#036 | Biden's Impeachment Inquiry Kicks Off

All of the top stories 📰 of the week to keep you in the know

It’s Meseidy is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber.

It’s FRIDAY, September 29! YAY

This week’s stories:

• Biden's Impeachment Inquiry Over Family's Foreign Dealings Unveiled

• Unraveling The $250K Wire From Beijing: Tracing the Path to the Bidens.

• The Looming Government Shutdown and the Race Against Time

• The Supreme Court and Social Media: Examining the First Amendment in the Digital Age

• UAW Strike in Context of Biden's Auto Industry Agenda

• Trump's New York Fraud Ruling Threatens Control Over Iconic Estates

Paid Subscriber | The Media Says…

• “HA HA! The Republican witness says not impeachment for you!”

• “You idiots, they didn’t literally send the money to Biden’s home.”

In case you missed it…

---

Biden's Impeachment Inquiry Over Family's Foreign Dealings Unveiled

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability impeachment inquiry into Biden’s alleged involvement with his family's extensive foreign business dealings kicked off yesterday.

The scope of the inquiry was revealed in a 20-page memo released Wednesday by the Republican leaders of the three House committees tasked with leading the probe.

The Backbone of the Inquiry

Central to this inquiry are four questions that seek to reveal the extent and nature of Biden’s involvement in his family’s web of international business engagements. Here’s a breakdown of the key questions:

1. Did Biden, in his official capacity, alter government policy or take any action fueled by monetary or other gains directed to him or his family from foreign quarters?

2. Was there an abuse of the office of public trust by Biden by offering foreign entities access to his office in exchange for payments directed to him or his family?

3. Did Biden knowingly partake in a scheme to financially enrich himself or his family by giving foreign interests the impression of access in return for payments?

4. Did President Biden misuse his powers to thwart investigations, including Congressional probes or the prosecution relating to Hunter Biden?

A Timeline of Foreign Transactions

The memo sketches a timeline depicting the flow of over $24 million from foreign entities to the Biden family between 2014 and 2019. This money trail, originating from countries like Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania, and China, has been allegedly channeled through a convoluted network of transactions, making it an overwhelming task to trace the funds. The memo further accuses Biden of being entangled personally in these dealings during his Vice-Presidency, concealing the truth about these foreign business affiliations, and purportedly attempting to obstruct the Justice Department's investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax violations.

Unveiling the Investigation's Scope

The inquiry intends to span Biden's Vice-Presidency era to the present, encompassing his time away from office. The probe aims to unearth whether Biden indulged in corruption, bribery, and influence peddling during his official terms. Concurrently, it will determine whether the Biden Administration took any actions to stonewall or deter accountability regarding the same potential misdemeanors.

A significant portion of this investigation will scrutinize whether “Joe Biden abused his power as President to impede, obstruct, or otherwise hinder investigations or the prosecution of Hunter Biden?”

Conclusion

The committee leaders say they will subpoena not only bank records and documents related to Biden but also those of “people and entities in his proximity throughout the relevant time period, including those of his family members and Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administration officials.”

“Committees will use all of the tools at their disposal to conduct a thorough and needed investigation and fulfill the constitutional responsibility of determining whether articles of impeachment against President Biden should be drafted and referred to the full House.” 

The memo accentuates that there needs to be a fixed timeline for this inquiry. The committees say they will follow the evidence trail, regardless of where it leads, emphasizing that the investigation might venture into unforeseen territories.

Democrats have criticized the Biden impeachment inquiry, labeling it a politically motivated move without sufficient evidence. At the same time, the White House sent a memo to editorial leaders urging them to help fight against the inquiry.

---

News of the Week

Unraveling The $250K Wire From Beijing: Tracing the Path to the Bidens

A particular wire transfer has ignited further queries into the financial actions of Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden. Diving into the documents collected by the House Oversight Committee, a 2019 transaction of $250,000 was revealed, originating from Beijing and pointing towards Joe Biden’s Delaware residence.

The Transaction Trail

Bank records reveal that in the summer of 2019, two separate wire transfers were dispatched from Beijing to Hunter Biden—the address used for the wire was Joe Biden’s Delaware home. However, both the first son’s memoir and proposed guilty plea agreement placed him in California with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, in the summer of 2019.

