But help me out here, since I honestly haven't cared enough to keep up with the story. According to the tweet in the OP, Crow bought the properties, but we don't know if he didn't pay fair market value. According to your article excerpts, Thomas' mother continues to live in the house, but we don't know if she's paying rent or not, let alone that she's paying below fair market value rent. Crow has made improvements to the house, but he continues to own it so as to benefit from the increased equity when it one day sells.

So even if we try to take the not known from here most insidious assumptions that Crow somehow bought the place for below market value, and Thomas' mom is paying below market rent, wouldn't it be Crow that's mostly benefitting here by getting a bigger gain on the house eventually, and paying less taxes on rental income? And Thomas clearly had to report the home sale on his tax returns, so he would've paid any applicable taxes there. I guess you could try to argue he benefits from his mom living in a house for less rent than she should pay, which, of course, we don't know, but wouldn't that have also happened if they just never sold the house? Not to mention I'm pretty sure that Clarence and Ginni, while maybe not having Susan Rice money, could certainly afford to put mom in a nice crib. So what are we left with? That Thomas didn't apparently report the sale on some disclosure form, a sale he basically didn't benefit from, and that doesn't impact whether he paid taxes on that sale?

And you think that's somehow more important that Susan ratcheting up her net worth to $50M? In nice part on fossil fuel profits from a pipeline company, while in an administration that limits pipeline competition? You're right, that is indeed different.