Tag: joe biden

DOJ Refuses to Provide House GOP Audio of Biden’s Interview With Special Counsel Hur

The Department of Justice (DOJ) says it will not provide audio tapes of President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, which was subpoenaed by the House GOP.

In a letter to the House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee on April 8, Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte lamented that despite the department cooperating with the committees’ Feb. 27 subpoenas, “the committees have responded with escalation and threats of criminal contempt.”

“We urge the committees to avoid conflict rather than seek it,” he added. “It is not too late for the committees to choose a different path, to take an offramp towards the ’spirit of dynamic compromise’ that the Constitution requires of us both.”

The “spirit of dynamic compromise” quote comes from a federal court case.

The Feb. 27 subpoena was for notes, audio files, video, and transcripts of Mr. Hur’s probe. The committees set a deadline of March 7, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by The Epoch Times.

“Americans expect equal justice under the law and DOJ is allowing the Bidens to operate above it,” said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in a statement. “Special Counsel Hur’s report outlined that classified documents Joe Biden stashed for years relate to countries where his family cashed in on the Biden brand.”

Keep reading

Censorship on Trial at the Supreme Court

Billed as one of the most consequential lawsuits of the last century, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) is a legal battle that stands at the intersection of free speech protections and social media companies. 

The plaintiffs, which include psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, and epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, cosignatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, allege the US government coerced social media companies to censor disfavoured viewpoints that were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.

The US government denies coercing social media companies, arguing it was “friendly encouragement” in an effort to protect Americans from “misinformation” in a public health emergency.

The Constitution is clear – it forbids the US government from abridging free speech. But a private company such as a social media platform bears no such burden and is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment.

This case asks whether certain government officials impermissibly coerced social media companies to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. The case now sits before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The Case So Far

The case has seen several twists and turns since it was originally filed in 2022.

Discovery allowed plaintiffs to document nearly 20,000 pages showing platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, YouTube, and Google stifled free speech by removing or downgrading stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the 2020 presidential election, and various Covid-19 policies.

The plaintiffs described it as an “unprecedented, sprawling federal censorship enterprise.”

On July 4, 2023, US District Court Terry Doughty granted a motion to restrict federal government officials from communicating with social media companies over content it believed to be misinformation.

Specifically, they were prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, or text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Doughty indicated there was “substantial evidence” that the US government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a widespread censorship campaign and that “if the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The Biden Administration appealed the decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the officials exercised a form of permissible government speech because they only pointed out content that violated the platforms’ policies to reduce the harms of online misinformation.

On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed Judge Doughty’s order stating that US government officials were engaging “in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.”

It was determined that the harms of such censorship radiated far beyond the plaintiffs in the case, essentially impacting every social-media user.

Keep reading

Net Neutrality Could Expand Biden’s Social Media Censorship To The Whole Internet

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in one of the most important cases this term, one with critical implications for First Amendment free speech rights as society proceeds further into a world reliant upon internet service.

The controversy at the heart of Murthy v. Missouri is the Biden administration’s effort to pressure or “jawbone” social media to censor various opinions and public policy advocacy about the Covid pandemic that it found objectionable. 

The Biden administration naturally claims it was simply engaging in discourse with social media leaders to “inform and persuade,” but discovered correspondence included direct threats against the companies while White House officials openly and publicly threatened new “legal and regulatory measures” if the targeted groups failed to submit to its desires. 

Those revelations only confirm widespread suspicion that the left-leaning administrative state, favored and further empowered by the Biden administration, seeks to exploit its vast authority to suppress the speech of Americans who don’t share its preferred narratives or big-government goals.

The Supreme Court must now determine whether that White House pressure campaign crossed the line into unconstitutional intimidation and censorship, even without formal government prosecution or enforcement. Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Biden administration’s form of “informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief,” even where the targeted groups are “free” to ignore its threats, because “people do not lightly disregard officers’ thinly veiled threats.” 

Keep reading

OUCH: White House Cancels Annual Ramadan Dinner After Muslims Refuse to Attend

The White House was forced to cancel its annual Ramadan celebration after Muslims refused to attend an event with Joe Biden.

