Lauren Boebert Gets Brutal Reminder After Attack on Hunter Biden

Fading firebrand Lauren Boebert made the poor decision to stick her neck out and comment on Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict on Tuesday, posting on X (formerly Twitter), “How long until dear old dad gets involved and fixes this all up for him?”

Users were quick to point out Boebert’s own child’s felonious activities: Boebert’s 18-year-old son, Tyler, is facing multiple felony charges for a string of car break-ins and property theft in Colorado. The Colorado Bureau of Investigations alleges the younger Boebert broke into vehicles and stole people’s driver’s licenses and passports.

Boebert is reportedly hanging her son out to dry and refusing to help the 18-year-old pay for a lawyer. Lucky for him, the judge overseeing his case has been extraordinarily lenient as he’s spent months without a lawyer, “waiting to get the 100 percent” in lieu of hiring a free public defender. Boebert also skipped out on supporting her teen son’s first-time encounter with the criminal justice system, instead opting to attend Trump’s trial to posture for her pro-crime base.

Senator Lindsey Graham appears to be all that stands in the way of placing some ethical parameters on Supreme Court gifts.

The South Carolina Republican told NBC News Tuesday that he plans to object to a Judiciary Committee proposal to rein in the high court. That would effectively kill any chance of the measure passing in committee, thanks to a request earlier this week requiring unanimous consent.

The court, which has long avoided the kinds of formal ethics regulations imposed on lower courts, due to its special constitutional status, implemented its first ethics code in November following a wave of high-profile scandals related to lavish gifts accepted by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. But the self-imposed behavioral code was roundly criticized as weak, employing loose language warning justices to “avoid impropriety” while failing to outline literally any type of consequence for violations.

“Under what circumstances would a Supreme Court justice be accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars in foreign travel or paid tuition for family members or a recreational vehicle?” Representative Jamie Raskin asked, on MSNBC Tuesday. “It’s just outlandish for us to contemplate.”

“That’s a jailable offense for people over here,” Raskin said, motioning inside the Capitol. “It’s just the normal business as usual at the Supreme Court, that they’re collecting millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars from their so-called friends.”

“We want a $50 gift ban for U.S. Supreme Court justices. They make $300,000 a year. Pay for your own lunch, and pay for your own vacation,” he added.

But even Democrats were not optimistic that it would pass.

“I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are on the record,” Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin told reporters Tuesday.

But imposing an ethical mandate on the nation’s highest judiciary will not be completely off the table should the proposal fail to pass committee. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that he’s considering bringing it up for a vote under the normal process—though doing so would be tough. The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act needs 60 votes to break a filibuster on the Senate floor, but there are only 51 Democrats in the upper chamber, and no Republican has voiced their support for the bill.

Ethically dubious expenses by two of the court’s conservative justices were first revealed last year in a series of investigations by ProPublica, which found that Thomas had been pocketing favors from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow in a number of ways, including private school tuition for his nephew, the renovation of the home where his mother still lives, and undisclosed trips on the billionaire’s yacht and private jet, and at his private resort. The outlet unveiled a similar scandal with Alito, who failed to report a luxury fishing vacation to Alaska with hedge fund billionaire ​​Paul Singer in 2008.

Steve Bannon’s last-ditch effort to avoid going to prison is eliciting more punch lines than sympathy.

The engineer behind the MAGA movement was convicted of contempt of Congress and originally sentenced in October last year. But he has evaded his prison sentence by demanding to see through an appeals process, which finally came crashing down last month.

Undeterred, the former White House strategist and staunch Trump ally filed an emergency request with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, begging it to spare him from carrying out his long-awaited four-month prison sentence, which is set to begin July 1.

Bannon put on a brave face, making threats Tuesday against the last two FBI directors, Andrew McCabe and James Comey, should another Trump presidential term come to pass. “Get your passport, get the hell out of the country because hey, we’re coming,” he said. “We will hunt you down.”

