claimed that “nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States.”
But, of course, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case that the judiciary has the power to declare laws or actions unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota seemed to acknowledge that ignoring court orders is wrong, but he simply couldn’t bring himself to criticize Trump.
“I think what you're seeing right now is the natural give and take between branches of the government,” he said.
A handful of other Trump sycophants went a step further, saying that they would launch an impeachment effort against the judges who block Trump's actions.
“I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer. Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy. The left has done ‘irreparable harm’ to this country. President Trump and his team at @DOGE are trying to fix it,” Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona wrote on X, referring to the federal judge who blocked Musk from accessing Treasury data.
And Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia wrote on X that he is backing Crane’s efforts.
“The real constitutional crisis is taking place in our judicial branch. Activist judges are weaponizing their power in an attempt to block President Trump’s agenda and obstruct the will of the American people. [Crane] and I are leading the fight to stop this insanity,” he wrote.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called for the impeachment of another federal judge who blocked Trump’s freeze on congressionally appropriated federal funds.
“This judge is a Trump deranged Democrat activist. Below is proof he is not capable of making good decisions from the bench. He should be impeached,” Greene wrote on X.
Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio backed those efforts, saying the judges blocking Trump’s actions “should be mocked and ignored while articles of impeachment are prepared.”
“These clowns are undermining every lower court, leaving the sole burden on SCOTUS. This is not sustainable. Sadly, excesses in judicial and executive authority are a symptom of the real problem: Congress keeps failing to take action. Time for #DeedsNotWords,” he wrote on X.
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, once a fierce defender of watchdogs, was fine with Trump axing the inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International Development who said that Trump's unlawful shuttering of the agency let hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food aid go to waste.
Grassley said that he "should have been fired," and gave Trump a workaround to make the firing legal.
"I'm just trying to make the president's job easier," Grassley said, completely ditching his past watchdog advocacy to bow down to Trump.
Other GOP lawmakers chose Trump over their own constituents, who are being directly harmed by the president’s actions.
Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said that Trump’s decision to drastically cut back National Institutes of Health funding for medical research institutions is a good thing, even though it would decimate institutions in his own state and beyond.
“Well, I think what happens is the president is exactly right. I think if you ask the average American if we were spending a billion dollars to cure childhood cancer, how much of the billion dollars would go towards during childhood cancer? They’d probably say a billion. The idea that 60% goes to indirect cost and overhead is insane. And so I applaud the president,” he told the Bulwark
And Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said that Trump's funding freeze, which is hurting farmers who are not being paid for contracts, is just a "little bit disruptive."
“But that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington,” Smith said on CNN, “is that they would be disruptive.”
Rep. Jason Smith dismisses farmers in his state who are getting stiffed by the US government not fulfilling contracts: "Right now it's a little bit disruptive, but that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington is that they would be disruptive."
The corruption of Donald Trump’s first administration was so constant that it’s easy to forget every scandal. Thankfully, on Monday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is here to remind us as Trump begins to stock his incoming White House with bigots, sycophants, and even a puppy killer.
"The first Donald Trump presidential term had so many cabinet officials forced out of office in disgrace and referred to the Justice Department to face criminal charges,” Maddow recalled. “It's actually hard to remember them all."
Maddow ran down some of Trump's original Cabinet secretaries:
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke left his position after more than a dozen investigations into dubious dealings and potential ethical violations. (Zinke is now the representative for Montana’s 1st Congressional District.)
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao’s tenure as the ineffective mouthpiece for Trump’s nonexistent infrastructure bill was filled with reports that she used her position to enrich her family.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry was one of the Trump officials who resigned after Trump’s Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price joined Trump’s administration as an ethically challenged secretary, then left office after multiple federal inquiries into his use of taxpayer money to fund extravagant travel.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, whose ethical integrity matched that of a wet piece of rice paper, left his position because he couldn’t manage the multiple ethics investigations into his activities.
And these were simply Trump’s first round of picks. One of Trump’s last scandal-laden cabinet members, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie, is leading Trump's Defense Department transition team. Wilkie’s time in the first Trump administration was marred by claims he orchestrated a smear campaign against a female veteran who alleged she was sexually assaulted at a V.A. facility.
