Author: openjargon

• My ex-husband and I had been together for 27 years when we decided to divorce.
• We remain close, and some people understand our friendly split — but others don't.
• Just because we remain close friends in our divorce doesn't mean we should have stayed married.

The saying is ubiquitous on wedding invitations, picture frames, and heart-shaped lockets: "Today, I marry my best friend." And I did marry mine, a wonderful man who became a close friend before anything else.

Back then, I believed that best friends made the most compatible partners, and maybe that's true for some couples. But ultimately, I also chose to end my marriage because ultimately, that just wasn't enough for me.

Our marriage was rooted in friendship — and that's still solid today

Five years ago, after 27 years together and almost 20 years of marriage, I told my husband I wanted a divorce. We rarely argued, and we always enjoyed each other's company. But as the years stretched on and we raised our two kids, it became increasingly clear to me that our marriage weighed too heavily on friendship and not enough on other kinds of connection.

I was no longer the same person I had been when we met when I was 18. I couldn't see myself coasting along and settling for the rest of our lives. I wanted to release us both back into the wild for the chance to find something more. That may sound selfish to some, but my intention was absolutely the opposite.

We went through the divorce process during the early days of the pandemic, and we were locked down together — luckily, we did get along so well. Five years later, we remain dedicated co-parents and great friends. He's been part of my life for three decades, and I couldn't imagine cutting him out of it because our marriage ended. I give him cooking tips, and he helps me repair things. We send each other funny memes and attend our son's sporting events together, and we even stay for dinner at each other's places sometimes during our weekly drop-offs with our kids, aged 20 and 17.

If you met us, you probably wouldn't even guess we were divorced. It's so ironic that the very factor for me wanting to end our marriage is the glue that holds our current relationship together. But as normal as it seems to us, some people just can't grasp the concept of a friendly divorce.

Amicably divorced spouses are more common than you think

These days, situations like ours are way more the norm than they used to be. I know a divorced couple who are not only best friends, but who plan on living in the same house until their kids graduate from college. During a recent girls' trip, my best friend's friendly ex-husband texted her a picture of his new baby.

Arrangements like these prove that divorce doesn't need to be vicious or ugly. Marriages end for all sorts of reasons. Some just have a limited shelf life; they serve their purpose until they no longer do. And yes, I know there are those who would argue that you need to press on and make it work, or live in limbo if you can't. But if you're certain it's not what you want, I don't think that scenario is healthy for you, your spouse, or your kids.

Soon after they heard about our split, my best friend from high school and her husband, who my ex and I have both known for more than three decades, told me they planned on remaining friends with both of us. I obviously supported that, and to this day, we all hang out around the holidays. Ditto for another close friend who I've known since birth, who hangs out with both my ex and me when she visits from Philly. After all, friends weren't part of the settlement. We didn't have to divvy them up like we did the furniture.

Some people are left scratching their heads at our relationship

But not everyone gets it. When I told others in my various circles about our split, I felt like I immediately needed to follow it with the disclaimer "…but we're still good friends" to stave off the quizzical stares and inevitable "I'm sorry"s. I told them there was no need to be sorry, that this was the outcome I wanted. It was almost as if it would have been easier if I'd come to them wringing my hands because we hadn't been getting along — people know how to sympathize with conflict.

Some didn't know what to say, so they stayed silent. Most of the members of an organization for which I've volunteered for more than 25 years never reached out after I sent a very personal email. Others seemed to be incredulous that ex-spouses could actually be this friendly with one another. Maybe they thought I was overselling cordiality, I don't know.

The unspoken question seemed to be, "If they're still that close, then why aren't they still married?" According to my therapist, some people can act a little standoffish toward their newly single friends because they're worried that divorce can "rub off" on them. If our marriage ended because of what it wasn't, yet we still have a close relationship, they might start to wonder if the same could happen to them.

Not surprisingly, the invites for couples' events quickly dried up. I get that, to some degree. If I put myself in their place, I probably would have felt some awkwardness, or maybe thought that I needed to "choose sides." But it doesn't have to be like that.

However, true friends understand our new reality

My ex and I have both found love again, and we're obviously supportive of our respective relationships. But that doesn't mean I view our marriage as a failure, just one that ran its course. We took a vow "to love and to cherish," and we still are, in a different way.

