The Perks of Public Office
REVIEW: ‘Filthy Rich Politicians: The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals, and Ruling-Class Elites Cashing in on America’ by Matt Lewis
It pays to be a politician—literally.
That’s the argument of conservative commentator Matt Lewis’s new book Filthy Rich Politicians, lambasting the culture of corruption in politics that stems from elected officials monetizing their power in the most flagrant possible ways.
The timing of the book’s publication comes at a populist moment, with the hit song "Rich Men North of Richmond" having topped the Billboard charts and reflecting widespread angst about the growing chasm between the haves and have-nots. Lewis, refreshingly, is able to criticize the excesses of the ruling class without getting mired in the self-defeating grievance that defines so much of today’s populist movement.
Through outlining too-good-to-be-true book deals to hiring family members on staff to capitalizing on all-too-timely stock trades, Lewis takes readers through an eye-opening tour of lawmakers’ conflicts of interest that leave so many Americans jaded toward the Swamp that is Washington, D.C.
As Lewis puts it: "The rich get elected and the elected get rich."
Some of the examples that Lewis presents are so familiar that they’re often taken for granted. The average compensation for a politician’s book deal is often higher than their annual salary. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), who touts herself as a progressive populist, raked in $2.8 million from book royalties and advances between 2014-2018—over 15 times the salary she makes each year in Washington.
He lays out the case against lawmakers of both parties making suspiciously timed stock trades that he argues would be viewed as insider trading coming from anyone less privileged. Lewis details the controversy surrounding former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr dumping at least $630,000 in stock shares after receiving a confidential briefing about COVID-19 before the pandemic—a case that was investigated by the FBI, but one where he was ultimately not charged with a crime.
He also suggests, with mostly circumstantial evidence, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi is guilty of insider trading for seeing her net worth triple from 2006 to 2020 thanks to her husband’s well-timed stock trades.
His section on famous politicians’ family members profiting on their family name is awfully timely, given the controversies surrounding Hunter Biden and his relationships with sketchy foreign business investors, as he looked to profit on his family name. Lewis gives a handy Cliffs Notes version of the Biden family’s "shady business deals," including lesser-known controversies involving his brothers Frank and James.
Lewis then sums up the Trump laundry list of financial scandals and conflicts of interest, citing Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner parlaying his time working on Middle East diplomacy into securing a $2 billion Saudi investment for a fund led by the Saudi crown prince. "The allegations leveled at Trump are too numerous to litigate here," Lewis writes.
Lewis blames politics as a game skewed to the wealthy, pointing out that the median net worth of a congressman is about 12 times higher than the average American. But after reading his book, it seems clear that most of the problems with money in politics come from the demand side—the desire to be famous, rich, or well-connected that the political life provides.
Children of political privilege—think Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney—usually have been more immune from the trappings of Washington than those who suddenly find their moment of fame in the nation’s capital. It’s harder to corrupt someone who already has it all financially than it is for someone who suddenly goes from pauper to prince.
Indeed, the sudden rise to fame by political underdogs often leads to the most unanticipated consequences. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) went from being seen as a working-class hero to being feted at the Met Gala wearing an expensive designer dress (ironically, with the words "Tax the Rich" scrawled on it). The perks of power have turned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) from the ultimate anti-establishment figure to a trusted inside ally of House speaker Kevin McCarthy.
And while it may be difficult for a working-class hero to build the connections and raise the money necessary to mount a top campaign, candidates with excessive wealth often find themselves struggling to relate to the average American—and frequently underperform. Just look at the 2020 presidential campaign of businessman Michael Bloomberg, who spent over $1 billion of his own money to amass just 55 delegates.
Indeed, of the 44 congressional candidates who spent over $1 million of their own money in last year’s midterms, just 6 of them prevailed. The list of notable unsuccessful self-funders included celebrities like Dr. Mehmet Oz, and baseball team owners like Ohio state Sen. Matt Dolan.
Lewis offers a lengthy list of thoughtful solutions to the problem of draining the swamp, from calling for stock trading bans, prohibiting lobbying for ex-members, and implementing term limits (among others).