A House Oversight Committee hearing into China’s “political warfare” against the United States went off the rails Wednesday when Republican Rep. James Comer interrupted Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin to push attacks on President Joe Biden and his family.
Raskin was using his allotted time to point out that the “smoking gun” whistleblower who Comer and Rep. Jim Jordan were hanging their entire impeachment case on was in fact a Russian mole.
“That's just simply not true,” Comer interrupted. “But go ahead.”
It is true and the two did go ahead, in an argument that escalated and went on for more than five minutes.
Of course, Raskin had the benefit of facts and reality on his side. When Comer, who chairs the Oversight Committee, tried to repeat a thoroughly discredited claim that Biden received money from Chinese interests, Raskin reminded him that it was then-President Donald Trump who actually received millions of dollars from China.
Raskin then called Comer’s bluff and asked him to put up or shut up on impeaching Biden, something fellow Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz has previously attempted. That led to this exchange:
Raskin: Where is your impeachment investigation? If Joe Biden took a $9 million bribe from China, why aren't you impeaching him for that?
Comer: Well, who says we're not?
Raskin: I can invite Mr. Moskowitz to come back in. Do you want to move for impeachment today? Because I thought that that was your main agenda item. You said it was the paramount priority of the committee?
Comer: No, this is a hearing on China. And you all have an obsession with Russia and Trump. It's disturbing.
Raskin: We can talk about China and Trump, or Russia and Trump --
Comer: --You need therapy, Mr. Raskin.
Raskin: No, no, you need therapy. You're the one who's involved with the deranged politician, not me. Okay? I've divorced myself from Donald Trump a long time ago. You're the one who needs to disentangle from that situation.
And I will tell you this: If you believe that it would have been illegal for Joe Biden to take $5 million from Ukraine, it certainly would have been. What do you think about Donald Trump taking more than $5 million from the Chinese government while he was president?
At one point, when Comer claimed that the ongoing GOP investigations into the Biden family didn’t cost many millions of taxpayer dollars, Raskin snarked, "Oh, it's been for free? Okay. All right. Well, you know what, then? We get what we paid for it because you got nothing. You got nothing on Joe Biden."
When Comer tried to continue on with a new speaker and dismiss “Mr. Raskins,” Raskin vociferously demanded his time back—but not before putting Comer’s disrespect on notice:
Let me start with this. My last name is Raskin. Okay? We've sat next to each other for more than a year. You don't have to add the S. Number two, I would like my time restored. Number three, you have not identified a single crime. What is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going? Why? Well, what is the crime? Tell America right now.
You can watch the full exchange in the video below.
Zachary Mueller is the senior research director for America’s Voice and America’s Voice Education Fund. He brings his expertise on immigration politics to talk about how much money the GOP is using to promote its racist immigration campaigns.
The combination of increasing consumption, low unemployment, and falling inflation even had a Fox Business reporter gushing over President Joe Biden's economy.
"It's a sweet spot," remarked Fox Business' Lauren Simonetti, calling consumption "formidable" over the holidays. "We're seeing an economy that is proving resilient—growing as inflation is moderating. That's why I'm calling this the sweet spot, right? Enough growth to cool inflation."
The New York Times' Paul Krugman likewise dubbed it the "Goldilocks economy," neither too hot nor too cold. And Krugman predicts the country's inflationary woes are now over.
In other words, it continues to look as though the Biden administration is overseeing a "soft landing" for the economy—one that supposedly couldn't be achieved.
Indeed, the University of Michigan's survey of consumer sentiment surged to a reading of 78.8 in January, its highest level since July 2021 and a 21.4% increase from a year ago, according to CNBC. A big driver of that increase stems from consumers’ agreement with Krugman that inflation "has turned the corner," as survey director Joanne Hsu put it.
All of this good news is going to drive an already seething Donald Trump absolutely mad—particularly Fox Business analysts swooning over Biden's economy. The same Fox analyst also promised to scour the report "to see if there are signs that maybe the economy doesn't feel as, or isn't as resilient as it might seem."
