By Mike Huckabee

When I am wrong, I admit it; and I admit that I was wrong when I predicted that the Supreme Court allowing the Democrat-run House Ways and Means Committee to see former President Trump’s personal and private income tax returns would result in some sneaky, underhanded political hack leaking it to the press. That was incorrect. They just voted, in a lame duck session, to come right out in broad daylight and release six years’ worth of his personal, private income tax records to the media (note: he was President for only four years.) I apologize for mistakenly thinking they would actually have enough shame to do it in secret.

https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/12/20/dems-vote-to-release-six-years-of-trump-tax-returns-in-stunning-invasion-of-privacy-n676576

Of course, they did come up with a sneaky, underhanded way to cover this blatant violation of both precedent and tax law, by claiming they somehow “needed” to see Trump's taxes to conduct oversight of the IRS, then including his tax records in their report on that. I’ve seen department store windows that are less transparent than that excuse.

Republicans on the committee who voted unanimously against this warned that it sets a very dangerous precedent of violating the law and trampling an ex-President’s legal rights, just to enact petty vengeance on a political opponent whose electoral chances they hope to harm. But it likely won’t hurt Trump since his tax forms were already illegally leaked to the New York Times, who couldn’t find anything criminal in them (and I’m sure they labored mightily trying.)

As I’ve pointed out for years, Trump’s tax forms are no doubt filled out by a battalion of CPAs and tax lawyers and signed by an autopen. He probably barely even looks at them, just less stays up all night on April 15^th, filling them out himself and thinking up dubious deductions. And I’m sure they’re so long and complicated that they would be as incomprehensible to the typical liberal “journalist” as a math textbook is to the typical Congressional Democrat.  

No, the real story here, as Bob Hoge points out at the link, is that once again, Congressional Democrats have placed attacking a political opponent over respecting precedent, laws and citizens’ rights. As he says, you may hate Trump, but he has rights, too, and they just relieved themselves all over them. But now, having set the precedent for it, and with Republicans about to take over, as Kurt Schlichter argues, it’s time for the Republicans to start playing by the Democrats “rule” book and showing them good and hard that the standards they’ve shattered apply both ways.

I don’t want to hear any blather about “respecting established norms” (the Dems have destroyed those) or returning to an era of civility in which the rules of civility apply only to Republicans. What I want is to see the tax forms of every Democrat in Washington, starting with Nancy Pelosi, if for no other reason than to see what kind of insider stock tips I might be able to pick up.

2. The new border narrative for Democrats and the media

The Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have a new narrative to deflect blame for the humanitarian and security crisis on the border from President Biden, who clearly and deliberately caused it. It now seems that the huge invasion of illegal entrants is not due to Biden opening the border, but to his critics accurately describing the open border as an open border. That is, illegal immigrants, cartels and drug smugglers aren’t rushing across the border because it’s open, but because Republicans said it was open.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2022/12/14/young-voters-losing-enthusiasm-for-democrats-but-so-what-n1653538

Every so often, something arises that I say is not really a political narrative so much as it’s an I.Q. test. If your reaction to this story is anything other than a dropped jaw and rolling eyes, then you might want to consider voluntary institutionalization.

3. "No evidence"

One of the premiere gaslighting tactics of our time is the claim that courts found “no evidence” of anything suspicious about the 2020 election. In fact, most of the cases were dismissed without considering the evidence, often on grounds of “lack of standing.” That’s becoming much too common lately. It’s a convenient way for judges to wash their hands of controversial cases by declaring that the plaintiff wasn’t personally injured and therefore has no right to sue. I keep wondering why a serious claim (whether true or not) that the voters’ sacred right to select their own representatives isn’t something that all Americans have standing to pursue, since we are all injured when election integrity is violated.

Well, it took a long time for the wheels of justice to turn, but here’s a shock for the media: The Georgia Supreme Court just reversed a 2020 lower court “lack of standing” ruling in the case of Caroline Jeffords et al v. Fulton County. That means that the plaintiffs’ evidence might finally be heard in court, and it potentially paves the way for other cases that were dismissed out of hand to finally be heard.

https://www.georgiarecord.com/breaking-georgia-supreme-court-reverses-lack-of-standing-in-2020-election-case/

I mean, of course, “be heard in court.” If you watch mainstream media outlets, you still won’t ever hear about them.

4. SCOTUS: We will hear the case

By Mike Huckabee

Speaking of late-arriving court decisions, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case by a Utah man against Mike Pence, Kamala Harris and the 385 Congress members who voted to certify the 2020 election of Joe Biden.

https://www.westernjournal.com/utah-mans-2020-election-case-quietly-makes-supreme-court-biden-harris-385-lawmakers-named/

The suit alleges that by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud before certifying the vote, the defendants violated their oaths of office to defend the Constitution. It seeks to overturn the election and reinstate Trump as President.

Spoiler alert: I don’t see the SCOTUS going that route. But the fact that they actually agreed to hear the case is newsworthy. As the article points out, maybe they have seen how much suspicion of elections has grown, and they want to make a public show of at least hearing the arguments to try to stem the rising tide of distrust in the process.

I think a better way would be to institute common sense election integrity laws, like making people show an ID before voting, the same way they have to before entering the Supreme Court building. Still, this is going to be interesting to watch.

5. Hollywood in a nutshell

By Mike Huckabee

I wrote early this week about a study showing that since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Hollywood has ramped up the pro-abortion plotlines in TV shows. But apparently, that’s not good enough. A report by a pro-abortion activist group found that 58% of the characters shown seeking abortions were “cisgendered white women.” Since black women account for about 30% of abortions, they claim this is racist, and blacks need more “representation” in these pro-abortion plotlines.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/hollywood-ramping-up-its-pro-abortion-propaganda

Well, they are right about one thing: despite being only about 13% of the population, blacks do account for about 30% of abortions. In New York City, more black babies are aborted than are born. The black population of America would be substantially larger if 20 million black babies hadn’t been slaughtered in the womb.

That’s Hollywood in a nutshell: A place that worships at the altar of Black Lives Matter, yet supports Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a racist eugenicist that’s largely responsible for a veritable genocide of black babies, and now feels guilty for not actively promoting even more of it.

To be fair, every so often, a Hollywood liberal takes a red pill, and not just in a “Matrix” sequel.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/actor-tim-robbins-expresses-remorse-about-turning-on-the-unvaccinated-and-the-unmasked