Ashley Biden, the daughter of former President Joe Biden, has filed for divorce from her plastic surgeon husband, Dr. Howard Krein, after over 13 years of marriage, according to court records.
The 44-year-old ex-first daughter filed the paperwork in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas on Monday, according to The Post.
Biden’s Instagram post on the same day showed a photo of her walking through a park and flashing a thumbs up, set to the tune “Freedom” by Beyoncé.
She also posted a quote that read, “New life, new beginnings, means new boundaries. New ways of being that won’t look or sound like they did before.”
The cause of the separation was not immediately obvious. Divorce records are not made public in Philadelphia. Two years after her late older brother, Beau Biden, introduced them, Biden and Krein tied the knot in Greenville, Delaware, in June 2012.
Ashley acknowledged her wedding on the national stage while presenting her father at the Democratic National Convention last year.
“At the time, my dad was vice president, but he was also that dad who literally set up the entire reception. He was riding around in his John Deere 4-wheeler, fixing the place settings, arranging the plants, and by the way, he was very emotional,” she told the crowd.
Joe Biden himself is also facing brutal news this week.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer says his investigation into Joe Biden’s mental decline could be used to challenge some of the former president’s pardons and executive orders, arguing staff have failed to prove Biden knew what he was signing in his final months in office.
The Kentucky Republican told “Just the News” that Biden’s frequent use of the autopen raises serious legal concerns.
“It’s questionable whether or not it’s legal to use an autopen on a legal document, but what’s not questionable is if the President of the United States had no idea what was being signed with using the autopen in his name,” Comer said. “Then, you know, that’s not legal. We could see criminal charges against some.”
Comer said his committee’s evidence could also be used to call into question some of Biden’s clemency acts, noting that the president’s poor summer 2024 debate performance “gave rise to questions about his mental capacity.”
Biden dropped out of the race one month later and endorsed Kamala Harris.
“I think at the end of the day, our investigation … could be used as evidence in trying to overturn some of those pardons and some of the executive orders, because the autopen was used so frequently … after that debate,” Comer said.
Former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Just the News in March that such challenges would “end up in court.” He explained there would be two main issues: “One, the nature of what was signed – was it a pardon, or was it a bill from Congress, for example. And second, the nature of the autopen.”
Dershowitz said the Constitution states of bills: “‘If he approves, he shall sign it.’ So it says, ‘sign it.’ Sign it. So an autopen would raise a real problem if he signed it by autopen, which is not a real signature.”
On pardons, he said, “it will still raise the issue: Did he actually pardon? Or did somebody else just write the signature without really getting approval from President Biden?”
Biden’s first debate of the 2024 campaign season was described as “halting” and “disoriented,” with former Obama adviser David Axelrod saying, “I think there was a sense of shock actually, how he came out at the beginning of this debate… I think the panic had set in.”
Republicans had long questioned Biden’s mental capacity.
Special Counsel Robert Hur’s February 2025 report on Biden’s handling of classified documents noted he “would likely present himself… as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur said Biden could not recall the years he was vice president or the year his son Beau died.
Last month, Biden defended his decisions regarding pardons to The New York Times, stating, “I made every decision” on pardons; however, aides confirmed that he “did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons.”
What began as a routine Senate oversight hearing on judicial nominations erupted into one of the most explosive confrontations in congressional history, leaving the political landscape of Washington forever changed. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, often dismissed as a “simple country lawyer,” delivered a masterclass in legal takedown, exposing Congressman Adam Schiff as a fraud, a foreign agent, and—most shockingly—a traitor whose actions cost American lives.
The drama unfolded when Adam Schiff, California congressman and former federal prosecutor, seized the microphone. With the confidence of a man who believed himself untouchable, Schiff launched into a venomous tirade against Kennedy, live-streaming to his 2.3 million followers. “You’re nothing but a Confederate-loving, crawfish-eating, inbred hillbilly who bought his law degree from a swap meet,” Schiff sneered, his voice dripping with coastal condescension.
He ridiculed Kennedy’s folksy persona, questioned the authenticity of his Oxford degree, and dismissed him as an embarrassment to the Senate. Schiff’s production team captured every angle, posting memes in real time. The online audience was gleeful, egging Schiff on with comments like “Destroy him, Adam!” and “Send him back to the swamp!”
Yet, as Schiff’s insults escalated, the mood in the hearing room began to shift. Even Democrats on the committee shifted uncomfortably, sensing the attack was going too far.
Throughout Schiff’s performance, Kennedy appeared the very image of the man being mocked—a rumpled figure in a modest brown suit, doodling crawfish and alligators on a yellow legal pad. He responded to Schiff’s jabs with gentle humor: “My mama raised me better than that,” he said, his eyes twinkling behind his glasses.