Shorter Fox-speak: Stay tuned, Trump. We'll invent bad news one way or another!
For anyone who hasn't noticed, Trump is already getting increasingly erratic on his quest to fabricate bad news for Biden:
He's livid over his Republican rival Nikki Haley refusing to drop out of the GOP primary after New Hampshire.
He’s strong-arming the Republican National Committee into declaring him the nominee after a grand total of two state contests.
He's asking Senate Republicans to torpedo a potential border deal with the White House so he can spend the rest of year fear-mongering over a supposed "invasion" of immigrants spearheaded by Biden.
It's January, folks, and Trump is already coming off the rails despite the fact that he's basically cruising to the Republican nomination.
It's a palpable show of desperation sprung from a place of weakness. Trump knows New Hampshire and Iowa both exposed serious cracks in his general election voting coalition. The turnout and makeup of the electorate in both states suggests he isn't expanding the universe of Republican voters. He's simply culling the party down to a smaller, harder-right faction of the electorate.
In short, Trump's not adding, he's subtracting. And if he's going to ride that smaller slice of the electorate to victory, he's going to need to trash the country in every way possible in order to depress turnout for Biden.
That’s all fine by Trump because the main impetus of his every move is the sheer terror of spending his last living years in a jail cell. If he has to single-handedly unravel the country on his quest for freedom, so be it.
An ethics complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, is calling for a federal investigation into Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee. The complaint asks that Ogles be investigated for the more than “$1 million of financial disclosure discrepancies [that] provide reasonable basis for OCE to investigate whether Rep. Ogles complied with the Ethics in Government Act (‘EIGA’) and House rules.” The Campaign Legal Center was founded by Trevor Potter, a former GOP commissioner on the Federal Elections Commission. Potter is still the watchdog’s president.
The complaint also requests an investigation into Ogles’ finances in light of the fact that “Rep. Ogles’ financial disclosure statements do not include the assets that he purportedly used to personally loan $320,000 to his campaign committee in April 2022.” The complaint goes on to explain that Ogles provides no sources for where he got that money. This mysterious loan first raised flags in November after it was reported that Ogles has not disclosed any “substantial investments,” nor has he reported even having a savings account.
Last year, Nashville’s NewsChannel 5 did a series of investigative reports on Ogles that raised all kinds of serious ethics questions. The complaint cites the results of these investigations as proof of a pattern of lying on the part of the congressman. The questions being raised about Ogles’ financial dealings are beginning to resemble those that eventually led to the recent expulsion of George Santos.
Some of the questions brought up during the investigation include:
Why did the Tennessee congressman lie repeatedly about his educational background, claiming he was an “economist” and allegedly lying about doing graduate work at prestigious business schools at universities like Vanderbilt and Dartmouth?
What happened with the missing $23,575 he raised for a children’s burial garden back in 2014?
What about the time he described himself as “a former member of law enforcement” who had done work "in international sex crimes, specifically child trafficking,” even though there is zero evidence in his résumé of any of those things?
Donald Trump’s swamp talk seems to have only drawn more and more swampy creatures into the Republican orbit. The CLC summarizes it best with the sentiment that “the similarities between Rep. Ogles and Rep. Santos should not be ignored.”
A new Politico story gives a sliver of fresh information on House Republicans' push to impeach Joe Biden: Not only has just one Republican member announced he will vote “no” on a planned vote to formally authorize the so-far unofficial impeachment inquiry, but of the entire caucus, all except "about a half-dozen" members are now supporting the vote.
The opposing vote is from Rep. Ken Buck. He is nobody's idea of a moderate, but he has expressed repeated unwillingness to support efforts by his own party to nullify an American election and propagate hoaxes meant to delegitimize it. (Buck is also retiring from Congress at the end of his term.)
It's Politico's framing of the half-dozen holdouts that's a bit galling.
Not sure how you can call the half-an-egg-carton of holdouts "centrists" on this one, Politico. Those six or so representatives hail from swing districts, the site reports, so the more appropriate designation might be "cowards."
