ReportWire

Tag: Hunter Biden

  • Biden defers to Justice Department in first public answer on special counsel investigation into his son | CNN Politics

    Biden defers to Justice Department in first public answer on special counsel investigation into his son | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden on Friday said he had no comment and deferred to the Department of Justice when asked for his reaction to the special counsel appointment in the case of his son, Hunter Biden.

    “I have no comment on any investigation that’s going on,” the president said during a trilateral news conference with the leaders of Japan and South Korea at Camp David. “That’s up to the Justice Department, and that’s all I have to say.”

    The answer to a reporter’s question was the first time the president had spoken publicly about the appointment of a special counsel since David Weiss was elevated to the role last week. Biden had previously ignored reporter questions on the matter.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland announced last week that Weiss – a Trump-appointed US attorney who has been leading an investigation into Hunter Biden for years – had been given special counsel status after plea talks between the Justice Department and the president’s son fell apart. Weiss asked for the new authority after plea talks to resolve tax and gun charges fell apart.

    The probe appeared to reach its conclusion when a plea deal was announced in June. In a two-pronged agreement, Hunter Biden planned to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and prosecutors would drop a separate felony gun charge in two years if he stayed out of legal trouble and passed drug tests.

    Federal prosecutors also agreed to recommend probation, and no jail time, for the president’s son. The GOP had criticized the plea deal, accusing Weiss of giving Hunter Biden preferential treatment.

    But at a stunning three-hour court hearing last month, the deal nearly collapsed under scrutiny from the federal judge overseeing the case. District Judge Maryellen Noreika said the intertwined deals to resolve the tax and gun charges were “confusing,” “not straightforward,” “atypical” and “unprecedented.” At the end of that hearing, she ordered the Justice Department and Hunter Biden’s lawyers to file additional legal briefs defending the constitutionality of the agreement. Weiss said last week that the talks had failed.

    By naming Weiss as a special counsel, Garland gave him further independence from the Justice Department as he embarks on an unprecedented trial against the son of the sitting president, and as Republicans claim the department is politicized.

    The probe into Hunter Biden is now one of two special counsel investigations – the other being an inquiry into his father’s handling of classified documents after leaving the Senate and the vice president’s office – that both appear poised to extend for months to come. But the probe into Hunter Biden is among the most sensitive subjects inside the West Wing.

    Multiple Biden advisers conceded privately this week that special counsels have a history of uncovering information they hadn’t set out initially to discover. The fact that the probe into Hunter Biden is also a delicate family matter, people close to Biden say, is creating a level of personal angst unlike any other challenge for the president.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republicans make false, misleading claims at first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is holding its first hearing Thursday in the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden – and Republicans on the committee have made a series of false and misleading claims, as well as some other claims that have left out critical context.

    Below is a CNN fact check. This article will be updated as additional fact checks are completed.

    Republican Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said in his opening remarks at the hearing on Thursday that the committee has uncovered how “the Bidens and their associates created over 20 shell companies” and “raked in over $20 million between 2014 and 2019.”

    Facts First: The $20 million figure is roughly accurate for Joe Biden’s family and associates, according to the bank records subpoenaed by the committee, but the phrase “the Bidens and their associates” obscures the fact that there is no public evidence to date that President Joe Biden himself received any of this money. And it’s worth noting that a large chunk of the money went to the “associates” – Hunter Biden’s business partners – not even Biden’s family itself.

    So far, none of the bank records obtained by the committee have shown any payments to Joe Biden. And a Washington Post analysis in August found that, of about $23 million in payments the committee had identified from foreign sources, nearly $7.5 million went to members of the Biden family – almost all of it to Hunter Biden – and the rest to people Hunter Biden did business with. (The Post also questioned the use of the vague phrase “shell companies,” noting that “virtually all of the companies” that had been listed by the committee at the time had “legitimate business interests” or “clearly identified business investments.”)

    A Republican aide for the House Oversight Committee disputed the Post’s analysis on Thursday, saying that bank records obtained by the panel actually show that, of $24 million in payments between 2014 and 2019, $15 million went to members of the Biden family and $9 million went to associates. CNN has reached out to the Post for comment; the committee has not publicly released the underlying bank records that would definitively show the breakdown in payments.

    The records obtained by the committee have shown that during and after Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president, Hunter Biden made millions of dollars through complex financial arrangements from private equity deals, legal fees and corporate consulting in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere. Again, Republicans have not produced evidence that Joe Biden got paid in any of these arrangements.

    Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio repeated a false claim about Hunter Biden that CNN debunked when Jordan made the same claim last week.

    Jordan claimed that Hunter Biden himself said he was unqualified to sit on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings.

    “Hunter Biden’s not qualified, fact number two, to sit on the board. Not my words, his words. He said he got on the board because of the brand, because of the name,” Jordan said Thursday.

    Facts First: It’s not true that Hunter Biden himself said he wasn’t qualified to sit on the Burisma board. In fact, Hunter Biden said in a 2019 interview with ABC News that “I was completely qualified to be on the board” and defended his qualifications in detail. He did acknowledge, as Jordan said, that he would “probably not” have been asked to be on the board if he was not a Biden – but he nonetheless explicitly rejected claims that he wasn’t qualified, calling them “misinformation.”

    When the ABC interviewer asked what his qualifications for the role were, he said: “Well, I was vice chairman on the board of Amtrak for five years. I was the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Programme. I was a lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world. Bottom line is that I know that I was completely qualified to be on the board to head up the corporate governance and transparency committee on the board. And that’s all that I focused on. Basically, turning a Eastern European independent natural gas company into Western standards of corporate governance.”

    When the ABC interviewer said, “You didn’t have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though,” Biden responded, “No, but I think I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board – if not more.”

    Asked if he would have been asked to be on the board if his last name wasn’t Biden, Biden said, “I don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not.” He added “there’s a lot of things” in his life that wouldn’t have happened if he had a different last name.

    A side note: Biden had served as the board chair for World Food Program USA, a nonprofit that supports the UN World Food Programme, not the UN program itself as he claimed in the interview.

    Jordan cited new documents obtained from IRS whistleblowers, made public by House Republicans on Wednesday, to argue that the Justice Department improperly blocked investigators from asking about Joe Biden in a 2020 search warrant related to Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings.

    “We learned yesterday, in the search warrant…examining Hunter Biden electronic communications, they weren’t allowed to ask about Political Figure 1,” Jordan said. “Political Figure number 1 is the big guy, is Joe Biden.”

    Facts First: This is highly misleading. The Justice Department official who gave this instruction said Joe Biden’s name shouldn’t be mentioned in the search warrant because there wasn’t any legal basis to do so. Furthermore, this occurred during Trump’s presidency, so it doesn’t prove pro-Biden meddling by the Biden-era Justice Department.

    The August 2020 email from a deputy to now-special counsel David Weiss, the Trump-appointed federal prosecutor who is leading the Hunter Biden probe, said the warrant was for “BS,” an apparent reference to Blue Star Strategies, a lobbying firm that represented Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden was on the board.

    The Weiss deputy said in the email that “other than the attribution, location and identity stuff at the end, none if it is appropriate and within the scope of this warrant” and that “there should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here,” according to emails released by House Republicans. Another document released by the GOP confirm that Joe Biden is “Political Figure 1.”

    Before obtaining a search warrant, investigators need to establish probable cause and secure approval from a judge. If federal prosecutors believed the references to Joe Biden weren’t within the legal scope of what the warrant was looking for, it wouldn’t have been appropriate or lawful to include them.

    Comer said in his opening remarks that the committee recently uncovered “two additional wires sent to Hunter Biden that originated in Beijing from Chinese nationals; this happened when Joe Biden was running for president of the United States – and Joe Biden’s home is listed on the beneficiary address.”

    Facts First: This lacks important context. Comer was correct that the committee has found evidence of two wire transfers sent to Hunter Biden from Chinese nationals in the second half of 2019, during Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, but he did not explain that Joe Biden’s home being listed as the beneficiary address doesn’t demonstrate that Joe Biden received any of the money. Nor did he explain that there may well be benign reasons for the inclusion of the address. Hunter Biden has lived at his father’s Wilmington, Delaware, home at times and listed that address on his driver’s license; Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell said in a statement to CNN this week that the address was listed on these transfers simply because it was the address Hunter Biden used on the bank account the money was going to, which Lowell said Hunter Biden did “because it was his only permanent address at the time.”

    “This was a documented loan (not a distribution or pay-out) that was wired from a private individual to his new bank account which listed the address on his driver’s license, his parents’ address, because it was his only permanent address at the time,” Lowell said in the statement. “We expect more occasions where the Republican chairs twist the truth to mislead people to promote their fantasy political agenda.”

    White House spokesman Ian Sams wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Wednesday: “Imagine them arguing that, if someone stayed at their parents’ house during the pandemic, listed it as their permanent address for work, and got a paycheck, the parents somehow also worked for the employer…It’s bananas…Yet this is what extreme House Republicans have sunken to.”

    Comer told CNN this week his panel is trying to put together a timeline on where Hunter Biden was living around the time of the transfers, which occurred in July 2019 and August 2019. Joe Biden was a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary at the time.

    Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina claimed at the Thursday hearing, “We already know the president took bribes from Burisma,” a Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors.

    Facts First: Mace’s claim is false; we do not “already know” that Joe Biden took any bribe. The claim about a bribe from Burisma is a completely unproven allegation. The FBI informant who relayed the claim to the FBI in 2020 was merely reporting something he said he had been told by Burisma’s chief executive. Later in the hearing, a witness called by the committee Republicans, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, called “the bribery allegation” the most concerning piece of evidence he had heard today – but he immediately cautioned that “you have to only take that so far” given that it is “a secondhand account.”

    According to an internal FBI document made public by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa earlier this year over the strong objections of the FBI, the informant said in 2020 – when Donald Trump was president – that the CEO of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, had claimed in 2016 that he made a $5 million payment to “one Biden” and another $5 million payment to “another Biden.” But the FBI document did not contain any proof for the claim, and the document said the informant was “not able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity” of the claim.

    Republicans have tried to boost the credibility the allegation by saying it was in an FBI document and that the FBI had viewed the informant as highly credible. But the document merely memorialized the information provided by the informant; it does not demonstrate that the information is true. And Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer testified to the House Oversight Committee earlier this year that he had not been aware of any such payments to the Bidens; Archer characterized Zlochevsky’s reported claim as an example of the Ukrainian businessman embellishing his influence.

    Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, falsely claimed that Hunter Biden never paid taxes on his foreign income.

    He said Hunter Biden “failed to pay any taxes” on the millions of dollars he got from Ukrainian companies, and that this shows how “the Biden family doesn’t have to” pay taxes.

    “Who’s going to write the check for the money Hunter Biden didn’t pay?” Burchett asked, adding that “hardworking Americans” would end up footing the bill.

    Facts First: This is false. Hunter Biden repeatedly missed IRS deadlines, and his conduct was so egregious that federal investigators believe it was criminal, but he eventually belatedly paid all of his back taxes, plus interest and penalties, to the tune of about $2 million.

    Documents from Hunter Biden’s criminal cases indicate that he repeatedly missed tax deadlines, even though he had the funds and was repeatedly warned by his accountant and business partners. He was prepared to plead guilty to two misdemeanors in July, for failing to pay taxes on time in 2017 and 2018, before the plea deal collapsed.

    But there’s a difference between failing to pay taxes on time and failing to pay taxes at all. In 2021, while the criminal investigation was still underway and before any charges were filed, Hunter Biden paid roughly $2 million to the IRS to cover all the back taxes, plus penalties and interest.

    Hunter Biden was able to make the massive payment thanks to a roughly $2 million loan from a friend and attorney who has been supporting him during his legal troubles, according to court filings.

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York accused a Republican member of the committee, Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, of cutting out “critical context” from an image of a purported text message that Donalds displayed earlier in the Thursday hearing. Ocasio-Cortez also said that Donalds had displayed a “fabricated image.”

    The dispute was over an image Donalds showed of a purported 2018 text message from the president’s brother James Biden to the president’s son Hunter Biden – provided by IRS whistleblowers and released by House Republicans on Wednesday – in which James Biden purportedly wrote, “This can work, you need a safe harbor. I can work with you father [sic] alone !! We as usual just need several months of his help for this to work.”

    After showing the image, Donalds asked a witness at the committee, “If you saw a text message like this between the president’s brother and the president’s son, wouldn’t you be concerned about them trying to give plausible deniability for the president of the United States to not have any knowledge of said business dealings?”

    Facts First: Donalds didn’t invent the James Biden text message, but Ocasio-Cortez was correct that Donalds left out critical context – specifically, context that showed there was no sign that the purported text exchange between James Biden and Hunter Biden was about business dealings. The information released by House Republicans this week appeared to show that James Biden’s purported text about getting “help” from Joe Biden came in direct response to a purported Hunter Biden text saying he could not afford alimony, school tuition for his children, food and gas “w/o [without] Dad.” Donalds did not display this purported Hunter Biden text at the Thursday hearing.

    In other words, when James Biden purportedly mentioned the possibility of several months of help from Joe Biden, he gave no indication he was referring to some sort of business transaction, much less the foreign transactions that House Republicans have been focused on in their investigations into the president. But Donalds didn’t make that clear.

    With that said, Ocasio-Cortez herself could have been clearer about what she meant when she claimed the image Donalds showed was “fabricated.”

    The contents of the purported James Biden text Donalds displayed were not made up, according to the IRS whistleblowers. What appeared to be novel was the graphic Donalds used; he showed the text in a form that made it look like a screenshot from an iPhone text conversation, with white words over a blue background bubble. The House Republican spreadsheet that the words were taken from did not include any such graphics, and, again, it did include the preceding purported Hunter Biden message that Donalds didn’t show.

    Republican Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas said at the Thursday hearing, “In an interview back in 2019 with The New Yorker, even Hunter admitted that he talked to his dad about business, specifically Burisma.”

    Facts First: This needs context. The 2019 New Yorker article in question reported that Hunter Biden said he recalled Joe Biden discussing Burisma with him “just once” in a brief exchange that consisted of this: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’”

    It’s fair for Fallon to say that this counts as Joe Biden discussing business with his son, but Fallon did not mention how brief and limited Hunter Biden said the purported discussion was.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why was Weiss named special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? It’s complicated. | CNN Politics

    Why was Weiss named special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? It’s complicated. | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Attorney General Merrick Garland did not provide a robust explanation on Friday for why he needed to give US attorney David Weiss special counsel status for the Hunter Biden probe, or why it was necessary five years after the investigation began.

    In a televised statement, Garland only said that Weiss informed him on Tuesday that “his investigation has reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel.” Garland said he reviewed Weiss’ request, “as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter” and “concluded it is in the public interest” to make him a special counsel.

    But the attorney general did not say what those “extraordinary circumstances” were. And Weiss didn’t make any statements on Friday.

    The simplest explanation is that the plea talks between Weiss and Hunter Biden over tax and gun charges have collapsed, and the case now appears to be headed to trial. Indeed, it is “extraordinary” for the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, to go to trial against the son of a siting president. Instead of a speedy resolution with a plea, a trial guarantees there will be months or even years of future litigation.

    But no one at the Justice Department has publicly offered this explanation. Friday, Garland never mentioned this major change in the trajectory of the case – from a misdemeanor plea deal to an unprecedented trial with potentially several felony charges.

    It’s not clear what else may have changed to trigger the special counsel appointment.

    IRS whistleblowers who worked on the case and congressional Republicans have claimed that Weiss needed special counsel powers because, as the US attorney in Delaware, he couldn’t pursue charges in other jurisdictions. The whistleblowers testified that Justice Department officials blocked Weiss from filing felony tax evasion charges in California and Washington, DC.

    But as these questions mounted, Weiss and Garland have repeatedly insisted that Weiss always had the powers he needed, even as a US attorney. Weiss said he retained “ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.” As recently as July 10, he said he never asked to be appointed as special counsel.

    So why elevate him to special counsel now?

    This is the third time Garland has appointed a special counsel. In the two past instances, he specifically mentioned that the ongoing investigations involved a presidential candidate and therefore the independence of a special counsel was warranted, for the public interest. (Those probes are separately scrutinizing President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.)

    That raises the question of whether the ongoing Hunter Biden probe has moved closer to the president, though there is no public indication that this is the case.

    Indeed, the IRS whistleblowers told Congress they wanted to interview Biden family members, after finding financial improprieties in Hunter Biden’s tax records, but were blocked by Justice Department officials. Also, an unverified tip from an FBI informant about supposed bribes paid to Joe and Hunter Biden was passed onto Weiss’ prosecutors, potentially for further inquiry. (Joe Biden says these claims are false.)

    Politics is also hanging over the investigation, especially emanating from Capitol Hill.

    House Republicans are investigating the claims from the IRS whistleblower and are asking questions about how Hunter Biden nearly walked away with what they call a “sweetheart deal.”

    GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is seeking interviews with nearly a dozen Justice Department officials who were involved in the investigation. He also has sought testimony from Weiss, who previously committed to appearing at a public hearing this fall.

    But Weiss’ new role as special counsel, and the implosion of the plea talks, could put all of that on ice. It will be much easier now for the Justice Department to do what it often does – swat away oversight requests because of an ongoing investigation, especially with a trial looming.

    Justice Department officials stressed Friday that Weiss will issue a public report as part of his special counsel responsibilities. But that could be years away: Past special counsels, like Robert Mueller and John Durham, only testified on the Hill after their reports were released.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Judiciary Committee expected to launch inquiry into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis | CNN Politics

    House Judiciary Committee expected to launch inquiry into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee is expected to open a congressional investigation into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis as soon as Thursday, a source tells CNN – the same day former President Donald Trump is slated to surrender at the county jail after being charged for participating in schemes to meddle with Georgia’s 2020 election results.

    The committee is expected to ask Willis whether she was coordinating with the Justice Department, which has indicted Trump twice in two separate cases, or used federal dollars to complete her investigation that culminated in the fourth indictment of Trump, the source added. The anticipated questions from Republicans about whether Willis used federal funding in her state-level investigation mirrors the same line of inquiry that Republicans used to probe Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who indicted Trump in New York for falsifying business records to cover up an alleged hush money scheme.