But beneath the folksy exterior, Kennedy was preparing his counterattack. When Schiff finally paused for breath, Kennedy calmly set aside his pen and reached for a thin manila folder labeled, in simple handwriting, “Schiff Ethics Review.”
“Congressman,” Kennedy said, “you mentioned research. I did a little myself. Would you like to compare notes?”
What followed was a methodical, devastating presentation of evidence. Kennedy began with transcripts from closed-door intelligence committee hearings, reading statements from top officials—James Clapper, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe—all testifying that there was no direct evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Kennedy then played a montage of Schiff’s 73 television appearances, each time claiming he possessed “damning evidence” of collusion.
“73 times, Congressman,” Kennedy said, “you went on television and told the American people you had evidence you knew didn’t exist. Where I come from, we have a word for that. Lying. L-Y-I-N-G.”
Schiff sputtered, insisting he was protecting sensitive intelligence. But Kennedy was just getting started.
Kennedy revealed a series of emails and financial documents showing Schiff’s speaking fees skyrocketed from $25,000 in 2016 to over $400,000 by 2018, all while pushing the Russia narrative. “Seems like lying about Russian collusion was mighty profitable for you,” Kennedy observed, showing that Schiff’s media appearances had directly fueled lucrative book deals and consulting contracts.
Then came the bombshell: Kennedy produced phone records and digital logs showing Schiff called reporters minutes after classified briefings, followed by news stories containing word-for-word classified information. “Every time you called these reporters, they had breaking news about classified information within hours. It’s almost like you were leaking classified information,” Kennedy said, displaying a correlation analysis that left no room for doubt.
But the most damning revelations were yet to come. Kennedy produced encrypted messages between Schiff and Natalia Smeirnova, a Russian intelligence officer masquerading as a cultural attaché. Schiff had backed up his messages to iCloud, which the FBI accessed via warrant. The messages showed Schiff providing committee investigation details in exchange for $180,000 in offshore payments and opposition research against political opponents.
Kennedy then revealed communications between Schiff and Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternac, who hosted a $2.3 million fundraiser for Schiff and funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to his PAC. Kennedy read emails in which Schiff coordinated congressional support for military aid in exchange for hefty commissions on arms sales.
“You weren’t just taking Ukrainian money, Congressman. You were selling American intelligence to Ukraine. You were a paid foreign agent while serving as chairman of the intelligence committee,” Kennedy declared.
As the hearing reached its crescendo, Kennedy opened his final folder. Gone was the folksy accent; in its place, the voice of a seasoned legal mind. He presented a joint counterintelligence assessment from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DIA, marking Schiff as a double agent—taking money from Ukraine, Russia, China, and Iran, playing all sides against each other.
The most devastating evidence came in the form of a casualty report from a classified special operations mission in Syria. Kennedy traced the leak directly to Schiff, who had activated a burner phone on his home Wi-Fi and provided grid coordinates to a Syrian intelligence officer. Five American soldiers were ambushed and killed as a result.
Kennedy played a recording from Schiff’s home office, in which Schiff discussed the mission details and payment. “You didn’t just betray your country, Congressman. You actively participated in the murder of American soldiers. You gave their positions. You counted your blood money while they bled out in the Syrian desert.”
The hearing room erupted. Reporters scrambled to file stories, senators demanded investigations, and FBI agents moved in. Schiff’s wife publicly denounced him and prepared to testify against him. Kennedy called for Schiff’s immediate arrest for treason, espionage, murder, bribery, and conspiracy.
Within hours, Schiff’s assets were frozen, his homes raided, and his political allies distanced themselves. Speaker Kevin McCarthy called an emergency session, promising a sweeping investigation. FBI Director Christopher Wray announced probes into dozens of current and former officials.
International fallout was swift: Ukraine recalled diplomats, Russia expelled Americans, and China purged intelligence officers. Families of the fallen soldiers appeared on national television, demanding justice.
Six months later, Adam Schiff was convicted on all charges and sentenced to life without parole at ADX Florence, the nation’s harshest prison. His legacy as a defender of democracy was replaced by infamy as a traitor and murderer.
Meanwhile, John Kennedy returned to Louisiana, his reputation transformed from “simple hillbilly” to one of the sharpest legal minds in the Senate. When asked about the case, Kennedy simply said, “Sometimes, son, the gators get too bold. That’s when you remind them who really runs things around here.”
As the sun set over the bayou, Kennedy reflected on a day when truth triumphed over lies, and the swamp grew a little cleaner—thanks to a country lawyer who never forgot what mattered most.
