The giant meltdown/tantrum of the left over the idea that there will be even one media outlet where people who disagree with them have free speech rolled on yesterday, and they're getting even more unhinged with each passing day. Ben Shapiro compiled a few of the more fevered comments.

Simply for wanting to restore free speech to Twitter, Elon Musk went from being an Obama-supporting electric car messiah and ACLU member to a white supremacist who probably supported South African apartheid and maybe a pedophile (groundless name-calling being what passes for intellectual arguments in Left World these days.) The British government even had to shoot down questions about whether Musk will be arrested if he allows speech that "distresses" people. (Note: This is why we fought the American Revolution.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren emerged from her luxury teepee to rail against the dangers of free speech to “our democracy” (the left’s latest euphemism for “our media monopoly”) and propose her favorite prescription for every problem: taxing away other people’s money.

Fellow Democrat Sen. Ed Markey attacked the scary idea of free speech on Twitter with a favorite hilarious tactic of the left, taking some current buzzword and attaching the word “justice” to it. In his case, passing laws to promote “algorithmic justice,” to protect “the children” (children justice!) by preventing billionaires from having “dangerous influence” over powerful online platforms.

This is such a dire emergency that no Democrat gave a hoot about it until one of those billionaires actually suggested allowing Republicans to have free speech, too.

But the glass-like transparency of their hypocrisy was best demonstrated by MSNBC’s Ari Melber, who wailed about billionaires owning social media platforms, “You could secretly ban one party’s candidate, or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the elections.”

Really, that could happen?! I have three words for you, Ari: “Hunter Biden’s laptop.”

As Ben Shapiro rightly says, if Musk wants to restore trust in social media, his first actions at Twitter must be “to release information about its prior practices, make any new algorithms far more transparent and fire employees who object to such practices, of whom there are many.”

Don’t worry about them; I’m sure they’ll find there are lots of other companies out there that let their junior employees run the company through temper tantrums and drive away half their customers by forcing their radical political views on them.

Oh, wait: there aren’t…

Look for a detailed update tomorrow on John Durham’s special counsel investigation and the Michael Sussmann trial. In the meantime, here’s a piece of not entirely unexpected news: The presiding judge, Christopher Cooper, has ruled Hillary’s tweet, which says that “Donald Trump has a secret was set up to communicate privately with a Putin-tied Russian bank.,” and a follow-up tweet linking to a four-paragraph missive from her campaign, are inadmissible as evidence.

The judge excluded this as “hearsay” and said it’s “likely duplicative of other evidence” related to demonstrating the attorney-client relationship. Recall that Sussmann faces one charge of lying to the FBI about that attorney-client relationship; specifically, whether or not it was the reason for his visit.

As Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner explains, “The special counsel argued the tweet is not inadmissible hearsay “because it is not being offered for its truth ---emphasizing that the prosecutors actually believe its claims were false.” In other words, if they were actually trying to prove the Alfa Bank scheme was true, Hillary’s tweet about that would be inadmissible hearsay. But they want to use the tweet to help prove something else: the attorney-client relationship between Hillary For America and Michael Sussmann.

But the defense still claimed that the tweet “plainly is being offered for the truth” by prosecutors. As I’ve reminded my readers many times, I’m not a lawyer, but for the life of me, I can’t see how that makes sense. Durham knows the tweet is false, and do we all at this point.

Oh, and pardon our cynicism, but we laughed out loud at the transparent attempt to protect Hillary that was made by Sussmann’s team: “There is a real danger that if the tweet were admitted, the jury would believe that Hillary Clinton herself was part of the Special Counsel’s uncharged conspiracy and that she had a direct interest or involvement in Mr. Sussmann’s efforts. Drawing the candidate herself into this matter in this way would be unfair to Mr. Sussmann.”

Get my smelling salts! Lawd, lawd, we wouldn’t want anyone having the impression that HILLARY was involved. Still, the judge, an Obama appointee with a stack of rather shocking Democrat connections and conflicts of interest, bought the defense’s “hearsay” argument.

But now, for the good stuff. I’ll have more at length about it later, but for now, read the account at ZeroHedge of what has just been revealed in this case by the sight of some documents that didn’t quite remain under seal when they got attached to another legal filing of Durham’s. While much of the material pertaining to this case has been seen in heavily redacted form, this story includes links to some unredacted communications that show how extensively Fusion GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Frietsch peddled the Trump Russia hoax. They coordinated with multiple journalists, producers and media outlets to get that story out. They were on a mission to spread what they knew to be fake anti-Trump garbage far and wide, and now we have a better idea of their phenomenal dedication.