    Meanwhile, Georgia Republicans could launch their own state-level investigation into Willis’ probe, according to GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has spoken to top officials in the state about a potential probe. She has also been pushing for a congressional-led inquiry into Willis, who has previously dismissed GOP accusations accusing her of being partisan and consistently defended her investigation.

    “I’m going to be talking to (House Judiciary Chair) Jim Jordan, (House Oversight Chair) Jamie Comer, and I’d like to also ask (Speaker) Kevin McCarthy his thoughts on looking at doing an investigation if there is a collaboration or conspiracy of any kind between the Department of Justice and Jack Smith’s special counsel’s office with the state DA’s,” Greene told CNN. “So, I think that could be a place of oversight.”

    It all amounts to a familiar playbook for House Republicans, who have been quick to try to use their congressional majority – which includes the ability to launch investigations, issue subpoenas and restrict funding – to defend the former president and offer up some counter programming amid his mounting legal battles. But they’ve also run into some resistance in their extraordinary efforts to intervene in ongoing criminal matters, while there are questions about what jurisdiction they have over state-level investigations.

    As their target list on behalf of Trump grows, House Republicans are also cranking up the heat on their own investigations into the Biden family.

    Just this week, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy vowed to move ahead with an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden after the House returns from August recess if the Biden administration does not turn over more documents and information related to the Republican led investigations related to Hunter Biden – the strongest sign yet that House Republicans are poised to launch an impeachment inquiry of the president.

    A McCarthy spokesperson did not respond to CNN’s request for comment to elaborate on the speaker’s remark that opening an impeachment inquiry hinged on whether committees received the “bank statements, the credit card statements and other” documents they were asking for.

    House Oversight chair James Comer has subpoenaed six banks for information regarding specific Biden family business associates, received testimony from Hunter Biden’s associates and reviewed hundreds of suspicious activity reports related to the Biden family at the Treasury Department. The Kentucky Republican has not yet subpoenaed bank records from Biden family members themselves. He boasted in June on Fox Business that “every subpoena that I have signed as chairman of the House Oversight Committee over the last five months, we’ve gotten 100% of what we’ve requested, whether it’s with the FBI, or with banks, or with Treasury.”

    The House Judiciary chair, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, just subpoenaed four individuals involved in the Hunter Biden criminal probe and has requested a number of documents and interviews pertaining to special counsel David Weiss’ ongoing criminal investigation.

    There is still some skepticism among more moderate Republicans, however, about whether they should be trying to intervene in ongoing investigations and whether an impeachment inquiry is warranted.

    Behind the scenes, members of the House Judiciary panel, who would help oversee an impeachment inquiry, have recently been discussing how all signs are pointing towards the House launching one in short order.

    “We had even some of our more moderate members saying that the oversight wasn’t serious if the next step wasn’t an impeachment inquiry,” Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a top Trump surrogate and Judiciary panel member, told CNN about a recent committee call. “There was great interest among my Judiciary colleagues to really include and involve everyone in the conference. There’s a real desire to get everyone on board and go through the evidence with those who might remain skeptical.”

    Trump’s allies have called for Congress to expunge Trump’s two previous impeachments, a move that has sparked pushback by many even among House Republicans.

    Greene, who spoke with McCarthy on Tuesday, said she doesn’t think the votes are there yet for expunging Trump’s previous two impeachments, even as the former president continues to promote the idea on Truth Social. But she said, “I think the impeachment inquiry looks very, very good.”

    “He is spending the recess talking about it constantly,” Greene added of McCarthy. “I really feel strongly that that’s something that’s going to happen.”

    Even before Trump’s indictment in Fulton County his congressional allies were laying the groundwork to take aim at Willis and broader election laws.

    GOP Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina introduced a longshot bill earlier this year to give current and former presidents and vice presidents the ability to move their civil or criminal cases from a state court to a federal court as the investigation in Fulton County was ongoing. Fry introduced the bill shortly after Trump was indicted by Bragg on more than 30 counts related to business fraud.

    The Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fry’s bill, is examining ways to move this bill forward and schedule a markup, two sources familiar with the process told CNN.

    Fry, who tweeted shortly after the Fulton County indictment that the outcome underscores the need for his bill, said in a statement to CNN, “these rogue prosecutors shouldn’t be able to wield unwarranted power and target our nation’s top leaders for their political agendas.”

    Separately, the House Committee on Administration has been working on a conservative election integrity package that Republicans are calling “transformative,” but Democrats frame as “designed to appease extremist election deniers.”

    Republicans argue the bill gives states the tools to strengthen voter integrity, implement selection reforms in Washington, DC, and protects conservatives’ political speech. Democrats, meanwhile, contest the legislation attacks the freedom to vote, burdens election workers and creates less transparency in elections.

    One of the nine hearings that Republicans held on the bill, which recently passed out of committee and is ready for a floor vote in the House, was held last month in Atlanta.

    The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, accused Republicans of playing defense for Trump through the field hearing, which Republicans have said was not the case.

    “One might ask, why are we here in Georgia? The answer is simple. We’re here because in 2020, Joe Biden won and Donald Trump lost. There was no widespread voter fraud in Georgia, there were no suitcases full of fake ballots, no voting machines changed any votes. In fact, we know of only one possible crime that took place, because it was recorded on tape,” Morelle said.

    Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have also accused their Republican counterparts of coinciding the release of key interview transcripts with days consumed by Trump’s legal woes, according to a recent memo released by Democratic committee staff.

    An Oversight Committee spokesperson said in a statement to CNN, “to be clear, there was absolutely no connection between the transcript releases and anything else covered in the news.”

    The types of moves Republicans made on behalf of Trump in the wake of the Fulton County indictment are not necessarily new. After Trump was indicted by the Department of Justice in two separate cases, Greene called for Congress to defund Smith’s office, who is overseeing the two federal indictment cases, and House Freedom Caucus members issued a statement Monday that they would not support even a short-term government spending bill that does not address what they see as the weaponization of the Department of Justice.

    Gaetz recently introduced a resolution to censure and condemn the judge presiding over Trump’s federal indictment in the 2020 election subversion case.

    Despite the partisan back and forth, Trump’s Capitol Hill allies remain unfazed. But, not all Republicans have bought into the Trump defensive strategy.

    “Nobody is paying attention other than the people who are obsessed with Trump,” a senior Republican lawmaker told CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s indictments — and mug shot — are deepening his supporters’ anger and revving up their support | CNN Politics

    Trump’s indictments — and mug shot — are deepening his supporters’ anger and revving up their support | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Phil Jensen wore a bright red T-shirt with Donald Trump’s mug shot and “NEVER SURRENDER!” printed on it to the former president’s rally in Rapid City, South Dakota, last week. The longtime state legislator loved the shirt so much, he planned on giving half a dozen to his friends and family.

    “He looks defiant,” Jensen said of the photo taken at an Atlanta jail after Trump was indicted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

    “And I love it because he has every right to be,” the South Dakota Republican said. “He was railroaded.”

    In more than 40 interviews with CNN in Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota and Texas, Trump supporters said the 91 criminal charges in four separate cases against him have only deepened their support of the former president. They repeated Trump’s unfounded claims that he was the subject of a politically motivated “witch hunt” and said they believed the charges showed the system was rigged against him – and, by extension, them.

    A majority of Americans think that the charges against Trump are valid and that he should be prosecuted, recent polls show, but Trump maintains a tight grip on the Republican Party and his front-runner status in the 2024 GOP presidential primary is undisputed.

    “What they’re doing to him is persecution,” said Corey Bonner of Texas. “They’re going after an old American president, they’ve been going after him since the beginning, they haven’t stopped, and they’re not going to stop. And this is where we have to stand up and fight.”

    At a summer gathering for Alabama Republicans, 81-year-old retired schoolteacher Carolyn McNeese echoed Trump’s attacks on the prosecutors who have charged him and said she thought they were “evil.”

    “They want him out because they’re scared of him,” McNeese said.

    Those interviewed said they believed that President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was the one who needed to be charged and that Republicans faced a different standard under the justice system. And some said that perhaps Trump did commit crimes, but it didn’t change their opinion of him because, as Texas resident Bobby Wilson put it, “We all have sinned; we all have some things that we’ve done.”

    “He’s probably guilty, but it doesn’t matter,” said Jace Kirschenman, an 18-year-old in South Dakota who works in construction.

    He said nothing could deter him from voting for Trump next year.

    “You show me a perfect person in this world, and I’ll show you a blue pig with wings,” said Corey Shawgo, a 34-year-old truck driver in Pennsylvania who attended Trump’s rally in Erie. “Everyone makes mistakes.”

    Like many other Trump supporters interviewed, Scott Akers of Alabama immediately pointed to Hunter Biden when asked about Trump’s mounting legal peril.

    “We have something finally start to come out about the connection between Hunter Biden’s shady dealings and his father and then, like two days later, there’s a federal indictment,” Akers said. “The timing of it is very ironic.”