I run my life on the idea that "you only get one life, and it's short," which was the catalyst for my divorce. Despite everything, I still believe our marriage was meant to be, not just meant to be forever. The friends who get that, get it.

• I buy almost all my kids' clothing secondhand. 
• Buying and selling takes time and energy, but saving a significant amount of money is worth it.
• Here are my tips for having success on the kids' resale market.

Kids grow like weeds, and there's a short window of time for them to wear each clothing size.

I'm picky about what my girls wear, but I would not be able to afford the brands and styles that I wanted to dress them in if I bought their clothes brand new. I also don't feel great about buying brand-new when I know they'll wear each item for such a short amount of time.

Instead, I scour the internet and local consignment sales to find clothes secondhand and then resell them after they're done wearing them. It saves me money and is a more sustainable option as well.

Here are four tips for kids' consignment success.

I buy online and at consignment sales

Kidizen is the kids' equivalent of the popular consignment site Poshmark. I use it for buying as it's easy to filter by brand, size, and item quality, and shipping is fairly inexpensive.

There are also great local consignment sales where I live in Raleigh, North Carolina, many of which happen twice a year (in early fall and early spring). They're great for buying many items at once and for building out my kids' closet for the upcoming season. These sales are typically only a few days long, and on the last day, items are usually reduced even further for mega deals.

Chances are there are similar sales or consignment stores specifically for kids in your area. If you're not familiar with any, ask your local parenting group or do a quick Google search to find them.

Facebook is also a great place to buy kids' clothes. To make it easier to find what you want, look for specific Buy/Sell/Trade (BST) groups for brands you love, like the popular Mini Boden & Hanna Andersson BST group (which has over 60,000 members!). You can also search the Facebook Marketplace by category or brand.

Here's how I sell secondhand clothing to make the most money

As a seller, you'll make different profit margins based on where you sell your clothes.

Kidizen takes 12% (plus an additional flat $.50 fee) of each sale, so I typically start by listing things on Facebook Marketplace or specialty BST groups because there are no fees when you make a sale. You'll also have to ship your item if you use Kidizen, but you can choose whether you pay the shipping fee or pass the fee along to the buyer. If you're using Facebook, you have the option of local buyers only or whether you want to ship.

If an item isn't selling on Facebook after a couple of weeks, I'll list it on Kidizen to reach a wider audience. Then, my last resort is selling through the local seasonal consignment sales because they can take up to 50% of the profit for each sale. They're a great way to sell a lot of things quickly, though, so I'll take whatever hasn't sold through other methods to these and then donate whatever is leftover at the end of the sale.

Certain brands have a higher resale value

The kid resale market is similar to the adult resale market. Higher-end brands have a better chance at reselling, and you're going to get more of your purchase price back when you resell them. Keep this in mind when you're buying (new or secondhand), as the ability to resell effectively brings your purchase price down since you're making back some of what you spent.

Mass-market brands like Old Navy and Carters are tougher to resell, and you'll likely only be able to recoup a small percentage of what you originally paid. Higher-end brands like Hanna Andersson, Mini Boden, and The Beaufort Bonnet Company have high resale values and often pass through several rounds of ownership.

When I buy an item from one of these brands secondhand, I can usually resell it for 70-80% of what I paid. Knowing this, it makes more sense to pay a bit extra for the higher-end brands.

It takes work and patience to buy and sell secondhand kids' clothing

Buying and selling kids' clothes is a marathon, not a sprint. Over time, I've made and saved hundreds of dollars selling my girls' clothes. It feels good to contribute to the circular economy by giving gently used clothes a new life, but it does take a lot of work.

Creating a listing to sell an item takes work. You'll need to take multiple pictures and write a description, and you might need to list the item in multiple places to make a sale. Keeping yourself organized is also important. You need space in your house to keep mailers and packing supplies to ship things and space to store the clothes you want to sell.

If you aren't making many sales, you may need to reconsider what brands you're listing, how you're pricing, or the quality of your photos. Have patience, but know that your time also has a cost, and over time, if you aren't selling, it may not be worth it.

On the buying side, you may not find things you love every time you try to shop. There is no way to tell what inventory might be available in the size and condition that you are looking for. Browse Kidizen and your favorite BST Facebook groups for a few minutes whenever you have time. If you find something you love, act quickly, as once the item is gone, there is no backup.

Kids' clothing is expensive, and they don't wear anything for long. It takes time and effort, but buying secondhand and reselling is a way to drastically reduce your spending.

