If you’re on the Right‚ then you know that the phrase “this is why we lose” has become something of a cliche. Anytime anyone on our side does anything we don’t like‚ we are bound to declare “this is why we lose‚” as if that person is now a symbol for America’s cultural decline. In many cases‚ the “this is why we lose” charge can be off base‚ or at least overwrought and overstated. But not always. So today we begin with an actual case of “this is why we lose.” Over the past few days‚ there has been‚ seemingly out of nowhere‚ a full-court press by some on the Right to rehabilitate Bud Light and convince conservatives to drop the boycott of the company. Now‚ we know that some notable figures on this side of the aisle were never on board with the boycott in the first place. Famously‚ Donald Trump Jr. defended the beer maker from the beginning‚ saying Bud Light is on our side‚ despite appearances‚ and we shouldn’t punish them for their brief foray into trans propaganda. But Trump Jr. and others in that orbit were alone in their pro-Bud Light stance for many months‚ until just now. This week‚ both UFC president Dana White and Kid Rock appeared in interviews with Tucker Carlson to declare their renewed support for Bud Light. Some other prominent voices‚ like Tim Pool‚ have come out to defend their position. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show In fairness to these guys‚ we will go through these clips one-by-one so you can hear their arguments for yourself. First‚ here’s Dana White:   I’ll have plenty to say about the thrust of Dana’s argument after we play all of the clips‚ but I do want to point out one thing right away. Bud Light is a brand owned by a foreign conglomerate. Putting everything else aside‚ it’s very hard to make the case that it’s “patriotic” to support a foreign company. I’m not saying we can’t support foreign-owned brands. After all that’s most brands. I’m just saying it’s hard to cast your support for a Belgian multinational corporation as patriotic. But we’ll get back to Dana’s point in a moment. First‚ here’s Kid Rock‚ also with Tucker‚ agreeing with Dana: Many people — myself certainly included — have found Kid Rock’s reasoning here less than compelling. But Tim Pool thinks that we’re all missing the point: Now‚ before I explain why this is all horribly wrong‚ let me begin by stipulating that I like all of these guys. I like Dana White and Kid Rock. Tim Pool’s show is great and I like him personally. I’m obviously a huge fan and supporter of Tucker Carlson and I think he’s one of the most important voices in the country right now. But the Bud Light boycott is still on‚ and let me explain why. Bud Light — the foreign-owned brand — tried to push trans ideology. It spat in the face of its own customers. For once in our lives — for once‚ ever‚ in modern American history — conservatives fought back in an organized‚ competent‚ effective way. We organized a boycott and we stuck with it. We actually made the woke company feel the pain. We imposed our will in a way conservatives have never been able to do. The Bud Light boycott is by far (and It’s not close) the most effective conservative boycott of a major company of all-time. There isn’t even a close second. In fact‚ it’s fair to say this is not just the most effective but actually the only successful boycott we’ve ever staged. We’d have to have a very compelling strategic reason to end this one single successful boycott campaign. We would have to have extracted some kind of major concession. But what concession have they made? They gave Dana White $100 million. So what? That’s not a concession‚ that’s not an apology — that’s a marketing ploy. Are we going to end the Bud Light boycott and start giving them our money because we like their new marketing plan? That wouldn’t be us ending a boycott victoriously. That would be a retreat. It would be the very definition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Something the Right does very often‚ but never as egregiously and pathetically as this. Now‚ as with any boycott campaign‚ I do agree that you need to give companies an out. You have to give them a way to get back in your good graces. The whole point of a boycott is that you’re withholding support in order to extract some kind of concession. If you get the concession‚ you win. And if you don’t get the concession then the company is just destroyed‚ and you win that way. So far we are winning the second way. Bud Light betrayed its customers‚ it has not conceded defeat‚ and so the entire company is in shambles. So be it. What can Bud Light do to get out of this? What’s