    The president’s son has been the subject of investigations by House Republicans and the federal Justice Department. The House GOP probe has so far failed to surface any evidence showing Joe Biden profited from his son’s business dealings, but it has found that the younger Biden used his father’s names to help advance deals. Separately, Hunter Biden was indicted on Thursday by special counsel David Weiss in connection to a gun he purchased in 2018.

    Intertwined with their outrage over the indictments, some Trump supporters are raising the specter of heightened political violence if Trump were to be convicted.

    “This country’s a powder keg. You know, we’ve ‘bout had it,” said Frank Yurisic, 76, who attended Trump’s Pennsylvania rally.

    “I think there could very well possibly be violence,” Yurisic said. “If they march on Washington, I’ll be one of the ones there. I don’t think they realize how upset the people are in this country about what’s going on.”

    The predictions of possible violence made by some Trump supporters in interviews with CNN echo Trump’s warnings of what could happen were he to be convicted.

    Before Trump’s first indictment in March, he had warned about “potential death and destruction” if a Manhattan grand jury were to indict him on charges related to a hush money payment to an adult film star. When asked in an Iowa radio interview in July how he thought his supporters would react if he did ultimately end up behind bars, Trump said, “I think it’s a very dangerous thing to even talk about because we do have a tremendously passionate group of voters.”

    “There’ll be backlash, and it’ll probably be severe,” said Jim Vanoy, an 80-year-old Trump supporter who lives in Alabama. He said he thought there would be a “good degree of violence” if Trump is convicted.

    Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the democracy, conflict and governance program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the US has seen “vastly increased” political violence since Trump took office in 2017.

    “He unleashed some of the worst parts of the American id in normalizing violence as a way to solve political differences. And so we’re seeing neighbors killing neighbors, people killing business owners over political disputes all over the country,” she said.

    But Kleinfeld pointed to the lengthy prison sentences meted out to some participants in the deadly January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol as a potential deterrent to political violence. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the far-right militia group Oath Keepers, was sentenced to 18 years in prison and Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the far-right Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years. Kleinfeld also noted the two-and-a-half-year prison sentence handed down to an Iowa man for threatening Arizona’s attorney general and a Phoenix-area election official.

    “What we’re seeing now is a summer of a lot of accountability, where people are starting to be held to account for violence, and that is the best possible thing for reducing future violence,” she said.

    Trump supporter Amanda Hamak-Leon and her boyfriend are seen at his Rapid City, South Dakota, rally on September 8, 2023.

    Trump continues to defend his supporters who were part of the January 6 mob and said in a recent interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that there was “love and unity” among those who had gathered in Washington that day.

    His lies about the 2020 election, which fueled the riot at the Capitol, were repeated on the campaign trail by his supporters in interviews with CNN. Many said they felt confident in Trump’s chances in a rematch with Biden in 2024.

    “Unless they convict him of something, I don’t care,” said Mark Roling, 63, of Pennsylvania. “In fact, I kind of like it. Every time they indict him, he gets stronger.”

    Trump has widened his polling lead over the rest of the GOP field since his first criminal charges were announced this spring, and his campaign has reported fundraising boosts in the wake of his indictments. That has vexed many Democrats, independents and more moderate Republican voters, who question how his supporters aren’t turned off by the serious and numerous criminal charges against Trump and believe the indictments should disqualify him from a second term as president.

    “He’s making a psychic connection between his troubles with government and people’s troubles with government. And it’s working,” said Craig Shirley, who has written four books on former President Ronald Reagan and has been a Republican strategist for decades.

    “So many Americans have had bad experiences with government over the years,” Shirley said. “They’ve had bad experiences with the IRS. They’ve had bad experiences with police forces. They’ve had bad experiences with school boards. They’ve had bad experiences with any manifestation of some form of government, and that has made them more and more anti-establishment.”

    Trump has been intentional on the campaign trail about making his supporters feel like his indictments are personal to them. “I’m being indicted for you,” he says at every rally. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in their way.”

    “It’s very much like a family protecting one of their own,” Whit Ayres, a veteran GOP pollster, said of how Trump’s supporters have rallied around the former president.

    “He came down the escalator in 2015, saying, ‘I am doing this for you. I am your protector. I am the only one looking out for you. And an attack on me is an attack on you.’ And he has been beating that drum now for eight years, and it’s accepted as true by millions of his supporters,” Ayres said.

    The day after Trump was booked at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta, his campaign said it had the highest-grossing fundraising day of the entire campaign to date, raising $4.18 million. A few days later, the campaign said it had raked in nearly $3 million off mug shot merchandise alone.

    A vendor sells T-shirts featuring Trump's mug shot outside his Rapid City, South Dakota, rally on September 8, 2023.

    But the market for mug shot merchandise extends well beyond the official campaign store as private vendors see their sales skyrocket.

    “This is the new ‘Let’s Go Brandon,’” said Sam Smith, a private vendor at Trump’s Rapid City rally, referring to the right-wing slogan used to insult Joe Biden. Smith, who travels around the country to sell merchandise outside the former president’s events, said he made solid money for two years off “Let’s Go Brandon” products.

    Longtime Trump supporter Amanda Hamak-Leon bought matching mug shot T-shirts on Amazon that said “WANTED FOR PRESIDENT” for her and her boyfriend to wear to Trump’s rally in Rapid City.

    “It really ticked me off,” Hamak-Leon said of Trump’s indictments. “I just feel like now for six-plus years they’ve been going after him with anything that they can, taking shots in the dark. It just makes me like him more that he just keeps going and is not letting this stop him.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House GOP push to launch Biden impeachment probe runs into Senate Republican skepticism | CNN Politics

    House GOP push to launch Biden impeachment probe runs into Senate Republican skepticism | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans are not only facing resistance from within their own ranks to impeach President Joe Biden, they’re also getting a cool reception from another key constituency: Senate Republicans.

    The concerns raised from lawmakers across the Capitol – who would be the jury in an impeachment trial if it came to that – adds another layer of GOP opposition, and further exposes that Republicans are not unified in their pursuit of impeaching Biden.

    Republicans in the Senate are nervous that the push to impeach could backfire politically and give Biden a boost – all the while distracting from their efforts to paint the president as out of touch on the economy. Moreover, a number of Senate Republicans liken the Biden impeachment efforts to the two impeachments of then-President Donald Trump that they sharply criticized, even though the situations are markedly different.

    And some are deeply skeptical that House Republicans have gathered enough evidence to launch impeachment proceedings over Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings – much less charge the president with committing high crimes or misdemeanors over them.

    “We got so many things we need to be focusing on,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said when asked about impeaching Biden. “I don’t see the glaring evidence that says we need to move forward, I didn’t see it in the Trump case and voted against it. I don’t see it in this case.”

    Indeed, even though many senators said they encouraged their Republican colleagues in the House to keep investigating the Biden family, they emphasized that time is running out and that the evidence against the president still has not met the threshold needed to move forward.

    “I’m not for going through another damn trial to be honest with you,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, told CNN.

    Pointing out that an election year is approaching Tuberville added, “I don’t think they got enough time to do it.”

    He warned Republicans in the House, “You better have an ironclad case. When you go after a former president or a president, have all of your ducks in a row. Make sure you got what you need to have. Don’t be guessing. Don’t just be throwing mud.”

    GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota also did not want to see House Republicans move too quickly.

    “They have every right to do it, and they have all of the evidence they would need to certainly start with an inquiry,” Cramer said. “What I don’t want to see them do is rush to an impeachment judgment prior to the full process.”

    Sen. Marco Rubio, a conservative Florida Republican, warned House Republicans about the dangers of pursuing impeachment.

    While Rubio conceded that an impeachment inquiry can be useful to get information that the Biden administration has refused to turn over, he added, “I still think it’s a dangerous tool.”

    Rubio told CNN: “These are extraordinary measures and deeply damage the country. So, that’s why we have term limits, that’s why we have vice presidents and that’s why we have elections. But they’re an extraordinary measure, they should not be routine.”

    Republican leadership in the Senate have also been trying to distance themselves from the House GOP effort. The House returns to session this week after a six-week summer recess, with many members clamoring to move forward with an impeachment inquiry against the president — and Speaker Kevin McCarthy signaling he’s prepared to open up a formal inquiry. The issue is just the latest divide between House and Senate Republicans, who are deeply split over spending and their posture toward Ukraine.

    It’s not uncommon for senators – who represent entire states as opposed to some of the gerrymandered districts in the House – to take different approaches to issues than their House counterparts. But the split on impeachment could undermine the lower chamber’s effort to proceed, especially as they work to convince holdouts to get on on board.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters in July that another impeachment proceeding is “not good for the country,” when asked about House Republicans inching towards an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

    “I said two years ago, when we had not one but two impeachments, that once we go down this path, it incentives the other side to do the same thing,” McConnell said.

    “Impeachment ought to be rare, rather than common,” he said. “And so I’m not surprised that having been treated the way they were, House Republicans last Congress, begin to open up the possibility of doing it again. And I think this is not good for the country, to have repeated impeachment problems.”

    Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican and member of GOP leadership, refused to say if he thought it was a good idea for the House to launch an impeachment inquiry.

    “I don’t think that Speaker McCarthy’s position,” Cornyn said when asked about his personal view about a potential impeachment inquiry. “So, I assume it’s not going to happen unless he’s on board.”

    Asked again, Cornyn sidestepped.

    “I don’t think the House particularly cares what members of the Senate think,” he told CNN. “If they actually do it, then our responsibility kicks in. But I’m not going to speculate about what they ultimately will do. I know there are some differences of opinion.”

    Asked if he believed it were politically risky to pursue impeachment, Cornyn turned to other reporters and said: “Anybody else?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans Call Trump’s Latest Indictment An Attempt To Distract From Hunter Biden

    Republicans Call Trump’s Latest Indictment An Attempt To Distract From Hunter Biden

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON ― Republicans called new federal charges against Donald Trump an elaborate conspiracy to distract the public from President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

    A grand jury on Tuesday indicted the former president in connection with several crimes related to the efforts to undo his 2020 election loss, which included schemes to change Electoral College votes in several states as well as obstructing the congressional certification of the election result.

    But according to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the Department of Justice brought the charges on Tuesday partly because on Monday lawmakers had interviewed an obscure former business partner of Hunter Biden’s, whom Republicans claimed presented damning evidence against the president.

    McCarthy also noted that on Monday a new poll showed that Trump is Biden’s leading Republican opponent.

    “Everyone in America could see what was going to come next: DOJ’s attempt to distract from the news and attack the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, President Trump,” McCarthy said in a social media post. “House Republicans will continue to uncover the truth about Biden Inc. and the two-tiered system of justice.”

    Never mind that literally every poll for months has shown Trump far ahead of his rivals in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the idea that President Biden wields the Justice Department against his political enemies while protecting his son has become an unquestionable assumption among Republicans.

    As Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) put it: “A sweetheart plea deal for Hunter Biden. Another sham indictment of Donald Trump. Anyone else seeing this two-tiered system of justice on full display?”

    (Hunter Biden currently faces federal gun and tax charges that Republicans insist are far less severe than he deserves.)

    Earlier this year, House Republicans created a “Weaponization of Government” committee entirely devoted to flogging Trump’s grievances, and at hearings this year several GOP lawmakers have suggested the federal government itself tricked Trump supporters into attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    In truth, as the new indictment says, Trump and his co-conspirators “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.”

    On Monday, Republicans conducted a closed-door interview with Devon Archer, a former associate of Hunter Biden’s, who told them that over their decade in business together, Hunter Biden would occasionally put his dad on speakerphone while Hunter Biden was with Archer and other business associates.

    The older Biden has repeatedly said he never talked business with his son, who received millions of dollars over the years from foreign nationals, including in Ukraine and China. Republicans claimed Archer’s testimony contradicted the president’s past statements, though a Democratic lawmaker present for the interview said Archer testified that the elder Biden only exchanged pleasantries on the calls and never talked business.

    House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Tuesday evening that the indictment against Trump ― his third so far this year ― was either an attempt to stop Trump from winning the next election or an effort to distract from his committee’s investigation of Hunter Biden.

    “I think the American people see what’s going on, whether or not this is a weaponized Department of Justice trying to divert attention away from Biden corruption or whether they’re trying to take out their top political opponent in the upcoming election, the American people see through this,” Comer said on Fox News.

    Comer has sought all year to tie President Biden to his son’s business deals, but he hasn’t been able to establish anything more than thin circumstantial evidence of a connection, much less an actual act of corruption. But Comer has remained unfazed about finding the missing link eventually.

    “There’s a whole lot more evidence out there that would prove Joe Biden has committed crimes than there are of Donald Trump committing crimes,” Comer said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 7/31: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    7/31: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    [ad_1]

    7/31: Prime Time with John Dickerson – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Tonight on CBS News Prime Time – we break down the latest developments in Donald Trump’s legal battles and what Hunter Biden’s former business partner told a House committee, and we look ahead to the United States’ crucial World Cup game against Portugal.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifies before Congressional committee

    Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifies before Congressional committee

    [ad_1]

    Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifies before Congressional committee – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    David Archer, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, testified about his business dealings with the president’s son to the House Oversight Committee on Monday. Catherine Herridge has the details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifying behind closed doors for GOP-led committee | CNN Politics

    Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifying behind closed doors for GOP-led committee | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Hunter Biden’s former business partner Devon Archer is meeting behind closed doors Monday with the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill, the latest development in the Republican-led investigations into the president’s son.

    The Justice Department submitted a new request over the weekend asking a judge to schedule a date for Archer to surrender to prison and begin serving out his one-year sentence resulting from a conviction in an unrelated fraud case, according to court filings. The move prompted immediate speculation among some Republicans that the Biden administration was attempting to prevent Archer from answering questions about Hunter Biden before the GOP-led committee, though in a court filing, the government explicitly requested that Archer’s sentence begin after he completes his congressional testimony.

    In a statement, Archer’s attorney said his client does not believe the DOJ request is connected in any way to the upcoming closed-door interview, despite continuing to fight demands related to scheduling a surrender date. “We are aware of speculation that the Department of Justice’s weekend request to have Mr. Archer report to prison is an attempt by the Biden administration to intimidate him in advance of his meeting with the House Oversight Committee on Monday,” Matthew Schwartz, an attorney for Archer, said in a statement Sunday.

    “To be clear, Mr. Archer does not agree with that speculation. In any case, Mr. Archer will do what he has planned to do all along, which is to show up on Monday and to honestly answer the questions that are put to him by the Congressional investigators,” Schwartz added.

    While House Oversight Chairman James Comer would only go as far as to call the timing of DOJ’s letter “odd” in an interview with Fox News on Sunday, the letter prompted more bombastic reactions from other House Republicans.

    Archer’s testimony comes as House Republicans appear to be shifting their focus away from trying to impeach members of President Joe Biden’s Cabinet and prioritizing efforts to impeach the president himself by linking him to controversial business dealings by his son, Hunter.

    And they are doing so with the apparent support of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, CNN recently reported.

    As a result, House investigations related to Hunter Biden are now expected to take center stage as Republicans continue to try to link the President to his son’s controversial business dealings.

    But speaking to CNN in recent weeks, McCarthy signaled that Republicans have yet to verify the most salacious allegations against Biden, namely that as vice president he engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national in order to benefit his son’s career, an allegation the White House furiously denies.

    But he said that launching an impeachment inquiry would unleash the full power of the House to turn over critical information, mirroring an argument advanced by House Democrats when they impeached then-President Donald Trump in 2019.

    McCarthy – who sources said has also been consulting with former House GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich on the issue – has warmed up to an idea of going after the president rather than members of his Cabinet. In recent weeks, he delivered his most explicit threat yet to Biden, saying House Republicans’ investigations into the Biden family’s business deals appear to be rising to the level of an impeachment inquiry.

    This story and headline have been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump addresses GOP voters in Iowa; Biden acknowledges 7th grandchild

    Trump addresses GOP voters in Iowa; Biden acknowledges 7th grandchild

    [ad_1]

    Trump addresses GOP voters in Iowa; Biden acknowledges 7th grandchild – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Former President Donald Trump, along with several other Republican presidential candidates, spoke at an event in Iowa Friday night, just a day after Trump was charged with three new counts in the Justice Department’s classified documents case. Meanwhile, President Biden faced criticism from some Republican contenders for initially failing to acknowledge the paternity of a seventh grandchild fathered by his son Hunter. Christina Ruffini reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • President Biden Finally Acknowledges Navy Joan Roberts As 7th Grandchild

    President Biden Finally Acknowledges Navy Joan Roberts As 7th Grandchild

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden acknowledged his four-year-old granddaughter for the first time Friday, ending a long period of silence during a yearslong custody battle involving his son Hunter, who fathered the girl in 2018.

    “This is not a political issue, it’s a family matter,” President Biden said in a statement provided to People magazine. “Jill and I only want what is best for all of our grandchildren, including Navy.”

    The younger Biden met Lunden Roberts, 32, during his slide into crack cocaine addiction, and she worked as his assistant in 2018. By the time their child, Navy Joan Roberts, was born later that year, he had cut off contact. In his 2021 memoir, Hunter said he “had no recollection” of his encounter with Roberts. “That’s how little connection I had with anyone. I was a mess, but a mess I’ve taken responsibility for.”

    A paternity test in 2019 revealed Hunter, 53, to be the father of Roberts’ child. In 2020, Hunter paid Roberts an undisclosed amount in child support. A year later, Roberts filed a contempt motion, alleging that Hunter had withheld evidence in their legal proceedings and ignored previous rulings. That case was settled in late June. In addition to the child support payments agreed to in the settlement, Hunter will reportedly let his granddaughter choose some of his paintings.

    Throughout the paternity battle, the president has not publicly acknowledged the existence of his son’s fourth child. (Hunter’s fifth, named for his late brother Beau, was born in 2020.). According to The New York Times, White House aides have been told in strategy meetings that the Bidens have six, not seven, grandchildren. Speaking to a group of children in April, Biden said he had “six grandchildren. And I’m crazy about them. And I speak to them every single day. Not a joke.”