CBS News reports that while the White House held a successful Iftar dinner last year with hundreds of Muslims, this year’s celebrations involved just a handful administration officials:

Last year, President Biden hadn’t even spoken a word at the White House celebration of Ramadan before someone shouted out “we love you.” Hundreds of Muslims were there to mark the end of the holy month that requires fasting from sunrise to sunset.

There are no such joyous scenes during this Ramadan. With many Muslim Americans outraged over Mr. Biden’s support for Israel’s siege of Gaza, the White House chose to hold a smaller iftar dinner on Tuesday evening. The only dinner attendees were people who work for his administration.

…

Alzayat attended last year’s event, but he declined an invitation to break his fast with Mr. Biden this year, saying, “It’s inappropriate to do such a celebration while there’s a famine going on in Gaza.”

After rejections from Alzayat and others, he said the White House adjusted its plans Monday, telling community leaders it wanted to host a meeting focused on administration policy. Alzayat still said no, believing that one day wasn’t enough time to prepare for an opportunity to sway Mr. Biden’s mind on the conflict.

The boycott reflects the growing anger among America’s Muslims communities about Biden’s lukewarm for Israel’s war against Hamas.

Keep reading

Looks Like Payback: DHS Targets Texas, Florida with Secret Migrant Flights

The Biden administration is secretly using migrant flights to dump illegal aliens into the United States. It turns out that most of them are being flown into Florida and Texas. 

Hmm. Is it a coincidence that two red states that are being vigilant in securing their borders are receiving 90% of the migrant flights? I don’t think so. 

The Center for Immigration Studies analyzed available public information on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) website. It’s difficult to know the full picture since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) refuses to publicly identify the dozens of international airports it has approved for direct flights from abroad for some inadmissible aliens.

At least 386,000 migrants, as of February, have been allowed to fly into the U.S. airports as part of President Biden’s admissions program launched in October 2022. The rationale for the program is to reduce the number of illegal border crossings. They are flown in and then released on parole. 

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis of available public information shows the airports that might account for being used for landings from abroad, though not necessarily the final destinations. Early evidence shows that a majority of the flights carrying inadmissible aliens likely land at international airports in Florida. 

Florida is the top landing and U.S. customs processing zone for the direct-flights parole-and-release program. The total through February was nearly 326,000 aliens since the program began. Other regions being used in the program are Houston, New York, northern and southern California, and Washington, D.C. Florida is the heaviest hit. 

Keep reading

Blinken Receives Stern Warning From Azerbaijan To Stop Destabilizing The Caucasus

The Biden Administration is continuing it efforts to provoke conflicts around the world in a desperate effort to salvage its disastrous foreign policy. This time the target is the Caucasus. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken received a stern warning from the President of Azerbaijan to stop trying to undermine the security of the region.

The U.S. is scheduled to participate in a trilateral meeting on April 5, alongside representatives of the EU, with Armenian officials, sparking concern in Azerbaijan. In a call with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Blinken claimed that the main focus of the meeting would be economic development, but the real purpose seems to be providing armaments to Armenia.

President Ilham Aliyev stated that he received information that discussions will center around topics such as military support to Armenia, joint military exercises, the establishment of military infrastructure along border areas with Azerbaijan, and Armenia’s arming through the EU’s European Peace Facility, which is funded by the US budget.

Keep reading

Washington Abandons All Norms To Arm Israel

Despite the U.S. not vetoing a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza during the month of Ramadan, the Biden administration continues to prove itself as a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Washington has previously used its veto powers to block three UNSC resolutions on Gaza, staying true to its role as the main political and economic backer of Israel with its steady supply of arms to support the military offensive. However, by abstaining from voting on Resolution 2728 (2024), it was successfully passed with 14 votes in favor. While the U.S. did not strike down the resolution, eyebrows have been raised after numerous U.S. officials described the resolution as “non-binding.”

“Of course, we still have Israels back. As you and I are speaking, we are still providing tools and capabilities, weapon systems, so Israel can defend itself,” said the White House National Security Communications Advisor, John Kirby, in a press interview. “Again, no change by this non-binding resolution on what Israel can and cannot do in terms of defending itself,” he added.

Additionally, both the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (UN), Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and the U.S. State Department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, have repeatedly referred to the resolution as “non-binding.”