their out? Well‚ they would need to apologize for pushing transgenderism. They would need to apologize specifically and explicitly. They would need to grovel at our feet‚ in humiliating fashion‚ and disavow gender ideology entirely. That’s what they would have to do. They haven’t done that. They refuse to do that. Instead‚ they are hoping they can simply change the subject. But a change of subject is not a concession. It’s not an apology. It’s a trick‚ a gimmick‚ a diversion tactic. If we fall for it then we deserve to lose. We deserve everything that’s coming. Here’s the point. If you are boycotting a company and demanding some kind of concession‚ and you don’t get the concession‚ and then you back down anyway — you lose. You have taken your victory and traded it in‚ in exchange for a defeat. You have said‚ “No thanks‚ I’d rather not win. I’ll take a loss instead.” That’s what it would be if we start supporting Bud Light now. They haven’t apologized. They haven’t conceded. So‚ screw them. Let them wither and die. Let their brand destroy itself. Let it burn. That’s what they’ve chosen. It’s what they’ll get. Unless we decide to bail them out because we don’t have the stomach to fight the culture war like wars need to be fought. Part of the pitch from guys like Dana White and Kid Rock seems to be a call for a weird sort of mercy. I’ve even seen some on the Right arguing that we are called‚ as Christians‚ to forgive Bud Light for their transgressions. That is an actual argument I’ve seen from more than one person. But fighting back against culture rot‚ fighting against the people who are deliberately injecting perversion and moral insanity into our society‚ fighting against the corporate overlords behind it all‚ is not a time for mercy. These are not homeless‚ starving people on the street who need a helping hand. These are mega-billion-dollar corporations who are selling degeneracy for profit. If you manage to get your foot on one of their necks‚ you keep it there. You have no mercy until they grovel and beg and do exactly what you demand that they do. And‚ again‚ if we are not willing to do that‚ if we are not willing to be ruthless‚ if we will allow ourselves to be paid off‚ then there is no hope. We will never win this war. And we will not deserve to win anyway. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP Keep in mind the significance of the Bud Light boycott and the whole strategy behind it: We have turned this company into a cautionary tale. The whole point was to put its head on a spike as a warning to others. It’s a trophy for the mantle. We want to show corporate America this is what we will do — this is what we are capable of doing‚ and willing to do — if you spit in our face the way Bud Light did. But if we just put a dent in their sales for a couple of quarters‚ get no apology or concession at all‚ and then go back to supporting them‚ we will have taken their head off of the spike and put our own on it. We will have sent a very different kind of message to corporate America. We will have shown them that we are not willing to go for the kill shot. That ultimately we will always come crawling back‚ pathetically‚ with our tail between our legs. But what’s happening now is even worse. This is not just an effort to end the Bud Light boycott. This is an effort to actively rehabilitate their brand. Because the truth is the boycott isn’t even really a boycott anymore. It’s worse than that for Bud Light. The problem has metastasized. We didn’t just boycott the company — we rebranded it. The brand itself now seem lame‚ effeminate‚ and embarrassing. Even people who don’t care about the boycott‚ or are only dimly aware of it‚ avoid drinking Bud Light just because they don’t want their friends to make fun of them. That’s why Bud Light is in such a dire situation. Even if we officially ended the boycott‚ it wouldn’t necessarily matter. The brand is lame now. Customers don’t want to be associated with it. Which means that to really end the boycott‚ we would have to revitalize and repair Bud Light’s brand for them‚ which is what the Dana Whites and Kid Rocks of the world seem to be trying to do. This is like declaring victory in a war‚ accepting your enemy’s surrender‚ and then proceeding to give them back all the land you gained. You’re not just ending the war in that case. You are actively forfeiting your own gains. You aren’t just letting your enemy bow out. You are helping them repair the damage that they themselves caused. Why would we do that? Why should we? What do we gain? I know the UFC gains $100 million. But what about the rest of