    The Times, citing a person familiar with internal discussions but unauthorized to speak publicly, reported that in recent weeks, “the president told his son that he wanted to meet Navy when the time was right.” Another person familiar with internal matters said Biden would say he has seven grandchildren going forward.

    “Our son Hunter and Navy’s mother, Lunden, are working together to foster a relationship that is in the best interests of their daughter, preserving her privacy as much as possible going forward,” Biden’s statement continues.

    Roberts’ father is a rural gun manufacturer who has hunted with Donald Trump Jr. Her attorney in the paternity case was Clint Lancaster, who worked for the Trump campaign in 2020 and has a history of conservative activism. Roberts, who lives with her daughter in Arkansas, previously told the Times that her daughter is “very proud of who her grandfather is and who her dad is.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • 7/26: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    7/26: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    [ad_1]

    7/26: Prime Time with John Dickerson – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson reports on new developments in the Hunter Biden case, what came from a congressional hearing on UFOs, and why scientists fear the planet is nearing several climate tipping points.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to tax charges after deal collapses

    Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to tax charges after deal collapses

    [ad_1]

    Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to tax charges after deal collapses – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden, pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges in a federal courtroom in Wilmington, Delaware, on Wednesday after the terms of a previously arranged plea deal between prosecutors and defense attorneys fell apart during a lengthy hearing. Catherine Herridge has details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What’s next for Hunter Biden after plea deal unraveling

    What’s next for Hunter Biden after plea deal unraveling

    [ad_1]

    What’s next for Hunter Biden after plea deal unraveling – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The federal judge overseeing the Hunter Biden case raised questions Wednesday about the terms of a plea agreement made in June between Biden’s lawyers and federal prosecutors. Without the judge’s stamp of approval on the deal, the president’s son pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges. CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge joined with details from inside the Delaware courthouse.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden enters not guilty plea after deal falls apart

    Hunter Biden enters not guilty plea after deal falls apart

    [ad_1]

    A plea agreement between federal prosecutors and Hunter Biden fell apart Wednesday after the judge refused to sign off on a deal that would have seen the president’s son enter guilty pleas to two misdemeanor tax charges and enter a diversion program in lieu of pleading guilty to a felony gun possession count.

    After the deal collapsed, Hunter Biden entered a not guilty plea. 

    The judge, Maryellen Noreika, deferred the decision on the plea deal, saying “you are telling me to rubber stamp the agreement.” The parties have 14 days to brief her and the ruling could now be delayed for weeks. 

    Earlier in the hearing, Noreika questioned Biden on topics ranging from his history of addiction to his business ventures, both foreign and domestic.

    Biden, in a blue suit, white shirt and a dark tie, appeared visibly frustrated as Noreika deferred the agreement. 

    U.S. Attorney David Weiss was present in the courtroom gallery, directly behind the prosecution team. When Hunter Biden arrived, he shook hands with each prosecutor, and waved to Weiss. 

    Soon after the hearing began, Noreika said she was confused by the deal’s diversion agreement, which called for Biden to remain drug-free without committing additional crimes in order to see the gun charge dismissed.

    While the defense lawyers and prosecutors wanted to keep that agreement separate from the tax matters, Noreika wanted to know if it was all part of a “package deal.” Biden acknowledged that without the provisions of the diversion deal he would not be pleading guilty.

    After the deal appeared to break down, the prosecutors and defense attorneys took three separate breaks to huddle and discuss ways forward. Inside the courtroom, Hunter Biden’s attorney, Christopher Clark, at one point blurted out: “This was all negotiated!”

    “I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish,” Clark said, speaking to prosecutors. “We’ll rip it up!”

    The effort was, in essence, high-stakes negotiation in real time, with a federal judge and a gallery full of reporters standing by. It failed. 

    Both sides had motivation to reach an agreement. For Hunter Biden, this was a chance to close the books on a tax investigation that has been hanging over him for years. For prosecutors, the deal avoided the risks of trying a case in Biden-friendly Delaware, against a defendant who failed to file taxes while in the throes of addiction. 

    The judge acknowledged the day’s events had thrown the case a “curveball.” 

    “I have concerns about the agreement,” Noreika said. “I can’t let him plea to something if he thinks he has protection from something and he doesn’t.”

    The president’s son had previously agreed to enter guilty pleas on the counts of willful failure to pay income tax, and admit to felony gun possession. Under the original agreement, it was unlikely the president’s son would face prison time, which had angered Republicans.   

     Clark called the deal “null and void” after a prosecutor told the judge that Hunter Biden isn’t immune from future charges in the investigation, including potential counts under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. 

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said as the hearing was wrapping up that “the president, the first lady, they love their son and they support him as he continues to rebuild his life.”

    “This case was handled independently, as all of you know, by the Justice Department under the leadership of a prosecutor appointed by the former president, President Trump,” Jean-Pierre said. “So for anything further, as you know and we’ve been very consistent from here, I’d refer you to the Department of Justice and to Hunter’s representatives who is his legal team obviously, who can address any of your questions.”  

    What is Hunter Biden charged with and what was the plea deal? 

    Hunter Biden is charged with two misdemeanor tax offenses and a felony firearm offense.  

    The deal prior to Wednesday’s court session included an acknowledgement that drug use was a contributing factor in his gun possession charge. A source with knowledge of the agreement said the diversion plan was expected to mean that for two years, Hunter Biden would have had to remain drug-free without committing additional crimes. If he fulfilled that successfully, the gun count would have been dismissed without a guilty plea.

    The two misdemeanor tax charges relate to Hunter Biden’s alleged willful failure to pay taxes for 2017 and 2018. A filing indicates that he earned more than $1.5 million in income each year. He has since fully repaid back taxes and fines, including $2 million reportedly paid to the federal government last year, with the help of a loan from his personal attorney. The felony gun charge relates to alleged possession of a handgun by a drug user in 2018. The filing identifies the gun as a Colt Cobra 38SPL, and Weiss said in a statement that Hunter Biden had it for 11 days in October 2018.

    Hunter Biden
    Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, arrives for a court appearance on July 26, 2023, in Wilmington, Delaware.

    Julio Cortez / AP


    Who is Judge Maryellen Noreika?

    Noreika was confirmed for her post in 2018 after being nominated by Republican former President Donald Trump in 2017. Her nomination was supported by Delaware’s two Democratic senators, Tom Carper and Christopher Coons. She previously worked in patent litigation for a Wilmington, Delaware law firm.

    In March, Noreika dismissed part of a defamation lawsuit filed by a Delaware computer repair shop owner who claims Hunter Biden left his laptop in the store in 2019. She dismissed claims in the suit made against Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, and determined that allegations against others, including Hunter Biden, would be handled by Delaware civil courts.

    What has the reaction been from Republicans? 

    The plea hearing came amid intense scrutiny from Republicans in Congress, who have raised questions about how the case was handled and whether Hunter Biden received special treatment or leniency. 

    In an unusual move, House Republicans had submitted a court filing on the eve of the hearing, asking the judge to consider recent statements from two IRS officials who worked on the case.

    On July 19, the two IRS whistleblowers testified to the House Oversight Committee about the tax probe. Joseph Ziegler, the tax agency’s lead case agent in the investigation, described himself as a Democrat and said he recommended prosecutors charge Hunter Biden with multiple felonies and misdemeanors in 2021.

    Ziegler said he believed evidence showed Hunter Biden had improperly claimed business deductions for a number of personal expenses, including his children’s college tuition, hotel bills and payments to escorts, but that their efforts to investigate further were stymied. 

    “When you’re prevented from going down certain roads, I guess I don’t know what could have been found if we were not hamstrung or not handcuffed,” Ziegler said last week in an interview with CBS News.

    Republican Jason Smith, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, filed a brief with the court Wednesday asking the judge to consider the IRS whistleblowers’ testimony when deciding whether to approve the agreement.

    Clark urged the court to disregard Smith’s filing, saying in a letter that Smith had no standing to file and was attempting to introduce “grand jury secret information and confidential taxpayer information” into the public record.

    “In addition, you have not identified (nor could you identify) any legal basis for your attempt to intervene as amicus in tomorrow’s proceeding,” Clark wrote.

    Clark said in a July 19 statement to CBS News that “any suggestion the investigation was not thorough, or cut corners, or cut my client any slack, is preposterous and deeply irresponsible.” 

    “The [Justice Department] investigation covered a period which was a time of turmoil and addiction for my client. Any verifiable words or actions of my client, in the midst of a horrible addiction, are solely his own and have no connection to anyone in his family,” Clark said.

    The judge is likely to read and consider briefs filed in the case by outside parties, but is unlikely to be influenced by other outside factors like media coverage and politics, according to former Justice Department official Thomas Dupree.

    “They’re aware of outside events. They won’t turn a blind eye to it, but it would be unusual for a judge basically to say … either just in my own investigation or by things I’ve seen on TV or in the papers, I have some questions,” Dupree said in an interview with CBS News.