• John Oliver bought the contents of a defunct Red Lobster at auction, beating out a local bakery.
• Oliver offered to buy the bakery new equipment if it created cakes in his likeness.
• The 'cake bears' are selling out rapidly, with all proceeds going to a local food pantry.

A small, family-owned bakery in the Hudson Valley is getting thousands of dollars worth of new kitchen equipment following a good-humored feud with John Oliver.

On Sunday's episode of HBO's "Last Week Tonight," Oliver recounted how the viral back-and-forth stemmed from a stunt on his show where he purchased all of the kitchen equipment from a shuttered Red Lobster in Kingston, NY, at auction.

Oliver recreated his own Red Lobster to exclusively manufacture the chain's hallowed cheddar biscuits.

But according to local outlet News 12, Oliver had beaten out another suitor.

Eric Deising, owner of 59-year-old Deising's Bakery in Kingston, had left a sign on the defunct Red Lobster inquiring about a flat-top oven and convection oven, News 12 reported.

"John — he's just beating me all over the place," Deising told the outlet of missing out on the equipment.

'Check out the donk on that cake bear'

Oliver responded to the report on his show Sunday. "Last Week" had already donated all of the Red Lobster equipment, he said, and they hadn't even purchased either item Deising requested to begin with.

But Oliver offered a challenge. If the bakery would make and sell bear-shaped cakes with Oliver's face on them, he said he'd gift Deising's new ovens.

"Respectfully, check out the donk on that cake bear," Oliver said of the confection, which Deising's had previously offered. "That cake's got cakes."

Deising's rose to the occasion — with an altruistic bent.

On Monday, the bakery began selling "cake bears" with Oliver's face affixed with edible paper, News 12 reports.

Peter Deising, another owner at the bakery, told Business Insider the items have been a smash hit, with approximately 100 selling every hour. They're priced at $8 apiece.

Deising's plans to donate 100% of the proceeds from the cake bears to People's Place, a local food pantry, Deising said.

The cake bears are only available through Sunday in-store, despite requests to ship from across the globe, he added.

Deising told BI the kitchen equipment — which he estimates is worth thousands of dollars — is set to be delivered on Thursday.

A rep for "Last Week Tonight" did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Small drones packed with explosives have proven to be a major threat to armored vehicles in Ukraine.
• Both sides of the conflict have built cages around their tanks to give them added protection.
• One Ukrainian operation is making protective screens for Kyiv's arsenal of US-made M1 Abrams tanks.

American-made M1 Abrams tanks were built to fight the Russians, but on the battlefield in Ukraine, they are fighting an unfamiliar kind of war as they go up against Moscow's arsenal of deadly exploding drones — something the Soviets never had and something the Abrams hasn't seen in its other wars.

There are concerns the heavy armor on an Abrams may not be enough on its own to protect its crew from this dangerous and evolving threat. However, one Ukrainian company is building steel screens that can offer the tanks an extra layer of protection.

"I think the future of war is the war of drones," Oleksandr Myronenko, the operational director of the Metinvest Group, told Business Insider in a recent interview, so it's very important to protect armored vehicles against the rise of unmanned systems.

Metinvest is a steel and mining conglomerate that's headquartered in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia. For more than a year and a half, the company has been making protective steel screens for Kyiv's aging T-64 and T-72 tanks.

Just a few weeks ago, this operation expanded to the Abrams tanks, US-made armor designed and developed during the Cold War to fight the Soviet tank threat.

Thirty-one US-provided M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks arrived in Ukraine last fall. By late-April, though, Kyiv had already lost five in combat, at least some to drones.

At the start of the conflict in Ukraine, as in past wars, tanks and other armored vehicles primarily had to worry about enemy threats like anti-tank missiles, artillery shells, and mines. But now, on both sides of the war, these vehicles also face small, cheap hobby-style drones packed with explosives that a remote operator can easily fly right into a target and detonate.

These things are ubiquitous in Ukraine, and the right hit could permanently damage or destroy a tank — and even kill its crew, trained personnel not easily replaced.

Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have sought to protect their vehicles by outfitting them with net-like cages as a last-ditch defense against inbound munitions, especially first-person view (FPV) drones that have taken the battlefield by storm.

This improvised armor, sometimes described as a "cope cage," vary in appearance and effectiveness. Some look jury-rigged and crudely built, while others are more hardened and structured. Their presence does not render a tank invincible, far from it actually, but they clearly add some extra protection that might keep the crew alive.

