#047 | Special Counsel Considers Biden is too Elderly to be Prosecuted and SCOTUS Likely to Side with Trump
All of the top stories 📰 of the week to keep you in the know
It’s FRIDAY, February 9th!
This week’s stories:
No Charges for Biden on Classified Documents, Special Counsel Cites Precedents and Memory Issues
Supreme Court Skeptical of Barring Trump from 2024 Ballot
Senate Abandons $118 Billion Border Bill for $95.34 Billion in Security Aid Without Border Funding
GOP Impeachment Effort Against DHS Secretary Comes Up Short
Carlson-Putin Interview Sparks Debate: Journalism or Sympathy?
“Hi, Bob!” Gina Carano Sues Disney with Elon Musk's Support
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.
No Charges for Biden on Classified Documents, Special Counsel Cites Precedents and Memory Issues
In an investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Hur, President Joe Biden was found to have "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials" after his tenure as Vice President. Despite these findings, Hur concluded that President Biden should not face criminal charges. This recommendation was based on a longstanding precedent against indicting sitting presidents and a detailed analysis provided in a 388-page report. This analysis scrutinized the mishandling of classified materials, highlighting the severity and implications of such actions.
Details of the Investigation
The investigation, led by Hur, a Trump-era U.S. attorney appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, stated, "We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president." It was revealed that Biden had kept classified documents and personal notebooks filled with national security and foreign policy entries, some of which implicated sensitive intelligence sources and methods. These materials, including documents marked up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level about Afghanistan, were found in various locations, such as Biden's garage and basement den in his Wilmington, Delaware home, and at the University of Delaware. The documents covered various topics, including intelligence assessments on Iran related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran nuclear deal) and materials related to Europe and Biden's time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Security Concerns and Contradictions
The report disclosed a recorded conversation from February 2017 in which Biden mentioned discovering "all the classified stuff downstairs," thereby sharing classified information with his ghostwriter. This and storing sensitive records in places without proper safeguards raised significant security concerns.
Despite evidence suggesting Biden was aware of the impropriety of retaining classified notes at home, the report contrasted his actions with his critical comments on former President Donald Trump's mishandling of classified documents, highlighting a contradiction in his stance.
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
Conclusion of the Investigation and Its Implications
The special counsel's investigation into Biden's handling of classified materials concluded that criminal charges were not warranted. This decision considered several factors, including Biden's "authority to keep classified documents in his home" and documented memory issues that might lead jurors to find reasonable doubt. The report noted, "Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023." It suggested that Biden would likely present himself to a jury as a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," affecting the potential outcome of any trial.
President Biden's Press Conference and Public Concerns
Following the report's release, President Biden held an unscheduled press conference, further drawing attention to concerns about his cognitive abilities.
Throughout the conference, Biden's effort to project assurance and authority was marred by several notable gaffes, such as his mix-up of Mexico with Egypt and his contentious remarks on Israel's military actions in Gaza. These slip-ups, combined with his defensive and occasionally aggressive reactions to questions concerning his cognitive health—a topic that worries a significant portion of the American populace—cast a shadow over his claims of competence.
Particularly striking were Biden's inaccuracies regarding the special counsel's findings: he wrongly stated that he had not shared classified information with his book's ghostwriter in 2017, despite the report's contrary assertion. Moreover, his visible irritation in response to queries about the precise date of his son Beau's passing brought to light his sensitivity towards questions about his memory and personal history. The convergence of these incidents at the press conference, alongside the broader implications of the Hur report, has sharply escalated discussions on Biden's suitability for the presidency, underlining a growing narrative of concern over his mental sharpness and capacity to fulfill the demands of his role.
Reaction and Calls for the 25th Amendment
Senator Josh Hawley, along with other Republican lawmakers, has called for the invocation of the 25th Amendment against President Joe Biden. This move comes in response to concerns raised about Biden's memory and cognitive abilities, as detailed in Hur's report. Senator Hawley's stance, shared via a tweet, underscores a growing chorus among Republicans who believe that the findings of the report, which highlighted Biden's challenges in recalling basic facts about his life and tenure as Vice President, signify a need for serious consideration of his capacity to fulfill presidential duties. This sentiment is echoed by other GOP figures, including Senators Rick Scott and Mike Lee and Representatives Mary Miller and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have voiced similar concerns regarding Biden's fitness for office, suggesting either resignation or the Cabinet's invocation of the 25th Amendment as necessary steps for the safety and stability of the nation.
