Hunter Biden sues IRS, claims whistleblowers aimed to shame him with tax returns.

You Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Can You⁢ Protect Yourself from Embarrassment?

The Miranda warning includes ⁤the phrase “You ⁣have a right​ to⁢ remain silent” to ⁤safeguard suspected criminals‌ from ⁤self-incrimination before obtaining legal counsel.

However, exercising ⁣this right may also shield individuals from potential embarrassment.

But what about the “right not to be⁢ embarrassed”? Well, it seems that can lead to a lawsuit. Hunter Biden, the infamous figure whose scandalous life ⁢has been plastered all over the media, has filed a lawsuit claiming that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents targeted and sought to embarrass ‍him by discussing his‍ tax returns.

The lawsuit argues that the actions ⁢of IRS ‌agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, ⁤along with their attorneys, violated‌ the Internal Revenue Code and ‍engaged in a public smear‌ campaign against ​Biden.

Now, I’m⁢ no legal ⁢expert, but it’s hard⁣ to imagine this lawsuit succeeding. How can someone be embarrassed by ⁤their tax‌ returns when they have already managed to embarrass themselves so thoroughly and permanently? It’s ‌like blaming a mirror for reflecting an image.

The ⁣lawsuit asserts that Biden, like any other American citizen, has rights that should not be violated by ⁣government agencies or agents. However, if we consider embarrassment as a violation of rights, Hunter Biden has already done a pretty good job of violating his own rights. From driving at 172 mph in a Porsche to smoking crack with alleged prostitutes, ‍his actions speak⁢ for themselves.

But let’s⁢ not forget the ⁢countless‌ other embarrassing incidents, such as crashing a rental car while on a bender or⁢ the‌ thousands of compromising images posted online ⁢by a former Trump aide. It’s hard to see how a couple of IRS whistleblowers could⁢ embarrass him more‍ than he has ‍already embarrassed⁣ himself.

The lawsuit claims that Shapley and Ziegler unlawfully revealed Biden’s tax return information, violating the Privacy Act⁣ and failing to keep the information confidential. The lawsuit seeks‌ compensation for⁣ each disclosure made‍ during public ⁣appearances and statements.

However, it’s worth noting that Shapley and Ziegler had already testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and the information was already public knowledge. Hunter Biden should ‌have been ⁤embarrassed ‌long before if he wasn’t already.

And if that’s not enough, Hunter himself admitted to ⁣ignoring pleas from his accountant​ and others to file tax returns and pay his owed taxes. He even made an appearance at a White House state dinner ‌while ⁤facing tax charges. It seems that embarrassment is not something he’s capable of⁢ feeling.

In the end, this lawsuit against the IRS ‍appears to be frivolous at best.‌ Perhaps ⁢Biden’s lawyers ⁣should remind him of his right to remain silent. Even ⁤a fool, when ⁣faced with such deep embarrassment, would know ‍when to shut up.

Hunter Biden’s hubris knows no​ bounds. Shame on him.

The post “Hunter Biden Sues IRS, Cries That Whistleblowers ‘Sought to Embarrass’ Him Using ⁣Tax Returns” appeared ⁣first on The Western Journal.

In the case ​of ‌public ​figures⁣ like⁢ Hunter Biden, should they expect the same level of privacy as ordinary citizens when it comes to sensitive information such ⁢as tax returns?

En’s privacy rights ​were violated ​and that​ the agents​ intentionally sought to embarrass him by discussing his tax returns. But is embarrassment a valid‌ legal claim? And should individuals have ⁢a right not to be embarrassed?

While everyone has the right to privacy,⁣ the​ concept of ​the right not to‍ be ​embarrassed is⁢ somewhat subjective. Embarrassment is a deeply personal emotion that varies from person to person. What ​may be⁤ embarrassing to one individual may ‌not be to another. It is difficult to define a universal standard for what constitutes embarrassment.

In the case ⁤of Hunter‍ Biden, his lawsuit raises questions about privacy, particularly ⁣when it comes to tax returns. The public release of tax returns ⁢can be embarrassing for anyone,⁤ especially if⁣ they ‍contain sensitive information or reflect poorly on one’s⁣ financial situation. But this raises another⁢ important question: ‍should public figures,⁢ like Hunter ‍Biden, expect the same level of privacy as an ordinary ​citizen?

Public figures have long been subject to scrutiny and ​public scrutiny is ⁣inherent in their positions. This does not mean they should be exempt from legitimate privacy protections, but⁢ it⁢ does highlight the challenges they ⁢face when balancing their‌ right ⁣to privacy with the public’s right to know.

It is‌ also worth noting that embarrassment, in and of itself, is not typically a valid legal ⁤claim. To ⁤succeed in a lawsuit, one ⁣typically⁤ needs to ‌prove⁤ specific violations of the law or harm done.​ Embarrassment, while distressing, is ‍often ‍seen ⁣as a personal emotion⁣ rather than a legal harm.

In ⁣the context ‌of criminal investigations, individuals are given the right to remain​ silent in​ order to protect themselves ⁣from self-incrimination. This right ensures that individuals can⁣ consult with legal counsel⁤ before making any‌ statements that may implicate them in a crime. However, this right does not necessarily protect ⁣individuals from embarrassment. It exists primarily to protect individuals from incriminating themselves⁢ and potentially facing​ legal consequences.

While it‌ is understandable that individuals may want to protect themselves​ from embarrassment, it is not clear whether this⁣ protection should be granted as a legal right. The concept of a ‌right not to be⁤ embarrassed is complicated ‍and subjective. Protecting individuals from embarrassment could potentially limit ⁣freedom of speech or ⁢hinder‌ legitimate investigative processes.

In conclusion, while individuals may‌ have the ⁣right to remain silent to protect themselves from self-incrimination, protecting oneself from embarrassment is not necessarily a legal right. ‌The balance between privacy rights and the public’s right to know is a complex and ongoing debate. It is‌ important ‍to consider the context and⁢ the potential consequences of granting such a ‌right before making any definitive judgments.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases