#043 | House Votes to Impeach President Biden & SCOTUS to Review Trump's Immunity Claim
All of the top stories 📰 of the week to keep you in the know
It’s FRIDAY, Dec. 15! YAY
This week’s stories:
The House Votes to Impeach President Joe Biden: An Overview
Trump's Legal Battle Intensifies as Supreme Court Considers Immunity Review
Hunter Biden's Financial Extravagance Leads to Multiple Federal Tax Charges
Hamas trained for Oct. 7 in plain sight for years
SCOTUS to Decide on Pivotal Cases: Capitol Riot Aftermath and Abortion Pill Legality
Harvard President's Academic Credentials Under Scrutiny in Plagiarism Scandal
A quick note: I hope you enjoy this article and find it helpful because I'm on a mission to bring critical, truth-focused content to everyone, which is why most of my work is free. But this is a one-woman operation, and quality journalism takes time and effort.
If you value this endeavor, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support will help keep the majority of these articles free and accessible.
The House Votes to Impeach President Joe Biden: An Overview
Background
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to start an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden. This decision demonstrates the growing political division in Washington, with a vote tally of 221-212 split along party lines. The inquiry centers around accusations of corruption during Biden's time as vice president, specifically regarding his son Hunter Biden's business activities. This event follows the ongoing investigations led by three House committees: Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means, which were initiated in mid-September under former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
The Accusations
The impeachment inquiry focuses on allegations concerning Hunter Biden's dealings with foreign companies, especially in Ukraine and China. Republicans claim that President Biden may have received inappropriate benefits from his son's international business ventures. The accusations involve supposed influence trading and potential conflicts of interest during Biden's time as vice president.
Key aspects of the allegations include:
Hunter Biden's role at Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm, and his qualifications for that position.
Claims that Burisma sought Hunter’s help during an investigation into the company.
Allegations that Joe Biden, then vice president, pressured Ukraine to fire a top prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
Republicans have also spotlighted financial transactions between Hunter Biden and his father, suggesting potential impropriety.
However, these claims have been met with skepticism from Democrats, who argue that there has been a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate these allegations despite a continuous stream of evidence worth investigating.
Devin Archer's testimony said that Joe did interact with Hunter's business partners and that Hunter was hired to the Burisma board because of the influence he could provide.
Recently, direct payments from Hunter to Joe from Hunter’s Owasco PC business account, which he claims were loan repayments.
Threatening WhatsApp message to a Chinese company in which Hunter said he was in the room with Joe.
The Impeachment Process
Impeachment Inquiry: The House's vote authorizes the continuation of investigations, which includes the enforcement of subpoenas and hiring outside counsel.
Potential House Impeachment: If the inquiry leads to sufficient evidence, the House may vote to impeach President Biden. However, this is just an indictment, not a removal from office.
Senate Trial: For a president to be removed, the Senate must conduct a trial and convict the president by a two-thirds majority. Given the current composition of the Senate, with a slim Democratic majority, this outcome seems highly unlikely.
Political Implications
The impeachment inquiry is happening during a time when there's a lot of political tension, especially with the 2024 presidential election on the horizon. Critics, including President Biden, are calling it a pointless political maneuver that is being pushed by Trump and the MAGA Republicans. Still, supporters see it as a crucial way to ensure accountability and get clarification about Biden and his family’s alleged corruption.
What about Hunter?
Hunter Biden recently held a press conference to announce that he has decided not to appear for a closed deposition before a House committee. This decision has caused controversy and led to questions about whether the House will hold him in contempt.
In a press conference held on December 14, 2023, Hunter Biden explained his reasoning for not attending the deposition. He stated, "I have made it clear that I am willing to testify publicly, but I will not participate in a closed-door deposition that lacks transparency and accountability. I believe that the American people have a right to hear my testimony and to make their own judgments."
The House committee issued a subpoena to Hunter Biden in order to discuss his business activities and potential conflicts of interest during his father's tenure as Vice President. The committee is particularly interested in his work for a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings and his involvement with a Chinese private equity firm known as BHR Partners.
It is uncertain whether the House will consider holding Hunter Biden in contempt for failing to appear at the deposition. Although the House possesses the authority to hold individuals in contempt if they refuse to comply with subpoenas, this is not common. Should the House choose to hold Hunter Biden in contempt, it may result in a legal dispute and further scrutiny of his business affairs.