But his most important insight is probably the most politically unpopular: Pay members of Congress (and their staffs) more. Lewis notes that congressional pay has declined since the 1960s, adjusted for inflation, and the salary of public servants is significantly lower than the lawyers, lobbyists, corporate executives, and other bigwigs they regularly interact with.
Given all the ugliness of politics these days, with every unfavorable nugget of a candidate’s personal life mined for public consumption, it’s a sad but true reality that it may take more money within the system to counteract the bad influence of outside temptations.
Filthy Rich Politicians: The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals, and Ruling-Class Elites Cashing in on America
by Matt Lewis
Center Street, 256 pp., $29
Josh Kraushaar is the editor in chief of Jewish Insider, author of Axios' weekly Sunday Sneak newsletter, and a Fox News Radio political analyst.
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE WHAT A PIG LAWYER WILL DO TO GET AT THE MONEY!
WATCH: Hunter Biden Schmoozes with Joe Biden, Potential Clients: ‘Have a Card?’
A “circumstantial but devastating” video from 2015 in South Carolina reemerged Friday that shows Hunter Biden schmoozing with Joe Biden and potential clients.
The video, which recently aired recently on Newsmax’s Greg Kelly Reports, shows Hunter Biden standing to the side while then-Sen. Joe Biden greeted and spoke with attendees at an event where the senator spoke.
Hunter Biden steps into the conversation to greet the couple he apparently spoke with about a business opportunity with his lobbying firm, the video shows:
Watch Joe Biden discussing “the weather.”
Resurfaced clip from 2005 shows Joe and Hunter Biden discussing business IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA. pic.twitter.com/Ah8dpmB8Vm— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) September 15, 2023
“Maybe we can work something out,” Joe Biden said to the couple with a smile.
“Yeah, that is what we will do,” the woman in the video replied.
The man standing next to the woman said, “Hunter was just me about his law firm in Washington, his law firm…”
“Yeah,” Joe Biden said.
Looking at Hunter Biden, the man asked if he had a business card. “Do you have a [business] card by any chance?” the man asked.
“I don’t, but I’ll give you my…” Hunter Biden replied before being cut off.
“Well let me give you mine,” the man said.
“Yeah, then I’ll give you my [inaudible]… I gave ’em all away,” Hunter Biden said, turning to his father.
The woman chimed in and changed the subject: “Well, that was a wonderful speech.”
While the woman engaged with Joe Biden, the man and Hunter Biden stepped off to the side to have a separate conversation.
Newsmax’s Greg Kelly said the incident is an example of how Joe and Hunter Biden, who held and still holds a law license, worked social events for the purpose of private business
“You see it right there. That’s how it worked,” Kelly explained. “Circumstantial but devastating.”
The House Oversight Committee mocked the video as an example of Joe Biden discussing “the weather,” a phrase Democrats used to defend Joe Biden against allegations of wrongdoing.
In 2005, Hunter Biden was the foundering partner of a lobbying firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair. The firm’s total income during that year was nearly $700,000, according to OpenSecrets. In the next two years, its revenue doubled. The firm boasted an impressive list of clients: AT&T Inc, Equifax Inc, Achaogen, and Cooney & Conway.
After Joe Biden became vice president, Hunter Biden left the firm and opened new ventures, such as the infamous Rosemont Seneca Partners, an entity associated with Devon Archer, Eric Schwerin, CCP-liked entities, and Che Feng, who Hunter Biden identified as the “Super Chairman.” Hunter Biden also launched a joint venture, BHR Partners, and became a board member of Burisma Holdings for $83,000 a month.
“Obviously, the brand of Biden, you know, adds a lot of power when your dad’s vice president,” Archer told Tucker Carlson. “It’s an abuse of soft power.”
Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter @WendellHusebø. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality.
Brooks: Hunter Peddling Influence ‘Merits an Inquiry’ But There Shouldn’t Be Impeachment Inquiry
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks stated that Hunter Biden’s alleged influence peddling “merits an inquiry.” But “I don’t think there should be an impeachment inquiry about it.” Brooks also stated that President Joe Biden “was somewhat involved in some of the conversations, maybe only in small talk. But he was somewhat involved.”