TechnoFog examines some of these communications and shows how they blow a hole in the defense’s attorney-client privilege argument, as they have nothing to do with obtaining legal advice. Even if they did, or if lawyers were copied (they weren’t), this little army of hoaxers lost their “privilege” when these messages went out to the media.

Tomorrow we’ll have a report on Wednesday’s federal court appearance by Durham’s team and Sussmann’s defense team. The trial is scheduled to start May 16.

The Biden “Justice” Department is asking Congress for a $2.63 billion increase in its budget, supposedly to help cities deal with the huge jump in crime and murder rates. Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland tried to convince the Senate Appropriations Committee that the money was justified, but Republican Sen. John Kennedy grilled him like a cheap steak on that.

Kennedy started by saying he believes this DOJ is losing on crime, drugs, immigration and Chinese espionage, and demanded to know whether they would use this money to fund procedures that we know work, like to “stop and frisk” known gang members. Of course, Garland couldn’t endorse that because it’s been demonized as racist, so he tried to wiggle out of saying what the money was actually for.

Garland said there is no federal “one solution fits all” for state and local law enforcement, and that he believes local officials know what works best, while “We provide our technical expertise.” Click the link for video of the entertaining exchange.

Just a few points: if state and local leaders in blue areas (because that’s where the crime surge is, and we all know why) know “what works best,” then why is what they’re doing obviously not working at all? In fact, the local leftist prosecutors’ policies are making crime exponentially worse. If the DOJ can’t even tell them that hogtying police while providing a revolving door to criminals is their problem, then what “technical expertise” do they have that’s worth spit, much less an extra $2.63 billion of our money?

Here, I’ll tell those localities how to solve their crime problem: “Start arresting criminals, and once you do, keep them in jail!” That’s all the “technical expertise” they need, and I just saved the taxpayers $2.63 billion. You’re welcome.

Just a brief update on the Durham investigation and the Michael Sussmann case today, with links to some fun reading material.

Recall that there are problems with the argument for attorney-client privilege being made by Hillary For America and the DNC. Sussmann is on trial for lying to the FBI when he denied being there as their attorney, and they want to keep their communications with him secret largely because of him...being their attorney? With an argument like that, Sussmann ought to just plead guilty and be done with it.

And now, as legal analyst Margot Cleveland explains, there’s even more of a problem with that claim of privilege. After the flurry of motions back and forth on this question was made public, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation wrote a three-page letter to Special Counsel John Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor, alerting them to key facts concerning the FEC fine levied against Hillary For America and the DNC for hiding the purpose of the over-$1 million they paid for the Steele “dossier.” The CRF should know –- they’re the group that filed the original complaint.

Getting to the meat of it, the letter says that Hillary For America and the DNC are “asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine” when they also have an agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations “had falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.”

In other words, Hillary wants to have it both ways. When she needs to say Fusion GPS is providing legal services, she says it is. When she needs to say it isn’t, she says it isn’t.

“The government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the letter concludes.

This situation is complicated by the fact that Durham has subpoenaed both the Clinton campaign and the DNC to have representatives testify at Sussmann’s trial. Of course, Sussmann’s attorneys are trying to stop that.

The irony, Cleveland says, “is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FEC’s conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.”

The head of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation told The Federalist that this is a case of the Democrats wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. For decades, Hillary’s been accustomed to arrangements like that, but this is one time when it looks as though the cake might crumble.

Bonchie at RedState commented on Cleveland’s analysis, and it makes enjoyable reading. He sees this is a trap set by Durham, to get Hillary's people under oath and make them reveal the contradiction. He’s painted them into a corner, and it's so delightful. “Either they are lying to the FEC in their prior agreement, or they are lying in the Sussmann case,” he says.

Have you wondered what Elon Musk might have to say about social media’s censorship of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story just ahead of the 2020 election? You know, the story that polls show might have swung the election to Donald Trump if voters had known about it?

Wonder no more.

On Tuesday, Musk tweeted what I’d still call a bit of an understatement, but on target: “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate.”

Twitter’s excuse to the FEC had been that U.S. intel officials had shared “rumors” that this story came from hacked material. I think we all should know by now that it’s a bad idea to automatically believe U.S. intel officials about anything. And there was never any evidence that information in the NY Post’s reporting came from a hack. That apparently didn’t matter at the time to the twits at Twitter.