Conclusion
The inquiry is important, but we should remember that impeachment is a long and complicated process involving multiple steps and possible results. As things change, it will definitely continue to be a major topic in political discussions and influence the 2024 election.
News of the Week
Trump's Legal Battle Intensifies as Supreme Court Considers Immunity Review
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has agreed to expedite the review of a petition regarding former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution. Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a petition asking the Court to determine if Trump can be prosecuted for alleged actions to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump's legal team must respond to this petition by December 20, highlighting the matter's urgency. The trial against Trump, linked to these allegations, has been put on hold until the Supreme Court reaches a decision. The trial is scheduled to start on March 4, 2024, a day before the crucial Super Tuesday during the 2024 Republican presidential primaries.
Jack Smith has invoked the 1974 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Nixon to support his argument for the Court to expedite the review of Trump's claim of immunity. The Nixon case, a landmark decision, established that the President is not above the law and cannot use executive privilege as an absolute defense against the judicial process.
"This case warrants similar action. As in Nixon, 'the public importance of the issues presented and the need for their prompt resolution' merit this Court's intervention now, without awaiting the completion of appellate proceedings," Smith wrote.
The arguments against using the U.S. v. Nixon case in the context of former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity revolve around each case's distinct circumstances and legal issues. In U.S. v. Nixon, the issue was about executive privilege and the release of tape recordings, not presidential immunity from prosecution. Critics argue that Trump's situation involves different constitutional questions, making the Nixon precedent not directly applicable.
In a recent Washington Post OpEd, Jason Willick argues that Smith's push for a speedy trial may be motivated by his desire to influence voters during the election. Legal expert Jonathan Turley suggests that Smith might be concerned about Trump potentially pardoning himself if he were to win the election.
A spokesperson for Trump condemns Smith's petition and the urgency to expedite the review. They label the prosecution as politically motivated and an attack against Trump. They argue that there is no reason to rush the trial, calling it a "Witch Hunt" and an "unprecedented attack" against a political opponent, likening it to tactics used in a "Banana Republic." They maintain that Trump will continue to fight against these alleged authoritarian tactics in pursuit of justice.
This situation places the Supreme Court at the center of a highly charged political and legal debate. It has the potential to impact the 2024 Presidential Election and set a precedent on presidential immunity from prosecution for federal criminal offenses committed while in office.
Hunter Biden's Financial Extravagance Leads to Multiple Federal Tax Charges
In a recent development, Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has been indicted in California on multiple federal tax charges. These charges include three felonies and six misdemeanors and are related to his alleged failure to pay federal taxes from 2016 to 2019. The charges come as a result of an investigation led by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee who previously served as U.S. Attorney in Delaware.
According to the 56-page indictment, Hunter Biden is accused of spending millions of dollars on an "extravagant lifestyle" that included lurid pastimes such as membership in sex clubs and other adult entertainment. The indictment claims that he made approximately $383,000 in payments to women, $151,000 in clothing and accessories, $78,000 in miscellaneous retail purchases, and other payments.
The charges against Hunter Biden come after two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley, and Joseph Ziegler, came forward with information that led to the investigation. Initially, there were proposals to bring the charges in Washington D.C., arguing that tax charges are supposed to be filed where taxpayers live or file their taxes. However, this proposal was denied, leading to the indictment in California. The whistleblowers have been praised for their courage in exposing the truth.
Hunter Biden could face up to 17 years in prison if convicted on these charges. These developments come at a time when House Republicans are attempting to link President Joe Biden to his son's business dealings as part of an impeachment inquiry.
Hamas trained for Oct. 7 in plain sight for years
The Wall Street Journal recently conducted a video analysis of the Hamas attacks on October 7 and videos posted on social media, shedding light on the meticulous planning and preparation behind the deadly attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7th against Israeli civilians. These videos, shared on Telegram over the past few years, show a clear progression in the techniques used by Palestinian militants, indicating a disturbing level of sophistication in their strategies.
The footage captures members of the Joint Room coalition, led by Hamas, engaging in various exercises, such as breaching border fences, raiding military bases, and simulating hostage situations. The evolution of their tactics is particularly concerning, as they have transformed into SWAT-like teams, executing military maneuvers with precision similar to trained infantry.
One of the most alarming aspects is the use of white pickup trucks, forming highly organized convoys that resemble those witnessed during the attacks. These videos provide undeniable evidence of extensive training sessions held annually in outdoor locations throughout Gaza, demonstrating how militants meticulously honed their skills over the years.