News of the Week
Supreme Court Skeptical of Barring Trump from 2024 Ballot
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Trump v. Anderson, a pivotal lawsuit out of Colorado. This case challenges former President Donald Trump's eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot under interpretations of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This section addresses the potential disqualification of individuals who have fought or rebelled against the U.S.
During the oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices expressed skepticism over the premise that Trump could be disqualified from running for president again, particularly based on his actions surrounding the 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden and the subsequent events leading up to the January 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol. A central issue discussed was whether congressional action is necessary before states can leverage the constitutional provision aimed at preventing former officeholders who engaged in insurrection from holding office again.
Justice Elena Kagan, among others, raised concerns about the implications of allowing individual states to determine presidential eligibility, querying, “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.” The court's decision, which appears to be leaning towards a consensus potentially favorable to Trump, could significantly impact efforts in Colorado, Maine, and other states attempting to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.
Outside the Supreme Court, Senators Roger Marshall, Marsha Blackburn, and Tommy Tuberville voiced their support for Trump, framing the issue as a broader fight for democratic principles and the right of the American people to choose their president. They criticized the efforts to disqualify Trump as politically motivated attacks, suggesting they undermine the democratic process and potentially strengthen Trump's position among voters.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, however, continued his criticism of the Supreme Court, specifically calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself due to perceived biases related to his family's involvement in the January 6 events. Thomas, nonetheless, participated in the oral arguments, signaling the court's intention to proceed with its review.
In the aftermath of the hearing, Trump spoke at a press conference from Mar-a-Lago, lauding the judicial process and emphasizing the importance of democracy amidst what he perceives as politicized attacks against him. Trump's remarks highlighted his contention with the criminal indictments and legal challenges he faces, characterizing them as unfounded and politically weaponized efforts to undermine his candidacy.
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Anderson is poised to have far-reaching implications for the 2024 presidential election, potentially setting a precedent for how constitutional provisions related to eligibility for office are interpreted and enforced.
Senate Abandons $118 Billion Border Bill for $95.34 Billion in Security Aid Without Border Funding
The U.S. Senate's ambitious $118 billion border bill, which sought to blend border security enhancements with substantial foreign aid allocations, has met a formidable blockade in the form of hardline conservative opposition, laying bare the complexities and political dynamics that currently define our nation's approach to immigration and international support.
The bill earmarked a mere $20.23 billion for border security, a figure that pales in comparison to the $60.06 billion designated for Ukraine amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia and additional billions allocated to support allies such as Israel and Taiwan and for operations in regions like the Red Sea and the Indo-Pacific. This disparity in the allocation has fueled criticism, underscoring concerns that the bill prioritizes international endeavors over pressing domestic security needs.
Critics from the conservative spectrum have criticized the bill for what they perceive as its failure to address the crux of the border crisis adequately. Although the bill put an end to "catch-and-release," the border shutdown "trigger" would still permit approximately 1,825,000 new migrants a year, that is not including the unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada who are not included in the 5,000 "trigger" mechanism, falling short of necessary measures they believe are to curb illegal immigration.
In response, the Senate moved forward and advanced a $95.34 billion security aid bill. Senators backed a procedural motion by 67-32, exceeding the 60-vote threshold to advance the bill. Seventeen Republicans voted in favor, in a surprising shift after they blocked the broader bill on Wednesday.
The 17 Republican Senators who voted to advance:
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
John Kennedy (R-LA)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Mike Rounds (R-SD)
Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
John Thune (R-SD)
Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Todd Young (R-IN)
This package, stripped of the contentious border security measures, focuses on providing aid to Ukraine and Israel, bypassing the deadlock over immigration policy. It includes significant funding for military and humanitarian assistance to various global hotspots but leaves the divisive issue of border security unaddressed.