    Noreika on Wednesday asked questions early on in the hearing about the outside claims that the investigation was insufficient but prosecutors and Clark said they did not see evidence of that. Biden’s lawyers said those concerns would be resolved in the “political process.”

    Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee —which is investigating the Biden family’s business dealings— told reporters Wednesday that the collapse of the plea deal “doesn’t impact my investigation because the Department of Justice, FBI, haven’t done a darn thing to help me.”

    What have the White House and Justice Department been saying? 

    The White House and Justice Department have denied any political interference in the probe.

    “President Biden has made clear that this matter would be handled independently by the Justice Department, under the leadership of a U.S. attorney appointed by former President Trump, free from any political interference by the White House,” the White House said in a statement shared previously. “He has upheld that commitment.”

    Weiss has also pushed back against Republican claims his investigation had been impeded, stating in a letter last month that he had ultimate authority on these matters and was “never denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.” 

    On Monday, the Justice Department sent a letter to lawmakers stating that Weiss will be able to testify before Congress to answer their questions and address what they say are “misrepresentations” about their work in the Biden probe “…that could unduly harm public confidence in the evenhanded administration of justice, to which we are dedicated.” 

    From the start, the effort to dissect the business dealings of a man whose father served as a senior U.S. senator, vice president, and candidate for the presidency, faced unusual challenges. 

    The investigation unfolded as Hunter Biden became the subject of repeated political attacks from the right, including the leaking of his laptop computer into the public sphere, and continued as Hunter Biden waged a counter-offensive, filing civil lawsuits against his political critics. 

    At an event in California the day the plea deal was first announced, President Biden responded to questions about Hunter Biden by saying, “I am very proud of my son.” 

    Catherine Herridge


    Catherine Herridge

    Catherine Herridge is a senior investigative correspondent for CBS News covering national security and intelligence based in Washington, D.C.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is Judge Maryellen Noreika, the district court judge for Hunter Biden’s plea deal?

    Who is Judge Maryellen Noreika, the district court judge for Hunter Biden’s plea deal?

    [ad_1]

    The real-time dissolution of a tentative plea deal between Hunter Biden and federal prosecutors in a Delaware courtroom Wednesday focused attention on Maryellen Noreika, the federal district court judge overseeing the case. 

    Although plea deals must be approved by a judge, it’s rare that they fall apart in live court, particularly in such a high-profile case. Hunter Biden’s tentative agreement would have entailed pleading guilty to two counts of evading taxes and a diversion agreement requiring him to remain drug-free and crime-free to see a felony gun charge dismissed. 

    But Noreika questioned whether it meant the president’s son would be immune from prosecution for any other potential crimes, and expressed her discomfort with terms of the deal when an investigation was ongoing. 

    “I have concerns about the agreement,” Noreika said. “I can’t let him plea to something if he thinks he has protection from something and he doesn’t.” After the two sides tried and failed to renegotiate, Hunter Biden entered a not guilty plea.

    So who is U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika?

    Noreika was nominated by then President Donald Trump — a point the Biden White House has been quick to raise — in December 2017. Both of Delaware’s Democratic senators supported Noreika’s nomination to the court. Sen. Tom Carper described her as a “highly-respected, sought-after” attorney with “a vast knowledge of the law and a thorough understanding of the courts,” as evident from her decades-long career in the state’s judicial system. Sen. Chris Coons praised Noreika’s “impressive trial skills, deep experience in federal practice, and profound respect for the law.”

    In August 2018, she was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate. 

    Judge Maryellen Noreika
    Judge Maryellen Noreika

    U.S. District Court, District of Delaware


    Noreika practiced law in a private firm from 1993 until her confirmation in 2018. She was a patent litigator and partner at the Delaware law firm Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell. According to the firm’s website, her practice encompassed several industries — pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, computers, consumer products and telecommunications.

    She earned a bachelor’s degree from Lehigh University and master’s degree from Columbia University, then graduated from the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Law in 1993. 

    In March, Noreika ruled that a defamation lawsuit Hunter Biden’s laptop repairman filed against CNN, Politico and Hunter Biden could proceed through the Delaware courts, but tossed out the repairman’s attempt to sue Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.

    Before becoming a judge, Noreika donated to candidates on both sides of the aisle, although she gave to Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas more times than to any other candidate or groups. In 2012, she donated $5,000 toward Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations. In 2009, she donated $1,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and in 2008, she donated to the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. She also donated $1,000 to former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. 

    Kathryn Watson


    kathryn-watson-220x140.png

    Kathryn Watson is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital based in Washington, D.C.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside McCarthy’s sudden warming to a Biden impeachment inquiry | CNN Politics

    Inside McCarthy’s sudden warming to a Biden impeachment inquiry | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Speaker Kevin McCarthy in recent weeks has heard similar advice from both a senior House Republican and an influential conservative lawyer: prioritize the impeachment of President Joe Biden over a member of his Cabinet.

    Part of the thinking, according to multiple sources familiar with the internal discussions, is that if House Republicans are going to expend precious resources on the politically tricky task of an impeachment, they might as well go after their highest target as opposed to the attorney general or secretary of homeland security.

    And McCarthy – who sources said has also been consulting with former House GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich on the issue – has warmed up to an idea that has long been relegated to the fringes of his conference. This week, he delivered his most explicit threat yet to Biden, saying their investigations into the Biden family’s business deals appear to be rising to the level of an impeachment inquiry.

    Speaking to CNN on Tuesday, McCarthy signaled that Republicans have yet to verify the most salacious allegations against Biden, namely that as vice president he engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national in order to benefit his son Hunter Biden’s career, an allegation the White House furiously denies. But he said that launching an impeachment inquiry would unleash the full power of the House to turn over critical information, mirroring an argument advanced by House Democrats when they impeached then-President Donald Trump in 2019.

    “How do you get to the bottom of the truth? The only way Congress can do that is go to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said Tuesday, stopping short of formally moving to open such a probe.

    It all amounts to a consequential shift in thinking among Republican leaders, who were previously reluctant to call for Biden’s impeachment and have instead focused more energy on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Those were largely seen as lower stakes fights that could be easier to sell to the party and the public.

    Yet as some of the GOP’s investigative lines have lost momentum – border crossings are down in recent weeks, for example – and Republicans believe they have uncovered compelling new information about Hunter Biden, they increasingly see the president as their most ripe candidate for impeachment.

    Rep. Mike Johnson, a member of the GOP leadership team from Louisiana, told CNN on Tuesday that “all the evidence leads to the big guy.”

    “Speaking as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we’re certainly at the point of an impeachment inquiry. … I feel like we’re there,” Johnson said. “And so we’ll continue to investigate and see if we’re going to follow the facts where they lead we’re not going to use impeachment for a political tool, like the Democrats did in the last administration. We will not do that. But we do have an obligation on the Constitution to follow the facts.”

    As another senior GOP source put it: “When you’re going deer hunting, you don’t shoot geese in the sky.”

    Even some of the more hardline members of McCarthy’s conference said that if the GOP needs to settle on one target, it should be Joe Biden.

    “If I had to pick one, I would pick Biden,” said Rep. Andy Ogles, a Tennessee Republican and member of the House Freedom Caucus.

    The White House has maintained that Biden has had no involvement in his son’s business deals, and Republicans have yet to link Biden directly to them.

    But even with more Republicans coalescing around the idea, impeachment would still be a complicated and time consuming endeavor, given McCarthy’s razor thin majority and the need to fund the government by September 30. And there’s anxiety about impeachment backfiring with the party’s moderates while energizing the Democratic base, all for an effort that is sure to be doomed in the Senate – a similar concern shared by Democrats in 2019, when they launched their first impeachment into Trump ahead of the 2020 election, proceedings that took about three months to complete in the House.

    In moving to potentially make Biden just the fourth president in US history to get impeached, McCarthy could appease some of his sharpest critics in his conference, especially as the House will have to cut a deal in the fall to keep the government funded and prevent a shutdown. Some on his far-right, who have threatened to boot him from the speakership if he strays from their demands, are now praising his embrace of potential impeachment proceedings.

    “We probably should have moved to an impeachment inquiry probably sooner than this,” said Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, a former leader of the House Freedom Caucus. But he added: “I understand.”

    “He was reticent at first,” Biggs said of McCarthy. “We don’t want to look like our colleagues across the aisle. But as we’ve continued to amass evidence and information, I certainly think (at) a bare minimum, we should be doing an impeachment inquiry.”

    Rep. Bob Good, a Virginia Republican who tried to prevent McCarthy from winning the speakership, said of McCarthy: “I don’t think there’s any question that him speaking to that has caused a paradigm shift.”

    “I’m just glad to hear that the speaker is recognizing that that we need to follow the evidence and the truth wherever it might lead us,” Good said. “I don’t know how anyone, any objective, reasonable person couldn’t come to the conclusion that this appears to be impeachment worthy.”

    But GOP Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, a member of the Judiciary Committee and hardline Freedom Caucus who has been more skeptical of impeachment, shot back at the idea he would take impeachment cues from the speaker: “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t listened to McCarthy in years.”

    “I can’t imagine that we would start now,” he told CNN.