The concern lies in the replication of these tactics observed in the training footage, which eerily resemble the events of October 7th, resulting in the loss of over 1200 lives. Israeli officials seemed to have disregarded or overlooked the potential threats posed by these carefully practiced tactics.
These findings highlight the need to question why these training exercises being conducted in plain sight and shared on social media were ignored or dismissed. It also underscores the critical importance of increased vigilance and preparedness to prevent future incidents.
SCOTUS to Decide on Pivotal Cases: Capitol Riot Aftermath and Abortion Pill Legality
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to consider two significant cases that have substantial implications for the country in the near term. These cases are Fischer v. United States, concerning the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, and a case involving the legality of the abortion pill, mifepristone.
Fischer v. United States
This case relates to the Capitol riot that took place on January 6. It revolves around how the law is applied to prosecute the individuals involved. The main legal question is whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made a mistake in interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. The concern is whether this law should include acts that are not directly related to investigations or evidence. This case has significant implications as it challenges the government's power in prosecuting those connected to the Capitol riot, raising concerns about potential misuse of authority. The outcome of this case could redefine the level of legal responsibility for those involved in the January 6 events and similar incidents. If the Court narrows or limits the application of the law, it might affect the charges or legal strategies used in cases against Trump regarding the events on January 6.
Abortion Pill Case
The second case deals with the availability of the abortion pill, mifepristone. This case is important because it questions the authorization and distribution of mifepristone, a medication used for abortion. The legal disagreement involves a conflict between state and federal powers, specifically the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority in approving such drugs. Critics argue that the FDA has overlooked necessary protections and legal limits when approving mifepristone, which could put women's well-being and unborn lives at risk. The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on abortion access in the United States, especially considering the ongoing debates and legislative actions that have followed the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The dates for when these cases will be heard are yet to be announced, but they are expected to draw significant attention and potentially lead to landmark decisions.
If you're interested in the changing legal and political landscape of the United States, it's important to keep a close eye on these cases. They are highly debated and have the potential to have a significant impact. The decisions reached will set legal precedents and shape discussions and policies related to government authority and individual rights in America.
Harvard President's Academic Credentials Under Scrutiny in Plagiarism Scandal
One of the world's most prestigious academic institutions, Harvard University, has recently been embroiled in controversy surrounding its president, Claudine Gay. The situation has garnered significant attention, with billionaire alumnus Bill Ackman calling for her resignation and a letter of support for Gay from faculty members.
Claudine Gay became the president of Harvard in 2021, making her the first Black and second female president in the university's history. However, her tenure has been marked by controversy. Recently, Gay faced calls for her resignation after a congressional hearing in which she was criticized for her handling of campus antisemitism and stated that chants for the genocide of Jews being against University policy were dependent on context.
In response to the controversy, a group of Harvard faculty members wrote a letter in support of President Gay, urging the university's governing board to resist political pressures and defend the independence of the institution. However, billionaire Bill Ackman, a Harvard alumnus, has been vocal in his criticism of Gay, calling for her to resign and claiming that she has done significant damage to the university's reputation.
Despite the calls for her resignation, Harvard's governing board has decided to keep President Gay in her position. However, the public relations crisis has not subsided, and the controversy has only intensified with accusations of plagiarism against Gay.
Some critics have raised questions about Gay's academic credentials and qualifications, citing the alleged plagiarism in her PhD thesis. This has led to further scrutiny of her background and accomplishments.
For example, she has a relatively small number of published articles compared to what is typically expected for someone in her position. She has authored only 11 peer-reviewed journal articles throughout her career. Of these articles, four of them have been found to contain plagiarized material, which accounts for nearly 36% of her work.
Jeffrey Miller, a psychology professor from the University of New Mexico, mentioned that you would typically need to publish as many papers in just one year to be considered for a position as a first-year tenure-track Assistant Professor at a respectable state university. Therefore, it's quite remarkable to think about ascending to the presidency of a prestigious Ivy League institution. Moreover, the fact that she has only co-edited one book and has never personally published any books has resulted in accusations that her appointment was based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations rather than merit.
In the midst of this drama, Ackman claims that the university has lost a staggering $1 billion in donations due to its handling of the anti-Semitism on campus. Ackman's allegations have added fuel to the fire and put even more pressure on the university to address the situation.
As the controversy surrounding Harvard's president continues to unfold, how the university will navigate this situation remains to be seen. But many point out that nothing will change if there is not also a fundamental change in the culture and focus of these elite universities.