The increasing employment of cage armor underscores the significant role that drones have played in Ukraine and presents new considerations for modern militaries as they look into better ways to protect their forces from unmanned systems in future conflicts. There are lessons for the US and others.

Metinvest began making its protective steel screens for Ukrainian tanks as Russia began using different types of drones on the battlefield, leaving tanks needing added protection against these threats, Myronenko said.

When the Abrams eventually arrived, it ran into the same problem as the Soviet tanks, and the military asked Metinvest for help.

The Abrams tanks are notably larger than Ukraine's Soviet systems, so it can take up to a week to build a protective screen for the American armor and 12 hours to install. Each of the screens weighs hundreds of pounds and can cost up to $20,000 to make.

Though that figure is significantly more expensive than an FPV drone carrying a bomb, which might only be worth a fraction of that, it is much cheaper than losing a tank like the Abrams, which costs upwards of $10 million. That said, Metinvest says the screens are given to the military for free, and so far, the company has produced 25 screens total — seven of which have been for the Abrams.

Before the screens are permanently fitted on the tanks, a prototype is made, at an undisclosed location in Ukraine, and tested on the armor to ensure a good fit. Then, it either goes right into production, or improvements are made. In that case, it's sent back to the military for additional testing.

On the Abrams, the protective screen wraps around the top and sides of the turret, allowing it to move freely. Some of the other cages spotted during the war are more restrictive — like Russia's infamous "Turtle Tank" — and don't allow for such mobility.

"It helps save [the] tank from huge damages" and greatly increases the survivability of the crew, Myronenko said of the armor.

Ukraine's Soviet tanks have already seen their screens tested in battle. Sometimes they may take some damage but can still continue in combat, but other times, the damage is greater, forcing them to pull back. The jury is still out for the Abrams tanks, as they were only recently given the added protection. Myronenko said that his company is patiently waiting to see how they perform.

The screens are mainly designed to protect against drones, he said. If an unmanned system hits the screen, it will not necessarily damage the tank. However, artillery shells and larger-caliber weapons are way more threatening and may tear through this shielding.

The Abrams isn't the only American armored asset that Metinvest will work with. This month, this operation will begin making protective screens for the US-provided Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which has proven to be a workhorse for Ukrainian front-line forces.

Whether these add-on protective screens extend to other armored combat vehicles remains to be seen, but the ever-present threat of exploding drones is growing.

"Anti-drone steel screens help not only to protect expensive equipment from damage by the enemy, but also protect the lives of Ukrainian servicemen," Myronenko said in a late-May statement.

Once a practical way to transcribe, calligraphy has evolved into a fine art. As the practice we recognize today spread across East Asia, countries like China, Japan, and Korea developed their own methods of creating high-quality calligraphy tools. Top-of-the-line brushes can cost $1,000, and quality ink sticks can reach multiple thousands of dollars. Add in inkstones and paper, and the investment can set you back $8,000. And while dedicated master craftsmen worry about the future of traditional calligraphy tools, younger calligraphers swear by the quality of these handmade items. So why are calligraphers willing to spend so much just to write?

• Business Insider is compiling its fifth annual list of VCs funding startups in the creator economy.
• We want to hear from you about who the standout VCs are in 2024.
• Please submit your ideas through this form (or below) by June 18.

The creator economy is a relatively new investment category built around the rise of social media and the empowerment of individuals as content makers.

Like traditional media companies, creator startups often rely on Big Tech platforms like Google and Facebook to make money — a volatile position to hold. Throughout the past year, some startups have lost their way, cut costs, or shut down in full. Meanwhile, other startups are still raising capital and growing.

Creator upstarts often operate with fewer costs than older media brands, allowing them to test new business models with limited financial risk. New York media studio Fallen Media, for example, built a business around producing MTV-style shows for the TikTok consumer audience. It keeps production costs low, allowing it to test different shows quickly and determine if they'll perform without over-investing.

Creator startups that rely too heavily on influencers as the root of their business can struggle. But companies in this category that use creators to make money in a different industry, like e-commerce or consumer products, are often better positioned to succeed. A new wave of upstarts is building apps that focus on community-building rather than the influencer phenomenon, for example.

