Connect with us


Hunter Biden Investigation Sparks Criticism Over Lengthy Duration



joe biden and hunter biden

A recent revelation regarding the ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden’s financial and legal matters has sparked criticism and raised concerns about the lengthy duration of the case. Legal analysts and lawmakers are calling out the Department of Justice for what they perceive as a slow-walking of the investigation, which has been ongoing for nearly five years.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig expressed his disbelief at the prolonged investigation, labeling it “preposterous.” The case involving Hunter Biden has been pending since 2018, spanning multiple administrations.

Honig emphasized that the focus of the investigation revolves around alleged misdemeanor tax filing charges, felony tax evasion, false statement charges related to a gun purchase, and a potential violation of federal gun laws by possessing a firearm while battling addiction.

Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, also voiced his concerns over the extended timeline of the Hunter Biden investigation. He contrasted it with the swift conclusion of former President Donald J. Trump’s case, suggesting that the Department of Justice had managed to wrap up the Trump investigation expeditiously.

Johnson pointed out that the Hunter Biden investigation had been “dragging on for years,” leaving many wondering why it has not reached a resolution. In the case of President Donald J. Trump, Johnson stated, “They were able to wrap up this investigation very rapidly. In addition, they announce it pretty much the same day when the details of the FBI confidential human sources are going to be revealed by members of Congress.”

Recent documents obtained by the House Oversight Committee have further fueled scrutiny of the Biden family. The documents allegedly indicate that President Joe Biden received $5 million from an executive of a Ukrainian natural gas firm.

According to reports from Fox News Digital, sources claimed that the same executive promised $5 million to Hunter Biden as well. These revelations have added to the public interest in the ongoing investigation.

Elie Honig argued that the Hunter Biden investigation should have been concluded within a significantly shorter timeframe, suggesting it could have been resolved in as little as five weeks.

Honig stated on air, “five years, I mean, that’s a five-week investigation.” “Somebody, and this spans the Trump administration and the Biden administration. Someone’s got to make a call on this case. I don’t know what is going on, but it’s beyond anything I’ve seen before,” he added.

The extended duration of the case, spanning multiple administrations, has left him perplexed, calling for the Justice Department to make a decisive call and close out the investigation.

In addition to the financial matters under scrutiny, Hunter Biden’s involvement as a board member of Burisma Holdings has drawn criticism in the past. These factors, combined with the prolonged investigation, have fueled public interest and debate regarding potential improprieties and the urgency of resolving the case.

As the Hunter Biden investigation continues, the calls for a resolution and clarity grow louder. The public remains eager to see whether the Department of Justice will address the concerns surrounding the timeline and ultimately bring closure to this long-standing inquiry.

Follow Alexander Carter on Twitter @AlexCarterDC for more!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Minnesota farmer’s lawsuit prompts removal of race and sex-based grant program



GettyImages 2059551148 scaled

Five months after Minnesota farmer Lance Nistler filed a federal lawsuit with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the state has removed race- and sex-based preferences from its Down Payment Assistance Grant Program. This significant policy change followed Nistler’s legal challenge, which highlighted the discriminatory nature of the program’s selection process.

Pacific Legal Foundation writes involvement in Nistler’s case drew attention and criticism from Minnesota progressives. Writing in the Minnesota Reformer, Sigrid Jewett accused PLF of using Nistler “as a pawn in a larger culture war game.” She questioned why a California-based legal firm with numerous Supreme Court victories would be interested in representing a small Minnesota farmer pro bono.

PLF opposes all race- and sex-based preferences in the law, and that’s the real reason the firm chose to represent Nistler. The foundation stands against discrimination in various domains, including government board selections, school admissions, government contracts, and grant distributions, such as in Nistler’s case.

Here are the facts: Minnesota’s Down Payment Assistance Grant Program offers up to $15,000 toward the purchase of farmland. Recipients are chosen through a lottery system. However, before the policy change, even if a recipient was among the first picked through the lottery—as Nistler was, being selected ninth—they could be bumped to the back of the line if they were not a racial minority, female, LGBTQIA+, or otherwise designated as an “emerging” farmer by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Despite being chosen ninth in the lottery, which awarded grants to 68 applicants, Nistler did not receive a grant. He was moved from ninth to 102nd on the waitlist because he is a white male.

Nistler grew up on his family farm, milking cows. “They would lose money every year,” he says of the family operation. After he left for school, his family sold the cows and switched to farming soybeans, oats, and wheat. Lance’s father and uncle now run the farm, but they’re getting older. Lance, who has a degree in electronic engineering and worked in HVAC, is interested in buying a 40-acre chunk of the family farm, becoming the fourth-generation farmer in his family.

The land isn’t just going to be given to Lance. This is a working farm, and the Nistlers aren’t a wealthy family that can transfer land from one generation to the next without consideration. “My dad and uncle, they don’t have 401(k)s or anything,” Lance says. “I mean, the land and the equipment, that’s their retirement. This stuff isn’t given away. I’m not just going to get it handed down to me and inherited. It has to be purchased, and it is not cheap.”

Despite being from a farming family, Lance considers himself a new farmer—he has never owned farmland before, and he has an electronics background. Buying these 40 acres would be a huge step for Lance, planting him firmly in the farming world, which is what Minnesota’s grant program aimed to do. The idea that he would have qualified as an emerging farmer if only his skin were a different color struck Lance as wrong.

“The country we live in, the idea is it’s equal opportunity for everyone,” he says. “And if that’s what it is, then well, why shouldn’t I have the same chances?”

When Lance filed his lawsuit in January, the complaint argued that the discriminatory process violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The complaint stated:

“Nistler brings this lawsuit to vindicate his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. He brings it to give all Minnesotans a fair chance at a difference-making grant program. He brings it in the hope that he will be able to own that small farm in the near future. He brings it because he is not giving up on his dream.”

In May, after Lance called attention to the unconstitutional policy, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed legislation removing the race and sex prioritization from the program. Now, Minnesota will treat farmers equally—as the Constitution promises.

Continue Reading