Here is some of what is in the $95.34 billion security aid bill:
Ukraine Aid - $60.06 billion in additional aid to Ukraine. This aid will be primarily in the form of weapons and military equipment, which will be purchased from American defense companies. It will also be used to replenish the U.S. stockpiles, which were depleted during the two years of support provided to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Israel Aid - $14.1 billion to Israel to support its war against Hamas. It also strips U.S. funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Israel has accused 12 of UNRWA's Palestinian employees of being involved in Hamas' Oct. 7 attack.
Red Sea Support - The bill gives the Pentagon $2.44 billion for operations around the Red Sea, where U.S. forces have sought to combat attacks on shipping by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Indo-Pacific Funding - The bill would spend almost $4.83 billion to support partners in the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan, and deter aggression by China.
Humanitarian Aid - $9.15 billion in humanitarian assistance to provide food, water, shelter, medical care, and other services to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, Ukraine, and other populations in conflict zones around the globe.
GOP Impeachment Effort Against DHS Secretary Comes Up Short
On Tuesday, an attempt by House Republicans to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the border crisis, which includes increasing illegal crossings and fentanyl poisonings, did not succeed. The impeachment resolution needed a simple majority to pass but fell short with a vote of 214-216.
Three Republican Representatives—Ken Buck of Colorado, Tom McClintock of California, and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin—joined all present Democrats in voting against the resolution. This action prevented Mayorkas from becoming the first Cabinet secretary to be impeached since 1876.
The vote count was closely watched, with House GOP Vice Chairman Blake Moore of Utah initially voting in favor but then switching to a "no" vote. This move was described as procedural, allowing for the possibility of reintroducing the impeachment resolution at a future date. The absence of Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who was undergoing treatment for blood cancer, was noted as a significant factor in the vote's outcome. Scalise's office has since announced his imminent return to Capitol Hill. Republicans indicated another vote would take place on the impeachment articles once Scalise returned to work.
The impeachment effort centered around accusations that Mayorkas had refused to comply with federal immigration laws and made false statements, undermining public trust in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Despite the failed vote, House Republicans have expressed intentions to bring the impeachment articles back to the floor when they believe they have sufficient support for passage.
Critics of the impeachment initiative, including Democrats and some Republicans, have labeled it a political stunt. The White House has called the effort unconstitutional. Mayorkas has denied the accusations against him, and several of his predecessors at DHS have also opposed the impeachment.
The challenge of securing the border and managing immigration has been a contentious issue, with some Republicans arguing that the problems are more about policy disagreements with the Biden administration than actions warranting impeachment. The impeachment push in the House comes amid other legislative efforts and investigations, reflecting the complex and often partisan nature of addressing national security and immigration policy.
Carlson-Putin Interview Sparks Debate: Journalism or Sympathy?
A recent development that sparked widespread debate is Tucker Carlson, a prominent television personality known for his forthright opinions, who interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. This move has ignited a spectrum of reactions, with some labeling Carlson a "Putin sympathizer," while others commend his journalistic ambition to engage with pivotal figures on the global stage.
Critics on the left argue that Carlson's decision to interview Putin cements his position as overly sympathetic to the Russian leader, drawing parallels to accusations of bias and undue favoritism. This perspective suggests that by providing Putin with a platform, Carlson is inadvertently aligning himself with Russia's narratives, thereby undermining the prevailing Western discourse on the Ukraine conflict.
Contrarily, supporters from the right and independent viewers highlight the importance of journalism that seeks to uncover and present multiple facets of international affairs. They draw on historical precedents, such as Barbara Walters' interview with Putin in 2001, to underscore the value of engaging directly with world leaders, irrespective of their standing or political alignment. According to this viewpoint, a journalist's primary duty is to inform the public by exploring a range of perspectives, especially on issues of significant global impact.
Tucker Carlson himself has articulated his rationale for conducting the interview, emphasizing the critical need for comprehensive information amidst a conflict that has profound implications worldwide. "Our duty is to inform people," Carlson stated, expressing concern over mainstream media's lack of balanced coverage. He specifically criticized the nature of interviews conducted with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by mainstream outlets, describing them as "fawning pep sessions" that fail to challenge or scrutinize. Carlson argues that the refusal to engage with perspectives from both sides of the conflict undermines the journalistic imperative to provide a holistic view of the situation.
