Ann Coulter is one of President Trump's biggest boosters, so you might expect her to leap to the defense of his senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has become a target of media scrutiny in recent weeks. That is not what's happening, however.

In a recent column published by Breitbart News and other conservative outlets, Coulter wrote that “the American media are so obsessed with their own Russian collusion story that they can't see the possibility of actual corruption right in front of their noses.”

Clearly, Coulter has not lost her disdain for the media, but this is a nuanced critique. Though she thinks there is nothing to the idea that Trump's campaign might have colluded with Russia to meddle in the presidential election, she also thinks Kushner's meetings with Russians after the election look a bit sketchy — and that the press ought to focus on that, instead.

Here's more from her piece:

It is a known fact that the FBI is looking at Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. It is a known fact that the Kushner family has used its connections to President Trump to drum up Chinese investors for the family’s real estate portfolio. It is a known fact that Jared is looking for investors in his 666 Fifth Avenue building, which is underwater. It is a known fact that Jared met with the Russian ambassador — as well as a representative of a state-owned Russian bank — during the transition. It is a known fact that he neglected to mention those meetings on his security clearance forms.
All of this is probably perfectly aboveboard. But if you weren’t insane, the blindingly obvious question would be: Why did Kushner meet with the head of a state-controlled Russian bank?
That’s not what our media want to know! Reporters see all those facts, put 2 and 2 together and ask: How does this advance the narrative that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to steal the election from Hillary?

I can't get onboard with the notion that reporters are operating in bad faith to promote a predetermined narrative about collusion with Russia. But Coulter is right in this sense: If Kushner abused his power after Trump's election, that would be bad. It would not, however, indicate that Trump's team worked with Russia during the race.

In other words, there is a scenario in which the Russia investigation could reach a damning conclusion without implicating Trump directly or tainting his victory. The scenario features Kushner as the fall guy.

A potential problem for Kushner is that the conservative media might be willing to make him a scapegoat, if such a move would help protect Trump.

“Jared Kushner’s not a Republican,” Rush Limbaugh reminded his listeners in April. “He’s not even a conservative. Jared Kushner comes from a family of huge Democrats, huge Democrat donors and so forth.”

Limbaugh has stood up for Kushner since The Washington Post reported that he is a person of interest in a federal law enforcement probe. So has Sean Hannity. But it is reasonable to wonder how strong their loyalty is. They only support him because they support Trump.

For Alex Jones, support for Trump is not enough. The Infowars founder views Kushner as a “globalist” — a dirty word in Jones's world — and has been open about his belief that Kushner is a bad influence on Trump. Infowars has fully embraced The Post's reporting on Kushner, accused him of leaking information to MSNBC and promoted the hashtag #FireKushner.

Kushner is not a natural object of admiration for conservative media types, especially those who want Trump to push a nationalist agenda. They would probably be willing to throw him under the bus.