"I think of the creator phenomenon as a very kind of broad throughline across a lot of different verticals and sectors," Rex Woodbury, founder and managing partner at the VC firm Daybreak, told Business Insider in January. "The venture-scale generational companies are, yes, creator companies, but they're also typically fitting into another bucket."

BI is compiling our fifth annual list of venture-capital firms funding the creator economy. We want to hear from you on which VC firms are backing the companies that will shape the creator industry's growth in the coming months.

Please submit your ideas through this form (or below) by June 18:

• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he raised his grandnephew, Mark Martin, "as a son" from the time Martin was 6.
• Revelations that billionaire Republican Harlan Crowe paid for Martin's education have fueled a scandal engulfing the Court.
• Martin now faces decades in prison and says Thomas has refused to speak with him for years.

The man who was raised by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, as their own son from ages 6 to 19 is in jail awaiting trial on drugs and weapons charges, Business Insider has learned.

Mark Martin, the grandson of Thomas' sister, Emma Mae Martin, lived with the Thomas family in Virginia from 1997 to 2010, during which time Clarence and Ginni Thomas were his legal guardians. He's a central figure in the furor over undisclosed gifts that Thomas received from a billionaire friend, Harlan Crow.

Now 32 years old, Martin told BI in an interview from the Jasper County Detention Center in South Carolina that Clarence and Ginni Thomas washed their hands of him years ago.

"I haven't really heard much from them in a long time," Martin said. "I tried to communicate with them a couple of times, but I've never gotten any response."

In a 2007 C-SPAN interview, Thomas told the host Brian Lamb that Martin, who was 16 at the time, was living with him and his wife and that they were "raising him as a son."

"For me, in so many ways, it's rewarding because it's brought me, again, full circle," Thomas told Lamb. "I was about the age my grandfather was when he took my brother and me. And Mark was about the age my brother and I were when he took us in."

The Thomases sent Martin to the elite military prep school Randolph-Macon Academy, as well as a residential therapeutic treatment center called Hidden Lake Academy, which frequently used camping trips and wilderness programs as therapeutic tools.

(Hidden Lake Academy became the subject of congressional hearings about facilities for troubled teens over claims they could mislead families and turn abusive.)

Crow, a conservative donor and longtime family friend of the Thomases, paid the tuition for both schools, ProPublica reported. None of the payments were recorded at the time as gifts on Thomas' financial disclosures. Crow is an alumnus of Randolph-Macon. This month, in financial disclosures, Thomas acknowledged two vacations Crow had funded in 2019, one to Bali and another to California.

"I guess they looked into Randolph-Macon Academy because Harlan Crow actually graduated from there, so I guess that was behind their decision to send me there — and then apparently he helped finance the HLA trip, too," Martin told BI, though he said he wasn't aware at the time that Crow had footed the bills.

While the total amount of tuition Crow paid on Martin's behalf remains unclear, fees for all four years at both schools would have exceeded $150,000, ProPublica reported.

When neither placement prevented Martin from acting out with minor drug use and other petty crimes, the Thomases cut him off, Martin told BI.

Last summer, according to court records reviewed by BI, Martin was arrested on charges of drug trafficking and weapons possession. A warrant reviewed by BI indicates that at the time of his arrest in June 2023, Martin's vehicle was stopped as part of a juvenile-sex-trafficking investigation. He has not been charged with any crimes related to sex trafficking.

In separate charges from 2021, Martin was accused of trafficking more than 400 grams of meth and heroin. Those charges are still pending, according to records reviewed by BI.

If convicted, Martin faces at least 25 years in prison as part of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws in South Carolina for certain types of drug offenses. He faces at least five additional years for three charges related to the unlawful carrying of a pistol.

Due to the nature of the charges against him, which are considered violent crimes in South Carolina, Martin is ineligible for bond, his lawyer told BI. Martin denies the charges against him but has not entered a plea in either case because of a court backlog that has delayed proceedings.

Thomas and Crow did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story.

While his own father was incarcerated, Martin remembers much of his childhood as the Thomases' ward as relatively privileged. Together, Martin said they traveled to more than 20 countries; he frequently spent summers wakeboarding or waterskiing and babysitting Crow's son when the elite families vacationed together.

That all stopped when Martin entered high school, he said, when the Thomases decided they "just didn't have time to deal with" him and sent him away to the boarding schools. From his freshman year of high school on, Martin said he rarely saw his Supreme Court-justice great–uncle or his wife, who Martin said had raised him "like another mother and father" since childhood.