Brooks said, “[T]he influence peddling should be investigated. I don’t think there should be an impeachment inquiry about it. But Hunter Biden was in the business of peddling influence. And it’s not clear he actually peddled any influence. It’s not clear his dad did anything. But it should be looked into. His dad was somewhat involved in some of the conversations, maybe only in small talk. But he was somewhat involved. And so, we should know whether Hunter Biden’s business was a sham, pretending to peddle influence that he didn’t actually have, or whether there was some substance to it. So, that, to me, merits an inquiry. It does not merit an impeachment. An impeachment should be, holy cow. We should have some evidence of something truly shocking before we take the extraordinary step of beginning an impeachment inquiry, or else we just risk cheapening the whole impeachment process.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
McCarthy: White House Already Engaging in Impeachment Inquiry ‘Obstruction’ with Fake ‘No Evidence’ Disinformation Talking Points
Democrat President Joe Biden’s White House is already obstructing the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry announced by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) when it disseminated talking points to the media falsely claiming there was no evidence to begin the inquiry, McCarthy told Breitbart News exclusively.
McCarthy, who appeared on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, said a document drafted by the White House counsel’s office and sent from formal White House staff to media outlets at the outset of the impeachment inquiry — which led to the false reports and the use of the disinformation talking point by many media outlets and Democrats allied with the White House—could amount to obstruction of the investigation.
“You’re 100 percent right,” McCarthy said when Breitbart News noted there is in fact evidence and the fake talking point the White House disseminated is disinformation. “And you just raised another issue that points to why we need impeachment inquiry to have the strength of our subpoenas because you now have the White House counsel. That talking point didn’t come from the campaign. It came from the taxpayer-paid White House counsel directly to media outlets. So think of the fear they have, whether they’re going to be allowed to go before government or others when you have the White House counsel threatening them to say investigate Republicans, there’s nothing here. I mean, right there is obstruction. Would you not question that? I would wonder is it not? It would be a question raised.”
WATCH — “President Biden Did Lie”: McCarthy Announces Impeachment Inquiry into Joe Biden:
Speaker Kevin McCarthy / FacebookThis week, as Breitbart News reported in the aftermath of McCarthy impeachment inquiry announcement, several media outlets and Democrats were repeating the inaccurate talking point the White House disseminated that there was no evidence to proceed to an impeachment inquiry. McCarthy, during his interview on Breitbart News Saturday, recounted one such interaction with an Associated Press reporter on Capitol Hill where he forced the reporter to admit there was in fact evidence. He also pointed to a CNN fact check of him which actually found that each of the claims he made during his announcement of the impeachment inquiry about the Bidens were true.
“But there was an AP reporter who raised this question to me the other day and I walked her through all of this and she at the end couldn’t but acknowledge yeah there is evidence,” McCarthy said. “CNN went and tried to fact-check me trying to say there wasn’t and even in their own fact check said everything I said was true. Yes, there is an allegation of bribery. Yes, they’re saying that he went to meetings and money changed [hands]. Yes, there were shell companies. There’s nothing before — and if you are an elected official and someone has brought you all this information you have a constitutional obligation to find the answers to it. That doesn’t mean it’s impeachment. That means finding the answers. Why are we afraid to get the answers to the American public? The American public wants to know that their elected officials are not for sale. Now, we saw a clip where you had Hunter Biden in South Carolina with I think then-Vice President Biden talking about his law firm and then they bring it up and he walks around the other side and gives his business card to the person in front of Joe Biden. Is that selling the brand? What happened on those 12 international trips that Hunter Biden went on the government plane with the Vice President? When he went over to China, is that when he cut the deal and got a million dollars from the Chinese that the president said they did not? So, we want to investigate did that money come from the government itself? Was it a subsidiary?”