The “Roid Rage Man” Phenomenon: Extraordinary Strength Meets Viral Controversy
It was an ordinary afternoon on a quiet suburban street—sunlight glinting off parked cars, birds chirping in the trees—until everything changed in a split second. Witnesses described a man appearing out of nowhere,
his gaze sharp, almost electric, locking onto a nearby car. Then, in one astonishing motion, he smashed the vehicle’s window with his bare hand. The sound of shattering glass echoed across the neighborhood, leaving bystanders frozen in disbelief.
Within minutes, someone uploaded the footage online. Social media exploded. Within hours, the video had amassed millions of views, igniting a wildfire of fascination, debate, and concern. The internet had found its newest obsession: “Roid Rage Man.”
The Viral Clip
The footage itself is deceptively simple. A mid-sized sedan sits quietly in a driveway, the afternoon sun glinting off its polished surface. A man steps into frame—muscles taut, shoulders squared, eyes fixed with intensity. Without hesitation, he raises his fist and strikes the driver-side window. Glass explodes outward in a dramatic spray of shards. The act is raw, spontaneous, and undeniably powerful.
Viewers worldwide were captivated. Some saw a marvel of human strength; others saw a dangerous display of aggression. Was this the result of years of dedicated training, extraordinary genetics, or something far more alarming, like performance-enhancing substances?
Why the Video Captivated the World
Several factors explain the clip’s explosive reach:
Human Fascination with Strength: For centuries, societies have celebrated feats of exceptional physical ability—from ancient strongmen to modern athletes. “Roid Rage Man” tapped into this primal fascination, showcasing extraordinary force in a mundane suburban setting.
The Unpredictability Factor: Unlike rehearsed demonstrations, the act appeared spontaneous, transforming a parked car into a stage for an astonishing display. This unpredictability fuels curiosity and keeps viewers returning to the clip.
Debate and Discussion: The video ignited polarized commentary. Some admired the sheer power and focus; others expressed concern for the man’s safety, questioning whether impulsive aggression could escalate into more serious violence.
The Risks Behind Raw Strength
While visually impressive, smashing a car window with bare hands is dangerous. Risks include:
Deep lacerations and tendon injuries.
Long-term joint and bone damage.
Psychological concerns: impulsive aggression can reflect challenges with emotional regulation.
Experts caution that such feats, when performed recklessly, can encourage imitation, especially among younger or impressionable viewers. The viral spread of this content underscores social media’s role in amplifying not just entertainment, but potential harm.
Performance Enhancement and Ethical Questions
Speculation about steroids and other performance-enhancing substances was inevitable. Anabolic agents can increase muscle mass and strength but carry severe health risks: cardiovascular strain, liver damage, hormonal imbalance, and heightened aggression.
The debate highlights society’s fascination with human potential and the ethical concerns surrounding artificially enhanced abilities. Was this man’s strength purely natural, or was it chemically assisted? The video does not answer this, leaving viewers to grapple with both awe and caution.
Social Media and the Age of Virality
Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts thrive on content that elicits strong emotional reactions. A combination of physical prowess, unpredictability, and potential danger made this video the perfect storm for virality. Hashtags like #RoidRageMan fueled discussions and debates, extending its reach across continents.
The viral success also raises questions about ethical responsibility. Sharing risky acts can inadvertently normalize dangerous behavior. Experts encourage audiences to contextualize such feats, discourage unsafe imitation, and emphasize the difference between entertainment and reckless activity.
A Global Conversation
The video has sparked more than casual amusement—it has opened dialogue among:
Fitness experts debating the limits of human strength.
Medical professionals warning of the health risks associated with extreme physical feats.
Educators and parents considering the influence of viral content on youth.
These conversations reveal the complex intersection of media, physical potential, and personal safety.
Key Takeaways
Extraordinary strength is impressive, but dangerous if paired with poor judgment.
Emotional regulation is as critical as physical ability.
Viral content demands critical thinking: viewers must distinguish between entertainment and risk.
Performance-enhancing substances pose serious health hazards.
Conclusion
The “Roid Rage Man” video is more than a viral spectacle—it is a cautionary tale about the interplay of power, social media, and public fascination. It captures a moment of raw human capability while raising serious questions about safety, ethics, and influence.
In the digital age, extraordinary feats are no longer private—they are global phenomena, shaping conversations about the limits of the body, the responsibilities of viewers, and the ethics of sharing content that straddles the line between awe and danger.
Ultimately, this phenomenon reflects society’s enduring fascination with strength and aggression—and reminds us that not all displays of power are harmless entertainment.