The wires began on July 26, 2019, with a modest $10,000 transfer. Then, a week later, on August 2, a whopping $250,000 was wired by Li Xiang Sheng, the CEO of BHR Partners. For those unfamiliar with the name, BHR Partners is a Chinese equity firm where Hunter Biden comfortably seated himself as a board member. The wires, as disclosed, were tied to Hunter Biden’s professional endeavors with BHR Partners, sketching a financial trail back to Beijing.

A Hefty Sum From Foreign Shores

But the story doesn’t end with a quarter-million-dollar transfer. Delving deeper into the bank records, a pattern emerges. Between the years 2014 and 2019, the Biden family’s coffers allegedly swelled by $24 million, courtesy of foreign nationals, further feeding the inquiry regarding the extent of the Bidens' overseas business dealings.

Conclusion

Fast-forward to the present, and the saga takes another twist. Special Counsel David Weiss, appointed by the Department of Justice following the collapse of Hunter’s sweetheart plea deal, is said to be subpoenaed by the House Judiciary or Oversight Committee in the coming month. The Committee wants to question him about the possibility of Weiss acting as a shield, veiling Hunter from graver allegations, notably FARA violations and the illicit business transactions intertwined with his father.

Is this $250,000 wire from Beijing one more thing conveniently overlooked during the IRS and DOJ investigation? As the impeachment inquiry begins, more may be revealed on the extent of the Bidens' foreign business endeavors, shedding light on the blurred lines between familial ties and professional engagements.

The Looming Government Shutdown and the Race Against Time

As the clock ticks toward the deadline for federal funding on midnight Saturday, Congress finds itself in a precarious standoff. House Republicans, led by Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are at odds with their Senate counterparts and the Democrats, making a government shutdown increasingly likely.

Kevin McCarthy's Stance: A Game of Chicken with Time

Despite growing concerns, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy remained nonchalant when speaking to reporters. “I still got time. I’ve got time to do other things,” he claimed, signaling a contentious path ahead. The Speaker is embroiled in internal party conflicts and is yet to unite House Republicans around an alternative to the Senate's bipartisan measure for short-term government funding.

Senate vs. House: Divergent Paths to Resolution

The Senate aims to pass a bipartisan funding measure that will last until November 17, providing $6 billion each for Ukraine and U.S. disaster relief. The House, in contrast, has approved three out of four spending bills to fund major federal departments. Notably, a deep-rooted resistance against Ukraine aid was clear, as more than half of House Republicans voted against a $300 million aid package for the country.

The Intricacies of Republican Support

House leadership is making an uphill effort to garner Republican support for a temporary funding solution that enhances U.S. border security. Speaker McCarthy seems optimistic about cutting a deal but faces significant internal dissent. One highlight was a heated exchange between McCarthy and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), revealing the fractious nature of Republican caucus meetings.

The Political Dance: Biden and Schumer Weigh In

While President Joe Biden urged McCarthy to find a middle ground with Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused the Speaker of making a shutdown more likely by catering to fiscal hawks within his party. McCarthy responded in a CNBC interview, stating, “Will I accept and surrender to what the Senate decides? The answer is no, we’re our own body.”

The Senate’s Backup Plan and Rand Paul's Objection

Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, are also devising plans. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reiterated his intent to block the Senate funding bill unless the aid for Ukraine is removed. McConnell has yet to signal any willingness to comply with Paul’s demands, further escalating the tension.

The Real-Life Implications: Preparing for Shutdown Fallout

The White House and Department of Homeland Security have begun instructing staff to prepare for a shutdown. Critical services like taxpayer support at the IRS would come to a halt, while essential employees, including military personnel, would continue to work without immediate pay.

Conclusion

As House Republicans struggle to unite under a common banner, the prospect of a government shutdown looms large. While some seek to leverage the situation for more stringent border security and spending cuts, others are more amenable to bipartisan solutions. Amidst this battle, the American public and government services hang in the balance, waiting for a resolution that seems increasingly elusive as time runs out.