President Joe Biden boards Marine One with his son Hunter Biden as he leaves Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland on June 24, 2023. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
McCarthy also, during the interview, explained how Republicans have uncovered serious evidence against the president since they took the majority — and that Biden’s claim from the 2020 campaign that he never spoke to his son Hunter Biden about any business dealing has been proven to be a lie.
“To all your listeners, you have to realize that all the information that we know now we never would have known had Republicans not taken the majority,” McCarthy said. “All we knew prior to this is then-candidate Joe Biden told us he never spoke to his son about any business dealing. He said his family never received any money from China. Now, why I’ve moved to an impeachment inquiry, just so your listeners understand what that means, that gives Congress the full power when they go to subpoenas to be able to win in court to get the information we need.”
McCarthy explained several of the pieces of evidence against the president that the House Republicans have uncovered as well.
“Early on, we found out that when Joe Biden became vice president his family set up 20 shell companies,” McCarthy said. “They got 16 out of 17 payments from Romania while he was vice president. The money would flow to nine different family members in the Biden family. We then later had a whistleblower come to us and tell us that the FBI, years before, had given what they call the form 1023 that is from an informant the FBI uses that trusts wholly he had heard there was a bribe given to the Biden family. In the document, it also said that it would be hard to trace because he had to move it through shell companies. Now, that’s an allegation — we don’t know if that’s true. Now we found out during the summer while we had individuals coming in that Hunter Biden’s best friend and business partner Devon [Archer] who also sat on the Burisma board said that Hunter Biden was ‘selling the brand’ — ‘selling the brand’ — the brand being Biden. He also said that Joe Biden lied to the American public whereas, yes, he would call in to conference calls for the client and he also went to dinners at Cafe Milano and after each dinner there was a transaction. One was to buy Hunter Biden a new Porsche, one was for more than $3 million from the oligarchs of Russia — and that oligarch didn’t get sanctioned after they invaded Ukraine — then we found out during the summer, too, that Joe Biden used false names in emails so the public could not trace it using FOIA to not get it.”
There is more evidence, too, McCarthy said, pointing to emails and other documents surrounding Joe Biden’s alias email accounts and to the sweetheart plea deal that has since collapsed but that the Biden Department of Justice originally offered to Biden’s son Hunter Biden.
“Then one of these emails which we haven’t gotten yet but we’ll need to — it says in there that the staffer writing to Joe Biden and also Hunter Biden about a phone call with the president of Ukraine,” McCarthy said. “What we found is, this is around the same time that Burisma was getting pushed by the prosecutor. We know from Devon, Hunter’s business partner, that Burisma was really pushing them as board members to call Washington to do something about it. We also know that Joe Biden had told the American public that he withheld a billion dollars of taxpayer money until they fired the prosecutor that was going after Burisma. Now, does this all work together? We don’t know. It raises a question. We also have now found out through an email that a White House staffer in the vice president’s office said to Hunter Biden’s business partner that the then-vice president has signed off on the Burisma talking points. Then, we look at the sweetheart deal that was proposed a couple months ago for Hunter Biden. Earlier this year, we had sent letters to the Attorney General asking for a special prosecutor. [Merrick] Garland, the Attorney General, told Congress and the Senate ‘we don’t need one. If [David] Weiss feels he does, he can become one. If Weiss wants to prosecute, he can prosecute in any jurisdiction’ and he would back it up. But now, after the sweetheart deal came out, two whistleblowers from the IRS came forward and said ‘that’s not true,’ and that Weiss wanted to be a special prosecutor and was denied and that when he wanted to prosecute he was also denied and the DOJ allowed the statute of limitations on the most serious egregious IRS provisions that Hunter Biden didn’t hold to to expire. Would that happen with any other American?”
With all of this evidence and more, McCarthy said the next line of investigation will look into the bank accounts, credit cards connected to the shell companies, and other financial documents that can connect payments to the president.