It's not centrist to be undecided on whether or not an impeachment inquiry based on not even a shred of evidence of actual wrongdoing (but a whole lot of unhinged and provably false conspiracy theories) should go forward solely because the coup-attempting Donald Trump, now indicted in four separate jurisdictions, was impeached twice and Trump's also-coup-supporting admirers have been obsessed with inflicting revenge on everyone who ever caught Trump committing alleged crimes. No, it's just cowardice. The undecided members are trying to gauge which will cost them more votes: supporting a clearly spurious and revenge-based impeachment and infuriating swing voters, or not supporting impeachment, which will infuriate the far-right elements of their base.
It's a tough call for sure, but it's not centrist. It's just a craven attempt to govern based not on principle but instead on what will best boost their own personal interests. By the same token, you could call a pickpocket who made off with their wallets a "centrist" because they ignored laws and morality to squarely focus on "What should I do if I want to have more money?"
And this bit is just maddening:
But some moderate Republicans argue that a lack of cooperation from Hunter Biden and other family members has forced the GOP’s hand. Formalizing the investigation would boost the GOP’s leverage in its pursuit of documents and witnesses, they say, and represents just one step in the process.
Come again? Hunter Biden is showing a "lack of cooperation" in disproving an ever-shifting range of conspiracy theories, most of them disprovable by even the most basic fact-checking?
How is he supposed to "cooperate" to disprove theories that have no supporting evidence to begin with? Republican hearings have brought forward "evidence," like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's public display of Hunter nudes almost certainly obtained through criminal hacking efforts in attempts to prove who-knows-what.
How is Hunter supposed to more fully "cooperate" with that probe? Do Republicans believe he must now strip naked in front of them, live and in person?
Well, Rep. Jim Jordan probably does.
The coverage of the Republican "impeachment" drive continues to be risible because journalists continue to note the utter lack of evidence as an aside or afterthought in stories that otherwise treat the Republican effort as a credible political process simply by virtue of Republicans willing it to be.
The story here is that despite a lack of evidence that the sitting president has done even a single untoward thing in relation to his son and despite increasingly circus-like efforts to promote hoaxes after Republican investigators could find nothing else, all but seven or so House Republicans support opening an impeachment inquiry anyway in a brazenly dishonest, politically crooked attempt to redirect attention from the unequivocal crookedness of their own coup-attempting, indicted, and openly fascist party leader.
The six or so possible holdouts aren't the story. The uniform corruption that has strangled nearly the entire Republican caucus, though, continues to be the story that will best predict the possible demise of American democracy itself.
Markos and Kerry give their thoughts on what the country is facing in 2024. The Republican Party is running on losing issues like abortion and repealing the ACA—with no explanation of what they plan on replacing it with. Trump has a lot of criming to atone for, and the Republican platform remains set on destroying democracy.
Rep. James Comer put a considerable amount of product in his hair Monday before recording a video claiming to have new smoking-gun evidence of President Joe Biden’s corruption. Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, dramatically announced that “Hunter Biden's legal team and the White House's media allies claim Hunter's corporate entities never made payments directly to Joe Biden. We can officially add this latest talking point to the list of lies. Today, the House Oversight Committee is releasing subpoenaed bank records that show Hunter Biden's business entity, Owasco PC, made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden.”
Sounds devastating. Right-wing media outlets excitedly pushed out the details, specifically that Hunter Biden set up “recurring payments” of $1,380 in late 2018. Besides being an extraordinarily small amount of money in the grand scheme of corruption, the thinnest digging revealed that Joe Biden was not president in 2018. In fact, deeper investigation reveals that Biden wasn’t even in any political office at the time!
Receipts were then posted that revealed Hunter Biden was paying his father back for helping to cover car payments while he was in between jobs. The three monthly payments totaled $4,140.
Selling out our country for three monthly payments of $1,380, eh? Comer’s list of embarrassments and Rep. Jim Jordan’s disastrous failure of an impeachment inquiry continues to float about as high as a whoopee cushion filled with water. In fact, every single smoking gun these guys announce seems to prove that President Joe Biden has been a very supportive father. He sure hasn’t helped his son-in-law get $2 billion in Saudi money, but we all can’t be that good at “winning.”
