I note below that the Hunter filing ends with a minor mystery. After listing off multiple instances in which Hunter used campaign funds to pay for his affairs, the filing concludes by noting other non-work or campaign related activities paid for with campaign funds which are so prejudicial that prosecutors fear disclosing it might taint the jury pool. Since they’ve just listed off numerous extramarital affairs Hunter expensed to his campaign, these other activities must be pretty prejudicial!
So what are they?
Let’s start again with the passage in question.
The key here is clearly tainting the jury pool. What could it be? “Clearly non-work related activity during get-togethers with his close personal friends.”
One possibility is that is that it is somehow sexual in nature – not illegal but shocking enough to people’s sensibilities to make it hard to seat a jury that can fairly judge the charges. But one reader on Twitter notes that the first clause seems to distinguish it from the other instances: “In addition to pursuing intimate personal relationships.”
I’m not sure this is really that restrictive. The emphasis seems to be on relationships – paying for expenses tied to the sexual relationships he was pursuing with various women over time. The mystery activity could certainly be something sexual in nature not tied to a relationship or even directly involving Hunter. Still, that’s one possible reading.
The other thing that comes to mind with “get-togthers with his close personal friends” is drugs. But there’s a pretty big problem with that theory: illegal drugs are illegal. Maybe federal prosecutors wouldn’t indict if they found out Hunter took a hit of a joint at a party. But if we were talking about purchasing or somehow facilitating drug use with federal campaign funds it’s hard for me to believe they wouldn’t have charged him with a crime or made a criminal referral.
So what could this possibly be?
- Contributions allow us to hire more journalists
- Contributions allow us to provide free memberships to those who cannot afford them
- Contributions support independent, non-corporate journalism