The Supreme Court and Social Media: Examining the First Amendment in the Digital Age

In a monumental decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take on cases that could redefine the boundaries of free speech in the era of social media. The court is set to hear appeals concerning whether or not public officials can block their critics on platforms like Facebook and Twitter without violating the First Amendment. This issue has far-reaching implications for how we understand governmental action and free speech in the digital landscape.

The Cases at Hand: California School Board Members vs. Parents

Two members of the Poway Unified School District in Southern California, Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, are at the center of this debate. They blocked parents Christopher and Kimberly Garnier on Facebook and Twitter after the couple made numerous critical posts regarding issues like race and school finances. According to the Garniers, the officials' actions violate their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Both O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane had public social media accounts that identified them as government officials, raising questions about whether their platforms served as "channels of communication with the public" on school board business. A federal judge in California sided with the parents in 2021, a decision that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld.

Another Case in Michigan

Simultaneously, a Michigan man named Kevin Lindke is also appealing a lower court's decision that went against him after he was blocked on Facebook by Port Huron City Manager James Freed. Lindke had criticized the local government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite Freed identifying himself as a "public figure" on his Facebook page, which frequently discussed city programs and policies, a federal judge ruled in Freed's favor. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision.

Past Precedent: Donald Trump's Twitter Controversy

Interestingly, the Supreme Court faced a similar First Amendment issue in 2021. This involved a legal dispute over former President Donald Trump's efforts to block critics from his Twitter account. The case was deemed moot after Trump left office, thereby sidestepping a pivotal decision on the issue.

Is Social Media a Public Forum?

The crux of these cases lies in determining whether a public official's social media activity amounts to governmental action bound by First Amendment restrictions on regulating speech. These opposing outcomes at the lower court levels show a judicial system battling with the complexities of free speech in a digital world, creating a precedent that could shape the future of online discourse.

Conclusion

With varying rulings in lower courts, it's clear that there's a need for the Supreme Court to weigh in and provide clarity. The outcomes could profoundly impact how public officials use social media, setting the stage for either upholding or curtailing the robust dialogue that's essential in a democratic society.

By taking up these cases, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to modernize our understanding of the First Amendment, ensuring that the spirit of free speech is carried into the digital age. Whether you agree or disagree with the officials' actions, the Court's decision is bound to leave an indelible mark on the discourse surrounding free speech, governmental actions, and the evolving landscape of social media.

UAW Strike in Context of Biden's Auto Industry Agenda

The current landscape of the American auto industry is marked by a notable level of discontent, highlighted by recent strike actions initiated by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) union. This development seems to diverge from President Biden's earlier statements suggesting a strike is “unlikely” during his term. Despite President Biden's previous assertion that strikes at major auto facilities were unlikely, workers have organized walkouts at three significant auto production sites. The disagreement largely stems from the Biden administration's active promotion of Electric Vehicles (EVs), a move viewed by some as challenging to the traditional auto employment sector.

EV Transition: Challenges En Route to Adaptation

The administration's encouragement of EV adoption, envisioned for environmental sustainability, has experienced some hurdles. Auto workers are now navigating the balance between technological progression and job security. The EV initiative has reportedly led to employment reductions in traditional auto factories, sparking dissatisfaction that manifested in recent strikes.

Recently, Gary Quirk, president of United Auto Workers Local 685, said a battery plant in Kokomo, Indiana, is “a spit in the face” due to the fact that the facility will produce batteries for electric vehicles. The construction of this plant is a collaborative effort between Stellantis, the automotive company responsible for Jeep, Ram, Dodge, and Chrysler vehicles, and Samsung. UAW Local 685, on the other hand, represents the labor force in the town and encompasses four existing Stellantis factories: three dedicated to transmission production and one specializing in engine manufacturing.

Union's Concern: A Sense of Neglect

The former UAW President expressed a shared concern among many auto workers who feel overlooked by the Democratic Party, which they previously relied on for representation and support. The union's critique of Biden’s robust EV initiative reflects a wider sentiment of disenchantment.