But behind closed doors, he seems to be shaking in his boots. “This just in from the man promising to hunt us all down,” wrote user Bradley P. Moss on X, linking to Bannon’s latest filing.

“On camera: ‘Bring it—they can lock me up but they’ll never shut [me] up!’ In Court filings: ‘Please, oh please don’t make me go to jail,’” wrote X user Mike Stivala.

“I’m not sure who needs to hear this, but Steve Bannon is going to prison,” wrote political consultant Rick Wilson in a post on X. “Perhaps he’ll have time to write a manifesto about His Struggle.”

The reference to Mein Kampf is especially apt, seeing as Bannon once said that Donald Trump reminded him of Hitler, a comparison he actually thought was complimentary. Bannon worked to build a MAGA party that “could rule for one hundred years.”

Now Bannon plans to take his appeal to the Supreme Court, according to the new filing. Good luck to him: Former director of the White House National Trade Council Peter Navarro, who was also convicted of contempt of Congress and imprisoned, tried a similar gambit, which Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed without even referring it to the full court.

Weeks after he was convicted of 34 felony counts in his hush-money trial, Donald Trump confessed to having a gun—which would be illegal with his felony conviction.

New York City Department of Probation officials questioned the convicted felon and Republican presidential nominee Tuesday in a presentencing interview, and part of the discussion concerned a gun registered to him in the state. Under federal law, convicted felons are not allowed to have guns or ammunition.

A city official told CNN that Trump mentioned a gun of his in Florida, possibly one of the three firearms listed on his New York City concealed weapons permit.

Trump turned over two of his three licensed guns to the New York Police Department on March 31, 2023, before he was arrested for concealing hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The third gun was supposed to be “lawfully moved to Florida.” Palm Beach police told CNN that they weren’t aware of any gun Trump owned and that he hadn’t submitted one to them since his felony conviction.

After his 2023 hush-money arrest, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office suspended Trump’s gun license, and with his conviction, his license will be revoked, city police told CNN. A New York official said the information on the third gun “will be referred to local authorities in Florida to take whatever steps are necessary.”

It’s ironic that Trump may be in trouble for illegally having a gun weeks after his conviction at the same time that President Biden’s son, Hunter, was convicted on federal gun charges. But Trump doesn’t like to give the authorities what he believes is his property, even when the law says otherwise. Just look at the classified documents he tried to hoard at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. He might be storing his gun not too far away.

While team Trump’s fundraising emails have always been out there—even earning a dedicated Twitter account just to track the ridiculous rhetoric—their language has taken a notably dark turn recently. On Wednesday, that turn only intensified further when Trump’s campaign sent an email blast with the subject “Haul out the Guillotine!”

At first blush, it sounds like an encouragement of retribution in line with Trump’s recent comments seeking revenge and promising to unleash violence on his political enemies. But the email instead blames the other side for political violence, claiming “the sad and horrific truth is that this is still the sick dream of every Trump-Deranged lunatic out there,” adding, “and it’s not just me they want gone, they’re really coming after you!”

The emails, written by Trump’s campaign but styled to sound like they’re coming directly from Trump, intend to provoke supporters into donating. A fundraising email sent last week falsely claimed Biden directed the FBI to assassinate Trump, saying, “He tried to publicly torture and humiliate me … but he failed. He tried to raid my home and take me out with deadly force … but he failed.”

TrumpEmails, which has for years tracked and compiled all of Trump’s fundraising emails, noted in a Daily Beast article a few years ago, “At first, I found the breathless hyperbole amusing in a darkly comedic kind of way. After a while, though, I realized the target audience took things more seriously, and I started thinking about the impact of this messaging being mainlined into the inboxes of millions of voters.”

The flip-flop of baiting people to open the email with a call to violence before flipping to tell supporters they’re future victims of an extremist mob, just to shake a few shekels, is particularly noteworthy given that Trump has been trying to once again mobilize his insurrectionist base to violence on his command.