In the interview, Russian President Vladimir Putin shared insights into his past interactions with former President Bill Clinton regarding Russia's potential NATO membership. Putin recounted a conversation with Clinton during which Clinton initially seemed open to the idea of Russia joining NATO, only to later retract the possibility after consulting his team. This discussion took place during Clinton's visit to Moscow after Putin assumed the presidency in 2000.
Putin expressed disappointment, noting that after the Soviet Union's fall, Russia had hoped to be integrated into the "brotherly family of civilized nations," a hope that was dashed as NATO expanded eastward despite previous assurances. He lamented the missed opportunities for rapprochement and the breakdown of potential closer ties, particularly after NATO's actions in Belgrade, which Putin viewed as a betrayal of Russia's support for Serbia.
Additionally, Putin commented on Elon Musk, acknowledging his intelligence and the inevitability of Musk's ambitions with his tech ventures, including Neuralink's groundbreaking AI chip implantation in a human subject. Putin emphasized the need for dialogue and regulation in dealing with Musk's innovations, suggesting that finding common ground and establishing rules are crucial for future developments.
The interview highlighted Putin's perspectives on missed diplomatic opportunities, the expansion of NATO, and the challenges of engaging with global tech leaders, providing a rare glimpse into the Russian leader's views on international relations and technological advancements.
However, the history of international relations involving Russia and Putin is complicated and often controversial, and like with any political figure, the accuracy and implications of his comments are open to interpretation. Ultimately, it is up to the public and the wider international community to carefully evaluate these statements, taking into account the broader context of Putin's tenure and the geopolitical dynamics at play. This was only made possible by Tucker Carlson’s willingness to interview Putin.
“Hi, Bob!” Gina Carano Sues Disney with Elon Musk's Support
In recent events, Gina Carano, known for her role in the "Star Wars" spinoff series "The Mandalorian," has initiated a lawsuit against Disney, alleging wrongful termination following her 2020 social media posts. These posts critiqued Covid lockdowns and expressed views against "wokeism," which led to her dismissal from the series. The lawsuit has garnered attention due to the involvement of tech mogul Elon Musk, who has extended legal support to Carano through X (formerly Twitter), emphasizing the broader discussion on freedom of speech in the digital age.
“Today is an important day for me–I am filing a lawsuit against @lucasfilm & @Disney,” Carano wrote in her announcement of the lawsuit against Disney. “After my 20 years of building a career from scratch, and during the regime of former Disney CEO Bob Chapek, Lucasfilm made this statement on Twitter, terminating me from The Mandalorian: ‘Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm & there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural & religious identities are abhorrent & unacceptable.’”
“Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is I was being hunted down from everything I posted to every post I liked because I was not in line with the acceptable narrative of the time,” the actress continued. “My words were consistently twisted to demonize & dehumanize me as an alt right wing extremist. It was a bullying smear campaign aimed at silencing, destroying & making an example out of me.”
Carano's firing came after she shared a post drawing a parallel between the political climate in the United States and Nazi Germany, suggesting that the demonization of individuals for their political beliefs mirrored historical precedents of neighborly betrayal. Disney's decision to sever ties with Carano was met with mixed reactions, with some defending the company's stance on maintaining a respectful discourse, while others criticized it as an overreach affecting personal freedom of expression.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. federal court for the Central District of California, challenges Carano's termination and seeks restitution for lost income and a reinstatement of her role. Musk's involvement stems from an August statement on X, where he offered to fund legal battles for individuals he believed were unjustly penalized by employers over social media activity. Carano's case became a focal point after Musk personally responded to her claim of qualification for his offer.
Carano's suit alleges that her dismissal was not just about the content of her posts but represented a broader trend of silencing dissenting voices, a sentiment echoed by Musk's criticism of what he describes as "institutionalized racism and sexism" within Disney's reported inclusion standards.
Disney's actions, particularly the termination of Carano's role, have reignited discussions on the entertainment industry's approach to diversity, inclusion, and freedom of expression. As reported, the company's efforts to promote inclusivity include setting benchmarks for representation both on-screen and behind the scenes, which Musk criticized as enforced quotas.