Clarence Thomas was 7 when his mother sent him to be raised by his grandfather in 1955. Thomas lived with his grandfather Myers Anderson, whom Thomas called Daddy, until Anderson kicked him out of the house when Thomas dropped out of his freshman year at Conception Seminary College in 1968.

Comparing their experiences, Thomas told C-SPAN Martin was "more of a challenge than I was."

"But I think the thing that I'll be able to do is, I'll be able to always look my grandfather in the eye and say that I did for my great-nephew what my grandparents did for us — my brother and me," Thomas said.

Martin says he was eventually expelled from Randolph-Macon Academy for failing a drug test as a junior in high school. At that point, Martin told BI Clarence and Ginni Thomas shipped him back to Martin's mother's house in Georgia, where they'd taken him from a decade prior, and he'd rarely heard from them since.

"I actually don't know if they know that I'm locked up — I'm not sure they'd care too much," Martin told BI. "I've seen — I've probably seen them two times, maybe three times, over the last 14 years."

Representatives for Randolph-Macon Academy declined to comment for this story, and BI could not independently confirm Martin's claims regarding the reasoning for his expulsion.

Martin, now a father of four children himself, said he believed the Thomases were probably disappointed in the direction of his life. He understands why they would be. However, between his father's imprisonment and being taken in by a justice of the Supreme Court at a young age, Martin said he had to "grow up a lot faster" than a normal kid would have — and wished his great-aunt and -uncle saw that he could have used their continued support while he was struggling.

"I just wish they'd at least communicate with me — get to know my children," Martin said. "They raised me like another mother and father, so I wanted my children to know who raised me into the person that I became. I want them to be around for that, at least — to see my kids grow up."

• Hunter Biden has been convicted on three felony gun charges.
• Republicans seem divided on what to make of it.
• Some of them are celebrating it, while others say it's a ruse. Some even seem to be defending him.

Hunter Biden was convicted on Tuesday of three federal charges related to him purchasing a gun while using illegal drugs.

It's the first time that the child of a sitting US president has been convicted of a crime. And it comes less than two weeks after former President Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in New York.

One might expect Republicans to be unanimously cheering the decision — to the extent that it will affect the presidential election at all, it's likely to hurt President Joe Biden more than it helps.

Yet that's not how all Republicans are reacting.

That's because much of the party has argued in recent years that the Biden administration has targeted former President Donald Trump, and the conviction of the president's son complicates that idea.

"This trial has been nothing more than a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden Crime Family," said Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt following the verdict.

Also, some Republicans happen to like guns.

Here are the four different ways the GOP is responding to the conviction.

It's not enough

While Republicans who go with this line aren't criticizing the conviction, they argue that there's much more out there.

Congressional Republicans have long been investigating the Biden family, aiming to eventually impeach the president on charges of influencing-peddling related to his son's business dealings — though it appears increasingly unlikely.

Some Republicans are also pointing out that Hunter Biden initially had a plea deal with the federal government, only for it to fall apart.

It's a sham or a smoke screen

More than a few Republicans are arguing that the conviction is some sort of smoke screen or ruse — either to cover up for more grave crimes supposedly committed by the Biden family, or to create the appearance of impartial justice.

"Hunter Biden just became the Deep State's sacrificial lamb to show that Justice is 'balanced' while the other Biden crimes remain ignored," wrote Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

Similarly, Stephen Miller — a top Trump advisor on immigration-related matters — argued that the conviction constituted an "easy op for DJ to sell to a pliant media."

"This is all about protecting Joe Biden and only Joe Biden," Miller wrote.

It's justice served

Some Republicans, believe it or not, are indeed satisfied with the result.

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said that Hunter Biden's actions had given "law-abiding, Second Amendment-loving gun owners a bad name," while praising the conviction as the right decision.

Rep. Josh Brecheen, a freshman House Freedom Caucus member from Oklahoma, also celebrated the verdict.

Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan — a GOP Senate candidate who got in trouble with Trumpworld for urging people to respect the verdict in Trump's case — simply said "we must respect the legal process."

It's a travesty

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, an idiosyncratic libertarian, isn't a fan of the gun charges.

"There are millions of marijuana users who own guns in this country, and none of them should be in jail for purchasing or possessing a firearm against current laws," said Massie.

And top Trump ally Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida — without elaborating — said that the conviction is "kinda dumb."