“So, you now have all these questions. We’ve never gone after the president’s bank statements. We’ve never gone after the credit cards that were under these shell companies. We’ve never gone after Hunter Biden’s bank statements,” McCarthy said. “We know that this administration — we’ve never seen an administration use their administration to withhold information like this since the [Richard] Nixon administration. So, we need all the legal strength we can to get these answers. That’s why I directed the committees to use an impeachment inquiry to take the next step. Now, some people will go out there and say ‘you need to subpoena Hunter Biden right now.’ Well, anyone who’s a prosecutor knows that’s not the right move. You first want all the information because Hunter’s going to come in and he would lie if we don’t have all the information before you. There’s so much more we need to get. All of this — these allegations and others — how can we go forward as a country without knowing it? And, if you’re Hunter Biden or President Biden and you’ve been accused of this, wouldn’t you want to clear your name? Wouldn’t you want the document to come forward and say ‘look, okay I lied [when I said] I didn’t talk to my son.’ ‘Okay, I went to dinner with this money.’ Show the American public the difference because right now I’ve got people in the mainstream media and I’ve got Democrats saying this does not look good at all. I just want answers the American public deserves.”
McCarthy also addressed the question of whether Hunter Biden would eventually be subpoenaed in the process here. He predicted that as the investigation by the three committees proceeds that Hunter Biden would be brought in for questioning by them — noting that it is the House Oversight Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee leading the inquiry. Those committees are chaired by, respectively, Reps. James Comer (R-KY), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Jason Smith (R-MO).
“At the end of the day, he’s going to have to be subpoenaed but what you want to do is get all the information before,” McCarthy said. “I don’t direct the experts on how to do the investigation. This is under three committees. Jamie Comer, who’s done a tremendous job and he’s been getting all this information. Jim Jordan, who we know is one of the best investigators. And Jason Smith with Ways and Means who with the IRS and others they have all done a Herculean job here of gathering information. Look, interesting is these Monday-morning quarterbacks who come in when every day we’re bringing people in for depositions and others. I mean, no one is giving us this information. You have to find it. You’ve got to pull the strings to look how this connects and others. Let them continue to do their job to get to the bottom of where it’s at. I trust them.”
McCarthy also said that more witnesses, document production, and testimony will be coming very soon.
“It’s exactly what they’ve been doing this whole time,” McCarthy said. “They bring different people in for depositions to learn more and they follow the facts wherever it takes them. You know, as soon as they get new facts, they bring it forth. But they have a lot of new information coming. I think they got some new bank statements coming as well. It just raises more questions and I think you’ll see a lot more subpoenas coming out to gather more information based upon the facts that they’ve already gathered.”
McCarthy also dismissed the idea that a vote of the full House was necessary to proceed with the impeachment inquiry, saying he spoke to the House counsel about this and argued that the courts have made it clear they can proceed without it. However, if necessary, he said the House will do whatever is needed to compel cooperation from the White House and Biden with the impeachment inquiry.
“You don’t have to vote in this process,” McCarthy said. “We have the legal authority now. The courts have seen that. I’ve talked to the House counsel. We’ve got legal opinions on that. We will move forward and follow the facts wherever it takes us. We will do whatever it needs just to find the answers for the American public. That is upholding our oaths to the Constitution.”
Asked about a possible timeline for considering actual articles of impeachment against Biden, McCarthy said there is no timeline but that House Republicans will simply follow the facts wherever they lead. If it gets to that point eventually, they will move forward on it he said. But for now, the House GOP is conducting the impeachment inquiry so as to get the facts out about the president and the Congress will move if and when it rises to that level.
“Let me be very clear to everybody. We are not the Democrats. We watched them use impeachment for political reasons,” McCarthy said. “Tell me what evidence did they have to even move forward? So what we’re doing — and we’re not predetermining anything into the future. The only thing we’ll promise everybody is we’ll follow the facts and we’ll get the answers and we’ll lay them out for the American public. We’ll uphold our Constitutional authority but we don’t have pre-impeachment documents or anything else. We believe in the court of law. We believe in the honesty and integrity and remember none of this information would have been found had we not been doing the work we’re doing now. Let us continue our work and lay it out for the American public and let people be able to see what we’re finding.”
Breitbart News Saturday airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern.
LISTEN TO SPEAKER KEVIN MCCARTHY ON BREITBART NEWS SATURDAY:
No comments:
Post a Comment