us? What about the movement? What about the culture? What do we get out of this “mercy”? Nothing. That’s the answer. And on top of it all‚ it must be said‚ Bud Light sucks anyway. It’s a bad product. It tastes like stale rainwater scooped out of a murky puddle on the pavement. This is not just the most effective conservative boycott in history‚ but the easiest. Nobody with functioning tastebuds has any desire to drink that sludge anyway. That’s what it comes down to. We can do what is effective‚ what is right‚ and also what is‚ at the same time‚ very easy. Or we can go out of our way to kneecap ourselves and turn an easy victory into a laborious defeat. Those are your options. And really‚ you should not have any trouble making the choice.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday announced that it will consider a case involving the availability of abortion pills‚ the court’s first major abortion case since overturning Roe vs. Wade last year. The case deals with whether mifepristone‚ the most common form of medication abortion‚ can be prescribed through telemedicine and shipped to women through the mail. The high court will hear two consolidated cases pitting the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine‚ a group of doctors and others who oppose abortion‚ against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Danco Laboratories‚ the maker of mifepristone. A date for oral arguments has not yet been announced‚ but the court is expected to issue a ruling on the case next summer. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to consider the abortion pill case after a federal appeals court panel issued a ruling curbing access to mifepristone. The case began when the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine filed a lawsuit claiming that the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone back in 2000 was unlawful. The case worked its way up to the Fifth Circuit‚ which ruled in favor of the FDA’s mifepristone approval‚ but with a significant caveat — the court brought back restrictions on the abortion pill that were scrapped in 2016. Before 2016‚ mifepristone could only be prescribed by a doctor and picked up in person‚ and patients had to visit a doctor three times to get the medication abortion. If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling were to take effect‚ women would not be able to get a prescription for abortion pills through telemedicine or receive mifepristone through the mail. The Justice Department intervened in the case early on‚ asking the Supreme Court to prevent any changes to mifepristone’s availability while the case is ongoing‚ which the high court did. The court also turned down a request from the anti-abortion group to consider the merits of the FDA’s original mifepristone approval‚ which means the court is expected to focus only on whether the extra restrictions should remain in place. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The anti-abortion group is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. Medication abortions make up more than half of all abortions in the U.S.‚ according to the Guttmacher Institute‚ which supports abortion. In 2020‚ there were more than 620‚000 abortions across 47 states and the District of Columbia‚ according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Guttmacher Institute puts the national total significantly higher at more than 930‚000 abortions for 2020. Only half of Americans want abortion to be legal after 15 weeks‚ which is around the beginning of the second trimester‚ according to a June Associated Press poll.

Last week‚ Claudine Gay objectively humiliated herself before Congress. Harvard’s esteemed president failed to simply state that calling for genocide of Jews was in violation of Harvard speech policies. Instead‚ she supposedly clung to free speech — the violation of which is constant and ever-present at Harvard. An excerpt from Harvard’s mandatory Title IX training session for undergraduate students contains a “Power and Control Wheel” that helps students identify “harmful” conduct. Attitudes that “contribute to an environment that perpetuates violence” include sizeism and fatphobia‚ cisheretosexism‚ racism‚ transphobia‚ ageism‚ and ableism. The training presents scenarios‚ one of which involves “Andre” who repeatedly uses the wrong pronouns and comments on Logan’s “outfits‚ hair‚ and nail polish” and makes remarks about Logan’s gender identity which “contribute to a climate of disrespect and may also violate Harvard’s policies.” If you say a man is a man‚ you may be violating Harvard’s policies. If you say death to the Jews‚ well‚ that’s context dependent. This is the same university‚ you’ll recall‚ that banned prospective admittee Kyle Kashuv for sending texts that included the n-word in them when he was 16-years-old. But Claudine Gay is all about free speech for Jew-haters. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show Again‚ all of this is part and parcel of the “equity” hierarchy established by the academic Left over the course of two generations. Some groups are more equal than others. And Claudine Gay is part of the privileged elite‚ which is why she is unfireable. This week‚ Chris Rufo‚ Aaron Sibarium‚ and other journalists uncovered vast evidence of Gay’s plagiarism‚ from her PhD dissertation to other published papers. Multiple professors who were plagiarized have now come forward to condemn Gay’s plagiarism‚ including Miami University professor Anne Williamson‚ who said‚ It does look like plagiarism to me. If they are going to do what they did‚ then I should be cited as a reference. My first reaction is shock. The second reaction is puzzlement. There is a way to draw from my paper. All she had to do is give me a credit. Carol Swain‚ another scholar Gay allegedly plagiarized‚ said‚ What is bothering me is not just that there’s passages she didn’t put in quotation marks. When I look at her work‚ I feel like her whole research agenda‚ her whole career‚ was based on my work. Swain went a lot further‚ saying‚ She became president of Harvard and got recognition as being its first black president. I don’t believe her record warranted tenure‚ and I believe that I had to meet a much higher standard than she did. … It’s clear to me that standards were lowered in the mid-1990s‚ and the elites came together and decided that they were going to defend affirmative action. It’s clear to me that she was a beneficiary of that. I blame her committee‚ and I blame white progressives equally. Swain‚ who is black‚ concluded‚ White progressives have always rewarded the blacks who supported their ideas. … A white male would probably already be gone. That’s exactly right. But not at Harvard‚ where the board has defended Gay‚ saying they did a full investigation into the plagiarism allegations as soon as they received wind of them in October. But even that was a lie — because equity must be upheld‚ particularly at the cost of truth. It turns out that the university‚ once hit with the plagiarism allegations against Gay‚ didn’t investigate; rather‚ they went into full defense mode. According to the New York Post‚ Harvard University covered up a high-level investigation into whether its controversial president was a plagiarist — and used an expensive law firm to threaten The Post over our own probe. … The Post contacted the university on October 24‚ asking for comment on more than two dozen instances in which Gay’s words appeared to closely parallel words‚ phrases or sentences in published works by other academics. … When The Post brought the allegations to Harvard‚ Jonathan Swain‚ its senior executive director of media relations and communications‚ asked for more time to review Gay’s work. A day later Swain‚ who was part of the Biden-Harris transition team and a one-time Hillary Clinton aide‚ said he would “get back in touch over the next couple of days.” … But he did not. And two days later‚ on Oct. 27‚ The Post was sent a 15-page letter by Thomas Clare‚ a high-powered Virginia-based attorney with the firm Clare-Locke who identified himself as defamation counsel for Harvard University and Gay. Harvard must defend the precious. Because Gay is the perfect emblem of “equity” — an underqualified black woman who has been elevated particularly because of that status to the presidency of the nation’s most storied university. She is too woke to fail.  If she fails‚ what does that say about the entire Potemkin village of diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion? If she Gay were fired‚ that would undermine the DEI principle. After all‚ Harvard is a university totally reliant on that DEI principle. As Gay herself said in a joint statement after the Supreme Court threw out affirmative action as unconstitutional:  We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching‚ learning‚ and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds‚ perspectives‚ and lived experiences. That principle is as true and important today as it was yesterday. So too are the abiding values that have enabled us — and every great educational institution — to pursue the high calling of educating creative thinkers and bold leaders‚ of deepening human knowledge‚ and of promoting progress‚ justice‚ and human flourishing. Harvard doesn’t mean that in terms of ideas‚ of course; they mean it in terms of race‚ which is why‚ according to the Harvard Crimson‚ in an analysis of the period 1995 to 2013‚ “Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 767 across all sections” — an average of 1534. (Remember‚ the maximum is 1600.) Meanwhile‚ the report shows “white admits earned an average of 745 across all sections” — 1490. Hispanics “earned an average of 718” or 1436‚ and black admits “an average of 704” or 1408. In other words‚ the average Harvard Asian-American had to outperform the average black admittee at Harvard by 126 points to get in. For context‚ a 1408 is below the average SAT score for admittees at every top university in the United States. The only way to justify this sort of racism is to suggest there are “other benefits.” But what are those other benefits? The unspoken assumption is that a racially diverse student body — or faculty‚ or administration — is its own justification. Why would racial quotas be self-justifying? Only because meritocracy itself is supposedly unjust‚ wrong‚ and racist. Which is precisely the proposition Harvard puts forward. This is why minds everywhere are boggling at Harvard — the apex of the supposed American meritocracy — now promoting “diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion” in the face of merit‚ and‚ in fact‚ making clear that if you are part of a higher-achieving group‚ this makes you an oppressor who can be discriminated against. But that’s what universities have been promoting for decades. Claudine Gay is the natural consequence of that perverse mindset. That’s why Derrick Johnson of the NAACP has now tweeted‚ “Enough is enough. Harvard President Claudine Gay is a distinguished scholar and professor with decades of service in higher education. The recent attacks on her leadership are nothing more than political theatrics advancing a white supremacist agenda. … Black America isn’t buying into your game‚ and we sure won’t stand for your perpetuation of misogynoir.” Yes‚ that’s right: Pointing out Gay participated in precisely the same activity that got Liz Magill fired is now racist — because plagiarism is now just another front for racism‚ just like SAT scores‚ grades‚ criminal law‚ drug law‚ free speech‚ property rights. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP This is the game. Rig the game in favor of those who underachieve‚ pretending that underachievement is the fault of the meritocracy itself. When challenged‚ claim that those who are pointing out shortcomings and failures are themselves racist as are the representatives of that corrupt and exploitative pseudo-meritocratic hierarchy. DEI is a cult philosophy — false and yet utterly unfalsifiable‚ rooted in the core belief that those who oppose it are‚ by dint of that very opposition‚ bigots.  That’s the game Derrick Johnson is playing when he attacks Bill Ackman‚ the private equity guru and Harvard alum who has been trying to fight anti-Semitism on campus. Johnson has commented‚ saying‚  Ackman’s statement on President Gay and equating diversity‚ equity and inclusion initiatives to modern-day McCarthyism have nothing to do with combating antisemitism. Rather‚ Ackman is choosing to inflame “anti-woke” culture wars against the most visible Black woman he could target. Yes‚ according to the DEI-friendly‚ to bow to Ackman — a major Democratic donor — would be to bow to racism.  Johnson even calls for a boycott against the businesses in which Ackman invests — businesses with a bevy of black employees: Ackman can be held accountable for his actions. His hedge fund‚ Pershing Square‚ is a major investor in Chipotle‚ Lowe’s‚ Popeyes and Burger King‚ among other major consumer brands. Black women have the power to decide whether these brands should continue to earn their patronage — and the boards and employees of these companies can speak up as well. The DEI lie must be upheld at all costs. If it falls‚ so too does the theory that American meritocracy is itself evil — and that theory lies at the root of the Left’s ideological revolution. It undergirds their support for everything from radical trans politics to the Black Lives Matter rioters to Hamas. Diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion is a cancer. But that cancerous tumor cannot be simply removed. It has metastasized throughout our universities and across the body politic. It must be hit with societal chemotherapy — a vast and destructive measure that will‚ indeed‚ cripple many of America’s top institutions. 