    With concerns among vulnerable members that impeaching Biden may not be a winning message in their districts, House Republicans would like to wrap up any such proceedings before year’s end, according to senior Republican sources familiar with the party’s thinking. But that means Republicans are going to have to make a decision soon on if – and whom – they want to impeach, given the desire among Republicans for impeachment hearings and a formal inquiry process. The House is slated to leave at the end of this week for a six-week recess.

    Getting an impeachment resolution through the narrowly divided House – where McCarthy can lose no more than four of his members on party-line votes – will only get tougher in an election year, Republicans say.

    Plus Republicans still appear to be all over the map on their impeachment strategy.

    Firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who is not only seeking to expunge Trump’s two impeachments but also introduced a slew of impeachment articles against Biden and members of his Cabinet, told CNN: “I couldn’t prioritize one.”

    That sentiment was echoed by Rep. Ralph Norman, a hard-right South Carolina Republican who said impeaching Biden is just “the start of the list.”

    “His judgment is wrong on who he has in office,” Norman said. “They got to have to be accountable. And I think you’re seeing the accountability now.”

    But with economic concerns expected to dominate voters’ minds in next year’s elections, many in the House GOP have been skeptical about moving forward with charging the president with committing a high crime or misdemeanor.

    Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon, whose district Biden carried in 2020, told CNN that the House needs to be deliberate.

    “This needs to be thoroughly vetted in the Judiciary Committee,” Bacon said, arguing the approach needs to differ from the two impeachments under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    “The Watergate profile is what we should benchmark off of, not the Pelosi method of putting it on the floor without a single committee hearing,” Bacon said. “Pelosi watered down and lowered the threshold for impeachment, and we should not follow her example. It’s not good for the country.”

    In the first Trump impeachment, House Democrats led a number of closed and open hearings before charging Trump with abuse of power and obstructing Congress. In the second impeachment, Democrats charged Trump with inciting the January 6, 2021, insurrection just days after the deadly attack in the Capitol.

    Republicans have already had a tough time convincing even members of the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment articles would originate. Indeed, one GOP Judiciary member who has been skeptical of a Mayorkas impeachment leaned over to share that assessment with a Democrat on the panel during a recent hearing.

    During a private leadership meeting on Tuesday, McCarthy stressed the difference between opening an impeachment inquiry and actually voting to impeach someone – an important distinction that could be key to convincing moderates skeptical of impeachment to back a formal inquiry. Still, McCarthy fielded questions from members during the meeting about how this could impact the party’s more vulnerable members.

    Democrats say Republicans are just using the threat of impeachment as a political stunt to help boost Trump, who remains their frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary.

    “It’s clear that Donald Trump is the real Speaker of the House,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Party, said in a statement. “He has made sure the House majority is little more than an arm of his 2024 campaign, and Kevin McCarthy is happy to do his bidding.”

    Indeed, McCarthy has been under pressure to placate Trump, particularly after he questioned Trump’s strength as a candidate – comments he quickly walked back. As CNN previously reported, McCarthy told Trump in a private phone call that he supports the idea of expunging his past two impeachments and said he would bring the idea up with the rest of the conference.

    But there’s no sign that GOP leadership is planning to bring such a symbolic resolution to the floor any time soon, with many Republicans pouring cold water on the idea. That has privately frustrated Trump, who called Greene earlier this month to complain about the lack of action from McCarthy, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

    McCarthy has had to walk a tightrope on the issue of impeachment amid growing frustration from his right flank, which has been itching to launch impeachment proceedings. Last month, McCarthy opted to defer a push from GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado to force a snap floor vote on impeaching Biden over his handling of the southern border and immigration problems, saying they need time to gather the facts and build a case.

    On Tuesday, Boebert took notice of the apparent shift in McCarthy’s tone.

    “The Speaker of the House is now talking impeachment,” Boebert tweeted. “The Biden corruption has risen to a level that there is no other response that can possibly be leveled against it. Impeachment is a very big deal, but these are incredibly serious crimes. I look forward to holding Joe Biden accountable for all that he’s done.”

    Hunter Biden walks to a waiting SUV after arriving with US President Joe Biden at Fort McNair in Washington, DC, on July 4.

    Republicans argue that a string of recent developments have generated new momentum that has helped bring McCarthy on board and will even satisfy the remaining holdouts.

    Last week, GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa released an internal FBI document containing unverified allegations that both Hunter and Joe Biden were involved in an illegal foreign bribery scheme that Republicans had been trying to make public for weeks, despite serious warnings from the FBI.

    The House Oversight Committee held a hearing last week that put a spotlight on two IRS whistleblowers who have claimed that the Justice Department politicized the Hunter Biden criminal probe, and has a deposition with Hunter Biden’s long-time associate and Burisma co-board member Devon Archer next week. And the House Judiciary Committee just secured assurance from the Justice Department that US Attorney David Weiss, who is overseeing the Hunter Biden criminal probe, can testify publicly before Congress this fall.

    But Republicans still have yet to tie such allegations directly to the president’s actions, which will be a major hurdle for GOP leaders to clear if they move ahead with impeaching Biden. The White House has repeatedly stated that the allegations launched by Republicans have all been debunked.

    Part of the consideration for House Republicans will be figuring out how to delineate or combine the work currently being conducted by House Oversight Chair James Comer and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who are in constant communication with each other and McCarthy, sources told CNN.

    Comer confirmed he has been regularly briefing McCarthy on his Hunter Biden probes, which he thinks helped give McCarthy the “confidence” to publicly raise the idea of an impeachment inquiry. But he said it’s ultimately “McCarthy’s decision.”

    With just three days to go before the House stands in recess for six weeks, Greene, who continues to serve as a conduit to Trump in the House and has been relentless in pushing McCarthy toward a Biden impeachment, wasted no time in making her case again on the House floor.

    And afterward, the firebrand conservative had this message to her reluctant GOP colleagues: “Any Republican that can’t move forward on impeachment with all of the information and overwhelming evidence that we have, I really don’t know why they’re here to be honest with you.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress working to pass NDAA, DOJ pushing back on House Republicans’ Hunter Biden probe

    Congress working to pass NDAA, DOJ pushing back on House Republicans’ Hunter Biden probe

    [ad_1]

    Congress working to pass NDAA, DOJ pushing back on House Republicans’ Hunter Biden probe – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Congressional lawmakers are preparing to break for their monthlong August recess Thursday night, but the Senate is still hammering out details on the bill that will set Pentagon policy. CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion has more on that and other top stories from Capitol Hill.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden’s Lawyer Sends Cease-And-Desist Letter To Trump Legal Team

    Hunter Biden’s Lawyer Sends Cease-And-Desist Letter To Trump Legal Team

    [ad_1]

    A lawyer for Hunter Biden sent a cease-and-desist letter to Donald Trump’s legal team on Thursday, warning the former president to stop spreading dangerous rhetoric online, ABC News first reported.

    In the letter, attorney Abbe Lowell argued that Trump’s posts and language “could lead to [Hunter Biden’s] or his family’s injury,” citing several examples from recent months.

    Trump has frequently targeted Hunter Biden — in fact, Lowell claimed in the letter that his name has appeared more than 20 times in Trump’s posts in July alone.

    This week, Trump dragged in Hunter Biden’s name amid an investigation of a small baggie of cocaine found this month near a visitor entrance at the White House, suggesting the cocaine might have belonged to Hunter Biden, who is a recovering addict.

    “You know, if Mr. Trump does not, that Mr. Biden has neither committed nor been accused of the charges that your client is claiming … and that the Biden family was not at the White House (let alone in the vestibule) in the period when the cocaine was found,” Lowell wrote. The Secret Service concluded the cocaine investigation on Thursday with no suspect found.

    A day later, Trump put up a post attacking David Weiss, the federal prosecutor who oversaw Hunter Biden’s tax investigation, according to the letter. Biden reached an agreement in June and will plead guilty to some federal charges. Trump called Weiss a “coward” and asserted that he “gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence.”

    “You may respond that this was a mere figure of speech. However, we have seen that what might pass as such a phrase when uttered by [rational] people is heard by too many in this country as some terrible injustice for which they must take physical and violent action,” Lowell wrote in the letter, referring to Trump’s alleged incitement of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Throughout the letter, Lowell continued to cite notable examples of Trump using dangerous rhetoric and language to incite violence. Last month, Trump also posted on his social media site the alleged address of former President Barack Obama’s Washington, D.C., residence, NBC News reported. The post was reshared by Capitol riot defendant Taylor Taranto, who was arrested June 29 after approaching Obama’s house while his van was parked nearby with weapons inside.

    “This is not a false alarm,” Lowell wrote in the letter. “We are just one such social media message away from another incident, and you should make clear to Mr. Trump ― if you have not done so already ― that Mr. Trump’s words have caused harm in the past and threaten to do so again if he does not stop.”

    Trump has faced legal repercussions for rhetoric he has spread both online and offline, which, as Lowell cautioned in the letter, has the potential to escalate if he doesn’t dial back on it. The attorney encouraged the former president’s legal team to explain to him “how his incitement can further hurt people and cause himself even more legal trouble.”

    HuffPost reached out to Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina, who declined to comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link