Last year, though, then-CEO Jack Dorsey –- who has just come out in favor of Musk’s anti-censorship strategy –- told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that censoring the story through their “quick interpretation” had been a “mistake.” And maybe he does regret this, now that the damage has been done. Still, it’s inexcusable that social media prevented people from sharing that story, even privately. How dare they do that.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland was questioned before the Senate Committee on Appropriations about the federal investigation into Hunter’s finances. He said “there will not be interference” but declined to say whether or not he had been briefed on the investigation. He gave the standard answer that he wouldn’t be commenting on an ongoing investigation. Here’s the link to The Epoch Times’ “premium” story, but I’ll comment below.

Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagarty asked Garland how the public could be confident that there would be no interference “of any political or improper kind” in the investigation. The attorney general answered, “Because we put a Trump appointee in charge of the investigation. And because you have me as attorney general, who’s committed to the independence of the DOJ from any influence from the White House.”

I suppose time will tell on that last part. (However, we know this wasn't the case concerning parents who were targeted by the DOJ as "domestic terrorists.") It’s true that U.S. Attorney David Weiss was appointed by Trump -- even if he's still there only because he was already in charge of the investigation when Biden took office and Biden couldn't ask for his resignation, as is customary for U.S. attorneys when a new President comes in. If the U.S. attorney tasked with examining the younger Biden’s financial wrongdoings had been appointed by the elder Biden, one hopes THAT, at least, would be an unassailable reason for appointing a special counsel.

But that's not the case, and when Sen. Hagarty asked Garland about whether or not he might appoint a special counsel, Garland was noncommittal, saying, “It depends on the circumstances.” At another point in the questioning, in an answer to Indiana Senator Mike Braun, Garland said, “The question is an internal DOJ matter. I don’t want to make judgments, but I’m comfortable with the Attorney from Delaware continuing.”

“I think our internal deliberations have to stay within the Department,” he said. And that’s really all the information the committee got out of Garland.

Meanwhile, the U.K. Daily Mail has done some blockbuster reporting on Hunter Biden’s finances. Their analysis of the President’s financial records show that he has $5.2 million in income that is “unexplained.” According to their report, the missing millions, combined with messages on Hunter’s laptop, suggest that Joe Biden would indeed have had a 10 percent share in Hunter’s deal with a Chinese energy company.

In fact, emails reveal that Joe –- who was then between gigs as Vice President and President –- agreed to pay Hunter’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills “in the short term.” This was to be “as Hunter transitions in his career.” The list of items to be covered included $28,382 in legal fees for the “restructuring” of Hunter’s joint venture with the CCP-controlled Bank of China. The total amount spent on “restructuring” this deal was apparently $68,933.41, beginning in September 2016.

Would Joe Biden have agreed to pay these legal bills for Hunter without even knowing what they were for? How does that square with his repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s foreign business dealings?

As the Daily Mail points out, no conclusive evidence has yet emerged that Joe Biden profited from any of Hunter’s business deals. The federal investigation in Delaware is sorting all that out. But what they’ve seen raises “troubling questions” about where an “unexplained” $5,180,071 came from. The rest of "dad's" income appears to have some from speaking fees and a book deal for his memoir, PROMISE ME, DAD.

A report by Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson shows that $5 million in wire transfers from Hunter’s Chinese partners was sent to a company controlled by Hunter. An additional $1 million was sent by Patrick Ho, an executive with Chinese energy company CEFC, as a retainer for Hunter to represent him in a DOJ bribery case. As The Epoch Times reports, there’s an audio recording in which Hunter refers to Ho as “the f***ing spy chief of China.”

Here’s what The Right Scoop had to say…

Tying all of this together is a great opinion piece from Jordan Boyd at The Federalist, condemning the media for helping Joe Biden maintain his now-obvious lie about not knowing anything about Hunter’s overseas business deals.

Finally, the propagandist “encyclopedia” Wikipedia has deleted the entire entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, Hunter Biden’s investment firm. As George Orwell would say, it was dropped right down the memory hole. Fortunately, some people who care about the truth still have long memories. (It’s hard to forget that Hunter’s business partner Eric Schwerin visited the White House 19 times, and later, as we’ve just learned, at least 8 additional times.) In the words of NY Post reporter Miranda Devine, the author of LAPTOP FROM HELL who broke the story right before the 2020 election but was shut down by the leftwing media, “This is unsustainable for the White House.”