Historic Picket Line Visit: Biden's Outreach Effort

In an unprecedented gesture, Biden visited the UAW picket line for all of 12 minutes in an attempt at a symbolic show of solidarity. However, the union's response was rather reserved, as an endorsement for Biden remains withheld, largely attributed to the administration’s persistent emphasis on EVs.

The UAW is pushing for a 40% salary increase spread out over four years for auto industry workers. They want a reduction in the workweek to four days, the removal of a multi-tiered wage structure, and the reinstatement of a pension program.

During the visit, Biden articulated support for the UAW’s request for a 40% pay raise, marking a first in his presidency.

While Biden expressed his support for the UAW, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has refrained from formally endorsing the specific terms favored by the UAW. Instead, she emphasized that Biden's goal is to facilitate the negotiation. It's worth noting that Biden has not directly involved himself in the talks between the union and the automotive companies.

Conclusion

The feedback on Biden’s visit and policy orientation has been varied. While the administration is steadfast in transitioning to EVs, the effect on traditional auto jobs continues to provoke strikes and dissatisfaction. This can pose a challenge for the self-proclaimed "most pro-union president" in U.S. history as union auto workers and many blue-collar workers are feeling left behind by the Democrat party.

Trump's New York Fraud Ruling Threatens Control Over Iconic Estates

Trump’s legal issues continue. A recent fraud ruling out of New York puts the Trump Organization’s real estate empire at risk. In his ruling, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron made a significant declaration, stating that Trump had engaged in fraudulent activities by overestimating the worth of his assets. This included the valuation of Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.

This ruling could potentially strip Trump of control over his famed properties, garnering celebration from Trump’s political adversaries and critics.

Trump’s Properties Hang in the Balance

The judge revoked the "business certificates" of the Trump Organization in New York, along with any other businesses based in New York associated with Trump or his family. Additionally, the judge mandated that an impartial third party would oversee the process of winding down the dissolved limited liability companies (LLCs).

Trump plans to appeal the decision, his attorneys said.

The potential loss of control over iconic properties is indeed a grim prospect for Trump, who has long been synonymous with luxury real estate. The New York fraud ruling threatens to unravel this real estate legacy, putting a dent in Trump's financial fortress while his opponents watch from the sidelines with glee.

A Glimpse into Justice Engoron's Ruling

However, Justice Arthur Engoron's ruling raised more than a few eyebrows in real estate circles, notably for its valuation of Mar-a-Lago at $18 million, which cited the Palm Beach Assessor valuation that ranged from $18 million to $28 million between 2011 and 2021. This figure contrasts the higher fair market value of comparable properties in the vicinity.

In 2018, Forbes assessed this property, consisting of 128 rooms, at around $160 million, considering its substantial renovations and prime location on Billionaires' Row in Palm Beach. It's important to note that Palm Beach real estate has seen a consistent increase in value over the past five years.

October Trial

New York Attorney General Letitia James plans to call former President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump to testify in an upcoming October civil fraud case.

James has accused Trump of misleading insurers and banks by manipulating the valuation of his assets to obtain advantageous loan terms and insurance rates. On Tuesday, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in favor of James in a summary judgment concerning the central claim of her case, which led to the order to revoke the Trump Organization’s business license. The case will now move forward to a trial scheduled for October 2nd, focusing on the remaining six points.

Judge Engoron will preside over the trial without a jury, although it's worth noting that an appeals court may dismiss certain counts before the trial begins. This could happen due to Trump's argument that the statute of limitations on some of the claims has expired, as reported by CNBC.

Conclusion

As the dust settles around Justice Engoron's ruling, the future control of Trump’s iconic properties remains uncertain and is sure to make its way into political discourse.

Trump's retort to the unfolding legal drama is vehement and visceral. Trump lambasts James's case as a “political hit job” and “witch hunt” aimed at thwarting his potential 2024 presidential aspirations.

The Media says…

NEW! Looking for the real story behind the legacy media’s headlines? My subscriber-only "Media Says" section cuts through the noise, giving you the lowdown on how legacy media is spinning news featured in “Friday News Bites” to fit their liberal agendas. No fluff, no spin—just my uncensored take on what they're really trying to sell you. Trust me, you won't want to miss it. 😜