All UN Security Council resolutions are binding, as is made clear under Article 25 of the U.N. Charter: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Additional confirmation can be found in the 1971 advisory opinion on the question of Namibia by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which established that all UNSC resolutions are indeed legally binding.

Despite the indisputability of the resolution being binding, Washington continues its attempts to jump through hoops to discredit this fact. The U.S ambassador to the UN argued that since the resolution does not fall under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore does not authorize the use of force to implement it.

Richard Gowan, a former senior official at the UN who currently works at NGO International Crisis Group, provided his insight on Washington’s interpretation in an interview.

“It is clear that the resolution does not contain any enforcement mechanism of its own, and if other Council members proposed sanctions against Israel for non-compliance, the U.S. would veto them,” he said. “So ultimately the resolution is an important diplomatic sign about the need for a ceasefire, but it has little force.”

Keep reading

Former ESPN host Sage Steele says her questions for interviewing Joe Biden were ‘scripted to the word’ and she was told not to deviate or ask follow-ups

A former ESPN host who interviewed Joe Biden in 2021 is now saying the entire interview was ‘scripted to the word’ by network executives and that she was forbidden from asking follow-ups. 

Sage Steele, who formerly hosted ESPN’s SportsCenter and worked for the network for 16 years, revealed her bosses at the time of the interview carefully crafted each of her questions. 

She claims she was handed a script by her ESPN boss and was threatened not to drift from what the executives had written for her to say. 

‘I was told, ‘You will say every word that we write out, you will not deviate from the script,” she told Fox News. 

‘To the word. Every single question was scripted, gone over dozens of times by many editors and executives,’ she continued. ‘I was on script and was told not to deviate.’

‘It was very much ‘This is what you will ask. This is how you will say it. No follow-ups.”

‘This went up to the fourth floor, as we said, where all the bosses, the top executives, the decision makers are, the president of our company, the CEO, where they all worked,’ she continued. 

Though Steele is unsure whether ESPN sent the scripted questions to the Biden administration in advance, she expressed that she was confident that’s ‘what happened.’

ESPN declined to comment.  

Keep reading

Biden Administration Made $236 Billion in ‘Improper Payments’ Last Year: GAO Report

An estimated $236 billion in improper or incorrect payments was made under the Biden administration last year, with Medicare and Medicaid accounting for $100 billion of that total, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“For fiscal year 2023, 14 agencies reported a total estimated $236 billion in improper payments across 71 programs,” said a March 26 GAO report. Improper payments refer to payments “that should not have been made or were made in the incorrect amount.” The $236 billion calculation does not include certain government programs that agencies determined were “susceptible to significant improper payments.”

As such, GAO believes the $236 billion estimate “potentially does not represent the full extent of improper payments.”

The group pointed out that improper payments suggest a “material deficiency or weakness in internal controls” at the agencies. “The federal government is unable to determine the full extent of its improper payments or to reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce them.”

Medicare accounted for the largest percentage of government incorrect payments, totaling $51.1 billion.

This was followed by Medicaid at $50.3 billion, Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance at $43.6 billion, Earned Income Tax Credit at $21.9 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness at $18.7 billion.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rule

A federal judge in Kentucky has struck down a Biden administration rule that required states to measure and report the greenhouse gas emissions from any vehicles traveling on the national highway system.

“With this victory in court, we’re slamming the brakes on the Biden Administration’s politics that make no sense,” said Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, who led a coalition of 21 state attorneys general in suing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) over the rule that sought to force states to cut carbon dioxide emissions on their roads.

Multiple states that sued over the rule argued that it could dampen job creation and eliminate future economic development.

Judge Benjamin Beaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky blocked the FHWA rule in a 26-page order and opinion issued on April 1, calling it “invalid” and “a statutorily unsupported and substantively capricious exercise of the [FHWA] Administrator’s rulemaking authority.”

Judge Beaton only blocked the rule in the 21 plaintiff states, not nationwide. He also asked the parties to file supplemental briefs “on the proper remedy” within three weeks in light of potentially conflicting requirements from other courts.

Asked for comment on the ruling, an FHWA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that the agency is reviewing the decision and determining next steps, while remaining committed to supporting the Biden administration’s climate goals.

Keep reading