A former Facebook global diversity strategist pled guilty to stealing more than $4 million from the company through an “elaborate scheme involving fraudulent vendors‚ fictitious charges‚ and cash kickbacks‚” federal prosecutors said Tuesday. Barbara Furlow-Smiles‚ 38‚ pled guilty to wire fraud related to the scheme‚ the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta said in a statement. Furlow-Smiles led Diversity‚ Equity‚ and Inclusion (DEI) programs at Facebook between January‚ 2017 and September‚ 2021. As Facebook’s lead strategist and global head of employee resource groups and diversity engagement‚ Furlow-Smiles was responsible for developing and executing DEI initiatives‚ operations‚ and engagement programs‚ prosecutors said. She had access to company credit cards and was able to approve invoices and used her position to “cheat and defraud the company‚” prosecutors said. Furlow-Smiles linked PayPal‚ Venmo‚ and Cash App accounts to her Facebook credit cards and used those accounts to pay friends‚ relatives‚ and others for goods and services that were never provided to Facebook‚ prosecutors said. She then submitted fraudulent expense reports to hide those charges‚ falsely claiming that her friends had performed work for Facebook‚ such as providing swag or marketing. Those people then paid kickbacks to Furlow-Smiles‚ sometimes through accounts in her husband’s and other people’s names‚ prosecutors said. Sometimes the kickbacks were paid in cash in person and sometimes through the mail. Cash was even hidden in a t-shirt at one point‚ prosecutors said. Furlow-Smiles also sometimes told her friends to pay one another to hide the scheme‚ prosecutors said. Furlow-Smiles also had Facebook hire vendors operated by her friends‚ prosecutors said‚ and she approved fraudulent and inflated invoices to pay the vendors‚ who then paid her kickbacks. People who were part of the scheme included friends‚ relatives‚ former interns from a prior job‚ nannies and babysitters‚ a hair stylist‚ and her university tutor. She even had Facebook pay for several expenses of other people‚ including $10‚000 to an artist for specialty portraits and more than $18‚000 for preschool tuition‚ according to prosecutors. “She used the money to live a luxury lifestyle in California and Georgia‚” prosecutors said. Her sentencing is scheduled for March 19. It is not clear whether any of the other people involved in the scheme will be charged. Prosecutors said most of the people were not aware that the money was coming from Facebook. Meta‚ Facebook’s parent company‚ cooperated with the investigation‚ which is being investigated by the FBI. “This defendant abused a position of a trust as a global diversity executive for Facebook to defraud the company of millions of dollars‚ ignoring the insidious consequences of undermining the importance of her DEI mission‚” said U.S. Attorney Ryan Buchanan. “Motivated by greed‚ she used her time to orchestrate an elaborate criminal scheme in which fraudulent vendors paid her kickbacks in cash. She even involved relatives‚ friends‚ and other associates in her crimes‚ all to fund a lavish lifestyle through fraud rather than hard and honest work‚” Buchanan said.

The GOP-led House voted on Wednesday to formally authorize the corruption-focused impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden‚ a move Republicans said was necessary to give them more legal weight to enforce subpoenas. By a 221-212 tally‚ the chamber adopted the authorization resolution that establishes “sufficient grounds” exist for the probe to continue after it passed through the House Rules Committee on Tuesday. One Democrat did not vote. With the successful vote‚ the inquiry follows a similar track as the first impeachment probe against former President Donald Trump‚ which Democrats did not vote to authorize right away either. U.S. House APPROVES Impeachment Inquiry into President Biden‚ 221-212. pic.twitter.com/TH6JNpHF8H — CSPAN (@cspan) December 13‚ 2023 Three panels — the Oversight‚ Judiciary‚ and Ways and Means Committees — have led the impeachment probe since mid-September‚ when then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced the endeavor. Congressional investigators have been looking into whether the business practices of Biden’s family members fostered corruption in government — spurred by a money trail showing millions of dollars from foreign countries — as well as the Department of Justice’s handling of a criminal probe into Hunter Biden‚ the president’s son. President Biden‚ who is seeking re-election next year‚ has dismissed what he called last week a “bunch of lies.” But GOP lawmakers contend that the commander in chief has lied more than a dozen times in his denials about his knowledge and participation in his family’s dealings. Democrats in the House have insisted the impeachment inquiry is a “sham” lacking legitimacy and evidence of wrongdoing by the president. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)‚ less than two months into his tenure in the leadership position‚ said a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry was necessary to combat alleged “stonewalling” by the White House. “When the subpoenas are challenged in court‚ we’ll be at the apex of our constitutional authority‚” he said last week. Johnson has also said the House as a responsibility to “follow each truth where it leads” when asked if investigators have found any evidence that Biden is guilty of impeachable offenses. Richard Sauber‚ special counsel to the president‚ wrote to impeachment leaders in mid-November condemning what he described as “Congressional harassment of the President” and calling on the House to withdraw its subpoenas and interview requests that have gone out to Biden administration officials‚ Biden family members‚ and Biden associates. The “Constitution requires that the full House authorize an impeachment inquiry before a committee may utilize compulsory process pursuant to the impeachment power — a step the Republican House Majority has so far refused to take‚” Sauber wrote. One high-profile individual who has resisted a subpoena is Hunter Biden. He showed up to Capitol Hill earlier on Wednesday but refused to show up for his scheduled deposition‚ demanding instead that lawmakers allow him to appear for a public hearing. House Republicans highlighted Hunter Biden denying that his father “financially” benefited from his business dealings as evidence that the Biden family’s story keeps changing under scrutiny. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) released a joint statement afterward‚ saying they would initiate contempt of Congress proceedings against Hunter Biden. The vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry serves to “strengthen our legal case in the courts as we face obstruction from the White House and witnesses‚” they said. “Today’s obstruction by Hunter Biden reinforces the need for a formal vote. President Biden and his family must be held accountable for their corruption and obstruction. And we will provide that to the American people.”

In a move that has sparked considerable debate and criticism‚ Hunter Biden made an appearance on Capitol Hill but notably skipped his scheduled impeachment deposition. This development comes as Republicans are gearing up to formalize their impeachment inquiry‚ leaving many to question the motives behind Biden’s absence. Hunter Biden‚ whose business dealings have long been a subject of scrutiny and controversy‚ was expected to deliver a statement on Wednesday morning. His failure to attend the deposition has fueled further speculation about the transparency and accountability of the Biden family‚ particularly in light of the ongoing investigations into his financial affairs. This is so bad. @nytimes doctored what Hunter said today‚ leaving out the key word. Wow. NYT: “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not involved in my business.” Hunter: “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not *financially* involved in my business.” pic.twitter.com/cDQEnShr6n — Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) December 13‚ 2023 The situation has drawn attention to the broader issue of political privilege and the perceived double standards in the treatment of figures connected to powerful families. Critics argue that such actions undermine the integrity of the legal and political processes‚ suggesting that there may be different rules for the elite. Republicans on Capitol Hill have expressed frustration and concern over Biden’s decision to skip the deposition. They contend that his testimony is crucial to the inquiry and that his non-appearance only serves to hinder the pursuit of truth and justice in a matter of significant public interest. I'm sure the fair and balanced FBI will send a swat team to arrest Hunter Biden for ignoring a congressional supena like they did to Peter Navarro‚ right‚ or do we live in a Banana Republic? pic.twitter.com/U1tppiBbXH — Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) December 13‚ 2023 The incident has also reignited discussions about the role of the media in covering the activities of political figures. Some conservative commentators have pointed out what they see as a lack of adequate coverage and scrutiny when it comes to the actions of certain individuals‚ particularly those associated with the Democratic Party. Amidst the unfolding events‚ there is a growing call for transparency and accountability from all public officials‚ regardless of their political affiliations or family connections. The public’s trust in the democratic process is at stake‚ and many believe that it is imperative for all involved to adhere to the highest ethical standards. As the impeachment inquiry progresses‚ the spotlight will undoubtedly remain on Hunter Biden and his decision to avoid the deposition. The implications of his actions are far-reaching‚ potentially affecting not only the inquiry itself but also the public’s perception of the political establishment. In conclusion‚ Hunter Biden’s absence from his scheduled impeachment deposition raises serious questions and concerns. It is a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by those seeking to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the political arena. As the situation continues to unfold‚ it will be critical to observe how lawmakers and the public respond to these latest developments. The post Hunter Biden’s Capitol Hill No-Show Raises Eyebrows Amid Impeachment Inquiry appeared first on The Conservative Brief.